I got the following from my girlfriend and figured that it was worth telling you about. She is walking to help end Alzheimer's, and apparently she gets donations to walk. Anyways, her goal is to reach 200$ for research and she wants some help with that. Also, Team Kilbourne, which is her team, has a 1250$ goal. If you are at all interested please check the link. Also, if you want to help end this horrific disease, please donate.
For details click 'read more'
Today an estimated 5.3 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's. In addition, 78 million baby boomers are approaching the age of greatest risk for developing this fatal disease. Now is the time to ACT to end this epidemic!
This year, to support those affected by Alzheimer's, I'm participating in the Alzheimer's Association Memory WalkŽ to raise funds and awareness to fight this disease.
The Alzheimer's Association is the leading voluntary health organization in Alzheimer care, support and research, and funds I raise will go directly toward supporting their efforts.
I know I can make a difference with your support! Will you consider making a donation? It's easy to give online by following the link below.
Thank you in advance for your time and generosity - together, we can help end Alzheimer's!
Read more ...
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Fed is Dead.
For all intent and purpose the Federal Reserve is bankrupt.
There are two banking systems in existence today. The Traditional Banking System – i.e. High Street banks and the Shadow Banking System. But both systems overlap because, the major banks of the traditional system helped create the shadow banking system. In fact they are the key players in the use of the so-called "new financial products, the CDOs, CLOs, MBS" etc and which have now turned toxic – worthless, junk to be exact.
The first public mention, to my knowledge, of the shadow banking system by anyone of any public authority occurred on March 3rd, 2009 by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s remarks at the White House, March 3, 2009:
“Well, there's got to be deep regulatory change. We've just been talking, Barack and I, about the need for proper supervision of shadow banking systems, of areas where there was bank practices that were unacceptable, where remuneration policies got out of hand and weren't based on long-term success, but on short-term deals. And these are the changes that we've already announced that we are going to make.”
“We've had a global banking failure, and it's happened in every part of the world. It's almost like a power cut that went right across the financial system. And we have got to rebuild that financial system. We've got to isolate the bad assets.”
“You don't want shadow banking systems. You don't want regulatory tax havens. So we've got to act as a world together to deal with that. And that's one of the things we'll be talking about in April in London.”
Even if he meant it, it is too late.
The idea of a central bank going bankrupt is not out of the realm of possibilities. What underlies this crisis is the potential collapse of the global banking system, specifically the Shadow banking system.
Nouriel Roubini, the New York University professor said:
"The process of socializing the private losses from this crisis has moved many of the liabilities of the private sector onto the books of the sovereign. At some point a sovereign bank may crack, in which case, the ability of the government to credibly commit to act as a backstop for the financial system – including deposit guarantees – could come unglued."
"Sovereign bank" means central bank. When a central bank "cracks" it becomes insolvent. If the Sovereign bank becomes insolvent any government guarantees will ring hollow and will be useless.
The only issue is the extent of the damage to the global economy and how long it will take for the world to recover from this financial madness that has no precedent.
To give a small sampling of the 4th quarter mess here are the banks' quarterly financial reports as of Dec. 31:
— J.P. Morgan had potential current derivatives losses of $241.2 billion, outstripping its $144 billion in reserves, and future exposure of $299 billion.
— Citibank had potential current losses of $140.3 billion, exceeding its $108 billion in reserves, and future losses of $161.2 billion.
— Bank of America reported $80.4 billion in current exposure, below its $122.4 billion reserve, but $218 billion in total exposure.
— HSBC Bank USA had current potential losses of $62 billion, more than triple its reserves, and potential total exposure of $95 billion.
— San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which agreed to take over Charlotte-based Wachovia in October, reported current potential losses totaling nearly $64 billion, below the banks' combined reserves of $104 billion, but total future risks of about $109 billion.
These numbers are bad but are completely missing the heart of the problem: The Repurchase market.
The repurchase market is the link that joined the two banking systems together.
