Both wings of the same vulture

[jetgraphics]

I've noted the partisanship of the so-called "left" and the so-called "right". But neither side seems to be aware that they're both contrary to the law of the land.

What law?

The U.S. Constitution. Particularly, Article 4, Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion ....

Like most Americans, I had not been informed of the nature of the republican form (not to be confused with the democratic form). In all my years of education, up to and including graduate studies, the educational establishment was mute on the United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.

Is there something sinister about a "republican form of government"?

GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

Did you know that the American people are sovereign over the government?

At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

And I know most Americans haven't been informed that they volunteered to be subject citizens.

CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

Why do I say that "we" volunteered?

According to the 13th amendment, involuntary servitude was abolished in the United States of America... except after conviction. But civic duties are compulsory - with penalties for failure to perform.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."
In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

If compulsory military service is NOT INVOLUNTARY, then it must be voluntary servitude.
OR
If compulsory military service is not a violation of the 13th amendment, then the involuntary servitude under compulsion must be OUTSIDE of their jurisdiction (the States united).

13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude "within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

14th amendment imposes citizenship upon persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

How many Americans were born subjects of a foreign corporation?

Somebody in Washington, D.C., thinks that all of us are their subjects, when they enact compulsory obligations on the citizenry.

But American people are sovereign!

That's what the courts and laws say...

Remember, that according to the Declaration of Independence, job #1 is to secure rights, and job #2 is to govern those who consent.

It appears that once consent is given, job #1 is waived. For the militia to be liable to train, fight, and die, on command, cannot be anything but a violation of their inalienable rights UNLESS they had given prior consent.

When and how did YOU give consent to be governed?
When and how did YOU surrender the endowment from your Creator?
When and how did YOU cease being a sovereign American, served by government, and become a subject citizen, in servitude to government?

When the partisan wingmen answer that, perhaps we might see through the fog. Until they provide the answer, do not believe them. Do not follow their lead. And read the law for yourself. . . it's available in any county courthouse law library.

--------------
Quick reference to "sovereignty"

SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.

SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct.
2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
[14th Amendment, Section 1.]

Write a polite letter to your representative and ask him if those "persons" mentioned in the 14th amendment do not refer to the sovereign Americans.

Ask why the Congress didn't use: "any party born within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction," to impose U.S. citizenship?

Maybe they never had the legal jurisdiction to subjugate the sovereign people, domiciled in the States united, except by subterfuge and fraud...

THAT is a scary thought.

[iOWNme]

I love these posts!



"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

The Matrix reveals itself. Although it was right in front of our face. We were just never taught how to see it.

Attorney = Attorner - One who Attorns words.

Attorn - to turn over to; transfer.



Maybe they never had the legal jurisdiction to subjugate the sovereign people, domiciled in the States united, except by subterfuge and fraud...

39th CONgress........ DE FACTO!

[jetgraphics]

39th CONgress........ DE FACTO!

Do not be deceived.
From DAY ONE, the government was tricking the people into submission.

Look up the history of the militia.

The militia are all able bodied male CITIZENS, between 17 and 45, who are obligated to train, fight, and die ON COMMAND. If that is not a violation of inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property....what else can it be?!
If involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, then CITIZENSHIP must be a voluntary choice.

{Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers was tantalizingly close to describing the original configuration of the U.S.A. As originally conceived, the minority of self sacrificing people surrendered their sovereignty, accepted the civic duties of citizenship, and could vote and hold office - as public SERVANTS. Citizenship was never intended to be universal, nor without onerous duties and regulations. Under that system, the servant government would never have had the access to resources to squander in bribing the masses.}

[iOWNme]

I continue to learn, thank you.

I know the founders were strong on responsibility, it came with freedom and was a hefty cost. Sometimes i look at the taxing and the citizenship and its hard to see if they were exercising their power, or if they were trying to instill responsibility into the people.


When you break it down the way you did, it makes so much sense its elementary.

PEACE,

[jetgraphics]

When I was first exposed to the concept of the sovereignty of the American, I was shocked. This was something I had never, ever heard of. But it makes perfect sense, if you take the Declaration of Independence on face value.

Government can help secure rights of all men, and govern those men who consent. At the time of the ratification, only a subset of Americans could vote and thus give consent. Therefore it would be impossible to assume that "all Americans" consented to the USCON.

Thus, those who had not been capable of voting, having no property nor paid their property taxes, could not have given power of attorney (as constituents) to the elected public servants.

This basic fact is interwoven in all the statutes enacted.

Other anomalies that support the notion of America's unique situation. I can remember learning that Americans were not obligated to bow nor kneel to any monarch. And that Americans could wed foreign nobility, even though their local laws forbade marriage to "commoners". Apparently, they took silent notice that any American was a king or queen, without subjects.

That we have been tricked into surrendering that endowment from our forebears and the birthright of our Creator, makes the partisan rivalry even more disgusting and diabolical.

[iOWNme]

When I was first exposed to the concept of the sovereignty of the American, I was shocked. This was something I had never, ever heard of. But it makes perfect sense, if you take the Declaration of Independence on face value.

Government can help secure rights of all men, and govern those men who consent. At the time of the ratification, only a subset of Americans could vote and thus give consent. Therefore it would be impossible to assume that "all Americans" consented to the USCON.

Thus, those who had not been capable of voting, having no property nor paid their property taxes, could not have given power of attorney (as constituents) to the elected public servants.

This basic fact is interwoven in all the statutes enacted.

Other anomalies that support the notion of America's unique situation. I can remember learning that Americans were not obligated to bow nor kneel to any monarch. And that Americans could wed foreign nobility, even though their local laws forbade marriage to "commoners". Apparently, they took silent notice that any American was a king or queen, without subjects.

That we have been tricked into surrendering that endowment from our forebears and the birthright of our Creator, makes the partisan rivalry even more disgusting and diabolical.



Holy crap man, well said.

[kregener]

39th CONgress........ DE FACTO!

Do not be deceived.
From DAY ONE, the government was tricking the people into submission.

Look up the history of the militia.

The militia are all able bodied male CITIZENS, between 17 and 45, who are obligated to train, fight, and die ON COMMAND. If that is not a violation of inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property....what else can it be?!
If involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, then CITIZENSHIP must be a voluntary choice.

{Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers was tantalizingly close to describing the original configuration of the U.S.A. As originally conceived, the minority of self sacrificing people surrendered their sovereignty, accepted the civic duties of citizenship, and could vote and hold office - as public SERVANTS. Citizenship was never intended to be universal, nor without onerous duties and regulations. Under that system, the servant government would never have had the access to resources to squander in bribing the masses.}


Not exactly correct.

The Militia was indeed all able-bodied men, but it was strictly VOLUNTARY, it was never mandatory.

[jetgraphics]

Not exactly correct.

The Militia was indeed all able-bodied men, but it was strictly VOLUNTARY, it was never mandatory.

You are correct - but the vast majority of Americans have volunteered, whether they know it or not.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

"Enforcement" = compulsory
"Selective Service" = conscription = constitutional

All male citizens are the militia, obligated to train, fight and die on command. That is the reason why conscription is 100% constitutional.

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Articles of Confederation, VI.
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.


The operative term is CITIZEN - which is how "we" volunteered to be obligated to perform civic duties.

[jetgraphics]

What all Americans should know is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. And that does not mean "republic".

REPUBLIC - A commonwealth; That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independent of its form of government.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 1302

A republic is not synonymous with a republican form of government. The People's Republic of China is a republic but not a republican form.

"GOVERNMENT (Republican Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

In contrast:

"DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432

(I will omit a treatise on the myriad uses of "or" in legal jargon, to lessen confusion.)

Restating
Democratic Form: Whole Body of Citizens (body politic) indirectly exercise sovereignty (absolute power) through their representative legislators, who in turn, delegate authority to the executive branch to execute the laws.

Republican Form: Individual people directly exercise sovereignty (over their private property). They may delegate certain powers - via petition - to the servant government. Example - when making a criminal complaint, the sheriff becomes their representative. Or in a foreign country, petitioning the ambassador for assistance.

To illustrate how lawyers can confuse readers, here's a doozy:

COMMONWEALTH - ...It generally designates, when so employed, a republican form of government, - one in which the welfare and rights of the entire mass of people are the main consideration, rather than the privileges of a class or the will of the monarch; - or it may designate the body of citizens living under such a government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 278

The Commonwealth of Virginia, was instituted among men to secure the rights of the sovereign people AND govern the "whole body of citizens" living UNDER such a government.

Sneaky? You betcha.

[The Great Ag]

I know the founders were strong on responsibility, it came with freedom and was a hefty cost. Sometimes i look at the taxing and the citizenship and its hard to see if they were exercising their power, or if they were trying to instill responsibility into the people.
Hey, Sui Juris:
To get an understanding of times and challenges during the Revolution and the drafting of the US CON, I highly recommend these two books:
The Articles of Confederation by Merrill Jensen
The Anti-federalists by Turner Jackson Main
And to read them in that order. You will find there were essentially to modes of thought regarding gov't and the people's role in it and it is the interplay between the groups that makes for a very interesting story.

Tragically, most of the people are WAAAYYYY undereducated regarding the founding of the USA. Everyone knows about the Dec. of Independence and the US CON, but almost no one has heard of the Articles of Confederation. Why is that? I think a great topic in civics class would be to compare and contrast the two documents. Which is better and why. Never happened in any of my classes. Again why?

The Great Ag

[The Great Ag]

It matters not that one is a democrat or republican or democan or republicrat. It matters not as both are subjects. JG posted the definition of subject earlier. Here it is again with my highlights.

SUBJECT: Constitutional law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of govnerment.
Black's Law Dictionary 5th ed. Pgs 1277-1278

Do you enjoy a "republican" form of government? If not, why not. I do not, but I know why.

The Great AG

[iOWNme]

I know the founders were strong on responsibility, it came with freedom and was a hefty cost. Sometimes i look at the taxing and the citizenship and its hard to see if they were exercising their power, or if they were trying to instill responsibility into the people.
Hey, Sui Juris:
To get an understanding of times and challenges during the Revolution and the drafting of the US CON, I highly recommend these two books:
The Articles of Confederation by Merrill Jensen
The Anti-federalists by Turner Jackson Main
And to read them in that order. You will find there were essentially to modes of thought regarding gov't and the people's role in it and it is the interplay between the groups that makes for a very interesting story.

Tragically, most of the people are WAAAYYYY undereducated regarding the founding of the USA. Everyone knows about the Dec. of Independence and the US CON, but almost no one has heard of the Articles of Confederation. Why is that? I think a great topic in civics class would be to compare and contrast the two documents. Which is better and why. Never happened in any of my classes. Again why?

The Great Ag


Thank you Ag, much appreciated! I am going to try and find those books used if i can...

History is told by the conqueror's. The loser's dont contribute because they are dead. Maybe in this instance, the conqueror's are long gone, and the losers have come back and changed the story. :)

[The Great Ag]

Thank you Ag, much appreciated! I am going to try and find those books used if i can...

History is told by the conqueror's. The loser's dont contribute because they are dead. Maybe in this instance, the conqueror's are long gone, and the losers have come back and changed the story. :)



Hey, Sui Juris:
If I read your statement correctly, the conquerors are long gone, but their replacements are very much alive and the losers, drafters of the Articles of Confederation, perspective can be found from time to time among the populace but VERY RARELY in CONgress. I dare say, Ron Paul, is the closest, but even he knows better than to rock the boat too much.

I purchased the books from abebooks.com. Got them both delivered to my door for under 10FRN total. Not a bad price for an excellent education on a perspective which many would very much like to be forgotten.

The Great Ag

[jetgraphics]

In the aftermath, of all the revolutions that rocked the world since 1776, no other nation formed a republican form of government.

I haven't quite nailed down conclusive proof. But I think the answer lies in the surrender of King George to the PEOPLE of the U.S.A., not the U.S. government.

Remember, the U.S. government did not field the army, but it was the volunteers of the CONTINENTAL Army that defeated King George's mercenaries and regulars. Part of the reason can be found in the Articles of Confederation. They were not in force and effect until 1781, when the war was practically over (Battle of Yorktown).

So I think that we may be blessed with the republican form, because the revolutionary government didn't defeat the British - the PEOPLE did.

And that is unique among the world's revolutions.

[jetgraphics]

...but almost no one has heard of the Articles of Confederation. Why is that? I think a great topic in civics class would be to compare and contrast the two documents. Which is better and why.
I think modern students might raise embarrassing questions if they covered the Articles of Confederation. Specifically, it clearly identifies that the United States, in Congress assembled is distinct from the United States of America. Which also exposes the fraud in the Preamble: "We, the People of the UNITED STATES..."

And Article IV will certainly raise a question regarding the identity of "free inhabitants" in AMERICA who are not citizens.

Speaking of comparisons - I once made a two columned chart pairing up each clause of the AoC and USCON.

What I discovered was that 90% of the Articles involved delegation of power. 90% of the USCON was internal reorganization. In both cases, the CONGRESS was and is the top dog. The other branches are subservient to it.

There are specific delegations of authority in the Articles, not replicated in the USCON, but exercised by Congress and the States united, specifically the exception for paupers and vagabonds, and conscription.

The linchpin of power was the obligation for the state officers to swear a dual oath, with the USCON superseding the state CON. However, those Americans who did not swear, are not obligated to perform to either compact.

The critical flaws in the USCON are:
1. Scarce money - metallic coin,
2. Protection to usurers, and
3. Bankruptcy protection - which is actually a bad thing, and only needed because of usury.

1. The European Bankers scored big, in 1787, with "their" Congress. At the time, there were no domestic sources of gold and silver bullion sufficient to supply the nation's coin. That meant all coin was dependent upon purchases (or loans) from "our friends" the usurers. It's been down hill ever since.

2. Since scarce precious metal coin is always in short supply, there is a huge demand for usury and extensions of credit. Thus the bankers were early benefactors of the USCON's limitation on lawful money. In the 1870s, when massive silver strikes offered relief, the international bankers had "their" Congress demonetize silver in the Coinage Act of 1873 (aka "The Crime of 1873" - see William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech). The money drought caused suffering for the last quarter of the 19th century, and set up popular support for an "elastic currency" (The Federal Reserve Act of 1913).

3. Usury is impossible to pay in a finite money token system. A proportion of debtors will default simply because enough money never existed to pay the usury. We were told that bankruptcy "protection" was to prevent debtor's prisons, but that was untrue. There were still imprisonment for debt. But the Federal government gained the power to impair contracts, which is not moral. And it acts as an escape valve that drains away the outrage at creditors that normally would occur from widespread usury. Without usury, there would be few, if any bankruptcies. (Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" was an apology for usury.)

[Bigjon]

The idea that because the interest on the debt was not created at the time of the loan, the loan cannot be repaid is a false idea.

Assume an island with only two people, one with nothing and one with all the wealth. The wealthy man has various tools, all the land and assets including 100 gold coins which are the only coins on the island.

Suppose the man with nothing makes a deal with the wealthy man in the hopes of bettering himself. He takes a loan from the wealthy man for 100 gold coins with a promise to pay back 110 gold coins in 5 years. Now it might seem to some that the poor man was fooled because the island only has 100 gold coins and to pay back the loan it would seem there needs to exist 110. However there is actually no problem because work itself has value.

Here is how the impossible loan payback happens:

The man uses his 100 coins loan productively to buy land, tools, etc. from the rich man. He works and produces food and other things of value which he sells to the rich man for 23 gold coins each year. Each year he pays 22 coins toward the loan and keeps 1 himself. The number of coins always remained the same yet in 5 years the man paid off his 110 coin debt and owns land, tools, and 5 gold coins. The rich man has 95 coins plus the items of value the man produced with his work. The poor man's work added value into the closed island system that makes up for the loan interest plus more.

People forget that the coins are only representations and storage of work/value--in the end work is what produces the real value.

The little story is also a good example of how not all debt is bad. Productive debt can be good.

[jetgraphics]

The idea that because the interest on the debt was not created at the time of the loan, the loan cannot be repaid is a false idea.

....People forget that the coins are only representations and storage of work/value--in the end work is what produces the real value.

The conclusion drawn is from an inaccurate statement of the facts. Money is an abstraction, an accounting tool and a medium of exchange that facilitates trade. It is NOT a storehouse of value. No amount of money can store up 6 hours of a plumber's labor if there are no plumbers. The marketplace determines what is available for trade. Money only facilitates that trade. An empty marketplace makes money useless.

The Island example is bass ackwards. The owner of the gold and the wealth (land, tools, resources) has no logical reason to LEND the gold, RENT his property, nor BUY back the production when he can HIRE the laborer and reap a greater share. It's absurd reasoning. . . like Social Security.
Let's "tax" ourselves $100 and cheer when we are given back $60!
(Or better yet, let someone else pay the tax, die, and let us get back his $60!)

Usury is not impossible to pay because the interest was not created at the time of the loan.
An individual contract for usury appears benign. It is the aggregate usury that explodes into chaos. The "Velocity of money" argument has been used to dismiss the condemnation of usury for generations.

However, the boom / bust cycle of usury is self - evident.

Right now, the national debt is a legal obligation to pay 12 trillion dollars (600 billion ounces of gold). The world supply is only 5.5 billion ounces.
There is no "VELOCITY" possible that will satisfy that 12 trillion debt, with only 5.5 billion ounces of gold.
[Fort Knox Depository has 147.4 million ounces, valued at roughly 3 billion dollars.]

And the sum of obligations owed (hundreds of trillions) that may be payable in FRNs (dollar bills) is impossible to totally repay - because of their finite quantity, as well.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/Current/
Mar. 2010, M1 = 1712.2 B; M2 = 8512.1 B

http://usdebtclock.org/
Private mortgage debt = 14.1 T
Unfunded liabilities = 108 T

Capital = 16 T (U.S. stock corporation valuation)

Can you imagine what would happen if all account holders *(in contracts for usury) demanded their money for their stocks, bonds, accounts, etc.?

At best, there's only 8.5 T, in paper, to cover all accounts. Even with total liquidation, creditors would receive pennies on the "dollar bill" (borrowed, at usury, into existence).

(Title 12 USC Sec. 411 defines the 'FRN' as a promise to pay dollars on demand. But that promise was repudiated in 1933.)

In plain English, the majority of people owed "paper money" are owed 'nothing of value' - by law.

And the creditors who are owed "real money" can never be fully paid.

There is no [vulgar expletive deleted] way to pay usury in a finite money token system like America's constitutional money system.

Usury is a gigantic fraud. And it's been denounced for over 3500 years - for good reason.

[Bigjon]

Of course the rich man had a reason to loan his coins, he got the benefit of the other man's labor for the use of them. A man who is free and working for himself will work twice as hard as an employee. As an employee the rich man would have to work to make sure he got his monies worth.

They both ended up richer for the loan.

What a load of malarky 1 penny transferred back and forth in the virtual reality of computers could pay the 12 trillion. It doesn't matter how you twist the story, you are using a false idea, another lie.

You must be some kind of a leach. You want to use my tools for nothing.

Your money is an abstraction and it needs guns and laws to make it work.

The current system of fiat money uses fraud by loaning the same FRN to between 25 and 33 people and charges interest on each loan. The interest on the loan is NOT the problem, the fraud of using the same bill multiple times, is the problem.

[jetgraphics]

We will have to agree to disagree about the nature of usury and money.