Thrown down the gauntlet at quatloos!

In this thread on quatloos I have asked their resident 'gurus' to explain the facts to us "looneys", "moonbats" and "militia nuts" who believe that banks DO create money out of thin air:

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...?p=91531#91531

Posted by Heidi on quatloos:

I DON’T BELIEVE that any of you guys comprehend money creation/origination at all. I don’t believe that ANY of you have ever read Murray Rothbard’s “what Has Government Done to Our Money?” OR “The Case Against the Fed”, or Milton Friedman’s “Money Mischief”. THEREFORE when any of you claim that there is not really any difference between Rothbard’s or Friedman’s description of money creation and the description provided in that URL at the beginning of this thread, OR when any of the rest of you claim that there is a difference (yep... you have already contradicted each other), you are ALL talking ‘through your hats’ – absolute bovine scatology. You all have advanced degrees??? What? BS MS PHD??? (Bull S---; More S---; Piled High and Deep).

You claim that I do not comprehend the differences and/or similarities between several writs that none of you have read yourselves. When asked to address the actual writs, and their similarities and/or differences compared to the writ you posted on that URL, you degenerate the debate into your usual hail of insults – some of them simple-minded (like Joey’s), and some at least rather amusing (like Bean’s)… but ALL calculated to avoid having to deal with the facts. I’ve asked you to show your cards, and all I’ve seen are a bunch of Jokers.

"Ignore the man behind the curtain!" - The Wizard of Oz.

and:

I repeat (and it's an open invitation to any and all of you supposedly hyper-educated boot-licking bank lackeys):

If you think that article at that URL actually contradicts the info given by Walker Todd, and/or Murray Rothbard, and/or Milton Friedman, and/or Lawrence V. Morgan... and you think that YOU understand it, then YOU point out each of the aspects of the money creation process as described in that URL which you believe contradicts those authors and economists ... and/or that bank President... and prove to us all that you comprehend something in that article and in those writs that I do not.

I DO realize that you will need to take the time out of your busy schedules of volunteer ridicule and obfuscation activities to actually READ those writs... so I'll wait.

[PANICPASS]

I have asked their resident 'gurus' to explain the facts to us "looneys", "moonbats" and "militia nuts" who believe that banks DO create money out of thin air:


That's because nobody agrees with you, and until somebody who matters agrees with you, nothing you say makes any difference.
Regards,

Joey

[weishaupt1776]

Heidi, please post this sound clip link at an appropriate time, when it appears that they are talking loud and saying nothing

http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/mp3...s=barkbite.mp3

In fact, I would post it each time they do not answer

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

I have asked their resident 'gurus' to explain the facts to us "looneys", "moonbats" and "militia nuts" who believe that banks DO create money out of thin air:


That's because nobody agrees with you, and until somebody who matters agrees with you, nothing you say makes any difference.
Regards,

Joey

I KEEP SEEING THIS PHRASE "until somebody who matters agrees with you" COMING FROM THE QUATLOOS ESTABLISHMENT QUITE A LOT. I GUESS THIS MEANS ONLY JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS REALLY MATTER.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by PJT04

I KEEP SEEING THIS PHRASE "until somebody who matters agrees with you" COMING FROM THE QUATLOOS ESTABLISHMENT QUITE A LOT. I GUESS THIS MEANS ONLY JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS REALLY MATTER.

Well, at the risk of being obvious, when it comes to being able to keep your house or your car when you are up against a legal team that does hundreds of cases a month, you're right.

Posted by Judge Roy Bean:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJT04
I KEEP SEEING THIS PHRASE "until somebody who matters agrees with you" COMING FROM THE QUATLOOS ESTABLISHMENT QUITE A LOT. I GUESS THIS MEANS ONLY JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS REALLY MATTER.

Response from JRB: Well, at the risk of being obvious, when it comes to being able to keep your house or your car when you are up against a legal team that does hundreds of cases a month, you're right.

Old Bean's point is well taken. This is truly the challenge we face if we truly object to clandestine legalized counterfeiting for profit by the Federal Reserve bank system. The quatloos collection of boot-licking bank lackeys is correct about the attitude of the legal establishment towards any defendant who attempts to assert the money created out of thin air information.

Every concerned patriot here should delve into the principal of JURY NULLIFICATION:

http://www.americanjuryinstitute.org/

and...

Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine
by Clay Conrad, Clay S. Conrad:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...42442?v=glance

Editorial Reviews

The Federal Lawyer, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2000
"Conrad provides...a comprehensive overview of jury nullification in historical, substantive, policy, and practical terms."

Book Description
Juries have been delivering independent verdicts in the interest of justice for over 800 years, and many legal historians and scholars believe the value of juries is their power to act as the "conscience of the community," serving as the final check and balance on government in the moment of truth. If juries are nothing more than rubber stamps, they are no limit on government's power to pass unjust, immoral, or oppressive laws, and citizens are entirely at the mercy of sometimes jaded or corrupt courts and legislatures. This was what the Founding Fathers feared, and this is the reason why they guaranteed trial by jury three times in the Constitution -- more than any other right.
In Jury Nullification, author Clay Conrad examines the history, the law, and the practical and political implications of jury independence, examining in depth the role of nullification in capital punishment law, the dark side of jury nullification in Southern lynching and civil rights cases, and the purpose and legal effect of the juror's oath. The book concludes with an examination of what trial lawyers can do when nullification is the best available defense. This book should be of interest to historians, trial lawyers, criminologists, political scientists, and anyone interested in knowing how our criminal justice system works -- and how to make it better.

[Bill Smith]

See, even Heidi admits that what the banks do is legal as she said in the referenced thread:

As you have corroborated, money creation is not "illegal" but it is a fact. I've said so many times. This privilege was lobbied for and won by the Federal Reserve bankers decades ago.

Bill Smith Posted:
See, even Heidi admits that what the banks do is legal as she said in the referenced thread:

Quote Heidi:
As you have corroborated, money creation is not "illegal" but it is a fact. I've said so many times. This privilege was lobbied for and won by the Federal Reserve bankers decades ago.

Absolutely right. And just recently, I ALSO said (on quatloos):
I think the Dorian guys are absolute crooks. Their capacity for nefariousness has no bearing on the truth concerning money creation out of thin air.

and:

Engage the gears between your ears for a second... all of you bank lackeys (on quatloos).

If the money of account is actually destroyed as soon as it is repaid to the lending bank, why would the bank bother to collect it back at all? Why not just eliminate the collection of the principal altogether and bill the customer for the interest only? If what you claim is true and the money which was created on behalf of the borrower is subsequently destroyed after it is repaid to the lending institution, why would they spend thousands of dollars on collection attorneys in their concerted efforts to collect these debts? On the contrary, the funds which are repaid by the borrowers are no doubt spent paying salaries to their execs and dividends to their stockholders. And remember, the newly created money of account which was debited in order to pay the sellers on behalf of the borrower has been spent and moved into general circulation – it cannot be tracked down and destroyed.

What you guys (the quatloos clique) are misconstruing as the destruction of the money that was originally created via bookkeeping entry is actually the canceling out of the outstanding balance on the debt. The banks are making millions on suckers like you. Think about it. There you are volunteering large chunks of your free time defending these brilliant profiteers who've conceived of this clever scheme. They fly around the world in private jets and collect enormous salaries while you sit there in the trenches trying to defend their practices... and pay THEM 10-15% (maybe more) interest on any credit card debts you may have - which they have funded with money they are legally permitted to create out of thin air. S-U-C-K-E-R.

[Bill Smith]

On the contrary, the funds which are repaid by the borrowers are no doubt spent paying salaries to their execs and dividends to their stockholders.

Prove it.

Banks make money by arbitraging the spread at which they borrow money from others (other banks, investors, depositors) against what they are able to loan it out. So, if a bank pays its depositors 5% and charges 6% for a mortgage loan, it makes a 1% profit on the deal.

Thus, if a bank loans out $100 million and makes 1%, then the bank is making a $1 million profit. This is all CLEARLY reflected in their audited financial statements.

You're right -- banks LOVE people who don't pay on their credit cards as then they get a much higher interest spread. If the bank can borrow at 5% and charge 15% then it is all gravy for the bank. And with changes in the new Bankruptcy law, there is not that much difference in the bank's risk, either, since now they can force people to pay up.

The smart strategy: Invest in banks!

Pretty simple, really. But thanks for admitting that none of the banks' activity is illegal anyway. That should resolve most issues on this board, since people seem to think that somehow they have a defense based on "fraud" when they don't.

Even if you absolutely hate what the banks are doing, the solution is political and not legal since the banks' conduct is totally, absolutely 100% authorized by Congress and totally, and absolutely 100% upheld by the courts. Of course, Congress could change it if everybody wanted them to, but there is no significant groundswell of people who want it changed hooked as they are on cheap mortgages and plentiful credit cards (but that is their CHOICE and not yours).

But in your own cases, nobody forces you to have a mortgage and nobody forces you to take or your credit cards, and power too you if you can lead a happy life without them (like many of our grandparents have).

Bill Smith wrote:
Even if you absolutely hate what the banks are doing, the solution is political and not legal since the banks' conduct is totally, absolutely 100% authorized by Congress and totally, and absolutely 100% upheld by the courts. Of course, Congress could change it if everybody wanted them to, but there is no significant groundswell of people who want it changed hooked as they are on cheap mortgages and plentiful credit cards (but that is their CHOICE and not yours).

I agree with you completely there, Bill.

Bill Smith wrote: But in your own cases, nobody forces you to have a mortgage and nobody forces you to take or your credit cards, and power too you if you can lead a happy life without them (like many of our grandparents have).

I agree with you here in principle, Bill. With the exception that I believe inflation has put most people in the position of HAVING to take out a mortgage in order to own property. Most of the population can no longer afford housing without a mortgage. The inflation connected with money creation has made money more available, and has therefore driven up housing prices even more rapidly and more severely than other commodities – thus making it increasingly difficult to live as our grandparents did.

People are frustrated and angry. I see a backlash that has tempted desperate debtors into DE and ME scams. The metaphor I find most appropriate is this: the debtor is a carcass surrounded by lions. The lions (banks) are the most powerful predators, and they bring down the prey. But that odiferous carcass is also a temptation to the pack of hyenas (DE and ME scammers) that circle around, looking to snatch a quick bite or two and run away laughing … before the lions finally manage to devour the rest. How many people on this forum are trying to salvage their lives now after relying upon some DE or ME scammer and finding themselves standing alone when the summons and complaint comes along?

This situation is what has many people seeking to find a legal chink in the banks’ armor and escape the repayment of this debt that has them so strapped. I completely agree with you that political action is the honorable and preferred way to approach changing this system. Unfortunately, many people feel helpless and unable to influence the political system. The banks share this responsibility because I believe they have shamelessly tempted people to get into debt over their heads with mortgages and credit cards because the banks know that they can simply swoop down later and take the debtors’ property in a judgment. Judge Roy Bean seems very sympathetic to their plight, which I appreciate.