Analyst: $1 Trillion In Hidden Losses At German Banks

Watch Video

CNBC Video - Currency Strategist Joseph Trevisani - Sep. 23. 2011
With Deutsche Bank skirting by at greater than 50:1 leverage, this should not be a surprise. French banks should be assumed to be hiding similar losses.  Clip runs 90 seconds.
Related:

• Kyle Bass Tells David Faber: "EU Bailout Will Cost France And Maybe Even Germany Their AAA Ratings"

• Kyle Bass - 'Greece Will Default And It's Going To Be Ugly For Europe, Germany And The U.S.' (17 Bailouts For 17 Euro Nations)

The ‘Lemon Tree Lady’ Speaks Out About USDA Threats Over TREE (this is NOT satire)

Actual 'menace to society'

Lois Rain, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

When life hands you a lemon tree . . . the USDA takes it away! And don’t even think of making lemonade with any more trees – they’ll take those too.

A special HFA interview with Bridget Donovan, aka “The Lemon Tree Lady,” USDA’s Most Wanted. Or rather, her little beloved lemon tree was. Last week, we reported the story of the USDA demanding her tree three years after a quarantine, but the real USDA mode of operation is in the details below -- we can’t make this stuff up!

Did you know she was facing fines up to $60,000 and a federal raid if she did not comply? (Remember the USDA’s $4 million dollar bunnies?) They invaded her privacy, tracked her down through her purchases, and sternly warned they would get that tree one way or another. It appears she is on a “citrus watch list.”

Please read the details below --  it will help you if you ever face such a situation. Bridget was no pushover -- she did her very best to keep her tree and we wanted to know more. The USDA knows that most people will crumble under such threats and don’t have the funds to fight. And just how far is someone willing to go over a lemon tree?

Thanks to “The Lemon Tree Lady,” we know that scores of others face similar situations and that the USDA spies on our purchases, yards, and even into windows! This is by their own admission. Find out below what happened when people purchased new lemon trees that were compliant.

Most of our readers will detect that this was not an issue of environmental safety -- her personal tree was healthy and posed no danger. The USDA wouldn’t even allow for that -- they destroyed it and disrupted Bridget’s life. This is a matter of force and personal property. They think they have the authority to watch and revisit people to try to catch them in a lie (for instance, if they say their trees died).

Does anyone know of the right department to contact about this? Please share this incredible story with friends and family. All emphasis below is HFA’s. 

Special thanks to Bridget for graciously sharing her story with us! Please leave her some kind words and support below. 

So what happened? What exactly did the USDA want from you? Why was your lemon tree on a terrorist hit list?

I will start from the beginning.

Three years ago, I read an article in the local newspaper about Meyer Lemon Trees. It said how easy they were to grow inside, and how they brightened up the winters with sweet smelling flowers and fruit. I love gardening, my young niece shares my love of gardening, so it seemed the perfect thing to buy. I looked online, and found the company, meyerlemontree.com. It listed the states they could not ship to, and since Wisconsin was not one of them, I felt safe in ordering. It was clearly a big company, and I did not in a million years think anything was wrong in buying from them.

The tree arrived in great shape, and it just took off. My whole family enjoyed the flowers and the sweet smell, and it was very exciting to watch the lemons as they grew. I spent a lot of time on this tree. It clearly paid off because it was a very healthy tree. Then, three years later, out of the blue, I received a letter from the USDA.

It Included a flyer stating that my tree would be seized, I would not be compensated by the government, and that it would be destroyed. The fact sheet also said they verified, with federal law enforcement databases, that I was at the current address. It went on to state that while I would not face any penalties “at this point” if I were found to be in possession of regulated citrus again, I could face a fine of $1,100 to $60,000. The letter asked me to call the agent from the USDA to discuss this matter. It stated the issue was with citrus greening and citrus canker.

I truly thought this was a joke, so I looked it up online. I was shocked to discover how many other people had had their trees seized, and many without any warning. The feds just showed up at their doors.

One woman had written that hers was seized, and then she was told by the USDA the replacement tree offered by the company was compliant. Then the USDA turned around and seized that, too. I bring this up because I mentioned it to the USDA officer when I spoke with her (more on that in a moment).

Since this letter arrived on a Saturday, I gave much thought as to what to do. I thought about trying to take it to a friend’s house. I had spent a lot of time and money on this tree, and it upset me that the government could just tell me they were taking it.

However, the tree required a fair amount of attention, and I didn’t want to burden someone else with that, or stick them in the middle of this. I was very angry and upset. I have never had any contact with the federal government, other than the every day things like paying taxes and such, and could not believe a tree purchased legally, three years ago, would elicit this sort of action. I thought about ignoring the letter, but based on others’ experience of having them show up announced, I knew that wouldn’t work, either.

I called the agent Monday, and she explained they had to seize the tree because the company obtained it from a vendor that had gotten it from Florida. However, I never did get a straight answer as to when/if all parts of Florida are quarantined, and how we are to know when they deem that to be. She said they seized my information from the company that sold this tree, and were tracking everyone down. I told her if this was such a threat, I didn’t understand what took three years.

What do you think of the USDA waiting 3 years after the quarantine to demand it back?

That is really what ticks me off the most -- it’s not like this tree just arrived, and I was contacted about a problem. This is three years later. If the government thought this was such a risk, it’s doesn’t say much that it took them three years to do anything about it. This officer stated that I could get a replacement tree from the company.

At that point I brought up that I had read that other people had done that, had been assured those were “compliant” trees, and then they were seized. This agent did admit that happened.

I mentioned the fine I was threatened with, and she said it was on a case by case basis, and that they really weren’t going after the consumer. I asked if I got the replacement tree, how was I to know the feds wouldn’t be knocking on my door again in three years, and she said she didn’t know what to tell me. I voiced my disgust with the way in which this flyer was written, and she said it was done by the national USDA PR people and she had no control over that.

I asked if they had a warrant in order to obtain this tree, and she said no.

I asked what would happen if I declined to give it up, and she said no one had ever done that before and she would have to talk to her supervisor. I asked her to do so.

I called back the next day, and she told me that while they were hoping I would voluntarily give up the tree, it wasn’t a choice, it was an order.

I again asked what would happen, and she said she would have someone call me back. A supervisor did, and she told me that they were going to get the tree one or way or the other, and if I refused, they would quarantine it, obtain a warrant, and bring federal law enforcement officers to my house to take the tree.

She told me 2-3 times that If that tree disappeared while it was under quarantine I would be in violation.

What happens if someone informs the USDA that the tree has died – what do they do?

When I pressed her about the time I had had this tree, and what they did if other people said theirs had died, she told me they made repeat visits back, “surveyed” yards, and spotted many in people's front hallways. She told me they wanted this wrapped up that week, and that if I was going to refuse, I had to tell them so they could get going on the quarantine and warrant. Oh, she also mentioned she could count one hand how many times they had to do that sort of thing, as most people relented and gave them their tree.

Did this situation disrupt your life? Did it feel like a violation?

I was so torn. I am not a quitter by nature, but at the same time I did not want my family members to be at home when law enforcement showed up with this warrant to storm in and seize the tree.

I do not have the money, either, to try to fight the government in court (which I did point out to the one agent, that they clearly knew they held up the upper hand). With utter anger I relented, and said I would give it up.

The original agent wouldn’t make an appointment after 3:00, so I had to bring the tree to work. She came into my workplace with a red hazmat bag, but my tree was so big and healthy it didn’t fit, so she took it in my garbage bag. I did snap a picture of her doing so, which I told her I was going to do. I had also contacted our local newspaper the day before, and they did a story on it.

Did you realize at the time that you were basically threatened with a federal raid if you did not comply? Because, you were…

Yes, I did feel threatened with a federal raid. I think being told they were going to get the tree one way or the other leaves little choice.

I felt utterly violated, angry, and upset. I pay my taxes, I obey the law, and this is how I was treated? I did nothing wrong. I would expect these actions toward someone running a drug house, not someone who owned a lemon tree.

I don’t know for a fact they had driven by before sending that letter, but it seemed a little odd the supervisor would tell me they “survey” yards looking for the trees.

Do you believe their actions are really motivated by environmental safety?

In my own mind I do not believe they took this tree because of this citrus disease. I am not certainly selfish enough to have wanted to keep a tree if I thought it were a hazard to the nation’s citrus crops.

That disease doesn’t affect humans or animals, according to the literature they sent me. It causes misshapen fruit and yellow leaves, neither of which my tree had. And even if my tree were sick, it had been here three years – it’s a little late for them to be so hysterical over it, especially in the cold climate of Wisconsin.

What did your family and friends think of it? What did they say when you thought you might push harder to keep your tree?

My family and friends were quite shocked. I have heard from quite a number of people who read the article, and it amazes me how afraid people are -- they think the government is reading our e-mails, listening to our calls, etc. It is a shame in the land of the free that people have to feel this way.

What would you say to those who stand by the USDA’s heavy actions in the name of environmental safety?

And to those who think it’s not a big deal, I ask them how they will feel when the government decides to seize something they own and value.

Would you do anything differently if it happened again?

I don’t know what what I would do it if I had to do it over again. I would like to think I would push it and demand a warrant as is my right, but I knew the tree was going one way or the other. I pushed and questioned it as best as I did, but in the end, these people, paid with our tax dollars, treated me like a common criminal.

Thanks for asking for the details. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

- No Bridget, THANK YOU

On the desert trail of Tony Blair's millions

An explosive new TV documentary reveals the apparent conflict of interests that allows the former prime minister, now a Middle East peace envoy, to earn millions. 

A bit rich: Mr Blair has said that he is worth 'considerably less' than £20 million Photo: REUTERS

One of the first letters arranging Tony Blair’s 2008 visit to Colonel Gaddafi, the now deposed Libyan despot, was written on the notepaper of the “Office of the Quartet Representative” – the formal title of the former British prime minister, reflecting his role as Middle East peace envoy.

Mr Blair flew into Tripoli in a jet arranged by the Libyan government, and was met by British diplomats. Yet a well-placed source has told The Daily Telegraph that his visits were little to do with Middle East peace, saying instead that the “visits were lobby visits for banking deals with JP Morgan” – the US investment bank that pays Mr Blair a consultancy fee of a reported £2 million a year. However, Mr Blair’s official spokesman categorically denied that Blair lobbied Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, on behalf of the bank, insisting that the visits were largely to do with African affairs.

Much remains mysterious about Mr Blair’s repeated visits to Tripoli over the past few years. But they display the essential characteristic of the jet-setting billionaire lifestyle he has enjoyed ever since leaving Downing Street in June 2007: an extraordinary confusion of public duty and private interest.

Was Mr Blair in Libya – as the headed notepaper would suggest – to discuss Middle East peace with Gaddafi? Was he working on behalf of his Governance Initiative, which claims it “pioneers a new way of working with African countries”? Was he sounding out deals for J P Morgan, as the well-placed Telegraph source insists? Or was he there on behalf of his own very lucrative money-making concern, Tony Blair Associates (TBA), whose professed objective is to provide “strategic advice” on “political and economic trends and government reform”?

This confusion of motive and identity follows Mr Blair almost everywhere he goes, as we found when researching our forthcoming Channel 4 Dispatches film, The Wonderful World of Tony Blair.

