DEA Stole $3.2 Billion In Cash From Innocent People In Only A Decade

By Justin Gardner

A bombshell report from the Inspector General (IG) at the Department of Justice has exposed the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the colossal thieves they are. According to the report, DEA seized more than $4 billion in cash from people since 2007, but $3.2 billion of the seizures were never connected to any criminal charges. That figure does not even include the seizure of cars and electronics.

This thievery is possible through the insidious practice of civil asset forfeiture (CAF), where law enforcement can seize cash and property on the mere suspicion of being involved in criminal activity. Originally developed in the 1980s to go after organized crime, CAF has mushroomed into a source of revenue for cops across the country – from local to state to federal – in what’s become known as Policing for Profit.

When an innocent person’s cash is stolen by DEA, that person must petition to get it back, meaning the burden of proof (and the burden of time and expense) is on the unlucky victim who never did anything wrong in the first place. In fact, “forfeiture proceedings start from the presumption of guilt.”

It’s a clever scheme, and DEA knows it. The IG found that petitions were filed in only 20 percent of DEA cash seizures. As Reason Magazine points out, the IG report highlights just how arbitrary these seizures can be.

“We found that different task force officers made different decisions in similar situations when deciding whether to seize all of the cash discovered,” the Inspector General wrote. “These differences demonstrate how seizure decisions can appear arbitrary, which should be a concern for the Department, both because of potentially improper conduct and because even the appearance of arbitrary decision-making in asset seizure can fuel public perception that law enforcement is not using this authority legitimately, thereby undermining public confidence in law enforcement.”

The case of a man traveling at an airport with $27,000 is a prime example of how DEA can just take the cash on a whim, without even bothering to pretend it has to do with criminal activity.

When a task force officer explained that the U.S. currency in the bag was going to be seized pending further investigation, the passenger asked whether he could keep some of the currency to travel home. The passenger asserted that all of the currency in the bag was his, and the task force officers allowed him to retain $1,000. This seizure resulted in an administrative forfeiture of $27,000 to the U.S. government, and the DEA explained to the OIG that, other than the events surrounding the seizure, there was no subsequent investigative activity or additional law enforcement benefit.

Reason Magazine sums it up perfectly.

If the DEA task force agents thought that man’s cash was connected to drug activity, why allow him to keep some of it? If they weren’t sure, why take it in the first place? The answer, of course, is there is no logical or legal rationale for this sequence of events.

Indeed, most of the DEA’s cash seizures don’t relate to any criminal investigation, and 82 percent of the cases reviewed by the IG were settled without any judicial review. The DEA focuses on airports, train stations and bus terminals, relying on travel records and a host of confidential informants to target people they believe will have lots of cash.

DEA gives itself wide latitude to pin you as a suspect for detainment and search. Woe to those “traveling to or from a known source city for drug trafficking, purchasing a ticket within 24 hours of travel, purchasing a ticket for a long flight with an immediate return, purchasing a one-way ticket, and traveling without checked luggage.”

The IG concludes that DEA is posing great risks to civil liberties by continuing the practices highlighted in its report.

‘When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution.’

The IG states that “risks to civil liberties are particularly significant when seizures that do not advance or relate to an investigation are conducted without a court-issued seizure warrant, the presence of illicit narcotics, or subsequent judicial involvement prior to administrative forfeiture.”

The threat to civil liberties posed by CAF is being recognized more and more, as states continue to abolish the practice by requiring a criminal conviction before cash and assets can be seized. But the federal government is a primary reason why CAF still runs rampant, through the euphemistically named Equitable Sharing Fund where the stolen loot (amounting to $28 billion over the last decade) is shared by federal and state drug task forces.

These findings fundamentally undercut law enforcement’s claim that civil forfeiture is a vital crime-fighting tool. Americans are already outraged at the Justice Department’s aggressive use of civil forfeiture, which has mushroomed into a multibillion dollar program in the last decade. This report only further confirms what we have been saying all along: Forfeiture laws create perverse financial incentives to seize property without judicial oversight and violate due process.

This report is one more illustration that the only solution to resolving these issues is to end the use of civil forfeiture once and for all. – The Institute for Justice

Justin Gardner writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this articlefirst appeared.

http://jahtruth.net/comand.htm

THE
12 COMMANDMENTS
(10+2)

1. YOU shall love, honour, cherish and obey the Lord your God (love, good and truth) with ALL your heart, with ALL your mind, with ALL your soul and with ALL your strength and Him ONLY shall you serve and OBEY, forsaking ALL others.

2. YOU shall NOT create an image or likeness of ANYTHING that is IN HEAVEN, or on earth, or under the sea and YOU shall NOT worship or BUY such things. YOU shall NOTbow down to them or serve them for I the "I AM" your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate (or disobey) Me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love (and obey) Me, and KEEP My COMMANDMENTS.
3. Honour your Father in Heaven and KEEP His COMMANDMENTS; LAWS; Statutes; Judgements; Economic Policy; Agricultural Policy and Diet that He gave to YOU and your Mother, the British Nation Israel, His wife (metaphorically), at Mt. Sinai and make Him proud of YOU.

4. YOU shall NOT commit adultery, either physically, individually, or spiritually, nationally or individually but shall be FAITHFUL to God, your word and your spouse, also NOT committing adultery nationally by following the wrong examples of other nations.

5. YOU shall NOT use the Lord's name, unless you are speaking to Him, or about Him, then you will not waste His time or insult Him.

6. Love your neighbour (not physically) as much as, or more than, you love your "Self". Then you will not do wrong, or lie, to anyone - John 15 v 13.
Do NOT desire eagerly, or touch, anything that does not belong to you. It belongs to your neighbour, not you, and YOU must respect HIS property. Your neighbour is the person next to you and the person on the far side of the planet and everyone in between.

7. YOU shall NOT lie, even to your "Self".

8. Remember the Sabbath and KEEP it Holy. It is NOT wrong to do GOOD deeds on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man. Man was not made for the Sabbath.

9. YOU shall NOT steal. Neither shall you make up your own laws to enable you to do so by deceiving people.

10. YOU shall NOT murder - kill illegally.

11. YOU shall love one another as much as I love you and in the same way - spiritually not physically - John 15 v 13. IF you DO this, ALL men will KNOW that you ARE my disciples and are exercising and learning "Self" discipline - Discipleship.

12. Judge no-one, so that you will not be judged, by God, for by whatever judgement you judge another, unjustly, you condemn yourself to the same punishment. Judging is God's job exclusively, as He is always unbiased, impartial, uncorruptible and just. He has given His judgements, in His Law Books given to you at Mt. Sinai, by which He judges those who break His Laws. There are NO other laws on this planet that are LEGAL. God has strictly FORBIDDEN man from making up laws (Deuteronomy 4:2). God's Laws are the same for everyone. God does NOT have separate Laws - one for the rich and another one for the poor.  

H.M. GOVERNMENT
+HEALTH WARNING+
Breaking The 12 (10+2)
COMMANDments
SERIOUSLY damages YOUR healthCopyright © 1995 - JAH - all rights reserved

1984
YOU ARE NEXT
JUST REQUIRES YOUR PIN NUMBER !!!!!!!
DEA
DEADBEATS Enforcement Administration
DEALS, ENRICHMENT, ADDICTION.
DAILY, ENFORCED, mis-administration
the body of people who administer an organization
WHO ARE CORRUPT, LIARS AND DECEIVERS
PACK OF THIEVES, PACK OF WOLVES,
WHO BLEED DRY THE SAP OF EVERYONE
WHO DO NOT CARE,
HAVE NO COMPASSION,
NO MERCY,
NO Empathy,
no love,
no morals,
are lawless,
make up there own rules,
and regulations.
they all work for there father satan,
who also is a totally
CORRUPT, full of lies AND the best DECEIVER,
RUNS AND LEADS THE PACK OF THIEVES, LIKE A PACK OF WOLVES,
WHO BLEED DRY THE SAP OF EVERYONE
WHO DO NOT CARE,
HAVE NO COMPASSION,
NO MERCY,
NO Empathy,
no love,
no morals,
are lawless,
make up there own rules,
and regulations.

DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deuteronomy 4:2
4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the Statutes and unto the Judgments, which I teach you, for to DO [them], that ye may LIVE, and go in and possess the land which the "I AM" God of your fathers giveth you.
4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.

4:6 KEEP therefore and DO [them]; for this [is] your Wisdom and your Understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these Statutes, and say, Surely this great nation [is] a wise and understanding people.

5:7 Thou shalt have none other gods before Me.
5:8 Thou shalt not make thee [ANY] graven image, [or] ANY likeness [of ANY thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the waters beneath the earth [neither shalt thou possess them if others make them (ch. 7:26)]:
5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the "I AM" thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate [or disobey] Me,
5:10 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love [and obey] Me and KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.
5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of the "I AM" thy God in vain (use it when not talking to Him, or about Him): for the "I AM" will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh His name in vain [and thus wasteth His time or insulteth Him].
5:12 Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the "I AM" thy God hath commanded thee. [It is NOT wrong to do GOOD deeds on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man. Man was not made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27 to 3:5).]
5:13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
5:14 But the seventh day (Saturday) [is] the Sabbath of the "I AM" thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
5:15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and [that] the "I AM" thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the "I AM" thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.
5:16 Honour thy Father and thy mother (Israel) and keep The Covenant, as the "I AM" thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the "I AM" thy God giveth thee.
5:17 Thou shalt NOT murder (kill un-Lawfully).
5:18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery [neither personally, nor nationally].
5:19 Neither shalt thou steal [nor make up thine own laws to enable thee to do so by fraud (deceiving people)].
5:20 Neither shalt thou tell lies [not even to thy "Self", neither to, nor] against thy neighbour.
5:21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any [thing] that [is] thy neighbour's.
http://jahtruth.net/comand.htm

The Nature of Money: Who owns your currency?

The Nature of Money: Who owns your currency?

https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/the-nature-of-money-who-owns-your-currency/

Money

Image by TW Collins via Flickr

As illustrated in last week’s comments on the nature of money, our government prints and sells paper Federal Reserve Notes (“FRNs”) at cost to the Fed­eral Reserve System (“Fed”).  The Fed then legally owns those FRNs and subsequently loans them into circulation in the US economy.

Implication?  The Federal Reserve not only owns legal title to the FRNs in your wallet—it also owns legal title to whatever you purchase with those FRNs.

Most of what follows is speculation.  I know I’m reaching conclusions that seem impossible, but consider . . . .

•  There’s an ancient principle that whoever owns the money, owns whatever the money is used to buy.  For example, suppose I lived 2,000 years ago and gave my servant some money (pieces of silver) to go town to buy me a new donkey.  If my servant was unfaithful, he might buy a donkey with my money, but ask the donkey salesman to write the receipt (title to the donkey) so as to wrongfully identify the servant (rather than me) as the new owner of the donkey.  But, if I could later prove that I owned the money (silver) used to buy the donkey, I could reclaim title and ownership of the donkey.

•  Suppose I lend my pen to Bob and he uses it to write a short story.  People would naturally presume from Bob’s use of the pen that he owned the pen.

It’s even possible that Bob, after using the pen for some time, might come to think of it as “Bob’s pen”.

But if I loaned that pen to Bob, no matter how much he used it, it would still my pen.  I would own the pen.  I’d own to the ink inside the pen.  It’s even arguable that I might therefore have an ownership interest in whatever short story Bob wrote with my pen and my ink.

Yes, I may have authorized Bob to use my pen, but unless I gave the pen to him as gift or sold the pen to Bob, so long as I loaned the pen to Bob, I retained legal title (actual ownership, control and right of disposal) to that pen.

Bob, at best, might have equitable title (right of use—but not ownership) to the “loaned” pen.

•  Let’s apply these principles (1. Whoever owns the money, owns whatever it’s used to buy; and 2. The lender (at least) retains legal title to whatever was lent until the loan is repaid) to our modern currency:

Given that the Federal Reserve (a private entity) buys the paper FRNs at cost from the federal government, the Fed has acquired both legal and equitable titles to the FRNs. The Fed owns those green pieces of paper.

When the Fed (owner) subsequently loans those FRNs into circulation, the Fed retains legal title (actual right of ownership, control and disposal) of those FRNs—at least until the original loan is repaid in full.  Thus, until that original loan is repaid, the Fed owns legal title to every green piece of paper in your wallet.

•  Much like Bob had the right to “use” the pen I loaned him, you also have the right to “use” the FRNs in your wallet.  That right of “use” constitutes equitable title to the FRNs.

So what?  What difference does it make?

Lots.

It’s the difference between being a free man and being a slave (or at least a sharecropper).

Why?

First, because when you use FRNs to purchase goods, cars, computers, and homes, you don’t actually buy the product, you purchase a title to product.

For example, virtually everyone supposes that when you purchase a new car, you buy the metal, plastic, chrome and leather that’s assembled into the physical automobile.  But that’s not true.  What you really purchased was not the physical car; you purchased the piece of paper that constitutes title to the physical car.  And not one man in a thousand even knows what the title to his car is. (It’s the MSO—Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin).

You thought you were buying a new, sweet-smelling automobile.  In fact, you purchased that seemingly inconsequential piece of paper called the MSO—the seemingly insignificant piece of paper (evidence of the complete or perfect title) that ultimately determines both ownership (legal title) and right of use (equitable title) to drive “your” car.  And what did you do with the title/MSO?  You gave it to the State.

Your right to drive a particular car does not flow from the keys in your pocket or the gas you put in the tank.  It flows from your title to that particular car.

The reason you can’t drive “my” car (at least not without my permission) is that I hold a title to “my” car.  Likewise, if I try to drive “your” car without your permission, you can charge me with unauthorized use (not theft) of a motor vehicle.

•  The same principle applies to computers, foods and homes.  You don’t purchase the physical object.  You purchase a title to that physical object.

Think not?  Go to a grocery store and purchase some food.  Try to get out of the store without the cashier obstinately handing you the receipt.  They always make a point of handing you the receipt.  Hasn’t that ever bothered you?  Why do the clerks insist on handing you the silly receipt?  Why not just throw the receipt in the trash?

Why?  Because the receipt is a title (or at least evidence of title) to the groceries you purchased.  You thought you were buying a steak.  In fact, you were purchasing a title (the receipt) to that steak.  The clerk must give you what you actually paid for—not the steak, but the title (the paper receipt) to the steak.

Your right to eat that steak flows from your title (paper receipt) to the steak.

Your right to drive a car flows from your title to that car.

Your right to live in a home flows from your title to that home.

You didn’t buy the food; you purchased a title to the food.

You didn’t buy the car; you purchased a title to the car.

You didn’t buy the home; you purchased a title to the home.

Once you begin to grasp the significance of “title,” you’ll begin to pay more attention to the paperwork involved in your purchases, than to the sizzling of steaks, sweet-smell of cars, and number of bathrooms in the mansions you seek to acquire.

•  But here’s the rub—and it’s a big rub.  You are only entitled to receive as much title to the property purchased as you had in the currency you used to make the purchase.  (Remember?  The man who owns the money, owns whatever the money is used to buy.)

When America had real money (gold and silver coin) in circulation, that real money was not loaned into circulation. Gold or silver ingots were bought with taxpayer dollars and coined by the government and then spent or sold into the economy—without being initially loaned into circulation by a private party.  That gold/silver coin was an asset.  It was the people’s money and held and conveyed both legal and equitable titles.  It was a “medium of exchange” whereby a man who held both legal and equitable title to, say, a parcel of land, could sell both legal and equitable title to that land to another man who paid for the title with lawful money that also carried intrinsic legal and equitable titles.

•  Insofar as I have legal and equitable titles to one hundred $20 gold coins, I can use those coins to buy legal and equitable titles to land and a home.

But if I only have equitable title to the currency I use to purchase that same piece of land, I can only receive equitable title (right of use) to that land and home.  The legal title goes to whoever holds legal title (right of ownership, control and disposal) to the currency I’m using.

So what?  I’ve got the land and home.  I can raise crops or cattle or add a garage.  What do I care if I have legal title, equitable title or any title?

Here’s why I should care (and so should you):  If I had both legal and equitable titles to the currency I used to purchase “my” land, I’d also be entitled to receive both the legal and equitable titles to the land.  As a result, that land and my home would truly be my “castle”.  I would own it to the exclusion of all others and I could use it however I pleased.

But if FRNs are loaned into circulation and the legal title therefore remains with the lender (Fed), then I can only have equitable title to “my” currency and I can only use that currency to acquire equitable title to “my” land.

If I only held equitable title to “my” land, the home I built on that land would not actually be my “castle”.

Ohh, a lot of people might envy me for “my” land and “my” home.  I, myself, might become quite proud of “my” home and “my land”.

But that land and home wouldn’t really be mine. Instead, so long as the Fed retained legal title to the currency used to purchase “my” land, the Fed would hold legal title to the land purchased with its currency.

I could puff out my chest and strut around “my” land like a king strolling about his castle, but the Fed would know that I was a fool.  Because I didn’t hold legal title to “my” land/home, I’d be merely a sharecropper strutting around the “massa’s” home and land.

While I might think of myself as a land “owner,” I’d really be just a sharecropper on the “massa’s” land.  Ohh, the massa (the Fed) would let me ‘n my woman raise our brood of “pickininneys” on what I mistakenly thought of as “my” land—provided that I work the massa’s land, take care of the massa’s home, follow all of the massa’s rules and regulations, and give part of whatever I earn to the massa in the form of “taxes”.

But if I got uppity and stopped working, stopped caring for the massa’s property, stopped paying the massa his “share” on my labor, or stopped obeying the massa’s rules and regulations—the massa could seize “my” home in a heartbeat, and throw me and my family off “our” land.  Because the “massa” (Fed) held legal title to the currency used to purchase “my” home, that massa could summarily prove that the land and home were never really “my castle” but merely a shack that the massa had allowed me to use on the “global plantation”.

•  The possibility that you and I don’t really “own” legal title the “money” in our wallets might also explain stories about government simply seizing someone’s cash and refusing to give it back, even if the original pos­sessor did nothing illegal.

I.e., if it’s not really “our” money (only pieces of paper which are truly owned by the Fed) we may have possession (equitable title) to “our” FRNs, but no legal title (actual right of ownership and disposal) to reclaim “our” FRNs.  If we don’t really “own” our currency, what right do we have to complain if the true owner (or his agents) takes that currency from us?

•  I’m told that the average “lifespan” of a FRN is about 18 months.  After that, the FRNs are removed from circulation by burning them.

Isn’t that strange?  Burning “money”?

After all, who ever heard of anyone “burning” gold or silver coins (real money) when they became too old?  Yes, those old coins—if they’re sufficiently worn—might be melted down and recast into newer gold or silver coins.  But nobody in their right mind would absolutely destroy any gold or silver coins, no matter how worn or illegible.

