Boris, did removing precious metals from the monetary system change the fundamental law?

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
Locked 1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Boris, did removing precious metals from the monetary system change the fundamental law?

iamsomedude
Administrator
posted Jan 19, 2016 by Gavilan
For example, by changing the monetary system into a credit system, changed the default system of law, from common law to equity?

 



some_dude said Jan 19, 2016
Since money itself is nothing but a usufruct, a quasi-usufruct to be precise which means it must be consumed to have any value, then the only thing that changed was the SOURCE of the usufruct.

All that credit, gold, silver, equity law, common law, etc...: the RESULT people's TIME CONSUMED (INVESTED) upon this PLANET, almost like COMMERCE is a TIME SINK and for those of you who do not know what a TIME SINK is, it is a means in a game by which you must INVEST TIME to CRAFT GOODS and SERVICES to earn IN GAME MONEY like GOLD, SILVER, CREDITS, etc... of which you use to BUY OTHER GOODS and SERVICES from other PLAYERS in the GAME as usufruct of those other PLAYER'S INVESTMENT OF TIME.

In fact, that describes COMMERCE today almost perfectly; What else you gonna do in purgatory?


The truth behind all of this is that money and its resulting law is just a tool to enslave the people's consciousness into thinking there is a lack when if fact the people have ALWAYS been the source of all commerce, thus all law, intercourse, and value therefrom are nothing but a usufruct of the people.

always has ... always will be: equity, common, admiralty, trust, estate, probate ... whatever FORM of the LAW: irrelevant; the SOURCE for the LAW is not and the FORM of the LAW is ALWAYS USUFRUCT with respect to its SOURCE.
[Last edited Jan 19, 2016]
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.




Gavilan said Jan 19, 2016

Boris, my point was, a debt is paid once substance for substance is exchanged. Hence. The monetary system.

In a credit system, it's not paid until the promise which incurred the debt is fulfilled.

Now, the federal reserve system is not only a credit system, but also one based on usury.

Which means that since the units of exchange are issued by means of debt creation, any interest that has to be paid as a final payment would cannot be done because there would be no units of exchange to meet the interest obligation.

You borrow 100 units at 10%, you must pay 110 at due time, but only 100 units were created.

Under law,it's an impossibility, under equity it's resolved at the conscience of the judge.




some_dude said Jan 19, 2016

I think it is you who misunderstood the point ... the money, credit, etc ... 100% irrelevant, unless of course you are the usufructuary; All of the accounting and money is "their problem"

MONEY is a usufruct ... ALL MONEY in ALL FORMS ... so, the one using it can ONLY TRANSFER a USUFRUCTUARY INTEREST.

You all think it works like you think it does because you are in the middle of the storm ... the truth is, you were never to handle that thing you all call money, which is why the NATION/PUBLIC TRUST has been set-up the way it has been.

Why concern yourself with matters that really do not need your attention?

The usufruct - naked owner relationship takes care of the "payment" so you do not have to worry about it ... the DEBT and INTEREST you write of is a RESULT of your failure to complete delivery of what the STATE PURCHASED and even in the UCC, and using simple common sense, if someone buys something and you are deliver it, if that something incurs some BURDEN along the way, it is the problem of the seller: your problem. The Federal Reserve is waiting for YOUR CREDIT and by failing to deliver, WITHHOLD THE DELIVERY, thus incur a DEBT of which has a % added on for the outstanding balance.

The FEDERAL RESERVE is actually an INSURANCE COMPANY ... It ensures commerce be insured by allowing cash advances on what the United States EXPECTED to receive. The FEDERAL RESERVE allows the United States to access its ESTATE IN EXPECTANCY of which and until delivery occurs, your are the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE and OWNER, thus LIABLE for the WITHHOLDING because your use of the TRADE NAME PROPERTY indicates you ACCEPTED THE AGREEMENT.

In common law, you never provided consideration, some one else did, thus you are a fuct;
In equity, you do not receive "remedy" because you NEVER GAVE EQUITY of which is your usufruct;
In admiralty, the same thing as common law, you used "private currency", thus acts as a agent for the owner of that "private currency", thus FORFEIT ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES ... admiralty = insurance;
In trust law, you failed to GRANT THE INTEREST PURCHASED from the estate;
and so on and so forth ...

Do you get the point?
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.




Gavilan said Jan 20, 2016
"Do you get the point? "

Boris, I think so. The law of the LORD is perfect, the scales have to always be balanced, one party cannot use the law to leave an unjust or unbalance account.

" Psalm 19:7-14King James Version (KJV) 7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19%3A7-14&version=KJV "

Look, I get this, if they want to own everything on this earth, they can keep it. I get the point of becoming unattached to things. But there is one thing that "bugs" me. I can forgive and ask the LORD for mercy, but what about those men that choose to be officials and be bound by an oath, yet fail to perform their duties and adhere by their oath?

In my view living requires responsibility, and if you are being abused by an official and you know it, and you fail to hold him to his oath, you are part of the problem by letting him get away with it. As a matter of fact , if you are being abused and you let them get away with it, you have acquiesced and that has balance things out.

Yes, everything will even out in the great scheme of things.




some_dude said Jan 20, 2016

people only get away with what you allow them
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.




Gavilan said Jan 20, 2016
I agree. Going a bit further, living requires courage, Jesus teaches us so, Luke 22:42 http://biblehub.com/luke/22-42.htm 

Even though Jesus waivered, he still went through his ordeal as God's will. He was no coward.

By decoding their use of the concept of usufruct, you have given us the opportunity to hold accountable those that wish to avert their responsibilities and obligations under their oaths.
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.