One week after Shirley and David Finch purchased a home in Parkersburg, West Virginia, they discovered defects in the basement—defects they hadn’t noticed before because the area was blocked from view by the previous owner’s workbench. The couple had hired InspecTech to complete an inspection and report prior to the purchase of the home, so they contacted them for an explanation. The company’s inspector reinspected the home and reported water damage, prior efforts to fix it, water infiltration, and structural issues with the foundation. InspecTech refused to pay for any costs incurred because the agreement they had with the Finches included unconditional release for damages.

The Finches sued the company for negligence and $39,000 to cover the cost of repairs.

InspecTech maintained the Finches had no right to collect, citing the contract which stated “The CLIENT (Finches) hereby releases and exempts the COMPANY and its agents and employees of and from all liability and responsibility for the cost of repairing or replacing an unreported defect or deficiency.” It argued the couple freely entered into the contract; the language about unconditional release was unambiguous; and the contract should be enforced citing precedence that “when an express agreement is freely and fairly made, between parties who are in an equal bargaining position, and there is no public interest with which the agreement interferes, it generally will be upheld.”

The Finches countered that unconditional release of liability was against public interest because Flanagan presented himself as a certified home inspector in West Virginia, yet failed to meet state standards. Contractual release would give them no recourse against negligence and provide disincentive for experts to adequately perform services. InspecTech said its contracts and services were based on business policy, not public policy, and maintained the right to enter into contracts with any other party, as they did with the Finches.

Decision:
The Circuit Court of Wood County found the Finches had contractually released InspecTech from all liability and responsibility for costs of repair and granted a summary judgment in favor of InspecTech. The Finches appealed.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the decision, finding there was a public interest because home inspectors are governed by the State of West Virginia and required to comply with guidelines regulating the home inspection industry for the protection of the consumers. The Finches are entitled to receive the protections afforded by such regulations and should not be expected to relinquish such safeguards as a condition to receive home inspection services.

Water Log The Saturday Evening Post

By 1990 Skyline Woods was well established with 90 homes built around the country club, and Circo thought the time was right to sell the club to a golf course management company. Unfortunately, the golf pros ran into financial hazards. They ran out of “green,” and the only course of action was for Skyline Woods Country Club to file for bankruptcy in 2004. To pay off debt, the bankruptcy trustee auctioned off the property in 2005. A group of Skyline Woods homeowners tried to buy the club, but were outbid by Liberty Building Corporation, a development company owned by David Broekemeier.

Here’s where things got sticky. The federal bankruptcy court transferred property to Liberty, free and clear of all obligations. Shortly after, Broekemeier met with homeowners and club members to inform them he had no obligation to honor memberships, offering the option to play the course if they paid fees like anyone else.

If that was bad, what happened next was worse. In spring 2006, Broekemeier closed the club, posted “no trespassing” signs, and began cutting down trees to clear land where he planned to build a condominium complex and water park. Teed off homeowners sued Broekemeier in Nebraska State Court, requesting a restraining order to prevent further damage to the land. They claimed implied covenants as homeowners in the golf community guaranteed the only use of land was as a golf course.

They reasoned Broekemeier might own the golf course free and clear, but only free to use it as a golf course. Homeowners added that no matter how you slice it, Broekemeier was well aware of their covenants, as he had also built a golf community adjacent to Skyline Woods. And, like Circo, he marketed the course’s proximity and views to sell lots. And there were rumors that he was going to redirect the golf course toward his neighborhood, leaving Skyline Woods homeowners with views of condos and a water park.

In response, Broekemeier came out swinging with a motion to dismiss the case. His first argument was that the state court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the federal bankruptcy order. Second, even if the State court did have skin in the game, the covenants were unenforceable because they were never recorded. Finally, he said Nebraska law protects bona fide purchasers from restrictive covenants when there is no notice.

District Court Decision—2008:

Round one was won by homeowners. A Nebraska court found that they did indeed have implied restrictive covenants; Broekemeier was aware of the covenants; and finally, the bankruptcy sale of the property did not discharge the covenants because they belonged to homeowners, not the golf course. The court ordered Broekemeier to either reopen the golf course or maintain it in a fashion that would not devalue the property of homeowners. Brokemeier chose the latter.

Round two: After six years of legal turf wars, the golf course never reopened, eventually becoming an eyesore due to lack of maintenance.

Aftermath—2012:

Game over. The land was sold. New owner is spending $7 million to build a premier golf course.

Looking For a Fair-Way The Saturday Evening Post

J.P. Morgan - Wikipedia

The Federal Reserve is an independent central bank that derived its power in the aftermath of the Panic of 1907—a crisis caused by several factors: contraction of money supply, falling stock prices, and a failed attempt to corner the copper market. Leery of banks, depositors withdrew savings in droves. The run ignited widespread concern in banking circles and Congress. As the crisis unfolded, prominent financier J.P. Morgan intervened, using his money (and recruiting help from fellow bankers) to keep banks afloat and prevent the New York Stock Exchange from going under. Many considered Morgan a hero for saving the economy, but the perception changed as the public came to believe Wall Street bankers actually caused the panic.

Senator Nelson Aldrich - Wikipedia

In response to the outcry for banking reform, Congress created the National Monetary Commission to review bank policies and develop a sound national monetary system. Chairing the Commission was Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, who, closely aligned with bankers, had no intention of leaving them out when crafting the Federal Reserve Act—not an easy task given the public’s attitude against the concentration of wealth and power.

Frank A. Vanderlip - Wikipedia

But something had to be done. At the request of Senator Aldrich and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury A. Piatt Andrew, five of the nation’s top financiers arrived at the exclusive Jekyll Island Club on the Georgia coastline for one purpose: to devise a plan to restructure banking in America.
In “From Farm Boy to Financier,” an article in the February 9, 1935, issue of the Post, author Frank A. Vanderlip—a leading banker and former Assistant Secretary of Treasury for President William McKinley—chronicled the top-secret meeting that helped create the Aldrich Plan, which would frame the Federal Reserve Act.

A. Piatt Andrew - Wikipedia

In the Post story, Vanderlip outlines events leading up to the meeting on Jekyll Island. Aldrich had visited central banks in Europe and returned to the U.S. with no firm plan to address the crisis. Concerned about the report he was expected to present as a bill to Congress, Aldrich concocted a scheme to bring together an elite group to help draft reforms. To ensure secrecy, Aldrich invited five key leaders from banking and government—Henry Davison, A. Piatt Andrew, Benjamin Strong, Paul Warburg, and Vanderlip—to the isolated Jekyll Island Club—“without a journalist within 50 miles.”

Henry Davison - Wikipedia

Vanderlip recounted how the men arrived “… one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible to the railroad terminal on the New Jersey littoral of the Hudson, where Senator Aldrich’s private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of a train for the South.” So great was the need for secrecy that last names were taboo—even among the five men. The train crew was kept unaware of the identities of the car’s prominent passengers to prevent any leaks to the press.

“We were taken by boat from the mainland to Jekyll Island and for a week or ten days were completely secluded, without any contact by telephone or telegraph with the outside. Even the servants had no idea who the men were. We had disappeared from the world onto a deserted island…. We worked morning, noon and night…. We stuck to our plan of putting down on paper what we agreed upon.”

Vanderslip acted as secretary. In the Post, he describes in minute detail the plan beginning to take shape. At issue was the fact that the country hadn’t had a central bank for 75 years and a belief that the lack of central authority was responsible for the current financial crisis. But establishing a new national bank was perceived as a dangerous recipe for excessive power and corruption: “If it was to be a central bank, how was it to be owned—by the banks, by the Government, or jointly? Should it restrict its services to banks? What open-market operations should be engaged in? … at the end of our week, we had whipped into shape a bill that we felt, pridefully, should be presented to Congress …. We returned to the North as secretly as we had gone South. Senator Aldrich would present the bill we had drafted to the Senate. It became known to the Country as the Aldrich Plan.”

Benjamin Strong - Wikipedia

Unfortunately when Congress was slated to meet, Aldrich was “too ill to write an appropriate document to accompany his plan.” Strong and Vanderlip went to Washington and prepared that report. However, at the time, both political parties opposed the idea of a central bank as did a distrustful public, so the bill was defeated. But as Vanderlip wrote, the Jekyll Island group’s plan greatly influenced the final Act eventually adopted by Congress: “Although the Aldrich Federal Reserve plan was defeated … Aldrich undoubtedly laid the essential, fundamental lines which finally took the form of the Federal Reserve Law.”

To read Frederick E. Allen’s article on banking, go here.

