Global Currency Reset Comment for January 2018 plus more By Anna Von Reitz

Global Currency Reset Comment for January 2018

By Anna Von Reitz

Everyone wants me to comment on this, but what is there to say?  It's like orphans waiting for Father Christmas.  All these good people who have invested their life's savings in junk bonds without realizing that they are junk bonds.... waiting patiently day after day and week after week and month after month for "the RV".  

When the RV comes, it's all going to be peaches and cream. When the RV comes, miracles will abound.  Peace will reign.  The humble will be raised up.  The evil will be cast down. We will all dance and sing.  It will be a great, great day when the RV comes..... okay, well.....

All fiat currencies are bonds and bonds are I.O.U.'s issued by specific governments.  If the government goes down, how much do you think their I.O.U.'s are worth? 

Maybe, just maybe, the successor governments will honor (and be ABLE to honor) the promises of their predecessors.  I don't think so.  Those promises were never realistic to begin with and nothing is going to make them so now.  At least, nothing that I know of.  Zadok from Planet Xeon - B might show up and change the balance of things, that's true, but I am not betting on it.  

Remember that I am a flat-footed little Midwestern girl who grew up dodging cow patties out in the back pasture and having my Uncles ask me funny questions like "Who's on first?"  I am not, it is true, the one to take things on faith; I hang back and wait for deeds to prove words and for facts to be verified.  I long ago learned that the devil uses our virtues just as expertly as he plays our vices and that tends to keep my head firmly screwed on at all times.....  

And in the case of Dinar and Zim and all the rest, what I see is a Devil's Playpen, where he can play the script either way---- appeal to the egalitarian instincts of the Good to want to have money to do good, and appeal to the crass instincts of the Greedy not caring about the people in places like Iraq and Zimbabwe, who together with their country's natural resources, would be the ones paying off these huge debts----get them going and coming both ways, you see?   The Good and the Greedy, both equally motivated to buy, buy, buy, creating a feeding frenzy.... and "giving value" to promises that are essentially either (a) immoral or (b) worthless----- and frankly, I can't see any good coming out of either one of those options. 

But, you are asking the wrong person for a number of reasons--- first, I don't believe in money.  To me, it's all just different kinds and colors of casino chips. Second, if I believe in a real, true, honest "redistribution of wealth" --- I know it has to happen via a different process. First and foremost, it has to happen by debt forgiveness and reinvestment. 

You can't take a bunch of sharks from different countries, throw them in a small swimming pool, and expect harmony and agreement and constructive work to be accomplished, and that is pretty much my take on what really goes on in the GCR Committee.  Everyone talks the talk, nobody walks the walk.  Not really. 

The Elephant in the Room is America.  The real America.  The one revealed in "America:Some Assembly Required"--- the nation-states and people.  Why?  

We are/were the primary source (not the only source, but the primary source)  of all that wealth that was supposed to be distributed. You know---  the "missing" holders of all the world's debts, the value of all Territorial and Municipal Governments on Earth, plus all the wealth of their franchises..... all belongs, technically, to the actual government of this country because we had very able crooks working here and they used our "abandoned" accounts to stash their loot for decades and they set up all their franchises under our delegated authority, because that is what they abused to build their whole empire. 

Imagine the situation..... you come home and find your entire hometown stuffed full to bursting with gold and silver and receipts for gold and silver and emeralds and diamonds and fine art and Lord Only Knows.  And part of that is legitimately yours, legitimately your inheritance, fair and square. 

But certain other people --- in order to get control and distribute all the rest of it, decided to just cut you out of the picture, and pretend that you never came home.  Yeah, it was more convenient that way, left more for everyone else, and besides, everyone else in the world was trained to hate your guts and blame you for all the atrocities and wars for profit and violence and pollution and criminality, the drugs and the booze and the whores--- it was all racked up and blamed on you, at the same time you were being lied to and used and abused and worked and taxed to death by the same crowd that was lying to the whole rest of the world about you. 

Sweet.  

Well, well, well..... turns out that the British Monarchs and the Popes are the ones actually responsible for all this rot, with an "Also Culpable Award" going to the members of the Territorial and Municipal United States Congresses since 1860.  

So where does that leave us?  With a whole lot of spider-web trails of accounts and mirrored accounts, with hoards of "historical assets" that belong to actual people being illegally seized upon by banks, with land claims that are completely specious, with bogus trusts and bogus transmitting utilities and bogus foreign situs trusts as far as the eye can see, and (almost) every government on Earth knee deep in the Kim Chee.  

That's the Good News and the Bad News, because if you stop and think about it--- good people wound up in control of the situation, and they will forgive all the bogus debts and share out the profits and not according to a shark fest, but according to the simple fact that there was never any reason or need for anyone to suffer or go without, there has always been far more than enough for everyone on Earth to have good food and water and homes and electricity and indoor plumbing and hospitals and schools and beautiful parks and farms and public buildings and everything else we could want or need.  

Always. There has NEVER been any real reason for all this suffering.  Ever. 

And there is no need for anyone to take a bath on Zim and Dinar investments nor is there any need for those poor countries to have to pay off on these investments. It's all just the stuff that dreams----or nightmares----are made of, and at the end of the day, those who invested for good reasons will have their ability to do good in full measure abounding, and those who invested for the sake of greed--- they will have their just reward, too.  I have no doubt that a greater Hand is at work, making sure that a true and just redistribution of wealth will take place, and an end to all the grief and lies.  

I just don't expect it to happen by an arbitrary Global Reset of the value of casino chips. I expect it to happen by the entire world waking up, looking around, and realizing that yes, Virginia, there is enough, more than enough, for everyone to have what we need, and more than enough to build good dreams. 

 ----------------------------
See this article and over 800 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
 To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Posted by   Paul Stramer    at 10:43 AM

Thanks to: http://www.paulstramer.net

Why Equity Law is Evil

By Anna Von Reitz

I have been asked, "Why do I attack British Equity Law so vehemently?"

Here's the short answer--- It's not British and it's not Equity and it's not Law. 

In the 1750's a great hue and cry began in England because of the arbitrary and unjust effects of imposing outdated written "one-size fits all" laws without consideration of mitigating circumstances. 

For example, the sentence for murder is death. 

But what about unintentional, accidental murder?  What we now call "manslaughter"?   And what about murder committed by children by accident?  Or by the mentally incompetent, who couldn't possibly know what they were doing?  How about murder in self-defense? The young woman being choked by a would-be rapist and thief, who finds a loaded gun and fires?  Or crimes of passion? The betrayed husband who finds his wife in the arms of another man and snaps?

There was a good deal of well-founded discontent with the hoary and Draconian Common Law of England, which had ceased to be determined on a case by case basis as intended, and devolved--- especially in large cities, to a reliance on sentences established by the "case law".  This over-reliance on the pure written law of record in similar cases (and who is to say what is "similar"?) and the gradual replacement of true jury trial by one's peers to judgment by rule and by whatever jury was summoned (quite often not actual peers of the accused) led to massive controversy about the true nature of justice and the ability of the Common Law to provide it. 

Not, I think, coincidental to the times, the BBC is advertising a series called, "Garrow's Law" which is supposedly based on actual cases tried by William Garrow, a young Barrister who stood on the forefront of this entire movement to bring a more considered and considerate justice into the courts, and the development of a system of law that could see beyond the black and white words on a page clearly stating things like, "the sentence for murder is death by hanging...." (no matter what).  

Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?  A better law.....a more just law....a more considerate law....a more fair law..... 

But, unfortunately, just as the pendulum moved in the 1750's  to create the shades of grey we all now know and agree to be just, such as the provisions for manslaughter and juvenile court, the same forward and redeeming motion carried too far in the other direction, muddying the virtuous and sure, if sometimes dreadful and Puritanical English Common Law with international Admiralty Law, to create British Equity Law. 

The primary proponent of this "mocking marriage" of English Common Law with  Admiralty Law was Lord Mansfield, a former Scottish Admiralty Attorney who rose to favor and crafted the basis of British Equity Law in the years immediately before the American Revolution. 

The problem with British Equity Law is that is allows the judge to sit in place of the King, which displaces the traditional place and power of the Jury of One's Peers. 

Suddenly, a Barrister is King....  He can use "his discretion" to inflict the harshest sentence available under the written law, or he can soften the sentence as he sees fit, or dismiss the case entirely.  Just like the King of England might. 

Of course, this power is entirely seductive to the members of the Bar Association, and, as it turns out, seductive for the King as well: his minions can use their discretion to benefit him and his friends and the ruling class in general, and if by chance they go too far in their toady behavior, he, the King, can emerge as the savior from these abuses, his hands immaculately clean.  

So the idealists who sought to create a more perfect justice than the English Common Law provided, wound up creating something that was more varied, more precise, more mutable---more "sophisticated" in the bad sense of that word, but also far more prone to manipulation, abuse, and the currying of favor. 

Also, it must be said, that this new Equity Law totally violated another safeguard provided to individual people by the honestly executed Common Law--- judgment by one's own peers. 

England then as now is a culture dominated by culture. A man does not have to speak to be known in England.  Who and what he is, his education, his social station is worn like an armband or -- famously--- a "funny hat".   So the tradition of trial by jury of one's peers is a literal reflection of the fact that different strata of society have different standards, different knowledge, and different values. 

What is justice to a chimney sweep or a fisherman is not necessarily the same as the justice of a lord----or, and this is my point entirely---- a barrister. 

What one man regards are gross impropriety is commonplace to another.  So those of the same social class and profession and nation are unavoidably the "peers" that can most rightly judge the actions of another of their brethren.  

And, ultimately, this tradition of judgment by peers also yields the most accurate judges of the law itself, by testing a law against all social strata, all professions, all religions, all races---- to judge if it is truly fair and right in all their many eyes. 

When a jury of one's true peers is replaced by a judge, the power and purpose of jury nullification is also lost.  The Common Law of England and the Common Law of America both provide(d) for the additional safeguard of jury nullification.  Quite aside from judging the particulars of an individual case, true common law juries can judge the law itself, and if they find it unfair, unreasonable, or unjust--- they can throw it out.  

The legislature does not rule the people it serves, so long as the people have access to the power of jury nullification.  

This safeguard of the Common Law prevents oppressive, insane, arbitrary, or unfair laws from standing on the books and plaguing entire generations of people. 

So from the standpoint of preventing abuse of power by judges exercising their "personal discretion" for personal or social gain, and from the standpoint of ensuring that people are judged by their peers and not by someone alien to the realities of their lives, and from the standpoint of truly refining the law itself--- the Common Law stands superior in every respect, despite the occasions when Equity Law has provided true equity and justice via the good heart and wisdom of individual judges. 

With a clear insight now into the ways and means used by the British Territorial United States of America subsidiary to gain secretive control of American land and labor assets, and to also insinuate British Equity Law on American soil, it is thunderously apparent how "Equity Law" has been used to oppress the people and gild the "kings"---- those in Westminster and in Congress.  

If the object of law is justice and order, then Equity Law is the open door to feudalism, class strife, cronyism, and ultimately---though not in every case---- injustice, because by adopting British Equity Law, we adopt coercive power and place it in the hands of one man or woman, operating only according to his or her "discretion" --- which ultimately too often means "what I can get away with".  

It also leads to a perverse rewards system, in which those judges who make the most money for the court get the richest pensions and favors, and who are preened and petted for the choicest professional favors.  He who feeds the king---whoever and whatever the "king" may be--- gets fed in return, so in such a system, the natural affinities a man might have for justice too often get set aside in favor of his new vacation home, a college education for his grandson, or a new job promotion for his wife.  

The justice provided by one man can be bought or sold; it is only a question of --- at what price?   Therein lies another potent reason that British Equity Law fails the cause of justice--- it's relatively easy to buy, bully, or kill one man, but the bulwark of a thousand years of Common Law?  That is not so easily swayed! 

Also, finally, and this is most telling, too---- without Jury Nullification doing its after-the-fact pruning and proving of the Legislature's work, laws proliferate like dandelions in spring.  

It seems to be a universal plague of nature that men who are elected to the legislature think that it is their business to pass laws for other men to live by, and if at least ten such mandates do not carry their names and approvals each session, they think they aren't doing their jobs.  

I did a random study here in Alaska some years ago and found that the legislature was passing between two and three hundred new laws per year.....3000 new laws, give or take, per decade. 

What, ho?  Are we really creating so many brand new point sources of evil and mayhem that it takes 200-300 new laws every year to keep things in order?  And who is going to learn all these new laws?  And who is going to pay for their enforcement? 

Without the operation of Jury Nullification operating in the background, these laws just burgeon and accumulate, like a cancer growing in the dark.  This is why at last count, the federal government and its agencies were busy trying to enforce 80 million laws.  

Think about it.  Seriously.  Eighty million laws.  

This is yet another dangerous and undesirable result of adopting British Equity Law and allowing it to run rampant on our shores.  It denies jury nullification and results in this unbridled growth and proliferation of laws that simply stay on the books and appear to breed ten new volumes every year.    

Somebody has to pay for enforcing all those laws, and plainly, it has already reached the point where any attempt at fair, competent, and universal application of such laws is impossible. Nobody has the ability to know and obey 80 million laws, so they are (a) meaningless or (b) arbitrarily and sporadically enforced, which gives rise to more injustice and more police incompetence and other social evils and costs too numerous to contemplate. 

I once estimated that if the current Alaska legislature did nothing but review and repeal laws already on the books, it would take them ten years to arrive at a reasonable number of laws that could be provided a reasonable amount of enforcement.  Ten years of legislative sessions, just to clean up the mess that would have been taken care of by jury nullification otherwise? 

Prone to corruption and difficult to correct is a recipe for failure no matter what idealistic goals might otherwise be espoused, and all that is quite aside from the fact that the American people are owed the American Common Law.  

American Common Law, unlike its British Cousin, didn't suffer the disadvantages of the British Equity system.  At worst, it was simply elbowed out of the way and left in relative disuse by the quiet, improper proliferation of British courts on our shores.  

Wrapping up with my first comment-- it's not British, it's not Equity, and it's not Law--- 

British Equity Law isn't British in the same way that a mixed breed dog is neither this breed nor that; the English Common Law is what it is, but Admiralty Law comes from the far corners of the Earth, an ancient amalgam that belongs everywhere and nowhere, with roots in the trading practices of Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, Mycenae, Crete, Africa, India, China..... 

It isn't equitable, either.  What is equitable about men submitting themselves "in trust" to another man who is not impartial, not likely to be their peer, and who has profit motive to sheer them both? 

And as for being Law---  Law is based on timeless religious and ethical principles, not the opinions and individual pet peeves and petty concerns of men caught up in the exercise of their own spleens and the commerce of political power. 

So, no, it's not British.  It's not Equity.  And it most certainly is not Law. 

 ----------------------------
See this article and over 800 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
 To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Posted by Paul Stramer at 10:29 AM

Thanks to: http://www.paulstramer.net

Seventies and Eighties and Nineties

By Anna Von Reitz

It never made sense to me as a young girl growing up-- that we sent our young men to die in foreign wars.  

It made more sense to send men in their seventies and eighties or nineties, men who had less to lose in terms of opportunity, men wise in the ways of the world, men who had already suffered the vague nature of love, the losses of property, the many slings and arrows of all the fates that guide our paths.....men such as these are worthy opponents!  

Not the callow youths full of flower and nothing beyond the lies they have been told.....not them.  They should not be sacrificed, who do not know what their own lives are, who have not been enabled to live, much less regret. 

No, it should be us, the elders, who pledge the fight.  It should be us, who know what we wager with.  

These youngsters have no guess.  They depend on us.  They are our beloved children.

Let them be beloved.  Let them be....children. 

By whatever alchemy we have aged, the days and years of our lives have come and gone.  We have known our passions and built our castles. We have been at the banquet and know the difference between good wine and bad, between what is ours and what belongs to someone else. 

We know.  They do not. 

They are innocent. 

So yes, we must teach them, that obligation remains.  If we don't whisper of the sacred things, of what matters, of what is pure----what hope do they have, against such monstrous evil?  

If we do not direct their attention to the still, small voice-- what chance do they have against the blaring ego we have inherited, broadcasting 24/7 about me, me, me and I?  

They will be slaves to their own bodies.  Slaves to fear.  Slaves to every lie. 

No, we must fight.  Those in our declining years, those whose spirit again catches fire, not in the bright blazes of youth, but in the embers of who we truly are--- yes, we must fight. 

Because we most truly know the truth.  

Because our Fathers and Mothers handed us the torch. 

Because it is our duty and our world and who we are at stake, so these young people may know and remember --- when they are our age. 

I remember. 

I remember the G.I.s in the surf off Normandy.  I remember Verdun.   I remember the gentle rain in Vietnam.  I remember his early, senseless death, the one I cherished, beneath the white flowers and the green turf of Virginia, yes..... 

I do.  I remember. 

I won't forget.

I wouldn't if I could. 

I heard and can't stop hearing the voice of Goldie Williams, telling me her life, telling me the lives of her husband and her daughters, how they suffered and bled for no reason but the color of their skin. 

I know.  How do you un-know something?  Ever?  

I can't do it.  I know I can't.  I've tried.  I've tried to forget so many things, believe me. I have. 

It would be so very convenient, so pleasant, so easy, if only..... 

But then, here I am, Lord.  I can't be so blissfully forgetful, I can't do what good sense and convenience requires. I have no other way.... so this is it.  For better or worse.  I can't turn my back.  I can't walk away. 

It just isn't in me. 

I will be the worthy adversary.  I will contest with Satan.  I will chain him to the bottom of the estuary, and mock those who say that I can't. 
In truth, it is already done, a fait d'accompli, unto the final zum Ende.

There are no pleas, no righteousness.  And no excuses. 
Those who came before, both old and young, have done it for us. 
So do it for them.  

With all that is left to us, with all knowledge, all powers, and all flags flying, let us come, an army of old people, sagging at the jaw, weak at the knee, but coming nonetheless.  

Let us use the weapons of our age, our helplessness, our poverty, our senility, and our graves. 

Let us use our voices, while voices we have left.  Let us say what must be said to every ear following after us: 

This is America.  The land of the free.  The home of the brave. 

I am old, admittedly so.  Whatever roses remain on my cheeks can only be roses of shame, or a quick moment of life when I remember. 

 ----------------------------
See this article and over 800 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
 To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Posted by Paul Stramer at 9:36 PM

Thanks to: http://www.paulstramer.net