hey jules
can you pass this through to kevin

please tell him the g 20 must announce it overnight
asp/get obama to do it in a state of the union
now..if posable

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=3039&p=18562#p18562

over-night remedy..for the finantial disaster..
under right of seignorage

the only legal constituted legal/tender is coin

thus the solution that comes to mind...sounds insane
but has karmic balance[irony]

teqniclly our former legal tender/silver coins..are now made from nickle..via treasonous frauds and massive collusions...but

BY..REVERSING the value...should quickly heal the wrongs
and all will forgive

see..the bulk of us coin is held by the poor

simply..VIA..govt..saying...all coins..are silver/gold..or bronze equivelent.to make fair and return to constituted law...as constituted by all nations

thus..the 5 cent coin...immediatly...redeems as 10 dollars equivelent...in fiat notes

one cent..[coin]..is hereby valued at 2 dollars..in paper fiat notes

lets discuss..thus quick cure
where overnight..govts say only coin is legal tender..!

one cent coin=2 dollars...immediatly
anyone presenting a coin must be advised..of the new law..or its theft

bankers are required..to return their nickle/coin for re-embursment in silver...equivelnt of values traditional value..[legally/constituted inherant..in coin..of these realms..immediatly....
as well as return all the faux coin/+securities

that will be issued as replacement...on the centenary of thier print date stamp...then convert into silver/gold equivelent

anyhow ask if you want more..of the vision

It is interesting to see the observation that the comments have at this point strayed a few miles from being relevant to the article. Given that, without seeking to divert would-be commenters to the General Discussions area of the Forum, I would point out that the post which first established this comments thread upon the index page was complained of as not being on topic and made the subject of a deletion request.

The deleted post was a non-politically partisan challenge to the Deputy PM to use her influence to secure due process at law on behalf of two believably innocent UK citizens facing the prospect of extradition without trial or hearing in the UK, to the US.

As such, I agree now that it probably was off-topic and the moderation decision to remove it justified at the time, but I thought it both resonated with the article's title and offerred Julia Gillard a golden opportunity to demonstrate her sincerity in terms of that title. I was particularly intrigued, then, when I saw this from poster 'The Blue Cross':

"Her office minder has stopped posting, satisfied there is no real opposition to her mindless waffle here as we all listen to ourselves spruiking, for ourselves, rather than addressing the matter at hand, Julia's burnt and rather tardy offering."

Interesting that someone thinks she may have had an 'office minder' on the thread. For anyone who is interested, the content of the original off-topic post can be seen reproduced in a series of three posts, commencing here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3050#73355

If anyone does have a comment as to the resonance, relevance, or otherwise, of that challenge to what they see the D-PM as trying to achieve with her article, I'd be interested.

What has provoked this post has been the subsequent apparent blocking of pages on a .gov.au website that has occurred as a result of the monitoring of Twitter conversations relating to the extradition in question, a fact of potential interest to article readers.

Dear Forrest,
I’m still comparatively new to OLO and had naively thought it all to be merely banal—a pedestrian side-street in cyberspace—but now here you confront me with a nail-biting real-life mystery, intercalated within an equally exciting fictional narrative, what’s more! Well, to add some thickener to the soup, I suspect I may have planted the seed of suspicion in the glebe land of the blue cross myself!
Is it credible that Julia Gillard, miscast as DPM (she belongs on the set of Cath and Kim), does not have a twitching human nerve-centre plugged into this thread? Was her ‘gratuitous’ and ‘very umble’ offering really the cathartic exercise that drew a tear to my credulous eye? Was Julia, disillusioned with the cynicism of high politics, in need of a bathetic bath with the great unwashed? Or did she, it’s unthinkable, pay some poor slob to monitor our blatherings for anything novel?
But it gets better! OLO too is in the game, it seems; a free radical at liberty to influence and orchestrate (though of course inhibited by journalistic ethics) and censor our ostensibly anonymous representations—our personal details disclosed at the click of a mouse—though inviolably protected by the sanctity of the internet.
There has never before been such a banquet of entrails, which we spill on the boards of olo and other sites, for the PR machine to pick through—a wonderfully representative cross-demographic!
Rudd is a control freak, he uses everything at his disposal to stay ahead of the game; monitoring and utilising forums like OLO is definitely part of that.
Sorry to implicate OLO in this, but they also need to consider the ethics of their omniscient position.
Sorry too that I can shed no light on the mystery of that original, censored, post.

The Blue Cross “Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan Col, it'll do you good, and it was John Howard's second favourite parable, behind 'the Talents'.”

I remember it. Of course it is difficult to be a “good Samaritan” if your disposable income is taxed to pay for left wing bureaucrats and jobs for the union elites.

The more “disposable income” an individual has (aka lower government tax imposts), the more able he is to exercise his personal compassion and Samaritan inclinations.

The solution is smaller government, administering fewer regulations, requiring fewer civil servants and flunkies and leaving more money in the hands of real workers and investors to build worth while futures for themselves, instead of thinking that there is “security” in leveling people and believing in the words of slimey politicians who occupy the seats of power in self-serving big government

Grim “"I don’t look down at other people..."
"What a small, envious little grub you must be… "
"... what a parasite you are."”

Yes, I do not down on other people in general but when a grub demonstrates his individual grubbiness and parasitic expectations, I entitled to refer to him, particularly and individually, as such…

RobP “Just returning serve, Col. I'd say the score is about deuce”

Wrong… but keeping score… is just another of your failings

Ah dear Col, you cut me to the quick; am I too not worthy of a few epithets?
But this is embarrassing; should you be parading your execrable self around like this while our masters are watching?
Master Grim, incidentally, is your superior in everything but bank balances, I infer; perhaps you should appropriate him as a mentor--'twould exact an exorbitant price, I fear, but then you might, one day, be reconciled as equals in all things ... ?

When Chiffley was PM, the banks were under control by the courts. One of the payoffs for the massive financial support the banks gave to Menzies campaign, was to destroy the courts, and install lawyers as Judges. The first step was to gut the powers of the High Court by controlling who could access it. Before 1952, it was freely accessible to all, but since it has been a simple government public service backwater.

Menzies got his way from them by reminding them that any time he wanted he could prosecute them under the common law, and Crimes Act 1914 and they would lose all their pensions and entitlements. The only way a Judge can protect himself from either the State Governments or the Commonwealth, is by taking a jury verdict. The Magna Carta guaranteed both sentencing and the determination of guilt or innocence, was the prerogative of a local committee of 12 electors, called together in a political meeting.

No Prime Minister since has wanted to give courts back their political power. The courts could and did control banks. Now they can all be bought, and the highest bidder wins. The Legal Profession have degenerated into a form of Justice Brokers, who arrange deals between a Judge and the richest litigant present. This has made them really rich so it suits them to have a lawyer as a Judge. It is not great for Justice, but the legal professions attitude is I’m alright Jack, and the devil take the hindmost.

This takeover of the courts by banks is probably the greatest injustice of all, because not only banks, but big law firms have taken advantage of this takeover, as well as all State and the Federal Government. Instead of the Pope selling indulgences, or a get to heaven free card, a Judge now delivers a licence to sin, to all major offenders, without reference to a higher authority, which in a democracy is a panel of twelve electors.

It appears from rumors circulating, that the Australian Federal Police are investigating the Supreme Court in WA. Hope is at hand