Friday, May 3, 2019

From Brexit to Crazy Democratic Socialists, the Nut Jobs A5re Coming Out of the Woodwork

               As a result of the misjudgment by the former Prime Minister of England, the crazy idea of separating from the European Union sprung forth. The irony is that the outcome will financially doom England to a second class country. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have vowed to secede from Great Britain if Brexit is finalized at any time in the future. At the present, a fight for the citizens of England to vote on Brexit needs to be addressed by the country's leaders, else they face a full blown revolt by their citizens. The London Stock Exchange will more likely then not be forgotten and passed over for other exchanges if Brexit proceeds and is finalized.
               In the United States, the Socialist Democrats hid their true purpose from a former barmaid named Ocasio-Cortez, who has already broken her number one campaign pledge- that being that she would not accept corporate campaign donations.
               Obviously, the campaign show posted on Netflix would be classified as the Socialist Democrats fundraising blanket for her re-election, or to pay off her campaign's debts. Among her crazy ideas id Medicare for all- a financial bust for every socialist country in the European Union that has socialized medicine, including Canada.
               The nut job Ocasio-Cortez, or Crazy Lady as I prefer to call her,  often speak without thinking. She has no clue about how markets work, how economies work, how political operations work hand in hand with corporations to shape the world. Ocasio-Cortez and her band of gays, lesbians, and other fringe elements of society have caused unrest among those in power of the Democratic Party of late in the United States.
                She speaks when she should be listening, and shouts when she should shut up and go away. Crazy begets crazy, and Ocasio-Cortez is certifiably crazy. As a Financial, Environmental, Legislative, and Human Rights consultant, I can honestly state that none of the legislation that Ocasio-Cortez supports is people or nation friendly to the citizens of these United States. He demands for solving Climate Change, which used to be the radical "Global Warming" would bring our financial markets to a slow crawl. Getting rid of all the cattle because their cow farts cause greenhouse gases. Whew! Ocasio-Cortez, your plan stinks!
                 No guns? You live in New York City where crime is the national past time. Ask any Democratic politician. Along with the other nut jobs in the 2019 US Congress, Ocasio-Cortez is truly the most laughable of them all, as she fails to realize that she is just being used by the Democratic Socialists due to her naivete. What's next Democratic Party, electing a transgender, bisexual (gay), with purple hair, tattoos, and a pink Cadillac?  Well, at least their worst choice (Obama) didn't have purple hair, but he is a homosexual married to a transgender male.
                 Imagine how much fun the night time talk show hosts will have!

Friday, April 19, 2019

United Nations Human Trafficking Resolution 2019

This document was originally titled United Nations Human Rights Resolution 2014 A, but has been amended due to inactivity by the United Nations on the victim's behalf, as UN Troops are some of the main purveyors of Human Trafficking worldwide. The failure of the United Nations to enact this resolution is unforgivable.

United Nations Human
 Rights Resolution 2019
Whereas, we, the citizens and governments of this planet recognize that every person has the natural rights of: life, liberty, equal treatment under the law, the right to be treated as having an equal economic value as any other person, an education from the age of six years old through the age of eighteen years old, the right to be free from human bondage, indentured servitude, sexual slavery, and other forms of enslavement,the right to heath care and health education, the right to emergency medical treatment regardless of religion or nationality, the right to not be physically, mentally, or psychologically abused by any person, military, or foreign government, the right to be free from circumcision or genital mutilation of any kind, the right to choose their own occupation, the right to choose to be married or not to be married to another, the right to be free from forced marriage contracts made by their parent or other relatives,the right to free and democratic elections of their leaders and government officials, the right to live in sanitary conditions, the right to free speech, the right to practice their choice of religion without persecution or fear of bodily harm or death, the right to have wrongs against their persons, their property, or their rights prosecuted by the courts on both the criminal and civil level in every country, the right to self-determination, and the right to seek redress for violations of any of these rights against their government without fear of harm or persecution.
We, the representatives of the member nations of the United
Nations, do hereby adopt and declare that each citizen born into this world must be afforded these rights and provided with the means necessary to implement these rights by their respective governments.
We, the representatives of the member nations of the United
Nations, recognize that only by providing these rights to our citizens, will they be equipped for the future, and that by providing these rights and the means for our citizens to implement and access these rights, we will provide the means to create economic stability in our respective nations and throughout the world.
Furthermore, it shall be an international, and national high or federal crime, for any person or government to interfere with or to deny any person any of these natural rights.
Furthermore, any person, employee, contractor of the United
Nations, or United Nations peacekeeper shall not be immune from
criminal or civil prosecution for violating any of these rights. Any
persons whose rights are violated by any member of any military, or military contractor (including those under contract by the United
Nations) shall be afforded the right of the criminal prosecution and
the right to civil damages from said violator of their rights and also
from their respective employer. Any violator of the natural rights of
any person shall not be immune from criminal prosecution and
punishment or civil liability and prosecution of a civil lawsuit
against them and their respective employer in any land, whether said prosecution is conducted in the country where the violation occurred or in the country where the violator is either apprehended or resides.
Therefore, no nation, province, or sub-government institution of any kind shall provide immunity for any natural or legal person
(including a business entity) from the enforcement of this resolution.
Any government which provides any form of immunity from this
resolution to any person or legal entity shall be subject to economic
Whereas, we, the representatives of the member nations of the
United Nations have recognized the fact that a world without
enforced natural rights for every citizen living thereon, cannot be an economically stable world, we hereby adopt and ratify this
resolution and enact it into law thusly:
This resolution shall go into effect and shall be in force upon
receiving a majority vote of the representatives of the member nations to the United Nations present at a quorum of members, and shall go into effect one year from the date of its adoption.
Date of Adoption of the resolution
Effective Date of the Enacted Resolution
check back regularly for updates. 

