Most helpful critical review
30 of 46 people found the following review helpful
Frankly, it's rank amateurism.
on February 23, 2011
At first glance, this is remarkably easy to dismiss as fevered conspiracy-theorist tripe, as the authors claim that the Federal Reserve Bank is the "Bea$t" referred to in the Bible's Book of Revelations. A closer look reveales it to be terribly disjointed, with some arguments made so many times that the point becomes positively boring, and others made with not nearly enough evidence to convince the reader. The authors would have profited greatly from the services of a professional editor, or a good ghost-writer.
That said, they've got a point or two to make about how our current system of law is working, with the different areas of law - common, commercial, and maritime, brought to bear in ways that most people haven't noticed. The citations given as they make their points would, hopefully, be meaningful to a legal scholar; to this layman, this sample excerpt
"It is well settled that there are no common-law offenses against the United States" U.S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32; U.S. v. Briton, 108 U.S. 199, 206, 2 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 531; [...],
is not going to help me understand what court made this ruling, or how I can verify the citation myself. This section of the book, re-organized and better-documented, would have been useful to this reader.
Their analysis of current U.S.A. currency is interesting, and there's much to recommend it, but they do offer some very spurious-looking evidence along with the clearer, more believable points they make. It may, indeed, be significant that the dollar symbol $ has lost an upright bar in common usage, but there isn't even a hint about how that change came about,
Another of the spurious-seeming proofs they offer is the wording on the DMV's VEHICLE/VESSEL TRANSFER AND REASSIGNMENT FORM - claiming that the slash in 'vehicle/vessel' makes them legally equivalent terms; ergo, your automobile is a vessel subject to maritime law. That the slash can also mean 'or' seems to elude them, even though the WriteExpress entry they cite uses hot/cold and yes/no as examples.
They've got some history of the events surrounding the abandonment of the gold standard that is of interest; for example, I had been unaware of this:
(*Notes from the authors: In the early 1930's the USA created Gold Certificates out of thin air, and lent the same to France. Under the terms of the loan, there was a year moratorium in which France did not have to pay the loan back. What France, the debtor nation, then did was to return to the USA with the Gold certificates. It then redeemed all of the certificates pulling ships loaded with the Gold of the People of the United States out of the Banks of the United States. This single act caused the nation to suspend the Gold Standard.] (s.i.c., pp 91-92)
Interesting, but now I'll need to track that datum down from a more reliable source. In context, that *might* be _A Bubble that Broke the World_, by Garet Garrett, or it might be _Operating the golden goose_, page 99 (or is that a chapter heading?) Clarification would improve this book considerably.
It's an interesting read, and probably mostly accurate, but the presentation makes for a very weak-looking argument. A skilled writer, using the style of this book, could present the absolute truth about the rotation of the planet and cause readers to suspect that they were the victims of a hoax. There's good information here, but you'll need to dig it out from the hyperbole and then track down your own verification for a lot of it.