Sunday, March 30, 2008
The Ride (March 22, 2008)
The BoP has me on a fast track to be moved. If they have their way I’ll be on the outer edge of the 9th circuit like Montana. The bad news is it is a punitive expression of a tyrant but the good news is others including reporters can now visit us. I know that it is normal for a man to be crushed and to go and lay down as they say. If I was that kind of man I would have made hundreds of different decisions. I was called to this battle because God wanted someone who got stronger under pressure. There are a few out there who think they have the silver bullet of procedure to deal with the lawless. I know most of them and am skilled in them better than most. What you are failing to see when you use you’re A-B logic is that this is a work of the spirit. This is not a battle of the mind or wits but a battle of opposing kingdoms. The spiritual things are not obtained by the flesh. The flesh must come alongside the spirit to do the work but it is not the origin of the work. This is what you discerning spirits know concerning me. I have and continue to follow the spirit. Do you really think two nobodies can defeat the banking/political cartel in the flesh? This is foolish thinking. One man though in the spirit can cause a mountain to be thrown into the sea. Where is your faith? Mine gets inspired by the hostilities of the devil. This is evidence of prevailing and victory. All his energy is poised to cause the psychological shift of the will from faith to fear. This is the devils’ fear in desperation. This is spiritual warfare 101 and not deep revelation but still the retards can’t see it. The deep that calls unto deep is not survival orientated but an aggressive pursuit for territory. It is not about what I must defend but what the devil must defend. I am not at threat of loss, he is. Jesus Christ is a ruler endowed with power and possessed with all authority. Do you really think Judge Alsup is the first man in history able to defy God’s will? It’s time for your faith to mature to the spiritual facts and to put away the soul’s trust in the flesh. Those to whom the uncreated regenerated life has been given know I speak the truth. Can you honestly fear for me or deny your hopes from my work because of what your eyes see? If so, how, without the spirit of God rebuking you? If I wanted to doubt I would have to embrace rebellion. How can I rebel away from one who has loved me so well? How can you? Houses and mortgages are big decisions in this world, but trusting God for your existence is not of this world. You will all see soon enough with your eyes what the spirit is saying but faith sees it now and comforts the soul. Be comforted as I am comforted, Jesus still reigns. Amen!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
81 comments:
Micah 2
Man's Plans and God's
1 Woe to those who plan iniquity,
to those who plot evil on their beds!
At morning's light they carry it out
because it is in their power to do it.
2 They covet fields and seize them,
and houses, and take them.
They defraud a man of his home,
a fellowman of his inheritance.
3 Therefore, the LORD says:
"I am planning disaster against this people,
from which you cannot save yourselves.
You will no longer walk proudly,
for it will be a time of calamity.
4 In that day men will ridicule you;
they will taunt you with this mournful song:
'We are utterly ruined;
my people's possession is divided up.
He takes it from me!
He assigns our fields to traitors.' " [BOOMERANG!!!]
5 Therefore you will have no one in the assembly of the LORD
to divide the land by lot.
False Prophets
6 "Do not prophesy," their prophets say.
"Do not prophesy about these things;
disgrace will not overtake us." [Sounds like Judge Alsup and a few Naysayers i know]
7 Should it be said, O house of Jacob:
"Is the Spirit of the LORD angry?
Does he do such things?"
"Do not my words do good
to him whose ways are upright?
8 Lately my people have risen up
like an enemy.
You strip off the rich robe
from those who pass by without a care,
like men returning from battle.
9 You drive the women of my people
from their pleasant homes.
You take away my blessing
from their children forever.
10 Get up, go away!
For this is not your resting place,
because it is defiled,
it is ruined, beyond all remedy.
11 If a liar and deceiver comes and says,
'I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,'
he would be just the prophet for this people!
Deliverance Promised
12 "I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob;
I will surely bring together the remnant of Israel.
I will bring them together like sheep in a pen,
like a flock in its pasture;
the place will throng with people.
13 One who breaks open the way will go up before them; [G-D HIMSELF]
they will BREAK THROUGH the gate and go out.
Their king will pass through before them,
the LORD at their head."
THE WORD OF THE LORD STANDS FOREVER AND WILL NOT PASS AWAY. HE SPOKE IT THROUGH THE PROPHET MICAH AND IT IS STILL RELEVANT TODAY. HIS WORLD WILL NOT RETURN TO HIM VOID...IT WILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT IT WAS SENT OUT TO DO. LETS KEEP DECLARING HIS WORD AND IT WILL BE ESTABLISHED. NO FRAUDULENT BANKER, JUDGE, FALSE WITNESS, SLANDERER, OR DOUBTER CAN STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING.
THIS YEAR IT WILL HAPPEN.
Micah 6:8-16
8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
9 Listen! The LORD is calling to the city—
and to fear your name is wisdom—
"Heed the rod and the One who appointed it. [a]
10 Am I still to forget, O wicked house,
your ill-gotten treasures
and the short ephah, [b] which is accursed?
11 Shall I acquit a man with dishonest scales,
with a bag of false weights? [IN OTHER WORDS 'FRAUD']
12 Her rich men are violent;
her people are liars
and their tongues speak deceitfully.
13 Therefore, I have begun to destroy you,
to ruin you because of your sins.
14 You will eat but not be satisfied;
your stomach will still be empty. [c]
You will store up but save nothing,
because what you save I will give to the sword.
15 You will plant but not harvest;
you will press olives but not use the oil on yourselves,
you will crush grapes but not drink the wine.
16 You have observed the statutes of Omri
and all the practices of Ahab's house,
and you have followed their traditions.
Therefore I will give you over to ruin
and your people to derision;
you will bear the scorn of the nations. [d] "
HAS ANYBODY READ THE BOOK OF MICAH? GEEEEESSS..PRACTICALLY THE WHOLE BOOK IS WRITTEN TO THE CORRUPT BANKERS AND MONEYCHANGERS.
they sleep in their mansions, while the many have to eat beanslop.
Keep it up in there. There are a lot of us who are really pulling for you. We know you are correct and we're amazed (not really) at the level the government has gone to silence you. Of course, given the stakes, it's something that would be expected. Think about it, we're talking a financial scandal that would make the recent sub-prime mortgage scandal look like a kid who lost his 5c allowance.
jb
can you at least give me some spices to put on my beanslop?
it really doesnt taste very good plane....
by da way judg, have yo fried up yo grill yet??
but dun worry, yo wont be eatin' any crow...
yo be eatin' some tasty refired beanslop
good eh?
LOL!
nice try juge beanslop, you tried to get me redacted, I mean disdracted or didacted or whatver...but yo failed....
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
The Bilge Report for Mar 22, 2008
Kurtian blather and BS
There are a few out there who think they have the silver bullet of procedure to deal with the lawless. I know most of them and am skilled in them better than most.
Any relation to the sure fire moral and ethical method of legally eliminating a mortgage, or the sure fire silver bullet that would prevent you from ever going to trial, or that would end the trial immediately, or any of the rest of the BS you have spewed these last several months. If you are so skilled, then how does it come to pass that you are on your way to yet another prison, soon to be your permanent home?
more Kurtian blather
Do you really think two nobodies can defeat the banking/political cartel in the flesh? This is foolish thinking. One man though in the spirit can cause a mountain to be thrown into the sea.
The two nobodies is certainly right, along with the foolish thinking, the rest is Kurtian BS.
still more Kurtian blather
his is evidence of prevailing and victory.
A Federal prison sentence is a victory now is it? Who knew??
As to the rest, you continue to spew BS and nonsense.
Fricken Tard
hey judge,
just SHUT UP and EAT YOU
BEANSLOP!
Well, Moogs, I see your hero isn't going to cease being a joke even on his way to the Federal lockup as witness a bit of his latest bit of filed nonsense.
"This is notice to the clerk, the court, and the public that the judgments in a criminal case have been accepted for their value and returned for their value in accordance with Public Policy. Judgments are herewith attached." ......
Accepted for value,
Returned for value, settlement and,
charge of case/account/invoice
nos. CR-05-00611 WHA, DCAN305CR00611-001,
and any related case/account/invoice(s) arrising therefrom,
in accordance with but not Limited by, House
Joint Resolution 192 June 5, 1938; Public Law 73-10
and Public Policy. Exempt from Lien or Levy, Pre-Paid,
Preferred Stock. General Trustee authorizes the use
of account number [ SSAN ] to obtain a zero balance.
General Trustee requests a zero balance statement immediately
upon closure.
Dated: March 26, 2008
By: ( Heineman's signature and the obligatory 1 cent stamp)
General Trustee for
DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN
Subscribed without recourse
under Reserve
Only slightly more ridiculous than the stuff that got him there to begin with. And they said consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds. I think a better question would be what mind?
Not to mention, of even less value than the former, if that is possible.
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
thax to good ole' precedent rosy slop....got gold? give it up!
The Gold Confiscation Of April 5, 1933
From: President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt
To: The United States Congress
Dated: 5 April, 1933
Presidential Executive Order 6102
Forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled
An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes~',
in which amendatory Act Congress declared that a serious emergency exists,
I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said section to do hereby prohibit the hoarding gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations and hereby prescribe the following regulations for carrying out the purposes of the order:
Section 1. For the purpose of this regulation, the term 'hoarding" means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade. The term "person" means any individual, partnership, association or corporation.
Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:
(a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary use in industry, profession or art within a reasonable time, including gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of owners mining and refining such gold.
(b) Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100.00 belonging to any one person; and gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.
(c) Gold coin and bullion earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign government or foreign central bank or the Bank for International Settlements.
(d) Gold coin and bullion licensed for the other proper transactions (not involving hoarding) including gold coin and gold bullion imported for the re-export or held pending action on applications for export license.
Section 3. Until otherwise ordered any person becoming the owner of any gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates after April 28, 1933, shall within three days after receipt thereof, deliver the same in the manner prescribed in Section 2; unless such gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates are held for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a),(b) or (c) of Section 2; or unless such gold coin, gold bullion is held for purposes specified in paragraph (d) of Section 2 and the person holding it is, with respect to such gold coin or bullion, a licensee or applicant for license pending action thereon.
Section 4. Upon receipt of gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates delivered to it in accordance with Section 2 or 3, the Federal reserve bank or member bank will pay thereof an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the Unites States.
Section 5. Member banks shall deliver alt gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned or received by them (other than as exempted under the provisions of Section 2) to the Federal reserve banks of there respective districts and receive credit or payment thereof.
Section 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, out of the sum made available to the President by Section 501 of the Act of March 9, 1933, will in all proper cases pay the reasonable costs of transportation of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates delivered to a member bank or Federal reserve bank in accordance with Sections 2, 3, or 5 hereof, including the cost of insurance, protection, and such other incidental costs as may be necessary, upon production of satisfactory evidence of such costs. Voucher forms for this purpose may be procured from Federal reserve banks.
Section 7. In cases where the delivery of gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates by the owners thereof within the time set forth above will involve extraordinary hardship or difficulty, the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend the time within which such delivery must be made. Applications for such extensions must be made in writing under oath; addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and filed with a Federal reserve bank. Each applications must state the date to which the extension is desired, the amount and location of the gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates in respect of which such application is made and the facts showing extension to be necessary to avoid extraordinary hardship or difficulty.
Section 8. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and empowered to issue such further regulations as he may deem necessary to carry the purposes of this order and to issue licenses there under, through such officers or agencies as he may designate, including licenses permitting the Federal reserve banks and member banks of the Federal Reserve System, in return for an equivalent amount of other coin, currency or credit, to deliver, earmark or hold in trust gold coin or bullion to or for persons showing the need for same for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of Section 2 of these regulations.
Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or these regulation or of any rule, regulation or license issued there under may be fined not more than $10,000, or,if a natural person may be imprisoned for not more than ten years or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both.
This order and these regulations may be modified or revoked at any time.
/s/
Franklin D. Roosevelt
President of the Untied States of America©
April 5, 1933
shud of tole 'em...
"yo want my gold?"
yo go fo yoself!!!
notorial dissent said...
The Bilge Report for Mar 22, 2008
Kurtian blather and BS
There are a few out there who think they have the silver bullet of procedure to deal with the lawless. I know most of them and am skilled in them better than most.
Any relation to the sure fire moral and ethical method of legally eliminating a mortgage, or the sure fire silver bullet that would prevent you from ever going to trial, or that would end the trial immediately, or any of the rest of the BS you have spewed these last several months. If you are so skilled, then how does it come to pass that you are on your way to yet another prison, soon to be your permanent home?
more Kurtian blather
Do you really think two nobodies can defeat the banking/political cartel in the flesh? This is foolish thinking. One man though in the spirit can cause a mountain to be thrown into the sea.
The two nobodies is certainly right, along with the foolish thinking, the rest is Kurtian BS.
still more Kurtian blather
his is evidence of prevailing and victory.
A Federal prison sentence is a victory now is it? Who knew??
As to the rest, you continue to spew BS and nonsense.
9:40 PM
For anyone like yourself to sit there and make postings as if your the end word of all things just shows how full of ones self some people are out there.
If you believe the things you say about the so called fair play that is produced by the Courts, Gov,t Bankers you don;t have a clue about much.
The banks are cheets and use their money to pay lawmakers to turn their head to the truth and if you can't see that well you must be blind.
The cop;s and court system tailroad people all the time and know it, they do this and tell themselfs that the lies justify the means when it comes down to somone they say or think has done a crime but yet they can't prove it without false statment knowing the courts will belive them over the accused. as with all sytems it's never perfect but there are to many times that its is shown that they are wrong and yet they still go forward thinking they know best at someones expence.
wake up and see nd speak what the real deal is for a change then you just might be worth hearing.
Till then why don't get back to watching Fox news and all the truths from good old Bush jr. or (Lil Bush show) might be better.
You know if you take the time to look theres some truth to be found.
Oh by the way Whats Up! everyone
Funny how the banking system seems to play stupid when they fuck up and wait for the bailout by the same ones teh screwed ... US
NOT!
So it would seem soppy and haventaclue have a bit of competition for resident idiot. Not much, but some competition.
Goohey, if you are going to rant, at least have the courtesy to do it in coherent, semi intelligent sounding sentences, otherwise you do not manage to distinguish yourself from the other two contenders, who can only prattle on inanely at the best of times, or spend their time stealing stuff from those dumber even than they are and posting it like it might have some significance.
Your gibbering aside, the question here is not the state of the courts, the world, or your lack of a love life. The question is, are the dim duo a pair of incompetent liars, frauds, con men, and convicted criminals. Informed, living in the real world, intelligent opinion seems to be that they are, certain of the reality deniers would argue the point, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the dim duo have been tried convicted and will now spend the next 20 or so years in Federal prison.
No one forced them to manufacture fraudulent documents, or send them through the mails in the attempt to commit fraud. No one made them publish their game plan on the internet or display their egos to various reporters. The fact that they were too inept to actually accomplish much doesn’t alter the fact that they defrauded their “clients” of $3000 or better a pop, and cost many of them their homes, it still counts as various varieties of fraud. They were tried and convicted of conspiracy and mail fraud, and there was ample proof of both crimes. The fact that their signatures are all over the fraudulent documents might just have helped the convictions along a little.
So basically, have a little more cheese with your wine and run along.
a MUST READ for anynone who wants to try to understand the coming GBS-GLOBAL BAKING SYSTEM, or "what to do with yo doe" when yo HYIPs pay yo.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net
/sociopolitica/sociopol_
globalbanking.htm
from the table of contents:
Contents
- Bank for International Settlements - BIS
- Banking & Federal Reserve Quotes
- El BIS - Instituciones Financieras Globales
- Federal Reserve Bank - Main File
- Global Banks Embrace Islam
- International Monetary Fund
- Project Hammer - Covert Finance and the Parallel Economy - Main File
- The Business of America - from 'The World Order - A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism' by Eustace Mullins
- The Project Hammer File
- The Project Hammer Reloaded File
- World Bank
Additional Information
- Black Budgets and Black Projects - Main File
- Eliot Spitzer and The Bush Bankers
- Financial Crisis Will Sweep Away Governments
- Glossary of Terms
- How The Banksters Ensured US WWII Intervention - or 'How Americans Were Hoodwinked Once Again'
- I Banchieri di Dio - God's Bankers - Masons, P2 and The Vatican
- Initiation into The Incunabula - The Occult Technology of Power
- Paper Money and Tyranny
- Solomon’s Treasure - The Magic and Mystery of America’s Money
- “The Best Enemy Money can Buy" - Quotations from Antony C. Sutton’s Book
- The Debt Scam - from '...And The Truth Shall Set You Free' - the Book
- The New World Money System - from 'Global Tyranny... Step by Step' by William F. Jasper
- The Sting - Mr. Johnston’s Letter to his Sons!
- Vulture Funds Threaten Poor Nations’ Debt Relief - from 'Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007'
Books-Treaties
- Dope, Inc. - Britain's Opium War Against the U.S. - by a U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team
- The Best Enemy Money can Buy - by Antony C. Sutton
- The CIA Covenant - Nazis in Washington - by Gregory Douglas
- The Police State Road Map - by Michael Nield
- Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution - by Antony C. Sutton
- Wall Street And The Rise of Hitler - by Antony C. Sutton
Gold Section
- The Gold Standard Manifesto
- The Secret Gold Treaty - The Truth Behind World War II Gold, Nazi Plunder & ...
- The Secret Gold Treaty Documented
Multimedia
- Operación Gladio
- WW3 and The Global Recession - from Warning To The World
Related Reports
- New World Order
- The Illuminati
- The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion
- The Trilateral Commission
- The Ultimate Delusion - The United Nations
- The Secret History of America’s Capital: Washington D.C.
from above:
Global Banks Embrace Islam
I havent read the e-book yet, but find this interesting as ive never seen this statement made anywhere else before.
the e-book is from david ickey.
in case you dont have time to go to the site and read:
The Bible warns that,
“… the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil”
(1 Ti. 6:10)
So, just when you think you have just about seen it all, something even more shocking turns up. Like this…
Either global bankers are seducing Islamic dictators, or vice versa.
Even if they are seducing each other at the same time, the result will be the same: Islamic/Shari’a banking is coming to the United States and other western nations, thanks to global banks such as Citigroup, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.
With Great Britain now pledging to become the Islamic banking center of the world, the stampede by all global banks to enter the world of Islamic banking is well underway.
Western banking met Islam many decades ago, but only began to sleep with her a few years ago. Since then, it is has become a wanton and open affair.
The implications for the west, and especially for the United States, are staggering. Because all Islamic banking products must be created and offered according to strict Shari’a law, global banks are doing for Islam what it could never do on its own: give legitimacy to Shari’a and infiltrate it into the fabric of western society.
What is Islamic banking?
Simply put, “Islamic banking and finance” creates, sells and services products that are in strict accordance with Shari’a. In the Islamic culture, it is referred to as “Shari’a finance” and covers the practices of banking, investment, bonds, loans, brokerage, etc.
To insure Shari’a compliance, banks must hire Shari’a scholars to review and approve each product and practice as “halal”, the Muslim equivalent of kosher in Judaism. Because there is a shortage of such scholars, there is competition between banks to find the best expert to sit on their boards of directors. This provides the highest legitimacy to each ruling because it is made at the director rather management level.
It should be noted that most of these scholars are from the school of radical Wahhabi/Salafi Shari’a in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, holding views diametrically opposed to the basic values of Western civilization.
Shari’a finance has many differences from orthodox banking: Notably, it cannot charge interest (usury) and it calls for alms giving (zakat). It also calls for avoidance of excessive risk and may not be associated in any way with gambling, drinking alcohol, eating pork, etc.
Zakat demands a tithe of 2.5 percent of revenue be donated to Islamic charity. If western banks follow this rule, their contributions will be staggering. It is certain that a portion of this money will end up in the hands of radical Muslims who are sworn to destroy the U.S. and replace its government with Shari’a law.
Shari’a finance is a recent phenomenon. There were very few Islamic banks prior to 1980.
However, with the Khomeini revolution in Iran in 1979, Shari’a was summarily imposed throughout Iran and Shari’a finance took off.
The dark side of Shari’a
Shari’a is the legal and judicial system of Islam that is brutally imposed on many Islamic countries in the middle east. It is the specific embodiment of the totalitarian ideology practiced by the Taliban, Iranian Mullahs and Saudi Wahhabis.
Shari’a is perpetuated by claiming to have its roots in the Koran, but in fact it is mostly the product of rulings and dictates made by Islamic scholars and caliphs over several centuries.
Preparing for Stoning
For non-Muslims, Shari’a is best known for its medieval, harsh brutality. Many rulings handed down by Shari’a courts have shocked the western world, for instance:
*
The December, 2007 “teddy bear” case in Sudan, where a British teacher was sentenced to 40 lashes and a year in jail for allowing her students to name their teddy bear “Mohammad.” Islamic mobs demonstrated in the streets and called for her execution.
*
The November, 2007 case where a 19 year old gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia received a sentence of 200 lashes for riding in the car with her rapists.
*
In 2006, a 34 year-old mother was forcibly raped and ultimately tried and convicted of adultery, and was ordered to be stoned to death.
Shari’a demands total and unquestioned submission.
Its subjects are told that Shari’a is given by Allah and that whatever befalls them (good or bad) is Allah’s will. To question a judgment under Shari’a (right or wrong) is to question Shari’a itself and will only bring harsher punishment. If a person receives harsh punishment for something they didn’t do, the rationale is that Allah could and would have prevented it if that had been his will. This fatalistic and deterministic approach allows Shari’a rulers to get away with virtually any thing that enters their head.
To the average western mind, Shari’a is no more than a medieval, barbaric code that somehow survived to the 21st century. It flies in the face of western law, philosophy, Liberty and freedom.
However, it is the vehicle used to call for the complete destruction of the west and in particular the United States of America, which then will be replaced by Shari’a dictatorships.
How the banking rocket took off
At the behest of corporate trade moguls, numerous Free Trade Zones (FTZ’s) were created throughout the Islamic world that were full of windfall conditions.
For instance, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), is a 110 acre free trade zone that was founded in 2004 in Dubai, UAE. According to the DIFC website, participants will enjoy,
"zero tax rate on income and profits, 100 per cent foreign ownership, no restrictions on foreign exchange or capital/profit repatriation, operational support and business continuity facilities.”
Not surprisingly, Morgan Stanley’s application was one of the first approved by the Dubai Financial Services Authority to operate within the DIFC.
The director-general of the DIFC Authority, Dr. Omar Bin Sulaiman, welcomed Morgan Stanley by stating,
“This is a testimony to our status as an international financial centre of repute. Morgan Stanley is a highly reputed organization and to have them here at the DIFC is a vindication of our strategy to create a world-class financial hub for the region. The opportunity available within the region, along with the state-of-the-art infrastructure and the international regulatory framework of the DIFC, provides the ideal platform for institutions such as Morgan Stanley to grow their business." [Emphasis added]
DIFC and similar Free Trade Zones are a banker’s nirvana into which global bankers have rushed headlong to establish regional financial centers.
And the payoff?
A chance to enter and then dominate the Islamic banking industry. Such banking has over $1.5 trillion on the table today, and is growing at a steady and explosive rate of over 15% per year.
Good old western know-how
Understanding that Islamic banking is a very recent phenomenon is underscored by the fact that its largest and most prestigious international conference, World Islamic Banking Conference (WIBC) has met for a mere 14 years. The most recent meeting just concluded in Bahrain and attracted over 1,000 banking delegates from 35 countries.
Two years ago, the 12th annual WIBC (2005) conference kicked off with the “Governor’s Table” session titled “Regulation & Business: Creating a Framework for Islamic Banking & Finance to Thrive.” Panel member and speaker number two was Dr. David Mullins, CEO of Vega Asset Management in New York.
Who is Mullins?
He is in the white-hot core of international banking. Mullins was Vice Chairman and Governor of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under Greenspan during George H.W. Bush’s presidency.
As governor, he represented the Fed at meetings of the G-10 Governors, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Bank for International Settlements. Prior to that, he was the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Finance at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
The next topic at the Governor’s Table was “Industry in Transition: Trends & Innovations for Islamic Financial Institutions in an Increasingly Competitive Global Market,” where several speakers included Dr. Samuel L. Hayes III, Jacob Schiff Professor of Investment Banking Emeritus at Harvard Business School.
According to Hayes,
“The growing acceptance among Muslims of Halal savings and investment products over the past decade has been impressive. Consequently, a number of conventional Western financial institutions have eagerly moved into this market as the array of investment vehicles has broadened.”
The closed-door CEO Strategy Session was centered around the McKinsey Competitiveness Report, developed in conjunction with the WIBC by the very elite McKinsey & Company based in New York.
In fact, McKinsey & Company was listed as a “Strategic Partner” of the WIBC, alongside of global accounting firm Ernst & Young and the consummate global investment banker, Goldman Sachs. (Remember that in 2005, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson was CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs.)
Another key speaker was Dr. Robert Kaplan, Baker Foundation Professor at the Harvard Business School and acclaimed author of many management books like Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Maps.
In a pre-conference press release, Kaplan stated,
“I look forward to presenting to Islamic banking leaders the latest ideas on strategy execution that delivers performance breakthroughs. I will present how successful organizations have built strategy maps around a common value proposition, communicated to and motivated the workforce, and installed a new Office of Strategy Management to sustain strategy execution.”
More recently, on December 6, 2007, the general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, Malcolm Knight, addressed the Islamic Financial Services Board Forum in Frankfurt, Germany:
“Clearly, there is expanding demand for these products, and a closely associated desire on the part of banks, including non-Islamic banks, to provide Islamic financial services… The broadening appeal of Islamic finance is also evident in the move by large international banks and other private sector financial institutions to provide Islamic financial services.”
Mullins, Hayes, Kaplan, McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, Ernst & Young, Bank for International Settlements? Do you see the pattern?
The west is giving away the know-how, with gusto, to enable Shari’a banking and guarantee its success throughout the world. And to what ends?
For one, Britain’s PM Gordon Brown has pointedly stated that he intends to make London the Islamic finance capital of the world. Further, he pledged that in 2008 the British government will issue its own “sukuk”, or Shari’a compliant bonds. Yes, government debt issued as Shari’a compliant.
At the June 13, 2006 Islamic Finance Trade Conference in London, Brown revealed,
"Today British banks are pioneering Islamic banking - London now has more banks supplying services under Islamic principles than any other Western financial centre."
Brown’s statements can only be taken as a challenge by the New York banking establishment to beat him to the finish line. It doesn’t matter who wins this race because the result will be the same:
Shari’a banking is quickly encircling the globe and forcing a de facto acceptance of Shari’a law.
Conclusion
International bankers have long ago proven themselves to be completely amoral when it comes to money. They bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918 just as blithely as they bankrolled Hitler in the 1930’s. Fortunately for us, neither succeeded in conquering the world.
With Islam, odds of its succeeding are radically different.
*
To start with, there are already 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and it is the fastest growing religion in history.
*
Secondly, the spread of Islam is richly financed by the oil that is extracted from mid-eastern countries.
*
Thirdly, Islam has already infiltrated most of the west, especially in Europe.
And now, Islam has behind it the combined support and encouragement of the entire global banking community.
The unholy alliance between Islam and global banking may be the final leg on the age-old quest for global domination. Don’t be surprised at the silence of the global elite the next time you hear Islamist mobs chant “Death to America” – their goals are now intertwined.
Bibliography
*
Sharia’s Trojan Horse
*
Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism? (.pdf file)
*
Islamic Economics: What Does it Mean?
*
Federal Reserve speech to Islamic Financial Services Industry Seminar
*
Fed speech on Regulation and Supervision of Islamic Banking
*
Islamic banking rises on oil wealth, drawing non-Muslims
*
How the West Came to Run Islamic Banks
*
12th Annual World Islamic Banking Conference
*
University Islamic Financial
*
Islam and Mammon, Timur Kuran
is this the realy reason why pres, v pres, rice etx always gong to iraq, qatar, dooby, sordy awaybia, eetc.??
to set up goblin baking sytem??
hmmmmm.....
— Jeremiah 9:23-24 —
This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,
but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,(AND THIS IS WHO HE IS:)
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD.
THE LORD IS "DELIGHTED" TO BRING JUSTICE IN YOUR CASE....HE IS CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO SHOW OFF HIS STRENGTH AND DEMONSTRATE HIS CHARACTER IN THE EARTH...BUT HE IS WAITING UNTIL THE FULL POINT...BE PATIENT...ITS IN THE WORKS.
COURT RULES FED IS PRIVATELY OWNED )Updated: April 11, 2008)
Case Reveals Fed's Status as a Private Institution
Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:
Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.
Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Affirmed.
1. United States
There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity. . . .
2. United States
Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .
3. United States
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which performs important activities for the government. . . .
4. Taxation
The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.
5. States Taxation
Tests for determining whether an entity is federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, is very broad: whether entity performs important governmental function.
--------------
Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.
James R. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before Poole and Boochever, Circuit Judges, and Soloman, District Judge. (The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation)
Poole, Circuit Judge:
On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as:
the executive departments, the military departments, independent
establishments of the United States, and corporations acting
primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not
include any contractors with the United States.
28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.
[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.
Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.
It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:
It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over
the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when
necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on
through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which
require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which
determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other
words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the
exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to
individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of
routine.
H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).
The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.
The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.
Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .
Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.
[3] The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.
[4, 5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.
Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . .
Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.
Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.
For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."
The only area where one might disagree with the judge's decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government's fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the '60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed's Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government's fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy.
The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses.
Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to to Congress, and they'll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible.
hey, judge beansloop,
IF the fed is privtly owed, then how cume the banks can crate mooney from tin air????
s plain it too me????
anythins hoppens today???
it is 4/11 isnt it?
The problem is that when you start with a false premise, “IF the fed is privtly owed, then how cume the banks can crate mooney from tin air????” everything else that follows is just more stupid assumption.
The Fed is not privately owned, and never has been. It is a Congressionally created and chartered governmental corporation that exists at and is subject to the will of Congress, and Congress approves the Board of Governors for it. As Congress created it, they can dissolve it, which answers the question of who “owns” it. In the event of dissolution, all assets and liabilities devolve to the treasury. The Fed issues money under and by authority granted it by Congress as expressed in the US statutes.
"The Fed is not privately owned, and never has been.
"For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Dishonourable Judge Beanslop
geuss judge beansloop is an idoit??
casue he say it is privlty owed.
And oh illiterate one, if you had actually bothered to read the drivel you stole, you would have noted the crucial phrase for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as well as the explanation of why it had to be so considered under those circumstances. As that law is written, it does not qualify as a Federal Agency.
The court was not saying that it was privately owned, just by the definitions of that particular law that it had to be considered privately owned for the purposes of the Tort Act.
Fricken tard
Psalm 37
1Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
2For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.
3Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.
4Delight thyself also in the LORD: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.
5Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass.
6And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.
7Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.
8Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
9For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
10For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
12The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.
13The LORD shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.
14The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation.
15Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. [BOOMERANG!!]
16A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked.
17For the arms of the wicked shall be broken: but the LORD upholdeth the righteous.
18The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever.
19They shall not be ashamed in the evil time: and in the DAYS OF FAMINE [AMERICA IS IN A SEASON OF FAMINE] they shall be satisfied.
20But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
21The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again [SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THE BANKS DID]: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth.
22For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off. [WICKED JUDGES AND BANKERS YOU ARE CURSED]
23The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
24Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.
25I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
26He is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed. [G-D'S PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE LENDERS...WE GOT THIS THING BACKWARDS Y'ALL]
27Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore.
28For the LORD LOVETH judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
29The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.
30The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. [THATS WHAT I'M DOIN NOW]
31The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.
32The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
33The LORD will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
34Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.
35I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.
36Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.
37Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.
38But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off.
39But the salvation of the righteous is of the LORD: he is their strength in the time of trouble.
40And the LORD shall help them, and deliver them: he shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in him.
NO MORE "KOOM BY YA" CHRISTIANS. NO MORE WEAK, UN-EFFECTIVE, PASSIVE PRAYERS. NOW IS THE TIME FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN OF G-D WHO HAVE "TONGUES THAT TALK OF JUDGEMENT". WHO HAVE THE LAW OF THEIR G-D IN THEIR HEARTS...JUST LIKE THE SAVIOR YASHUA. HE GAVE LIFE TO THE DEAD AND HE CURSED THE FIG TREE, AND IT WAS CURSED TO THE ROOT..NEVER TO BEAR FRUIT AGAIN.
HE IS GOING TO JUDGE THESE "DEAD TREES" (MEN) JUST LIKE SPOKEN OF IN JUDE 1:12:
".......trees (MEN) whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;"
THE LORD SAYS ITS TIME. NO MORE WILL THE EVILDOER PROSPER IN HIS WAY. THERE IS A MARK HANGING OVER HIM...A CURSE THAT IS READY TO MANIFEST JUST LIKE THE DEAD FIG TREE. BUT THERE IS A MARK ON G-D'S MAN AND ALL WILL SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
WE ARE APPROACHING THE LORD'S FEAST...THE PASSOVER. ITS A TIME OF GREAT CELEBRATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF G-D. A SEASON THAT IS PREGNANT WITH MIRACLES. A SEASON WHERE ANGELS ARE BUSY IN THEIR ACTIVITY. A SEASON OF REDEMPTION. A SEASON WHERE G-D'S PEOPLE ARE SEPARATED FROM THE WICKED. IN EGYPT THERE WAS A GREAT CRY OF DEATH BUT IN GOSHEN (CHILDREN OF ISRAEL) THERE WAS LIGHT AND LIFE AND PROTECTION. WE ARE APPROACHING THAT SEASON.
GET READY WICKED TREE (JUDGES, BANKERS, WICKED COUNSEL)...YOU ARE CURSED AND ABOUT TO BE PLUCKED UP BY G-D HIMSELF.
GET READY PEOPLE OF G-D...PEOPLE OF THE LAW OF G-D...YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE PLANTED. YOU WILL INHERIT THE LAND. THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH.
Notarial Dissent still can't understand why he can't find "The Federal Reserve" in the blue pages of the phone book since he believes it is a federal agency. He also tried finding "Federal Express" in the blue pages also, but was also unsuccessful. It must be a phone book conspiracy of some kind. LOL
Ralph Gelder, Superintendent, Department of Banks and Banking, State of Maine, said on Feb. 20, 1974,
"A commercial bank is able to make a loan by simply CREATING a new demand deposit (so called checkbook money) through bookkeeping entry."
This is in total contradiction to what the courts have said. Yet, that is exactly how the banks create the money to loan to its customers or to buy government bonds.
Notarial dissent & Barry Goldwater wouldn't agree. Does Notarial dissent think he knows more than Barry Goldwater, a well respected politician who understood the System & government?
"Does it not seem strange to you that these men just happened to be CFR, and just happened to be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve that absolutely controls the money and interest rates of this great country without benefit of Congress? The Federal Reserve is a privately owned organization, which has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America."
--- book: With no Apologies, Sen. Barry Goldwater
The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.
CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?
MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.
CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?
MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.
CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.
CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?
MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.
CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets. CALLER - What are these assets composed of?
MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.
CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold. CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.
CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?
MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury.
CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note? MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close.
CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that.
CALLER - Basically, that is what happens?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct.
CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.
CALLER - Where did they go?
MR. SUPINSKI - Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.
CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know. CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?
MR. SUPINSKI - No
CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?
MR. SUPINSKI - About $7.
CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were "created out of thin air " in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation? MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason.
CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country? MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes. CALLER - I smell a rat, do you? MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here. CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited? MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited. CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know. CALLER - Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?
MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department. CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn't it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't think so, but we were created by Congress. CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution? MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying.
CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn't this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?
MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer).
CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?
MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter. CALLER - Have there been Supreme Court Cases?
MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure.
CALLER - Didn't the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...]
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know, I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER - Isn't the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?
MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.
CALLER - What is the solution? MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card. CALLER - Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder.
CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren't we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers? MR. SUPINSKI - I can't call it tribute, it is interest.
CALLER - Haven't all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn't the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?
MR. SUPINSKI - I can't say that. CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn't the punishment of treason death?
MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so. CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.
MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn't look good.
CALLER - May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.
MR. SUPINSKI - Unfortunately, it does not look good.
CALLER - Have a good day and thanks for your time.
MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling.
If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won't find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true. And then, go to your local law library and look up the case of Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentality's . . but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations - federal reserve banks are listed neither as "wholly-owned' government corporations [under 31 USC Section 846] nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations [under 31 USC Section 856] . . . 28 USC Sections 1346(b), 2671. ' Federal agency' is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentality's of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States . . . There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operations' of that entity. Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . . whether the government is involved in the entity's finances, . . . and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities ... It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks . . . The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act . . . Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services . . . Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 USC Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims . . ." According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, "When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks." ("The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears," published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia). The original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller's, JP Morgan, Rothschild's, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. The MONEYCHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title 12, Section 284 of the United States Code. Section 284 specifically states, "NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE US" * Monopoly - "A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right [or power] to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service. 'Monopoly,' as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, "No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank." They didn't want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials.
Notarial dissent: Here is the section you asked for on the banking Code where banks are restricted in what they can do:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
United_States_Code/Title_12/Chapter_2/Subchapter_4
http://en.wikisource.org/
wiki/United_States_Code/
Title_12/Chapter_2/
Subchapter_4
a) GENERAL PROHIBITION.—No national bank shall make any loan or discount on the security of the shares of its own capital stock.
§ 90. Depositaries of public moneys and financial agents of Government
All national banking associations, designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be depositaries of public money, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary; and they may also be employed as financial agents of the Government; and they shall perform ALL SUCH REASONABLE DUTIES, as depositaries of public money and FINANCIAL AGENTS of the Government, as may be required of them.
_______________________________
National Banks are designed to protect the depositors monies, and perform all reasonable duties to protect, and hence are unable to
loan out DEPOSITORS MONIES by their own rules, FOR THIS WOULD BE IN CONTRADICTION TO THEIR MAIN DUTY OF PROTECTION, for if a loan went bad, the bank violated their primary duty to protect and could be sued.
If the statute doesn't allow the bank to loan from their stockholders equity & aren't able to loan out from their depositors monies, where does the loan monies come from?
Obviously, the only alternative that exists, is that the banks CREATE THE MONIES from monies that didn't previously exist prior to the loan. The promissory note creates the starting place for this newly created money.
Banks don't and CAN'T loan out depositors monies, as this would COMINGLE THE FUNDS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR FIDUCIARY CAPACITY.
_________________________________
(c) SEGREGATION OF FIDUCIARY AND GENERAL ASSETS; SEPERATE BOOKS AND RECORDS; ACCESS OF STATE BANKING AUTHORITIES TO REPORTS OF
EXAMINATIONS, BOOKS, RECORDS, ASSETS.—
"National banks exercising any or all of the powers enumerating in this section shall SEGREGATE ALL ASSETS HELD in any fiduciary capacity from the general assets of the bank and shall keep a separate set of books and records showing in proper detail all transactions engaged in under authority of this section."
Notarial Dissent: There is a maximum penalty of 1 Million Dollars if banks are lending out depositors monies, or breaching any of their fiduciary duties, and a penalty of $5,000/day that this practices continues. Do you think a bank would take that risk as a continuing daily pattern of business as usual?
b) CIVIL MONEY PENALTY.—
(1) First tier. Any national banking association which, and any institution-affiliated party (within the meaning of section 1813(u) of this title) with respect to such association who, violates any provision of title 62 of the Revised Statutes or any of the provisions of section 92a of this title, or any regulation issued pursuant thereto, shall forfeit and pay a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each day during which such violation continues.
(2) Second tier. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any national banking association which, and any institution-affiliated party (within the meaning of section 1813(u) of this title) with respect to such association who, commits any violation described in paragraph (1) which—
(A)
(i) commits any violation described in any paragraph (1);
(ii) recklessly engages in an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting the affairs of such association; or
(iii) breaches any fiduciary duty;
(B) which violation, practice, or breach—
(i) is part of a pattern of misconduct;
(ii) causes or is likely to cause more than a minimal loss to such association; or
(iii) results in pecuniary gain or other benefit to such party,
shall forfeit and pay a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day during which such violation, practice, or breach continues.
(3) Third tier. Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), any national banking association which, and any institution-affiliated party (within the meaning of section 1813(u) of this title) with respect to such association who—
(A) knowingly—
(i) commits any violation described in paragraph (1);
(ii) engages in any unsafe or unsound practice in conducting the affairs of such association; or
(iii) breaches any fiduciary duty; and
(B) knowingly or recklessly causes a substantial loss to such association or a substantial pecuniary gain or other benefit to such party by reason of such violation, practice, or breach,
shall forfeit and pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the applicable maximum amount determined under paragraph (4) for each day during which such violation, practice, or breach continues.
(4) Maximum amounts of penalties for any violation described in paragraph (3). The maximum daily amount of any civil penalty which may be assessed pursuant to paragraph (3) for any violation, practice, or breach described in such paragraph is—
(A) in the case of any person other than a national banking association, an amount to not exceed $1,000,000; and
(B) in the case of a national banking association, an amount not to exceed the lesser of—
(i) $1,000,000; or
(ii) 1 percent of the total assets of such association.
Who would have thought all of these rules existed on what national banks can and cannot do?
Course according to Notarial Dissent, there is no such thing as Title 12, Revised Banking Statute 62 as this is something I made up.
Notarial Dissent's world of lending is the world of make believe. Here is what the courts have already ruled which is consistent with Revised statute 62 of the banking act:
A national bank cannot act as broker in lending its depositors' money to third persons. Byron v. First Nat. Bank of Roseburg, Or.1915, 146 P. 516, 75 Or. 296.
A national bank is not authorized to act as a broker in loaning the MONEY OF OTHERS. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418. See, also, Keyser v. Hitz, Dist.Col.1883, 2 Mackey, 513.
Officers of national bank in handling its funds are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and cannot make loans and furnish money contrary to law or in such improvident manner as to imperil its funds. First Nat. Bank v. Humphreys, Okla.1917, 168 P. 410, 66 Okla. 186.
A national bank receiving the proceeds of a customer's note and mortgage with authority to pay out the same upon a first mortgage lien upon real estate is acting intra vires and liable for breach of its duty. Brandenburg v. First Nat. Bank of Casselton, N.D.1921, 183
Under this section, a national bank had no authority to enter into a contract for loaning money of a depositor kept in a deposit account through its cashier authorized by the depositor to draw thereon to make loans. Holmes v. Uvalde Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App.1920, 222 S.W. 640, error refused.
A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.
A "deposit for a specified purpose" is one in the making of which a trust fund is constituted with respect to which a special duty as to its application is assumed by the bank. Cooper v. National Bank of Savannah, Ga.App.1917, 94 S.E. 611, 21 Ga.App. 356, certiorari granted 38 S.Ct. 423, 246 U.S. 670, 62 L.Ed. 931, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 58, 251 U.S. 108, 64 L.Ed. 171.
Fund, deposited in bank for special purpose subject to depositor's check, remains property of depositor. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Atlantic Corporation, D.C.Mass.1925, 5 F.2d 529, error dismissed 16 F.2d 27.
'In the case of a special deposit, the bank assumes merely the charge or custody of property, without authority to use it, and the depositor is entitled to receive back the identical money or thing deposited. In such case, the right of property remains in the depositor, and if the deposit is of money, the bank may not mingle it with its own funds. The relation created is that of bailor and bailee, and not that of debtor and creditor.' 3 R.C.L. 522. Tuckerman v. Mearns, App.D.C.1919, 262 F. 607, 49 App.D.C. 153.
National banks are liable for the loss of property held by them merely for the accommodation of their customers, without any consideration for the keeping of it except the profit derived from the banking business of such customers. Security Nat. Bank v. Home Nat. Bank, Kan.1920, 187 P. 697, 106 Kan. 303.
The CPA’s report determines the money trail concerning the alleged loan according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The substance (journal entries) shows that the alleged contract (only 1 loan) to be misleading since the report shows that there were two loans given.
The problem arises due to the lender being unwilling to acknowledge this fact and to return the value of the client’s deposit.
The legal form only discussed the loan from the bank to the alleged borrower. Therefore, to not violate GAAP, substance (journal entries) overrides form (alleged loan agreement). All lenders are required to follow GAAP according to Title 12 of the United States Code, Section 1831 n.
The Federal Reserve Publications like “Modern Money Mechanics”, and “I Bet You Thought”, and “Money and Banking”, say that the banks are creating money. In essence, “what they are do when they make loans is to accept a promissory note in exchange (an exchange or swap is not a loan) for credits to the borrowers transaction accounts.” The Federal Reserve Publication “Two Faces of Debt” says when a loan is given that “new money is brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit” and that through this process, “no one else loses a deposit.” The Federal Reserve Publication “ABCs of Figuring Interest” explains that by depositing money in a savings account an individual makes a loan to the bank. The Federal Reserve Publication, “Private Debt Private Asset” explains the bank owes us the money that is in our account.
According to the CPA report the bank did not use any of their own money to lend out to the client. They did this by depositing the client’s promissory note to produce the funds to give back and called this a loan.
“The lender did not follow GAAP and the SEC must be informed of a fraud to the stockholders. Clearly the lender changed the cost and risk of the alleged loan by making the client the depositor and lender to the bank and making the alleged lender the borrower. The economics of the alleged loan are similar to stealing, counterfeiting and swindling. Equal protection means that there are not two classes of citizens where one class has a privilege and the other class does not. One class steals from the other class.”
Modern Money Mechanics Page 6 says: “(Banks) do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits.” If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise.” Page 24 of Modern Money Mechanics says, “Loans add to bank deposits.”
In summary, the lender is concealing the fact that they owe you the money they deposited in your account through the promissory note.
By the lender loaning newly created money, the lender risked nothing so is not entitled to a lien on your property since that was not the agreement between the parties.
"A promissory note may be the subject of larceny."
People v. Ogdensburgh, 48 N.Y. 390, 397; Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 407.
“Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing” ---Ralph M. Hawtrey, Secretary of the British Treasury
“The Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Reserve Banks are private Corporations." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, JUNE 10, 1932, P. 12595
"26He is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed. [G-D'S PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE LENDERS...WE GOT THIS THING BACKWARDS Y'ALL]"
I agree, you have things backwards, but not the way you are trying to twist scripture.
God 'lendeth' - His people get everything from HIM.
Please don't think you are one bit better than the wicked bankers, judges or your target of angst du jour. There will be plenty of judgment to go around, hab.
So much to scroll past today, so little time.
The 700 Club sayed:
Does Notarial dissent think he knows more than Barry Goldwater, a well respected illuminist?
LOLO!
The 007 Club sayed:
Notarial Dissent's world of lending is the world of make believe.
he jus may be write on that 1....
banks lending money IS MAKE BEELEEVE!
they try to MAKE YO BILEEVE THAT YO NOW OWE THEM MOONEY.
but, no matter what notoreel dissidence says, becasue its still....
↓↓COMING DOWN↓↓
notorial dissent said...
And oh illiterate one, if you had actually bothered to read the drivel you stole,
by the way, just for 'corrective purposes", I "stole" nothing, and if I did, then everyone who has ever printed or posted this material are also thieves as THEY WERE NOT THE ORIGINAL© WRITERS OF IT.
as the original wirters are probaly nothin but dust by now....
and surely everting that you post here is YOUR oreganol© work, right?
oreganol©
"good for what ails yo"
yet more Moogie nonsense
a) GENERAL PROHIBITION.—No national bank shall make any loan or discount on the security of the shares of its own capital stock.
Very nice, now do you know what the sentence actually means? You don’t or you wouldn’t be trying to use it.
more Moogie misinterpretation
National Banks are designed to protect the depositors monies, and perform all reasonable duties to protect, and hence are unable to
loan out DEPOSITORS MONIES by their own rules, FOR THIS WOULD BE IN CONTRADICTION TO THEIR MAIN DUTY OF PROTECTION, for if a loan went bad, the bank violated their primary duty to protect and could be sued.
There is absolutely nothing in the statutes that says that, despite your attempts to twist them to. Their duty of protection is in seeing that the monies are invested wisely and carefully with due care responsibility, not to not do so.
more Moogie can’t read
If the statute doesn't allow the bank to loan from their stockholders equity & aren't able to loan out from their depositors monies, where does the loan monies come from?
Again, that is not what the statute says, but then you did not actually read it, and you are trying to twist the words into something they don’t say.
still more Moogie nonsense
Obviously, the only alternative that exists, is that the banks CREATE THE MONIES from monies that didn't previously exist prior to the loan. The promissory note creates the starting place for this newly created money.
Obviously not. You have just proven once again that you cannot and do not read what you steal.
even more Moogie nonsense
Banks don't and CAN'T loan out depositors monies, as this would COMINGLE THE FUNDS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR FIDUCIARY CAPACITY.
Again, you can’t read plain English.
Moogie again
There is a maximum penalty of 1 Million Dollars if banks are lending out depositors monies, or breaching any of their fiduciary duties, and a penalty of $5,000/day that this practices continues. Do you think a bank would take that risk as a continuing daily pattern of business as usual?
Uh, NO!!!, has to do with bank officers, directors etc actively participating in fraudulent acts within the bank or operating the bank in an improper or illegal fashion. Nice try, but try reading that material next time.
and still more Moogie
Who would have thought all of these rules existed on what national banks can and cannot do?
Course according to Notarial Dissent, there is no such thing as Title 12, Revised Banking Statute 62 as this is something I made up.
Moogems, you don’t even know the half of it, there are also a variety of state laws they have to abide by, as well as a great number of Federal Rules and regulations no covered in Title 12. I never said there was no such thing as Title 12, just your misrepresentation of it.
Moogs again
A national bank cannot act as broker in lending its depositors' money to third persons. Byron v. First Nat. Bank of Roseburg, Or.1915, 146 P. 516, 75 Or. 296.
What amazes me is that even when you get the quote almost right, you still don’t read it. We’ve already been through this nonsense before, this refers to acting as agent or broker for a depositor’s funds, not that a bank cannot lend out funds from pooled deposits.
Moogey some more
According to the CPA report the bank did not use any of their own money to lend out to the client. They did this by depositing the client’s promissory note to produce the funds to give back and called this a loan.
More nonsense since this is not from any verifiable or real source, and is just more of the same dreck you keep dragging out.
Moogie again
“The Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Reserve Banks are private Corporations." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, JUNE 10, 1932, P. 12595
In the Congressional Record, yes, true, no, merely the rant of one of the resident loons of the era. There are also recipes and other apocryphal stories in the record, does not necessarily make any of them true.
To the dippy Dr., you STOLE it, you didn’t write it, and you didn’t credit it, so you stole it. The fact that you didn’t read what you stole doesn’t absolve you of being a thief.
FRICKEN TARD
notoreiusly dissed said...
To the dippy Dr., you STOLE it, you didn’t write it, and you didn’t credit it, so you stole it. The fact that you didn’t read what you stole doesn’t absolve you of being a thief.
the info is from case law, thus is not crappyrited©, thus i dont need to credit it, thus i didnt "stole it."
and i have read it. they are a private org. wheter or not they actually function with/without govt. oversight changes nothing. they are still private. if they were public, you could access their records.
think the FED is going to "open up their books?
not in this life thayer not.
and anyways, it doesnt matter...
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
or maybe like the "other dr." says....by changing the letter around.....
↓↓TIS COMING DOWN↓↓
TAKE YO PIK?
by the way, (t)is it gong to be a raptor or a "ascention"??
gong up??
maybe sum is gong down↓↓
with the aleens....and the spacesheeps....
2011 hasta l'veesta baby....
why isn't anybody talking about clients getting their money back through the courts??????
To the dippy Dr. You aren’t smart enough to have, and didn’t write it, you didn’t attribute it, you stole it. Besides, it is always nice to know where you are stealing things from so that we can see what you left out.
In 1978 the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (31 USCA 714) was passed, and from that time the Fed was under the audit authority of the GAO, which conducts yearly audits of the FR Banks, the FR Board, and the Open Market Committee, further, there are also yearly independent audits by outside auditors, Price Waterhouse, and Cooper Lebrand among others.
So their books are far from secret.
FRICKEN TARD
In 1978 the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (31 USCA 714) was passed, and from that time the Fed was under the audit authority of the GAO, which conducts yearly audits of the FR Banks, the FR Board, and the Open Market Committee, further, there are also yearly independent audits by outside auditors, Price Waterhouse, and Cooper Lebrand among others.
So their books are far from secret.
ive never seen the books. have you?
just becasue they say they are audited an public doesnt mean that they are.
after all, judge beansloop is sworn to uphole the law, doesnt mean that he does?
and where have i said that i wrote it???
you must be taking those halsongensik shrooms....
but like i sayed, the only thins yo relly haf ta no is....
↓↓TIS COMING DOWN↓↓
right on yo head!
LOL!
Dippy Dr., since you have proven yourself incapable of actually reading the stuff you steal, why do I think you would be even less capable of reading either the books, or the audit statements were they presented to you? Observable fact to start.
But, if you insist, then by all means contact the GAO. I'm sure they would be more than happy to send you a copy of the audit statements.
ND,
afta if comes down, guss that yo will have to find anther blog/job?
yo wont be able to dfend the "sytem" anymo, so wha will yo do then?
maybe yo can get a job with an apple cart?
think yo can sell apples?
but yo will have some competion slinging apples.
yo will have neo selling apples for a dime, judge bean selling apples form underneath his raincoat, and a few other with yo too.
hint: try to sell yo apples fo the lowest price.
LOL!
Refunder asked:
"why isn't anybody talking about clients getting their money back through the courts??????"
They are. Contact the US Attorney's office in San Fransisco. Not much left to divide up.
As far as civil actions, at least some of the clients are going to run into three problems (and this isn't legal advice):
(1) Not all of the money wound up in Johnson & Heineman's hands; broker/promoters got some of it. You'd have a three-way circus trying to sue in civil courts to recover. Then again, if they try the goofy legal nonsense like Johnson has been using, you'd be assured of a judgment IF (really BIG IF) you get past problem #2.
(2) You're up against what is known as the clean hands doctrine. You'd have to convince a court that you were an innocent, unknowing, unsophisticated victim and weren't actually trying to participate in a fraud.
(3) If you get past that hurdle you have the problem of trying to collect on the judgment. Actually getting your money back is more than just a long shot.
see? what did i tole yo???
even canadia crates $$$$ from thick hair?
they say that soon, even guam and kansas city will be doin' it too!
and theyre even making plans to crate money in the andartic reejin
now dont go and steel my matrial becase its copyratted©
Canada Bank - Money Created by Thin Air
Canada's Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional
“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”
Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, talking about the BANK OF CANADA in1935
Here is the beginning of the physical proof that CANADA BANK is a total private corporation. See the attached file "Bell Local Directory - Business pages - page 29, Canada Bank.jpg. If Central Bank is a public institution own by federal government, it MUST BE NOT LISTED IN BUSINES PAGES but ONLY in the government blue pages of the Bell Canada directory.
51% second class non voting actions ( B ) are detains by Minister of Finance of the Government of Canada !
49% first class actions ( A ) are detains by the CANADA BANK cartel !
Minister of Finance has only a consultative right on the council board of CANADA BANK !
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAS NO WORD TO SAY ABOUT CANADA BANK GOVERNOR MONEY POLICIES !
* CANADA BANK INC. MAKES ITS PRIVATE OWNERS (THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS CARTELS) WHEALTYER BY COLLECTING THE INCOME TAX ON THE LABOUR OF CANADIAN PEOPLE !
* TO CREATE INFLATION OR DEFLATION, CANADA BANK INC. HAVE ALWAYS PLAYED WITH THE VALUE OF OUR CURRENCY NOT BASED ON GOLD BUT THIN AIR !
* FOR DECADES, THIS MONOPOLY GAME HAS CAUSE TREMENDOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING TO THE PEOPLE OF CANADA !
* IT IS TOTALLY FALSE TO SAY THAT, BY THE END OF WORLD WAR ONE IN 1918, PRICES OF CANADIAN GOODS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY 50%, 75%, 100%, 500% OR 1000% !
* CANADA BANK INK. PRINTED 45 BILLIONS DOLLARS, NOT ENOUGH TO REIMBURSE THE PRINCIPAL THAT IS 600 BILLIONS DOLLARS DEBT.
* WITH THE AMOUNT OF MONEY STILL IN COMPUTERS, THERE IS 1000 BILLIONS DOLLARS IN CANADA.
* IT IS TOTALLY FALSE TO SAY THAT CANADIAN PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO REIMBURSE A 600 BILLIONS DOLLARS DEBT THAT DOES NOT EXIST !
* IT'S A FRAUD COMMITTED ON CANADIAN PEOPLE !
* GIVE BACK THE POWER TO THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT TO PRINT A PERMANENT STABLE MONEY !
* IT IS HIS ABSOLUTE RIGHT GARANTEED BY CONSTITUTION OF 1867 !
The only way to achieve this goal, it is by a personal awareness of the situation and by an organised national civil pressure on the ELECTED representatives. Federal government must take control of the currency and credit, and print the Canadian money as it was before the CANADA BANK act was adopted in 1934.
*
CONSTITUTION OF 1867 GIVES ONLY TO PROVINCES THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH INCOME TAX LAWS !
*
FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON MEN AND WOMEN LABOUR IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL !
Whit the retreat of Province of Quebec of the Canadian Federation in 1968, Quebec is no longer a Canadian province but a legal State that is not suppose to be submit to Canadian laws.
CANADIAN INCOME TAX IS A FRAUD COMMITTED ON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF QUEBEC !
People of the State of Quebec must quickly recognise this fact and ask politely to Canada to get out of Quebec !
Canada's Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional.
The constitution gives the Federal Government the right to issue its own currency
Here are excerpts from a paper that was delivered in October, 1991, by Mr. Murray Gauvreau, of Alberta, at a seminar of the Canadian League of Rights, in Calgary, which was published in the July, 1992 issue of "The Canadian Intelligence Service" (55 - 8th Ave. S.E., High River , Alberta T1V 1E8):
by Murray Gauvreau
I would like to talk with you today about money, interest, debt, and taxation. Thank you for your interest and for coming to hear me speak. I'm sure that all of you are interested in Imcome Tax, and the GST. I will no doubt give you some enlightening facts. In order to fully understand the problem that we face today in Canada, we will briefly discuss some important aspects of our history.
In addition, I will try to give you an understanding of how the many taxes we now pay have come about. I will also propose some solutions to our dilemma. But please keep this in mind: our problem is perceived to be vast and complex, and it is intended by those in power that you feel exactly that way, so that you will feel helpless to do anything about it. But after today you will know for certain that our problem is not complex at all, and neither is its solution.
1867 - the B.N.A. Act
As a result of having taken advantage of the many career advancement courses offered by the life insurance industry, I became aware that the banks have exclusive right to issue currency in Canada, as determined by the Federal Bank Act. But I didn't see them printing money, so I decided to find out exactly how they do issue currency. My search led me back into the early history of our nation, and into the history of our Province...
So let's go back a ways, to the year 1867, and look into the pages of the Canadian Constitution, commonly known as the British North America (B.N.A.) Act. Therein lies the real solution to the ailments, both social and economic, that our country suffers from today. It is the same document today that it was when it was written so long ago.
The B.N.A. Act was written in order to establish the legal basis for this country. All laws enacted in Canada, whether by municipal, provincial, or federal government, must comply with the terms of the B.N.A. Act. If they do not, they are then unconstitutional, or in legal terms "ultra vires," and can be disallowed as law. The document belongs to the people of Canada, and not to the parliamentarians or the courts, or to the Prime Minister and the Premiers... It belongs to the people.
The Canadian Constitution was not changed or altered when it was brought home by Mr. Trudeau, as some suggest. However, there was a very important addition made to it at that time. That addition was the Canadian Bill of Human Rights. Today the Canadian Constitution, as we know it, is comprised of the original B.N.A. Act, and the Human Rights Act, together...
Direct taxation belongs to provinces
There are two specific sections of the B.N.A. Act that deal with the delegation of authority between the Federal and Provincial Governments. Sections 91 and 92 deal with authority for various types of taxation, who has authority to levy which taxes, and various other areas of jurisdiction.
The Act is very specific in its direction. The right to tax income, known as "direct" tax, was delegated to the provinces; and it was clearly indicated that any monies so raised must be raised provincially, and used for provincial purposes. The Federal Government was denied the right to levy income tax.
But the Supreme Court of Canada goes further. It states that no level or government is allowed to transfer its authority to another level of government, and if transfer were attempted by one level, it could not legally be accepted by another.
On October 3, 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case involving the Lord Nelson Hotel of Halifax, Nova Scotia, against the Attorneys-General of Nova Scotia and Canada. The case involved the transfer of powers from the Provincial to the Federal Government, and was directly related to the income Tax Act. In a seven-judge unanimous decision, the highest court in our land ruled that power transfers cannot legally take place. The Federal Government was given until 1962 to remove itself from all such power-transfer agreements, including the Income tax business, and scrap the Income Tax Act...
Clearly, the Federal Government has no constitutional right to engage in the Income Tax business, or any other type of direct taxation, whether on behalf of itself or on behalf of the provinces. Therefore, the Income Tax Act is, in itself, unconstitutional, and need not to be obeyed...
The Federal Government can create its own currency
It is interesting to note that the same sections of the B.N.A. Act that disallow the Federal Government the right to collect income tax, did however provide for a means whereby the Federal Government could raise capital. Sectons 91 (14, 15,16, 28, 29, and 20) give the Federal Government the authority, and the responsibility, for the control and issue of our currency, based upon the resources and wealth of the nation. They were given an unlimited supply of debt-free money with which to operate the contry. All they had to do was print it. And they did just that for the first 46 years of our country.
Government gives banks credit monopoly
Then, some 46 years after Confederation, in 1913, our parliamentarians were poorly advised in committing a grave injustice to future generations of Canadians by passing an amendment to the B.N.A. Act (without referendum!) commonly known as the Bank Act. By this act, the Federal Government gave to the banking system the sole right to create the financial credit (in reality, the "money") of our nation. And for the last 79 years, the private banking system has been exercising this monopolistic prerogative of creating and controlling the Canadian people's financial credit.
Well, banks don't work for free... they charge "interest." They even charge interest to the Government. And interest can never be repaid; it just keeps adding up, and up, and up, until today our national debt alone is approaching $600 billion.
Shipwrecked on an island
(Editor's note: At this point of his speech, Mr. Gauvreau explains in detail the same story related by Louis Even in "The Money Myth Exploded," formerly called "Salvation Islan":)
Let's assume that those of us here this afternoon are shipwreck survivors, and that we are stranded on a deserted island. Our only means of survival are to help each other by each doing those things that are necessary for the betterment of our new community, until we can be rescued. One of us becomes a farmer, one a fisherman, one a carpenter, and so on.
Each of us has his own role to play for the survival of the community. No one has any money, and at least for the time being, there is no need for money, All are contributing equally, and all are on the same economic level. We are satisfactorily exchanging our goods and services by barter. But gradually, as the community evolves, it becomes apparent that money will be necessary. Bob already has a house, and the carpenter doesn't need another hundred pounds of fish. But we do need to associate, cooperate, and continue to contribute to the community. There needs to be an acceptable and equitable means of exchanging our goods and services...
Then one day, as the community is sitting on the beach, talking about their problem, we notice another raft approaching the island. All are happy to see a new face, and we greet the new arrival warmly. As we continue to talk, someone in the community tells the vew arrival about our dilemma, about how we started the community, developed it, built it through cooperation, and advanced to the point where we now need some form of exchange to help make the community grow and flourish. The new arrival's eyes light up. "I have the answer to your problem," says the new arrival. "I'm a banker. I'll set to work right now to print you some money."
The next morning, the whole community meets in front of the banker's new house. As the banker distributes the money, he reminds us that the money belong to him, and that we do not "own" it, but that we can only "borrow" it, and that we must pay a small fee for the privilege of borriwing it. We can pay that at the end of the year. And he requests that each person sign the agreement to pay 5%, which is certainly not excessive interest.
The debt cannot be paid back
The first year goes by. The community functions and prospers during the year; then at the end of the year we return to the banker, to pay him back what we had borrowed. But we find, to our dismay, that we cannot repay the loan, because we do not have enough money. We find that we now owe all that we had borrowed, plus 5%, which is the interest. The $1,000 that we had borrowed has now become $1,050. Since there is obviously no way to pay back the $50, which is the interest, the banker suggests that we leave the loan on the books as a $1,000, leaving a lesser amount of $950 for each of us to operate on for the next year. Seeing no other real answer, the community agrees to the new terms, and attempts to operate with less money for another year.
At the end of the second year, the community faces a similar, but greater, problem. In buying down the loan, we find that our operating capital has now been cut by 10%, to $900. We realize that if the plan is allowed to continue, the banker will own the island, in its entirety, having contributed nothing but the paper and ink (bookkeeping) that was used to monetize the community's real credit in the first place. Some of the islanders protest.
But the banker has now had a couple of years to prepare for this day. To counter the objection that is inevitable, he has taken evasive steps. He has used the time to develop credibility in the community to educate us as to how valuable his service is, and what a fine contribution he has made to the community. He established colleges and universities majoring in economics, and teaches our children and our educators all about his money system. He ensures that few, if any, in the community are aware that there is another way; and he encourages the community to discount as ridiculous any suggestion that there could be a better way to finance a community...
