Have you been cheated?
In order for any contract to be valid,
there must be 'full disclosure', 'good faith',
'valuable consideration', and 'clean hands'. Here is what
the banks advertise: "Come to
our bank. We have money to loan you." Is this
really what happens?
Did you really get a loan when you
contracted to borrow money from the bank to pay for
your home? Or was it just an exchange (your note for
cash), but the bank called it a loan? Or did two loans
occur?
When you entered into a loan contract
with a bank, you signed a note or contract promising to pay the bank back, and
you agreed to provide collateral that the bank could seize if you did not repay
the loan. This contract supposedly qualified you to receive the
bank's money. But did the bank provide 'full disclosure' of all of
the terms of this agreement? Read the following and decide for
yourself if the bank was acting in 'good faith', that you received 'valuable
consideration', and that your 'signature' on that agreement is valid.
Bankers want you to believe that
depositors deposit money at banks, banks lend the money to borrowers and the
borrowers repay the money and the money is returned to the depositors who
funded the loan. If you think this is how American or Canadian banking
works, you have been lied to and deceived.
The fact is the economics of
today's banking system is similar to stealing, counterfeiting and
swindling and that is why the bankers cannot explain the loan details or answer
specific questions. Bankers are terrified that the details might be
exposed in public court.
The banker's own publications admit
and the bank's bookkeeping entries prove that when the banks lend money,
the bankers create new money with the economics similar
to counterfeiting.
If a counterfeiter counterfeits money
and lends it to you, do you have any moral or legal obligation to repay
the loan? NO, The law says counterfeiting is illegal and that
you do not have to repay the counterfeiter.
James Madison: "History
records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue,
deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments
by controlling the money and its issuance."
Bankers are too smart to counterfeit
cash and go to jail. They are money masters and use another
method to create new money with the economics similar to counterfeiting without
going to jail. The secret involves two kinds of
money. Legal tender -cash- money and non
legal tender - money like checks and
credit cards. The bank's own publication claims that money
does not have to be issued by the government or be in any special
form. According to the bank's manual, money is anything that
can be sold for cash and that the banks accept as money.
The loan agreement you sign is sold to
investors wanting interest. If you do not pay the interest,
they foreclose and collect the money. The loan agreement
can be sold for cash and the bankers use the loan like non-legal tender
money. If you exchange $100 of cash for
a $100 check the bankers acted like a moneychanger and lent
you none of the bank's money. If the bank uses your
$100,000 loan agreement like money to fund a check like cash funds a
check, the banker acted like a moneychanger without the bank using or risking
one cent of their money to purchase your loan agreement.
The banker got your loan agreement for
free, which has the economics similar
to stealing. The banker created $100,000 of
new money, which has the economics similar to
counterfeiting. Would you agree to have the banker steal your $100,000
loan agreement and use it to create $100,000 of new money and return the value
of the stolen property to you as a loan? Did you agree to
be swindled?
The banker knows you would never
knowingly be this stupid and that is why he cannot disclose the whole truth
in court. The bookkeeping entries prove that the
borrower's loan agreement funded the loan to
the borrower. The bookkeeping entries prove that the banker
merely acted like a moneychanger exchanging one kind of currency for
another kind of currency and charging you as if there were
a loan. If you funded the loan to yourself, why are you
paying the banker back the principle and interest?
Bankers understand the difference
between money and wealth. Money buys things. If you
could counterfeit money, you could buy the whole world and control
Congress. Wealth is anything that you
can sell. You can sell real estate, cars, gold,
silver and people sell their 40 hours a week for a
payroll check. Yes, labor produces
wealth. Labor produces gas for your car, food to eat and homes,
cars and roads. The banker knows that if everyone stopped
working, stayed home and counterfeited money, everyone would starve
to death, and no one would have gas for their cars or food to eat. When bankers
create new money and lend it to you, you must work for
the banker for free to repay the loan or he forecloses and gets your home
for free.
The money creator gets more of your
wealth for free using a suit and tie than a gunman does pointing
a gun to your head.
The banker says, "repay
the loan because the bank lent you money." We simply
ask one question: "Should the one who funded the loan be repaid
the money?" Whether they answer "YES" or "NO," the bank
must forgive the loan and zero out the debt. That is
the one question that they do not want to answer because the borrower
funded the loan as proven by the bank's own bookkeeping entries.
We are not calling the bankers
criminals. We are showing you how intelligent, creative
and genius the bankers are in developing this secret.
One of the biggest bankers in America
told us that the banker's money controls who is elected
into Congress, the President and judges. He even
boasted how the Banker's loan money and advertising money controls
all major media to keep it a secret. He explained how
lawyers, judges, CPAs, politicians profit from the bankers by keeping this
system going and keeping it secret. You lose and they
benefit by understanding this secret.
Henry Ford: (Founder of Ford
Motor Company) "It is well enough that the people of this nation do
not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe
there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
This secret banking allows bankers to
create economic booms and busts, makes the stock market go up and down as
they increase and decrease the money supply. You lose in
investments as those who understand the secret transfer your investment money
into their pocket. You lose, they win.
FORM vs. SUBSTANCE
Before an attorney can sue for foreclosure,
he must show that the defending party (you) breached the
agreement. The attorney needs a witness to give testimony that there
is an agreement and that the agreement has been breached.
If Rich (as an example)
testifies in court that there was a loan when he knew that there was only an
exchange of equal value, Rich would be giving false testimony
and would be called a false witness.
In a normal court foreclosure, the
lender does not come to court to give testimony. The bank attorney
uses the alleged promissory note with the alleged borrower's signature as
the witness in court to claim that there is an agreement, that there was a
loan, that the lender fulfilled his agreement, and that the alleged borrower
did not fulfill the agreement to repay the money. Instead of
the attorney using Rich to give oral testimony, the attorney used the
promissory note as the witness as the evidence to sue the
alleged borrower.
There is a legal concept of
form vs. substance. The form is the promissory note,
which says that the lender lent money to the alleged
borrower. The substance is the money trail -
the bookkeeping entries. The substance shows that there
were two loans exchanged - equal value for
equal value. The borrower was required to repay his loan
to the bank plus interest, but the bank never repaid the debt it owes
to you. IOU was exchanged
for IOU. The two newly created IOUs cancel each
other.
The Substance
- the true transaction - shows that the borrower was
the lender to the bank. Then the bank repaid
the loan from the borrower to the bank. The form
- the alleged bank loan agreement -
shows the opposite.
Example: You sign a paper that says
you were lent $10,000, but no one lent you one cent to obtain
the promissory note. A thief stole $10,000 worth of
diamonds and returned the cash to you as a loan. The form
says that there was a loan; your signature also says that there was
a loan. The true transaction, though, proves that there was
no loan. The substance-money trail and the bookkeeping
entries-proves that someone took something of value worth $10,000
from you, exchanged it for a different asset of equal value and
returned your $10,000 to you as a loan that you now have to pay off
with interest. The attorney sues you, claiming that your
signature proves that you received the loan. You hire an
expert witness to prove that there was no loan, that the substance of
the transaction was an exchange, and that you were charged as if it
were a loan.
Economically speaking, what is the
difference if a stranger received your $10,000 worth of diamonds
for free, or if he got a $10,000 lien on your property
for free, or if he received $10,000 of your future payroll
checks for free? The substance of the transaction is the
transferal of $10,000 of property from you to the stranger
for free. The transfer of wealth is precisely how bankers
obtain liens on the nation's homes, cars, farms, and businesses
for free. If a robber were to use a gun to transfer your
wealth, you would place him in prison. If a banker does the
same thing by using "form," an attorney,
a judge, and a sheriff, you think it is legal.
