Japan Follows US Lead In Crushing Rights As System Breaks Down

Comments Off on Japan Follows US Lead In Crushing Rights As System Breaks Down

Japan under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is following the US in drafting plans which will attempt to remove peoples rights and impose duties along with beefing up police powers to maintain public order. Abe is drafting changes to the Constitution and specifically aiming to change Article 9 which would looses restrictions on the military. Its a worrying time as Obama recently signed into law the NDAA Act which enables US citizens to be arrested indefinitely without charge or trial and now Japan is making similar moves. The breakdown of the global monetary system is clearly worring the elities.

Reported from ZeroHedge:

If there was ever a clear sign that the leadership of Japan is fully aware that the country is about enter a terminal economic catastrophe this is it. Using the cover of currency devaluation and a rising stock market, Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is attempting to make it easier to change the country’s constitution so that they can eliminate freedom of speech and set the stage for a military dictatorship.  Reuters reports that:

The draft deletes a guarantee of basic human rights and prescribes duties, such as submission to an undefined “public interest and public order.” The military would be empowered to maintain that “public order.”




Critics see Abe’s plan to ease requirements for revising the charter and then seek to change Article 9 as a “stealth” strategy that keeps his deeper aims off the public radar.

“The real concern is that a couple of years later, we move to a redefinition of a ‘new Japan’ as an authoritarian, nationalist order,” said Yale University law professor Bruce Ackerman.

The LDP draft, approved by the party last year, would negate the basic concept of universal human rights, which Japanese conservatives argue is a Western notion ill-suited to Japan’s traditional culture and values, constitutional scholars say.

“The current constitution … provides protection for a long list of fundamental rights – freedom of expression, freedom of religion,” said Meiji University professor Lawrence Repeta. “It’s clear the leaders of the LDP and certain other politicians in Japan … are passionately against a system that protects individual rights to that degree.”

The draft deletes a guarantee of basic human rights and prescribes duties, such as submission to an undefined “public interest and public order”. The military would be empowered to maintain that “public order.”

One proposal would ban anyone from “improperly” acquiring or using information about individuals – a clause experts say could limit freedom of speech. A reference to respect for the “family” as the basic social unit hints, say critics, at a revival of a patriarchal system that gave women few rights.

“The constitution is there to tie the hands of government, not put duties on the people,” said Taro Kono, an LDP lawmaker often at odds with his party on policies. “There are some in both houses (of parliament) who don’t really understand the role of a modern constitution.”

ZeroHedge sums it up in one line

Let’s see, print money, make the stock market go up and keep people servile as you destroy the country and rip up the Constitution.  Sound familiar?


Source: ZeroHedge, Reuters

SA Banks Brought To Court – Monetary System UnConstitutional

Comments Off on SA Banks Brought To Court – Monetary System UnConstitutional

Wow, the banking system around the world is taking a beating. In the last few weeks we have had LieBor, HSBC money laundering, Irish bankers arrests and now in South Africa, the 4 biggest banks and Reserve Banks are to be taken to court because the money lending (fractional reserve lending system that we all use) is fraudulent and unconstitutional.

In what certainly has the hallmarks of a David vs Goliath battle, SA’s four biggest banks and the Reserve Bank have been served with summons to defend themselves against allegations of unconstitutional banking practices.

The papers were served by the sheriff of the court on behalf of the plaintiff, a non-governmental and not for profit organisation, New Economic Rights Alliance (NewERA).

NewERA is asking the High Court to declare SA’s money lending system fraudulent and unconstitutional. The system of loans and credit advancements is an “unfair, self-serving, monopolistic, economic activit[y] that [results in] arbitrary deprivation of property, monetary depreciation and inappropriate conduct,” court papers allege.

According to Scott Colin Cundill, director of NewERA, the action is not financially motivated. “We are not suing for money. We are asking the court to suspend all legal action between the banks and SA citizens, until a full investigation has been undertaken into our banking system.”

FNB, Standard Bank, Absa and Nedbank confirmed receipt of the summons. While Nedbank was still studying the summons, FNB, Absa and Standard Bank confirmed that the matter will be fully defended.

3 practices at the heart of the case. 1 Fractional Reserve banking, 2 Seigniorage, 3 Securitisation.

At the heart of the issue are three trade practices (in particular) conducted by banks. NewERA intends to show that these are unconstitutional.

The first is the fractional reserve banking system. The conventional view of this system is that only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash-on-hand and are available for withdrawal. This is done deliberately in order to expand the economy by freeing up capital that can be loaned out to other parties. “Our issue with this is that new loans can be created without having the actual cash to back them,” says Cundill.

The second is the process of seigniorage. This is the profit that the SA Reserve Bank (and governments around the world) earn from the difference in the cost of printing money and the face value of that money. “The way in which these notes enter the banking system and therefore the public, and thus how seigniorage is charged, is a very little known or understood process.”

The last matter that NewERA is taking issue with is securitisation. This is the financial practice of pooling various types of contractual debt such as residential home or car loans, repackaging it and selling this consolidated debt to various investors. It was the practice of selling toxic debt, packaged as collateralised mortgage obligations, which triggered the financial crisis in 2008.

NewERA will also argue that the lack of transparency regarding how banks make use of depositors’ money, prevents individuals from making informed decisions when dealing with agreements that affect their financial well-being.