Please email comments and suggestions to
Subject line: UN Human Rights Resolution 2019
Amended to United Nations Human Trafficking Resolution 2019 on April 19, 2019

Mark Winkle, Founder
Winkle Institute for Worldwide Economic Stability
Posted by Mark R. Winkle
Labels: circumcision, economic stability, equality, genital mutilation,
human rights, human trafficking, natural rights, United Nations
(c) 2011-2019 The Winkle Institute for Worldwide Economic Stability

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

The Illegal Acts of Citron Research a Pump and Dumper Short Seller of Quality Stocks- SEC INVESTIGATION REQUESTED PLEASE

               I invest in quality companies. I always have. I conduct my due diligence on the background of the company's books, their SEC reports, their competitors, insiders, their board members, and many other minor details too numerous to mention.
               I am also a CANCER survivor- non- Hodgkins Lymphoma for three years. Seventy-three doctors to date. Most did not have a clue as to what was wrong with me. I wish I had CBDs a year or two ago to ease my pain, suffering, and misery. It is something I have wished on ALL of my enemies, and now that list includes Andrew Left of Citron Research.
                Citron Research is a no count short seller "analysis" company that illegally trash talks a company like Village Farms International and tries to ruin its reputation while short selling the stock.
Under Securities and Exchange Commission laws, that behavior is not only vile, but criminal.
                 Citron Research is a small no count operation run by Andrew Left, a gay man, who has no friends, and no life. The research his company conducts is entirely one-sided, slanted with the intent to obscure the truth, damage the character of the company, and to make the victim company the target of further short selling.
                  These actions have always been construed as STOCK MANIPULATION, and are criminal acts.  For each criminal act under SEC regulations the penalties include seizure of assets, criminal proceedings, and prison time.
                   “The fair and efficient functioning of the markets requires that prices of securities reflect genuine supply and demand,” said Sanjay Wadhwa, senior associate director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “Traders who pervert these natural forces by engaging in layering or some other form of manipulative trading invite close scrutiny from the SEC.”
                     Recently, the criminal enterprise allegedly operated by Andrew Left has targeted Shopify and Village Farms International. Very few of the allegations made by Left and company hold water. Having thoroughly investigated Village Farms International before buying sock in both Emeral Health Therapeutics and Village Farms International, I feel that my international reputation as a research consultant far outweighs the scant feeble research conducted by Citron Research in its attempt to "manipulate the stock price of Village Farms International, to commit stock fraud, money laundering,  and a host of other potential crimes.
                      While The Motley Fool is also under SEC investigation for stock manipulation, as is a staff writer Sean Williams for constantly disparaging Village Farms International (the fools own Hexo Inc. stock, a competitor), while actively allegedly short selling Village Farms stock, thereby manipulating the stock price for profit, a criminal act, the Fool recently stated in an article concerning the manipulation of Shopify's stock by Citron Research,"Citron preys on investors fears. It targets Shopify every time it starts to have a good run. Short-sellers like Citron Research make a living off fear and rely on the shaky hands of retail investors. Don’t let flashy headlines impact your investment company.
                     Shopify’s recent run has increased company valuations in a big way. On that basis alone, the company may see short-term weakness. However, over the long-term, Shopify is still one of the best growth stocks on the TSX."
                      In my opinion, Citron Research and Andrew Left deserve to be disassembled. Mr. Left deserves a long prison sentence for manipulating the stocks of many company's while illegally profiting from the lies and distortions it publishes in its "alleged investigative research."

                      In the mean time, every investor that has been damaged by Citron Research's publishing lies and innuendos should sue Citron Research and Andrew Left in the United States District Court and should thereby end Mr. Left's career as an adviser and stock analyst.

Disclaimer:  I own shares of Village Farms International. I do not own any shares of Shopify, and I would advise you to never buy shares of Citron Research.  

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Free Julian Assange A HERO of the World's Free Press


              The only thing Julian Assange is guilty of is exposing a corrupt United States government that created a false flag exercise on September 11, 2001 by attacking its own citizens using Osama Bin Laden and other CIA operatives to carry out the deed, and exposing the outright MURDER of civilians by the United State military in Iraq.
              I find it interesting that the United States Navy Seals only murdered Osama Bin Laden after he threatened to expose the US military's role in the 9/11 attacks. On September 11, 2001 George Bush Jr. new that the World Trade Center had been attacked before the cameras focused on him at the elementary school. That photo opportunity had been staged to make it seem like the poor naive president had no idea what the murderous CIA was up to.
              It has been rumored that WTC Building 8 contained documents covering all of the illegal acts and covert murders that the CIA had committed over the years including its illegal heroin and cocaine trafficking.  That is why it was imploded. I have seen more than 168 videos of the false flag exercise known as 9/11. I have looked at them with an inquiring mind, and found that the "official version"  of the 9/11 Commission just doesn't wash.
              After 9/11, there was a sudden rush to revoke the constitutional rights of United States citizens through ironically, a bill called, "The Patriot Act." Which essentially denied constitutional protections to every American citizen who challenged the authority of our corrupt government.
              Less than two weeks after 9/11, the Office of Homeland Security was opened and a director was appointed. Obviously, this had been planned for some time. Then, an illegal war was started in Iraq, at the order of War Criminal George Bush Jr. in retaliation for Saddam Hussein (currently living in Russia by the way), invading Kuwait. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children were carpet bombed by the United States Air Force and Navy as they attempted to flee Bagdad.
               In total, the Bush regime was responsible for the murder of more than 1 million people from October 2001 through 2007. The ineffective policies of the corrupt White House and the mishandling of a civil war in Iraq all but guaranteed that inside sources- human rights heroes- would come forward and expose the criminal Bush political and military machine. The 9/11 cover up of blaming CIA operatives Osama Bin Laden and his "al queda" friends- (Al Queda never existed before 9/11), demanded to be exposed as well as the daily unconscionable murders of civilians by a testosterone filled military that fed on the ideal that every Iraqi is a potential threat- and by the way, we can get away with murdering them in cold blood because we are more powerful than they are.
                  Combined with the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation, the MURDER of innocent civilians, the repression of the PRESS, and lying to the American people for the past 18 years about 9/11 and you have the greatest violation of human rights since World War II.

                   Pvt. Bradley Manning exposed the United States Army as the War Criminals that they are. Julian Assange then posted the United States militay's war crimes on
                   That is the main reason why Julian Assange was arrested today in London, England.
The War Crimes of George Bush Jr. and his murdering military machine have already been exposed.
Now, the US Dept. of Justice wants to crucify the messenger instead of the War Criminals.

U.S. Supreme Court

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

New York Times Co. v. United States
No. 1873
Argued June 26, 1971
Decided June 30, 1971*
403 U.S. 713
The United States, which brought these actions to enjoin publication in the New York Times and in the Washington Post of certain classified material, has not met the "heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a [prior] restraint."
No. 1873, 44 F.2d 544, reversed and remanded; No. 1885, ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 446 F.2d 1327, affirmed.

Watch the video if you can, and see just how inhumane our military has become and why Julian Assange is a hero.

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Why BREXIT is a Terrible Idea That Must Not Be Allowed to Happen

First and foremost, former Prime Minister David Cameron acknowledged that Brexit was a bad idea and a huge mistake. Unfortunately, he did nothing to stop the election, after the Brexit debacle began. I am calling Brexit- Cameron's Folly, and it will become the economic and political downfall of Great Britain. Mark my words.

If the European Union allows Great Britain to exit the European Union, why have a union at all?
If a country can jump in and out anytime it doesn't agree with the majority of the other European Union countries, why stay joined as an economic or political body at all. Any small tif or spat that a country has with the majority could cost the European Union to split further.

For safety and economic security, the European Union was created under the Maastritch Treaty and further through the Treaty of Lisbon. Your organization has only become stronger by adding new members and struggling through the recent economic depression together. I apluad your cooperation and urge your continued efforts to resolve your differences. Only through mutual assistance can barriers that separate your countries be removed.

BREXIT is a joke that will cause irreparable harm to millions of citizens of both Great Britain and the member states of the European Union that remain true to the original founding beliefs that forged the European Union.

It is time to STOP BREXIT once and for all. It benefits NO ONE. It was a bad idea from the beginning, and it remains a bad idea.

If BREXIT is allowed to continue, without a referendum being allowed, I can guarantee that Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales will declare their independence from Great Britain in the next five years tearing that country apart. The separating countries will seek individual admission into the European Union. Heed my words. I have not been wrong yet.

Here is the Economic Forecast from my friends for the European Union for next year. I do not think they took into consideration the political debacle that I believe will begin to unravel Great Britain if BREXIT is allowed to continue. 

The pictures don't show the impact to the society or the loss of jobs to those who work and live in Great Britain.  So, European Union, you have heeded my warnings and heeded my counsel in the past.

I am asking you to step back and then walk away from BREXIT altogether. Mark Winkle Int'l. Consultant Financial, Environmental, Legislative, and Human Rights- Founder of The Winkle Institue for Worldwide Economic Stabilityeuro_area_forecasts_2019_focuseconomics

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Disaster Relief- What's a Victim of Nature or a Man Made Disaster To Do?

               With one natural or man made disaster around every corner on any given month, you might be thinking, "Who Can I reach out to for hep if I'm ever a victim of a disaster?"
               Well, unfortunately, these three organizations are mainly concerned with helping themselves and their top employees. The worst organization that openly admit waste are the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Red Cross, and the United Way. 
                Where do these multi-billion dollar organizations get their money? How is it spent? Who benefits the most?  Who makes the decisions on how the money is spent? Who makes the decisions on executive compensation and benefits?
                 In the case of each of these three organizations, you, the victim, and also possibly a donor, have no say, no input, into how your money is spent the the executives that wealthy corporations have put in charge of these disaster relief organizations. 

More detail to follow...

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Honorable Judge Brett Kavanaugh Confirmed to US Supreme Court- VINDICATION!!

                      Judge Kavanaugh would be wise to travel to his nearest local bookstore and buy a copy of the classic Kafka. His travails through the past three months are minor in comparison to what most people accused of crimes and misdemeanors go through.
                  I, myself have been the target of false accusations from 2001 that interfered in my ability to gain employment hundreds of times, as a result of a lie told by my ex-wife. A result of poor judgment on my part marrying her out of pity. 
                  I was not born into a wealthy family. I have fought tooth and nail for everything I have garnered out of life. I have been discriminated against because I was a white male. I have earned my place in history. But, history won't remember me, or you either for that matter. 
                 Judge Kavanaugh has been vindicated because he is an honest and honorable man. If he were here, I would congratulate him roundly and shake his hand vigorously. But, alas, he is not, for I am not that important of a person that God would stand me next to such a humble servant as Brett Kavanaugh. 
                  No corroborating witnesses, no evidence, no recollection of a time, date, or location of the alleged crime; but yet, the senators of the once proud Democratic Party of the United States, wanted to condemn this good man because God Almighty sent him to stand up for the innocent children being murdered every hour around the world. As well as the humble, the meek, the poor, those who cannot afford justice on their own, and those who need God's grace and a kind word every now and then. Such a man is Judge Kavanaugh. 

                  Horrific lies were told about this good man, and he bore it well. He stood up and denied the allegations head on. Some say his temper got the best of him, but they were on the opposite side of God's will. 
                   The unjust and unsubstantiated charges fell flat on their faces in the United States Senate this afternoon as the senate voted 50-48 to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean much unless you have walked a mile in the shoes of the accused. In a war of good and evil, none come out unscathed or unbruised. 
                   The Rule of Law will always win against mob rule. "Justice is mine!," sayeth the Lord. 
We would do well to remember that. 

                As Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh issues his judgments in the future, he would do well to remember these words. They will serve him well. 

Mark Winkle
Int'l. Consultant, Teacher, and Author

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Twenty Things the United States Government Won't Tell You the Truth About

Twenty Things the United States Government Won't Tell You the Truth About

1.  9/11 was a False Flag exercise conducted as a joint agency operation.
2. The Pentagon was hit by a missile fired by a Navy fighter.
3. No plane ever crashed in Pennsylvania, as the passengers were taken to Cleveland, Ohio and sworn to secrecy.
4. No occupied aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center.
5. The World Trade Center buildings were also hit by Naval aircraft missiles and a drone with a distended fuel tank.
6. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq on the day that the United States attacked. They had been moved to Russia three weeks before.
7. The US Federal Reserve is financially bankrupt as I write this, however, their cooked books do not show the Toxic Mortgage Debt that the Fed bought from Wall Street and the banks from 2007-2017. 8. The world's climate has continuously been changing since its formation.
9. The number one cause- cow farts- seriously- methane gas.
10.  Stock prices have been artificially inflated by Federal Reserve pump and dump purchase intended to help pay down the toxic mortgage debts that caused the depression of 2007.
11. Barack Obama is not a United States citizen. He was born in Kenya. The birth certificate is a fake (they were not issued in Hawaii back then). Barack Obama's mother even sat for an interview at her home in Kenya (she's black).
12. The CIA is the largest illegal drug, gun trafficking, and human trafficking organization in the world.
13. The Council on Foreign Affairs decides who our president will be, not the American people.
14. The spread of Aids throughout Africa began with an Oral Polio Vaccine known as CHAT becoming contaminated with SIV (chimpanzee HIV) at Stanlyville, Congo in the 1950s.
15.  The United States currency is "technically worthless." A currency is only worth the level of faith that citizens put in their government.
16. It doesn't matter whether men or women teach your child, it does matter what YOU teach your child.
17. The United States has a military presence in 124 countries.
18. The United States government agencies read my blog more than any other group of people do.
19. Google was and is  funded by the CIA.
20. Facebook was authorized funding through the CIA by the US  Congress in 2004.

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Warren Buffett- Taking Advantage of the Poor to Feed His Inflated Ego- Truly NOT a Man of the People

 A personal note as to why this is important to me...
 Several years ago I was planning on moving to the area around Knoxville, Tennessee. I looked at many homes to see what the real estate market was. Most of the homes were overpriced. I kept noticing these Clayton Homes signs up and down the interstate, so I called their headquarters and explained my situation. I was quickly transferred to a salesperson who stated that they had thousands of homes for sale including repossessed homes with land, and homes without land. 

I had never heard of buying a home "without land" so I attempted to contact Kevin Clayton, the CEO of Clayton Homes to find out exactly how this worked. In true scammer form, I was redirected to a sales supervisor, at "Mr. Clayton's insistence. 

You see, you may be a sucker, or you may be a fool, or you may be a down right idiot if you buy a home from Clayton Homes, finance it with a Clayton Homes Finance company, and insure it with a Clayton Home Insurance policy. 

Thousands of "mobile homes" and I use that term very loosely, as a mobile home to Clayton Homes is any home that they can drive a truck under,  lift by crane onto a flatbed, or cut into pieces to do either of the previous two choices, were available to choose from.

If you do not have a CASH DOWN payment- they will take your jewelry, your gold teeth, your pacemaker, your land, your present house, your wife and children, and your financial future as a down payment. 

They do not offer "mortgages" in the traditional sense for most transactions. Instead, they offer 
Consumer Signature Loans" guaranteed by your word and any or all of the above. 

Every Clayton Homes Loan has multiple fees, several are hidden fees, such as home delivery and home set up to name two. Imagine that you just bought a home and arrive at your home site the day that it is scheduled to arrive. The driver- an employee of a  Berkshire Hathaway owned subsidiary will not deliver your home without an additional fee, anywhere but on the side of the road. Payment is demanded immediately and is usually in the thousands of dollars - requiring you to take out a Payday loan at 350% interest annually or another exorbitant interest rate just as bad. 

Then there is the "home set up fee" to have your home placed correctly on the foundation, to have the plumbing and electric hooked up and to purchase any last minute permits that this process would demand that you grease the palms of the local building and zoning inspectors.

 Here's a better look into the "Real Warren Buffett:"

Truly NOT a Man of the People

Warren Buffett's Mobile Home Empire Preys on the Poor-

Billionaire profits at every step, from building to selling to high cost lending



Denise Pitts walked into the pawn shop not far from where she bought her mobile home in Knoxville, Tennessee, and offered up her wedding rings for $100. Her marriage wasn’t over, but her husband was battling cancer and, Pitts said, her mortgage company told her the only way to keep a roof over his head would be to sell everything else.
Across the country in Ephrata, Washington, Kirk and Patricia Ackley sat down to close on a new mobile home, only to learn that the annual interest on their loan would be 12.5 percent rather than the 7 percent they said they had been promised. They went ahead because they had spent $11,000, most of their savings, to dig a foundation.
And near Bug Tussle, Alabama, Carol Carroll has been paying down her home for more than a decade but still owes nearly 90 percent of the sale price — and more than twice what the home is worth.
The families’ dealers and lenders went by different names — Luv Homes, Clayton Homes, Vanderbilt, 21st Mortgage. Yet the disastrous loans that threaten them with homelessness or the loss of family land stem from a single company: Clayton Homes, the nation’s biggest home builder, which is controlled by its second-richest man — Warren Buffet.
Buffett’s mobile home empire promises low-income Americans the dream of home ownership. But Clayton relies on predatory sales practices, exorbitant fees, and interest rates that can exceed 15 percent, trapping many buyers in loans they can’t afford and in homes that are almost impossible to sell or refinance, an investigation by The Center for Public Integrity and The Seattle Times has found.

Berkshire Hathaway, the investment conglomerate Buffett leads, bought Clayton in 2003 and spent billions building it into the mobile home industry’s biggest manufacturer and lender. Today, Clayton is a many-headed hydra with companies operating under at least 18 names, constructing nearly half of the industry’s new homes and selling them through its own retailers. It finances more mobile home purchases than any other lender by a factor of six. It also sells property insurance on them and repossesses them when borrowers fail to pay.
Berkshire extracts value at every stage of the process. Clayton even builds the homes with materials — such as paint and carpeting — supplied by other Berkshire subsidiaries. And Clayton borrows from Berkshire to make mobile home loans, paying up to an extra percentage point on top of Berkshire’s borrowing costs, money that flows directly from borrowers’ pockets.
More than a dozen Clayton customers described a consistent array of deceptive practices that locked them into ruinous deals: loan terms that changed abruptly after they paid deposits or prepared land for their new homes; surprise fees tacked on to loans; and pressure to take on excessive payments based on false promises that they could later refinance.
Former dealers said the company encouraged them to steer buyers to finance with Clayton’s own high-interest lenders.
Under federal guidelines, most Clayton loans are considered “higher-priced.” Those loans averaged 7 percentage points higher than the typical home loan in 2013, according to a Center for Public Integrity/Times analysis of federal data, compared with just 3.8 percentage points above for other lenders.
Buyers told of Clayton collection agents urging them to cut back on food and medical care or seek handouts in order to make house payments. And when homes got hauled off to be resold, some consumers already had paid so much in fees and interest that the company still came out ahead. Even through the Great Recession and housing crisis, Clayton was profitable every year, generating $558 million in pre-tax earnings last year.
Clayton's tactics contrast with Buffett’s public profile as a financial sage who values responsible lending and helping poor Americans keep their homes.
Berkshire Hathaway spokeswoman Carrie Sova and Clayton spokeswoman Audrey Saunders ignored more than a dozen requests by phone, email and in person to discuss Clayton’s policies and treatment of consumers. In an emailed statement, Saunders said Clayton helps customers find homes within their budgets and has a “purpose of opening doors to a better life, one home at a time.”
(Update: After publication, Berkshire Hathaway’s Omaha headquarters sent a statement on behalf of Clayton Homes to the Omaha World-Herald, which is also owned by Berkshire.

