As described in one of my recent blogs – “The New Economics will be Mathematics” – it SHOULD be apparent to those who have read it that MONEY IS NOT CREATED BY BANKS.
WE CREATE THE MONEY BY WAY OF OUR PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS.
It is a deception so incredibly well disguised because we think of money as a physical thing (those notes and coins in your pocket) while most of those who consider the problem of money and interest and look for a solution, do so from the perspective that money is some form of physical matter. IT IS NOT and it is understanding that which allows the “penny to drop” and for you to see the deception clearly.
MONEY (PAPER BASED, GOLD/SILVER, BITCOIN OR JUST ELECTRONIC) IS ONLY A PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION OF WHAT REAL MONEY (VALUE) IS. WHEN YOU HAVE MONEY IN YOUR BANK OR POCKET, ALL IT IS, IS A REPRESENTATION OF VALUE YOU HAVE PRODUCED WITHIN THE ECONOMY. YOUR SALARY FOR A JOB, THE SELLING OF AN ASSET (A WATCH, A HOUSE) – ALL OF THAT ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IS REPRESENTED BY THE MONEY, THE PAPER, THE ELECTRONIC DIGITS IN THE BANK’S COMPUTER. WITHOUT YOUR ACTUAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, THAT MONEY DOES NOT EXIST.
NOW SOME PEOPLE, LOOKING AT THIS MONETARY ISSUE, CONSIDER THE PROBLEM TO BE “DEBT”. NO, NO, NO! I USED TO BELIEVE THE SAME: MONEY = DEBT etc; THE BILL STILL ANALYSIS, THE ZEIGEIST ANALYSIS.
MONEY, IN IT’S VARIOUS PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS, REPRESENTS DEBT, YES,. BUT DEBT IS NOT THE PROBLEM! WE ALL – EVERY ONE OF US – ARE INDEBTED TO EACH OTHER IN MANY WAYS, NOT JUST MONETARILY. IF SOMEONE SAVES YOUR LIFE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WILL SAY “I AM INDEBTED TO YOU” AND YOU WILL SAY IT HAPPILY. IS THAT A BAD THING? NO. IN A MARRIAGE, WE ARE INDEBTED TO EACH OTHER. WE CONSIDER THAT THE MARRIAGE IS ONE OF GIVE AND TAKE AND LOOKING OUT FOR THE OTHER. WE ARE PLEDGING EACH OTHER OUR LOVE. WE ARE INDEBTED IN THAT SENSE.
THE WORLD’S POPULATION IS NATURALLY IN DEBT. WE ARE TO EACH OTHER – IF NOT, WE ALL LIVE AND EXIST ON THIS WORLD AS HERMITS NEVER INTERACTING. AS SOON AS THERE IS AN INTERACTION OF ANY KIND, THERE IS A DEBT.
SO WE TRADE! BUT INSTEAD OF BARTERING AND SOMEONE SELLING A CHICKEN LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO BUY IT WITH SHOES THAT HE NEEDS (WHICH COULD TAKE AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF TIME IN A GLOBAL WORLD?) WE HAVE INTRODUCED A SYSTEM WHERE THERE IS A PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION OF VALUE. THIS “PHYSICAL MONEY” THEN JUST MAKES LIFE EASIER FOR BROWSING AROUND LOOKING FOR THE SHOES YOU WANT WITHOUT CARRYING YOUR CHICKEN EVERYWHERE! IN THE LATTER CASE, YOU WOULD LOOK KIND OF ODD WOULDN’T YOU?
CREDIT/DEBT IS NOT A BAD THING IF IT REPRESENTS THE REAL ECONOMY AND INTERACTION! IT IS INTEREST WHICH IS THE “DEBT” WHICH NEED NOT EXIST AND WHICH CREATES THE WORLD’S MISERY. THE BANKS (THE USURERS) HAVE “HIJACKED” OUR OWN DEBTS, RE-PUBLISHED THEM – REPRESENTING THESE OBLIGATIONS IN THE PHYSICAL FORM AS THEIR MONEY (HAVING BEEN HANDED THE ONE AND ONLY LICENCE TO PRINT THESE REPRESENTATIONS BY OUR GOVERNMENTS) AND CHARGE US ALL INTEREST ON OUR OWN PRINCIPAL WHILE ASKING US TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST BACK TO THEM. GLOBALLY, THERE IS NO INTEREST MONEY IN THE ECONOMY! SO HOW CAN IT BE POSSIBLE FOR PRINCIPAL ONLY (THAT IS ALL THAT IS ISSUED) TO PAY BACK PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST?
ANSWER: IT ISN’T!
GLOBAL DEBT IS NOT A PROBLEM IT IS A MUST!
INTEREST AND THE OBSCURATION OF OUR REAL DEBT, OUR PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS AND WHO IS THE TRUE OBLIGOR AND CREDITOR IS THE PROBLEM!
16th May 2013 – 20.03GMT
The Vatican has, today, pronounced that new Jesuit Pope Francis is the new Messiah.
Unknown to many christians around the world (all who preach that they read their bibles conscientiously), one of Christ’s teachings spoke about usury, and Christ, himself, up-ended the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple due to their usury. Yet many christians cannot even tell you what usury is! They have never heard of the word.
Now, however, due to Pope Francis’ spiritual intervention using the CERN laboratory in Geneva Switzerland, the banker’s satanic reign has finally ended. According to unnamed sources in the vatican bank (now isn’t that somewhat ironic?) the Pope gave a special “mass” at the laboratory where he proceeded to turn the “mass” of the Higgs Boson particle (known as the “God particle”) into the wrath of god energy. A different kind of mass then!
The words Pope Francis is reported to have used during the mass were reported by undisclosed Cardinals of the Benedictine order and were said to include words such as “Rothschild”, “Zionist”, “Cunt” not necessarily in that order but in what we are told to be the latin insults to Satan!
A sensational result of the Pope’s actions is the disappearance of 5 Bank of International Settlements Bankers through a black hole in the “Chinatown” district of Geneva. This is interesting in itself because most Swiss were not even aware that there was such a district. Unconfirmed reports refer to the bankers having been attempting to flee the city with the World’s global debt of over $40Trillion which they had downloaded onto a thumb drive including nude photos of the Pope with a number of well known Argentinian child celebrities. Once Pope Michael uttered the wording within his mass however, the God Particle transmutated into pure energy centred on the car’s GPS coordinates and created a black hole. People close to the scene said they heard the screams of one banker – reportedly, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs – an eye witness stating he heard “I was only doing God’s work”. It would seem God didn’t agree with him!
The Vatican has now made a statement, reportedly, saying that the world’s debt has now been extinguished.
Beijing, however, have reported a similar black hole opening up underneath the Chinese Central Bank and they’ve found a thumb drive closely resembling that lost in the Geneva black hole.
Pope Francis has been unavailable for comment. Some anonymous sources within the Jesuit order have stated that the Black Pope is furious with the Pontiff since, it would seem, the second appearance of a black hole in Beijing should have manifested itself under the Vatican bank. It is considered by other unknown, anonymous and undisclosed (just to make that point certain) sources that Pope Francis purposefully chanted the Beijing coordinates in the hope that he could have his nude pictures as far away from Rome as possible. Realising, however, that the thumb drive turned up in Beijing, it is most likely that the Pontiff is now in hiding, possibly alongside Osama Bin Laden.
Pope Benedict refused to comment but simply smiled in that off-putting Emperor way he does.
May 16th 2013 – 18.32GMT
Angelina Jolie, having decided to have her perfectly functional tits removed (the actions of a slightly deranged woman of unsound mind) may have had an ulterior motive behind the decision. According to anonymous sources close to the actress and UN Special Envoy, Ms Jolie has donated her tits to Christies, the London auction house who have preserved the items in the sperm of a rhinoceros which, according to an undisclosed chemical biologist, may have just the correct consistency and ingredients to both, maintain the perfect specimens for future use by the purchaser plus ensure that the non existent disease in the tissue of Ms Jolie’s tits, would never materialise.
Ms Jolie is said to be furious with her tit removal prankologist that he did not advise her, prior to the operation, that rhino sperm had the capacity to remove the possibility of disease. Her prankologist has replied that, while it is not 100% certain that the sperm would have this effect, if it does, it would be common to all sperm and not simply rhinoceros’. Indeed, the prankologist has suggested that, if this were to be correct, then human sperm, if ejaculated onto female breasts on a regular basis, would eradicate any possibility of the specific disease Ms Jolie was concerned about. He further stated that, if this were proven, it is highly likely that sperm would have such desirable effects upon all tissues of the homo sapien female. When asked whether it would have the same effect for males, he suggested it was unlikely due to the “magnetic” functionality of the chromosomes thereby repelling the effects on male tissue.
Meanwhile, there has already been intense interest by potential buyers of Ms Jolie’s tits. Among those rumoured to have an interest are:
Brad Pitt: He is suggested to have said to close acquaintances, for which Reuters cannot confirm sources, that he misses them badly considering that the new prosthetic versions have tiny nipples (due to Angelina’s wish to go braless without causing too much of an uproar). Mr Pitt has been reported to say that “Angelina had nipples like ripe strawberries whereas, now, they’re the size of coriander seeds.”
Hilary Clinton: It would appear from other unconfirmed and anonymous sources, that Mrs Clinton still suffers from continuous nightmares of Bill describing to her what it was that attracted him to Monica Lewinsky. It seems that Bill’s sperm had fallen on a very similar set of mammaries as that of Angelina’s. Mrs Clinton’s interest, then is not so much in owning the boobs but having them sit on her desk at home while she asks Bill to rub his penis between them. It seems she has invested in a few grams of thermite explosive which, having been applied to the tits, the rubbing of Bill’s prick between them shall cause enough friction of the tits and Bill’s penis to explode. It seems it is some form of satanic ritual she will carry out on 9/11 of this year where the two tits will represent the twin towers and Bill’s “cigar” representing flight 175.
Beyonce: Jay Zee has watched the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie “Total Recall” so many times that he has requested that Beyonce recreate the woman of his dreams. Beyonce is only missing one tit. Why no-one recognises that that extra tit is her boyfriend is beyond me!
We intend to keep you abreast of developments!
Moral: If you just accept that Angelina Jolie has had her tits surgically removed when there is absolutely no disease in them (so “just in case”) because SHE says so and it is supported by her Doctor who “says so” and the media who “says so” then, once more, it proves you will accept anything that you are “fed”. While, indeed, if she has taken this decision and has had them removed, the woman is in need of serious serious therapy! So much so that this woman and her husband should be given a mental health assessment for the purposes of allowing them to adopt children.
I just KNEW there’d be a story and ulterior motive behind this!
Someone PROVE to me this woman had her breasts removed! PROVE IT!
No, seriously, I’m getting very tired of idiocy and the fact that the corporate media are being allowed by the idiotic masses to treat you like imbeciles. But then so many of you are because you swallow shit like this….
Boston bombing suspect wrote message in boat: CBS News report
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was found hiding in a boat days after the blasts, left a handwritten message describing the attack as retribution for U.S. wars in Muslim countries, CBS News reported on Thursday.
The CBS News report, citing anonymous sources, said that Tsarnaev used a pen to write the message on an interior wall of the boat, where police found him bleeding from gunshot wounds four days after the April 15 bombing.
The note summed up with the idea that “when you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims,” CBS News reported.
CBS News did not make clear how its sources knew the information and Reuters was not immediately able to confirm the report.
A spokeswoman for the FBI in Boston, Katherine Gulotta, declined to confirm or deny the report.
The CBS News report said Tsarnaev, 19, described his older brother and fellow suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who died in a gunbattle with police, as “a martyr.”
“Basically, the note says … the bombings were retribution for the U.S. crimes against Muslims in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and that the victims of the Boston bombing were ‘collateral damage,’ the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world,” said CBS News reporter John Miller, who is a former spokesman for the FBI.
The bombings at the finish line of the world-famous marathon killed three people and injured 264 others. The FBI identified the ethnic Chechen brothers as suspects from video and pictures at the scene.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arrested in Watertown, Massachusetts, on April 19 after a daylong manhunt and lockdown of much of the Boston area. He is being held in a prison hospital west of Boston and faces charges that could carry the death penalty if he is convicted.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been on a U.S. government database of potential terrorism suspects and the United States had twice been warned by Russia that he might be an Islamic militant, according to U.S. security officials.
