12 votes

They are Crooks! Karen Hudes Update


And this from John Williams


It's just a matter of time for the DOLLAR from thin air.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Root falsehoods

"For Plato and Aristotle, 'the good' was naturally not to be pursued
by the individual but by the polis."

I see a root falsehood in that sentence. I am not claiming that there are people who "believe" such lies, but many people allow their thinking to be driven by such lies, perhaps it is a form of insanity.

The root falsehood is such that the idea of creating a THING to be held accountable for the actions of individual people just so happens to be very convenient for those individuals who perpetrate the worst crimes beyond human imagination upon the largest numbers of people beyond accurate human calculation.

So the root falsehood just so happens to work very good at covering up the crimes of the worst human beings ever to disgrace the human gene pool, so my thinking is such that the connection between the root falsehood and the actual criminals themselves is not a coincidence.

Case in point:


In my copy of The Prince are these words written in the introduction:

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

Note: "...the aim of the state..."

A State is a Legal Fiction. Rather than listing all the people, all the individuals, each one, name by name, on a list, rather than that, there is a Legal Fiction used to identify all those people in that "State" in FACT.

So the use of that FACT, the use of that Legal Fiction is merely a convenience, an economic adaptation, a competitive way to convey meaning.

I can say California when I want to point toward all those people in California, and I don't have to list each name, so I use a Legal Fiction.

The root falsehood occurs when I blame a criminal invasion of another area where people live: blame is focused on that Legal Fiction, not on the actual criminals.

I can say, that the aim of California, was to destroy and enslave those people on that list of people who were once alive in Mexico, who are now all dead, or those who survived are now used as slaves by California.

No one in California, no one on the list of names, are held accountable, because California is responsible for murdering and enslaving all those innocent people.

How convenient can it get for those who profit from the aims of the State?

I do not sign onto the concept that the root falsehood just mentioned above is in any way a coincidence.

I recognize the fact that there are very evil people alive today, and very evil people alive throughout human history, whereby root falsehoods like the one just mentioned, are known to be falsehoods by those specific people on a list of people who have actual names, like, for example, Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The name just rolls off the tongue.

How about good ole' Fr. Heinrich Luitpold Himmler S.J.?


Names alone are incapable of telling the fully disclosed accurate account of what actually was done by the will power of that specific name of that specific individual.

"Virtue and the good life were polis- rather than individual-oriented."

I see accurate perception in that sentence, a root of factually based meaning. I can explain, even though I do not think, and I do not believe, and I do not trust, that my competitive offer of my viewpoint will be listened to, or agreed upon.

The human species is created in such a form as to statistically recreate new individual examples of human beings whereby the individual is created with a human conscience; therefore the species is hard wired (figuratively) with the means to produce good life.

You can, of course, take or leave my offer of a competitive viewpoint concerning the sentence quoted.

"All this means that Plato's and Aristotle's thought was statist and elitist to the core, a statism which unfortunately permeated 'classical' (Greek and Roman) philosophy as well as heavily influencing Christian and medieval thought."

I see no reason to call criminals anything other than criminals, so your use of the root word State, to point toward criminals, and then call those criminals "statist" is non-competitive in my view. You help the criminals cover up their crimes, in my opinion, in each case where the criminals are pointed at, and the criminals are then called something other than criminals.

You can continue helping the criminals all you want, what business is it of mine?

"Classical 'natural law' philosophy therefore never arrived at the later elaboration, first in the Middle Ages and then in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of the 'natural rights' of the individual which may not be invaded by man or by government."

I am not inspired to argue with your limited sources of historical information that you use to form your conclusions. I trust that you will not accept any alternative sources of information as being competitive sources of information; therefore there is no point in me offering competitive sources of information.

Getting past your versions of history that may, or most likely are not, based upon accurate history, I find the following words to be inspiring a competitive response from me to you, or to anyone else who may be reading our conversation (thankfully one that is not accelerating into character assassination):

"The arts are frowned on, and the life of the citizens was to be policed to suppress any dangerous thoughts or ideas that might come to the surface."

My response to that sentence is to offer in return a quote from a very valuable source of words.


We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.

And the simple step of a simple courageous man is not to partake in falsehood, not to support false actions! Let THAT enter the world, let it even reign in the world - but not with my help. But writers and artists can achieve more: they can CONQUER FALSEHOOD! In the struggle with falsehood art always did win and it always does win! Openly, irrefutably for everyone! Falsehood can hold out against much in this world, but not against art.

Here, following, again is the root falsehood of holding a thing accountable for the actions of individual human beings:

"...of the state's positive law over the natural or divine order..."

I don't buy such nonsense; no thanks.

I'm not accusing anyone of "believing" such nonsense, I merely see the nonsense in the sentence, so I point it out, and I reject it.

"By the beginning of the seventeenth century, royal absolutism had emerged victorious all over Europe."

Again, no thanks, there were people, actual people, and those actual people managed to perpetrate very evil crimes by hiding their crimes behind false "good" reasons, or whatever, I'm not buying into the game of blaming the actual crimes done by the actual people on a nebulous entity, or thing, known as "absolutism," however I can entertain the idea that there was, and is, a person, or group of individuals, who invent, and reinvent, and then use, and then reuse, the concept of perpetrating crimes behind a false front known as Brand X (absolutism) or Brand Y (nihilism), so long as it works to accomplish the job (hide the criminals perpetrating the crime) the flavor of the false front, or the color of the false flag, is incidental.

The bodies still pile up even after the false flag is changed from red to blue and then back to red again.

"... state privilege..."

Here again there is the use of a Legal Fiction which is fine, so long as it is understood that there is no such THING, therefore a state cannot gain, or be given, or lose, or have taken away, any such thing as privilege, while, on the contrary, as a point of demonstrable fact, the actual people perpetrating crimes, and calling their crimes "privilege" happens in time and place, sometimes the victims of those crimes perpetrated by those criminals may actually be led to believe the lie too: believing that crimes are "privileges" taken by a thing known as a "state".

I don't believe such nonsense.

Criminals perpetrate crimes and they have a routine going whereby the criminals hide their crimes behind false fronts and false flags.

Which false fronts and which false flags work best; what qualities of the front or the flag are best to suit the purpose of hiding the crimes?

"...alleged necessity for piling up bullion in a country..."

I'm not so fast at discrediting the practice of collecting things into a central location if that is what you are doing with those words.

When criminals collect what they steal into a central location then the discredit is shared by the thieves who perpetrate crimes and by the victims for failing to defend against those crimes; there is no cause (in my view) to discredit the practice of collecting things into a central location.

In fact, mercantilism was all of these things; it was a comprehensive system of state building,state privilege, and what might be called 'state monopoly capitalism'.

If it is crime then I call it crime, I might call it "state monopoly capitalism" if I wanted to help the criminals hide their crimes.

I don't.

"But state absolutism means that the state must and maintain allies among powerful groups in the economy, and it also provides a cockpit for lobbying for special privilege among such groups."

It, whatever name you want to parrot, or if you want to put an accurate name on it, is crime, and it is not a new human (criminal) invention, so I think I get the point.

"With SO MANY people that derive their “station in life” from the government in these times it is virtually impossible to get people to listen to these ideas, people dependent on the State will tune out because they do not what to be accused of being part of the problem."

Here is where the "government shut down" routine can be understood accurately instead of falsely. The criminals and their minions realize that their game is up. The minions, or slaves, or cooperators who cooperate in the process of perpetrating crimes upon their targeted victims, the victims who always are the people who produce anything worth stealing, find out (the minions find out), in real terms, that their "hosts" (victims) can no longer afford to be connected to the "parasites" (criminals and minions) and the realization comes in the form of a sudden shock whereby the well runs dry. The Natural Law known as the Law of Diminishing Returns sets in, as the number of criminals being incorporated into the crime group grow too numerous to feed upon the shrinking supply of victims (producers), and here at this time it may be a good idea for the remaining producers to wise up, and learn from that shocking realization that is being realized by those minions in that criminal group.

A producer certainly "feels the pain" but perhaps not in the same way as one of the minions may feel the sudden shock of having their gravy train come to a sudden halt.

The competitive, voluntary, producer continuously looks for competitive earning potential despite the sudden loss of a job, which is ongoing, as the competitive, voluntary, producer may be constantly looking for a better earning job, even while employment is currently producing income, so the shock is not sudden, and the shock is not devastating - there is no shock, it is business as usual within what still exists as "the animated contest of freedom."

For a member of the criminal minions, those not at the top of the criminal structure, the sudden loss of booty handed down from the more powerful criminals to the lesser powerful criminals leaves the minion, each one, leaves each minion, helpless, powerless, devastated, alone, in deed, because of the nature of the criminal organization; which is DEPENDENCY upon it (the criminals higher up), which is in turn a DEPENDENCY upon the independent (voluntary and competitive) producers.

Here, a person can say, is the HOST group, right here, and "it" produces though voluntary, free market (what remains of it in Liberty), competition: meaning that there is a list of names of INDEPENDENT producers working cooperatively and competitively (adaptively not antagonistically) in a free market to produce more today than was here yesterday, so there is an output which can be called surplus wealth, earnings, property, profits, or booty, depending upon word choices chosen to point out what now is where once there was nothing.

Here then is a criminal group, and "it" steals, meaning that there is a list of names of DEPENDENT criminals who DEPEND upon the HOST group, and who DEPEND upon the absolute necessity of the criminal group creating ever greater lies, ever greater threats, and ever greater destructive violence which is absolutely required in ORDER to maintain the connection between the criminal group and the HOST group: whereby the booty flows from the producers to the criminals and their minions.

So the most powerful criminals have figured out how to shock their minions into a frenzy of feeding upon each other and such things are exemplified with the current so called "government shut down" which can be called a "government shut down" if you happen to believe in such nonsense, while I call it what it is instead.

It is not a "government shut down" it is, in point of fact, a method by which the more powerful criminals set their minions one against the other, so as to reduce the numbers of minions being fed by their crime organization once the (natural) Law of Diminishing Returns sets in, in FACT, when the output of booty is not enough to feed the bloated numbers of criminals and minions.


Machiavelli was the philosopher and apologist par excellence

Machiavelli was the philosopher and apologist par excellence for the untrammeled, unchecked power of the absolute state.

Here we have a completely difference in opinion the human race.

You posted this....is this your point of view.

'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good.

If you believe this let me ask you a very serious question and please answer honestly……

ARE YOU AN EVIL MAN? If your answer is yes….well good luck with that….if NO…..what makes you the exception……the quote is a quote you chose and states……. ALL MEN.

I believe that most men are good, that there “station in life” can drive them to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. This includes preserving their position in society.

You also stated:
A State is a Legal Fiction. Rather than listing all the people, all the individuals, each one, name by name, on a list, rather than that, there is a Legal Fiction used to identify all those people in that "State" in FACT.
So the use of that FACT, the use of that Legal Fiction is merely a convenience, an economic adaptation, a competitive way to convey meaning.
I can say California when I want to point toward all those people in California, and I don't have to list each name, so I use a Legal Fiction.

Ok you do realize that when anyone refers to The State they are talking about the “body politic” right, and not every resident in the state of California?

I do not disagree that there are some very bad characters in the world and they have committed some very horrible crimes against humanity. But once The State is established these crimes take on a different meaning. Let’s look at the NSA spying …..on well….. basically everyone in the world. The State becomes a living breathing machine once people are indoctrinated into the philosophy of the State. It is the State and nothing above the State…..Absolutism. The people at the ground level doing the actually spying……didn’t think they were committing a crime. They were part of the State defending the State, so whether you want to accept the State or not is meaningless…..it does exist and it is real. It does not fall into some inanimate object such as a gun in the gun control debate….The State is a living breathing organism just as described by Plato.

Read Part 6 of Journey to Jekyll Island: The State
It is posted on here.

Let’s return to Machiavelli.
“The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good”.

I don’t want to put word in your mouth so let me make sure we are clear. If all men are evil the State is formed to promote the common good?

We, I think, both agree we prefer natural law… basically Life, Liberty and Property. We disagree with who’s messing that up…..you think…..and don’t let me put words in your mouth, that it is criminals and I think it is a difference in the heart of people….in a philosophy. Therefore you think the State exist to protect us from the criminals and I think that with each degree of liberty I give to the State I have less Liberty for myself……until I have no Liberty.

