Monthly Archives: July 2013

A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY—Houston Sues LIBOR Cartel 23 July 2013 for Price Fixing and other Antitrust Violations

For Complete Text of this Major, Historic, Complaint: CITY OF HOUSTON – Plaintiff v BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION – Bank of America NA – Ba

2013 WL 3810496 (S.D.Tex.) (Trial Pleading)

United States District Court, S.D. Texas.

CITY OF HOUSTON; Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; Bank of America, N.A.; Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd.; Barclays Bank PLC; Citigroup, Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank); Credit Suisse Group Ag; Deutsche Bank Ag; Hsbc Holdings PLC; Hsbc Bank PLC; Jpmorgan Chase & Co.; Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Lloyds Banking Group PLC; Hbos PLC; Royal Bank of Canada; the Norinchukin Bank; Societe Generale, S.A. the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC. UBS AG; Portigon AG; and Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG, Defendants.

No. 4:13CV02149.

July 23, 2013.

Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Richard Warren Mithoff, Texas Bar # 14228500; Fed. Bar # 2012, rmithoff @mithofflaw.com, Sherie Potts Beckman, Texas Bar # 16182400; Fed. Bar # 11098, sbeckman@mithofflaw.com, Warner V. Hocker, Texas Bar # 24074422; Fed. Bar # 1133732, whocker@mithofflaw.com, Mithoff Law Firm, One Allen Center, 500 Dallas Street, Houston, TX 77002, Telephone: (713) 654-1122, Facsimile: (713) 739-8085, Attorney-In-Charge.

Of Counsel: David M. Feldman, City Attorney, State Bar # 06886700; Fed. Bar # 2994, Lynette K. Fons, First Assistant City Attorney for Litigation, State Bar # 13968100; Fed. Bar # 10562, Judith L. Ramsey, Chief, General Litigation Section, State Bar # 16519550; Fed. Bar # 1124189, Malinda York Crouch, Senior Assistant City Attorney, State Bar #22165000; Fed. Bar. # 2095, City of Houston Legal, Department, 900 Bagby, 4th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone: (832) 393-6468, Facsimile: (832) 393-6259.

Of Counsel: Joseph W. Cotchett (Cal. SBN # 36324), jcotchett@cpmlegal.com, Nanci E. Nishimura (Cal. SBN # 152621), nnishimura@cpmlegal.com, Frank C. Damrell, Jr. (Cal. SBN # 37126), fdamrell@cpmlegal.com, Aron K. Liang (Cal. SBN # 228936), aliang@cpmlegal.com, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, Telephone: (650) 697-6000, Facsimile: (650) 697-0577.

Of Counsel: Felix Chevalier, Texas Bar # 24035767; Fed. Bar # 32810, fchevalier@chevalierlaw.com, The Chevalier Law Firm, PLLC, 1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas 77056, Telephone: (713) 893-0500, Facsimile: (713) 513-5530, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff City of Houston (“Plaintiff” or “Houston”), hereby brings this action for damages and relief against Defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A. (the “BofA Defendants” or “BofA”), Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UJF Ltd. (“Tokyo-Mitsubishi”), Barclays Bank, PLC (“Barclays”), Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A. (“Citigroup Defendants” or “Citigroup”), Cooperatieve Central Raiffseisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. (“Rabobank”), Credit Suisse Group AG (“Credit Suisse”), Deutsche Bank AG (“Deutsche Bank”), HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC (“HSBC Defendants” or “HSBC”), JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan Defendants” or “JPMorgan”), Lloyds Banking Group PLC (“Lloyds”), HBOS PLC, (“HBOS”), Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), The Norinchukin Bank (“Norinchukin”), Societe Generale, S.A. (“SocGen”) The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (“RBS”), UBS AG (“UBS”), Portigon AG, and WestDeutsche ImmobilienBank AG (“WestLB Defendants” or “WestLB”) (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Defendants”) for violations of federal antitrust laws (the “Sherman Act” and the “Clayton Act”), Texas antitrust laws (“Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act”) (Texas. Bus. & C. Code § 15.01, et. seq.) as well as for violations of Texas state common law. Plaintiff complains and alleges upon information and belief except as to those paragraphs that are based on personal knowledge, as follows: COMPLAINT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

2

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

10

III. PARTIES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

12

A. Plaintiff ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

12

B. Defendants …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

13

C. Unnamed Co-Conspirators ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

17

D. Agents and Co-Conspirators …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

18

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

18

A. The London Interbank Offered Rate Defined ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

18

B. Defendants’ Widespread Conspiracy to Manipulate LIBOR is Supported by Substantial Evidence ..

27

C. Defendants Had Financial Incentives to Conspire to Manipulate LIBOR ………………………………………………

29

D. Defendants’ LIBOR Manipulation Harmed Numerous Types of Financial Investments …………………….

36

E. Defendants Colluded with Each Other To Suppress USD LIBOR ………………………………………………………….

40

1. Each Defendant Knew Other LIBOR Member Banks Were Manipulating LIBOR ……………………………….

41

2. Defendant Member Banks Manipulated LIBOR Collectively in “Packs” ………………………………………………

47

3. Defendants’ LIBOR Manipulation Succeeded as a “Pack” by Sharing Confidential LIBORs ……………

51

F. Defendants Conspired to Manipulate LIBOR To Benefit Individual Trading Positions. ……………………

55

1. RBS’ Role in LIBOR Manipulation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

56

2. UBS and Thomas Hayes’ Role in LIBOR Manipulation ………………………………………………………………………….

58

3. Barclays’ Role in LIBOR Manipulation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

69

G. Defendants Conspired to Manipulate Yen and USD LIBOR. …………………………………………………………………..

70

H. Government Investigations Reveal the Global Scope of the LIBOR Manipulation Conspiracy by Defendants and Unnamed Co-Conspirators ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

73

1. Public Documents and Regulatory Filings Reveal Defendants’ Involvement in LIBOR Manipulation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

75

2. Barclays Settles Criminal and Civil Claims In Exchange for Cooperating with Prosecutors and Regulatory Authorities in the United Kingdom and United States ………………………………………………………………

84

3. UBS Settles Criminal and Civil Claims In Exchange for Cooperating with Prosecutors and Regulatory Authorities in the United Kingdom, United States, and Switzerland ……………………………………..

98

4. The First Individuals Face Criminal Charges And Arrests ……………………………………………………………………….

100

5. The Royal Bank of Scotland Refuses to Comply with Order to Produce Documents on Its Involvement in the Global LIBOR Manipulation Conspiracy ……………………………………………………………………….

101

6. The Royal Bank of Scotland Settles Criminal and Civil Claims In Exchange for Cooperating with Prosecutors and Regulatory Authorities in the United Kingdom and the United States …………………………..

102

7. Evidence Disclosed to Date in Canada and Singapore Confirms that Certain Defendants Conspired to Manipulate Yen-LIBOR ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

104

a. Canadian Investigation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

104

b. Singaporean Legal Action ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

109

I. Independent Analyses By Consulting Experts Indicate Defendants Artificially Suppressed LIBOR ….

110

J. Empirical Analyses Indicate LIBOR’s Artificial Suppression …………………………………………………………………..

137

1. The Discrepancy Between Defendants’ reported LIBOR and Their CDS Spreads Indicates the Banks Misrepresented Their Borrowing Costs to the BBA ……………………………………………………………………………………….

137

2. Cross-Currency Discrepancies in Defendants’ LIBOR Submissions Indicate They Suppressed USD-LIBOR. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

142

3. The Frequency With Which at Least Certain Defendants’ LIBOR Submissions “Bunched” Around the Fourth-Lowest Quote of the Day Suggests Manipulation ………………………………………………………………………..

143

4. LIBOR’s Divergence from its Historical Relationship with the Federal Reserve Auction Rate Indicates Suppression …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

145

5. LIBOR’s Divergence from its Historical Correlation to Overnight Index Swaps Also Suggests it Was Artificially Suppressed ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

145

6. Additional Data Suggest LIBOR May Have Been Manipulated as Early as August 2006 ………………….

146

K. Defendants Faced Difficult Financial Circumstances Which Were Not Reflected in Their LIBOR Submissions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

147

1. Defendant Citigroup …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

148

2. Defendants RBS, Lloyds, and HBOS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

149

3. Defendant WestLB …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

151

L. Defendants Made Material Misrepresentations and Concealed Information They Had A Duty to Disclose to Plaintiff Houston. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

152

V. PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW, NOR COULD IT REASONABLY HAVE KNOWN, ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ MISCONDUCT UNTIL AT LEAST MARCH 2011 …………………………………………………………..

154

A. Defendants’ Unlawful Activities Were Inherently Self-Concealing ………………………………………………………….

155

B. The British Bankers’ Association and Defendants Deflected Concerns Raised by Market Observers and Participants About LIBOR’s Accuracy ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

156

C. Plaintiff Could Not Have Known or Reasonably Discovered-Until at Least March 2011-Facts Suggesting Defendants Knowingly Colluded to Suppress LIBOR ……………………………………………………………….

