Submitted by Sprott Money on 12/22/2014 09:19 -0500
The Morality and Legality of Debt Jubilee, Part III
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.
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 services.
They articulate to us (or, at least, they are supposed to) that we are “responsible” for our own financial decisions, and thus they advise us to “read carefully” any/all financial documents or agreements they put before us. Does this thus absolve the Big Banks of responsibility (and guilt), as they malevolently buried 100’s of millions of generally well-meaning individuals under mountains of debt they could never hope to manage?
Hardly. Holding us (fairly and legally) responsible for our own debts is based upon an assumption: the legal assumption that “the system” itself is structured in a manner where it is fair-and-reasonable to assume that debtors properly understand – and are capable of understanding – financial documents put in front of them.