Sam Kennedy

[Doktor Avalanche]

PatriotGames doesn't even live in the US. He's Canadian.

Yeah...damn furiners!

[Judge Roy Bean]

Kennedy and his ilk exist for one reason only - they thrive on the attention given them by the ignorant. It's why people like Van Pelt and Billie Bauer have so many web sites and forums they post on. They have to have an audience, and the bigger and more gullible the better.

Trust me, if hit counters and a way to count listeners on internet radio were suddenly non-existent, most of the blowhards would wither and go away.

[.]

People, some very educated, expose fraud in and by the "system" all the time

Right. Every once in a while, a really big Medicare (as in hundreds of millions of dollars) or some such other fraud is exposed, sometimes even by a whistleblower. Which has nothing to do with you.

Now, tell us all about "the fraud by the system" that you've exposed.

[SteveSy]

People, some very educated, expose fraud in and by the "system" all the time

Right. Every once in a while, a really big Medicare (as in hundreds of millions of dollars) or some such other fraud is exposed, sometimes even by a whistleblower. Which has nothing to do with you.

Now, tell us all about "the fraud by the system" that you've exposed.

[yawn]

[.]

It' s always good to see Sybil admit defeat. Something he's intimately familiar with.

[SteveSy]

It' s always good to see Sybil admit defeat. Something he's intimately familiar with.

Not going to feed the troll

You're posting off topic for the sole purpose of attacking my character.

[wserra]

You must first know that almost all governments in the world govern foreign, belligerant corporations

blah, blah, blah.

My great-aunt Tillie grows prize-winning tomatoes in her garden in the Sea of Tranquillity. If you don't need proof, I don't either.

To be Free, Think Free..

In your case, To be Dumb, Think Dumb.
===============
Edit: If this is a parody, I apologize. Upon rereading, I realize that it's sufficiently ridiculous that it could be. A good job, too. Pretending to be that dumb takes a lot of practice.

[ASITStands]

Just once I'd like someone to post legal authority for the claims below!

This is straight out of Mary Croft's teachings, who's Canadian, by the way.

You must first know that almost all governments in the world govern foreign, belligerant corporations which are property of the crown. We have been hooked into becoming property of the crown as well by accepting their property (NAMES) as our own under the legal maxim that an accessory attached to a principal(a property) becomes the property of the owner of the principal.

By what legal authority do we know that almost all governments in the world govern foreign, belligerent corporations owned by the Crown? And, by what legal authority do we conclude we've all been 'hooked' into becoming property of the Crown through our NAMES?

Cite legal authority! Show me a treaty, statute, case law or something.

Since a citizen is in fact a subcorporation owned by the government corporation without their knowledge, a remedy HAS TO be provided because no corporation can force you to be its employee. If there was no remedy their acts would be unlawful and that corporation would be shut down.

By what legal authority do we say a citizen is a sub-corporation owned by a government corporation without knowledge? Cite treaty, statute or case law. Give me something.

This is why in the criminal code under section 126, 127 shows that it can be used to escape and step out from the system. And since the corporation is bankrupt owing the IMF, pledging the life and labor of the men and women living in these countries, and the money the corporation uses has no value, they had to create a remedy for that too.

By what legal authority do we conclude the governing corporation is bankrupt? And, by what authority do we conclude the life and labor of men and women is pledged to pay the debt?

Talk about a figment of imagination! No one ever cites legal authority for these conclusions.

The people bring the commercial energy to the system, and since we are a part of a bankrupt corporation which the government governs, we bring the credit to the system. The birth certificate is our remedy. We can and have issue promissory notes to pay for anything we need or collect the dividends of the fund directly, known as the security of the person in the bill of rights. We can present the proper forms to the IRS/CRA and receive those taxes back plus interest for our purchase, which will discharge the national debt instead of creating double entry accounting which makes double the debt of the iten you have purchased.

By what legal authority do we say the birth certificate is our remedy? By what legal authority do we conclude we can issue promissory notes, based on a birth certificate, to buy whatever we want, and in the process, discharge both taxes owed and national debt?

