When you know a thing to be wrong, at what point do you decide to act?

Twenty three years ago Jonathan May took steps to provide to the world an honest and transparent World Reserve. The aim was to provide a system of global finance that would remove the corrosive influence of the Federal Reserve. Observations of the current corrupt activities of the Federal Reserve should illustrate to most people just what a sensible step this would be.

For his troubles, bogus charges were concocted to incarcerate Mr May for several years in the US prison system. In 1986, Lindsay Williams interviewed him by phone from which comes the following video. What is discussed here still holds true. A relatively small cluster of clever but ultimately cold hearted, humorless psychopaths hold sway over the financial destiny of the people’s of the earth. They have embraced darkness and work to have it consume the rest of us.

The only way to deal with this sort of sillyness is not to oppose them. That only makes them stronger. But to build an honest transparent system that simply makes their system of financial coercion irrelevant.

Mr May sought to do this but was scuppered. The ideas still hold true though and the time for their revival is upon us.

-START-

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN MAY

Jonathan May formerly worked for the International Monetary Fund in England. In the early 1980s he came to America with a plan to release Americans from debt to the banking system by employing the same “credit creating” system used by international banking. The law governing this system is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). May was initially successful. Eventually, however, he was targeted and imprisoned by the banking system. He is now in a Federal prison in the midwest. While in prison he was interviewed by Lindsey Williams via phone. The following is the text of that interview.

“There are thirteen families which effectively control the central banks of the hard currency countries of the world. The hard currency countries are those whose currency is not allowed to fluctuate as much as the other countries’ currency fluctuates. These thirteen families have the control of the policy-making and decision-making of the central banks of those countries. They all practice fractional reserve banking.

Fractional reserve banking has allowed the central banks to permit the prime banks to lend up to twenty-six units of currency for every one unit of currency they have on deposit. The owners andcontrollers of the prime banks are the same people who own and control the central banks.The initial final stage of System 2000 was put into effect in the mid-seventies. System 2000 is the global creditors unilateral totalitarian plan for the control of the world.

A Pentagon official and three other U.S. government officials went to the Prime Minister of Nigeria. They paid him $50,000,000 to more than double the price of body light crude oil. This is the crude oil of Nigeria which is some of the most valuable crude oil in the world. At the same time that the Prime Minister of Nigeria was being persuaded, other Trilateral Commission members were in the Middle East persuading the Middle East nations and England to consolidate OPEC. The deal cut with the Middle East oil producers was that the oil buyers were prepared to pay significantly higher prices for oil if the Middle East nations would invest the revenues in the big banks in America.

Sheik Yamani’s nephew assured us that Sheik Yamani and other oil min-isters did not know until late in the seventies or in the eighties that the controlling interest of the prime banks is held by the same people who have the controlling interest in the major oil companies. They control through a joint stock trust which was set up by the original Rockefellers here in America in 1870. This was three years before the United States government declared joint stock trusts illegal in 1873. It is this entity which is the ultimate controlling factor in America of the prime banks, the Federal Reserve, the major oil companies, and many other multi-nationals. This trust is in joint control of the Rockefeller Foundation and their European interest.

The deal cut with the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and the middle eastern peoples was that they were to put their money in the prime banks in America. They did not know that the prime banks were able to lend twenty to one. All they were to receive was the interest on the money they deposited for between ten to thirty years. They were to receive the principal at the end of the term.

Because they had locked-in deposits from the Middle Eastern nations, the banks were able to make loans to the Third World nations. The banks relied on the greed of those ministers of those Third World nations to mis-handle the money. Over the years, that manipulated greed has caused those countries to be in the bankrupt position they are in today.

In 1981, I found out that the Hunt brothers of Texas and John Conley,the Governor of Texas, who was also the Under Secretary of the Treasury, hadsecretly tried to implement a new currency for Texas. They could legally dothis because Texas is only a part of the United States by treaty. Thistreaty is automatically renewed every year. It has become a tradition, obviously, that it is renewed every year because it is not actually, physically, renewed every year. This made it possible for Texas to create its own money.