First, a dream
As Buffett tells it, his purchase of Clayton Homes came from an “unlikely source:” Visiting students from the University of Tennessee gave him a copy of founder Jim Clayton’s self-published memoir, First a Dream, in early 2003. Buffett enjoyed reading the book and admired Jim Clayton’s record, he has said, and soon called CEO Kevin Clayton, offering to buy the company.
“A few phone calls later, we had a deal,” Buffett said at his 2003 shareholders meeting, according to notes taken at the meeting by hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson.
The tale of serendipitous deal-making paints Buffett and the Claytons as sharing down-to-earth values, antipathy for Wall Street and an old-fashioned belief in treating people fairly. But, in fact, the man who brought the students to Omaha said Clayton’s book wasn’t the genesis of the deal.
“The Claytons really initiated this contact,” said Al Auxier, the UT professor, since retired, who chaperoned the student trip after fostering a relationship with the billionaire.
CEO Kevin Clayton, the founder’s son, reached out to Buffett through Auxier, the professor said in a recent interview this winter, and asked whether Buffett might explore “a business relationship” with Clayton Homes.
At the time, mobile home loans had been defaulting at alarming rates, and investors had grown wary of them. Clayton’s profits depended on its ability to bundle loans and resell them to investors.
That’s why Kevin Clayton was seeking a new source of cash to lend to home buyers. He knew that Berkshire Hathaway, with its perfect bond rating, could provide it as cheaply as anyone. Later that year, Berkshire Hathaway paid $1.7 billion in cash to buy Clayton Homes.

Berkshire Hathaway quickly bought up failed competitors’ stores, factories and billions in troubled loans, building Clayton Homes into the industry’s dominant force. In 2013, Clayton provided 39 percent of new mobile-home loans, according to a Center for Public Integrity/Times analysis of federal data that 7,000 home lenders are required to submit. The next biggest lender was Wells Fargo, with just 6 percent of the loans.
Clayton provided more than half of new mobile-home loans in eight states. In Texas, the number exceeds 70 percent. Clayton has more than 90 percent of the market in Odessa, one of the most expensive places in the country to finance a mobile home.
To maintain its down-to-earth image, Clayton has hired the stars of the reality TV show Duck Dynasty to appear in ads. Buffett, meanwhile, has become known as a Billionaire of the People, grousing publicly that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does and delivering public pronouncements riddled with folksy aphorisms and quotes from Mark Twain.
At next month’s shareholders meeting in Omaha, Buffett will participate in his fourth annual newspaper tossing challenge — a lighthearted contest with his investors to see who can land a copy of the Omaha World-Herald, which Buffett also owns, closest to the door of a Clayton model home.
Clayton's headquarters is a hulking structure of metal sheeting surrounded by acres of parking lots and a beach volleyball court for employees, located a few miles south of Knoxville. Next to the front door, there is a slot for borrowers to deposit payments.
Near the headquarters, two Clayton sales lots sit three miles from each other. Clayton Homes’ banners promise “$0 CASH DOWN.” TruValue Homes, also owned by Clayton, advertises “REPOS FOR SALE.” Other nearby Clayton lots operate as Luv Homes and Oakwood Homes. With all the different names, many customers said they believed they were shopping around.

House-sized banners at dealerships reinforce that impression, proclaiming they will “BEAT ANY DEAL.” In some parts of the country, buyers would have to drive many miles past several Clayton-owned lots, to reach a true competitor.
A few miles north, beyond Kevin Clayton’s new $1.6 million, waterfront home, is a strip of highway packed with pawn shops, auto title lenders, payday lenders and car dealerships. The highway is home to two Clayton-owned dealerships and one that is independently owned but advertises Clayton mortgages.

Clayton Homes Crooked and Dishonest Beginnings Sprang From Their Father Who Also Took Advantage of the Poor

Jim Clayton, who founded Clayton Homes in 1966, ascended from his roots as a sharecropper’s son to the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans in part by lending at high rates to people with few options. The original Clayton Homes dealership sits adjacent to a Clayton family-owned “Buy Here Pay Here” used car lot, catering to low-income buyers. Across the street is another auto dealership owned by the Clayton family. Down the street is a branch of Jim Clayton’s bank, housed in a Clayton-built manufactured home.
Guided into costly loans
Soon after Buffett bought Clayton Homes, he declared a new dawn for the moribund mobile-home industry, which provides housing for some 20 million Americans. Lenders should require “significant down payments and shorter-term loans,” Buffett wrote.
He called 30-year loans on mobile homes “a mistake,” according to notes taken by Tilson during Berkshire Hathaway’s 2003 shareholders meeting.
“Home purchases should involve an honest-to-God down payment of at least 10% and monthly payments that can be comfortably handled by the borrower’s income,” Buffett later wrote. “That income should be carefully verified.”
But in examining more than 100 Clayton home sales through interviews and reviews of loan documents from 41 states, reporters found that the company’s loans routinely violated the lending standards laid out by Buffett.

Clayton dealers often sell homes with no cash down payment. Numerous borrowers said they were persuaded to take on out sized payments by dealers promising that they could later refinance. And the average loan term actually increased from 21 years in 2007 to more than 23 years in 2009, the last time Berkshire disclosed that detail. Vanderbilt advertised 30-year loans in printed literature available at Clayton Homes sales lots this winter.
Clayton’s loan to Dorothy Mansfield, a disabled Army veteran in North Carolina who lost her previous home to a tornado in 2011, includes key features that Buffett condemned.
Mansfield had a lousy credit score of 474, court records show. Although she had seasonal and part-time jobs, her monthly income often consisted of less than $700 in disability benefits. She had no money for a down payment when she visited Clayton Homes in Fayetteville, N.C.
Vanderbilt, one of Clayton’s lenders, approved her for a $60,000, 20-year loan to buy a Clayton home at 10.13 percent annual interest. She secured the loan with two parcels of land that her family already owned free and clear.
The dealer didn’t request any documents to verify Mansfield’s income or employment, records show.
Mansfield’s monthly payment of $673 consumed almost all of her guaranteed income. Within 18 months, she was behind on payments and Clayton was trying to foreclose on the home and land.
Many borrowers interviewed for this investigation described being steered by Clayton dealers into Clayton financing without realizing the companies were one and the same. Sometimes, buyers said, the dealer described the financing as the best deal available. Other times, the Clayton dealer said it was the only financing option.

Clayton’s Oakwood Homes dealer in Knoxville told Tim Smith that Vanderbilt was “the only one who would be able to do the deal,” Smith said. His used home arrived a month later, long after Smith had traded in his previous home as a down payment, he said. The Clayton contractor who delivered the house refused to haul it up the hill, Smith said, unless Smith took out a short-term, high-interest payday loan to cover an unexpected fee.
Kevin Carroll, former owner of a Clayton-affiliated dealership in Indiana, said in an interview that he used business loans from a Clayton lender to finance inventory for his lot. If he also guided home buyers to work with the same lender, 21st Mortgage, the company would give him a discount on his business loans — a “kickback,” in his words.
Doug Farley, who was a general manager at several Clayton-owned dealerships, also used the term “kickback” to describe the profit-share he received on Clayton loans until around 2008. After that, the company changed its incentives to instead provide “kickbacks” on sales of Clayton’s insurance to borrowers, he said.
Ed Atherton, a former lot manager in Arkansas, said his regional supervisor was pressuring lot managers to put at least 80 percent of buyers into Clayton financing. Atherton left the company in 2013.
During the most recent four-year period, 93 percent of Clayton’s mobile home loans had such costly terms that they required extra disclosure under federal rules. For all other mobile-home lenders, less than half of their loans met that threshold.
Customers said in interviews that dealers misled them to take on unaffordable loans, with tactics including broken promises, last-minute changes to loan terms and unexplained fees that inflate loan balances. Such loans are, by definition, predatory.
“They’re going to assume the client is unsophisticated, and they’re right,” said Felix Harris, a housing counselor with the non-profit Knoxville Area Urban League.
Some borrowers said they felt trapped because they put up a deposit before the dealer explained the loan terms or, like the Ackleys, felt compelled to swallow bait-and-switch deals because they had spent thousands to prepare their land.

Promise denied
A couple years after moving into their new mobile home in Ephrata, Washington, Kirk Ackley was injured in a backhoe rollover. Unable to work, he and his wife urgently needed to refinance the costly 21st Mortgage loan they regretted signing.
They pleaded with their lenders several times for the better terms that they originally were promised, but were denied, they said. The Ackleys tried to explain the options in a call with a 21st supervisor: If they refinanced to lower payments, they could stay in the home and 21st would get years of steady returns. Otherwise, the company would have come out to their rural property, pull the house from its foundation and haul it away, possibly damaging it during the repossession.
They said they were baffled by the reply: “We don’t care. We’ll come take a chainsaw to it — cut it up and haul it out in boxes.”
Nine Clayton consumers interviewed for this story said they were promised a chance to refinance. In reality, Clayton almost never refinances loans and accounts for less than 1 percent of mobile-home that were refinanced according to  government data from 2010 to 2013. It made more than one-third of the purchase loans during that period.
“If you have a decrease in income and can’t afford the mortgage, at least a lot of the big companies will do modifications,” said Harris, the Knoxville housing counselor. “Vanderbilt won’t even entertain that.”
In general, owners have difficulty refinancing or selling their mobile homes because few lenders offer such loans. One big reason: Homes are overpriced or depreciate so quickly that they generally are worth less than what the borrower owes, even after years of monthly payments.
Ellie Carosa, of Napavine, Wash., found this out the hard way in 2010 after she put down about $40,000 from an inheritance to buy a used home from Clayton priced at about $65,000.
Clayton sales reps steered Carosa, who is 67 years old and disabled, to finance the unpaid amount through Vanderbilt at 9 percent interest over 20 years.
One year later, Carosa was already having problems — peeling paint and failing carpets — that she decided to have a market expert assess the value of her home. She hoped to eventually sell the house so the money could help her biological granddaughter, whom she adopted as her daughter at age 8, attend a local college to study music.
Carosa was stunned to learn that the home was worth only $35,000, far less than her original down payment.

“I’ve lost everything,” Carosa said.
Clayton’s own data suggest that its mobile homes may be overpriced from the start, according to court documents and comments filed with federal regulators by its general counsel. When Vanderbilt was required to obtain appraisals before finalizing a loan, he wrote, the home was determined to be worth less than the sales price about 30 percent of the time. Another Clayton executive said in a 2012 affidavit that the average profit margin on Clayton homes sold in Arkansas between 2006 and 2009 was $11,170 — roughly one-fifth of the average sales price of the homes.
"Rudest, most condescending" agents
Berkshire’s borrowers who fall behind on their payments face harassing, potentially illegal phone calls from a company rarely willing to offer relief.
Carol Carroll, a nurse living near Bug Tussle, Ala., began looking for a new home in 2003 after her husband died, leaving her with a six-year-old daughter. Instead of a down payment, she said, the salesman assured her she could simply put up two acres of her family land as collateral.
In December 2005, Carroll was permanently disabled in a catastrophic car accident in which two people were killed. Knowing it would take a few months for her disability benefits to be approved, Carroll said she called Vanderbilt and asked for a temporary reprieve. The company’s answer, she said: “We don’t do that.”
However, Clayton ratcheted up her property insurance premiums, eventually costing her $803 more per year than when she started, she said. Carroll was one of several Clayton borrowers who felt trapped in the company’s insurance, often because they were told they had no other options. Some had as many as five years’ worth of expensive premiums included in their loans, inflating the total balance to be repaid with interest. Others said they were misled into signing up even though they already had other insurance.
Carroll has since sold belongings, borrowed from relatives and cut back on groceries to make payments. When she was late, she spoke frequently to Clayton’s phone agents, whom she described as “the rudest, most condescending people I have ever dealt with.” It’s a characterization echoed by almost every borrower interviewed for this story.
Consumers say the company’s response to pleas for help is an invasive interrogation about their family budgets, including how much they spend on food, toiletries and utilities. Denise Pitts, of Knoxville, said Vanderbilt collectors have called her multiple times a day, with one suggesting that she cancel her Internet service, even though she home schools her son. They have called her relatives and neighbors, a tactic other borrowers reported.
After Pitts’ husband, Kirk, was diagnosed with aggressive cancer, she said, a Vanderbilt agent told her she should make the house payment her “first priority” and let medical bills go unpaid. She said the company has threatened to seize her property immediately, even though the legal process to do so would take at least several months.