“citing anonymous sources”
“CBS News did not make clear how its sources knew the information and Reuters was not immediately able to confirm the report.”
Please god! Give me strength!
The reuters/CBS article then goes on to tell you what this anonymously, unconfirmed message said!
I think they learned their journalistic skills in the primary school playground when they went about telling friends what other friends had purportedly said about them.
Meanwhile, what the reports didn’t say was that, while in the boat, the Muslim terrorist also wrote a song. Here it is (yes he actually had a 24 track recording studio in the boat too):
You’d have thought that, if he had any class, he would have written his note on the inside of the boat in blood! FAR more impactful!
Think about that one next time you make up this shit Zionist media ok?
Good evening to you all!
ARE YOU HUMAN?
ARE YOU 100% SURE OF THAT?
WELL I HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL YOU, SHOW YOU AND PROVE TO YOU THAT REFUTES YOUR ASSUMPTION!
ACCORDING TO THE JUDICIARY. COURTS AND GOVERNMENT – AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ITSELF – YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY HUMAN AT ALL!
WELL LET’S JUST DETERMINE IF YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION SHALL WE?
But before we do, let me introduce you to a BARRISTER. A BARRISTER by the name of ALEX USTYCH. As you will see, Alex graduated from Law school at Durham University with a FIRST in Law! CLEVER LITTLE ALEX! As you will also notice, he is rather involved in Human Rights Law. One must, therefore, take it that Alex knows his stuff and you can’t pull the wool over on Alex.
So, it must be acknowledged by Alex that either:
1. He is fully aware of what I am about to tell you (and, therefore, our Alex plays the game of obscuring this fact from his clients and everyone else in this country of ours) or;
2, He really DOESN’T know his stuff and the wool HAS been pulled over his eyes all this time! Now, that would show just a tiny little fragment of incompetence don’t you think?
So, who’s going to go for number 1 as Alex’s answer and who would opt for number 2?
A bit of a conundrum for the poor guy don’t you think?
But, for the purposes of this blog, I am going to assume that Alex is not aware of what he props up in the name of “law” because I actually like the guy. I am sure he is really, at heart, a decent sort. EvEN THOUGH he doesn’t seem to have the cajonas to speak up for what he knows is right regarding a particular case.
So let’s begin shall we?
The Human Rights Act 1998. What a wonderful piece of legislation isn’t it? “Flawed” you say?….. You have no idea how “flawed” this piece of utter nonsense is!
It looks so authoritative doesn’t it? So professional! So governmental. It’s all about protecting your “RIGHTS” as a citizen isn’t it? – meanwhile part of the deception is in that very last sentence!
So Alex, are you saying that such a thing as “Human Rights” exists?
I’ll answer what I think Alex would reply:
“Yes indeed. What a strange and very objectionable thing to ask!”
Is that so Mr Ustych? Then let us move on shall we? Mr Ustych, have you heard of a young lady by the name of Jade Jacobs Brooks?
“No, I do not believe that I have”
[Meanwhile the judge, in this assumed court, asks the relevance of this line of questioning of our esteemed Barrister to which I reply: "It has every relevance your Honour. Please allow me to continue"]
Mr Ustych, Ms Brooks was born in Alicante, Spain to British parents while on holiday. Her story was reported in the press last year (2012) by various newspapers and also, the BBC. Jade and her parents arrived home in Britain and Jade was brought up in the UK with British parents YET, at the age of 16, she found that she could not obtain a passport or ID; neither could she get a job and, in fact, NO benefits of any kind could be conferred upon her. Benefits which are accorded to any and all “Human Beings” one would imagine, if one takes the “Human Rights Act” as being just that – HUMAN rights!
Can you offer the court any GOOD reason why she would find herself in such a predicament Mr Ustych? Considering your FIRST degree in law and your capability, I’m sure, within the field of Human Rights.
“Well….. um… no, I cannot make any suggestion without first understanding the full particulars of the case”
WHAT “CASE” Mr Ustych? It is clear cut. The girl had no “Human Rights”. I am asking you for suggestions of how and why this could be so? (meanwhile, as you will see, there could not possibly be a “case” which related to a non existent legal entity)
What if I were to add to the information just provided to you that Jade’s birth certificate, issued in Spain, was not recognised as valid within the UK? Would that help?
“Ah yes! If a person cannot be identified correctly, then it would not be possible to process the benefits which you say were not conferred upon her because, without registration, the person in question could not be given the specific benefits which would relate to her specific personhood”.
Ahh! I see! Thank you for that suggestion and explanation Mr Ustych. May I just take note of the fact that, nowhere in your answer did you use the words “Human” or “Human Being” but you have used the word “person” three times.
“Yes, using the word ‘person’ as is interchangeable with the word ‘human’”
Is that so Mr Ustych? Are the two words entirely interchangeable? Both having precisely the same meaning? Both perfect synonyms?
“Well, it is dependent upon the context within which one uses them and, in this context, I see no issue with using them interchangeably”
Ah! But I do Mr Ustych. You see, I would suggest to you that you have used the word ‘person’ rather than ‘human’ because, as you have clearly described, before one can be conferred benefits (purported to be “Human Rights”) one must be identified and registered. The United Nations documents in exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are clear on this:
So it is clear and unambiguous is it not, that a LEGAL identity ( a LEGAL PERSONALITY) must first be “conferred” upon the human being before that human being is considered to even exist! Please take note of exhibit 4:
LEGALLY, she did not exist! As a Human Being, she obviously did. But you will, obviously, point out (correctly I may add) that how is one’s rights (and we will refer to them as “rights” for the moment) to be protected if one cannot be identified. A good and valid point Mr Ustych – no doubt and no argument. However, it does, for the moment, have oneself considering why any “rights” should be different from one human being to another doesn’t it? Let’s consider that for just a moment using the words from your very own mouth Alex!
But a discussion of that detail would take up an immense amount of the court’s time so let’s just stick with the principles of all of this.
Tell me Mr Ustych: If I reported my Volvo as having been set alight by an extraterrestrial who appeared on the scene on a skateboard, would our law enforcement and/or a court accept this story when I applied for an insurance payout and the insurer would not payout?
“Of course not! This is now moving into the realms of fantasy!…. Your honour?”
JUDGE: “Mr Earthling, your line of questioning is becoming rather absurd. Please make your point or move on!”
Yes your honour, I am about to make my point. Please, Mr Ustych, humour me for one moment. In a single sentence, please explain why a court would not accept this story?
“Oh for goodness sakes! Because ALIENS do not exist Sir!”
So, if they do not exist Mr Ustych, then would it be fair to say they would also have no legal personality?
And, as we have seen, one must have a legal personality – initially produced by one’s birth registration document – for the court (any court) to recognise the existence of such an entity. Am I correct?
So, legally, if one does not exist – an entity which is not recognised as existing within the legal system – then it is impossible to confer benefits upon such an entity, whether that entity is literally standing in court before a judge or not because the legal system (and judge) cannot “see” them. Am I correct?
“Yes! They do not exist in law!”
Then it MUST follow, Mr Ustych, that IF, for example, Miss Jade Jacob Brooks one day decided to stand in court before a judge, point a gun and fire a bullet right between his eyes, she could NOT be prosecuted for such an action.
“That is outrageous! Of course she would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!”
But Mr Ustych, you have just said that, without registration and, therefore, without a legal personality or identity, that Miss Jacobs Brooks would not exist! Just as is the fact shown by her story above.
“Of course she exists! She would prove her existence by her actions… this is ridiculous!”
She would prove her existence by her actions? Yet she would STILL not have a legal personality Mr Ustych. She proves her existence by her very actions everyday. Her act of BREATHING Mr Ustych. YET, the court and government will not recognise her as existing and they make the excuse of her not having a valid birth certificate and, thereby, not being a LEGAL PERSON!
So, my point to you Mr Ustych, is that, while Jade is demonstrably, a human being, that does NOT entitle her to the “Human Rights” within the Human Rights Act! It is not until she becomes recognised as a PERSON (a LEGAL PERSON) that ANY state will confer upon her such “rights”. It is then CLEAR that the term “HUMAN Rights” is a misnomer and a VERY deceptive one for very deceptive purposes as we shall see. What we have, in fact, is not Human Rights at all but LEGAL PERSON’S PRIVILEGES!
“So what’s the issue”? I hear many of you ask.
Well, for one thing, I sincerely hope it is clear that, from the above: IF THE LAW CANNOT “SEE” A HUMAN BEING SUCH AS JADE STANDING RIGHT BEFORE IT WITHOUT HAVING A PIECE OF PAPER TO PROVE SHE ACTUALLY EXISTS AND, THEREFORE, THE LAW CANNOT CONFER BENEFITS UPON A LEGALLY NON EXISTENT HUMAN BEING, THEN THE LAW CANNOT POSSIBLY TURN ROUND AND SAY IT THEN “SEES” HER IF SHE COMMITS A CRIME! IT IS RIDICULOUS AND OUTRAGEOUS TO SUGGEST THAT A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING CANNOT BE SEEN TO EXIST ON ONE HAND WHILE, ON THE OTHER, STATE SHE DOES EXIST! IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY!
But it is one which the legal profession will say and do absolutely anything to maintain!
So the girl can breathe, sing, dance (all actions of a living breathing human) and the law cannot “see” her! But if she picks up a gun, the law can “see” this?
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SINGLE CONTRADICTION DRIVES A STAKE THROUGH THE HEART OF WHAT IS PURPORTED TO BE “HUMAN RIGHTS”.
But there is so much more to this.
1. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we NEED to have statehood. Why? For if there was no statehood then we would be absolutely free human beings with TRUE rights to travel and live ANYWHERE in the world that we choose WITHOUT the need for passports and a nationality (which the legal world and the UN state is a “human right”). I challenge ANY ONE OF YOU to state to any one of your governments that you do not WISH to be subject to such a limitation on your freedom to travel. Such “rights” are not “rights” at all. They are not even privileges. They are LIMITATIONS ON YOUR FREEDOM!
2. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we NEED to have an ID/Birth certificate/NI (UK) or SSN (USA) number to find and gain employment (purely for the purposes of taxation I may add). Again, a limitation on your freedom to contract. Seemingly, freedom to contract, then, is NOT a “human right”.
3. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we are taxed! That tax IS NOT for the purposes of paying down our debts and paying for infrastructure etc. It is purely for SERVICING (not paying off) a NATIONAL DEBT which need not, need never have but does, exist!
How/why? Read the following: The New Economy.
4. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy then has us “contracted in” to abide by government policy which demands, by this “law”, that we shoulder the bail outs of corrupt Banking institutions globally. Such legislation, then, on behalf of the banking world, ensures that those who DO legislate for them are financially taken care of by a portion of that bailout/tax revenue which is paid to them in salaries, expenses, jobs with the boys etc.
5. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy then has us pay ever increasing revenues for the supply of our water, gas, electricity, petrol, food, clothes – you name it – while we are also finding ourselves paying increasing taxes which, by the way, the tax laws are renewed every single year because they were first introduced on the basis that they were just to pay for a war and then would be dropped but the “Remembrancer” and the successive Chancellors of the Exchequer saw the benefit of such taxes. While the law has not been changed wrt the tax law having to be renewed every year, the bankers (Global central banks/IMF/BIS owners and controllers) WANT those taxes because they have our governments tied into the monetary system as it now exists. The present monetary system, however, is a con on such an enormous scale that every last politician, judge and banker who has promulgated the con, have perpetrated crimes on humanity of the most heinous sort.
But lastly, and oh so much more importantly, A CONTRACT (AND THE FREEDOM TO ENTER, OR NOT, INTO CONTRACT) IS BETWEEN TWO, OR MORE, “PERSONS” – under “Human Rights”, of course, this word “PERSONS” should be re-termed “HUMAN BEINGS” – AND EACH AND EVERY “PERSON”, WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM, IS FREE TO CONTRACT OR NOT TO CONTRACT.
EXCEPT IN ONE INSTANCE: THE FREEDOM TO CONTRACT WITH THE STATE! THERE, THEY DRAW THE LINE. IT IS THERE WHERE YOUR “HUMAN RIGHTS” AND THE WHOLE IDEA OF “HUMAN RIGHTS” COMPLETELY DISINTEGRATES INTO THE SHEER DECEPTION THAT IT IS.
THAT CONTRACT WITH THE STATE IS, IN FACT, YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHERE YOU REGISTER YOURSELF TO THE STATE. JUST AS YOU REGISTER YOUR CAR AND REGISTER MANY OTHER THINGS, YOU (OR YOUR PARENTS) HAVE REGISTERED YOU!
THIS IS WHY THE STATE OWNS YOU AND YOUR OFFSPRING. THIS IS WHY THE STATE CAN SEND IN THE POLICE AND THE DHSS TO REMOVE YOUR CHILDREN (sometimes this is a good thing for the child but there are many instances that it is not and may be done simply because you do not live, as a parent, the way the state demands you do).
Now, what would happen if you decided you wished to relinquish your statehood? And that you brought it to the state’s attention that the contract between you and they was void?
[For those of you reading this who suggest it is not a contract, please attempt to explain why? You see, there is one other issue: The state itself - please do part of the job to understand this by confirming what I am telling you here - is a "PERSON". It is a LEGAL PERSON. If you wish to remain in willful ignorance of this and what it means, be my guest, however, what it means is this: The State as a "person" and you as a "person", has us remember the basic premise of law. ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW!
Now IF that premise is to remain true, then you, as a free human being being free to contract, (I would hope the UN would agree but, of course, in this case they will not) or not to contract, with any and all other legal persons, have a god given right to accept or dismiss such a contract with the state OTHERWISE you are being coerced to contract with it.]
Now, the fact is we have all, inadvertently, contracted with the state. We did not understand or recognise the full implications of this contract. That being the case, we can categorically state that we were not given full disclosure of the terms of the contract.
IF A CONTRACT IS ENFORCED OR COERCED UPON YOU AND/OR IF THERE IS NO FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS OF ANY GIVEN CONTRACT, THE LAW STATES THAT SUCH A CONTRACT IS NULL AND VOID!
The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.
Now, some will argue that there is a legal premise which speaks of the “Supremacy” structure of the law where the law of nations is of more validity and power than the law which applies to citizens of that nation/any nation. I will simply ask you this: Did you, once more, agree in full knowledge, to abide by such? Also, who/what is it that has introduced such a premise? It wouldn’t be the very political class who are in government and agree these treaties and premises of law would it? Are all of these people not simply legal persons like you and I?
“Ah but there is something called ‘democracy’ where we vote these people into office (“power” as they call it) and that undermines the argument against this supremacy of the law of nations”. Well let’s attack this point for a moment:
The EU (an illegal institution under the Constitutional law of the United Kingdom I may add) now has, of all things, “legal personality” which means that it can CONTRACT as a single legal entity (on behalf of more than 500 million people while it is not even democratic in structure). The “contracts”, in this case, are called “TREATIES”. Now, the FACT is that, for the EU to have been given the powers it has by the nations within the EU, those powers had to be relinquished by each nation freely. If the signing of the treaties leading up to and including the Lisbon Treaty, were signed and agreed under any form of duress, then those treaties would be null and void!
Now, consider that in the context of us having given the power of entering such treaties to our government when, in fact, the UK’s population DID NOT WANT AN EU AND WERE NEVER MADE AWARE that, from 1972, all treaties signed were leading to the destruction of our own national sovereignty!
Further, and of great importance: For the state to have ANY control and influence on your life, you must contract with it and, just like the UK freely giving power and control upwards to the EU, that contract and that relinquishment of power and sovereignty by you MUST have been given freely and in full disclosure of the terms of the contract.
NEITHER OF THOSE TWO FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT CRITERIA WERE FULFILLED IN THE CASE WHERE YOU AND I HAVE REGISTERED WITH THE STATE BY WAY OF REGISTERING OUR BIRTH!
If you wish to consider the above further, wrt to legal personhood of states, read the following blog: Destroying the mindgame
YOU ARE ALSO AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE POLICED BY CONSENT?
However Dom, there is ONE important catch in this which undermines what you believe (and no the police you spoke to will not understand it like they understand very little as you know): The contract of the birth certificate has us all contracted to the state and the state gives us “free elections” to choose our government and, therefore, makes the argument (and shall enforce it!) that it is the “public” which, as a whole, gives the state and its police force our COMMUNAL consent. Thereby, you and I and anyone else simply standing up and saying “I do not consent” will not, in the state’s view, hold ANY water! I’m sorry Dom but that is how it is. The ONLY way of stripping them of these powers is for the nation, as a whole, to say “Just hold on one bloody second here!”.
One last point to focus on from the Human Rights Act 1998:
“YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE UNLESS WE WISH TO TAKE IT!”
2 c) in action lawfully taken (it’s THEIR law remember) for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Question: WHO decides whether or not something is classed as an insurrection?
Well let’s look at what “insurrection” means:
So, let us assume that this country’s population (or a significant portion thereof) have finally had enough of these corrupt criminals which we know they are. We also know that each political party (even the BNP and UKIP) are in on the game because, although they are “tarnished” by the “Crown Tripod” as I call them (Libdem/Toy/Labour), both of these parties are allowed to exist. The Head of State and the Law as it exists, would never allow these parties to exist unless they played the game within the State rules. All of the parties exist to “guide” your wrath and gain support for various variations (yes that was on purpose) of the overall existing power base. They are all controlled opposition however because they will not (not one of them) discuss, debate or point you in the direction of the legal person and monetary system issues – which are the entire basis of your misery and control.
If people then set out of the controlled arena of political parties – sold to you as democratic and, if you have issues with how the country is run, “join or form a political party” – and rebel and have their say, en masse, out on the streets, then the state can call in the troops to “quell” what they shall term an “insurrection”. In “quelling” such, they have (through their Human Rights Act) given themselves the right to kill you!
There is one further interesting little point however. Note how the UK Human Rights Act Article 2 is based upon (but expands upon) the UN article 3 which simply states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Big difference huh? The UK State obviously seen a few little problems with not allowing it reason to kill you.
And notice the term “Security of PERSON”.
Then look at Article 6 in the UN declaration:
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Hahaha. They’re quite “brilliant” aren’t they? It does not state: “Everyone has the right to recognition before the law”. It states “Everyone has the right to recognition AS A PERSON before the law”.
Thank you your honour. I rest my case!
There is a saying: “You cannot fight fire with fire”. It applies to so many of life’s challenges while it also applies to this. You see, you cannot fight the law (or the legal establishment) with the law because it is they who say what the law is and is not. HOWEVER, you CAN totally destroy their PATHETIC presumptions by the use of LOGIC. Doing that, the entire house of cards comes crashing to the floor!
SO, WITH THAT, I HOPE THE POINT IS NOW FULLY PROVEN TO YOU THAT “HUMAN RIGHTS” IS NOTHING BUT HUMAN DECEPTION!
And yet, no matter what I attempt. Who I add and try to communicate with from Infowars, while they produce story after story about THIS, (below), they will NOT acknowledge what I am trying to give them as an explanation AND, therefore, an intellectual solution!
Now WHY do you think that may be? HOW MANY SOLUTIONS (and this IS a 100% solution by understanding the problem precisely) HAS INFOWARS EVER COME UP WITH?
So, if you just happen to be an Infowars follower and you understand what I have just presented to you and understand, therefore, how it accounts for this Infowars report, then WONDER WHY Infowars will NOT speak about this or promote the info in this blog!
But then it’s no surprise to me because Paul Joseph Watson and others in the “team” have previously ignored the Economic?monetary solution to our problems also as explained in a recent blog called “The new economics is mathematics”.
That WORRIES me. It worries me a lot!
IF POLITICIANS, BARRISTERS AND THE JUDICIARY WERE PROPERTY, THEY’D ALL BE IN NEGATIVE EQUITY!
THAT IS HOW VALUABLE THESE PEOPLE ARE TO SOCIETY!
But when people of this country begin to see mothers throwing themselves in front of lorries because they “can’t AFFORD to live anymore”, you and that corrupt, legislating, criminal government you work for (not just you tories but also labour and LibDem – all of you feeding off the people of this country while you protect the very banks and corporations who cause this misery by legislating on their behalf in a fundamentally corrupt deception called a “monetary system”) may well see a Britain that you never could imagine could have existed.
Now, I have come to a point where I’ve had more than enough of the bullshit you and your legislators, and the judiciary which enforces it, call “law” as each of you pass the “hot potato” between each other – the MP can’t interfere with the judiciary and the judiciary turns and says “we don’t make the law, the MPs/legislators do”. While, as I hope you are well aware, I’m one of the “intelligent ones”. I’ve spent 30 years in a career Damian. I’ve hit the heights of a six figure salary. I’ve travelled the world and I’ve got the education. Many (too many) have not. It is these who will resort to violence on an epic scale because, let me explain something to you: The information highway is immense in its structure and its also immense in its capability to inform and to educate. Whereas, unlike before in earlier times, people did not have instant access to information which contradicted the propaganda of which you are a part, they do now and there are mountains of it. People are learning the abject corruption and bullshit that you people prop up.
Well, it’s you and your colleagues’ actions in parliament who are setting this scenario up. You’re not backing down. You’re afraid to speak truth to power. You’re impotent. Meanwhile Mr Ustych and his barrister colleagues are either so lacking in empathy on the whole with those who have not shared their backgrounds (Yes Alex, I gave my kids what you had and did the “expatriate experience” like your father but there is a difference – I maintained the connection with my origins and I achieved it entirely off my own back – creating that value in my “person” which the banks then obfuscate and assume as theirs) or are simply too scared to rock the boat because they may lose their juicy little career.
All of this made me learn what it is that is so wrong. My point of writing to you (however bluntly) is this: YOU can learn what is so wrong too if you are at all willing to “drop” the ego of your positions and your “capacities” – i.e. Damian Green the MP and Alex Ustych the Barrister at law (who swear an oath to the Crown which you both do).
So read this open letter I penned to the son of a woman who has felt it necessary to take her own life because she felt she could not afford to live and then click on the link to the “New Economy” and educate yourselves. Then recognise that it is YOU (and only you) who can put a stop to this by your willingness to grasp, interpret, recognise and acknowledge it. Then DO something about it! It is YOU who can turn this deception and corruption around.
Now, I FULLY expect you to read this. If neither of you choose to do so or you respond with some kind of dismissive bullshit, then I know full well where you both stand. The problem with you acknowledging this is that it takes balls in your positions. You know it would “upset the applecart” and, to be frank, I’m not sure either one of you have those balls. I would, however, be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong and would be gracious enough to acknowledge it. But then that is entirely up to you.
Here is the letter/blog. The explanation of that new economy – which is so very simple – is linked to the letter.
Both of you can decide to turn over a new leaf and, if you have any empathy for people at all, take action of some sort (any sort) which brings this to the attention of your peers. If you need help in doing so, I stand ready to provide it. If you and your peers worry about my lack of “respect” for you then that is so easily fixed: You earn that respect by showing to this country what you are really made of. I am more than willing to discuss/debate in a respectful manner (while this is not disrespectful as I see it, just blunt between men. You are at liberty to be just as blunt) but my long experience of dealing with your colleagues has me recognise the obfuscation, deception and pure outright lies that are wrapped in pleasant language. I just don’t play that game guys!
Now, how about you both begin that journey and take action in my case to do the right thing? That right thing, I have no doubt, is hard to do but, right now, while you can both see clearly the wrong here, you just don’t have the willingness to try that bit harder do you? For example, one letter from you Alex and you just cite percentages while you can see clearly the wrong. If you can see it and you say the courts won’t then you know something is wrong. And it is not only you who can clearly recognise it. The question is: Are you a “Hunter” or a “farmer” (in Sales speak). The hunter changes things and stirs things up while the farmer just grazes and takes the salary. The same goes for you Damian? Which are you?
Best Regards guys.
Subject: RE: Referral to LawWorks
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:27:23 +0000
Dear Mr xxxxxx,
Thank you for your email and the attachments.
I understand from the subsequent emails you have copied to me that in fact the Pro Bono Unit is still considering whether you qualify for free legal advice, and is looking at the detailed points you have made to them. In the circumstances I think it is best to wait to see what their final decision is.
Sent: 24 April 2013 13:28
To: GREEN, Damian
Subject: FW: Referral to LawWorks
Dear Mr Green,
I apologise for the bluntness but is this what I worked for over a period of about 5 months to achieve?
One letter from a Barrister from Pro Bono and then he gives up on a case which CLEARLY, the other party admits to having breached contract?
If this is so, then I would ask you to form a question to be raised in Parliament regarding this type of thing. It would seem clear, time and again, that the law as it exists at this point, does nothing to support it’s promotion of the idea that ALL legal persons are equal before it. Nor, it seems, does it reflect the so called “equity” of law it promotes.
MPs may state that one must pursue their respective issues through the courts BUT the big issue is this: The courts simply enforce the policy which you, the parliamentarians and legislation framers, create. That “law” is not equitable – not by a long shot – and this is becoming clearer and clearer as every day passes.
Mr Green, I can choose to rely on my MP to try and remedy what is clearly wrong, or I can choose to consider my MP who reads all of this, understands what is going on here, but simply says “I can’t do anything”. If it were the latter then I would ask “What is it that MPs are there to do for their constituents?
This company has brought me to the precipice of bankruptcy. THAT is a fact and it is a fact (and morality) which it is clearly seen they simply do not care about. They are flaunting the fact they breached the contract but are simply laughing saying to me and a Barrister “What precisely do you propose doing about it?”. Do you know how they can achieve this? How they can simply laugh and walk away while destroying a man’s livelihood even though having promised him something that he, in good faith and belief, acted upon to his detriment? Because you and your colleagues have allowed them to do so through your legislation.
Mr Ustych, while a Barrister, is impotent to achieve anything because he is entirely boxed in by the legislation (“law”) created by you and your colleagues. Yet you (as a group of parliamentarians) advise us we must plead to a court which you have stifled from being able to apply equitable law to so many people’s cases. The more financially strong “legal person” beats the less strong “legal person” every time. That is not law Mr Green. There is nothing which reflects “Alll persons are equal before the law” here.
No matter where one turns, the door gets shut. Thanks to British justice and the British Parliament.
I have not heard from LawWorks.
Meanwhile, Mr Ustych wrote a Letter before claim for me to Xcel’s solicitors (attached) and it has been replied to. Copies are attached.
Mr Ustych has advised me that there is somewhat less than a 50% chance of my winning a case if I brought it before court. I do not fully understand how this is so since the company has admitted Breach of Contract and, it can be seen clearly that, contrary to their assertions it is clear, once more, from Mr Weller’s email response, that he did, in fact vary the contract.
The contradictions within their most recent letter to me are plain to see.
It’s like this: There was a contract between two legal persons. Legal persons are equal before the law. I am asserting my right to sue them on that basis. The fundamentals of this are clear and cannot be refuted. That said, it is only the figure which is awarded to me which is in question. A court could not possibly find the other party to be correct or in the clear. To do so would be a miscarriage of justice. I have spoken with Mr Ustych, other solicitors (before having the assistance of Mr Ustych) and even one of the Directors in Xcel; All of which clearly see the wrong which has been done in this case. It is not difficult to see!
Now, it is unacceptable to me that I am then told I have less than 50% chance of winning this case.
This company made a promise. They did not hold to that promise while it is clearly seen that I acted upon that promise to the tune of £40,000 of cash reserves. Yes, it MAY have been invested in a property but that was the entire basis of the waiving of the probationary period and the promise! Not only that, while I am told “But you have not lost that £40,000″. I have! I am now at a point (having been unable to finance my mortgage of £1000 per month by way of salaries) that my savings have dwindled to a point I will have to sell my home! Doing so, I am locked in to a 5 year mortgage and will have to pay penalties of approx £10,00 or more when I sell. This means I shall then have no income and far less savings than I had prior to accepting the contract with Xcel. When I come to sell my home, I will then be unable to buy another (of course – having no income and, if I am lucky, about £10,000 of savings). Further, it is unlikely that I will even be able to rent (considering landlords wish to see that one is solvent with an income). Xcel’s solicitors keep referring to my argument being a moral one rather than a legal one. Indeed it is moral (It would seem Xcel have none then since it doesn’t seem to be an issue for them) but while it is moral it is also LEGAL. I am not taking a statutory view on this (as I have stated time and time again). There is the law of equity. It is quite abundantly clear and any judge applying such law (as I would demand they do) would simply have to acknowledge that equity has not been reached in this case. Now, I would like to hear someone’s full acknowledgement and appreciation of this fact. Once so, I would then expect the law to do as it should – rebalance it!
It is abundantly clear, from all Xcel’s communications, that they admit they did not stick to contract. It does not matter that they say they have paid out according to one month’s notice because that obscures the fact that they did so having breached the contractual terms in the first place. I wish to know whether there is a Barrister (or solicitor in LawWorks) who clearly see the wrong/tort in all of this (as I know Mr Ustych does) and is willing to represent, effectively, my case in court. Or is it simply the case that if any solicitor or Barrister feels that a case has less than a 50% chance of winning, they do not take it on? If so, then HERE is the problem with that: Why do ANY cases go before court? Because, if one party says “Ok we have a better than 50% chance so we will go to court” then, assuming competence on the part of the other party’s solicitors (and we have to assume all Barristers and Solicitors are competent do we not?), the other party will back down because they must obviously have LESS than 50% chance.
Doesn’t Mr Ustych (or any Barrister) think that it is possible that that assessment of less than 50% is just a measure of their belief in their own capability to argue effectively? Also, do they not consider the possibility that, at the point where the other party gets nervous at the thought of going to court, the closer that day gets, the more likely they would think of coming to some settlement?
Lastly, I wrote 3 letters to Xcel and their solicitors and all were dismissed by them. Mr Ustych (a Barrister) writes ONE letter and it is dismissed (and in parts described as absurd) by them. Mr Ustych then suggests there is nothing more he can do? His considered opinion as a Barrister is slated by a solicitor and that’s all the Bar Pro Bono section can do or achieve? I ask myself, would it be different if a solicitor or Barrister was being paid by me?? Is that it?
Sorry for being so candid but should I seriously be impressed?
I am, therefore, asking for further advice from the Pro Bono section and solid advice which actually achieves something. This is not a game where we roll a dice and give something a punt to see what happens!
Subject: Referral to LawWorks
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:32:28 +0100
BY EMAIL ONLY
Mr xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx
Our ref: xxxxxx/13/0124
2 April 2013
Dear Mr xxxxx,
Re Mr xxxx xxxxx v XCEL Power Systems Ltd
Further to your emails, I do apologise for the delay in referring your case to LawWorks. This letter confirms that I have referred your case to LawWorks’ Individual Casework Scheme.
Once LawWorks has received your case, they will be in contact with you directly.
Please note that LawWorks can only assist in some cases and there is no guarantee that they will be able to assist in your case.
Should you need to contact LawWorks before you hear from them, their details are as follows:
National Pro Bono Centre
48 Chancery Lane
Tel: 020 092 3940
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me,
Direct line 0207 092 3962
Address: Bar Pro Bono Unit, The National Pro Bono Centre, 48 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JF
Who are Xcel? A company with a Managing Director by the name of Richard Weller, who waived a probationary period of employment (proven) and were sufficiently happy with one’s performance that Mr Weller waived it and advised that one could, comfortably and with his assurance, purchase a house which meant the laying down of approx £40K of savings. One, then, had a £5K monthly income from the employment to pay the mortgage which is over £1K per month. Within 2 to 3 months after making this statement, Mr Weller, out of the blue with no justification of any kind and no notice, decided to terminate one’s employment. Leaving one to pay one’s mortgage from one’s now much smaller level of savings and no income.
I repeat once more – NO REASON and the company and Mr Weller have had many opportunities given to them to state the reason – any justification whatsoever – and they have refused point blank. They have admitted a breach of contract (which it is) and while there are many other legal points – such as estoppel – for which damages may be claimed, the above Barrister states he believes there is less than 50% chance of winning!
So, I will leave you with this. It is only my opinion and I have an absolute right to my opinion as he does to his. In my opinion, this man is an incompetent businessman (and I have good reason for this not just sour grapes I assure you), he also seems to enjoy jokes in Directors’ meetings about the possibility of a war with Iran resulting in more business for the company (he tends, then, to ignore the human casualties of such a war while he profits) and lastly, I would never trust the man as far as I could throw him. His word seems not to be his bond.
Defamation is non justified statements (which you used son in your termination letter to me). Defamation is not a statement of fact or of a justifiable opinion.
Please accept my, and so many others, condolences for the loss of your mother. I read the Mirror article having picked up on it from a Facebook post. I felt the need to write this having experienced the shivers down my spine on reading the article and the deep deep regret I had in learning of a woman who had simply come to a point where life seemed so helpless. A woman who had the dreams and hopes that we all do as she grew up and had her family and who, no doubt, wished for the very things we all do: Life, love and happiness.
It was (and is) a tragic story to read Steven. My heart (and so many’s hearts again) go out to you for your loss.
Your mother was a victim – as so many are and will be – of a government (no matter whether that government is left or right, they are indifferent to the legislative effects they cause people) who, not only, do not care – they have absolutely no empathy for the people Steven – but will continue down the path of destruction, not only of the economy and the infrastructure of our nation, but also of people’s lives. Your mother blamed the government and, contrary to what many will say, she was right to do so. The government are not incompetent Steven. Not in any way are they incompetent. They are simply bought and paid for. They are not who control this country of ours – neither Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat – it is the banks who control (the central banks, the IMF, the BIS and the UN). But, no matter, even though the government are not in control, the fact is they could be if they so wished and they accepted the mandate of the people – which they do not. The governments of this world legislate for the Bankers.
Does that let government off the hook? No. Because the government are there to do OUR bidding while they obscure, purposefully, the fact that they do the bidding of those from whom they borrow. Who is in control Steven? The Lender or the borrower? The government are fully aware of the deception they play upon the people and, for that, they are murderers of your mother. They are murderers of many more also and many to come. They are murderers of our troops also. But what are our troops doing fighting for this “democracy and freedom” when, within this so called (and it isn’t) “free and democratic” country, the very people they think they fight for are committing suicide due to the government’s (who the troops take their orders from ultimately) deceptive collaboration with banks?
Steven, there is and always has been a solution to all of this misery which these monstrous, deceptive, lying scum politicians create. It is just that people like your mother (and that is ALL of us no matter how much one has in the bank – we are all being conned) do not know what it is that causes this misery. Once one recognises the cause, one can implement a solution. A solution, however, that the government and the banks will NEVER acknowledge and it is that refusal to acknowledge something they know to be true which has the present misery through corruption continue. In their knowledge of it and refusal to change it, they are murderers. It is also pre meditated. There is a “mens rea” (a lawful term for a “guilty mind” – they know what they are doing) and there is an act. The act being the legislation which they implement in full knowledge that people can only take so much. There is also a motive. That motive is money. NOT money to simply pay off a national debt which is unnecessary but also money which, in implementing the legislation, they know will arrive in THEIR pockets.
I would ask you – plead with you – to read the following. It lays out precisely what the entire problem is and it is the solution which, if our corrupt government acknowledged, would completely wipe out this misery we ALL live under. Understanding this and implementing it would save millions more lives (worldwide) from such misery.
Of course, I understand that this is not the time you may wish to dedicate to understanding what is responsible for the tragic circumstances you find yourself in. It is here, however, for perhaps a future time for you to consider but it is also here now for the purposes of having others understand and realise the impacts which this existing usurious, corrupt monetary system has. It is not just a matter of money or economics, it is a matter of life and death. It has been for centuries across all parts of the world (as seen in the misery of Africa for example) but people have tended to ignore the connections between the system and Africa and elsewhere because it all happens “somewhere else on the planet”. Well, as we can see, it doesn’t just happen somewhere else.
Best wishes Steven. To you and your family.
RIP Mrs Bottrill.
You can’t make these stories up!
Yet, time and time again, these people come out with their justifications, explanations and excuses.
The British establishment are sick paedophiles and our Police are simply incompetent minded pricks to see it for what it is. They simply will not allow themselves to be educated to understand that this is one satanic, fucked up country we have.
But hey, when you’re part of the freemason fraternity, what would you expect them to do?
“Sir” (they’re ALL “Sirs” – the Queen loves her paedo boys!) Rodney Walker BUYS Jimmy Saville’s Scarborough home FOR HIS GRANDCHILDREN!!
While our Rodney – bit of a plonker like – was head of the NSPCC Full Stop campaign against child abuse and raised £25M. He didn’t raise quite as much as our Jimmy did then did he? But you can bet they can all raise an erection!
While, once more, it should never be forgotten that the Duke of York (Prince Andrew) was the Chairman of the NSPCC Full Stop campaign. And? So what?
Well, you see, it’s like this: Andrew was (and is still) good friends with a charged and convicted paedophile….
Now wouldn’t ANYONE with two synapses to rub together, think that this was all just a little too weird?
Sometimes I really do wonder if I have crossed dimensions into the land of the body snatchers because it just seems to me that the vast majority of people just cannot piece stuff together and are incapable of seeing things which are incredibly obvious! Or they simply don’t care about it all. Either way, what is it that has taken over the minds (or bodies?) of my human family? How dumbed down have we become?
If you were to come across a family and friends who, together, had so many links to pedophile yet had connections through such an organisation as the NSPCCs, you’d smell a rat wouldn’t you? You might even report your suspicions to the police wouldn’t you?
While it doesn’t even end there. As I have said before, Bonnie Prince Charlie has not only the connections to Saville BUT also to an ex priest, to whom, Charlie offers sanctity. This priest having been? A PAEDOPHILE!
Now how much of this can we take and ignore?
UPDATE 12th May 2013:
While the cover up continues. WOW Daily Star – WHAT A SCOOP! (but then it was never meant to be was it?)
Written as a “scoop” to have you think they’ve unearthed something that is of any importance. It was probably redacted initially for that very purpose so that, when it “came out” (and we knew it anyhow) people would just accept it for what it is: A damp squib! Therefore, it’s enough to have people assume that there isn’t more of a story behind this.
It’s brilliant how they manage the press and the release of stuff to take you off the scent.
During the early 1990s, I was working as a European Sales & Marketing Manager for Racal. It was the early years of marriage and babies and I wanted to add a Business angle to my existing Physics background so I decided to embark upon a BA (Hons) in Business Studies at Napier University in Edinburgh where I had also done my Physics degree about a decade earlier.
Yes, I was solidly in the “matrix”. I was ambitious and wanted to ensure that next rung upon the corporate ladder. And I achieved it (in some respects, to my detriment).
I would like to share with you something which everyone of us – including me – on that course failed to recognise. We just didn’t question. That’s not what you are there to do. You are there to listen, to read, to write, to be able to repeat everything just as you are taught by the great guru in front of you who has previously been in your position and listened, read, written and repeated so well he gets to stand up before the next generation and feed them the same thing.
The course included significant study of Economics and cost accounting etc. The following book was our “bible” – I don’t know if this book is still used or an updated version still in print but this was the “bible” at the time…..
Great minds write these books! Men who graduate from esteemed colleges such as The London School of Economics! (Yes, THAT school once again!)
BUT we, as students, never really question things when our minds are on trying to achieve, trying to pass the exams, trying to make sure we say and do all the right things so to prove to our peers (who are all doing the same thing) that we are worthy of sharing a classroom with them. We certainly don’t have the time or the inclination to say “Wait a minute! There’s something not quite right here”. After all, you’re the new one to the information and the lecturer knows his stuff inside out now doesn’t he? HE isn’t going to just tell you or regurgitate erroneous facts, figures, processes etc is he?
But let’s skip a couple of decades more and arrive at 2013. Those couple of decades have been one hell of a ride! You’ve climbed that corporate ladder, you’ve made the six figure salary, you’ve lived and worked in the most exotic of locations and hell! You’ve been a Director and Country Manager for International companies! What a STAR you’ve been!
But let me tell you – it’s all total nonsense! In 2013, you look back on your “stellar career” and you dismiss it all. Yes it brought you material goods, worldwide travel, exotic holidays, privately educated kids, but it was all achieved while the very system which allowed you to do it was rigged and while you ate and paraded around with your cars and your money and opulent homes, you had maids and drivers who hardly had a pot to piss in (no matter you tried to alleviate that a little) and just around the corner from your homes, in Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, there were whole families living in corrugated shacks by the railroad. There were women who would approach you not only to sell their bodies but, sometimes to sell their BABIES! Meanwhile, thousands died of starvation and disease all over the world everyday while you dined at the classiest of restaurants and stayed in the most luxurious hotels across the planet.
THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG! But you didn’t know what it was and so many still don’t (and many of them don’t even wish to).
Then something happened. Something BIG happened to you! Big yes, good no. And it all just stemmed from a 20 year love which ended abruptly. You never saw it coming. It was like the proverbial steam train hitting you. But it was worse than just the ending of a marriage. It was the sheer scale of lies and deception and willingness of the other to do whatever it took to get the money! But it was so much more than that too. It was realising a court (Yes a supreme court in Singapore) was corrupt to the core. It was finding yourself jailed (with no record) because you had the audacity to tell them they were corrupt when you found out exactly what had been going on (Courts AND governments DO NOT LIKE IT when the small man shouts “Just wait a second here!”). It was looking over to “her” in court, after she was exposed as a perjurer, but YOU being thrown in jail because you would not play ball when the court ignored the perjury and she walked out of court with a smile as she saw you handcuffed and led down to cells before being thrown in Queenstown prison. Anyhow, that’s a whole other story.
But it was all of that that set you out to study – not another academic course written by those who wish to condition your thinking – but study law for the purposes of protecting yourself and defending against this onslaught you were faced with. You became “forensic” in following every single element of your case, the affidavits, the proofs of the claims, the attachments of expense claims, the whole deal. Your lawyer was hopeless. He was just playing the game with the other lawyers and the court so that, when you brought it to his attention that you had found out the court had never had jurisdiction from step one – the shit hit the fan and you had to get out of Singapore. Otherwise, you were in jail once more.
I told you they don’t like getting found out!
So what has all that got to do with this book and economics and the subject of this blog? Well it’s to give all those of you who may be commencing on your studies and/or your careers a heads up: You have no idea where life shall lead you and while you don’t and while you are in the growth mode of life, you will just accept that everything is just how it is and that there is nothing wrong and nothing obscured from you. Everything your lecturers relate to you is absolutely sound. However, I can assure you – it isn’t. Looking behind that curtain, lifting that veil and recognising it – or being willing to and open minded enough to – is difficult. Unfortunately, it is only when you are faced with something so blatantly monstrous and corrupt in your own life that you tend to want to find the explanation.
So, with that, back to the book:
Here are a couple of pages taken from it (from Chapter 33 entitled “Money and Prices”).
Point 1: “Goldsmiths used to accept deposits of gold coins and precious objects for safekeeping, in return for which a receipt would be issued which was, in effect, a PROMISSORY NOTE. As time went by, these notes began to be passed around in settlement of debts ACTING AS BANKNOTES DO TODAY”.
What is a PROMISSORY NOTE?
WIKIPEDIA: A promissory note is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms. If the promissory note is unconditional and readily salable, it is called a negotiable instrument.
|“||§ 83. BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882. Part IV.…Promissory note defined(1)A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.(2)An instrument in the form of a note payable to maker’s order is not a note within the meaning of this section unless and until it is indorsed by the maker.(3)A note is not invalid by reason only that it contains also a pledge of collateral security with authority to sell or dispose thereof.
(4)A note which is, or on the face of it purports to be, both made and payable within the British Islands is an inland note. Any other note is a foreign note.
Examples of Promissory Notes:
Let me now point you to British Case law:
A Lord Denning judgement that says a bill of exchange once tendered has to be treated as cash… The principle is that a bill, cheque or note is given and taken in payment as so much cash, and not as merely given a right of action for the creditor to litigate a counterclaim (see Jackson v Murphy  4 T.L.R. 92). “We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary”
(see per Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar  1 W.L.R. 357 at 361;  2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA)
I trust that the above is clear and unambiguous enough for you?
“A promissory note is to be treated as cash”. No dispute, just fact. The reason? Because promissory notes ARE cash. That is why the banks accept your signing of them which, in turn, allows them to MERELY RE-PUBLISH your promissory note as a banknote or bank cheque or electronic fund transfer. The entire point is, however, it is NOT necessary for the banks (the entire system which exists) to hold this power of “transmutation” of your own commercial value. This is where the entire fraud/deception of the banks lies.
Meanwhile, please listen to this banker:
There are a few points he makes which you would then think “Yes he has a point” such as that about paying for the bus with stamps. However, it does not hold up in today’s electronic, card-based society does it? Yes, with the New Economy solution, everything would be electronic/cards. A cashless society in fact. “Just what the state and the bankers want!” I hear you say. Yes it is what they want BUT the immense difference is, they want it for your control and to pay them taxes and interest which are entirely unnecessary. “How..”, you ask, “..would MPE be any different?” Very simply: Along with MPE comes ACR (Absolute Consensual Representation) and a mandate which keeps a dramatically reduced government in check. A government which, by the way, due to MPE and no interest, cannot find itself fattened up by corrupt practices and feeding off the bankers’ handouts from the defrauding you of your money.
Meanwhile, do not consider that every transaction (for chocolate bars and newspapers or even furniture and electronics etc) would need a written, signed Promissory note”. It wouldn’t. Your “credit balance” would be held within the CMI (Common Monetary Infrastructure) which is purely and simply a database of people’s assets, liabilities and transactions (including government and corporations).
Now, the first column of page 474 then simply explains the idea of fractional reserve banking which most of us know about. It, itself, is quite a monumental con since the entire basis of it is lending money which the banks simply do not have (while they charge interest on it). When I first started to study this whole monetary issue, I considered that to be where the entire con lay. However, as I proceeded, I realised there was something more while I could not quite put my finger on it and articulate it.
There is a group/organisation by the name of POSITIVE MONEY which is gaining significant interest and support by people and even MPs while they are finding themselves being funded by various sources (Quakers being one – I attended a Positive Money conference in Edinburgh during which Ben Dyson stated this in answer to a question raised “Who is funding you?”). During that conference, which I attended on the basis, initially, of being very supportive of the goals of Positive Money, I found myself asking questions particularly relating to the question of basic money issuance and the words of Captain Henry Kerby in a Early Day Motion during the 60s in Parliament where he said that money should be issued by the Crown free of any interest. I found myself being somewhat ignored by the Positive Money team once I began to question some issues I had with their ideas.
A fundamental flaw by Positive Money is this: They are promoting the idea of having a two tiered monetary system whereby, in everyday high street banking, there would be no fractional reserve whereas, in the higher levels of investment banking etc, fractional reserves could still apply! The PROBLEM here is quite obvious when one considers the outcome of it. It would mean that, while the existing corruption and the corrupt individuals who play it, would be allowed to continue at the upper echelons of the economy – and through which all significant investment in business and infrastructure within the world’s economy is financed – we, the people who work within the real economy, are “starved” of this thing which they, the banks, purport to be money. We would be “starved” of it because of the very fact that there would be FAR less of it due to the eradication of the fractional reserve. Yes, we KNOW (as I have just explained) that the fractional reserve is a con BUT, within the current system, if you allow it to continue for the elite while discontinuing it for the rest of us, then you have, effectively, created an iron fence between the haves and have nots. The haves have already consolidated much of their wealth (corruptly by the use of the fractional reserve) and Positive Money’s idea is to effectively, allow them to steal it as they have, and lock the barn door after the horse has bolted. Our capability, then, to leverage off such a system (within the existing corrupt system as it is), is removed. I hope the reader recognises this?
However, the fractional reserve issue obscures the REAL, fundamental deception which has had the world locked into servitude where it need not be at all.
