*Rather, my goal has been to help you to demonstrate to all the readers at OLO just exactly what a kind, selfless and compassionate individual you are, and how valuable your insights are, not only to all Australians, but indeed to all Humanity.*

That is very thoughtful of you Grim. But a word of advice here: I
have posted on OLO for a fair while now and have never tried to be
anything but a realist. Reality does not go away, when you close
your eyes and wish it so.

The emotionally engulfed who wear their heart on their sleeves like
yourself, may feel better because of it, but the world needs realistic
and practical solutions, to achieve win-win outcomes.

But just switch on your latest Hollywood movie Grim, mostly you
will find a happy ending and all the tear jerker stuff that you
can handle.

Sadly the laws of nature just don't work that way, ignore them
at your peril.

Pericles, obviously I introduced the 1969 court case involving Jerome Daly. However, you have failed to explain the relevance of the 1974 case to the 1969 ruling that has never been overturned that banks' practices were fraudulent.

---

Pericles, would you mind citing your sources for your claim made about Lincoln's policies being a failure so as to reassure the rest of us that you aren't simply making things up in order to avoid having to admit that you are wrong?

In any case, your statement makes no sense.

A government doesn't need credit to print money. A government can print as much money as it likes. The fact that they won the war, suffering only mild inflation and massively expanded the country's infrastructure and without incurring massive debt, is proof that they printed roughly the right amount of money.

Lincoln never reverted to the 'tried-and-tested system'. He was shot in 1865, almost certainly because the bankers objected to his Government having assumed the right to print money for itself instead of borrowing money conjured out of nothing by them.

---

As for your point that North Dakota might one day become 'have to support all that new debt they are creating', you are overlooking that most other states are insolvent and that North Dakota's current system has worked perfectly well since 1919.

---

Pericles, I asked you, "why you think the British Parliament was right ... to force the American Colonies to borrow from private British banks instead of simply printing their own money?"

You responded by waffling, "I dunno. Maybe they were opponents of fiat money, ..."

I pointed out the most obvious and most likely explanation for the actions of the private British banks, and I am accused of wanting to change the subject!

Pericles wrote "If you want this to be a thread discussing the evils of Bankers, that's fine."

Pericles, when are you going to acknowledge what a number of credible authoritative historical figures, including President Wilson, have said of the insidious hold that private bankers have over the US political system?

I feel that you are sidetracking the discussion into selected historical trivia, daggett, and are asking me the same irrelevancies over and over, so this will be the last time I cover these topics for you, OK?

>>the 1969 ruling that has never been overturned that banks' practices were fraudulent.<<

You haven't actually produced any evidence for this "ruling".

One thing you can be sure of, even in the land of the drop-of-a-hat litigator it hasn't had much of an impact in the last forty years, has it?

My point was that Daly was clearly a fruitloop with a chip on his shoulder, and was therefore a thoroughly unreliable witness for your suppositions.

>>would you mind citing your sources for your claim made about Lincoln's policies being a failure<<

Surely, if they had been a success, they would not have had to pass the National Banking Act, that repealed the Greenback Law.

And if Lincoln himself had believed them to have been successful, he would have used his veto, against what was effectively a reinstatement of the status quo ante.

That would seem to be pretty strong evidence.

>>A government doesn't need credit to print money<<

Well of course they don't. But the supposed beauty of Lincoln's scheme was that it used government credit, rather than borrowing from the Banks.

>>He was shot in 1865, almost certainly because the bankers objected to his Government having assumed the right to print money for itself<<

Check your timeline. Congress passed the National Banking Act in 1863. And Lincoln was alive at the time, but did not use his veto.

I refuse to buy into your conspiracy theories about his shooting. You'll be telling us next that 9/11 was a CIA operation!

>>when are you going to acknowledge what a number of credible authoritative historical figures, including President Wilson, have said of the insidious hold that private bankers have over the US political system?<<

Woodrow Wilson?

"Wilson maneuvered through Congress... the Federal Reserve Act [that] provided the Nation with the more elastic money supply it badly needed."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/woodrowwilson/

Smart man, that Wilson.

Pericles wrote, "You haven't actually produced any evidence ..."

Yes, I have, and much, much more than you have, by the way. Read my post dated 9 July above.

Furthermore, Justice Mahoney stated in his court memorandum:

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, ... did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note." (cited in "The Web of Debt" (2008) page 29)

It is well documented and Justice Mahoney's ruling has never been overturned. Obviously, it has not changed practice. On page 30, Ellen Brown cites an off-the-record comment by another judge:

"If I let you do that (default on the loan) - you and everybody else - it would bring the whole system down."

The only conceivable reason that the powerful private banks have not attempted to have Justice Mahoney's 1969 ruling overturned is that they know they don't have a leg to stand on. Any attempt to do so would entail a serious risk of revealing to the entire world how fraudulent and unnecessary our entire private banking system is.

---

In regard to the 1863 Banking Act, there are complex political reasons (difficult to explain in 2x350 words/day) why it was passed. The section (pp91-93) in Chapter 9 of "The Web of Debt" which covers this is called "The Worm in the Apple: The National Banking Act of 1863-64"

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Part of the reason it was passed was (as with the Federal Reserve act of 1913 and the 2001 (so-called) "Patriot Act" ) was that not many legislators understood the legislation they were voting for. It appeared quite different to what it actually was. A private communication from a Rothschild investment house in London to an associate banking firm in New York dated June 25, 1863, confided:

"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class while, on the other hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending ... will bear its burdens without complaint." (Ellen Brown p91)

Did you get that Pericles? Yabby?:

"... the great body of people ... will bear its burden without complaint".

If you cannot grasping the meaning of these words (and the above-cited Hazard Circular) from the mouths of the private bankers themselves, I expect that other forum users, who are open-minded and genuinely here to arrive at the truth, are.

---

I don't know what Pericles imagines he stands to gain by dragging 9/11 into this discussion.

If Pericles means to accuse me of choosing the Laws of Physics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4), over the Official 'explanations' of three unprecedented engineering disasters that all occurred on the one day, including the 'collapse' of World Trade Centre Building 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8cU9i7-e9M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnF4Hv-ePR4), which was not even struck by an aircraft, then I plead guilty.

If Pericles was not aware of the largest single forum thus far to have been held on OLO -- "9/11" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83 -- then he would have to be one of very few amongst my OLO detractors.

I urge people to look at the forum and judge for themselves which side of the controversy discussed the evidence and which side relied on smear and ridicule.

*Did you get that Pericles? Yabby?:*

Deary me Dagget, so now I should get my knickers in a twist because
of what some American banker said in 1863 ?

Frankly I am happy to judge things as I see them here and now,
or have experienced in my lifetime. Results matter.

You seem to have this fixation in your mind, that Govts only do
good but if something is for profit, it must be bad. Let me tell
you, Govt monopolies are commonly a frigging disaster, for they
have no compeition and the staff no reason to get out of their comfort
zone or achieve anything, for dinner is assured for their lifetimes.

Daggett, I went to the Commonwealth Development Bank, cap in hand
for a loan, over 30 years ago. They sent me packing. The
CBA were a Govt bank then, they were no cheaper, or better then
any other bank. Spread margins were over 4%, twice what banks work
on these days, due to competition. But of course the Govt flogged
them off, for it got into too much debt and had to repay some.

Today I see all sorts of young people with a bit of drive, plumbers,
carpenters, auto electricians, shearing contractors, you name it,
using competitive bank credit to start their own businesses.

They are probably not even aware as to how lucky they are, compared
to how things were, only 30 or so years ago, when all that would
have been impossible.

Now you come along and tell me that because some bloke in 1863
said something, I should think that banks don't play a vital role.

Think again Daggett.