Demosthenes: This is straight out of Mary Croft. She's even fond of "patriot games."

[Demosthenes]

Does Croft live in Ontario?

[SteveSy]

By what legal authority do we conclude the governing corporation is bankrupt? And, by what authority do we conclude the life and labor of men and women is pledged to pay the debt?

I don't know about the corporation part but its clear the "labor of men and women is pledged to pay the debt". Nothing else backs the national debt or the FRN other than the ability to take the fruits of a citizen's labor. As far as bankrupt, its quite clear if we used the same accounting methods to conclude a person or business is bankrupt we would also have to conclude the U.S. is bankrupt.

[ASITStands]

Does Croft live in Ontario?

Yes. It's on the end of the audio link. Can't remember the name.

Anyone interested in investigating Mary Croft should listen to the Red Ice audio.

[Gregg]

By what legal authority do we conclude the governing corporation is bankrupt? And, by what authority do we conclude the life and labor of men and women is pledged to pay the debt?

I don't know about the corporation part but its clear the "labor of men and women is pledged to pay the debt". Nothing else backs the national debt or the FRN other than the ability to take the fruits of a citizen's labor. As far as bankrupt, its quite clear if we used the same accounting methods to conclude a person or business is bankrupt we would also have to conclude the U.S. is bankrupt.

That's stupid Steve, you show you know as much about bankruptcy as you do taxes with that one. Bankrupt means more liabilities than assets and no viable method to reduce the liabilities.

So let's see, the national Debt is $9.7 Trillion, sound like a lot? Okay, it is a lot, but it's less than a years GDP. Now stay with me here, I'd say most homeowners in the country have more than a year's income in Mortgage debt, are they bankrupt? Not counting the credit cards, car payment, student loans....and of course the house offsets some of the mortgage, the rest of the debts have their personal possessions, see where I'm going. Now, the governemtn has some assets, too. The taxing power on US economic activity, real estate, some really cool collectors items,the odd nuclear submarine, stealth bomber and ICBM, (not just the hardware, but also the relative stability of our entire society that these things insure) Maybe the debt is a little high, and there are some liabilities on the horizon we need to start planning for, but by the standards any business keeps, we're a long way from bankrupt

[Prof]

By what legal authority do we conclude the governing corporation is bankrupt? And, by what authority do we conclude the life and labor of men and women is pledged to pay the debt?

I don't know about the corporation part but its clear the "labor of men and women is pledged to pay the debt". Nothing else backs the national debt or the FRN other than the ability to take the fruits of a citizen's labor. As far as bankrupt, its quite clear if we used the same accounting methods to conclude a person or business is bankrupt we would also have to conclude the U.S. is bankrupt.

Once again, Stevesy, you do not know what you are talking about.

"Bankrupt" is not a technical term and is not defined in 11 U.S.C. sec. 101, et seq.

The Bankruptcy Code does not require a person or entity (Ch. only) who wishes to file bankrutpcy under title 11 to be "bankrupt" in any sense that term might be used. If an involuntary petition is filed against a person, the petitioning creditors must show that the person is not paying his, her or its debts as those debts come due (unless the debt is disputed, unliquidated, etc.) This is sometimes referred to as "cash flow insolvency."

A person unable to pay bills in a current manner may or may not be "insolvent," and that term means that the person's assets are worth less than its liabilities on a rather simple balance sheet test. "Insolvent" would be the "accounting" term you are looking for.

(The term "insolvent" is used in the Bankrutpcy Code in relation to certain bankruptcy causes of action available under chap. 5 of title 11-- e.g., preference and fraudulent conveyance actions to recover pre-petition transfers).

To continue, I doubt that a balance sheet insolvency test would reflect that the US holds fewer assets than it has liabilities, even assuming that the current "amount" of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, as well as the current "amount" of unfunded federal pension programs (military included) and other unfunded but known future expenses were calaculated at present value. The US simply owns too much valuable stuff, including most of Nev., a large chunck of the rest of the inter-mountain West, and other valuable assets like the National Park System, military bases, military hardware, office buildings, mineral/oil/gas deposits, etc.

No, I don't think the trillions of the national debt plus unfunded future liabilities at present value yet total the "value" of those assets. However, if we have another Bush administration, with its LBJ/Nixon commitment to fight major wars with no reduction of domestic spending, then eventually we might get there.

[Quixote]

Nothing else backs the national debt or the FRN other than the ability to take the fruits of a citizen's labor.

I must have missed the repeal of the income tax on interest, dividends and capital gains.

[SteveSy]

By what legal authority do we conclude the governing corporation is bankrupt? And, by what authority do we conclude the life and labor of men and women is pledged to pay the debt?

I don't know about the corporation part but its clear the "labor of men and women is pledged to pay the debt". Nothing else backs the national debt or the FRN other than the ability to take the fruits of a citizen's labor. As far as bankrupt, its quite clear if we used the same accounting methods to conclude a person or business is bankrupt we would also have to conclude the U.S. is bankrupt.

Once again, Stevesy, you do not know what you are talking about.

"Bankrupt" is not a technical term and is not defined in 11 U.S.C. sec. 101, et seq.

So what? It's defined in the dictionary.

The Bankruptcy Code does not require a person or entity (Ch. only) who wishes to file bankrutpcy under title 11 to be "bankrupt" in any sense that term might be used. If an involuntary petition is filed against a person, the petitioning creditors must show that the person is not paying his, her or its debts as those debts come due (unless the debt is disputed, unliquidated, etc.) This is sometimes referred to as "cash flow insolvency."

I wasn't referring to the "law".

A person unable to pay bills in a current manner may or may not be "insolvent," and that term means that the person's assets are worth less than its liabilities on a rather simple balance sheet test. "Insolvent" would be the "accounting" term you are looking for.

Bankrupt:
any insolvent debtor; a person unable to satisfy any just claims made upon him or her

The U.S. government can not satisfy its promises to pay. It's going to have to renege on its promises in order to even function.

(The term "insolvent" is used in the Bankrutpcy Code in relation to certain bankruptcy causes of action available under chap. 5 of title 11-- e.g., preference and fraudulent conveyance actions to recover pre-petition transfers).

Who cares? I wasn't referring to filing with the Bankruptcy court, which the law applies to. To even assume I was talking about that is silly.

To continue, I doubt that a balance sheet insolvency test would reflect that the US holds fewer assets than it has liabilities, even assuming that the current "amount" of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, as well as the current "amount" of unfunded federal pension programs (military included) and other unfunded but known future expenses were calaculated at present value. The US simply owns too much valuable stuff, including most of Nev., a large chunck of the rest of the inter-mountain West, and other valuable assets like the National Park System, military bases, military hardware, office buildings, mineral/oil/gas deposits, etc.

Prof, you need to do a little more reading. The U.S. government does not hold 63+ trillion in assets no matter what the form. I can not find a direct figure with the government's total assets, but according to the GAO in 2005 848 billion was 58% of the governments total reported assets.

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2005/05gao1.pdf

I think you're lost in the actual magnitude of the numbers we're talking about 1.5 trillion, close to the total assets of the U.S. government, is a crap load of money. 63+ trillion is mind boggling. It would purchase every single thing every household owns in the U.S. plus or minus a few billion.

See "Statistics and comparables"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

[The Operative]

The total reported assets of the U.S. Government does NOT include stewardship land or heritage assets. Stewardship lands are the lands of military bases, wildlife refuges, parks, geographic management areas, etc. Stewardship lands account for approximately 28% of the total U.S. land mass. Heritage assets are government-owned assets that are cultural or of historical significance, or have significant architectural characteristics. Examples of heritage assets are Mount Rushmore, the Washington Monument, the Library of Congress, and Yosemite National Park. Battlefields, historic structures, and national historic landmarks are also considered heritage assets.

