Let's Get Honest! Blog: Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

About CAPITALs, COURTS and TRUSTS (hint: the Social Security Act is regarding a “Trust”)

with one comment

[Not including the blue intro here, this post is ca. 12,000 words.

Who the courts are relates to who the country is, and all of this relates, naturally, to our rights as citizens within this country.

The country has been in a Presidentially declared state of emergency (since 1933, right?) and, as we should know, operating with dollars which are not bona fide currency. 

So, if we want to work for wages, drive (marry), and continue giving our children birth certificates, applying for all kinds of licenses, and sending them off to inferior collective schools which we pay for, as instructed, where they will NOT (as youth) be encouraged to reflect on what this signifies, ….

…then how logical is it to HOPE for some ROI (Return On Investment, the “I” being what we paid into the system) has kept us all in thrall, while enabling some of the most magnificent fund-raising and lousy public transparency around to prosper and invest worldwide.

How long does it make sense to believe that the most important decision every four years is which President, and not to buckle down and assess who, and what, we are dealing with, and why people keep getting killed or go homeless shortly after they tangle with the courts seeking help, or attempt to terminate a relationship — or where did our “rights’ go?

The people who designed this system thought a few generations ahead (at least), had a plan with a destined outcome, and believed that it was their right and privilege to plan for the so-called stupid, uninformed (including of said plan), easily deceived, and incompetent — which from what I can tell, includes most of the planet.  The CORE of this plan was legalities / legalese which deeded over the country to themselves, while presenting this as a great idea.  

One of the wisest things a person can do (individually) is admit where he or she “bought” a fake product, and quit buying from the same source.  If that fake product causes serious damages (or worse), the learning curve should accelerate.  it’s time for a spring cleaning on personal assumptions about many things, including what meaning lies behind which words.


RE: what’s this got to do with the COURTS?

If you have a profound sense of betrayal, so do others, who like us may have signed on — or been signed on — for a contract before understanding the parties involved, and reading the fine print.

In understanding who the courts are, it’s important to understand what those CAPITAL LETTERS in all the pleadings are.

Not to mention, when researching some corporation or nonprofit, I cannot but help notice their names are registered in Capital Letters also.

For example, the Republicans, in the 1990s, united into “Contract with America” and the response was “Welfare Reform” by President Clinton.  Welfare Reform was played off as much better than Contract with America, but both pushed this envelope downwards, resulting in (my opinion — but I do look things up!) greater capacity for fund-raising away from those who play the game right and away from the poor and disenfranchised. (Blogged somewhat over at Family Court Franchise, topics  or pages relating to the development of TANF (From Tavistock to TANF, or “Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze” subject).

The CAPITALS, apparently, arefor legal/economic reasons, and may relate to something as far back as 1666 (yes, 1600s, not 1900s).

I end the post with some posting on the topic of money and how debasing a currency takes a country down, and leads to civil unrest.  And a very difficult (unpleasant) reminder what happens when people do not control their own rulers sufficiently, whether a Monarch, a President, a Congress, or whoever.  I have noticed recently on “PBS” that there’s quite a display of “The Monarchy” (British).  Culture aside, these are NOT nice people!!! Look at the history.

I don’t do this for amusement.  I am (with many others) in the middle of situations that have spun out over many years, and figuring out what is the next logical step for a better conclusion than the last ones.  In considering this, I do report what I see (it’s up to readers to evaluate), and for ways to NOT be part of the same problem in the future.  FYI, when Obama ran first on “CHANGE” he was referring to “Change agent.”   This time around, I was hearing, after election, the collective appeal for us all to work together.

Us WHO? And, who/what are we working for?  What are the terms of the contract, and who are the parties to it? SOME of these answers are below…

Again, I don’t think we can understand the courts and the legalese without understanding some things outside the courts, some which I talk about here, starting approximately with the Social Security Act of 1935 and its immediate context.]

Good morning, afternoon, evening, or night (see Feedjit)

FYI, I added a few links to the  “Vital Info/Alpha by Link” menu to  the right, including one called “Musicians4Freedom” (a little bit “out there” including visually, but with some very interesting information, including the first pyramid graphic below here) and “USA vs US” and which is a chart relating more to, for example, creation of the USA, Inc., which cannot be ignored for much longer, and a link to  “Clint Richardson (“realitybloger“) writing on “Contracts,”  who I quoted at length on yesterday’s blog.  

I just like his writing (i.e., thinking), and he doesn’t write like someone who is “owned” or on a privately-funded agenda, which MOST of the governmental (fatherhood, DV, etc.) rhetoric I wade through, — which is inane, monotonous, and often often accompanied by great graphics and fairly complex websites to compensate for lack of truth & originality.

Originality is not the idea of this rhetoric, but trademarked advertising, at federal expense.  Reporting on this requires reading it, which gets pretty old, so fresh and quirky writing (but with documentation) really does help restore my faith in at least some human beings’ ability to reason on relevant/urgent issues, and leave some footprints on how they got from point A to point B.

Basically, if something makes sense, I feel free to post it (with credits).  Or if it’s utterly ridiculous, I may post it with credits and commentary.  Either way, doesn’t mean I am hook, line, and sinker with everything on every blog I link to, although as it stands now, anyone who makes more sense of the economic picture (than I had yesterday) and the courts (legally speaking) is at least temporarily my friend and a source of learning.

Some others are going to talk about the CAPITALS and INCORPORATION, but to set the principles, which we’ve forgotten in the elation of a Presidential win and in business as usual, I’m going to start talking about TRUSTS.  Vocabulary counts!

Yes, how often do you think about these things?  Like, when you take a paycheck to the bank, and see what was taken out to fund that trust?

Not to be repetitive (more on this below), but time to face some facts:

The corporation deceives the people to become legal fictions, U.S. Citizens

Leading up to this, Trading with the Enemy Act:

1917, 1933, 1934

Quick review basically shows what our government is liable to do during wartime, or any emergencies, so-called or real.  For a general idea, look at what it already has done, to centralize control of the economy in the hands of the United States Congress, and those with whom it deals and does commerce.

(War Powers, but not “Trading with the Enemy Act,” terminated after WWI.  This was used as a platform in 1933 to close the banks for five days, after declaring the country bankrupt, raise the price of gold shortly after, etc. )  The word “citizens of the United States” shows up in the public law of 1917. (I only found this site by googling the term, haven’t read the rest of it/disclaimer applies.  This is basic stuff…):

In 1917, under President Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. Congress passed legislation titled Trading With the Enemy Act.  The objective was to stop any American from trading with our enemies and the allies of our enemies, during  World War I.

Sec. 2(c) of the act defined “enemy” as foreigners and countries who were at war with the United States.  It specifically excluded American citizens as enemies.  Sec. 5(b) specifically excluded transactions of the American people. 

Public Law No. 65-91
(40 Stat. L. 411)
October 6, 1917

CHAP. 106. – An Act To define, regulate, and punish
trading with the enemy, and for other purposes.

Sec. 2(c) – Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.”

Sec. 5(b) – That the President may investigate, regulate or prohibit, under such rules as he may prescribe by means of foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form other than credits relating to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States…”

The war powers were terminated following World War I, in 1921.  However, The Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 was granted an exemption…

Interesting, that as to other nations, it was “natives, citizens or subjects” (i.e., if they are a monarchy).  Allegedly we are not subjects, but what about natives at the time this was passed, in 1917? (residents born within the country, and I don’t just mean Native Americans as we understand it today), but the stipulation is CITIZENS of the United States, and the exemption is “Credits relating transactions executed wholly within the United States.”

I think we’d better know more about what “the United States” is, and what “citizenship” actually means.  Is that hogwash, that it’s a Corporation?  What kind of law are we under, anyhow?

From “socialsecurity.GOV (online history)”

The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]

An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.**

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,  …

*** “and for other purposes,” case in point… see fatherhood.gov, etc. etc…..  Notice the federal government is always so solicitous of the States and “enabling them” to do what it’s predetermined needs doing — for the welfare of the people, of course.

The Social Security Act of 1935

    • SECTION 401. For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to needy dependent children, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $24,750,000, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this title. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Board, State plans for aid to dependent children.STATE PLANS FOR AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDRENSEC. 402. (a) A State plan for aid to dependent children must
      (1) provide that it shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State, and, if administered by them, be mandatory upon them;
      (2) provide for financial participation by the State;
      (3) either provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to administer the plan, or provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to supervise the administration of the plan {{after 1996, Distribution was to be centralized}};
      (4) provide for granting to any individual, whose claim with respect to aid to a dependent child is denied, an opportunity for a fair hearing before such State agency;
      (5) provide such methods of administration (other than those relating to selection, tenure of office, and compensation of personnel) as are found by the Board to be necessary for the efficient operation of the plan; and
      (6) provide that the State agency will make such reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Board may [{OR, may NOT, as the case may be nowadays}}from time to time require, and comply with such provisions as the Board may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports.
    • TITLE VII-SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD ESTABLISHMENTSECTION 701. There is hereby established a Social Security Board (in this Act referred to as the Board ) to be composed of three members to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. During his term of membership on the Board , no member shall engage in any other business, vocation, or employment. Not more than two of the members of the Board shall be members of the same political party. Each member shall receive a salary at the rate of $10,000 a year and shall hold office for a term of six years, except that
      (1) any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed, shall be appointed for the remainder of such term; and(2) the terms of office of the members first taking office after the date of the enactment of this Act shall expire, as designated by the President at the time of appointment, one at the end of two years, one at the end of four years, and one at the end of six years, after the date of the enactment of this Act. The President shall designate one of the members as the chairman of the Board.
    • SEC. 703. The Board is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such officers and employees, and to make such expenditures, as may be necessary for carrying out its functions under this Act. Appointments of attorneys and experts may be made without regard to the civil-service laws.

SEC. 704. The Board shall make a full report to Congress, at the beginning of each regular session, of the administration of the functions with which it is charged.

Had enough yet?  See the centralization of control to Presidential Appointees? Too bad!  Wait til you see how funds were raised for the good of the people in their old age, minority, incapacity, or dependency (which is pretty much how the people are still viewed, when not being seen as the true human resources that we are):

So, this Act established the Social Security Trust Fund.

So, who is the Trustee (who was the Executor), who are the Beneficiaries, and what are the assets?

If you’re working a job, you have a social security NUMBER, right?   If you’re an employer, you have an EIN (An Employee Indentification Number, right?)  You want to know what kind of largesse is going from you, by way of the government, out to various CORPORations?  You can look them up by EIN#s (if they have one) at the public access database (back to 1995 only), as I do on this blog, a lot.  However, the EIN# & DUNS (Dun & Bradstreet)#s  isn’t searchable (although the DUNS — not the EIN can be displayed) under “Advanced” search at TAGGS.hhs.gov.  Moreover, you can’t search (i believe) by EIN# on USASpending.gov, either.  So I guess the EIN# is for the gov’t to keep track of us and our corporations, and not vice versa.
I was just going to list the titles for a visual, but decided to look at some of them, and the ramifications of Acts of Congress in 1933, 34, 35 (not to mention 1913 & 1917) which are affecting us today, and which “we the PERSONS” still are funding.
We just had an election.  So why not reflect on the consequences of being things like a Superpower (still), the leader of the so-called Free World (still?), and the world’s largest owner of global assets & infrastructure (per Bentley 500), plus the world’s largest per-capita jailor, jails being a good investment for shareholders, and a very bad deal for the inmates, in many cases (see page on Corrections Corporation of America, and politicians (from TN, for example) who have invested in it.

Here’s some more @ 1935 only:

  • SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes,** there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages(as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
    (1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum. (1%?… by 1948, 3%….)
  • SEC. 802. (a) The tax imposed by section 801 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid. Every employer required so to deduct the tax is hereby made liable for the payment of such tax, and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any such payment made by such employer.

{{SO, this makes the employers in a complicit contract with the government against their fellow-citizens, basically AGAINST their own workers.  The employer thereby becomes like the overseer or, and please pardon me, but a set of “house-n1ggers” intentionally creating a social occupational divide, or widening one.   

It gets worse…  everyone has to put into this FUND which is to be ruled by a 3-person BOARD appointed by President (with approval of Congress….).  Representative government in action, eh?

  • DEDUCTIBILITY FROM INCOME TAXSEC. 803. For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 (title I= “The Income Tax”) or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall NOT be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages.EXCISE TAX ON EMPLOYERSSEC. 804. In addition to other taxes, every employer shall pay an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) paid by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
    (1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.

Anyone knows that collecting money up front enables investment, or accrual of interest, so the government gets it upfront, and returns, if rebate is required, later.  The employer in order to do business in this land, has to comply, or go out of business.  This gives a pretty good advantage to businesses that started before (the income tax), foundations (exempt from it) as well.  THIS ASPECT HAS NOT CHANGED TO DATE.

It goes on:


SEC. 807. (a) The taxes imposed by this title shall be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal- revenue collections. If the tax is not paid when due, there shall be added as part of the tax interest (except in the case of adjustments made in accordance with the provisions of sections 802 (b) and 805) at the rate of one-half of 1 per centum per month from the date the tax became due until paid.
(b) Such taxes shall be collected and paid in such manner, at such times, and under such conditions, not inconsistent with this title (either by making and filing returns, or by stamps, coupons, tickets, books, or other reasonable devices or methods necessary or helpful in securing a complete and proper collection and payment of the tax or in securing proper identification of the taxpayer), as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.
(c) All provisions of law, including penalties, applicable with respect to any tax imposed by section 600 or section 800 of the Revenue Act of 1926 and the provisions of section 607 of the Revenue Act of 1934, shall, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this title, be applicable with respect to the taxes imposed by this title.
(d) In the payment of any tax under this title a fractional part of a cent shall be disregarded unless it amounts to one-half cent or more, in which case it shall be increased to 1 cent.


SEC. 808. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall make and publish rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title.

This just goes to show, give a government a mile (a tax), it’ll go several more miles in the same direction.  This hasn’t changed much in decades, which is one reason I chose to publicize the financial statements showing collective government net worth, not to mention to reveal the multitudes of offices, etc. which have been established in the land.  See “CAFR” — ALL of them for the purpose of raising capital, funds, etc. of social services and special projects “to benefit the people,” — such as prisons, schools, mental health institutions and other things that are a direct results, sometimes, of prior government policies, including waging wars, which results in orphans, dependents, and traumatized/injured veterans….

