It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Morality and Legality of Debt Jubilee, Part III

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:35 PM
So My ATS Friends, Listeners, Family and Lurkers, So what we have here is an argument about The Illegality of Our Debts (Both Public and Private) having been created in a Fraudulent Manner. This article lays out The Basis for Debt Repudiation (ALL DEBT THAT IS). How we have been duped by A Gang of Highly Overpaid Con Men in Debt Servitude and Modern Day Serfdom.

So What do y'all think. Is there A Good Legal Underpinning for The Wiping Clean of Debts in our Society and All of Us having A Fresh Start. Or are we morally obligated by A Semi Religious Cult of Greedsters (The Banking Cartel) to Pay Them Forever?

Mods, I have placed this in General Conspiracies. If for any reason you find a Need to move this thread, then please do with No Hesitation.

Thanks for taking A Butcher's Look at this Guys and Gals and as Always, Feel Free To Reply, Moan, Whine, Whimper or Whatever. Peace, Love and Donny Osmond

Jeff Nielson for Sprott Money

In Parts I and II (click Sprott News), readers saw how all of the public debts of our nations (past and present) were the direct result of fraud, and thus legally unenforceable – on two bases. Firstly; the bankers of these Big Banks proclaimed themselves the world’s foremost financial experts. On that basis; they not only received privileged treatment for these Big Banks, they were recipients of confidential financial and economic information from our governments, as fiduciaries who were claiming to be acting in our best interests.

In reality, these Con Men never had anything on their minds other than burying our nations in debt, in their own best interests. However, based upon the well-established legal doctrine of “fraudulent misrepresentation”; these fiduciary financial “experts” owed us a duty of honesty. Having violated that duty (incessantly); the multi-trillion dollar IOU’s that the One Bank is holding (in the form of our national debts) are illegal and unenforceable.

But there is also a second basis for legally repudiating these debts, in full. As detailed by Republican Congressman, Charles Lindbergh (roughly a century ago); our governments were already completely in the service of this financial crime syndicate a hundred years earlier. Our political “leaders”, who also had (and have) a legal duty to represent us to the best of their abilities have been little more than the bankers’ bought-and-paid-for stooges for the past 100+ years.

Having our own representatives behave in a fraudulent (and arguably criminal manner) is an equally valid legal basis for erasing every cent of these monstrous, mountainous debts. There can be no argument that our public debts are anything other than illegal/unenforceable, merely a choice as to which legal ground to use as justification for their repudiation.

However, it isn’t only our governments who have been enslaved in debt. Much of our populations have done the same to themselves, as well. Indeed, countless millions of inhabitants across the corrupt West have already seen their own finances implode, on the basis of being no longer able to even service their debts – let alone repay them.

Unlike our public debts, we have no (corrupt) “representatives” whom we can blame directly for our own indebtedness, thus that particular argument for repudiating our personal debts is denied to us. But in law; one doesn’t need two valid arguments to succeed in any adjudication, one substantial basis is all that is required.

This then leaves us with the second basis for (potentially) repudiating our personal debts: the fraudulent conduct of these financial predators. Here, once again, the circumstances of our personal debts are not the same as with our public debts. Unlike the representations which these banksters made to our (corrupt) governments; the bankers (and the Big Banks they serve) do not portray themselves as our fiduciaries when we approach them for financial advice and/or–-jeff-nielson-–-sprott-money-news-share-button-email-print-inshare-december-15-2014

new topics

log in