Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 — 66°F / 19°C & ‘Clear’ @ 9:52 am in Ithaca, New York —
— Below, please find information that has been copied verbatim from http://cafr1.com : [ There is a link below that should work, if you’re interested — ]
— [ ***** “CAFR” = Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. ] —
= = = = =
“If only Al Capone had been an attorney, he may have written new laws and made it to President”
The above was copied and pasted from Walter Burien’s CAFR1.com web site
— Just below the above graphic and the quote above it is a quote from Saint Augustine:
What St. Augustine had to say about what we now call government:
“A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renunciation of aggression, but by the attainment of impunity”
“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.” – Adolf Hitler.
= = = = =
— I’ve been following what I could understand of what Walter Burien of CAFR1 dot com has been saying for several years now. He doesn’t make it easy. His expertise is in money matters, he is an investment counselor. He doesn’t always communicate what he’s trying to say in the simplest form. It may be that he, like too many lawyers, understand things in a jargon that most of us can’t quite unravel to our own levels with ease and grace. – But in the last couple days, he has sent messages out to people who subscribe to his news letters that seem a lot more easy to understand than usual.
— Here is the full text of those messages. *** If anything looks like a link you may have to copy and paste the text into your browser to get anything like a link to work properly. ***
* * * * * = = = = = * * * * *
— On July 18th, Walter Burien of CAFR1 Sent this to his subscribers:
= = = = =
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST:
CAFR1 in reply to an article written by Ellen Brown, please share and re-post:
Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs Exceed Construction
By Ellen Brown, Web of Debt
CAFR1:
The revenue via investment capital mentioned in this article notes for just California “State Government”. Here is a real eye opener for you.
FOR EXAMPLE: if in California, say just for San Diego county and “all” local governments, who have their own CAFRs also, (Cities, Towns, Burroughs, School Districts, Enterprise Operations, Special Districts, Universities, Community Colleges, Pensions, Debt repayment accounts, proprietary, discretely presented, special funding accounts, etc., etc., etc.) “in San Diego County” the numerous investment and funded liability accounts “collectively” totaled as of 2007 about 1.8 trillion dollars. No typo, yes, 1.8 trillion dollars.
As of 2016, the totals would have grown probably quite a bit after the draw down of 2008 – 2009 and coming back on track as of 2010.
Now burst the brain and think collective totals for “all” local governments “in” the State of California.
To see or download a few example CAFRs from 2013 (about 4600 so a very long page) for some local governments in California and other states categorized by group entities, go to – http://CAFR1.com/listings/List…
Ellen Brown does a good job by connecting the CAFR to the wealth held by “a” local government, as she did by looking at just the State government entity wealth held.
Per the State Bank issue, I wish she would total as I did all local governments (all types) as a start for San Diego County including the county and make the same presentation but now reflecting the “collective” total within the county.
A special note is: Up until 1999 CAFRs showed the gross standing balances but then in 1999 – 2000 many from the general population now heard about, located, and started looking at their local government CAFRs for the 1st time so accounting changes immediately went into play starting in 2000 forward to no longer show gross standing balances and the changes made were to show the “NET” standing balances (You will see Net balances on all pages now).
Government would create “liabilities” to redact from the standing balances shown. Big difference Gross vs. Net, so keep that in mind when you look and pay special attention to the “Notes to the Financial Section” to spot the ways the standing balances were redacted.
As I said before: “That would be a real eye opener”
I note that when a local government says: “But you have to take our debt into consideration not just our investment wealth.”
Well, here is a second big eye opener. Going back to the 80’s, government had so much cash rolling in, they needed a “Parking Zone” for it. What was devised was to “promote” debt at the front door and then use covertly their own investment assets to fund that debt through the back door. Many different methods are utilized to do this.
EXAMPLE: A City may own many enterprise operations. Say the city in some fashion moves 50 million into the City Golf Course. The City then has a 50 million dollar bond offering and the city Golf Course “invests” the 50 million dollars with the City’s bond offering.
Well, the City now reflects that 50 million dollars as a debt, but is it really a debt? No, it is a book entry that is cross-matched with an investment on another set of books owned by the City, their Golf Course kept as a separate entity. At a stroke of a pen, if chosen to do so, one offsets the other.
There are over a hundred different ways to facilitate the same book-keeping trick including the investment capital coming from any country around the world. EXAMPLE: the City from one of it’s operations has 200 million dollars invested with an Asian investment house in China. The city puts up a 100 million dollar bond offering. A call is made to the investment manager in China with the instructions of; from the 200 million dollars held to invest 100 million dollars to cover 100% of the City’s 100 million dollar bond offering. The headlines in California then read: “China takes over another piece of California! 100% of the City’s bond offering came from China!
The public is none the wiser, and the beat of local government massive wealth accumulation goes on…
Again, there are many different ways to accomplish the same. The indication from what I have seen is that: If the dots were all connected through the smoke screen shell entities used on the transaction to trace the funding of government debt back to the actual investor, they directly or indirectly are one in the same.
Or, as percentages go, and all of the dots being connected, probably 70% + of that “debt” is in reality “self funded” and at a stroke of a pen (ice-cubes-chance-in-hell) if chosen to do so, one offsets the other. If confronted on the issue a thousand excuses would follow to perpetuate the way things stood. The bottom line in their thinking is: “We have taken it from you, we are the controllers, and we intend to keep it”.
All of us have heard of the collapse of ENRON. Well, ENRON promoted it’s wealth and hid it’s debt. Government does the * exact opposite *. Government promotes it’s debt and hides it’s profit.
The points disclosed above are rather Earth shaking to the peoples of this nation when comprehended. It flips on end the raw consciousness that we have been masterfully spoon fed to believe and take for granted. The reality of it all boils down to a quote made by a Brit back in the 1500’s and it is as follows:
TREASON: “Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612
From the link for the example CAFRs, download the ones relevant to your locale, put on a DVD and share with many in your area. Make sure the ones you share it with, make copies AND share with all that they know also. The whole game for the last 80-years on government’s part to do what they have done is by simply maintaining “The silence is golden rule”.
In as much to maintain the silence is golden rule over the last 80-years, the key controllers from the syndicated media, organized education, the political parties, and entities that reached millions of people were included.
They knew all to well that cooperation was a must and the alternative not even a consideration due to the repercussions that would fall on them if they did not cooperate with the silence is golden rule. The one group that was definitely not included with disclosure by the PTB was the entire general population of the USA.
Again, download, burn DVDs, and share with many (especially with those that run their own businesses, teachers, and economic professionals)
Wishing all a better future, and a turning point for us all come 2017!
Yours Truly,
Walter J. Burien, Jr. – CAFR1.com ——————————————
To update your information regarding getting email posts from Walter Burien – CAFR1, please use the following link:
http://cafr1.mx3a.com/phplist/?p=preferences&uid=ff11ad17e48139240703465de52b8b2c
= = = = =
& On July 19th, Walter Burien of CAFR1 sent this message to his subscribers:
= = = = =
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST
The following Federal Court ruling opens Pandora’s Box per lower court authority / conflicts of interest to rule on or be involved in broad judicial court matters involving you.
In effect it helps protect “you” from being run through the mill by local “administrative” courts. Their “authority” to do so is brought into question if not nullified by the following Federal Court ruling.
The Battle for individual protection under the law from the abuses of local government “Administrative” courts begins.. Please share with those that would have an interest in these matters.
Sent FYI from,
Walter Burien – CAFR1.com
Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years
Well it has been a long time coming, but all along there have been discussions behind closed doors (never in public) that the Administrative Law Courts established with the New Deal were totally unfounded and unconstitutional. With the anniversary of Magna Carta and the right to a jury trial coming up on June 15 after 800 years, the era of Roosevelt’s big government is quietly unraveling.
A federal judge’s ruling against the Securities and Exchange Commission for using its own Administrative Law judges in an insider trading case is perhaps the beginning of the end of an alternative system of justice that took root in the New Deal. Constitutionally, the socialists tore everything about the idea of a Democracy apart. It was more than taxing one party to the cheers of another in denial of equal protection. It was about creating administrative agencies (1) delegating them to create rules with the force of law as if passed by Congress sanctioned by the people; (2) the creation of administrative courts that defeated the Tripartite government structure usurping all power into the hand of the executive branch, as if this were a dictatorship run by the great hoard of unelected officials.
Not discussed in the coverage of this story is that the Administrative Law Courts are a fiefdom, to put it mildly. They have long been corrupt and traditionally rule in favor of their agencies, making it very costly for anyone to even try to defend themselves. If someone were to attempt this feat, first they have to wear the costs of an Administration proceeding and appeal to an Article III court judge, then they must appeal to the Court of Appeals, and finally plea to the Supreme Court. The cost of such adventures is well into the millions, and good luck on actually getting justice.
Furthermore, Administrative Law Courts cannot sentence you to prison, but they can fine you into bankruptcy. So the lack of a criminal prosecution meant the judges did not have to be lawyers. They could be anyone’s brother-in-law looking for a job where he just rules in favor of the agency not to be bothered with law. Unless the victim has a pile of money, there is no real chance that he or she can afford to defend themselves. This is why the agencies cut deals with the big houses and prosecute the small upstarts who lack the funds to defend themselves.
In a 45-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in Atlanta issued an injunction halting Administrative Law proceedings against Charles Hill, a businessman who the SEC accused of reaping an illegal $744,000 profit trading in Radian Systems stock. This is typical. The legal fees involved will exceed the amount of money he is alleged to have made, the typical result is to just pay the fine and they go away, it is cheaper.
The judge ruled that the SEC agency violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by subjecting Hill to proceedings before an Administrative Law judge, who isn’t directly accountable to the president, officials in charge of the SEC, or the courts under Article III. The ruling is 81 years overdue. The entire structure of administrative agencies blackmailing people has been outrageous. Then you take the banks who just entered a plea of CRIMINALLY guilty to manipulating markets. They are now formally FELONS who engaged in violating SEC rules and thus under the SEC rules, they are no longer eligible for a banking license. The banks are “too big to jail” and the SEC has waived their own rules, of course, to exempt the banks. So they can engage in fraud and manipulation, get caught, pay billions in fines, and the SEC exempts them from losing their licenses. This is how corrupt the administrative agencies really are.
This new decision calling the Administrative Law Courts what they really are is reminiscent of the notorious extrajudicial proceedings of the Star Chamber operated by King James I. The court of Chancery set up outside of the King’s Bench, so there were no trials by jury. It had the same purpose, to circumvent the law. This is where our Fifth Amendment privilege came into being. That came about following the trial of John Lilburne (1615-1657) for handing out a pamphlet the government did not like.
The Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) decision of the Supreme Court came only after decades of abuse by American police against citizens, not unlike what we are watching today. The Miranda decision is hated by police, prosecutors, right-wing judges, politicians, and citizens. The decision is based upon the history of the right not to be coerced that began with the famous trial of John Lilburn before the English court of the Star Chamber in 1637 where he stood tall and objected to the King’s torture. Lilburn’s crime was handing out pamphlets against the king. John Lilburne (1615–1657) was a leader in the Leveller Movement of the 1640s and was a prolific pamphleteer who defended religious and individual liberty of the people. He was imprisoned many times for his views and was active in the army of the New Parliament rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. In October 1649, he was arrested and tried for High Treason for printing and circulating books and pamphlets critical of the government but was acquitted of all charges by a jury of his peers.
_________________________ ~//~ _________________________________
To update your information regarding getting email posts from Walter Burien – CAFR1, please use the following link:
http://cafr1.mx3a.com/phplist/?p=preferences&uid=ff11ad17e48139240703465de52b8b2c
= = = = =
& Also, during an uncharacteristic burst of activity, on July 19th, Walter Burien of CAFR1 sent this email message to his subscribers:
= = = = =
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST
CAFR1 Comments to an Article per CalPERS fund activity and it’s rate of return.
Sent FYI from,
Walter Burien – CAFR1.com
CalPERS Announces Preliminary Returns of 0.6% When Target is 7.5%
July 19, 2016 by Yves Smith
CAFR1 COMMENTS:
CAFR1 July 19, 2016 at 12:51 pm
2015 CalPERS CAFR – https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2015.pdf
Review “Actual” gross rates of return vs. “Net” rates of return. Payouts vs. Contributions.
Note that payouts are projected based on “Participants expected salary at time of retirement”. Actuarial projections are set on the projected cost basis “at time of retirement” and not what the participants salary is today. Projections are made 25-30 years out.
EXAMPLE: New participant’s salary today $45,000 and projected at retirement in 30-years $135,000 and thus on the projected cost basis the fund’s liability is substantially higher.
INTENT: The bigger the fund balance, the bigger the power base held under management.
CAFR1 July 19, 2016 at 1:15 pm Also, keep in mind the fund is “strictly participatory”. It is like buying a train ticket to ride from NYC to LA, CA. NYC (retirement) and LA, CA (when you die). With a train ticket, when you get to LA, CA would you try to walk off with the seat and the fire extinguisher on the wall? No you would not. You do not own one piece of the train, you just had a ticket to ride. As is the case in most large local government pension fund systems, the participants just have a “ticket to ride” under contract and do not own 1c of the fund’s balance. The local governments participating own 100% of their share in the funds balance. As was the case at the end of 2008 with the real-estate bubble burst and severe downturn in the economy that followed, California local government laid off 12,000 employees that now, poof, disappeared from the retirement system liability figures. 1. How many billions in liability just evaporated with that layoff? 2. Did local governments pull the now surplus equity from the pension system accounts they were participating in? 3. When the economy improved 2010 to 2015 and local governments “re-hired” did they replace the money they pulled or did they just start a-new with the new-hires and new actuarial projections per the fund’s balance needs to be fully funded at cost projections for those new-hires at time of retirement? The above three questions are very relevant as to “how” this retirement system is operating. A review of the 2009 CalPERS CAFR may shine light on those 3 questions – https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2009.pdf
CAFR1 July 19, 2016 at 1:33 pm CalPERS 2010 CAFR – https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2010.pdf CalPERS 2008 CAFR – https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2008.pdf ** For 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, note total participants vs. fund liability. Do the math as to what effected the fund’s ending balance. Was it market profit / loss, more / less participants, local government fund withdraws from the Retirement System? When a local government needs some cash, do they just lay off employees and make a withdraw from the substantial revenue which now is no longer a liability that local Government holds in a local government Retirement system account?
To update your information regarding getting email posts from Walter Burien – CAFR1, please use the following link:
http://cafr1.mx3a.com/phplist/?p=preferences&uid=ff11ad17e48139240703465de52b8b2c
= = = = = * * * * * = = = = =
— Okay, so I thought this stuff was important enough to fire up my home computer and copy and paste stuff I read last night during my lunch break [ on the laptop my daughter gave me when she upgraded to something she knew I couldn’t afford – ]. And This is as soon as I could dash this off and publish it to my WordPress dot com site and out into the blog-us-sphere and off into twitter ville and hopefully, effbook land –
— Happy Reading – If any of you come up with facts that I didn’t quite grasp when I read this, I’m sure you will let me know.
— Thanks — [It is now 11:05 am just outside of Ithaca. ] –,
——— djo ———
Radio Free Earth News 