The Litigators of War

`Let the jury consider their verdict, the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
`No, no! said the Queen. `Sentence firstverdict afterwards.
`Stuff and nonsense! said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!
`Hold your tongue! said the Queen, turning purple.
`I wont! said Alice.
`Off with her head! the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
Lewis Carroll, Alices Adventures in Wonderland
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.
- Masters of War
Remember the Transpacific Partnership? The TPP?
The majority do not.
And speaking of memories, heres a blast from the past. A Charlie Rose interview from
1994 with Sir James Goldsmith discussing the so called benefits, and the actual effects of
Free Trade.
What does all this have to do with silver and precious metals?
Seen through the lens of an artificially priced commodity is an excellent vantage point for
gauging the true motivations beneath the surface propaganda. Profit trumps the greater
conspiracies. And perhaps more importantly, the flagrant disregard of process and human
dignity.
Yes, most people have already forgotten about the so called TPP. Largely because its
been removed from the news cycle now replaced by the newest distraction.
However, its worth a mental bookmark.
To have at the ready as we approach the next election cycle hilarity. So that when the
superficial issues beginning tugging at your emotions, you can remember at least one
they all conveniently left out.

Ellen Browns recent essay provides an excellent summary.

Sentence First, Verdict Afterwards: The Alice in Wonderland World of Fast-tracked
Secret Trade Agreements
Fast-track authority is being sought (now passed) in the Senate this week for the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), along with the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) and any
other such trade agreements coming down the pike in the next six years. The terms of the
TPP and the TiSA are so secret that drafts of the negotiations are to remain classified for
four years or five years, respectively, after the deals have been passed into law. How can
laws be enforced against people and governments who are not allowed to know what was
negotiated?
The TPP, TiSA and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (or TTIP, which
covers Europe) will collectively encompass three-fourths of the worlds GDP; and they
ultimately seek to encompass nearly 90 percent of GDP. Despite this enormous global
impact, fast-track authority would allow the President to sign the deals before their terms
have been made public, and send implementing legislation to Congress that cannot be
amended or filibustered and is not subject to the constitutional requirement of a twothirds treaty vote.
While the deals are being negotiated, lawmakers can see their terms only under the
strictest secrecy, and they can be subjected to criminal prosecution for revealing those
terms. What we know of them comes only through WikiLeaks. The agreements are being
treated as if they were a matter of grave national security, yet they are not about troop
movements or military strategy. Something else is obviously going on.
********
The bizarre, unconstitutional, blatantly illegal nature of this enforced secrecy was
highlighted in a May 15th article by Jon Rappoport, titled What Law Says the Text of
the TPP Must Remain Secret? He wrote:
It seems like a case of mass hypnosis. . . .
Members of Congress are scuttling around like weasels, claiming they cant disclose
whats in this far-reaching, 12-nation trade treaty.
They can go into a sealed room and read a draft, but they cant copy pages, and they cant
tell the public what they just read.
Why not?
If there is a US law forbidding disclosure, name the law.
Can you recall anything in the Constitution that establishes secret treaties?
Is there a prior treaty that states the text of all treaties can be hidden from the people?

To Congressmen who say they cannot reveal what is in a treaty that will adversely affect
the lives of hundreds of millions of people, Rappoport says:
Wrong. Youre lying. You can reveal secret text. In fact, its your duty. Otherwise, youre
guilty of cooperating in a RICO criminal conspiracy.
****
And what may be even more astounding, is how little it took to buy the votes:
Can there be any question as to the motivations?
Actually - it requires very little.
This Is How Little It Cost Goldman To Bribe America's Senators To Fast Track Obama's
TPP Bill
According to an analysis by the Guardian, fast-tracking the TPP, meaning its passage
through Congress without having its contents available for debate or amendments, was
only possible after lots of corporate money exchanged hands with senators. The US
Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) the fast-tracking bill by a 65-33
margin on 14 May. Last Thursday, the Senate voted 62-38 to bring the debate on TPA to
a close.
Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing by
the worlds most well-heeled multinational corporations with just a handful of holdouts.
Using data from the Federal Election Commission, the chart below (based on data from
the following spreadsheet)shows all donations that corporate members of the US
Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March
2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate.
The result: it took a paltry $1.15 million in bribes to get everyone in the Senate on the
same page. And the biggest shocker: with a total of $195,550 in "donations", or more
than double the second largest donor UPS, was none other than Goldman Sachs.

Of course this should come as no surprise to you. Just as one player can influence and
control the price of a world with a microsecond spoof trade, so too can tiny promises
directed at politicians.
Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions, get trillions
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporatepolitical-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions/
Do political donors get something in return for what they give?
Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested the answer to that question was no.
Corporate spending to influence federal elections would not give rise to corruption or

the appearance of corruption, the majority wrote in the landmark Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission decision.
Sunlight decided to test that premise by examining influence and its potential results on
federal decision makers over six years, three before the 2010 Citizens United decision
and three after.
We focused on the records of 200 for-profit corporations, all of which had active political
action committees and lobbyists in the 2008, 2010 and 2012 election cycles and were
among the top donors to campaign committees registered with the Federal Election
Commission. Their investment in politics was enormous. There were 20,500 paying
lobbying clients over the six years we examined; the 200 companies we tracked
accounted for a whopping 26 percent of the total spent. On average, their PACs,
employees and their family members made campaign contributions to 144 sitting
members of Congress each cycle.
After examining 14 million records, including data on campaign contributions, lobbying
expenditures, federal budget allocations and spending, we found that, on average, for
every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nations most politically active corporations
received $760 from the government. The $4.4 trillion total represents two-thirds of the
$6.5 trillion that individual taxpayers paid into the federal treasury.

For more articles and commentary like this - to explore and find some piece
of mind in the space between actual price discovery and the reality of the
macro-financial state of things - visit us at http://www.Silver-CoinInvestor.com.