Pensionato condannato a mantenere le due figlie

LA STORIA

Pensionato condannato a mantenere le due figlie «bamboccione»

Le ragazze, 26 e 30 anni, fuori corso all'università. L'uomo deve versare un assegno mensile di 1800 euro

ROMA - Condannato a mantenere con un assegno sostanzioso le due figlie «bamboccione». E' successo a R.P., classe 1943, napoletano, impiegato di Banca in pensione, separato dalla moglie L.Q., classe 1950, romana, dopo circa quaranta anni di matrimonio. L'uomo, da subito, già dalla comparizione davanti al Presidente del Tribunale, si era dimostrato disponibile a corrispondere alle figlie, ancorché maggiorenni - la prima di 26 anni studentessa al terzo anno fuori corso di giurisprudenza, la seconda 30enne al sesto anno fuori corso di sociologia - un assegno di mantenimento per consentirle di continuare serenamente gli studi. Mai si sarebbe aspettato una condanna dal Tribunale Civile di Roma che lo obbliga a corrispondere alle due figlie un assegno complessivo di mantenimento di 1.800 euro, oltre il 50% delle spese straordinarie.

PENSIONE DI 2500 EURO - L'uomo, amareggiato, ha deciso, a mezzo dei propri legali, gli avvocati Anna Orecchioni e Giacinto Canzona, di inoltrare, con la domanda di divorzio, domanda di riduzione dell'assegno di mantenimento entro «limiti accettabili», anche perchè la sua pensione è di circa 2.500 euro mensili. La difesa del padre, sostiene infatti, che - fermo restando il principio ribadito più volte dalla Cassazione sull'obbligatorietà del mantenimento dei figli anche oltre la maggiore età - un assegno di mantenimento in misura così elevata (quasi uno stipendio medio) rischia di essere addirittura «diseducativo» per le figlie in quanto, come appare tra l'altro dai pessimi risultati universitari, consente alle stesse di adagiarsi in una situazione di comodo tali da potersi definire, queste si, delle vere e proprie «bamboccione». (Fonte: Agi)

Corriere della Sera, 02 marzo 2010

IMF-style Austerity Comes to America

Hi --
Here is my latest article, on the misguided push for "fiscal
responsibility." It is posted on Counterpunch here --

"IMF-style Austerity Comes to America"
http://www.counterpunch.org/brown03022010.html

and on Global Research here --

"IMF 'Economic Medicine' Comes to America"
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17881

I also did a video interview with Max Keiser on that subject, here
(second and third segments, Feb 26) --

http://maxkeiser.com/2010/02/26/ote43-on-the-edge-with-max-keiser/

Best wishes,
Ellen Brown
www.webofdebt.com

Currency manipulation: how should the U.S. respond?

Currency manipulation: how should the U.S. respond?

A forum featuring Paul Krugman and C. Fred Bergsten

Friday, March 12, 2010

9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Currency manipulation makes imports artificially cheap and inflates the prices of U.S. exports, placing U.S. manufacturers "at a huge competitive disadvantage," as President Obama recently noted. Research by leading economists has consistently shown that five countries are the most egregious currency manipulators--China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan and Singapore. The EPI Forum on Currency Manipulation will feature economists Fred Bergsten and Paul Krugman, both of whom have recently called for major Chinese currency appreciation. Business and labor leaders will also discuss the impacts of currency manipulation on U.S. manufacturers and workers.

Please join the Economic Policy Institute for a discussion of these issues with noted experts in this exciting forum.

{RSVP here and below}

Registration begins at 9:00 a.m. Coffee and breakfast will be provided.

Location:
The Mayflower Renaissance Hotel
East Room

1127 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
(Near Farragut West (Orange/Blue lines) and Farragut North (Red line))

Panel I: Impacts of Chinese Currency Manipulation on U.S. Businesses and Workers

Moderator:

Scott Paul- utive Director, Alliance for American Manufacturing

Panelists:

Leo W. Gerard- International President, United Steel Workers

Laurie S. Moncrieff- President, Adaptive Manufacturing Services
and Schmald Tool & Die, Inc.

Panel II: Chinese Currency Manipulation: the case for change in U.S. policy

Moderator:

Bruce Stokes, International Economics Columnist, National Journal

Panelists:

Paul Krugman- Columnist, New York Times; Professor, Princeton University and Nobel Laureate

C. Fred Bergsten- Director, Peterson Institute for International Economics

Robert E. Scott- Senior Economist, Economic Policy Institute

Space is limited, please RSVP here to attend this event.

For more information, email events@epi.org.

IMF "Economic Medicine" Comes to America

IMF "Economic Medicine" Comes to America

by Ellen Brown

Global Research, March 2, 2010

Web of Debt - 2010-02-28

In addition to mandatory private health insurance premiums, we may soon be hit with a “mandatory savings” tax and other belt-tightening measures urged by the President’s new budget task force. These radical austerity measures are not only unnecessary, however, but will actually make matters worse. The push for “fiscal responsibility” is based on bad economics.

When billionaires pledge a billion dollars to educate people to the evils of something, it is always good to peer closely at what they are up to. Hedge fund magnate Peter G. Peterson was formerly Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and head of the New York Federal Reserve. He is now senior chairman of Blackstone Group, which is in charge of dispersing government funds in the controversial AIG bailout, widely criticized as a government giveaway to banks. Peterson is also founder of the Peter Peterson Foundation, which has adopted the cause of imposing “fiscal responsibility” on Congress. He hired David M. Walker, former head of the Government Accounting Office, to spearhead a massive campaign to reduce the runaway federal debt, which the Peterson/Walker team blames on reckless government and consumer spending. The Foundation funded the movie “I.O.U.S.A.” to amass popular support for their cause, which largely revolves around dismantling Social Security and Medicare benefits as a way to cut costs and return to “fiscal responsibility.”

The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform has pushed heavily for action to stem the federal debt. Bills for a budget task force were sponsored in both houses of Congress. The Senate bill was narrowly defeated, and the House bill was tabled; but that was not the end of it. In Obama’s State of the Union speech on January 27, he said he would be creating a presidential budget task force by executive order to address the federal government’s deficit and debt crisis, and that the task force would be modeled on the bills Congress had failed to pass. If Congress would not impose “fiscal responsibility” on the nation, the President would. “It keeps me awake at night, looking at all that red ink,” he said. The Executive Order was signed on February 17.

What the President seems to have missed is that all of our money except coins now comes into the world as “red ink,” or debt. It is all created on the books of private banks and lent into the economy. If there is no debt, there is no money; and private debt has collapsed. This year to date, U.S. lending has been contracting at the fastest rate in recorded history. A credit freeze has struck globally; and when credit shrinks, the money supply shrinks with it. That means there is insufficient money to buy goods, so workers get laid off and factories get shut down, perpetuating a vicious spiral of economic collapse and depression. To reverse that cycle, credit needs to be restored; and when the banks can’t do it, the government needs to step in and start “monetizing” debt itself, or turning debt into dollars.

Although lending remains far below earlier levels, banks say they are making as many loans as they are allowed to make under existing banking rules. The real bottleneck is with the “shadow lenders” – those investors who, until late 2007, bought massive amounts of bank loans bundled up as “securities,” taking those loans off the banks’ books, making room for yet more loans to be originated out of the banks’ capital and deposit bases. Because of the surging defaults on subprime mortgages, investors have now shied away from buying the loans, forcing banks and Wall Street firms to hold them on their books and take the losses. In the boom years, the shadow lending market was estimated at $10 trillion. That market has now collapsed, leaving a massive crater in the money supply. That hole needs to be filled, and only the government is in a position to do it. Paying down the federal debt when money is already scarce just makes matters worse. When the deficit has been reduced historically, the money supply has been reduced along with it, throwing the economy into recession.

Another Look at the Budget Reform Agenda

That raises the question, are the advocates of “fiscal responsibility” merely misguided? Or are they up to something more devious? The President’s Executive Order is vague about the sorts of budget decisions being entertained, but we can get a sense of what is on the table by looking at the earlier agenda of Peterson’s Commission on Budget Reform. The Peterson/Walker plan would have slashed social security entitlements, at a time when Wall Street has destroyed the home equity and private retirement accounts of potential retirees. Worse, it would have increased the social security tax, disguised as a “mandatory savings tax.” This added tax would be automatically withdrawn from your paycheck and deposited to a “Guaranteed Retirement Account” managed by the Social Security Administration. Since the savings would be “mandatory,” you could not withdraw your money without stiff penalties; and rather than enjoying an earlier retirement paid out of your increased savings, a later retirement date was being called for. In the meantime, your “mandatory savings” would just be fattening the investment pool of the Wall Street bankers managing the funds.

And that may be what really underlies the big push to educate the public to the dangers of the federal debt. Political analyst Jim Capo discusses a slide show presentation given by David M. Walker after the “I.O.U.S.A.” premier, in which a mandatory savings plan was proposed that would be modeled on the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (FSP). Capo comments:

“The FSP, available for federal employees like congressional staff workers, has over $200 billion of assets (on paper anyway). About half these assets are in special non-negotiable US Treasury notes issued especially for the FSP scheme. The other half are invested in stocks, bonds and other securities. . . . The nearly $100 billion in [this] half of the plan is managed by Blackrock Financial. And, yes, shock, Blackrock Financial is a creation of Mr. Peterson's Blackstone Group. In fact, the FSP and Blackstone were birthed almost as a matched set. It's tough to fail when you form an investment management company at the same time you can gain the contract that directs a percentage of the Federal government payroll into your hands.”

What “Fiscal Responsibility” Really Means

All of this puts “fiscal responsibility” in a different light. Rather than saving the future for our grandchildren, as the President himself seems to think it means, it appears to be a code word for delivering public monies into private hands and raising taxes on the already-squeezed middle class. In the parlance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), these are called “austerity measures,” and they are the sorts of things that people are taking to the streets in Greece, Iceland and Latvia to protest. Americans are not taking to the streets only because nobody has told us that is what is being planned.

