Greek Debt and Ancient Commercial Law – Is a “Grexit” Lawful ?

Greek Debt and Ancient Commercial Law – Is a “Grexit” Lawful ?

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

Written: March 13, 2015

Published: April 19, 2015

 I wrote this brief essay on March 13, 2015 after reading the post by Tyler Durden on titled,Europe Has A Modest Proposal For Greece: ‘Don’t Pay Wages For One Or Two Months’” dated 3/13/2015. The problem was the folks in the “Troika” (IMF, ECB and EU Commission) were SERIOUS about that statement. As I now live in Odessa, Ukraine, the civil war in Ukraine appeared to be heating up, along with other international events – so I lost track of this brief essay, However, given the LATEST crisis in Greece (Has anyone even attempted to keep a count ???) and with a Greek exit fro the EuroZone and the EU appearing more likely each day, I thought the March essay might still be relevant today.

As Tyler Durden noted in his article above ( ), Greece had already “passed a law to plunder pension funds, one which would allow the government to fully invest reserves of pension funds and other public entities kept in Bank of Greece deposit accounts in Greek sovereign notes.

Mr. Durden went on to report. “Today [March 13, 2015], the Greek media is ablaze with just what Europe’s proposed solution to this issue may be. As Protothema and Capital report, the Troika proposed that Athens halt the payment of salaries and pensions for one to two months. This, according to Europe, would promptly tackle the problem of liquidity and find a solution to Greek problem of how to pay back bailout loan tranches to creditors when suffering from liquidity problems.”

“As Keep Talking Greece reports, the creditors’ proposal was revealed by Varoufakis’ aide Elena Panarity (part of the Greek team negotiating with creditors) at an event of the Deree College on Thursday and was confirmed by Finance Ministry officials on Friday. When we say that we have liquidity problems, they tells us to make no payment of salaries and pensions for one or two months,” Panariti said as quoted by Greek media. The creditors made this proposal at the side talks the Brussels Group meeting in Brussels on Tuesday.”

It is now a known fact that the Greek government became eligible to join the EU and Euro Zone based on INTENTIONAL FRAUD by a former Greek government administration, the EU, the ECB, the IMF and (WHO ELSE?) Goldman-Sachs, which was paid over $900 million USD to “cook-the-books” regarding the Greek government’s financial assets and liabilities. In short, the Greek government entered into contracts for EU and Euro Zone membership based on FRAUD. Therefore, are not those contracts re: EU and Euro Zone membership NULL and VOID “ab initio” (from the beginning). Further, since the LOANS to the Greek government from the IMF, ECB and others were a consequence of this FRAUD, are not those loan contracts (as bonds and whatever) equally NULL and VOID?

Ancient Commercial Law is believed to originated in the Canaanite-Phoenecia region (now Lebanon and Israel) by sea-faring merchants as a type of “private law” among themselves, as opposed to “public law” or the “law of the land” as dictated by kings and other leaders applicable to the inhabitants of their kingdoms. This unwritten commercial law (later known under various names such as Law Merchant, Law of the Seas, Maritime Law, Maritime-Admiralty Law, Contract Law, Commercial Law, etc.) evolved over the centuries and was based on common sense, customs of the land and aboard ship, agreements by mutual consent, contracts, oaths and, above all else, truth and honesty, without which commerce cannot take place, especially international trade. This “private commercial law” first applied only to those commercial traders who consented to its jurisdiction, since it offered them benefits and remedies from others who also consented to its jurisdiction. Those traders and others who did NOT consent to these private commercial rules were NOT bound by these private commercial rules; but were therefore unable to use the rules to seek redress for any harm or loss perpetrated upon them. Over time this “private commercial law” incorporated ideas from philosophers and religions thinkers who wrote (“scribbled” as “scribes”) what became known as “scripture”, much of which is contained in the modern Bible and other ancient religious texts, Conversely, the “law of the land” borrowed heavily from these private commercial rules, including the concept that legislated acts (statutes, codes, regulations, etc.) required the consent of those to whom they could be applied.

The idea of the unwritten Common Law in Britain and its colonies was based on the common sense “law of the land” (where the local customs of the people and prior decisions by local juries and tribunals carried the most weight b establishing “precedents” ). For example, under the Common Law it was simple common sense that dictated that if person A injured person B (or his property), person B could make a claim (later, as a written affidavit of truth sworn under oath) against person A. And if person A (by a written affidavit of truth, sworn under oath) rebutted the claims of person B, then it was up to a small group of local men to decide what law applied, who was telling the truth and what damages/penalties were to be applied. The rulings of these men (known as a “jury”), as recorded by the court’s administrator-stenographer (now called “judges”) setting precedents for future local trials. The court administrator-stenographer (“judge”) would write down the facts and law as determined by the jury; NOT by the ”judge” whose role was then to store these written court records indefinitely for use by juries in future cases. It is from these written records to be retained in perpetuity by the “judge” that the term “court-of-record” originated to describe a trial by jury of 12 men operating under the Common Law. Thus, jurors acted as the “tribunals” during a trial, meaning that ONLY the jurors could judge both the facts and the law applicable to that particular case. In a true courts-of-record, a judge acts solely as an administrator and caretaker of the written records of the jury’s rulings on the facts and the law for that particular case. The idea that a “judge” could issue any rulings regarding the facts or applicable law for a particular case (that is, the judge acting as the “tribunal”) was unknown, as was the idea of a judge alone issuing a “summary judgment” (a finding of “guilty” or “not guilty”) without a trial by jury.

However, it was natural that various types of private law and public law would exchange and adopt precepts from the others. For example, the concept and procedures of the “Commercial Lien” – which are still lawful to this day – were adopted from this ancient private commercial law, but require NO courts, statutes, acts, codes, judges or lawyers. In ancient times, if a merchant was cheated on a contract by a part in another country, what were his options in terms of laws, courts, venues for a hearing or trial, and so on? The answer was developed within ancient private commercial law; and is based on expressing the truth to the public. It is an inexpensive, pre-Common Law, non-statutory, non-judicial private process still available today for those who know the process. If YOU, as the ancient merchant, believe that you were financially, physically or otherwise injured by another person (including having one of your unalienable rights, such a freedom of speech infringed upon, you have several legal avenues you could pursue that were unavailable to you, as the ancient merchant, In ancient times and even today, one option is to initiate the Commercial Lien Process” (CAP), which is based on simply stating the truth.. You, the “accuser”, simply writes out an “Affidavit of Truth” (3 Notarized Originals):

  • listing the events that occurred to you due to the actions (or inaction) of the “accused” (the person you claim harmed you);
  • state precisely that you “assume total and unlimited commercial liability” for the statements within this affidavit (placing ALL your current and future assets at risk).
  • Write your SIGNATURE and the DATE in the presence of a Notary Public and two (2) adult witnesses.
  • Have the two (2) witnesses sign and date the document
  • Have the Notary Public sign, date and STAMP his notary SEAL on the document.

You then mail your “Affidavit of Truth” (certified mail; return receipt requested) or hand-delivered by a Sheriff, Police Officer, etc. to the accused. In your “Affidavit of Truth” you should state clearly that he has seven (7) working days to respond by issuing to you his own notarized, sworn “Affidavit of Truth” in which he states that he “assumes total and unlimited commercial liability” in which he REBUTS your arguments point-by-point.

If your opponent fails to deliver to you within 7 days his own notarized, sworn “Affidavit of Truth” in which he states that he “assumes total and unlimited commercial liability” and REBUTS all of your arguments point-by-point, then YOU HAVE WON !!! By NOT responding, he is by LAW agreeing with everything you stated in your affidavit. The Maxim of Law: “A unrebutted affidavit becomes the Law of the case.” By NOT rebutting each of your arguments, he has by law AGREED that they are all true!

Since he has AGREED with you, there is NO longer any controversy over which ANY court has jurisdiction; thus, NO court in the world can invalidate or void that affidavit, which you can turn into a “Commercial Lien” which “freezes” ALL of his current and future assets for 99 years. If the Affidavit of Truth, Commercial Lien and other documents are registered by you with the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), then the Affidavit of Truth, Commercial Lien and all other documents bundled together become a “negotiable instrument” which you can then sell to an investment bank or any type of investor, perhaps getting 1-2% of the lien’s “face value”. However, since you should have set the requested damages to “make you whole” at $50 million USD or more, that 1% you get by selling it leaves you with $500,000 USD – for about 3 hours of paperwork over about a 90-day period of time. Or you could use it as collateral for a loan from a bank, default on your loan repayments, and let the bank keep its collateral (the Commercial Lien). If you sell it to an investment bank, it will most likely either resell it at a profit OR use it as collateral (leveraging it at 30-to-1) giving it a “leveraged value” equivalent to $50 million x 30 = $ 1 billion and 500 million USD ($ 1,500,000,000 USD).

NOW, the question becomes: WILL the “Troika attempt to “force” the Greek government and the people of Greece to do the impossible? That is, repay a debt so massive that everyone realizes can NEVER be repaid.  Indeed, the past credit as loans extended by the IMF and ECB were and will continue to be applied ONLY to pay interest owed to creditors; the Greek government gets a few months’ of “operating expenses” (i.e., Greek politicians’ salaries) while the Greek people receive NOTHING, but instead have their fees and taxes increased, with their multi-generational properties seized for sale for not being able to minor fees and property taxes. The new Greek administration has backed off from its campaign promises (as most politicians do) and the Trioka (and the “Powers-That-Be” which control the Trioka) appears to be in control of the Greek government, just as it was prior to the last election. But in the past few days, deadlines for re-payments on interest owed have passed with no resolution to the crisis. Will the Greek PEOPLE finally “force the hand” of the new Greek government and force Greece to exit the EuroZone and the EU, as many independent economists have stated Greece should have done several years ago? And how can this “Grexit” be reconciled with ancient commercial law?

Item #1) Under ancient Commercial Law (which supersedes modern, legislated commercial acts-statutes, such as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and Maritime-Admiralty Law), the following MAXIMS Of LAW are accepted as TRUTH without any further evidence and still apply in all courts, unless proved false for a particular case

1.) The contract makes the law.

2.) Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force [of law] only by consent.

3.) Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties.

4.) Agreement [contract by mutual consent] takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties supersedes such understanding as the law would imply.

5.) Manner and agreement overrule the law.

In short, if you knowingly and willingly consent to enter into a contract with another party, the terms of that contract supersede absolutely ALL other laws, such as legislated acts, statutes, codes, treaties, and so on – including the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC, Maritime-Admiralty Law, etc..

Therefore, it would appear that the Greek government (NOT the people of Greece) knowingly and willfully consented to contract with the European Union (EU) and the European Central Bank (ECB); and that these contracts between the Greek government and the EU-ECB are THE LAW in the current monetary, currency and debt disputes. “The contract makes the law.”

Item #2.) HOWEVER, we now know as fact that a prior Greek administration, the EU, the IMF and Goldman-Sachs committed intentional FRAUD (by “cooking the books” of the then Greek government’s assets and liabilities) for the sole purpose of enabling the Greek government to be eligible to contract with the EU and ECB and become a member of the EU and Euro Zone. Goldman-Sachs alone was paid over $900 million USD to “cook the books”.

Consequently, because the Greek government would NOT have been eligible to contract with EU and ECB had this intentional fraud not been committed, it can be argued that the contracts by which the Greek government joined the EU and Euro Zone are NULL and VOID “ab initio” – from the instant they were signed. Ancient maxims of law relevant here include:

6.) Concealment of the truth is (equivalent to) a statement of what is false.

7.) Suppression of fact, which should be disclosed, is the same in effect as willful misrepresentation.

8.) It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.

9.) Gross negligence is equivalent to fraud.

10.) Once a fraud, always a fraud.

11.) What otherwise is good and just, if it be sought by force and fraud, becomes bad and unjust.


Item #3.) Leaving aside the arguments about fraud (above), it is also accepted as fact that the Greek government can NEVER re-pay its debts; and has been relying on additional ECB and IMF loans and bail-outs to simply pay the interest on its debt. Even IF the EU and Euro Zone membership is lawful, do not the following ancient MAXIMS of LAW invalidate the Greek government’s debt?

12.) The law does not seek to compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform.

13.) The law requires nothing impossible.

14.) The law compels no one to do anything which is useless or impossible.

15.) No one is bound to do what is impossible

16.) Impossibility excuses the law.

Item #4.) Finally, since these 3 sets of maxims above appear to conflict in the case of the Greek government’s debt, would not the following two ancient MAXIMS of LAW give greater weight to Item #3 above: that the debts are INVALID simply because re-paying them is IMPOSSIBLE?

17.) Where two rights concur, the more ancient shall be preferred.

18.) Nothing against reason is lawful.


John-Henry Hill, M.D.

retired physician, medical researcher and medical research programmer



One comment

  1. I like your fraud in the inducement argument regarding Greece’s entry into the EU and it’s use to avoid liability on all it’s unpayable debt. Clearly, all the tension derives from the contradictions of the EU and the other organizations to forgive the debt while Greece is an EU member and the resistance to allow Greece to leave.

%d bloggers like this: