[SPEAKER_00]: Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners.
[SPEAKER_00]: Put one minute, you're up half a minute and soybeans in the next pool.
[SPEAKER_01]: Your kids don't go to college and they've reached disaster event here, with me.
[SPEAKER_01]: The revolution starts now, staunch.
[SPEAKER_00]: We have to pass the bills so that you can find out what is in it.
[SPEAKER_01]: Turn those machines back off!
[SPEAKER_01]: You are about to enter the Peter ship show.
[SPEAKER_01]: If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.
[SPEAKER_01]: This is the last stand on Earth.
[SPEAKER_01]: The Peter ship shall be solved.
[SPEAKER_01]: I don't know, when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.
[SPEAKER_01]: You're money.
[SPEAKER_01]: You're storing this.
[SPEAKER_01]: You're freedom.
[SPEAKER_01]: The Peter ship shall.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, come everybody to the Peter shift show podcast and earlier today, fidged, fidged chair, Jerome Powell chaired his last Federal Reserve conference and prior to that conference about a half hour before the Federal Reserve made an announcement that surprised nobody.
[SPEAKER_00]: and left the Fed funds rate unchanged at three and a half and between it's you know it's a it's a range between three and a half and three and three quarters percent.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now what might have surprised people was not that there was one descent.
[SPEAKER_00]: There was one loan vote out of eleven.
[SPEAKER_00]: To lower rates by twenty five basis points.
[SPEAKER_00]: But you had four the sense.
[SPEAKER_00]: on the language of the bias.
[SPEAKER_00]: You see, the official statement maintains the bias towards cuts in the outlook that the Fed is more likely to cut rates than high grades.
[SPEAKER_00]: But four members wanted to remove that bias.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm not sure if they wanted to go to a tightening bias, or if they just wanted to have a kind of a neutral bias.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, we don't really know what we're going to do.
[SPEAKER_00]: It could go either way.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the majority of the board won the lean towards, we're probably going to cut, then hike.
[SPEAKER_00]: And in fact, had the bias shifted that would have constituted a tightening of policy because that's forward guidance.
[SPEAKER_00]: They use that to try to affect the markets and with expectations.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because the next time the Fed meets, there's going to be a new chairman, Kevin Warsh.
[SPEAKER_00]: Um, what did surprise some people is Powell said that when his term is up, he is not going to go quietly into the night and and give speeches for a quarter million or a half a million a pop.
[SPEAKER_00]: He is going to stay on the FOMC now that is a big sacrifice.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, the best time to make money as a fed share is when you step down and you're the last fed share.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's when you have, I think, your highest market value to give speeches on Wall Street and they pay big bucks because of course they have big bucks.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so I think the longer pal kind of sits out of the limelight as just a voting member,
[SPEAKER_00]: Uh, I think, you know, I think it's thought's going to go down a bit.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, you know, maybe he's here because the reason he's giving for hanging around is that, you know, Fed independence is in jeopardy and he wants to protect the institution that he had holes in such high regard, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: And when he talked to the reporters, he made it clear that it's not about
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, the name calling.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's fine with Trump saying he's an idiot.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's a moron.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's got a low IQ.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, kind of sticks and stones.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's par for the course, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: He doesn't care if politicians want to beat him up about his decisions.
[SPEAKER_00]: What bothers him is the law fair is trying to get rid of FOMC members by sticking, you
[SPEAKER_00]: Uh, and that's why he's there and not just him, Lisa Cook and so I guess he says he wants to stick around for a while, I guess just to be a thorn in their side.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I don't know what is he going to vote.
[SPEAKER_00]: not to cut rates when everybody else wants to cut them.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, he's, I don't know, you know, he is pretty much of a dove himself.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I don't really know what he's going to do more than he's just, you know, trying to get back at Trump any way he thinks he can.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I think that's the reason that he's staying there.
[SPEAKER_00]: Although maybe he actually thinks he's going to do something to preserve this Fed independence that he thinks is so important.
[SPEAKER_00]: One of the things that Powell mentioned was how important Fedin dependence was, and he said that what separates this successful companies, countries, excuse me, from the unsuccessful countries, is an independent Fedin reserve.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, what about the fact that before 1913, we didn't have a Federal Reserve?
[SPEAKER_00]: We went 80 years without any central bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: And those were the most prosperous years we ever had.
[SPEAKER_00]: We were far more successful as a country without a central bank than we are with one.
[SPEAKER_00]: So maybe what separates the wildly successful countries from the modestly successful countries is the gold standard.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's what we need.
[SPEAKER_00]: Sound constitutional money,
[SPEAKER_00]: a central bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, one of the, I think the biggest lies, and I guess I hope it was a lie, because if it wasn't a lie, then it's even worse, is, you know, how pal described inflation
[SPEAKER_00]: prior to the pandemic, because of course when they ask about inflation, and again, they kept saying, what about your 2% mandate?
[SPEAKER_00]: And Palo's low, oh no, we are committed.
[SPEAKER_00]: We are maintained, you know, to maintain.
[SPEAKER_00]: That is the holy grail.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, we, nothing is going to keep us from 2% inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: We are, you know, determined to get inflation to 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, of course, inflation's been above 2% for six years, doesn't sound like much
[SPEAKER_00]: And if they're committed to two percent inflation and inflation is closer to four than two, even the way the government measured it, why are they thinking about cutting rates?
[SPEAKER_00]: If you're committed to two percent inflation and you're almost at four, shouldn't you be hiking rates?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, they should.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the commitment is all BS.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, he's got his fingers crossed, making a commitment like that.
[SPEAKER_00]: But
[SPEAKER_00]: He had the concede that inflation is above his mandate and he makes excuses.
[SPEAKER_00]: He blames it on the supply shocks of the pandemic, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Not about the demand shock from all the money print thing, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: The balance sheet blowing up, 0% rates, you know, massive QE, no, no, that's got nothing to do with price is soaring.
[SPEAKER_00]: not letting people go to work, right.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that was also government.
[SPEAKER_00]: But he said that, you know, this was kind of like something that came out of left field.
[SPEAKER_00]: We really didn't know how to deal with this because he said for the 40 years before the pandemic.
[SPEAKER_00]: inflation was under control, the Fed did a good job of controlling inflation for 40 years until the pandemic screwed it all up.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, copy some slap because we were dealing with something crazy, completely out of anybody's control, and this ridiculous supply shock through a monkey wrench in our great plans.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so, you know, but for this supply shock, everything would have been great.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, you know, it's taking longer than we thought to get out of this mess that was created by this supply shock.
[SPEAKER_00]: And of course, now it's being complicated by tariffs, by a war and I ran.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so, you know, we're doing our best, but it's really not our fault.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that is complete bullshit.
[SPEAKER_00]: Again, it's either a lie or, you know, uh, pal doesn't have any idea about inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I, I just got the exact numbers because, you know, I, I don't know exactly, but I knew that was lie.
[SPEAKER_00]: I knew he didn't have 40 years of 2% inflation because when the Fed said inflation was under control, everybody takes that to mean 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: because that's what under control means that they are meeting their mandate.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, of course, they didn't have a 2% mandate back then, but nobody probably knows that.
[SPEAKER_00]: But if the Fed is saying we had inflation under control, and which would be prices were stable, there was no inflation, and they've defined stable prices as prices that go up every year by 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's the inference that you would draw from his 40 years of under-control inflation was 40 years of 2% of inflation, the Fed did a great job.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now when he made that statement, the guy who asked them the question that he responded to didn't do a follow-up and say, what do you mean 40 years of inflation on a control?
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody else when they had a question.
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody else said, oh, by the way, let me do a follow-up.
[SPEAKER_00]: You just said inflation was under control for 40 years.
[SPEAKER_00]: Really, do you know what the rates of inflation were?
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody said that because they probably haven't got a clue either.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not easy to get a job.
[SPEAKER_00]: as a fed correspondent and get an invitation to be in those press conference, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: That's like the big thing you can get when you're a financial reporter to get that invite, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Do you get to go to the Federal Reserve and you get to sit down there with the chairman and you get to ask a question, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not easy.
[SPEAKER_00]: In order to get selected for that coveted opportunity,
[SPEAKER_00]: and you have to take this test on economics, and then only the people who fail that test, they get invited to participate in the conference.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so that's why Paul probably knows, he could say whatever the Holy Wads, because he's surrounded by a bunch of economic ignoramuses.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, so let me look at the four decades of under-control inflation, the 1980s.
[SPEAKER_00]: The average rate of inflation was 5.5% per year.
[SPEAKER_00]: And this is measured by the CPI, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: 5.5% doesn't sound like they had inflation on a control in the 80s.
[SPEAKER_00]: There was only one year in the entire decade where inflation was 2% or less.
[SPEAKER_00]: So 90% of the time it was more, and it was way more.
[SPEAKER_00]: 1990s,
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, a little better.
[SPEAKER_00]: The average rate of inflation was 3% in the 1990s.
[SPEAKER_00]: Let's 50% above the 2% target.
[SPEAKER_00]: Doesn't really sound like it was under control.
[SPEAKER_00]: If 2% is control, in fact, there was only one year again in the 1990s where inflation was 2% or less.
[SPEAKER_00]: One year, 90% of the years were above 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, in the 2000s, it was a little better.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right, 2000s, average was 2.6.
[SPEAKER_00]: Of course, they changed the way they measured inflation in the late 1990s.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that's the main reason that it went down to 2.6, not because inflation itself went down, but because the government cheated, and they changed the rules.
[SPEAKER_00]: And,
[SPEAKER_00]: they measured inflation wrong.
[SPEAKER_00]: So my bet would be the 2000s were probably actually higher than the 1990s if you had left everything alone, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, but even the way the government measures it, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: 2.6.
[SPEAKER_00]: There were two years, two years in the 2000s were in
[SPEAKER_00]: All right, but a 50% or a double the prior two decades, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: We only had one year at two percent.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now they had two years of two percent, but 80% of the time, it was over two percent.
[SPEAKER_00]: There was only one decade that inflation was under control.
[SPEAKER_00]: the 2010s so what Powell should have said was for ten years we had inflation under control that's it but it wasn't a fed that had it under control for us a remember there's still not measuring improperly but why was inflation so low in the 2010s was because the fed did such a great job no it was because we had the 2008 financial crisis and the great recession ahead of it and so they were not normal times.
[SPEAKER_00]: So we had 10 kind of years where DeFed had an easy time, even though they print a lot of money because of that massive, you know, great recession and collapse, they had some cover.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because prices should have gone down.
[SPEAKER_00]: But all the inflation that they created prevented prices from going down, which would have been healthy.
[SPEAKER_00]: Instead, we didn't get that healthy price decline.
[SPEAKER_00]: We got inflation that prevented prices from going down.
[SPEAKER_00]: But now the Fed claims that that's this great success, right, that we only had prices going up 1.8% instead of down, whatever they would have done.
[SPEAKER_00]: But that was the reason.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, the financial crisis is well in the rearview mirror and we're back to normal times where inflation is much higher than 2% except the fundamentals that we have now are way worse than the 1990s and the 1980s.
[SPEAKER_00]: So if inflation was 3% in the 90s and 5 and a half percent in the 80s, it's going to be a lot more than that now.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now does Paul not have any idea how bad inflation was
[SPEAKER_00]: economic history only go back 10 years before the pandemic does he not know anything about what happened back then I mean I think he's about my age I mean he should know but again the same economic test that you have to flunk
[SPEAKER_00]: to go to those FMFOMC meetings and that questions, you got to flunk that same chest test to be the fed chairman.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, you probably have to flunk that chest test to get on the FMC, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: They want to make sure nobody there really has to understand a basic economics.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, we got a quick commercial break.
[SPEAKER_00]: Gotta stick around, come and write back.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I'm talking about the,
[SPEAKER_00]: Q&A that followed the announcement by the Fed that interest rates would stay unchanged.
[SPEAKER_00]: Another thing that Powell was asked that I thought was interesting was to comment on the decisions that he's made.
[SPEAKER_00]: well fed chair and i guess it's you know it's an appropriate question because it's kind of this is his last press conference so hey this is the end of your your ten year here although he's still going to be there again i mentioned that and pal did say look you know it's going to be waltz show i'm not going to try to steal the limelight i'm going to kind of sit quietly and just vote right i'm not i'm not going to try to undermine him i'm not going to try to be a shadow fed chair
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm just going to, you know, kind of be just like any other governor.
[SPEAKER_00]: I was a governor before and so I'll be a governor again.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, he was on the FOMC when Janet Yellen was there and Janet Yellen made a lot of bad decisions that he's supported.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's supported.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm pretty sure he supported all the bad decisions that Yellen made.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't know this for a fact.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't know if he ever descended, but I have a feeling that he did not.
[SPEAKER_00]: uh... that he was pretty much a rubber stamp and everything she did was wrong uh... but the question had nothing to do with chair yelling and had to do with with with his chairmanship and he was asked hey you know what's the best thing you did what what's the decision you made that you thought was the best and which one would you do over with the benefit of hindsight like and he didn't really answer it all he said well you know i you know i just we all do our best and you know if something
[SPEAKER_00]: Turns out to be wrong, you know, you can't blame us because, you know, we made the right decision at the time with the information we had, hindsight is always 2020.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, you know, we can't make decisions with the benefit of hindsight when you don't have hindsight.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, I basically said he didn't do anything wrong, but he didn't point out any one thing in particular that he was particularly proud of.
[SPEAKER_00]: Um, but for my perspective, he hasn't done anything right.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, everything they did was wrong, which is par for the course, when you're chair.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, yes, he did resist Trump at the end, and he didn't cut rates the way Trump wanted him, but he should have been hiking rates.
[SPEAKER_00]: that the fed funds rate should not be as low as three and a half percent it's too low policies to lose so even if he didn't cut rates and make a bigger mistake he was already leaving making a mistake by not by not hiking them uh... so but you know of course
[SPEAKER_00]: Fed members and chairman never learn from their mistakes and they never learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's another thing that's unique about being on the Fed.
[SPEAKER_00]: Maybe you have to prove that you'll never learn from mistakes.
[SPEAKER_00]: Maybe that's another key qualification to be on the Fed.
[SPEAKER_00]: You have to repeat the same mistake over and over again.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, and what, expect different results, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: You got to be crazy when it comes to monetary policy to be up there.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I think it makes a difference that Powell's not going to step down and Trump's not going to be able to hand-pick another person.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, pretty much, you know, parent the same nonsense that Powell is going to do.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because what nobody seems to get
[SPEAKER_00]: is that the Fed is wrong on both sides of its mandate.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's wrong on inflation and it's wrong on the economy.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's the Fed thinks that inflation is a little bit hot, but on its way back down to 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not, it's on fire, it's headed well, way up.
[SPEAKER_00]: The Fed thinks that the economy is really good.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, if anything, if the economy may be too good, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: They couldn't be more wrong there.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right.
[SPEAKER_00]: We have a weak economy.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's going to get a lot weaker.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so people who think the Fed might hike because we have a really strong economy and too hot inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're wrong.
[SPEAKER_00]: Not that the Fed should not.
[SPEAKER_00]: It should.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, inflation will be a lot hotter.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the economy is going to be weak.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the economy is going to trump.
[SPEAKER_00]: No pun intended.
[SPEAKER_00]: and the political pressure on not just power, but everybody.
[SPEAKER_00]: They don't get a won't be power that will be, it'll be walls.
[SPEAKER_00]: But when the economy is really weak, and the markets are really weak, and the housing market, which power acknowledged, he said the economy was good, but the technology's weakness and the housing market.
[SPEAKER_00]: The housing market is going to get much weaker.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's already weak, and it's going to get weaker.
[SPEAKER_00]: So all that pressure is going to force the fed to cut.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, the markets think, oh, you know, now they, there's like no probability.
[SPEAKER_00]: The probability now is that we get no rate cuts this year.
[SPEAKER_00]: That we don't get rate cuts until next year.
[SPEAKER_00]: They used to be at least people thought we would get one cut.
[SPEAKER_00]: But now it's no cuts, but they're still not leaning to hike.
[SPEAKER_00]: But it's still possible that it could go from no cuts to a hike, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: That's still possible.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the economy is going to tank.
[SPEAKER_00]: as Powell was saying that there was no inflation, the economy is great.
[SPEAKER_00]: Oil prices were soaring to new highs for the post-Iran war.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think so.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, oil right now is almost $108 a barrel in West Texas.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's over $120 a barrel in Brent.
[SPEAKER_00]: this is about as high as the oil prices have gotten and there is no end in sight to the embargo slash closure of the straight-of-remuse so i think oil is going higher i mean i think if this work continues which it likely will we could be a hundred twenty to a hundred fifty dollars a barrel easy buy mid-summer
[SPEAKER_00]: coming into election time.
[SPEAKER_00]: Also, as oil prices are rising, so to our bond yields, they are about as high as they've been.
[SPEAKER_00]: The yield on a tenure is 4.43.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think the highest I saw maybe was 4.45 or 6.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think we got just above 4.5 in the week that followed liberation day.
[SPEAKER_00]: The 30 year yield is spot on five percent.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think it might have got to like 5.01 or 5.02 something like that right after liberation day.
[SPEAKER_00]: But this is the highest it's been since the liberation day cell-off and bond.
[SPEAKER_00]: So this is high.
[SPEAKER_00]: I've never seen a 5% handle on the 30 year since the war broke out.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I believe these rates are headed much higher.
[SPEAKER_00]: We could be at 5% on the 10 year or more.
[SPEAKER_00]: And 5.5% to 6% on the 30.
[SPEAKER_00]: Before the elections, that's going to crush the housing market.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's going to send mortgage rates to new highs, even though fanty and fretty are buying them.
[SPEAKER_00]: are going to be recessionary.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're not inflationary.
[SPEAKER_00]: And Powell did kind of get that right.
[SPEAKER_00]: He said that, hey, when oil prices go up, people have less money to spend.
[SPEAKER_00]: So spending goes down to other places.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's true.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if demand goes down for some things because the money isn't there because it's spent on food and energy, then the people who sell those things have to cut prices.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so higher energy prices can result in lower other prices.
[SPEAKER_00]: Overall, the consumer is spending the same amount of money.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's just not getting as much stuff.
[SPEAKER_00]: And of course, those are the kind of consumers that vote to get the throw the Bums out because they don't like spending most of their money on food and energy.
[SPEAKER_00]: They like to have a little money left over to have fun.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if all their fun money disappears into their utility bills and into their gas tank,
[SPEAKER_00]: uh... they're not going to be happy but also the pressure on mortgage rates get a crush the housing market so this is a company to go down and the stock market this stock market has been denied uh... defying gravity or even though the market was down a bit today
[SPEAKER_00]: And the Nasdaq was actually up.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, people are still buying text stocks despite the news that rattled the market.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's a little bit on AI and open AI yesterday.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, we're, you know, near record highs in the stock market.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, that's a divergence from what we had a few weeks ago.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're stocks were going down with bonds.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, stocks are going down and bonds are not, bonds are going down and stocks are going up.
[SPEAKER_00]: stocks were doing the opposite of oil.
[SPEAKER_00]: If oil went up, stocks went down.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now the stock market doesn't seem to care about oil prices going up.
[SPEAKER_00]: So what does that tell you?
[SPEAKER_00]: That tells you that stock market investors don't believe that these high oil prices and high bond prices are here to stay.
[SPEAKER_00]: They believe that the war is going to end any day and that when it does
[SPEAKER_00]: There's a lot of ifs priced into the stock market.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's most likely that they're wrong.
[SPEAKER_00]: The war ain't ending quickly.
[SPEAKER_00]: And even if it does, oil prices aren't crashing and neither abonials.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that means as stock investors realize they've got it wrong,
[SPEAKER_00]: it's a long way down.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I, you know, and that's also gonna put a lot of pressure on the stock market.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now it's also a long way down for Bitcoin, too.
[SPEAKER_00]: Bitcoin is also a diverged.
[SPEAKER_00]: Despite the sell-off in bonds and rise in oil prices, Bitcoin's still about 76,000 a coin.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's you, it was a lot lower earlier in the war.
[SPEAKER_00]: has a long way to drop.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, golden silver prices.
[SPEAKER_00]: They've also pulled back as a result of this.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're rallying a bit tonight.
[SPEAKER_00]: Gold's up about 22 bucks.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was down.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, one point that it was down like 70, but I think it only closed down.
[SPEAKER_00]: Maybe 50, I think.
[SPEAKER_00]: And now it's up 20.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it's got back most of what it lost.
[SPEAKER_00]: uh... forty forty five sixty five now up twenty two sixty that's a live price silver's back above seventy two barely uh... up eighty one it closed down over buck today about seventy one thirty five and it was down over two bucks in her day that is the buy by gold is silver
[SPEAKER_00]: That's being misprice.
[SPEAKER_00]: The war is going to continue, but that's bullish for gold.
[SPEAKER_00]: It means higher inflation, bigger budget deficits, a weaker economy, QE.
[SPEAKER_00]: All those bad stuff is actually good for gold, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Bad news is not good news for the stock market, but it's good news for the precious metals market.
[SPEAKER_00]: It always has been.
[SPEAKER_00]: because the bad news means more inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: The government gets bigger, they print more money, they create more inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: So be buying that, the gold and silver mining stocks continue to correct.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I would continue to look at those, and look at the opportunities overseas, all of the funds that we manage, all of the individual investment strategies are crafted, specifically for the market environment that I anticipate.
[SPEAKER_00]: So make sure that you don't get suckered into the,
[SPEAKER_00]: The US stock market, look at the overseas investments, look at commodities, look at precious metals, contact their representatives at Euro-Pacific asset management, europec.com.
[SPEAKER_00]: On the other side of this commercial break that's coming up in a minute or seconds, I'm going to talk about Bitcoin, the Bitcoin conference that I did not go to this year, and the Michael Sailer Keynote and stretch, so stick around, come to right back.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, before I get into Bitcoin in the Bitcoin conference, I want to mention something that the Trump administration is doing, that again, I disagree with, and also let everybody know that when I finish talking about Bitcoin, I am going to talk about the information I got yesterday from the IRS, explosive information that I got by winning my FOIA lawsuit against the IRS.
[SPEAKER_00]: so you don't want to miss this stuff.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is some great stuff.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, it's not great.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's horrible.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's just great that I got it.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's just horrible that the government did it.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, another horrible thing, I guess, that the Trump administration wants to do is buy spirit airlines at a bankruptcy.
[SPEAKER_00]: And Donald Trump said that if you can get a good deal, he'll do it to save jobs.
[SPEAKER_00]: In other words, so the people who work there can keep working there.
[SPEAKER_00]: And what that proves is that Trump either doesn't understand capitalism or doesn't believe in capitalism.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, and if you want somebody who doesn't believe in capitalism or doesn't understand it, you could vote from Bernie Sanders or you could vote for AOC instead of Donald Trump, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: He's supposed to be a capitalist, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: But he's not.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, he's a businessman, but that doesn't mean he understands capitalism.
[SPEAKER_00]: The purpose of a company is not to provide jobs.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's a byproduct of a company.
[SPEAKER_00]: The purpose of a company is to satisfy the needs of the customers.
[SPEAKER_00]: But in order for a company to stay in business, it has to generate a profit.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it only does that if it can satisfy the needs of customers at a cost that is less than what the customers value those goods or services.
[SPEAKER_00]: So you have to be able to give people what they want at a price they can afford and then make a profit in the process.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's capitalism.
[SPEAKER_00]: Spirit Airlines at a profit, how can the government?
[SPEAKER_00]: Obviously it can't.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the government would operate it at a loss, taxpayers would put the bill, but now what's gonna happen?
[SPEAKER_00]: Once you have a government-owned airline that's operating at a loss and it doesn't give a damn if it makes a profit, it can lower prices, because who cares how much they lose?
[SPEAKER_00]: That screws up the market.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now that makes it harder for actual businessmen who were providing services at a profit, now maybe they can't do it anymore.
[SPEAKER_00]: And now they go out of business.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's a bad deal, and in fact,
[SPEAKER_00]: after Trump indicated that he would use taxpayer money to buy an airline two more airlines asked for bailouts they said hey we need some money why don't you buy some stock in our airline right this is the last thing we need is the government trying to run the airlines I mean the government can't even run the post office
[SPEAKER_00]: I mentioned how high the price of a stamp is now.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why do we want to put him in charge of the airlines?
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, this is another idiotic thing that Trump wants to do.
[SPEAKER_00]: And we're all the Republican free market Republicans are afraid to criticize him because, you know, he rules over the Republican party.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway,
[SPEAKER_00]: From the Republican party, let's talk about the Bitcoin party, the Bitcoin, the Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas.
[SPEAKER_00]: I was there last year when Bitcoin was 110,000 a coin.
[SPEAKER_00]: I remember that.
[SPEAKER_00]: And now it is 76,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: It is 30% down.
[SPEAKER_00]: I tell you,
[SPEAKER_00]: every person at that conference, if you pull them and said, you know, where will Bitcoin be next year's conference?
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody other than maybe me,
[SPEAKER_00]: could have said 76,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, you could have got a hundred to one odds.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, even below 80,000, just over under.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, if they did an over under, it probably would have been like 150,000, and half the people would have been over.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they were crazy bullish at that conference.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, I don't even know if the attendance is as high was huge.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't know how many people are there.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, from where it was a year ago, but the big pump that everybody was talking about, the big hype.
[SPEAKER_00]: were Bitcoin treasury companies, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Everybody wanted to be the next strategy.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't even think that hadn't changed the name to a strategy.
[SPEAKER_00]: It might have still been micro strategy.
[SPEAKER_00]: I forget a year ago, but that was the big talk.
[SPEAKER_00]: All these companies.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, the guy David Bailey, who runs Bitcoin magazine, who's a nice guy, and he lives here in Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that's all I ended up going to the conference because I know the guy.
[SPEAKER_00]: Um, but he started a company called knock a moto right after Satoshi and that was a bit coin treasury company and that was all the rage everybody was talking about this you know this stock is down Since then because people were buying it people were buying it From the conference right they were going on their machine their devices they were buying this this stock
[SPEAKER_00]: It's down over 99% over 99% pretty much means if you bought this stock at last year's Bitcoin conference.
[SPEAKER_00]: If you didn't sell it and you still own it, you've basically lost all your money, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: What is the hot stock today or this conference?
[SPEAKER_00]: Stretch, Bitcoin credit is the hot topic.
[SPEAKER_00]: right because people don't really want Bitcoin anymore.
[SPEAKER_00]: They just want Bitcoin credit.
[SPEAKER_00]: They don't want the unlimited upside of Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: They want an 11 to 1% yield, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: That's what Staler has created.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I watched his keynote speech.
[SPEAKER_00]: I guess this time he didn't talk about me last year in his keynote, he mentioned me twice.
[SPEAKER_00]: I guess that's because I was there.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so I'm not on his mind there, I guess.
[SPEAKER_00]: Although I'm sure he was thinking about me.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't know how he could not.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, it's not just at a side out of mind, I guess.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, so in his speech, he talked about this unique thing that he invented, a digital credit.
[SPEAKER_00]: And how it's like the hottest product, because there's so much demand, so many people want to buy it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yet they're bunch of fools who want to buy it.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I think the supply of those fools is going to run out quickly.
[SPEAKER_00]: But he also said it was a great deal for the customers and allows the deal for strategy.
[SPEAKER_00]: He said the reason it's so popular is because we're giving the customer such a good deal.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, why are you screwing over your shareholders?
[SPEAKER_00]: But I know that I've heard him interviewed where he says how great it is for shareholders.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because we can just stop paying the dividend whenever we want.
[SPEAKER_00]: Uh-huh.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's nothing they can do about it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right?
[SPEAKER_00]: So.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not such a great deal, but he's trying to say how great it is because he wants people to buy stretch.
[SPEAKER_00]: He doesn't really want people to buy strategy because if you buy strategy right now, you're just buying it from somebody who's getting out.
[SPEAKER_00]: The stretch, a lot of that is new issuance.
[SPEAKER_00]: And what is he doing with the money he gets selling stretch?
[SPEAKER_00]: He's buy more Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's the main buyer.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, Bitcoin has gone down 30% in the last year.
[SPEAKER_00]: Despite all these companies, I don't know how many there are.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like a hundred?
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, there's dozens at least of copycat, mini micro strategies, mini strategies.
[SPEAKER_00]: That are doing exactly the same thing.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yet Bitcoin is still down 30%.
[SPEAKER_00]: We know who's buying.
[SPEAKER_00]: Who's selling?
[SPEAKER_00]: Ask yourself that question.
[SPEAKER_00]: Where are all these Bitcoin coming from?
[SPEAKER_00]: Because they're not just coming from the new mind Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's not that many of those.
[SPEAKER_00]: Where's all the selling come from?
[SPEAKER_00]: Ask yourself that.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's an old saying at a poker table.
[SPEAKER_00]: You don't know who the sucker is at you.
[SPEAKER_00]: If you're been buying Bitcoin, you're the sucker.
[SPEAKER_00]: because the smart people have been selling everything.
[SPEAKER_00]: These idiot treasury companies and ETF buyers are willing to take.
[SPEAKER_00]: But he's talking about how great it is and how demand is.
[SPEAKER_00]: And he conceded, conceded.
[SPEAKER_00]: that you can create credit out of any asset.
[SPEAKER_00]: He said you could do the same thing that he's doing with Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: You could do it with the S&P 500.
[SPEAKER_00]: You could do it with gold.
[SPEAKER_00]: He said you could do it any asset.
[SPEAKER_00]: But he said the best asset to create credit out of thin air is with Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: And he said the reason is Bitcoin has the highest expected return.
[SPEAKER_00]: He said the expected and your return on Bitcoin is over 30%.
[SPEAKER_00]: And since Bitcoin has an expected return so high, we can afford to give 11% to the prefers, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: We can give up 11 because we're gonna get the other 20.
[SPEAKER_00]: And you can't do that with stocks or gold or real estate because they don't go up as much as Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: Says who?
[SPEAKER_00]: Bitcoin has a 30%
[SPEAKER_00]: uh... expected return expected by whom who the hell how could you say over the last five years has it doesn't doesn't thirty percent no over the last year it's done minus thirty percent how could you say yes if you go back to a bit point was zero and compared to today sure but who cares you got to throw out the first ten years no it it was an afterthought back then this is a con
[SPEAKER_00]: There is no expected return.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's the return he hopes for.
[SPEAKER_00]: It has a hope to return.
[SPEAKER_00]: The difference between Bitcoin and stocks and gold is the people who are buying Bitcoin are dumb enough to think it's going to go up 30% a year.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's not a legitimate forecast.
[SPEAKER_00]: Look, the fact that the SEC lets this guy promote an obvious Ponzi, hardly anybody in the investment community calls this guy out.
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody in financial media calls him out regularly.
[SPEAKER_00]: don't trust anybody who doesn't call this what it is.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's a fraud and these things are scams.
[SPEAKER_00]: Strategies, scams, stretches, scams.
[SPEAKER_00]: I get I think that a year from now.
[SPEAKER_00]: I remember people who bought Nakamoto lost everything between conferences.
[SPEAKER_00]: The same thing might happen to the people who have stretch.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, maybe they may not lose it all.
[SPEAKER_00]: Maybe it might not, maybe it won't go down 99%.
[SPEAKER_00]: But it will, it's probably going to go down.
[SPEAKER_00]: It could go down a lot, depending on where Bitcoin is, because Sailor may have to call off the dividend.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if he doesn't call off the dividend, strategy is going to get killed.
[SPEAKER_00]: So what are those two stocks has to get killed?
[SPEAKER_00]: Stretch or strategy, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: So we'll see what happens.
[SPEAKER_00]: I was right to tell people not to buy Bitcoin at the conference last year.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, of course, they didn't have me this year.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, maybe one reason is they were fine letting me come and rain on the parade when Bitcoin was $110,000 and everybody could laugh at me, because it was record highs.
[SPEAKER_00]: I would have a lot of fun, I guess, saying, I told you so at that conference, so I guess they thought, hey, let's not, let's not invite shift.
[SPEAKER_00]: We don't need to remind people how bad Bitcoin is doing.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, the reason that strategy has to pay people 11 and a half percent to get money to buy Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: Remember, a year ago, people were giving him money to buy Bitcoin for zero percent.
[SPEAKER_00]: They were buying
[SPEAKER_00]: a convertible prefers with a zero percent people were so excited to have exposure to Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: They were willing to lend strategy money for no interest.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now investors don't want to buy strategy.
[SPEAKER_00]: They have no interest in Bitcoin, but they are interested in a guaranteed 11 1.5 percent yield.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's that shows you.
[SPEAKER_00]: how how the interest in Bitcoin has gone away.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, of course, the people who think they're going to get a guaranteed 11.5%.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, they got another thing coming.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're not going to get, they may get it for a little while.
[SPEAKER_00]: But in the end, they're going to lose money if they don't sell before the music stops.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, I want to spend a rest of this podcast on the information I got yesterday from the IRS.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, and I had to sue the IRS to get this extra information.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, I didn't get everything because they're still refusing.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're appealing.
[SPEAKER_00]: They filed, they're appealing.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, first they filed a motion to reconsider with the trial court judge, where they lost.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if they lose, which they should, because I doubt the judge is just going to change his mind.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, he had a very thoughtful opinion.
[SPEAKER_00]: Then they can appeal to the appeals court.
[SPEAKER_00]: But in the meantime, they conceded some stuff.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so they gave me some of the stuff that they need to give me.
[SPEAKER_00]: They still have a lot more.
[SPEAKER_00]: And even in what they gave me, I got some more explosive information to prove everything that I alleged in my civil rights lawsuit.
[SPEAKER_00]: That was dismissed with prejudice against every defendant I named.
[SPEAKER_00]: Meaning like I can't even sue them again, even though they dismissed it without even addressing the merits of my case.
[SPEAKER_00]: And one of the things that Judge said is, well we're not going to consider your FOIA evidence because you waited too long to produce it.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it's like, whoa, wait a minute.
[SPEAKER_00]: The only reason it took me so long to produce it was because the IRS illegally refused to provide it.
[SPEAKER_00]: The IRS is who I'm suing.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they were covering up the information that proved what I was accusing them of doing, they did.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so now you're going to reward the IRS for obstructing justice and covering up and violating FOIA by also getting all those agents who broke these laws with prejudice this missile.
[SPEAKER_00]: So we'll see I'm going to add this new information that's more damning.
[SPEAKER_00]: to my appeal to the, you know, uh, apallic court, to overrule the lower court's decision and to allow my lawsuit that will win if it gets to be heard, it's a winning lawsuit if anybody rules on the merits to let it go to court.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now,
[SPEAKER_00]: I got I put all this new stuff that I thought was most important up on the nine fraud website.
[SPEAKER_00]: So after you do this podcast, you can go to the nine fraud and look at the exhibits and the most recent one on this newest foyer for your evidence.
[SPEAKER_00]: But let me let me find it.
[SPEAKER_00]: I've got it.
[SPEAKER_00]: I got it here.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I'm going to look at two two emails.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I'm drinking a lot of water because I'm trying to get over this cough.
[SPEAKER_00]: I've had it for so long.
[SPEAKER_00]: I finally went to the doctor this morning and he gave me a steroid shot and he asked, and I've been taking some meds and so I'm not coughing as much, but whatever I took, I mean, it's making me feel kind of sick or tired.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I'm drinking a lot of water.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, just bear through it.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I'm a trooper, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: I had to do this podcast.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, so
[SPEAKER_00]: This is an email from Christina Mazzello, who's an IRS agent.
[SPEAKER_00]: And she's emailing the chief, Jim Lee, he's the chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, and she's copied the PR director of Criminal Investigation at the IRS.
[SPEAKER_00]: The subject of the email is J5 slash operating at Lattis, slash OSIVE update.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now remember, in my lawsuit, I alleged that the IRS, the J-5 and O-SIF, illegally conspired to shut down my bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well here's all the conspirators right in the subject of this email.
[SPEAKER_00]: Exactly what I alleged them of doing.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now when was this email mail?
[SPEAKER_00]: April 6th, two and a half months before my bank was shut down.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they're conspiring to shut down my bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: two and a half months before we shut down right exactly what I said this is not legal they cannot do that anyway i'm just gonna read the sea so per our conversation this morning the following point supply to the debanking of your pacific by osa debanking so two and a half months before they shut down my bank and we're operating our bank under the assumption that everything is cool they've already decided that they're debanking us right
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, OSTF conducted an examination based on their normal examination procedures and annual renewal process.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, we didn't even know about this examination, because we submitted our renewal.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I guess they did an investigation to decide whether they wanted to accept our renewal.
[SPEAKER_00]: They rejected it, but they did that in secret, and they didn't tell us.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then when they shut the bank down in June, they find me a million dollars for operating a bank without a license.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it was like $5,000 a day.
[SPEAKER_00]: We got that reduced to 300,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: But people always want to say, oh, shift paid to 300,000 or find.
[SPEAKER_00]: I didn't pay to find the bank paid to find.
[SPEAKER_00]: But to find was for operating with adolescents, only we thought we had a license.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, not only did they not tell us that our renewal application was not approved, they kept the money.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was $5,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: They never sent it back.
[SPEAKER_00]: They didn't say, hey, because we rejected your application.
[SPEAKER_00]: And by the way,
[SPEAKER_00]: when they rejected our renewal application, why didn't they call the bank up and say, hey, you guys have to stop operating.
[SPEAKER_00]: We didn't renew your license.
[SPEAKER_00]: They let us continue to operate for another three or four months.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then came back and said, hey, by the way, I know we didn't tell you this, but for the last four months, we let you operate.
[SPEAKER_00]: Even though we talked to you guys like every day, you didn't even have a license.
[SPEAKER_00]: So ha, you owe us a million dollars, right, this is how these guys roll, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, so they did this examination.
[SPEAKER_00]: Oh, it says they did the examination and annual review process.
[SPEAKER_00]: Coupled with the negative media attention, the bank was receiving, including the Australian 60 minutes piece, the findings of the exam included, so they're admitting that I was under a microscope because of 60 minutes, because of a defamatory broadcast that accused me of master mining crimes that never even took place, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: But it obviously did a lot of damage.
[SPEAKER_00]: and it made us if you'll hold you know we're under pressure right we got to look at this bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: Here are the six findings that supposedly led to my bank being shut down.
[SPEAKER_00]: One failure of the bank to take corrective actions required by usif in the consent order.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's a lie.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I could prove that.
[SPEAKER_00]: I have so much stuff.
[SPEAKER_00]: We did every single thing that owes if required us to do in that consent order.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it was a big order.
[SPEAKER_00]: And we did it all.
[SPEAKER_00]: Two, failure of the bank to provide financial statements.
[SPEAKER_00]: We couldn't provide the statements because our auditor quit.
[SPEAKER_00]: The auditor quit because of the bad publicity.
[SPEAKER_00]: And because of the bad complicity, most auditors wouldn't take the job.
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody wanted to be guilty by association.
[SPEAKER_00]: Who wants to audit a bank that's the money laundering for the mob, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: That's what I was accused of.
[SPEAKER_00]: But OST of new this, they were working with us.
[SPEAKER_00]: They were approving extensions to get the financials.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it even says in here, 2020 and 2021 financial statements have not been provided as the bank is unable to engage with an auditing firm.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, who's fault was that, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: But they were giving us extensions.
[SPEAKER_00]: So we didn't do anything wrong.
[SPEAKER_00]: Three, main principle of the bank, which is me, right, did not provide requests to documents and misrepresented facts in meetings with Osaf.
[SPEAKER_00]: I had one meeting with Osaf, and during that meeting, I didn't represent any misrepresented anything, and every document they asked for was provided.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that's another lie.
[SPEAKER_00]: four, capitalization was negative.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, that's true.
[SPEAKER_00]: It wasn't negative.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was under what the legal minimum was.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was still positive capital.
[SPEAKER_00]: It wasn't positive enough.
[SPEAKER_00]: But in that very meeting where she said, I misrepresented stuff, I offered to add $7 million out of my own account.
[SPEAKER_00]: I said, I will write a check for $7 million and put it into the bank right now.
[SPEAKER_00]: to make sure we have more capital.
[SPEAKER_00]: And she said, you don't need to do that.
[SPEAKER_00]: You're fine the way you are, even though it's under, you're okay until we finish reviewing the change of control and stuff like that.
[SPEAKER_00]: And a couple of weeks later, my lawyer was on the phone with their lawyer.
[SPEAKER_00]: And she said, this is just a confirmed.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're good with capital.
[SPEAKER_00]: We don't need to add any capital.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they said, yeah, you got plenty of capital.
[SPEAKER_00]: So to say that, hey, we're going to shut them down because they don't have enough capital.
[SPEAKER_00]: Give me a call.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hey, Peter, you never I told you you didn't have to put any more capital.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why don't you put some more in because otherwise we're going to shut you down.
[SPEAKER_00]: No, they wanted to shut us down, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: But I'll get to that in a minute.
[SPEAKER_00]: Then beat five, determined ownership did not have knowledge or experience to operate a financial institution.
[SPEAKER_00]: who's the owner me.
[SPEAKER_00]: So somehow she determined that I didn't have enough experience or knowledge to operate a financial institution.
[SPEAKER_00]: So what did she do?
[SPEAKER_00]: She appointed a receiver.
[SPEAKER_00]: who had no experience whatsoever.
[SPEAKER_00]: The person she put in charge of the bank had never worked for a bank, had never in any capacity whatsoever.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I talked to this guy.
[SPEAKER_00]: He is clueless about banking.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, I'm not saying I was a banking god, but next to this guy I was.
[SPEAKER_00]: So let's get rid of Peter Schiff and appoint somebody who knows even less about banking than he does.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the fact that I, the ownership, even if I didn't know a lot about banking,
[SPEAKER_00]: The people running the bank did, the people that I hired to run it for me did.
[SPEAKER_00]: I wasn't running the bank myself.
[SPEAKER_00]: I was a shareholder.
[SPEAKER_00]: I was the only shareholder by the time the thing was shut down.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I was a shareholder and director.
[SPEAKER_00]: I was not running the bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: I didn't have a desk.
[SPEAKER_00]: I didn't even have an email address at the bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it didn't matter if I didn't know about banking.
[SPEAKER_00]: The people who were actually running the bank on a day-to-day basis, they knew a lot about banking.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's why they were working there.
[SPEAKER_00]: Then the last thing was false representations to Ossif.
[SPEAKER_00]: By whom?
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody made a false reprisation to Ossif.
[SPEAKER_00]: All the false representations were made by Ossif or by the IRS.
[SPEAKER_00]: Nothing, I said, or anybody at my bank ever said was false.
[SPEAKER_00]: So this is all a bunch of lives.
[SPEAKER_00]: But what's significant about this list of six things is what's not on that list.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's nothing on the list about lacks AML compliance, lacks KYC, money laundering, tax evasion.
[SPEAKER_00]: None of the things that the IRS and the J5 claimed, my bank was shut down for doing, none of those things are actually on the list of what we were doing.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it didn't even make it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now here's also another part.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is part of a press release too.
[SPEAKER_00]: How many employees will lose their job if Europe hack is debanked, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Here's what they wrote.
[SPEAKER_00]: This was a priority point for OSIF.
[SPEAKER_00]: and it was determined, meaning like maybe initially O's have didn't want to shut down the bank because they didn't want to put people out of work, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: It was determined that there were very few employees in Puerto Rico, potentially only one full-time employee.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's a lie.
[SPEAKER_00]: There was probably about 10 that worked in Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, the rest worked outside of Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: But,
[SPEAKER_00]: During the time the bank was shut down, most of those 10 employees were working from home.
[SPEAKER_00]: So maybe on the one day they came to the office, you know, for the six, you know, there was one or two people there because they were working from home because it was during COVID.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the lockdown was particularly brutal here in Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: But we had workers, but this implies that
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, the host of commissioners like the IRS probably said that the host of commissioner, we want you to shut down this bank and she said, well, what about the people, what about the jobs?
[SPEAKER_00]: We don't want to, what about the people that worked there, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: So they had a convince her that there was no one working there.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so she would agree to do it.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then number two on this list, the most important point to make.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is about how to frame it with the press.
[SPEAKER_00]: The most important point to make concerning this question, or this is the point to.
[SPEAKER_00]: is that OSIF as the financial institutional regulator decided on its own and in consultation with their governor secretary of the treasury and secretary of state to debank the financial institution.
[SPEAKER_00]: So apparently this was a joint decision made by OSIF, the governor, the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of the state.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why did all four of these people have to decide if my bank really needed to be shut down?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why did they have all, why did she have to go to the governor to do it?
[SPEAKER_00]: The whole thing was bullshit.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's why the question was, hey, the IRS wants us to shut down this innocent bank that's done, you know, that provides jobs and should we do it, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Because if it was an easy call, she wouldn't need it to consult with a secretary of the Treasury and the secretary of the state.
[SPEAKER_00]: They believe the risk posed by allowing continued operation, outraged the impact of loss of employment.
[SPEAKER_00]: What risk?
[SPEAKER_00]: There was no risk to let my bank continue to operate, especially if they let me put in more capital.
[SPEAKER_00]: Look what's happened.
[SPEAKER_00]: Look at the risk.
[SPEAKER_00]: They shut the bank down four years ago.
[SPEAKER_00]: And hardly anybody's got their money.
[SPEAKER_00]: Maybe a dozen or two people at a 35 hundred customers.
[SPEAKER_00]: The risk was shutting it down.
[SPEAKER_00]: Not leaving it open.
[SPEAKER_00]: But here's the, here's one of the most important points.
[SPEAKER_00]: A point that needs to be made here is the positive impact that J5 investigation has on our J5 partners and the reputations of the U.S. and the IRS.
[SPEAKER_00]: The criminal and civil impact on taxpayers in the U.S. may be minimal.
[SPEAKER_00]: Get that minimal.
[SPEAKER_00]: Meaning there's no crimes going on.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the importance of this investigation was that we, the IRS, were proactively investigating an area defined as high risk and or attacks haven jurisdiction by our J5 partners and other foreign partners.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the important part is not that the bank actually didn't anything wrong, and that they actually put a stop to criminal wrongdoing.
[SPEAKER_00]: The important part was that they investigated.
[SPEAKER_00]: not what they found.
[SPEAKER_00]: The important thing was, hey, at least we investigated.
[SPEAKER_00]: The fact that it was a complete waste of time and the bank was completely innocent, that's beside the point, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Our collaboration with OSIF since around December 2021.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's the first time I learned the date they started talking December 2021.
[SPEAKER_00]: Six or seven months before the bank was shut down.
[SPEAKER_00]: One month, less than one month.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'd say,
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, no, it doesn't say what day.
[SPEAKER_00]: So about one month after my meeting where I offered to put in seven million and where the host of commissioner said, this is great.
[SPEAKER_00]: We love the deal.
[SPEAKER_00]: I hope Peter shift doesn't leave Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: She was, everything was great.
[SPEAKER_00]: She went a complete 180 from everything is great.
[SPEAKER_00]: We love this bank to, you know, we got to shut you down.
[SPEAKER_00]: What changed?
[SPEAKER_00]: The IRS change, that's what happened, um, anyway, it says, um, since, um, December 21.
[SPEAKER_00]: will aid OSF in projecting their oversight responsibilities to other Puerto Rican IFEs, almost certainly increasing voluntary compliance with Puerto Rico laws and standards.
[SPEAKER_00]: The action by OSF and the public collaboration with the IRS will have a positive impact overall in Puerto Rico by displaying their commitment.
[SPEAKER_00]: to prove strong oversight, increasing confidence in the Puerto Rico financial industry, the Puerto Rico governor of Secretary of State, and Secretary of the Treasury also agree.
[SPEAKER_00]: when the CRS countries and or OECD countries list Puerto Rico as a high risk tax haven jurisdiction in the future.
[SPEAKER_00]: The U.S. Department of Treasury will be able to recall this action as proof that there are strong regulators there and the appropriate inappropriate conduct will not be permitted.
[SPEAKER_00]: There you have it.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're saying that the important thing is not that my bank was innocent or guilty.
[SPEAKER_00]: Who cares about that?
[SPEAKER_00]: The importance is what this does to our reputation.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it's going to help Puerto Rico because in the future, if somebody wants to say, hey, Puerto Rico is high risk.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's a tax tax haven.
[SPEAKER_00]: The government, they can say, look, well, no.
[SPEAKER_00]: Look what we did to Europe's civic bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: They were suspected of tax evasion and money laundering.
[SPEAKER_00]: And we shut them down.
[SPEAKER_00]: So in other words, they took a bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: that was completely innocent of money laundering and tax evasion shut it down so that they can say that they're tough on money laundering tax evasion.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now for all I know there are a lot of other banks in Puerto Rico that are helping their customers laundry money and evade taxes and nothing happens to them right because they went after the one bank that didn't do it and you know it's ironic too because you got this controversy with the southern uh... poverty law group
[SPEAKER_00]: and what the Trump administration is alleging there is that southern poverty law basically was funding the very instant the very you know extremist organizations you know whatever they call them fascist far right uh... you know racist clue-clux clan not sees whatever all these groups that they were
[SPEAKER_00]: saying, look how bad these groups are.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're coming after you, send us some money and we'll put a stop to it, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: While they were fundraising off of these groups, they were funding those groups.
[SPEAKER_00]: They were giving these groups money so they could go out there and make these protests that would scare the shit out of people who would then donate to the Southern poverty law.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's exactly what the IRS and the J5 did with my bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: They took a completely innocent bank
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, we, yes, we're good organization, we're good regulators, because look what we did.
[SPEAKER_00]: See, see how we put a stop to money to order a tax evasion in Puerto Rico by shutting out a bank that that probably had the best AMAML and KYC on the island?
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, incredible.
[SPEAKER_00]: But then, okay, then I got this other email.
[SPEAKER_00]: But before I get to this, I mean, I read through all these pages and they're up on the website.
[SPEAKER_00]: And there's one thing you can see in all the communications.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're the IRS agents, the ATO agents in Australia.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're all talking for months and months about shutting down my bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: All of it is how great this is for their public relations image.
[SPEAKER_00]: None of it is like, hey, we're actually putting a stop to money laundering.
[SPEAKER_00]: Isn't it good that we're putting this bank out of business because these are all the bad things it's doing?
[SPEAKER_00]: And this is why it deserves to be put out of business.
[SPEAKER_00]: Not a single.
[SPEAKER_00]: email about that.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's all about this is going to be great publicity for us.
[SPEAKER_00]: Here's how we maximize the public relations benefit of this bank that we suspected.
[SPEAKER_00]: laundered money and help people evade their taxes with shut down nothing about how the bank actually did it like hey here's the bank that is laundering money and is helping people evade taxes and we're going to shut them down and that's great because that's going to stop that activity not one mention in 520 pages not one page says that this bank did anything wrong
[SPEAKER_00]: All it says is we're going to take credit for all the bad things that we thought they were doing.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right, that should prove it there.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, the other thing they kept saying is now we got a message.
[SPEAKER_00]: Make sure we say that OSTF did this on their own.
[SPEAKER_00]: We had nothing to do with the decision to shut down the bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: Just a coincidence.
[SPEAKER_00]: We were running our investigation.
[SPEAKER_00]: They were running theirs.
[SPEAKER_00]: And, you know, before we had a chance to die to anybody or charge anybody, host of just beat us to the punch, and they shut the bank down.
[SPEAKER_00]: And all we're doing is supporting their action.
[SPEAKER_00]: We had nothing to do with it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because if they told the truth that they had something to do with it, well, it would be obvious.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, wait a minute, if you had something to do with it, why didn't you just indict him?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why didn't you indict somebody at the bank?
[SPEAKER_00]: You had a criminal investigation for two years.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, I've heard that, you know, grand jury's will indict a ham sandwich.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why couldn't you indict shift?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why couldn't you indict a single person at the bank?
[SPEAKER_00]: Right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, because they didn't do anything wrong.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, then why are you going over to Puerto Rico and trying to get OCIF to shut down the bank?
[SPEAKER_00]: Right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, they were doing it because they couldn't do anything about the bank as the bank did nothing wrong.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they had to somehow convince OCIF
[SPEAKER_00]: that despite the jobs that would be lost or whatever else, that the PR benefits of shutting down this bank were worth it, not just the PR benefits to the IRS and the J5, but the PR benefits to Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hey, Puerto Rico, you'll win if you shut down this bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: You'll be able to look good to the international community.
[SPEAKER_00]: You'll be able to get off the list of high-risk jurisdictions because you could show how tough you were on your Pacific Bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, this lie that they had to make key to their plan, which was the big part of my lawsuit.
[SPEAKER_00]: This lie was carried out by the chief of the IRS, Jim Lee, and Natalia Zacharia, the OST of Commissioner at the staged coordinated press conference.
[SPEAKER_00]: The OST of J5 IRS press conference, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: The Jim Lee said, the OST of Commissioner came to this decision, this action completely on our own.
[SPEAKER_00]: We had nothing to do with it, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: We supported it, but we had nothing to do with it.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the eye and Zacharia basically said the same thing, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, I knew that said, you know, I always thought, well, how could that be?
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, how did they have nothing to do with it?
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, this press conference just spontaneously organized and they just showed up.
[SPEAKER_00]: No, they were planning this thing for three months.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I got a letter finally provided to me by the IRS after my lawsuit against them.
[SPEAKER_00]: They didn't give me this letter until my lawsuit alleging that they did exactly what this letter.
[SPEAKER_00]: proves they did was dismissed with prejudice.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now they finally give it to me, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, I wonder, anyway, you know, I wonder if the reason they gave it to me was because, you know what, I should do a foyer request on that.
[SPEAKER_00]: you know because they said that they mentioned that there was an investigation that was over now and so they were free to publish information.
[SPEAKER_00]: I didn't know what that investigation was.
[SPEAKER_00]: Maybe that was my lawsuit.
[SPEAKER_00]: Maybe they deliberately would tell this information because they knew I would use it against them in my lawsuit.
[SPEAKER_00]: And now they don't care because the lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, because I sued Zacharias.
[SPEAKER_00]: She and I sued
[SPEAKER_00]: what's his name, Jim Lee, but Jim Lee, I couldn't serve Jim Lee, so because I wasn't able to serve him because he avoided service, he got a weeds prejudice, dismissal.
[SPEAKER_00]: How do you dismiss a guy with prejudice that was never even served, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, so here is the letter.
[SPEAKER_00]: You can see it, it's from June 22nd, so a week before the press conference.
[SPEAKER_00]: writes it to Gary Sharpley, our shapeally, IRS agent, and Justin Cole, who was the PR guy for the IRS.
[SPEAKER_00]: And he's on pretty much every email.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's either two Justin Cole or copying Justin Cole.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that shows you right there if the IRS head of public relations is on every goddamn email that has to do with shutting down my bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: What does that tell you about the purpose of shutting down my bank?
[SPEAKER_00]: It's public relations.
[SPEAKER_00]: It is a PR stunt, not a legitimate regulatory action.
[SPEAKER_00]: All of my customers, my employees, all of my own money in the bank was all sacrificed as a PR stunt for
[SPEAKER_00]: Right, but anyway, let me read this email in coordination and preparation for next week's enforcement action and press conference.
[SPEAKER_00]: I have copied in this email, Mr. Francesco Sambadavilla, OST of public relations consultant.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right, so more PR, right, showing you why are we doing this?
[SPEAKER_00]: It's publicity.
[SPEAKER_00]: Mr. Chimdavilla was debriefed this morning regarding OASF's enforcement action against Euro-Pacific International and IRS CI collaboration in such action.
[SPEAKER_00]: There it is, smoking gun.
[SPEAKER_00]: This says that the IRS collaborated with OASF in the action, the enforcement action
[SPEAKER_00]: We debrief him regarding OSTF's enforcement action against my bank and the collaboration with the IRS in that action in the enforcement action, the very action that the IRS said OSTF decided on independently without any influence.
[SPEAKER_00]: And here's proof that that was a lie.
[SPEAKER_00]: But of course it also proves without the intervention of the IRS, my bank never would
[SPEAKER_00]: There was no legitimate purpose for shutting it down.
[SPEAKER_00]: The IRS wanted it shut down, and the IRS convinced oath of to do it.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that's all in these emails.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm not making this up.
[SPEAKER_00]: This isn't a theory.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is a fact that is documented in their own emails.
[SPEAKER_00]: And these are the emails I've seen.
[SPEAKER_00]: God knows what's in the ones they're still hiding.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, he will also be drafting a press release for the enforcement action, which as we previously dust should be aligned with the IRS press release.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they want to align their own press release with the IRS press release.
[SPEAKER_00]: That doesn't sound like they're not working together.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're aligning their press releases to agree with each other.
[SPEAKER_00]: And now she asks, Kimma DeVilla, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Who's C.C., he's the host of PR guy.
[SPEAKER_00]: Please reach out to Mr. Cole, IRS Director of Communications, to further coordinate the details of the press release and the press conference.
[SPEAKER_00]: Working together, then sound like they're totally separate.
[SPEAKER_00]: They are working together.
[SPEAKER_00]: The press conference is scheduled for Thursday, June 30th at 3 p.m. at OSTF's office.
[SPEAKER_00]: Additionally, I wish to confirm that there will be IT resources for our Australian counterpart to present via video conference.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, because if you look through all the emails, Australia was the country that was most involved.
[SPEAKER_00]: UK a little bit and Australia.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why Australia?
[SPEAKER_00]: That's where Nick McKenzie is.
[SPEAKER_00]: Nick McKenzie's name is mentioned a couple of times in these FOIA requests.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, I saw his name for the first time.
[SPEAKER_00]: Of course, he was also defended in my lawsuit that got dismissed.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I his name.
[SPEAKER_00]: But Australia was heavily involved, because that's where the 60 minutes broadcast was.
[SPEAKER_00]: Day to yo.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so they were heavily involved in trying to smear my bank to try to validate the stories that have been written in Australia and the 60 minutes a piece.
[SPEAKER_00]: Then anyway, so sharply replies
[SPEAKER_00]: Um, and he says commissioner, thank you for the call this morning, concern the press coordination that needs to take place in advance.
[SPEAKER_00]: I have copied Justin Cole on this email, a director of communications for IRS CI.
[SPEAKER_00]: He will be handling communications piece for our perspective and would benefit greatly from speaking to your public relations contact as soon as possible.
[SPEAKER_00]: If you can reply back to us with your contacts, that would be great.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm available anytime if you need anything from us.
[SPEAKER_00]: So there you have it, guys, and gals, I have all the evidence, and I have a lot more evidence from the FOIA documents I already got, that IRS agents, OST of Commissioner, lied, committed crimes, closed my bank solely as a publicity stunt.
[SPEAKER_00]: The only reason that they wanted to do this, the only reason a Puerto Rico agreed to do this was because it would help Puerto Rico banking to pretend they shut down a bank that was laundry money and evading taxes because they would look good.
[SPEAKER_00]: And of course the IRS needed it.
[SPEAKER_00]: There was no negatives for the IRS.
[SPEAKER_00]: They had a convinced Puerto Rico to do something that they otherwise would not have done.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because they were the main benefits IRS and the J5 because they said it, they want the J5 to look tough.
[SPEAKER_00]: They want to be able to tell people we are cracking down on tax evasion money laundering wherever it is.
[SPEAKER_00]: We will go all the way to Puerto Rico to stop tax evasion in my laundry.
[SPEAKER_00]: What they didn't say is there was no tax evasion in my laundry, hopping in Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, maybe there was, but none of it was happening up my bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: So shutting down my bank did nothing to stop money laundering or tax pay.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, did it scare some people out of doing it?
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't know.
[SPEAKER_00]: I doubt it, but what I do know is Puerto Rico's image has been harmed because look at the fiasco with my bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: Based on what's happened to my bank and the customers of my bank, nobody in the right mind should have a bank account in Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: The regulators are corrupt.
[SPEAKER_00]: Look what they did.
[SPEAKER_00]: Look what they're continuing to do.
[SPEAKER_00]: What kind of message does that send?
[SPEAKER_00]: You put your money in a bank and Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's completely solvent.
[SPEAKER_00]: And has no data, it's 100% reserve bank.
[SPEAKER_00]: The government claims they've got to shut it down to protect you.
[SPEAKER_00]: When you don't need any protection.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then four years later, you haven't got any of your money.
[SPEAKER_00]: What kind of publicity is that?
[SPEAKER_00]: What kind of mess is that?
[SPEAKER_00]: Sound, send to potential customers of Puerto Rican banks.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, since my bank was shut down, several people, several, I mean, more than three, I forget the amount, contacted me because they wanted to open banks in Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they're like, hey, I Peter ship had a bank in Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: Let me give him a call, you know, and every single one of these people I talk out of doing it.
[SPEAKER_00]: I said, you got to be crazy to open up a bank here.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I told them why.
[SPEAKER_00]: I told them what happened to me.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it said, all right, thanks for the warning.
[SPEAKER_00]: We'll open up a bank someplace else.
[SPEAKER_00]: so it backfired.
[SPEAKER_00]: They got in bed with the IRS and they got screwed.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, I wish OST would come clean, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: And just say, yeah, you know, we feel bad.
[SPEAKER_00]: We never should have let the IRS bully us around, you know, blame it on Zikaria.
[SPEAKER_00]: She's not the commissioner anymore.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, say, hey, you know, she was a young girl gal lady.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't want to, you know, be sexist here.
[SPEAKER_00]: But hey, she didn't have much experience either, and you know, she did these big gringoes pushed her around, you know, blame it on, blame it on the gringoes, taking advantage of it.
[SPEAKER_00]: All these big guys came in and beat up this poor woman, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: And, but apparently though, the governor bought into it too, and the secretary of this treasury, and the secretary of the state.
[SPEAKER_00]: But here's all the information.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, I know there are some people that are saying, well, Peter, why do you keep talking about your bank?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why are you beating the dead horse?
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, the horse ain't dead yet, but this is important stuff.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is massive criminality in the United States at the highest levels.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I have all the proof.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is not some conspiracy theory.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is fact.
[SPEAKER_00]: People should be outraged, not just because I'm the victim, but because of who the perpetrators are.
[SPEAKER_00]: The government, if they do this to me and I can prove it, how much bad stuff are they doing to other people who can't prove it?
[SPEAKER_00]: This is the problem, we need to be up in arms that the US government could do this, that there are some corrupt judges like the judge sitting on the bench that threw my lawsuit out.
[SPEAKER_00]: What about all the corruption in the media?
[SPEAKER_00]: What about the New York Times?
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody is covering this story.
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody cares about true corruption in government.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, they care about fake corruption.
[SPEAKER_00]: But what the media mainly does with real corruption, real lawlessness on the part of the government, they don't expose it, they cover it up.
[SPEAKER_00]: Freedom of the press is about exposing government corruption, not about covering it up, not about protecting the government from the people, it's about protecting the people from the government, and that's what the courts are supposed to be doing too, and they're not doing that.
[SPEAKER_00]: So people should be outraged.
[SPEAKER_00]: by what's going on.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, I wish I had a good discussion about this when I did the Tucker Carlson show.
[SPEAKER_00]: And some reason, the mic went bad during my entire discussion of this and it didn't make it into the interview.
[SPEAKER_00]: If you saw my Tucker Carlson interview and you wonder why it ended abruptly, there was like another three quarters of an hour of discussion.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's why.
[SPEAKER_00]: But in that discussion was all the stuff about my bank and the illegal things the government did, I hope I get another opportunity to be on Tucker.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I should be on all these podcasts, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: All the popular podcasts, Joe Rogan should have me onto discuss this.
[SPEAKER_00]: Candace Owen has got a big podcast now.
[SPEAKER_00]: She should have me on.
[SPEAKER_00]: And anybody who's got a big podcast, it should be having me on to expose this corruption.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if Donald Trump really cared about government corruption, about cleaning his swamp, he should start with the IRS.
[SPEAKER_00]: That swamp is deeper than anything.
[SPEAKER_00]: uh... so i've got all the evidence and if you go to nine fraud dot com you got all the evidence to so tell people about it post about it you know when anyone's talking about government corruption you know especially if our government wants to talk about how corrupt Iran is right if you live in a glass white house don't throw stones right we can't call other governments corrupt when we're corrupt
[SPEAKER_00]: Right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Let's get our own house in order.
[SPEAKER_00]: First, that's what I'm worried about.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, I don't even care too much about corruption.
[SPEAKER_00]: I ran.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm not Iranian.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't live there.
[SPEAKER_00]: The Iranian government doesn't do anything to me.
[SPEAKER_00]: I care about corruption in the US government.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm an American.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that's what directly impacts me.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that's what directly impacts every American.
[SPEAKER_00]: And by the way, if you're an Australian, your government's corrupt too, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: There's a lot of evidence there.
[SPEAKER_00]: But it's the US government and the Puerto Rican government.
[SPEAKER_00]: I live in Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: I wish the Puerto Rican government wasn't corrupt.
[SPEAKER_00]: Imagine how successful this country would be, or Ireland.
[SPEAKER_00]: Imagine we don't have to pay the federal income tax.
[SPEAKER_00]: What a massive benefit that is.
[SPEAKER_00]: Can you imagine what Florida would be like today?
[SPEAKER_00]: if it didn't have to pay any income taxes.
[SPEAKER_00]: If you could go to Florida and not have to pay any federal income taxes and not have to pay any capital gains taxes, if that's what Florida was like.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the only thing that you gave up was Florida, no longer had any senators, and no longer had any representatives.
[SPEAKER_00]: But you had no income tax.
[SPEAKER_00]: the standard of the booming Florida would be truly the hottest place on earth not like you know Trump describes the it wouldn't even recognize it the wealth that would be every company every company in America would be headquartered in florida i mean it is such an advantage the corporate tax rate if you look at the corporate tax rate
[SPEAKER_00]: in most states, now Florida doesn't have a state corps, but you know, when I was living in Connecticut, the combined federal and state corporate tax rate was about 60 percent.
[SPEAKER_00]: You pay 21 percent.
[SPEAKER_00]: corporate tax.
[SPEAKER_00]: Then when you pay yourself a dividend, you pay 37% Fed tax.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, federal tax and 7% state tax.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the effective tax rate on corporate income was about 60%.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know if the effective tax rate on corporate income is in Puerto Rico, 4%, 4% versus 60%.
[SPEAKER_00]: How much more successful would a corporation be if it could pay 4% tax instead of 60%.
[SPEAKER_00]: just imagine.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the reason that this place is not experiencing the boom of all economic booms, the reason we're not Singapore and Dubai and Hong Kong all rolled into one and then double is because of the Puerto Rican government.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, they get a little help from the Jones Act that that makes things worse.
[SPEAKER_00]: But if we just had a smaller, efficient, non-corrupt government, the sky would be the limit for Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it breaks my heart that it's not happening.
[SPEAKER_00]: I really wish this place could experience the type of economic boom that is only denied because of its government.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the government tries to make believe that the reason is because we're not a state.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's what's screwing us up.
[SPEAKER_00]: No, that's the best thing we got going for us, not being a state.
[SPEAKER_00]: If we became a state,
[SPEAKER_00]: that would make it even worse.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, and apparently, because I said something like that at a conference here in Puerto Rico, I got the former governor really mad at me because he was a pro-state-hood guy.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so apparently that also might have been why they wanted to shut my bank down to get back at me for telling the truth to people.
[SPEAKER_00]: But by the way, I told that at a conference where people were considering moving to Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I only said that in response to a question.
[SPEAKER_00]: Somebody asked a question.
[SPEAKER_00]: I asked after I was telling everybody how great it is in Puerto Rico and how you should move here and move your business here and hire people here.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I was there for free promoting Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: Somebody says, well, what if they become a state?
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, because he was worried that he would come down here.
[SPEAKER_00]: They'd make it a state, and then, you know, he'd blow the whole thing up, and I explained why it wasn't going to be a state, and I went over the benefit of not being a state, and I said, you know, and that got written up in the newspaper here, and then the governor called me out and started saying, this Gringo, this is terrible, you know, he got rich in the U.S. with the benefit of statehood, and he wants to deny the benefit of statehood to people here, you know what?
[SPEAKER_00]: I may have gotten rich in a state, but I would have got even richer, had I been in Puerto Rico the entire time with those tax breaks.
[SPEAKER_00]: Oh, and by the way, I chose to move from Connecticut to Puerto Rico.
[SPEAKER_00]: I chose to give up statehood to live in a territory.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why did I do that?
[SPEAKER_00]: Because I thought it was better.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right?
[SPEAKER_00]: So the whole thing was ridiculous.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I got the governor, you know, I got on his bad side, even though I was helping the country.
[SPEAKER_00]: So many people ask of why do you live in Puerto Rico?
[SPEAKER_00]: Peter Schiff.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now a lot of it was because I talked about it several times on the Joe Rogan show back in the day when I used to go on the show.
[SPEAKER_00]: I talked about Puerto Rico and a lot of people who are fans of Joe Rogan and me, but you know, but they heard these discussions.
[SPEAKER_00]: they ended up moving the Puerto Rico so I've done a lot of good I've done nothing but good things for Puerto Rico and they repaid me by by knife at me in the back anyway and I'm still I'm still fighting like hell to protect the customers of that bank that we now know for sure the fraud.
[SPEAKER_00]: with respect to the way it was shut down.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, this has been a long podcast.
[SPEAKER_00]: I had no idea I'd be doing it this long.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hopefully some people are still are still watching it because this is, you know, maybe I'll have to make a new podcast just with this stuff about the bank, a special video, so people will see it for all the people who didn't stick around because I think it's important.
[SPEAKER_00]: And we got it.
[SPEAKER_00]: We got to spread the word.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now we got to spread the word about the economy and about the dollar and about gold and about how people can protect themselves.
[SPEAKER_00]: But we got to spread the word about this corruption because we got to bring it to the surface.
[SPEAKER_00]: We got to shine a light on it.
[SPEAKER_00]: We can't just let it alone or it's going to grow.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's going to expand.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right.
[SPEAKER_00]: We got to cut it off if we can.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so, you know, we just got a yell from the rooftops.
[SPEAKER_00]: And when anybody tells me, hey, Peter, stop talking about this.
[SPEAKER_00]: I can't stop talking about it because it's not just about me.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's about the country.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's about the country that my kids are going to grow up in.
[SPEAKER_00]: And your kids are going to grow up in.
[SPEAKER_00]: What kind of country do you want it to be?
[SPEAKER_00]: Do you want it to be a corrupt country?
[SPEAKER_00]: Or do you want your kids to grow up in a free country?
[SPEAKER_00]: I prefer freedom and we're not going to have freedom if we give it up and if we allow corruption and the government knows they can get away with it then it's more and more and more.
[SPEAKER_00]: You've got to defend it.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not free.
[SPEAKER_00]: You've got to protect it or you will lose it.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's it for now.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think my next podcast this time,
[SPEAKER_00]: I said it last time, and I didn't do it, but this time, the next one I'm going to do is on Friday, the shift goal, Friday, market, rap, so don't forget about that.
[SPEAKER_00]: If you're not a subscriber to the shift goal, YouTube channel, go and subscribe, subscribe to this one.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hey, by the way, my exit count this week, top 1.4 million.
[SPEAKER_00]: So if you're not following me on X, follow me.
[SPEAKER_00]: I got a catch, Michael Sailor, because he just hit 5 million.
[SPEAKER_00]: uh... so uh... more people should be paying attention to me than him so if you're not following me on x uh... you know add yourself to the group and tell your friends and again if you like this podcast like it give it a thumbs up leave me a comment bye for now