I am trying to expose the laws that create the structure. In doing so, I am trying to expose what powers those laws give, and/or take away from what entities. If you want to expose it and/or legally fight it, understanding the nuances is important.

I'm not a fan of suggesting that nuance is just "semantics." When it comes to law, there is only one way that is "the truth" of the law. There is, legally speaking, only one "correct" interpretation. Understanding the nuance of the self-consistency of law and its implications is important, not semantics. Debating it to get to that single correct interpretation can never be semantics because there is only one correct interpretation. That correct interpretation often lies in understanding the legal definitions of the words that make up the law (often very different from the vernacular), and the original intent of the law makers (the context).

Your protests have, I assert, been incorrect when it comes to the law of the Fed and the BIS. I haven't dug in to credit unions, nor do I care to. I have seen no evidence that suggests they are a meaningful part of the power structure and are thus irrelevant to me. I have no doubt there is a legal structure that gives the Cabal complete control there too, but it is so far down the totem pole, Idgaf.

I am trying to expose the laws that create the structure. In doing so, I am trying to expose what powers those laws give, and/or take away from what entities. If you want to expose it and/or legally fight it, understanding the nuances is important.

I'm not a fan of suggesting that nuance is just "semantics." When it comes to law, there is only one way that is "the truth" of the law. There is, legally speaking, only one "correct" interpretation. Understanding the nuance of the self-consistency of law and its implications is important, not semantics. Debating it to get to that single correct interpretation can never be semantics because there is only one correct interpretation. That correct interpretation often lies in understanding the legal definitions of the words that make up the law (as opposed to the vernacular), and the original intent of the law makers (the context).

Your protests have, I assert, been incorrect when it comes to the law of the Fed and the BIS. I haven't dug in to credit unions, nor do I care to. I have seen no evidence that suggests they are a meaningful part of the power structure and are thus irrelevant to me. I have no doubt there is a legal structure that gives the Cabal complete control there too, but it is so far down the totem pole, Idgaf.