Send reports, ask questions, gripe, attack, and so on:
Really, how could you have missed this story.
Well, Jeff, thanks to you I have not missed it. At least not by more than a couple of days.
I’m not sure how relevant the story is to my little project here, other than that it shares the term “strike”. But I’m going to look into it further when I get the chance. And I do appreciate your bringing it to my attention. That’s the second little item of professional courtesy I have received this week; it’s nice to know the quaint practice still has some vitality.
Interesting text found with much effort…..wondering what you think about this ????
LAWYERS; YOU HAVE LAWYERS!
Oh my, yes you do! However, since you ones fail
to know anything about your Constitution—I get to
lay another heavy trip on you. How many
Amendments do you have? Do you know that it is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A LAWYER TO BE
ELECTED TO CONGRESS? WHAT DOES YOUR
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT SAY? Well, NOW it
reads: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their
Ah, but not so. THAT WAS THE 14TH
AMENDMENT I JUST CITED. THE ORIGINAL
13TH AMENDMENT READS AS FOLLOWS:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept,
claim, receive, or retain any TITLE OF NOBILITY or
HONOUR, or shall, without the consent of Congress,
accept and retain any present, pension, office, or
emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor,
king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease
to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be
incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under
them, or either of them.”
Thank you, David Dodge, Researcher and Alfred
Adask, Editor, AntiShyster, August, 1991:
These ones also give you a special version of the
pledge of allegiance you might consider—for it says
what the original MEANT and ceased to be accepted:
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United
States of America, and to the Republic that honors that
Constitution, one nation, under God, with Liberty and
Justice for all.
MISSING 13TH AMENDMENT
“TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”
In the winter of 1983, archival research expert
David Dodge, and former Baltimore police
investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence
of government corruption in public records stored in
the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance
[H: ?—I think not!], they discovered the library’s
oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United
States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to
see this document included a 13th Amendment that no
longer appears on current copies of the Constitution.
Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language
and historical context, they realized the principle intent
of this “missing” 13th Amendment WAS TO
PROHIBIT LAWYERS FROM SERVING IN
So began a seven-year, nationwide search for the
truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional
puzzle in American history—the unlawful REMOVAL
OF A RATIFIED Amendment from the Constitution
of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn
have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution
with the “missing” 13th Amendment printed in at least
eighteen separate publications by ten different states
and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.
In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the
evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed
been LAWFULLY RATIFIED by the state of Virginia
and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the
American Constitution. The evidence is correct and
no errors are found—a 13th Amendment restricting
lawyers from serving in government was ratified in
1819 and REMOVED from your Constitution during
the tumult of the Civil War—deliberately!
Since the Amendment was never LAWFULLY
REPEALED, IT IS STILL THE LAW TODAY!
Wouldn’t you now guess that the implications are
The story of this “missing” Amendment is
complex and at times confusing because the political
issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution
were different from your own. However, there are
essentially two issues: What does the Amendment
mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Let’s look
first at the “meaning”.
The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States reads as above cited.
At first reading, the meaning of this 13th
Amendment (also called the “title of nobility”
Amendment) seems a bit obscure, unimportant. The
references to “nobility”, “honour”, “emperor”, “king”,
and “prince” lead you to dismiss this amendment as a
petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the
British monarchy. But in your modern world of Lady
Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so
archaic and quaint that the Amendment can be
ignored. NOT SO!
Consider some real hard evidence of its historical
significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited
in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation
(1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of
the United States (1788); Second, although already
prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of
nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in
1810, and was finally ratified in 1819. Clearly the
founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of
nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them
would FORFEIT THEIR CITIZENSHIP. (How about
Sir Schwarzkopf? and Sir Dr. Kissinger?) Since the
government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times
over four decades, and went through the amending
process (even though “titles of nobility” were already
prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the
Amendment carried much more significance for your
founding fathers than is readily apparent to you today.
To understand the meaning of this “missing” 13th
Amendment, you must understand its historical
context—the era surrounding the American Revolution
(which of course, you are not taught).
You tend to regard the notion of “Democracy” as
benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at
the time of the American Revolution, King George III
and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy
as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit
as dangerously radical as Communism. [H: So, the
obvious solution was to turn Democracy and
Communism into a method of creating what they
wanted in the first place, a Monarchy-Dictatorship,
while calling it nice labels.] Just as the 1917
Communist Revolution in Russia [H: financed by you
nice people’s bankers just as the so-called Soviet
Revolution this week is sponsored and financed by the
same nice people in your behalf] spawned other
revolutions around the world, the American
Revolution provided an example and incentive for
people all over the world to overthrow their European
monarchies—or so it was interpreted.
Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the
Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of your
existence threatened the monarchies. The United
States stood as a heroic role model for other nations
that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive
monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and
the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part
encouraged by the American Revolution. Though you
stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the
monarchies regarded the United States as a political
“typhoid Mary”, the principle source of radical
democracy that was destroying monarchies around the
The monarchies must have realized that if the
principle source of that infection could be destroyed,
the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and
the monarchies would be saved.
Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to
destroy or subvert the American system of
government. Knowing they couldn’t destroy you
militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of
political subversion, employing spies and secret agents
skilled in bribery and legal deception—it was, perhaps,
the first “cold war”. Since governments run on
money, politicians run FOR money, and money is the
usual enticement to commit treason, much of the
monarchy’s counter-revolutionary efforts emanated
from English banks.
DON’T BANK ON IT
The essence of banking was once explained by Sir
Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of
England. I have given this before but it is such a
dandy, I shall repeat it: “The modern banking system
manufactures money out of nothing. The process is
perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand
that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in
inequity and born in sin … Bankers own the earth.
