eListas Logo
   The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
      HOME    SERVICES    SOLUTIONS    COMPANY    
Home > My Lists > socialcredit > Messages

 Message Index 
 Messages from 5263 to 5322 
SubjectFrom
Reconstruction william_
Re: Responding in Martin H
Unlike Consumers, william_
Re: Unlike Consume Martin H
Re: Unlike Consume William
Question regarding william_
Re: Question regar Martin H
Re: Question regar Joe Thom
Re: Public-spirite Peter Ho
We are looking for Franšois
Re: Public-spirite Peter Ho
Re: Question regar william_
Re: Re: Public-spi keith wi
Re: Re: Public-spi Peter Ho
RE: Re: Question r John G R
Re: Re: Public-spi Wallace
Re: Re: Public-spi Jim Inne
Re: We are looking Martin H
Re: Re: Public-spi keith wi
Re: We are looking Bob Taft
Re: Re: Question r Joe Thom
Re: DICK EASTMAN: Peter Ho
Re: Re: Public-spi Peter Ho
Re: Question regar william_
Re: I await your a Peter Ho
Re: Re: I await yo Peter Ho
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Z elistas <socialc John G R
Re: Re: I await yo Peter Ho
in further reply t william_
Re: in further rep Vicky Da
Re: Re: Re: I awai Martin H
Re: in further rep Joe Thom
Re: in further rep Joe Thom
Re: in further rep Vicky Da
Re: in further rep Adavans
Re: in further rep Adavans
Re: in further rep Bob Taft
Re: in further rep Joe Thom
Re: in further rep Vicky Da
Re: Shakespeare's Peter Ho
Re: Shakespeare's Peter Ho
Re: Food For Thoug William
Shortage of staple Eric Enc
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
RE: Shortage of st Henry Ra
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Shakespeare's Peter Ho
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
Re: Re: Re: I awai Martin H
Re: Re: Re: I awai Per Almg
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai Martin H
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
Re: Re: Re: I awai Per Almg
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai Wallace
 << Prev. 60 | Next 60 >>
 
socialcredit
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 5321     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers to myquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The Abolition ofInterest on Loans))
Date:Friday, March 28, 2008  13:09:59 (+1300)
From:William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
In reply to:Message 5318 (written by Joe Thomson)

Hi Joe / just a PS
                           I agree with all you say. Perhaps discontented 
human beings are simply a consequence of human "cussedness". I suppose there 
will always be some minority or even majority who are dissatisfied with 
whatever action a government takes to get itself out of the difficulties it 
creates for itself. In elected democracies and constitutional monarchies 
there is always a well documented "loyal opposition" to the government. 
These form a mainstream of discontent. There are also any amount of " 
crackpot" groups, who oppose anything for opposition's sake. Some of these 
are quite dangerous, and willingly resort to acts of violence to express 
their views. Sometimes Joe, I feel that, we, who try to inject some sanity 
into what appears to be an insane world, are fighting a losing battle. Still 
somewone has to do it.
  regards
         Bill McGunnigle
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers to 
myquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The Abolition 
ofInterest on Loans))


> Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
>
> While there's certainly evidence enough of the mis-use of "double-entry
> bookkeeping" by those who want to "cook the books", so to speak, I'm 
> afraid
> I'd have to disagree with you on the reason given for its 'invention' 
> below.
> It is a very vital part of the world as we know it, and I doubt very much 
> we
> could come up with anything better and still maintain the amount of 
> personal
> freedom we presently have, (even though that may be being increasingly
> diminished by other means.)  But that's not to say all things about it are
> 'perfect'.
>
> I'm curious about this statement, where you wrote:- "Governments are
> dictated to by the Banking system through the IMF and
> World Bank. Only governments that have be fortunate or canny enough to 
> avoid
> indeptedness to those orgnisations have genuine control over their 
> destiny."
>
> We all know, I think, that New Zealand's government WAS ''dictated to" by
> the international bankers a few decades back.  Indeed, your country was 
> held
> up as an example of what could happen in our country  if our governments
> continued to run up their public debt the way you, and they,  had been
> doing.
>
> And there were documentaries shown here on TV on the "miraculous"
> transformation of NZ after your Government adopted the 'slash and burn'
> policies to get your  fair land 'back on track' financially.  There was 
> even
> a mention of your then 'Social Credit' Party in one of them ~ and the fact
> that they'd solely advocated, in effect,  telling  the IMF and WB
> international money men to "get stuffed" when they demanded the changes 
> that
> were subsequently visited upon you.
>
> Which brings me to a question:- Are there ANY governments in the world,
> except in what might be described as "pariah" countries, that have been
> "fortunate or canny enough to avoid indebtedness to those organisations
> (and) have genuine control over their own destiny"?
>
> The old Commuinist bloc comes to mind, and possibly now Venezuela, but for
> all the 'resources', both 'natural' and 'human' these lands often 
> possessed,
> their citizens did not generally enjoy a very high material standard of
> living.
>
> And it's arguable whether or not their individual citizen's actual feeling
> of personal 'well-being' in regards to the non-material aspects of life 
> was
> in any way superior to that which existed, or exists,  elsewhere.  I don't
> say it didn't happen, but we never saw any masses of people trying to 
> escape
> INTO any of the old communist countries, did we?.
>
> And for all his huffing and puffing about "standing up to the Americans",
> and extolling the wonders of modern socialism, and even with gasoline 
> around
> 17 cents a gallon US at the pumps in Caracas,  El Presidente Chavez seems 
> to
> have a rather tenuous hold on office down there, (even without any 
> 'outside'
> interference to dethrone him, which no doubt is also present.)
>
> So the question is, I think, and this brings me back to "double-entry"
> accounting, "What's missing?"  Why are so many things that COULD be done, 
> in
> lands certainly possessed of the physical resources to more than be able 
> to
> do them, UNABLE TO BE DONE? Why there, even where 'progress' is sometimes
> made, does the 'individual', ALL the 'individuals' in those lands, seldom
> exhibit much 'satisfaction' with it?
>
> Regards,
> Joe
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers to
> myquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The Abolition
> ofInterest on Loans))
>
>
>> Hi Peter and Ardeshir
>>                         Your arguments appear to be going around in
> circles.
>> In particular political systems have nothing to do with the control of 
>> the
>> money supply unless they are prepared to actually control the quantity of
>> money (finance) in circulation. Double accounting is perhaps an essentail
>> tool to ensuring that modern accountancy ensures that all enterprises 
>> work
>> at a "profit", but it is also a tremendous tool for concealing losses and
>> embezzlement from company servants and shareholders. I am still to be
>> convinced that the tool was not invented for this purpose in the first
> place
>> by an enterprising "accountant", specifically constructed to create a
>> mystique about simple book-keeping of accounts to confuse others.
>>     Be that as it may, the basic problem of the modern "post-industrial"
>> society in the west is that the finance available to the consumers in
>> society does not match the finance absorbed by manufacturers producing 
>> the
>> the articles needed for a modern civilization. The present system can 
>> only
>> bridge this gap by increasing the amount of overall indeptedness for
>> everyone. An ever decreasing minority become dept free during their
>> lifetime, but the remainder of the world's population become ever more
>> indepted to the system. Because the creation of "money" ie financial
> credit
>> lies basically in the hands of private multinational banking monopolies
> the
>> manipulation of the "money supply" is always directed to benefit those
>> monopolies. The recent actions of the Federal Reserve with respect to the
>> collapse of the Berstein banking group is proof of this. Effectively the
>> Federal Reserve bailed the Bank out until it could be absorbed by another
>> banking group at a bargain basement price.
>>      Governments are dictated to by the Banking system through the IMF 
>> and
>> World Bank. Only governments that have be fortunate or canny enough to
> avoid
>> indeptedness to those orgnisations have genuine control over their
> destiny.
