Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tips_and_tricks] The courts have heard it all...

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... And the money of account was the money of account of the United States of America. ... But the former could never properly be called the money of account
    Message 1 of 10 , May 14, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      one [mailto:jm367@...] wrote:

      > When the money of account was prescribed, the accounts mentioned were
      > Treasury accounts.

      And the money of account was the money of account of the United States
      of America.

      > Then came the Bank of the United States.
      > Money of account in a bank account is not the same as money of account
      > in a Treasury account. The latter was prescribed to be dollars and
      > dollar to mean an amount of fine silver. The former could include
      > whatever was acceptable to the bank for credit on account or for
      > deposit to account.

      But the former could never properly be called the "money of account of
      the United States", while the bankers used the term just to describe the
      credits in their credit accounts. I think I see what you mean now, and
      I think you also see what I mean. The only "money of account" that can
      attach to me is the money of account of the United States. Money of a
      banker's account can be whatever they wish to call it, because it has
      nothing whatsoever to do with me.

      > You can deduce this from Hamilton's explanation of the
      > advantages of the Bank to the Government and the story about where the
      > bank's capital came from ... mostly from deposit of stock in the bank
      > at
      > the bank by the originators of the corporation. What a deal, huh ?

      The original departure from reality to the world of imagination...very
      interesting.

      > The depositor to a bank account is but a mere unsecured creditor in
      > equity. On the other hand, nobody is a creditor against the amounts
      > deposited to a Treasury account. They are supposed to accounts in law
      > not in equity.

      I think I knew that.

      > The confusion has arisen from the fact that the one phrase, "money of
      > account", has been used to describe two entirely different legal
      > circumstances.

      But the first is the one that counts, that is referred to in the
      monetary laws establishing the fixed weights and standards.

      > This confusion was encouraged by the bankers in fraud
      > and was perfected when National Banks were established as
      > instrumentalities of Government. This was the major step in moving
      > the
      > public money of account from law and Treasury to equity and banks.
      > There is a lie contained in using the one phrase, "money of account",
      > as
      > equivalent in the two very distinct legal circumstances.

      We agree. I maintain that life on Planet Earth without bankers is a
      distinct possibility. I prove it.

      Regards,

      FF
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.