Gold, Gold, Where’s the Gold?

It seems that there are still those who are supporting the illusion of the Global Accounts as being some kind of great savior or another.  However, the question that begs to be discussed is whether there is any reasonable justification in believing that at some point there will be some means by which to make available the gold that’s represented by the Global Collateral Accounts for the use of the world’s people.

People swear that the bonds that supposedly were issued in exchange for gold are valid and that others have seen bunkers full of gold.   I don’t disbelieve any of these statements what I find hard to believe is that based on the available facts there will ever be a way to recover the amounts of gold that is represented by the Global Collateral Accounts.

First, let’s take a look at where the world’s gold is to be found and how much gold are we really talking about.   According to an estimate based on all available information in 2011, 49.2% of the world’s gold was in jewelry, 19.26% was in investment form (bars, coins, etc.), 17.2% was held by all of the world’s central banks and governments, 12.14% was in use for industrial purposes, and 2.2% was unaccounted for (probably on the bottom of the ocean).

The estimated amount of total gold ever mined on this planet is approximately 171,300 metric tonnes and at a value at $1500 per troy ounce that gives you a total value of about $8.2 trillion.   Now with the distribution breakdown that was given above the value of the amount of gold held by all of the central banks and governments is only about $1.41 trillion dollars. [A little side note; that puts roughly about $4.0 trillion in jewelry, hence, the reason so many people are willing to buy your old gold jewelry]

The U.S. according to the U.S. Treasury at the end of September 2014 had about 8,133 metric tonnes of gold with a value of just over $11 billion.   I question the 8,133 number as the export/import figures for the amounts of gold going into and out of the U.S. from 1991 to 2011 shows that we shipped over 5,000 tonnes more gold out of the country than we imported.   That raises the question as to where did the gold come from to send that much out of the country?

According to numbers I saw tossed around about how much would be owed to the holders of those notes that were issued in exchange for the gold represented by the Global Accounts I heard numbers in the trillions of dollars.   If they are expecting payment in gold then the U.S. doesn’t even claim to have enough to do that with and knowing how much we have been shipping out without offsetting shipments in I would guess that they are definitely a lot shorter than that.

Even if the numbers used to estimate the total amount of gold on the planet is low they are not going to be that far off.   Gold isn’t that plentiful on this planet, that’s why it is so valuable to begin with and has been chased after since man first discovered it.

I don’t doubt that people have seen bunkers with gold in them.  Marcos while he was in control of the Philippines required that all gold sold there had to be sold to the government.   He supposedly then routed all that gold into bunkers that he had built underneath all of the palaces that he lived in.  I’m sure that people actually visited those bunkers and saw lots of gold stacked in them but that is not going to help the situation with the Global Accounts.  It doesn’t take a lot of gold to look like an enormous amount, it’s rather bulky.

The question then is how do you know that the U.S. government even has any gold to pay someone off with?   If there is no gold to use to pay off the debt even to the tune of the original amount what are they going to do, accept dollars?

Not only do I have a problem believing that there is enough gold in the coffers of the U.S. to pay off this debt but I also have a problem with the notion that you could find a U.S. judge that would entertain allowing a lawsuit that could devastate the U.S. economy.

I have the same attitude toward this as I do toward those protesters who believe that the Internal Revenue Code is illegal and that a Federal judge would ever rule in such a way as to declare it null and void.  I simply ask the tax protester if they really think that a judge would intentionally put themselves in the history books as being the one person who singlehandedly brought the entire U.S. economy to a crash.  After a bit of thought they usually see the rational point that regardless of whether the law is right or wrong no judge is going to do something so stupid.

Imagine if you will a lawsuit coming before a Federal judge involving the issue of the Global Accounts.   If I was a judge my first move would be exactly what the judge in the original case did.  I would set the stage for a dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction.  You’ve got a case that when you get down to the base elements is between foreign nationals and the U.S. government.

Here’s the problem with that case; U.S. case law establish sovereignty against a suit being brought against the government unless you have the government’s permission to sue them.   Not much chance that you’ll ever get that permission.

Then if all else fails, the fact that there are no Treasury records that even shows that notes in the denominations depicted have ever been printed by the Treasury is prima facie evidence that the notes produced are fakes.   No way that there isn’t enough reasons that a Federal judge can find that will guarantee that the outcome of the case will be any thing other than in favor of preventing harm to American citizens.

So real, fake doesn’t matter the outcome is going to always be the same.

Commentary On David Wilcock’s Additional November 12, 2014 Post-“Things Are Ramping Up….”

{A copy of David’s November 12 additional post entitled “Things Are Ramping Up VERY Quickly.. We Are Going To See Major People Getting Knocked Off” can be found here:}

In David’s comments he talks about lots of new people are coming forward.   I would assume that from his comments he has been talking with these people.   My concern would be that if they are just now coming on the scene I would take anything they had to say under advisement until the new comers could be properly vetted.   I would at least preface anything received from them or corroborated by them with disclaimers.

He talks about an Alliance that will “get the planet back” through “behind-the-scenes” efforts at least for some period of time to come.   I would love to accept this on face value but I know that to try to keep an organization that supposedly is global in scale and set on the destruction of those who have an agenda secret from the very same elitist power seekers would be almost impossible.

Reality check!  If the elitist have infiltrated governments as much as I know they have then all the resources of those governments would be at the disposal of the power seekers and anything remotely related to a viable organized resistance to their goals would be summarily dealt with.   If they have been manipulating and controlling events for hundreds if not thousands of years without being exposed then they know not only how to protect and cloak themselves but to efficiently eliminate any threats to their existence without exposure as well.

To protect and hide anyone who would oppose them with any type of success would take the resources of a major government such as the United States.  If virtually all the major governments in the world has been compromised by the elitist such a safe harbor isn’t likely to exist.

More over David talks about how their actions would result in us seeing “major people getting knocked off and it will be made to look like accidents”.  Let me tell you from experience that if you are working on a project such as he eluded to the last thing you would do would be to give any information to anyone that would see that information published on the internet in any shape or form.  Rationally, don’t you think that allowing such information to be published openly would jeopardize the mission by placing any targets on alert and place the mission members in unnecessary harm’s way by revealing the existence of the mission before you can even attempt to carry it out?

If this is how the Alliance works then I have low expectations for any success from them.  To pull off any type of covert action such as that described would require the highest levels of secrecy until after the fact.  Think the secrecy surrounding D-Day!

The resistance in German occupied countries in WWII were only as successful as was the secrecy of their existence and to the acts they pulled off before they occurred.   It would have been irrational for them to provide that they were going to blow up a train before they did it to someone who would publish their plans in the newspaper.  That’s pretty much what we see here with David’s commentary.

He talks about that the “most intriguing new tidbit was that it will reach a point where everybody knows about the Cabal”.  If you really want that to happen then you need to devise a campaign similar to the one that sold the public on the greenhouse gas caused climate change.  You would have to present credible evidence of their existence and what they have done with at least some level of substantiation.  That would include naming names and showing their direct or indirect involvement in known events or happenings.

At least in the U.S., the media can’t truly be mandated to do anything as David implies that the media will be forced to tell the truth.   The only way that would be possible is if someone actually took control of the media outlets either by force, coercion, or otherwise and then it wouldn’t necessarily be the “truth and nothing but the truth” as it could easily be manipulated into being nothing more than propaganda for a new set of players.

David speaks to the issue of a “secret space program” and that disclosure of involvement with ETs will be part of this new effort to bring about changes.  I have no doubt that there has been contact with and knowledge of ETs by the government for some time.  Confirmation of that contact by the government or even proof of that contact by earth based humans may occur sometime soon or it may not.

However, I am firmly convinced there will be no confirmation by ETs themselves unless those ETs have agendas of their own that involve earth humans somehow.   The reason I say this is because I KNOW without any doubt that the two prime driving factors that all higher level spiritual beings adhere to in this universe is the directives not to violate free will in any way and to not bring any harm of any kind to anything in the universe.

Openly contacting the human population on this planet before we reach a high enough spiritual level would inflict both free will violation and bring harm to many people here by forced destruction of their belief systems resulting in emotional anguish and perhaps even physical harm.   That type of damage and harm would never be knowingly inflicted upon anyone or anything in this universe by the higher order entities within this universe.

David wraps up his comments with a quote about seeing the arrest and prosecution of top banksters, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and anyone who has been violating the law.  I ask you to consider that if the elitist have infiltrated the government, judicial system, health system, educational system, etc., by direct or indirect means and influence; who is going to arrest them, who is going to prosecute them, and what judicial system is going to try them?

I do accept the allegation that there are wealthy individuals who firmly believe that the best future for this planet is for them to have the entire world under their total absolute control.   I accept that they believe that they and they alone know the best way to handle the over-population problem that faces this planet.   I accept that the wealthiest of the wealthy have manipulated control of most of the major vital corporations of the world for themselves.  I accept the fact that they have leveraged their control through the creation and formation of organizations like Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove, and others.  I accept the fact that the elitist power seekers have little or no respect for the great “unwashed” and believe that domination of us by them is justified and ordained.

By acceptance of these things, I know that the “arrest and prosecution” of their top echelon minions will not be easily done in the U.S. as the judges that have been confirmed to the Federal judiciary have been most often perverted to the will of the elite or at the very least tending toward being fully indoctrinated by the elitist built educational system into thinking in manner.  The arrest of these individuals will in time come to past but it will take time much time before the average person comes on line with the knowledge to understand the need for these things to be done.

Common Law and Sovereignty-Not The Answer!

Because of my occupation I have been around the sovereignty movement for most of 30 years.  Yes it’s that old and has been around a long time.   Just like the old time snake oil salesmen, I’ve seen the sovereignty concept pitched for use for just about everything.

As for the current common law/sovereignty movement, the underlying desire and hunger for change and something better which is systemic to the current conditions we find ourselves in today is the foundation being used for personal sovereignty being pitched as the way to gain fulfillment of those desires and hunger pangs.

The problem with that is it is purely based on a lack of knowledge and the failure to be open minded enough to not see all effecting factors.  There is no such thing as personal sovereignty!  Sovereignty is supreme power or authority over something and that something is usually control or the governing of a group of people.  Truthfully we don’t and can never have supreme authority or power over these bodies we inhabit at all.  The mere fact we can’t control the health or death of it should be sufficient to make that point obvious.

Back to a more direct point, let’s begin with an overly simplified investigation of what is “common law”.  Common law is what arose in the 12th and 13th centuries as civilizations, especially the civilizations on the British Isle, came out of the “dark ages”.  The justice system that existed prior to that was a chaotic system based on feudal law over ridden by the authority of the monarchy.  Under that system each feudal estate was under the control of the local landowner who set the laws for his estate but owed allegiance to and was subject to the taxation of the crown.

As an example of how the free man faced justice, If I was to steal an apple on one estate I might be made to do sufficient extra work until I paid for that apple with the amount of work determined by the head of the feudal estate.  On another estate for the theft of an apple I might be placed in some type of confinement for 10 years.

The system of justice was riddled with inequity.  To attempt to solve the problem the English system began evolving not because of the inequity for the common people but because those of titled nobility got tired of the burdensome actions of the monarchy.

This evolving was manifested through the creation of certain documents that specified that limited the power of the monarchy and established certain rights for the nobles which bled down to the common people.

What came out of the discontent of the nobles began, as far as the legal system was concerned, with basically three different courts being established within the English system.  Laws were drawn up and put into place by a two house parliamentary system.

It was the duty of the crown to enforce the laws while the courts decided how those laws were applied.

As the courts decided, or issued rulings, on how those laws were to be applied in various circumstances those rulings then became how they were used in applying the laws to future cases.   This then is truly what is “common law” and to be more specific the common law as we know it is really something called case based law.

[Remember I said this was an overly simplified view so don’t ding too hard with the comments!]

What most people today are thinking about when they refer to “common law” is more akin to the inalienable rights that Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence.  They are trying to say that each of us at birth have certain rights that should be sacrosanct.  They see that even that “rights” are being abused and infringed upon by those abusers of power.  They desire to regain a semblance of being in control and they look for a way to protect those rights and make them inviolable.

They have reasoned that the people have a right to do whatever necessary to seek out the way to make them inviolable.  Someone then came along and said look I have the solution and its based upon the “common law”.  But the “common law” that they seem to think exists, doesn’t and never has.

The promoters of this approach then came up with something they are calling a common law jury. The create this system for creating and running these juries but when they try to give it legitimacy through historical precedent that they go astray.

Since there has never been anything even close to what they are trying to create or remotely conceived of in any document, for them to say the power rests in common law is a fallacy and deception.

They point to the U.S. grand jury system and use a single statement by a single judge as proof.  However, if you research the case the statement was made in regards to you find it was referring to a very limited definition of a single characteristic of the grand jury system.

The grand jury that exists in the U.S. Constitution was created to correct a flaw in the English case law or common law system.  In the English system at the time of the American Revolution the representative of the English crown had the sole authority to decide who and with what crime a person was charged with.  This of course led to abuse of power by the representatives of the crown, hence, the need to limit the power of the representatives of the government.

To correct that abuse of power problem the founders of this country established a panel of peers system to decide and determine when there was cause enough for a person to be charged and tried of a crime.  The way that system is implemented has evolved through the years influenced by our three branch and checks and balances system.

To begin the process a representative of the government (Federal prosecutor) has to convince a Federal district judge that there is sufficient reason to believe that it would be in the best interest of the welfare of the people to seat a grand jury.  The prosecutor has to prove that it is in the best interest of the people to further determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant charging a person with a crime.

Once a judge is satisfied he will authorize the calling of jurors to make up a grand jury.  A grand jury is composed of between 16 and 23 members and most times with 2-3 alternates.  To protect the “target” of a grand jury investigation and the identity of those  testifying in case there is no indictment the work and session of a grand jury are secret.

That doesn’t mean that the “target” of a grand jury isn’t made aware of the presence of a grand jury investigating something about them as all grand juries issues a letter, called a target letter, to those that the grand jury will be focusing upon.  Those targeted by the grand jury are given the opportunity if they so choose to appear before the grand and give testimony but the government cannot compel them to testify.

A grand jury does not have unlimited time to make up their minds whether to indict or not.   A Federal grand jury is limited to 18 months plus one 6 month extension to reach agreement on an indictment or fail to indict.  To reach indictment only requires that 12 members of the 16-23 members of the grand jury reach agreement for an indictment.

The biggest problem with the grand jury system is a tendency for the grand jurors to believe that even if there really isn’t enough evidence to prove the crime that the next phrase will correct any mistakes they may make.  [Hence, the old remark that a Federal prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich for murder.]  Once a “target” is indicted they are then arrested, processed and then goes through the long period until he gets his day in court to face the determination of whether they are found to be innocent or guilty.

However, the fallacy in the notion that the grand jury’s findings are cushioned by the system is that simply having to endure the arrest and trial process usually winds up destroying the person even if they turn out to be not guilty.

What the common law/sovereignty movement is trying to do today is create some kind of pseudo-grand jury.  However, there is no grounds of legitimacy or legality for the existence of such a jury.  The minimum that would be needed for such a jury to have any power would be societal acceptance, which is sorely lacking. Without a basis to draw the power for simply existence from then the actions of the so-called common law jury becomes nothing more than kangaroo justice and vigilantism.

The more they try to “indict” people on grounds not truly supported by legal evidence but instead upon human emotion, the more they will be seen as a lunatic fringe element as bad if not worse than the ones they claim to be against.   You cannot end tyranny by using the tactics of a tyrant yourself.

They try to convince others and justify themselves by speaking to those longings, desires and characteristics which are inherit traits in all people to want to be free.   They try to justify that because there have been those who have been prone to abuse of power that the only way to correct the situation is to “take justice into your own hands”.

All this will do over time is lead to violence in some form or the other by either members of the movement itself or by the government in “protection” of those being targeted by the common law juries.

Those basic human traits at the heart of all of this can, in most cases, be defined as rights.   These would of course include the right to exist and be, the right to do as one pleases as long as what you do doesn’t infringe upon another individuals right to do as they please, and the right to do whatever one wants to make themselves happy as long as you do not infringe upon others’ right to find happiness as well.  These are the most common of those human traits to which we should be entitled to simply because we exist as a human.  These are also the inalienable rights that I spoke of earlier that Jefferson saw as so important, so fundamental, that he addressed those same rights in the Declaration of Independence.

I agree with the desire that change needs to come but disagree with the how it should come to pass.  The United States was created to be the bellwether for this planet to show how a nation can be a leader in the area of personal liberties.  However, a few men from the very beginning have tried their very greatest to usurp that power and distort it to their own use creating a delay in the achievement of our nation’s highest and best purpose.

Change will come when the people themselves have become weary of being the downtrodden.   No person can be forced to succumb to the will of another without his own willingness to allow it.

Are there times when there is a price to pay for taking such a stand? Absolutely!   Is it too high a price to pay?  Never!

The only thing that keeps one from standing strong against tyranny is fear.   Fear mostly of death and dying.  If one can overcome that fear then the battle is won.

If tomorrow morning when the sun arose 200 million Americans said, “no more will we allow our liberties to be trampled”, those who are attempting to subject us to their will could not ever create enough force to be successful.

All it will take for lasting permanent change is a leader to appear that will guide this nation toward a new beginning, a new life, a new dawn where the rights of the individual not the rights of the masses is the primary focus of this country.   A leader that will be the captain that will steer this country into an era of economic growth and prosperity.  A leader with vision and integrity.

Such people do exist!  We had such a leader to some degree in John Kennedy but he was too much too soon without the support that he needed to make him unstoppable.  Now is the time, we only need to find the person.  LET THE SEARCH BEGIN!