The issue here is that the new law empowered politicians to pressure regulated financial institutions into making lending decisions that were heavily influenced by factors other than credit-worthiness, technological feasibility or prospects for success
One unnoticed aspect of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank is the change to California law in 2020 that increased political control of state-chartered financial institutions.
In the chaos of the first year of the pandemic emergency, at a time when the Legislature was working remotely, or not at all, Gov. Gavin Newsom had the idea to change financial regulation in California.
Don’t take my word for it. Straight from the horse’s mouth is this “background” from the website of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI):
“In an effort to strengthen consumer financial protections in California, Governor Gavin Newsom proposed an initiative to modernize and revamp the current Department of Business Oversight (DBO), including an increase in staff and authority, to enhance its regulatory scope and become a national model for consumer protections.”
The change occurred with the enactment of Assembly Bill 1864 and Assembly Bill 107, signed into law by the governor in September 2020. The new DFPI retained the powers of the previous agency and added a “consumer outreach team engaging vulnerable populations,” and “an Office of Financial Technology Innovation that will engage with new industries and consumer advocates to encourage consumer friendly innovation and job creation in California.”
The department was placed under the supervision of a commissioner appointed by the governor and empowered “to bring administrative and civil actions, and to prosecute those civil actions before state and federal courts,” as well as “to hold hearings and issue publications, results of inquiries and research, and reports that may aid in effectuating the purposes of this law.”
This adds up to a formula for greater political control of financial institutions in California. It means the regulatory terrorism familiar to so many other businesses in the state could now be applied to banks that failed to meet certain goals of “encouraging” innovation or “engaging” identified communities.
At the same time, the new laws opened the opportunity for some banks to curry favor with politicians by funding “innovation” that non-political number-crunchers had already rejected as a bad bet.
And so was born the venture capital boom in new “innovation” to combat climate change.
“Silicon Valley Bank Collapse Threatens Climate Start-Ups,” headlined The New York Times, reporting that “the bank had relationships with more than 1,500 companies working on technologies aimed at curbing global warming.”
In California, banks could face administrative penalties from the regulatory agency run by an appointee of the governor if they fail to meet their obligation to “encourage” innovation and “engage” vulnerable communities.
By coincidence, or maybe not by coincidence, immediately after the DFPI’s new regulatory powers became effective on Jan. 1, 2021, Gov. Newsom asked Silicon Valley Bank to donate to the nonprofit California Partners Fund founded by his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.
The bank didn’t say no.
The first $25,000 payment was made on Jan. 8, 2021. Three more payments of $25,000 each followed before the end of the year.
The issue here is that the new law empowered politicians to pressure regulated financial institutions into making lending decisions that were heavily influenced by factors other than credit-worthiness, technological feasibility or prospects for success. The other side of that coin is the obvious incentive for politicians to make sure their appointees use kid gloves, or blinders, when regulating certain financial institutions.
In a March 10 order taking possession of Silicon Valley Bank, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation stated that the commissioner “finds” that despite the bank announcing a $1.8 billion loss on March 8 and desperately seeking to raise more capital, SVB was “in sound financial condition prior to March 9.” That “finding” probably has some legal significance that will become clear when no one is held accountable for anything.
On March 12, in a joint statement, the Treasury, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced a “systemic risk exception” to remove the $250,000 FDIC limit on insurance of bank deposits. So the depositors who held many millions of dollars, uninsured, in their Silicon Valley Bank checking accounts will get all their money back.
Taxpayers, and bank customers who will see higher fees to pay higher charges from the FDIC, will not be so lucky.
REVEALED: Jimmy Kimmel is close friends with Jeffrey Epstein’s associate, former private chef
Kimmel recently called Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rogers a conspiracy theorist for wanting to know the names on Epstein’s client list
Jimmy Kimmel, who recently called Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rogers a conspiracy theorist for wanting to know the names on infamous financier Jeffrey Epstein’s client list, has been revealed to be friends with former Epstein chef Adam Perry Lang.
The connection between Kimmel, Lang, and Epstein was uncovered by internet sleuths and amplified by The Daily Wire’s Brett Cooper.
Lang is seen in a number of posts on Kimmel’s Instagram, including most recently the pair being seen at the Oscars behind the scenes, as well as another post of the two gathering for Super Bowl Sunday last month.
In a 2019 Eater report, Lang confirmed that he worked for the convicted sex offender in the early 2000s.
“Almost 20 years ago, as a young chef I was hired to work for Jeffrey Epstein,” the chef says in a statement to Eater. “My role was limited to meal preparation. I was unaware of the depraved behavior and have great sympathy and admiration for the brave women who have come forward.”
A representative for the chef told Eater that “no further comment will be issued” about his relationship to Epstein.
Unsealed court documents showed that pilot David Roger claimed that he flew Lang and Epstein aboard his private jet on several occasions in 2000 and 2001. The court documents were in regard to alleged Epstein trafficking victim Virginia Giuffre. Flight logs showed that the chef traveled with Epstein to the Virgin Islands, Santa Fe, and Palm Beach.
According to Eater, the pilot also mentioned that Lang had on occasion stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse on East 71st street, and sometimes rode with the pilot and his crew “to or from the airport.”
Rodgers explicitly stated that Lang traveled on six flights between 2000 and 2001 as an Epstein passenger. One mAy 2001 flight, Rodgers said, saw Lang fly with Epstein, a close associate and convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, and Maxwell assistant Emmy Tayler.
In December 2020, the pilot said Lang flew with Epstein, Giuffre, MIT professor Marvin Minsky, and Maxwell from Teterboro to the Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned the small island of Little Saint James.
In a September 2020 episode of the podcast Broken: Seeking Justice hosted by journalist Tara Palmeri, it was revealed that Giuffre had attempted to reach Lang about what he may have witnessed while working for Epstein, according to Eater.
Lang told the podcast in a statement that he never witnessed any sexual activity or nudity, and was unaware of any underage girls.
According to the podcast, Giuffre said that Lang served naked girls who were on the property iced tea, water, and fruit platters. Several women Palmieri spoke with remembered Lang at Epstein’s properties, calling him “very polite.”
Giuffre reportedly had extended interactions with Lang due to strict diets, saying “I went to the kitchen to go get something and I was starving,” and asked Lang to make her a pizza.
He would have a pizza waiting for me already in the kitchen…we would just have a beer together and eat pizza and just talk. Sometimes I’d help him wash the dishes,” she added. According to Eater, Maxwell reportedly caught wind of the nightly routine, and reprimanded both Lang and Giuffre, making sure they had no more contact.
The podcast episode followed Palmeri and Giuffre as they attempted to deliver to Lang a letter urging him to help those who were abused.
“I’m sure you’ve heard of Epstein’s short incarceration and subsequential death. He’s gone now. He can’t hurt us anymore, but as you know, it wasn’t just Epstein running the most prolific sex trafficking ring of modern times. He had help, lots of help. That alone leaves me and his uncountable victims searching for justice. Justice comes in many forms. In my case, justice is holding the various perpetrators that participated, enabled, or looked the other way, accountable,” an excerpt from the letter read.
“I’m not here to ruin your life. You have so much knowledge of the various people on the planes and his homes and anywhere you would have been with him. You truly can’t say you didn’t know or you can’t remember. You didn’t help when Brad Edwards and I reached out to you in 2014. Jeffrey was alive then and I get it. Maybe you were scared of him. We all were. You have the ability and frankly, the responsibility, to help now.
“By helping us victims and speaking out with us, not only will you redeem yourself, but you will truly elevate yourself to the status of hero, which is exactly what you could be for me. A hero. I have such fond memories of staying up late, we’d talk, we’d laugh. I consider you my friend, and I hope I still can.”
When they tried to deliver the letter, they were informed that Land was not there, and found that he was instead staying at a Hermosa Beach home owned by Kimmel.
This was the same house where in January 2019, Lang was arrested after a 911 call alleged that a man inside the home was making threats with explosives and assaulted a woman with a rifle. Lang was later cleared of the charges.
In a statement, Lang’s attorney said, “We have absolutely always been available to the attorneys for the lawyers representing the victims — indeed, we reached out and spoke to one of them many months ago but although we invited a meeting with Adam in no uncertain terms, those attorneys have literally never gotten back to us (although we did hear from other counsel this week). That said, we are in current contact with the federal prosecutors in the Southern District of NY and are fully cooperating with their investigation and remain more than happy to, in coordination with the prosecutors, cooperate with counsel for the victims as well.”
“We Were Wrong” – Evidence Shows “Puberty Blockers are Neither Safe Nor Reversible” Says Canadian Doctor Who Helped Pioneered Puberty Blocker Drugs
Dr. Susan Bradley, who helped pioneer “gender affirming care” in Canada, has now spoken against the popular model of “gender affirming care” by placing children on puberty blockers, according to an interview with the Daily Caller.
Dr. Bradley founded the Child and Adolescent Gender Identity clinic in Toronto, Canada in 1975 began to issue puberty blockers to children around the early 2000s. Prior to the medication, she used more traditional forms of therapy such as talking with her patients. In her interview with the Daily Caller, Dr. Bradley stated in regards to the puberty blocker medication:
“We were wrong. They’re not as reversible as we always thought, and they have longer term effects on kids’ growth and development, including making them sterile and quite a number of things affecting their bone growth.
We thought that it was relatively safe, and endocrinologists said they’re reversible, and that we didn’t have to worry about it. I had this skepticism in the back of my mind all the time that maybe we were actually colluding and not helping them. And I think that’s proven correct in that, once these kids get started at any age on puberty blockers, nearly all of them continue to want to go to cross sex hormones.”
Despite the recent push to “affirm” children’s gender identity by use of puberty blockers, the safety of such drugs is relatively unknown. According to the Doernbecher Children’s Hospital:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved puberty blockers in 1993. They were originally approved to temporarily stop puberty in children who were going through it too early.
Researchers have not finished studying how safe puberty blockers are in the long term. So, there might be some risks that doctors do not yet know about.
Dr. Bradley participated in the “largest sample to date of boys clinic-referred for gender dysphoria with regard to gender identity and sexual orientation” with the most recent follow-up in March 2021. The study found that 87% of male participants assessed at a mean age of 20.58 years were deemed “desisters.”
A parallel study of girls showed similar results: only 3 out of the 25 participants were judged to have gender-dysphoria at the mean age of 23.24 years.
In the interview, Dr. Bradley conceded:
“These kids are not fairing well with the current affirmative approach. I don’t know that any kids actually could, given the capacity of a 10 or 12, or even 14 or 15 yar old to understand the complexity of the decision that they’re making on their long term sexual and life function. It just doesn’t make sense.”
“Blocking the sexual development of children is a highly authoritarian intervention. Children are asexual, and so they can’t understand the impact of impaired sexual function. We are roughly 10 years into this large-scale experiment and already we have reports on issues with cognitive development, bone mineral density, and fertility. All the up-to-date evidence shows that puberty blockers are neither safe nor reversible.“
Despite Dr. Bradley’s long term study suggesting that children eventually grow out of their gender dysphoria, there is still a widespread push to start children on puberty blockers at a young age. In the case of social media influencer Chloe Cole, 18, she was told that “gender dysphoria would never resolve itself” by doctors. The Gateway Pundit reported on a lawsuit filed by Harmeet Dhillon’s Dhillon Law Group and the Center for American Liberty on Cole’s behalf.