she was probably lip synching to stay in time with the music - normally when you try to dance to a slowed-down version of a song, you need a way to remember what place you're at - some people can do it all in their heads after one or two times, but others just lip-synch to make it easier.

But wait...

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, at least two of the United States' MOST severe recessions/depressions happened AFTER the creation of the Federal Reserve(the closest thing I've found to a study that deals with the severity of economic turmoil):
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-234440/Great-Depression

As per the OED...well, I'll let you read it for yourself(let me know if you'd like the full definitions posted, as these are exclusive, and the only parts of the definitions that I see that pertain to economics):
Panic
b. A condition of widespread apprehension in relation to financial and commercial matters, leading to hasty measures to secure against possible loss.

Recession
4. Econ. A temporary decline or setback in economic activity or prosperity.

Depression
5. a. A lowering in quality, vigour, or amount; the state of being lowered or reduced in force, activity, intensity, etc. In mod. use esp. of trade; spec. the Depression, the financial and industrial ‘slump’ of 1929 and subsequent years. Also attrib.

And this site lists all but two of the times of the economic turmoil occurring BEFORE the creation of the Federal Reserve as "Panics(and go into pretty interesting detail about how they lacked in severity)," with the other two being the "Long Depression" that(they note) did not affect - and actually raised production in - the United States - they EVEN compare it to the Great Depression itself, as such: "The Long Depression was not a particularly deep one, unlike the more famous Great Depression."

The other being the "Post WWI Recession," which is noted as "Sharp but brief":
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-recessions

So again - I ask - How has the Fed helped us establish "long term stability?"

The Constitution does not give any power to the Federal branches of the government to define the meaning of words that are vague within the Constitution, therefore the power is given to the States or the people as per Amendment X, that they should define those vague terms for the current period in time.

As per Amendment IX, the interpretation of vague meanings within the Constitution must not be used to "deny or disparage" rights retained by the people. Therefore(in concordance with Amendments IX and X), if government does rule AGAINST a case brought by the people pertaining to a vague definition within the Constitution, that judgment must then be subject to the scrutiny of Amendment IX - that IF it DENIES or DISPARAGES the rights of the people, or of the states, from rights not explicitly stated within the Constitution, that judgment is invalid, and probably should not have happened in the first place.

In other words, for things like "excessive bail," "cruel and unusual punishment," or "just compensation," the founders of this country meant for the states to initiate a Writ of Elections to determine what would fit those definitions - it is most certainly NOT up to the Federal branches of the Government to determine them at all(because that right has not been given to the Federal branches of the government, and therefore is reserved for the States or the people, as per Amendment X), and for the States to define them, without a public inquiry, would only incite lawsuits by the public(as we see all over the United States today) to redefine vague terms like what is considered "excessive bail," "cruel and unusual punishment," and "just compensation."

That is the literal translation of Amendments IX and X applied to the interpretation of the body of the Constitution. The Founders realized that certain definitions could not be contained within the Constitution, and were dependent on both time and locality within the country, and, by not having given the right of definition of those terms to the Federal branches of the government, they inherently gave the right(as per Amendments IX and X) to define those terms to the States, and to the people.

Since the Federal government is not allowed to regulate intra-State commerce, court cases to decide things like "excessive bail" could not be appealed to, because the Federal Branch of the government would have to cede to the People in every case that the Person filing the case could show that such "excessive bail" would "deny or disparage" rights retained by them that the States had not regulated, or not been allowed to regulate by the Constitution(think about how easy that would be - "I was going to go to church(a right retained by the people that the State governments do not have the right to prohibit the 'Free exercise thereof') but I could not because of the excessive bail imposed by my State".

With such an easy abuse of power, it is only logical that the States therefore hold Elections on those matters, which is a right granted to the States especially for the purpose of defining terms within the Constitution that are reliant on time and locality. No amount of persons can avoid the use of time/locality-dependent terms in the creation of any document of constitution, especially in one that is to stand for the totality of the duration of existence of the country in which it founds.

Actually - please look through the United States Constitution and list the terms that are dependent on time and locality.

It should be easy - language is like an equation, and those terms are just variables.

Do the founders of a country need to form their Constitution using a standardized programming language for you NOT to argue against it?(Just FYI - Turing-style computation/programming was not documented until 1936 - 160 years AFTER the United States Constitution was written)

Nowadays, there's Neuro-Linguistic Programming which concerns the foundation of words into programmatic functions, but back when the Constitution was written, the Founders wrote it as specifically as they could, evidenced by how they handle branch functions and commercial regulation. In order to believe otherwise, one must be ignorant of the evolution of the English language.

Please do discontinue the use of the ADL as a source of news for this conversation, as they neither claim, within their charter, to be a source of news, nor do I hold faith in their ability to be an unbiased source of news.

"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." - ADL Charter; October 1913

This conversation:
    1) Does not concern
        a. "The defamation of the Jewish people"(of which I am one)
        b. Biases that pertain TO "any sect or body of citizens"
    2) Does concern
        a. The organization and structure of a virtual creation that is that of a country, namely the United States of America

"goal of the Fed is long term stability"

Pre-Fed
-------
Panic of 1819-1824(4/5 years)
Panic of 1837-1843(6/7 years)
Panic of 1857-1860(3/4 years)
Panic of 1873-1879(6/7 years)
Panic of 1893-1896(3/4 years)
Panic of 1907-1908(1/2 years)
1776 to 1914(137.4 years[July 4 founding]) Total = 23 to 29 years - 21% of our time(max) spent in economic turmoil
OR(if you want to be technical) 1819 to 1914(95 years) - 24%(min) to 30.5%(max)of our time spent in economic turmoil

Post-Fed
--------
Post WW1 Recession - 1918-1921(3/4 years)
Great Depression("The Great Contraction") - 1929-1937(8/9 years)
Post Korean War Recession - 1953-1954(1/2 years)
1973 Oil/Energy Crisis - 1979-1980(1/2 years)
1982 - 1983(1/2 years)
1988 - 1992(4/5 years)
2000 Recession - 2001 - 2003(3/4 years)
1914 to 2007(93 years) Total = 21 to 28 years - 22.5% of our time(min) spent in economic turmoil

How has the Fed helped us establish "long term stability?"

Sure, not ALL of them were CAUSED by the Fed, but they haven't exactly PREVENTED any of them, either.

As a matter of fact, the very fact that they purposely CAUSED at least one of them should be enough for our government to deny their charter and to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.

You are a person, correct? Why do you blatantly argue in FAVOR of having your rights(and, subsequently, other people's rights) taken away, when you must see that you were given those rights and that they benefit you to have them?

You don't have to answer either of those questions, but seriously - that's what is running through my mind when I read what you write - that you can somehow defend the policies that are imposed upon you - that limit you, even, when you clearly have the right, that IF they oppress you in any way, you are legally permitted to oppose them - to ACT in opposition of them.

When you act in a jury, do you have the whole of the law in front of you to review? Are you informed of when something you are judging may have Constitutional significance, and that you should consult the Constitution?

Yeah, well, it's a pretty big thing to be sitting in that courtroom, being told that a law exists, even when you are not shown it, and having to try someone on faith that said law does exist...but what if it never did to begin with?

A lot of people in this country are pretty ticked off, and it's right that they should be - their government is oppressing them. Sure, in context of what's happening in the rest of the world, it's not so bad...but just because other countries are oppressive, does that mean that we should be, too? Are you implying, by comparing us to the rest of the world(in the posts in which you do compare us with other countries), that we should join with the current international "fads" just because other countries are?

You'll probably ignore that last part, and I can understand that...but I just want to know - when everybody else around you is doing something, do you do it just because they are?

I see this every day, working with technology - I meet so many companies that want to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading, even though what they currently have works perfectly fine for their needs. I watch these companies commit financial suicide by turning their profits into something that hasn't been proven in the marketplace, and fails to meet their needs. I even advocate against it, to no avail, as those companies are most often pressed to upgrade by their new IT Director or CTO or whatnot...it makes me freaking cringe, because a lot of them are(and were) good companies with many loyal and hard working, and intelligent, employees.

(most recently, I watched a really nice company that only has two QA guys and one developer spend something like $80,000 on Mercury LoadRunner[and even more for systems to use it with], when the QA department HAD a load testing tool they coded that worked for what they need AND they can't afford for Mercury to train their QA or hire a LoadRunner expert...all because the new IT Manager worked at many companies prior[that were larger, too] that used LR...oh, and even better - they can't afford a proper QA or Staging environment)

Is that what we want for our country?

The guidelines specified in the Constitution were deliberately worded - MORE deliberately worded, for instance, than most laws in place today.

Do you know why they were worded so deliberately?

They were worded so deliberately so that the government we live under would not be able to circumvent them in the way you actually cite - by creating new laws to supersede them. The Constitution is also very deliberate in mentioning that it gives power to the statutes and regulations we live under - not the other way around, and that, in cases of trial of a Constitutional issue, the following:

"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Enumeration
1. The action of ascertaining the number of something; esp. the taking a census of population; a census.
2. The action of specifying seriatim, as in a list or catalogue.
    b. concr. A catalogue, list.
3. Rhet. transl. L. enumeratio: A recapitulation, in the peroration, of the heads of an argument.

Recapitulate
1. a. trans. To go over or repeat again, properly in a more concise manner; to give the heads or substance of (what has been already said); to summarize, restate briefly.

Construe v.
1. trans. To form by putting together materials, to CONSTRUCT. Obs.
2. Gram. To combine (words, or parts of speech) grammatically. Now, to combine a verb, adjective, preposition, or other word with the case or relational words with which it is syntactically used.
3. Gram. To analyse or trace the grammatical construction of a sentence; to take its words in such an order as to show the meaning of the sentence; spec. to do this in the study of a foreign and especially a classical language, adding a word for word translation; hence, loosely, to translate orally a passage in an ancient or foreign author.
    b. absol.
    c. intr. (for pass.) Of a series of words: To admit of grammatical analysis or interpretation.
4. trans. To give the sense or meaning of; to expound, explain, interpret (language).
    b. To expound, interpret, or take in a specified way (often apart from the real sense).
    c. with various complements and extensions.
5. Law. To explain or interpret for legal purposes. (A technical application of 4.)
6. transf. To interpret, give a meaning to, put a construction on (actions, things, or persons).
    b. with various complements and extensions.
    c. in a bad sense: cf. misconstrue. Obs.
7. To deduce (a meaning, etc.) by interpretation; to judge by inference, infer.
    b. absol. or intr. Const. {dag}of.
8. To understand (a person, i.e. his meaning).
9. To inform by way of explanation; to explain.

Look at the meanings of the words IN that amendment. To put it in simpler terms, since the amendment is not talking about enumeration as either a numeric value or a specification, one by one, of a list or catalogue(just by the LEGAL context of the document, "enumerate," in this case, must mean "A recapitulation(or a repetition, in a more concise manner) of the peroration, of the heads of an argument," so that is the definition of "enumeration" I will use for this. The definition of "peroration," means "written discourse" or "speech," however IN THIS CONTEXT[that of the "written discourse" of the United States Constitution] it must mean "written discourse," so that is what I will use for it.

"The go over(review), in a more concise manner, of this written discourse, of certain rights, shall not be interpreted or understood, with various complements or exceptions(see Construe:5), to deny or disparage others(rights, in context "of certain rights") retained by the people."

As such, the Congress has no right to use case law to circumvent the review of the Constitution to DENY or DISPARAGE rights retained by the people.

The fact that they did circumvent the guidelines specified in the Constitution does not imply that what they did was what they should have done, nor does it imply that case law can supersede the Constitution - quite the opposite, as a matter of fact, according to Amendment IX, the interpretation of the rights SPECIFIED in the Constitution, supersede that of case law in that said interpretation in case law can NOT(by Amendment IX) be used to "deny or disparage" rights NOT specified by the Constitution.

And Article X, enumerating on Article IX:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

you're absolutely right - they can essentially create new laws by interpreting the same statutes differently, but that's not what's happening here, as the law that they are interpreting does not follow the guidelines set forth in the Constitution...and people are not even taught the Constitution in full to be able to understand the law they are inherently judging when they are present as members of the Jury.

My point is that the tax itself is illegal because of the guidelines set forth in the Constitution. Trying to argue that it is not illegal by offering a statute that does not follow the guidelines in the Constitution does not make that statute LEGAL.

If people do support the tax law itself, over the Constitution, then the Constitution itself, without amendment to form a basis for that law's existence, can and must be deemed null and void by the citizens of this country that were told that it was governing them, as well as all applicable statutes and regulations which derive their power from the Constitution - i.e. the United States Code itself OR it must be amended to give that power to a governing body - i.e. - Congress.

I think it's great that other countries pay higher taxes, especially when they have the laws in place to do so, and they use the money gained from taxation RESPONSIBLY. Fact of the matter is, this country does not. The majority of our taxes go toward the military and national defense. The majority of funds for government services(even being as unconstitutional as I continually state they are) comes from loans from the Federal Reserve, which increases our National Debt.

Now if, on the other hand, the money I pay for taxes went toward helping my fellow soldiers(yes, I am a veteran) with the same level of subsidized medical care that Switzerland enjoys/enjoyed as a result of their amendments to existing laws in 1911, I'd probably be spending my time, right now, on trying to help privatize the United States' health insurance industry if it was having problems as a result of the same level of monopolization as the public school system in this country has, or I'd be trying to help draft an amendment to the Constitution to make sure that the government has the power to both tax the people and use those taxes RESPONSIBLY.

As it stands right now, Congress has neither the legal basis for the Federal Income Tax, nor is it required by the Constitution to use those taxes responsibly(because it never had the basis in the first place), nor has it used the taxes it has received responsibly. If it did, I doubt that we'd be having this conversation, as really the only reason anyone is challenging the legality of the Federal Income Tax is because it's kindof sickening to think that one's income taxes are being used(literally) to send his brother and sister into harm's way.

Also - please note another difference between the United States and Switzerland - in the United States, sure, we have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, but the Constitution says nothing about at what point our redress must be addressed by the government, whereas in Switzerland, "Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If s/he is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law."

and "Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organized, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months."

If we could do that in this country, the war in Iraq would have been over LONG ago...heck, the amount of taxes we pay and we spend on the military and national defense would have been challenged and voted on long ago, but as it stands, such a virtue is not extended to the people by the Constitution, therefore the government technically never has to address the petitions brought forth by the people of the United States - it only needs to give them the ability to petition.

(oh and by the way - I'm not fond of civilization, either, but that's a different debate for a different time.)

In the US, judgments are *not* the law - the Constitution is.

Case law is simply an interpretation OF the statutes, but those statutes still *must* follow the guidelines set forth in the Constitution.

As for government services - has humanity not noticed that throwing more money at a problem does not solve it? Have Americans not noticed the quality of their public schools getting WORSE as the government intervenes more and more? Have Americans not noticed that what they were taught in Middle School, their children must now go to college to learn?

The services provided by the government are shite, and should have been privatized, not subsidized(i.e. a similar system to countries like Switzerland) a LONG time ago. Not only has the Federal and State governments not handled public schooling properly, they don't actually have the Constitutional authority to create or fund it, and in doing so, they have only lowered the standard of living for the citizens of this country by requesting funds from the Federal Reserve to fund such programs - very little Federal TAXES actually go into those programs(with most of our taxes going towards the Military and National Defense). Sure, if the government wanted to, they could get rid of the Federal Income Tax, and just borrow ALL of the money from the Federal Reserve - it'd be essentially the same as what's already happening.

If you walk through a public school, or talk with adults and seniors that ARE on a form of welfare, you'll see how reliant they are on it - I, personally, have two grandparents that are just able to pay their TAXES with what they receive from welfare(Social Security), and, as such, one still works as a nurse, having never retired, and the other has two different jobs - one as a photographer, another as a Produce Manager in a grocery store...just to make ends meet. And, yes, both of them had careers for over 30 years before they went on Social Security, so they've more than done their time.

Have you ever had to go on welfare, or go through the public school system here?

Oh, I'm not arguing not to pay income taxes by posting this video(Do you honestly think I want myself or anyone else to be subjected to a calculated IRS/Secret Service/FBI/SWAT team raid?) - just demonstrating how the law and the judgements differ...

i.e. - it's not a scam that Larkin Rose states the truth about the matter - that both the etymology of, and the reference to, shows that American citizens working for domestic companies(the majority of American workers) do not have to pay taxes, but since neither the public nor the courts are willing to recognize the references, or the obvious differences with the Constitution, of course people will be prosecuted for it - because people do not actually ask to see the law, and when they do, and the government does not provide it, the juries do not usually press the matter.

But there are a few people that have been acquitted of tax fraud by juries that have requested to see the law, and/or Constitutional basis for the unappropriated, Federal Income Tax.

That will happen when the law is so obfuscated that not even law and tax professionals can determine the significance of it...and when the populace has been undereducated about what their Constitution really says - they are made to think of the Constitution as complex and deep, when in fact, the words of the Constitution were deliberately chosen to be easily understood from a direct reading.

Tell me this - how did this country survive before the founding of the IRS(and, incidentally, the Federal Reserve) in 1913?

(p.s. - I find it funny that you reference the Anti-Defamation League about a U.S. Constitutional issue, as the ADL is not, by their charter, supposed to be concerned with, or organized in the interest of, United States Constitutional law - don't you find that a little odd, too?)

From the OED Online:

Democracy
1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.
    b. A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole.
    c. fig.
2. That class of the people which has no hereditary or special rank or privilege; the common people (in reference to their political power).
3. Democratism. rare.
4. U.S. politics. a. The principles of the Democratic party; b. The members of the Democratic party collectively.

Republic
1. The state, the common weal. Obs.
2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.
    b. Applied to particular states having this form of constitution.
    c. Without article: Republican constitution or government. rare{em}1.
3. fig. and transf. a. Any community of persons, animals, etc., in which there is a certain equality among the members.
    b. the republic of letters, the collective body of those engaged in literary pursuits; the field of literature itself.
4. attrib. (passing into adj.) Of the nature of, characteristic of, pertaining to, a republic or republics; republican. Now rare or Obs.

You're right.

"Often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights" is not represented in the etymology of the 1776 definitions, which is what I was picking apart before(from the 1979 edition of the printed OED, even), but you are right - I must have meant True Democracy and Representative Democracy, as "Republic" implies the organization of the state, and democracy implies the form of government.

Thank you for correcting me.

oh, absolutely choggie - newspeak definitely contributes to it - NLP, man...seriously. Humans know more and more about NLP - how do you think the military/corporate media/etc. can take advantage of that?

I do not believe that democracy is failing, quite simply, because we're not a pure democracy - it is the free exchange and debate of ideas that brings us to conclusions, after all - when we do actually get the vote in a matter, we are more willing to accept the responsibility, and thus the consequences, for our actions.

How did the majority handle slavery? How does the majority currently handle privatized banking, or even retailer-driven imports from other countries that lower the value of their own currency?

The answer, from my point of view, is that they can't. The details of such functions of systems as tyrannical often go unperceived by those participating, and for those that DO perceive the tyranny of such a system, they are more often than not powerless to stop it, are even slaves to it, in many cases.

This is just one reason(from my POV, mind you - there are many debates on this, as seen above in this thread) that the founders of this country chose that this be a democratic Republic, rather than a democracy. In a pure Democratic form of government, the people would directly judge, and prosecute, others, without the benefit of the people they prosecute being guaranteed certain rights.

In a democratic Republic, however, everybody(including the President of the United States) is SUPPOSED to be required to follow a protocol - the same protocol - to get laws passed and to judge and prosecute others.

What has happened, I believe, is that much of that protocol is not being followed - that too many people are being far too lenient on the people they see as their leaders - putting them on a pedestal, if you will - when the people they see as their "leaders" are just supposed to be ordinary citizens, that should be required to go through the protocols set forth in the Constitution.

If you are able to convince the public to give you the right to bypass the law of the country under which you govern, I do not doubt that whatever form of government you govern will be corrupted, and thus the public, the people, will not be listened to.

Well, that's basically what's happened here...from my point of view.

I agree, but I will note that usually whatever "can" happen usually "does."

That's why I think about it - because, frankly, I don't like the idea that, for people who are already in such prominent positions, they should become even more prominent because of unfortunate circumstances that people are forced to go through. That was really the first thing I noticed about having a private, central bank though, as it's been happening for decades and people always seem to be able to handle more bad things happening to them.

What I think about more often is what will happen when people begin to reject that private, central bank - even in the smallest amounts - i.e. - imagine if a certain percentage of the population decided to start paying for things, even wages, in silver coin(I know it sounds crazy). How would the Federal Reserve react? I mean, it would be a decision by the people, but if the private bank wanted to, it could cause a depression just to make the claim that silver coinage would HURT our economy, even though silver coinage can be quite practical(and is actually still minted these days - but if you want to pay with it, you have to keep up on it's dollar value per troy ounce).

Actually, I meant what I said.

While there was a debate as to whether this country should have been a Democracy or a Republic, there were no second thoughts - it was a democratic decision that chose and debated the form of government we have, today, even.

It was democratically decided that, since a Republic guarantees certain rights that can not be taken away for any reason(just by being a citizen of the country in which the Republic is founded), and a Democracy, as you say, gives the "average joe" the ability to make laws, a Democracy is quite easier to abuse.

I'll let you in on a little secret - in a democratic Republic, the "average joe" CAN make laws(just as in a democracy), but those laws must be subject to the same scrutiny that every other law must - they must not violate the Constitution or its amendments, and they will be voted on, just like every other law.

In other words, a Republic was chosen not to prevent the "average joe" from making laws, but to be sure that there would be a process in place when the "average joe" WANTED to make a law, that they must not violate the rights of others that should have the same rights as he does.

Not really sure what the Latin and Greek referenced, as the OED shows that the English settlers of this country already had an ENGLISH definition for both of the words "Democracy" and "Republic" that extended the meanings far beyond their original Latin and Greek meanings, but ok.

I just think it's funny that when people think of "Republic" they immediately think of "Democracy," as the two have obvious differences - none of which detract from the power of the people, as they do the power of the government OVER the people.

I.e. - In a Democracy, if the majority of people(not necessarily 51%, statistically) agreed with O'Reilly that someone should shut up, that person would be subject to public prosecution and the public would execute on that prosecution quite swiftly. In a Republic, that person may be CRITICIZED by others, but those others would have to try that person in a court of law under existing laws, with regards to his rights as a citizen of the country.

I certainly do not want to see this country end up American Idol-voting for or against laws and prosecutions.

[EDIT]
Well then, we're speaking in two different contexts - you're speaking in context of The Federalist Papers, themselves(which applied themselves toward the ratification of the Constitution in New York State) - I'm speaking in context of the Constitution, itself. I apologize for not recognizing that, but I do believe that the member states of this country ratified the Constitution, and not The Federalist Papers, even though The Federalist Papers DID play a part in it's ratification(and therefore must be read and interpreted especially for New York).

New York State(and Alexander Hamilton), at the time, was a big proponent of the same central and private banking that dominated over the people in other countries, and led to individual rights being curtailed as a result, so it's quite understandable that they would be least likely to ratify, as there were attempts made, within the body of the Constitution, to limit that power here in the states.

Like I said - limit. Nowadays there exists in the United States a much more powerful private central bank, simply because of what good people failed to recognize(namely, Woodrow Wilson, himself), and that's what Ron Paul, in this video, helps to explain.

What "upstart tyrannical group" is the most threatening, outside of a private central bank?

Savages with box-cutters? You still believe that story QM?

There was waaay more at play than a couple of guys with box-cutters - follow the money trail, man.