The Federal Reserve is Criminal Syndicate, a private Criminal Syndicate

Quote from FireWalker:

Please bring up your "points" in bullet-point format and I (and others) will address them one at a time. Which points have you made that are "well documented"?

Here are mine:
- the Federal Reserve has been kiting checks since at least 1971
- due to lack of consideration (legal principle) all Treasury bonds are null and void
- the US Treasury owes nothing to the Federal Reserve
More...

"consideration" can be a promise to do something. so I do not see how you can say there was no consideration.

In exchange for providing a banking services .. the FED gets to flip out bonds for a profit. Its a great gig if you can get it. How can you argue there is no consideration.

nevertheless - in the end the most dominant principle is the power theory of international law. He who has the power makes the rules.

If the U.S. Govt controls the U.S. military... it can tell any one it wishes to pound sand. Those notes and bonds could be turned into confetti tomorrow. That is the right of sovereign.

Unless of course your are in europe and your country turned the power of money over to an "international" body or the germans. And even then greece could bail on the EU and issue Drachmanus.
 
Quote from DontMissTheBus:

We were talking about EO11110, not what you are talking about.

Your points are nonsense, nonetheless - but I'm curious - why are all Treasury bonds null and void (without consideration, as you say?) Do you believe securities are null and void? Stocks are null and void for the same reasons?
More...

EO11110 is more of a historical reference, not current events. I am more concerned about the present rather than what happened in the 1960s or 1980s.

Stocks are not null and void. Securities are probably not null and void either.

The reason US Treasury bonds are null and void is because there was no consideration conveyed to the Treasury when the Federal Reserve accepted the $100k bonds. The legal principle of "consideration" basically says that for a contract to be valid, consideration must be conveyed by both parties. Does that explain it? Or should I go into more examples or detail?
 
Quote from DontMissTheBus:

you have nothing to say i. Figured as much.

utter stupidity.
More...
seems to be a theme in your 4+ posts per day in a little over a month since you donned your "dont"miss the bus alias..even your moniker is negative..why are you here on a trading site,didn't see any posts regarding trading
 
Promise Language is the way to go.

Person 1 says: "I promise to give you this $5 dollar bill in exchange for that sandwich."
Person 2 says: "Ok. I promise to give you this sandwich in exchange for that $5 dollar bill."

Person 1 hands $5 bill to Person 2.
Person 2 hands sandwich to Person 1.

Transaction complete.


FYI, you could the above into a computer to track all your transactions. Solves money.

Advanced:
I have a diamond in a wealth storage facility.
I have a diamond card with a Mastercard symbol.
I go to the store to purchase a sandwich with said card.
The store only accepts USD.
I hand my diamond card to the store clerk.
He hands me a sandwich.
Behind the scenes, a wealth translation occurs.
The store receives USD.
I paid with a tiny fraction of my diamond.

Transaction complete.
 
Hahaha - with very few exceptions - there's no discussion on trading on this site that's actually about trading. So no, I'm not here to talk about trading (other side of Martingoul and a few others, no one here really understands what I trade anyway).

I do enjoy 'discussing' these fringe conspiracies you guys have - though - because I don't really find people this crazy in real life.

Quote from ammo:

seems to be a theme in your 4+ posts per day in a little over a month since you donned your "dont"miss the bus alias..even your moniker is negative..why are you here on a trading site,didn't see any posts regarding trading
More...
 
I see you've read the first chapter of a contracts law book. Good for you.

Except, in this case, the Fed is an agency of the US government (despite whether you think it is or not) with delegated powers; Its relationship with the Treasury and the government is not contractual, but legal.

As to your specific claim, I have no idea what "Treasury when the Federal Reserve accepted the $100k bonds" means; The treasury issues bonds. The Fed conducts open market operations separately. Money is paid or received when the Fed trades in the open market. Isn't that money and the flow of coupons/principals mutual consideration between the buyer and sell of a treasury bond?


Quote from FireWalker:

The reason US Treasury bonds are null and void is because there was no consideration conveyed to the Treasury when the Federal Reserve accepted the $100k bonds. The legal principle of "consideration" basically says that for a contract to be valid, consideration must be conveyed by both parties. Does that explain it? Or should I go into more examples or detail?
More...
 
Quote from FireWalker:

Promise Language is the way to go.

Person 1 says: "I promise to give you this $5 dollar bill in exchange for that sandwich."
Person 2 says: "Ok. I promise to give you this sandwich in exchange for that $5 dollar bill."

Person 1 hands $5 bill to Person 2.
Person 2 hands sandwich to Person 1.

Transaction complete.


FYI, you could the above into a computer to track all your transactions. Solves money.

Advanced:
I have a diamond in a wealth storage facility.
I have a diamond card with a Mastercard symbol.
I go to the store to purchase a sandwich with said card.
The store only accepts USD.
I hand my diamond card to the store clerk.
He hands me a sandwich.
Behind the scenes, a wealth translation occurs.
The store receives USD.
I paid with a tiny fraction of my diamond.

Transaction complete.
More...

Only living beings can make promises of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top