When you stop to think about it, burning FRNs is absolute evidence that those FRNs have no intrinsic value. They are mere “units of account”.  Numbers.

I can’t prove it, but I suspect that FRN’s aren’t being burnt because they’re worn out, but because they’re so old that the original loan which placed them into circulation may have been repaid and therefore legal title to those “old” FRN’s may have defaulted to the current possessor.  If the original loan were repaid, the Fed would lose legal title to the FRNs.  As a result, those old FRNs would then include both intrinsic legal and intrinsic equitable titles.  If the FRNs carried both legal and equitable title, they’d be “good as gold” in that they might actually be used to acquire both legal and equitable title to property.

I strongly suspect that the old FRNs are being burnt before the original loans are repaid and the FRNs’ acquire legal title and become “units of value” rather than mere “units of account” (numbers).  If we owned legal title to our currency, we could pay rather than merely discharge our debts.  We could “buy” rather than merely “purchase”.   If we could actually pay our bills with a currency to which carried intrinsic legal title, we could actually own property and our home might truly be “our castle”.

•  I know that all of this speculation concerning FRNs sounds too fantastic to be true.  But, consider that in a similar vein, on April 14, A.D. 1993, Former IRS Commissioner Shirley Peterson said publicly that the In­ternal Revenue Code (IRC) is now:

“… a virtual impenetrable maze. The rules are unintelli­gible to most citizens—including those holding advanced de­grees and . . . specialize in tax law. The rules are equally mysterious to many government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law ….”

Based on a an alleged system of “laws” that even an IRS Commis­sioner can’t understand, our government takes so much of our earning as to drive us toward poverty, precipitate divorces, bankrupt busi­nesses, incarcerate some of us and push others toward suicide, alcoholism or conspiracies to bomb government buildings.  It’s no accident that our “money” system is every bit as “impenetrable … unintelligible … mysterious” as the IRC.

How can an entire nation fail to under­stand its own tax and monetary systems?  Are we to believe that the creation of a relatively concise, comprehensible monetary and tax codes are simply impossible?  Or is it more likely that the laws concerning money and taxes are written to be intentionally incomprehensible in order to prevent us from engaging in the kind of speculation seen in this article and perhaps even discovering the truth?

Q.  What is this mysterious “truth”?

A:  That currency involves two titles: legal and equitable; that the Federal Reserve, by loaning FRNs into circulation, divides the equitable and legal titles to the FRNs and to whatever FRNs are used to purchase; that the Federal Reserve owns legal title to whatever is purchased with FRNs.

•  There’s a lot more to money than mere counting.  Insofar as you use FRNs, your government presumes you to be a virtual sharecropper who doesn’t really own anything.

More importantly, until you understand the nature of money, you’ll never be free.

Written at arm’s length and without the singular “United States” (“this state”) by Alfred Adask

http://jahtruth.net/truth.htm

Welcome to the
JAH "The Truth about..." Page.

 

In speaking of the Truth, Henry David Thoreau once said: "Any Truth is better than make-believe ... rather than love, than money, than fame, give me Truth."

 Winston Churchill is quoted as having once said: "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened." Just as a bell that has been rung cannot be "unrung", the annoying problem with the Truth is that, once you learn it, you can not"unlearn" it. 

 http://jahtruth.net/defin.htm

Titles purposely designed to deceive.

 

Have you ever taken the time to analyse just how many things in life are designed to deceive us and how many things we have been taught, that just aren't so?

For example:-

The Honourable M.P. for . . . - denotes a politician and everyone knows that most politicians are professional liars and therefore are the opposite of the definition.

Italian Renaissance statesman and political writer, Niccolo Machiavelli, wrote in The Prince, one of the most influential political works of all time, that governments are created to lie to the greatest number of people the greatest amount of the time.
And why do governments lie? Why, to cover up their previous lies in order to protect the perpetrators, of course.

Conservatism:- Conservatism in politics denotes a party whose doctrine is runaway consumerism and a disposable and "throw-away" society. Conservatism and Consumerism are by definition opposites. It is impossible to consume and conserve: it is either consumed or it is conserved and it is impossible for one to be the same as the other, so Conservatism is the opposite of its definition.

Labour - Labourism in politics normally denotes people wanting as much pay as possible for the least amount of labour, so Labourism is the opposite of its definition.

National Economy - a national economy in the western world is totally wasteful; where most products are consumed and thrown away as quickly as possible and are actually manufactured to be waste within a very short space of time; so a National Economy is the opposite of its definition.

Feminism - denotes women who want to be men and who act in a totally unfeminine manner, so feminism is the opposite of its definition.

Gay-homosexual - denotes someone who is unhappy with their gender and wants to pretend to be the opposite gender or to have a relationship with someone of the same gender because they are not happy with normality, so gay, which really means happy, is the opposite of its definition.

These groups of people choose a title that is the opposite of what they are or do to try to deceive the world into believing that they are something that they are not. In other words they are a LIE designed to hide the TRUTH and deceive us.

Please feel free to add your own discoveries to this list.

Here's one or two to get you started:-

Holiday - holy-day to worship and serve God; now used to denote the period/s when people often go abroad and spend their time doing many different unholy acts that they would not dare to be seen doing at home, so holiday is now the opposite of its definition.
Joy-riding - the unlawful, "taking without the owner's consent" (TWOCing - theft in the eyes of most sensible people) of another person's motor-vehicle, which often involves damage to, or the "writing-off" of the vehicle and the death and/or injury of innocent third-parties, as well as the perpetrators themselves, causing havoc and distress, not only to the owner, but to everyone concerned. So joy-riding is the opposite of its definition, because, even if there is no damage done to the vehicle, the owner is left distressed, at what he considers to be the theft of his vehicle, and greatly inconvenienced. There is certainly no joy in that.
Diocese - Dio-cese (Dio=God in Italian and ce(a)se, that is a dio-cese is an area of Catholic-priest influence, teaching men to cease communicating effectively with Father/God!)
Jewel - El is Hebrew for God, so JEW-EL or JEW-GOD means that jewels are worshipped as gods by so-called Jews; many of whom are jewellers; whilst claiming to worship God.
Noel - El is Hebrew for God, so so-called Christians who celebrate NO-EL or NO-GOD are actually celebrating there being no God in their Godless pagan Winter Solstice, drunken, gluttonous, sun-festival called No-el/Xmas/Yuletide.

JAH.

The Nature of Money: Greater Fools & FRNs

The Nature of Money: Greater Fools & FRNs

https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/the-nature-of-money-greater-fools-frns/

Mrs. Jester (the better half)

Image by Will Montague via Flickr

In 1998, everyone knew that the stock market was hugely overvalued. Nevertheless, people continued to purchase more stocks.  These purchases were justified in part by the theory of “greater fools”.

Under the greater fool theory, I can afford to foolishly pay $100 for a stock that’s only worth $50, so long as I can find an even “greater fool” who’ll pay me $150 for the same $50 stock.  My “greater fool” can safely pay me $150 (for the $50 stock) so long as he can find an even greater fool who’ll pay him $200, etc. 

So long as we don’t run out of greater and greater fools, Ponzi economics can flourish indefinitely and all of the fools can seemingly get rich.  But when the bull market of the late 1990s exhausted its supply of fools, the market fell 20%.

In hindsight, that’s all fairly obvious. But, whether we know it or not, all of us still play the “greater fool” game—even if we’re not specu­lating in stocks.

For proof, look in your wallet.  Find any FRNs (Fed­eral Reserve Notes)? If so, your prosperity also depends on the sup­ply and confidence of “greater fools”.

• Last week (in “The Nature of Money: All Rights Flow from Title”) I explained that understanding the difference between legal title (right of ownership and control) and equitable title (right of possession and use) was vital to understanding our “money”.

To illustrate the issue of title, consider your car. Do you own it?

Even if you have a “Certificate of Title,” the answer is No. You have equitable title to your car, but the state has legal title and therefore owns and can control the vehicle.  Be­cause the state owns legal title to “your” car, it can force you to license, register and insure the vehicle.  If you had legal title, the state could not subject you to those requirements.  However, since you’re only entitled to possess and use the car, if you fail to meet the state-owner’s rules, you can be ticketed, jailed, or even compelled to forfeit the “state’s” vehicle.

How do you gain legal title to something?  Primarily by paying for it with lawful money (gold & silver); by paying with a “medium of exchange” (exchange of legal titles) rather than a “medium of transfer” (transfer of equitable titles).

Most people would be astonished to understand that it’s legally impossible to repay your loans with modern debt-based currency like FRNs.  The reason is simple:  You can’t “pay” a debt with another debt.

Given that our FRNs are all loaned into existence, they’re all “debt-based” (promises to pay) and can’t truly “pay” for anything.  As a result, we can’t own (buy legal title to) any prop­erty purchased with FRNs.

Sound crazy?

It is. Our monetary system is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland, eco­nomic madness with Ben Bernanke starring as the “Mad Hatter”.

Will you pay—or merely promise to pay?

FRNs are like IOUs. Suppose I want to sell ten acres of Texas ranchland for $100,000. Suppose no one wants to buy my land, except my friend Rick who not only lacks gold or silver to buy, but doesn’t even have enough FRNs to purchase my land. But if I’m a “motivated seller,” I might agree to accept Rick’s $100,000 IOU (promise to pay) for the land.

Anyone who knows Rick understands that: 1) the probability that he’ll ever actually repay that $100,000 IOU is zero; and 2) I was a fool to accept Rick’s $100,000 IOU in trade for my land.

Even so, fool that I am, all is not lost. If I can find an even greater fool to accept Rick’s IOU in trade for something I want, I can prosper.

Suppose I found a cabin on five acres in Minnesota that the owner was willing to trade for Rick’s IOU.  I would’ve found my “greater fool” and prospered.

The Minnesota fool would take Rick’s worthless IOU so long as he had confidence that he, too, could find an even “greater fool” to take the IOU in return for something the Minnesota fool wanted—say, $100,000 worth of Hawaiian pineapples.  The process works just fine so long as everyone can find a greater fool willing to ac­cept Rick’s worthless IOU.

•  However, there are some problems.

First, Rick never ac­tually paid for my ten acres of ranchland. All he did was “prom­ise to pay” (create a debt) by writing “IOU $100,000” on a scrap of brown grocery bag paper and sign his name. His total “cost” for purchasing my ten acres was a scrap of paper, some ink, and whatever effort it required to write a few words. In essence, he “purchased” my land for nothing.

If you think that’s bad, just wait until Rick realizes he can write even more IOUs to other fools. Pretty soon, Rick will have a new Ferrari, a mansion, a bevy of big-chested blonds, and may even run for the Senate. So long as he doesn’t run out of ink and grocery bag paper, Rick could purchase the whole state despite the fact that he’s never done an honest day’s work.

Obviously, there’s something fundamentally unjust about empow­ering anyone (be it my friend Rick or Ben Bernanke) to purchase real property with pieces of worthless paper (be they IOUs or FRNs).  While everyone else has to work to create assets to trade for their food, shelter and property, the person who prints the paper currency (debt instruments) need do nothing but occasionally sign his name. Should we be surprised if a person entitled to pass mere promises to pay (debts) rather than actual payments (physical gold and silver ) eventually comes to “own” the whole earth?

• Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part that States shall not “make any Thing but gold or silver Coin Tender in Payment of Debts.” But a “tender” is not a “legal tender”. A “tender” is an offer to pay a debt that a creditor may freely choose to accept or reject. However, a “legal tender” is an offer to “discharge” a debt with a worthless debt instrument which—though acknowledged to be worthless—cannot be refused.  If you’ve offered to sell your car, house or land—you are required by law to accept perfectly worthless FRNs (“legal tender”) as “payment” for your property.

For example, I can “tender” (offer) Rick’s intrinsically worthless $100,000 IOU to purchase a Minnesota cabin; the Minnesota “owner” is free accept or reject my offer. But if Rick could persuade Congress to pass a law that declared “Rick’s Reserve Notes” to be “legal tender,” then, when I “tendered” Rick’s IOU for the Minnesota cabin, the previous homeowner would be effectively forced to accept that “legal tender” of intrinsically worthless paper in trade for possession of his valuable house.  His only hope in taking my worthless “legal tender” would be that he might find (or even create) some other, “greater fool” who would again accept the “legal tender”.

Of course, Congress passed no such laws on Rick’s behalf, but Congress did pass such laws to favor the Federal Reserve System and cause FRNs (which are just as intrinsically worthless as Rick’s IOU) to be accepted as a legal tender—but not a “payment”—for any debt.

Government-granted privileges

The federal government granted the Federal Reserve System a very special privilege: in violation of the Constitution, Congress legislated FRNs to be “legal tender”. Although the FRN has no more intrinsic value than Rick’s IOU, thanks to the “legal tender” law, we theoretically shouldn’t have to worry about finding a “greater fool” when we accept a worthless FRN.

With FRNs we needn’t worry that some smart guy might refuse to accept our worthless pieces of paper. Because each FRN carries the legal notice “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE,” even the guys who understand that FRNs are worthless must nevertheless accept them—whether they want ’em or not.

By passing “legal tender” laws, our government has forced Americans to accept the status of “greater fool”—i.e., we are required by law accept worthless pieces of paper in return for our labor and tangible property. And if you think you’re not a “greater fool” than the guy you got the FRN from, consider that, thanks to inflation, a FRN worth $1 in 1933 is worth less than a nickel, today. Since A.D. 2000, the FRN’s purchasing power has fallen by at least 40%.  Every FRN you’ve ever received is worth less today than the day you accepted it.  FRNs are constantly “leaking” value.  If you’re saving your wealth in the form of FRNs, you’re a fool.

The “greater fool” legal tender system is a Ponzi scheme. More, since each successive fool must be an increasingly “greater” fool, the magnitude of the economic foolishness eventually rises to a point where even public school graduates recognize the madness, refuse to play and start buying gold and silver. Once we run out of “greater” fools (as we inevitably must and are beginning to do), the system must collapse.

•  Why collapse?  In large measure because a debt can’t be paid by an­other debt (a “promise to pay”)—it can only be paid by the exchange of substance for substance, like for like, legal title for legal title.

As debt-instruments, FRNs can be used to transfer use (equitable title) of property from one person to another, but they can’t convey/exchange that property’s legal title between the immediate buyer and seller.

As a result, we are deemed to merely possess (but not actually own) whatever we’ve “purchased” (not bought) with FRNs, checks, or credit cards. Our debt-based currency thereby makes us poor and reduces us to the status of eternal sharecrop­pers who are foolishly working to possess that which we cannot truly own.

Americans like to hear the mantra that “America is the richest country on earth.”  But the truth is that the total American debt (governmental and private) is estimated to be at least $75 trillion.  We appear to be wealthy because we’ve used our MasterCard to pay off our Visa to pay off our American Express.    But the truth is that we are the biggest debtor-nation in the world.  By that standard, we are not the richest nation.  We are arguably the poorest. The Emperor is buck nekkid.

America’s illusion of wealth has been maintained in part by exporting trillions of FRNs (debt instruments) that Americans might not take to foreign countries and investors.  But these foreign “fools” are running out of “greater (foreign) fools”.  Because they’re no longer able to dump their FRNs on the international market without offering significant discounts, the foreign FRN-holding fools are coming back to the USA to buy our businesses, stocks and natural resources.  And they’ll be able to trade all of their worthless FRNs for tangible American resources because our “legal tender” laws force Americans to be the “greater fools of last resort” and accept those worthless FRNs in trade for our resources.  As we’re finally forced by law to trade our resources for worthless FRNs, we may finally discover that we are not the world’s richest country, but one of the poorest.

Quantity vs. Quality

If your “money” is debt-based FRNs, it constitutes a loan and legal title to the FRNs remain with the lender.  Therefore legal title to whatever you think you’re “buying” actually belongs to the entity that loaned the debt-based FRNs into circulation (the Federal Reserve System). You only “purchase” equitable title to property with FRNs.

As a result, though it seems unbelievable, the quality of your “money” is more important than the quantity.  You can buy more (legal title) with one dollar’s worth of lawful money than you can with a million “dollars” worth of legal tender (which can only get you equitable title).

Since there’s virtually no lawful money (gold/silver) in circulation, you can’t acquire legal title to property you purchase.  As a result, government (acting in concert with the Federal Re­serve System) can fine you for failing to mow “your” lawn or jail you for driving “your” car without insurance.

Why? Because they’re not really “your” lawn or “your” car—they’re the Federal Reserve’s and/or the federal government’s.  You merely get to “use” those properties much like sharecroppers are entitled to “use” (but not own) farm property owned by their “masters”.  Thanks to FRNs and legal tender laws, the state/Federal Reserve System “owns” legal title to virtually all the property you believe is “yours”.

Without legal title, you have no legal rights to that property, you have no standing at law or access to courts of law (which are in­tended to determine legal rights). You have only equitable rights and access to courts of equity wherein the judge rules according to his own “conscience” and can slap you around however he likes (judicial activism; judge-made law). All of these disabilities flow from the quality of your “money” rather than the quantity.

In the 1990s, a number of individuals (particularly in Oregon) bought automobiles and secured bills of sale that expressly reflected the fact that the automobiles were paid for, in part, with genuine, pre-1964 silver dimes (lawful money).  When traffic cops tried to ticket to these drivers, the drivers went to court, produced the bills of sale and the judges dismissed the tickets.

Why?  Because the buyers had paid (at least in part) for their cars with lawful money and therefore had some claim to the legal title of the automobile.  The state didn’t clearly own legal title to the automobile and therefore couldn’t regulate its use by issuing traffic tickets.

Today, the government’s defenses against using a stack of silver dimes to buy legal title have become more sophisticated.  It’s harder to make an effective claim of legal title to your property, but if you’re very knowledgeable, it can still be done.

My point is that even if you offer $1 million in FRNs, you won’t usually get legal title to a new car.  But if your payment includes over 20 silver dollars, you might be able to get legal title.

The quality of your money is ultimately more important than the quantity.

•  Remember the old saying about “A fool and his money”? Today, thanks to the legal tender laws, that saying might be updated to, “A fool and his law (or perhaps a fool and his legal rights) are soon parted.”

Are we fools? Yes. We are “statutory fools”—fools-in-law.

Why?

Because our government betrayed our trust and passed legal tender laws which force us to be the “greater fools” who merrily accept worthless paper as if it were lawful money. By playing the fool, we’ve lost most of our legal rights and our access to courts of law. Like Esau, we’ve traded our inheritance for bowls of pottage.

If you would regain your inheritance and your liberty, stop playing the fool—compel your government to restore a constitutional money.

Written at arm’s length and without the singular “United States” (“this state”) by Alfred Adask