If more of this had actually been explained to me in (public) school, in any coherent and relevant manner, starting around the time I was maybe 10, I swear I would’ve been awake for many more of the classes.  It’s not like I couldn’t read, count, or think by then; kids at this age are pretty good at learning unless dumbed down or otherwise assaulted….Of course, the schools do not exist with the purpose of revealing the long-term purposes of their own government, which would be contraindicated….

** in 1996, this became “TANF” (block grants to states for purpose I,II,III,IV — and waivers therefore, etc.  Established?? And with it Title IV-D, forcing all employers to help create a database of “New Hires, etc.” (see end of my last post, reference to SSA act as “the Mark of the Beast, etc.”)

First, a few images, which of course speak louder — and sometimes more straightforward — than words.  Although whether or not they address the facts of a situation is up to the viewer  (consciously, let’s hope) to determine.

The corporation deceives the people to become legal fictions, U.S. Citizens

(from “Musicians4freedom.com”)

Why this image?  For one, I’m tired of digging with a teaspoon for information on corporations filed in strange and unwieldy format by “secretaries of state” (California, Wisconsin, New York, etc.) such that the citizens can’t produce (in their own lifetimes, which are often hard enough without this extra task) a comprehensible, accurate, and legible representation of WTF is happening with the commercial transactions in their state.   PLENTY — of corporations calling themselves “public benefit” corporations, i.e., 501(c)3s, are taking public money for dubious purposes, failing to account for it, failing to stay incorporated. .  California even has a new variety of this listed on its sight, which I’m not investigating)

If you do this, as I have, it’s obvious that the names are always listed in Capital letters.  Go try it yourself — any state, look up some corporation.  It is listed in ALL CAPS.


The process of “InCORPORATING” is similar to the theme of The Incarnation (I.e., invisible gods taking human form, like allegedly the god Jesus did, having pre-existed in whatever form or substance your particular version of that religion decided 1700 years ago (or so) he did, while also declaring that Eve was responsible for the “Fall.”).   It didn’t exist, then all of a sudden, by deliberate decision and agreement of someone (in the latter case, obviously, after getting the news from the angel Gabriel, the very young woman (“virgin”) Mary said, “That’s strange, but “Be It Unto Me According To Thy Word,” and the rest is history.)  (I only throw this in there for people familiar with the language, if not, just let it slide by, OK?).

Speaking of “strange,” why would Google put up this link this morning?  Is it Halloween, is the party over, or has it just begun, or WHAT???

Google image 11-08-2012

Particularly when (as someone whose email distribution I’m now on, see 11/6/2012 post) pointed out today is just plain strange.   Especially coming so soon after election day.  Notice that it’s no longer October (theme:  Halloween), and that the first image above is a man reaching up to a spider underneath a web, but the next to last image to the right implies fresh, new sprouts and growth after ALL the history enshrouded by that wizard’s long, black wavy robe.  Strange, much?  What is that swooning woman pointing at?  Notice the neatly groomed woman behind her man and which book is in his hand?  Bible?  Law?  Dictionary? (if it’s indeed a book).   Then tribe & wolf look backwards (along with the wizard, and suddenly it’s all gloriously new and fresh.  Have we really turned the corner on an epoch, then?  Also why’s the first female showing basically asleep and being rescued by a suitor or other man?  Good grief.

Here’s yet another image, tiresome to have it repeatedly put in our faces by now, but — I’ve looked at enough resources to see that there are, apparently, three critical cities with enclaves in each of them which are NOT part of what they rule – — Rome, London, and Washington, D.C., and that it’s pretty (d@mn) clear they do work together, AND that each has a particular role to play, and that while the internet can work for the people, this technology is in a far more advanced and sophisticated stage for those playing by the rules set up for:  Religious, Financial, and Military purposes than the average person.  For one, it’s a matter of resources (including hosting); for another, skills, for another ongoing obfuscation and manipulation by those who DO hold the greater resources.

Found here, but I claim NO allegiance to the site, framing, or theories (including imagery, belief sets, etc.) of where this is posted; in fact it’s pretty distasteful.  I don’t think that posting a lot of circular spiral images is going to somehow counter the power behind pyramid (schemes), swastikas, or other angular imagery, including the cross.

CQV — CESTUI QUE VIE, 1666 — the problem with too many landowners lost at sea… or disappeared in a plague . . . .or otherwise not present and accounted for.  In which the Crown Creates a Trust, and puts (“subrogates”) everyone under it, until they show up and prove they are not dead, but alive.

First, this act really does exist, apparently: (translation into modern English plus some revisions in 1800s, 1948, etc. at the link).

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

1666 CHAPTER 11 18 and 19 Cha 2

An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.

X1Recital that Cestui que vies have gone beyond Sea, and that Reversioners cannot find out whether they are alive or dead.

Whereas diverse Lords of Mannours and others have granted Estates by Lease for one or more life or lives, or else for yeares determinable upon one or more life or lives And it hath often happened that such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene granted have gone beyond the Seas or soe absented themselves for many yeares that the Lessors and Reversioners cannot finde out whether such person or persons be alive or dead by reason whereof such Lessors and Reversioners have beene held out of possession of their Tenements for many yeares after all the lives upon which such Estates depend are dead in regard that the Lessors and Reversioners when they have brought Actions for the recovery of their Tenements have beene putt upon it to prove the death of their Tennants when it is almost impossible for them to discover the same, For remedy of which mischeife soe frequently happening to such Lessors or Reversioners.

…Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead.

In 1666, in London, during the black plague, and great fires of london Parliament enacted an act, behind closed doors, called Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.


The act being debated the Cestui Qui act was to subrogate the rights of men and women, meaning all men and women were declared dead, lost at sea/beyond the sea. (back then operating in admiralty law, the law of the sea, so lost at sea).

The state (of London) took custody of everybody and their property into a trust, the state became the trustee/husband holding all titles to the people and property, until a living man comes back to reclaim those titles and can also claim damages. (Reclaim using UCC 1 and PPSA)

The rule of the use of CAPITAL LETTERS used in a NAME: when CAPITAL letters re used anywhere in a NAME this always refers to a LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION, COMPANY or CORPORATION no exceptions.


CEST TUI QUE TRUST: (pronounced setakay) common term in NEW ZEALAND and AUSTRALIA or STRAWMAN common term in USA or CANADA is a LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION created and owned by the GOVERNMENT whom created it. I repeat owned by the GOVERNMENT.

Legally, we are considered to be a FICTION, a concept or idea expressed as a NAME, a symbol. That LEGAL PERSON has no consciousness; it is a juristic PERSON, ENS LEGIS, a NAME/word written on a piece of paper.

This traces back to 1666, London is a state, just like Vatican is a state, just like Washington DC is a state. The Crown is an unincorporated association. Why unincorporated, its private, the temple bar is in London, every lawyer called to the “bar” swears allegiance to the temple bar. You can’t get called, without swearing this allegiance. The Crown already owns North America and everything in it.

Your only way out is to reclaim your dead entity (strawman) that the Crown created, become the trustee of the cest tui qui trust and remove yourself from the admiralty law that holds you in custody.

The subrogation of your rights

When London burned the subrogation of mens and womens rights occurred.

The responsible act passed… CQV act 1666 meant all men and women of UK were declared dead and lost beyond the seas.  The state took everybody and everybody’s property into trust.  The state takes control until a living man or woman comes back and claims their titles by proving they are alive and claims for damages can be made.

This is why you always need representation when involved in legal matters, because you’re dead.

That actually makes sense with experience.  If you have a pleading, look at the top:  A party is named (in all capital letters), then either there is an Attorney named,  or it’s “Pro Se” (for ones-self).   It’s either or for every single party.  No party comes into court, and the pleading is incomplete, if either an attorney claims to represent (get it?) the name of the capitalized Plaintiff (or Respondent or Party, etc.) — or, a person can stand for themselves, at their own risk — it’s called pro se.

I remember reading many (MANY many) years ago, only a few years into my family court nightmare, and on the web, how that by hiring an attorney (who is an “officer of the court”) one admits to one’s own incompetency.

I have had some attorneys, from time to time, in this single case.   Each time, they acted more for the court, than for me.  One lost a restraining order, which I needed, and other privileges.  Another one lost what’s even worse — custody of my children, and access to them.  This attorney didn’t act in my best interests or the children’s, but (his/hers) and the courts, exonerating it and various law enforcement from failure to enforce (and my ex from failure to comply with) existing law.

If the real concern was for real human beings — and for the rule of law (meaning, compliance with criminal law) then a strict stance would be taken, for the sake of the live human beings, in focusing on upholding the law, and their welfare.  However, as I (belatedly) learned, that’s not the court’s interests at all.  Attorneys who do really care about their clients, had better mind their Ps and Qs, and not say too much ( to their clients) or they’d be out of a line of work, or worse, “disbarred.”

I’m going to say this again — of the times I went into court (which was too many times), it was worse when I had representation.  I lost more.  The attorneys didn’t submit all evidence.  They had a clear-cut win legally, factually, and procedurally, and did not on my behalf (this being family court) claim such a win.

But — either way you think about it — that name on the paper (in all caps) has to have someone — an attorney, or you, identify with it before the case gets in the front door.  We take it for granted without thinking about the significance, to our own loss (and someone else’s gain).

The legal fiction is a construct on paper, an estate in trust.  When you get a bill or summons from court it is always in capital letters, similar to tomb stones in grave yards.  Capital letters signify death.  They are writing to the dead legal fiction.  A legal fiction was created when someone informed the government that there was a new vessel in town, based upon your birth.  Birth certificates are issued at birth, just as ships are given berth certificates.

Your mother has a birth canal, just like a ship.  All this information relates to how the general public are still legally tied.  Through admiralty law, through this ancient legal construct we can be easily controlled.  Learning about your legal fiction helps you to unlock yourself.  Otherwise you are just a vessel floating on the sea of commerce.  It is possible to be free from financial stress and debt.

Whatever.  birth =/= “berth” and people are not ships.  However, it does make sense — Capitalized words on a piece of paper have no life in themselves; hence they are death.  What gives them “life” is when someone agrees either on paper and/or by showing up to answer to that name (ever been in a courtroom recently?  Someone reads out a name for the case.  You or someone else (and/or associated attorneys) shows up, approaching the bench, and start speaking, when allowed to.  that process ANSWERS to the “PERSON” legal fiction created on a piece of paper.

Parents are tricked into registering the birth of their babies.  In about 1837 the Births, Deaths and Marriages act was formed in UK and the post of registrar general was established.  His job was to collect all the data from the churches which held the records of birth.

Regis – from queen or crown.  All people are seen to be in custody of,” The Crown”. This allows people to function in commerce and to accept the benefits provided by state.

So we are in custody.  Worldwide – under the IMF the majority of people are fed, sheltered and provided for, however now it is the system that is benefitting while many are suffering, are poorly fed, housed and water is contaminated.  Many people are now getting sick and dying as a result – not to mention that as people evolve, they now seek to be independent of any system that seeks to control or oppress and harms the earth that this is all taking place on.

We have legally elected representatives.  We have to understand who we are as men and women and how we can relate in the system.

The City of London is a centre for markets, where merchants work.  Then there is mercantile law.  It comes from Admiralty.  Look at the symbols in the City of London that relate to Admiralty.

Our national banks are not our banks.  The private shareholders from the private banks own the banks.  It is all private, not public as we are led to believe.  “OF” also means “without”, eg. The bank without England.  Private banks issue private currency.

With WWI a change happened where money was not backed by gold or silver anymore, it is now based on peoples labour.  People are now pledged to the IMF as the surety to pay back the creditors in the global bankruptcy.   Men and women are not bankrupt, they are the only source of credit. The public is bankrupt.

Regarding the currency that gets issued at the Bank of England, people are the gold or the treasure.  The government issues bonds or treasury bills that are bought by investors.  The money goes back into the economy in order to pay for the people to build things, e.g. an Olympic Stadium.  However, the people are paying taxes for the privilege of using someone else’s currency and paying back the principal and the interest on the original loan that was given against the treasury bonds, bills and notes.It is a private corporation that will own the Olympic stadium, be responsible for running it, be able to sell commercial rights, yet the people are actually the ones who own it and should be profiting from it.  However, principal and interest is coming through the people in order to raise the money.

IF indeed we are ships on the sea of commerce and we don’t understand even the basics of commerce (and with this, how the courts & enforcers (police, etc.) fit in, then we are definitely “sunk” or about to.

It has do to with identity, jurisdiction, and raising money, selling debts, etc.  The vocabularly HAS to be learnt sooner or later.

So where you have commerce and money, you also have “justice”.  You need to understand the bankruptcy before you can understand the judiciary.  You need to accept the bankruptcy.

Read that again — twice, or more.  “You need to understand the bankruptcy (make the plural in the case of the US?) before you can understand the judiciary.”

While I can’t speak to the practicality of the advice from this site (nor do I know who put it up), I believe it can reduce a lot of the sense of loss, betrayal, hurt and simple confusion (the disabling emotions that also help one act like an idiot in front of a court – or an imbecile, which one is assumed to be IF an attorney has been conscripted to speak for you — or someone with plenty of money to play in this court & ballgame — to understand who they are, and what they are there for.  If you are currently a United States Citizen (i.e., “person” as defined in the US code), then you are in commerce with the US, in one of any number of ways (See “The Mark of the Beast” article from the last post) and, in trouble.

There appears to be a real cognitive dissonance in the family courts, right?  Well, the cognitive dissonance may be on our parts, not theirs.  They are doing what they were designed and hired to do — acting as administrators on behalf of USA, Inc. (as I see it), or the local District of it.

Tell me, why would the tax on a State (like California, New York, Florida, Ohio, etc.) be called a “FRANCHISE” tax?   Anyhow….

We have accepted the claim to accept the summons.  There is an obligation to accept any liability which has been created.  All you can do is accept the bankruptcy.  We are operating in admiralty.  A not guilty plea dishonours the bankruptcy.  The strawman, aka legal fiction is always guilty.  It needs to be accepted for value.  Barristers and solicitors make a living out of creating controversy.  By creating a controversy you become liable for the case.

