This particular blog has an interesting evolution that suggests to me a spiritual synchronicity because the research it caused me to do is instructive with regards to several cases which I am currently working on.

Let me explain.

In late September, 2016 I was contacted by someone from Facebook about doing an interview on Press TV about the Wells Fargo scandal, which ultimately caused its CEO John Stumpf to resign in October, 2016.

I am sure many of you remember the scandal.

Wells Fargo had instructed many of its employees to fraudulently create new accounts for millions of its customers. Wells Fargo then dinged these customers for fees related to the fraudulent accounts, which came directly out of the money the customers had deposited in their personal accounts with Wells Fargo.

Given that most of us live paycheck to paycheck, think about the number of overdraft fees this fraud generated for Wells Fargo and how much it impacted  customers, Like you and me.

Although the employees crimes were apparent, prosecutors apparently looked the other way because a bank was paying its employees to break the law.

It is pretty obvious by now that this nation’s prosecutors and courts believe banks are above the law.

The person who asked me to appear on the show ECONOMIC DIVIDE indicated that she was a student at Azad University, and was doing an internship with Press TV. After checking out the show, the University, and the network, I decided to do the interview. You can review the same information I did by clicking on the previously highlighted links in this paragraph.

I pondered carefully whether I should do the show.

Some of my friends suggested I should not do it because of Iran’s sponsorship of Press TV.

Ultimately, I decided to be interviewed because my opinions about Wells Fargo and the United States government’s handling of the situation were not going to change regardless of whether I was being interviewed by Al Jazeera, ABC, CBS, CNN, Knesset Channel, NBC, PBS, or Russian TV. (I was pretty sure, however, that no one from America’s compromised mainstream media would ask what I thought about this corruption) See Thanks, but No Thanks, scottstafne.com (June 25, 2016).

My opinion was, and remains, that the United States and each of the States which failed to prosecute those low wage workers who committed crimes simply because they were paid to do so incentivizes such for conduct everyone involved with it.

Both the low level employees who committed the crimes, as well as those supervisors who ordered the frauds be committed against Wells Fargo customers, should have been prosecuted.

The failure to do so makes the government complicit in the crimes against Wells Fargo’s customers and those which the financial industry continues to commit against the American people.

So no, in my judgment, it was not enough John Stumpf had to resign!!!

In some countries, Stumpf would have been jailed or executed. And execution would have been my preference (even though I am generally against the death penalty) because it is high time this nation stopped the criminal enterprise which appears to be running it, or that this government is perpetrating against its own people.

So, anyway, to make a long story short: I did the interview with Press TV.

I saw a video copy of that show, but no longer have the link and therefore cannot make it available here.

Last week I was again approached by Press TV to do an interview about July 4th, better known as America’s Independence Day. The Network sent me a list of the questions they wanted to ask me. I wrote back that rather than answer their questions, I would prefer to respond to questions about why Americans celebrate Independence Day.

I told them I certainly would understand if they did not want to do the interview under these circumstances.

I was not surprised when Press TV allowed me to change the format and sent someone to my office to interview me.

This is a copy of that interview; not verbatim as recorded, but as it was written.

QUESTION: Why do Americans celebrate Independence Day on July 4th, instead of July 2nd?

Americans celebrate Independence Day because  the American colonists believed the King of England was ruling them in a way which interfered with their basic God given natural rights and chose to revolt.

It is important to recognize that our July 4 holiday is about those principles which justified the revolution more than it is about the country which now calls itself the United States of America.

A resolution declaring the colonies which made up the United States independent from the King’s rule was passed on July 2, 1776. John Adams, a member of that Continental Congress (and the future second President of the United States) wrote to his wife on July 3, 1776:

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

So why don’t we celebrate our Independence on July 2nd as Adams thought we would?

The reason is because after voting for to notify the king of England that the colonists declared their freedom, the Continental Congress turned its attention to adopting the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration was written to explain to the world why the Americans  were forced into a revolution. This Declaration was adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776.

It is the completion and adoption of this document demonstrating the people’s reasons for declaring their independence that we the people celebrate July 4 every year on our Independence Day.

QUESTION: So on Independence Day do the people of the United States celebrate the government which rules them today?

It is the principles which the Declaration of Independence embraces which are celebrated. Not the government, because sometimes the government of the United States has not embraced those principles it was founded on.

We know this because the Declaration of Independence was written in July 1776. The government was not founded until August 1776, when the Articles of Confederation were adopted.

These Articles of Confederation were replaced by the United States Constitution which was ratified in 1789 and amended in 1791 to include the Bill of Rights.

So what Americans are actually celebrating on July 4 every year is the principles of independence and self governance the Declaration of Independence articulates.  These principles belong to all people who claim them simply as a result of their being born into this world.

Indeed, under the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence there may come a time when the people of the United States must confront their own government about not respecting the God-given unalienable rights of the American people.

QUESTION: How does the Declaration of Independence Assert the Right of Revolution?

The Declaration asserted that people retain certain natural and legal rights, including the right of revolution.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is among the most poignant ever written. This paragraph states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. —

Among those grievances listed as justifying revolution are conditions which some claim exist in the United States today.

Let’s talk about these.


First among the grievances was the King’s interference with the colonists right to have representative legislatures enact the laws by which they, the people, were governed. Here are some examples of those grievances taken from the text of the Declaration of Independence:

The King has refused to pass laws unless the people of the colonies “ would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.”

The King has “called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”

The King has “dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”

Are these similar to complaints about America’s federal and state legislatures being made today?

It seems so. Many Americans today are complaining their legislators do not represent their interests; their votes are being diluted and/or abridged, voter fraud is rampant; and there is no meaningful representation-ratio in most federal and state legislative bodies.  

Is one legislator per 500,000 people enough to adequately represent a diverse population or just those who are wealthy enough to finance a campaign?


Another set of grievances the Declaration contended merited consideration of revolution included the King’s manipulation of the Courts which judged the American people. Examples of these grievances as stated in the Declaration included:

The King “has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

The King has deprived “us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

Do these same type of complaints against the judiciary reflected by the Declaration also exist in modern day America. It appears they do.

Only a tiny single digit percentage of trials are held before a jury today, notwithstanding this was a right once considered so important as to justify revolution.

We also have a large number of federal judges who have retired from active service claiming they can still exercise judicial power even though they are paid no salary to do so. Is this consistent with the principles that judges of the people should be paid a fair salary while they remain in office to exercise judicial power? 


Another set of grievances the authors found objectionable to the point of being a consideration in declaring independence was the use of the armed mercenaries  to control ordinary people living in their own local communities. In this regard, the Declaration of Independence states:

The King “has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.”

The King “has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

* * *

– For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

– For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

Do we in America have similar problems in our local communities today? Some think we do. I tend to agree.

QUESTION: So did the Declaration of Independence written back in 1776 actually recognize that all people “are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

No. Many of the men who signed the Declaration owned slaves. The Supreme Court used this fact in the Dred Scott case to rule that persons of African descent were property, not people, who could access justice and freedom through American Courts.

The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence also did not believe women, Native Americans, and many others had the same unalienable rights as men did.

But you must keep in mind that the ideas contained in the Declaration that Americans celebrate on July 4th have changed over time to the point where they mean more than just the words written on that original document.

The United States engaged in a great Civil War, a war in which more lives were lost than in any other war the United States has ever engaged in, to make African Americans people “as a matter of US law” citizens of the United States.

Thereafter, the States also ratified Amendments to the United States Constitution giving women and people over 18 the right to vote in the United States and all State elections as United States citizens.

These actions essentially gave new meaning to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration no longer should be read as meaning that only men are created equal. It now means that all people are created equal and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

QUESTION: Do you really believe that the principles of the Declaration of Independence are being applied in the United States today?

I have my doubts. Although the United States talks a good game, I wonder if it practices what it preaches. I wonder if the United States of the 21st Century uses the concept of democracy to avoid having to adhere to the rule of law required by a Republic.

Sometimes it seems to me the government of the United States is less respectful of the will of its people, than the 1% which appear to have established control over most, if not all, the governmental institutions in the United States.

We, the people, do not appear to me to be the sovereign, which the government seeks to represent and protect on this Independence Day in 2017.

But this should not dampen our celebration of the principles the Declaration of Independence has come to stand for around the world and in the United States.

The hope is that the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, those principles that we are celebrating again on July 4, 2017, can someday be achieved somewhere in the world, even if it is not in America.


Total Views: 4488 ,

About Scott . Stafne

Mr. Stafne is very experienced in property rights, including banking wrongs and foreclosure prevention; Constitutional Law (under the United States and Washington State Constitution); Appellate law; land use law; personal injury law. Scott has recently become a media focal point as his win record of foreclosure defense cases against the largest financial institutions, servicers, trustees as well as MERS have blazed the trail toward ending the foreclosure crisis and representing the rights of the homeowner above the profits and secret dealings of corporations.   Scott sees law as a foundation for establishing a system of twenty first century liberties for the people; and for removing that corruption of power within our government which makes the achievement of real purpose beholden to only money.   Scott Stafne has been an attorney since graduating from the University of Iowa in 1974. He worked for a large law firm in Indianapolis (Baker & Daniels) for two years. Thereafter, he moved to Seattle Washington in order to obtain a Masters of Law degree from the University of Washington, which he obtained in 1977. Scott practiced law while going to graduate school and has practiced ever since.   This is a personal blog, and does not constitute legal advice in any form, and is not necessarily reflective of the policies or opinions of Stafne Law Firm. Visit the Law Firm: https://stafnelaw.com Visit the Google+ Page: https://plus.google.com/+ScottStafne Visit the Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/scott.stafne.75   *Web Developer: David J. Posel
Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed