Subject:
Sierra Times: Banks, Guns, and Feudal Lords
Date:
Fri, 11 May 2001 10:25:41 -0400
From:
"R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Digital Bearer Settlement List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Title of Nobility" indeed... ;-).
Cheers,
RAH
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/may/11/geddc051101.htm
An Internet Publication For Real Americans Home >> Editorials >>
Commentary
Banks, Guns, and Feudal Lords
by Don Cline 05.11.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BANKS
Bank of America has now arbitrarily decided, like Citibank before it,
that
it will not provide merchant services to any firearm-related business.
Citibank finally rescinded that stupid tyranny after half the people in
this country raised hell and threatened to close their accounts and the
same groundswell of opinion must be brought to bear against Bank of
America.
However, there is more to it than that. We have here one of the most
dangerous tyrannies our nation has ever faced. We are, literally, right
on
the hairy edge of a government-sanctioned plan where you get with the
political program designed for you or you don't eat or pay rent. There
are
three separate threads of tyranny coming together here.
For some time now, Bank of America (and most other banks) have required
a
fingerprint of any non-accountholder who wanted to cash a check --
specifically, a payroll check. They claim, falsely, they need to do this
to
stop check fraud. The claim is false because it is very easy to stop
check
fraud -- but they won't employ the means to do it because if they did,
they
wouldn't have any grounds to force electronic money down our throats or
demand a fingerprint as a condition of cashing a paper check.
I talked to the retired FBI agent who designed this inkless fingerprint
system the banks are using to force us into their system. I pointed out
that requiring a fingerprint from me as a condition of cashing a payroll
check and thereby providing me with my own property lawfully due me --
my
wages, in legal tender -- was a direct and egregious violation of many
of
my rights.
First of all, the fingerprint is not used for identification. It is
merely
kept on file in case the check turns out to be fraudulent. That is the
very
definition of a warrantless and a priori restraint on my rights to
privacy
and due process in the absence of probable cause of wrong-doing.
Secondly, I have a right to my property -- my wages -- and this is a
violation of my right to receive my property lawfully due me.
Thirdly, this is twice a violation of my right to be secure from
impairment
of contract -- once a violation of the contract between myself and my
employer in which he agrees to pay me for my services and once because
the
purpose of this is to force me to open a bank account, thereby becoming
subject to the surveillance of my financial affairs afforded by the Bank
Secrecy Act.
The retired FBI agent dismissed all that with the statement that he
didn't
care; all he was doing was supplementing his government retirement by
designing this program for the banks. Then he said, "Anyway, your
fingerprints are already all over this payroll check. Why do you care if
we
require you to put your fingerprint on it before we cash it?"
"If my fingerprints are all over the check, why do you need me to put my
fingerprint on it?" I asked in reply.
"Oh, uh, well ..." he hemmed and hawed, "because it has to be
voluntary,"
he admitted.
"Uh-huh. It has to be voluntary so that a few years from now when all of
our fingerprints are loaded into a database and we no longer have any
financial privacy at all, we can't complain about it because we
volunteered
now.
Right?"
"Well ... I can't get into that." He terminated our conversation and
walked
away.
Two years after the fingerprint program started, they tightened the
noose.
Suddenly you had to give a fingerprint and show two forms of
identification, both of which had to be from an "approved list". Every
form
of identification on that "approved list" was a bank card of some kind
with
the exception that a "department store membership card" was acceptable
as
one of
the two forms of identification.
A year later they tightened the noose still further. Now you need a
fingerprint, two forms of identification from an approved list and you
need
to pay a fee to collect your own wages in legal tender.
Now, guess what...all the alternative methods of cashing your payroll
check, such as supermarket customer service kiosks, are now refusing
cash
checks at all. They have now installed "RPM" machines where you have to
punch in your government-issued serial number (Social Security Number)
so
they can look at
your credit history. The machine then takes your digital picture so they
can identify you in a crowd at the next Super Bowl, you insert your
check
and punch in the amount and it gives you the cash -- less a 1.75%
(minimum)
processing fee rounded off to the next highest dollar because the
machine
doesn't give you coins. The bank fee is cheaper, of course, because they
want you to open an account -- but you have to give your fingerprint and
be
forced to contract with other banks or department stores.
The banks can get away with all this because the banks have court
rulings
in their favor all the way back to the beginnings of this country to the
effect that as soon as you put your money in a bank, it is no longer
yours.
If the bank goes belly up, you have no specific right to YOUR money. You
have only the same rights as any other general creditor. Also, if the
bank
refuses to
cash your check for any reason or no reason at all, you have no right
against the bank. You have a right against the person who gave you the
check, but that's all. If you go back to the person who wrote you the
check, you find that he has no right to his own money he put into his
account to cover the check either because it has been "co-mingled" with
everyone else's money.
Government loves that word, "co-mingled". If you co-mingle your money
with
the money of others, you no longer have any claim to your money. But if
government robs you in an illegal IRS or RICO confiscation and
co-mingles
your money with other legalized thefts, robberies, and
euphemistically-labeled confiscations, you don't have any right to their
money either.
If the bank can refuse to cash your payroll check because you claim your
right to the privacy of your fingerprint, then the bank can refuse to
cash
your payroll check for any reason at all -- or no reason.
If the bank can refuse to cash your payroll check because you refuse to
pay
their extortionate fee to collect your own wages, then the bank can set
any
fee it wants and keep your earnings if you don't want to pay the fee.
GUNS
So here is how it all ties together: If Bank of America can refuse to
provide merchant services to a gunsmith, then they can refuse to cash a
check on their bank which is presented by a gunsmith. And when the
gunsmith
goes back to the customer who wrote him the check, Bank of America can
refuse to
return the customers' money to him on the grounds he is consorting with
a
gunsmith. I believe Moscow employed a similar brand of totalitarianism
against anyone not in favor with the Communist Party.
FEUDAL LORDS
The banks can do all of this primarily because they hold a "Title of
Nobility" which is specifically prohibited by our Constitution. The
purpose
of a Title of Nobility under feudal law was to elevate an individual
above
"the common herd" and make him less accountable to his "subjects" on the
theory that his actions were in "the public interest." This is exactly
the
same purpose for creating limited-liability corporations. If some jerk
in a
bank decides to use the enormous economic power of a bank you advance
his
personal political agenda, he is legally untouchable so long as
government
believes his actions are "in the public interest".
Our nation if founded upon the principle of equality under the law. This
is
precisely why Titles of Nobility are specifically prohibited by the U.S.
Constitution, and why Thomas Jefferson considered banks to be the
greatest
threat to liberty the world had ever known. I agree with him and I have
not
had a bank account for 25 years. Now those who are trying to avoid
entanglements with banking systems and maintain their sovereignty as
natural individuals at law are facing the very real possibility of not
being able to eat or pay rent unless they are willing to pay a fee for
the
privilege of receiving their own property lawfully due them (their
wages)
AND get themselves on a banking (government) fingerprint database in the
absence of
any probable cause of wrong-doing.
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
--
http://www.bearerinstruments.com
A Directory of Web sites and Internet
presences accepting non-fiat monies.
http://www.bearerinstruments.com/assets/BIMDsPGPkey.txt
650C 51DA 734F 697F 5706 3D6A 7712 BCC9 D1AE 00BA
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