Is that your position……..and you think I don’t have a clear understanding of history…..Yes…… you praised me in one sentence then insulted me in another.

Sorry I digressed, back to Machiavelli because I find this interesting.

Martin Luther (1483-1546), John Calvin (1509-64) whose new religious sects between them swept northern Europe, agreed on some crucial fundamentals. In particular, their social philosophy and theology rested on the basic proposition that man is totally depraved steeped in sin. If this is so, man could scarcely achieve salvation even partially through his own efforts; therefore, salvation comes, not from man's nonexistent free will, but as an arbitrary and unintelligible gift of unearned grace from God, a gift which He for His own reasons hands out only to a PREDESTINED ELECT. All of the non-elect are damned. Furthermore, as man is totally depraved and a slave of Satan, his reason …..let alone his sense of enjoyment can never be trusted. Neither reason nor the senses can in any way be trusted to form the social ethics; that can only come from the divine will through Biblical revelation.

In short, man is damned totally, his atonement can only be limited and insufficient; the only thing that can and does unconditionally save an elect among men is God's irresistible grace. If reason cannot be used to frame an ethic, this means that Luther and Calvin had to, in essence, throw out natural law, and in doing so, they jettisoned the basic criteria developed over the centuries by which to criticize the despotic actions of the state. Indeed, Luther and Calvin, relying on isolated Biblical passages rather than on an integrated philosophic tradition, opined that the powers that be are ordained of God, and that therefore the king, no matter how tyrannical, is divinely appointed and must always be obeyed.

This doctrine, of course, played into the hands of the rising absolute monarchs and their theoreticians. Whether Catholic or Protestant, these secularists pushed their religion to the background of life; socially and politically they held, that the state and its ruler are absolute, that the ruler must seek to preserve and expand his power, and that his dictates must be obeyed. It is therefore the early Jesuits of the Counter-Reformation who saw and analyzed the crucial link between the Protestant leaders and such amoralist secularists as Niccolo Machiavelli.

As Professor Skinner writes:

The early Jesuit theorists clearly recognized the pivotal point at which the political theories of Luther and Machiavelli may be said to converge: both of them were equally concerned, for their own very different reasons, to reject the idea of the law of nature as an appropriate moral basis for political life. It is in consequence in the works of the early Jesuits that we first encounter the familiar coupling of Luther and Machiavelli as the two founding fathers of the impious modern State.

The Italian humanists Machiavelli, had propounded the doctrine of absolute political rule, first by republican oligarchs and next by the glorified despot, the monarch or prince. But one crucial point remained to free the ruler of all moral shackles and to allow and even glorify the unchecked and untrammeled rule of royal whim. For while the humanists would hear of no institutional check on state rule, one critical stumbling block still remained: Christian virtue. The ruler, the humanists all admonished, must be Christian, must cleave always to justice, and must be honest and honorable.
What was needed, then, to complete the development of absolutist theory, was a theoretician to fearlessly break the ethical chains that still bound the ruler to the claims of moral principle. That man was the Florentine bureaucrat Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), in one of the most influential works of political philosophy ever written, The Prince.
So that ….which you claim as “Legal Fiction” is in fact what your source was an advocate for, How is that possible?


Well, which was Machiavelli, a teacher of evil or a value-free political scientist? Let us see. At first glance, The Prince was very much like other mirror-of-princes advice-books of the late 15th-century humanists. The prince was supposed to seek virtú, or excellence, and was supposed to pursue honor, glory, and fame in the development of such excellence. But within this traditional form, Machiavelli wrought a radical and drastic transformation, creating in this way a new paradigm for political theory. For what Machiavelli did was to redefine the critical concept of virtú. For the humanists, as for Christians and classical theorists alike, virtú, excellence, was the fulfillment of the traditional classical and Christian virtues: honesty, justice, benevolence, etc. For Old Nick, on the contrary, virtú in the ruler or prince — and for the late humanists, after all, it was only the prince who counted — was, simply and terribly, as Professor Skinner puts it, "any quality that helps a prince 'to keep his state. In short, the overriding, if not the only, goal for the prince was to maintain and extend his power, his rule over the state. Keeping and expanding his power is the prince's goal, his virtue, and therefore any means necessary to achieve that goal becomes justified.

In his illuminating discussion of Machiavelli, Professor Skinner tries to defend him against the charge of being a "preacher of evil." Machiavelli did not praise evil per se, Skinner tells us; indeed, other things being equal, he probably preferred the orthodox Christian virtues. It is simply that when those virtues became inconvenient, that is, when they ran up against the overriding goal of keeping state power, the Christian virtues had to be set aside.
The more naive humanists also favored the prince's keeping his state and achieving greatness and glory. They believed, however, that this could only be done by always maintaining and cleaving to the Christian virtues. In contrast, Machiavelli realized that cleaving to justice, honesty, and other Christian virtues might sometimes, or even most of the time, conflict with the goal of maintaining and expanding state power. For Machiavelli, orthodox virtues would then have to go by the board. Skinner sums up Machiavelli as follows:
Machiavelli's final sense of what it is to be a man of virtú and his final words of advice to the prince, can thus be summarized by saying that he tells the prince to ensure above all that he becomes a man of "flexible disposition": he must be capable of varying his conduct from good to evil and back again "as fortune and circumstances dictate.

Sounds a whole like that “Station in Life” principal.

Machiavelli's views, and the essential unity with his outlook in The Prince, are shown in his discussion in The Discourses of Romulus, the legendary founder of the city of Rome. The fact that Romulus murdered his brother and others is justified by Machiavelli's view that only one man should impose the founding constitution of a republic. Machiavelli's wily conflation of the "public good" with the private interests of the ruler is shown in the following mendacious passage:
"A sagacious legislator of a republic, therefore, whose object is to promote the public good, and not his private interests [sic] … should concentrate all authority in himself." In such concentration, the end of establishing the state excuses any necessary means: "a wise mind will never censure any one for taking any action, however extraordinary, which may be of service in the organizing of a kingdom or the constituting of a republic." Machiavelli concludes with what he calls the "sound maxim" that "reprehensible actions may be excused by their effects, and that when the effect is good, as it was in the case of Romulus, it always excuses the action."

Body count of innocence destroyed?

"..what makes you the exception…"

Joe < Himmler

In fact my efforts produced 2 new offers of human innocence fed into the meat grinder so...

Joe + better 1/2 = -2 < Himmler S.J. + Stalin S.J. = 26 million give or take 10 million due to accounting errors?


So you moral relevance in murder

….and not just one...... but how many?

My measure is mine.

To me you ask a stupid question. If I answer with an accurate answer, you then ask another stupid question.

So the concept of argument rears it's ugly head once again.

What is the point?

My point is not to find out how many people I can murder, or torture, or enslave.

If you really must find someone to argue UPON, you are going to have to find someone other than me, you can make up a fictitious version of me, all you want, it still is not me.


In my opionion.

Goldspan will NEVER discuss Honesty and Principles. He presses issues and BS with nothing more. Note that he and Granger agree on things a LOT.

I think Granger went though her melt down about the same time 'others' came to 'life' here on DP.

The history is all there.

Those that HATE Karen Hudes, Fitts, and others speaking the truth are under attack for a reason.


Your help is appreciated and valuable to me, not only in my defense here, but also the effort you expend to keep us updated on Karen Hudes, and Fitts was an amazing find.

How about John Taylor Gatto added to the list?

Instead of the Monopoly and those whose vested interest is in maintaining the Monopoly (Blind obedience to falsehood without question) there is instead a competition (trial and error) whereby those having an interest in knowing competitive viewpoints are offered many viewpoints to be used in constructing the highest quality viewpoint, at the lowest cost, until something better is offered.

Karen Hudes is offering a very high quality, low cost, viewpoint compared to, say, "business as usual"?


Josf, I think there are a lot more people that stand for

truth and justice than people that support evil in their hearts. I think Goldspan represents this well, he doesn't support Evil in his heart, but unknowing keeps 'their' ball rolling so he can 'prosper' by their money system.

He Hates Karen Hudes and Catherine Austin Fitts. They BREAK his illusion of what he hope will stay in place.

Ain't gonna happen. Just a few countries have avoided the Central Bankers and they have been under attack by our entire military. The people have stood for a long time.

Of course we here in America are supposed to 'fear' them. ;)


I think it may be important to avoid stepping into an assumption that has not be verified in some measurable way.

Perhaps "He Hates Karen Hudes and Cahterine Austin Fitts" or some other feeling is at work, some feeling unfamiliar with you or I.

I don't know, and I am not going to trust my baseless opinion. Your opinion may be based upon experience that is not mine.

As to the attacks upon competitors daring to compete with the Legal Crime Monopoly Power, do you know about Islamic Finance?


robot999's picture

Thanks for posting this...

I was shocked to hear her mention the S.J. This is nearly a first in my experience of anyone mentioning the TOP of the Pyramid (all seeing eye). If folks here on the DP want to really go down the rabbit hole - please learn about this controlling power, and see it for what it truly is (hint: It has nothing to do with Christianity)

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

Thanks robot & Josf

I've been looking into this for a while now. I've found this to be a good resource.


Some help requested

Does anyone separate the current power struggle into 2 competitive criminal organizations fighting each other?

Is the more accurate perception such that there remains to be one most powerful criminal organization pulling the strings on the two lesser, but still very powerful criminal organizations?



There can be no doubt we are in the middle of the greatest power struggle since World War II. It is uncertain whether the Jesuits will prevail and the system restored to order, or whether the Vatican and Illuminati will succeed in breaking the shackles of forced subservience after 200 years.

To my way of thinking there is a basic, factual, principled struggle at work.

Those who work to use available power to make more power out of less power, and thereby increase standards of living, lower costs of living, and ensure survivability of the species, on one side, and on the other side are those who steal the available power and then use the stolen power to steal more.

At certain times in human history the power struggle swings in favor of the productive group, and in other times the criminal group gain more power.

Example 1 and 2:

England and Magna Carte

American and The Articles of Confederation

If our time is on the verge of significant "change" then it may be a good idea to understand how said "change" can be moved in the productive (competitive) direction instead of the criminal one.

What do your tea leaves tell you? I don't get the memos.


Thanks Josf

I'm reading through the material you offered, thank you. I'll update here with thoughts later.

bookmarking to watch later--


it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

So far as I am aware...

The EU is in exactly the same perilous position and their financial statements have not been passed for many years. This problem is not exclusively in the the US. The private central banking network is global in scope and very few countries are beyond its reach. This means that if there is going to be action taken then it must come from the upper legal technocracy in every country. I seems that this is where Karen Hudes is quite rightly concentrating her efforts.

I would have preferred to hear more of her insights from a legal perspective rather than a financial one since the legal case against the criminals in high places is the important issue and that is her area of expertise. As she said she is not just waving her arms around and making declamations about the sinister nature of the financial cover up. Unfortunately the interviewer cut her off just as she was getting up to speed on the path she has followed to determine the specific nature of the crimes being perpetrated and presumably the laws that have been broken and which can be used to launch international prosecutions. He was more interested in her supporting the views of John Williams that there will be a hyperinflation in the dollar and a rise in the price of gold. At best her view on that subject would be no more influential than anyone else with no financial background; her experience at the World Bank notwithstanding since her work there was in the legal department.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Antennas up!

I've been listening to Karen since day one. And, since day one, I've liked a lot of what she had to say. What bothers me though is what she isn't saying! At least not directly. Will we end the illegal and immoral FED? Will our treasury print legal and lawful "money"' not tender? What will change in our government to allow this to happen? Who owns The World Bank? Who owns Bitcoin? How do we know that this isn't the CABAL, knowing that their Federal Reserve charade is ending, simply drawing us into a bigger Ponzi scheme?
I really want to believe she and this is real! But she has to get more concise with her statements!
She says we're getting back to "rule of law". Who's law?---Common Law?---Corporate Law?---Admiralty Law?---Constitutional Law?
If we're talking about The "World" Bank, who's law governs? Swiss? EU? US?
If anything other than US Constitutional Law applies, how are Americans sure their rights are represented? How are Americans to be assured their money is ever safe in a world bank situation?
I'm listening to what she is saying! And I'm waiting for her to say enough to make me comfortable.
A "change" with more of the same is not going to cut it with me.
Announcing a new asset backed currency, issued by our Treasury to me is STEP 2 and is questionable without STEP 1.
STEP 1 MUST be to announce to We The People, in detail, in main stream, exactly how we've been deceived for the last 200 years. This announcement MUST come with the living culprits being publicly held accountable and the deceased culprits having their TRUE and accurate histories published in contrast to previously published lies so that future historians will have an accurate picture of what corrupts a society!
Without STEP 1, how are we to believe that this is not just the same wolf in new sheeps clothing?

Agreed on many points.

"Common Law?"

The term Common Law is a very good example of evidence proving the necessity of defining true meaning so as to avoid confusing the true meaning with the counterfeit (intentionally false/misleading) meaning.

Common law began (before the invention of the English language) as consent by the governed LAW, no one above the law, or law of the land, customary law, with Trial by Jury, based upon sortition.

An example of the voluntary LAW meaning (not the counterfeit version) is (competitively) here:


FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

That customary practice of finding out who was victimized by who, and working to minimize crime without expending too much cost to anyone in the effort was, that common law was, changed, usurped, counterfeited, and that voluntary methodology was corrupted into an involuntary version.

Here is a competitive source offering information concerning how, when, and where the corruption occurred:


Before 1066 all laws were local and enforced in the manorial, shire and hundred courts. Under the Normans, Royal Courts began to emerge from the King's Council (Curia Regis). These did not take over the jurisdiction of the local courts immediately, but over a long period of time the local courts lost jurisdiction over cases and thus lost income. A practice was started of sending judges around the country to hold assizes (or sittings) to hear cases locally. This enabled the judges, over a period of roughly 200 years, to take the best local laws and apply them throughout the land, thus creating law which was `common to the whole country ie, common law.

Originally the King's Council carried out the three functions of state, namely legislative, executive and judicial. It dealt with all cases in which the King had a direct interest, like breaches of the peace. Eventually the courts split off from the Council and formed the main common law courts. The Court of Exchequer, which dealt with the collection of revenues, was the first to separate, in the reign of Henry I (1100-1135). The Court of Common Pleas stayed in Westminster Hall to deal with disputes between individuals, while the King's Council travelled round the country. The Court of King's Bench separated sometime after 1230. Justices of the Peace (or magistrates) originated from a Royal Proclamation of 1195 creating 'Knights of the Peace' to assist the Sheriff in enforcing the law. They were later given judicial functions and dealt with minor crimes.

Read more: Historical Introduction | English Legal System Lecture Notes | Law Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes...
Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook

From my point of view that information above appears to be missing vital information.

The next link, to me, helps in constructing the whole story:


Canon 2974

Common Law is an inequality system of law created by King Henry VIII and Venetian advisers in 1548 upon the complete remodeling ofthe Executive, Legislature and Judiciary Branches of Rule in England whereby the private Guild (Livery) of Judges and Notaries (from which the private Bar Associations were spawned) was granted royal warrant to convert judicial assemblies into their private courts (cautio) and for the rulings and judgments of the private Guild to take precedence over ancient customs of Anglo-Saxon law and rights, except those needed to make the law still technically function.

Canon 2975

The word “common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning "to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation". The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”.

From that last source (which is a source that offers a weekly conference call where anyone can ask the person offering that information direct questions each Wednesday) is additional information concerning how English Language was invented and then made "current" through printing and through "schools".

So...the term "Common Law" existed before English language, and therefore the actual term used by people employing so called "common law" before it was called "common law" used another term for "common law" such as a term that once meant "the law of the land" or "trial by jury" or whatever term was used in the languages that were currently in use.

Common Law meaning "trial by jury of peers" where no one, not even kings, are above the law

Common Law meaning corporate, monopoly, dictatorial, law enforced by the few upon the many

Which does Karen Hudes understand, promote, and finance?

The proof will be obvious.

Competitive versions work to force those who offer services to produce higher and higher quality (money or government or fast food or computers or cell phones) while costs (to the consumers) are forced down.

When money (and government) become lower and lower in quality (less beneficial to the consumers) and higher and higher in cost (to the consumers) the obvious factor of VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION (competition) is missing.

So, or therefore, if the end result of all this rearranging (change) is more of the same MONOPOLY supply of ever lower quality and ever higher cost (to the consumer) money and government, then it is missing the vital element of true (not counterfeit) competition, or the same thing as competition which is free markets, or the same thing as competition and free markets which is LIBERTY.

Out with the old Monopoly and in with what?

New improved Monopoly


The proof of Liberty will be proven as producers who know how to start the day with less POWER will produce more POWER by the end of the day and those producers KEEP their POWER.

The end result is more POWER, and therefore the price of POWER goes down, and therefore the measure of PURCHASING POWER goes up (higher quality competitive money), since there are more things to buy with better money, and that happens because POWER reduces the cost of production.

The proof of just another name on the same Monopoly POWER will be POWER flowing from anyone who produces anything worth stealing flowing to the MONOPOLY POWER, and POWER becoming even more scarce, and POWER becoming even more expensive (to those who don't have any because what they produce is immediately stolen and used by the criminals to steal more) and Purchasing Power (money inflating, depreciating, becoming even more worthless) because the POWER stolen is being used to steal more POWER from the producers, and then that stolen POWER is spent in the work required to steal more from the producers (WAR).


spikechange's picture

World govt can take a walk

TxRanger, agree. Well, sort of. The antennas up part, for sure. Don't yet buy into this woman fully, yet. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.
But why do you say stuff about World Bank? Who cares about that? Who cares "if something other than US Constitutional" law applies. You must be kidding. If that were the case, if you feel that some sort of World Authority is a good idea, what are you doing here, my friend?
We need to go the other way. One govt for 230 million is ridiculous. Govt needs to be brought closer to the people. To the States, and beyond that, narrower down. All the way, when it is time.
And another currency "announced" by the Treasury? This cannot be. It will be more of the same. There needs to be free competing currencies. No legal tender laws. This is the only way we can win.
Not feeling comfortable with your Statist leanings, which seem to contradict some of what you write elsewhere.

I agree spikechange! World Bank, not World Government

Who is The World Bank? If they are spearheading the crackdown on the Federal Reserve, how do we know its not just some of the same people, ratting out lower players, allowing them to take a fall so that we will think everything is peachy while they continue to stir the pot at a higher level?
Who in our own government, given even the latest track record, can we trust to oversee any change in our monetary system? I trust Rand so far and I fully trust Ron, but outside of these two, who can we really trust?

spikechange's picture

Remember: always look at the solution proposed

Take this Hudes video, for example. If you are viewing her for the first time, as i was, then I use these sorts of "first exposures" to somebody "new" as a sort of "practice". To work on my analysis skills. So, what does Hudes say? Does she take the cork off the bottle? Yes, she derides the Fed. Calls them a criminal organization. Great. She's 100% right. So far so good; she has opened the bottle. But then, we sit back, waiting to hear what sort of wine she is proposing to fill the bottle with. Will it be a fine wine? Or rancid Thunderbird? What SOLUTION(s) does she propose? Well, sound money. More specifically, at the STATE level. They should set up their own currencies. Sound currencies (or is she just implying sound currencies?) Anyway, she also mentions BitCoin. Great. Another money that takes the control (sort of) away from FedGov. So, with these whistleblowers, and other commentators... whomever ... the telling moment is when the proposed solution comes. These separate the controlled opposition from the real dissidents, the real change makers. So, using this approach, Hudes seems, at least from this one vid, to be legit. Will keep an eye on her for sure. (PS Unlike Fitts, who proposes that the FedGov print the money instead of the Fed. Yelp! Run!!!!). Make competing currencies legal. No legal tender laws at all. We then get to decide, and the creams will rise to the top. (likely to be more than one good, dependable currency out there.)

I agree

let the free market decide the money.

It really is as simple as that.

Karen Hudes is one tough amazing lady.

I think,

Reality is coming into view. Dollars from thin air are nearing their end. When the tide goes out, people get to see who was swimming naked.

I don't have anything against skinny dipping, but I'm afraid many holding dollars do.