Let’s proceed to the “Credit creation” section on page 474 of the textbook…
A single bank system:
Think about the liabilities, assets, deposits and cash. What is staring you right in the face here? (and it is the same for ANY and ALL banks of the world).
Answer: NOT ONE CENT OF THE MONEY IN THAT BANK ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE BANK!
The deposits are from depositors (you and I). The cash, on the assets side of the ledger are the deposits from you and I!
THE BANKS LITERALLY DO NOT HAVE ANY MONEY OF THEIR OWN! Not ONE solitary cent!
But it is OH SO MUCH WORSE THAN THAT! The text goes on to say that the banks then, by way of the fractional reserve con, LEND this “non existent” money to borrowers, from which, the banks gain interest on money which was never theirs and did not exist! BUT, there is an IMMENSE deception here also and this goes to the root of all:
While the bank is ALLOWED to use fractional reserve procedure when “lending” money to people, it DOES NOT MEAN that they necessarily will. What MUST happen first?
The bank MUST find borrowers who are “GOOD” for the issuance of this “non existent” money. PLEASE NOTE HERE THAT I USE “non existent” IN QUOTES BECAUSE, AS YOU WILL SEE, THE MONEY IS NON EXISTENT TO THE BANK BUT IT IS NOT NON EXISTENT WHEN YOU CREATE IT FOR THEM! Yes, YOU work “magic”. It is YOU who transmutate that “potential energy” of the fractional reserve into “kinetic energy” of real value.
How does this happen?
Well the bank cannot lend “money” which, as yet, does not exist and which is simply an arbitrary possibility which exists in the system which says “A bank can retain a its depositors’ deposits and lend a multiple of this figure”. If it could just issue money like this on a whim and keep doing so with NOTHING to back it, then why does it not? Starvation and scarcity could be ended overnight if that were the case.
The bank can ONLY make that fractional reserve manifest itself as REAL MONEY when YOU or I apply our signature to a loan agreement. Now guess what ALL (without exception) of those loan agreements signed by us are?
Please re-read the definition of Promissory notes. They are a promise to pay. Period! We promise to pay back the bank the original “loan” plus the interest they attach to it.
SO WAIT A MINUTE. DO YOU SEE IT YET? HAS IT HIT YOU YET? NO? IF NOT, IT’S OK. IT IS SO MONSTROUSLY SIMPLE THAT IT IS THAT SIMPLICITY WHICH MAKES ALL OF THIS HARD TO GRASP WHEN FIRST INTRODUCED TO IT. DECEPTION IS GENERALLY BEST WHEN IT IS SO OBVIOUS WHEN ONE APPLIES CRITICAL, OUT OF THE BOX, THINKING!
Just allow yourself to remove the blinkers which these people have supplied to you through endless years, decades and centuries of life. To you, your parents, your parents’ parents etc.
EVEN ECONOMISTS, MANY TIMES, CANNOT GRASP THE SIMPLICITY OF THIS. AND NO, PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME I AM HOLDING MYSELF UP AS SOME INTELLECTUAL GIANT. I AM NOT. I HAVE JUST STUDIOUSLY RESEARCHED THIS AND I HAVE HAD HELP BY OTHERS ALONG THE WAY (WHETHER THEY HAVE MEANT TO HELP OR NOT) WHILE TRYING TO BREAK IT ALL DOWN INTO THE BASICS.
The banks, as you know, will not issue money (loans) to anyone without that someone being “GOOD” for the loan. What does “GOOD FOR IT” mean? Well, of course, it means that you have the wherewithal to pay back that loan and the interest. You have an income and/or other assets that act as that guarantee. IT IS YOUR VALUE THAT CREATES THE VALUE OF THE MONEY PAID OUT TO YOU AS A LOAN. IT IS, THEREFORE AS I SAID, YOU WHO CREATES THE “MAGIC” – THE TRANSMUTATION OF WHAT IS ONLY “POTENTIAL MONEY” INTO “KINETIC (REAL) MONEY”. YOU CREATE THE MONEY!
The bank has a process doesn’t it? It does not issue you any money or loan until you can satisfy financial criteria. YOU see that as being absolutely natural and necessary (and it is) but you see it that the bank is then providing you something that they own – the money. You (and the legal/financial/government system which has you BELIEVE in this monetary system – remember it is ALL about “confidence in the banking system”. CONFIDENCE. Why? Because it is a CONFIDENCE TRICK!) have been led to assume that money (in whatever form) emanates from the banks (high street banks, central banks etc) but it doesn’t. When you sign that loan – that PROMISSORY NOTE – it is YOU and YOUR VALUE which backs the issuance of that currency and all the banks do is enter YOUR VALUE as a figure that YOU “PROMISE TO PAY” into their computers.
THE FRACTIONAL RESERVE (or the proportion of it which you are signing a guarantee to) then kicks in and the bank smiles because you have allowed them to manifest a potential value into real value. They need your income/asset statement to “report” validity of issuing that money.
Now, here is the thing: If everyone, tomorrow, stopped borrowing from banks and the original depositors removed their deposits, then the bank would have no deposits to use as a basis for fraudulent multiplication of those deposits by way of fractional reserve. They would, therefore have no cash assets because the cash assets they have are precisely the deposits which have been removed.
So WHERE is all that money that the banks create? NOWHERE. The banks DO NOT “create money”. YOU DO!
So when you read or watch all of those documents and videos telling you that the deception is that Banks can create money “out of nothing”, it is simply not true and is another level of deception which is actually in the banks’ favour for you to believe because then, they maintain the “cloak” over what really happens.
Look at Page 475 of the textbook. You will see the following: “You can also see that each horizontal line in table 33.1 balances assets against liabilities and, therefore, at no stage are accounting principles infringed. The bank’s balance sheet at the end of the process would appear as:
LIABILITIES (£) ASSETS (£)
Initial deposits 10,000 Cash 10,000
Created deposits 90,000 Loans & Advances 90,000
TOTAL: 100,000 TOTAL: 100,000
Again, please remember that not one cent of the money (deposits, cash, “created” deposits, Loans and advances) is money, IN ANY WAY, which has EVER belonged to or been produced by the bank. The bank does not PRODUCE value of any nature within the REAL ECONOMY.
But what else is wrong with the table? There is something missing although the bank/monetary system and economists will never bring to your attention. The table DOES NOT present the true picture and, where it is said, there are no accounting principles infringed and that the system is “in balance” – IT IS NOT!
It’s all in the “loans & advances”. Come on. Think. What’s missing? It’s the “elephant in the room” by its absence.
Loans and advances have interest attached don’t they? Ah! But THAT would put the whole picture out of balance so we can’t show that! But that INTEREST is real. It is added to the loan and advance so the actual figure of 90,000 is, in reality, multiplied by the interest percentage. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE BANKING SYSTEM CAN MAKE A PROFIT BECAUSE ALL OTHER MONEY IS ACTUALLY OUR MONEY!
[Note to our Muslim friends who believe their system has no interest: Sorry to disappoint your religious beliefs but, while it is not applied with the word "interest" attached to it, every loan you get has "fees" added while you simply receive the principal. Those "fees" ARE interest and those fees would be applied to the "loans and advances" given in the table. There's no such thing as a "free lunch" for you muslims either. You're deceived by your own corrupt leaders too]
So what do we have here? We have banks, with NO money of their own, issuing us with entirely our own created money and charging us interest on it. While the money we create for them allows them to multiply it further and issue more to us when WE create it for them (with even MORE interest). The PROBLEM is this: The entire economy (the REAL PRODUCTIVE economy which you and I exist in) has ONLY principal.
If only OUR created principal exists in the economy then HOW do we, as a whole, pay back the INTEREST added? IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL ECONOMY. Not ONE PERSON has ANY portion of that interest to pay back. What does this mean?
It means that you and I have to compete (dog eat dog in fact) to see who can “win” the interest game and for EVERY “winner” there is a loser. However, the REAL winners are the banks because not only do they get paid some of the interest money by the “winners” but the losers relinquish their assets to the banks (your home/mortgage for example). Now take that up to government level (and ALL governments are borrowers). The governments compete (their competition result in wars and the deaths of millions for “supremacy” and resources and our soldiers are the pawns who ignorantly play this real game of death for them on this “Grand Chessboard”) and there are also winners and losers.
Why would our esteemed politicians play this game? Well it’s simple. Look at them. Look at their relative lifestyles and wealth. What happens when you legislate in favour of the banks’ goals and you are privy to the impacts that legislation will have? While, not only can you invest with that knowledge but also, you are retained by the Corporations and banks before, during and after your tenure in office (see Tony Blair, Ken Clarke, John Major just for three excellent British examples of this). The corruption, however, is throughout the system of government and public service because the system, to maintain itself, requires the military, the Police and the judiciary all to keep doing what they do. Meanwhile these people either do not see, or don’t care, that the very corruption they maintain to keep the system in place, will effect them in one way or another. They have families, friends, cousins, etc who may not be in a position of power and that system will negatively impact their lives at some stage.
Now, why do I enclose the word “winners” in quotes? Well how many people out there who thought they were “winners” in this game have recently (since 2008) found themselves losers? Millions of you! Me included.
While remember this: While the world’s economy has crashed, in these last few years there have been additional billionaires (and millionaires) added to the previous list. How can that be when the world’s financial system has crashed so badly and there is “no money” to be had?
Simple: The corrupt “mafia” who control this system have called in their loans – the loans that aren’t loans in reality but are our value disguised. They have stolen your labour and value by way of obfuscation (obscuring the real ownership of money by us).
Ok, before continuing with a closer look at how this obfuscation works (while I hope the foregoing makes it quite clear already), let’s consider some real world examples which impacts us all every single day:
ENGLAND – DARTFORD CROSSING
From Houses of Parliament 1984: Dartford Tunnel House of Lords
The first Dartford Tunnel Act was passed in 1930, but the first tunnel did not open until 1963. That tunnel was so successful that Parliament, in the Dartford Tunnel Act 1967, authorised the construction of a second tunnel. That Act also provided for the whole of the cost of the second tunnel to be defrayed out of toll income. The tolls in 1963 were set at 2s 6d. They are now 60p which is considerably less than they would be if the ordinary rules of indexing for inflation had been allowed to operate. If those rules had operated, the toll would now be 79p or 80p.
There was evidence given in another place to suggest that we could reach that position even earlier. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) might laugh, because it sounds like a long time ahead. However, in the context of general Government finance, a period of about 16 years during which time a debt of £68 million is expected to be extinguished is not a long time. In the context of financing such an operation, it is a reasonable period that justifies the philosophy of charging tolls and allowing the user of such an exceptionally expensive crossing to bear the cost of doing so.
The next alternative is that the Government should take over the £68 million debt and that it should be borne by the general taxpayer who bears the major burden of road construction. The cost of building an ordinary motorway is perhaps £2 million a mile. We are talking about a tunnel of a little under a mile to be built at £40 million a mile. We are entitled to say that that is an exceptional cost, that a large proportion of the benefit is obtained by the local users and that some other way should be found of financing that proposition. I do not believe that we are justified in placing the cost on the general taxpayer throughout the United Kingdom.
From h2g2: http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A667839
The first tunnel was completed in 1963 at a cost of £13 million; construction had taken five years due to difficult tunnelling conditions through the chalk. Traffic flowed in both directions between the A2 in Kent and the A13 in Essex.
By 1972 traffic had more than doubled, and construction of a second tunnel began to the west of the first. Again it was hampered by the difficult conditions, cost £45 million, and took eight years to complete.
The Queen Elizabeth II river crossing at Dartford (commonly called the Dartford Bridge) was the largest cable-supported bridge in Europe when it was built. Work began in August 1988, and took three years to build at a cost of £86 million – it was completed on time and within budget.
The following is from a Freedom of Information Act response:
From: Smith, Kevin
20 August 2009
Dear Mr Mark-William:Baker
I refer to your enquiry dated 10 August regarding the charges collected at the Dartford Crossing and provide the following information.
From 31 July 1988 until 31 March 2003 the Crossing was managed by the Dartford River Crossing Co Ltd. The QEII Bridge was not actually opened to traffic until 1991, the construction of this bridge started in 1988.
For the period from 31 July 1988 to 31 March 2002 Dartford River Crossing Co. Ltd. were required to produce annual accounts and these may be requested from Companies House.
They can be contacted at:
Telephone: Companies House Contact Centre – 0303 1234 500
E-mail: [email address]
Address: Companies House
This was an early Private Finance Initiative (PFI) concession, enacted by the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988, which transferred the existing debt from the tunnels to the private sector who would retain toll revenue to pay off the existing debt and the debt incurred by building the new bridge. Tolls were set by the Department of Transport (and its forerunners) in conjunction with the Concessionaire. The concession was for a period of 20 years from 31 July 1988, but could be ended as soon as the debt was repaid. The Secretary of State determined that all financial commitments had been met by 31 March 2002.
However, the Dartford-Thurrock Act 1988, Schedule 6, Section 16, (4) (1) contained the provision for a Toll Extension Period for the collection of tolls to provide a fund for future maintenance of the crossing. An Extension Agreement between the Concessionaire and the Secretary of State was in place from 4 March 1999 and allowed the Toll Extension Period to run from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003. All Toll Revenue during this period was passed over gross to the Department for Transport.
For the period of the Extension Agreement – between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003, the Highways Agency records show the sum of £68,363,698.02 received into their bank.
The current charging scheme at the Dartford Crossing came into force on 1 April 2003 under the powers of the Transport Act 2000. Since that date an annual account has been completed and these for the periods between 2003/2004 to 2007/2008 can be found on the Highways Agency website below, under “Reports”
Copies of the accounts can also be obtained from TSO. (The Stationery Office) who can be contacted at;
PO Box 29
Telephone: Telephone Orders/General Enquiries 0870 600 5522
The account for 2008/2009 is currently being prepared and should be available on our website in early 2010.
For your information there has been a charge in place to use the Dartford Crossing since 1963, when the first tunnel was opened.
From that time until the 30th July 1988, it was the responsibility of the Essex and Kent County Council Joint Consultation Committee. We do not have audited accounts of this period, but you may wish to approach either of these councils directly to obtain data on toll revenues for this period. Their contact addresses are;
Address: Essex County Council Kent County Council
County Hall County
Market Road Maidstone
CM1 1QH ME14 1XQ
Telephone: 0845 743 0430 Telephone: 08458 247 247
Web: essexcc.gov.uk Web: kent.gov.uk
I hope this is helpful.
Kevin Smith, Business Manager
Highways Agency | Federated House | London Road | Dorking | RH4 1SZ
Tel: +44 (0) 1306 878181 | Fax: +44 (0) 1306 878494
GTN: 3904 8181
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_Crossing
From April 2010 to March 2011, 50,939,941 vehicles used the crossing, at a daily average of 139,545 vehicles. This represented a fall back to pre-2002 levels, from averages approaching 150,000 since the turn of the millennium. The highest recorded daily usage was 181,990 vehicles on 23 July 2004.
So we have the following facts:
1. The entire crossing, composed of two tunnels and a bridge, cost £13M + £45M + £86M = £144M. Yes you may say that the £13M, £45M and £86M, at today’s prices, would be higher (but that is all part and parcel of the interest con we are under). But nevertheless, the relative costs WERE PAID FOR at the time. The material, the labour ALL bought and paid for. The supplier of materials and the workers, designers, engineers, everyone would be paid. As stated, for example, the bridge came in ON BUDGET. Therefore, it was paid!
2. In ONE year, 51 million vehicles used the crossing. Now, during that one year, the cost of only a car (not trucks, buses etc) was £1.50. Taking just that figure, the crossing made £76.5M. The cost of a car is now £2. The revenue generated over the 20 year concession (maintaining the £1.50 price for the purpose of demonstration): £1,530M
Let me repeat that: 1 BILLION 530 MILLION POUNDS STERLING!
And yet, even in their own words, they state “The concession was for a period of 20 years from 31 July 1988, but could be ended as soon as the debt was repaid. The Secretary of State determined that all financial commitments had been met by 31 March 2002.”
So what’s going on here? Well, it’s very simple. Privatisation and that privatisation is based upon national debt and the reality that we cannot pay that debt off (under this existing usurious monetary system). The costs we are shouldering for this example, and for a never ending list like it, are to pay the national debt interest (for which we also pay taxes – income and property+ others).
WHILE THERE IS A SOUND, PROVEN SOLUTION WHICH OUR LEADERS IN ALL COUNTRIES WILL NOT EVEN ENTERTAIN. THEY DO NOT WANT THE DEBT TO EVER BE PAID OFF (AND IT CAN’T BE IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM BECAUSE, WITH THE ADDITION OF INTEREST TO AN ECONOMY WHICH ONLY EVER HAS PRINCIPAL IN IT, THE SYSTEM IS TERMINAL).
Yes it is true that our government/leadership do not have the intent to pay off our national debt. They simply wish to SERVICE THE DEBT. As shown here:
Ask yourself the very simplest of questions: Who would not wish to ever pay off their debt? And why?
Now, here is another example of a bridge about to be built:
NOTE: “Cost will be shared between the government… and Surrey County Council”.
Where has both, the government and Surrey County Council got the money to build this? Yes, you guessed it – YOU! And that is the ONLY place they can get it from. So, now they will pay back that money to who? Yes you! In salaries for your labour in constructing it. Once its construction is complete and paid for, there should be no further costs involved (with the exception of annual maintenance which, strangely, we, the people, carry out – albeit through corporations which need to make a profit. However that KIND of profit is unnecessary because it exists to pay interest debt).
But let’s assume another way they can find that money: Taking loans! Loans, as we know, are Promissory agreements/obligations. How do the government and Council pay back those loans? Do they add anything of value by way of labour to the economy so as to take on these “loans” and be “good for it”?
No. It is, again, YOU the taxpayer who pays the “loans” back!
But while this (vicious) circle continues, the debt is fraudulently multiplied by the addition of interest (which does not exist in the real economy which has principal only remember?).
To understand the solution, we must first understand the deception. How do you otherwise find a solution for a problem you do not see or understand as existing? You can’t. It’s like punching an enemy you cannot see.
So, I will attempt to explain this as clearly as I can.
1. The banks have no money.
2.The banks DO NOT “create money” they ISSUE it!
3. These issuances of currency/money are simply representations of your and my own promissory notes.
4. The underlying value of ALL money in existence is NOT gold and silver etc and never was and never shall be. Gold and silver, NO MATTER that they have been around as “money” for millennia, are nothing more than any other commodity – precious metals yes. Have an inherent value of sorts yes (but so does platinum, copper, seeds, in fact any commodity whatsoever) but they STILL represent the value you create within the existing monetary system as demonstrated by the fact they are exchanged for your promissory notes/banknotes (remember banknotes ARE promissory notes – see page 474 once more) – and, as such, they have the inherent fault of being inflationary and deflationary. [Note: Bitcoin also has this flaw and is, in no way, a solution to the world's monetary system. Bitcoin is no more valuable than any other investment such as shares. They act in precisely the same way and, as has been shown, do nothing to prevent wild swings and do nothing, therefore, to prevent inflation and deflation]
5. Inasmuch as the banks are simply representing OUR value, all they are doing is RE-PUBLISHING our promissory notes to one another.
6. You see a house you wish to buy at £100K. You sign a promissory note (“loan”) which is a guarantee to pay - with your labour and/or assets – but, instead of being free to issue that promissory note direct to the house owner/asset holder you wish to purchase from, you are forced to issue it to the banking system.
7. What does the banking system do? It “transmutates” that promissory note having inherent value (YOURS) into it’s own printed promissory notes/banknotes. It then passes those banknotes (electronically credits the house owner’s bank balance) to the owner of the asset/house. Insodoing, the bank then turns to you “the borrower” (who has created that otherwise non existent money for the bank by way of your signature of the original promissory note) and demands you pay them the £100K PLUS interest.
8. That £100K becomes a deposit and a cash asset within the bank and adds to all the millions of other people’s promissory note creations of money to the bank’s “assets” (not their assets at all as we have seen).
9. The banks then use the fractional reserve system to multiply those deposits even further and lends out more of this “money” they say they have. All the while charging interest to each and every “borrower”.
10. This system has been in operation for centuries while we now have approximately 7 billion people on the planet. These 7 billion people (and all those generations before) have, as a whole, never had the interest money issued into the economy to pay the interest so the very most we could ever do is pay what IS issued into the world’s economy and that is PRINCIPAL ONLY. The REAL ECONOMY cannot pay back money which never physically existed because the principal issued is the ONLY amount which reflects the entire value of our labour.
DO YOU SEE IT NOW? DO YOU SEE WHY THE GLOBAL DEBT (that means everyone on planet earth bar none) is what it is?
So if it includes everyone then why would they do it? Because they (the world’s financial oligarchy) will always be able to pay their interest/debt off because they control the system (not that they actually do pay but that’s another story). IT IS LIKE A CASINO. THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS. The interest is sucked out and up to the global banking elite who then use that wealth to have our governments further legislate to pay off the debt by privatising infrastructure and land/resources. In the end, the elite do not want money. Money is simply the vehicle with which they indebt the rest of us (including governments) to the point where we have to hand over control of all resources, land and infrastructure to them. Once they have achieved that, then the legal system has them in full ownership and, if you own everything, you don’t NEED money!
11. The banks OBFUSCATE the issuance of money. They fraudulently take ownership of YOUR promissory obligation and, as we have seen, this IS “money”. When you sign that obligation (“loan”) they then add it to their assets. What they then can do (and do do) is SELL that note – because it is REAL value – and the market will pay for it. An example of them selling these notes are the Credit Default Swaps and CDO’s which we heard so much of during the mortgage crisis (which still exists). They package the debts (promissory obligations) up and sell them! How can they sell them if they are not REAL MONEY? What gives them their value particularly when, as you understand it, you still have not paid off the “loan”?
So here’s ANOTHER issue: If they sell these notes for money (which they do) THEN SOMEONE HAS PAID THEM THE VALUE OF YOUR MORTGAGE DEBT. THIS MEANS YOUR MORTGAGE DEBT HAS BEEN PAID OFF! BUT THE BANK STILL DEMANDS YOU PAY THE DEBT SO THEY ARE BEING PAID TWICE! THEY HAVE BEEN PAID AND YET THEY WANT PAID TWICE AND STILL DEMAND YOU PAY INTEREST ON AN ALREADY PAID OFF DEBT!
Additionally, according to “law” a debt paid off is a debt no more. If the market buys your debt they have paid it off! Does the buyer come after you to pay off the debt? No. Yet they are the owner of it now. So why does the bank demand you pay an extinguished debt?
12. The obfuscation of the banks then is this: You create the money. They RE-PUBLISH that money as theirs and issue it to the owner. That is ALL the banks do! They then charge you interest on your own created money. In any other circumstance, it would be YOU who charged THEM interest for lending them money! They make HUGE profits out of your signature creating that money for them. They multiply it and lend it out again and again!
So back to the solution:
1. That £100K house we spoke of. What if you did not issue a promissory note to the banks but simply issued it direct to the owner of the house? (this can be applied to any and all scenarios – private or public or corporate).
2. You would issue a promissory note for £100K to the house owner and the house owner’s account would be credited with the £100K directly and instantly.
3. Your account would show a debit/debt which must be paid down (and out of circulation entirely) over a period of time fitting with the type of asset purchased. In this case a house. The paydown period, in this case, could be 100 years. £100,000 paid down over 100 years is £83 per month. NO INTEREST BECAUSE THERE IS NO MIDDLEMAN WHO SIMPLY RE-PUBLISHES YOUR DEBT – i.e. The bank.
4. The accounting of that transaction (and all transactions nationwide or globally) would be handled by what is called a CMI (Common Monetary Infrastructure). A simple database of all obligations and the recording of all individuals and corporations accounts.
5. There would be no such thing as a bank or a central bank. There would be no such thing as “money” from the perspective of today’s understanding of what money is (which is wrong anyhow). There would be NO INTEREST applied to ANY principal within the economy
Do you remember the Liabilities and Assets table of the bank? The £10,000 of deposits and the £10,000 of cash? It was suggested it was balanced (but had not accounted for the interest). Well, in the case of what is MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY, that balance would be truly kept.
BALANCE IS A FUNDAMENTAL OF NATURE. THIS IS ALSO WHY THE “LAW” (although corrupted) TALKS ABOUT EQUITY. THE LAW OF EQUITY IS THE LAW OF BALANCE: HARMONY.
WITH MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY WE CREATE HARMONY LIKE NEVER BEFORE.
Can you see/envision all the multiple impacts that the implementation of such a system would have?
Perhaps I will get around to writing a follow up to discuss these. For now, I hope you enjoyed the introduction and that it has achieved what it set out to do: Remove the curtain and exposed “The Wizard” in all his glory!
I am sure there will be many people who may read this and have questions of all sorts – a myriad of them I’m sure. There will also be those who read and will wish to dismiss it all – your prerogative – but you will find, if you apply yourself to learning all about Mathematically Perfected Economy, that there are no “catches”. When you can define the problem – and we have – you are then in possession of VERY powerful “tools” to arrive at the solution.
There are many resources on the web relating to MPE (PfMPE). Coupled with MPE is ACR (Absolute Consensual Representation). ACR fixes the present political/legal problems and, although I have already written many blogposts on the fundamental issue with the legal system, it can always be repeated and written in a revised way to make it even more clear. I intend to do that at some point in the near future also.
PLEASE STUDY MPE. IT IS SIMPLE, EFFECTIVE AND, WITH NUMBERS, WE CAN SHAKE THE FOUNDATION OF THE CORRUPTION AND DECEPTION TO THEIR CORE.
ALEX JONES, MAX KEISER, RON PAUL ETC ETC ETC DO NOT PROMOTE OR SUPPORT MPE. THEY WILL NOT DISCUSS IT IN ANY WAY. THEREFORE, IF YOU CLING TO EVERY WORD OF THESE PEOPLE THEN THIS IS NOT FOR YOU.
IF, HOWEVER, YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE AND IT RESONATES, WHILE YOU MAY BE A FOLLOWER OF SUCH PEOPLE, I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO CHALLENGE THEM ON IT. YOU WILL FIND THAT, WHERE YOU MAY HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM TO ANY SIGNIFICANT EXTENT, THEY WILL REFUSE TO DISCUSS OR DEBATE THESE POINTS WITH YOU. UNTIL I FOUND THIS ARTICULATION OF WHAT I HAD ALREADY SENSED, I WAS LISTENING INTENTLY TO THE AUSTRIANS ETC. NOW I RECOGNISE THE REAL ISSUE, I SEE THE AUSTRIANS ETC SIMPLY WISH TO MAINTAIN THE FUNDAMENTAL DECEPTION AND RETAIN BANKING WHERE IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT NECESSARY. WHY? YOU TELL ME!
To further prove that these people who are imposing this austerity on us while our promissory notes have been stolen from us by banks who have then sold the notes on (and therefore the debt is extinguished) as securitizations (You remember the Credit Default Swaps etc from the mortgage crash don’t you?). Here is the reality of Promissory notes being sold as REAL value (cash) by the corrupt:
Regardless of whether you signed a mortgage or a deed of trust, you also signed a promissory note — a promise to pay back a specified amount over a set period of time. The note goes directly to the lender and is held on its books as an asset for the amount of the promised repayment.
Here is where foreclosure defense can begin to chip away at a bank’s claim on your property. In order for a mortgage, deed of trust or promissory note to be valid, it must have what is known as “perfection” of the chain of title. In other words, there must be a clear, unambiguous record of ownership from the time you signed your papers at closing, to the present moment. Any lapse in the chain of title causes a “defect” in the instrument, making it invalid.
Promissory Notes are Key to Foreclosure Defense
Some courts may also challenge MERS’ ability to transfer the promissory note, since it likely has been sold to a different entity, or in most cases, securitized (pooled with other loans) and sold to an unknown number of entities. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Carpenter v. Longan, it was ruled that where a promissory note goes, a deed of trust must follow. In other words, the deed and the note cannot be separated.
If your note has been securitized, it now belongs to someone other than the holder of your mortgage. This is known as bifurcation — the deed of trust points to one party, while the promissory note points to another. Thus, a foreclosure defense claims that since the relationship between the deed and the note has become defective, it renders the deed of trust unenforceable.
Your promissory note must also have a clear chain of title, according to the nation’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the body of regulations that governs these types of financial instruments. But over and over again, borrowers have been able to demonstrate that subsequent assignments of promissory notes have gone unendorsed.
In fact, it has been standard practice for banks to leave the assignment blank when loans are sold and/or securitized and, customarily, the courts have allowed blank assignment to be an acceptable form of proof of ownership. However, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court in U.S. Bank v. Ibenez ruled that blank assignment is not sufficient to claim perfection, it provided another way in which a foreclosure can be challenged.
Another foreclosure defense argument explores the notion of whether the bank is a real party of interest. If it’s not, it doesn’t have the right to foreclose. For example, if your loan has been securitized, your original lender has already been paid. At that point, the debt was written off and the debt should be considered settled. In order to prove that your original lender has profited from the securitization of your mortgage, it is advised that you obtain a securitization audit. The audit is completed by a third-party researcher who tracks down your loan, and then provides you with a court-admissible document showing that your loan has been securitized.
A foreclosure defense can also argue that once a loan has been securitized, or converted to stock, it is no longer a loan and cannot be converted back into a loan. That means that your promissory note no longer exists, as such. And if that is true, then your mortgage or deed of trust is no longer securing anything. Instead of the bank insisting that you have breached the contract specified in the promissory note, foreclosure defense argues that the bank has actually destroyed that agreement itself. And if the agreement doesn’t exist, how can it be enforced? A corollary to this argument states that your loan is no longer enforceable because it is now owned by many shareholders and a promissory note is only enforceable in its whole entirety. How can thousands of people foreclose on your house?
In their very own words (yet STILL not admitted outright but, in fact it is here) the ONLY real value of “money” is represented by YOUR PROMISSORY NOTE.
Question: Do we have any recourse even in THEIR own “law” to remedy this and put them away for life?
Answer: Yes (but only if the population get behind it).
It’s called the Theft Act – or Theft and deception Act 1968/1978.
Now, please understand this: The State adopts ITS interpretation of law because we allow it to. We allow it to by taking NO action. Yet ALL of their Acts, their “Laws” can be turned and used against them and we can change how things operate and run in this (and all) countries. NOT by violence, rioting, insurrection etc (where the Human Rights Act allows them to quell such activity and kill you!), but by mass knowledge and intelligence. A true intellectual revolution.
I would like to say “If you wish to part of that, then put your name in a comment box below” but, somehow, and unfortunately, I have this feeling that very few of you would. There seems to be a thirst for knowledge but not such a hunger for solutions and action for change. THAT needs to change otherwise this misery and corruption is just going to continue.
For some reason, I completely overlooked a response I got from Nigel Farage’s office in the EU Parliament approximately 2 years ago.
I think it is VERY important that this be shared. It is also important to notice the PERCEPTION of individuals and how one individual’s perception (without giving one an opportunity to correct that perception) can go a long way to demonise an individual in the eyes of others.
If one simply chooses to take one’s PERCEPTION as a fact and then use that perception against another without giving the other recourse to correct a misperception (either purposefully conceived or otherwise) then that can lead to bad feeling, jail or even war between countries.
It is a lack of communication and/or willingness to listen to other opinions which can cause all of these things so very easily. You will see what I mean when you read the following:
Subject: RE: Results from form on website…
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:13:50 +0200
From: Fuller Annabelle [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 12 June 2011 15:42
To: FARAGE Nigel
Subject: Fwd: Results from form on website…
This guy has been causing real problems on Nigel’s facebook page, being anti semitic and offensive. Can you check that Nigel is okay with me saying that given his comments on the facebook page he does not wish to interact with this person?———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Office of Nigel Farage <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Subject: Results from form on website…
To: email@example.com===[Contact Nigel]===
Address: None of your business.
E-mail: Removed for privacy
Your Query: Questions:
1. Does Lord Pearson have ANY affiliation with the Rothschild family or close associates either professionally or personally?
2. Is UKIP aligned with Zionist policy?
3. If the answer to 2 above is yes then please justify the existence of a “Jewish state” when, across the world, the ideology of having a state dedicated to a particular, racial, cultural or religious philosophy is considered racist and bigoted? As you are well aware, when the BNP suggest such in any manner for the UK, they are demonised as hardened racists. YET, the British government have the audacity to support – and demand British people support – a state of Israel which is precisely the antithesis of that of the multiculturalism they demand at home.
4. Please state those documents which, together, compose the British Constitution.
5. Please confirm your understanding of the current English Bill of Rights in terms of its legality on statute and the meaning of the phrase:
“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
6. Do you agree with both, David Cameron and Tony Benn, that politicians do not, never have and never should have, the power to transfer such powers (i.e. the sovereignty of our laws) to any other entity?
7. For Mr Cameron to state such emphatically as he does, he must draw this conclusion from some form of written (constituted) document which is binding by law otherwise he is speaking purely for himself and has no valid basis for making such a statement. Therefore, from WHERE does he draw this conclusion?
8. Do you agree that, as a government for and BY the people, such individuals in office and entrusted with the proper lawful use of such power, have a fiduciary duty toward the people of the United Kingdom?
9. Do you agree that David Cameron, by his own words, has implicated himself for continuing the same policy which he states, absolutely clearly and unambiguously, has never been within a politician’s power to do so?
10. Do you agree that the statement by Roy Hattersley regarding the deception by our governments in the 1970s regarding our participation in the EEC not affecting our sovereignty is, therefore, tantamount to treason and sedition at law?
11. Do you agree that with the monarch taking an oath to the British people – WHICH SHE MUST DO OTHERWISE SHE WOULD NEVER BE CROWNED BECAUSE HER POWERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON HER MAKING THAT OATH – that those servants of the Crown, and in particular, Parliamentarians and the Privy Council, when swearing an oath to the Queen, are, insodoing, simply swearing, once more to the people, that their entire raison d’etre is to support and protect the monarch in HER duties to the people who she sore HER oath to?
12. Do you agree that it does not necessarily require an army or force to subvert the sovereignty of a nation but such can be accomplished “peacefully” through economic warfare and for those in governmental office to legislate supportively of such? This would, therefore, be where the crimes of sedition and treason by certain members of government such as, of all people, our very own Lord Chief Justice Ken Clarke, would enter the frame. This harks back to the question I raised to Lord Pearson regarding Bilderberg and which Malcolm Wood readily acknowledged as of concern. Yourself, Lord Pearson and others know precisely why this is of concern and your acknowledgement of it makes clear you appreciate the issue. Mr Clarke IS a serious issue! He is a steering committee member and is fully involved in the organisation as are many others.
13. Do you agree that it is pure fallacy to suggest that the United Kingdom does NOT have a Constitution codified or otherwise for, if to suggest such would suggest there is no fundamental laws which apply to the governance of this country and, therefore, it would be, in fact, an anarchy with “government” and the state simply being an apparatus by the ruling class to impose their own wishes upon the people without having any lawful basis for such? Therefore, the word “democracy” would not apply and neither would the rule of law. Do you agree it is an absolute fallacy purely from the perspective that, for a sovereign nation to exist (or have existed) would require a constitution as is the case for any nation, organisation, political party and Corporation?
14. Why are you not bringing this solidly to the attention of the British public? Considering it destroys the whole validity of the EU.
My opinion of you Nigel is you\’re a fraud and a cheap one to boot. It\’s easy to stand up in the EU Parliament (a controlled venue) and make theatrical speeches which are then posted on Youtube which make you out to be \”Spartacus\” (My God!) but it\’s a lot harder to answer questions in public on your Facebook page isn\’t it?
As for your comment about not intentionally ignoring comments on your page, it doesn\’t quite hold water when then you resort to deleting them and then deleting the questioner entirely so he can no longer post questions YOU don\’t like.
Van Rumpoy may have the appearance of a damp rag but you have one of a Double Glazing salesman. You\’re just as transparent!