Practices like contacting neighbors, calling repeatedly and making false threats can violate consumer-protection laws in states including Tennessee, lawyers said.
Last year, frequent complaints about Clayton’s aggressive collection practices led Tennessee state officials to contact local housing counselors seeking information about their experiences with the company, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations.
With protections lacking, homes are seized
Many mobile home buyers finance their purchases with personal property loans, which typically have fewer federal and state protections than regular home mortgages. Their homes, for example, can be seized with little or no warning. With regular mortgages, by contrast, companies must wait 120 days before starting foreclosure.
Tiffany Galler was a single mother living in Crestview, Fla. in 2005 when she bought a mobile home for $37,195 with a loan from 21st Mortgage. She later rented out the home.
After making payments over eight years totaling more than the sticker price of the home, Galler lost her tenant in November 2013 and fell behind on her payments. She arranged to show the home to a prospective renter two months later. But when she arrived at her home site, Galler found barren dirt with PVC pipe sticking up from the ground. She called 911, thinking someone had stolen her home.
Hours later, Galler tracked her repossessed house to a sales lot 30 miles away that was affiliated with 21st. It was listed at $25,900.
Some Clayton borrowers risk losing more than their house. The company often allows buyers to put up land as collateral if they can’t afford a down payment. One dealership claimed in advertisements to be the “only company that can provide you with a guarantee that if you or a family member owns land, that we can finance you a trailer,” according to court documents.

Government neglect
The government has known for years about concerns that mobile home buyers are treated unfairly. Little has been done.
Fifteen years ago, Congress directed the Department of Housing and Urban Development to examine issues such as loan terms and regulations in order to find ways to make mobile homes affordable. That’s still on HUD’s to-do list.
The industry, however, has protected its interests vigorously. Clayton Homes is represented in Washington by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), a trade group that has a Clayton executive as its vice chairman and another as its secretary. CEO Kevin Clayton has represented MHI before Congress.
MHI spent $4.5 million since 2003 lobbying the federal government. Those efforts have helped the company escape much scrutiny, as has Buffett’s persona as a man of the people, analysts say.
“There is a Teflon aspect to Warren Buffett,” said James McRitchie, who runs a widely-read blog, Corporate Governance.
Still, after the housing crisis, lawmakers tightened protections for mortgage borrowers with a sweeping overhaul known as the Dodd-Frank Act, creating regulatory headaches for the mobile home industry. Kevin Clayton complained to lawmakers in 2011 that the new rules would lump in some of his company’s loans with “subprime, predatory” mortgages, making it harder for mobile home buyers “to obtain affordable financing.”
Although the rules had yet to take effect that year, 99 percent of Clayton’s mobile home loans were so expensive that they met the federal government’s “higher-priced” threshold.
Dodd-Frank also tasked federal financial regulators with creating appraisal requirements for risky loans. Appraisals are common for conventional home sales, protecting both the lender and the consumer from a bad deal.
But when federal agencies jointly proposed appraisal rules in September 2012, industry objections led them to exempt loans secured solely by a mobile home.
Then Clayton pushed for more concessions, arguing that mobile home loans secured by the home and land should also be exempt. Paul Nichols, then-president of Clayton’s Vanderbilt Mortgage, told regulators that the appraisal requirement would be costly and onerous, significantly reducing “the availability of affordable housing in the United States.”
In 2013, regulators conceded. They will not require a complete appraisal for new manufactured homes.

Berkshire’s opaque reporting
To ensure that lenders are treating consumers fairly and extending loans that they expect will be repaid, regulators and analysts often rely on public financial disclosures about loan down payments, delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures.
Clayton Homes doesn’t have to disclose these details because it is part of a bigger company, Berkshire Hathaway.
In a letter to shareholders last month, Buffett wrote that a “very high percentage of [Clayton’s] borrowers kept their homes” during the 2008 housing meltdown and ensuing recession, thanks to “sensible lending practices” that were, he has said, “better than its major competitors.”
“Our blue-collar borrowers, in many cases, proved much better credit risks than their higher-income brethren,” Buffett wrote.
Yet the company has provided scant data to back up this claim. “I wouldn’t give much credence to those comments,” said James Shanahan, an analyst with Edward Jones who follows Berkshire Hathaway.
Berkshire declared each year since 2010 that 98 percent of its loan portfolio is “performing.” Yet elsewhere in its financials, the company discloses that the only loans it considers “non-performing” are those currently in the foreclosure process. That means the impressive-sounding ratio ignores loans that are delinquent and those that have already been foreclosed or the homes repossessed.
Across the industry, about 28 percent of non-mortgage mobile home loans fail, according to research prepared for an industry conference by Kenneth Rishel, a consultant who has worked in the field for 40 years. Clayton’s failure rates are 26 percent at 21st Mortgage and 33 percent at Vanderbilt, said Rishel, who cited his research and conversations with Clayton executives.
In a brief email, 21st President Tim Williams said those numbers were “inaccurate,” but he declined to provide the company’s figures.

Berkshire reports Clayton as part of its “financial products” segment because it makes most of its money from lending and insurance, not from building and selling homes, said Williams, who worked at Vanderbilt before founding 21st and selling it back to Clayton.
“The company is profitable in all it does,” he said in an interview last year, but financial products are “where the money is made.
Buffett proudly trumpets Berkshire’s decentralized structure, saying he delegates to CEOs like Kevin Clayton “almost to the point of abdication.” At Clayton Homes, the result has been lax oversight of some of its dealers. In Texas, for example, hundreds of signatures were forged to help secure loans for people with no assets, a practice that Vanderbilt’s then-president, Paul Nichols, acknowledged and said was “deplorable” in later trial testimony.
Clayton’s questionable practices extended to its dealers, said Kevin Carroll, the former dealer who won Clayton awards for his sales performance.
CEO Kevin Clayton helped Carroll get a loan from 21st Mortgage to buy out his business partners in 2008, Carroll said. Two weeks after the loan documents were signed, Clayton Homes told Carroll it was shuttering the nearby manufacturing plant that supplied his dealership.
The closure doomed Carroll’s business. He fell behind on his payments. Clayton representatives tormented him with endless phone calls, he said, until he agreed in 2010 to surrender the company and the land underneath it. Carroll sued, but the case was thrown out because too much time had elapsed.
“They entrap you,” Carroll said. “They give you a loan that you can’t pay back and then they take from you.”
This story was jointly reported and written by The Center for Public Integrity and The Seattle Times

Monday, April 9, 2018

United States Democratic Party in Conspiracy With US Dept. of Justice, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, and Russia in Treasonous Attempt to Remove President Trump

                 In Washington DC there are two sides to every street. On both sides of the street, the constitutional rights of every citizen have been tested, have suffered greatly at the hands of a few power hungry people, but have weathered the storms of time.
                 Now comes yet another corrupted and power hungry enclave seeking to overthrow our elected president, namely Donald Trump, by force, and even by assassination if necessary.  For Hillary Clinton to rise to a position where she has been held as being above the law, has aided and abetted crimes against this nation, has paid Robert Mueller, the United States Special Counsel through various channels to investigate President Trump is an atrocity to the very nature of justice and freedom.
                    It is common knowledge that Robert Mueller's legal staff are, by a great majority, members of the Democratic Party. It is further common knowledge that Robert Mueller was provided a dossier full of fraudulent documents which were then used to illegally obtain a FISA warrant against a Trump campaign employee at least three different times, even after the FISA court had knowledge that the dossier contained fabricated evidence. I believe that the FISA court could have erred once by granting the warrant the first time. However, once the knowledge was out that the documents were fabricated, spurious, and even perjured documents, the FISA court had the audacity to violate its own mandate of providing a fair and impartial hearing and to preserve justice at any cost, and it failed miserably to do so.
                     It is common knowledge that former FBI chief Comey tried to influence the presidential election by releasing the fact that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party were still under investigation for 22,000 emails that went missing, the illegal destruction of servers, the illegal destruction of documents, and tampering with evidence. Maybe the Democratic Party didn't offer Comey enough money and he turned rogue on them at the last minute. After all, it was decided on an airplane between former President Bill Clinton and the then Secretary of the US Dept. of Justice that no criminal charges would be filed against Hillary Clinton. To this day, even though there are mounds of evidence of collusion between Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, the United States Dept. of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Russia's President (dictator) Putin no criminal charges have been brought against any person involved in the conspiracy.
                   Now we come to Special Prosecutor Mueller, who has openly defied his mandate, namely to determine if President Trump knowingly and therefore intentionally colluded with citizens from Russia during the presidential campaign in 2016. He has extended the investigation beyond its intended and authorized investigation, into territories unknown. He has sought business documents, attorney/client privileged documents, tax records, and other materials outside the original scope of his authorized investigation, and the United States Dept. of Justice has permitted the repeated violations of constitutional protections by the Mueller investigation to continue unabated. Maybe someone should be investigating Special Prosecutor Mueller for conspiring to commit treason along with the FISA court judges and the top echelon members of the Democratic Party.

                    I submit, that these are all acts of treason against the United States of America.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1  United States Constitution

                    To convict a person in the United States, the act must have been knowingly intentional. In my mind, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's actions that have violated the United States Constitution amount to conspiracy and collusion with Russia and the Democratic Party in their attempt to remove an elected president from office.  These are acts of treason by all parties in the conspiracy, and must be prosecuted to their fullest extent.

In his writing on treason in the United States Constitution, Philip M. McKenna wrote
"The Supreme Court has had occasion to pronounce on treason, albeit infrequently. In Ex parte Bollman (1807), Chief Justice John Marshall rejected the idea of "constructive treason" and held that for treason to be established on the ground of levying war against the United States, an accused must be part of an actual assemblage of men for a treasonable purpose. Conspiracy short of the actual levying of war is insufficient. But in the related case of United States v. Burr (1807), Marshall tacked slightly. He again rejected constructive treason, but did so by holding that Aaron Burr, if not physically present in an assemblage of men, could still be convicted of treason on the testimony of two witnesses that he actively helped effect or aid such an assemblage—in effect, aided in the levying of war. Together, these cases made a treason conviction exceedingly difficult for anything other than manifest participation in a treasonable act.
After Burr, the leading treason cases grew out of World War II, for adherence to enemies. In Cramer v. United States (1945), the Supreme Court held that a specific intent—adherence to the enemy, and therefore to harm the United States—is necessary, rather than the simple rendition of aid. Further, the majority came close to holding that such adherence requires proof, not just of an act that on its face is "commonplace" (such as a meeting) but a manifestly treasonable overt act, evidenced by the testimony of at least two witnesses. But in Haupt v. United States (1947)—the Court's first affirmation of a treason conviction—the Court effectively relaxed Cramer's standard of proof by holding that the testimony of two witnesses to overt acts might be supported by other evidence as to the accused's treasonable intent, including out-of-court confessions and admissions. In a concurring opinion, Justice William O. Douglas (who dissented in Cramer) affirmed that the separate elements of intent and overt act are amenable to different modes of proof, and only the latter triggers the constitutional requirement of testimony by two witnesses.
In Kawakita v. United States (1952), the Supreme Court held that dual citizenship does not diminish a citizen's allegiance to the United States, and, in a treason prosecution, whether someone intends to renounce American citizenship hinges on particular facts and may be a question for a jury.
Lower courts have had occasion to enter verdicts of treason, commencing with the Whiskey Rebellion, some of them arguably on broader grounds than what the Supreme Court would later countenance. For example, courts held that armed resistance to the collection of taxes constituted constructive treason. A number of cases arising out of the Civil War also suggested, without directly interpreting the Constitution, that Confederate activities amounted to treason (although the general amnesty of December 25, 1868, pardoned all Confederates). Because of the particular and high constitutional standards associated with the definition and proof of treason, hostile or subversive acts falling short of treason but directed toward the whole polity have been prosecuted under various laws of Congress, including those dealing with espionage (for example, the conviction and execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in 1953) and, more recently, terrorism. The exercise of federal prosecutorial discretion has also led to the prosecution on other grounds of individuals for acts that arguably amount to treason (for example, John Walker Lindh captured in Afghanistan in 2001), or to failure to prosecute at all."

Heritage Guide to the ConstitutionPhilip M. McKenna (2017). 

I am asking the political powers of these United States to prosecute those involved in this sedition conspiracy and revoke their citizenship. The financial devastation that would be caused by an impeachment would be tantamount to that of a nuclear war.  I pray that you will act swiftly to prevent the overthrowing of our government by these conspirators.