- The Great Banking Deception
- By Tom Schauf
- 26/12/2015 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Richard ( 2 articles in 2015 )
All this talk about Sub-prime Mortgage Banks and Lenders having a bad day, and problems with borrowers unable to make payments on a [[#|loan]] that never existed to start with does make for Hollywood playwright material.
Banks loan nothing but pens to sign notes, do you think they would risk all they have stolen ? While the below pathology, does manage to capture the finer points of how the scam works in general, it is only a brief look into this dark world of fraud and illusion.
I marvel at how clever these bankers are, and how they turn every person who does business with them, into accomplices and mules. Modern banking is the most successful criminal enterprise ever organized and deployed ─ the ultimate shell game on a world class level, making all other crimes notwithstanding , pale in comparison; causing great addiction to its wares, with not one in a million ever feeling the needles first pierce.
The below word, expropriate, is key in understanding what the banks main function is. Banking is merely another necessary component of Marxist ideals and rule, whereby the property of the many are brought under direct control of their masters, in this case, the banks.
expropriate:\ek-SPROH-pree-ayt\, transitive verb:
1. To deprive of possession.
2. To transfer (the property of another) to oneself.
Very few voters, after all, really believe Europe's new generation of social democratic leaders are wild Bolsheviks plotting to expropriate their Toyotas. Fintan O'Toole, "The Last Gasp of Social Democracy", Irish Times, March 19, 1999
The Spanish constitution declared the country "a democratic republic of workers of all classes" and laid down that property might be expropriated "for social uses." Mark Mazower, Dark Continent
Farmlands that had belonged to Bosnia's Muslim beys . . . and agas were expropriated without compensation and handed over to their former tenant sharecroppers. Chuck Sudetic, Blood and Vengeance
"Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing." ~ Congressman Ron Paul
"You are a den of vipers! I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." ~ President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~ Thomas Jefferson (1816)
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 loan back, and you agreed that the bank could seize your property 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, then banks lend the depositor's money to borrowers and then the borrowers repay the money. Finally, 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 deceived.
The fact is the economics of today's banking system is similar to stealing, counterfeiting, and swindling, which is why the bankers will not explain the loan details or answer specific questions. Bankers are terrified that the details might be exposed in public court.
The bank'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 then 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 with a suit and tie, than a gunman does pointing a gun at 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 deceptive the bankers are in developing this charade.
One of the biggest bankers in America, told us that the banker's money controls who is elected to Congress, to the presidentcy, and elected as judges. This banker even boasted how the bank's loan money and advertising money, controls all major media so as to keep it all a secret. He explained how lawyers, judges, CPAs, and politicians profit from the banking system by keeping this deception on-going and hidden. You lose and they benefit by understanding this secret.
"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." - Henry Ford
This secret banking policy allows bankers to create economic booms and busts, makes the stock market fluctuate as they increase and decrease the money supply. You lose in investments as those who understand this secret, transfer your investment money into their pocket. You lose, they win.
FORM vs. SUBSTANCE
Before an attorney can sue for [[#|foreclosure]], they 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, for example, testifies in court for the plaintiff, 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 evidence in court to claim that there is an agreement, there was a loan, the lender fulfilled this agreement, and that the alleged borrower did not fulfill their obligation to repay the loan. Instead of the attorney using Rich as a witness to give oral testimony, the attorney will use the promissory note as the witness for 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 the alleged borrower. An IOU was exchanged for an IOU. The two newly created IOUs cancel each other out.
The Substance, the true transaction, shows that the alleged borrower was actually the lender to the bank. The bank never 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 to be lent $10,000, but no one paid you one cent to obtain the promissory note. If 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, the money trail and the bookkeeping entries, prove 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 repay 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 have him sent to prison. If a banker does the same thing by using Form, an attorney, a judge, and a sheriff, you mistakenly think it is legal.
Does the attorney use your 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? Yes. The attorney should be disbarred for bringing fraud into the court. The Substance was an exchange of value for value. If the Form and Substance disagree, one must rely on the Substance over the Form, because Substance always triumps over Form.
