View Single Post
  #22  
Old 12-08-2006, 08:59 AM
David Merrill's Avatar
David Merrill David Merrill is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado.
Posts: 6,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by aksis
David Merrill,

I was looking at the topic of the 'bankruptcy', and I was contemplating it from this prespective:

If the People gave all the gold to the US to prevent the bankruptcy, then is the US bankrupt, or just in debt to the People?

Something about the US being able to go into an unlimited debt to the People, and the People have an unlimited credit with the US comes to mind, and something about the difference of getting a loan and being extended credit also seems to come to mind (... where did I read/hear that?).

Then I started looking at the 14th amendment (keeping in mind this is binding on government), specificaly this part:
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
I don't think it is the People that owe the debt, nay, I know its not, it is the U.S. et al. that is the debtor, and so it would be proper for people acting in the person of U.S. employee/person to say "We owe the debt.", but not proper for the People to say they do, they are the creditors to the debt, this position of creditor is an indefeasable right of any heir apparent (someone born on the part of earth called by the name of one of the 50 states).

I would have to say the U.S. isn't bankrupt, just unable to pay its debt, but the creditors arn't calling the Note due, yet... are they? They seem to be enjoying the bliss of ignorance!!! (did the sarchasm translate well at the end?)

In this light, would the People be considered 'international bankers' in relation to the US et al.?

ThomPaine, There is the reality of the legal fiction, and then there is simply reality.

When I get lost in the reality of the fiction, I seek refuge in reality.

In reality, is the exchange of "paper and ink" for a "burger", at a place setup and willing to make such exchanges, anything other then "barter" between People willing to make such an exchange?


I have always studied only the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment carefully - my folly. But maybe not, it certainly agrees with the substitution of the Trading with the Enemy Act enemy definition. The jurisdiction clause is worded the same as the Fourteenth Amendment:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...March_1933.jpg

Quote:
...by any Person within the United States [singular, no longer plural; see the wording in the federal Constitution and compare the Thirteenth Amendment with the Fourteenth Amendment post incorporation of the US in 1871], or any place under the jurisdiction thereof...


http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...my_defined.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf..._amended_1.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf..._amended_2.jpg

You have nailed it directly, the reason that one is entitled to redeem Federal Reserve Bank notes:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_2.jpg


That is a wonderful post. Thanks!


Regards,

David Merrill.
Reply With Quote