| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] the goldsmith "fraud" story | | Date: | Saturday, June 28, 2008 15:12:04 (+1200) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5418 (written by Swieto Radosci) |
HI Swieto
he contractual nature of the original "Goldsmiths promissory
notes" does not alter the fact that they used the trust generated by their
"gold stores" to issue promissory notes in excess of their actual gold
stores in order to gain a monetary profit from "loans" they extended to
other people. In other words they issued "promissory notes' for money they
did not actually have. I believe that is defined as "Fraud" in most
countries of the world in both secular and religious areas. This practice
still takes place in our monetary system except that it is now legally
approved by various goverenments. It enables those without assets to make
money by simply manipulating money supplies using other peoples assets as a
backup. Banks are allowed to call mortgage debts as assets when in reality
they are liabilities. the present crisis in the US banking system has been
brought about by banks issuing loans based on real estate mortgages. Now
that property prices are slumping this is now being hammered home to those
organisations. Their socalled assets are not solid at all but subject to
fluctuations in the Property Market, therefore the solidity of these "loan
investments" has proven to be a cloudcukooland dream. Thus the whole fallacy
of the world's banking system is exposed. The castle of cards is delicately
poised near collapse. It only needs a small push to create a new slump far
deeper and far reaching than the 1930's debacle.
Bill mc Gunnigle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Swieto Radosci" <radosc@radosc.x.pl>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] the goldsmith "fraud" story
> Replying to Bill Ryan:
>
> "It appears in actuality that their loans were promissory notes, promises
> to pay on demand, which were contractual in nature and not warehouse
> receipts. That isn't fraud no matter how you want to slice it."
>
> ------
>
> That reasoning is not accurate. The fraud starts when the promise "to pay
> Bearer on Demand" is NOT backed by tangible assets being stored in their
> liquid form, as grain, gold, silver or even cigarettes. The fraud starts
> when a starter promises (by promisory note) without having those excessive
> and liquid assets on stock, acting with hidden or speculative (based on
> precognition) intentions.
>
> The fraud with money started when "on Demand" promissory notes were issued
> to an anonymous public against frozen and unproductive assets (held by
> elites), forcing them to expanding profit. Hence the neccesity of
> interest, being an executor of that profit taken from nothing workable.
>
> The legal (contractual) status of a promissory note has nothing to do with
> money fraud issue.
>
> Kristof Levandovski
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message