This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Liberation Essays, No. 2 - A Must Read for all Shareholders of SLV and GLD

restoreliberty's picture




 

In response to fixing the obviously corrupt and broken
global financial system and all of its products, we believe that the first
step, even before the implementation of a new, sound and legitimate monetary
system, is the establishment of a free market for gold and silver. As those of
us that have been involved in PM markets for the past couple of decades can
attest to, the circumstantial evidence of price behavior, as well as concrete
evidence manifested by past US Federal Reserve memos obtained through FOIA
requests, have proven that gold and silver markets have been highly manipulated
with all the manipulation on the side of price suppression. It also seems
likely that certain products developed by bankers to sell gold and silver,
specifically the GLD and SLV ETFs, may mislead and misdirect the investment of
billions of dollars into products that ultimately also may surreptitiously
serve to suppress gold and silver prices. 
The usual suspects are the bullion banks that have been employed by the
Central Banks in the past to short gold and silver and keep prices down.
Currently the US Department of Justice has been investigating JP Morgan’s
alleged role in the suppression of silver prices.

To this end, we have scripted an open letter below to the US
DOJ that we encourage all of you to cut and paste and email to the DOJ in the
hopes of prompting another investigation that will help establish free markets
for silver and gold, an event that corrupt Central Banks never want to see
materialize. Should our suspicions be founded regarding the true nature of the
GLD and SLV, the continued administration of these potential frauds has
negative consequences a million-fold greater than Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi
scheme. If our suspicions regarding the GLD and SLV prove to be correct, then
bankers would be utilizing these ETFs to support the continuation of Keynesian
economic policies and fiat currencies that are at the very root of sovereign
debt crises that threaten some of the largest economies in Asia, Europe and the
Americas as well as the livelihood of billions of their citizens. If thousands
of concerned citizens send this letter to the DOJ,  we can either establish once and for all
that:

(1) the GLD and SLV are not fraudulent investment vehicles that are actually used by JP
Morgan and HSBC to suppress the price of silver and gold respectively; or

(2) they are fraudulent and should be shuttered before they are able to operate without
impunity for nine years as did Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

If enough of you email the below letter to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov, if
the GLD and SLV are revealed to be fraudulent in the future and the DOJ fails
to act upon thousands of requests for an investigation into the intended purpose of the GLD
and SLV ETFs, then the US DOJ will have a public relations nightmare on their hands for
having received thousands of inquiries into the questionable information
contained within the security filings of the GLD and SLV and for having failed
to protect the consumer.

 

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20530-0001

AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

 

Dear Attorney General Eric Holder:

 

In response to your open investigation regarding the
suppression of silver prices in the COMEX futures markets by JP Morgan, we
believe that two PM ETFs, the SLV, of which JP Morgan serves as custodian, and
the GLD, of which HSBC serves as custodian, firmly deserve a thorough
investigation as well.  The SEC has
proven itself incapable of investigating, identifying or even willing to
prosecute fraud even when presented with ample damning evidence (reference
Harry Markopolous and his failure to provoke the SEC to shut down Bernard
Madoff’s Ponzi scheme for nine years). 
Consequently, we believe it is incumbent upon the Department of Justice
to take the initiative to restore the confidence of the American people in US
financial markets as your office stands as the last bastion of hope in
defending integrity in financial markets and security regulatory agencies have
proven themselves to be woefully inadequate and incapable of this task. To this
end, we request an immediate investigation into the legitimacy of the SLV and
GLD exchange traded funds for the following reasons.

We believe that there are far too many loopholes contained
in the prospectuses and legal filings of both the GLD and SLV that present the
very strong possibility, and probable likelihood, that these funds engage in
deceptive and fraudulent business practices. If our suspicions about these two
funds are proven to be founded, we believe that the actions involved with the
administration of the GLD and SLV exchange traded funds may mirror the
fraudulent actions of Goldman Sachs in the mortgage backed securities markets,
whereby Goldman Sachs packaged toxic MBS into collateralized debt obligations,
represented them as solid investments to their clients even as they knew
otherwise, and shorted them without their clients’ knowledge to turn profits.
In other words, we believe that the GLD and the SLV may have been formed with
the very intent of diverting investment funds away from real physical gold and
physical silver to provide a vehicle to suppress the price of gold and silver
in physical markets without the knowledge of those clients that choose to
invest in the GLD and SLV.

Please allow us to address our concerns with the GLD
exchange traded fund below, and place it on record that our concerns with the
SLV are the exact same as our below stated concerns with the GLD.

The Custodian of the GLD is HSBC Bank USA, N.A., or HSBC.
The Custodian is responsible for the safekeeping of the Trust’s gold bars
transferred to it in connection with the creation of Baskets by Authorized
Participants. The Custodian also facilitates the transfer of gold in and out of
the Trust through gold accounts it maintains for Authorized Participants and
the Trust. The Custodian is a market maker, clearer and approved weigher under
the rules of the London Bullion Market Association, or LBMA. The Trustee is BNY
Mellon Asset Servicing, a division of the Bank of New York Mellon.

There are numerous troubling descriptions in the GLD’s 10-K
filing under the “Custody of the Trust’s Gold” section regarding the chain of
custody that ensures that the GLD is backed 100% by fully allocated, London
Good Delivery bars that have no third or fourth or fifth party claim. For
example, the GLD 10-K filing states:

“The Custodian is authorized to appoint from time to time
one or more subcustodians to hold the Trust’s gold until it can be transported
to the Custodian’s London vault. The subcustodians that the Custodian currently
uses are the Bank of England and LBMA market-making members that provide
bullion vaulting and clearing services to third parties. The Custodian does not
have written custody agreements with the subcustodians it selects. The
Custodian’s selected subcustodians may appoint further subcustodians. These
further subcustodians are not expected to have written custody agreements with
the Custodian’s subcustodians that selected them.”

There are huge problems in the above custody conditions that
could allow for massive fraud. Why are there no written agreements between the
Custodian and the subcustodians that ensure that the physical gold the
subcustodians hold on behalf of the GLD will be 100% accounted for and 100%
allocated at all times? If a fund was entrusting the physical storage of a
precious metal to a third party, why are no written custody agreements in place
to also ensure that the subcustodians must ensure that the gold they hold
consists of Good Delivery bars? If the Trust is to hold gold allocated
specifically in its name (except for the allowance of no more than 430 ounces
of unallocated gold as stated in its prospectus), how can they ensure that the
gold its subcustodians hold is 100% allocated if no written contracts specify
any qualifications for the gold they hold in behalf of the Trust? These are
glaring omissions of standard business practices for a fund that at the end of
March 2010, held more than $40 billion of physical gold. In the next two months
alone, the GLD supposedly added nearly 25% more physical gold to their vaults
as they claimed by June 1, 2010 that the dollar value of physical gold they
held as of June 1 exceeded $50 billion in value. Does all this physical gold
exist in allocated form in Good Delivery bars as HSBC Bank USA claims?

If we continue reading the 10-K “Custody of the Trust’s
Gold”
, glaring omissions of standard business procedures grow even more
worrisome. This section continues:

“The lack of such written contracts could affect the
recourse of the Trust and the Custodian against any subcustodian in the event a
subcustodian does not use due care in the safekeeping of the Trust’s gold…
However, the Custodian may not have the right to, and does not have the
obligation to, seek recovery of the gold from any subcustodian appointed by a
subcustodian.”

From the above passage, we must conclude that if the
Custodian, HSBC Bank USA, requests the delivery of physical gold from a
subcustodian and the gold is found not to exist, then the Custodian may have
zero recourse and may not have a right to seek recovery of gold from said
subcustodian. Furthermore, the above states that the Custodian, HSBC Bank USA,
does not even have an obligation to seek recovery of that gold if it is found
not to exist in physical form. This is a massive red flag to anyone that wants
to ensure the legitimacy of the GLD ETF. The first and foremost responsibility
of the Custodian should be to ensure that the physical gold purchased by the
Trust actually exists in the manner and terms that are represented to investors
in the GLD. Why does the GLD’s 10-K absolve the Custodian, HSBC Bank USA, of
the responsibility of ensuring that the physical gold allegedly held by the Trust exists, that the gold held in behalf of the GLD Trust is 100% allocated,
and that this gold is in the form of Good Delivery bars?

Granted, the above concerns are moot if one can prove that:

(1) all allocated gold held by the Trust is held in their vaults and not the vaults of
subcustodians; and

(2) that neither subcustodians nor any third party maintain a simultaneous claim on any
gold held in the vaults of the Trust.

