A Legal Approach To Cancelling All Current Money Contracts

By Marc Gauvin (c) 4/3/2014 rev. 21/6/2015

Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.

If you care about the future and freedom of the individual, then you have no choice but to support the truth, because society based on a lie, is the greatest of all tyrannies as it is imposed by both violence and the most insidious of all forms of brain washing, where the victim both  wittingly and unwittingly becomes an accomplice of his own deceit.

In a nutshell, the problem the world's judiciary must resolve is the following:  if one borrows a kilo of flour,  does one owe flour or does one owe kilos.   The flaw in our current money paradigm is that we have accepted a definition of money that confuses the record of a measure of value with the value of the object being measured.  Thus, all contracts conceived with such a flawed definition of money must become null and void.

The sequence is as follows:  Measure,  object of measure and record of measure.  The error is to equate the record of measure with the object of measure.  Just as a kilo is not flour so too a euro or a dollar is not value as formally proven here.

A definition of money is implicitly given by art. 1.753 of the Spanish civil code as well as in some other jurisdictions (definition of a loan) :

“One that receives a loan of money or other fungible thing, acquires its property and is obliged to return to the lender a quantity of the same species and quality.”

But money as currently defined, is not fungible because the "quality" of each unit is not constant over time i.e. purchasing power is not constant. I therefore propose invoking the next universal principle of contract law regarding validity:

Quae ab initio non valent, ex post facto convalescere non possunt." (what initially is invalid cannot be made valid subsequently).

From the above it follows that usual practices do not serve to validate that which can be proven inherently invalid.

Article 1272 of the Spanish Civil Code: Things or services that are impossible cannot be objects of contracts.

The next point to consider, is why in most jurisdictions a formal definition of money is somehow left out? I propose it is because the current de facto definition cannot be included formally because it is neither logically consistent nor is it founded on demonstrable natural law. This means, that it is only our implicit assumption that the mutually accepted de facto definition of money is rational,  that allows for the judiciary to preside over money contracts.  Because as long as the definition of money is not the object of contention, then the judiciary can legitimately proceed under the ASSUMPTION money is rational.  But, if either side says: "Sorry, but according to formal logic the common definition assumed is nonsense!" Then, the judiciary indeed has a problem, because on the one hand it cannot permit either an irrational definition or one that is not supported by demonstrable natural law and on the other hand, if it does accept the current industry de facto definition,  it would completely undermine its credibility.   Because,  measure is sine-qua-non for justice and the formal definition of "measure" precludes that money also be defined as a physical circulating object of "commercial" negotiable (variable) value.  For more on money as a measure,  see this document.  For more on definitions of purely logical systems and legal the implications see this document.

Our Way Out of The Money Nightmare:

The system operates on the following false assumptions:

    1. That there exists a valid common definition of money that: can be expressed in formal DECIDABLE logic with valid provable premises that are commonly recognisable,  obeys natural law and is wholly consistent with the assumptions, terms and conditions of current money contracts.
    2. That the parties to current money contracts are aware of such a formal definition.
    3. That the validity of the contracts are determined solely by mutual agreement of the parties.

All that need be done and prior to any legal actions,  is to demand that all relevant authorities to money contracts publish in formal logic, the definitions of money they  operate under and how these are wholly logically consistent within themselves AS WELL AS with common practices AND that can be shown to be commonly recognised and understood by ALL and any parties to such contracts. 

If any of the following were to take place, then all money contracts become invalid and thus null and void:

    1. Any of the parties refuses to provide such a formal definition promptly without delay.
    2. All of the definitions provided prove NOT to be logically equivalent.
    3. Any of the definitions provided can be proven to be logically invalid.
    4. Any of the definitions provided do not correspond to the logical assumptions, terms and conditions of common money contracts and enforced practices.

That is, any doubt in the validity of the definition of money by authorities is proof that there cannot be any valid common definition.  By demanding such a definition before taking any legal action, it will become evident whether or not such a common and valid understanding of what exactly money is and does exists. Thus,  it will provide the documented proof required in any legal action seeking redress of this extraordinary  anomaly.  If a common and logical definition does not exist, then the contracts are invalid because there can be no valid common understanding.  If the contracts are shown to be invalid,  then we can invoke the universal criteria of validity and thus arrest all subsequent actions and exigencies:  

Quae ab initio non valent, ex post facto convalescere non possunt. (what initially is invalid cannot be made valid subsequently)

There is no sitting on the fence here,  if you don't agree with the above please prove your point, otherwise please share Our Way Out of The Money Nightmare!

 

 

Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA


 

Additional information