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.
k
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