RSS

Fiat Money Fools

14 Dec

Fool3One of my readers sent the following question.  It touches on some of the irrationality and outright foolishness that follows when a nation gives up it gold- or silver-based money and replaces it with a fiat (paper or digital) currency:

“I’m having a hard time understanding how Detroit or anyone can have a debt; if there is no real money, how can there be a debt?

“Without real money, how could there even be a bankruptcy court, or bankruptcy protection?  If all we have is debt paper for currency, that debt paper is lent into existence, backed by nothing, how can there be a debt? I’m not trained in finance/accounting but this whole system is insane and makes no sense to dummies like me.”

 

My Answer(s):

First, your premise that our “debt paper for currency” is “backed by nothing” isn’t quite true.

It’s true that our fiat dollars aren’t back by anything tangible, like gold or silver.  However, since A.D. 1971, paper dollars have been backed by the American peoples’ “full faith and credit”.    “Full faith and credit” is fancy language for asserting that the American people will make good on the debts created and denominated in fiat dollars.

Thus, the national debt and the value of the fiat dollar are backed by your signature; by your presumed or implied promises to pay that debt.

The “official” national debt is $17 trillion; Shadowstats.com says it’s closer to $90 trillion; the Congressional Budget Office says that, including unfunded liabilities, the national debt is over $200 trillion.   Depending on whichever total sum you choose to believe most accurately describes the true national debt, your personal “fair share” of that debt may be roughly $50,000, $300,000 or $650,000.

So, how much extra money do you have?  How much of your fair share do you plan to pay?

I’ll bet that after you explain why you’re in a bind just now (the kid needs braces, Christmas is coming, etc.), your answer is Zee-ro.  You aren’t going to voluntarily pay anything on the national debt.

How much of my “fair share” of the national debt do you think I plan to voluntarily pay?  Answer: Zee-ro.

Do you think the rest of America is any different?   Talk to 100 people. Explain that they each owe somewhere between $50,000 and $650,000 as their fair share of the national debt.  Ask them how much of that debt they plan to pay and how soon government can expect their check.  It’s conceivable that two or three out of one hundred might agree to pay their full “fair share”—but it’s not likely.  It’s certain that at least 97% will refuse to voluntarily pay that debt.

Ask the same questions of all 310 million Americans, and you’ll probably get similar replies.  Ohh, they may not object to other people being held liable for the national debt.  But how much are they able and willing to personally pay?  Just about Zee-ro.

Given that virtually no one is ready to personally pay his fair share of the national debt, what’s the true value of the “full faith and credit of the American people” that’s allegedly backing our national debt and our fiat dollars?

It’s also just about Zee-ro.

Why?  Because you will break your presumed and/or implied promise to pay your “fair share” of the national debt.  So will I.  So will just about every other living American.

So, what are the real values of the national debt and fiat dollar backed by the “full faith and credit of the American people” if the American people aren’t able or willing to pay their fair share of the national debt?

Pretty close to Zee-ro.

Americans are no more likely to voluntarily repay our national debt than Greece, Cyprus or Zimbabwe.  So, when that debt finally comes due, those creditors holding the paper debt-instruments (stocks, bonds, bank accounts, 401(k)s, etc.) are going to take  a “haircut”—just like they did in Greece, Cyprus and Zimbabwe.  Those creditors who trust in the “full faith and credit of the American people” are going to get just as screwed as those who trusted in the “full faith and credit” of Greece, Cyprus or Zimbabwe. They’re gonna lose their assets.

Why?

First, because you, and I and the rest of America don’t have the money or even sufficient net worth, to pay the national debt.

Second, because we say in our hearts, “Screw the debt–let someone else pay it.”  We aren’t about to personally kick in $50,000 to $650,000 to pay off the national debt.

The purpose of this analysis is to illustrate that you will not personally pay your fair share of the national debt.   If you won’t pay, what makes you think I will?  Why should anyone else?

