Friday, August 29, 2008


At first glance I was pleased with some of the corrections and amendments proposed by the Lackawanna County Commissioners prior to their enactment of this latest authorization to incur a nonelectoral irrevocable debt on the future labor of the county’s taxpayers. I was especially intrigued, however, when I read on page 2, number 3 of the blue bound ordinance I viewed at the offices of the County Commissioners, that the “Note shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America . . . payable in full at maturity . . . 100% of the principal amount. . . plus interest accrued to date of prepayment.” How is this possible? Certainly the Lackawanna County Commissioners have access to the same information as I. Don't they? Presuming the County Commissioners to be fully aware of their fiduciary responsibilities to provide positive Seigniorage to this county’s inhabitants, I expected them to know that “Lawful Money” is “Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System . . . Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes. . . . the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of ownership, . . . .” Therefore, since “peonage” is said to have been abolished, I am curious as to whether our County Commissioners are truly performing their fiduciary duties to this county’s inhabitants who are statutorly mandated to use money that has been issued by the Federal Reserve that has no intrinsic value, and precludes "ownership", or whether they are erecting on some entity's behalf a “new and independent state within the limits of this commonwealth”? Here’s why: The LEGAL NOTICE published in the Thursday, August 28, 2008 issue of the Scranton Times-Tribune (page D4), stated that on August 27, 2008 the Lackawanna County Commissioners enacted an Ordinance authorizing the County to incur nonelectoral debt with amendments and corrections. Listed in the amendments was the acceptance of the “Purchase Proposal” by the following entities: RBC Capital Markets Corporation, (a US Broker dealer affiliate of RBC Dominion Securities Inc. and the Royal Bank of Canada, and Member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) that insures investors against loss); Janney Montgomery Scott LLC; and, PNC Capital Markets LLC (PNC has been a longtime supporter of the United Nations Association of USA Northeastern Pennsylvania and the IMF). What I did not see mentioned in this Notice is that the Commissioners’ “Bond Counsel” is Dilworth Paxson, LLP. Dilworth Paxson is listed as having donated $10,000 + to the United Nations Association - USA (page 27). The UNA-USA is a global "non-profit" organization whose members “organize” and implement "foreign policy" to build "public support for constructive U.S. leadership (NOT in these united States, or our united states, but) in a more effective United Nations"! I wondered how many people who have been contracted by adhesion to this ordinance by their County Commissioners know that former Governor Casey once managed the Scranton offices of Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, and Kaufman, and that Christopher H. Casey, brother to Senator Bob Casey, is currently a partner in Dilworth Paxson LLP, and that in 2002 several other prominent lawmakers (including Don Sherwood, Christopher Carney and James Wansacz) were on the Board of Directors of the United Nations Association of USA Northeastern Pennsylvania?

I wondered if the Lackawanna County Commissioners were aware of the etymology of the word "Seigniorage" that best defines their delegated duties? I wondered if they knew the meaning of seigniory and Seigniors if it would matter to them and how they viewed their "counsel"? According to “Seigniorage” is “The difference between the value of money and the cost to produce it - in other words, the economic cost of producing a currency within a given economy or country. If the seigniorage is positive, then the government will make an economic profit; a negative seigniorage will result in an economic loss. Seigniorage may be counted as revenue for a government when the money that is created is worth more than it costs to produce it. This revenue is often used by governments to finance a portion of their expenditures without having to collect taxes. If, for example, it costs the U.S. government $0.05 to produce a $1 bill, the seigniorage is $0.95, or the difference between the two amounts." (See below: "FEDERAL RESERVE HIT IN TALK BY LAMNECK".) A “Seignior”, however, is the "lord of a manor, . . (a) feudal landowner . . . ." See also, “seigniory” at I wondered if this ordinance may be considered "unconscionable", in violation of RICO statutes, AND treasonous? The following article was published on page 16 of the April 19, 1937 issue of The Scranton Times.

To see the humor in this "investment" by our "best and brightest" "leaders" with the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), watch this very short Canadian video.

Washington, April 19 - Representative Lamneck (D Ohio) told the house today the federal reserve system is committing legally "the greatest burglary in history." Critizing the system in the midst of a plea that the budget be balanced to avert "calamity," the Ohioan said that for a $300 investment a bank could get a $30,000 return. "If a burglar had a license to steal, he said, "he would at least have to carry away his loot. The federal reserve system has its loot brought to it." Lamneck said this was a procedure for a "steal" authorized by congress.
The treasury asks bids for several million dollars worth of bonds. A banker says he will take a million dollars worth and credits the treasury on his books with a million dollars. Then he deposits the bonds with a federal reserve agent as collateral security for a million dollars in federal reserve notes and agrees to pay the cost of printing the currency - about $300. He now has a million dollars in currency to balance the million dollar deposit he credited to the treasury. He still owns the bonds and can collect the interest, about $20,000 a year on an investment of $300.

"PREDATORY LENDERS" are those Democrat and Republican legislators who claim to represent our 'best interest' as they "SUPPLY" our "good faith" credit "ON DEMAND" to the owners of the world's banks in exchange for the devalued coin and debentured promissory "NOTES" that they mandated be used by us as "LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". In other words; IT'S THE HAND PICKED DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN "LAW MAKERS" THAT WE PUT INTO OFFICE WITH OUR VOTE (OR LACK OF IT) WHO ARE THE "PREDATORY LENDERS".