The Hunts were in partnership with the Shah of Iran, a German bank, and an Austrian bank. The Hunts made one mistake. They were buying and sell-ing silver irresponsibly. They had one man doing both buying and selling on the same floors in all the exchanges. Wor got out and the result was that the German banker was murdered, the Austrian banker was so badly beaten that he will never get out of a mental institution, and the Hunts are virtually bank-rupt today. The Hunts had sixteen billions in worth at the time. The Shah was perfectly healthy when he left Iran. He was only declared sick when he arrived in America. He was held in “protective custody” in military bases where he was treated and became progressively worse and ultimately was shipped off to die.

In 1983, we became aware of the fact that a group of very, very quiet bank holding companies were extending credit wherever they felt like it, under whatever terms they felt like. They are authorized under Regulation Y, Section 225.4 of the United States Code to extend this credit. Those companies were receiving loans from the prime banks. With this money they were buying foreclosed real property and businesses with bricks and mortar from liquidations, foreclosures and bankruptcies. These were businesses which were affected by FDIC and FSLIC
foreclosures. We could not understand this, and between 1983 and 1985 we researched it and still could not understand it.

Then we found the answer in 1985 when we were approached by an emissary from President Marcos of the Philippines and President Saharte and others from Indonesia. They had a severe problem. Their problem was that, having borrowed all the money that they had borrowed, they now needed more money. The only way that the International Monetary Fund was prepared to lend them more money was if they would do three things:

1. Eliminate their own currencies and become Dollar denominated. This would eliminate cash altogether.

2. If they would go to a unilateral centralized credit card system. This was to be a part of their Social Security system, part of their identity system whereby everybody in the country would have a Social Security number which would be synonymous with a credit card number. Their Central Bank was to act as the wholesaler for credit which was extended to it by the new super bank. This was announced by Paul Volker on the 27th of October, 1985.

3. In order to help the economies of those countries, the International Monetary Fund was going to nominate external non-domestic corporations to properly engineer, exploit and excavate the minerals from those countries in return for PERPETUAL ROYALTIES.

This excavation would bring prosperity to the nation. Marcos was sharp enough to pick up on the word PERPETUAL, and realized he would be signing away the sovereignty of his nation. He was not prepared to do this. Marcos approached us through his emissary, Colonel Christopher Banis. We were aware of this offer made by
the International Monetary Fund through our connections in London who are close to Sir Jeffrey Howe. If they agreed to the International Monetary Fund’s terms and conditions, they were to have their existing debts forgiven, absolutely. New lines of credit were to be extended to them and the new lines of credit were to be under better terms and conditions.

When we heard the term PERPETUAL, and when we heard the words “Totally forgiven”, we immediately began to recognize what was happening.Another group of holding companies was operating with the previous group of holding companies. The second group of holding companies was receiving credit from the first group to purchase assets and liabilities from the prime banks. The only liabilities they were purchasing were the liabilities represented by the deposits of the Arab nations. The only assets they were buying were the assets represented by the loans made to some of the debtor nations.

It then became clear, through our own people in the Trilateral Com-mission, that the forgiveness of the Third World debts would eliminate the assets which were being purchased by this second group of holding companies. This left them only with the liabilities that were owed to the Middle East nations and being serviced by the prime banks.The Arab nations had no idea that these liabilities were now owed by the holding companies and that the debtor nations had stopped paying the prime banks. The prime banks’ and holding companies’ arrangements were that the prime banks were to act as servicing agents for the holding companies so that the Third World nations would not know that the holding companies were owed the money.

