Dangerous Thoughts

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby squark » Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:02 pm

Mustachey you said
"It means that we have never paid for anything and never can. That means that we do not truly own anything, that we have never fulfilled our end of the sales contract by providing valuable consideration in exchange for the property, the goods or the service we received.
The debt has not been discharged – only set off by a promise to pay at some future time."

We could do a private sale, you ask me if I am happy to accept these pieces of paper (fiat) in exchange for my goods. Its an exchange we are both happy with regardless of relative real values.

There is a document called "The dispatch of merchants" I never did read it but it could be useful. Is lawful excuse "for want of any viable alternative?"

There is no full disclosure, I don't know using fiat removes my right to anything, and isn't law merchant just tradition and unwritten? Surely they can only adjudicate on a breach of contract between merchants, we could bring up the breach of the promise to pay? They will not want that kind of stuff in their courts. Is it only legal tender within the UK?

Inflation? A pound.....sterling....that's 16 ounces of silver at £20 (?) an ounce. £320 per pound sterling. That Tesco bread does look expensive at £1.30sterling=£430now!

I was just watching Question Time on BBC2. They have Scots talking about funding an independent Scotland. They are talking about UK national debt and there is an embarrassing vacuum where this (Edward Mandel House on the Fed Reserve) information (yes yes) should fit. http://www.dailypaul.com/134770/can-someone-please-explain-the-meaning-of-this-quote-to-me.
They are Scotlands finest political big hitters. Clueless or Complicit?
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
squark
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby Dreadlock » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:08 am

Complicit. If they know what's going on and how the system works then they know the "national debt" shouldn't even exist. Nothing of value was loaned, therefore nothing of value is owed.
Any bigwig on T.V who talks about "money" and how the debt must be paid back is a shill.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby musashi » Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:52 pm

First, the Dispatch of merchants is a very worthwhile read. I put it up here as an attachment some years ago. Bill Avery is the author.

Second, you may well do a private sale, but if the seller has no good title (how did he pay for the thing you are buying?) then no amount of private will help.
You do not own the car you bought because you used a promise to pay at a a future date and because the guy who sold you it did not pay for the parts to make it. He only set off the debt with a promise to pay at a future date.The guy who made the parts did not pay for the materials he used to make the parts, he only set off the debt, and so on back to the one who owns the resources.
Bankers do not deal in money. They deal in securities held as ransom for the money they issue. That money is monopoly money and they know it. Why would they deal in it? It is only meant to take control of the only real wealth there is - the resources of the planet. When Rothschild says he has 5oo trillion he is not talking about money/cash. He is talking about minerals - gold, silver, uranium, stone, woodland, and so on.

Again I quote Paul Moran of the UK Treasury "The pound is intrinsically valueless - pure fiat currency."
It operates only on the faith we put in it. That we can get other goods and services when we pass it on. You must understand that without gold we can have no common law. While you deal with merchant paper you are a merchant. End of.

Read the Gold Standards Act. Bankers do not have to redeem their Promissory Notes. Remove that Act and they must make good on the written, signed promise to pay. Gold comes back, you are out of merchant law and back into common law and they are broke.

Their promissory notes are written under the Bills of Exhange Act, but the GS Act says they do not have to keep that promise to pay on demand. It is legislated fraud on behalf of a private company; a contaract between the state and the Bank which holds the state's account - called the Consolidated Fund. Read the Consolidated Fund Act. Every penny pulled in by the state goes straight to that account.

The national debt was formerly the King's debt, but the charter to create the Bank of England in 1694 created the national debt and made us responnsible for the the bills of the state.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:20 pm

There is another argument which can be made with regards to the use of promissory notes, or credit, and that is that there are two kinds, albeit physically indistinguishable.

The banks create credit based on nothing and of course it has no intrinsic value. However, the people (who aren't bankers) have to labour for their credit. Labour is just as much a source of money as any other natural resource (gold, wood etc.) which is to say it has value, therefore credit gained via labour is endowed with the value of the labour which went into obtaining it. Therefore my £10, be it a note, coins, or digital representation, which I worked to obtain, actually has value - the value of my labour. Whereas the physically identical £10 created by a bank from nothing has little to no value at all.

Using this perfectly valid reasoning I would argue that anything I purchase using credit or promissory notes or tokens that I have labored to obtain, is mine by right due to the value of my labour. I might be using worthless paper to make the purchase, but that paper represents my labour which absolutely has value. Of course anyone who labours for their money can make exactly the same argument.

I do not agree that we are merchants simply because we use merchant paper. Realistically paper is used less and less these days anyway and only comprises a small fraction of the currency in circulation at any given time. We use legal tender simply because that is what is available for us to use. Its use therefore does not imply anything about our status in commerce. Furthermore merchants operate to achieve profit whereas workers merely exchange their labour for legal tender - there is therefore no profit involved for the labourer and so they cannot reasonably be deemed to be merchants.

I'm not sure why you think gold is required to have the common law, could you explain further? We still have the common law available to us and it is still used from time to time... Queen's Bench.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby squark » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:31 am

Dread you said
"I'm not sure why you think gold is required to have the common law, could you explain further? We still have the common law available to us and it is still used from time to time... Queen's Bench."

I've had this tab open for a few days now, wondering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law
It says "English and Welsh courts recognise the primacy of statute law over common law where the two overlap."

Thats a constitutional change? Not that I ever signed up for any constitution.
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
squark
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby huntingross » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:31 pm

squark wrote:courts recognise the primacy of statute law


One possible answer to this question is the Courts give to Parliament - mistakenly - the authority of absolute sovereignty.

In this thread viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9588&p=76308#p76308 I try to set out why this is not the case.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:36 pm

I think that wiki article has simplified things too much and that quote is simply wrong.

Most English and Welsh courts recognise statute over common law - but not all. There are different courts for different purposes and different jurisdictions. It's that simple.
Is it a constitutional change? Good question and I suspect the answer depends on who you speak to.

The primary purpose of a constitution is to restrict the power of government. As huntingross says, Parliament claims absolute sovereignty and the courts accept this - but the existence of a constitution is proof that the claim is absurd, for an entity with absolute sovereignty could not be restrained by a constitution. How can Parliament claim absolute sovereignty and at the same time claim subservience to the authority of a constitution?
The contradiction is obvious.

The whole thing gets really complicated, I just wrote a page and realised it was pointless. What it boils down to is very very simple. Those in power, the government, can do whatever the hell the people are prepared to let them do. The constitution is just a damn piece of paper (George Bush was spot on) and has as much authority as the people give it. Currently, most people have absolutely no idea what the constitution is - so you can draw your own conclusions as to how effective it is. The government's behaviour shows clearly how seriously they take it.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby Freeman Stephen » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:03 pm

but the existence of a constitution is proof that the claim is absurd, for an entity with absolute sovereignty could not be restrained by a constitution. How can Parliament claim absolute sovereignty and at the same time claim subservience to the authority of a constitution?


(I've often wondered about eu supremacy in judiciary and legislature while parliament claims its absolute power on the basis of its sovereignty it has assigned oversees to a higher authority - I noticed that contradiction but the one you point out here is even more succinct. Thanks.)
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby squark » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:19 pm

I think Parliament was given supreme sovereignty by the Queen, who's claim was bogus ab initio.
I got a reasonable reply from the local council on that contract for citizenship. When I say reasonable, its more than a one liner (coz its the law) and they have gone all wishy washy airy fairy on me, they think there are different ways the law could be interpreted and suggest knowing the law can only be done by testing it, breaking it. So no danger in associating with them then.

I also asked the DOJ, human rights officer, do I have the rights laid out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Will UK courts uphold those human rights? I am expecting an awkwardly worded no, or something so obscure I won't know if its a yes or no. Something about the EU Declaration. So I can't actually tell at all.

I got a dole sanction the other week because I don't know if I am ENTITLED to public funding. Who is the public I asked. EnTITLEment...? You mean Mr. Thats completely arbitrary, I gave myself the title, somedays I don't even use that....anyway no income for a month. So I asked about a warehouse job, needs a course first, they want me to CERTIFY I am ENTITLED and may require evidence for audit purposes. That EU funding, I think that would be a voluntary acceptance of EU Citizen status and put me under the EU courts regarding....anything they decide its regarding. So....NO I CANT SIGN THAT.

It will be 3 months or year next sanction. I have this for my defence..

33 Recent judicial observations are to the same effect. Lord Diplock commented in Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenberg AG [1975] 591 at p 638:

'The acceptance of the rule of law as a constitutional principle requires that a citizen, before committing himself to any course of action, should be able to know in advance what are the legal consequences that will flow from it.'
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
squark
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: Dangerous Thoughts

Postby musashi » Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:31 am

Dreadlock wrote:There is another argument which can be made with regards to the use of promissory notes, or credit, and that is that there are two kinds, albeit physically indistinguishable.

The banks create credit based on nothing and of course it has no intrinsic value. However, the people (who aren't bankers) have to labour for their credit. Labour is just as much a source of money as any other natural resource (gold, wood etc.) which is to say it has value, therefore credit gained via labour is endowed with the value of the labour which went into obtaining it. Therefore my £10, be it a note, coins, or digital representation, which I worked to obtain, actually has value - the value of my labour. Whereas the physically identical £10 created by a bank from nothing has little to no value at all.

Using this perfectly valid reasoning I would argue that anything I purchase using credit or promissory notes or tokens that I have labored to obtain, is mine by right due to the value of my labour. I might be using worthless paper to make the purchase, but that paper represents my labour which absolutely has value. Of course anyone who labours for their money can make exactly the same argument.

I do not agree that we are merchants simply because we use merchant paper. Realistically paper is used less and less these days anyway and only comprises a small fraction of the currency in circulation at any given time. We use legal tender simply because that is what is available for us to use. Its use therefore does not imply anything about our status in commerce. Furthermore merchants operate to achieve profit whereas workers merely exchange their labour for legal tender - there is therefore no profit involved for the labourer and so they cannot reasonably be deemed to be merchants.

I'm not sure why you think gold is required to have the common law, could you explain further? We still have the common law available to us and it is still used from time to time... Queen's Bench.



Your perfectly valid reasoning is the perfectly valid reasoning put out to the sheeple by the bankers and their gremlins who want the sheeple to think that, and then to present it as some kind of rebuttal to those who would waken them, because as long as the sheeple can service their limited day to day needs they are happy to labour for their monopoly money, in blissful ignorance of the full consequences. They have limited vision.
It is only perfectly valid reasoning as far is it goes in its excessively limited way. It addresses only the matter of its usefulness in day to day exchange of goods and services and utterly ignores the underlying reality of the removal of gold.
Gold as the lawful specie cannot be subjected to fiduciary issue - which issue is the basis is of the merchants' rise to global power, and the rest of their hideous agenda. Besides, if it had no day to day usefulness it would never have been accepted, would it?

You appear to be content to swap your labour for paper that has no intrinsic value but may be exchanged only for goods and services or other bits of equally valueless paper. This is your prerogative, of course, but one must ask oneself "What is he doing on a freeman site?" You are happy to exchange your labour for paper that can be devalued at whim by merchant bankers with your destruction in mind merely becasue it currently satisfies your daily needs. Again, that is your entitlement, but your flat, declaratory statements, backed by nothing in the way of anything other than your belief, are unacceptable on a site dedicated to a search for the truth of certain matters. Your stance appears to be that the truth may be found in your belief/thought/opinion. This is far from true.

You do realise that Sophistry and Dialectics teach perfectly valid reasoning, do you not? I will assume that you do and ask this. Do they reach proper and just conculsions, or just the ones they intended to produce by means of their spurious and fallacious methods?
Did you know that Socrates won a flask of wine by "proving" that a certain man's grandfather was a dog?" He used Dialectics and its "perfectly valid reasoning" to reach that inescapable conclusion even though we know that a man cannot have a dog as a grandfather.
A wolf cub, even one rasied among the sons of men, will grow up to be . . . a wolf.

The merest hint of support for your post was the fact that most 'money' is in the form of plastic credit as though it somehow contributes to defeat my merchant paper claims. What it does, in fact, do is to further them. You need to study and reflect on this matter. When all money becomes plastic credit then your last hope and resort, The G.S Act will be useless and avail us nothing. There will be no more Pn's to fear for their possible redemptive value and then they will have their long awaited checkmate. To view plastic credit as different in effect from that of fiat paper is superficialist and literalist.

Clearly you did not read my posts on this - even just the most recent posts, not the ones from years ago. I say this because they answered the questions you asked before you asked them. They give information sufficient to set others on the path without the need to engage me in endless, year after year repetition of the same information with an endless stream of new people determined to debate without the necessary background to enable debate.This may benefit them but it does not me. I am held in statsis, endlessly debating with those who should be out studying and finding where I might be wrong. Simply saying "I don't believe. . " is an act of extreme self betrayal.
Do we debate the nature of reality with every child born into this world, or do we tell them what it is as we understand it and require them to live by it until they are old enough and experienced enough to view it differently then permit them to engage us on it?

Similarly, it is obvious that you lack the necessary information, knowledge and understanding of commerce and you appear to think that merely because you deny a thing you have made it wrong. Not so.

Have you not seen the endless posts and tales of freemen entering courts to demand what jurisdiction they are in? Is this a court of record? Is this a court of the staple(merchant)? A court of contract? Why, do you think that they do this? Is it for a laugh? Or do you thnik they might be trying to escape commerce and re-enter the common law and constitutional protections which they have lost?

Try going to a county court of registry on a tax issue and arguing common law and constitution. You will lose hands down every single time and the opposing barrister will smirk at you while the judge shakes his head in pity at you. Have you managed to find any law - absolutely any law - that say you have to pay income tax? No, you have not. No-one has.
I am going to say this one last time - read the bank rules!

You might manage to make me wrong if you do a bit of study, then a bit of philosophising, come up with something of an argument in rebuttal or refutation and present it in a cogent and reasonable way. In my time here I have said that I stand to be corrected on any matter I write of here and I will engage with anyone who presents information, books, laws, links, quotes etc etc, to the contrary. You have not done this but merely deny something because it does not suit your current belief. I do not deal in beliefs - see my post in Empowering thoughts.

You offer nothing but flat denial with no hint of support for a case you in any case did not make and then try to engage me in answering questions on the matter when the information you require of me is already there on the page.
Did you not think to go in pursuit of my claims? Am I supposed to engage with you in this way? I think not, but merely answer this post of yours because I see it as dangerous to others - at best. Read relevant material then come back to this thread and refute the claims in good old fashioned, common sense argument built on fact and reason.
My contribution to this thread ends here.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Next

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron