Latest topics
Today at 3:27 am by RamblerNash

» Northern New York District Court Clinton Indictment
Today at 1:49 am by Serena1

» Q Anon Update April 20 - The War Is Real
Today at 1:41 am by Serena1

Yesterday at 9:37 pm by PurpleSkyz

» #88 Doctor Dies Unexpectedly, Holistic Prominent and Outspoken
Yesterday at 9:32 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Homes COVERED in tumbleweed! - Owl stares in window - Wild Moose walked right up to him!
Yesterday at 9:18 pm by PurpleSkyz

» EXPOSED: All the Queen’s Agents and Corporations that Control the World
Yesterday at 5:23 pm by topspin2

» Stand Up for Cannabis – Stand Up for Freedom!
Yesterday at 2:39 pm by PurpleSkyz

» NIBIRU News ~ Cloaked Planet(s)-Nibiru System Anomalies plus MORE
Yesterday at 9:04 am by PurpleSkyz

» UFO News ~ UFO filmed ‘MONITORING International Space Station’ in Nasa live feed! plus MORE
Yesterday at 9:03 am by PurpleSkyz

» The Megalithic Stones Of Carnac—An Ancient Cosmic Map?
Yesterday at 9:02 am by PurpleSkyz

» Goldsmith Crime Syndicate
Yesterday at 8:59 am by PurpleSkyz

» Japan: Volcano erupts for first time in 250 years
Yesterday at 8:57 am by PurpleSkyz

» Weird Luminous Object filmed by a security camera in Liverpool, UK
Yesterday at 8:52 am by PurpleSkyz

» HAPPY 420!!
Yesterday at 8:50 am by PurpleSkyz

» Lyrid meteor shower peaks this weekend
Yesterday at 8:47 am by PurpleSkyz

» Strange trumpet sounds in the sky (Osijek, Croatia 13.04.2018.)
Yesterday at 8:35 am by PurpleSkyz

» So Be It by Ines Radman on The Truth about Simon Parkes, David Wilcox, White Dragon Families, Cobra, and The Event
Yesterday at 8:26 am by PurpleSkyz

» Earthquake near Detroit
Yesterday at 8:05 am by PurpleSkyz

» Proof of parallel universe? Nazi coin from 2039 sparks bizarre theory
Yesterday at 8:03 am by PurpleSkyz

» Alien Stealth Buildings On Neptunes Moon Triton
Yesterday at 7:51 am by PurpleSkyz

» The Warmongering Media - Spineless, Gutless, Clueless - David Icke
Yesterday at 7:47 am by PurpleSkyz

You are not connected. Please login or register


The Great Banking Deception

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 The Great Banking Deception on Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:37 pm


The Great Banking Deception
[Author Unknown]

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.
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.

Posted by John MacHaffie at 5:19 PM

2 Re: The Great Banking Deception on Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:56 am



this is beautiful!!!

Very timely.... thanks


3 Re: The Great Banking Deception on Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:45 am


Great info ... thanks for posting ym

4 Re: The Great Banking Deception on Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:02 pm


I'm well aware of this, But I can tell you from personal experience that the Attorney's, Judges and entire judicial system is not about to let it happen. So when you hear that the Financial/Banking system would collaps.... Obviously that as well as our Judicial system HAS to be brought down, thrown out and then we can go back start all over and hopefully put things in place that will prevent this from ever happening again. The hard part is going to be getting everyone to realize that they will have to become RESPONSIBLE for themselves and their actions... No More DISCLAIMERS... jmho

'Tis better to be thought a fool,than to speak and remove all doubt.
     Love,Laughter & Prosperity...  :Santa 3: 

5 Re: The Great Banking Deception on Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:51 pm


I don't think people are going to be as predictable as you think. :D imo

6 Re: The Great Banking Deception on Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:18 pm


Just got this on email recently- definitely pertinent to this topic:

The REAL secret of the Fraud of Banks

By David Snieckus

As Independence Day 2012 has come and gone six days ago I hope you give some consideration to my argument of how there is no need for mediation or modification of mortgages:

There CANNOT be any foreclosures because there never was any REAL money lent to the borrower!

There was no legal initial mortgage contract to begin with as there was:

No Consideration...i.e. no loan: "..can only be considered a purported loan/ Has Fictitious or Illusionary Consideration; (see Montgomery vs. Daly)
An interest bearing Mortgage Contact can not possible be fulfilled by everyone because of usury ( Where does the interest come from if there was only one mortgage contract in the world.) therefore it is Civilly Void and Unenforceable;
False statements are signed by the borrower. i.e A False Document
Part of a Bait and Switch; The bankers and lawyers string you along into signing these false documents thinking you have a loan and are the borrower when in fact you are the creditor and have GIVEN them or they HAVE STOLEN your credit.

The contract is a wagering Provision; Both the borrower and the banker have come together with nothing ( the bankers have no money and the borrower has no home) and leave with something: . "Purported borrower" "AGREEs" to make payments".. Bank agrees to accept them. "truly gambling" but the homeowner is not aware of this "crime" and would never sign if told.

Recently, as you know, I have researched and picked apart various causes for the economic crisis we are in: the high rate of unemployment, increasing foreclosures, poverty, war, bankruptcies, resources being abused, and plutocracy. (Please check my various e-mail over the last two years.) I have concluded that our current debt-based monetary system is based on dishonesty and fraud with very little transparency. ) therefore the need for honest public banking!

Here is where the LARGER FRAUD of securitization, no assignments to the trust etc. started. I call it the DECEPTION AT CONCEPTION!

The real point I'd like to bring out is that BANKS DON'T LEND MONEY per se. They monetize the borrower's CREDIT! So there is really never ever any MONEY involved here......No one is actually harmed.....Most people hearing those statements have a bit of "cognizant dissonance." That is, the mind is repelled by the very thought! "Makes us uncomfortable". I certainly was. And it took me 7 years to figure it out.

Banks, in my opinion, are merely accounting firms and should/could be paid a fee for making the transactions...Not the ever increasing simple or compounding interest they charge now. This is usury and this legal usurious position has been used to create the criminal fraud, deception and illegalities which your office and the whole county is currently seeing as foreclosure deception on the personal level, forged documents in the court on the state level and securities fraud on the federal level!

When a homeowner borrows he or she has a credit rating. That credit rating is looked into by the bank's risk management and a decision is made. Once the application is approved, (the person will pay back the loan,) a contract is made. The person believes they sign a contract that more or less states that they are borrowing money from the bank and are obligated to pay it back; principal with interest....just as if I borrowed money from you...I would feel obligated to pay you back and perhaps even gift you some gift for your trouble or risk!

Anyway, what really happens at the contractual level is a bait and switch where the bank baits the homeowner into believing the bank is lending them money, when in fact the bank is not lending any money, but rather is extending to the homeowner THEIR MONEY or CREDIT". Why on EARTH would anyone want to pay interest on their money! We certainly have been fooled. Now, the question is: Do you believe it? I would like to know.

Let me explain the "False Document" for now...more later...if you want.

Most people who are about to become homeowners naively sign a form that usually has in some form or another these two statements:

Statement number one: I, John Doe, being registered as owner of an estate in fee simple of the following lands,: (description of property).

Statement number two: In consideration of the sum of ( Principal Amount) lent to me by Bank XYZ, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged do hereby covenant as follows: ( mortgage terms and conditions.)

This is a FALSE contract to begin with because these TWO sworn statements are false!

1. John Doe is not the registered owner of the state before he signs.

2. John Doe has not been lent any money before he signs.

Now you MUST ask yourself why do the lawyer(s) get John Doe to sign under oath and penalty of perjury that they are the existing registered owner, and that the bank has already paid them the named Principal amount.

Do not think this is a mere technicality!

The bank places a HUGE reliance on this "False Receipt" mortgage clause for its funding! The bank uses this seemingly pre-funded security instrument to obtain "collateralized money". That is, money backed by some home, house, building or land. The bank immediately sells this document/loan and eventually it is securitized...more on that later.

It is the promise to pay by the borrower that is the money: the signature of the borrower is a valuable "STREAM OF INCOME". The bank has extended or monetized the CREDIT of the borrower. The BORROWER has created "NEW" money in the monetary system based on their ability to pay the principal and interest. (As a side note: Other borrowers must borrow to have this be a fully executable contract, another reason why this contract is false: it is unfulfillable if everyone were to stop borrowing. More money MUST be loaned into the system for the initial borrower to pay the principal AND THE INTEREST right after the borrower signed). ((You must see that the banks never lends out the interest demanded.))

As you must know, IF a writing, as in the above typical document, is a FALSE DOCUMENT as and when nominally executed or delivered, then NO SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT can cure that defect between the parties. THIS IS CRUCIAL!

Understanding this would solve all the problems you are having with the banks and with the settlement and with the foreclosures ....wouldn't it?.....

As you must know, the above document purports itself to be a pre-funded liability of the borrower, as and when issued, and which is objectively and demonstrably FALSE, as and when issued. It is in-fact an executory or unfunded-liability, purporting on its face to be an executed or pre-funded financial liability and security. It is a FORGERY in the ordinary legal sense in that it is "a document which tells a lie about itself."

7 Re: The Great Banking Deception on Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:24 am


OK, I fully agree with what is being said here, and that in itself (though there are many other things which make your mortgage fraudulent and therefore void) should be more than enough to put an end to the forclosures by the banks. So why isn't it working ?? The problem is with the Judicial System. If the Judges/Courts won't uphold the Laws or peoples rights and there is apparently no one to force the Judges to do their jobs both Legally and properly, how do we resolve this short of shooting a few of them ?? I really would like to know. It does have to stop, before the shooting does begin.

'Tis better to be thought a fool,than to speak and remove all doubt.
     Love,Laughter & Prosperity...  :Santa 3: 

8 Re: The Great Banking Deception on Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:31 pm


The secret has been discovered and is being implemented by an amazing group on the cutting edge of calling the "judiciary" to account to WtP. It actually applies to ALL public serv-ants who act in their hired capacity to serve WtP in their specific limited granted authority via their required Oath of office. THeir Oath and bond is the basis for WtP to trust they will indeed serve us faithfully as the beneficiaries of the original organic Constitution and the Bill of Rights & Amendments. Violation of their Oath is very serious offense so they can be brought to account under Title 42 (civillly) and Title 18 (criminally), peacefully, lawfully and quite effectively. has free info, seminars available & is showing much success in equipping WtP to live "Above the Line": Listen to Get Your Grounding (3 parts) to learn who you are, who they are and why they have no jurisdiction over you (unless you grant it to them- which we've been "taught" to do our whole life). Knowing WHo (and Whose) you are is so vitally FUNdamental to Life....

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum