"...as I've said repeatedly in this thread now, the NEED Act needs language to protect non-fraudulent bankers (defined as such not because they didn't practice legal fractional-reserve lending but because they didn't engage in the types of fraud very clearly and often discussed by Bill Black). This point of mine is in keeping with the spirit of the "Positive Money plan," which spirit was lacking in your own commentary in this thread, Joe. I find it interesting that you actually posted a follow-up comment containing the following:
"In case anybody missed it, this is in there:
"'This shall be done in such a way as not to jeopardize the cash flow or the financial health of the institution.'"
I certainly did not miss it. Why though did you pooh-pooh my same concerns but turn around and point to the Positive Money effort in a positive manner? I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, Joe, or to embarrass you or score points or anything of the like. I'm simply wanting to know why the difference? Was it just a simple misunderstanding?
Joe Bongiovanni's position (supplied privately but with no confidentiality requested or understood; yet, I won't recreate his message here) is that I was quoting the Positive Money proposed legislation. I did not and am not. I was and remain fully aware that I was referring to their marketing materials concerning their Act.
Joe (in earlier portions of this discussion thread) maintained/maintains that such marketing materials are needed but sufficient. I disagree and for the following irrefutable reasons:
Marketing materials are not binding. There are theories of judicial interpretation that allow for the discovery of such marketing materials for the purposes of ascertaining the intent of legislators, but countervailing theory has is that what finally becomes statute, should not be subject to the marketing materials of some. There are those who vote for something for reasons other than as outlined in marketing materials of those who introduced the legislation.
When one signs a written contract, verbal assurances, and marketing materials that run contrary to the actual contract are usually non-binding. This is a moving target. Fraud and other factors should remain relevant, but courts differ. The NEED Act should not take any such chances when a clear and easy alternative exists (unless those behind the act are not on the up and up).
That clear and easy alternative is to simply include the marketing language right in the Act. If the Act intends that transitioning "be done in such a way as not to jeopardize the cash flow or the financial health of the institution," then let it state it and not vaguely or as merely implied in the minds of some. Further, let it be qualified that, that clause shall not be used to shield fraud.
Refusing to include these things in the Act makes it ripe for banker counter-revolutionary tactics and rightly so. Anyone who can't see this has blinders on concerning it or ulterior motives. I would suggest that Dennis Kucinich does not have ulterior motives. As for the degree to which he has delved into the Act to this level, I cannot say. He is a busy man with many issues on his plate. He needs good advisors on these issues. He needs advisors who will anticipate the bankers and banksters and head them off before they rally.
Joe, of course, won't acknowledge that I'm right, because he has been blocked by forces beyond his control and not because I'm wrong. May Joe overcome.
Monetary Reform: Series 1: here