The effect of the elimination of the assets of the second group of holding companies is threefold:

1. The holding companies would be insolvent and would legally be able to declare themselves insolvent.

2. They could legally and legitimately avoid payment to the Middle Eastern Nations.

3. The Middle Eastern Arab nations will have to liquidate all their other assets.

These assets are represented by U.S. corporate ownership and many billions of dollars worth of U.S. stock. The effect of the Saudis and Kuwaitis and the Middle Eastern people’s sale of even 25% of their total holdings on the U.S. market would be absolutely chaotic in terms of the stock market, real estate and everything else.The catastrophic effect has been designed to throw the American stock market, the American corporations, the American real estate, and people in general into a state of confusion. The plan is that this state of con-fusion will begreated with the salvation of the benevolent bankers on three fronts:

1. They propose to eliminate cash because of the collapse.

2. Stop drug trafficking because the drug traffickers would now have no money to use.

3. Stop tax cheating.

NOBODY CAN ARGUE WITH ANY OF THESE REASONS. It is at this point that they intend to implement a mandatory credit card identity Social Security government. There will be an I.D. card which will be satellite linked through the “Star Wars program”. Only 40% of “Star Wars” has anything to do with defense. 60% is designed for transmission of banking information instantaneously to the central banks which will be the super banks into which all the major banks of the world will be linked. The super bank is to be the wholesaler and the prime banks are to be the retailers in the foreign countries that have capitulated to the International Monetary Fund’s program.

It inly takes 5% of the total debtor nations to equal all of the deposits of the Saudis that are in the banks. The reason for this is the twenty-to-one ratio of fractional reserve banking. In works in contrary reverse. It doesn’t take many nations to agree to the International Mon-etary Fund’s proposal for the total volume of money owed to equal the total volume of money on deposit from the Saudis. Twenty debtor nations have already agreed to the International Monetary Fund’s proposal.The resultant collapse of the second group of holding companies will precipitate the Saudis’ and Kuwaitis’ liquidation of assets.

When the second group of holding companies are unable to pay the private group of bank holding companies the money they owe them from the credit extended to them to buy the assets and liabilities, it will precip-itate those bank holding companies inability to pay the loans extended to them by the prime banks to buy the foreclosed land which was used as collateral to secure those loans. Ultimately, the prime banks will end up with all the properties.

President Garcia of Peru announced in February of this year that they were absolutely not going to pay the International Monetary Fund. Rockefeller himself went to Peru in February of 1986. Rockeffeler personally made the offer to Garcia of the three-point proposal which was mentioned earlier. Garcia told David that if he wasn’t out of the country in twenty-four hours that he would have him arrested for racketeering.

You will see the foreclosures on real property in America stepped up drastically by the FDIC and FSLIC. They are using gangsteristic tactics to achieve their objective for their masters.

Since the advent of the manipulation of the oil producing countries to sell all their oil in U.S. dollars, the entire world trade is now denom-inated in U.S. dollars because of the volitility of all the other currencies. The entire trading volume of the world will be totally and absolutely beholden to the super banks. When System 2000 is put into effect, the super banks will be the only source of “U.S. Dollars” credit. There will be no cash.”

-END-

Now there are times, this most definitely being one of them, when one can get a little down in the mouth as it were about banks and money and credit and whatnot. What to do, what to do.

That the banking system has been designed by half-wits is now self evident. Actually, that’s incorrect. The simple truth is they are not half-wits but bright, cunning rascals who have known for a long time exactly what the results of a spiralling tower of interest bearing debt would be; basically the plundering by the have of the have nots. Same old same old. Yet it doesn’t have to be this way.

I have known Chris Cook for several years now. I even knew him when he had hair. (We’re not bosom buddies or anything like that though I once bought him a cup of tea). In fact I’ve no doubt irked him more than once by calling him up out of the blue and asking him to re-explain the power of open capital to me. Open capital is at the heart of Chris’s use of UK type LLP’s; Limited Liability Partnerships.

PIPS – Mobilising Equity
I don’t know whether he made the above video to stop me calling him up any more, but I’d like to think so. Because in it there lies an immensely powerful idea, albeit a quiet, steady, unassuming one. If you consider the vast amount of equity lying around in housing and property stock, and you could find a way of mobilising that equity in a way that does not involve debt or interest, then you would have a very effective form of . . . money.

Chris’s PIP (Property Investment Partnership) concept does just that, turning bricks and mortar into equity based money. Oh he also clearly defines the effective role of banks too, not as creators of mountains of interest bearing debt money, but as credit intermediaries. A role they would be good at but which they would sulk about a great deal too no doubt.

During the crash of 1929 many creative solutions arose with highly positive results from privately issued scrip in the US to the value eroding Austrian Worgl money as initiated by Mayor Untergugenburger. Yes, that was his real name. Chris Cook’s Open Capital is not an emergency measure in the same way, but it could yield up significant advantage on a permanent footing. It’s applications cover practically every area of human endeavour, not just property per se.

For further reading on this you can visit Chris’s site at OpenCapital.net where you will find many documents available for free download. One of the best is the following PDF:

Co-operative Capitalism: A Very British Revolution

Some people feel it would be a jolly good thing if we went back to gold and I have to say that I am partial to owning the odd ton or two. Not that I do, it’s just that I would be partial to it if I did. And I too would have to maintain that it was mine if I had it, but that seeing as how I don’t it will now have to be classed a liability, or possibly an asset or somesuch.

Gold of course will likely only lead to more tears. A few years back those old gold price fixers themselves, the Rothschilds, let everyone know that they were no longer into that type of thing and didn’t want to fix the price of gold in London anymore as it was jolly hard work. What that meant of course nobody knows.

-START-

Q: What are banks for?

A: To make money.

Q: For the customers?

A: For the banks.

Q: Why doesn’t bank advertising mention this?

A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.

Q: Out of the customers?

A: I suppose so.

Q: They also mention Assets of $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?

A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.

Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?

A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.

Q: Then they haven’t got it?

A: No.

Q: Then how is it Assets?

A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.

Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?

A: Yes, usually $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.

Q: But if they’ve got it, how can they be liable for it?

A: Because it isn’t theirs.

Q: Then why do they have it?

A: It has been lent to them by customers.

Q: You mean customers lend banks money?

A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.

Q: And what do the banks do with it?

A: Lend it to other customers.

Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?

A: Yes.

Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?

A: You can’t really say that.

Q: But you’ve just said it! If I put $100 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else, and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Assets. It’s the same $100 isn’t it?

A: Yes, but….

Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn’t it, that banks haven’t really any
money at all?

A: Theoretically……

Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven’t any money, where do they get their Reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts??

A: I told you. That is the money they have made.

Q: How?

A: Well, when they lend your $100 to someone they charge him interest.

Q: How much?

A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That’s their profit.

Q: Why isn’t it my profit? Isn’t it my money?

A: It’s the theory of banking practice that………

Q: When I lend them my $100 why don’t I charge them interest?

A: You do.

Q: You don’t say. How much?

A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.

Q: Grasping of me, rather?

A: But that’s only if you’re not going to draw the money out again.

Q: But of course I’m going to draw the money out again! If I hadn’t wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!

A: They wouldn’t like you to draw it out again.

Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it’s a Liability. Wouldn’t they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?

A: No. Because if you remove it they can’t lend it to anyone else.

Q: But if I wanted to remove it they’d have to let me?

A: Certainly.

Q: But suppose they’ve already lent it to another customer?

A: Then they’ll let you have some other customers money.

Q: But suppose he wants his too….and they’ve already let me have it?

A: You’re being purposely obtuse.

Q: I think I’m being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?

A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.

Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?

A: I wouldn’t say that.

Q: Naturally. Well, if there’s nothing else you think you can tell me….?

A: Quite so. Now you can go off and open a banking account!

Q: Just one last question.

A: Of course.

Q: Wouldn’t I do better to go off and open up a bank?

-START-

None of the solutions put out by any of the establishment think tanks, Govts, bankers etc will make any difference, NOR are they intended to. Their knowingly ill informed suggestions have little merit as they won’t talk about the elephant in the living room. Definitely an excellent example of the blind leading the blind.

The issue, the root cause of this intended and pre-planned mess, the mechanism without which this debacle could never have arisen is . . .

. . . usury.

Specifically, we are held captive by a TYPE of money that ensures, through the way the system is designed, that ever more finance is driven into ever fewer hands. It has always been thus.

98% of ALL money used in the west is created as interest bearing debt by the private banks, regulated (lol) by the Central Banking Cartel. Less than 3% is issued as debt free, non-interest bearing cash. This means that were you to take a snaphot of the money supply in the economy, you would see for example, $100 trillion in money, but $110 trillion in money owed to the banks. The additionla $10 trillion in this example is the interest accruing on the $98 trillion issued by the banks as interest bearing debt.

So how does the economy resolve this imbalance?

Simple. Everyone, everything, every business is continually induced to take out further loans (at interest of course) so that the new money created by this process will be made available in the economy so that it can be used to pay some of the $10 trillion the banks are owed in interest charges.

End result?

A perpetual increase in the amount of money in the economy, perpetual un-repayable debt, perpetual corruption of markets as businesses seek, by hook or by crook, to out-do the other guy.

Think of it as a feedback loop. The market collapse last week was the PA blowing up.

A solution?

Create the INTEREST due on the loan at the same time that the loan is issued.

The way in which Interest works (or doesn’t, in actuality) is at the root of the problem. It is poor systems engineering. Our current system is maintained by appalling mechanics.

Say a bank lends out £1000 at 10% (to keep our figures simple). The bank creates the £1000 out of thin air and thereby swells the money supply by £1000. But it now has a legally enforceable right to receive £1100. The problem is this:

The £100 in interest has NOT BEEN CREATED AT THE POINT OF THE LOAN.

Where is the £100 to be found by the borrower? It can only be found by other people taking out loans that swell the money supply with our borrower aiming to get some of that so he can find the £100 interest.

The flaw at the heart of the banking system is therefore this:

Banks are always owed an amount of money (capital + interest) THAT IS GREATER THAN THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT EXISTS.

The only way to deal with this, is for the system to continually issue ever more interest bearing loans so that the liquidity is in the market to enable current loans and interest to be paid.

Think of it as a feedback loop in an audio circuit. What we have just had is a loud BANG as the circuit couldn’t hold the feedback anymore.

EXAMPLE OF HOW HONEST INTEREST WOULD WORK

When a man is loaned £1000 at 10%, the bank creates both the £1000 and the £100 interest ie £1100 total. It pays itself £100, giving the £1000 to the borrower. The bank will in due course spend that £100 into the economy meaning that the interest amount exists for the borrower to obtain it. The system does not have to keep generating new loans to generate the £100. The system is in balance. The banks are now owed an amount equal to or less than the total amount of money in the system.

So no feedback. No pointless loans. No aberrations and complications in the system.

The type of money we use, interest bearing credit, is designed to transfer all wealth into ever fewer hands. Until we change it, we change nothing. No Govt measure will have the slightest effect unless this systemic design fault is rectified.

Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury.

Leviticus 25:36-37 Take thou no usury of him, or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

When the Babylonian civilization collapsed, three percent of the people owned all the wealth. When old Persia went down to destruction two percent of the people owned all the wealth. When ancient Greece went down to ruin one-half of one percent of the people owned all the wealth. When the Roman empire fell by the wayside, two thousand people owned the wealth of the civilized world…It is said at this time less than two percent (2%) of the people control ninety percent of the wealth of America. — Lincoln Money Martyred

-END-

The Senate is pretty keen. So too, according to the paid for puppet advocates in the media, will be the House of Representatives. Just so long as the US taxpayer meets the bill thereby maintaining the culture of “Private Profits, Public Debt” so much favoured by the thieves union that is big business, the Govt and last but not least, the privately owned Fed and its attendant stockholders.

Anyone who has read Stephen Zarlenga’s classic “The Lost Science of Money” (and I have, so there), knew this day was coming and also knew what would drive it. Many others who haven’t read the book also know what ails us monetarily, and it isn’t markets or regulations or G W Bush’s ineptitude in all matters or any of the other fanciful tosh dreamed up by the hacks that churn out the daily 9 o’clock brainwashing news. What ails the system is this:

The money that is foisted upon us is of an intentionally poor quality. A bit like low grade motor oil where the more you use, the faster you destroy the engine.

You’ll need a little bit of this low grade money to buy Zarlenga’s book, but after reading it you will be wiser than  every obedient talking head media minion out there in understanding just what is wrong with the system and the measures available to us to put it right. Put another way, any steps taken that do not change the way in which credit and money is created cannot make a difference to our diseased monetary system.

Someone of course who can afford the book is the ex head of the Fed, Sir Alan Greenspan. A pity he didn’t do us all a favour and buy a copy a few years ago so that this debilitating mess in which he played no small part in creating could have been avoided.

“Greenspan is so well regarded in Britain that Queen Elizabeth II awarded him an honorary knighthood in 2002 in recognition of “his outstanding contribution to global economic stability.”

Big Al’s outstanding contribution of course has been in playing a major role in taking down the US money system for the benefit of The Crown in London. Which is not to be confused with The Queen who is employed by The Crown to look good, hand out knighthoods to the egotistically enfeebled and make everyone forget about those Crown lads who plot day and night to bring about their one world, one currency system. Next stop for the US, the Amero. Tell em Sir Al sent ya.

Here’s the latest from Mr Zarlenga addressing the current financial fiasco specifically.

-START-

Press Release  from the American Monetary Institute   Sept. 29, 2008

Contact person: Stephen Zarlenga       phone: 224-805-2200

The following press release is issued by the American Monetary Institute following its 4th annual Monetary Reform Conference at Roosevelt University, Sept. 25-28th.

“The private financial sector has failed. The public sector is expected to rescue them and it will. Therefore the public sector should control the money system to benefit the  country”.

Why No Immediate Wall Street Bailout Will Work

In order for the bail out to work, it needs to restore confidence among the public, not just Wall Street gamblers. Confidence won’t be restored by rushing Congress into bailing out the very same people who wrecked our money and banking system. That will actually harm things further. The public understands this and sees the $700 billion grab as adding insult to injury.

The only way to restore confidence is if the Congress is seen to be carefully deliberating how to solve the crisis, in the American interest.

The people will then understand that Congress is doing its job and our country can then start rebuilding it’s money system. The Predators accurately judged the Democratic and Republican Congress to be jellyfish. But they misjudged the American people, who have given our congress some backbone. We are going to have our opportunity to replace our unjust money system with a good one in the coming months and years, as this crisis develops.

MORE SPECIFICS FOLLOW and more is at http://www.monetary.org:

Monetary Reform of the Federal Reserve System.

At the heart of the problem is that our money system has been privatized. Naturally it’s been run for the benefit of the “privates” in control, with minimal concern for the public interest.

Legislation called The American Monetary Act has been in preparation for years. It’s based on well known monetary principles and actual experience from our own, and other countries monetary history. (see the act at http://www.monetary.org/amacolorpamphlet.pdf)

The Act incorporates the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury. It removes the banking systems privilege to create money, placing that firmly within government, and it establishes areas for governmentally created money to be introduced into the economy for infrastructure, including the human infrastructure of health care and education.

Should the situation deteriorate markedly now, the American Monetary Act could be put into effect immediately with the reliable understanding that it would be a definite and major improvement over the current system.

Our money system would then shift away from credit and debt, to real money. One difference between money and credit is that during uncertain times, credit evaporates as confidence declines, but money does not go out of existence, it is much more stable. A big part of the current problem is that while we have had loads of bank credit circulating, there has been very little “real money” issued by government in circulation mainly our coins and bills. The credit is evaporating along with housing valuations.

The AMI has been ready and working on these provisions for years, while realizing that it unfortunately might require a crisis to bring real attention to it. We have the crisis now.

Rather than borrowing the $ billions being demanded, and ending up paying back about 3 times the amount after interest charges, The US Government would issue money itself, instead of borrowing it from banks. But while the banks issue credit that substitutes for money, the U.S. would issue actual money. Our Government has the power to create the money, in an account, or by simply printing it as “greenbacks.”

There would not be inflationary effects, because it was already believed that those moneys existed in the form of the real estate values and loans. In effect this would stop a deflation which will follow from writing down those assets and loans to their present market values. Conditions in the act assure that the banking system could not use those government created dollars for further credit creation, as that would be inflationary. The US Treasury would help direct the money into the real economy, not speculation.

Warmest regards and ready to help,

Stephen Zarlenga
Director,
American Monetary Institute
224-805-2200

-END-

With HBOS, earlier this week your £1000 would have been worth £16.50

£1000 invested in XL Leisure would now be worth less than £5.

But if you bought £1000 worth of Stella Artois Lager one year ago, drank it all, then took the empty cans to an aluminum re-cycling plant, you would get £214. So based on the above statistics the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and re-cycle.

However, nothing adds more fun and pleasure than turning the tables on the courts and the banking system as a whole. This approach is such a great wheeze that people who have no need to go bankrupt are now seriously considering doing so, just to have their day in court and kick the financial system swift and hard.

What could be more satisfying than gaining a full remission of your debts, exposing fraud and showing the banks up for the low life tricksters that they are? Little else it would seem.

Now, before you splutter “Will you get to the point you prevaricating prattler”, let me get to the point. Which is this -

IF you are ever faced with a foreclosure or a bankruptcy proceeding in court – demand that the Lender, while under-oath on the witness stand, answer this one question:

“Should the one who funded the loan be the one who is repaid the money?”

If their answer is YES, or NO, the bank must zero out the (false) debt on their fraudulantly created – non-existent loan. That’s right – there was NOT a (lawful) LOAN made to you. Bemused? Good.

ALL Bankers, Politicians and Judges know this truth – and they fear the wrath of the public should their dirty-secret ever become known by a critical mass of the people. The dirty secret being that for decades, they have been defrauding borrowers, that is you if you are in the position of facing bankruptcy.

Bankers will not answer that one question in any courtroom in the world – because they know that -

The BORROWER is the one who actually funded the loan.

They also know that the evidence of this FACT can easily be found within the bank’s own loan bookkeeping entries.

What is being said here? Let us re-phrase. YOU the borrower, are the one who FUNDED the loan you received from the bank. You may now be asking yourself the most obvious question, “How did I do that?”. How indeed.

Your request for a loan empowers the “lender” to create the money out of thin air as an interest bearing debt. They, the “lender” did not “fund” the loan, you did. You funded it by agreeing to and signing a loan contract. But that contract fails to mention that you are the one who is funding the loan and is therefore unenforceable due to the deceptive nature of the contract.

So, if the lender says “No”, then your response is “Thank you, there is nothing to repay, I’ll be on my way”. If the lender responds “Yes”, then your response is “Thank you, I am the one who funded the loan and therefore no further payment is due to you, I’ll be on my way”.

To follow this line further, I suggest you pay a visit to the website of Thomas Schauf who has dug into this area to a considerable degree. You can locate his work HERE:

We Have More Power And Freedom Than We Are Led To Believe

In the realms of money, law and the laws of money we have been relentlessly hypnotised into a placid state of non-enquiry. The money issuing power resides in each one of us. The banks, using cunning and deception, exploit that situation to the full thereby ensuring our ongoing enslavement to their system.

This is by no means that final word on this area. More to follow.