“What we want is the development of co-operative, sound economic principles to ensure that risk and, or fault does not devolve onto the consumer unnecessarily and unconditionally, causing loss of property, investments and value,” says Cundill.

NewERA has 154 members who are joined in the application.

The application is also supported by more than 115  000 people, Cundill says.

The banks have ten days in which to file their intention to defend.

Source: moneyweb.co.za

Ireland: Independent Politician To Seek Injunction Over ESM Treaty

Comments Off on Ireland: Independent Politician To Seek Injunction Over ESM Treaty

When the Irish Constitution was written, it was clear the power was to remain with the Irish people and not the politicians. Now Irish independent TD Thomas Pringle looks to bring an injunction against the Irish government from ratifying the ESM  because it goes against the Irish Constitution and will probably need a referendum.

INDEPENDENT TD Thomas Pringle is to seek an injunction restraining the government completing ratification here early next month of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty providing for a conditional permanent bailout fund for the 17 states in the Eurozone.

Mr Pringle will apply for the injunction once the relevant legislation is passed, as expected, by the Dail and Seanad within the next eight to ten days but before it goes to the President to be signed into law, his counsel John Rogers SC told then High Court today.

After the Oireachtas approves the legislation, a five day period must elapse before the President may sign it into law and Mr Pringle will apply for the injunction then, counsel said. If the President signed the Bills into law, there would be “a new situation” and Mr Pringle was contending the legislation was unconstitutional.

Mr Pringle had hoped the injunctions would not be necessary and the State would undertake not to ratify the Treaty pending the outcome of what his side believed would be a reference of issues to the European Court of Justice for determination, counsel said.

It was clear from issues raised in Mr Pringle’s challenge to the ESM Treaty that matters would have to be referred to the ECJ, counsel said.

Michael Cush SC, for the Government and the State, said they envisaged the court would decide the constitutional issue (whether the ESM Treaty breached the Constitution) and that decision on constitutionality did not lend itself to injunctive orders.

An injunction only arose if the court decided to refer issues to the ECJ and the State would be urging the court not to refer, he said. If the court did decide to refer, there would then have to be a debate whether there should be an injunction pending the ECJ’s answer.

He claims it breaches a lot of EU treaties other than the Constitution

In those circumstances, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy has adjourned to Tuesday the continuing hearing of Mr Pringle’s action in which he contends the ESM Treaty breaches the Irish Constitution, EU law and EU Treaties – the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and the Treaty of the EU (TEU) – on grounds including those treaties do not allow for bailouts.


In his claim of unconstitutionality, Mr Pringle alleges the ESM Treaty breaches the Irish Constitution on grounds including it dilutes the State’s fiscal sovereignty. He claims the ESM Treaty and Fiscal Stability Treaty, approved by a referendum here last month, are interlocked and the ESM Treaty should, and must, be put before the people in a referendum.

In its defence, the Government denies the ESM Treaty is unconstitutional or breaches the EU Treaties and EU law. It also denies the Stability Treaty is dependent on the validity and effect of the ESM Treaty or on the proposed amendment of Article 136 of the TFEU.

Source: Independent

German People Revolt And Bring Constitutional Challenge Against Fiscal Compact & ESM

Comments Off on German People Revolt And Bring Constitutional Challenge Against Fiscal Compact & ESM

It’s nice to see democracy being excised instead of politicians running amok and shutting their electorate out of having a say against  decisions that would ramifications on them for years to come. In Germany’s case, there are calls for a referendum on the Fiscal Compact and ESM and failing that, there will be a constitutional challenge. I don’t think the German people are to keen on giving away their own sovereignty to unelected bankers.

And the plan was going so well. The plan, of course, being to dispose of German budget sovereignty and transfer decision-making authority to a fully immune organization seated in Luxembourg, which just happens to be a tax haven, in the process stripping not only all of Europe, but also Germany of sovereignty, with the ESM being run by a few bankers, held accountable to no one(explained here). German FAZ has just announced that jurists and 2 political parties in Germany are going to appeal to the Constitutional Court, and demand an end of the Merkel Fiscal pact and the ESM, both of which have been implemented without so much as an inquiry as to what the people think, those millions of ever angrier Germans we wrote about back in July. That may be finally changing.

From Frankfurter Allgemeine, google translated:

The bailout policy of the Chancellor in the debt crisis is once more faced adversity: The former Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin wants to appeal, together with other planned permanent constitutional complaint against the euro rescue ESM and the European fiscal pact. The Alliance, comprised of the organization “more democracy” also belong to the liberal voters and the party ÖDP, has announced the appeal in the event that there is no referendum on the ESM and the Fiscal Pact to tighten fiscal discipline in 25 of the 27 EU countries will be.

Main criticisms are loud Däubler-Gmelin, the ESM that the question of liability remains high in Germany remains unclear. With the euro rescue package and the Fiscal Pact, the fiscal and legal control of the German parliament would be unduly curtailed. “The Rubicon is crossed towards a European federal state”, the constitutional lawyer Christoph Degenhart said on Thursday in Berlin. The law professor at the University of Leipzig, together with the former Federal Minister of Justice for action leaders announced a constitutional complaint.


The initiative calls for referendums on ESM and fiscal pact in all affected countries. “There must be a broad public debate on democracy in Europe which remains for enough time.” The initiative aims to submit its application for ratification of ESM and Fiscal Pact.

 I wish them luck 🙂

Source: ZeroHedge

%d bloggers like this: