Harvester of Chaff, Lost and For-lorn(e).

[wserra]

The purpose of this post - and this thread - is to collect all of Harvester's nonsense in one spot and summon a virtual Dr. Kevorkian. It is impossible to recall a set of posts to this board more in need of euthanasia than Harvey's. If I have left anything out, my colleagues should feel free to supply it. I remind everyone, though, that the aim of the thread is to stop feeding the troll. Henceforth, a link to this thread should be all that is required to keep the Harvster from misleading the newbies. As for Harvey himself: if you wish to dispute any of the conclusions the thread reaches, feel free. However, once per point is enough. Your usual repetitive hash will be moved somewhere more appropriate.

A word as to poster "lorne": it does seems as though he may be the same poster as Harvey, even granted that on some level all gibberish resembles all other gibberish. But Harvey posts through a bunch of anonymizers - itself somewhat strange for someone who insists that he is doing nothing but following the law - and therefore it's impossible to verify conclusively any sockpuppetry. Well, Harve, I and several other regulars here make no secret of our identities, meaning that the revolution you keep forecasting (see below) will have no problem finding us. Why do you hide, Warrior?

I see four elements to a typical Harvey post worthy of list and comment here: (1) highly unlikely and factually unsupported claims, (2) predictions proven false, (3) erroneous statements of law, and (4) links to idiotic web sites. Let's take them in that order.

(1) Claims of fact.

(a) Harvey's tax status. Harvey repeatedly claims that he pays no taxes. That claim may in fact be true, due to insufficient income. Harvey has never identified himself/herself (henceforth I will use the male pronoun generically, although it seems clear to me that Harvey is male), and has never proven that he earns anything at all. Even Hendrickson had more balls than that. His only "proof" is a photoshopped Treasury check. Even if the check is genuine, the govt has successfully recouped erroneous refunds from Crackheads many times, including of course from Hendrickson himself.

I killed a bear with my pen yesterday. Oh, you want proof? Well, here's the pen.

Edit: In a post below, Harvey writes something that warrants revision of this point. In searching his posts before writing mine, I came across a post which he began, "Ah, 16 years of non-filing without repercussion" without quoting anything. I assumed he was speaking of himself. After reading his post below and going back to the original, I find that Famspear had made that reference in regard to Hendrickson two posts earlier in the thread. It is now fairly clear to me that Harvey was referring to Famspear's post and not to himself. I apologize. End edit.

(b)The various times he has pretended that a mod edited his posts. That's pretty self-explanatory.

(c) He has altered at least one quoted post.

(2) Predictions.

(a) Peter Hendrickson:

And, since some want more specificity regarding the fate of Pete Hendrickson; my prediction is:

he will never be sentenced.

How'd that work out?

(b) "Restore America Plan". In case you didn't know, Harvey informs us that it is "backed by the 7 Joint Chiefs of Staff". Seven? Quiet, he's on a roll.

In this post from over five months ago, Harvey informs us that all the governors are unable to hold office, that the "Bubba Titles of Nobility" amendment is in force so all lawyer officeholderws are out, etc. And "It's all happening now". Amazing how no non-wacko noticed. Note, of course, the expansive definition of "now".

Recently Harvey has generously extended the deadline for the destruction of Earth, the universe and everything until September 30. Whew!

(c) The impending apocalypse. Like the dirty, unshaven guy with a sign on the streetcorner, Harvey proclaims that the end is near for those of us who know the law. It's difficult to prove that something won't happen in the future. Still, Harvey might contemplate the following:

I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war; been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates...been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth...The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers.

- Daniel Shays, of Shays' Rebellion, 1784. We're still waiting.

3. Erroneous statements of law.

It's hard to know where to begin on this one. A list of Harvey's correct statements of law would be much shorter. Each of these has been refuted so many times on the board that I see no need to repeat the refutations in this post. Before I started listing these, I really had no idea Harvey believed in so many fever-dream conspiracies. If he does.

(a) The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel profiting off everyone holding FRNs. He's posted that lots of times, the last no more true than the first.

(b) "Common-law grand juries". Another excuse for some bubbas to get together and drink beer.

(c) "Right to travel". While there is such a concept - see, for example, Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) - these guys have no idea what it means.

(d) He can eliminate his mortgage on the theory that banks counterfeit money when they make loans.

(e) "Includes" doesn't really mean "includes". Instead, it means "people other than me".

(f) Hendrickson's crapola. As has been repeatedly documented on this board, the courts (who really do decide what the law is, unless Congress overrules them) have repeatedly rejected Hendrickson's nonsense, frequently imposing penalties for frivolous filing. It matters not whether the hapless litigant characterizes that nonsense as "wages are not income", or as "federal privilege", or as some other arrangement of the Titanic's deck chairs. When litigated, whether at the instance of the taxpayer or by the govt seeking to recoup a refund - it has never succeeded. Hendrickson himself, of course, is in jail for using it. There is simply nothing more to say. Anyone who still believes in it is delusional - or, of course, a troll.

(g) The "titles of nobility" amendment (AKA "the original 13th amendment"). Harvey likes it. Once again - is there a pattern here? - a theory only trolls and wackos advocate. Not a single court anywhere has ever accepted that this proposed amendment was ratified. If anyone wants the full story, the best account is Jol Silversmith's exhaustive law review article.

(h) "Sovereign citizens" Rule!

I'm sure there are more.

4. Links to idiot sites.

Harvey has posted lots, and I'll only list two.

(1) George Tran. I actually thank Harvey for this, since it has let us discover and expose yet another scammer.

(2) In a recent post, Harvey linked to this site. (Another mod deleted the link, but I had already grabbed it.) It's a real hoot. I'm sure you'll all be interested to learn that, in the near future, there will be no more political parties or politicians, lawyers or judges, stockbrokers or financial analysts or bankers. The oil and gas industries will disappear - the writer doesn't explain how, but I guess we'll all have our own offshore platforms. No more militaries - "Peace [will be] declared and implemented worldwide". I want what this guy is smoking - he's found Panama Red himself.

People should feel free to add to this list, but I reserve the right to move things that get argumentative. This thread should not come close to 100 posts. And the whole point is to stop the troll-feeding.

[Harvester]

OK Wes, I'm happy to clear up any confusion or doubts you may have. I must say, you seem a little overeager to catch me lying, or otherwise glomp on to any fault or frailty of mine. We're all imperfect beings. While I could point out every weakness of others, I choose not to. It's just so petty; after all, we've got a Republic to save here.

1) Claims of fact.
(a) I read Hendrickson's Cracking the Code in 2008 & subsequently filed an 'educated return' for TY08 which resulted in a full refund from Auntie of everything paid-in. That refund check (sanitized for extra challenge) has been posted online for a long time. I did not file a return for TY09 as my taxable income was below the statutory exemption amount, and, the 'info returns' generated reflected only that amount of income; a small fraction of all the money I made that year. The Federal Income Tax is a sophisticated scam Wes, but it's not rocket science.

My "16 years of non-filing without repercussion" statement was in response to Famspear's "sixteen year" post (2 posts above mine) about Hendrickson. I had not realized he went so long as a non-filer. Even Lord Famspire grants that I may have been referring to Pete and not me (I was).

(b) yes I have redacted links. You do it too.

(c) yes I have a race card & I'm not afraid to use it.

[The Observer]

(b) yes I have redacted links. You do it too.

Wes has redacted his own links in a childish attempt to blame Quatloos for it?

[Harvester]

2. Predictions
(a) Yes I was wrong about Hendrickson's sentencing. Obviously I'm no insider. Our hero's doing fine, btw, plenty of quality time for some reading & writing as reflected by his latest open letter. Have you considered that your side's sentencing has not scared anyone away, has not functioned as a deterrent, but served only to embolden the troops to rally around their martyr?

(b) The Restore America Plan has, in spite of its divisions & speed bumps, managed to restore the original Republic of the united States by occupying the uninhabited De Jure government offices. Don't misconstrue the letters/warrants sent to the governors back in March. ThePeople invited them over into the de jure side, but as I understand, they all remained onboard the corporate De Facto side. We're on to phase II and I do sense the ever-growing support of our military & the Chief Joints (ha!), however many there are. Thanks for your help spreading the word on this. I support any effort that can peacefully & lawfully get the job done.

(c) "Impending apocalypse" sounds so extreme. I'd call it the impending collapse of fiat money. Even Greenspan alluded to it in his recent CFR speech. "Fiat money has no place to go but gold." The speculation [link] that Greenspan is actually a white hat is fascinating. You realize the current administration has borrowed more $ in 18 months [link] than all admins from Washington to Reagan combined? This will not end well for the private corporation or its Federal Reserve Note; and some of us are cheering it on!

Once public confidence is destroyed, respect for the government indeed collapses, hoarding of wealth takes place, refusal to accept the currency on faith, and eventually the government will be backed into a corner so desperate for cash, it will turn against it's own people, render them criminals to justify the confiscation, but even this will not sustain the system. ~ Martin Armstrong

[Joey Smith]

but served only to embolden the troops to rally around their martyr?

All three of them, none of whom matter.

Why can't Pete get a single law professor -- or really any reputable person -- interested in his cause? The simple and 100% correct answer is because Pete is just totally wrong. The fact that he's been able to get a few nuts over the internet to believe in him temporarily (Skanky has already, for instance, abandoned Pete to try to seek "common law remedies") doesn't make Pete any less wrong.

Which is why he is in jail.

[wserra]

My "16 years of non-filing without repercussion" statement was in response to Famspear's "sixteen year" post (2 posts above mine) about Hendrickson.

Acknowledged. See my edit to the first post in the thread.

[Harvester]

OK ree-tards, now that we've cleared up what's an acceptable term in an ad hominen attack, can we move on?

3. statements of law.{?}
(a)The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel profiting off everyone holding FRNs.
Interesting that you should lead with this one Wes, as it goes to the core, the very heart of the fraud, where the real problems with the economy lay. The Federal Reserve System is of course, America's central bank, the issuer of fiat paper currency & private credit of the Federal Reserve.

To begin, some of our founding fathers were well aware of the banks potential: "I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.1

The Federal Reserve System is made up of privately-held member banks and several other components all governered by a presidentially appointed Board of Governors (selected from a short list of cartel-approved candidates). Just who owns those banks you'll find is a well-kept secret. At best the system could be called quasi-public. G. Edward Griffin summarizes the scam nicely:

"The basic plan for the Federal Reserve System was drafted at a secret meeting held in November of 1910 at the private resort of J.P. Morgan on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. Those who attended represented the great financial institions of Wall Street and indirectly, Europe as well. The reason for secrecy was simple. Had it been known that rival factions of the banking community had joined together, the public would have been alerted to the possibility that the bankers were plotting an agreement in restraint of trade-- which, of course, is exactly what they were doing. What emerged was a cartel agreement with five objectives: stop the growing competition from the nations newest banks; obtain a franchise to create money out of nothing for the purpose of lending; get control of the reserves of all banks so that the more reckless ones would not be exposed to currency drains and bank runs; and convince Congress that the purpose was to protect the public. It was realized that the bankers would have to become partners with the politicans and that the structure of the cartel would have to be a central bank. The record shows that the Fed has failed to achieve its stated objectives. That is because those were never its true goals. As a banking cartel, and in terms of the five objectives stated above, it has been an unqualified success."2

I think we can all agree that I cannot start HarvesterBank and go outside the Federal Reserve system and issue HarvesterBank notes transactional nationwide. Why? The Federal Reserve has been given a monopoly on currency3. Competition has been eliminated by legislation. Undoubtedly some of you wish to attack Griffin as a mere journalist (albeit a very thorough one) so here's another point of view from Constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira, author of the 1700-page definitive study4 of money in the US:

".. The private economy is collapsing. The ostensible public debt is ballooning. The latter-day Ponzis who run their “debt-currency” and other “paper-wealth” confidence games and swindles through the Federal Reserve System, the Department of the Treasury, and the big Wall-Street financial houses are looting America on a scale and with a ferocity not witnessed anywhere in the world since Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. And rogue officialdom in the General Government work day and night to replace “America the Beautiful” with a first-class fascistic national-security police state, before the economic house of cards tumbles down entirely."5

Take a look at this graph to see how well the cartel's been robbing you blind - er, I mean, controlling inflation.

We have two classes; the ignorant & the aware. The ignorant are to be pitied and of the latter we have two types, those like me who know the scam & try to alert the ignorant, and those who, presumably profiting from it, must continually deny the existence of the scam. Welcome to the primary purpose of Quatloos!

"But Harvester," you say, "international bankers need to feed their families too. If we move to gold/silver currency, how will they eat? surely they deserve a dividend for administering their scheme of wealth confiscation under the guise of stabilizing the economy & keeping a steady rate of inflation, no?" Oh, well I have a plan for that; saving it for the book though.

-------------------------------
NOTES:
1. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quo ... ff1325.htm
2. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, (2002) p.23
3. the cartel tolerates local currencies, which make up an imperceptible fraction of all transactions. Anything attempting to go nationwide will meet the full fury of the cartel (see Liberty Dollar).
4. Edwin Vieira, Jr. Pieces of Eight (2002)
5. http://edwinvieira.com/edwin197.htm

[LPC]

As I write this message, there is a posting from Harvester waiting for approval. I can't say that it's off topic, because this thread is about him, but it really is ridiculous, and I can't bring myself to approve it.

So shoot me.

[wserra]

Summary of Harvey's "argument" on the Fed:

(1) G. Edward Griffin says it's all a conspiracy, just like the conspiracy he advocates wherein the medical establishment keeps people from taking cyanide from apricot pits to cure their cancers. P.S.: buy my books, hire me to speak.

(2) Edwin Vieira says the sky is falling. P.S.: buy my books, hire me to speak.

Answer containing facts, not just rants: http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flahe ... erty1.html

[Gregg]

Well, it has one half of a true statement in it, the Federal Reserve Banks (the 12 banks) are privately owned. the stuff about it being hard to find out who owns it is BS, pretty much any bank that has a sign saying "FDIC Insured" owns stock in them. But unlike shareholders in most corporations, they don't have first dibs on teh profits, they get a fixed percentage of their reserve deposits at the bank, the rest of it, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROFIT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, is returned to the US Treasury.

And I'm maybe rich enough to survive the undoing of the Fed, Harvester, but I know you sure as hell aren't, so if it was just a little matter between me and you I'd say pitch it, I'll end up with more money and you less. But since it would also lead to rioting in the streets and other things I'd rather not have on my conscience, STFU and deal with it, your stupidity is something you have to live with.

[The Operative]

Well, it has one half of a true statement in it, the Federal Reserve Banks (the 12 banks) are privately owned. the stuff about it being hard to find out who owns it is BS, pretty much any bank that has a sign saying "FDIC Insured" owns stock in them. But unlike shareholders in most corporations, they don't have first dibs on teh profits, they get a fixed percentage of their reserve deposits at the bank, the rest of it, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROFIT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, is returned to the US Treasury.

I gotta disagree with you a little bit Gregg.

While the 12 Federal Reserve District Banks do issue stock, I would not call the holding of that stock as ownership of the banks. Stock in regular corporations can normally be bought and sold at will and a stockholder could decrease or increase their share of the ownership of a corporation by simply buying more stock. The amount of Federal Reserve District Bank stock that a member bank must hold is set by law (and the Board of Governors) to a set percentage of the capital of the member bank. The member bank may hold no more and no less than this prescribed amount.

The stock does not truly confer any rights of ownership either. If a Federal Reserve District Bank were to be dissolved, the member banks would get paid the amount they paid for the stock plus any unpaid dividend and that is it. All assets and liabilities would then become the responsibility of the U.S. Government. As you well know, in a regular corporation that dissolves, if the liquidation of assets does not cover the outstanding liabilities, then stockholder's equity is reduced and stockholders would receive proportionately smaller amounts than what was paid in, if anything, and proportionately larger amounts if assets exceed liabilities. In the situation with the Federal Reserve, even if assets exceed liabilities, the stockholders see none of it. It goes directly to the U.S. Government.

There are only two things that a stockholder of the Federal Reserve District Banks receive: 1) a 6% dividend; and 2) a vote for six of the nine members of the District Bank's board of directors. Regardless of how many shares a member bank holds, each bank only gets one vote per seat on the board of directors. Again, this is different from a normal corporation in which a shareholder with 1,000,000 shares gets a proportionately larger say in who is on the board of directors than a shareholder with 10 shares.

Personally, I like the explanation provided by on the website for the Dallas Fed.
http://www.dallasfed.org/educate/everyday/ev4.html

As far as which banks hold stock in the District Banks, only nationally chartered banks are required by law to hold stock in a Federal Reserve District Bank. State chartered banks may hold stock if they meet particular requirements, but they are not required to be members. I believe that there are approximately 2,900 member banks in the U.S. and most are nationally chartered banks. The FDIC currently insures the deposits at approximately 7,800 institutions. The FDIC is the primary federal regulator of state chartered banks that do not join the Federal Reserve system. The FDIC currently supervises and examines approximately 4,900 banks and thrifts.

EDIT: Gregg, in regards to your post following this one, I agree. I'm placing that agreement here in a small, and probably fruitless, effort to save space in this thread.

[Gregg]

That is all true, bat for all that it's minutia in regards to what I was trying to say. I was trying to point out that the ownership of the Federal Reserve banks is not some super secret overseas cartel, it's the banks most consumers go to.

I don't think credit unions are members of the Fed, to State Banks the only real advantage of belonging is access to the discount window.

I could write pages, tomes on the Fed, *(I used to work there you know) but honestly, there are a few dozen people I know with whom I'd bother and I flat out refuse to get drawn into pissing contests with people who think the Queen is a shape shifting lizard or people like Lee Harvey who don't have the background to understand and won't listen anyway. Let them think it's all a big plot to get them, I don't care. In the end, they are absolutely powerless to do anything about it and as long as the nuts are locked up in the cupboard, I could care less how much noise they make.

[.]

In the interest of maintaining the purpose of the thread as something to be linked-to and not posted-to, it might be wise to shunt everything but the first post by Wes off into a new thread, lock it and let it remain sticky until after Harvey is sentenced.

[wserra]

I think that's a good suggestion, but I've modified it a bit. I included Harvey's responses to my original post, and a couple of direct responses to Harvey.

I'm locking the thread, and respectfully request that in fairness mods not post to it, as others can't. I won't either, unless I see an exchange that really seems to belong here - and then I'll add both sides of the exchange.

And, once again, I remind folks that the idea is to avoid feeding trolls.