We have been deluded into thinking that “fiscal responsibility” (read “austerity”) is something for our benefit, something we actually need in order to save the country from bankruptcy. In the massive campaign to educate us to the perils of the federal debt, we have been repeatedly warned that the debt is disastrously large; that when foreign lenders decide to pull the plug on it, the U.S. will have to declare bankruptcy; and that all this is the fault of the citizenry for borrowing and spending too much. We are admonished to tighten our belts and save more; and since we can’t seem to impose that discipline on ourselves, the government will have to do it for us with a “mandatory savings” plan. The American people, who are already suffering massive unemployment and cutbacks in government services, will have to sacrifice more and pay the piper more, just as in those debt-strapped countries forced into austerity measures by the IMF.

Fortunately for us, however, there is a major difference between our debt and the debts of Greece, Latvia and Iceland. Our debt is owed in our own currency – U.S. dollars. Our government has the power to fix its solvency problems itself, by simply issuing the money it needs to pay off or refinance its debt. That time-tested solution goes back to the colonial scrip of the American colonists and the “Greenbacks” issued by Abraham Lincoln to avoid paying 24-36% interest rates.

Economic Fearmongering

What invariably kills any discussion of this sensible solution is another myth long perpetrated by the financial elite -- that allowing the government to increase the money supply would lead to hyperinflation. Rather than exercising its sovereign right to create the liquidity the nation needs, the government is told that it must borrow. Borrow from whom? From the bankers, of course. And where do bankers get the money they lend? They create it on their books, just as the government would have done. The difference is that when bankers create it, it comes with a hefty fee attached in the form of interest.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has been trying to increase the money supply; and rather than producing hyperinflation, we continue to suffer from deflation. Frantically pushing money at the banks has not gotten money into the real economy. Rather than lending it to businesses and individuals, the larger banks have been speculating with it or buying up smaller banks, land, farms, and productive capacity, while the credit freeze continues on Main Street. Only the government can reverse this vicious syndrome, by spending money directly on projects that will create jobs, provide services, and stimulate productivity. Increasing the money supply is not inflationary if the money is used to increase goods and services. Inflation results when “demand” (money) exceeds “supply” (goods and services). When supply and demand increase together, prices remain stable.

The notion that the federal debt is too large to be repaid and that we are imposing that monster burden on our grandchildren is another red herring. The federal debt has not been paid off since the days of Andrew Jackson, and it does not need to be paid off. It is just rolled over from year to year, providing the “full faith and credit” that alone backs the money supply of the nation. The only real danger posed by a growing federal debt is an exponentially growing interest burden; but so far, that danger has not materialized either. Interest on the federal debt has actually gone down since 2006 -- from $406 billion to $383 billion -- because interest rates have been lowered by the Fed to very low levels.

They can’t be lowered much further, however, so the interest burden will increase if the federal debt continues to grow. But there is a solution to that too. The government can just mandate that the Federal Reserve buy the government’s debt, and that the Fed not sell the bonds to private lenders. The Federal Reserve states on its website that it rebates its profits to the government after deducting its costs, making the money nearly interest-free.

All the fear-mongering about the economy collapsing when the Chinese and other investors stop buying our debt is yet another red herring. The Fed can buy the debt itself – as it has been stealthily doing. That is actually a better alternative than selling the debt to foreigners, since it means we really will owe the debt only to ourselves, as Roosevelt was assured by his advisors when he agreed to the deficit approach in the 1930s; and this debt-turned-into-dollars will be nearly interest-free.

Better yet would be to either nationalize or abolish the Fed and fund the government directly with Greenbacks as President Lincoln did. What the Fed does the Treasury Department can do, for the cost of administration. There would be no shareholders or bondholders to siphon earnings, which could be recycled into public accounts to fund national, state and local budgets at zero or near-zero interest rates. Eliminating debt service payments would allow state and federal income taxes to be slashed; and the public managers of this money, rather than hiding behind a veil of secrecy, would be opening their books for all to see.

A final red herring is the threatened bankruptcy of Social Security. Social Security cannot actually go bankrupt, because it is a pay-as-you-go system. Today’s social security taxes pay today’s recipients; and if necessary, the tax can be raised. As Washington economist Dean Baker wrote when President Bush unleashed the campaign to privatize Social Security in 2005:

“The most recent projections show that the program, with no changes whatsoever, can pay all benefits through the year 2042. Even after 2042, Social Security would always be able to pay a higher benefit (adjusted for inflation) than what current retirees receive, although the payment would only be about 73 percent of scheduled benefits.”

Today incomes over $97,000 escape the tax, disproportionately imposing it on lower income brackets. Projections over the next 75 years show that just removing that cap could eliminate the forecasted deficit. When the Democratic presidential candidates were debating in the fall of 2007, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were the only candidates willing to seriously consider this reasonable alternative. President Obama just needs to follow through with the solutions he espoused when campaigning.

The Mass Education Campaign We Really Need

What is really going on behind the scenes may have been revealed by Prof. Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University. An insider groomed by the international bankers, Dr. Quigley wrote in Tragedy and Hope in 1966:

“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

If that is indeed the plan, it is virtually complete. Unless we wake up to what is going on and take action, the “powers of financial capitalism” will have their way. Rather than taking to the streets, we need to take to the courts, bring voter initiatives, and wake up our legislators to the urgent need to take the power to create money back from the private banking elite that has hijacked it from the American people. And that includes waking up the President, who has been losing sleep over the wrong threat.

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are webofdebt.com, ellenbrown.com, and public-banking.com.

CORRUZIONE AL PALAZZO DI GIUSTIZIA

Ugo Betti
(1892-1953)

CORRUZIONE AL PALAZZO DI GIUSTIZIA

DRAMMA IN TRE ATTI

PERSONAGGI
ERZI, Consigliere Inquisitore
CROZ, Primo Giudice
CUST, Giudice

In una città straniera ai nostri giorni. L'azione ha luogo, tutti e tre gli atti, in una vasta, severa stanza del Palazzo di Giustizia.

Atto Secondo

CUST (lentamente): In conclusione voi mi avete chiamato per sapere da me ciò che penso di questo affare?
ERZI: Ecco.
CUST: Penso che se il vostro lebbroso esiste e se esso non è Vanan, vi riuscirà difficile trovarlo.
ERZI: Dunque non impossibile. Ma perché difficile?
CUST: Perché il filo dei fatti, che poteva guidarvi fino a lui, è troncato. Ludvi-Pol è morto: la bocca che poteva parlare è chiusa.
ERZI: Allora voi credete che in questo momento, in una qualsiasi delle tante stanze di questo palazzo, vi sia una persona in cui ormai è cessato ogni timore.
CUST (pensieroso): Sono stanze molto quiete. Vi siedono uomini dal viso malaticcio, proprio di chi vede raramente il sole. Per lunghi anni, ascoltando in silenzio molte bugie, essi hanno esaminato azioni umane di straordinaria sottigliezza e perfidia. La loro esperienza è immensa. La gente vede oltre il tavolo dei signori un po' logorati e cerimoniosi. Ma in realtà, specie quelli di essi che salirono agli alti gradi, sono dei lottatori, caro collega, nonostante che le loro vene irrigidite si rompano con facilità. Generalmente hanno il sonno difficile, e così... (Si interrompe.)
ERZI: E così?...
CUST: ...e così covano le loro idee a lungo. Sono capaci di ascoltare attentamente, tenaci, prudentissimi.
ERZI: Difficile coglierli in fallo, dunque.
CUST: Sì, qualcuno di essi è l'uomo che cercate.
ERZI: Il lebbroso.
CUST: Oggi egli è un uomo in alto. Il giorno in cui voi riusciste a smascherarlo egli rimarrebbe per un momento come fulminato; milioni di occhi su lui; poi egli precipiterebbe in un abisso di tenebre.
ERZI: E allora?
CUST: E allora egli si difenderà, caro collega. Credo che la sua situazione gli conferisca una strana inebriante libertà.
ERZI (fissandolo): Io immagino che una sera, a ora inoltrata, quest'uomo, questo giudice che noi cerchiamo, sollevò il volto dal suo scrittoio. La persona che entrò era deferente, la visita aveva un motivo legittimo. Poi la conversazione divagò, alte amicizie, segreti poteri, attraenti lusinghe balenarono in essa...
CROZ (appare sulla porta della cancelleria e si ferma in ascolto, non veduto da alcuno).
ERZI (continuando senza interruzione): ...Il prudente visitatore tentava di incontrare qualcosa che nell'anima del giudice era in attesa, e che si chiamava ambizione; oppure avidità; oppure invidia; oppure odio. Quando è che quella lecita cordialità, quelle vaghe promesse, quel sottile legame divennero un laccio, tenuto dalla mano di un padrone?
CUST (leggermente sudato): Trovo la vostra ricostruzione molto verosimile.
ERZI (incalzando impalpabilmente): Fu così che quel giudice pose a servizio di un padrone e dell'ingiustizia una mente acuta e dominatrice. Falsò decisioni, tradì segreti, alterò destini umani; sparse qui un turbamento che presto inquinò l'intiero palazzo; condusse la ferrea ruota della legge su molti innocenti. Persino l'omicida può immaginare di essere un giustiziere. Ma il nostro uomo sapeva bene di falsare proprio la sacra bilancia della giustizia. In nome di che cosa? Perché?
CROZ (dal fondo, intervenendo inopinatamente): Ma perché probabilmente gli erano venuti dei dubbi.
ERZI (voltandosi): Su che cosa?
CROZ: Sulla sacra bilancia eccetera. (Ride, tossisce, s'inoltra.) Il diavolo - voglio dire Ludvi-Pol - era venuto a trovarlo, quella sera. Ma probabilmente il nostro uomo lo aveva desiderato, non è vero Cust? Succede al giudice come al prete: dopo avere officiato tutta la vita davanti al ciborio, gli viene una uggia terribile, e una gran voglia di vedersi apparire davanti appunto il diavolo.
ERZI (fissando ora Croz): Ma non lo rese saggio l'essere in là con gli anni, l'essere ormai fuori dal gioco?
CROZ (sghignazzando): Fuori dal gioco? Ma non si è mai fuori dal gioco, caro Erzi! Mio caro, voi figuratevi uno di quegli insetti neri, brutti, pinzuti. E uno lo stuzzica: e quello pinza. E uno lo storpia: e quello pinza. E uno lo stronca in due: e quello pinza. E uno gli trafigge e gli schiaccia anche la testa: e le pinze seguitano a pinzare, a pinzare, a pinzare. Così, per nulla. La vita è questo.
CUST (tendendo l'indice): ...un puntiglio che diverte anche i moribondi, vero Croz?
ERZI (voltandosi improvvisamente a Cust): Ma allora, Cust, se il filo dei fatti è troncato, e se la persona è così ostinata, decisa, prudente, come mai voi dite che sarà difficile trovarla, e non impossibile? Sì, voi l'avete detto. Che cos'è che potrebbe tradirla?
CUST (prima con gli occhi bassi e poi alzandoli sull'interlocutore): Questo: che gli uomini sono un po' gracili; e invece ciò che essi stessi fabbricano, pensieri... leggi... delitti... è troppo pesante per le loro spalle.
ERZI (stringendo leggerissimamente): Voi dite che il colpevole di questo delitto non riesce a coricarsi con naturalezza.
CUST: Sì.
ERZI: E perché?
CUST: Perché pensa troppo ad esso.
ERZI: Rimorsi?
CUST: No. Egli sta al di là di questo.
ERZI: E perché dunque?
CUST (sorridendo e guardando fisso): Perché egli non vuole che la sua piccola rosea pustola sia scoperta.
ERZI: E allora?
CUST (un po' sudato): E allora, con straordinaria sottigliezza e pazienza egli calcola, immagina che la più leggera incrinatura della sua voce, il più fuggevole dei suoi sguardi, abbiano potuto lasciare qua e là delle tracce, delle scie impalpabili...
ERZI: ...che però qualcuno potrebbe ritrovare, seguire...
CUST: Sì, e che egli con suprema cautela provvede a confondere e disperdere.
ERZI: E in che modo?
CUST: Correndo incontro ad ogni più vago sospetto, prima ancora che esso nasca, magari suggerendolo, e poi guardandolo fisso, rendendolo perplesso, incerto, abbagliato, distrutto dalla sua stessa sottigliezza.
CROZ (sghignazzando): È un gran lavoro, vero Cust?
CUST: Certo. Il segreto, per scoprire quell'uomo, è di essere lui.
ERZI: E cioè?
CUST: ...sentirsi lui. (Leggerissimamente ansante:) Provare lo stesso freddo qui ai capelli, lo stesso forte battito non proprio al cuore, più sotto, quasi al ventre: tun... tun... tun..., la stessa spossatezza alle giunture, lo stesso sudore. Spero che mi comprendiate.

[Tratto dal copione teatrale disponibile sul sito di Gruppo Teatro Tempo: http://www.gttempo.it]

Banche e magistratura: cronaca di un incesto

Silvestro Dell’Arte
Imprenditore
Pistoia, 02 Marzo 2010

SIAMO Imprenditori vittime delle vessazioni bancarie.

Dalla personale esperienza che stiamo conducendo da anni contro gli Istituti di Credito, abbiamo imparato che il sistema bancario è avvantaggiato da numerosi ed illegittimi privilegi che consentono loro di imporre le proprie risoluzioni.

Tra di essi, emergono con tutta la loro negativa pervasività, quelli inerenti l’art. 50 del d.lgs. n.385/93 (TUB) che rende estremamente semplice e celere il rilascio di Decreti Ingiuntivi e quelli connessi alla segnalazione alla Centrale Rischi.

Difatti, in base alla riferita norma del T.U.B. è sufficiente la mera attestazione di veridicità e liquidità del credito effettuata da un funzionario bancario, affinché il Giudice adito conceda Decreti Ingiuntivi provvisoriamente esecutivi.

Perciò, qualora i presunti crediti vantati dalle Banche, fossero effettivamente non esatti, ad esempio per la mancata scrematura degli interessi anatocistici o fossero addirittura il frutto di interessi d’usura, oppure se fossero fatti lievitare dai prodotti cd. “derivati” o ancora, da investimenti spazzatura, il presunto debitore sarebbe costretto ad incardinare un lunghissimo ordinario processo di cognizione, al fine di far valere le proprie ragioni.

Nelle more del procedimento le Banche possono agevolmente aggredire e mettere all’asta l’intero patrimonio della vittima .

E’ necessario ricordare, sul punto, che il decreto ingiuntivo è inamovibile fino a sentenza passata in giudicato.