As such, it is the weakest link in the entire financial system.
The repurchase market is a very very complex organism that I am only beginning to wrap my head around. To use an analogy, cash and cash flow is the life blood of the economy and the Repurchase market is the heart that keeps pumping it through the system. It is the market where all financial institutions (regulated and unregulated) go to obtain financing to meet reserve requirements, bridging finance, to lend or purchase securities, to hedge and or to invest on short-term basis.
I will work on another post to explain the nature of this market but for now I will leave it at that.
The repurchase market before the crisis was estimated to be worth around $12 trillion as compared to the total assets in the entire US banking system of $10 trillion.
With the collapse of Bear Stearns what we were effectively witnessing was a run on the repurchase market as observed by Tim Geithner in 2008:
"The structure of the financial system changed fundamentally during the boom, with dramatic growth in the share of assets outside the traditional banking system. This non-bank financial system grew to be very large, particularly in money and funding markets.
"This parallel system financed some of these very assets on a very short term basis in the bilateral or tri-party repo markets. As the volume of activity in repo markets grew, the variety of assets financed in this manner expanded beyond the most highly liquid securities to include less liquid securities, as well. Nonetheless, these assets were assumed to be readily sellable at fair values, in part because assets with similar credit ratings had generally been tradable during past periods of financial stress. And the liquidity supporting them was assumed to be continuous and essentially frictionless, because it had been so for a long time.
"The scale of long term risky and relatively illiquid assets financed by very short-term liabilities made many of the vehicles and institutions in this parallel financial system vulnerable to a classic type run, but without the protection such as deposit insurance that the banking system has in place to reduce such risks."
And Bernanke said:
"We have been working with market participants to develop a contingency plan should there ever occur a loss of confidence in either of the two clearing banks that facilitate the settlement of tri-party repos."
Louis Crandall, economist at Wrightson ICAP observed:
"The vulnerability of the tri-party repo system has been a recurring theme among Federal Reserve and Treasury officials in recent weeks."
Panic swept across the entire repurchase market.
No securities were considered safe enough for repurchases except US treasuries.
Fundings in the repurchase market ground to a halt.
Market players withdrew funds and began hoarding treasuries.
Treasury interest rates actually reached a point where they were being bought at a negative interest rate they were so desirable.
To quote Gary Gorton:
"Imagine a firm that is levered 30:1, by borrowing in the repurchase market. If the haircut doubles, or goes from zero to a positive amount, the required deleveraging is massive! Most investment banks were levered 30:1, equivalent to about a 3 per cent haircut. If the haircut rises to 6 per cent, at least half the assets will have to be sold.
"Another sign of trouble is a ‘repo fail’. A ‘repo fail’ occurs when one side of the agreement fails to abide by the contract. [Fail to deliver the security under the repurchase agreement.]
"Dealer banks would not accept collateral because they rightly believed that if they had to seize the collateral should the counter-party fail, then there would be no market in which to sell it. This was due to the absence of buyers because of the deleveraging. This led to an absence of prices for these securities. If the value cannot be determined because there is no market – no liquidity or there is the concern that if the asset is seized by the lender, it will not be saleable at all, then the dealer will not engage in repo. Repo dealers report that there was uncertainty about whether to believe the ratings on these structured products, and in a very fast moving environment, the response was to pull back from accepting anything structured. If no one would accept structured products for repo, then these bonds could not be traded – and then no one would want to accept them in repo transactions."
The Fed intervened aggressively to check the run on the repurchase market by the creation of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF). Various measures were taken, but the Fed was willing to accept and secure funding of the players in the repurchase market. The Fed also intervened by lending a huge chunk of its US treasuries in exchange for junk securities to facilitate credit expansion.
The result and where we are now: The Fed’s present balance sheet of approximately $2 trillion is made up mostly of junk securities.
If you found out your bank's balance sheet is made up of junk and not backed by real assets, what would you do?
But of course, one can argue that the Fed is not your bank. It is the central bank of the all powerful USA. It will always be able to "print money" or "digitalise" money and keep the markets going.
But the Federal Reserve Note is mere paper, fiat money which cannot be redeemed for anything tangible such as gold.
When Joe Six-Pack realizes that the Federal Reserve Note is not even secured by US treasuries and or the FED has real tangible assets, but its balance sheet is littered with junks and toxic waste, there will be a run on the Fed.
In other words, when Americans and foreigners no longer have faith in the Federal Reserve Notes as "money".
Read more ...
There are two banking systems in existence today. The Traditional Banking System – i.e. High Street banks and the Shadow Banking System. But both systems overlap because, the major banks of the traditional system helped create the shadow banking system. In fact they are the key players in the use of the so-called "new financial products, the CDOs, CLOs, MBS" etc and which have now turned toxic – worthless, junk to be exact.
The first public mention, to my knowledge, of the shadow banking system by anyone of any public authority occurred on March 3rd, 2009 by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s remarks at the White House, March 3, 2009:
“Well, there's got to be deep regulatory change. We've just been talking, Barack and I, about the need for proper supervision of shadow banking systems, of areas where there was bank practices that were unacceptable, where remuneration policies got out of hand and weren't based on long-term success, but on short-term deals. And these are the changes that we've already announced that we are going to make.”
“We've had a global banking failure, and it's happened in every part of the world. It's almost like a power cut that went right across the financial system. And we have got to rebuild that financial system. We've got to isolate the bad assets.”
“You don't want shadow banking systems. You don't want regulatory tax havens. So we've got to act as a world together to deal with that. And that's one of the things we'll be talking about in April in London.”
Even if he meant it, it is too late.
The idea of a central bank going bankrupt is not out of the realm of possibilities. What underlies this crisis is the potential collapse of the global banking system, specifically the Shadow banking system.
Nouriel Roubini, the New York University professor said:
"The process of socializing the private losses from this crisis has moved many of the liabilities of the private sector onto the books of the sovereign. At some point a sovereign bank may crack, in which case, the ability of the government to credibly commit to act as a backstop for the financial system – including deposit guarantees – could come unglued."
"Sovereign bank" means central bank. When a central bank "cracks" it becomes insolvent. If the Sovereign bank becomes insolvent any government guarantees will ring hollow and will be useless.
The only issue is the extent of the damage to the global economy and how long it will take for the world to recover from this financial madness that has no precedent.
To give a small sampling of the 4th quarter mess here are the banks' quarterly financial reports as of Dec. 31:
— J.P. Morgan had potential current derivatives losses of $241.2 billion, outstripping its $144 billion in reserves, and future exposure of $299 billion.
— Citibank had potential current losses of $140.3 billion, exceeding its $108 billion in reserves, and future losses of $161.2 billion.
— Bank of America reported $80.4 billion in current exposure, below its $122.4 billion reserve, but $218 billion in total exposure.
— HSBC Bank USA had current potential losses of $62 billion, more than triple its reserves, and potential total exposure of $95 billion.
— San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which agreed to take over Charlotte-based Wachovia in October, reported current potential losses totaling nearly $64 billion, below the banks' combined reserves of $104 billion, but total future risks of about $109 billion.
These numbers are bad but are completely missing the heart of the problem: The Repurchase market.
The repurchase market is the link that joined the two banking systems together.
As such, it is the weakest link in the entire financial system.
The repurchase market is a very very complex organism that I am only beginning to wrap my head around. To use an analogy, cash and cash flow is the life blood of the economy and the Repurchase market is the heart that keeps pumping it through the system. It is the market where all financial institutions (regulated and unregulated) go to obtain financing to meet reserve requirements, bridging finance, to lend or purchase securities, to hedge and or to invest on short-term basis.
I will work on another post to explain the nature of this market but for now I will leave it at that.
The repurchase market before the crisis was estimated to be worth around $12 trillion as compared to the total assets in the entire US banking system of $10 trillion.
With the collapse of Bear Stearns what we were effectively witnessing was a run on the repurchase market as observed by Tim Geithner in 2008:
"The structure of the financial system changed fundamentally during the boom, with dramatic growth in the share of assets outside the traditional banking system. This non-bank financial system grew to be very large, particularly in money and funding markets.
"This parallel system financed some of these very assets on a very short term basis in the bilateral or tri-party repo markets. As the volume of activity in repo markets grew, the variety of assets financed in this manner expanded beyond the most highly liquid securities to include less liquid securities, as well. Nonetheless, these assets were assumed to be readily sellable at fair values, in part because assets with similar credit ratings had generally been tradable during past periods of financial stress. And the liquidity supporting them was assumed to be continuous and essentially frictionless, because it had been so for a long time.
"The scale of long term risky and relatively illiquid assets financed by very short-term liabilities made many of the vehicles and institutions in this parallel financial system vulnerable to a classic type run, but without the protection such as deposit insurance that the banking system has in place to reduce such risks."
And Bernanke said:
"We have been working with market participants to develop a contingency plan should there ever occur a loss of confidence in either of the two clearing banks that facilitate the settlement of tri-party repos."
Louis Crandall, economist at Wrightson ICAP observed:
"The vulnerability of the tri-party repo system has been a recurring theme among Federal Reserve and Treasury officials in recent weeks."
Panic swept across the entire repurchase market.
No securities were considered safe enough for repurchases except US treasuries.
Fundings in the repurchase market ground to a halt.
Market players withdrew funds and began hoarding treasuries.
Treasury interest rates actually reached a point where they were being bought at a negative interest rate they were so desirable.
To quote Gary Gorton:
"Imagine a firm that is levered 30:1, by borrowing in the repurchase market. If the haircut doubles, or goes from zero to a positive amount, the required deleveraging is massive! Most investment banks were levered 30:1, equivalent to about a 3 per cent haircut. If the haircut rises to 6 per cent, at least half the assets will have to be sold.
"Another sign of trouble is a ‘repo fail’. A ‘repo fail’ occurs when one side of the agreement fails to abide by the contract. [Fail to deliver the security under the repurchase agreement.]
"Dealer banks would not accept collateral because they rightly believed that if they had to seize the collateral should the counter-party fail, then there would be no market in which to sell it. This was due to the absence of buyers because of the deleveraging. This led to an absence of prices for these securities. If the value cannot be determined because there is no market – no liquidity or there is the concern that if the asset is seized by the lender, it will not be saleable at all, then the dealer will not engage in repo. Repo dealers report that there was uncertainty about whether to believe the ratings on these structured products, and in a very fast moving environment, the response was to pull back from accepting anything structured. If no one would accept structured products for repo, then these bonds could not be traded – and then no one would want to accept them in repo transactions."
The Fed intervened aggressively to check the run on the repurchase market by the creation of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF). Various measures were taken, but the Fed was willing to accept and secure funding of the players in the repurchase market. The Fed also intervened by lending a huge chunk of its US treasuries in exchange for junk securities to facilitate credit expansion.
The result and where we are now: The Fed’s present balance sheet of approximately $2 trillion is made up mostly of junk securities.
If you found out your bank's balance sheet is made up of junk and not backed by real assets, what would you do?
But of course, one can argue that the Fed is not your bank. It is the central bank of the all powerful USA. It will always be able to "print money" or "digitalise" money and keep the markets going.
But the Federal Reserve Note is mere paper, fiat money which cannot be redeemed for anything tangible such as gold.
When Joe Six-Pack realizes that the Federal Reserve Note is not even secured by US treasuries and or the FED has real tangible assets, but its balance sheet is littered with junks and toxic waste, there will be a run on the Fed.
In other words, when Americans and foreigners no longer have faith in the Federal Reserve Notes as "money".
Read more ...
