Friday, February 19, 2016

Will They Confiscate Gold Again?

by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Hello Marty, Is it your belief that they will (again) try to confiscate gold bullion coins when the going gets rough? If so, is there an alternative that you would recommend?
Many thanks for you great work.
ANSWER: I do not believe they will confiscate gold for there is no intention to return to a gold standard as Roosevelt did in 1934. He confiscated the gold FIRST to profit from the dollar devaluation in 1934. He also wanted to end people hoarding cash outside the banks, which is the same problem we have today which they are addressing with moving electronic and cancelling high denominations. However, what they will do is confiscate gold if you tried to leave the country with it or you travel with it domestically using the Civil Asset Forfeiture laws. That would be the same as if it were cash.
It does appear that old pre-1965 silver coins may be best for small commerce. However, keep in mind that the government may declare any transaction in gold or silver to be illegal and they then get to confiscate all assets involved. They can easily just pass a law and declare anyone dealing in some off-currency exchange to be “money laundering” to hide from taxes. These people will do whatever they can to retain power.
Also keep in mind that as they become more and more desperate for money, all legal forms used today will vanish at the order of any judge. Any “trust” or corporation will have no validity to prevent government on the hunt for money. Piercing the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Whatever trust or corporate structure which is normally treated as a separate legal person, but there is ample legal precedent to “pierce” the corporate veil so they pretend it does not exist. These trusts or corporations are legal creation of the state and the state can also change its mind. They typically rest upon the major prong of “unity of interest and ownership” meaning the concentration of shareholder control. The fewer the people the greater the likelihood they will disregard the legal structure.  The other two prongs are “wrongful conduct” and “proximate cause”. Therefore, they allege there is some crime like money laundering to not pay taxes, and with the concentration of ownership they apply they “totality of circumstances” and like magic, the corporate structure or trust vanishes. Piercing the Corporate Veil in the United States, corporate veil piercing is the most litigated issue in corporate law. (see: Thompson, Robert B. (1991), “Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study”, Cornell Law Review 76: 1036–1074).
This is how they seized Princeton Economics. They lied and said I owned everything and/or i controlled it behind the curtain because the US company I had from the outset started in my child’s names. They were both more than 18 at the time of my confrontation and their legal rights meant nothing. Then they lied and said I had no partners and threatened to imprison them on contempt if they dared to come to the States to protest. It did not matter I was not even a signature to all the bank accounts they had to run their businesses around the world. Nothing mattered. There was no appeal for no judge would ever overrule another on this issue when the government is on the other side. So corporate structure and ownership really means nothing if they want to control or get to whatever they desire. And thank to Judge John Walker, a judge still has the power of the former king of England and can throw you in prison for like without a trial and take your lawyers away all under the heading of civil contempt of court.
So will they confiscate gold? I doubt in a wholesale basis, however, they have shut this down as far as gold being portable. You cannot jump on a play with a suitcase full of gold as you once could decades ago. So just be prepared, they can make it illegal to conduct a transaction in it. When Roosevelt did confiscate gold, they retroactively negated any private contract that defined its payment in gold known then as the “gold clause.” (see: U.S. v. BANKERS’ TRUST CO., 294 US 240 (1935)

No comments:

Post a Comment