>> The greatest example of this is the USA whose government has been forced
>> into making every effort to control the flow of oil in the world in order
> to
>> protect the viability of the US dollar as a "reserve currency" used for
> the
>> purchase and transactions of world oil supplies. The wider needs of the 
>> US
>> people with respect to industrial output etc have been grossly ignored
>> resulting in a deskilling and deindustrialisation of the US economy with
>> consequent reduction in the gross incomes of most US citizens.
>>      Under the present system the quantity of indeptness has to increase
> in
>> order to maintain the expansion of industrial output necessary to match
> the
>> needs of an increasing world population. Only some system that can supply
>> debt free finance can overcome the problem. Our problem is to convince
> world
>> leaders that this is the only sensible and most profitable way go 
>> forward.
>> Our present system is a dead end towards the collapse of civilisation and
>> the world economy as we know it. Both of you recognise this basic axiom,
> now
>> we need to find a way to propagate it to the general population.
>>         Bill McGunnigle
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Peter Hogwood" <p_t_hogwood@yahoo.com>
>> To: <chdouglas@yahoogroups.com>; <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 4:40 AM
>> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers to my
>> questions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The Abolition of
>> Interest on Loans))
>>
>>
>> > But this reply of yours does not respond to what I had
>> > asked. I had asked, in effect, why cannot profit be
>> > calculated in a non-creditary system? I proved that it
>> > CAN be.
>> >
>> > You did not answer the question I had asked, while I
>> > demonstrated that what you claimed - namely that
>> > profit cannot be calculated in a non-creditary system
>> > - was false. Please answer the question I had asked!
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > [Reply]  No, you didn't prove that.  You gave a single
>> > isolated example of where a chariot that cost ten
>> > denarii to produce was sold for twelve denarii.
>> > Isolated examples are always possible in exception to
>> > the general rule.
>> >
>> > Start with the assumption of a fixed number of gold
>> > coins that support the entire volume of trade and
>> > commerce.  If the population is increasing and the
>> > number of firms and transactions are increasing, it
>> > has to be the case that, as a matter of statistics and
>> > averages, that each individual firm is always
>> > receiving back fewer gold coins than it is spending,
>> > that, again as a matter of statistics and averages,
>> > that each individual firm is booking continuously a
>> > loss by any conceivable system of accounting.
>> >
>> > You could imagine that there is a gold mining industry
>> > that is supplying gold coins to the community.  It
>> > spends gold coins for goods and services from the
>> > remainder of the community, and loans gold coins to
>> > non-mining firms so they can conduct their business.
>> > It follows that trade and commerce would be limited to
>> > the number of gold coins that the mining industry
>> > could supply, regardless of the real needs of trade
>> > and commerce in an otherwise growing economy.  The
>> > economy would be severely constrained by the
>> > limitations of finance.
>> > -
>> >
>> >>> So what? Where exactly does the fractional reserve
>> > system - or anything like it - enter into your
>> > argument above?
>> >>
>> >> [Reply]: Because fractional reserve banking allows
>> > the flux of "tickets" from firms through their
>> > spending to increase with the expanding needs of trade
>> > and commerce.
>> >
>> > Sure it does, but the same thing can be done without
>> > fractional reserve banking - by the government of a
>> > nation simply increasing the nation's money supply
>> > commensurate with the expanding needs of the nation's
>> > trade and commerce. Why should the BANKS, which are
>> > often multi-national, and are NOT answerable to the
>> > citizens of any nation, be allowed to increase the
>> > flux of these "tickets", as you call them? Why should
>> > not only a government answerable to the citizens be
>> > allowed to do that?
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > [Reply]  In our system all firms are, again
>> > statistically speaking, deficit spending in the
>> > normally growing economy, yet are booking a profit
>> > through the rules and conventions of double entry
>> > accounting, with accommodation by the banks.  In your
>> > proposed alternative, only the government would be
>> > allowed to deficit spend, which was essentially the
>> > Soviet system.  It was also a system where the
>> > calculation of profit was impossible, which directed
>> > production through elaborate Leontiefian-like
>> > input-output tables.  Whereas ours is entrepreneurial
>> > driven, with informational feedback from final
>> > consumers through free markets.
>> > -
>> >
>> > It says nothing about justices of the peace having
>> > jurisdiction over any other cases. (Or are you
>> > claiming it does? If so, where does it say anything
>> > like that?)
>> >
>> > If what the articles says is true, then Justice
>> > Mahoney had no jurisdiction over the case involving
>> > Jerome Daly.
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > [Reply]  The court did indeed have jurisdiction over
>> > the underlying matter brought by the bank.  Mahoney
>> > went far beyond his jurisdiction in pontificating on
>> > federal law.  The quotation from the Minnesota law
>> > library was not all inclusive but merely an excerpt.
>> > Appeal was brought on the grounds that Mahoney had
>> > exceeded his jurisdiction in his ruling and decree.
>> > -
>> >
>> > Did you READ the page referenced to "Zurn v.
>> > Northwestern National Bank", at:
>> >
>> > <
>> >
> http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1969ZurnvNorthwesternNationalB
> ank.pdf
>> >>
>> >
>> > ...? It says nothing about the case of the First
>> > National Bank of Montgomery Jerome Daly vs. Jerome
>> > Daly.
>> >
>> > Nor does the material referenced for "Daly v. Savage
>> > State Bank", which can be found at:
>> >
>> >
> http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1969DalyvSavageStateBank.pdf
>> >>,
>> >
>> > ... mention anything about the First National Bank of
>> > Minnesota.
>> >
>> > Thus it is obviously deceptive, to say the very least,
>> > to claim that the case of First National Bank of
>> > Montgomery Jerome Daly vs. Jerome Daly were declared a
>> > nullity.
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > [Reply]  Again, you are obviously not a lawyer and
>> > know nothing about legal procedure.  Daly was involved
>> > in several similar foreclosures in which he was
>> > involved either as a defendant or lawyer representing
>> > others, from Mahoney's court, that were grouped
>> > together by the appellate courts.
>> >
>> > "Ultimately, the decision of the justice of the peace
>> > court was nullified and Daly was subsequently
>> > disbarred."
>> > http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/newsletter/0711.html
>> > -
>> >
>> > Yes, I have heard this specious argument before, many
>> > times. It's still unconstitutional, though, isn't it,
>> > for anyone other than Congress to issue US money. The
>> > US Constitution says, "Congress shall have the power
>> > ... To coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof."
>> > Note the word "Money". The word is NOT "legal tender".
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > [Reply]  Notice that the constitution does not say
>> > EXCLUSIVE power.  Please learn to read.  And note that
>> > the Federal Reserve is a creature of Congressional
>> > legislation.  Banks are licensed by state and federal
>> > governments.
>> > -
>> >
>> > If I were to issue money, in any form, even electronic
>> > form, and call that money "US dollars", I would be
>> > considered a counterfeiter, would I not? And I would
>> > be called a counterfeiter even if I were to back up
>> > every cent of the electronic money I issued with REAL
>> > money kept at my home, which anyone holding my
>> > electronic money could have on demand. Yet banks issue
>> > such electronic money every day! What's the difference
>> > between me and the bank, then?
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > [Reply]  One difference is that the banks are licensed
>> > by the state or federal governments to be in the
>> > business of banking.  You are not.
>> > -
>> >
>> > That is not altogether true. People aren't allowed to
>> > issue a nation's money without being called
>> > "counterfeiters".
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > [Reply]  People who are not licensed as banks might be
>> > called that.
>> > -
>> >
>> > But by calling the money they issue "US dollars", the
>> > banks are CLEARLY engaged in counterfeiting ... or at
>> > the very least in a scam (i.e, a deception, a
>> > dishonest scheme and a fraud perpetrated upon the
>> > general public, who indeed are caused to believe that
>> > the money issued by the banks are US dollars).
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > [Reply]  You have clearly never read your deposit
>> > contract with your bank.  Please point to even a
>> > single statement in that contract that is deceptive.
>> > Also, perhaps you never noticed that banks do not call
>> > their deposits "US dollars" but "dollars," which
>> > represent a general consensus as to value.  I can
>> > create a limited form of money by tendering a
>> > promissory note denominated in dollars.  It is limited
>> > in the sense that it is not as generally recognizable
>> > as are bank deposits, and therefore could not
>> > accommodate trade and commerce to the same extent.
>> > -
>> >
>> > Peter Hogwood
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On 21-Mar-08, at 2:29 AM, Peter Hogwood wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Ardeshir, my replies are inserted [Reply] below:-
>> >> >
>> >> >>> It has to do with accounting and numbers.  The
>> >> fundamental
>> >> >>> question is how could profit be calculated in a
>> >> non-creditary
>> >> >>> system? It can't be in a non-creditary system,
>> >> which is the point.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why ever not?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Suppose there were only gold coins in
>> >> circulation, and no bank
>> >> >> notes at all, like in Roman times. A manufacturer
>> >> of, say,
>> >> >> chariots could use gold coins to buy everything
>> >> he needs: his
>> >> >> lumber, his hardware (axles, nails, and so on),
>> >> the firewood for
>> >> >> his fires, his tools, etc.. Suppose he makes
>> >> chariots and sells
>> >> >> them. Suppose it costs him ten denarii per
>> >> chariot to buy
>> >> >> everything he needs to make the chariots, and he
>> >> is able to sell
>> >> >> each chariot for twelve denarii. Then his profit
>> >> would be
>> >> >> calculated as being two denarii per chariot,
>> >> wouldn't it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If not, why not? ( Note that no credit is
>> >> involved in this
>> >> >> calculation. )
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> A commodity-like money operating in accordance
>> >> to the quantity
>> >> >>> theory just wouldn't work. There is no possible
>> >> way for profit
>> >> >>> and loss to be accurately calculated in such a
>> >> system.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why not, given the example I just gave above?
>> >> >
>> >> > [Reply]: Gold is in relatively fixed quantity.  A
>> >> commodity money
>> >> > based on gold could not expand to accommodate
>> >> increasing trade.
>> >> > With increasing transactions involving more and
>> >> more people and
>> >> > firms, as a statistical matter individual firms
>> >> could not possibly
>> >> > be receiving back in reflux to their spending more
>> >> than they are
>> >> > spending, because their spending is accumulating
>> >> into more and more
>> >> > balances which are in subtrahend to system flow.
>> >> The reflux to
>> >> > individual firms in sales would always be falling
>> >> in respect to
>> >> > their spending, an impossible condition involving
>> >> perpetual loss in
>> >> > terms of any conceivable system of accounting. The
>> >> Roman
>> >> > civilization was precluded from developing a mass
>> >> production
>> >> > economy because double entry accounting had yet to
>> >> be invented, and
>> >> > creditary instutions like modern banks that
>> >> accommodate expanding
>> >> > trade could therefore not exist. For this reason
>> >> Roman civilization
>> >> > was doomed to subsist on slavery and plunder.
>> >>
>> >> But this reply of yours does not respond to what I
>> >> had asked. I had
>> >> asked, in effect, why cannot profit be calculated in
>> >> a non-creditary
>> >> system? I proved that it CAN be.
>> >>
>> >> You did not answer the question I had asked, while I
>> >> demonstrated
>> >> that what you claimed - namely that profit cannot be
>> >> calculated in a
>> >> non-creditary system - was false. Please answer the
>> >> question I had
>> >> asked!
>> >>
>> >> >>> Basic model of the modern economy:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Firms pay out, in return for goods and services
>> >> received,
>> >> >>> generally recognizable creditary instruments, or
>> >> "tickets," which
>> >> >>> they redeem over their sales counters for
>> >> produced goods and
>> >> >>> services. Inasmuch as tickets printed by the
>> >> individual firms
>> >> >>> themselves would not be generally recognizable,
>> >> and therefore
>> >> >>> would not be tradeable, banks accommodate the
>> >> process by
>> >> >>> exchanging their generally recognizable
>> >> "tickets" in the form of
>> >> >>> deposits for the individual "tickets" of the
>> >> firms, a service for
>> >> >>> which they charge a fee called interest,
>> >> inasmuch as it is a
>> >> >>> function of time. These "tickets" are contracts
>> >> involving credit
>> >> >>> and debt, pure and simple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So what? Where exactly does the fractional
>> >> reserve system - or
>> >> >> anything like it - enter into your argument
>> >> above?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [Reply]: Because fractional reserve banking allows
>> >> the flux of
>> >> > "tickets" from firms through their spending to
>> >> increase with the
>> >> > expanding needs of trade and commerce.
>> >>
>> >> Sure it does, but the same thing can be done without
>> >> fractional
>> >> reserve banking - by the government of a nation
>> >> simply increasing the
>> >> nation's money supply commensurate with the
>> >> expanding needs of the
>> >> nation's trade and commerce. Why should the BANKS,
>> >> which are often
>> >> multi-national, and are NOT answerable to the
>> >> citizens of any nation,
>> >> be allowed to increase the flux of these "tickets",
>> >> as you call them?
>> >> Why should not only a government answerable to the
>> >> citizens be
>> >> allowed to do that?
>> >>
>> >> >> Is it conceivable to you that the bank was
>> >> seeking possession of a
>> >> >> house worth less than $100? If the house was
>> >> worth more, then a
>> >> >> Justice of the Peace would, according to the
>> >> first-quoted passage,
>> >> >> have no jurisdiction over the case.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [Reply]: You are clearly not a lawyer and know
>> >> nothing about the
>> >> > law. I would even question your your ability to
>> >> read a simple
>> >> > declarative sentence.
>> >>
>> >> What evidence do you have for making such
>> >> statements?
>> >>
>> >> > The $100 limitation has to do with civil disputes
>> >> between parties
>> >> > involving monetary claims, or minor criminal
>> >> matters. JPs are
>> >> > involved in approving various writs and warrants
>> >> that do not
>> >> > involve monetary claims. The claim in this case
>> >> was not for money
>> >> > but foreclosure and the sheriff's sale of
>> >> collateral, something
>> >> > apparently handled by JP courts in Minnesota.
>> >>
>> >> The article you quoted says,
>> >>
>> >> [QUOTE]
>> >>
>> >> The 1967/1968 Minnesota Legislative Manual states:
>> >>
>> >> "Justices of the peace are elected for two-year
>> >> terms in townships
>> >> and in cities and villages which do not have
>> >> municipal courts.
>> >> Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over actions
>> >> arising within a
>> >> county when the amount involved does not exceed $100
>> >> for civil cases,
>> >> and when the punishment or fine does not exceed $100
>> >> or three months'
>> >> imprisonment in criminal cases."
>> >>
>> >> [END QUOTE]
>> >>
>> >> It says nothing about justices of the peace having
>> >> jurisdiction over
>> >> any other cases. (Or are you claiming it does? If
>> >> so, where does it
>> >> say anything like that?)
>> >>
>> >> If what the articles says is true, then Justice
>> >> Mahoney had no
>> >>
>> > === message truncated ===
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ________
>> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
>> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>> > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
>> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>> > You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
>> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
>> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>> You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> 


Services:  HomeList Hosting ServicesIndustry Solutions
Your Account:  Sign UpMy ListsMy PreferencesStart a List
General:  About UsNewsPrivacy PolicyNo spamContact Us

eListas Seal
eListas is a registered trademark of eListas Networks S.L.
Copyright © 1999-2006 AR Networks, All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service