Let’s take the example of Mr Blair’s visit to the Emir of Kuwait, part of a wider Middle Eastern tour, made on January 26, 2009. He was introduced to the Emir – who is said to feel a profound sense of gratitude to the former British prime minister because of his role in deposing Kuwait’s greatest enemy, Saddam Hussein – in his capacity of Quartet Representative. And, indeed, Blair is charged by the Quartet with raising Middle Eastern funds to plough into Palestinian projects.
Yet, puzzlingly, by his side was a figure who has nothing to do with the Quartet whatever: Jonathan Powell. Mr Powell, who used to be Downing Street Chief of Staff when Mr Blair was prime minister, today has a new role as senior adviser to Tony Blair Associates, the vehicle through which Mr Blair channels many of his money-earning interests. Mr Powell was perched on a sofa during the meeting.
Shortly afterwards, the Emir handed Tony Blair Associates a lucrative consultancy deal to provide advice on the future of the Kuwaiti economy. Nobody knows how much this deal – which was kept secret for two years – is worth. Because the TBA contract was handled by the Emir’s personal office, it is exempt from scrutiny by Kuwait’s normally rigorous financial regulatory body.
Few Kuwaitis are prepared to speak out publicly, because it is illegal to criticise the Emir. But Nasser Al Abolly, a leading Kuwaiti pro-democracy campaigner, said he had heard from good sources that Mr Blair had been paid 12 million dinars, about £27 million. “I believe this amount is exorbitant,” Abolly told us, adding that much of Blair’s eventual report was not original and had come up with many of the same recommendations as earlier reports on the future of Kuwait – an observation echoed by other Kuwaiti politicians. A spokesman for Mr Blair insists that the sum involved was far less than £27 million, though declined to say how much TBA had been paid.
Mr Blair’s job as representative for the Quartet – the international diplomatic group that represents the US, Russia, the United Nations and Europe in their common attempt to forge peace in the Middle East – is riddled with this type of very troubling ambiguity.
Let’s take the example of the deal trumpeted by Mr Blair as one of his greatest achievements in his role as Quartet Representative – his success in persuading the Israeli government to open up radio frequencies so that the phone company Wataniya Mobile can operate in the West Bank.
Wataniya Mobile’s chief executive officer Bassam Hanoun cannot praise Mr Blair too highly. He told us that the Wataniya network had been built, “but it was dead, not operational” – until Mr Blair’s forceful intervention with Israeli ministers.
Yet Wataniya’s owner, the Qatari telecoms giant QTEL, is a major client of one of the former prime minister’s most significant paymasters, JP Morgan. When QTEL bought Wataniya Mobile’s parent company, Wataniya International, in 2007, the company did so with a $2 billion loan that JP Morgan helped to arrange, and the bank stood to make huge profits once the radio frequencies were released.
A near identical conflict involves a second major Palestinian project for which Mr Blair is lobbying heavily – the development of a huge gas field off the shore of Gaza worth more than $6 billion. Once again, he is fighting to overturn an Israeli edict blocking development, and again there is a potential conflict of interest. British Gas, which owns the rights to operate the field, is a major client of, yes, you guessed it, JP Morgan.
JP Morgan insists it has never discussed either the Wataniya or the British Gas deal with Mr Blair – while the former prime minister insists that in both cases he was, in any case, wholly unaware of the JP Morgan connection.
Nevertheless, the conflict is glaring – and Mr Blair would be unable to get away with this kind of confusion if he were a public servant in Britain, or working for an international organisation such as the World Bank or the IMF.
Dr Nicholas Allen, a senior politics lecturer at the University of London, specialising in parliamentary ethics, told us: “It is not altogether clear that Blair is separating very clearly his work as the representative of the Quartet and his business interests. Clearly, if he was holding a ministerial office in Britain, that kind of conflict – even the appearance of that kind of conflict, the appearance of that influence – wouldn’t be tolerated.”
Dr Allen says that no fewer than six out of seven of the Nolan principles – the code of ethics for public servants enforced by Mr Blair when he was prime minister – “appear to be undermined by Blair’s conduct”.
This immunity from ordinary standards comes despite the fact that Mr Blair is partly funded by the British taxpayer and gets the support of British civil servants. It all sounds uncannily similar to the notorious so-called “sofa government” – the confusion of formal roles and identities in the run up to the Iraq invasion for which, as prime minister, Mr Blair was censured by the former cabinet secretary Lord Butler.
It must be acknowledged that Mr Blair does much philanthropic and public spirited work through his Africa governance initiative, his Faith Foundation, and also for the Quartet (even though we found very few Palestinians who were prepared to speak well of him). However, these admirable objectives have been compromised and tarnished by his apparent drive to make money.
The Quartet cannot occupy more than one week a month of Blair’s schedule, perhaps less. He has earned a reported £6 million – though some in the City insist the real figure may be much higher – from JP Morgan since his consultancy started in 2008. Add in an estimated £1.5 million from advising the insurance group Zurich Financial services on its climate initiative.
He has advised Mubadala, one of Abu Dhabi’s most prominent sovereign wealth funds, and the luxury goods concern LVMH. In the television programme, we calculate that the Blair family property portfolio alone – with seven houses ranging from his manor house in Buckinghamshire to his London house in Connaught Square – is worth over £14 million. And then comes a further reported £9 million or more from speeches.
It is impossible to tell how much Tony Blair Inc is worth exactly because his finances are carefully hidden behind complex financial structures. Mr Blair himself is on record as saying that he is worth “considerably less” than £20 million. There is some reason to be sceptical of this claim.
Mr Blair insists that his conduct since stepping down as prime minister has been honourable, above board and beyond reproach. But this much can surely be said: when Blair joined the Quartet, he was handed a priceless opportunity to earn a place in history by making a genuine commitment to world peace. He has made some progress. Yet he seems to treat his post as envoy for the Quartet as a part-time post, by allowing his private commercial interests to merge with his public duty. And – as ever – the old maestro is getting away with it.
Additional reporting by Sasha Joelle Achilli. Watch Peter Oborne reporting for 'Dispatches: The Wonderful World of Tony Blair’ on Monday at 8pm on Channel 4.

