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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: request for tips and tricks

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... I read it just to see if anything was new or contradictory to established laws. ... Paid what? Dollars or ounces, of gold or silver? ... I guess, for
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      jlaporte02@... wrote:

      > Here's the chapter on coins and currency from the US code
      > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sup_01_31_08_IV_10
      > _51.html

      I read it just to see if anything was new or contradictory to
      established laws.

      > Gold bullion coin act 1985

      > The people working for Kahre were independent contractors.
      > As such they had a contract to be paid in gold and silver.

      Paid what? Dollars or ounces, of gold or silver?

      > Doesn't mean that what they did was legal. That remains to be
      > seen.

      I guess, for some. For some, like the blind, everything will remain to
      be seen. For others, there's no question.

      For those born yesterday, or even as recently as ten or twenty years
      ago, that "chapter" of code might be the only information taken into
      consideration when contemplating the situation with money today. Older
      folks who've been paying attention to money for a lot longer know that
      many omissions have been made to the code (not repeals, just stuff "left
      out", statutes and laws still valid, yet unannotated), since code is
      only evidence of the law and not the law itself. As I read what they've
      left in the code for newbies to read, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors
      and obfuscation and downright illiteracy on the part of the writers.
      I'm not going to tear it apart here; that would be better saved should
      the minions ever decide to take me on in my own cases. What I'd really
      like to see is the top secret files that explain to anyone WHY certain
      things are still there! For example, can anyone describe this situation
      and who it might be involving:

      (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an amount equal to the
      amount by which the proceeds from the sale of the coins issued under
      section 5112(i) of title 31, United States Code, exceed the sum of -
      (1) the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins,
      and
      (2) the value of gold certificates (not exceeding forty-two and
      two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce) retired from the use of gold
      contained in such coins,
      shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and shall be used
      for the sole purpose of reducing the national debt.
      ------

      I thought gold certificates were no longer being honored! Apparently,
      they are, for some people. Who might they be? Rockefellers and other
      central bankers?

      "Forty-two and two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce" has what
      significance today? Apparently it has some. Actually, the two laws
      offered, the code and the 1985 gold act are just more attempts at
      obfuscation and deception that become evident when trying to reconcile
      their provisions with existing unrepealed monetary laws. For example:
      the word "amount" is used without ever specifying "amount of what". The
      word "dollar" is defined in terms of its fractions, which is ridiculous.

      People might notice if the definition of "pound" was "16 ounces" and the
      definition of "ounce" was "1/16th of a pound". They fail to notice the
      absurdity of the current code definition of "dollar" most likely because
      in their brief stay on the planet they've never been exposed to the
      concept of the dollar being a unit of measurement of some thing. Units
      don't exist by themselves. They need a physical manifestation to
      connect the concept to reality. Congress has not yet explained
      everything that is logical in code, and most likely never will. They
      will never pass a law saying that when it rains, things get wet! Some
      things are just going to have to be understood prior to congress
      explaining them. Some things like money used to be widely understood by
      a majority. This was when real money was even in the pockets of bums
      and hoboes, and children of 6 years old, like I was when I learned about
      it. Today people drowning in debt and driving expensive cars have never
      held an amount of money equal to the amount a bum used to use to buy
      coffee 50 years ago. This is what permits the illiteracy seen in the
      codes, where the official notations are mostly comments upon what
      "probably should have been" but was not written. Also, did anyone
      notice that the "secretary" could ignore just about any of those
      provisions "in his discretion"? Which secretary is that, the Secretary
      of the Treasury of the United States of America, or the Secretary of the
      Treasury of the International Monetary Fund? The first office no longer
      exists, does it?

      Another point to ponder is when did the lawful established distinction
      between "coined money" and "token coinage" disappear from public
      consciousness such that now people refer to the latter as the former?
      It apparently has occurred, but when and why? I blame it on public
      diseducation after 1970.

      These recent attempts to hide the fraud really do a poor job of it for
      anyone who has read and followed monetary law from the beginning. The
      ignorance of the writers is so apparent; they were either grossly
      ignorant, or paid to do the best job of obfuscation possible, which was
      a poor attempt.

      When I was in school, in math class, I did learn about a thing called
      "absolute numbers":

      "The absolute value of x, denoted "| x |" (and which is read as "the
      absolute value of x"), is regarded as the distance of x from zero. This
      is why absolute value is never negative; absolute value only asks "how
      far?", not "in which direction?". This means that | 3 | = 3, because 3
      is three units to the right of zero, and also | -3 | = 3, because -3 is
      three units to the left of zero."

      This is the only way "three FRNs = three dollars". In the past, and
      according to law, money was physical metal that could be coined,
      meaning, made into round pieces each of a standard weight and purity.
      Today, apparently, people think "coined" means something else, maybe
      like they "coin an expression". Today, they think in dollars as they
      would with absolute numbers, such that to them, "one dollar" could be
      either a dollar in the hand (present), or a dollar of debt (absent).

      There is a difference between money and debt (money not present, but due
      and owing). People don't appear to realize yet that FRNs are evidences
      of debt, even though the laws clearly make that distinction. People for
      some reason fail to note that the absence of a thing cannot be equal to
      the thing, unless one is thinking in the abstract terms of "absolute
      numbers", then $100 of debt can "become" $100 of money in the mind of
      one so disposed to think in terms of absolute numbers only, where
      positive and negative have no place in the calculations. People who
      consider $1 of debt (1 FRN) to be equal to $1 of money are living in a
      dream world they've been led to live in through propaganda and vast
      resources spent on deception. Until they see and can articulate the
      difference they will be victimized by the central bankers who produce
      debt in unlimited amounts far exceeding the amount of money ever coined.
      They fail to note that papers were always tokens for the coined money
      and were never the money itself. Today, people believe that the symbol
      for something is equal to the thing represented, but they never look
      into whether or not too many symbols have been put into circulation
      compared to the amount of money they were made to represent. Some
      people, even if you show them the numbers, believe that something
      numbering, for example, "ten" can be increased by only increasing the
      number of symbols representing it, for example, to "one hundred". Then
      you have two groups of people, some knowing only the ten things exist,
      but a larger group trading 100 coupons for those 10 things. Obviously,
      90% of the coupons will never be redeemed for their stated value. And
      so some people say, "no problem, I'll pass the coupons off to someone
      else for something real and so I will never suffer the consequences."
      This works until the majority realizes that money has to be a positive
      number, and debt is a negative number, and that absolute numbers don't
      work in the real world to eliminate the obvious differences between
      having money and having debt.

      Regards,

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