Once you recognize that you won’t voluntarily pay your fair share of the national debt, you can extrapolate that recognition to see that virtually no one will voluntarily repay that debt—and therefore, most of that debt won’t ever be paid.

Sooner or later, almost every creditor who loaned currency to the US government will come to the same conclusion.  Sooner or later, everyone holding a piece of the US national debt or storing their wealth in the form of paper dollars will lose most of their purported wealth and recognize that they’ve been playing the fool.

Fool2•  The danger of all debt is that “one man’s debt is another man’s asset”.  Debt is always an express or implied promise to repay the debt—someday—but not today.

If I borrow $100,000, I sign a note for $100,000.  That note is my “promise to pay”.  Someone then holds that note and treats it as an asset.  If you ask them, they’ll tell you that they have $100,000 in “savings” because they have a piece of paper with my signature on it.  (When you think about it, isn’t it almost laughably foolish for anyone to believe that piece of paper bearing someone’s signature is a form of wealth?)

But, if I go broke, I can’t pay my debts.  I can’t make good on my promise to pay.  If I can’t pay my debts, I destroy the value the paper debt instruments that memorialize each of my debts.  If I go broke, my $100,000 note becomes worthless and the man who thought he had $100,000 in savings will learn the difference between a “payment” (receiving something tangible) and a “promise to pay” (receiving a signed piece of paper).

But it gets worse.  In a debt-based monetary system, bankruptcy doesn’t just wipe out the debtor’s debts, and the creditor’s assets, it actually destroys that part of the money supply that’s based on the debt.   Because bankruptcy in a debt-based monetary system (like our) makes currency disappear, bankruptcy diminishes the national money supply and attacks the economy itself.  Thus, we have three “losers” in a bankruptcy proceeding:  the borrower, the creditor and the economy.

• This three-party loss wouldn’t happen if we had a 100% gold- or silver-based monetary system.

I.e., if I borrowed $100,000 in gold and I went bankrupt, I couldn’t repay the $100,000 in gold and the paper debt instrument that memorializes that debt to my creditor would also be worth zero.  I’d be broke and my creditor would lose $100,000 in gold.

But the $100,000 in gold would still remain in the hands of multiple people within the economy.  I would’ve borrowed the gold and spent the gold (foolishly, perhaps).  I might not have any more gold, but the gold I’d borrowed would still exist.

I’d be bankrupt for being a fool, and the man who was fool enough to lend me $100,000 in gold would also suffer a $100,000 loss.  But the gold/money would still exist in the hands of people who were not so foolish and the economy, itself, would not be diminished.  I’d be diminished; my creditor would be diminished; but the economy would not be impaired by my bankruptcy.

With paper debt instruments, that’s not so.

If I go bankrupt, my $100,000 note becomes worthless, my creditor loses $100,000, but so does the economy.  The currency/credit which was created in the original loan and which became part of the national money supply would cease to exist.

More, because of fractional reserve banking in a fiat monetary system, if I signed a $100,000 note, the banking system could use my note as collateral to lend ten times that much ($1 million) to other borrowers. Therefore, if I go broke, my $100,000 note not only becomes worthless, but the bank may have to “call in” $1 million in loans based on my failed $100,000 note.

Now the economy is in big trouble.  It hasn’t merely lost $100,000–it’s effectively lost over $1 million.

That couldn’t happen with a purely gold- and/or silver-based monetary system because banks can’t “spin” ten ounces of physical gold out of thin air for every ounce of gold they loaned out. Spinning dollars out of thin air is only possible—and highly profitable–with paper or digital fiat currencies.  That’s why central bank love fiat currency and hate gold and silver.  Bankers can’t make a fast buck off gold or silver.  They can off fiat dollars.

•  The obvious (but seldom recognized) point is that currency in a debt-based monetary system is made of debt (promises to pay) rather than tangible assets like gold or silver.  The debt instruments generated by loans become part of the “money supply”.  Therefore, every bankruptcy in a debt-based monetary system doesn’t merely destroy the debt owed by some unfortunate borrower and cause creditors to lose their assets—it destroys some of the debt-based currency itself and thereby threatens the entire economy.

That threat isn’t confined to individual bankruptcies.   Suppose the US government is declared to be bankrupt—what happens?  The national debt is wiped out and however much of that debt is held by foreign countries is also wiped out.  The consequent loss of currency could cause the whole world economy to collapse.

Again, that can’t happen with a 100% gold- or silver-based monetary system.  The US government could go bankrupt and there’d be a big problem for the US economy.  Americans would be mad.  A lot of politicians would be thrown out of office.  But the actual money (gold/silver) that the US had borrowed would still exist.   Those who’d treated the gold/silver foolishly would lose their gold/silver.  But the gold/silver lost by fools would still exist in the hands of people who were more prudent and the economy would not be impaired.

•  Bankruptcy punishes fools and teaches prudence.

In a gold- or silver-based monetary system, the only fools punished are the borrower who defaults and his creditors.

In a debt-based monetary system, the original borrower is punished for playing the fool.  His creditors are punished for being fool enough to trust the borrower.  But the entire public—and thus, the economy—are also punished by seeing their national money supply diminished.

Does it seem unfair that the people at large are punished?  It’s not.  The people should be punished for being fool enough to allow their government to subject them to a debt-based monetary system.

In a gold/silver-based monetary system personal bankruptcies can actually strengthen the economy by:

1) Taking gold and silver out of the hands of fools and placing it in the hands of the wise; and,

2) Serving as an object lesson to teach all others what kind of financial behavior is foolish and self-destructive and what behavior is wise and profitable.

But in an economy built on a debt-based monetary system, widespread bankruptcy poses an enormous threat that must be avoided wherever possible in order to avoid destroying the “money supply” that’s composed of nothing but debt made from an illusory fiat currency.  If enough debt is destroyed, enough currency may be thereby destroyed and the result can be deflation, depression and economic collapse.

That’s why we have “too big to fail” banks.  They’re not “too big to fail”; they’re “too big to bankrupt”.

Any bank that’s deemed “too big to fail” is, by definition, incompetent and foolish.  Technically, they’re the worst banks you could possibly invest in or trust.  In a gold- or silver-based monetary system, such banks would be executed in bankruptcy for the “sin” of financial recklessness and irresponsibility.

But in a debt-based monetary system, if government allows the “too big to fail” banks to slide into bankruptcy, under fractional reserve banking, the economy might suffer the loss of ten times as much currency from the “money supply” as the bank was worth.  If the “too big to fail” banks were allowed to slip into bankruptcy, the resulting destruction of paper and digital dollars could be enough to collapse the US and even global economies.

•  A fool and his money may be soon parted in an economy based on gold and silver money.  But, in the fiat monetary system, the greatest fools (the “too big to fail” banks and governments) are protected and even rewarded for their foolishness by giving them even more currency.  Because we can’t risk having our greatest fools slide into bankruptcy, we must keep them “alive” at any cost.  Therefore, we have Quantitative Easing to give more money to our biggest fools.

Who are our biggest fools?

We can identify them by asking Who’s getting the currency under Quantitative Easing?

Answer:  The Federal Reserve doles out $85 billion each month that’s being divided roughly 50/50 between the big Wall Street banks and the federal government.

Thus, America’s biggest fools are the big banks on Wall Street and the federal government.   The Wall Street banks are technically bankrupt because they hold billions, even trillions of dollars in derivatives that will one day require payments that can’t possibly be paid.  The federal government is technically bankrupt because it holds a national debt that can never be paid in full.

By protecting our greatest fools from bankruptcy, we become fools, ourselves.

1st  Implication:  The federal government and the Wall Street banks are our least competent institutions and biggest fools (with the possible exception of the American people who allow this crap to continue).

2nd Implication:  Insofar as we allow our biggest fools to run our government, economy and nation, we are inevitably headed for a national catastrophe.  (If you’re going to put your trust in fools, you are a fool—and you are heading for a fool’s reward:  poverty.)

3rd implication: All of this foolishness (and our inevitable economy collapse) flows from the fundamental foolishness and irrationality of replacing a gold- and silver-based money with a fiat currency.

 
21 Comments

Posted by on December 14, 2013 in Banking, Debt, Fiat Currency, Money, Values, What Can't be Paid

 

Tags: , , , ,

21 responses to “Fiat Money Fools

  1. cynthia

    December 15, 2013 at 12:52 AM

    I can tell you that there have been a handful both ‘in the know’ and ‘with a backbone’ that have had full ‘success’ in ‘court’ for which they expressed, not in exact words, they were willing to ‘sign’ a promissory note to be setoff and discharged with U.S. Treasury and NOT securitized upon – as ‘they’ ‘pay-ment’ – for which the ‘judge’ accepted. This is because the U.S. Treasury is the primary “book keeper” for ‘public’ and ‘quasi-government’ (private\public) as such based on “GAAP” the only way to ‘nullify’ said ‘debt’ is ‘through’ the U.S. Treasury via setoff and discharged “note”, no other way… for all else is ‘debt’ and NOT ‘payment’. I know of one here on “Mary’s Land” (Mary Queen of Scotts) who did this with full ‘success’. A grassroots movement is also expressing, “what” and “how” am I to ‘pay’ when “USD” or “FRN” is only a perpetuation of ‘debt’, in particular “threat to the STATE” because it adds to said ‘debt’ unto the proven to be private Federal Reserve Bank (bankers wars), and one has no desire to being a “financial terrorist” to said “STATE” or nation – with full success – the key is “forgiveness” is one of the golden rules of ‘religion’ is it not? For which we all are supposed to have ‘freedom of religion’ at the core of said “STATE”, no?

     
    • Adask

      December 15, 2013 at 3:06 AM

      Y’know, the idea of signing a promissory note to pay off whatever debt is alleged in court may not be completely irrational. Suppose I borrow $250,000 from the bank to build or buy a house. I sign a note for $250,000 which, if I understand correctly, might later be used by other banks as collateral under fractional reserve banking to lend $2.5 million. That note is nothing but a piece of paper and the only thing that makes that note worth $250,000 is my signature. In broad strokes, I have created $250,000 with little more than a piece of paper, a ballpoint pen, and my signature.

      It might follow that if I can “create” currency by merely affixing my signature to a piece of paper at the bank, I might also be able to “create” currency by merely affixing my signature to a piece of paper at a court. I doubt that writing a promissory note to discharge a court-imposed fine is that simple. But if you really understood the court’s debt creation and collection process, it might be possible.

       
  2. cynthia

    December 15, 2013 at 12:53 AM

    Separately, we all have ‘usafruct’ of said ‘private’ ‘notes’ based on both common law and organic natural law right to life, for which few can in fact be fully self-sufficient without for basics to live.

     
  3. Anthony Clifton

    December 15, 2013 at 8:59 AM

    in light of the parable of the sower
    http://buelahman.wordpress.com/
    and the parable of the talents
    one might conclude that the economy
    http://www.smoking-mirrors.com/2013/12/turbo-stupid-and-dominoes-of.html
    in the Kingdom of the Messiah for Israel {New Jerusalem}
    the value of the individual would
    be denominated in rewards
    http://www.thesullenbell.com/2013/12/14/transparency-and-journalism-mutually-exclusive/
    other than just gold and silver

    aside from spending 3 dollar bills into circulation to help
    improve the economy, one can also make Clinton
    commemorative coins…

     
  4. palani

    December 15, 2013 at 9:15 AM

    Legal fictions deal in fiction. Learning to discern the real from the imagined appears to be a forgotten art. Man is endowed with senses of taste, feel, smell, vision and hearing to aid in this task.

    What does a dollar taste like? Ever thought of tasting one?

    What does a dollar feel like? Is it more like burlap or silk?

    What does a dollar smell like? When raising hogs I learned they smell like money although I don’t know that they smell like a dollar.

    What does a dollar look like? Is it ink on paper or does it have a hologram or is it metallic?

    What does a dollar sound like? If you drop it does it ‘clink’?

    One might come up with qualitative tests to determine a dollar. Light a match to it and you might get a particular odor, a special sound or a visible light. Test the temperature (feel?) to see if it burns high or low. Taste the ash perhaps? Check the weight? Check the purity?

    What is a quantitative test for multiple dollars? If 1 dollar weights 1 oz does a billion dollars weigh a billion oz or is there a sliding scale that says the more you have the less they weigh? If you have this rule then the man who owns the most holds the least. Or maybe the man with nothing holds the most?

     
  5. pop de adam

    December 15, 2013 at 11:06 AM

    If Congress can delegate money creation activities to lesser entities such as the FED, there must be some residue of the this right in the people in order to delegate this power upon congress in the first place. Most people don’t think it is proper to leave a trail of bounced or unredeemable checks/promissory notes, even though the the people may unknowingly be doing just this. Congress while not admitting it, thinks this is acceptable behavior. If they believe this and it is acceptable for them to do so, at some level the people should have this same power/ability. I think if this is so, the mechanism is guarded and the proper process meticulously maintained with no tolerance for defect to render it nearly inaccessible to the people themselves. In this fashion the government holds the purse strings. If for every bill/note congress extended, the people could counter with one of their own negating it, the people would be effectively be cutting up the governments “credit card”.

    When the government is wrong and found to be so, who really pays for it? The same people who pay when the government is right and proper. I think it is strange that a person as a defendant can be singled out as some exception to be reconciled, while at the same time be considered a member of the complaining party and not have the same benefits this complaining party reserves for itself. “This state” versus this “person” who is presumed to be a member of “This state”, how can something or someone sue or make a claim against itself? We are told “this state” cannot be sued in the conventional sense, usually only as a collective, that this jurisdiction is based upon our presumed membership in “this state”, this tells me that all cases where a party is termed “The State” are frauds. Why? Because logically we would be able present ourselves at either table before the court. Judgement against citizen X? Fine, citizen X finds this acceptable and walks to the opposing table and forgives citizen X. Suppose the prosecution takes issue with this and objects, they would be refuting in open court that they don’t actually represent the complaintant, to verify this they would have to produce some form of power of attorney and even if one were presumed to exist your presence and lack of providing one at the same time makes their claim to have it unverifiable. It would probably really gum up the works if someone actually were able to submit into evidence a power of attorney naming themself as such.

    The major problem is that these institutions believe that this form of collectivisation is progress and will protect it using the same to enforce it, not realizing the embrace of collectivism is the destruction of the self and of the individual. Stranger still, if someone were to really get to the root of why this pursuit is maintained, it is found that it is done for selfish reasons. They want to be right in every matter, for this to be untrue would undo the entire premise of what they do. If they are wrong they must admit they are not the underdog they thought they were, but are the very problem they sought to extinguish when they first percieved some injustice.

    “As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.”

    from The Law, by Frederick Bastait.

    Rambled off topic enough for today, Pop

     
  6. EDOMS THORN

    December 15, 2013 at 11:27 AM

    Deuteronomy 28 is to the Children of ISRAEL! READ IT!
    What was America>>>
    Deuteronomy 28:12 The Lord shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.

    And WHAT America has become>>>
    Deuteronomy 28:43-44 The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.

    And that stranger is EDOM. When the people decide that the facts do matter about who has gained control of the Western Nations Foreign and Domestic Policies, research this fact filled expose’ about EDOM.
    http://www.edomsthorn.wordpress.com
    EXPOSING the Gods CHOSEN™ People MYTH

    YOU DO NOT SEE AMERICA IN SCRIPTURE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT SEE TRUE ISRAEL! GOD was able to do all HE said concerning ISRAEL!
    Why don’t these scriptures fit the so called “Gods Chosen”?
    http://www.edomsthorn.wordpress.com/why-dont-these-scriptures-fit-the-so-called-gods-chosen

     
    • Anthony Clifton

      December 16, 2013 at 6:25 AM

      some prefer to believe lies….because Talmudvision

      said so….

      http://forward.com/articles/189305/knesset-committee-approves-bill-to-tax-donations-t/

      and sadly most people can’t THINK….anymore.

      BAAA BAAA

       
    • Cody

      December 19, 2013 at 8:44 AM

      I generally agree with you that those who follow the Star of Remphan may have questionable ancestry, I think the KJV is probably one of the worst sources of authoritative English Scripture.

      Acts 7:43

      http://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/kingjames.htm

       
      • EDOMS THORN

        December 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM

        What ever version of the Bible we use, we are instructed to…
        II TIMOTHY 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
        DIVIDING: S.C. GREEK 3718 “orthotomeo” to make straight, cut, to DISSECT!

        I have been studying in the original Hebrew and Greek to discern the meanings of the words that are used in scripture, and how they came to be used.

        The word “ISRAEL” occurs 2568 times in 2294 verses in the KJV, and not one time is ISRAEL called “JEW” The Book of Romans is largely about Gods love for ISRAEL/Jacob and the word “JEW” is used there ten times and not one time is it used for ISRAEL. WHY NOT?
        NEVER in the entire Bible are the so called JEWS called “Gods Chosen”
        The word “JEW” in scripture, NO WHERE denote “FAITH or Religion.
        “JEW” means Judean and/or Judah/Judea/Juda and is used for one son of Jacob/ISRAEL JUDAH.

        1 Chronicles 16:13 O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.

        Psalm 135:4 For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

        Isaiah 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

        Isaiah 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

        I use Strong’s Concordance S.C. I recommend a hard copy 1980 or older, because I have found MANY “changes” in the new version,

        In the Old Testament the Hebrew word is; S.C. 3063 “Yehuwdah” …”The name of Five Israeli Also of the tribe descended from the first, and of its territory: Judah”…
        S.C. 3064 “Yehuwdiy ‘patron from 3063; a Jehudite (i.e. Judaite or Jew), or desc. of Jehudah (i.e. Judah):-Jew

        In the NEW Testament it is. JEW (The word Jew mentioned in.John 4:22 …”for Salvation is of the Jews”… is RIGHTLY translated from the GREEK S.C. 2453 it is; “Ioudaios”, pronounced ee-oo-dah-yos and means …”JUDEAN; AS A COUNTRY i.e.belonging to Judea”…
        THAT is ALL that is found in the Strong’s Concordance from 1980. Nothing omitted and nothing added! Also, Jew has never applied to Israel in the Bible.
        ALSO S.C. 2453 in my Hard Copy shows it is ‘FROM’ S.C. 2448 and 2455.

        As used in Matthew 2:6 S.C. 2448 “Iouda” Judah = “he shall be praised”
        the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob
        the tribe that were the offspring of Judah
        the region occupied by the tribe
        a city of the tribe of Judah,….

        As used in Hebrews 7:14 S.C. 2455 “Ioudas” Judah or Judas = “he shall be praised”

        the fourth son of Jacob
        an unknown ancestor of Christ…..

        MANY place’s where the word “JEW” is used, it should have been translated Juda or Judah.

        GENTILE is another word used in ERROR!

         
  7. Pat Fields

    December 17, 2013 at 4:05 AM

    “People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King, by his prerogative.” … Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9,20 (1829)

    “The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” … Volume 20: Corpus Juris Secundum, (P 1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L. Ed. 287)

    “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

    “There are, then, two classes of citizens; one of the United States, and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia.” … Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788, 790, 791, 160 Ala. 155

    “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” – Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2

    It should be sufficiently obvious by the above sequence, that banknotes are issued under and into exclusive Congressional jurisdiction (aka: ‘Property’). Any ‘debt’ they represent is thus also specific to such jurisdiction ‘belonging to the United States’ and entities apparently holding Lawful Permanent Domicil thereunder.

    “Pursuant to the powers Vested in me by the act entitled “An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same,” I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:

    The district of New Hampshire … (and cetera, 14 ‘districts’ in all)

    So, the question is, are you a Citizen and Lawful Permanent Domiciliary of your State, or a ‘citizen of the United States’ and Domiciliary thereof … merely sojourning indefinitely in the state in which you dwell?

    If the latter, then you ARE liable for that ‘debt’ … however it’s defined under Congressional whim and fancy.

     
  8. Pat Fields

    December 17, 2013 at 4:14 AM

    Without an Edit Function, I’m forced to add that the above districting proclamation, ‘Pursuant to the powers …’, is cited from ‘Messages and Papers of the Presidents’, of George Washington, March 4th, 1791, pg. 99. (see also: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65588)

     
  9. Cody

    December 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM

    Hey Alfred,
    You’ve been identified. You don’t have to worry if this guy speaks well of you. After all, there are only so many people entitled to know the truth in the world…

    “It is sad that there is so much misleading information from individuals such as insurgent belligerent “Freemen on the Land”, and so-called “sovereigns” (aka sovereigns without subjects) or “Patriots”, or any others who mislead people as provocateurs, such as Canadians like ROBERT MENARD or DEAN CLIFFORD or ROBIN BELANGER or “Servant King” “Marcus” (aka WILFRED EMONTS), Americans such as ALFRED ADASK, ALEX JONES or JORDAN MAXWELL; Australian FRANK ‘COLLINS , or Brits like DAVID ICKE or BEN LOWRY from the U.K, to name just a few misguided individuals —–
    —– They all hold false beliefs which misrepresents the facts in law.”

    If the FRNs are still good, if I ever have the honor of meeting you face to face, the beer is on me. I knew there wasn’t something right about this guy from the git-go…

    Keep up the good work!

     
    • Yartap

      December 19, 2013 at 11:42 AM

      Hi Cody,

      I’m sorry, but, I don’t understand or have missed something. Who is the quote, you give, attributed to? In other words, who made the quote, you give?

      Thanks, Yartap

       
    • Adask

      December 19, 2013 at 2:41 PM

      Hi Cody,

      Thanks for the compliments and support.

      But, if we ever meet, it’ll have to be the steaks (not beer) that are on you, because–with the grace of our Father YHWH ha Elohiym–I quit drinking alcohol about 36 years ago.

      Thanks again.

      Al

       
      • Cody

        December 20, 2013 at 1:00 AM

        Hey Al,
        Porterhouse, rib-eye, prime rib or filet mignon?

        Sincerely,
        Cody

         
      • Adask

        December 20, 2013 at 1:14 AM

        I’m not too particular about the cut, but I like my steak rare in the middle and seriously grilled on the outside.

         
    • owlmon

      January 12, 2014 at 7:44 PM

      Cody has no proof what so ever the information I offer folks for free has even one shred of lie in it and last year the knowledge got 7 Judges disqualified from the bench for intimidating me to violate the commands of God…Did a fairy tale get those judges disqualified by Terry Matchett?? Armchair critics like Cody spewing bullshit about me and ranking me in with commercial crap arguers obviously do not do their research!! BTW Marcus Emonts has some excellent make you think videos online leading me to believe that Cody is either promoting a fraud legal system or is an officer within it…When you pick on folk like Marcus and myself who can produce lots of proof for our teaching’s veracity you can grasp the motive Cody of is not to be fair and give even ground comment but to bash that which he does not understand did not research or that which threatens his cash cow…

       
  10. owlmon

    January 12, 2014 at 7:46 PM

    I challenge Cody if he has enuf courage to post just one of my false beliefs I teach folks…This should be interesting as if he responds I have him and if he does not I have him…

     
  11. owlmon

    January 12, 2014 at 7:49 PM

    yes Cory posting others slanderous opinions to promote your own false teaching seems kinda myopic to me

     

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