Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Anders Lindman]

Then the instruments in question would not be negotiable.

The business agreement would be valid between the parties. So think of the bonds as a business agreement between the Federal Reserve and the Dragon Family rather than ordinary bonds.

 

[Anders Lindman]

But thats the thing, that was the only thing that made it anything interesting in my eyes. And from what others on this thread has posted (unfortunatly I know little about the U.S legal system), they have offered rational explanaitions that make the whole thing seem too far fetched. And thats excluding the whole idea of a secret family thats members can live for over a 100 years and may or not be extraterrestrials. Sorry.

That's one of the reasons for why I posted this thread in the conspiracy section. It's a pretty outrageous lawsuit, at least by judging it on the surface.

 

[JayUtah]

That's one of the reasons for why I posted this thread in the conspiracy section. It's a pretty outrageous lawsuit, at least by judging it on the surface.

So why do you believe it's true?

 

[JayUtah]

The business agreement would be valid between the parties. So think of the bonds as a business agreement between the Federal Reserve and the Dragon Family rather than ordinary bonds.

Do you even know what a bond is?

 

[Anders Lindman]

So why do you believe it's true?

If I was convinced it was a false lawsuit I wouldn't have started the thread. I think there is at least a slight chance that the lawsuit could be real.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Do you even know what a bond is?

I have heard it's a debt obligation or something like that. A business agreement is more general than a bond, and as a business agreement those papers called bonds in the lawsuit would still be valid even if they don't follow the rules for ordinary bonds.

 

[JayUtah]

If I was convinced it was a false lawsuit I wouldn't have started the thread. I think there is at least a slight chance that the lawsuit could be real.

And what is that sliver of belief based on?

 

[SpitfireIX]

The business agreement would be valid between the parties. So think of the bonds as a business agreement between the Federal Reserve and the Dragon Family rather than ordinary bonds.

FYI, I used to be an accountant. As part of my training, I was required to take two classes in business law, and about 20% of the US professional exam for accountants, which I passed, covers business law. So please don't presume to attempt to explain concepts of American commercial law to me when you clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about.

A "business agreement" between the Fed and one or more individuals (or a corporation) would constitute a contract. A contract is most certainly not any kind of a negotiable instrument. You're simply clutching at straws in an attempt to make the facts fit your theory.

 

[Anders Lindman]

And what is that sliver of belief based on?

My theory is that the Eastern powers have been fooling/manipulating the Western powers for hundreds of years, and this lawsuit is only one of the latest examples of that.

Some western powers seem to also support the lawsuit such as the CIA and the Pentagon if the article I posted earlier is correct. Benjamin Fulford said that other western powers had created Blackwater and things like that as an opposition to the Pentagon. So maybe there are several separate powers struggling with each other.

 

[Anders Lindman]

FYI, I used to be an accountant. As part of my training, I was required to take two classes in business law, and about 20% of the US professional exam for accountants, which I passed, covers business law. So please don't presume to attempt to explain concepts of American commercial law to me when you clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about.

A "business agreement" between the Fed and one or more individuals (or a corporation) would constitute a contract. A contract is most certainly not any kind of a negotiable instrument. You're simply clutching at straws in an attempt to make the facts fit your theory.

But isn't it possible to sell a contract to a third party?

 

[JayUtah]

I have heard it's a debt obligation or something like that. A business agreement is more general than a bond, and as a business agreement those papers called bonds in the lawsuit would still be valid even if they don't follow the rules for ordinary bonds.

So for the purposes of his lawsuit, Keenan has invented a new type of negotiable instrument, kept entirely secret since at least 1930 from the public, that has all the publicly verifiable properties of a marketable instrument of debt obligation, yet remains deniable due to "obvious imperfections," has all the liquidity and convertibility of a public instrument when necessary, yet can only be valid between the two nominal parties.

This Magic Bond has less credibility than James Bond.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So for the purposes of his lawsuit, Keenan has invented a new type of negotiable instrument, kept entirely secret since at least 1930 from the public, that has all the publicly verifiable properties of a marketable instrument of debt obligation, yet remains deniable due to "obvious imperfections," has all the liquidity and convertibility of a public instrument when necessary, yet can only be valid between the two nominal parties.

This Magic Bond has less credibility than James Bond.

It's not Keenan how has invented the bonds. Unless he has made some fraud of some kind, but what would be the purpose of such fraud?

 

[SpitfireIX]

But isn't it possible to sell a contract to a third party?

No. In some circumstances it is possible to assign one's rights under a contract to a third party, but even in that case the actual contract remains between the original parties. Sometimes the term "selling a contract" appears, often in reference to professional athletes, but this is a misnomer. What is actually being sold or traded is the right to have that athlete perform personal services (playing a sport for a particular team or club) in return for a specified amount of money.

Further, the mere fact of being able to be bought or sold does not make something "negotiable" in and of itself.

 

[Craig4]

The business agreement would be valid between the parties. So think of the bonds as a business agreement between the Federal Reserve and the Dragon Family rather than ordinary bonds.

That's not a bond, it's a loan. There's a difference.

 

[Craig4]

It's not Keenan how has invented the bonds. Unless he has made some fraud of some kind, but what would be the purpose of such fraud?

No, Keenan (or idiot boy) is the victim of the fraud. He's the one stuck with the fraudulent bonds.

 

[Border Reiver]

But isn't it possible to sell a contract to a third party?

No, a contract is an agreement between two or more parties. It consists of the following elements:

a. Offer (Party A will do something);
b. Consideration (In exchange for whatever Party A is doing Party B will do something else); and
c. Acceptance (Both parties agree that this is what they will do).

Contracts cannot be sold, by doing so you are changing the parties of the deal and binding the other party to obligations to a party they did not initially agree to be bound to. It is a part of contract law that parties can only bind themselves.

Bonds are essentially Promissory Notes - where the issuer of the bond promises to redeem that bond for a sum under certain circumstances outlined in the bond. Bonds can be sold, as the only obligation is to redeem them for a sum of money when the conditions of the bond are met.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No. In some circumstances it is possible to assign one's rights under a contract to a third party, but even in that case the actual contract remains between the original parties. Sometimes the term "selling a contract" appears, often in reference to professional athletes, but this is a misnomer. What is actually being sold or traded is the right to have that athlete perform personal services (playing a sport for a particular team or club) in return for a specified amount of money.

Further, the mere fact of being able to be bought or sold does not make something "negotiable" in and of itself.

No, a contract is an agreement between two or more parties. It consists of the following elements:

a. Offer (Party A will do something);
b. Consideration (In exchange for whatever Party A is doing Party B will do something else); and
c. Acceptance (Both parties agree that this is what they will do).

Contracts cannot be sold, by doing so you are changing the parties of the deal and binding the other party to obligations to a party they did not initially agree to be bound to. It is a part of contract law that parties can only bind themselves.

Bonds are essentially Promissory Notes - where the issuer of the bond promises to redeem that bond for a sum under certain circumstances outlined in the bond. Bonds can be sold, as the only obligation is to redeem them for a sum of money when the conditions of the bond are met.

If in the contract it's stated that a third party can be given the right to manage the money, then that right can be sold, right?

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's not a bond, it's a loan. There's a difference.

The term 'bond' is perhaps used loosely in the lawsuit. Can a loan be sold to a third party?

 

[Mojo]

The claim is that those are special bonds, that can only be used in certain ways.

For the purchase of imperial clothing, perhaps?

 

[SpitfireIX]

If in the contract it's stated that a third party can be given the right to manage the money, then that right can be sold, right?

Why would anyone, for any legitimate purpose, buy the right to manage money?