science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
|Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:32 am Post subject:
John Turmel drinks his own piss.
"By the way, he thinks he's shaming me while I think
he's helping spread a message many people will
eventually thank me for. I couldn't ask for a better
plug to bring this natural miraculous healer to
everyone's attention, even if from a demented
lunatic. I'm so not ashamed that I even pee a mug
full and chug it in the DVD put out last year at
http://www.turmelmovie.com so it's not as if I'm not
happy to get the message out."
John "Piss Boy" Turmel
science forum Guru
Joined: 07 May 2005
|Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:45 am Post subject:
TURMEL: Saba defends Dempsey's anti-bank class action fraud
|From: "vlario" <vlario@...
Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 8:06 am
Subject: Twisted mind: TURMEL on Canadian Action Suit
JRD: The complaint filed Friday April 15, 2005 in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster,
alleges that all financial institutions who are in the
business of lending money have engaged in a deliberate
scheme to defraud the borrowers by lending non-existent
money which are illegally created by the financial
institutions out of "thin air."
MS: Yes, right.
|JCT: Just like LETS credits are created right out of thin
air. Just like Casino Turmel poker chips are created right
out of thin air. There's no intent to defraud in any of
our cases. The "it's illegal to lend non-existent chips
which are created out of thin air" crowd are again
off-target. Are they going to attack LETS too?
MS: When you create money out of thin air AND SPEND IT, you
get the seigniorage which belong to the sovereign.
JCT: The banks do not create and spend it, they create it
and put in your account. You spend it and your receive your
seignorage, not the banks. What a ridiculous point. Haven't
you looked at the banking system blueprint at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm Or is too hard
for you? You don't even know how the banking system works
and you want to open your mouth in public and challenge
The Engineer. So the banks do not spend it and the banks do
not steal your seignorage. The borrower obtains his
seignorage and gets full value for your almost worthless
medium of exchange.
MS: In democracy, where the people are entitled to
sovereignty, the seigniorage is withheld by smart guys like
you exploiting the fact that the money creation process is
unknown-misunderstood by the cattle you exploit. This is
really counterfaiting and breach of trust.
JCT: So since you're wrong about the banks stealing your
seignorage, stealing the value for your new money from your
account, you're wrong about this too. Stealing seignorage is
not the crime of the banks, charging 11 when they only
created 10 is the crime of mort-gage death-gamble, the
genocide of the poor by fatal need.
|JCT: Same criticism for LETS creating Greendollars out of
nothing and no one says it contravenes the Criminal Code.
MS: Because the banking cartel is involved in the very same
seigniorage fraud. (If you don't like the ancient word
seigniorage, you can use 'monetary rent' which is about the
JCT: Oh, now he tries to link his "seigniorage" to the
interest rent. So he mis-identifies money's rent, interest,
with a new name "seigniorage." Har har har har. Everyone
else in the world calls it money's rent "interest" but not
|JCT: Graham Towers explained how they created the
money they lend so of course, they did have the new chips
MS: Yes, but they are not entitled to the whole seigniorage
- only to the expenses they incurred printing the tickets.
JCT: Back to the problem being who scores the original value
of the new money put into the bank account, not the
MS: The IFI act like a typography advocating she can spend
Football Tickets only because she printed them in the first
time. Furthermore, central banks spend tickets and put the
revenues in the liability side of the balance sheet.
JCT: As Graham Towers quote pointed out: "The banks, of
course, do not lend out their depositors' funds; each and
every time a bank makes a loan, new bank credit is created,
brand new money." All they do is put new chips into your
account. The Trump Taj Mahal or Las Vegas Ceasar's Palace
put new chips into my account too when I pledge my
collateral. Seignorage is not the problem in today's economy
making Marco's conclusions as wrong as his premises.
MS: As if those unredeemables tickets may be paid off some
time in the future... The Euro case explain well how they
do: at time of redemption, they simply print out a new kind
of ticket, another fake IOU.
JCT: No government piece of paper I can pay my taxes with is
fake. Simply bad-mouthing the orthodox system doesn't help
if you are wrong. I bad-mouth them their crime too, but
unlike the Dempsey fraud, and Marco's ignorance, I only
attack the growth of debt beyond the capacity to repay.
MS: When the State coin money, the seigniorage goes to the
general state expenses, like a perfect tax which target all
the people proportionally.
JCT: If the government spends it, they get the seignorage.
If I spend it from my account, I do too. Who cares since the
banks do not profit from the original seignorage.
MS: When a private cartel print the USD - or the Euro - they
are simply exploiting dumb people who don't know about the
So my advice: print cc to recover the monetary rent of paper
bills that the dumb State can't recover (a proof that
nuclear weapons are unuseful against government stupidity).
JCT: But LETS CC Community Currencies operate exactly like a
banks, giving each borrower their own seignorage too. Some
alternative, they both work the same. The only
difference between LETS and orthodox banks is that banks
charge both interest and service charges and LETS has
restricted its computers to the pure service charge and
abolised the interest charge. Gee, I asked the Supreme Court
of Canada to do that three times and when they said no, I
had to go out and built one for myself.
MS: Further more, print cc only in values ABOVE the value of
coins because coin seigniorage go to the State (Treasury
Department). Don't compete against the State, just compete
against the counterfaiters. And you have to explain to the
cc members how do you spend the CC RENT to gain a wide
JCT: Offering the same thing as an alternative is starting
to sound like gibberish.
|JCT: He's under the impression that banks lend out their
MS:In a certain sense they do it because they erode the
value of deposits by inflating the money pool.
JCT: I'm saying they don't lend out their depositors' funds
and he says that because they lend out new funds, it in a
certain sense the same thing. Not. The loans are coming out
of the New Money Tap pipe and not the Old Money Reservoir
pipe. Then again, Marco hasn't been able to follow the flows
in the pipes. Har har har har. It's so easy and he keeps
getting it wrong.
|JRD: The complaint alleges that the loan transactions are
fraudulent because no value was ever imparted by the
defendants to the Plaintiff; these defendants did not risk
anything, nor lost anything and never would have lost
anything under any circumstances and therefore no lien has
been perfected according to law and equity against the
JCT: It's the same complaint against every LETS that
simply helped the members effect trading between them with
no value imparted by the LETS. Shut down LETS with the
MS: No, just make LETS more accountable by explaining what
you do (aside from playing poker)
JCT: At no point, are we talking about playing poker with
the poker chips. We're talking about using them as an
alternative currency in our every day lives. Of course,
Marco would confuse my using casino chips as a model for
government coins with my using poker as a model for the
economy. The never-ending confusion because he can't cope
with poker chips. Marco finds talking about poker chips not
worthy of the exalted discussions on magically mammon. Poker
chips isn't complicated enough to keep him confused so, to
avoid becoming unconfused, he won't think in terms of casino
chips. And I get to use him as the buffoon for my barbs. He
can't even follow basic plumbing blueprints.
MS: No, just make LETS more accountable by explaining what
you do (aside from playing poker) with the monetary rent
gained through LETS.
JCT: We don't gain any monetary rent through LETS. The
member gets the seignorage of the issuance of his IOUs and
the system gets a service charge for keeping track of who
offers what and owes how much to whom.
MS: The gain above the expenses needed to run the system
must be returned to the community adopting the LETS.
JCT: I wouldn't even care if the barter network made a
profit. I prefer my interest-free barter credits network be
a public utility but I wouldn't care it my interest-free
barter credits network was for profit either. As long as
it's service charge we can all pay and not usury we call
cannot pay, I don't care how the mechanics is funded. But I
prefer a public utility providing our banking services, but
not that much.
MS: How to do it is a political thing. My advice: give a
monthly paycheck to the housewives.
JCT: It's not our function to decide how the currencies are
used. It's our job to provide liquidity enough to permit all
necessary transactions and that's all. Of course, since
banks have homicidal control over us, some control can be
retained so why not stick our noses into economics? It's not
our function as bankers, it's the users duty. So I have no
comment on how you'd like to see a better money system used.
|JCT: Bingo and Bongo in the same sentence. Bingo, yes, the
interest is criminal except he has not yet indicted it and
again offers no Criminal Code sections. Bongo, no, of
course they received the money they borrowed, most remember
walking out of the bank with it.
MS: yes, the banks conned them which in turn are out with
"cash" to con somebody else.
JCT: The bank did not con them in liquifying their IOU. It
conned them into trying to pay back 11 for every 10 they
took out, thus creating the mort-gage death-gamble amongst
the borrowing participants who were granted the privilege of
getting into the game.
|JCT: LETS don't need anyone's permission to create new
money out of nothing,
MS: But they need to be trusted by the community, something
that you will fail
JCT: Trust is a ridiculous issue in an interest-free system.
The piece of paper, deed, is worth the value stated. An Hour
of work, liter of oil, kilogram of grain. Receipts for
collateral are trustworthy. It's money afflicted by interest
that's untrustworthy. But then again, Marco doesn't know the
difference and wants to prepare against a danger of orthodox
currency that doesn't happen in a social currency.
MS: until: - you force the community to accept CC; - you
explain to them the advantage of getting the monetary rent
INSIDE of the community (and shared between members) instead
of sending that monetary rent to some Rothschild or
JCT: I don't have to explain how LETS grants them their
seignorage whereas banks do not because banks do too. But
he's back condemning the interest to R&R after a whole
article without mentioning the word interest that R&R use
too. Har har har har.
|JCT: #17. Anyone has the power to create a monetary IOU,
not just God. Besides, I've never seen money created by
MS: Yes but then you must be held accountable to the IOU;
JCT: Yes but..." Implying we are not? Of course, the whole
principle is that LETSers are held accountable to the IOU.
So what's with the "but?"
MS: redemption and correct bookkeeping which are lacking
from the current FIAT money scam.
JCT: Har har har. Marco knows how I make fun of people who
use the word "fiat" instead of the more generic "bad." How
many times have I challenged the world greatest experts in
community currencies here at ijccr to explain what "fiat"
money is and why it's of no value and no one, not even
Marco, has taken up the challenge. But Marco doesn't mind
using the card he didn't earn. Fiat means bad, a totally
untechnical criticism from a totally untechnical student of
banking systems engineering.
I know this may seem like a waste of time but I hope that
beating up on Marco and his inane ideas on social currency
teaches others to avoid his errors. God knows there are
enough errors being taught to cover Mammon's tracks but I
can discern the trail of gore quite readily.
And notice, not one of my criticisms was contradicted. And
there were over 20. So, just for the rush of demonstrating
my superiority of a supposed expert in money systems
engineering, I'll bet $100 Canadian on every one of my
criticisms being correct, or everyone of Dempsey's or Saba's
disagreements being wrong.
Flash the cash, bye bye trash. Put up or shut up. Any time
you want to put your money where you mouth is, just say "I
bet John The Engineer is wrong on his banking systems
engineering analysis." 27 years later and I'm still flashing
the cash and smashing the trash.
The time now is Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:05 am | All times are GMT
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums |
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group