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Authors and Adsense
Before we start, I have a countdown that I am starting on the left side of the page. It count's down until I reach the second-to-last landmark in a young persons life. There is 13, 16, 18, 21, and then 25. 21 is in 12 days so woot
Moving On, if you decide to click...
I recently got my first check from Google Adsense. You know those ads you see between some blog posts? Well, they make me money, so you should click on them. I am currently averaging a good intake a day, but always want more. Please click on them IF YOU FIND THEM INTERESTING. Thanks for those who have already supported me while looking for information or other websites...
Moving On...
Lisa from Glass City Jungle was confused by the recent posts on DC by Whalertly. With this in mind, I am going to do a brief update chat on the authors of the blog, and also discuss how I am going to make this easier on everybody.
On the sidebar of the blog there will be a listing (coming soon) of all contributors of the blog. It will link to their intro post and give a brief thing on them. These same parameters will be in the 'about' section soon as well. As all new posters are required to make an intro (I will be telling Whalertly to do one soon), this should help ease the problems here. I do not really edit or police the contributors posts, as they are responsible for their own actions (see legal). If you have a concern, please feel free to e-mail me and I will deal with it.
The side bar will be as follows:
Barga (needs an intro post) - The founder and creator of this blog, 20 Year old college kid.
RMB.Reviews (Needs an intro post) - This is Barga and is simply the name he uses when he posts product reviews.
Whalertly (needs an intro post) - The main poster of this blog, wishes to remain anonymous.
Ander - Sometime contributor, Economics and International Affairs major long term.
Peter - Monthly or so contributor, Mechanical Engineering Student
Kadim (needs an intro post) - Still working out timing, will get information on him soon.
Moving On...
I will be posting my view on the DC vote giving in the next few days. It will be similar to Whalertly's, but better reasoned and worded.
Read more ...
Moving On, if you decide to click...
I recently got my first check from Google Adsense. You know those ads you see between some blog posts? Well, they make me money, so you should click on them. I am currently averaging a good intake a day, but always want more. Please click on them IF YOU FIND THEM INTERESTING. Thanks for those who have already supported me while looking for information or other websites...
Moving On...
Lisa from Glass City Jungle was confused by the recent posts on DC by Whalertly. With this in mind, I am going to do a brief update chat on the authors of the blog, and also discuss how I am going to make this easier on everybody.
On the sidebar of the blog there will be a listing (coming soon) of all contributors of the blog. It will link to their intro post and give a brief thing on them. These same parameters will be in the 'about' section soon as well. As all new posters are required to make an intro (I will be telling Whalertly to do one soon), this should help ease the problems here. I do not really edit or police the contributors posts, as they are responsible for their own actions (see legal). If you have a concern, please feel free to e-mail me and I will deal with it.
The side bar will be as follows:
Barga (needs an intro post) - The founder and creator of this blog, 20 Year old college kid.
RMB.Reviews (Needs an intro post) - This is Barga and is simply the name he uses when he posts product reviews.
Whalertly (needs an intro post) - The main poster of this blog, wishes to remain anonymous.
Ander - Sometime contributor, Economics and International Affairs major long term.
Peter - Monthly or so contributor, Mechanical Engineering Student
Kadim (needs an intro post) - Still working out timing, will get information on him soon.
Moving On...
I will be posting my view on the DC vote giving in the next few days. It will be similar to Whalertly's, but better reasoned and worded.
Read more ...
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Events coming to a town near you?
The global financial crisis hit hard at the end of last year and the government warned if swift action and large sums of money were not spent the world would end. Now here we are with things worsening at an exponential rate. The collapse looks far from over. So what can we expect?
There have been massive and ongoing protests in France. Literally hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Estelle Yousouffa, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Paris, said at least one million people had taken to the streets, with protests held in about 200 towns and cities.
"The country is literally is on hold," Yousouffa said.
"Things are functioning, some classes in school are open, but all public offices are closed, 30 per cent of the transport and the trains are working."
Francois Chereque, of the CFDT union, said the protests were "the biggest workers' rallies in 20 years".
Signs read: "We refuse to pay for the capitalist crisis," "The capitalist economy is sick... let's let it die".
France's eight national unions have backed the strike, drawing up a list of demands for the government and French companies, who they have accused of using the crisis as an excuse to lay off workers and cut costs.
Yousouffa said the government is determined to "press on with its reforms and will not change its course".
In Greece farmers have been protesting low commodity prices for 9 days. They stepped up their protests yesterday paralyzing the country. Using tractors and trailers, the farmers have blockaded around 70 main roads, cutting Athens off from the second city of Thessaloniki in the north and closing border crossings with Bulgaria, Macedonia and Turkey. These roads link with its neighbors and have left tonnes of fruit and meat rotting in lorries.
"Tractors are our weapon and we are determined to use them until our demands are met," said Christos Sideropoulos, a farmer and one of the leaders of the protests. "Let them say what they like. We are not going to give in."
The latest protests have exposed the frustrations of Greece's underdeveloped agriculture regions. Despite EU subsidies, successive governments have failed to modernize a farming industry that remains dependent on state handouts, said Dimitris Keridis, a political scientist. "It's an industry that depends on government handouts and is incompatible with the demands of modern societies. They produce produce that nobody buys."
Yesterday, farmers' leaders rejected a €500m (£465m) subsidy package offered by the conservative government, demanding tax rebates and interest free loans.
"This is a very generous package, especially in light of the financial crisis," the agriculture minister, Sotiris Hatzigakis, said. "The longer [the farmers] wait, the worse things will become for them."
Last night, there was little indication that the protesters would back down. "If need be we will stay here until Easter. If need be, our tractors will grow roots," said one farmer. "We are bankrupt. We've got nothing to lose." Read more ...
There have been massive and ongoing protests in France. Literally hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Estelle Yousouffa, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Paris, said at least one million people had taken to the streets, with protests held in about 200 towns and cities.
"The country is literally is on hold," Yousouffa said.
"Things are functioning, some classes in school are open, but all public offices are closed, 30 per cent of the transport and the trains are working."
Francois Chereque, of the CFDT union, said the protests were "the biggest workers' rallies in 20 years".
Signs read: "We refuse to pay for the capitalist crisis," "The capitalist economy is sick... let's let it die".
France's eight national unions have backed the strike, drawing up a list of demands for the government and French companies, who they have accused of using the crisis as an excuse to lay off workers and cut costs.
Yousouffa said the government is determined to "press on with its reforms and will not change its course".
In Greece farmers have been protesting low commodity prices for 9 days. They stepped up their protests yesterday paralyzing the country. Using tractors and trailers, the farmers have blockaded around 70 main roads, cutting Athens off from the second city of Thessaloniki in the north and closing border crossings with Bulgaria, Macedonia and Turkey. These roads link with its neighbors and have left tonnes of fruit and meat rotting in lorries.
"Tractors are our weapon and we are determined to use them until our demands are met," said Christos Sideropoulos, a farmer and one of the leaders of the protests. "Let them say what they like. We are not going to give in."
The latest protests have exposed the frustrations of Greece's underdeveloped agriculture regions. Despite EU subsidies, successive governments have failed to modernize a farming industry that remains dependent on state handouts, said Dimitris Keridis, a political scientist. "It's an industry that depends on government handouts and is incompatible with the demands of modern societies. They produce produce that nobody buys."
Yesterday, farmers' leaders rejected a €500m (£465m) subsidy package offered by the conservative government, demanding tax rebates and interest free loans.
"This is a very generous package, especially in light of the financial crisis," the agriculture minister, Sotiris Hatzigakis, said. "The longer [the farmers] wait, the worse things will become for them."
Last night, there was little indication that the protesters would back down. "If need be we will stay here until Easter. If need be, our tractors will grow roots," said one farmer. "We are bankrupt. We've got nothing to lose." Read more ...
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Taxes Part 2
Post 60
Today we are going to take a look at how the taxes proposed by both the McCain camp and the Obama camp will effect the citizens in Ohio. The graphs use the tax changes provided by The Washington Post and The New York Times. The data on Ohio is provided by the 2000 Census.
I ask you to take a look at this image, and decide which candidate really has your best interest in mind. If you make over one million dollars a year I can understand why you would be vocal in support of Senator McCain. If you make under twenty thousand a year then I can understand why you support Senator Obama. This chart is merely to help you look at the financial aspect of the presidential race; if the financial burden on you is all that you care about, please vote based on this information. If you care about more than just the money, use this to help you weigh your decision. Please pass this on to all undecideds that you know, and pass this throughout the INTERNET.
This graphic is slight skewed due to the fact that the census data stopped at 200,000 and does not line up perfectly with the tax brackets given. If the amount falls within multiple tax brackets, then the average of the two will be used. Please use your yearly income when you look at this graph. Keep in mind that the Average yearly income per household in Ohio is $40,960. In all of these graphs Red is McCain and Blue is Obama.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Monday, August 25, 2008
I Hear That Change in Your Pocket Going Ching-A-Ling-A-Ling
Post 47
*MAP UPDATE*
Over the last week it looks like Obama regained control in the state of Colorado. McCain, however, then took control of Indiana while reinforcing his ground in Ohio. McCain also gained ground, though did not take the lead, in both New Mexico and New Hampshire. If New Hampshire switched, with all other states remaining the same, then we would have a 269-269 tie. The overall outlook nationally is +1.8 points for Obama.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*
So, I had been planning on making this entry about Biden being chosen as Obama's running mate but decided to trump Lisa over at GCJ with this story today. Biden SHOULD be up by this coming Wednesday. Enjoy
So, I was looking through the AP Wire on my IPhone on Saturday and came upon a funny story in the local news section of it; it appears as though a court in Ohio refused to accept a 'heavy fine payment'. The fine payment happens to be for speeding tickets and is being paid for in pennies. Now, after I stopped laughing and cleaned up everything I threw around when convulsing I started to think about this. I think that there are several things wrong with the court not accepting this payment. Amongst them, the three most prevalent are: You were not specific - This is legal tender - Your precedent sucks. Frankly, I think that the court should be required to accept this mans payment, or, deny taking it but count it as being paid. I really have nothing that grinds my gears to end this paragraph though... damn.
You Were Not Specific:
When a court makes an order of any sort they are usually quite specific. If they are asking for property back they will ask for specific property - you stole a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista they expect a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista returned. Courts rarely leave this sort of thing up in the air. If a court asks for payment in cash, credit, or check then they should expect payment in cash, credit, or check. If the court just asks for payment in anything they should expect payment in anything. This is the fundamental problem of this decision to avoid accepting the payment; the court was not specific enough. Unless they ordered the payment to be specific they have NO RIGHT to require it to change AFTER THE FACT. Hopefully the court learned from this mistake.
This Is Legal Tender:
If the defendant had come in and paid with Canadian Pennies or Euros the court would have had the right, no, the duty, to refuse his payment (though why they would, when those are worth more, is unknown). However, the man came in and paid his fees with what is considered legal tender in the United States. In fact, the Coinage act of 1965 says:
Your Precedent Sucks:
While discussing this case with Lisa from GCJ she sent me a link to some precedent that the court could use to defend itself. In _State v. Carroll_, 1997 WL 118064 (Ohio App. 4 Dist.), the courts ruled that:
The problem with this ruling is that it uses no case law from before and actually overrides several cases in other states. I understand the concept of a reasonable procedure for time place and manner but can not understand how pennies fit any of these three categories. You can close shop at 5 and open at 9, you can say it needs to be sent to a certain address, and you can even say that it should be paid in certain coins - BUT, unless you say that in the order, you have NO RIGHT to change your mind AFTER THE FACT. I don't care if an earlier court said that you could, this is illogical and a gross overstepping of the courts bounds.
