---
Over dinner one night, I asked my son how school was going. Every time I ask about school, I always follow up with a simple question: Are you experiencing any bullying? It’s the one thing I want to teach him how to handle because he’s a great kid and cares for others—something a bully can manipulate and even drive out of him. My son told me about a kid named V who was cheating at recess during a game of foursquare. Foursquare is a game where four people stand in four connecting circles and bounce balls into each other’s squares. If you bounce your ball into an opponent’s square and they are unable to return it to another square, then they are out and have to go to the back of the line. V was in the king square but was changing the rules to get there and stay there. When V would hit the ball out of people's squares, he would declare them out. My son and everyone else were very frustrated with V but didn't know what to do. Some protested. Some quit. V stayed. None were bold or strong enough to remove V from the king square.
The best way to fight a cheater is not to complain or resist but to comply. If you grant a cheater their rules, they'll give up. So I told my son to do this: When V knocks it out of someone's square and calls that person out, support him. Wink at the other person but support him. Then you knock it out of V's square and call him out. If V protests, tell him those are his rules. If he still protests, address the group of kids and say, "Oh, I thought we were playing your version of foursquare. You want to play V wins? Everyone, did you know that V is playing V Wins? Is that what everyone wants to play?" I am proud to say my son did this, and when he declared V out, he didn't want to leave. When my son delivered the line about playing V Wins, the cheater cowered to the back of the line. A bully and a cheater depend on you playing by their rules while you play by the right rules. They cannot tolerate equal treatment under the law.
In my case, I have taken out loans for mortgages, cars, and other consumer goods such as gold and silver. The picture above is of me at the Porsche dealership buying one of my dream cars. Unfortunately, I have reason to suspect that banks such as Chase, American Express, Alliant Credit Union, USAA, and Porsche financing received loans that were created "from nothing," violating contract law and committing fraud, essentially stealing from their customers by this special privilege. For this reason, I do not plan to pay back these loans, and when the banks come to repossess their property, this will be my legal argument.
When banks create loans, they do not provide assets that were on their books for consideration prior to the contract being signed. Instead, they create this bank credit from nothing. This technically nullifies any contract since contract law states that consideration must be provided by each party for the transaction to be valid. Since the money was not an asset on the bank’s balance sheet before the exchange, it cannot be considered consideration in the transaction. Regardless, however, the practice of money creation is a practice that must either be allowed by all or allowed by none.
Either I can create money from nothing or Chase Bank can’t.
Either I can commit fraud or American Express can’t.
Either I can enforce contracts without providing consideration or Alliant Credit Union can't.
Either I have the right to be a criminal or the Federal Reserve doesn’t.
I am willing to be persuaded that banks are providing proper consideration when making loans. I am willing to hear proof that the money provided in the loan existed prior to the creation of the loan, that the bank earned it in the same way I have to earn it, by means of production or exchange. I am not willing to accept that the banks can pretend a journal entry on their ledger is a real asset while I am not allowed to go into that same bank and add money to my ledger in the same way.
There is no middle ground here. Either we are all above or all below the law.
As background, Mike Maloney has done an excellent job demonstrating the exact method banks use to create money in his series "Hidden Secrets of Money." The fact that the first dollar loaned into existence requires another dollar to pay back the first dollar plus interest is irrefutable proof that this monetary system is fraudulent at its origin and inception and is therefore a method of action that is impossible for everyone to practice equally. Therefore, it cannot be legal and must be repudiated if we are to be a nation of laws.
The same goes for the Federal Income Tax and the 16th Amendment, which was passed in 1913 along with the Federal Reserve Act. Either we all can tax and steal from each other, or nobody can.
Instead, we will establish a system of mutual exchange for mutual benefit and permit no other kind of exchange. We will establish rules that apply to everyone equally, rules that relate to personhood and property as I discuss here:
Money will be a form of objective value that can be properly defined and measured, such as is the case when people use weights of gold and silver in exchange.
No one will be able to initiate physical force against another, and no one will have a right to an action or privilege that cannot also be exercised by another. Such is the nature of a people governed by the law and not the whims and wishes of tyrants, bullies, cheaters, and criminals.
Finally, a note on confidence. Here’s Steve Jobs:
"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do."
---
Resources:
The Seeds of the Genius of the Fabricated Moore v Alliant Credit Union Supreme Court Case:
The post from December 9, 2023, presents a narrative connecting childhood lessons on fairness with broader critiques of systemic financial inequities, planting the seeds of the "Moore v. Alliant Credit Union" argument by addressing unequal application of rules and the fraudulent nature of fiat currency. Here's a summary, focusing on how this thinking develops:
Summary:
The post begins with a lesson taught to the author’s son about handling bullying and cheating during a playground game of foursquare. The son learns that instead of resisting or protesting a cheater’s rules, it’s more effective to comply with them and expose their inherent unfairness to the group. This tactic led to the cheater being held accountable and retreating.
This childhood lesson parallels the author's critique of modern banking and fiat currency systems, where banks operate by creating loans "from nothing" without offering legitimate consideration—an essential component of contract law. The post argues that this practice is fraudulent and represents a systemic privilege that individuals cannot replicate. The author proposes that either these privileges must be available to all or eliminated entirely.
The post asserts that:
- Banks violate contract law by creating money without prior assets or earned consideration.
- Fiat currency’s reliance on collective belief rather than intrinsic value undermines the integrity of financial contracts.
- A just system would apply rules equally to all, rejecting the special privileges granted to banks, governments, and other institutions.
The post concludes with a call for a system based on mutual exchange, governed by universal laws rather than the whims of cheaters or tyrants, echoing the principles of fairness, objectivity, and equality.
Seeds of "Moore v. Alliant Credit Union":
The trap of "Moore v. Alliant Credit Union" emerges in the idea that the banking system’s foundation—fiat currency and money creation—relies on fraudulent rules that would not withstand equal scrutiny if applied universally. Like the cheater in foursquare, banks and financial institutions depend on others adhering to different rules than they do. The parallels include:
- Fraudulent Rules: Just as the cheater redefined the game to maintain power, banks redefine the notion of "consideration" in contracts.
- Equal Application of Law: The demand that either everyone can "create money from nothing" or no one can mirrors the child’s exposure of the cheater’s unfairness.
- Exposure of Hypocrisy: The defendant’s argument in "Moore v. Alliant Credit Union" builds on the principle that fraudulent actions (like fiat currency creation) collapse when subjected to their own logic, just as the cheater retreated when faced with their own rules.
This post crystallizes the central logic of the eventual legal argument: exposing systemic fraud by granting its proponents their own rules and demonstrating their unsustainability under scrutiny.
Comments
Post a Comment