158

D. The Statute of Limitations is Tolled by the American Pipe Doctrine ……………………………………………………

159

VI. PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT INJURY AS A RESULT OF DEFENDANTS’ LIBOR MANIPULATION CONSPIRACY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

159

A. Defendants’ Manipulation of LIBOR Broadly Impacted LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments and Investments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

159

B. Plaintiff Transacted LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments That Paid Artificially Low Interest Rates or Charged Artificially High Interest Rates ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

161

C. Plaintiff Suffered Antitrust Injury ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

163

D. Specific Examples of Plaintiffs LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments ……………………………………………………..

171

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

173

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, ETSEQ.) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

173

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF TEXAS FREE ENTERPRISE AND ANTITRUST ACT (TEX. Bus. & COM. CODE §§ 15.01 et seq.) ………………………………………………………….

175

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD AND DECEIT (AFFIRMATIVE AND CONCEALMENT) ..

178

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION …………………………………………….

180

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE ……………………….

182

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

183

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNJUST ENRICHMENT …………………………………………………………………….

184

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

185

IX. JURY TRIAL DEMAND …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

187

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This case is about the global conspiracy to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), a benchmark interest rate that was once viewed as one of the most trustworthy foundations of the global financial system. It was because of that trust that LIBOR became one of the central benchmark interest rates used to set the rates for a vast array of financial instruments worth trillions of dollars, from Credit Default Swaps (“CDS”) to variable rate fixed income instruments to consumer loans including home mortgages. In the simplest terms, LIBOR is intended to represent the interest rate that a Defendant LIBOR member bank could borrow from other LIBOR member banks on any given date, depending on the currency and the duration of the loan. This rate is set by the LIBOR member banks each day and is intended to reflect the true cost of borrowing in any given economic environment, representing the amount of interest that one financial institution would charge for lending money to another financial institution in an arms-length transaction.

2. Because LIBOR was believed to represent the true cost of borrowing, it could be and was used as a benchmark for setting interest rates for many types of transactions. LIBOR is one of the most commonly used benchmark rates in the world, impacting everything from complex billion or multi-million dollar derivative contracts involving institutional investors, corporations and public entities, to simple bank loans for small businesses and individuals, to home mortgage loans taken out by individual American citizens. Variable mortgage rates, for example, can be pegged to LIBOR. Interest rates on variable rate instruments are often expressed at LIBOR plus X number of basis points, where a single basis point represents one one-hundredth of a percentage point (0.01%).

3. Defendants are global financial institutions involved in setting LIBOR each day, also referred to as LIBOR member banks. Defendants manipulated LIBOR, as well as other global benchmark interest rates that negatively impacted Plaintiff and, in doing so, deprived Plaintiff of the rate of interest that Plaintiff should have received from its investments or financial instruments. At various times, Defendants manipulated LIBOR by both inflating and suppressing the interest rate at which an individual LIBOR member bank could borrow funds from other banks. Defendants manipulated LIBOR to increase their own revenues, and suppressed LIBOR artificially low to create the illusion of creditworthiness by suggesting that if their borrowing rate was low they were not a credit risk. By acting in concert to knowingly overstate or understate their true borrowing costs, Defendants caused LIBOR to be calculated artificially, and reaped hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in illegitimate gains.

4. From at least as early as August of 2007, the Defendant banks conspired to, and did, manipulate LIBOR by misreporting to the British Bankers’ Association (“BBA”) the accurate interest rate at which each expected they could borrow funds from the other LIBOR member banks. In the case of artificially suppressing LIBOR, Defendants were able to significantly reduce, for example, the amount that should be paid to counterparties, including Plaintiff.

5. LIBOR is the benchmark interest rate used for a vast array of commercial and consumer financial transactions worth trillions of dollars annually. LIBOR rates are set for ten different currencies for 50 different maturity dates, covering millions, if not hundreds of millions of transactions. The fact that trillions of dollars in financial transactions can be linked to LIBOR demonstrates the confidence that has been placed on the reliability and trustworthiness of LIBOR and the banks that set LIBOR. It also explains, however, why the financial institutions at the heart of this conspiracy chose to manipulate LIBOR. In the midst of one of the worst economic crises in world history and with billions of dollars at stake, the financial institutions engaged in improper and illegal LIBOR rate manipulation in order to deceive the public and to reap massive profits to the detriment of institutional and individual investors.

6. The Defendants are members of the BBA. LIBOR is set based on information provided by each member bank to the BBA on a daily basis regarding their interbank borrowing rate. This information is used by BBA and Thomson Reuters to calculate approximately 150 different LIBOR rates for the ten different currencies and 50 different durations. From all of the interest rates reported by the BBA member banks to BBA and Thomson Reuters, the highest and lowest quartiles are removed and the middle two quartiles are averaged to reach the benchmark LIBOR rate. This is done in an effort to prevent isolated incidents of deception. By removing the highest and lowest quartiles, the BBA sought to prevent a single financial institution or even three or four, from manipulating LIBOR. LIBOR could not be manipulated without the knowing involvement of most, if not all of the BBA member banks.

7. Since being publically made known in 2011, investigations into the manipulation of LIBOR have been ongoing in the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, the European Union, Japan, Canada, and Singapore. In the United States, several government agencies are involved, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

8. In March of 2011, government regulators and prosecutors from many different countries announced that they were investigating LIBOR rate manipulation at financial institutions around the world. Plaintiff, like so many others, relied on and believed in the trustworthiness of the BBA, its member banks and the LIBOR rate calculation system. The announcement of government investigations into potential widespread collusion amongst the BBA member banks to manipulate one of the bedrock benchmark interest rates used by everyone from investors, lenders, banks and pension funds to value and price financial instruments has shaken the global financial system, with the global economy still on rocky ground. Revelations of such a wide-ranging scandal have raised serious questions about the integrity of LIBOR and other global benchmark interest rates.

9. Barclays and UBS were two of the first financial institutions to acknowledge the existence of the LIBOR rate manipulation conspiracy and their involvement in it. In a settlement deal announced on June 27, 2012, Barclays agreed to pay £290 million ($453.6 million) as part of a settlement with the U.K. Financial Services Authority (“FSA”), the CFTC, the DOJ’s Fraud Section, and others relating to its involvement in the LIBOR rate manipulation. Barclays was the first financial institution to settle potential criminal and regulatory claims against it. Barclays admission that it was involved in a widespread LIBOR manipulation scandal resulted in the resignation of Barclays’ Chief Executive Officer Bob Diamond. UBS has also sought amnesty from government investigators and antitrust regulatory authorities for its involvement in the LIBOR rate manipulation. UBS has announced that it has requested and received conditional immunity from prosecution from the Swiss Competition Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice for its cooperation in the investigation.

10. According to documents and evidence that have been made public, it is evident that the LIBOR rate manipulation lasted for years and was widespread. According to a Reuters news article on Sunday, July 22, 2012, U.S. prosecutors and European regulators plan to arrest individual traders employed by the Defendants and charging them with colluding to manipulate global benchmark interest rates, including LIBOR. This wide-ranging and sweeping investigation into the rigging of interest rates began with LIBOR but the evidence uncovered has revealed that the rate-rigging scandal has impacted many different global benchmark rates, such as EURIBOR.

11. According to sources, U.S. federal prosecutors have recently contacted lawyers representing individual traders under investigation and notified them that arrests and criminal charges could be brought against their clients in the next few weeks. In similar prosecutions of this nature, criminal charges and indictments have continued for years after the investigation had begun as individuals and entities are either convicted or agree to cooperate with authorities. According to government investigators and regulators from the U.S., Europe and elsewhere, their investigations have revealed a fuller picture of the rate-rigging conspiracy, which impacts LIBOR and other global benchmark interest rates that underpin hundreds of trillions of dollars in assets.

12. A source familiar with the European investigation told Reuters that “[m]ore than a handful of traders at different banks are involved.” According to Reuters, U.S. investigators believe that more than a dozen current and former employees of several large financial banks are under investigation, including Defendants Barclays, UBS, Citigroup, HSBC and Deutsche Bank. In the United States, the regulatory investigation into LIBOR rate manipulation is led by the CFTC, which has made the LIBOR investigation one of its top priorities.

13. In a Reuters article dated July 20, 2012, sources indicate that there is interest by a number of the Defendants in this case to enter into a group settlement with global regulators. Based on the evidence available to government investigators, some of which has been made public, there is substantial evidence showing the existence of a conspiracy to manipulate global benchmark interest rates and the involvement of the Defendants in this conspiracy.

14. The Defendant LIBOR banks in this case engaged in illegal and improper conduct and engaged in a criminal conspiracy that caused harm to public entities and hundreds of millions of people around the world, both directly and indirectly. Defendants did this in order to protect their own self-interests and to reap millions or billions of dollars in improper and unwarranted gains without regard to the detriment of public entities and their citizens. The Defendants’ deceptive and illegal acts have damaged Plaintiff and Plaintiff brings this lawsuit in order to recover those monies that were improperly taken from itself and its constituents and beneficiaries.

