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/compendiumYou're subscribed to this list with the email wmklinck@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