Jekyll Island and the Secret Behind the Fed The Saturday Evening Post

The transition can be traced to the 1970s when Monsanto developed and patented glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide dubbed Roundup. The herbicide was super effective and widely used by commercial farmers.
In the 1980s Monsanto scientists also developed a genetically modified soybean seed to render it resistant to its Roundup herbicide. The company patented and marketed the seed under the brand name Roundup Ready. It was sold to farmers in combination with Roundup so the crop could be planted directly into untilled soil with no follow-up cultivation. The “no till” seed eliminated the need for pre-emergent herbicides, ploughs, and tillers. Weed control was accomplished in one fell swoop.

Farmers loved it. Adoption of the new system purportedly outpaced that of any other technology in modern farming history—including the tractor, fertilizer, and hybrid corn.

To control its patented technology Monsanto required growers to sign a contract that restricted use of the patented seed to a single crop season, prohibited growers from saving seeds for replanting, and allowed Monsanto to inspect fields for violations. To ensure compliance Monsanto hired investigators to “root-out” seed-saving farms, even using radio ads and telephone “tip lines” to identify culprits who might save or re-use its patented seed. In 2007 Monsanto received a tip that Vernon Bowman, an Indiana soybean farmer, was saving his seeds. The “seed police” were dispatched to gather plant samples from his fields. The move surprised Bowman, a loyal Monsanto customer. He had planted Roundup Ready seeds as his first crop each season from 1999-2007 and hadn’t saved the seeds.

But Bowman did not use Roundup Ready seeds for his late-season planting. To economize, he purchased and used “commodity seeds”—a mixed bag that included some Roundup Ready seeds. This mix did not require a licensing agreement. After planting the commody mix, Bowman sprayed this crop with Roundup herbicide to weed out the non-resistant plants. He understood the survivors were the progeny of Roundup Ready seeds but believed they were no longer patented. Therefore, he saved and planted them the following year without a license. Monsanto took exception to Bowman’s use of its genetic property and sued him for patent infringement.

In his defense Bowman cited the doctrine of patent exhaustion, claiming that Monsanto lost its rights when the patented seeds were sold in the commodity mix. He pointed out that Monsanto’s domination of the soybean seed market in the area created an abundance of regenerated seeds after harvest, making it virtually impossible to avoid Roundup Ready seeds blending into the commodity mix. He argued that buyers purchasing commodity seeds from grain dealers had no choice: They received the special seeds whether they wanted them or not.

Bowman’s point was that Monsanto knew its regenerated crop would be sold to grain dealers for resale, so the license agreement to do so should have included a provision requiring segregation of patented seeds from other seeds if the conglomerate wanted to protect them.

Monsanto countered that its patent was not exhausted when sold in a commodity mix, arguing that growers can purchase seeds in the commodity mix and plant crops but have no right to use their progeny.

In Monsanto’s argument, Bowman did not infringe on Monsanto’s rights by planting the seeds; infringement occurred when he chose to selectively save the Roundup Ready seeds and use them the following season.

Decision:

Bowman’s argument did not overrule the patent law precedent. The fact that a patented technology can replicate itself does not give a purchaser the right to use those copies. The court found for Monsanto and affirmed the award of damages to Monsanto that a lower court had set at $84,456.
—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, 2011

Bean Counter The Saturday Evening Post

Unfortunately, the finish line turned out to be a 15-foot yellow gate at the entrance to the reservoirs. Although the steel gate had been there for decades, Maribeth had never seen it closed. When she finally looked up, it was too late to avoid impact; her bike skidded under the gate, her head smashed into the barrier, and she broke several vertebrae in her neck.

The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), a nonprofit water utility company, owns the West Hartford Reservoirs. Although they are used for water filtration, many joggers, walkers, and cyclists also enjoy the 3,000 acres of wooded trails.

Maribeth sued the MDC for negligence, claiming that it had failed to protect mountain bikers by not warning them that the gate, which was usually open, was now closed.

The MDC, a municipal corporation, argued that it was immune from liability under the common law and statutory doctrine of government. It also claimed that the Recreational Land Use Act barred Blonski recovering for injuries incurred while engaged in the dangerous adventure sport of mountain biking. Finally, the MDC maintained that even if the utility was not immune from liability, Blonski’s negligence had caused her injuries.

The utility said that after the 9/11 attacks it had decided to close the gate as a security measure against terrorists and contamination. Despite the change in policy, the MDC maintained that the gate was clearly visible—and that, in this case, Blonski wasn’t paying enough attention as she rode the well-marked trails.

At the trial witnesses stated that when they first saw the closed gate they had no difficulty going around it. A police report stated that the trail was straight and level for 500 feet away and that the gate was clearly visible.

Decision:
Blonski was awarded $2.9 million, less 30 percent. The jury found her 30 percent responsible for the collision, with the MDC primarily negligent for not posting a sign declaring the gate closed.

Taken for a Ride The Saturday Evening Post

Even though Huggins was a victim of ID theft, he received no sympathy from banks or the collection agencies. Under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, an individual cannot be held liable for charges incurred on a credit card for which the individual did not apply and did not receive. Therefore, the banks would ultimately be forced to absorb the bad debt, but, in the meantime, that did not stop collection agencies from trying to collect the money from Huggins.

Huggins spent countless hours writing multiple letters, making and documenting phone calls, leaving and returning messages, sending certified mail, and doing anything he could to right a wrong he never committed.

For his troubles, Huggins sued the banks for negligent enablement of imposter fraud, alleging they were negligent for issuing the credit cards without investigation, verification, or corroboration of the imposter. Further, he claimed the banks were negligent in attempting to collect the debt from Huggins, an innocent victim of a crime made possible by the banks’ lack of due diligence.

The banks—also victims of the fraud—asked the court to dismiss the case because Huggins was not their customer and, therefore, they had no legal duty to protect him. Huggins disagreed, arguing that banks have a duty to protect potential victims of identity theft from imposter fraud.

To legally establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove there is a legal duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and that there was a breach of that duty by negligent act or omission. In a negligence action, the court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. If there is no duty, there should be no action.

You be the judge.

DECISION:

“We are greatly concerned about the rampant growth of identity theft and financial fraud in this country. Moreover, we are certain that some identity theft could be prevented if credit card issuers carefully scrutinized credit card applications.”

Having said that, the court ruled in favor of the banks, citing that negligence liability does not attach unless the parties have a relationship recognized by law and “South Carolina does not recognize the tort of negligent enablement of imposter fraud.”

Adding an editorial note, the court also pointed out “that various state and national legislation provides at least some remedy for victims of credit card fraud…. While these regulations may not fully compensate victims of identity theft for all of their injury, we conclude the legislative arena is better equipped to assess and address the impact of credit card fraud on victims and financial institutions alike.”

Who Pays for Identity Fraud? The Saturday Evening Post

Historically, there has always been a link between education and the reduction of poverty. Free public schools in America were created to alleviate poverty by giving every child the opportunity to receive an education. So the question is, does education lower poverty or does poverty lower education?

In Colonial days, education was considered essential for the public well-being and it was not subject to individual or family prerogatives. Although only wealthy children had the privilege of going to school, all parents, including the poor, were required to educate their children to be God-fearing and “serviceable in their generation.”

If parents neglected their duty, the community had the right to intervene. For example, Massachusetts passed a Poor Law in 1735 that states: “That where persons bring up their children in such gross ignorance that they do not know, or are not able to distinguish the alphabet of twenty-four letters, at the age of six years, in such case the overseers of the poor are hereby empowered and directed to put or bind out in good families such children, for a decent and Christian education…unless the children are judged incapable, through some inevitable infirmity.”

You read that correctly. If families were so irresponsible as to fail to educate their children, the community would take those kids away and do the job for them!

By 1840 the heavy influx of immigrants and expanding territories changed the social hierarchy as communities became fragmented. The shift brought social instability along with great fear that the country would fall apart because of vice and crime. There was concern that children who were not educated properly would be tempted by drunks, gamblers, criminals, and prostitutes. Families who did not educate their children became a national threat. The citizens mobilized to create free “common schools” for all children. They also built orphanages and other childcare institutions to house and educate little scoundrels who were orphaned, abandoned, or whose families were deemed unfit or too poor to educate them properly.

No matter what their income, families are the most important educators for their children. And children who do not receive adequate education at home are at risk.

On a micro-level, education reform must start with the family. If a child enters first grade unable to say the alphabet or count to 10, who is responsible?

Ensuring quality education should require standards and accountability for parents, too. If the family is unable to provide proper support there should be some type of aid or intervention to ensure that the child is not left behind.