Honour and dishonour.  To remain in honour you have to accept a claim and settle it.  Then you add conditions.  I accept on proof of claim and proof of loss.  This gives the liability back to them.  The legal fiction is always guilty.  Only in the high courts, can the real man or woman appear.

Games are played on courts; hence the name court is a game with actors (acting on acts).  It has to be treated as a game and just business.  Court room dramas are misinformation.

  In the public, we are operating in bankruptcy and you receive benefits.  It takes a lot of time, effort and study to use these tools.  You have to be prepared to go fully through the process, get the right tool out of your toolbox at the right time.  People need to learn how to act as creditors.

That’s several sentences in a row, declaratory, without connecting adverbs.  I don’t “get” all of the connections the writer does, but the ones I just underlined or bolded make sense.  This also is not “legal” advice, obviously.

In summary…

  • Money is backed by labour.
  • We cannot exchange it fairly for gold or silver.
  • Capitalisation {{ALL CAPS}} of “name” means a dead entity, a legal fiction.
  • Know who you are, you are not your strawman or dead fictitious entity.
  • Learn how to become a creditor in commerce.

It makes sense that some have learned how to — therefore I (or you) can learn how to.  ANYTHING, within reason, can be learned, if there are good reference points, a bit of time, and a real important issues is simply understanding the basic vocabulary — and the basic concepts which that vocabulary is assembled into sentences (representing relationships of ideas) to assemble — within yourself — the meaning.

From same basic site, “relatingtolife.com” which again (see disclaimer at top)….

More on Birth Certificates (from the site today’s main (blue-background) quote came from): Note — I don’t think USA, but the principles are similar:

When you were born your parents or caregivers registered your birth with the Government as they are instructed to do. What was not disclosed to your parents or caregivers at the time is that they were giving the Government legal title of your being.

They (Gov’t, I believe) then became the holder of the “Security of the Person”, the legal construct that was made by them in your name. This Security of the Person exists as a trust and the Government of the country you are a “Citizen” of are acting as the trustee.

There may come a time when as an adult over the age of 18, YOU may wish to become the holder in due course of that trust account. This will take a lot of study, maturity and an attitude of readiness to apply for and upon the correct application and processes, the Government representatives under their oaths and by law must satisfy your demand.

The registration of birth creates an artificial ‘person’ (corporation) that is NOT YOU. Take a look at these “acts” (acts is fictional, acting remember) to see how it is done...

MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT about USA, Inc.: Some of it already makes sense to me, for example #33 — it is not the duty of police to protect you…

This sounds very angry or depressing, in particular with the Pope. Well, so what? (ever read my posts on “The Waldensians”??)

Have you ever questioned why we live in monetary system?

Facsism or Freedom – you decide.

  • The IRS is not a US Government Agency. It is an agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No, 26, Public Law 102-391.) As a member of the UN the following applies to New Zealand… The IRD is not a Government Agency. It is an agency of the IMF.

The IRS has not produced a CAFR, to my awareness.  However, I googled the CV# and found “Court Decisions on Income Taxes” (obviously a forum not favorable to it):


  1. Doyle v Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 179 (1916)
  2. Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
  3. Conner v U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 pg 119 (1968)



I do not like all the tone of the post listing 37 points (very pedantic). The list I linked to has 37 points. A prior version circulating had 21, some contain links to “Illuminati” “David Icke” etc.   However,  all are complaining about money. I then found another site which was rebutting the 21 points (here) and in it, a little more informative and interesting discussion of Money.

ESSENTIALLY — This treatise (I’ve pasted a good chunk to show some historic context, England/America in particular) shows that when monarchs (kings, presidents, anyone) seeks to control and then debase the monetary standard — it is ALWAYS an injustice and ALWAYS for gain, and ALWAYS eventually takes down the entire nation.   One purpose of issuing paper money, it appears, is to wage a war.

So, when King Charles I did this, people emigrated to the New World, with some consequences in their own commerce.  Then various colonies issued varying degrees of “scrip” which affected trade within other colonies, and there were legal suits about it (See “Rhode Island.”)    Bottom line is — to mess with the standard of exchange is for one reason:  Profit to the person messing with it, and with one result — INJUSTICE (more of it).

A whole lot of arguing went on around the beginning of this country which, for reminders, was established as separate by a war.  Wars require raising of money, and afterwards, someone has to pay the debt, and a money system generally will then be restructured afterwards.

Moral of the Story — Nowadays, we’ve been losers (most of us) in this for so long, while sharing in the technological etc. “glory” of the United States and its feats, that we have just about forgotten the conversation.

Some of us.  Until we are cast upon the courts, for example, for real help — and find none; or seek justice and find none of that either.  (I speak as a woman, a mother, and etc.  but many share this).  Without a valid understanding of the financial matters, and the holding of trusts (i.e., we are all “lost at sea” according to the terms of the trust), and fictional entities which are created FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES and to give life where it otherwise wouldn’t exist (i.e., otherwise, it’s just a name) — it is at all times and all points about commerce, and profit.

Profit does not happen (see above) unless there has been a transfer of some sort.  “INCOME IS SALE OR GAIN MADE THROUGH THE TRANSFER OR CONVERSION OF A CAPITAL ASSET.”

We have to stop allowing ourselves to become someone else’s assets and capital, individually, and in this United States.  I think this as well as just about any other reason might explain the necessity for a “Department of Education,” lest this become too-common knowledge.   Take an honest look at the investment in this department, and the results.  Kids are getting molested and raped at school, by each other (and sometimes their teachers).  Then a parent or kid will sue the District, and all of us pay to defend the accused.  Or, in the matter of handling persons in a just matter — while this case is older, it is a real case and a real person.

A young woman, Jaycee Dugard (then about 11) was kidnapped, repeatedly raped, falsely imprisoned, and held in the backyards (in a set of shambling, rambling tents and structures) by a man on probation for prior kidnapping, falsely imprisoning, and raping.  She gave birth to two children, apparently at the property, supervised by the criminal’s wife (Nancy Garrido)  and it was ONLY an alert (woman) cop at UCBerkeley who noticed something odd and/or clingy about the two daughters (note:  Jaycee was not taken with her rapist to UCB– her daughters were) that got her out.  THIS WENT ON FOR 18 YEARS.

As I recall, not that you can reimburse anyone for that kind of experience, she was awarded $29 million for her horror, and for the children.  California taxpayers contributed to this.    . . .  Yet the same Attorney General’s Office never gets fully around to prosecuting deadbeat nonprofits that don’t file for their millions, and there are many of them.  Moreover the United States HHS continues to dole out millions in grants (no repayment ever expected), and my reading of the United States’ CAFR (it’s in the first few pages, easy to look up) — fingered the HHS grants as a particular area of lack of internal control and accountability!  That’s not millions, it’s billions, we’re talking about.

That said (and enough said), here’s the segment on Money: I’m saying this as someone whose friends, working their jobs, couldn’t protect against abuse, kidnapping, violence, or the resulting poverty, without compromising their own economic viability (work, in other words).  Few of us are so well to do as not to need to work, hence, collectively we have designated government to protect ourselves from ourselves, and to educate most of us, and to provide for us when we are too old to work (or are laid off) through that SSA thing.

So, how good a decision was that?  Also, it doesn’t seem to matter that bad decisions were made in prior generations — the current and future still have to pay for them.  And these things are winding down — the USA is in (I heard) its fourth bankruptcy.



