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

Fed's admissions of fraud and confidence games.

Expand Messages
  • Nilbux@aol.com
    Page 3, Modern Money Mechanics: pub. Fed bank of Chicago. What Makes Money Valuable? In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Page 3, Modern Money Mechanics:  pub. Fed bank of Chicago.

      What Makes Money Valuable?

      In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper,
      deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face value. (maybe 97 percent less?)

      What, then, makes these instruments - checks, paper money, and coins - acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other financial assets and for real goods and services whenever they choose to do so.  (The opposite of 'real' is imaginary--their spurious specie is imaginary)

      DID THEY OR DID THEY NOT ADMIT OPERATING A CONFIDENCE GAME?

      Did they not admit the history of banking is a history of fraud? Read on!

      In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency. This unique attribute of the banking business was discovered many centuries ago.It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their "deposit receipts" whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand (FRAUD!)because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money (NO SUCH ANIMAL!) had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.

      WHEN THE GOLD SMITHS SAW IT WAS MORE PROFITABLE TO WORK PEOPLE THAN GOLD,
      THEY STOPPED GOLDSMITHING AND BECAME BANKERS,


      ya don't see the fraud here, Mr. Miner?

      What Limits the Amount of Money Banks Can Create? If deposit money can be created so easily, what is to prevent banks from making too much - more than sufficient to keep the nation's productive resources fully employed without price inflation? Like its predecessor, the modern bank must keep available, to make payment on demand, a considerable amount of currency and funds on deposit with the central bank. The bank must be prepared to convert deposit money into currency for those depositors who request currency.

      The only thing congress ever made "current as money" was silver coins!!

      Do banks offer silver coins to depositors, Mr. Miner?  or do they admit  fraud and a confidence game?  

      Quotes above are straight from the "horses' mouth".

      Get whole booklet here:
      http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/mmm2.html#MODERN


      They admit that no money goes to Washington as taxes.
      I have offered that page to thousands and I don't think
      more than two cared to see it.   Maybe they trust me?

      The IRS wrote that dollar bills "are not dollars" so when
      you report an income of "dollars" what did you have in mind?

      FONT>









    • David L. Miner
      Nilbux -- You have decided that since the FRN is not backed by gold it is therefore a fraud. That is your decision and you are welcome to it. But the rest of
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Nilbux --

        You have decided that since the FRN is not backed by gold it is therefore a
        fraud. That is your decision and you are welcome to it. But the rest of
        the world will think you are a couple cans short of a six-pack.

        You and I can agree to deal in chicken eggs, and establish a "price list" of
        various goods and services based on chicken eggs. There is no gold backing
        up the chicken eggs, but that does not mean that dealing in chicken eggs is
        a fraud. Especially not a fraud executed by me upon you.

        The Fed Reserve is "licensed" to create a medium of exchange that is
        convenient, predictable and usable all over the world. The Fed Reserve has
        done exactly that. Just because both you and I believe that is a violation
        of the Constitution does not make it fraud. Except maybe to you.

        And just because the Fed Reserve admits that the exchange of FRNs is little
        more than a computer entry somewhere does not make it a fraud. And it
        CERTAINLY doesn't mean the Fed is ADMITTING it to be a fraud. Except maybe
        to you.

        I am very aware of what Modern Money Mechanics states. In fact, I am
        teaching from it again this coming Monday evening. You, however, DO NOT
        seem to be aware of what Modern Money Mechanics states. That document
        states very clearly the nature of FRNs as being an agreement to honor at
        face value all over the world. There is no hard asset backing FRNs. The
        ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS THIS! And the entire world has agreed to honor FRNs at
        face value and use them as a means of exchange.

        THIS IS NOT FRAUD! Except maybe to you.

        You seem to need a dictionary. This way you can discover that the
        confidence of someone is not the same as a con game. Look it up. One is
        under confidence and the other is under con. They are different. Except
        maybe to you.

        You call it imaginary. But I usually refrain from using that word for
        something that I can touch, taste and spend. Most people do the same.
        Except maybe you.

        There is no question that sooner or later the "confidence" of the entire
        world will end, as far as the FRN is concerned. At that time, America will
        have an economic collapse like nothing ever seen in history. This is why
        people like you and me purchase hard assets and land. Gold, silver and what
        I can grow on my land will be the only means of survival when that time
        comes. And you can help people prepare for that time by encouraging them to
        purchase gold, silver and land.