Does the attorney use the
promissory note just like a witness to give false testimony
in court, claiming that the lender lent money, cash or cash
equivalent to the alleged borrower? The attorney could be
disbarred for bringing fraud into the court. The substance
was an exchange of value for value. If the form and
the substance disagree, one must rely on the substance over
the form because substance always wins over form.
Example: You give Rich $100 for
five boxes of toys. Rich says, "Here are
the five boxes. Sign this paper that says you received
the boxes." You sign. Rich refuses
to hand over the five boxes and claims that the form
- the paper you just signed - says that you received
the boxes. You would tell the judge that you acted in good
faith by signing because you were told that you would receive the
five boxes standing in front of you. After you
had signed, Rich refused to let you have the boxes. The form
- the paper-says that you received the boxes, but the
substance - the true transaction-clearly shows you never received
what you had bargained for. If the attorney uses the
form (paper) in court to claim that you received the boxes
when, in fact, he knew that you had never received then,
the attorney brought fraud on the court to
sue you. The form - the paper - would be
a false witness against you.
Is the promissory note used as a
false witness? The promissory note has
the borrower's signature agreeing that the lender lent the
borrower money.
The attorney wants only the form
- the promissory note with your signature - as
a witness in court. You want the true substance
- the true transaction - and the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. Some attorney’s object to allowing
the bookkeeping entries entered into court
as evidence. The attorney must rely on the form and stop
the substance.
Extortion occurs when the court does
not allow information into court for one's defense.
Few people disagree that the one who
provided the original funds to fund the bank loan check should be repaid
the money. Few argue that we should have
equal protection and full disclosure. The lender
concealed the true substance in the agreement.
If a banker received $10,000 of
capital from Joe and deposits the funds into a checking account,
should the bank return the $10,000 to Joe? If all
bankers agree that the answer is "yes," then all bank
loans in America should be canceled tomorrow.
If the bank received $10,000
from Joe and lent the same $10,000 to Joe, should the bank
return the $10,000 to Joe? The foreclosure attorney must
argue that the bank should not return the $10,000 to Joe.
Joe believed that the alleged borrower should repay the lender, and
the lender should repay the one who funded the bank loan
check. The foreclosure attorney must argue that the parties agreed to
the terms and the one who funded the loan should never be repaid
the money. How could the judge rule in favor of
the bank, claiming that the one who funded the loan should never be
repaid the money?
Want proof that this
is real? Ask yourself the following questions:
1. Were you told that the
Federal Reserve Policies and Procedures and the Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) requirements imposed upon all Federally-insured
(FDIC) banks in Title 12 of the
United States Code, section 1831n (a), prohibit
them from lending their own money from their own assets, or from other
depositors? Did the bank tell you where the money for the loan
was coming from?
2. Were you told that the
contract you signed (your promissory note) was going to be
converted into a 'negotiable instrument' by the bank and
become an asset on the bank's
accounting books? Did the bank tell you that your
signature on that note made it 'money,' according to the
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sections 1-201(24)
and 3-104?
3. Were you told that your
promissory note (money) would be taken, recorded as an asset of the
bank, and be sold by the bank for cash - without 'valuable consideration'
given to obtain your note? Did the bank give you a
deposit slip as a receipt for the money you gave them,
just as the bank would normally provide when you make a deposit to
the bank?
4. Were you told that
the bank would create an account at the bank that would contain
this money that you gave them?
5. Were you told that
a check from this account would be issued with your signature,
and that this account would be the source of the funds behind the check
that was given to you as a "loan?"
If you answered "No"
to any of these questions, YOU HAVE BEEN CHEATED! How does that make
you feel? It is now up to you to demand your deposit
back and to challenge the validity of your "signature" on any
alleged bank "loan" agreement or check. Since the
banks and other lending institutions cannot allow "full disclosure"
of your "loan" agreement and cannot answer your
challenges about it, their silence is your key, along with
important steps that we can show you step-by-step, to get your deposit back
and "payoff" their alleged "loan" to you.
