Banking For Muggles 101, The Par Value Of A Dollar

[Sapiens]

Ok, let me see if I understand this correctly.

There are three parties:

1. The US Gov.
2. The Fed.
3. The People.

The US Gov. has agreed to accept the Fed.'s credits, but not the people's individual credit in payment of taxes.

So the Fed issues a standard credit monetary unit called a "dollar" that the US Gov is willing to accept in payment of taxes.

The Fed is willing to accept the People's credit in exchange for the Fed's standard credit units, plus interest payable in Fed's standard credit units.

The US Gov. also has a monetary unit called a "dollar" which is defined as 1oz gold/$42.222...

Let's call the US Gov.'s dollar a G-dollar, and the Fed's dollar a token dollar T-dollar.

So at market rates and given the present price of Gold in T-dollars of say 850 an ounce, the G-dollar is worth
850/42.222= 20.1316 T-dollars.

Yet the US Gov. is willing to accept the T-dollars at 1=1 to the G-Dollar in payment of taxes.

Now, how can you clear your debt to the Fed's bankers with your own credit?

[Levi Philos]

Sapien asks: "Now, how can you clear your debt to the Fed's bankers with your own credit?"

To learn the answer to this question is to gain understanding of the redemption movement.

You see, we are already living under a form of communism. The fifth plank of the communist manifesto claims all credit is the property of the state. Then, banks are empowered to make loans of credit. But, do you remember any reimbursement for your credit? Or did you receive any notification of a positive account being created in your name?

This is a "taking" without recompense, and the essence of redemption is to make a claim against this taking.

Consider all the public bonds (a bond is a promissory note written by a politician and backed by your credit); now read what Thomas Edison and Henry Ford wrote about the Muscle Shoals bonds: http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperi...es/edison.html

Levi Philos

[Sapiens]

Originally Posted by Levi Philos

Sapien asks: "Now, how can you clear your debt to the Fed's bankers with your own credit?"

To learn the answer to this question is to gain understanding of the redemption movement.

You see, we are already living under a form of communism. The fifth plank of the communist manifesto claims all credit is the property of the state. Then, banks are empowered to make loans of credit. But, do you remember any reimbursement for your credit? Or did you receive any notification of a positive account being created in your name?

This is a "taking" without recompense, and the essence of redemption is to make a claim against this taking.

Consider all the public bonds (a bond is a promissory note written by a politician and backed by your credit); now read what Thomas Edison and Henry Ford wrote about the Muscle Shoals bonds: http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperi...es/edison.html

Levi Philos

Levi,

Let me get this straight, if I understand correctly, you mean to say the Fed is actually loaning me my own credit, except that they are dividing my credit into standard units. And which they are charging me interest just for the service of dividing it into standard units?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mandalisj

RE: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/127417-post23.html

Imprecise, vague, general.

You do not enjoy the understanding of precise specific particularity?

You re-fuse yourself to it?

What bankruptcy?

Can you prove it?

Who pledged?

If property is "pledged" how is it "owned?"

MY own "postponement of the payment of money" ("credit"), is some THING I, myself, "accept" instead of lawful "money?"

"...like a...?"

Are things similar the same?

Dicey, dicey; dodgey, dodgey.

I asked YOU to state precisely and with specific particularity where YOU find the precise phrase "full faith and credit?"

Do you not re-fuse yourself to the understanding in non-responsive default to substantive clarification?

Are YOU, yourself, not the one bandying the phrase about?

What, precisely, do you mean "for a change?"

Is that an unsubstantiated inference and/or implication, or do you have firsthand knowledge of an habitual non-performance?

Why do YOU presume to couch in terms of "in a sense," rather than substantiate in terms of "as a matter of fact?"

"...'tax' 'credits'?"

How, and why would my having, or not having "to come up with the gold" be relevant to anything?

What do you mean; "the idea?"

Tactical rhetorical artifice?

How, precisely, is it that "credit" is NOT "the postponement of the payment of money," as defined by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond?

Did I just make it up?

Isn't this the "FED's" own words?

Are you not discussing BANKING?

Is the Federal Reserve NOT the central BANK, love it or leave it?

I accept for value the "FED's" definition of "credit."

Did YOU, yourself, NOT make a claim?

Did I NOT challenge YOU to prove YOUR claim?

Do you not re-fuse yourself in default?

What does that make you?

Can you/willyou precisely define "bills of exchange," specifically in the particular context in which you presume to use it?

Is this what you mean:

Prove it.

And, so what?

Why is the executive wielding the legislative power?

I see a treasurer's office and a treasurer, a department, but no actual treasury.

What, precisely, does alcohol, tobacco, and firearms have to do with "the 'fact' [hypothesis?] that a dollar legally represents 0.02368422299169631141911127321646 ounces of gold?

Why do you bring the BATFE guns now?

Threat?

Goes to your own CREDIBILITY:

Tactical rhetorical artifice?

Muggle?

Willful?

("why don't you try looking something up for yourself for a change?")

Did you not state that "FAITH" was the "SUBSTANCE?"

And now you are saying that SUBSTANCE is as "faith" "to the" "credit" ("the postponement of the payment of money") of the United States?

How, precisely, is your statement of "faith meaning substance and credit meaning promise to accept" more CREDIBLE than the "FED's" definition: "Credit is the postponement of the payment of money?"

Especially given the definitive state of your CREDIBILITY Re: "treasured?"

Prove it.

Would that be the "gold" presumably "accounted" for in the link you gave to the Federal Reserve's gold accountancy?

"the gold is at Fort Knox and West Point ..."

What is the national debt?

To whom is the national debt owed?

Was money borrowed to indebt the nation?

What, precisely is this "everything else?"

What, precisely, is "this substance?"

"FAITH?"

As in "BELIEF?"

As in CON-FI-DENCE?

Are you a con-fi-dent?

"..."legal" "value?"

"...everything?"

"...considered?"

"...as good as gold?"

Are things similar the same?

Are you not using rhetoric, in part, to, perhaps, develope and/or speculate upon a theory?

And now will you default to outright ad hominem attack?

Does it not seem you already are calling people "perverts" "marxists," and mentally defective, or something to that effect?

And, indeed, the title of the thread basically presents an elitist stance:

Muggle: invented by JK (Joanne Kathleen) Rowling (b. 1965), British author of children's fantasy fiction (see quot. 1997).

In the fiction of JK Rowling a person who possesses no magical powers.

Hence in allusive and extended uses:

a person who lacks a particular skill or skills,

or who is regarded as inferior in some way.

Oxford English Dictionary (draft definition)

So you regard the membership as "inferior?"

Perhaps you are envious of the "financial aristocracy" you refer to?

At any rate, given that the USC you are using deals specifically with transferring gold and gold certificates, and that code definition seems clearly code-specific to regulation of the issue of gold certificates, you seem to be developing a speculative hypothesis to a projected theory.

Theory is good, but it is theory.

What, tangibly, and substantively, is your projected theory effectively applicable to?

"Tax" "credit(s)?"

You have also made some claims, and have been called to prove up.

Have you done so?

Basically you intend to be condescendingly non-responsive?

Are you here to propose hypothesis as law or are you just prospectively speculating?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Sapiens

Levi,

Let me get this straight, if I understand correctly, you mean to say the Fed is actually loaning me my own credit, except that they are dividing my credit into standard units. And which they are charging me interest just for the service of dividing it into standard units?

"And for other purposes."

[Levi Philos]

Originally Posted by Sapiens

Let me get this straight, if I understand correctly, you mean to say the Fed is actually loaning me my own credit, except that they are dividing my credit into standard units. And which they are charging me interest just for the service of dividing it into standard units?

Bingo! You got it bud!

Hard to believe; I know. Wrapping my mind around some of this - well, the most difficult part was expunging all those wrong ideas I had so deeply accepted. My head was full of lies and I didn't want to see the truth.

And don't discount: "And for other purposes." from mrg. My kind of post. Keep it short and let the reader work it out. Mrg is posting from the kind of thing found in legalese language.

Levi Philos

PS, you might look for Wright Patman and his discoveries. I haven't looked at this but the source is from the library at re-inventing money dot com so: http://dewoody.net/money/

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

At the end of the day, both sides of the ledger must balance. So debts can only be extinguished by payment in legal tender. The fractionalized accounting units must be "matched" with the bond they represent, in order to truly eliminate the charge. This also then reduces the current money supply by that much.

So if we can get them to take our continuing credit, that would be re-finance or re-negotiation. Which goes back to a point made at the beginning of the thread.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...-dollar-2.html

[Levi Philos]

Money Masters presentation by (Bill Still?) - Topic: How to abolish the federal reserve: 8.6 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNumEm2NzQA

Purchase the money masters videos on DVD:
http://www.themoneymasters.com/

Download or watch online:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res7dhyg/s...t_finance.html

Levi Philos

[Sapiens]

Levi,

Thank you.

I need time to perceive and try to grasp the enormity of the fraud.

It is evident to me that by their fraudulent system, they can obtain the best brains and guns for a long, long, long time to maintain control. Yet, if the truth is known, their parasitic fraud falls apart.

Thank you again, for sharing your information with us all.

-Sapiens

[ThomPaine]

Last night, I was watching Fort Knox: Secrets Revealed on the History Channel and came across the following information:

In 1974. a dozen congressmen and 100 journalists were invited inside the vault (the only time in history) to dispell rumours that some of the vaults were empty due to large gold payments to France and other countries demanding gold instead of USD for payments to them.

Walter Huddleston from KY, was one of the senators and Phillip Crane from IL, was also there. Bill Evans & Gerald Lush were there as a journalists, along with Mary Brooks, who was director of the Mint at the time.

Inside one of the vaults there was a large blue sign (attached) with the following written in chalk:

This compartment contains 36,236 gold bars, 11,837,925.179 fine troy OZ. of gold valued at $42.2222 per fine troy ounce.
Total: $499,823,244.58

Gold was about $150 per ounce market price at the time. Similar signs were seen in early footage from around WWII and before, but are not easy to read.

I found some links that have info about the history of the fort and mentions the $42.2222 fixed value, but some other information appears to be incorrect, so i will not include them here, they are easy to find in google.

Thom

EDIT: I think that I have the attachment working now.