Seeking Alpha

Dr. V

Dr. V
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Dr. V's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Investing In European Banks: Low Valuations Vs. Capital Requirements [View article]
    You missed the point.

    Germany enjoys waving their finger of "moral superiority" at the rest of the EU as well as the US, when they should e sweeping their own doorstep.

    As most Financial Daily's refer to Deutsche bank as "the most stable bank in the EU", we say, if that's the best they've got, they're screwed.
    Jan 28 09:06 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gun Control: How To Profit From Increased Demand [View article]
    And, as I said previously, the ban is on.
    Jan 21 09:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gun Control: How To Profit From Increased Demand [View article]
    It doesn't matter what the people want, the "majority" is the USG, not "the people".

    The US has been running under the UCC for years. Our so called "constitutional rights" were suspended under Executive Order long ago, common knowledge, ask any Judge or CONLAW Professor.

    One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally.

    Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, contracts are unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an "agreements," it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit.

    It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a commercial international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, " I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court !" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Right?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME - I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged - not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308 (old 1-207).

    UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say:

    "When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9)
    Jan 11 03:55 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gun Control: How To Profit From Increased Demand [View article]
    Or, if you fully understand the meaning of the word democracy.

    Democracy:

    A government of the masses.

    Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

    Results in mobocracy.

    Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.

    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

    Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

    Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

    A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

    A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

    Republic:

    Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

    Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

    Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

    A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

    Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

    Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

    A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

    an executive and

    a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

    a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

    certain inherent individual rights.

    Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

    Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

    A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

    Government is no longer taught in schools, sadly.
    Jan 10 04:12 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gun Control: How To Profit From Increased Demand [View article]
    It wasn't my intention to seek an explanation,but rather shed light for those who haven't learned OR taught CONLAW.
    Jan 6 05:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gun Control: How To Profit From Increased Demand [View article]
    A valid point, well done.

    However, the US Constitution does not take precedence here, rather the UCC, which governs our daily lives. As a member of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, allow me to share this explanation, shared by many.

    The US Constitution embraces two (2) systems of law.

    First, public municipal law for private purposes operating "in personam" (in and for the individual person).

    Second, private law for public purposes operating "in rem"(in and for property or anything that has nothing to do with the individual).

    What is hard to initially understand is that the men who wrote this document (US Constitution) wrote it in such a way that it would allow for the very things that government is doing today that we detest so much, (the danger of letting someone with a 3rd grade education near a public document.) All of the despicable Regulations and interference of "big brother," with his detested heavy-handed tactics are all properly allowed by our Constitution. They are perfectly legal. This is because the United States Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution BECAUSE it is operating in private Roman civil law. It is not treasonous for it to carry on the way it does, but it is treasonous that the citizenry are ignorant of their republican rights (as in being members of the Republic) that can keep the government in check by removing the Roman civil law.

    Of the two systems of law that the Constitution embraces, the entire population have been herded, over the years, into operating only in the private unilateral contractual side. This is the side where we have volunteered unknowingly into giving up the part of the Constitution that was designed to keep the private law out of public policy if used, accessed and maintained by the people.

    What is unfortunate is that the citizen continues to assume that voting is making their desires known and that the government basically has the interest of the individual in mind. All the time unaware that private corporate business interest is what the government is there for (at this point) because the house of the Republic of the [u]nited States of America (ignorantly vacated) remains empty.

    What the citizen is unaware of is that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, called the Bill of Rights, were passed as public in Law Amendments by the "states in this union" known as the Republic of the United States of America. These do not apply to the "several states" that are political subdivisions of "a territory" of the 14th Amendment trust of the District of Columbia called the "democracy." In the opposite vein, Amendments 11 through 25 were passed as private at law Amendments by the "several states" operating as political subdivisions of the trust and have no application to the Republic and its citizens. Amendments 11 through 25 function outside the Constitution. Any additional Amendments that would be added by a constitutional convention would be added as more private law only by the "several states" as a "democracy" outside the Republic and its Constitution. The more Amendments the democracy wants to add will not give more freedom and rights, on the contrary, only more oppression and control.

    Democracy is one of the scariest words in Webster English.

    As I said "amnesty weapon turn-ins" are on the USG calendar. Everyone here on the Hill knows this.
    Jan 6 05:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gun Control: How To Profit From Increased Demand [View article]
    Thank you, the explanation on the Bill of Rights was previously given.

    No confusion here, please read and study the Constitution before attempting to debate it's content.
    Jan 6 05:16 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gun Control: How To Profit From Increased Demand [View article]
    But, WHEN the "amnesty turn-ins" for weapons start, (already on USG calendar), investors loose. write that down.

    CONLAW helmets on, follow me:

    The question is, does the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, entitle the private citizenry the right to legally purchase or own firearms? Because if in fact that was thei author's intention, it doesn't say that anywhere in the Amendment, but rather........

    "A well regulated Militia being "necessary to the security of a free State", the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Full stop..

    - Keep (to maintain and store, as in a town's armory, overseen by local law authority)

    - Bear (to carry an assigned weapon issued by that State for the specific purpose of protecting that same State, and ONLY in that instance, just like your assigned military weapon in US Military,
    when called out, weapons are issued from the armory for a specific action, and returned to the armory at end of mission.)

    http://bit.ly/UI8rP8
    Jan 2 10:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Posco confirms that it is part of a group that has agreed to acquire a 15% stake in iron-ore company ArcelorMittal Mines Canada (MT) for $1.1B. Earlier today, it was reported that China Steel will invest $540M and Posco $270M, with the South Korean firm looking to bring in other potential investors. (Previously[View news story]
    I said this 2 years ago, when Credit Suisse and UBS both turned down MT's refinancing requests, claiming MT was "no longer trustworthy, and were seen as an unreliable risk."

    In a detailed comparrison here on SA, I also pointed out their debt was nearly as high as their Mkt Cap, citing specifically that POSCO was knocking MT in the dirt worldwide, and would indeed surpass MT within the year.

    Happy New Year Mr. Mittal!

    Remember what I told you in London?
    Jan 2 02:51 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'Crash JPMorgan' Campaign [View article]
    JPMC control US Silver Mkts.

    They have long been acting under mandate as Sole Agent for the US Treasury regards silver.
    Nov 28 04:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'Crash JPMorgan' Campaign [View article]
    And will continue to shirk the rules, unscathed.

    Dimon runs FED Reserve Bank NY, as well as JPMC, and as we predicted in 2010, (check posts), is now to be tapped for US Treasury Secretary. no secret there as he is a vocal part of the Democratic machinery, and friend of the White House's current tenant.

    This will continue, so let it go. Can't change it, so learn to live with it.

    The system always has, and always will, protect it's own.
    Nov 27 03:54 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Is Bluffing And That Will Be Its Downfall [View article]
    Too right PSound, you nailed it.
    Nov 26 07:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'Crash JPMorgan' Campaign [View article]
    JPMC owes FED, $391 BIL USD.

    (check GAO FED Audit pgs. 130-31)

    The announcement of charges filed by both the CFTC and the FBI in the pending investigations of Silver market manipulation by JP Morgan Chase, should not get you wound up.

    Bart Chilton (aka Black Bart), said at the end of July 2012, "CFTC WILL NOT investigate allegations that the silver price is manipulated by major financial powerhouses, in particular JPMorgan, whose death-by-a-thousand-cuts year might see their "Too Big To Fail" status tested and endure."

    REMEMBER:
    1) Acknowledgment by the Bullion Banks and US Government that they have been involved in the price suppression of Silver for over 50 years in order to support and extend the global confidence in un-backed fiat US Dollar, has changed little, and if anything, it gives FBI even more of a reason to kill the investigation.

    2) Maguire and his wife were run over, and the driver was released on a misdemeanor.

    3) Let it go.
    Nov 26 05:01 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The fireworks have commenced over H-P's (HPQ -10.4%) Autonomy write-down and fraud accusations. Leo Apotheker, CEO when the Autonomy deal (controversial from the start) was pushed through, insists H-P's due diligence was solid. Fired Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch unsurprisingly denies everything. Meg Whitman, who voted for the deal as a board member, effectively threw Apotheker and former strategy chief Shane Robison under the bus during H-P's earnings call. H-P execs claim both Autonomy's revenue and margins were inflated by hardware deals. [View news story]
    Well spotted.

    I do apologize as well, I should have mentioned the legal explanation I gave is in fact based upon current UK Corporate Law & Governance. According to GAAP , the overstatement of revenue under any tax code is illegal, full stop, Ignorantia juris non excusat,("ignorance of the law does not excuse").

    The questions you pose are indeed the million dollar questions, as the media is now avoiding, in an attempt to put the story on the back burner whilst FBI / SEC / FSA continue to investigate.

    Apparently, there was enough evidence uncovered in the internal investigation, that the U.S. District Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, called in the FBI, so this is indeed criminal in nature.

    The most damning statements include:

    1) "Most of the board was here and voted for this deal, and we feel terribly about that," Whitman said. "What I will say is that the board relied on audited financials. Audited by Deloitte - not 'Brand X' accounting firm, but Deloitte. During our very extensive due diligence process, we hired KPMG to audit Deloitte. And neither of them saw what we now see after someone came forward to point us in the right direction."

    a. Witman blames not only Deloitte here, but further implies they (HP) called in KPMG to peep on Deloitte? So two (2) of the "Big Four" Auditors missed it? That's pure schmegegge.

    As I stated in the previous post:

    "An accountant may be prosecuted for fraud" who:

    · Certifies that a financial statement fairly presents the financial condition of the audited company when the accountant knows it does not;

    · Falsely states that the audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

    · Deliberately distorts the audit results.

    That is quite clear, little room for finagling.

    2) Apotheker told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he was "stunned and disappointed" to learn of the allegations against Autonomy, and pointed out that they had gone undiscovered by HP's auditors, executives and directors.

    a. Leo Apotheker, just throws it right into Meg's lap here, suggesting that HP (BoD, C-Officers, Accountants) are at fault having missed it during due diligence,

    3) HP, in the understatement of the year, says it is “extremely disappointed” to find out some former members of Autonomy’s management team inflated Autonomy’s underlying financial metrics – GAAP and non-GAAP. HP boldly called it a “willful effort to mislead investors and potential buyers”. Read: CRIMINAL FRAUD.

    She (Whitman) MUST step down now to keep that company from being broken into pieces, albeit, likely the plan all along. Watch those shorts, and check the order book
    Nov 23 03:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The fireworks have commenced over H-P's (HPQ -10.4%) Autonomy write-down and fraud accusations. Leo Apotheker, CEO when the Autonomy deal (controversial from the start) was pushed through, insists H-P's due diligence was solid. Fired Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch unsurprisingly denies everything. Meg Whitman, who voted for the deal as a board member, effectively threw Apotheker and former strategy chief Shane Robison under the bus during H-P's earnings call. H-P execs claim both Autonomy's revenue and margins were inflated by hardware deals. [View news story]
    Excellent Question.

    As far as Corporate Regulation is concerned, at the point where through misrepresentation of material facts occurred. The specific elements of actual proof of misrepresentation, vary whether the case is prosecuted as a criminal or civil action. those elements normally include:

    · Material false statement;

    · Knowledge of its falsity;

    · Reliance on the false statement by the victim;

    · (A loss) Damages suffered;

    · A deceit or fraud constituting a false statement made willfully or recklessly, which causes loss to another.

    Not only is a misrepresentation fraudulent if it was known or believed by the maker of the representation to be false when made, but mere non-belief in the truth is also indicative of fraud.

    Thus, whenever a person makes a false statement of record, which he does not actually and honestly believe to be true, for purposes of civil liability, that statement is as fraudulent as if he had stated that which he did not know to be true, or knew or believed to be false. The motive of the person making the representation is irrelevant.

    In civil cases, when determining whether a representation was made fraudulently, the standard of proof applicable is the balance of probability (i.e. more likely than not) and not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, the amount of evidence required to establish proof may vary according to the gravity of allegation to be proved.

    In all fraud cases, the prosecution or claimant must prove that a false statement was intentional and part of a deliberate scheme to defraud. Under the law, there is no such thing as an accidental or negligent fraud. In most instances, only false representations of "presently existing facts" may be prosecuted.

    False Opinions

    The rule precluding fraud actions based on false "opinions" is subject to certain exceptions, principally cases involving opinions provided by professional advisers, such as Certified Public Accountants, (who in this case HP claim to be responsible for the fraud, although they (CPA's) deny any knowledge thereof.

    This is where it starts to look grim for the firms who last performed due diligence regards Autonomy.

    An accountant may be prosecuted for fraud who:

    · Certifies that a financial statement fairly presents the financial condition of the audited company when the accountant knows it does not;

    · Falsely states that the audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

    · Deliberately distorts the audit results.

    FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH: PERJURY - S.2

    (As amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948)

    If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding willfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false of does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.

    FALSE STATEMENTS ON OATH MADE OTHERWISE THAN IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - S.2

    (As amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948)

    If any person -

    (1) being required or authorized by law to make any statement or oath for any purpose, and being lawfully sworn (otherwise than in a judicial proceeding) willfully makes a statement which is material for that purpose and which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true; or

    (2) willfully uses any false affidavit for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, as amended by any subsequent enactment, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.
    Nov 22 03:00 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,179 Comments
739 Likes