Another 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 placed 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 an attorney uses the Form, the paper, in court to claim that you received the boxes, when in fact he knew that you had never received them, the attorney brought fraud into the court to sue you. The Form, the paper, would be a false witness against you.
Is the promissory note introduced as a false witness? Yes, even though the promissory note has the alleged borrower's signature, indicating that the lender loaned the alleged borrower money.
The attorney wants only the Form, the promissory note with your signature, as a witness in court. You want the Substance, the true transaction, 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 funds. Few would argue that we should have equal protection under the law and full disclosure of the Agreement. The "lender" concealed the true Substance in the Agreement.
So, if a banker receives $10,000 of value from Joe and deposits the funds into a checking account, should the bank have to 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 then the bank lent the same $10,000 back to Joe, should Joe have to repay $10,000 to the bank? No. The foreclosure attorney must argue that the bank should not return the $10,000 to Joe. Joe believed that the alleged borrower was to repay the lender and that the lender should repay the one who funded the bank loan check. The foreclosure attorney must argue that the parties agreed to the terms that the one who funded the loan should never be repaid the money. How could the judge rule in favor of the bank, if the bank claims that the one who funded the loan should never be repaid the funds?
Want proof that this is real? Ask yourself the following questions:
1. Were you told that the Federal Reserve Bank Policies and Procedures as well as the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) requirements imposed upon all Federally-insured (FDIC) banks in Title 12 of the United States Code, Section 1831(a), prohibit banks from lending their own money from their own assets or from other depositors? Did the bank tell you where the funds for the loan were to come from?
2. Were you told that the contract you signed, the 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, makes it 'money', according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sections 1-201(24) and 3-104?
3. Were you told that your promissory note would be taken, recorded as an asset of the bank, and then 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 promissory note you gave them, just as the bank would normally have to provide when you make a deposit to the bank?
4. Were you told that the bank would create a new account at the bank that would contain this money that you gave them?
5. Were you told that a check from this new account would be issued with your signature, without your knowledge, and that this new 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 this bank loan Agreement. 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 the key, along with other necessary steps that can be learned by you, to get your deposit back and/or "payoff" their alleged loan to you.
Banks loan nothing but pens to sign notes, do you think they would risk all they have stolen ? While the below pathology, does manage to capture the finer points of how the scam works in general, it is only a brief look into this dark world of fraud and illusion.
I marvel at how clever these bankers are, and how they turn every person who does business with them, into accomplices and mules. Modern banking is the most successful criminal enterprise ever organized and deployed ─ the ultimate shell game on a world class level, making all other crimes notwithstanding , pale in comparison; causing great addiction to its wares, with not one in a million ever feeling the needles first pierce.
The below word, expropriate, is key in understanding what the banks main function is. Banking is merely another necessary component of Marxist ideals and rule, whereby the property of the many are brought under direct control of their masters, in this case, the banks.
expropriate:\ek-SPROH-pree-ayt\, transitive verb:
1. To deprive of possession.
2. To transfer (the property of another) to oneself.
Very few voters, after all, really believe Europe's new generation of social democratic leaders are wild Bolsheviks plotting to expropriate their Toyotas. Fintan O'Toole, "The Last Gasp of Social Democracy", Irish Times, March 19, 1999
The Spanish constitution declared the country "a democratic republic of workers of all classes" and laid down that property might be expropriated "for social uses." Mark Mazower, Dark Continent
Farmlands that had belonged to Bosnia's Muslim beys . . . and agas were expropriated without compensation and handed over to their former tenant sharecroppers. Chuck Sudetic, Blood and Vengeance
"Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing." ~ Congressman Ron Paul
"You are a den of vipers! I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." ~ President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~ Thomas Jefferson (1816)
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 loan back, and you agreed that the bank could seize your property 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, then banks lend the depositor's money to borrowers and then the borrowers repay the money. Finally, 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 deceived.
The fact is the economics of today's banking system is similar to stealing, counterfeiting, and swindling, which is why the bankers will not explain the loan details or answer specific questions. Bankers are terrified that the details might be exposed in public court.
The bank'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 then 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 with a suit and tie, than a gunman does pointing a gun at 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 deceptive the bankers are in developing this charade.
One of the biggest bankers in America, told us that the banker's money controls who is elected to Congress, to the presidentcy, and elected as judges. This banker even boasted how the bank's loan money and advertising money, controls all major media so as to keep it all a secret. He explained how lawyers, judges, CPAs, and politicians profit from the banking system by keeping this deception on-going and hidden. You lose and they benefit by understanding this secret.
"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." - Henry Ford
This secret banking policy allows bankers to create economic booms and busts, makes the stock market fluctuate as they increase and decrease the money supply. You lose in investments as those who understand this secret, transfer your investment money into their pocket. You lose, they win.
FORM vs. SUBSTANCE
Before an attorney can sue for [[#|foreclosure]], they 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, for example, testifies in court for the plaintiff, 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 evidence in court to claim that there is an agreement, there was a loan, the lender fulfilled this agreement, and that the alleged borrower did not fulfill their obligation to repay the loan. Instead of the attorney using Rich as a witness to give oral testimony, the attorney will use the promissory note as the witness for 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 the alleged borrower. An IOU was exchanged for an IOU. The two newly created IOUs cancel each other out.
The Substance, the true transaction, shows that the alleged borrower was actually the lender to the bank. The bank never 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 to be lent $10,000, but no one paid you one cent to obtain the promissory note. If 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, the money trail and the bookkeeping entries, prove 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 repay 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 have him sent to prison. If a banker does the same thing by using Form, an attorney, a judge, and a sheriff, you mistakenly think it is legal.
Does the attorney use your 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? Yes. The attorney should be disbarred for bringing fraud into the court. The Substance was an exchange of value for value. If the Form and Substance disagree, one must rely on the Substance over the Form, because Substance always triumps over Form.
Another 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 placed 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 an attorney uses the Form, the paper, in court to claim that you received the boxes, when in fact he knew that you had never received them, the attorney brought fraud into the court to sue you. The Form, the paper, would be a false witness against you.
Is the promissory note introduced as a false witness? Yes, even though the promissory note has the alleged borrower's signature, indicating that the lender loaned the alleged borrower money.
The attorney wants only the Form, the promissory note with your signature, as a witness in court. You want the Substance, the true transaction, 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 funds. Few would argue that we should have equal protection under the law and full disclosure of the Agreement. The "lender" concealed the true Substance in the Agreement.
So, if a banker receives $10,000 of value from Joe and deposits the funds into a checking account, should the bank have to 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 then the bank lent the same $10,000 back to Joe, should Joe have to repay $10,000 to the bank? No. The foreclosure attorney must argue that the bank should not return the $10,000 to Joe. Joe believed that the alleged borrower was to repay the lender and that the lender should repay the one who funded the bank loan check. The foreclosure attorney must argue that the parties agreed to the terms that the one who funded the loan should never be repaid the money. How could the judge rule in favor of the bank, if the bank claims that the one who funded the loan should never be repaid the funds?
Want proof that this is real? Ask yourself the following questions:
1. Were you told that the Federal Reserve Bank Policies and Procedures as well as the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) requirements imposed upon all Federally-insured (FDIC) banks in Title 12 of the United States Code, Section 1831(a), prohibit banks from lending their own money from their own assets or from other depositors? Did the bank tell you where the funds for the loan were to come from?
2. Were you told that the contract you signed, the 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, makes it 'money', according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sections 1-201(24) and 3-104?
3. Were you told that your promissory note would be taken, recorded as an asset of the bank, and then 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 promissory note you gave them, just as the bank would normally have to provide when you make a deposit to the bank?
4. Were you told that the bank would create a new account at the bank that would contain this money that you gave them?
5. Were you told that a check from this new account would be issued with your signature, without your knowledge, and that this new 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 this bank loan Agreement. 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 the key, along with other necessary steps that can be learned by you, to get your deposit back and/or "payoff" their alleged loan to you.
Source: https://oidremedy.wikispaces.com/The+Great+Banking+Deception+by+Tom+Schauf
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here