Ulteriore discrezionale mezzo di supremazia e di abuso concesso alle Banche è rappresentato dalla segnalazione alla Centrale Rischi, che adoperano come formidabile “ARMA DI DISTRUZIONE DI MASSA”.

Dette segnalazioni ed anche la mera minaccia di esse, costituiscono efficace mezzo di pressione/estorsione, mediante il quale le Banche ed i Banchieri assoggettano i propri clienti ai loro dictat soverchianti.

Codesto Istituto, unilaterale e discrezionale che non trae origine da norme di legge, utilizzato in maniera strumentale, provoca l’esclusione del soggetto o dell’impresa segnalata dal mondo del credito legale.

Quanto esposto, consente di comprendere la posizione di ingiustificato vantaggio che si concede alle Banche, rispetto all’interlocutore più debole e, già solo per tale ragione, più meritevole di tutele. Anni ed anni di irregolarità da parte dei Banchieri hanno portato alla recente crisi finanziaria e dei mercati. Più che di irregolarità, è corretto parlare di crimini, in danno dell’intera economia del Paese.

Ciò precisato, come risulta indispensabile che il Governo intervenga al fine di tutelare il sistema finanziario nazionale, così sarebbe necessario che agisca in difesa delle piccole e medie imprese, delle famiglie e dei singoli consumatori, quantomeno abolendo i due privilegi sopra esposti . Nella speranza di essere stati chiari ed esaustivi,ci rendiamo disponibili per ulteriori approfondimenti.

Distinti saluti

Silvestro Dell’Arte
_______________________________________________________________________
Via Salvo D’Acquisto, 45 – 51017 PESCIA (PT)
Tel. 0572.44.47.97 - Fax 0572.44.62.92
e-mail: costruzioniedilisrl@email.it

__________________________________________________________________________

From Edge Funds to Handcuffs

Art Nadel pleads guilty; Another hedge fund owner takes over Venice FBO
February 26, 2010 by Daniel Hopsicker, MadCowMorningNews	Watch final preview! The New American Drug Lords http://www.danielhopsicker.tv
In a surprise court appearance last Wednesday hedge fund owner Art Nadel pled guilty in a New York Federal court. It was a bitter disappointment to swindled investors, as well as to interested onlookers anxious for a glimpse of not only how he did it, but who he did it with. Nadel’s guilty plea may have removed the best—maybe the only—chance to make accountants and bookkeepers and managers at feeder hedge funds, all of whom had front row seats to the scandal, face public scrutiny while testifying about what went on at Scoop Management. Most people find it impossible to believe he acted alone. Nadel isn't tall, rangy, and CIA-connected, like fellow Ponzi All Star Allen Stanford, or even burly, like Bernie Madoff, but meek-looking, and unprepossessing physically. He's the Woody Allen, or, for those who still remember him, the Wally Cox of Ponzi World. There's lots of anger among jilted investors, who stand little chance of getting back anything more than a few pennies on the dollar of the $168 million they're estimated to have lost. Why do Florida lawyers all seem like extras from "Body Heat?" If they're counting on Tampa attorney Burton Wiand's help, they may be waiting a long time. Many actions taken by Wiand since being named the federal receiver charged with unraveling Nadel's finances last January seem open to question. Real suspicions should also focus on what he hasn't done. Reading court transcripts can sometimes be eye-opening... Long-time SEC lawyer Wiand dragged his feet (top snippet) on supplying Nadel's files, which he'd seized in the civil action he's involved in against Nadel, to federal prosecutors in New York charged with convicting him in criminal court, clearly higher priority. Perhaps more importantly, his testimony in September revealed that he's not going after any money, other than his own ($750,ooo reportedly so far), with anything like the vengeance his job description promises jilted investors. "One of the receiver's highest priorities is to locate and recover any additional funds," reads the brief he filed when he went back to court asking for more money last summer. Yet three months later, almost nine months after he was appointed, Wiand's testimony revealed that he's aware, though somewhat vaguely, of $5 million he's owed from Christopher and Neil Moody... but he hasn't gotten around to asking them about it yet! Wiand to investors: "The check's in the mail" Things look bad for Nadel's hapless investors. But the outlook for the citizens of Venice, Florida, where Nadel owned the same business that earlier trained Mohamed Atta to fly, is even more bleak. For them, Nadel’s descent from hedge fund owner to handcuffs may feel like going from the frying pan to the fire. That's because the new owner of the former Huffman Aviation owns a hedge fund, too. What a coincidence. Even worse, the new owner's top henchman, who often fronts for his various financial entities as their President, was at the heart of a Wall Street scandal that looted more money from investors than Art Nadel ever dreamed of stealing, and which was—until the financial meltdown last year—the biggest Wall Street had ever seen. The name of the new owner of the former Huffman Aviation, which a Venice City Attorney told the Venice City Council they had no right to know, is Eugene Gorab. Gorab, who claimed to be worth more than 100 million dollars in an interview with the Sarasota Herald Tribune last year, made his pile buying and selling hotels and casinos. He worked for a hugely successful tycoon named Barry Sternlicht who at one point while Gorab was working for him, owned more casinos than anyone on the planet. We know what you're thinking. But wait. It gets worse. Gorab owns the majority stake in private equity fund Greenfield Partners in Norwalk Connecticut, just a few exits up the Merritt Parkway from Greenwich, where “private equity fund” Fairfield Partners helped Bernie Madoff relieve investors of unwanted capital. More interesting by far is that Gorab owns Clayton Holdings, a company whose failures in due-diligence played a direct role in the multibillion dollar collapse of the nation's housing market. Clayton Holdings is a due-diligence company, the nation's largest, which get hired by investment houses to make sure blocks of loans meet the seller's own standards. Despite the fact that the underlying home loans didn't get within shouting distance of meeting those quality standards, Clayton Holdings paid off like a slot machine, signing off on the mortgage investments, the instrument of mass destruction which Wall Street has successfully used to bomb the American economy back to the Stone Age. Gorab, who didn't own Clayton Holdings until recently, wasn't responsible. He bought the company as Clayton’s former President received immunity from New York’s Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in return for testimony about underwriting "exceptions" his firm’s project managers gave its Wall Street accounts. Does anyone remember the words "modified limited hangout?" Maybe we’ll learn how they did it... if Eugene Gorab—the man who now owns the former Huffman Aviation—decides to let the world take a look at Clayton's books. The Straw Men Definition of “straw man”: noun (CRIME) n (also man of straw): Someone, often an imaginary person, who is used to hide an illegal or secret activity. “The fraud depended on hundreds of bank accounts being opened on behalf of straw men.” How do we know that Gorab owns Huffman Aviation, even though the three lads who say they're the owners refused to release the names of their investors? Simple: Gorab, for one thing, also owns Volo Aviation in Sarasota, and has a hundred million dollars in other aviation investments. That's one hundred million more in aviation investments than the lads claiming to be the new owners. More importantly, they were working for Gorab when they bought it. And he didn't fire them. Finally, the new front man for Volo Aviation at the Sarasota Airport, who "bought" it from Gorab, is Gorab's long-time lieutenant, he former President of Volo. Meet Thom Harrow. He's "working to keep your trust." Thom Harrow, most recently listed as President of Volo Holdings, has been an officer of a myriad of Gorab's shell companies, which change almost daily, as the "ownership: of the Volo Sarasota just did, again. Harrow operates at least four FBO’s (Fixed Base of Operations) already, including the one at the Sarasota Airport. Remember the old TV commercials for The Rock? Prudential Securities? "The most important thing we earn is your trust." Turned out, it wasn't true. Harrow was a senior executive at Prudential Securities during the late 80’s and early 90’s while executives and brokers at the company were busily defrauding investors of $8 billion. Back then—in those far more innocent times—reporters called it the largest fraud in US history. No other Wall Street scandal came close to touching the debacle at Prudential Securities. Mike Milliken, at Drexel Burnham, was a piker by comparison. They settled his securities scandal (junk-bonds, remember?) for $650 million, a pittance by the $ 8 billion standard set by the Prudential scandal. According to NEWSWEEK, "In this topsy-turvy world due diligence was a sham, brokers were hounded — even fired — for questioning the quality of deals, and no executive displayed much interest in knowing what was really going on." Does that sound familiar? Kurt Eichenwald covered the story for TIME magazine, then wrote "Serpent on the Rock," a book about the scandal. According to a review of his book in the New York Times: "Eichenwald presented an appalling indictment of managers who did dozens of deals with a convicted embezzler, spent millions of investors' dollars on lavish trips to places like Cancun and Maui, and made cozy arrangements with developers to make themselves rich no matter how their clients fared." But wait... Harrow himself wasn't charged with a crime, and deserves the benefit of the doubt. He deserves the benefit of the doubt, as he was, after all, unindicted. He was probably one of the good guys who stuck around to clean up the mess. Locking-in profits for decades to come. Discovering that Harrow was working for "The Rock" when it melted into butter was no easy task. Few of Harrow's bios make mention of it. Perhaps because leaving it out creates an almost decade-long hole in his curriculum vitae, he 'fessed up and included it here. Then we discovered that, currently--right now--Harrow is Treasurer of a Baton Rouge Louisiana-based non-profit charity called Provident Resources Group. Provident's own literature shows them to be (charitably, natch!) involved in providing resources (hence the company's name, it appears they are big on providing resources) in the following fields: CitiState (sic), Education, Healthcare, Housing, and Senior Living. Here's how they describe themselves: "Based in Baton Rouge, La., Provident Resources Group is a not-for-profit organization with the mission of serving the needs of the elderly; promoting and advancing health care; assisting the poor by providing affordable housing; lessening the burdens of government; promoting and advancing education; and preserving the environment." In the pursuit of its charitable mission, Provident has become a national non-profit organization committed to the development, ownership and operation of state-of-the-art health, education, senior living, and multi-family housing facilities and services across the country. “Furthermore, Provident actively strives to assist state and local governments in lessening the burdens they face in providing many needed services to their citizens.” Its all good. Right? So it came as something of a shock to discover that what they do mostly—resource-wise, that is—build and run: private prisons: eleven Private Correctional Facilities in Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia,, and Alaska. Apparently, it came as something of a shock to the Wall Street Journal too. The May 1, 2002 Wall Street Journal covered Provident in their Section in Enron, under this headline: "Charities Said To Be Playing Enron-Style Partnership Game. "At the D. Ray James Prison in south Georgia, the inmates have been kept behind bars by all types of lawmen: sheriffs, chiefs of police and more than a few wardens. But never, until now, have they been kept in jail by a charity." What Provident offers the corrections world, in the most charitable way, of course, reported the Journal is “offering off-the-books financing for public and private prison operators." "Provident does this by creating special subsidiaries and partnerships that take advantage of controversial accounting rules and allow its clients to keep debt off of their balance sheets." Provident "isn't a conventional charity. It is run by a group of lawyers, investment bankers and financial consultants. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. and other Wall Street titans do its financial work." With that "impressive firepower, Provident is trying to carve a unique niche for itself in the corrections world, offering off-the-books financing for public and private prison operators." It has "helped the state of North Carolina and Cornell Cos., a for-profit prison company, buff their financial profiles." Provident "does this by creating special subsidiaries and partnerships that take advantage of controversial accounting rules and allow its clients to keep debt off of their balance sheets." In exchange for its role, Provident "arranges to receive potentially lucrative fees, some of which it calls exempt from federal income tax. In the last nine months Provident entities, with help from Lehman, have sold more than $420 million of debt to investors." Like Enron. Only unindicted. We thought: maybe we're just being cynical. It can happen. Then we found this headline: "PERINATAL UNIT CLOSING; NO MORE MATERNITY PATIENTS AT GRANADA HILLS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Provident got involved with a struggling community hospital in the San Fernando Valley... offering to help. Reporter Evan Pondel in the January 22, 2003 Los Angeles Daily News picks up the story: "In an effort to rescue the hospital, Wallace struck a deal with a controversial charity for help. Soon thereafter, California's attorney general approved Baton Rouge, La.-based Provident Foundation Inc. to take control of the hospital's board." The organization has been operating as a not-for-profit group since 1999, and analysts say Provident is by no means a conventional charity. Matt Hull, analyst with Avondale partners in Nashville, Tenn., said in a previous interview that the company is run by a group of lawyers, investment bankers and financial consultants -- many of whom are former Lehman Brothers employees. James Doulgeris was hired by Provident to serve as interim CEO, and his firm, Healthcare Resource Specialists, was tapped to provide crisis and turnaround management strategies for the hospital. "We are in the center of settling our bankruptcy with creditors ... and the decline in patients we serve in the perinatal unit has been accelerating," said Doulgeris. "There are no plans to close other departments, and emergency services for expectant mothers still will be available through the hospital's emergency room." Uh-oh. We could already tell the hospital wasn't going to make it... According to analyst Hull:: "Company President Stan Hicks, 53, who served as a member of the national finance committee for the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992, appears to manage a company that, by some reports, receives lucrative fees under the guise of being a charity." Millie Hernandez has worked at the hospital for 17 years. She understands that Provident has invested in prison facilities and has a murky business reputation. "There's only so much you can take," Hernandez said. "The hospital can't function like this for much longer." In case you're wondering, the company is politically-connected at the highest levels. Provident's President Stan Hicks was on the National Finance Committee for the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992. "Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss." When the new owner of the former Huffman Aviation FBO took over operations at the Venice Airport last month, the Sarasota Herald Tribune was quick to note that the only noticeable change in operations “was a Shell fuel truck on the premises to replace the Chevron brand that former owner Art Nadel sold.” The statement was meant to be reassuring. In reality, it was not. It was business as usual. The ingredients for another world-class scandal at the Venice Airport are frighteningly visible. Sleazy characters in expensive suits. Abuse of power. Cover-up. During the special meeting of the Venice City Council called to consider the lease transfer before the federal bankruptcy judge's deadline, questions were repeatedly raised about why Tri-State would release no financial information on its owners. Surprisingly, the supposed new owners weren’t forced to answer. Leaping to their defense was an assistant city attorney who repeatedly advised the council they had no reason to object to Wiand’s choice. Calling the backgrounds of the new managers "blue chip," he said, "As staff we think they have passed the test probably more so than any tenant we've had at the airport." Groundbreaking American muckraker Upton Sinclair put it best: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Mayor Ed Martin, in a remarkable admission, indicated that he wasn’t fooled. "We're not in a position to determine who these people are,” he said. “Whether they are U.S. nationals, or whether they have criminal ties." Well, Ed. Now you know. NEXT: Sovereign Wealth Funds, Private Equity, Abu Dhabi, The Carlyle Group, & the Venice Municipal Airport