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