Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1977 The Maine Capital Corporation - Seeding The Hegemony
11-26-2014, 04:38 PM
Post: #1
1977 The Maine Capital Corporation - Seeding The Hegemony
At this moment I am reading a report I received from the Maine Law Library- a report which was used to create The Maine Economic Development Corporation. I have researched the Maine Development Foundation Corporation through the statutes but the report brings to light new information about The Maine Capital Corporation- a private investment corporation chartered by the Maine legislature which had the use of tax payer money in the form of offering tax credits for stock. It was chartered along side and contingent to The Maine Development Foundation Corporation.

All of the above being repugnant to the Maine Constitution, which prohibits the chartering of corporations by special acts of legislation with an exception for municipal purposes and if the objects of the corporation cannot be otherwise achieved. (Article Iv Part Third Sections 13 & 14)

Article X.Additional Provisions

Section 3. Laws now in force continue until repealed. All laws now in force in this State, and not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain, and be in force, until altered or repealed by the Legislature, or shall expire by their own limitation.

The record that I am reading shows that when originally chartered by special acts of legislation, both the Maine Capital Fund and The Maine Development Foundation had "sunset laws" meaning they would be phased out at a specified date. The Maine Capital Corporation was phased out to become the FAME corporation (Financial Authority of Maine). The Maine Development Foundation Corporation still exists today and has spawned a massive network of state corporations which collectively functions as a channel for redistributing wealth. 5 out of six of the recently passed bonds will be channeled through the system I call Maine State Inc which is intentionally designed, in my opinion, to be non-transparent to the public through the camouflage of fragmentation used to hide the whole system which is designed so that all the parts work together. This is evident in the fact that all the subsidiary corporations of Maine State Inc have names but Maine State Inc has no official name- it poses as the State of Maine but a state is governed by its constitution and the consent of the governed.

The Report- Governor's Task Force For Economic Redevelopment, Recommended Legislation For An Economic Development Program -110th Congress, 1976 - reads like a design for a new system of government.

At first while reading this political thesis, I was willing to give the authors the benefit of the doubt that the authors might naively believe that what they were doing really was for the public benefit until I read the line under "Recommendations"
Quote:2, eliminate the requirement for a local referendum on municipal bond issues.
The right reserved to the people to approve or reject an act of the legislature, or the right of the people to approve or reject legislation that has been referred to them by the legislature.

The referendum power is created by state constitutions and is conferred on the citizens of a state or a local subdivision of the state. Referendum provides the people with a means of expressing their opinion on proposed legislation before it becomes operative as a law. The power of referendum does not permit the people to invalidate a law that is already operative but suspends or annuls a law that has not yet gone into effect. In this sense, referendum is similar to a governor's Veto power. Also, by referendum the people may reinstate an act that the legislature has expressly repealed. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...referendum

From that point forward. the document came across as arrogant, presumptive with intentionally feigned ignorance about the fact that there is a state constitution which is the foundation of the rule of law in Maine.

The report is a design for a new form of government which grants broad powers to "public private relationships" and un-elected boards as it conspires to take the power away from the people. This occurred only eight years since the Home Rule Amendment was added to the Maine State Constitution, which provides local governments with economic development authority within their own municipalities- a completely different political philosophy than the centrally managed economy that is designed in the report justifying the reasons to go against the Maine constitutional prohibition against the legislature chartering corporations by special acts of legislation to create the Maine Development Foundation Corporation.
1969 HOME RULE AMENDMENT provides municipalities with the authority to be agents of economic development. Governor Kenneth M. Curtis


Article VIII.
Part Second.
Municipal Home Rule

Section 1. Power of municipalities to amend their charters. The inhabitants of any municipality shall have the power to alter and amend their charters on all matters, not prohibited by Constitution or general law, which are local and municipal in character. The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure by which the municipality may so act.

Section 2. Construction of buildings for industrial use. For the purposes of fostering, encouraging and assisting the physical location, settlement and resettlement of industrial and manufacturing enterprises within the physical boundaries of any municipality, the registered voters of that municipality may, by majority vote, authorize the issuance of notes or bonds in the name of the municipality for the purpose of purchasing land and interests therein or constructing buildings for industrial use, to be leased or sold by the municipality to any responsible industrial firm or corporation.

I am also reading a second report dated two years later;


On the basis of its study, the Committee recommends:

Quote:that the Maine Capital Corporation and its related tax legislation be subject to legislative review during the same period as the Legislature "sunset" review of ·the Maine Development Foundation; and that the Foundation's statutory purpose of "...promotion of an improved climate for economic development in the State .." be changed to regulate the use of State or other funds available to the Foundation to lobby the Legislature or to advocate to the public a position on initiative and referendum questions.

Noting that I have in the recent post, Missing Most Of The Economy, I referred to Mr Douglas Ray whom the state identifies as a "legislative liaisons" as "tax payer funded lobbyists for the DECD Corporation". Here you see that the architects creating the foundation stone of the corporate state also identify Mr Ray's function as a lobbyist. They just leave out the part that the lobbyist for the Maine Development Corporation is being funded by taxpayers to lobby the legislature in their own interest- or shall we say the interests of "public -private relationships" code for hegemonic power.

Today, when reading congressional hearings it is remarkable that most of the testimony comes from taxpayer funded lobbyists for the Maine Corporations's subsidiaries- or private members of the "public-private hegemony" club.

Whether and to what extent the Foundation ought to be able to implement the statutory purpose of " ...promotion of an improved climate for economic development in the State ..." (10 MRSA §917, sub-§6), and especially the ex­tent to which the Foundation should be permitted to use State funds or any other resources available to it to lobby the Legislature or to publicly or privately promote its position on a major, controversial issue.

The Committee recommends legislation in the first and third areas (a text of the recommended legislation is Appendix 4) :

2. The Committee recommends repeal of the liberal construction clause and revision of the Foundation's purpose clause relating to "creating a climate for economic development." This is to clarify that the Foundation, in creating a climate for economic development, may conduct objective analyses and attempt to develop broad consensus on issues of significance to the economic health of Maine, provided that its activities do not require it to register with the State as a lobbyist employer and that it does not advocate to the public a position on an initiative or referendum question.

Commentary Note the careful parsing of the language. The concern is that the Foundation avoid having to register as a lobbyist- NOT that it should not lobby- which indeed it does, if not directly then through it's proxy corporations. And note that it says that it does not advocate to the public a position on an initiative or referendum question- but advocating to the public's alleged representatives at congressional hearings on initiatives and referendum question- that's done all the time ! In fact the "legislative liaisons" of the state's own corporations are the mainstay of testimony at congressional hearings- the legislature's go-to corporations!

1977 The Maine Capital Corporation

Investment corporation authorized by.the legislature under 'Title 13-A: MAINE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT , established in 1971 despite constitutional prohibitions found in Article IV part Third Section 14 prohibiting the legislature from chartering corporations for state purposes. Title 13-A is now repealed as was planned under the sunset laws- but it has been reincarnated throughout the network of Maine State Inc.

The original enabling legislation for the Maine Capital Corporation was passed in l977- the same year that the Maine Development Foundation Corporation was also chartered by special act of legislation.. It was later amended to broaden the purpose of the Corporation and clarify its ability to use a wide range of investment instruments.

Quote:The organizational phase of MCC extended long period of time, primarily due to the challenge of selling its 10,000 shares of common stock ($1,000,000) to private investors. MCC has never received a direct State appropriation and this meant it had·to find other means for covering its organizational expenses. The stock issue was marketed by the firm of Burgcss & Leith Incorporated for the modest commission of $20,000 plus $5000 expense fee. Burgcss & Leith was assisted by the Maine Development Foundation, which was not compensated for its efforts.