Take it away from them but leave them the power to
create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will
create enough money to buy it back again …. Take
this great power away from them and all great fortunes
like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear,
for then this would be a better and happier world to
Page 6 REVIEW JANUARY 10, 2007
live in …. But, if you want to continue to be the
slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own
slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and
One of the past great abuses of your banking
system caused the depression of the 1930s. Today’s
abuses are causing another and more massive
depression than the world has ever known. Current
S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going
relationships between banks, LAWYERS, politicians,
and government agencies (look at the current BCCI
and BNL scandals running from high government
officers to the Presidency itself involved in totally
criminal activities) such as the Federal Reserve, the
FDIC, and even the CIA. These scandals are the
direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of
bankers and lawyers using their influence and money
to corrupt the political process and rob the public.
(Think you’re not being robbed? Guess who’s going
to pay the bill for the excesses of these bailouts?) As
Oberli and Dharma track further and deeper into
involved parties attached to this present property scam/
scandal—they are finding other financial institutions
involved and, as named in the investigation, find
Salomon Brothers and other financial institutions who are
kaput and haven’t even been made public—no wonder
the FDIC and RTC are asking additional BILLIONS.
The systematic robbery of productive individuals
by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent
phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that
predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America
despite early colonial prohibitions. (Remember the
Protocols of Zion? Try the issue of Oct. 1920: No. 13:
“We have already established our own men in all
important positions. We must endeavor to provide the
Goyim (non-Jews and including Judeans/Hebrews)
with LAWYERS and doctors; the LAWYERS are au
courant with all interest ….”, and 14: “But above all
let us monopolize Education. By this means we
spread ideas that are useful to us, and shape the
children’s brains as suits us.” And then, 15: “If one
of our people should unhappily fall into the hands of
justice amongst the Christians, we must rush to help
him; find as many WITNESSES AS HE NEEDS TO
SAVE HIM FROM HIS JUDGES—UNTIL WE
BECOME JUDGES OURSELVES!”
It is about time to again publish the Protocols,
friends, but I have quite a bit of additional updating to
do prior to that so let us hold up herein and not get
sidetracked from the “missing” 13th Amendment—it is
all tied in together, as you might have guessed by
now. You may as well consider that there is total
integration of the PROTOCOLS OF ZION, the
CREMIEUX MANIFESTO and the epistle emanating
from the “PRINCE OF THE JEWS”. Isn’t it
interesting that these were published in a Rothschild
magazine? The “Prince of the Jews” was done in
1489 A.D. But then, who would ever think, most
especially Gentiles, of connecting these things with
other documents emanating from Jewry, or with
modern happenings? So be it!
When the first United States Bank was chartered
by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks
in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by
law in most states because many of the early settlers
were all too familiar with the practices of the
European goldsmith banks.
Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store
client’s gold. In exchange for the deposited gold,
customers were issued notes (paper money) which
were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers
quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue “extra”
notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the
“extra” notes enriched the bankers by allowing them
to buy property with notes for gold that they did not
own, gold that did not even exist.
Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed
too much paper money, found themselves overleveraged,
and caused a “run on the bank”. If the
bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the
paper money became worthless and common citizens
left holding the paper were ruined. Although overleveraged
bankers were sometimes hung, the bankers
continued printing extra money to increase their
fortunes at the expense of the productive members of
society. (The practice continues to this day and offers
“sweetheart” loans to bank insiders, and even provides
the foundation for deficit spending and your federal
government’s unbridled growth.)
If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith
bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their
memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized
the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount
not to exceed $200,000,000. The states issued another
$200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of
the paper money fell so low that they were soon
traded on speculation from 500 to 1000 paper bills for
It’s then suggested that your Constitution’s
prohibition against a paper economy—“No State shall
… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender
in Payment of Debts”—was a tool of the wealthy to be
worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in
a “paper” economy can money reproduce itself and
increase the claims of the wealthy at the expense of
“Paper money”, said Pelatiah Webster, “polluted
the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of
oppression, corrupted the justice of our public
administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands
who had confidence in it, enervated the trade,
husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went
far to destroy the morality of our people.”
Be patient—it may “seem” that I am not on the
same subject but I am.
A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies
and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the
According to the Tennessee Laws 1715-1820, vol
II, p.774, in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States
agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George
III, as reparations for the American Revolution
(interesting?). The Senate ratified the treaty in secret
session and ordered that it not be published. When
Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published it anyway,
the exposure and resulting public uproar so angered
the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts
(1798) SO FEDERAL JUDGES COULD PROSECUTE
EDITORS AND PUBLISHERS FOR REPORTING
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.
Since you had WON the Revolutionary War, why
would your Senators agree to pay REPARATIONS to
the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000
pounds sterling, eleven years AFTER the war ended?
It just doesn’t seem to make sense does it? Especially
in light of the Senate’s secrecy and later fury over
being exposed, UNLESS YOU ASSUME YOUR
SENATORS HAD BEEN BRIBED TO SERVE THE
BRITISH MONARCHY AND BETRAY THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE—THAT, DEAR ONES, IS
The United States Bank had been opposed by the
Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists
(the pro-monarchy party) won-out in its establishment.
The initial capitalization was $10,000,000—80% of
which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the
bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000
(double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for
both the government and the bankers since they could
lend, and collect interest (usury) on, $10,000,000
THAT DID NOT EXIST.
However, the European bankers outfoxed the
government and by 1796, the government owed the
bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By
1802, your government OWNED NO STOCK IN
THE UNITED STATES BANK.)
The sheer power of the banks and their ability to
influence representative government by economic
manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in
1811, when the people discovered that European
banking interests OWNED 80% OF THE BANK.
Congress, therefore, refused to renew the bank’s charter.
This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by
European investors, which in turn, precipitated an
economic recession, and the War of 1812.
There are other examples of the monarchy’s
efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some
are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed
to the public. There is, for example, a book called 2
VA LAW in the Library of Congress Law Library.
This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section
that reveals a plan to OVERTHROW THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT BY SECRET
AGREEMENTS ENGINEERED BY THE LAWYERS.
THAT, DEAR ONES, IS ONE REASON THAT THE
13TH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED BY
VIRGINIA AND THE NOTIFICATION ‘LOST IN
THE MAIL’. THERE IS NO PUBLIC RECORD OF
THIS BOOK’S EXISTENCE!
Does this sound surprising? Perish the thought of
“surprising”. The Library of Congress has over
349,402 uncatalogued rare books and 13.9 MILLION
UN-CATALOGUED RARE MANUSCRIPTS, LAWS
AND RATIFICATIONS! THERE ARE SECRETS
BURIED IN THAT MASS OF DOCUMENTS EVEN
MORE ASTONISHING THAN A MISSING
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, I CAN WELL
TITLES OF NOBILITY
In seeking to rule the world and destroy the
United States, bankers committed many crimes.
Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion,
and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their
crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career
criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with
the best LAWYERS and JUDGES money could buy.
These alliances, originally forged in Europe
(particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies,
and later into the newly formed United States of
America. Just as with Dharma and Oberli’s legal
case—the adversary lawyer, Mr. Horn, simply
removes any papers from the file which can aid and
assist the defendants! When discovered, he then
threatens all sorts of heinous consequences if his trick
is revealed. What is this man’s name? I thought you
would never ask: It is spelled STEVEN HORN. ONE
OF HIS THREATS IS TO “GET THEM” IF THIS
INCIDENT IS REVEALED IN ANY OF THIS SOCALLED
“DHARMA’S” WRITINGS. WELL, OLD
BUDDY—THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT
I DO SUGGEST THAT MR. HORN DOES!
Remember the part of the Protocols about
providing witnesses sufficient to win your case? Well,
he did that too—but he outsmarted himself. The first
hearing came with sufficient “provided” witnesses to
swamp the court with liars. But, he had presented a
backup case petition which caused the Judge to
JANUARY 10, 2007 CONTACT: PHOENIX JOURNAL REVIEW Page 7
disallow further proceedings at that time. So, along
with the presentation of the City Clerk and City
Treasurer as defendant’s witnesses, the “liars” did
panic and disappear. How handy, though, our
attorneys have turned up one or two of them and we
shall see how well they like lying NOW.
Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances
forged in Europe generated wealth and, ultimately,
respectability. Like any modern unit of organized
crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be
admired as “legitimate businessmen”. As their
criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the
British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting
them “TITLES OF NOBILITY”.
Historically, the British peerage system referred to
knights as “Squires” and to those who bore the
knight’s shields as “Esquires”. (Isn’t this fun?) As
lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to
more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier
(and far more profitable) than the sword, and the
clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers)
came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title
was “Esquire” (used, even today, by lawyers!).
INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys
but most held no “title of nobility” or “honor”. There
was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the
position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge;
a citizen’s “counsel of choice” was not restricted to a
lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations.
The only organization that certified lawyers was the
International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the
King of England, headquartered in London, and closely
associated with the international banking system.
Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank
“ESQUIRE”—A “TITLE OF NOBILITY”!
“Esquire” was the principle title of nobility which
the 13th Amendment sought to PROHIBIT from the
United States. Why? Because the loyalty of
“Esquire” lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers
with an “Esquire” behind their names were agents of
the monarchy, members of an organization whose
principle purposes were political, not economic, and
regarded with the same wariness that some people
today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to
prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other
agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating
in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify
a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents
of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence
the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the U.S.
Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a “title of
nobility” amendment that specified a penalty (loss of
citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810.
The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to
prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties
to foreign governments and bankers from voting,
holding public office, or using their skills to subvert
The missing Amendment is referred to as the “title
of nobility” Amendment, but the second prohibition
against “honour” (honor), may be more significant.
The archaic definition of “honor” (as used when
the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone
“obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over
another”. A contemporary example of an “honor”
granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being
a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the
attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers CAN NOT.
By prohibiting “honors”, the missing Amendment
prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant
some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or
exercise political power. Therefore, the second
meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment is to ensure
political equality among all American citizens, by
prohibiting anyone, EVEN GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS, from claiming or exercising a special
privilege or power (an “honor”) over other citizens.
This interpretation is quite true, little ones, and
would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment.
Why? Because, while “titles of nobility” may no
longer apply in today’s political system, the concept of
“honor” remains relevant.
For example, anyone who had a specific
“immunity” from lawsuits which were not afforded to
all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an
“honor” and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or
hold public office. Think of the “immunities” from
lawsuits that your judges, lawyers, politicians, and
bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example,
think of all the “special interest” legislation your
government passes: “special interests” are simply
euphemisms for “special privileges” (honors).
If the missing 13th Amendment were to be
restored, “special interests” and “immunities” would
be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against
“honors” (privileges) would compel the entire
government to operate under the same laws as the
citizens of your nation. Without their current personal
immunities (honors), your judges and IRS agents
would be unable to abuse common citizens without
fear of legal liability. If the 13th Amendment were
restored, your entire government would have to
conduct itself according to the same standards of
decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the
nation. If this Amendment and the term “honor” were
applied today, your government’s ability to
systematically coerce and abuse the public would be
all but eliminated. Just IMAGINE!
CAN YOU IMAGINE A GOVERNMENT
WITHOUT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OR
IMMUNITIES? How could you even describe it? It
would be almost like a government—OF THE
PEOPLE—BY THE PEOPLE—AND FOR THE
PEOPLE! COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THAT THE
FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED IT BE THAT
WAY? IMAGINE: A GOVERNMENT WHOSE
MEMBERS WERE TRULY ACCOUNTABLE TO
THE PUBLIC; A GOVERNMENT THAT COULD
NOT SYSTEMATICALLY EXPLOIT ITS OWN
It’s unheard of for it got deliberately undone
before it could be done—it has never been done
before—and you thought a poor soul called Benedict
Arnold was a traitor! You have never had a
Constitutional government as intended—not ever in
the entire history of the world!!!
So here comes the argument: Senator George
Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede
this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in
1810. However, they explain that there were
seventeen states when Congress proposed the “title of
nobility” Amendment; that ratification required the
support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states
supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The
Government Printing Office hops on the bandwagon to
agree; it currently prints copies of the
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES which
include the “title of nobility” Amendment as
Even if this 13th Amendment was never ratified,
even if research would be flawed and only twelve
states voted to ratify the Amendment—wouldn’t the
possibility be wondrous to imagine? So what am I
saying? Am I saying that it was a dream within one
vote of historical utopia? No! I am saying that it
After a break we shall continue to prove it. And,
dear ones of America and ones running for office with
overwhelming odds against “housecleaning”—here are
your tools to do the sweeping! NOW DO YOU SEE
THE VALUE OF A GOOD OLD SPACE CADET
WITH X-RAY VISION? IT SURELY DOESN’T
SURPRISE ANY OF YOU THAT THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WOULD “GET
LOST”? SO BE IT.
French: Long time no see. Did you follow the Casey Anthony saga? I’m recommending that she leave the country now. In fact I think she should go to France, where they seem to have a healthy skepticism of the US legal system.
Hi Atticus, I didn’t alas follow the saga….need to catch up on my reading…but yeah send her over…we’re gonna get DS of K back from the US, smelling like a rose and probably running for the presidency on the “caviar” left side…eating truffe pasta dishes at 100 bucks the plate oblige…the sect will never cease to amaze me….the Roman Empire is back in all its splendor..and so is the end of mash potatoes for us, soon. But sure, the French are completely disconnected with reality, so what the heck…
on the subject I sent to you…what is your feeling on those writings ? did you read the fabulous library of George Mercier (invisible contracts….and Agony and ecstasy (2500 pages) ?
I’m sorry, French. What does George Mercier have to do with anything around here?
Oh, Mercier ? has to do with many interesting things regarding law issues…not that it concerns the Casey Anthony saga, I concede… I’ve been reading about civil and maritime law lately and just fell upon his writings….quite interesting I must say. Didn’t want to disturb though.
If you want to read yet another example of the corruption of Tom Moran, read the information at this site. As of today, Tim Herington is still in prision on a false conviction and the ex-wife is dead due to a drug overdose. Corruption at it’s finest.
I’ve been posting this all over the internet and thought you lawyers might have a comment:
Most Americans understand the reasoning behind the Constitutional firewall between Church and State but how many can explain the revolving door between State and Banking? If you answered “Because the Constitution doesn’t contain such a firewall.” you would be correct. This is what I think a Constitutional firewall should look like:
“Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights and priveleges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to; 1 prohibitions against any corporation becoming so large its failure would pose a threat to national security or harm the general economy, 2 prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of government, education, and news media, and 3 provisions for civil and criminal penalties to be paid by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.”
Not quite sure how to respond. There is nothing really wrong with corporations in theory, they are just legal entities with a form of governance that pretty much mirrors every other form of governance: the CEO is roughly equivalent to the president; the Board of Directors is roughly equivalent to the Congress; the shareholders are roughly equivalent to the populace.
The essence of the corporation is this: a mechanism to limit risk, so as to encourage risk taking. This is generally regarded as a good thing.
I don’t know how you could limit their size. I don’t know how you could prohibit them from influencing politicians or anyone else. They are creatures of law so they can be abolished by law, but what good does that do?
They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and no one else. But this does not, contrary to popular conceptions, necessarily entail maximizing profit at all costs, although a corporation should certainly strive to be profitable.
They have also always, in the US, been creatures of state law, not federal.
So I have to say I don’t really know where you’re going with this idea.
“Not quite sure how to respond.”
In plain English.
“ There is nothing really wrong with corporations in theory, they are just legal entities with a form of governance that pretty much mirrors every other form of governance: the CEO is roughly equivalent to the president; the Board of Directors is roughly equivalent to the Congress; the shareholders are roughly equivalent to the populace.”
So you see no conflict of interest in having mirror images of a sovereign nation existing within the pre-existing borders of said sovereign? Not even King George would agree with that idea; Magna Carta or no Magna Carta. What exactly are your requirements for being “really wrong”?
“The essence of the corporation is this: a mechanism to limit risk, so as to encourage risk taking. This is generally regarded as a good thing.”
This is only considered a good thing by those who would escape responsibility and game the system to leverage other people’s money. Risk taking is generally regarded as risky and responsible people avoid it. Responsible people are, however, often deceived by reckless speculators under the guise of limited liability. Risk taking is a double-edged sword and cuts through good as well as bad investments. The People, under Federal jurisdiction, (should) have a right to withhold corporate charters from entities that lack any further value to society.
“I don’t know how you could limit their size.”
I do: write definitive limitations into corporate charters as conditions for their issuance. “Too Big To Fail” would be a good place to start applying litmus tests for banking corporations. Similar litmus tests could be implimented to restrict the monopolistic control of other specific industries. The data is there; we just need to apply it in the public interest and only the US government has the jurisdiction to do it.
“ I don’t know how you could prohibit them from influencing politicians or anyone else.”
I do. RICO already defines “a pattern of abuse” that any jury could interpret.
“They are creatures of law so they can be abolished by law, but what good does that do?”
I didn’t suggest the abolishion of corporations; only that they be held responsible to The People by charters as carefully written as the Constitution itself.
“They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and no one else.”
That is precisely the crux of the current problem , isn’t it.
“But this does not, contrary to popular conceptions, necessarily entail maximizing profit at all costs, although a corporation should certainly strive to be profitable.”
Absolutely. Corporatism hasn’t worked because it’s the antithesis of Capitalism. That’s another subject.
“They have also always, in the US, been creatures of state law, not federal.”
I think we can thank Hamilton for that Constitutional ommission. I don’t see why we have to live with their bad decisions indefinitely however. This 28th Amendment would go a long way toward restoring your faith in the Rule of Law, wouldn’t it?
“So I have to say I don’t really know where you’re going with this idea.”
I think you do. You just wanted to know if I knew where I was going. I’m still not clear on all the details but I’m absolutely sure of the general direction.
I don’t know what “corporatism” is, at least not the way you’re using it. Societies have many sub-groups – partnerships, families, voluntary associations of all kinds – none of which supplant government or are in any way a threat to the public good. Quite the contrary. Corporations are no different on that score.
Limiting risk is not the same thing as being irresponsible. The idea is that people might wish to invest in this or that project but don’t want to bet the farm. That is, they’ll put only so much at risk and not more. It’s a point of law: in a partnership, every partner is personally liable for every partnership expense; in a corporation, the shareholders can lose what they put into it, but if the company goes under the creditors don’t get to come after the shareholders’ houses. Surely if you think about it you can see the sense in that. Almost no one would be willing to take any chance on any unproven idea if failure or miscalculation meant you’d lose everything.
Maybe it would be better if you described just what injurious effects you think corporations have such that they should be constitutionally restricted. I don’t dispute that some corporations have injurious effects, of course. But your claim seems to be that this has something to do with the corporate form itself, or that it’s something inherent in corporations that makes them different from anything else. It isn’t the fiduciary duty to shareholders thing, because partners have fiduciary duties to each other (and no one else) too. But if there’s something else you’re thinking of I’m not aware of it, so maybe try that first and we’ll go from there.
“I don’t know what “corporatism” is, at least not the way you’re using it.”
Corporatism is a new word I had to invent to describe the complex system of collective ownership by which capital is used to manipulate and monopolize markets. It assumes a legitimate public sanction that was never formally granted but operates on the basis of financial leverage to effect favorable legislative advantage over less-capitalized entities through a shadowy network of unofficial corporate representatives and corrupt elected officials. Corporatism ascribes the majority of Congressional legislation to the efforts of corporate lobbyists acting in their own self-interest; as opposed to the People who nominally elected them to serve the common good. To the extent that corporate financing of political candidates largely determines the outcome of public elections, it is assumed the representative thus chosen will favor his contributors over the People in all matters; negating the fundamental principles of a democratic republic. Corporatists would prefer you didn’t use that term. It may never appear in the dictionaries of corporate publishers, but it’s already reached the stage of common usage and can’t be stuffed back into the bottle.
“Societies have many sub-groups – partnerships, families, voluntary associations of all kinds – none of which supplant government or are in any way a threat to the public good. Quite the contrary. Corporations are no different on that score.”
Since you want to lump corporations into a generic pile irrespective to size and nature, let’s round out that list a little further: “partnerships , families,(Koch Bros., Rothschilds, DuPonts, Madoffs) voluntary associations of all kinds (AMA. AARP, ACLU, AFL-CIO, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Socialist Party, OWS, etc etc)” and go out even further to include JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and the other broker/dealers (some of which aren’t even American) and further yet to the incorporation of corporations as embodied by the BIS and IMF. Do you recognize any names in the foregoing that Congress deemed “Too Big To Fail” in that their demise would collapse the entire world-wide economy (and to which The People are now indebted for $trillion$)? Some corporations are very different on that score ! Reductio by generalization is going to get pretty absurdum if we play dumb over some self-evident realities.
“But your claim seems to be that this (injurious effects) has something to do with the corporate form itself,……………….”
My objection is not so much to the form itself, but the terms and conditions under which it is created. The Constitution itself is a charter granted by the (self-proclaimed) sovereign individuals comprising the American colonies and its terms were quite restrictive in regards to how much “sovereignty” The People would relinquish to the resulting “corporation” (USA). A whole lot of thought went into that writing; drawing on the wisdom of philosophers from Socrates to Locke and culminating in the Federalist Papers to shape the most enlightened social contract ever written. Compare that to the founding charter of a commercial bank. Without limitations, a bank can POTENTIALLY grow to own the world just as easily as rich nations have the potential to rule the world. I don’t have as much a problem with Congress’ constitutional potential to rule the world as I have with banks’ potential to own the world because The People ratified the Constitution whereas they did not ratify the banks’ charters; given that both have the potential for unlimited power but only one guarantees a degree of personal sovereignty. Eighteenth century politics saw The Church as a threat to national unity and our Constitution was written to exclude it from participation in the political process, but the potential power of incorporation applied to private business was still relatively unknown (Hamilton might have) and was subsequently left un-addressed in the final document. (Equating Money to Religion might even have the same effect as revoking personhood in this case) European sovereigns also chartered corporations to do their dirty work (privateers) and generate tax revenue (East India Co) but I believe they were successful because the sovereign retained sovereignty over them. We did not. We “merged” with them (The Fed).
“or that it’s something inherent in corporations that makes them different from anything else.”
I think the difference is that of individual human nature vs mob mentality. Did you see the documentary on ordinarily peaceful chimpanzees that would somehow gang-up and go on a killing rampage? I think we still have vestiges of that behavior in our DNA that manifests itself in a milder form as greed. Maybe money is the civilized equivalent of territory. I don’t think we could call it evil; but it doesn’t serve the process of civilization. Is that too far-out?
BTW: I appreciate the dialog. I’m not a lawyer, I’m an inventor, and I’m learning some new thinking here in hopes of solving the world’s problems ;<)
Without limitations, a bank can POTENTIALLY grow to own the world just as easily as rich nations have the potential to rule the world.
But so could an individual. So could a partnership. In any case, this is not a problem, as a practical matter. No one and nothing has ever “ruled the world” or “owned” the world. And even if that was possible, it has nothing to do with corporations as such.
Corporations can be publicly traded or privately held. They can be huge or tiny. There are anti-trust laws regarding corporations – or, significantly, anyone or anything else – that engages in restraint of trade activities or monopoly, although these laws are controversial and probably don’t achieve their desired goals.
I hope it doesn’t sound obtuse but I still don’t understand just what you think constitutional restrictions on corporations are going to accomplish, or what problem you think you are addressing by proposing them. I don’t see anything self evident about any of this.
Corporations are not “shadowy”. They are publicly registered and their ownership and management can be readily ascertained, most of the time anyway. The USA is not a “corporation”, and neither is any state, although municipalities and other public entities can be “incorporated” but this is just for ease of understanding and function.
There are many reasons to object to corruptions of all kinds that you are alluding to, but corporations as some kind of bugaboo aren’t among them.
“…………………………..so could an individual. So could a partnership.”
I’m trying to think of an individual or partnership that even owns a Federal Reserve broker/dealership and I’m coming up with a blank. I can’t think of an individual that even has a toe in the door. Do you know of any?
“In any case, this is not a problem, as a practical matter. No one and nothing has ever “ruled the world” or “owned” the world. And even if that was possible, it has nothing to do with corporations as such.”
If you’ve been following the progress of global banking toward centralization and globalization you can’t help but notice that fewer banks hold more assets than at any time previous and they’re so over-leveraged they feel compelled to own pieces of each other to hedge their risks. You must have heard that the ECB can impose “austerity” on sovereign nations of the EU and that the Federal Reserve is bailing them all out with American debt. Of course you wouldn’t know the exact details unless you could decypher banker-ese as well as you undestand legal-ese but you surely get the gist of it circumstantially don’t you?. The system is so complex now that even the ratings agencies can’t find insolvency while it’s biting their asses. Nevertheless, this handful of banks through which all commerce flows, are members of still another centralized banking system; the IMF. What would you call it when one bank makes the rules for all the other banks? No. World domination hasn’t happened yet . There are still, gee – 20 players left in this game of musical chairs. Let’s wait to see who controls the last bank standing. I’m going to apply for the job as CEO because I want to rule the world.
“Corporations can be publicly traded or privately held. They can be huge or tiny. There are anti-trust laws regarding corporations – or, significantly, anyone or anything else – that engages in restraint of trade activities or monopoly, although these laws are controversial and probably don’t achieve their desired goals.”
When was the last time we saw anti-trust applied to a corporation. They didn’t achieve anything because the defendants had the Constitutional rights of a human person. I think you know that, too.
“ I hope it doesn’t sound obtuse but I still don’t understand just what you think constitutional restrictions on corporations are going to accomplish, or what problem you think you are addressing by proposing them.”
Maybe that’s because you haven’t followed the unfolding exposure of accounting chicanery and outright fraud being practiced by Wall Street corporations, the Fed, and Washington regulators lately. Are you familiar with “regulatory capture”? The Constitutional restrictions I’m proposing would simply impose rules of conduct on institutions for which there is currently no human consequences for the misdeeds of management. If the corporations can’t be punished for crimes then their charters should make it punishable crime, in itself, to violate the terms of a charter. To me, the problem with incorporation by registration is lack of accountability and since all corporations are somewhat unique it follows that their charters would also have to contain certain provisions unique to its circumstances. Certain charters could contain prohibitions against derivative trading for instance. What it would do is prevent a regulation meant for one type of corporation from being applied haphazzardly (in most cases) to smaller corporations and private businesses to which it doesn’t apply, causing undue hardship. I think industry-specific accounting standards could be imposed and random audits permitted. There’s no end to the possibilities for charter restrictions and I’m not saying it would be easy; only that it’s necessary to impose morality on institutions that inately lack it. I know morality can’t be legislated but I think it can be applied specifically to selected industries through charter terms.
I don’t see anything self evident about any of this. Corporations are not “shadowy”. They are publicly registered and their ownership and management can be readily ascertained, most of the time anyway.”
Self evident was probably the wrong phrase; evident-if-you-look-around-a-little might have been more appropriate. And you think Enron and MF Global were isolated instances? Off-shore accounts? Sub-corps? Everything is up-and-up?
The USA is not a “corporation”, and neither is any state, although municipalities and other public entities can be “incorporated” but this is just for ease of understanding and function.”
When collectives incorporate, it’s a corporation; I use it broadly.
“There are many reasons to object to corruptions of all kinds that you are alluding to, but corporations as some kind of bugaboo aren’t among them.”
Again; it’s not about corporations being evil bugaboos, it’s about the terms and conditions under which they’re chartered that I object to. Corruption will be greatly reduced by defining the rules and holding management responsible. As it is, corporate culture breeds corruption. That culture needs special rules not found in criminal law.
Corporations do not have the “constitutional rights of a human person”. They are treated as “persons” in the law for some things and not for others. When that happens it is a legal convention with no greater significance than requiring contracts for land to be in writing in order to be enforceable. There is no “conspiracy” to elevate corporations over persons, and this meme is often trotted out as some kind of moral outrage when it’s nothing of the kind.
“Corporate culture” might be a useful shorthand phrase to describe big American business generally. It is not useful in the slightest for thinking about the things that you are trying to think about: writing laws. It is too vague and too susceptible of varying interpretations depending on someone’s agenda to make someone a criminal over it, to say nothing of altering the constitution of the US.
You’ve alluded to all kinds of “corruption” issues and these are certainly present, and out there. The problem with your thinking is that you have focused on something – “corporations” – that has nothing to do with those issues. I have a post up today that deals with part of the problem, but was the pizza shop owner doing business in the corporate form? It makes no difference whatever. I would just be focusing on the wrong thing to even bring it up.
It so happens that the vast majority of big business in the US is done in the corporate form. There are exceptions: Berkshire Hathaway is a partnership, I believe. But the corporate form is not causally connected to the corruption problems in any identifiable way.
You still have not cited anything inherent in the corporate form that necessarily entails the corruption you complain about.
This is what you are doing: you observe that every time you see a house fire in your town there are firemen there, and you are concluding that therefore the firemen cause the fires. You couldn’t be more far off.
“Corporations do not have the “constitutional rights of a human person”. They are treated as “persons” in the law for some things and not for others. When that happens it is a legal convention with no greater significance than requiring contracts for land to be in writing in order to be enforceable.”
But you agree that corporations have some constitutional rights and others that are selectively enforced, yes?
“There is no “conspiracy” to elevate corporations over persons, and this meme is often trotted out as some kind of moral outrage when it’s nothing of the kind.”
I’ve been kicked off PrisonPlanet and DailyBell blogs for attacking their conspiracy theories. NO; I am not a conspiracist. I blame it all on a faulty legal system that supports an equally flawed economic system. I doubt that very many in either specialty understand their relationship to the other. I get into these debates with economists, bankers, traders, judges, academics, historians, philosophers, and 31st degree Illuminatti wazoos whose world-views almost always reflect their unique perspective. Being a retired entrepreneur, with no intellectual territory to defend nor dog in the hunt, my purpose here is to diagram the working parts and determine where they might wear out; or rub. Call mine a logical outrage.
“”Corporate culture” might be a useful shorthand phrase to describe big American business generally.”
I like it.
“It is not useful in the slightest for thinking about the things that you are trying to think about: writing laws.”
I’m not talking about writing laws; I’m working with several groups to amend the Constitution and I’m here specifically to iron out the legal ramifications my wording would have as opposed to various other amendment proposals with the same or similar intent. You’re speciality is obviously not corporate or constitutional law and that’s what makes it interesting to me. Lawyers that do specialize in those disciplines can’t seem to “think outside the box” of status quo and precedent. It’s easier when you don’t have a box to think outside of.
“It is too vague and too susceptible of varying interpretations depending on someone’s agenda to make someone a criminal over it, to say nothing of altering the constitution of the US.”
But isn’t that a problem with all laws? Isn’t that why we have a jury system? And isn’t that why our Founders wrote the Article Five?
“You’ve alluded to all kinds of “corruption” issues and these are certainly present, and out there. The problem with your thinking is that you have focused on something – “corporations” – that has nothing to do with those issues.”
Corruption comes in many shapes, sizes, and colors but they all seem to stem from the incorporation of special interests into legal entities; starting with the USA itself. Our Founders themselves were rightfully afraid of the power such incorporation could create and severely restricted its power in the written charter: our Constitution. No such restrictions are contained in the charters of a commonly registered US corporation. Do you not see the imbalance there? Collectives, through incorporation, become forces. Societies become nations. Businesses become something we haven’t really defined very well yet; but they’re so powerful they can impose “austerity” on sovereign nations. See ECB vs Greece. It’s hard to find a leader, an ideology, or a conspiracy behind the endless centralization taking place in the world but the system enabling it is readily apparent. The same system enables big banks to side-step government regulation with impunity. If the system is defined by the Constitution, we need to amend that definiton. That’s the source.
“…………………………………But the corporate form is not causally connected to the corruption problems in any identifiable way. You still have not cited anything inherent in the corporate form that necessarily entails the corruption you complain about…….”
Would it be better to say: “Corporate legal status is causally connected to systemic corruption”? And what would I need to cite to make that causal relatonship identifiable? I’ll be happy to do the research.
BTW: Thanks for your time and effort.
The problem is I don’t think the hypothesis is viable. There are probably millions of corporations that have nothing to do with the corruption you are legitimately concerned about. Only a tiny handful are a problem, and that is not because they are corporations but because of other reasons.
I agree that systemic corruption is a problem. It’s far deeper than any particular form for doing business, which is all that a corporation is. At its deepest level it’s a spiritual and moral problem. But at the deepest practical level that can be addressed through law and policy it is a problem with the monetary system, which is an area of both law and economics. So I have focused on that. You might take a look at these:
There’s a lot to know and understand about this subject. It’s more about thinking – rigorous thinking – than it is about reading. But those posts are a start, maybe.
“……..There are probably millions of corporations that have nothing to do with the corruption….”
“Only a tiny handful are a problem,…………………………….because of other reasons.”
Because only a tiny handful attain the financial size and legal leverage to effectively thwart justice in the courts and manipulate the legislation of policy necessary to regulate them. Two aspects of financial force (created by the act of incorporating) come into play in this scenario: deferred prosecution agreements and regulatory capture. The is where the worst of both bureaucratic worlds, public and private, agree to cover their own asses at the expense of social or capitalistic ideals. Where is the adult in the room? Congress can’t question a corporation. All Congress can do is question the managers of a corporation. The managers have 5th Amendment and all the other rights of citizens so corporate fraud is reduced to bureacratic accounting errors in a cloud of misinterpreted compliance measures. If corporate charters specified the accounting methods to be used and up-dated daily for availability to government regulators at any time; and if the burden of proof was on the corporation (as it is with tax payers under IRS); and if violation of those terms were a crime in itself; you’d see an immediate reduction in corporate fraud. Such provisions in the charters of the 27,000,000 honest corporations wouldn’t change a thing in their lives because those conditions are already understood. Such provisions in the charter of JP Morgan would put them all in jail.
That’s the chicken, here’s the egg: bureaucratic regulators in DOJ can make more money working for a private corporation: their charter should forbid corporate employment for ten years. The revolving door is an open invitation to fraud on both sides. I think it’s covered in my phrasing of “corporate interference” but better wording might be needed.
“At its deepest level it’s a spiritual and moral problem.”
I think we’ll always have the spiritual and moral problem; but isn’t the rule of law supposed to limit or prevent its manifestation?
“But at the deepest practical level that can be addressed through law and policy it is a problem with the monetary system, which is an area of both law and economics.”
The monetary system is only one component of the economic system. The economic system is only one component of the social system. The Law is another component of the social system. It is the function of a political system to design a social system that satisfies both. Capitalism seems to work, even with the impediment of faulty business models (incorporated sovereign entities) to some extent, and we’re a global power because of it; but we see now that the ensuing corruption threatens to destabilize the society that can’t control it.
It’s good to see you’re particating in the economic debates. If you Google William Falberg you’ll see page after page of my own economic mud wrestling on various forums. I’m coming to the opinion that any system works or fails in proportion to the degree it’s uniform, consistent, and fair to all players. I think it was even common wisdom for a long time that our monetary system only worked so long as people believed in it. Bank runs are the result of lost faith. I think the aforementioned Annual Report of the Dallas Fed was a convincing citation for that view. I think Mr. Rosenblum is struggling to justify the sovereignty of Fed just as Wall Street will struggle to maintain the sovereignty of all corporations; but there’s only room for one sovereign in a society that seeks liberty for all. My amendment would clarify that legally. (?)
I think Harvey Rosenblum, head of research for the Dallas Fed, beat me to the punch on that, read page 17 of the 2011 Federal Reserve Annual Statement:
I e-mailed him a copy of my same amendment proposal and I’ll get back here if he gets back to me. I think he makes my point re: the futility of broad-sword regulation (unintended consequences) as an appropriate way to impose sanity on a complex system. He also makes a clear distinction between capitalism and “American capitalism” (which I understand as corporate capitalism).
This is why I think economists and lawyers really need to put their heads together on this for the good of society.
I agree economists and lawyers need to put their heads together, only this time lawyers need to assert themselves and economists need to understand that people are governed by law and not by mathematical models dreamed up by economists.
This article by Bill Black forces me to rethink my proposed 28th Amendment to address the standardization of accounting practices in a boiler-plate addition to corporate charters subject to my third provision demanding corporal punishment for offenders. Is there an accountant that could design a system without ambiguity around here? I think Bill Black makes the point also that corporate charters
really need to be imposed at the federal level to avoid such ambiguity.
MoveToAmend’s toothless proposal for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution was a huge disappointment to me for its reliance on state legislatures to impose a rule of law on corporate sovereignty (…exactly how we ended up with the current system). It reads so vague you have to wonder if it would have any effect at all on the status quo. I parsed its meaning, in plain language, out for them and got a reply stating that the matter is settled and not up for debate. Well……….maybe not there; ………………but here??? I think before we make ANY new laws it should be decided in no uncertain terms who is *sovereign* in the US of A. It always seems to come down to “states’ rights” issues; and maybe interstate commerce needs more regulation at the federal level, but aimed more specifically at corporate interstate commerce and less at proprietary interstate commerce. Just some thoughts…Here’s MTA’s (weak) version:
“Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]
“The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
“Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
“The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
“Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]
“Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
“Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
“The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
“Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”
You and I have not crossed paths in 20-odd years, since you were practicing with Reyes. I thought I’d say hello. I’m hoping you’re not estranged from brother MJR and will deliver an abrazo from me. I was a client of his back in the day.
I’m afraid I don’t know who you are, and I’m assuming you’re not using your real name. I’m not estranged from Mike, not sure why you would ask that. The blog you link to seems to be inactive but there’s enough there that I have a few guesses about your identity.
You can email directly if you like. I won’t mind.
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Lawyers on Strike wrote:
There are always the vicissitudes of life. I had understood he had relocated to Allegany County at one point and it is my understanding that you’re now in Toronto and no longer practicing. Could not imagine what the story was there. Pleased to hear you’re on passable terms.
It was a discrete case about 25 years ago and we just met with your brother about it, not you or Mr. Reyes. The employment I had proximate to that time was such that I was running into one of the three of you quite regularly. I only ever had the briefest of exchanges with you and Mr. Reyes, and I think you’d draw a blank if you saw the name I use on my tax returns, but your brother and I would converse and he might still recall me. I left Rochester in 1995, but I do spelunk about to try to see what he’s up to, and that’s how I find myself here. He’s done me favors, but I’ve not had occasion to do him any.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 182 other followers