 

Pakistan seeks diplomatic support in row with U.S.

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani officials have been meeting with ambassadors and other foreign dignitaries seeking diplomatic support as the United States piles pressure on Islamabad to cut its alleged ties with a militant group blamed for attacks on U.S. targets.

The United States accuses the Pakistani army's powerful spy agency of supporting the Haqqani militant group, a chief driver of violence in eastern Afghanistan.

In stunningly blunt comments last week, the outgoing U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen called the Haqqani network a "veritable arm" of the ISI intelligence agency and accused Pakistan of providing support for the September 13 attack on its Kabul mission.

Pakistan's government and army rejected the allegations.

Salim Saifullah, chairman of Pakistan's Senate Foreign Relations committee, said he and other officials held talks with diplomats to explain Pakistan's stand as the United States pushes the Pakistani army to go after the Haqqani network.

"We have been meeting with diplomats with the purpose to convey Pakistan's point of view, and also that they should make the United States understand that we have sacrificed so much," he told Reuters.

He did not name the countries with which the discussions had taken place.

"We are willing to go along but not at the cost of being humiliated and told that 'you're responsible for the Kabul attack and you are responsible for this thing and that'. That is not appropriate."

About 5,000 soldiers and security forces have been killed fighting militants and 30,000 civilians have died since Pakistan joined the U.S. "war on terror" launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which the United States doesn't appreciate, Pakistani officials say.

Pakistan will almost certainly seek the backing of China. Pakistan and China are long-time allies, and in recent months Islamabad has leaned closer to China as its ties with the United States have deteriorated.

China's Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu arrived in Islamabad on Monday and was scheduled to meet senior officials.

"China is always there for us," said Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik as he welcomed Meng.

The United States has long pressed Pakistan to pursue the Haqqani network, one of the most lethal Taliban-allied Afghan groups fighting Western forces in Afghanistan.

CASUALTIES FEARED IN ANY ATTACK ON HAQQANIS

Mullen's accusation that Pakistan uses violent extremism as an instrument of policy was the strongest yet leveled at Pakistan since it joined the U.S.-led war on militancy.

Two weeks ago, militants launched an assault against the U.S. embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul. U.S. officials blamed those attacks on the Haqqani network.

U.S. officials said there was intelligence, including intercepted phone calls, suggesting those attackers were in communication with people connected to Pakistan's principal spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate.

Pakistan denies it supports the Haqqanis and says its army is too stretched battling its own Taliban insurgency to go after the network, which has an estimated 10,000-15,000 fighters.

Pakistan's military will not take action against the Haqqani militant group, despite mounting American pressure to do so, a Pakistani newspaper reported on Monday.

Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani held a "special" meeting with his top commanders on Sunday to discuss the security situation, the military said, after a week of tension and tit-for-tat rhetoric with the United States.

Kayani was scheduled to leave for London on Sunday night but the trip was postponed, the Pakistani military said on Monday.

The Pakistani commanders agreed to resist U.S. demands for an army offensive in North Waziristan, where the United States believes the Haqqani network is based, the Express Tribune reported, quoting an unnamed military official.

"We have already conveyed to the U.S. that Pakistan cannot go beyond what it has already done," the official told the newspaper on condition of anonymity.

Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar is expected to present Pakistan's case when she addresses the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.

American Ambassador Cameron Munter met with Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir on Monday to defuse tensions.

Underscoring the magnitude of tensions, Pakistani stocks ended nearly 3 percent lower on Monday following worsening relations between Islamabad and Washington, dealers said,

Analysts say the Pakistani military could suffer heavy casualties if it were to attempt a crackdown on the group, which has developed extensive alliances with other militant organizations in the region.

Widespread anti-American sentiment in Pakistan also makes it difficult for the army to cave in to U.S. pressure.

"Are we responsible for the attacks that Taliban do throughout the country?" asked Khan Alam Marwat, 40, a car salesman in Islamabad. "It was a big mistake of our rulers that they supported Americans."

(Additional reporting by Saud Mehsud in Dera Ismail Khan and Sahar Ahmed in Karachi; Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Chris Allbritton and Sanjeev Miglani)

UN to act on JP radiation only 8 months late

The glorious speed of government, only 8 months after the devistating quakes and tsunami that left Fukushima radioactove the UN is PLANNING on sending a team to help in the clean up maybe next month.

This is really a world issue because if japan cant clean it up the radiation is going to spread to other areas. I dont just mean the wind blown light stuff, I mean the heavier things that can get trapped in ocean water or rain.

Quote:

it will be interesting to see if TEPCO and J-Govt actually allow outside agencies to go into the area.

The lawyers definitely want to control information. If we can get outside agencies to report the radiation levels TEPCOs lawyers will have a hard time disputing the evidence. I'm sure anybody going into that area will be asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Now if they refuse the support and lets say claim "This is our problem, we'll clean it up" then right then and there you should know, they don't want anybody to know exactly what's going on. Instead they'll control all the data and information.

-netninja

i liked that comment. But the new PM has to act like he is doing something and changing something or the Japanese government could collapse they've already been changing PMs every 9 months to a year and this is the fitfh guy in 5 years. If he fails there could be prefecture rebellion and Japan could become a confederation. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Door to Door Vaccinations: Mom to Nurse, 'Get The F☠ck Out!'

NATOMAS, CA – Natomas school officials are going door to door with a traveling nurse to give whooping cough shots to unvaccinated students.

A new state law requires students entering seventh through 12th grades to get vaccinated against the disease by the start of the 2011-12 school year.

The legislature gave districts 30 days beyond the start of the school year to make sure all students were vaccinated or had a formal exemption filed by their parents or guardians.

As the deadline passes, thousands of students remain unvaccinated. Many school districts have been defying state law and allowing them on campus.

Read full article

Ron Paul - Time to De-Recognize the United Nations (26-Sept-11)(POLITIC...