Tax Consequences

Tax factors related to MCC were detailed on pp. 34-35 of the Offering Memorandum (see Appendix I). The major provision that would affect revenues was the Maine income tax credit of·fifty percent spread over a minimum of five years, available to investors in MCC's stock. We have no knowledge of which investors have availed themselves of this credit and to what degree. We do know it is instrumental in mobilizing tho capital, .as intended by the legislature * ( emphasis mine)

This tax credit is capped by a number of features, all included in the legislation. At a maximum it would be $500,000 spread out over at least five (5) years. As MCC makes more investments, with positive economic consequences, tax benefits to the State will accrue which sooner or later will surpass the costs.- Source Governor's Task Force For Economic Redevelopment, Recommended Legislation For An Economic Development Program -110th Congress, 1976

* Commentary:The Maine Capital Corporation is the precursor to The Financial Authority Of Maine Corporation- which tells us in its charter that “Any benefits accruing to private individuals or associations, as a result of the activities of the authority, are deemed by the Legislature to be incidental to the public purposes to be achieved by the implementation of this chapter- which putting one and one together- it may be deemed incidental to the legislature but the legislature knows it is not incidental to their private partners, which is why the legislature uses tax credits to sell stocks in a private corporation."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2014, 01:49 PM (This post was last modified: 12-13-2014 02:05 PM by Mackenzie Andersen.)
Post: #2
RE: 1977 The Maine Capital Corporation - Seeding The Hegemony
This report blatantly disposes with the Maine Constitution, not only with it's in your face acknowledgement
that it is recommending the charter of a corporation by special act of legislation to serve state purposes, in violation of Article IV Part Third Section 14 which prohibits the legislature from chartering corporations by special act of legislation, but in its recommendation that the constitutional requirement for a public referendum on municipal bonds be disposed with- all the while with much rhetoric in other sections on the importance of public involvement:

Heed These words from Governor Seldon Conner's Inaugural Address  1876 -
found in The Maine Constitution- A reference guide by Marshall J Tinkl

Quote:Section thirteen presents a discretionary field of action which your own honor will impel you to occupy to the fullest extent.'The title of 'Special and Private Laws,' which includes so large a portion of the laws of former Legislatures, is an obnoxious one, conveying suggestions of privilege, favoritism and monopoly; though happily these evils have not in fact, stained the character of our legislation, they should not be suffered to have, even in the form of our laws, any grounds of suspicion that can be removed. Other weighty objections to special laws for private benefit are, that they are obtained at the public expense, and in their passage distract the attention of legislators from matters of public interest. The opportunity is now afforded, and the duty enjoined upon you, by the amendment, to restrict the necessity for such laws to the narrowest possible limits. An analysis and classification of the private and special laws upon the statute books, will inform you of the objects for which it is desirable to provide by general laws, if practicable. 'Many objects have been hitherto specially legislated upon although they were amply provided for by general laws. I have distinguished authority for the statement that sixty or more of the corporations created by a special act for each, by the last Legislature, could have been created and organized under general laws. The reason why the general laws have not been resorted to to a greater extent, is not, so far as I am informed, to be found in any insufficiency or defect of those laws, but in the greater ease and simplicity of the method of application to the Legislature and in the fancied higher [146 Me. 323] sanction of an authority proceeding directly from it. Section fourteen, relating to corporations is compressive and peremptory.. It relates to all corporations, except only those for municipal purposes. It clearly prohibits their creation by special acts if the objects desired can be secured under existing general laws.'

The objects desired is "economic development", which CAN be done in the private sector- which is called the free enterprise system- when it is done by the state it is called Marxism or fascism. The rhetoric justifying such a move is lovely but full of holes and conflicts between rhetoric and deed, which quickly becomes apparent when reading this report with a discerning eye. I have attached the report to this post. _Or at least I tried to but I am not seeing it- You can request it from the legislative law library Governor's Task Force On Economic Development- 1976

Link to Report on chartering The Maine Development Corporation 1977

Link to Report by the Joint Standing Committee On Taxation of its study of the Maine Development Corporation- 1979

Link To Charter to Maine Capital Corporation 1977
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 11:32 AM
Post: #3
RE: 1977 The Maine Capital Corporation - Seeding The Hegemony
Damn interesting stuff, thanks for doing the heavy lifting
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-13-2014, 01:50 PM
Post: #4
RE: 1977 The Maine Capital Corporation - Seeding The Hegemony
(12-12-2014 11:32 AM)Islander Wrote:  Damn interesting stuff, thanks for doing the heavy lifting

Thanks for that!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-14-2014, 07:41 PM
Post: #5
RE: 1977 The Maine Capital Corporation - Seeding The Hegemony
Mackezie, Thank you very much for researching and publicizing all this material. I have read most all of it an agree wholehearedly with your assessment of the situation.

What to do about it however, seems to be a more difficult issue.

From what I have seen, along with what you have researched and found I have come to believe that majority of today's politicians and the majority of the current electorate are "woefully ignorant" when it comes to the US Constitution as well as the various state ones which, as you say, are modeled upon the US one to a large extent.

I am positive that we have reached a point where many people feel that if they can just get a voting majority, of even just one vote, FOR something then that is OK with them. For the most part they don't know what the Constitution really says, or what it means according to the language of the times that was used to create it, nor care about it in any meaningful way. They see it as just an "old piece of paper" or "that was then, this is now" and those who wrote it could not possibly foreseen the issues of today!

But "au contraire", they did indeed see very well the kind of issues that might come up at some point down the road, and they provided a proper way to change, or amend, the document to reflect needs of more modern times. This amendment process has happened 17 times, after the first ten which make up the "bill of rights". Of course it takes way more than a majority of one vote to amend it and this was done purposefully so that it would ensure that a substantial majority would favor the change.

The dangers of a one vote majority can be illustrated by the current debate on Obamacare. This totally partisan bill passed the Senate with just enough votes so it is law now. It is thoroughly despised by 60% or so of the American population at this moment. New parts of it kick in next year and there will be way more sticker shock. Proponents say well several million folks who did not have insurance before now have it. They being of progressive mind completely ignore that maybe 100 million other Americans are going to be thoroughly "hosed" by this debacle. They are ready to do anything to rid us of the awful law. This is proof that bills have to pass by bi-partisan agreement and that it needs way more than simple majority to amend the Constitution!

The idea that the SCOTUS would be the supreme arbiter of what was constitutional and what was not goes back to the case Marbury v Madison in 1803. Out of that decision came this. ....."So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply".....

None other than Thomas Jefferson vehemently objected to this decision. He had this to say:

........"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves".......

I am with Jefferson on this. I feel that those who wrote the constitution made it up to WE THE PEOPLE to see that the Constitution is followed, no matter what the SCOTUS says. I take that to mean that if "we the people" believe that the SCOTUS had made a grave error in rendering a decision about the constitutionality of a certain law, that the people find repugnant, then they (we the people) are the only ones who can do something about it! Plain and simple WE are the final word in what is Constitutional.....the way I see it. Which brings us to today.

I believe that a substantial majority of politicans are against the constitution whenever it is handy, many not even aware they are voting for something unconstitutional and worse,wouldn't care even if they knew. "That is just an old piece of paper today written by old white men who are long dead, we are in charge now and these are new times"!

Then we have the majority of the electorate, nearly all who don't have a clue what the constitution really is....or what it says and means, and they wouldn't care as long as the voting goes the way they want, and they get the results they want. No old piece of paper worries them a bit!

So here we are today. The vast majority of the country do not understand the constitution, would not understand it if they read it......and could care less what it says. Candidate x says he is going to put thousands to work with these bond issues so we got to vote for that....and they heedlessly do just that.

So look at what we are up against. No politician is going to want to hear about the constitution, or the unconstitutionality of some state operations that have been set up for a while. If we raised the issue they would laugh at us and then ignore it. Almost NO voters have the slightest concern as long as they get either their "filty bowl of oatmeal" or millions of dollars from DHS for their newest "non-profit.

I agree with most everything you have written but don't think we have a chance of changing any of this. We would be dealing with ignorance, arrogance, complete stupidty and the like and I believe it would get us no where. As I wrote last week I have reached a point where I have gotten discouraged to the point that I think I am just wasting my time talking about all of this as it does not one ounce of good in fixing the problem.

I think this is going to end in one of two ways. First is the real possibility of a major economic disaster, nation wide, maybe world wide, when governments run out of funny money to keep paying these bills that they have run through the stratosphere. That would put tens of millions of Americans, who cannot care for themselves, in immediate jeapordy with massive loss of life a strong possibility. Hurricane Katrina was just a brief look at what could happen when law and order break down. What do you think it would look like if the government checks stopped suddenly?

The other possible way is that government can keep overreaching with their rules and their regulations until finally patriots pick up arms (again in America)and a whole new revolution will be on.

I am not a betting man and would not pick one of these possibilities over the other.....but I will bet that total catastrophe is not very far away, either in another monstrous depression.....or another civil war. The progressives are going to continue to shove everything they can down our throats, constitution be damned, and will never stop until......."We the People" do something about it....if we can.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-16-2014, 02:32 AM
Post: #6
RE: 1977 The Maine Capital Corporation - Seeding The Hegemony
Well there is no doubt that anyone af any number of disasters could happen- of which at this point I am more concerned about our global enemies because this administration has made us so vulnerable and our enemies know that the next two years are their window of opportunity and after that things could change if we have a strong president and administration once more.

That said I just say we have to keep on keeping on- there is so much that is beyond our control but only we can do what is in our control, which is why I have focused so much on what is going on in Maine which is similar to what is going on everywhere- but I believe one has to carry on the fight locally.

A big part of our local problem is the media which reports nothing to the people- or next to nothing about what is really going on with our government- and the media consistently reports what ever it does report from a singular point of view. I think the argument made by the leaders of industry is insane and self serving but it appears to have been accepted without question- and it has been going on ever since that way, when in fact the government is ripping off the people and I believe that they have population displacement plans at the root of it. The Maine people are not good enough and the government wants to upgrade the people with a richer and younger populous - Steve Woods, who has wanted various political offices from Governor to Senator is our Gruber. he voiced the idea of relocating 109 rural Maine communities to urban centers. There is currently an article in Maine Biz on Woods in which he appears to be admitting that his comments about population displacement hurt him politically and says that Angus King just talked about health care. It came across to me as Woods implying that what he said is what others in the political class believe but they stick to safer subjects- which I believe is true because it is consistent with the policies followed for decades.

So there are more people living in Maine who are not being served by their government than who are being served and its the people who have to wake up and make the change happen, which means they have to be better informed and we know that is not going to be initiated by our media- that has to be initiated by the people- and then maybe the media will start to follow because it will be news worthy.

I think it is a great idea to use this forum to actually read and discuss what is in the legislation currently under consideration so while the media reports on a bill from one side only and with practically no information about what is in the bill, the people can take on the responsibility of doing what the media should be doing- which is to read the bill, discuss it and start increasing the level of being informed in this state. It may start slowly but if persisted in, it will grow and that gives one some hope. I have seen this happen with my blog which is not exactly read by the masses but none the less I have watched the little dots on the map multiply and spread over a larger area. At first it was mostly read in and near Boothbay where I live but the dots have been spreading out from there. So that is a small start but the point is, no matter how small it might be, if one actively does something , it gives one hope and gradually one's own process changes and one one conceptualizes other ways of doing things and hopefully inspires others also to do something.

I don't believe that the two options you mentioned are the only ones. We have a great constitution with checks and balances written into it. I believe the safest way to regain that constitution is to use the constitution its self as the instrument of doing so. If there is a violent uprising or states seceding or a constitutional convention to change the constitution, then we might lose our constitution and it will be replaced with something not as good and I point to what you say about people not understanding and really knowing the constitution as a reason why. People do not even know much about political philosophy in general, especially not when you have a state legislature giving itself jurisdiction over education at the University of Maine and then there is instituted a minor in Marxist and Socialist Studies and to my knowledge no course on the Maine Constitution and minimal courses on the American political philosophy and the Federalist Papers. So the people just have to educate themselves.

It is true that judges are no more perfect human beings than anyone else and in this state I have often heard it said that the courts are corrupt. although less so as one going higher in the system. However laws and amendments can be repealed and that is where the check and balance is on the court system. In order for that to happen, the people have to elect representatives who would take such an action and a well informed public is at the root of change. Fortunately at this moment in history, we have the internet, which is still serving free speech and so that opens the discussion up.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | My Site | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication