His roof, his rules. He would certainly be welcome here.Originally Posted by David Merrill
His roof, his rules. He would certainly be welcome here.
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
I just invited him.
Howard: of Saxon origin, meaning boldness.
Last edited by John Howard; 06-13-13 at 03:25 PM.
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
Either way, if he were to admit he has missed remedy (according to law) with CtC there would be a lot of benefit and less victims.
Two questions:
1: How many CtCers are here?
2: How many CtC victims are here?
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
And why does the savings to suitors club attract so many CTCers? I found this place from Johnny's posts over there
Because CtC leaves a large hole in the middle requiring further research. It creates a great framework but falls short in putting it into practical action. Pete always talked about the "piece of the action" thing, federal privilege thing. What he overlooked like the majority of Americans is the money. Cui Bono. The "money" being paid to you has a large federal privilege that attaches to it. Like being paid in money substitutes issued at the discretion of the Federal Reserve board and NOT congress. THIS CAN BE TAXED as an excise. see: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov...75.US.533.html
The remedy is via the demand that you know what their game is by invoking 12USC411 and your right to be paid in the proper medium of exchange authorized by article 1 section 8 clause 5 and therefore is protected by the direct tax provisions.
PS: JH he will probably ban you, like he did to others on this forum. Especially if you continue posting links to here..case in point "libre".
Last edited by Brian; 06-13-13 at 06:57 PM.
SDR's are the measure of a society's conditioning for its people to endorse private credit from the local central bank.
Suitors and people like you are the reason that an alternative SDR system arose - we devalue the confidence in the local SDR system. It is called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).
Last edited by David Merrill; 06-13-13 at 10:53 PM.
I don't know about the Corporate (FEDERAL RESERVE) money article that you posted.
This just seems to be a stretch. Having a private corporation or government entity issue private money, and that being the reason that the income tax can be legal seems like a stretch.
What about what the supreme court has said on similar things like this?
In Thomas v. City of Richmond, 12 Wall. 349, 20 L.Ed. 453, Thomas brought his suit to recover on notes issued by the city. As in the instant case, it was criminal both for the city authorities to issue them and on the part of the party who paid for them. Of this the Court said in 12 Wall. at page 356, "* * * The issuing of bills as a currency by such a corporation without authority is not only contrary to positive law, but, being ultra vires, is an abuse of the public franchises which have been conferred upon it; and the receiver of the bills, being chargeable with notice of the wrong, is in pari delicto with the officers, and should have no remedy, even for money had and received, against the corporation upon which he has aided in inflicting the wrong * * *." (Emphasis supplied.)
Welcome to the forum Docfate;
I am not sure what link you mean, or if you are talking to me?
Interesting citation though... about a city issuing notes. The Fed is sanctioned by Congress so from what I can tell that would be the difference. The City is sanctioned by METRO organization, the nature of which is discussed fully around here including my narrative reading of a 1960 METRO book.
Have you seen this? Everyone has doubts at first.
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote