http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOCQIV1Nar8
I'm having a situation now and thinking something is amiss in my family history.
I am thinking that maybe I have property in Texas that wasn't given over to my mother and maybe even my g'mother??? I'm not sure but things are popping up around me that makes me wonder.
I don't speak to my brother or my mother's family as they are 'not nice' people and I have no need to speak to them as they live in Texas and have never been a part of my life. I'm now receiving letters from my aunt's attorney regarding the leasing of some land???????????
Out of the blue, there is an attorney looking for me and wanting my signature and to know if I will sign off on property in Texas for Oil and Gas Lease??? (Back in the day when my parents owned a home I remember them going thru this but they owned property???) To my knowledge, I own NO property in Texas?????????
I don't know of any property that I own in Texas but why would I be getting this paperwork and offer of a wee bit of $$$ if I sign off on this? Common sense dictates to me that if I don't own property, I don't have to agree by signature to have this 'lease'. hmmmmmmmm
I do know that back in the day my mother shared with me that her g'pa was full blooded Cherokee. I never heard of my g'father (my mother's father) had any property. (I'm thinking that if my g'mother received property or money that the dates dictates she didn't have anything in her name.)
Now I'm thinking that if my mother's maternal g'pa got a settlement because of something the US government owed the Native Americans that maybe she never received anything. My mother's older brother was probably the excutor of the will and he probably kept all this hidden.
My uncle was a preacher in Texas and a contractor and it seems funny to me that he did seem to have a lot of money. (I don't really give a crap about $$$ but think it needs to be addressed as you can bet your boots if this happened to me, it's happened to others?)
I am thinking this is a testosterone thing as I know my brother is very money oriented. I also know that I loved my father deeply but he had weird thoughts on some of this as well. (He was the executor of my g'aunt's will and he didn't do what she wanted him to do with her niece, he kept the money that was supposed to go to her.) I found out about this thru my deceased aunt coming to me in a dream and sure enough when I confronted my dad about it, he confessed that it was true. OMG!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights
Excerpt:
Property rights
During the 19th century some women in the United States and Britain began to challenge laws that denied them the right to their property once they married. Under the common law doctrine of coverture husbands gained control of their wives' real estate and wages. Beginning in the 1840s, state legislatures in the United States[45] and the British Parliament[46] began passing statutes that protected women's property from their husbands and their husbands' creditors. These laws were known as the Married Women's Property Acts.[47] Courts in the 19th-century United States also continued to require privy examinations of married women who sold their property. A privy examination was a practice in which a married woman who wished to sell her property had to be separately examined by a judge or justice of the peace outside of the presence of her husband and asked if her husband was pressuring her into signing the document.[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
Excerpt:
Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England and the United States throughout most of the 19th century. The idea was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century.
Under traditional English common law an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of feme sole, while a married woman had the status of feme covert. These are English spellings of medieval Anglo-Norman phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be femme seule "single woman" and femme couverte, literally "covered woman").
A feme sole had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. A feme covert was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman's existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own.
As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a woman did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds, since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other. Judges and lawyers referred to the overall principle as "coverture".
http://www.albionmonitor.com/free/biatrustfund.html
Excerpts:
1) When obvious and admitted abuses of a small minority of people by a government are allowed to continue unchecked for over a century -- with little or no outcry from the citizenry -- it most likely means that the majority of the citizens condone the government's behavior.
What other explanation can there be for the BIA's belligerent lack of concern for its fiscal responsibilities to Native Americans? It isn't that the task of properly handling the revenue is just too daunting. Other departments of the government deal with larger and more complicated accounting systems with comparable ease everyday.
2)
With no other recourse left at their disposal, NARF, along with other attorneys, filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court on June 10 on behalf of more than 300,000 American Indians. The suit charges Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Assistant Interior Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs Ada Deer and Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin with illegal conduct in regard to the management of Indian money held in trust accounts and managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
3)
What happened next is truly astounding. After years of work and millions of dollars in fees, Arthur Anderson was only able to reconcile the 2,000 tribal accounts -- not the 17,000 IIMs -- and only then for the relatively short period of some 20 years from 1973 to 1992.
http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2020911,00.html (Must see as it involves Enron and Robert Rubin) ...cal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34288-2002Jan11
Excerpt:
Rubin Asked Treasury About Aid to Enron
By Dana Milbank and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff WritersSaturday, January 12, 2002; Page A01
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Redress_for_Japanese_Latin_Americans/_Comparisons_with_other_redress_and_reparation_efforts
Excerpt:
The Trail of Tears - The term "The Trail of Tears" is used to describe the forced migration of the Cherokee Indians from their lands in Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama, to a reserve further west in Oklahoma. Andrew Jackson's "Indian Removal Policy"[5] permitted the migration, which took place between 1838 and 1839. These groups of Cherokee Indian were forced to make these long journeys with nothing but the clothes on their backs. As a result, many of them died from harsh conditions, starvation and disease. An estimated 4,000 Cherokee Indians died on this abnormally long and hostile trek.
Reparation Efforts - Although many of the following methods reparations are not necessarily paid out to the Indian tribes mentioned earlier, the fact that reparations are being paid out shows that the Government recognizes the injustices that Aboriginals of the United States faced in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Here are some pieces of legislation that led to the payment of said reparations:
H.R. 355 - The objective of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Amendments Act of 2005 is "to amend the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act to provide compensation to members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for damage resulting from the Oahe Dam and Reservoir Project, and for other purposes".
S. 1501 - The Crow Tribe Land Restoration Act's objective is "to develop a program to acquire interests in land from eligible individuals within the Crow Reservation in the State of Montana, and for other purposes".
H.R. 4322 - The Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005 states that its objective is "to provide for Indian trust asset management reform and resolution of historical accounting claims, and for other purposes".
If you want to learn more about Native American Redress and their respective pieces of legislation, please visit The Orator.com
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html
Excerpt:
Early in the 19th century, while the rapidly-growing United States expanded into the lower South, white settlers faced what they considered an obstacle. This area was home to the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chicasaw and Seminole nations. These Indian nations, in the view of the settlers and many other white Americans, were standing in the way of progress. Eager for land to raise cotton, the settlers pressured the federal government to acquire Indian territory.
Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was a forceful proponent of Indian removal. In 1814 he commanded the U.S. military forces that defeated a faction of the Creek nation. In their defeat, the Creeks lost 22 million acres of land in southern Georgia and central Alabama. The U.S. acquired more land in 1818 when, spurred in part by the motivation to punish the Seminoles for their practice of harboring fugitive slaves, Jackson's troops invaded Spanish Florida.
From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of eleven treaties which divested the southern tribes of their eastern lands in exchange for lands in the west. The tribes agreed to the treaties for strategic reasons. They wanted to appease the government in the hopes of retaining some of their land, and they wanted to protect themselves from white harassment. As a result of the treaties, the United States gained control over three-quarters of Alabama and Florida, as well as parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky and North Carolina. This was a period of voluntary Indian migration, however, and only a small number of Creeks, Cherokee and Choctaws actually moved to the new lands.
http://sites.google.com/site/dirtygoldingoldmansachs/the-catbird-chronicles-goldman-sachs
Excerpt:
1986 - The notorious Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA) borrows $5 million from the Chicago branch of Japan’s Sanwa Bank as a part of a $60 million deal to purchase stock in Coral Reinsurance, a Barbados subsidiary of American International Group (AIG). The deal is brokered by Goldman Sachs, whose head at the time was Robert Rubin. An AIG affiliate had also managed over $1 billion worth of ADFA bonds.
Bill Clinton - Arkansas Development Finance Authority And CIA Cocaine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQEM-2MB2v4
http://66.39.128.35/index.php?title=Peter_Peterson
Excerpt:
Peter Peterson
Peter Peterson (Peter G. Peterson) is a controversial Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon appointee who uses his wealth to underwrite PR campaigns against Social Security and other social safety net programs, hyping concerns about the federal deficit (although not targeting for budget cuts substantial military spending or other spending that benefits corporations).
He is the Chairman and Co-Founder of the Blackstone Group and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. According to Forbes, Inc., Peterson has a personal net worth of nearly $2 billion, and he is ranked the 182nd richest person in the U.S. and 488th richest person in the world, as of 2010.[1]
He is the former Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the founding Chairman of the Institute for International Economics (IIE), and the founding President of the Concord Coalition. He is also the former chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers (1973-1977) and its successor firm, Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb (1977-1984). Before Lehman, he worked briefly in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon, as Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs (1971) and as Secretary of Commerce (1972). He also served as a chairman of Nixon's National Commission on Productivity and as the U.S. Chairman of the "U.S.-Soviet Commercial Commission." Before that, from 1963-1971, he was chairman/CEO of the Bell and Howell Corporation.
Bill Clinton - Arkansas Development Finance Authority And CIA Cocaine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQEM-2MB2v4
http://66.39.128.35/index.php?title=Peter_Peterson
Excerpt:
Peter Peterson
From SourceWatch
Peter Peterson (Peter G. Peterson) is a controversial Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon appointee who uses his wealth to underwrite PR campaigns against Social Security and other social safety net programs, hyping concerns about the federal deficit (although not targeting for budget cuts substantial military spending or other spending that benefits corporations).
He is the Chairman and Co-Founder of the Blackstone Group and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. According to Forbes, Inc., Peterson has a personal net worth of nearly $2 billion, and he is ranked the 182nd richest person in the U.S. and 488th richest person in the world, as of 2010.[1]
He is the former Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the founding Chairman of the Institute for International Economics (IIE), and the founding President of the Concord Coalition. He is also the former chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers (1973-1977) and its successor firm, Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb (1977-1984). Before Lehman, he worked briefly in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon, as Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs (1971) and as Secretary of Commerce (1972). He also served as a chairman of Nixon's National Commission on Productivity and as the U.S. Chairman of the "U.S.-Soviet Commercial Commission." Before that, from 1963-1971, he was chairman/CEO of the Bell and Howell Corporation.
Dust on the Bottle (Dedicated from me to Betty White) ...cal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdgVUqFFk44&feature=related
No comments:
Post a Comment