Behind The Woodshed 3rd year Anniversary at Real Liberty Media
At the Situationally Aware Action Oriented Intelligence Center
Of Evolutionary Engagement
The Victory Against You in the Silent War is Your Silence
Criminals By Definition
Protect Your Granted Rights
Officially Criminal Evidence
- FBI, DOJ And Their Forensic Scientists State They’ll Continue Using Discredited Junk Science To Put People Behind Bars
from the if-it-ain’t-working,-don’t-fix-it dept
For dozens of years, criminal prosecutions have relied on junk science. Forensic science, properly applied, can actually provide matches that identify suspects. But it’s not properly applied. In the hands of the DOJ, forensic evidence examination is a closed loop. Outside scientists have been granted access to the DOJ’s DNA work, but everything else — from fingerprints to hair samples — has been locked away in the government’s database.
Still, the DOJ insists its science is solid, something it bases on confirmation bias. The matches determined in its forensic labs are “scientifically certain” because the DOJ’s expert witnesses have said so in court. Not only are outside scientists locked out of examining evidence and forensic processes, but defense lawyers are as well.
The DOJ has finally decided to dial back its “scientific certainty” a bit by issuing guidance instructing its experts to not make this claim in court. This follows years of bogus matches being presented as sure things by forensic experts in court, leading to an unknown number of false convictions. This step back is a step forward for an agency that is mostly unwilling to admit to any mistakes or wrongdoing.
This small change is likely due to a damning report [PDF] issued by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) that asserts that the “scientifically certain” evidence prosecutors rely on is severely flawed.
The questions that DNA analysis had raised about the scientific validity of traditional forensic disciplines and testimony based on them led, naturally, to increased efforts to test empirically the reliability of the methods that those disciplines employed. Relevant studies that followed included:
• a 2002 FBI re-examination of microscopic hair comparisons the agency’s scientists had performed in criminal cases, in which DNA testing revealed that 11 percent of hair samples found to match microscopically actually came from different individuals;
• a 2004 National Research Council report, commissioned by the FBI, on bullet-lead evidence, which found that there was insufficient research and data to support drawing a definitive connection between two bullets based on compositional similarity of the lead they contain;
• a 2005 report of an international committee established by the FBI to review the use of latent fingerprint evidence in the case of a terrorist bombing in Spain, in which the committee found that “confirmation bias”—the inclination to confirm a suspicion based on other grounds—contributed to a misidentification and improper detention; and
• studies reported in 2009 and 2010 on bitemark evidence, which found that current procedures for comparing bitemarks are unable to reliably exclude or include a suspect as a potential biter.
Beyond these kinds of shortfalls with respect to “reliable methods” in forensic feature-comparison disciplines, reviews have found that expert witnesses have often overstated the probative value of their evidence, going far beyond what the relevant science can justify. Examiners have sometimes testified, for example, that their conclusions are “100 percent certain;” or have “zero,” “essentially zero,” or “negligible,” error rate. As many reviews—including the highly regarded 2009 National Research Council study—have noted, however, such statements are not scientifically defensible: all laboratory tests and feature-comparison analyses have non-zero error rates.
Despite these conclusions, law enforcement forensic scientists, along with the FBI and DOJ are promising to continue using junk science to convict people. The Attorney General’s response to the report is basically, “Thanks for all the hard work, but we’re not changing a thing.”
One World Currency Is Here
- Here’s a timetable for the dollar’s demise
What will happen in the next five weeks is just as significant as any of the monetary earthquakes mentioned above. There are three major events happening in rapid sequence. Here’s the list:
- On Sept. 4, the G20 leaders meet in Hangzhou, China
- On Sept. 30, the yuan officially joins the SDR basket of currencies
- On Oct. 7, the IMF holds its annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
You might be tempted to dismiss this calendar as “business as usual.” G20 leaders’ meetings happen every year. The SDR basket has been changed many times in the past. The IMF has global meetings twice a year (spring and fall). But it’s not business as usual. This time is different.
- Chinese yuan becomes IMF reserve currency, first new addition since ‘99
The Chinese yuan has been added to the IMF reserve basket, becoming the first currency to be added to the list since the emergence of the euro in 1999.
The official entry was made Saturday, bringing to a close, at least partially, Beijing’s years-long struggle for international acceptance on the sort of level enjoyed by the US dollar. The currency now joins the big four: the US dollar, the euro, the yen, and the British pound.
The decision means the Chinese yuan will now be used as one of the International Monetary Fund’s lending currencies in times of emergency economic bailouts. This sort of internationalization is in line with China’s wish for increased legitimacy of its currency.
The move is also evidence of China’s growing role as a power to challenge the global economic dominance of the United States.
The limitations China places on its own markets, however, have themselves been to blame for this delayed outcome.
“It’s an irreversible path towards opening up, integrating into the global economy and playing the economic game by the rules,” proclaimed IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde.
- World Bank issues SDR bonds in China
The World Bank on Wednesday issued landmark bonds denominated in special drawing rights (SDR) in China’s interbank market.
The three-year bonds worth 500 million SDR (nearly 700 million U.S. dollars) were billed as “Mulan bonds.” The Chinese currency the yuan, or renminbi, will be used as the settlement currency.
It is the first issuance of SDR bonds since 1981.
A much bigger wave of such bonds could be expected as the World Bank plans to sell as much as 2 billion SDR of such bonds in China.
The SDR is the reserve currency administered by the International Monetary Fund, the price of which is determined by a basket of currencies including the U.S. dollar, euro and Japanese Yen.
- What China’s SDR Bond Issue Really Means
The so-called SDR is an IMF construct of real currencies—right now the euro, yen, dollar, and pound—without actually containing any of them. It is just a claim to demand payment in these currencies. It made news last year when the Chinese renminbi was also admitted, although it won’t formally be part of the basket until Oct. 1 of this year. The IMF and member countries trade the units currently worth $1.40 among each other.
“Initially, SDR-denominated bonds will be of particular interest to official investors, but gradually, they will also attract investors from private sectors. In such a way, an SDR bond market will be developed,” Zhu Jun, the director-general of the People’s Bank of China’s (PBOC) international department told the Chinese business paper Caixin.
Worth Wray, the chief global macro strategist of STA Wealth Management, agrees: “Right now there is no organic demand, but over a five-year horizon it could develop globally and maybe that creates another channel for capital to flow into China—if that’s the only market there is for it,” he said in an interview.
The SDR bonds issued by the two official institutions are different from the official SDR issued by the IMF. In fact, they are a derivative of it. When the World Bank unit called International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) issues the bonds, it receives payment in yuan from the Chinese market or at first from the issue’s underwriter, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.
It can then proceed to either spend the yuan in China or exchange them for other currencies and spend them abroad. So far, the IBRD has disbursed $46 billion worth of loans, grants, and credits in China. It is important to note that this process is effectively creating SDRs, which have previously not existed. Now that the first issuance is well underway, it is easy to lever up the balance sheets of international development organizations and keep issuing—or printing—SDR obligations even in the trillions until even private market actors support and accept them. Once the SDR is widely accepted as payment, the IMF could just redeem all outstanding local currencies for SDR and the world would not only have a new reserve currency, but just one global currency.
- One World Currency and the SDR Bond
From my perspective the SDR is an illusion of an illusion. Special Drawing Rights (SDR) is a “unit of account” that allows nations to trade amongst themselves. The SDR unit of account is weighted, currently, against four fiat currencies, the US dollar, the euro, Japanese yen and British pound. These fiat currencies that make up the basket of SDR currencies are backed by the respective nations taxes and bond issuances. The taxes are collected, on a go-forward basis, so in essence the value of the currency is based on future labor of each nation. In the real world, where you and I live, this is known as a ponzi scheme – we would be jailed for offering this type of “investment”. The SDR is backed by these currencies which adds another layer to the ponzi scheme. The ponzi has now grown from an individual nation to the global stage. I will be more than happy to redact the above if my analysis is incorrect. From where I sit, that’s what I see.
As we reported, the day it happened, the new M-SDR is official and will be moving into the hands of the Chinese banks over the next several weeks. China has been pushing the IMF and World Bank since 2009 to consider a serious change to the current world reserve currency system. The current governor of the Peoples Bank of China (PBOC), Zhou Xiaochuan, has spearheaded this call to change and it appears China is not going to be satisfied with just the M-SDR Bond; they want the whole system to change, now.
As The Epoch Times reported:
“The Chinese … have made it very clear that the Special Drawing Rights of the IMF is the preferred future international world reserve currency,” writes Willem Middelkoop in a note to clients.
“What you are going to see is world money. You are going to see the IMF print Special Drawing Rights (SDR). It’s a geeky name but it’s a kind of world money printed by the IMF. They’ll flood the world with trillions of SDRs,” James Rickards told Epoch Times earlier this year.
Now that the first issuance is well underway, it is easy to lever up the balance sheets of international development organizations and keep issuing—or printing—SDR obligations even in the trillions until even private market actors support and accept them. Once the SDR is widely accepted as payment, the IMF could just redeem all outstanding local currencies for SDR and the world would not only have a new reserve currency, but just one global currency.
As the new M-SDR Bond, as we stated, begins to mature it will be in demand, not only from large investors – nations, large banks and hedge funds – but will become more attractive to retail investors. This is where the change will occur and the SDR will move from a bond to a currency. If you listened to the interview conducted with Larry White I describe a very specific scenario that moves the M-SDR from a bond to “acting like a currency”. As this aspect of the M-SDR bond grows it will be very easy for the citizens to accept this as a currency. The citizens already accept a “blip-on-the-screen” as currency why wouldn’t they accept a different form of illusion – what is the difference?
Please, I beg you, don’t take my word for it. Read what the people that have a great many more years of study than I have to say about this transformation.
The Epoch Times continues:
“Special consideration should be given to giving the SDR a greater role. The SDR has the features and potential to act as a super-sovereign reserve currency,” wrote Zhou in 2009. He also wanted the yuan to be included in the SDR, which is going to happen on Oct. 1. Take heed of his predictions.
“You create new liquidity. That’s the kind of reform that could change the international system immediately,” says Worth Wray.
Willem Middelkoop says this could be done through an IMF substitution fund, an idea already discussed in the 1970s. “This fund could facilitate a direct exchange of dollars for SDRs. The liquidity issue would be resolved with one stroke of the pen, as an SDR would be created for every dollar that was exchanged,” he writes in his note.
Sounds crazy? It is, but the official plan is right here, for everyone to see. [Emphasis added]
You are welcome to draw your own conclusions and I encourage you to read the entire article at The Epoch Times so that you can read for yourself – click here
Holy Evile Transparency Batman
- Pope says gender theory part of ‘global war’ on marriage, family
Pope Francis warned on Saturday of a “global war” against traditional marriage and the family, saying both were under attack from gender theory and divorce.
Francis made his comments in an impromptu response to a question at a meeting of the small Catholic community in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia.
“You mentioned a great enemy of marriage: gender theory,” the pope said in response to a woman who had asked about it being taught in schools.
He did not elaborate.
Stakeholder and The Stick
- Stakeholders and Sustainability: An Argument for Responsible Corporate Decision-Making
Freeman consciously introduced and articulated the basis for a theory that competes head-on with the commonly accepted stockholder theory of the firm. The choice of the word “stakeholder” was intentional. He asserted:
Words make a difference in how we see the world. By using “stakeholder,” managers and theorists alike will come to see these groups as having a “stake.” “Stakeholder” connotes “legitimacy,” and while managers may not think that certain groups are “legitimate” in the sense that their demands on the firm are inappropriate, they had better give “legitimacy” to these groups in terms of their ability to affect the direction of the firm.104A.
Hot Diggity Doge
The Weekend War Report
The DOGE OF WAR
Unleash the Power of the DOGE OF WAR
Please Donate to RLM
In This Doge Eat Doge World
- The people know that they have created this farce and financed it with their own taxes (consent), but they would rather knuckle under than be the hypocrite. Factor VI – Cattle Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jelly-fish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.
- Mr. Rothschild’s Energy Discovery
What Mr. Rothschild  had discovered was the basic principle of power, influence, and control over people as applied to economics. That principle is “when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you.”
The Law of War
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD
Where Not Throwing Oppression Off, You Live Either Under an Occupation or by Conquest.
The Choice and Responsibility are Yours. United We Strike
Behind The Woodshed for that practical education & hard but necessary dose of reality.
Spread The Word Behind The Woodshed.