 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Criminal Charges Must Be Laid - Former Finance Regulator
The legal license to add and subtract from the supply of purchasing power (legal dollar units of money) is the horse.
The horse pulls the cart.
Who is driving the horse?
If a victim has access to law, true law, a victim can use law to avoid further victimization - at least.
Victim A employs law, and then victim A is no longer victimized.
That is one of more than one possible method by which this Crisis can be unraveled and prevented from being repeated.
There isn't a monopoly on the number of ways this "Crisis" can be unraveled and prevented from being repeated.
Victim B can stop using the money (dollars) and begin using some other form of money - case closed.
Now the reader has 2 possible methods by which this Crisis can be unraveled and prevented from being repeated.
The problem with both methods is the same problem every living organism must face whenever a living organism is faced with a problem. Does the living organism have a sufficient amount of power to use in the work of investing that limited supply of power in the work of gaining more power, and then, once more power is gained, and only then, the living organism has the power required to solve the problem.
Take both example methods by which the "Crisis" problem is solved by any person alive today.
A. Law
B. Competition (choose the better money, and thereby avoid the costs associated with choosing the worse money)
How about solving the first choice, first, since that is the nature of the message offered in this REAL News report.
Criminal Charges Must Be Laid - Former Finance Regulator
Look here please:
Person A decides to access law. Who is person A?
How about any person who is now paying monthly mortgage payments on any property in America whereby the value of the loan is more than the value of the home. Person A reduces the money he pays to the lender, voluntarily, by that exact discrepancy. Each monthly payment is reduced, voluntarily, according to the injury caused by the criminals who caused that injury.
Example:
Person A pays 2000 dollar units of money for a 200,000 dollar home.
Then the legal criminals cause the down cycle and now the home is worth 100,000 units of legal money, but the victim is still paying for a 200,000 dollar home.
Person A volunteers to personally adjust the discrepancy and begins paying off the 100,000 dollar home with 500 dollar per month payments, and Person A sends a note to the owner of the mortgage informing the owner of this New Deal, asking for agreement, or failing to agree, Person A adds: "see you in court".
Does Person A have the power to avoid this injury legally?
I offered an example of how law can be accessed, and any other competitive method of accessing law is certainly "on the table" as far as I a concerned. I am merely inventing one way, so as to move the discussion along, and get to the point.
If Trial by Jury worked, as intended, the case offered above could be a trial case, one case of a future flood of similar cases, and imagine that you are also on this jury in this trial as you sit in judgment of this case as this Person A solves his power problem by accessing law.
Is law universal? Is law the same law for Person A as it is for Person B - no exceptions?
It could be admitted by any living, breathing, rational human being that the answer is definitively no, measurably no, conclusively no, accurately no, and no without any false front, no without any smoke and mirrors, no without the least bit of ambiguity, and no without double speak.
No, law isn't the same for you and me, we do not get bailed out when we commit fraud.
We could, if we access our power, as a majority power, and a majority power that actually produces power, not a power that steals power.
Trial by Jury works that way.
Person A has 12 randomly selected (not cherry picked) other people judging Person A. How many other people are on the Jury, during the trial to find out if it is OK for Person A to refinance the loan amount down to a realistic value, and thinking: "If he can do it, I can do it too."
How many victims are there?
How many criminals are there?
HERE is the score card in case someone has no power by which to answer the two questions above, and do so accurately: follow the money.
If it is true that Trial by Jury exists, law, actual law, universal law, law that is by the people, for the people, and of the people, proven to work better than the competition, in each case so far, then the accurate measure of how many victims there are relative to home many criminals there are, are found on the random selection of jurors in each case, a mathematical statistical certainty, with few exceptions. Trial by Jury isn't perfect.
Law isn't perfect, never has been, and it will never be perfect. People aren't perfect, therefore law made by people, of people, and for people can't be perfect.
Natural law is perfect. Try the law of gravity out, and see if it fails once.
That is solution A, how about solution B?
A. Law
B. Competition (choose the better money, and thereby avoid the costs associated with choosing the worse money)
Competition is a natural law, some people call it Darwinism, and some people confuse Darwinism with a specific man made law, and they do so on purpose, to get away with things, like crime, like stealing, like torture, and like mass murder.
People who confuse Darwinism with a specific man made law may get away with the extinction of the human species, that would assume, however, that there is life after death: getting away with that crime would include suicide - all inclusive.
Competition can be confused with a specific crime called: "kill or be killed" or "survival of the fittest" or some other such terminology pointing to the actual confusion between man made law and the natural law explained within the work of Darwin.
When a criminal hatches the plan to injure an innocent victim, it is a matter of convenience, or even a matter of expedience, to cover up the crime with such confusion as the confusion of Darwinism with man made law, where the law maker makes any law that says: I kill you, or injury you, before you have a chance to injure me, or, the law I make excepts me from that law, and the law I make applies only to the specific people I list, as I apply my law inequitably, excepting me, and excepting anyone I choose to except, and as I punish whomever I choose, and as I reward whomever I choose, as I take the power from my victims, and as I then purchase loyalty with that stolen power.
The crime game can become very sophisticated, to such a point as to include a global cyclic method by which power flows to the criminals from the victims.
A score card is available, and it isn't ambiguous, it is accurate, and it allows anyone, anytime, to follow the money as the criminals perpetrate that very elaborate crime, in real time.
So, competition, a natural law, natural selection works this way, is second on the list of things to do, if human beings wish to do, this thing, this solving of this problem, this so called "Crisis" problem.
Again:
A. Law
B. Competition (choose the better money, and thereby avoid the costs associated with choosing the worse money)
I think Trial by Jury, or Law, would work very well, and the example offered exemplifies how law could work to solve this so called "Crisis".
The people who have the license to add and subtract from the legal money supply own the law, they have control of the horse, and they are pulling the cart.
They don't like it when people compete for control of the horse, pulling the cart.
They have law.
The own it, and they have owned it since, at least, 1788. The names change, they are the group that I call legal criminals. They use law to eliminate competition.
Competition works better than law.
Solution B on the list, and there can be as many competitive solutions as there are seconds in eternity, such is the nature of competition, I've just offered solution A, and solution B, so as to narrow down the choices, and arriving at a deciding point, either A or B, there isn't a C at the deciding point. If noting is done, then A wasn't on the list. If doing nothing is done, then the list, just before the deciding point was:
A. Do nothing
B. Not A
It didn't matter what was on the list, after the deciding point, since nothing was done.
B, or competition, can solve the problem, in each and every case, and it can be exemplified here and now, and the same problem as the problem with problem A occurs, in each case.
The real problem:
The problem with both methods is the same problem every living organism must face whenever a living organism is faced with a problem. Does the living organism have a sufficient amount of power to use in the work of investing that limited supply of power in the work of gaining more power, and then, once more power is gained, and only then, the living organism has the power required to solve the problem.
I don't have to quote myself, that would be silly, I just cut and pasted.
People can choose a better money. Walk away from the home, or the Crisis, and get a loan to buy another home, and get a loan that is denominated in a denomination that isn't a denomination that is run by a band of frauds, and then pay off that which you have borrowed, and keep your good faith and credit intact in that way.
Why not?
[url=http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.htmlHenry Ford wrote:[/url]
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
The revolution occurs over night. People simply drop the low quality expensive stuff and they begin using the higher quality stuff at the lower price
No, yes, maybe?
I think, seriously, that I must be from another age, or another planet, sometimes, but I know, in my heart, and in my mind, that it takes effort, diligent effort, and a whole lot of suffering, to get past the falsehood, but it can be done.
Other people can do it too.
Get past the falsehood, you might like it.