Jerry Fleischner wrote:
> Just as Kahre could make the government swallow its own ridiculous
> about the difference between bullion and legal tender, Kahre might
> need to
> argue that his workers were indeed 'contractors' and not 'employees'.
He DID make that statement. He should forget the concept of the workers
being "his" (because "employee" is synonymous with "slave" for all
practical purposes today) and let them have the same independence as
Paladin of San Francisco had when traveling with his gun for hire.
> The burden of proof here, that his workers were contractors, would
> probably be Kahre's.
In a perfect world, the "workers" would know it themselves and could
articulate it, but the public education has most likely ruled out that
> In the event Kahre wound up on the short end of the controversy, that
> workers were employees, he would then be subject to government hourly
> wage laws, etc, and find himself liable for fines based now on his own
> regarding the equivalence of silver and paper dollars that, where the
> wage is greater than one dollar, for example, a payment of one dollar
> or paper) for one hour's work, would not meet that requirement.
I don't think he thought that part of it out. It makes you wonder how
someone could be so educated on monetary issues and an ignoramus when it
comes to otherwise fitting into the fiat currency society. You have to
On way to work outside "the systems of fraud" would be for him to pay
the workers in advance with his gold. Or, at least, he could wait until
the end of each day of work was completed, which conforms to age-old
scriptural common law principles. Then they would not create an
interest-bearing or producing debt (subject to "overnight" regulations),
thus keeping them outside the equity jurisdiction until they actually
volunteer back into it. They would avoid being there automatically and
would have to make it voluntary in another way if was going to happen.
So few care what jurisdiction they are happening to operate in, in any
I think that they would have been better off paying daily and using
silver. I don't think the "workers" really agreed to receive whatever
number of "dollars" they received per hour of work. They most likely
fit the definition of "employees" when their work and working conditions
were taken into account. I only know what I've read about this case and
have no personal knowledge about it.
Still the important thing to remember is a dollar is a measurement of
silver with a legislated equivalent denominated in gold, capable of
being lent and owed and thus converted to notations on paper. Debt
instruments denominated in dollars owed are not and cannot BE the
dollars themselves. If debt increases due to moral laxity or broad
societal mental imbalances, the proliferation of debt can never cause
the evidences of it (the papers) to BECOME that which is owed, the
actual dollars of metal!! When the papers are shuffled around, debts
are discharged in the equity jurisdiction. When the papers are returned
to their creator in exchange for the metal money, the debt is cancelled
(PAID at common law) and it no longer exists.
Apparently there are very few people left alive who know this and for
whom it is not as complicated as rocket science.