[SteveSy]

The total reported assets of the U.S. Government does NOT include stewardship land or heritage assets. Stewardship lands are the lands of military bases, wildlife refuges, parks, geographic management areas, etc. Stewardship lands account for approximately 28% of the total U.S. land mass. Heritage assets are government-owned assets that are cultural or of historical significance, or have significant architectural characteristics. Examples of heritage assets are Mount Rushmore, the Washington Monument, the Library of Congress, and Yosemite National Park. Battlefields, historic structures, and national historic landmarks are also considered heritage assets.

Even assuming that is true, the rest does not total another 60 trillion if total household assets for the entire U.S. is only around 63 trillion. A significant portion of Stewardship lands would include a large portion of Nevada which is mostly undeveloped desert, almost impossible to develop mountain ranges, remote wilderness areas, marshes, bogs and swamps all of which would are considered less than desirable real estate.

Attention: U.S liquidating its assets
Hurry, get a piece of American History before its all gone! Significant savings when purchasing more than one atomic crater!
Disclaimer: Not responsible for radioactive exposure after transfer of title.

It would have been nice to if you backed up that statement with a link. I found it myself through FASAB. Military bases were not included from what I saw in "Heritage Assets and Stewardship Land" nor could they be by the definitions provided.
http://www.fasab.gov/pdffiles/sffas_29.pdf

[.]

I predict that this thread will end before Sybil tells us a single thing about "the fraud by the system" that he's "exposed."

[SteveSy]

I predict that this thread will end before Sybil tells us a single thing about "the fraud by the system" that he's "exposed."

I predict you'll remain a troll for as long as you visit this site.

[SteveSy]

That's stupid Steve, you show you know as much about bankruptcy as you do taxes with that one. Bankrupt means more liabilities than assets and no viable method to reduce the liabilities.

So let's see, the national Debt is $9.7 Trillion, sound like a lot? Okay, it is a lot, but it's less than a years GDP.

That's not our liabilities. Our liabilities total around 63 trillion. btw, your definition of bankrupt is faulty. If by "viable method to reduce the liabilities" means reneging on a promise to pay then no one would ever be bankrupt all they have to do is stop paying.

Now stay with me here, I'd say most homeowners in the country have more than a year's income in Mortgage debt, are they bankrupt? Not counting the credit cards, car payment, student loans....and of course the house offsets some of the mortgage, the rest of the debts have their personal possessions, see where I'm going.

Yep

Now, the governemtn has some assets, too. The taxing power on US economic activity, real estate, some really cool collectors items,the odd nuclear submarine, stealth bomber and ICBM, (not just the hardware, but also the relative stability of our entire society that these things insure) Maybe the debt is a little high, and there are some liabilities on the horizon we need to start planning for, but by the standards any business keeps, we're a long way from bankrupt

Our debt isn't pretty high its so high we can not pay it. There isn't one single report available by the GAO that shows we can pay all of our current liabilities. The government will have to renege on its promises. Even if they cut every entitlement program by 50% and significantly increase taxes by 50% its unlikely we'll make it. This of course assumes the government could do either without further severely damaging the economy which is highly unlikely. There would be a mass exodus of business and jobs heading for foreign land if taxes were raised that high. If I remember right its predicted by the GAO that if we continued to borrow to pay the liabilities by 2040 the debt would be 600% of GDP, making the operation of government impossible and that doesn't account for hyperinflation.

You know its kind of funny you guys keep attacking me on the things I post concerning government finances. Do any of you ever read GAO reports or do you just go by the news and maybe come across the national debt figure of 9 trillion? I read GAO reports and read commentaries all the time from people who were and are in the government. I think a lot of you need to take some time and read up on our current fiscal status directly from the government. Most of these reports are not ever mentioned in the public news. Maybe you would realize things aren't what they seem and there really is a problem coming in the near future. The people that really know the issue, because its their job, are saying we have a serious problem, maybe its time you listen to them.