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

Fed's admissions of fraud and confidence games.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Sep 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 6 , Sep 4, 2004
            View Source
            • 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.