As we will point out later in this letter, under the current
business practices of the GLD, it is impossible to prove that either point (1)
or (2) is true.

Of even greater concern is the following section of the
description of the “Custody of the Trust’s Gold”:

“The Custodian and the Trustee do not require any direct or
indirect subcustodians to be insured or bonded with respect to their custodial
activities. The Custodian maintains insurance with regard to its business on
such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate. The Trust will not be a
beneficiary of any such insurance and does not have the ability to dictate the
existence, nature or amount of the coverage. Therefore, Shareholders cannot be
assured that the Custodian maintains adequate insurance or any insurance with
respect to the gold held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust.”

The above passage acknowledges that the subcustodian vaults
that contain the GLD’s physical gold have zero obligation to insure the value
of the gold in their vaults. If inspections of the subcustodian vaults, which
the Trustee only allows a maximum of twice a year, yields zero physical gold,
shareholders of the GLD would have zero recourse for their massive losses.
Again, why is no insurance or bonding required for the physical storage of billions
of dollars worth of gold (as of June 16, 2010) by subcustodians as it passes
through the chain of custody to arrive in the GLD Trust vaults?
The lack of
insurance is truly mindboggling.

The above fact becomes even more odd considering that BullionVault,
a private gold dealer, holds insurance with Lloyds of London for up to $600
million for each of its individual vault locations, an amount that currently
exceeds the gold stored at each of its individual vault locations.  Cumulatively, BullionVault, as of June, 2010
stored $930 million of physical gold, all of which is more than adequately
ensured. Conversely, the GLD held, as of March 31st, 2010, more than 43 times
the amount of gold held at BullionVault, yet its 10-K states that the Custodian
may not maintain “adequate insurance or any insurance” on more than $50 billion
worth of gold. This, despite the fact that the Trust specifically acknowledges
in the GLD prospectus that “The Trust’s gold may be subject to loss, damage,
theft or restriction on access”
and “The Trust may not have adequate sources of
recovery if its gold is lost, damaged, stolen or destroyed and recovery may be
limited, even in the event of fraud, to the market value of the gold at the
time the fraud is discovered.”
Furthermore, the GLD prospectus clearly states:
“The Trust does not insure its gold. The Trust is not a beneficiary of any such
insurance and does not have the ability to dictate the existence, nature or
amount of coverage.”

As of June, 2010, the amount of gold held by the GLD makes
the GLD the fifth largest holder of gold in the world, ahead of the gold
reserves of entire nations including China, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia,
India and even the reserves of the European Central Bank. If every one of these
countries/entities finds it excessively risky not to ensure the gold they hold,
why does the GLD find it acceptable to not insure its allegedly massive
physical gold holdings? On BullionVault’s website, BullionVault states “your
gold is protected by Via Mat’s extensive physical security measures and by
externally underwritten insurance”
and “in a vault, gold is so secure that it
is extremely easy to insure and not expensive”.
If gold stored in a secure vault
is extremely easy to insure and inexepensive, why does the GLD refuse to insure
100% of its holdings? This again is a huge red flag that needs to be
investigated.

At first glance, the 10-K “Custody of the Trust’s Gold”
section and information in the GLD’s S-3 filing seem to disperse the above
concerns:

“The Custodian is obliged under the Allocated Bullion
Account Agreement to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain delivery of
gold from those subcustodians appointed by it. Under the customs and practices
of the London bullion market, allocated gold is held by custodians and, on
their behalf, by subcustodians under arrangements that permit each entity for
which gold is being held. The Custodian provides the Trustee with statements on
a monthly basis which contain sufficient information to identify each bar of gold
held in the Trust Allocated Account and the custodian or subcustodian having
possession of each bar.”

“As at March 31, 2010, the amount of gold owned by the Trust
was 36,324,952 ounces with a market value of $40,520,483,790 (cost –
$30,289,189,919), including gold receivable of 166,431 ounces with a market
value of $185,653,480 based on the London PM fix on March 31, 2010. As at March
31, 2010, the Custodian held 36,158,483 ounces of allocated gold in the form of
London Good Delivery gold bars in its vault and 38 ounces of unallocated gold,
excluding gold receivables, with a market value of $40,334,830,509 (cost –
$30,103,536,538). Subcustodians held nil ounces of gold in their vaults on
behalf of the Trust
and 166,431 ounces of gold was receivable by the Trust in
connection with the creation of Baskets (which gold was received by the
Custodian in the normal course of business).”

However, upon further inspection of the GLD’s business
filings, the two above statements do not put any of our concerns to rest. The
existence of physical gold within the subcustodian vaults can never be proven,
because the 10-K states “In addition, the Trustee has no right to visit the
premises of any subcustodian for the purposes of examining the Trust’s gold or
any records maintained by the subcustodian, and no subcustodian is obligated to
cooperate in any review the Trustee may wish to conduct of the facilities,
procedures, records or creditworthiness of such subcustodian.” 
Consequently, even if the subcustodian
provides records and lists of each individual gold bar it holds, these holdings
can never by verified if significant amounts of the GLD’s gold is stored in
subcustodian vaults. In addition, even if the Trust has indeed taken delivery
of all physical gold from subcustodians for storage “in its vault” as it claims
in its most recent S-3 filing, we still cannot strike any of our major three
concerns about the GLD from potentially being subject to fraud. Because the GLD
prospectus states “The ability of the Trustee to monitor the performance of the
Custodian may be limited because under the Custody Agreements the Trustee may,
only up to twice a year, visit the premises of the Custodian for the purpose of
examining the Trust’s gold and certain related records maintained by the
Custodian.”

Even if the Custodian can prove that all the gold it claims
it has purchased on behalf of its customers for the GLD exists, since
inspection of its gold is allowed a maximum of twice a year, such an
arrangement allows the Custodian to possibly operate a Ponzi scheme to suppress the
price of gold if it so desires, one in which it would transfer into its vaults
physical gold held in subcustodian vaults that has already been purchased by
third parties for the purposes of inspection and then transfer it back out
after the inspections have been completed. Just the potential of such an
arrangement leading to fraud should create a need for more specific and
meticulous vetting of the physical gold held for the Trust.

We have broached enough serious concerns in this letter to
bring the legitimacy of the GLD into question. Just because HSBC Bank USA
claims it physically possesses Good Delivery bars in 100% allocated form on
behalf of its Trust does not make this claim a fact.  Numerous procedural loopholes have been set
up in the operation of the Trust that seemingly have no purpose but to prevent
the determination and simple assessment that the Custodian holds gold in
allocated form in Good Delivery bars. Bernard Madoff produced statements to his
clients that illustrated he was engaging in trades for his clients despite the
fact that he executed zero trades.  The
business practices of the GLD leave the GLD open to such deception as well, and
were all shareholders of the GLD to take physical delivery of gold held in the
Trust, we are quite certain that knowledge of the contents of this letter would
introduce serious doubt as to whether the GLD could make good on all physical delivery.

A further troubling aspect regarding the form of gold held
in the GLD is exposed through the GLD’s procedure for redemption of its shares
into physical delivery of gold. The GLD’s prospectus claims that only “Only
Authorized Participants, and no shareholders, have the right to redeem shares
for actual gold”
in the form of a basket that consists of 100,000 shares. The
authorized participants as of March 31, 2010 were BMO Capital Markets Corp.,
CIBC World Markets Corp., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., EWT, LLC, Goldman, Sachs
& Co., Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing L.P., HSBC Securities (USA)
Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Newedge USA LLC, RBC Capital Markets
Corporation, Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. and UBS Securities LLC. A good number of
the firms on this list, including Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP
Morgan, and Scotia Capital have been known to act as bullion agents in the past
for the US Federal Reserve central bank. Of this list, five of the authorized
participants, Deustche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JP Morgan, and UBS, are
market makers that establish the daily London AM and PM price fix for gold.

However, of greater concern is the following. The GLD’s 10-K
dated March 31, 2010 states, “the Custodian held 36,158,483 ounces of allocated
gold in the form of London Good Delivery gold bars and 38 ounces of unallocated
gold, excluding gold receivables”
yet the GLD’s prospectus states “Gold bars
allocated to the Trust in connection with the creation of a Basket may not meet
the London Good Delivery Standards and, if a Basket is issued against such
gold, the Trust may suffer a loss.”
Given that all of the gold held by the
Trust is in the form of allocated London Good Delivery gold bars except for
gold receivables held in subcustodian vaults and only 38 ounces of the gold are
unallocated, why should the Custodian of the gold, HSBC Bank USA, issue a
disclaimer that the gold delivered to authorized participants may not be in the
form of London Good Delivery bars? Furthermore, procedure for the creation of baskets
of gold for share redemption deem that this gold must be drawn from unallocated
accounts, which does not make sense if 100% of the Trust gold is to be
allocated once it is in the possession of the Trust’s vault.

However, the lack of ability to confirm that any physical
delivery of gold will be Good Delivery bars becomes even more suspicious if one reads the statement in the GLD 10-K’s filing that states, “Unless otherwise
agreed by the Custodian in writing, the only gold the Custodian will accept in
physical form for credit to the Trust Unallocated Account is gold the Trustee
has transferred from the Trust Allocated Account.”
Thus if any gold transferred
to the Trust Unallocated Account comes from the Trust Allocated Account and all
gold held in the Trust Allocated Account is London Good Delivery gold bars, why
is HSBC Bank, USA, unable to confirm that gold delivered via the Trust
Unallocated Account are also London Good Delivery gold bars?

Finally, the procedural inconsistencies throughout the
filings of GLD open up the possibility that Authorized Participants,
specifically the LBMA market makers, possibly use GLD shares to manipulate gold
prices in the futures markets as well. The GLD 10-K states that

“Certain Authorized
Participants are expected to have the facility to participate directly in the
gold bullion market and the gold futures market.”
In July, 2009, Mr. Adrian Douglas
of GATA stated that something seemed to be amiss regarding movements of
physical gold in and out of the New York COMEX markets: “When averaged over a
month, the “flow” of metal inventory [in and out of COMEX vaults] should be
comparable to the delivery notices issued. This is just basic accounting. But I
have observed that reconciliation is almost impossible with the COMEX data. The
only explanation I could think of is that settlement of contracts must be
bypassing the warehouse. But how could this be possible, as I thought all
contracts had to be delivered via a COMEX registered warehouse?”
As a possible
explanation, Mr. Douglas noted that Exchange Rule 104.36, which governs
Exchange of Futures for Physicals (‘EFP’) transactions on the COMEX “refers to
a ‘physical commodity’ as one of the required components of an EFP transaction
but also indicates that the physical commodity need only be substantially the
economic equivalent of the futures contract being exchanged.”

Exchange Rule 104.36 further states, “The purpose of this
Notice is to confirm that the Exchange would accept gold-backed exchange-traded
funds (‘ETF’) shares as the physical commodity component for an EFP transaction
involving COMEX gold futures contracts, provided that all elements of a bona
fide EFP pursuant to Exchange Rule 104.36 are satisfied.” 

The inherent problem in allowing paper GLD contracts to be
delivered as the long transaction necessary to balance every short position in
gold assumed on the COMEX is that the poor business practices established by
the GLD leaves the existence of the physical gold held in the GLD’s Trust in
question. We believe that we have established reasonable doubt that the
Custodian of the GLD holds all gold it claims in fully allocated and in Good
Delivery bar form. Consequently, the delivery of paper contracts that represent the
presence of questionable gold should not be allowed to offset short positions
taken against gold in the COMEX until this can be proven. Furthermore, when GLD paper contracts are
delivered to cancel out short positions assumed in the COMEX futures market, is
the gold that represents the GLD paper contracts removed from the Trust’s
warehouses as good business practices would dictate?

In our estimation, the US DOJ should carry out a detailed
investigation to ensure that the GLD and SLV have not been invented to assist
in price suppression schemes against gold and silver.  Since the GLD prospectus states that the
Custodian maintains a central London vault premise and the GLD 10-K states that
all allocated gold is held there, the DOJ should arrange for periodic unannounced
investigations of the London vault that does not allow for gold to be
transferred into the Trust’s London vault if it is not already there. The DOJ
should further not allow for the cover of “English law” to prevent its
investigation, for if the existence of allocated Good Delivery bars that have
no third party claim cannot be proved, then the GLD should be dissolved.

The GLD provides a bar list that lists each individual bar
number, refiner’s name, bar gross weight, fine weight, and assay content.  The DOJ should assign an independent auditor
that can check the Custodian’s London vault premises, unannounced, as often and
as many times as it desires during the course of any year to confirm that the
GLD holds London Good Delivery bars, allocated specifically to the Trust and to
no third party, and in the amount specified by the GLD’s business filings.  If all the gold is allocated as the GLD
claims, to only the Trust, then there should be no need to move gold in and out
of the London vault premises except for redemption of shares or as “gold” transferred
to COMEX warehouses to satisfy long contracts that request delivery. Thus, the
amount of gold held within the Trust’s vault should always equal the amount of
money that the ETF has collected from investors, sans the gold receivable
amount and the normally insignificant amount of unallocated ounces. This is a
simple task to prove.

Either the gold is in the Trust’s vaults or it is not,
either it is in Good Delivery bar form or it is not, and either it is allocated
specifically to the GLD Trust or it is not.

We believe the DOJ needs to establish the credibility of the
GLD by investigating the points we raise in this memo and verifying that none
of our concerns are founded. The same concerns that apply to the GLD stated in
this memo also apply to the silver ETF, the SLV, the custodian of which is JP
Morgan.  As the DOJ is already
investigating JP Morgan for manipulation of the silver markets in the futures
markets we believe it is essential for the DOJ to also vet the SLV for each of
the problems noted in this memo as well.

Today in America, citizens have very little faith in the
regulators to execute their job properly. 
Industry regulators seem to be more concerned with hobnobbing with and
catering to the greed of industry executives rather than ensuring that
consumers are properly protected against fraud and criminal activity. The
recent BP/Transocean rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is another example in
which a chronological timeline of events that led to this disaster revealed
regulators to be worthless in protecting the consumer, the State, and our
nation from an entirely preventable disaster and the greed of corporations.
Fines are not the answer.  Fines will not
prevent a massive loss of incomes and wealth to workers affected by corporate
negligence and willful deception. If industry executives are found guilty of
criminal activity, extended jail time is the solution. And nothing short of a
thorough investigation into the operation of the GLD and SLV to prove that none
of the above concerns we stated are founded will restore America’s confidence
in the financial industry.

Everything for everyone, nothing for us,

Lindbergh

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 20:00 | 420512 Silversinner
Silversinner's picture

formed a central bank with my own family and close friends a few years ago.We started collecting gold/silver and

used some of the gold profits to buy some nice appartments near the black see.We all have real long hollydays 6 weeks

now because of this action.We all have our own specialty;father gun spec,mom garden food spec,friend liquar spec etc

Think our cartel is much stronger in quality not in quantaty,because we are connected by blood and friendship.We

will survive while they will eat eachother.Wake up people!!!!We don't need them;we are creative,free and carring people.

 

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 19:32 | 420480 Silversinner
Silversinner's picture

Banks short silver,long houses.

Will exchange one of my kilogram bars for a villa on there balance sheet.

'Will not except any amount of fiat money when they have to cover,just hate them morrons.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 15:11 | 419935 Kaiser Sousa
Kaiser Sousa's picture

 ok i'll play ball...even though i know they aint gonna do a mother fucking thang cause the bankers own every branch of this corrupt ass government.

i would prefer armed insurrection at this point...revolution is truly the only solution at this point...the DOJ will probably do what i do when i get correspondence from them - hint....

"i got a letter from the government- the other day

i opened and read it said they were suckers

they wanted me for their army or whatever

picture me givin' a damn -  i said never"....

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 15:09 | 419934 Cactus Rocky
Cactus Rocky's picture

Paper contracts, bitches!

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 14:22 | 419829 LiquidBrick
LiquidBrick's picture

Looks like the American Revolution is now less than 36 months away.

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock. Pick up a weapon or get off the block.

 

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 14:05 | 419775 Grand Supercycle
Grand Supercycle's picture

 

Those EURUSD bullish warnings have
strengthened further today.

Vice versa for the USD index of course.

It seems the current EURUSD downleg has ended.

http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 12:21 | 419560 percolator
percolator's picture

All right I sent it to the DOJ, but there is no way they're going to read it its too long and besides they're in cahoots with the bankers.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 13:07 | 419642 Seal
Seal's picture

double ditto

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 12:04 | 419511 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

Does anyone expect a serious investigation when our own government and the Federal Reserve are in on the scam?

 

As soon as there is a whiff of investigation, they'll be threatened with with a 50% loss in the stock market, a Second Great Depression, and, more importantly, any legislator or executive who doesn't roll over will not be reelected.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 11:18 | 419420 monmick
monmick's picture

"In response to your open investigation regarding the suppression of silver prices in the COMEX futures markets by JP Morgan..."

Didn't I read somewhere that the DOJ has since denied the existence of any such investigation of JPM; and that the authenticity of the email communication in which this was allegedly revealed has now been put into question?

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:59 | 419240 BumpSkool
BumpSkool's picture

+1 Stevm

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:43 | 419201 Stevm30
Stevm30's picture

It seems to me, in light of the relentless negative press about SLV and GLD, which must inevitably be hurting their business (look at CEF and PHYS) - the fact that a representative has not come out and DEFINITIVELY denied all these suspicions - seems very suspect.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:15 | 419150 Chemba
Chemba's picture

I was interested in reading this letter until I got to the part about Goldman Sachs Abacus transactions.  As the author is unable to properly analyze the nature of the Goldman Abacus transaction then he has lost all credibility.

Feel free to label this as "junk", but it is truth, and truth shall set you free.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 11:53 | 419495 mrgneiss
mrgneiss's picture

That's analgous to saying because Harry Markopolous made a mistake once on another company his call on Madoff was worthless.  Have you ever made a mistake?  If so, was everything else you did wrong?  If we were follow your premise there we would have to discount anything from anyone who had ever made a mistake...........absurd.  Because of the flawed analysis on GS' Abacus (so you say), do extra DD on these comments.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:11 | 419138 breezer1
breezer1's picture

this is the kind of irresponsible stuff that will get the internet shut down and gold up to $10000 oz. 

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:00 | 419118 LeBalance
LeBalance's picture

RESTORE LIBERTY:

Liberty is a leave that a slave receives from his ship of indenture upon reaching shore.  It is a short period of complete hedonism and material excess followed by another period of servitude on board the slave ship.

I guess maybe that is what you want, but if its not then some homework might be in order.

So your title is akin to saying: "Please more free bread and circuses!" in which case you are getting exactly what you wish for.

You've been played.  But you enjoyed it.  Now get rid of those chains or not.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 15:43 | 420001 Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

I didn't junk you, but certainly understand why they did. I believe I have read this same opinion from you before, so take it to be a little totem for you. Here are the many correct definitions for "liberty"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. 2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. 3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. 4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty. 5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore. 6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city. 7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties. 8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 08:41 | 419079 Operafaust
Operafaust's picture

I'll run with this.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:18 | 419148 unwashedmass
unwashedmass's picture

and DOJ? ah, ya might want to run with before you find yourself mouthing "no one could have seen this coming..." because, the smoke is starting to billow out the sides of the Comex.....

from Harvey Organ's blog:

In silver we have had 2 big delivery months of March and May. If you include the options exercised the precious months and add them to the delivery months,

the total of silver standing is represented by 22 million oz and 24 million oz respectively. AND PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING DELIVERY, and ITS NOT HAPPENING.......

There has been 18 million oz of SLV leave London but it did not enter the comex which is the rule. I cannot see the comex settling with paper SLV but I may be wrong.

I have not seen any appreciable silver enter the dealer inventories for these past 3 months.

In gold, the amount that is standing and will eventually stand is an astounding 2.33 million oz. (we included the 204,000 oz of options exercised in May).

We are now past the half way mark and still no activity into the gold dealer inventory.

As for the movement btw HSBC and Scotia, I guess Scotia is the supplier of the metal and has none so it must get it somewhere.

There has been massive withdrawals of silver from the customer inventory as these owners are afraid of comingling and thus do not want to take a chance on keeping their metal at these registered comex vaults. Ah, yes, another subprime fiasco, Madoff scandal in the making!!!! Live!!! Watch it in real TIME!!! Watch our government officials turn away.....until.... duh, no one could see this coming......

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 08:40 | 419077 BumpSkool
BumpSkool's picture

...a PR disaster for "failing to protect the consumer" ... that's a threat ...??? ... it's going on 24/7 and nobody gives a rats' ass because they're too busy with ObamaObamaObama, God I hate him and hate the Democrats hate hate hate hate the Republicans...God I hate them them can't stand them... and Congress who I hate hate hate and Alan Grayson who I hate hate hate... and Sarah Palin who I can't stand and ..... whew!! I'm exhausted ... I think I'll watch the NBA finals tonight...and just veg out on the TV with a beer...

... vote with your feet ... into physical

(.... but good luck anyway - I'm with ya - if somewhat jaded)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!