        But if you start the conversation by telling them that their checking
        account is imaginary, then they will think you are stupid or insane. You
        will never be able to help them.

        The Fed Reserve never admitted, in Modern Money Mechanics or anywhere else,
        that the monetary system on which the entire world is standardized is a con
        game. Just because you have the ability to yank words off of a page and
        redefine them doesn't mean the author intended what you just invented.

        Get over it, deal with reality. You will help more people understand the
        truth that way.
        Yours in freedom,

        Dave Miner
        www.FreedomSite.net
      • balderdash88@webtv.net
        David, in this attached thread you seem to think that the Money Supply are FRN s and that they are something you can see,touch or feel, NOT SO. Bill
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          David, in this attached thread you seem to think that the "Money Supply"
          are FRN's and that they are something you can see,touch or feel, NOT
          SO. Bill
        • David L. Miner
          Bill -- No, that s not what I am saying at all. Depending on which money supply you are talking about (M1, M2, etc), it is most likely comprised of computer
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill --

            No, that's not what I am saying at all. Depending on which money supply you
            are talking about (M1, M2, etc), it is most likely comprised of computer
            entries and not FRNs or any other type of currency.

            Yours in freedom,

            Dave Miner
            www.FreedomSite.net


            -----Original Message-----
            From: balderdash88@... [mailto:balderdash88@...]
            Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 5:35 PM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Fed's admissions of fraud and
            confidencegames.


            David, in this attached thread you seem to think that the "Money Supply"
            are FRN's and that they are something you can see,touch or feel, NOT
            SO. Bill

            ---
            Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
            Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
            Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
          • Frog Farmer
            ... Actually, quite the opposite is true - when people the world over (think lowest common denominator ) are asked about dollars they say that they believe
            Message 5 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sep 1, 2004, at 11:24 PM, David L. Miner wrote:

              > Nilbux --
              >
              > You have decided that since the FRN is not backed by gold it is
              > therefore a
              > fraud. That is your decision and you are welcome to it. But the rest
              > of
              > the world will think you are a couple cans short of a six-pack.

              Actually, quite the opposite is true - when people the world over
              (think "lowest common denominator") are asked about "dollars" they say
              that they believe that they are gold-backed. And few distinguish
              between the old "dollar bills" and the new FRNs because most do not
              understand the meanings of the words or the significance of the seals
              and signatures on the pieces of paper (like you do??). Most FRNs in
              circulation the world over are clever imitations of dollar bills which
              were backed by gold and silver. Only recently have new FRNs exhibited
              a less similar appearance.

              > You and I can agree to deal in chicken eggs, and establish a "price
              > list" of
              > various goods and services based on chicken eggs. There is no gold
              > backing
              > up the chicken eggs, but that does not mean that dealing in chicken
              > eggs is
              > a fraud. Especially not a fraud executed by me upon you.

              Funny how chicken eggs come more easily to mind as an example medium of
              exchange than does already proven gold or silver coinage.

              > The Fed Reserve is "licensed" to create a medium of exchange that is
              > convenient, predictable and usable all over the world.

              It's a medium of confiscation, no more convenient than the system it
              tries to replace, is predictable in that it guarantees a loss to its
              users, even if difficult for the average man to perceive, and is
              "usable" all over the world due to a general level of illiteracy.

              "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate,
              secretly
              and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.
              There
              is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of
              society
              than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces
              of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner
              which
              not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
              - John Maynard Keynes, `The Economic Consequences of The Peace'

              > The Fed Reserve has
              > done exactly that. Just because both you and I believe that is a
              > violation
              > of the Constitution does not make it fraud. Except maybe to you.

              The fraud is not committed by the Federal Reserve - they actually tell
              people what they are doing with FRNs. The fraud is on the part of the
              people who use FRNs while representing them as "dollars" by which they
              confiscate the wealth of others who are tricked into becoming
              speculators on an unpayable debt. Think of it as good tasting
              cherry-flavored poison. The maker (the Fed) has a warning label that
              plainly says "poison - not for human consumption" and the user feeds
              the bad stuff to children who don't know any better without disclosing
              the warning. Sure, it's a slow-acting poison. But it tastes so darn
              good!

              The Fed says FRNs are not dollars and were never meant to be, so why do
              so many people call them dollars? A real dollar is an asset
              represented by the number +1. The FRN is a unit of debt represented
              by the number -1. Sure, they both have the "1" in common, but one of
              them is the exact opposite of the other when the facts are known. FRNS
              reprsent the absence, not the presence, of dollars. +1 and -1 are not
              the same thing. But many will tell you that they are. This is because
              they benefit and do not care if it is at the expense of others.

              > And just because the Fed Reserve admits that the exchange of FRNs is
              > little
              > more than a computer entry somewhere does not make it a fraud. And it
              > CERTAINLY doesn't mean the Fed is ADMITTING it to be a fraud. Except
              > maybe
              > to you.

              I think you misread what the Fed admitted. You made the false jump of
              logic equating FRNs with checkbook deposits - they did not, but they
              hoped you would, and you did. The Fed has spilled the beans and the
              people (in general) aren't educated enough to comprehend it.
              However, enough educated people have written enough about it for the
              interested reader to learn the truth.

              > I am very aware of what Modern Money Mechanics states.

              It does not state that FRNS are mere bookkeeping entries. It does not
              equate checkbook deposits with FRNs. What it does do is tell the truth
              about what each is. They hope the public will make the false
              conclusion that deposits ARE FRNs. But this would be easily shown to
              be a major mistake on the part of most people were they to go to their
              banks and ask for FRNs in an amount covering all the "deposits". Last
              I read, less than 1% of deposits could be covered by FRNs.
              Historically, the amount has been between 3 and 5%. Even so, the math
              puts the lie to the claims that they are compelled upon a majority of
              people. No, people choose to accept them, unless one is a creditor in
              a court judgment.

              > In fact, I am
              > teaching from it again this coming Monday evening. You, however, DO
              > NOT
              > seem to be aware of what Modern Money Mechanics states. That document
              > states very clearly the nature of FRNs as being an agreement to honor
              > at
              > face value all over the world. There is no hard asset backing FRNs.
              > The
              > ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS THIS! And the entire world has agreed to honor
              > FRNs at
              > face value and use them as a means of exchange.

              Amazing! The WORLD hasn't agreed upon anything else, but this they
              agree upon? Puhleeze!
              You are mistaking FRNs for "dollars". It is "dollars" that the world
              accepted, not their clever imitations!

              The Fed will not "honor at face value"! They leave it to everyone else
              to do that, while they refuse to do it.
              Do you claim the ENTIRE WORLD knows THAT?

              FRNS fail in one very important feature of real money, that being a
              store of value.

              > You call it imaginary. But I usually refrain from using that word for
              > something that I can touch, taste and spend. Most people do the same.
              > Except maybe you.

              The FRNs value is definitely imaginary, because it fluctuates
              constantly. But beware of tasting too many of them (you might not pass
              an employee drug test), since a large majority have been proven to have
              traces of cocaine on them spread by the rollers of counting machines.
              Most people do not taste their FRNs. Most people don't even know what
              FRNs are, but once is is explained to them, these same people believe
              that bank deposits ARE FRNs, proving that just because "most people"
              believe something does not make it true.

              > There is no question that sooner or later the "confidence" of the
              > entire
              > world will end, as far as the FRN is concerned.

              Will you be the last on your block to trade real things for FRNS? When
              will you bail? When the percentage of true beleivers is 49%, 25%, or
              1%?

              > At that time, America will
              > have an economic collapse like nothing ever seen in history. This is
              > why
              > people like you and me purchase hard assets and land. Gold, silver
              > and what
              > I can grow on my land will be the only means of survival when that time
              > comes. And you can help people prepare for that time by encouraging
              > them to
              > purchase gold, silver and land.

              Do your really believe that you own (as in "absolute ownership") that
              which you "purchase" with FRNs?
              That would be a big mistake. Debt cannot pay a debt. There's a court
              case to that effect for people who need the court to explain the
              obvious to them. Payment extinguishes debt, while discharge merely
              passes it on to another party. FRNs fail at the former, and succeed at
              the latter.

              > But if you start the conversation by telling them that their checking
              > account is imaginary, then they will think you are stupid or insane.
              > You
              > will never be able to help them.

              Yes, the majority today will reject truth as stupid or insane, and
              that's no accident. It took a long time to dumb down the American
              public as a whole, but it has succeeded. You seem to recognize this,
              that they are not ready for truth, yet you use what they believe as a
              justification for using FRNs. One would think that more could be
              learned from setting an example that FRNs are unnecessary to use and
              accept.

              > The Fed Reserve never admitted, in Modern Money Mechanics or anywhere
              > else,
              > that the monetary system on which the entire world is standardized is
              > a con
              > game.

              Oh, yes they did. You missed it. They came right out and told how the
              first fraud was perpetrated by the goldsmiths who issued false
              receipts, which the bankers then emulated. Remember, "the process
              engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of
              destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is
              able to diagnose."

              You are apparently not that one man in a million.

              > Get over it, deal with reality. You will help more people understand
              > the
              > truth that way.

              The reality is that the Fed system is crumbling. The imaginary value
              of its paper has declined in the minds of the world's people by 25%
              just since this January (against another imaginary unit based upon
              it!!). You're right if you say that doesn't make sense, but then you
              expect a concensus to be correct instead of mistaken.

              That same concensus says that you owe income tax. Yet you brag about
              not paying it. Where is that faith in the crowd you seem to profess?

              It's really too bad that Americans will staunchly defend schemes
              designed to reduce them to poverty. FRNs and fractional reserve
              banking practices have been a spectacular success in that regard.
            • Frog Farmer
              ... Yes, legally, bank-deposits are actually only debts the banks owe their depositors, not money—which is always an asset in and of itself, never someone s
              Message 6 of 6 , Sep 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sep 2, 2004, at 4:46 PM, David L. Miner wrote:
                > Depending on which money supply you
                > are talking about (M1, M2, etc), it is most likely comprised of
                > computer
                > entries and not FRNs or any other type of currency.

                Yes, "legally, bank-deposits are actually only debts the banks owe
                their depositors, not money—which is always an asset in and of itself,
                never someone's liability." See:

                http://fame.org/HTM/Vieira_Edwin_To_Regulate_the_Value_of_Money_EV
                -006.HTM

                How many people on this list can distinguish an asset from a liability?
                Can I see a show of hands?

                How many choose to give their life, liberty and property in exchange
                for unfunded liabilities of a nefarious cabal?

                How many prefer assets in and of themselves?

                I'm in the latter group!

                What say you all?

                Is it time to give up hope and give in to your economic enemies and use
                their bad debt paper for which use they even have the nerve to charge
                interest?

                Stick a feather in your hat, and call it "macaroni"! Macaroni-1,
                macaroni-2, or macaroni-3.

                How can macaroni be made of feathers?

                The same way "money" can be made of debt!

                Happy Labor Day! You all work hard fo' da' massa now!

                Me, I's free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I's free at
                last!

                Don't axe me for my dialect above - I's got enny of dem rights doze
                14th menment cityzens have!

                Regards,

                FF

                P.S. for those needing to more closely relate this post to court,
                here's the tip:

                Do not let somebody else set your values for you in terms of an
                imaginary scrip unable to be pinned down in value. Use gold or silver
                coins minted by our own government to "fix" the values of your life,
                liberty and property. This will effectively lower the dollar amount
                involved, and result in a lower tax assessment should you become the
                valid subject of any tax.

                Whenever I happen to be at court I notice that the judge almost always
                asks the defendant, "how much money do you make?" It's a trick
                question, isn't it? If everyone could "make money" they would not have
                to work in order to earn money, would they? Money received as
                compensation is earned, not "made". Few realize that they "make" a
                money substitute (credit) with their own signature, but the judge never
                phrases it that way. But most innocently ignorant people will assume
                the judge is asking "how much money do you earn?" And they, believing
                a concensus that FRNs actually ARE "dollars", report the number of FRNs
                they receive after endorsing an instrument in equity with their
                signature. What would happen if instead of saying, "I make 1500 FRNs
                a week" they were to state the lawful fact and say, "I pass bad
                commercial paper in an act of fraud to obtain approximately 300 dollars
                a week, your honor!" Gee. The math formulas for fines and penalties
                don't appear as oppressive any longer when they are reduced by a factor
                of 5, do they? Try this; you'll have fun and there's nothing they can
                do about it if you don't let them. But be careful, as they will try to
                trick you into admitting that you believe that FRNs are dollars, and if
                it comes out of your mouth, nobody will fix your mistake for you!
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.