RSS

The Men who Stole $16 Trillion

10 Sep

I think I might be beginning to understand “derivatives” (See, “Caught In A Derivative World“).  Therefore, the following video intrigues me since its allegations are based on a Wall Street conspiracy to advocate and exploit derivatives. If the video’s allegations are roughly correct, every man or woman who conspired to advance the “intrinsically worthless” derivatives should be tried for treason. Those who are found guilty should be hanged.

Incidentally, a major difference between Barack Obama and Larry Summers is that while both men may be evil, Summers looks it. Obama does not. Usually.

video   00:04:39

 

Tags: , , , , ,

16 responses to “The Men who Stole $16 Trillion

  1. Pat Fields

    September 10, 2013 at 4:37 AM

    Well, if the ‘money’ they were speaking of in the video was actually money, then the ‘derivatives’ would be truly unlawful, but as the ‘money’ implied is itself a derivative of actual money (or at least USED to be), then it’s merely re-hypothecation.

    What almost no one recognizes, is that banknotes (‘money’) are the Private Intellectual Property of the issuing banks who LOAN them into circulation as Trade Facilitation Instruments (innat nice , a ‘public service’). Since they’re NOT SOLD, Title is retained in the Banks, making ALL CIRCULATING ‘MONEY’ … theirs, regardless of whose possession it so happens to be in at any given moment. So, WHATEVER the banks do with their Property, the general population who enjoys windfall ‘benefits’ from use of the banknotes for their trade as well, are merely financial collareral damage, should things go awry. The fact of the matter is that people would simply have the so-called ‘benefit’withdrawn by the ‘benefactor’.

    There’s really only one escape from these goofballs and that’s to trade in Lawful Substance … copper, silver and gold … or what the Common Law denotes as ‘Valuable Consideration’. Trying to explain, even these simple facts to folks, let ALONE to hope that they discern the wider ramifications enough to take action on, is more work than this old man has time left to even set out upon.

     
    • palani

      September 10, 2013 at 7:17 AM

      @ Pat
      A useful concept is that of “plane”. This word was used and defined by the supreme court in Ponzi vs Fessenden in terms of the choice between a federal plane and the state plane and how these planes interact (they didn’t because at the time … 1922 … they were separate and distinct … now they are less distinct).

      People who use fiat money find themselves in a non-common law plane. They don’t understand the concept of substance and they are incapable of recognizing that they have no private property in the plane they choose to use. If you or anyone else come in with common law concepts you might as well try explaining the feelings generated by a sonata to a deaf man. He cannot hear you and you have no way of conveying your thoughts.

      We who view the world through the lens of the common law look around and see abandoned property everywhere. People who proclaim they adhere to the fiat system think they have ownership but are incapable of holding on to property. They are incapable of stealing $16 trillion dollars because whatever they steal continues to belong to the system. This is a hard concept to understand. This news article does a pretty good job of it though. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/09/08/left-with-nothing/

       
      • Pat Fields

        September 10, 2013 at 8:46 AM

        @palani … “they were separate and distinct … now they are less distinct”

        As I understand construction of municipal jurisdiction, the federal and State are quite separate still. What has transpired is that, to circumvent the constraint of Art. I, Sec. 10, the legislatures of the States assumed Amdt. 14 federal ‘citizen of the United States’ status (qualifying BOTH themselves AND ‘voters’ so) shifting their operations under federal ‘district’ jurisdiction established in 1791 to enforce the ‘Whiskey Tax’. Thus, though they vacated original, ordinary State jurisdictions, they lay fallow to be re-populated by their respective Peoples in their natural Polity as intended at the start (if they knew enough to make that choice).

        The whole gamut of ‘un-Constitutional’ acts take place in these ‘district’ jurisdictions, involving unwitting ‘Persons’ whose polity is in membership with the municipal jurisdiction of the District of Columbia and subject to Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, Congressional dictatorial ‘Property’. Their Lawful Permanent Domicil is NOT under their original, ordinary State jurisdictions, they’re only ‘resident’ on soil merely coincident TO federal jurisdiction.

        Up until 1871, while called a government, the United States entity was properly understood as a Trust Administrator of the State legislatures, but at that juncture it became a true independent government of the D.C. ‘city state’, having unique citizens particular thereto. That’s why the ‘Emancipation Amendment’, encompassed “All persons … subject to the jurisdiction”. The sub-rosa intent was to ensnare everyone under exclusive federal citizenship Congress granted and conditioned legislatively.

         
    • palani

      September 10, 2013 at 10:15 AM

      @ Pat
      “the federal and State are quite separate still. ”
      Comprehending the dots being connected is quite labor consuming and doing it right can be a matter of trial and error. In and around June 20th, 1948 Harry S Truman engaged in an executive act outside of his constitutionally defined job duties. He was not called on this act by the several States so this acts has stood to this day as it defines the relationship between the federal plane and the state plane. His act? He enacted legislation into law while congress was on a major break. The legislation? The effect of the legislation passed was to re-organize federal district courts into the plane previously only occupied by state jurisdiction. Dennis Craig covered this topic in depth with Adask.

      Do you want proof? Timothy McVeigh was reported to have committed a crime in Oklahoma. He was tried in Denver. He was reported to be executed in Indiana.

       
      • Pat Fields

        September 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        If I’m correct, I believe the McVeigh incident was all kept in District 10.

        If you read Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 meticulously, it completely dismisses the federal body from all Constitutional constraint in matters falling under its exclusive jurisdiction (referred to as ‘Property’ in the clause). So, Truman couldn’t have done anything ‘un-Constitutional’, as long as his directive was intended specifically to be executed in federal ‘district’ jurisdiction (most often left unsaid).

        “The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”
        [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

         
      • medicis

        September 10, 2013 at 11:13 AM

        Can you please provide some link to that covering of the topic by Dennis Craig and Mr. Adask?

         
      • medicis

        September 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM

        Can you please provide some link to that covering of the topic by Dennis Craig and Mr. Adask?

        sorry, I inadvertently put this initially as a reply to the next comment…

         
    • palani

      September 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM

      @ Pat

      The federal zone you identify as the 10th circuit is part included in Harry S. Truman’s extra-constitutional act. The execution was carried out in the 7th circuit (Indiana) as I previously pointed out.

      The constitution provides in the LEGISLATIVE SECTION: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated …

      Could you describe to me your theory of how this LEGISLATIVE function of the president may be carried out while the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH is adjourned? How can this branch adjourn when they don’t have an idea which of your bills have been enacted into law and which have not? If this should be the case and they adjourn for 6 months how are they going to know what they left as law and what did not get enrolled as law?

      “Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)” …. The date should tell you that you are now comparing apples to oranges. The debt of the organic U.S. stopped changing in 1878 and is fixed at $346,681,016. Any dicta from Downes v. Bidwell does not apply to the organic Republic. This dicta applies to the entity that existed from 1868 to 1933. This newer entity no longer exists. When the replacement ventured into social insurance the older entity abandoned any obligation that it had to pay its debts in gold. More recently the version that guaranteed social insurance has just stopped acknowledging its debts and is in the process of being replaced by ???????

      You may only know your relationship to these multiple entities by proposing experiments and examining the outcome. I would suggest that historical documents be examined with this view in mind and realize that all the books written on all the topics that define government are in error when they describe the newest entity on the block … that which has not yet made itself known.

       
      • Pat Fields

        September 11, 2013 at 1:42 AM

        @palani … Truman’s E.O. of June 20th, 1948 (9981), was to de-segregate the Military. The only E.O. of Truman’s that I could find regarding the Judiciary, was 10097, which had to do with Puerto Rico’s Supreme Court. So, you’ll need to be more precise in identifying exactly which ‘act’ you’re attempting to discuss.

        In fact, I haven’t the faintest idea how my original comment about banknote ‘money’ having ‘legality’ only under exclusive Congressional ‘district’ jurisdiction by provision of Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, became transmogrified into tangents on the McVeigh Incident, Truman E.O.’s and proper Constitutional legislative process.

        My point is that in matters under its exclusive jurisdiction … there are no Constitutions … and that illusions of distinction between State and ‘federal’, have been subsumed into a monolithic District of Columbia, extended over the States by the artifice of these 12 ‘districts’ instituted in 1791.

         
      • palani

        September 11, 2013 at 5:02 AM

        @ Pat “Truman’s E.O. of June 20th, 1948 (9981), was to de-segregate the Military.”
        Not EO. Signing legislation that has been presented to him. Take the time to read the Dennis Craig documents on this blog.

        “In fact, I haven’t the faintest idea how my original comment about banknote ‘money’…”
        I brought up planes and you suggested the federal and state planes were still separate. I countered with examples. The comments are still there.

        “illusions of distinction between State and ‘federal’, have been subsumed into a monolithic District of Columbia, extended over the States by the artifice of these 12 ‘districts’ instituted in 1791.” Any districts established in 1791 would only be established over the original 13 several States. But I am not arguing with you on this point. The principle of federal and state overlays might have been established then. When reviewing events that happen on a national scale history is worth looking at but something that is blatantly extra vires (as in June 20th, 1948) should be taken on first. You don’t peel an onion from the inside out do you?

         
    • palani

      September 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM

      @Medicis

      https://adask.wordpress.com/category/dennis-craig/

      There is more if Alfred Adask kept his audio archives

       
      • Adask

        September 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM

        The Dennis Craig articles are listed under the “Category” (on the right side of this blog) entitled “Dennis Craig”.

         
  2. Anthony Clifton

    September 11, 2013 at 4:54 AM

    isn’t the folly of “Jew” worshipping becoming undeniably evident…

    that there really is no bottom to that pit ?

    http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/germany-alienates-america-while-embracing-judea/

    “betting” that the Almighty is a Liar and believing in the “Jewish Narrative” is a losing bet….

    כִּֽי־אָ֛ז אֶהְפֹּ֥ךְ אֶל־עַמִּ֖ים שָׂפָ֣ה בְרוּרָ֑ה לִקְרֹ֤א כֻלָּם֙ בְּשֵׁ֣ם יְהוָ֔ה לְעָבְדֹ֖ו שְׁכֶ֥ם אֶחָֽד׃

    http://biblehub.com/text/zephaniah/3-9.htm

     
    • Adask

      September 11, 2013 at 7:38 AM

      Why do you waste our time writing ” כִּֽי־אָ֛ז אֶהְפֹּ֥ךְ אֶל־עַמִּ֖ים שָׂפָ֣ה בְרוּרָ֑ה לִקְרֹ֤א כֻלָּם֙ בְּשֵׁ֣ם יְהוָ֔ה לְעָבְדֹ֖ו שְׁכֶ֥ם אֶחָֽד׃”?

      I assume that language is ancient Hebrew. Do you think anyone else on this blog reads ancient Hebrew? I don’t. I doubt that many of my readers read Hebrew. I doubt that any of my readers read Hebrew. In fact, the only people who are likely to be able to read your Hebrew text are Jews–who you implicitly claim to despise. If you write in ancient Hebrew are you engaging in a variety of the very “Jew worship” that you claim to be “folly”?

      Of course, may readers may find your use (however incomprehensible) of ancient Hebrew to be evidence of your huge intellect, but I see it as nothing more than a self-serving vanity.

      Lawyers do it all the time. Like the Wizard of Oz, they talk about “e pluribus unum” and “ipso facto”. A lot of people are impressed by that mumbo-jumbo and implicitly say “That shyster must be really, really smart cuz he uses big words and I can’t understand a damn thing he says.”

      I am not one of those people. My opinion is that if someone can’t communicate an idea in a language that I’m able to understand, he must be an idiot or a con-artist. I believe it’s incumbent on any mortal “communicator” to recognize and respect his audience and attempt to communicate in a language that his audience can understand.

      This blog is primarily for Americans who speak English. If you can’t write something on this blog in English that the readers of this blog can be expected to read and understand, don’t write.

      If you think that actually writing a competent description of your ideas is too hard and you prefer to merely “gesture” with crap in Hebrew or videos that you implicitly recommend without bothering to explain, then take you lazy ass to some other blog.

      You offer us nothing but your arrogance and contempt. We don’t need them. You’re not that smart. You don’t have that much to say. If you disagree, start your own blog and see how many people will visit to read your crypto-prose. I doubt that you could find 20 people who’d regularly waste their time trying to comprehend your text.

      You send us a list of links to videos without bothering to explain why each video might be of interest. Apparently, you think we all have (or at least should have) such a high opinion of your intellect that you can just submit your “daily video list” and we dummies will dutifully view each video simply because you said so. You’re exactly like these other idiots who send emails with lines like “URGENT! Read this!” and then give us nothing more than a link to some text or video–but give us no indication of why the link might contain some useful information.

      Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but the world is awash in information. Nobody with a brain to call his own has time to chase down every rabbit hole (link) that someone else thinks is interesting. Insofar as lazy people send email that say no more than “Read this!” or some such, they waste their readers’ time. Worse, by wasting their readers’ time, they express their disrespect for their readers.

      Every time I get such email, I instantly toss it in the trash. If the sender doesn’t have enough respect for me to take a moment to describe why the link might point to information that I might find relevant and valuable–and thereby allow me the right to choose to view or not view that email–I don’t have enough respect for the sender to bother reading his email or following his link.

      I view your cryptic lists of video links with the same level of disrespect.

      Communication is hard work. If you don’t or can’t make the effort, don’t try to con us with endless crypto-comments. If you have something to actually say, say it. If you don’t, then shut up. If writing is too hard for you, stop writing.

      So, I have new rules for your Mark, Davey, Anthony, whoever:

      1) If you make a comment on this blog with more than one video, I will delete your comment–even if it tells us where we could find the fabulous treasure of the Lost City of Gold.

      2) If you make a comment on this blog that includes one video but you don’t bother to explain why that video might be of interest to others, I will delete your comment.

      3) If you want to show off how smart you are by writing in foreign languages that virtually no one else on this blog is likely to read or understand, I will delete your comment.

      4) If you want to continue writing in your incomprehensible, crypto-comments, I will delete your comments.

      5) If you’re too lazy to make the effort to write your ideas in a way that most people can understand, I will delete your comments.

      I know you well enough to know that you’re not so dumb that you can’t write clearly. That tells me that you choose to not write clearly because you’re either too lazy to do so or too conceited to bother. In either case, we don’t need you here. If you can’t make an effort to write clearly, don’t bother to write anything at all.

       
  3. Anthony Clifton

    September 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM

    you may delete this comment, but I will reply anyway…

    it is my understanding that you spent a little time in Missouri at the invitation of “gov-co” and I just “assumed” that you might have spent some time reading the Bible…I assumed from having seen your Bible that you had spent some time reading and perhaps “studying” in your Bible.

    I recalled that at one time you claimed to have some “Russian” extraction to your family heritage
    I placed the ‘Hebrew” text link directly below the “Hebrew” which was from the

    Westminster Leningrad Codex – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Codex

    I have a difficult time apologizing for someone’s lack of curiosity, or intellectual fortitude, as much as I do for those who clamber over the same ground and never look above the rut {intellectual} they’re
    in and seek a different perspective…

    I do have the handicap of having spent 10 years at six “Universities” and the United States Army Intelligence School at Ft. Huachuca …having received a degree in Government from the University of Texas in 1986.

    I have met and known numerous Judges, Doctors, Lawyers, Retired Intelligence Officers,
    Scientists, Ambassadors, Politicians, Economists, “Patriots”, Ministers, Rabbi’s, Preachers,
    “White Supremacists”, “Black Supremacists”, Idiots, Retards and Crazies….

    I would think that you would appreciate someone who would visit your site and leave a comment, as most probably don’t on account of TIME.

    I think you have done a wonderful JOB such as you are able to spread the GOOD NEWS, and not just with the Anti-Shyster, Radio, and CLR….but being yourself…a blue collar, intelligent MAN
    seeking answers that many others benefit from

    at not time has my intent been to pretend to be arrogant with the Information or the ISSUE of what the story of the Children of Israel from the Bible is about…

    I have lived with “Jews”, and Arabs…Blacks & Mexicans…and have met and known people from well over 150 countries…I have not been a ‘Merchant seaman” and have as of yet been able to visit friends in other parts of the world

    as you know I became involved with exposing the Mass Murder of the Davidian’s, which propelled my education in the broader context of “WHO” is behind the MISERY that has been visited on the
    American people who serve the “god” of Talmudic Judaism, DE FACTO since 1860.

    I do not harbor a hatred for all so called “Jews”, just as I harbor no irrational hatred for Negroes or
    any other so-called NON WHITE people…

    I thoroughly despise WHITE MEN who reject the Truth out of hand and remain maliciously stupid and by rejecting their responsibility allow the diabolical ECONOMIC TERRORISTS to Nation rape
    at will…

    the Hebrew verse above is Zephaniah 3:9.

    http://archive.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/4643_00.htm

    Purification of the Nations

    For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

    I have a request from you IN GOOD FAITH

    when did the first “Jew” pop up on the radar screen in your understanding of “History”…

    maybe we {all} could get on the same page and eliminate the mulberry bush… diorama,

    I apologize for your misunderstanding my intent,
    which was not in any way malicious towards you
    or those readers of your BLOG who don’t get
    paid by so-called “TAX DOLLARS”.

    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CR/htm/CR.12.htm

    incidentally, as you may know the so-called FBI investigated me as being a “HITMAN” based on an allegation by an ATF “arson” investigator, and I spent 6 1/2 years going to court in Dallas on account of the Waco case…by another false allegation by a less than Honorable individual who
    prevented me from being able to pay back the people I borrowed the money from to Make & Edit the first Waco Documentary – The Ken Fawcett Theory…in April of 1993.

    thank you for all you do, and have done for truth and liberty…for Justice.

     
    • Adask

      September 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM

      I’ve never thought you were malicious. But I have consistently viewed the “shorthand” you’ve usually used in your comments to be disrespectful–and not just of me, but more importantly, of my audience.

      The one thing I try not to do on this blog is waste my readers’ time. I may not not succeed in that effort, but I don’t publish anything just so I can publish something. I try to include some insight that I think may be unusual and potentially valuable in every post. I do not want to waste my readers’ time.

      Your “crypto-comments” aggravated me because they were virtually incomprehensible to me or my readers. If we tried to read you comments, you tended to waste our time.

      As for your extensive background, that’s great but it doesn’t excuse you from the obligation of writing in a way that people can easily understand rather than writing in a “shorthand” that no one understands. I don’t give a damn if the Nobel Prize winning Obama or even Hilary Clinton want to write comments on my blog. If they disrespect my audience by writing gibberish on my blog, they’ll be criticized. If they persist in wasting my readers’ time, they’ll be deleted.

      If you’ve got something to say, write it. If you’re too busy to write clearly,don’t write anything. Respect the audience.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s