On a broader scale, our public schools should be improved, not destroyed. Many of our schools are failing for reasons that have little to do with education and a lot to do with larger socioeconomic issues such as high concentrations of poverty, unemployment, gangs, drugs, violence, and, in many families, the belief that education will not make a difference. We need to fight these conditions and change those beliefs.

Ensuring quality education requires a collective effort that includes schools, parents, students, churches, charities, community leaders, employers, and the government. But the government can’t do it alone with top-down mandates. We’re all part of this. The goal must not be to vilify America’s teachers, but rather to help communities, parents, and children reach their potential and appreciate the vital importance of a good education.

Joan SerVaas
The Saturday Evening Post

How Can We Fix Our Broken Schools? —An Historical Perspective The Saturday Evening Post

What is the value of a lovely oak tree that brings beauty and nature to a man’s front yard? For decades the tree stood strong, and the Fisher family enjoyed it season 
after season—until a reckless driver hit 
it, resulting in extensive damage that 
eventually killed the mighty oak.

For Mr. Fisher, the value was incalculable. There was no way for him to replace the magnificent oak, but in an effort to seek justice, he filed a tort action against Ms. Lowe, who was operating the car, and Mr. Moffett who owned the car. Mr. Fisher also sued their insurance company.

The accident occurred in Michigan 
where there is “no-fault” insurance. And tort liability for “noneconomic loss” caused by the “ownership, maintenance, or use 
of a motor vehicle” is allowed when “the 
injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.”

But what about “permanent serious 
disfigurement” suffered by a beloved tree?

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, pursuant to Michigan’s No-Fault 
Insurance Law. Unfortunately for Mr. Fisher, the statute makes it poetically clear:

There was no liability,

Since No-Fault grants immunity.

Mr. Fisher refused to be felled by the lower court, so he appealed to a higher branch. Judge Gillis wrote the opinion for the Michigan Court of Appeals, with a nod to Joyce Kilmer’s famous poem, “Trees”:

We thought that we would never see

A suit to compensate a tree.

A suit whose claim in tort is prest

Upon a mangled tree’s behest;

A tree whose battered trunk was prest

Against a Chevy’s crumpled crest;

A tree that faces each new day

With bark and limb in disarray;

A tree that may forever bear

A lasting need for tender care.

Flora lovers though we three,

We must uphold the court’s decree.

Fisher v. Lowe, 333 N.W. 2d 67

(Mich.Ct.App.1983)

Only God Can Make a Tree The Saturday Evening Post

We’ve all been there—out in some unfamiliar town or place and suddenly in need of a restroom. And if you gotta go, you gotta GO.

This was the situation for Mrs. Elliott when she was shopping at a Dollar General store in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When nature called, a store employee directed her to the restroom—in the back storage area of an old, rundown building.

The latrine was unlit (probably a good thing under the circumstances), but she noticed an electric light cord hanging down from the ceiling. She couldn’t reach it, so she stepped up on the toilet to pull the cord. That’s when the toilet lid slipped to one side, causing her right foot to plunge into the toilet while her other foot and the rest of her body fell backward onto the floor, resulting in serious injury.

Mrs. Elliott sued Dollar General, claiming the defective seat and lid caused her fall. The store blamed the accident on Mrs. Elliott’s heavy load, not the commode, explaining that the toilet seat was designed to “conform generally to the contours of the human posterior” and in the ordinary course of business, “when the commode seat is in use by a member of the feminine gender that the usual method of approach to it is to draw near, to then turn to face away from it, and to assume a sitting position with a portion of the user’s weight on the user’s feet.”

Dollar General even brought in an expert witness with a mathematical formula to measure what percentage of the user’s weight rested on the posterior as compared to the feet. (There was no calculation for hovering posteriors.)

Mrs. Elliott’s attorney argued that it was common for people to stand on toilets, using personal experience as his No. 1 example. “I weigh 185 pounds, and instead of going to the basement to get a step ladder, I let down the commode seat and the commode lid and step upon it and unscrew the light shade with a screwdriver. I know of my own knowledge that it has never broken or even cracked.”

Mrs. Elliott pleaded the store was negligent in its duty to provide a safe commode, and Dollar General claimed it was Mrs. Elliott’s duty and responsibility to use the toilet properly.

Whose duty was it?

Decision:

The court found in favor of Dollar General, holding that Mrs. Elliott did not exercise ordinary care for her own safety, and any resulting injury was due to her own negligence.

Nothing in the record shows that the toilet seat or commode was unsafe to sit on or use in the conventional manner, so the court concluded that Mrs. Elliott was putting the toilet to a use that the defendants could not foresee when she took her fateful plunge.

Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1971

Where Do You Think You Are? The Saturday Evening Post

The piano teacher in our story befriended another player in Maple World. The two became so close that they married each other in a Maple World ceremony. From this point, they were able to acquire greater powers, amass game currency (which is only honored for purchases in Maple World), and engage in adventures together. For a time, all is well … until, without warning or reason, her husband announced, “I divorce you.”

Human relations can be very complex, even when they are not real. She was, once again, a solitary avatar in Maple World. Angry, because her avatar was jilted and left without the credits she had earned with her husband, the teacher entered Maple World using her ex-avatar-husband’s password, which she had obtained when they were married, with the sole intention of killing his avatar. The husband was hit by a Maple World bus. He never saw it coming.

When the ex-husband entered the game the next time, it was his turn to be surprised. Maple World informed him that his avatar alter ego was dead. Road kill. Flattened. Kaput. And, unlike other more forgiving games, he could not revive his game character. His life and his game credits in Maple World, under that character, which he had spent a year to create, were gone.

He called the police to report that the “wife” had illegally accessed his computer and murdered his beloved avatar.

Is the woman guilty of illegally accessing her Maple World husband’s computer? She said that when they were married, he had given her, as his “bride,” the access code for his account. Hence, she maintains she didn’t enter his account illegally.

The teacher was arrested and driven 620 miles across the country to the town where her ex-Maple World husband lived. She is facing charges, not of Maple World homicide, but of computer hacking, i.e., “illegally accessing a computer and manipulating electronic data.” If tried and found guilty, she could receive a sentence of up to five years in prison or a $5,000 fine.

You Be the Judge: Cyber Crime and Punishment The Saturday Evening Post

However, the global financial market has created an economic culture focused more on quarterly reports than long-term growth. Many manufacturers have left the United States, shifting operations overseas to low-wage countries. The global economy mushroomed. The stock market flourished. Hedge funds and institutional investors made billions, while CEOs enjoyed generous salaries, stock options, and bonuses.

But what about the communities, closed factories, and thousands of unemployed left behind? And how do companies that continue to operate in America compete with low-priced imports?

In this issue, we write about Munro Shoes, a family-owned company in Arkansas that has struggled to survive the tsunami—or in this case shoenami—of inexpensive Asian imports. When Don Munro bought the company in 1972, the United States was the largest producer of shoes in the Western world. In fact, almost every shoe purchased in America was made in America. Today, more than 98 percent of shoes purchased in the United States are imported from Asia, mostly from China, according to the American Apparel and Footwear Association.

Adapting to changing market forces is how American businesses survive. In the past, some merchants and consumers have taken a more direct approach.

In the 18th century, the East India Company of Great Britain wanted to be the sole provider of tea to America. The colonists, however, resented the company’s high prices and the Crown’s taxes, so they smuggled in tea that local merchants sold for much less. Not to be outwitted, the British government waived the tax, so the East India Company could slash prices and drive local competitors out of business. The American response was as direct as it was dramatic. Led by Samuel Adams, colonists stole onto ships at night and dumped 45 tons of tea into Boston Harbor.

The archives at The Saturday Evening Post offer many illustrations of Americans taking unprecedented action when necessary. Our history is filled with accounts of the resourcefulness of American companies, like Munro Shoes, and the readiness of consumers, like Samuel Adams, to take direct action.

In this issue, we also offer some practical ideas for weathering the present financial crisis. In “Setting the Stage,” interior designer Lisa LaPorta provides cost-conscious tips for making your home more attractive to prospective buyers. Writer and financial planner Cathy Shouse shares common-sense strategies for surviving tough economic times in “All I Need to Know About Investing I Learned on the Farm.”

We’d like to hear how Americans in your area are responding to the current crisis. Send your letters to letters@saturdayeveningpost.com or post your comments below.

Joan SerVaas
Publisher, The Saturday Evening Post magazine

America, We Can Make It! (May/June 2009) The Saturday Evening Post

Joan SerVaas
Publisher, The Saturday Evening Post magazine

The Pulse of America (March/April 2009) The Saturday Evening Post