15. Except as alleged herein, Plaintiff does not have access to the underlying facts relating to Defendants’ improper conduct. Such information is exclusively within the possession, custody and control of the Defendant banks and other insiders and unnamed co-conspirators, which prevents Plaintiff from further detailing Defendants’ misconduct. Moreover, numerous pending government investigations – both domestic and foreign, including by the DOJ, CFTC, SEC, U.K. FSA, and the European Commission – concerning potential LIBOR manipulation and collusion could yield information from Defendants’ internal records or personnel that bears significantly on Plaintiff’s claims. Indeed, as one news report observed in detailing U.S. regulators’ ongoing investigation, “[i]ntemal bank emails may prove to be key evidence…because of the difficulty in proving that banks reported borrowing costs for LIBOR at one rate and obtained funding at another.”1 Plaintiff thus believes further evidentiary support for its allegations will be revealed after it has a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery.

Footnotes

16. To date, more than $2.6 billion has been paid to settle only the U.S. and U.K. investigations of LIBOR manipulation by only three of the Defendant LIBOR member banks: UBS ($1.5 Billion), Royal Bank of Scotland ($610 Million), and Barclays ($453 Million). The settlement statements include revealing admissions and documentary evidence confirming: (i) the Defendant LIBOR member banks engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the benchmark interest rate, and (ii) the conspiracy was on a global scale. Examples of admissions about the conspiracy include the following:

• In August 2007, a senior RBS trader of Yen LIBOR told one of his colleagues that LIBOR is a “cartel now in London.”2 This price-fixing cartel existed from August 2007 through May 2010.

1 David Enrich, Carrick Mollenkamp & Jean Eaglesham, “U.S. Libor Probe Includes Bof A, Citi, UB S,” Market Watch, March 17, 2011.

• On November 29, 2007, Barclays learned the confidential USD LIBOR submissions of every defendant before they were made public and adjusted its LIBOR submission downward by 20 basis points in order to stay within the pack of other banks’ low LIBOR submissions.3 Barclays managers issued standing instructions to stay within specific ranges of other panel banks’ LIBOR submissions, indicating that Barclays believed that it would have continued access to every other panel bank’s confidential LIBOR submissions before they were published. According to the CFTC’s review of the evidence it collected, “Senior Barclays Treasury managers provided the [LIBOR] submitters with the general guidance that Barcays’s submitted rates should be within ten basis points of the submissions by the other U.S. Dollar panel banks …”4

2 In the Matter of The Royal Bank of Scotlandplc and RBS Securities Japan Limited, CFTC Docket No. 13-14. Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Feb. 6, 2013) (“RBS CFTC” at 14).
3 Financial Services Authority, Final Notice to Barclays Bank Plc (June 27, 2012) (“Barclays FSA”) ¶118.

• That same day, on November 29, 2007, a Barclays manager explained that “other panel banks ‘are reluctant to post higher and because no one will get out of the pack the pack sort of stays low.”’5 Barclays and UBS admitted that they issued and obeyed instructions to stay within the pack of other banks’ low LIBOR submissions during large portions of the Relevant Period.

4 In the matter of Barclays, PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, and Barclays Capital, Inc., CFTC Docket No. 12-25, Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as Amended, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (June 27, 2012) (“Barclays CFTC”) at 20 (emphasis added).

• In communications between November 2007 and October 2008, Barclays’ employees revealed that “all of the Contributor Panel banks, including Barclays, were contributing rates that were too low.”6

5 Letter from Denis J. McInerney, Chief, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, United States Department of Justice, Appendix A (June 26, 2012) (“Barclays SOF”) ¶ 43 (emphasis added).

• On April 27, 2008, a Barclays manager conceded “to the extent that, um, the LIBORs have been understated, are we guilty of being part of the pack? You could say we are.”7 As one Barclays submitter put it, “just set it where everyone else sets it, we do not want to be standing out.”8

6 Barclays SOF ¶ 42.
7 Barclays FSA ¶ 131 (emphasis added).

• In April 2008, the BBA acknowledged that no panel banks were “clean-clean” and that it understood what would happen to any bank that “moved against the trend of lower submissions.

• On May 21, 2008, when a Wall Street Journal reporter asked UBS by email why UBS had been “paying 12 basis points for [commercial paper] more than it was posting as a Libor quote,” a senior manager at UBS told another senior UBS manager that “the answer would be ‘because the whole street was doing the same and because we did not want to be an outlier in the libor fixings, just like everybody else.’ ”9

8 Barclays FSA ¶ 123.

• On June 18, 2008, two UBS employees explained why it was important for banks to collusively suppress as part of an anticompetitive pack: “… [Senior Manager B] want[s] us to get in line with the competition by Friday … if you are too low you get written about for being too low … if you are too high you get written about for being too high.10

9 Letter from Denis J. McInerney, Chief, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice (Dec. 18, 2012) (“UBS SOF”) ¶ 117.

• Between June 2008 and April 2009, “UBS’s 3-month U.S. Dollar LIBOR submissions were identical to the published LIBOR fix, and largely consistent with the published LIBOR fix in the other tenors.”11 This was the case even though “[d]uring this 10-month period there were significant disruptions in the financial markets, affecting individual financial institutions in different ways.”12

10 Financial Services Authority, Final Notice to UBS AG ¶ 124 (Dec. 19, 2012) (“UBS FSA”) (emphasis added).
11 UBS SOF ¶ 122 (emphasis added0.

• The empirical evidence shows that Defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBORs in a pack: they submitted LIBOR rates at similarly suppressed levels, which they could not have done without colluding because their submissions diverged dramatically and in unpredictable ways from benchmark rates that tracked market fundamentals.

• On February 11, 2013, during testimony before the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, Johnny Cameron, the former Chairman of Global Banking and Markets at RBS Group, characterized the LIBOR manipulation efforts as a cartel of people across a number of banks who felt they could fix it.13

12 UBS SOF ¶ 123.

• On April 12, 2013, the DOJ charged RBS with one count of “price fixing” in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. RBS admitted that it was responsible for the acts of its employees charged in the Information, which alleged that, from at least as early as 2007 through at least 2010, employees “engaged in a combination and conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign commerce… the substantial terms of which were to fix the price of Yen LIBOR-based derivative products by fixing Yen LIBOR, a key price component of the price thereof, on certain occasions.” Documents show that RBS colluded with other defendants in this price-fixing conspiracy.

Snowden, Thoreau, Burke, and Indispendsable Freedom from Uncontrolled Search & Seizure

Open Letter to the President from Lon Snowden and his Attorney

This is a great letter and should be read by all Americans! (made available by and reblogged from Christine at: http://unifiedserenity.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/open-letter-to-the-president-from-lon-snowden-and-his-attorney/)

Dear Mr. President:

You are acutely aware that the history of liberty is a history of civil disobedience to unjust laws or practices. As Edmund Burke sermonized, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Civil disobedience is not the first, but the last option. Henry David Thoreau wrote with profound restraint in Civil Disobedience: “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.”

Thoreau’s moral philosophy found expression during the Nuremburg trials in which “following orders” was rejected as a defense. Indeed, military law requires disobedience to clearly illegal orders.

A dark chapter in America’s World War II history would not have been written if the then United States Attorney General had resigned rather than participate in racist concentration camps imprisoning 120,000 Japanese American citizens and resident aliens.

Civil disobedience to the Fugitive Slave Act and Jim Crow laws provoked the end of slavery and the modern civil rights revolution.

We submit that Edward J. Snowden’s disclosures of dragnet surveillance of Americans under § 215 of the Patriot Act, § 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments, or otherwise were sanctioned by Thoreau’s time-honored moral philosophy and justifications for civil disobedience. Since 2005, Mr. Snowden had been employed by the intelligence community. He found himself complicit in secret, indiscriminate spying on millions of innocent citizens contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the First and Fourth Amendments and the transparency indispensable to self-government. Members of Congress entrusted with oversight remained silent or Delphic. Mr. Snowden confronted a choice between civic duty and passivity. He may have recalled the injunction of Martin Luther King, Jr.: “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.” Mr. Snowden chose duty. Your administration vindictively responded with a criminal complaint alleging violations of the Espionage Act.

From the commencement of your administration, your secrecy of the National Security Agency’s Orwellian surveillance programs had frustrated a national conversation over their legality, necessity, or morality. That secrecy (combined with congressional nonfeasance) provoked Edward’s disclosures, which sparked a national conversation which you have belatedly and cynically embraced. Legislation has been introduced in both the House of Representatives and Senate to curtail or terminate the NSA’s programs, and the American people are being educated to the public policy choices at hand. A commanding majority now voice concerns over the dragnet surveillance of Americans that Edward exposed and you concealed. It seems mystifying to us that you are prosecuting Edward for accomplishing what you have said urgently needed to be done!

The right to be left alone from government snooping–the most cherished right among civilized people—is the cornerstone of liberty. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson served as Chief Prosecutor at Nuremburg. He came to learn of the dynamics of the Third Reich that crushed a free society, and which have lessons for the United States today.

Writing in Brinegar v. United States, Justice Jackson elaborated:

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

These, I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. And one need only briefly to have dwelt and worked among a people possessed of many admirable qualities but deprived of these rights to know that the human personality deteriorates and dignity and self-reliance disappear where homes, persons and possessions are subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police.

We thus find your administration’s zeal to punish Mr. Snowden’s discharge of civic duty to protect democratic processes and to safeguard liberty to be unconscionable and indefensible.

We are also appalled at your administration’s scorn for due process, the rule of law, fairness, and the presumption of innocence as regards Edward.

On June 27, 2013, Mr. Fein wrote a letter to the Attorney General stating that Edward’s father was substantially convinced that he would return to the United States to confront the charges that have been lodged against him if three cornerstones of due process were guaranteed. The letter was not an ultimatum, but an invitation to discuss fair trial imperatives. The Attorney General has sneered at the overture with studied silence.

We thus suspect your administration wishes to avoid a trial because of constitutional doubts about application of the Espionage Act in these circumstances, and obligations to disclose to the public potentially embarrassing classified information under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

Your decision to force down a civilian airliner carrying Bolivian President Eva Morales in hopes of kidnapping Edward also does not inspire confidence that you are committed to providing him a fair trial.  Neither does your refusal to remind the American people and prominent Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate like House Speaker John Boehner, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann,and Senator Dianne Feinstein that Edward enjoys a presumption of innocence. He should not be convicted before trial. Yet Speaker Boehner has denounced Edward as a “traitor.”

Ms. Pelosi has pontificated that Edward “did violate the law in terms of releasing those documents.” Ms. Bachmann has pronounced that, “This was not the act of a patriot; this was an act of a traitor.” And Ms. Feinstein has decreed that Edward was guilty of “treason,” which is defined in Article III of the Constitution as “levying war” against the United States, “or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

You have let those quadruple affronts to due process pass unrebuked, while you have disparaged Edward as a “hacker” to cast aspersion on his motivations and talents. Have you forgotten the Supreme Court’s gospel in Berger v. United States that the interests of the government “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done?”

We also find reprehensible your administration’s Espionage Act prosecution of Edward for disclosures indistinguishable from those which routinely find their way into the public domain via your high level appointees for partisan political advantage. Classified details of your predator drone protocols, for instance, were shared with the New York Times with impunity to bolster your national security credentials. Justice Jackson observed in Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York: “The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.”

In light of the circumstances amplified above, we urge you to order the Attorney General to move to dismiss the outstanding criminal complaint against Edward, and to support legislation to remedy the NSA surveillance abuses he revealed. Such presidential directives would mark your finest constitutional and moral hour.

Sincerely,
Bruce Fein
Counsel for Lon Snowden
Lon Snowden

Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc.
722 12th Street, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 703-963-4968
bruce@thelichfieldgroup.com

MERS MONOPOLY & PATENTED SECURITIZATION?

Securitization is NOT a “Traditional Mortgage Loan” Operation

Posted on June 27, 2013

Note by CEL/Deo Vindice:  Monopoly and Patent Are Different Names for the Same Economic Reality, opposite sides of the same coin.  But while they were originally designed to abolish or prohibit monopolies and monopolistic practices, the Antitrust Laws still on the books (especially 15 U.S.C. §§1-15 et seq.) are at best poorly enforced and more often ignored.  In the opposite direction, and inconsistently, modern Intellectual Property/IP Law is tending towards “eternal” patents, trademarks, and copyrights.  So if Securitization is Patented—it may become a Perpetual Monopoly—Unless We Fight it Now!  If the people have no will, they will accept the slavery of Communism (which is, after all, a system of governmentally managed monopolies).  This battle can be envisioned and framed initially through dialogue in the courts, but it can only be resolved politically—by changing the law and by the people taking control of the Constitution and Government again. 

Contrary to the mythology of Judicial Activism, the Courts only modify the law or create new law when ordered to do so by the Political Powers that be, as in the cases of Civil Rights in the 1950s-1960s and Abortion and Gay Rights in the 1970s-1980s and more recently.  In essence, the Courts are created by and dependent upon the legislative and executive branches—they have no ability to support themselves through taxation or to enforce their decree without the rest of the government.  That is why litigation must only be regarded as an “adjunct process” of law making, or law enforcement, or even clarification of the law.  It is quite obvious that, at the present time, Congress and the Executive support legal obfuscation….

patent-hero-size-100019219-gallerySecuritization is a relatively newinnovation given the operation of the traditional mortgage loan industry over the last 70 years.

What is routinely overlooked is the fact that this entire new process and product development has been patented in the USTPO extensively by the banks. The loans that were sold at the turn of the century through present day are NOT traditional mortgage loans. This fact is further complicated because there was no meeting of the minds when the contracts were formed. Additionally, there are multiple defects that should literally void documents or cause defective products to be recalled.

This is a very complex subject. Many times it is too complicated for the average foreclosure court and defense attorney without additional education. “These [securitization patent issues] are the patent-law_shutterstock_300arguments that need to be made but they need to be in the context of a complex business litigation court not in a foreclosure/equity court,” voiced an experienced paralegal to a law professor, “[T]hese loans require the knowledge of various areas of complex litigation law – securitization, patent, real estate, finance, trust, etc.  It’s not as simple as John Doe signed a note and mortgage, failed to pay the note and mortgage and therefore since we hold the note in our hot little hands we can take John Doe’s house.” 

The reason that this is not just a simple routine foreclosure process is because the new products that were sold to homeowners are defined in new patented processes. Patents are for “new” inventions or discovery – for new products and/or process.

35 USC § 100 – Definitions

When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates—
(a) The term “invention” means invention or discovery.
(b) The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.


new35 USC § 101 – Inventions patentable

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

35 USC § 102 – Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent

(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122 (b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

1935 Patent pending instructions - late version closeupThere are numerous patents on securitization, REMICs, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., etc. For example, Paperless process for mortgage closings and other applications [Click Here for MERS Patent PDF] relates to paperless transactions and the mortgage industry in particular, and more specifically to the closing, registration and custody of electronic mortgages.” The patent even used new terminology – these are “electronic mortgages” – not traditional mortgages. It’s debatable whether the documents could even be called “mortgage” – it is more like achit in comparison to all the shadow banking and backdoor antics that occurred.

This MERS patent was filed on January 18, 2005 with its Priority Date of February 10, 2004 and published October 26, 2010. This is considered a “new” invention. The patent acknowledges:

“[T]he mortgage closing process is traditionally very paper intensive and tedious. Borrowers must affix wet signatures to many, many documents and lenders subsequently must physically copy, distribute, register and store the signed documents.”

It might as well have read,

“Hey man, not us – no paper documents needed. We’ll give anybody one of these new electronic mortgages – as long as they can breathe. We’ll flood the market with these defective  loan products and force it down their throats.”

However, and remember this was written back in 2004 (or earlier), behind the scenes there were changes being made to local and federal statutes that would support this “new” methodology, albeit without full disclosure to the borrower. The patent continues:

“The Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization (MISMO) has laid the foundation for paperless, electronic mortgages by defining the SMART Document specification. SMART is an acronym for Securable, Manageable, Archivable, Retrievable, and Transferable.”

Matrix - System FailureThe problem here is that the homeowner (aka borrowers) were never informed that the traditional mortgage lending process had been materially altered.

In order to securitize these loans it appears that the documents MUSTbecome electronically transferable and in order to achieve electronic transfer-ability the UETA statutes must be precisely followed and UETA section 16 in most states require “explicit agreement” by the mortgagor at the creation of the document.

These issues NEED to be raised in order to be adjudicated.

FLAW #1:  Making reference to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. in a mortgage does not appear to be sufficient to provide “explicit agreement” pursuant to the UETA statute. Notwithstanding the fact that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is just a shell corporation and NOT the registry system which is actually owned and operated by MERSCORP, Inc. and the MERSCORP, Inc. membership. Even if the words“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” were a trade name for the system (which it is not) it does not indicate an ”explicit agreement” is being obtained from the borrower when he signs the mortgage.

Furthermore, there are states such as New York and Washington that have not yet endorsed the UETA and eSign statutes. Even if the federal statute becomes the fallback position – it does not waive the necessity for electronic transfer-ability (per the patents) in this “new”  patented securitization process.

h3“Your honor, how did that loan become an asset of the REMIC trust, as the plaintiff alleges, when there is no explicit agreement by the homeowners here to allow for the electronic transfer of the documents which is a necessary element in the securitization process?”

This is not a traditional mortgage process. The courts must begin to recognize the factsbehind the securitization curtain are a truckload of patents – “new” patents designed to create “new” products that are essentially defective because the laws were not followed.

It’s as if we are wading through a sandbox with a lot of kids who had failed to follow the rules and would rather ask for forgiveness than for permission. This is not just some little ministerial mistake and the cover-up goes so far up the ladder that it is appalling. Judges with integrity are beginning to realize the scam but in order for them to sink their teeth into the crux of the problem – the source or the root of the issues must be raised. These convoluted issues stem from the conception of the patented securitization and electronic process.

If there was ever a question as to the fraud that could be committed through the use of electronic signatures – just take a gander at the abuse of the securitization process.

As Adam Levitin stated in Standing to Invoke PSAs as a Foreclosure Defense:

“A major issue arising in foreclosure defense cases is the homeowner’s ability to challenge the foreclosing party’s standing based on noncompliance with securitization documentation. Several courts have held that there is no standing to challenge standing on this basis, most recently the 1st Circuit BAP in Correia v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Company. (See Abigail Caplovitz Field’s cogent critique of that ruling here.) The basis for these courts’ rulings is that the homeowner isn’t a party to the PSA, so the homeowner has no standing to raise noncompliance with the PSA.

I think that view is plain wrong.  It fails to understand what PSA-based foreclosure defenses are about and to recognize a pair of real and cognizable Article III interests of homeowners:  the right to be protected against duplicative claims and the right to litigate against the real party in interest because of settlement incentives and abilities.”

patentIt also fails to take into account that there are numerous (hundreds) of NEW patents that are in play with this process. These are not traditional mortgages! These documents are clearly defective loan products. From the lack of explicit agreement per UETA to the rigged LIBOR interest rates to the phony baloney ShellGame-MERS – a straw man and a fake, these loan documents should be scraped as defective products.

Professor Levitin continues:

“Let me put it another way.  Homeowners are not complaining about breaches of the PSA for the purposes of enforcing the PSA contract.  They are pointing to breaches of the PSA as evidence that the loan was not transferred to the securitization trust.  The PSA is being invoked because it is the document that purports to transfer the mortgage to the trust.  Adherence to the PSA determines whether there was a transfer effected or not because under NY trust law (which governs most PSAs), a transfer not in compliance with a trust’s documents is void.  And if there isn’t a valid transfer, there’s no standing.  This is simply a factual question–does the trust own the loan or not?   (Or in UCC terms, is the trust a “party entitled to enforce the note”–query whether enforcement rights in the note also mean enforcement rights in the mortgage…)  If not, then it lacks standing to foreclosure.” [Read more]

You honor, what is it about this information you do not understand, yet? The biggest problem, aside from the judiciary worrying about their pensions if the banks collapse (which isn’t going to happen if the 1% that fight the banks actually win their cases), is that foreclosure defense attorneys are not always prepared to bring up new arguments or demand in-depth discovery because it takes too much time per case and they often have hundreds of clients to represent. But these issues must be addressed. And if they cannot be addressed in a regular foreclosure court because of the complexity – then possibly panels need to be established and the elements argued to the more legally prepared and astute judiciary without a conflict of interest in that they own stock in the banks.

trolllFinally, somebody please tellPresident Obama that maybe he ought to concentrate on the securitization Trolls that created the patents and swoop down and carry off these violators since they did not follow the procedures and violated their own patents.

Or maybe another Supreme Court determination like the recent DNA case is necessary. Because land recordation is the very essence, in other words, the DNA of our country.

In a recent Supreme Court DNA patent case Justice Thomas wrote, “We have ‘long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception’” that is, “Laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable.’” [emphasis added]

At the very least, securitization documents should not be allowed to be called “mortgage loans.”

A special thank you to Alina, Jack, Deb, Steve and Deontos for their in-depth discussions. Please take the time to read through this important post and pass along to your friends and family.

page divider

 

Like this:

3 THOUGHTS ON “SECURITIZATION IS NOT A “TRADITIONAL MORTGAGE LOAN” OPERATION”

  1. As usual Virginia did a great job of seeking and finding and exposing. Thanks to all that participate in this digging out the truth. Such an unbelievable crime against the people. Great Job! I shared this with many.

Sovereign Nation or USA Vassal-State? German Looks to its Future under the Obamanation of Global-Imperialist USA!: More European Commentary on the Free Trade Agreement that NO ONE is Discussing in the USA—Obama Promotes Trayvon Sympathy Race-Riots to Hide the Largest U.S. Imperialist Action in HIstory—the Virtual Annexation of Europe

Last week for Bastille Day, July 14, 2013, I published a quotation from the French Front National’s website concerning the leading French Nationalist Party’s fears of a free trade agreement that, so far, I have seen discussed NOWHERE in the US-Media—someone fill me in if they have seen NYT or WSJ reports on it, because I’ve looked and (if they are there) I’ve somehow missed it.  We obviously can not count, any longer, on these two traditional pillars of US Journalism.  This week, following up on the French Commentary about the “Wildfire of Savage Globalism” with and by which Obama as George Bush’s handpicked successor is attempting effectively to annex Europe, I now quote the German National Democratic Party’s fears of the complete abrogation of National Sovereignty for status as a U.S. Vassal State, a condition not experienced since the dismal days post 1945 when Germany was effectively partitioned four ways between Great Britain in the Northwest (Hamburg, Hannover, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, Wesphalia, and most of Rheinland-Phalz, France in the Southwest (Saarland, Baden-Wurtemburg, U. S. Central and Southeast (Bavaria up to and including Frankfurt-am-Main), and of course, the entire eastern half of the Country either annexed to Poland and obliterated from the map or the heartland stub of Berlin, Brandenburg, Thuringia, Saxony, and Mecklenberg-Schwerin as “East Germany” operating under Russian occupation for 45 years as a Soviet Vassal State).  Surely Germany has suffered enough from foreign domination!

My sight-translation from German is not the best of my foreign language skills (German-original text below), but this is the best I can do early on a Sunday morning before Church with no better stimulus than Arizona Southern Style Tea from a page just published on Friday July 19, 2013, on the National Democratic Party websitehttp://www.npd.de/html/1938/artikel/detail/3310/ I WOULD WELCOME ANY CORRECTIONS OR SUGGESTED CLARIFICATIONS OF MY TRANSLATION BELOW, my undergraduate German professors Starke & Gotzkowsky would be so disappointed in my ability 36-35 years later…

Sovereign German Nation State or US-Vassal>
German Future Against the Background of the Prism-Accord Provided by the “Free Trade” Agreement with the United States

One simply has to answer too many questions incompletely and insubstantially, because we simply have no answer from the United States regarding to the extent of the American spying on German citizens and politicians. More than two-thirds of the Germans are dissatisfied and unhappy with the information provided by the (German) federal government, which may have been enough for Angela Merkel on this topic that shows her failings dramatically.
However, the NPD will not allow this affirmation of the comprehensive loss any sovereignty to evaporate into the summer heat.  Because it is not only the privacy of millions of Germans citizens by US-espionage that is in danger, even the protection of German companies is no longer secure.
Given this background, it is important to consider the proposed free trade agreement between the EU and the United States must be reviewed.  A  “free trade agreement” in any case threatens the independent self-management of all member governments and their peoples.  “Free Trade” prohibits ordinary national protection mechanisms, import duties and other effective measures for consumer protection. The “winners” of this free trade area are only the large, internationally active corporations. [Translators note: look at what has happened in Mexico since NAFTA: the Blessings of Walmart have reached into every corner of the land, including World Patrimony sites like the ruins of the greatest pre-Aztec sacred city of Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuacan; yet has Mexico reaped a great harvest of jobs amidst the Yankee invasion?  No, the slave labor of China and sub-human wages of sub-continental India have undercut Mexico’s extremely low wages, meaning that American companies have taken their jobs NOT to Mexico primarily but elsewhere, as Free Trade permits them to do—the net loss of Sovereignty plus Wealth to Mexico has fueled the largest human migration in history across the Rio Grande, Gadsen Purchase line, and boundary of Upper-Lower California to the point where the US is effectively half-Mexican now and large parts of the Mexican population depend on the “foreign aid” provided by its US-resident citizens].  “Losers” are without exception the acquiescing states and their citizens.  The states lose, because for every protective measure they can be dragged into [effectively dominant-State-US controlled] free trade courts, and this means that the states are thereby forced largely to withdraw from economic regulation. The people lose, because consumers suffer from unsafe products [produced in non-consumer countries] and small businesses suffer from the ruinous competition from abroad [which competition] could not be more effectively protected.

So said the US-american political scientist Susan George: “winners are logically the large companies. Small and medium-sized companies obtain much less, if they are already subcontractors of the greater companies and so already exploited, they have no way to regulate their prices, which will fall.”
Horse meat scandals and worse were on the agenda, because the states have no regulatory power anymore. Consumer protection becomes a thing of the past. The GMO Biotech-Concern Monsanto announced just a few days ago, that it will make no further applications for legalisation of genetically modified food in Germany and Europe.  This is no wonder, since Monsanto and similar companies can calmly but soon via free trade agreements will export  their genetically modified products to Germany [against the will and choice of the German people]. Ms. George states, precisely: “In the US, with 80 percent of the maize [American corn] production genetically modified, multinational companies dominate. And in agriculture, then the price on the US market sets the international price. That would be the ruin of the Europeans, except for the large, industrial establishments in Europe.”

The current Prism-Accord, is now revealed in light of the comprehensive espionage of the US secret NSA [National Security Agency] service in Germany, [and] shos the planned free trade agreement in [at the very least] a questionable light. In the future, comprehensive industrial espionage in Germany and Europe would be even easier for the US secret services. Several studies have already shown that Germany would have the least benefit of such a free trade agreement.  The even more comprehensive industrial espionage imposed on Germany, on the other hand would probably bear the brunt. Our already docile and US vassal Politi-Puppets like Chancellor Angela Merkel and Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich provide no expectation of protection for German citizens, consumers or businesses. [Friedrich has shown this by the complete lack of vigor in his investigation of the NSA over the past week or so].
Neither the Prism-Accord nor the planned free trade agreement will disappear in the summer!  They must be an election issue!
The NPD is the only party in Germany for the restoration of the full sovereignty of the German nation-state, the guarantor of the ability of German policies and basic conditions for an effective protection of German citizens and businesses.

[all bracketed content added by yours truly, the shamefully poor-translator CEL III]

(ORIGINAL TEXT IN GERMAN, SAME PAGE NOTED ABOVE: http://www.npd.de/html/1938/artikel/detail/3310/)

19.07.2013

Soveräner deutscher Nationalstaat statt US-Vasall

Vor dem Hintergrund von Prism darf es mit den USA kein Freihandelsabkommen geben 

Viele Fragen musste sie mit völliger Substanzlosigkeit beantworten, weil sie schlicht und ergreifend von den USA bisher keine Antwort zum Ausmaß der Ausspähung deutscher Bürger und Politiker bekommen hat. Mehr als zwei Drittel der Deutschen sind mit der Aufklärungsarbeit der Bundesregierung unzufrieden, Grund genug für Merkel, daß Thema zu entdramatisieren.

Die NPD wird allerdings nicht zulassen, daß dieser Beleg des umfassenden Verlusts jeglicher Souveränität im Sommerloch verschwindet. Denn nicht nur die Privatsphäre von Millionen deutschen Bürgern ist durch die US-Spionage in Gefahr, auch der Schutz deutscher Unternehmen ist nicht mehr gewährleistet.

Vor diesem Hintergrund muß auch das geplante Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA betrachtet werden. Ein Freihandelsabkommen bedroht ohnehin die Handlungsfähigkeit der Staaten und Völker, verbietet es doch nationale Schutzmechanismen, Einfuhrzölle und wirksame Maßnahmen zum Verbraucherschutz. Gewinner einer solchen Freihandelszone wären einzig und allein die großen, international agierenden Konzerne. Verlierer wären die Staaten und deren Bürger. Erstere, weil sie wegen jeder Schutzmaßnahme vor Gericht gezerrt werden könnten, da der Freihandelsvertrag die Staaten zwingen würde, sich aus der Wirtschaftsregulierung weitgehend zurückzuziehen. Letztere, weil Verbraucher vor bedenklichen Produkten und kleine Unternehmen vor der ruinösen Konkurrenz aus dem Ausland nicht mehr wirksam geschützt werden könnten.

So sagte hierzu die US-amerikanische Politikwissenschaftlerin Susan George: „Gewinner sind logischerweise die großen Unternehmen. Kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen würden viel weniger davon haben, wenn sie Subunternehmer sind und bereits von den Großen ausgebeutet werden, die nicht regelmäßig zahlen, die die Preise drücken können.“

Pferdefleischskandale und Schlimmeres wären an der Tagesordnung, weil die Staaten über keinerlei Kontrollbefugnisse mehr verfügen würden. Verbraucherschutz würde der Vergangenheit angehören. Der Gentech-Konzern Monsanto hat erst vor wenigen Tagen bekannt gegeben, keine weiteren Anträge auf Legalisierung von genmanipulierten Lebensmitteln in Deutschland und Europa stellen zu wollen. Dies ist auch kein Wunder, können Monsanto und ähnliche Konzerne doch bald seelenruhig ihren Genmüll via Freihandelsabkommen nach Deutschland exportieren. George hierzu wörtlich: „In den USA macht Genmais 80 Prozent der Produktion aus, hier dominieren multinationale Unternehmen. Und in der Landwirtschaft, wird dann der Preis auf dem US-Markt zum internationalen Preis. Das wäre der Ruin der Europäer, außer für die großen, industriellen Betriebe in Europa.“

Auch die aktuelle Prism-Affäre, die die umfassende Spionage des US-Geheimdienstes NSA in Deutschland offengelegt hat, stellt das geplante Freihandelsabkommen in ein fragwürdiges Licht. Künftig wäre es für die US-Geheimdienste noch einfacher, umfassende Industriespionage in Deutschland und Europa zu betreiben. Mehrere Studien haben bereits ergeben, daß Deutschland von einem solchen Freihandelsabkommen ohnehin am wenigsten profitieren würde. Die noch umfassendere Industriespionage eingerechnet wäre Deutschland hingegen wohl sogar der Hauptleidtragende. Mit willfährigen und US-hörigen Polit-Marionetten wie Merkel und Friedrich ist auch kein Schutz deutscher Bürger, Verbraucher und Unternehmen zu erwarten.

Sowohl die Prism-Affäre als auch das geplante Freihandelsabkommen dürfen nicht im Sommerloch verschwinden! Sie müssen Wahlkampfthema werden!

Die NPD spricht sich als einzige Partei in Deutschland für die Wiederherstellung der umfassenden Souveränität des deutschen Nationalstaats aus, die Garant für die Handlungsfähigkeit der deutschen Politik und Grundbedingung für einen wirksamen Schutz deutscher Bürger und Unternehmen ist.

“Adding Oil to the Wild-Fire of Savage Globalization”: While America Sleeps through Summer—in France the Front National Warns of a New Free Trade agreement—on the 224th Bastille Day

Today and for the entire past week (since July 13, the day before Bastille Day) Americans, goaded by their manipulative politicians and brain-dead mainstream media have been obsessing over the (artificially) “racially charged” saga of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin (including President BHO who first said, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin” then corrected to, “that means I could be him or he could be me” with final suggested translation, “I am Trayvon Martin and Trayvon Martin died for your sins, so get ready to pay all you middle class people obsessed with being safe in your homes and wanting ther right to self-defense”). Now the NAACP is discussing with (the worst ever Attorney General Eric) Holder’s U.S. Department of (Manifest In-) Justice whether (now that he has been acquitted) George Zimmerman could be prosecuted under the Federal Civil Rights Laws.  Well, that’s OK, because it’s what PRESIDENT OBAMA wants us to focus on, right?  But turning (on this 224th Bastille Day) to the Website of the Front National led by Marine le Pen in France—I see that they are worried about a new free trade agreement I have never seen even discussed in the U.S. Press, a free trade agreement between the United States of America and the European Community which would dwarf NAFTA and truly lead to one single global economy.  The Front National is against it, and I think all sane Americans should wake up and oppose it also.  Can we escape from the trivialities on which the Media want us to focus?  I think we should….while there’s still a chance left:  This article warns that the opening of negotiations for a new free trade agreement is like “putting oil on the wild-fire of savage globalization.”  Yes, the French people are awake. I originally published this quote on July 14, a week ago, on the afternoon to wish all French Front National Members and Sympathizers a  Happy Bastille Day!  Joyeaux Quatorze Juillet!  Vive la France and Vive Marine le Pen and the Font National.  At least someone somewhere was paying attention to what’s really going on in the world:

Press Release Marine Le Pen, President of the National Front

Marine Le Pen strongly condemns the opening date of negotiations on a free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union.  [The Future Madame President has articulated her position forcefully, my translation]:
“The free trade agreement is inappropriate [“incompetent], above all in the midst of an economic and social crisis.  This agreement will exclusively benefit  the United States and its multinational corporations, while our farmers, our workers, our employees and our defense industry will be delivered into the wildest and most radical law of the jungle.  Serious health problems will also arise when the well-known dangerous methods of the American food industry result in strong pressure in this country to accept American GMOs.

The agitated distress of the French government in recent days following revelations of American espionage has not slowed the original schedule [for implementation of this agreement], which shows the [French government’s] total abandonment of the sovereignty of our country for the [hypothetical and supposed] benefit of the European Union. By supporting this agreement, the French [socialist] government hand-in-hand with the UMP [Union for a Popular Movement, = Rally for the Republic, Neo-Gaulist, supposedly conservative + French Democratic Union*] party betrays the interests of the French economy and our workers putting oil on the already devastating fire of unfettered globalization.

The French government must remove its hand [from this fire] by putting an immediate veto the agreement.  No opening of negotiations is justified.
Instead, France must return to a patriotic and self-preservative [protectionist  economic model. This implies [that France must] further control our economic and financial boundaries to face unfair international competition rather than open [ourselves to such things] even wider. Globalization should not be amplified or encourage but controlled and regulated.

(This is my personal free-hand translation, July 21, 2013, of the statement pubished ten days ago at) http://www.frontnational.com/2013/07/ouverture-des-negociations-sur-laccord-de-libre-echange-etats-unisue-hollande-et-lump-mettent-de-lhuile-sur-le-feu-de-la-mondialisation-sauvage/ (all [brackets] included above are clarifications inserted by CEL/Kalel, who takes sole responsibility for any and all errors)

Communiqués / 8 juillet 2013 / Mots-clefs : /

Communiqué de Presse de Marine Le Pen, Présidente du Front National

Marine Le Pen condamne fermement l’ouverture ce jour des négociations sur un accord de libre-échange entre les Etats-Unis et l’Union européenne.
L’accord de libre-échange est une ineptie, surtout en pleine crise économique et sociale ; il se fera au bénéfice exclusif des Etats-Unis et de leurs multinationales, alors que nos paysans, nos ouvriers, nos salariés et notre industrie de défense seront livrés à la loi de la jungle la plus radicale. De sérieuses questions sanitaires se poseront également, quand on sait les méthodes dangereuses de l’industrie agroalimentaire américaine et les pressions très fortes de ce pays en faveur des OGM.

L’agitation du gouvernement français ces derniers jours suite aux révélations sur l’espionnage américain n’aura pas fait bouger d’un iota le calendrier initial, ce qui démontre la perte totale et consentie de souveraineté de notre pays au bénéfice de l’Union européenne. En soutenant cet accord, le gouvernement français main dans la main avec l’UMP trahit les intérêts de l’économie française et de nos travailleurs en mettant de l’huile sur le feu déjà ravageur de la mondialisation sauvage.

Le gouvernement français doit retrouver la main en mettant immédiatement son veto sur cet accord. Aucune ouverture de négociation ne se justifie.
Au contraire, la France doit s’engager dans un modèle économique patriote et protecteur, de rebond. Ce qui suppose de maîtriser davantage nos frontières économiques et financières face à la concurrence internationale déloyale plutôt que de les ouvrir plus grand encore. La mondialisation ne doit pas être exacerbée mais maîtrisée et régulée. 

Albert Pike: Lawyer, Brigadier General Mason & Spiritual Leader of the South

Despite my great fortune in education and work to have worked and studied under some very great men, including the late Harvard professors Gordon Randolph Willey and Calvert Watkins, as well as the very much alive Federal Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Michael W. McConnell, and Kenneth L. Ryskamp, no man ever influenced my mind and intellectual growth more than my grandfather, Alphonse Bernhard Meyer, who died when I was not quite 20, on the Monday before Mardi Gras, on February 18, 1980.  

Among my grandfather’s most treasured possessions were an autographed set of the works of Albert Pike inherited from his own father Herbert Bernhard Meyer.  Another member of the Meyer family, Elard Hugo Meyer had written extensively on comparative mythology, in particular famous for preparing and updating the Fourth Edition of Jacob Grimm’s Deustsche Mythologie and later for his own magna opera Indogermanische Mythen, Die Eddische Kosmogonie, Die Mythologie der Germanen.  My grandfather himself, although he had formally studied only biology and chemistry, leading to his lifetime commitment to the greater health, safety, and technology of the United States Armed Forces, was a great student of comparative religion and literature himself, keeping shelves of  heavily worn books of Arabic, Egyptian, Gnostic, Heretical (Eastern) Christian, Persian, Sufi, Zoroastrian, Vedic, and Hindic mysticism and literature.  

But my grandfather explained his interests by repeatedly asserting that the study of comparative religion was only the road back to understanding of our own lives, our own truths, and above-all the meaning of death and of our lives in the hereafter, and he connected all of these to doing good works and making contributions to the lives of the living on earth.  In this my grandfather thought that no one had ever contributed more to his own understanding than the writings of Albert Pike.  My grandfather had achieved 33rd degree masonry at the early age of 30, in the same year he had chaired the first $1,000,000 fundraising campaign in the history the Dallas YMCA (his last campaign, in 1979, netted the Y $10,000,000).  

Like Elard Hugo Meyer, Pike had also written on Indo-Aryan Deities and Worship as Contained in the Rig-Veda as well as the Lectures of the Arya and above all, his multiple editions of Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite Freemasonry and Morals and Dogma of the First Three Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite Freemasonry in addition to The Meaning of Masonry and Points within the Circle.  Pike’s and Meyer’s writings coincided in bringing together the concepts of Ancient Learning and Language for Modern Morality and Virtue.   Albert Pike was often said to be one of the founding commanders of the Ku Klux Klan and its “Chief Judicial Officer” just as Hugo Meyer was said to be one of the spiritual forefathers of the Artaman League, the writings of Herman Wirth, and Himmler’s Ahnenerbe.  Others say that Albert Pike was somehow connected to the development of international banking and the Federal Reserve, but this appears to be related only to some of his extremely early writings as an Arkansas Lawyer and Court officer.

Although Albert Pike was born in Boston, lived in New Orleans and New York City, and died and was buried in Washington, where he is the only Confederate General commemorated by a statue, Pike spent much of his life in Arkansas, where he is remembered as the founder of the first legal reports (recording the deliberations and decisions of judges to establish precedent and common law) and the first form books to guide practice in this state known to so many only as the gap along I-40 & I-30 between Tennessee and Arkansas, connected by the lives and military-political careers of both Governor-General-President-Governor Sam Houston and Representative & legendary Alamo Hero Davy Crockett, among so many others.

Albert Pike (1809–1891)
Albert Pike was a lawyer who played a major role in the development of the early courts of Arkansas and played an active role in the state’s politics prior to the Civil War. He also was a central figure in the development of Masonry in the state and later became a national leader of that organization. During the Civil War, he commanded the Confederacy’s Indian Territory, raising troops there and exercising field command in one battle. He also was a talented poet and writer.

Albert Pike was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 29, 1809. He was one of the six children of Benjamin Pike, a cobbler, and Sarah Andrews. He attended public schools in Byfield, Newburyport, and Framingham, Massachusetts. His received an education that provided him with a background in classical and contemporary literature and in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. He passed the examination required for entry into Harvard when he was sixteen. He was unable to pay the tuition at Harvard, however, and began to teach, working at schools in Newburyport and nearby Gloucester and Fairhaven.

He began to write poetry as a young man, which he continued to do for the rest of his life. When he was twenty-three, he published his first poem, “Hymns to the Gods.” Subsequent poems appeared in contemporary literary journals such asBlackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine and local newspapers. His first collection of poetry, Prose Sketches and Poems Written in the Western Country, appeared in 1834. He later gathered many of his poems and republished them in Hymns to the Gods and Other Poems (1872). After his death these appeared again in Gen. Albert Pike’s Poems (1900) and Lyrics and Love Songs(1916).

Pike left Massachusetts for Santa Fe, in what was then Mexico, in 1831, one of many at the time attracted to the developing West. From Santa Fe, he joined in an expedition into the lands around the headwaters of the Arkansas and Red rivers. Somewhere along the route, he left the expedition and walked to Fort Smith (Sebastian County). He taught there in rural schools for a short time, but his literary skills early involved him in Arkansas politics. In 1833, he published in local newspapers letters in support of Robert Crittenden’s candidacy for territorial delegate to Congress. The anonymous letters, signed “Casca” after one of the Roman politicians who assassinated Julius Caesar, were considered very persuasive and secured for him a statewide reputation as a writer. They also attracted the attention of Charles Bertrand, owner of the Whig Party’s Arkansas Advocate, who invited Pike to Little Rock (Pulaski County) to work as the paper’s editor. Pike accepted the job and moved to the capital city. While working for the Advocate, Pike published a series of stories and poems about his adventures in New Mexico, the material later published in his Prose Stories and Poems Written in the Western Country.

In addition to editing the newspaper, Pike secured additional work in Little Rock as a clerk in the legislature. He married Mary Ann Hamilton on October 10, 1834. The couple had six children. Hamilton brought to the marriage considerable financial resources, and she helped Pike purchase an interest in the Advocate from Charles Bertram in 1834. The next year, he became its sole proprietor. Pike studied law while editing the newspaper, ultimately passing the Arkansas Bar exam in either 1836 or 1837. In the latter year, he sold the newspaper and devoted his time to the law. He demonstrated considerable legal prowess early and represented clients in courts at every level, including the United States Supreme Court, which he received permission to practice before in 1849.

Pike developed a lucrative law practice, and his clients included many of the tribes in Indian Territory. Among his clients at this time were the Creek (Muscogee) and Choctaw, whom he represented in a case against the U.S. government that secured payment for lands taken in the Treaty of Fort Jackson in 1814. Pike learned several Native American dialects while working as their attorney.

From 1836 to 1844, Pike was the first reporter of the Arkansas Supreme Court, charged with writing notes on the relevant points in court decisions, then publishing and indexing the court’s opinions. In 1842, he published the Arkansas Form Book, a tool for lawyers providing models for the different kinds of motions to be filed in the state’s courts. His reputation as an attorney also secured him the appointment of receiver for the failed Arkansas State Bank in 1840. As receiver, he attempted to collect the debts owed to that institution. At the same time, the fees he received for this work were lucrative and secured his fortune.

An ambitious public figure, Pike joined others in 1845 in supporting actions against Mexico, what became the Mexican War. He helped raise the Little Rock Guards, a company incorporated into the Arkansas cavalry regiment of Colonel Archibald Yell, and served as its captain. Pike concluded early on that the senior officers of his regiment were incompetent, and he shared his observations with the people back in Arkansas through letters to the newspapers. Following the Battle of Buena Vista, he leveled particularly harsh criticism against Lieutenant Colonel John Selden Roane. After the publication of a particularly vitriolic letter by Pike in the Arkansas Gazette, Roane demanded that Pike apologize or “give him satisfaction.” Pike refused to apologize, and the two fought a duel near Fort Smith on a sand bank in the Arkansas River. In the exchange of fire, neither hit his antagonist, and the two were persuaded to halt the duel, with honor satisfied.

Returning from Mexico, Pike reestablished his law practice. He promoted the construction of a transcontinental railroad from New Orleans to the Pacific coast, writing numerous newspaper essays urging support for this project. He moved to New Orleans in 1853 to further his railroad activities, although he also continued to practice law. He translated French legal volumes into English while preparing to pass the local bar exam for Louisiana. Ultimately, he successfully obtained a charter from the Louisiana legislature for one of his railroad projects. He returned to Little Rock in 1857.

In the years immediately following the Mexican War, Pike’s concern with the developing sectional crisis brought on by the issue of slavery became apparent. He had long been a Whig, but the Whig Party repeatedly refused to address the slavery issue. That failure and Pike’s own anti-Catholicism led him to join the Know-Nothing Party upon its creation. In 1856, he attended the new party’s national convention, but he found it equally reluctant to adopt a strong pro-slavery platform. He joined other Southern delegates in walking out of the convention. Pike believed in the idea of state’s rights and considered secession constitutional. He philosophically supported secession, demonstrating his position in 1861 when he published a pamphlet titled State or Province, Bond or Free?

In 1861, the Arkansas state convention named Pike its commissioner to Indian Territory and authorized him to negotiate treaties with the various tribes. As a result of his experience there, the Confederate War Department appointed him a brigadier general in the Confederate army in August 1861 and assigned him to the Department of the Indian Territory. Pike assisted the tribes that supported the Confederacy in raising regiments. He believed that these units would be critical to protecting the territory from Union incursions, but his belief that the Indian units should be kept in Indian Territory brought him into early conflict with his superiors. In the spring of 1862, General Earl Van Dorn ordered him to bring his 2,500 Indian troops into northwestern Arkansas. Despite his opposition to the move, Pike obeyed, and his Indian force of about 900 men joined Confederate forces in northwest Arkansas. On March 7–8, 1862, they participated in the Battle of Pea Ridge (a.k.a. Elkhorn Tavern), led by Pike. Pike proved a poor leader, and he failed to keep his force engaged with the enemy or in check. Charges circulated widely that the men had stopped their advance to take scalps. After the battle, Pike and his men returned to Indian Territory.

Opposition to Confederate policy over Indian Territory would continue to be a source of conflict between Pike and his superiors. Unhappy with Pike, in the summer of 1862, General Thomas C. Hindman, commander of Confederate forces in Arkansas, attempted to extend his authority over the territory. Pike responded by issuing a circular that refused to surrender control and charged Hindman with trying to replace constitutional government with despotism. Ultimately, the dispute between the two went to Confederate authorities at Richmond. The authorities decided in favor of Hindman and reprimanded Pike. On July 12, Pike resigned from his position in protest. With his resignation, Pike retired to Greasy Cove (Montgomery County). He was appointed as a judge of the state Supreme Court in 1864, but little is known of his activities on the court.

At the end of the Civil War, Pike moved to New York City, then for a short time to Canada. After receiving an amnesty from President Andrew Johnson on August 30, 1865, he returned for a time to Arkansas and resumed the practice of law. In 1867, he moved to Memphis, Tennessee, and entered a new law partnership with General Charles W. Adams. He also edited theMemphis Appeal. He may have become involved in the organization of the Ku Klux Klan at this time, although this is not certain. He moved to Washington DC in 1870. There, he engaged for a time in politics, editing The Patriot, a Democraticnewspaper, from 1868 to 1870. He also practiced law in partnership with Robert W. Johnson, former U.S. senator, until 1880. Although less interested in Arkansas affairs, one of his last major roles in the state would be his support to the Grant administration of Elisha Baxter’s claims for the governorship in 1874.

After he ceased practicing law, Pike’s real interest was the Masonic Lodge. He had become a Mason in 1850 and participated in the creation of the Masonic St. Johns’ College in Little Rock that same year. In 1851, he helped to form the Grand Chapter of Arkansas and was its Grand High Priest from 1853 to 1854. In 1853, he also associated with the Scottish Rite of Masons and rose rapidly in the organization. In 1859, he was elected grand commander of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, the administrative district for all parts of the country except for the fifteen states east of the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio, and held that post until his death. After the war, he devoted much of his time to rewriting the rituals of the Scottish Rite Masons. For years, his Morals and Dogma (1871), still in print, was distributed to members of the Rite. Over his career, he published numerous other works on the order, including Meaning of Masonry, Book of the Words, and The Point Within the Circle. As he aged, he also became interested in spiritualism, particularly Indian thought, and its relationship to Masonry. Late in life, he learned Sanskrit and translated various literary works written in that language. As a result of his work in this area, he published Indo-Aryan Deities and Worship as Contained in the Rig-Veda.

Pike died at the Scottish Rite Temple in Washington DC on April 2, 1891. He was buried in Oak Hill Cemetery there. On December 29, 1944, the anniversary of his birth, his body was removed from Oak Hill Cemetery and placed in a crypt in the temple.

Pike was much honored after his death. His Masonic brothers erected a statute to him in 1901 in Washington DC, making him the only former Confederate general to have a monument there. Authorities also named the first highway between Hot Springs (Garland County) and Colorado Springs, Colorado, the Albert Pike Highway. The Albert Pike Memorial Temple in Little Rock bears his name, and his Little Rock home remains standing. After renovation, the home opened as the Arkansas Arts Center’s Decorative Arts Museum in March 1985. In 2004, it became the Arts Center Community Gallery, a multi-purpose gallery in which local and regional art is shown.

For additional information:
Albert Pike Letters and Documents. Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Allsopp, Frederick William. Albert Pike: A Biography. Little Rock: Parke-Harper, 1928.

Baker, Virgil L. “Albert Pike: Citizen Speechmaker of Arkansas.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 10 (Summer 1951): 138–156.

Brown, Walter L. A Life of Albert Pike. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1997.Duncan, Robert Lipscomb. Reluctant General: The Life and Times of Albert Pike. New York: Dutton, 1961.

Keller, Mark, and Thomas A. Besler Jr. “Albert Pike’s Contributions to the Spirit of the Times, Including His ‘Letter from the Far, Far West’.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 37 (Winter 1978): 318–353.

Carl H. Moneyhon
University of Arkansas at Little Rock

This entry, originally published in Arkansas Biography: A Collection of Notable Lives, appears in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture in an altered form. Arkansas Biography is available from the University of Arkansas Press.

Related Butler Center Lesson Plans:
Arkansas Civil War Drama (Grades 7-12)Arkansas Poetry Connection (Grades 7-12)Who’s Who in Arkansas (Grades 5-8)Last Updated 8/2/2012

About this Entry: Contact the Encyclopedia / Submit a Comment / Submit a Narrative

 

in the late 19th Century and his interests were passed on to his American cousins.

Yea, Verily, Verily, I say unto you—Not all who Wander are Lost….

It's All I REALLY miss about Living in Lago Vista, though

I miss the raccoons who used to gather on my front and upper decks in Lago Vista, Texas.  This is a hot summer, this summer of 2013 but I guess they have survived hotter.  Still, I hope they are doing OK while I’m here in New Orleans, not providing the copious bags of Wysong Canine Growth Food, supplemented with grapes and watermelon, carrots, and huge “kiddie” pools for drinking and splashing around in.  I would often have over 30 raccoons per might visiting my upper and lower decked and sometimes almost 100.  They would send the word out through their “coonie” networks and bring in friends and relations from everywhere in Lago Vista, Point Venture, and the Travis Peak (Balcones) National Wildlife Preserve northwest of town. So raccoons are clearly NOT solitary animals but they socially communicate information concerning abundant or attractive food supplies through networks which can reach farther and farther away from the source.  Or at least, that is my hypothesis based on observation in Lago Vista, NW Travis County, Texas.  And in general, Raccoons are marvels of adaptation.  I have watched photographed them in the heart of Beverly Hills 1 block south of Wilshire and 2 blocks east of Rodeo Drive and inside Harvard Yard in front of Lamont and Widener Libraries in Cambridge, Mass.  A long time ago, back in the 1980s, Massachusetts had a promotion featuring one of their “Bergmann’s Rule-Effect” (larger mammals in colder climates) Gigantic Raccoons featuring on various signs, posters, and even bumper stickers and keychains saying “From Massachusetts with Love”

If anyone has one of those old Massachusetts Raccoon posters, mugs, or promotions, I would be interested in purchase or exchange for other memorabilia…..