The bankers absolute worst nightmare......REVEALED!
Claiming “our” Exemption:
Underlying Economic Principles:
A lot of efforts have been focused on
determining the validity of making a "claim against
our exemption". This "exemption" purports to be the
amount of credit available at a national level that
somehow represents our collective entitlement. In
short, we each potentially have "equity" in this
balance of credit.
We have generally been under the impression
that there is no alleged lender that loaned our nation
the greater portion of what we euphemistically refer
to as our National Debt. Rationally we know that no
such "third party" exists, rather the "lender" per se, is
really us - the collective citizens that are the bond for
that debt, or more correctly, we are the "credit
grantors". This ledger entry that is entered on the
books of the "nation" is entered as an off-setting
entry to the equivalent amount of "debt money" that
is issued and in circulation. Thus, the nation's books
reflect this National Debt as a positive, or "credit"
entry on our behalf, generally headed under "Savings
Account".
We, the citizens of the nation, being the
collective bond holders, or credit grantors, therefore
have a collective and/or individual pro rata claim to
the balance of this amount owing by the nation; it is
our "equity", or nominally, our “exemption”. We
were originally, and continue to be the only parties to
the cumulative transactions related to the ongoing
creation of this National Debt with capacity to have
brought any equity to the table.
Our collective share of equity, or entitlement
to this credit balance; our exemption, is tied to our
collective contribution, and is precisely equal to the
total "credit" we have historically "granted" to the
nation, whether in actual form or de facto. All of our
debt money; our currency is really instruments of
discharge, and one hundred percent of it was issued
into circulation against our collective credit, our
productivity as supported by our collective promises
to perform, our promissory notes, mortgages and
other security “instruments”, as well as our de facto
good faith, which stands behind government issued
credit instruments such as Treasury Bonds, Canada
Savings Bonds, etc.
Money exists because we have thusly
guaranteed its value. When we perform on this
guarantee; our promise to be productive (by meeting
credit obligations), our direct liability with respect to
our promissory notes is "discharged" and the
underlying debt money should then literally be "paid"
for, but generally it is not. It would only be paid for if
we were to use our fully discharged and receipted
instruments (promissory notes, etc.) as an off-set, or
claim against the credit balance (exemption). We
don't!
Woe to us for the reality of what it is that we
do! We "gift" our discharged (paid for) notes to our
banker that originally "issued" the credit on our
behalf; that banker that was licensed to cause the
corresponding increase in the supply of debt money.
This banker-former "credit issuer" (not "credit
grantor"), becomes the holder-in-due-course of our
promissory notes that originally caused the
commensurate issue of new debt money. That holder-in-
due-course is now holding the entitlement to the
equity in the nation's credit. That holder-in-due-course
is the only party holding an instrument that
can be used as an off-set or claim against the credit
balance.
We may even be doing worse than this!
Technically, or "legally", the banks have become the
holder-in-due-course to any claim against our
exemption credit balance, with/by our written (albeit
unwitting) consent. Mortgages and loan agreements
virtually stipulate this intended result in advance of it
actually occurring. The language used is tantamount
to deliberate deception, but nonetheless it states what
it effects - our tacit agreement to the “gift”.
Mortgages generally, have a clause that
effectively demands that the nominal borrower
deliver all rights, title and interests to the title of the
subject property to the bank (the alleged lender) in
perpetuity. The same mortgage generally, has a
clause that states the bank is only obligated to
"discharge" its security interest in the title, with no
mention of delivering said title back to the nominal
borrower.
When you study the wording of the Bills of
Exchange Act, it becomes clear why these things are
so. All "payment obligations" made pursuant to
mortgages (or any alleged loan for that matter) are
defined generally, and are set out quite clearly as to
be made by delivery of some form of “bill of
exchange”, or instrument of discharge, including, but
not limited to "cash". Hence the reality of delivery of
payment as required pursuant to such a mortgage,
only serves to discharge the liability, not to
extinguish the alleged or actual debt.
That is what the "instrument" says on the
face of it. Failure to demand the return of the
discharged mortgage instrument causes that
instrument to become the property of the "holder". It
is still an outstanding "debt", as it has not been
"paid". Any delivery of the defined "payments” only
causes your own personal liability to be "discharged".
This being the case with a mortgage for
example, the bank could not deliver title back
unencumbered. Hence their rationale for not agreeing
to within the wording of the instrument itself. Any
such written agreement to return the title to you
would require absolute payment, and in these
circumstances where payment only serves to
discharge the liability (not extinguish the debt), the
mere act of agreeing to return the title would be
fraudulent on their part. All they could agree to do is
what they have done, and that is to "discharge" your
liability in consideration of your meeting the defined
payment obligations (delivery of bills of exchange).
Once your liability is discharged and the
bank's possession of the as yet "un-paid" instrument
has been effected, the bank simply re-assigns the
remaining and actual obligation/liability as an off-set
to the "credit" balance owing to us by the nation (the
National Debt); your share of the credit now in their
favour!
Hence all previously or currently mortgaged
properties, including any First Nations "Indian"
Reserves, whether or not "payment" has been
delivered pursuant to said mortgages, are and remain
fully encumbered to the extent cumulatively, of all
previous mortgages nominally secured by that
property. Further, the actual titles to these properties
have never been returned to the party causing any
such "discharge(s)", because that party has not
actually "paid" in substance, only in manner of
discharge/re-assignment of the obligation. This is the
only real reason behind why we can only obtain an
"abstract", or "certificate" of title to our real property.
All previous alleged loans of every type, not
just mortgages, have been issued with the underlying
intent to defraud us out of any just equity claim that
we might have in our collective "credit"; our
exemption. When we qualify for credit, we "hold" a
potential right to claim that proportionate amount,
just as soon as we deliver "payment" as required, but
only if we demand return of our mortgage, loan or
promissory note (the "instruments" per se), as
evidence of our claim.
That payment as required is consistently
defined as some form of "Bill of Exchange" (which
we should now understand why), and subsequently,
when after we have made it, we then habitually
forfeit our promissory note (or instrument), the bank
then becomes the holder-in-due-course of that note or
instrument, which then evidences their claim to our
credit exemption, which they make in our stead but
not on our behalf! No wonder they do not want us to
ask for the return of our actual security instruments!
Summarily speaking, the banks hold the
mortgage paper and all other loan security
instruments, as de facto "holder-in-due-course". Thus
in the event of financial collapse, real or fabricated,
the national debt or more correctly, the people's
collective credit; nominally the Treasury Account,
which represents an amount owed to us, is now held
by the banks. It is in direct pro-rata proportion to
what we have collectively qualified for in terms of
prior credit, causing the commensurate issue of new
money into circulation, and it represents that amount
of labour we have expended to "discharge" our
respective liabilities. It means that we have actually
paid for it (our exemption entitlement) with our real
productivity, but it also means we have actually given
away our right to claim it to a party that has
contributed (produced) nothing at all!
Furthering this example, in the event of
financial collapse, real or fabricated, the banks as
holders-in-due-course of all of the historically issued
security instruments, literally own all properties and
all credit receivables. Thus the rest of us literally,
have nothing, unless we can orchestrate a successful
and viable alternative method to facilitate the
exchange of our productivity. And even that is
limited to whatever we may be able to produce on
"their" land, unless we can figure out how to “pay”
for it in “substance”, (which would require delivery
and acceptance of some form of “legal tender” or
acceptable production).
In the event of such a financial failure, even
if we look at someone like Bill Gates who allegedly
has some $60 billion in so-called "cash", he would
still have nothing because the banks would have
evidence of their prior claim to any of the credit
balance that lies behind and thus secures the issued
debt dollars (cash) he held in his various deposit
accounts. In other words, all of his prior "credit" was
"willingly" and cumulatively assigned by him to his
creditors whenever he "borrowed" money, which by
manner of mathematics can be easily deduced to have
been a much greater amount than any surplus of
residual cash he may possess.
His possession of the "debt" dollar
instruments on deposit in “cheque-book” or
electronic form, is literally like his getting stuck
holding the hot potato. Unless he can provide actual
payment (which by definition would require delivery
and acceptance of some actual payment or
production) to extinguish the liability associated with
his $60 billion in debt dollars, his prior creditors
would simply "call" his obligation. He is after all, the
holder-in-due-course of the debt dollar account
balances, the debt instruments, hence he will be the
one caught in possession of the last remaining debt
obligation - with no conceivable means of paying it,
and his only prior means of off-setting it, now snugly
held in the hands of his former bankers. He will not
just have nothing like the rest of us, he will simply
have a lot more of nothing!
Is it yet clear that it matters not how
fraudulent were the circumstances behind the original
issue of a Bill of Exchange, rather it matters only to
the holder-in-due-course that the signature is
genuine! This may be more than just another good
reason to consider barter! And it may be more than
just another good reason to promote radical change in
our thinking generally!
[above..written by Jack Harper -- kissin' cousin of Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper]