The solution: Social Credit
Then one day, one of the islanders decides to take a walk along the beach and deliberate upon what has happened to the community. As he strolls along, head down, thinking, he notices what appears to be the corner of a book sticking out from the sand. He kneels, and picks up the book and brushes it off. The title, though tarnished from time, wind, and tide, is still readable - "The Meaning of Social Credit." The islanders had never heard of this before, but he has not had a book to read for a long time, so he sits down on the beach to read it. A nd as he reads, he becomes more and more interested and excited. He realizes that this book holds the real answers to his island's financial problem. The book describes how a community can function very well by simply creating a Balance Sheet, a system of debits and credits...
He runs back to relate the exiting news of his discovery to the rest of the community. As he gathers the islanders to discuss his find, the banker watches with concern. Is his jug up? Has he been found out? Is the community finally ready to take back its property, and reconstruct it, and once again have prosperity and cooperation?
Friends, only you can answer these questions, because the island I talk about is your country, and the community I refer to is all of us.
The story paints a rather dismal picture of the banking system in our country. Please understand, the average bank manager, teller or loans officer, has absolutely no knowledge of what you have just learned. They are merely pawns in a much larger game. But rest assured, those in the upper levels of management in the finance industry are absolutely certain of what they are doing, and how it affects the citizens of this country... Any system that enslaves and controls a population in the way that our finance system does, cannot possibly be from the Lord. So there is only one other place it could come from...
Banks do not lend out depositors' money
Does anybody here know where the banks get the money that they lend out? Actually, most people assume that they lend out depositors' money. But the Bank Act specifies that the bank must retain the depositor's money on account, and must pay him interest on it.
So, where else might the bank get the money?
The Bank Act also specifies that the bank may create, out of nothing, new credit ("money") through loans, but that it must have a relationship to the deposits. Originally, the banks were allowed to lend out six times their deposits, but today banks are allowed to issue new credit up to 26 times their deposits. That means that if I deposit my $1,000 in a Canadian bank, then that bank can issue loans to the tune of $26,000... Go to the bank, get a loan, and ask for the loan proceeds in cash. No matter the size of the loan, you cannot get it in cash - it must be deposited to your account, and cheques written in order to access the money. No tangible money is ever created; only debits and credits (figures) are created...
Today in Canada, the only source of money, whether private, corporate, or governmental need, is a loan from a bank. But you can never borrow your way out of debt. You can only borrow your way into bankruptcy, at which time you turn your back on your assets and your hard work, and give up possession of it to those to whom you owe money, but who gave absolutely no vested interest in your property...
1917: the Federal Income Tax
Now that we understand that the national debt can never be fully repaid using the current system of finance, the question arises: How, then, does it get paid? In 1917, after finding out that the debt was beginning to build, the Federal Government usurped the powers of the provincial governments and, under the guise of the War Debt, instituted the War Debt Income Tax Act. The Act was unconstitutional then, and it is still unconstitutional today. When it was enacted, it was on a voluntary basis, at a rate of 10%, and applied only to those earning $10,000 or more per year. In 1917, the average yearly salary was about $250.
The Income Tax Act could have more appropriately been named the Bank Interest Debt Income Tax Act; but then, people would have fought to the death to keep it out of effect. Since that time, the Federal Government has seen fit to increase the tax rate as high as 65% on high-income individuals, and has also seen fit to remove the lower limits to the point that, as you know, everyone is required to pay...
And now we have had the GST, which in my opinion is equaly as unconstitutional, rammed down our throats by a group of MPs that brashly and boldly declare that they are smarter than we are, and they know best...
Facing up to reality
Our Federal Government has gone so far away from the Constitution, in nearly every area of jurisdiction, that it now conspires to change it altogether. But that is not the solution. Getting back to the way it was written is the solution...
Each one of us selects his mode and method of doing battles with oppressive government. Some of us do it by speaking out... some of us join non-party political groups, some of us pray, and most of us do nothing. We have a condition called the "ostrich syndrome." If we ignore it and don't look at it, it might go away! But remember this: if your head is in the sand, your butt is an open target!
The Hart System: tax avoidance Federal Income Tax is illegal
I handle my fight personally using a system called the Hart System of Effective Tax Avoidance. Gerry Hart passed avay recently in Winnipeg, but not before becoming Canada's undisputed champion No. 1 tax fighter. Mr. Hart for many years opted to take an aggressive and active position against oppressive government, and he has not paid income tax in nearly 50 years. During that time, he has been imposed upon, charged, harassed, his privacy invaded, and his person subjected to illegal search. But he has never given an inch. He has been to the Manitoba Court of Appeal 22 times, but has never lost.
In 1950 Gerry Hart received a copy of a Vancouver newspaper article which reported on a recent ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada. He then requested a copy of the ruling itself, from the Supreme Court Chancery in Ottawa. He also requested a copy of the B.N.A. Act, because the ruling quoted various sections of that document. He found, just as the newspaper had reported, that Section 91 and 92 of the B.N.A. Act do not allow for the Federal Government to be in the Income Tax business.
The two documents - the Supreme Court ruling and the B.N.A. Act - have been the basis of his battle, and the only two cocuments he has needed. He has never had the benefit of legal counsel, and has chosen to appear in court by himself. His only evidence has been those two documents. Charges against him have been thrown out of court 22 times. The last time, some twelve or so years ago, Revenue Canada was told that if it ever brought Gerry Hart back into court, that Revenue Canada itself would be charged with contempt of court.
Gerry Hart has never been convicted under the Income Tax Act. As he says, "Income Tax is illegal. Therefore the collection of it is also illegal. Since Revenue Canada has no legal method of collecting income tax, they must resort to illegal means." Those illegal means include harassment, intimidation, illegal search, illegal seizure, violation of privacy, extortion, coercion, and complete ignorance and contempt for the human rights of Canadian citizens...
We have various books and booklets available to help to educate on how to prepare to stop paying these illegal taxes. If our "Tax Kit" can help you to avoid several thousands of dollars of tax, it is certainly worth its small investment. Be sure to protect yourself from Revenue Canada before you get involved in this tax fight. Read the books, and find out how...
If you still have questions after you have read the books, then call me. I'll try to help you. I have not paid income tax since 1978, and I have used Gerry Hart's System of Effective Tax Avoidance. I know it works; I'm living proof.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I've talked for a long time. But I cannot overstress the lateness of the hour. We all know what needs to be done, so let's get busy and get to it!
Murray Gauvreau
Until State of Quebec recognise his sovereignty, this email still in conformity with the Supreme Court of Canada judgement CSC 14.27704 dated on 2002/02/21 http://www.industriequebec.ca/portal/fr/Content.php?id=300
Isn't a JURISDIC FICTICIOUS PERSON, a SOCIAL REASON or a COMMERCIAL ENTITY created by Government.
Jean-Paul: Massie
Living Man made of blood flesh and bones and with a Soul created by Almighty God that is not to sell.
So much gibberish, so few facts, so little to do with anything to do on this blog, so much wasted space, so typical of the waste of space that posted it.
We agree, fricken tard.
What happened to Sara-Jane Magoon?
poopoo said...
What happened to Sara-Jane Magoon?
___________________________________
I heard she got a new job selling moose saddles at a tack shop up in Saskatchewan.
Until State of Quebec recognise his sovereignty, this email still in conformity with the Supreme Court of Canada judgement CSC 14.27704 dated on 2002/02/21 http://www.industriequebec.ca/portal/fr/Content.php?id=300
Isn't a JURISDIC FICTICIOUS PERSON, a SOCIAL REASON or a COMMERCIAL ENTITY created by Government.
Jean-Paul: Massie
Living Man made of blood flesh and bones and with a Soul created by Almighty God that is not to sell.
___________________________________
Oh look.... Canada has hyphenated colon people, too!
Scott from Vineland said...
Oh look.... Canada has hyphenated colon people, too!
Stupidity is one of the universal constants.
The Bilge Report for Mar 23, 2008 wherein Kurt bloviates greatly.
Kurt blows forth
I hope I left a testimony of truth as a witness.
Well, at the very least, a trail of lies too big to miss.
more Kurtian drama
He said some mean things that are a good clue. He said in his time on the bench I was the worst, most incorrigible, evil man before him.
Truth hurts doesn’t it?
and still more
There were many other observers that witnessed the clash between good and evil,
Yep, and you(evil) lost.
Kurtian denial
There are others like Evil-Ex who saw good people doing their job with integrity.
Or, just those not living a life of delusion and self aggrandizement.
Kurtian BS
Would you give your soul for a paycheck?
I’m curious Kurt, just how much did you sell your soul for, not much obviously from the reports of what you got away with and how much is left, but then ineptitude does have its price as well.
Kurtian pomposity
Ignorance is no longer an excuse.
No, but it was what you counted on to keep the marks coming in, except you weren’t very good at that either, bloated egos tend to get in the way of a good con job.
Scott from Vineland said: "I heard she got a new job selling moose saddles at a tack shop up in Saskatchewan."
Well if you buy that a moose can be saddled, you'll believe any government or court lie.
Byron, Byron, Byron... (sigh)
It must be terrible to live such a mirthless life.
That was the point... You never fail at failing to get the joke, do you?
Ah, but you see, that is the supreme irony of it all.
Moogey is the joke, and the joke is on him.
Fwiw.... I have seen both a moose and a buffalo broken for saddle, missed that one too........
ND said...
Fwiw.... I have seen both a moose and a buffalo broken for saddle, missed that one too........
___________________________________
Moose and rider? Now THAT I gotta see... I'm Googling right now...
The buffalo makes the rounds of the state fair circuit-named Bruce as I recall, the moose was some "cute" animal show I happened to catch on cable when I was out surfing a while back.
Post a Comment