 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Step 1 is an offer of information:
Federal Reserve Act Remedy Video
Step 2 is a counter offer:
I stopped at time 1:33
The reason I stopped is to point out what I consider to be a very serious error. The speaker's message I get is such that the speaker is claiming that there is legitimacy afforded to anything done at the Federal Level of government after 1787.
I do no such thing.
Why, I ask, would anyone afford any measure of legitimacy to the criminals who run the false federal government at any time after 1787?
To me such a claim, or such an offer, of lending moral or material support to those criminals running the false Federal government after 1787 is an example of incuplatory evidence on its face.
The only possible counter offer I can see, without my willful participation in the same crime, is to offer back the possible hope that my counter offer will be accepted, as I offer back the measure that the speaker is merely ignorant of the facts, and that forgiveness is afforded to the speaker, because the speaker didn't know the facts.
Why should I proceed if such a grave error is so obviously self evident this early in the offer offered to me?
Am I unspecific?
“…to understand the authority behind remedy in the United States of America…”
“…saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it…”
“…allows for the exclusive original cognizance by congress and by The United States Government of all seizures on land. Therefore congress was required to write the remedy from elastic currency into section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act.”
Where does the authority to punish anyone, anytime, anywhere, in this country come from?
Moving on:
“…no State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt…
“(5) To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.”
“Considering these two clauses in the context intended by the founding fathers the United States of America does not have fiat currency, and it didn’t have fiat currency between 1789 and 1861.”
That is patently false unless the words being used are of a duplicitous meaning, or my understanding of what actually happened between 1776 and 1861 is the source of the error.
What is fiat currency?
Who is a founding father, such as Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Adams, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Luther Martin?
Of those there are two very distinct groups who belong in their respective groups because one group sought to create and maintain fiat currency and the other sought to create and maintain defense of Liberty.
Which group won in 1787?
I really need to stop listening to this offer at this point as the offer comes from a foundation of quicksand and therefore the possibility of the offer finding solid ground is not likely in my view. I need help at this point.