This decision throws common sense out the window as it allows the courts to change their orders on the whim of the judges and secretaries. It also creates precedent that allows the courts to challenge FEDERAL STATUTES THAT ARE FEDERAL ONLY.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
*MAP UPDATE*
Over the last week it looks like Obama regained control in the state of Colorado. McCain, however, then took control of Indiana while reinforcing his ground in Ohio. McCain also gained ground, though did not take the lead, in both New Mexico and New Hampshire. If New Hampshire switched, with all other states remaining the same, then we would have a 269-269 tie. The overall outlook nationally is +1.8 points for Obama.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*
So, I had been planning on making this entry about Biden being chosen as Obama's running mate but decided to trump Lisa over at GCJ with this story today. Biden SHOULD be up by this coming Wednesday. Enjoy
So, I was looking through the AP Wire on my IPhone on Saturday and came upon a funny story in the local news section of it; it appears as though a court in Ohio refused to accept a 'heavy fine payment'. The fine payment happens to be for speeding tickets and is being paid for in pennies. Now, after I stopped laughing and cleaned up everything I threw around when convulsing I started to think about this. I think that there are several things wrong with the court not accepting this payment. Amongst them, the three most prevalent are: You were not specific - This is legal tender - Your precedent sucks. Frankly, I think that the court should be required to accept this mans payment, or, deny taking it but count it as being paid. I really have nothing that grinds my gears to end this paragraph though... damn.
You Were Not Specific:
When a court makes an order of any sort they are usually quite specific. If they are asking for property back they will ask for specific property - you stole a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista they expect a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista returned. Courts rarely leave this sort of thing up in the air. If a court asks for payment in cash, credit, or check then they should expect payment in cash, credit, or check. If the court just asks for payment in anything they should expect payment in anything. This is the fundamental problem of this decision to avoid accepting the payment; the court was not specific enough. Unless they ordered the payment to be specific they have NO RIGHT to require it to change AFTER THE FACT. Hopefully the court learned from this mistake.
This Is Legal Tender:
If the defendant had come in and paid with Canadian Pennies or Euros the court would have had the right, no, the duty, to refuse his payment (though why they would, when those are worth more, is unknown). However, the man came in and paid his fees with what is considered legal tender in the United States. In fact, the Coinage act of 1965 says:
“United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.”
To me, this clearly shows that these pennies should have been accepted by the court. Now, I understand the courts position; they are saying that there is an unfair undue burden on the court now due to this. However, I also can see that all they need to do is take the pennies to the bank, have them weighed, and then have them converted (for free) into real monies. Unless the court is trying to say that they have the right to determine federal law in currency, they should accept all legal tender.Your Precedent Sucks:
While discussing this case with Lisa from GCJ she sent me a link to some precedent that the court could use to defend itself. In _State v. Carroll_, 1997 WL 118064 (Ohio App. 4 Dist.), the courts ruled that:
“"It defies logic and common sense that this Congress intended such a wooden and broad application of the statute beyond the control of the payee regardless of the circumstances." [At 4-5] The Court reasoned that under the law authorizing the clerk to collect and issue receipts for the payment of fines, etc., the clerk could "provide a reasonable procedure for the place, time and manner of accepting fines consistent with the efficient operation of the clerk's office."”
The problem with this ruling is that it uses no case law from before and actually overrides several cases in other states. I understand the concept of a reasonable procedure for time place and manner but can not understand how pennies fit any of these three categories. You can close shop at 5 and open at 9, you can say it needs to be sent to a certain address, and you can even say that it should be paid in certain coins - BUT, unless you say that in the order, you have NO RIGHT to change your mind AFTER THE FACT. I don't care if an earlier court said that you could, this is illogical and a gross overstepping of the courts bounds.
This decision throws common sense out the window as it allows the courts to change their orders on the whim of the judges and secretaries. It also creates precedent that allows the courts to challenge FEDERAL STATUTES THAT ARE FEDERAL ONLY.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)