Bishop Oresme is probably the least known monetary scholar in history. Nonetheless, the timeless, permanent monetary maxims so ably demonstrated by Oresme are clearly embodied in the framework of the common law as regards money.
Insofar as the common law is concerned, there are many instances of English monarchs attempting to violate Oresme’s monetary principles. Some examples of these unfortunate endeavors quickly demonstrate the fallacy of any attempt to debase coin. King Edward IV, during the time of his reign, determined that the English nation was plagued by various impure coins of sundry weights. One of the outstanding achievements of Edward IV was to perfect the standard of coin of the realm, which produced excellent results.

Subsequently during the reigns of Henry VI and Henry VIII, these extravagant kings sought monetary gain by debasement of the coin of the realm, which attempts produced adverse results not only for the nation but for the monarchs themselves as well. When Queen Elizabeth succeeded her father, Henry VIII, she restored Edward’s ancient standard and thereafter during her reign resisted the advice of her ministers to engage in debasement. Her efforts at monetary order produced very favorable results.

Of particular importance to the subject of the American constitutional monetary standard are two periods during the 17th century. One such period was in 1626. In 1625, after the death of King James I, Charles I assumed the throne and was faced with a less than compliant Parliament. Needing money, Charles sought to engage in the old fashioned method of coin debasement, but here he met stiff resistance. In September of 1626, Sir Robert Cotton addressed the Privy Council and expressed his opposition to any attempt to debase the coin:

“And wealth in every Kingdom is one of the essential Marks of their Greatness: And that is best expressed in the Measure and Purity of their Monies. Hence was it, that so long as the Roman Empire (a Pattern of best Government) held up their Glory and Greatness, they ever maintained, with little or no change, the Standard of their Coin. But after the loose times of Commodus had led in Need by Excess, and so that Shift of Changing the Standard, the Majesty of that Empire fell by degrees. And as Vopiscus saith, the steps by which that State descended, were visibly known most by the gradual Alteration of their coin; and there is no surer symptom of a Consumption in State, than the Corruption in Money.
“To avoid the Trick of Permutation,* Coin was devised as a Rate and Measure of Merchandize and Manufactures; which if mutable, no Man can tell either what he hath, or what he oweth; no Contract can be certain; and so all Commerce, both publick and private, destroyed; and Men again enforced to Permutation with things not subject to Wit or Fraud.

Permutation, cf. the root word means to “change” (cf. mutate).  Math term; a rearrangement of the value of things in sequence.  Look it up yourself.  In other words, you incurred a debt from me, and I repaid it not in kind but in something different.  COIN as measuring merchandise and manufacture in an area, if “mutable” (changeable in value) would seriously disrupt value and with it commerce.  Such changes usually would be done involving “wit and fraud,” there being no other good reason to do so!    And that, friends, is where we live and “have our being” in, in America.

Experience hath taught us, that the enfeebling of Coin is but a shift for a while, as Drink to one in a Dropsie, to make him swell the more; But the State was never thoroughly cured, as we saw by Henry the Eighth’s time and the late Queens, until the Coin was made rich again.”

As a result of the study made in 1626 concerning debasement, a report was issued which stated that debasement served no purpose other than injustice and the decision was made against any attempt to debase. The argument against debasement was cogently stated as follows:
“The Measures in a Kingdom ought to be constant: It is the Justice and Honour of the King; for if they be altered, all Men at that instant are deceived in their precedent Contracts, either for Lands or Mony, and the King most of all; for no Man knoweth then, either what he hath or what he oweth.”
Thus having his efforts to debase denied to him, Charles sought other methods for raising revenue to finance his wars upon the continent. The expedient upon which he chose was forced loans made by seizing coin in the Tower of London.

Five Knights were incarcerated for their refusal to acknowledge the forced loans. This brought controversy with the Parliament, the net result of which was the Petition of Right of 1628, which denied to the King the inherent right to make forced loans.

The Petition was the final straw that caused Charles to disband Parliament for 12 years during which he conducted his personal rule of England. When Parliament was finally reconvened in 1640, the “Long Parliament” produced the Grand Remonstrance.

The implacability of Charles eventually lead to the Civil War, which ended in rule by Oliver Cromwell. The moral of the story here is that attempts to debase the coin and make forced loans eventually can causethe ultimate destruction of society, civil war.

Oliver Cromwell, last I heard, was a horrible guy and established (although predecessor monarchs began it) the Irish slave trade while trying to commit genocide upon the Irish (did I mention, Catholics?).  There’s no lack of site on this:

At the beginning of the 17th Century (1600s), in the reign of James I of England, England faced a problem: what to do with the Irish. They had been practicing genocide against the Irish since the reign of Elizabeth, but they couldn’t kill them all. Some had been banished, and some had gone into voluntary exile, but there were still just too many of them.

So James I encouraged the sale of the Irish as slaves to the New World colonies, not only America but Barbados and South America. The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement along the Amazon in South America in 1612. However, before that there were probably many unofficial arrangements, since the Irish were of no importance and details of how they were dealt with were not deemed necessary.

In 1625, the King issued a proclamation that all Irish political prisoners were to be transported to the West Indies and sold as slave labor to the planters there. In 1637, a census showed that 69% of the inhabitants of Monsarrat in the West Indies were Irish slaves. The Irish had a tendency to die in the heat, and were not as well suited to the work as African slaves, but African slaves had to be bought. Irish slaves could be kidnapped if there weren’t enough prisoners, and of course, it was easy enough to make Irish prisoners by manufacturing some petty crime or other. This made the Irish the preferred “livestock” for English slave traders for 200 years.

Notice the timing:  Charles I had suspended Parliament for 12 years because it didn’t want to debase the coin, etc.  Tensions were more than high…  I should also note, that this follows some centuries of persecution of men translating the Bible into English (1400s, 1500s).  All in all, the English tendency to have monarchs has not been good for the world… Nowadays this is more often done to the (disenfranchised/marginalized/poor) through selling off for a fee (sorry, but look at the subject matter here; human collateral for a US Bankrupcty and the advance fund-raising on the SSA trust) into foster care, etc.   Something similar, but not identical, has happened to my children in recent years; I cannot tell you what this does to a soul.  Their “handlers” made judgments about a situation (not very good ones) and declared me, along with plenty of other decent parents, irrelevant — and sold them into this system.  I can say ‘sold’ because we have seen where many of the profits are diverted.

In 1641, one of the periodic wars in which the Irish tried to overthrow the English misrule in their land took place. As always, this rebellion eventually failed. As a result, in the 12 years following the revolt, known as the Confederation War, the Irish population fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000. Over 550,000 Irishmen were killed, and 300,000 were sold as slaves. The women and children who were left homeless and destitute had to be dealt with , so they were rounded up and sold, too.

But even though it did not seem that things could get worse, with the advent of Oliver Cromwell, they did. In the 1650’s, thousands more Irish were killed, and many more were sold into slavery. Over 100,000 Irish Catholic children were taken from their parents and sold as slaves, many to Virginia and New England. Unbelievably but truly, from 1651 to 1660 there were more Irish slaves in America than the entire non-slave population of the colonies!

In 1652, Cromwell instigated the Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland.

There is, however, an Oliver Cromwell Association which I notice has a coin as part of its logo:

Header: The Oliver Cromwell Association

Oliver Cromwell was born in Huntingdon on April 25th 1599.  Since his death as Lord Protector in 1658 his life, ambitions, motives and actions have been the subject of scholarly investigation and intense, often vitriolic, debate.  Whatever position is taken on Cromwell, “Chief of Men” or “Brave Bad Man”,  his importance as a key figure in one of the most troubled periods of British history is unassailable. 

The second period of the 17th century of importance to this issue is that shortly after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when William and Mary assumed the English throne. By 1691, there was a great debate concerning the alleged need to once again debase the coin of the realm.

Between 1691 and 1695, John Locke, whose writings had considerable impact upon our founding fathers, wrote three treatises against the proposal to debase the coin of the realm by the small percentage of 5%. In these treatises, Locke made the following cogent arguments:

For an ounce of silver, whether in pence, groats, or crown­pieces, stivers, or ducatoons, or in bullion, is, and always eternally will be, of equal value to any other ounce of silver, under what stamp or denomination soever.
“All then that can be done in this great mystery of raising money, is only to alter the denomination, and call that a crown now, which before, by the law, was but a part of a crown.

“The quantity of silver, that is in each piece, or species of coin, being that which makes its real and intrinsic value, the due proportions of silver ought to be kept in each species, according to the respective rate, set on each of them by law. And when this is ever varied from, it is but a trick to serve some present occasion, but is always with loss to the country where the trick is played * * * For it not being the denomination, but the quantity of silver, that gives the value to any coin.

“Silver, i.e. the quantity of pure silver, separable from the alloy, makes the real value of money. If it does not, coin copper with the same stamp and denomination and see whether it will be of the same value. I suspect your stamp will make it of no more worth than the copper money of Ireland is, which is its weight in copper and no more.”

The stamp was a warranty of the public that, under such a denomination, they should receive a piece of such a weight, and such a fineness; that is, they should receive so much silver. And this is the reason why the counterfeiting the stamp is made the highest crime, and has the weight of treason laid upon it; because the stamp is the public voucher of the intrinsic value.

The royal authority gives the stamp, the law allows and confirms the denomination, and both together give, as it were, the public faith, as a security, that sums of money contracted for under such denominations shall be of such a value, that is, shall have in them so much silver; for it is silver, and not names, that pays debts, and purchases commodities.

“Money is the measure of commerce, and of the rate of every thing, and therefore ought to be kept (as all other measures) as steady and invariable as may be.

“It is the interest of every country, that all the current money of it should be of one and the same metal; that the several species should be of the same alloy, and none of a baser mixture; and that the standard, once thus settled, should be inviolably and immutably kept to perpetuity. For whenever that is altered, upon what pretence soever, the public will lose by it.”

As a result of the debate concerning the proposal to debase coin, Parliament refused to adopt it. Some 23 years later, Parliament enacted in January, 1718, a resolution that stated there shall not be any alteration made to the ancient coin standard of England.
One of the most significant expositions of the common law of England, and therefore the heritage of American law, consists of Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. In Blackstone’s exhaustive treatment of the common law, he aptly stated thecommon law concerning money:

Money is an universal medium, or common standard, by comparison with which the value of all merchandize may be ascertained: or it is sign, which represents the respective values of all commodities. Metals are well calculated for this sign, because they are durable and are capable of many subdivisions: and a precious metal is still better calculated for this purpose, because it is the most portable. A metal is also the most proper for a common measure, because it can easily be reduced to the same standard in all nations: and every particular nation fixes on it its own impression, that the weight and standard (wherein consists the intrinsic value) may both be known by inspection only.
“The coining of money is in all states the act of the sovereign power; for the reason just mentioned, that it’s value may be known on inspection. And with respect to coinage in general, there are three things to be considered therein; the materials, the impression, and the denomination.

“With regard to the materials, Sir Edward Coke lays it down, that the money of England must either be of gold or silver; and none other was ever issued by the royal authority till 1762, when copper farthings and half­pence were coined by King Charles the Second * * * But this copper coin is not upon the same footing with the other in many respects * * *

“As to the impression, the stamping thereof is the unquestionable prerogative of the crown * * *

“The denomination, or the value for which the coin is to pass current, is likewise in the breast of the king * * * In order to fix the value, the weight and the fineness of the metal are to be taken into consideration together. When a given weight of gold or silver is of a given fineness, it is then of the true standard, and called sterling metal * * * And of this sterling metal all the coin of the kingdom must be made, by the statute 25 Edw. III c. 13 (Coinage, 1351). So that the king’s prerogative seemeth not to extend to the debasing or inhancing the value of the coin, below or above the sterling value * * * The king may also, by his proclamation, legitimate foreign coin, and make it current here; declaring at what value it shall be taken in payments. But this, I apprehend, ought to be by comparison with the standard of our own coin; otherwise the consent of parliament will be necessary.”

From the above authorities of Bishop Oresme, Sir Robert Cotton, John Locke and Blackstone the basic parameters of a just monetary system can be discovered as well as a concise summary of the common law of money. History and these authorities demonstrate that gold and silver coin was always money and these substances alone were money and will always be; and the common law sanctioned no other medium of exchange other than gold and silver coin of the standard as determined by Edward. Further, debasement of the specie coin of any nation is unjust and unlawful, and was expressly forbidden by the common law. Thus, the refined essence of the common law was that gold and silver alone were money, and the coins so minted had to conform to the ancient and established standard coin of the realm; further, this standard was immutable and could not be debased. [1]


The actions of Charles I in dismissing Parliament in 1628 and thereafter conducting his personal rule of England for 12 years was a primary cause of the exodus of English citizens to the New World, America, in the early 17th century. However, conditions then in this country were primitive to say the least, and the colonies were controlled by English governors and the monopolistic privileges granted by the Crown to particular court favorites. Trade with the mother country, England, was especially one sided to the detriment of the colonies and their citizens, and this created a shortage of a medium of exchange, especially gold and silver coin. Barter was extensively used to consummate trade, and agricultural products such as tobacco, cattle, land, wampum and other items were used as a substitute “legal tender.”

The first paper money experiment in colonial America occurred in 1690 when Massachusetts, anticipating a need to pay soldiers sent to war in Canada, made the first emission of paper money.

After the soldiers returned from this unsuccessful invasion attempt, they received their pay in this scrip; see Craig v. Missouri, 29 U.S. 410 (1830). The direct result of this improvident experiment brought Gresham’s Law (“bad money drives out good money”) into operation and such specie as existed in the colony soon departed for use in England. Notwithstanding the apparent adverse effects of paper emissions, the supposed short term benefit was noticed by other colonies and over succeeding years, they repeated the same experiment.

In May, 1703, South Carolina engaged in this same expedient. Thereafter, New Hampshire followed in 1709, Connecticut in June, 1709, New York in November, 1709, Rhode Island in July, 1710, Pennsylvania in March, 1723, and Maryland in 1733. The remainder of the colonies, particularly Virginia, seems to have escaped the urge of the dreadful expedient of paper money. [2] George Bancroft noted that the colonies, once addicted to use of paper money, continued with further emissions which only proved to be disastrous.

During the period when many of the colonies were emitting a paper currency, the value of the notes of one colony constantly fluctuated against the value of all other colonial notes. This uncertainty in value was directly proportional to the number and amount of the emissions made by any particular colony; the results were certain and caused the destruction of trade and commerce as well as confidence in the medium of exchange.

Please comment if some of this information made sense.

There are people after this election who believe Obama is the herald of the New World Order, and there are people who believe Romney would’ve been worse (obviously) and there are others who believe we’d better learn to all get along.

However, I think we’d all better learn to reassess what happened in the early 1900s, and how capital works, and quit being used as human capital by others.

What did it do to the rest of England to stand by while the Irish slave trade flourished, and why couldn’t or didn’t they protest?  It is NEVER good to have dictatorships; they only seek to increase profit and greed.

Self-education and dialogue, ongoing (not just in “enclaves”), on this will, obviously, cut down on the profits of some who are profiting off our ignorances, but of these, many can afford to.

This appears to be an Irish site:

http://www.historyjournal.ie/irish-slavery.html  Browse the index (by photos) and/or click on the “more” underneath each photo.  The following comes from “Ethnic Cleansing” under photo of statue of Cromwell, however link is to the index page:

I noted how first, got rid of the armed men, shipping them out after defeat.  Then displaced populations into poorer areas where they could starve (does the word “ghetto” ring a bell yet?), after which they were simply rounded up by men on horseback bearing whips, for profit, obviously.

Oliver Cromwell Statue


Cromwell’s “Ethnic Cleansing”

. . .His campaigns left the standing armies of Ireland soundly defeated and their remaining forces of about 35,000 – 40,000 men were considered by the British parliament to be too large to imprison. This was mostly based on the cost of maintaining such a large prisoner population. The decision was made therefore to allow the imprisoned Irish troops to leave the country and join the armies of any nation that was not at war with England. Therefore, large groups of soldiers set sail for Europe, some to the armies of the Netherlands and Poland, some to France, Spain and Austria. In general they were warmly recieved, having a strong reputation for being fierce and disciplined fighter. Henry IV of France had declared that “no nation produced better troops than the Irish” and declared Hugh O’Neill, who had defended Clonmel against Cromwell’s armies, to be “the third soldier of his age”.

Following the expulsion of the Irish armies, Cromwell began his massive campaign of land clearances, forcibly transporting almost three quarters of the population from Ulster, Leinster and Munster to the fourth and poorest province of Connaught in the west. Few were spared from these great land clearances and all classes of society who hadn’t already fled the county, were forcibly evicted and allocated land in the poorer parts of Connaught. As one might imagine, the clearances were forcibly resisted by Irish landlords, soldiers who had refused to leave the country and those who had secretly returned from France and Spain.

Cromwell’s response to this resistance was equally brutal. A proclamation in 1652, gave the Commissioners of Ireland the power to transport to the Carribean any person of any status in Ireland to that they considered to be a threat to the English Commonwealth. This included those landlords who had resisted transplanting to Connaught, Irish soldiers who had resisted the transplantations or those soldiers who had refused to leave the country for armies in Europe. Also, the expulsion of the armies of Ireland had left a very large number of women and children, wives and families of the expelled soldiers, in a destitute state, transplanted to Connaught and with no land or means to support themselves.

An order was passed stating that “Irish women as being too numberous now and therefore exposed to prostitution, be sold to merchants and transported to Virgnia, New England or other countries where they may support themselves by their labour”.

Nowadays, that’s too crude to do en masse (is it?) openly.   These women were then also bred to produce more, and more valuable (mulatto) slaves, for free, such that a law had to be passed preventing this (but not til pretty late in the game…)

These too were transported, meaning that women and children made up a large proportion of those sent to the West Indies. This numbered 50,000 in the 4 years following the Proclamation alone and may have numbered as many as 100,000 in total.

Agents patrolled the countryside, known as “man-catchers”, rounding up those targetted for transportation to the colonies. They were armed, armed, travelled on horseback and carried large whips to herd people like cattle to the ports where they were shackled and branded before being shipped via the slave port of Bristol.

The agents received a fee of £4 for every person caught and transported and the trade was lucrative. The slave shippers in Bristol and Liverpool favoured the export of the Irish over their trade from Western Africa, although the Irish were more expensive than the £3 per head they paid for African slaves, the journey time was shorter and therefore, more profitable. Merchants in Bristol were therefore quick to petition Cromwell for a license to participate in this trade

LOOK — if the USA is a corporation owned by the British still (i.e., from the Center of London, as a corporation, etc.) then to understand how this rulership treats other peoples, or its own, is indeed relevant.   Here’s a site “noraid.com/Holocaust.html” reminding people that the events of the 1600s are seared into the (Irish) conscience, and even reminding “the USA” what lies ahead for us.  And that while they starved in the 1800s, their food was exported to England.  There was no lack of food in the land, it was just that the Irish had been forced to live on their potatoes.

Noraid.com hopes to provide to the general public who ARE NOT AWARE OF THE So-called GREAT HUNGER IN IRELANDTHAT CAUSED WIDESPREAD STARVATION FROM 1845-1852 and discrimination that remains to this very day in Northern Ireland and at the same time awaken those in the USA as to what the future may hold for them and their descendants.




NORAID.com explains itself and is definitely a Northern Irish site appealing to people in the US to wake up to the fact that the British are terrorists.   I think, overall, that this information is clear enough, and that this comes with economic terrorism resulting in starvation.

They have done it before, they will do it again.   Who is indentured, who is simply kidnapped, and who is tricked into signing on for a contract which results in slavery?  Who will be exported when there are not enough prisons to hold, or not enough food to support?  There IS enough food, but it’s not going to be distributed with this type of attitude going on, that some people are cattle, imbeciles (and indentured // collateral), etc.

I realize this post has a lot of clumsiness involved, but I still say the subject matter is relevant. And if you are not personally willing to get together with others and figure out where the money went (including defining money) in an intelligent – and more thorough –manner, then you are part of the problem. Quit allowing the middle class to blame the lower class (and/or the upper class) for poverty they’ve helped buy into. Periodic philanthropy cannot — nor should it have to –fill the hole (a black hole) created by injustice (which again is primarily a financial matter!!! of control and intent), or clean up its mess.

And none of this can be done without making some time to look at the facts. Two states (last round) legitimized some recreational (small quantity) marijuana, I heard — but the federal government did not. Was that because the Feds are so concerned with everyone’s well-being, or because it was concerned about the competition?

Just asking!!!

Written by Let's Get Honest

November 9, 2012 at 4:18 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This post is not the last formatted or most complete version.I spent time on cleanup of the large, bright-yellow section and had some concluding matter at the end. WordPress doesn’t save everytime one presses “save” (or “update”), and I am not putting more time into this one just now.

    Any background-color change, and a lot of the font-changes were manually typed in, in “text” (displaying HTML) mode with a lot of switching back and forth with “visual” mode to see what took. I’m working on a better way to post without this amount of labor, yet still be able to present parts of the quoted material, rather than just link to it. This, to date, a volunteer effort, so “WYSIWYG” !!!

    Let's Get Honest

    November 9, 2012 at 4:46 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

Let's Get Honest! Blog: Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff


Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: