I know some people whom are being hounded by creditors, due to no fault of their own making. I would like to present these arguments, as they are being sued by the 'bank.' I would like to say that there is no injured party. The bank did not loan any actual monies it received from real persons. The bank created monies, from a claim of fractional reserves. The monies did not exist before, were simply created out of thin air, there for there is no injured party. The bank did not lose any actual monies.
--
I wish this argument would work at the present time. At most, I would want the judge to rule on many elements, and approve one of the many. Your thoughts?
There was a historical case where a US judge ruled exactly that, as the bank could not prove that they had actually provided a "consideration" when "offering" the defendant his mortgage. Needless to say, the aforementioned judge subsequently met with an early demise...
Regarding your point on how to stop it; the common law equitable lien process is the solution to mortgage fraud.
Under the common law, a lien right to seek a non-judicial remedy arises when a party commits a civil wrong doing against another party, who suffers loss, injury or damage, as per the English law of liens in Halsburys laws of England.
You guys have a brilliant arrangement with that UCT stuff. Very comprehensive! I’ve been watching the two Michaels for several years.
I'm focused on exposing their fraudulent accounting because the evidence is written in the banker’s WORDS, delivered to the customer on day one. Any competent CPA or forensic accountant should be able to spot it in 5 minutes. Maybe it can become part of your toolkit?
I recall seeing a recent (this year) video from Richard Werner where he details how he delved into the accounts and databases of a big German commercial bank (for his research, he's a Professor at a university so they gave him permission) to see where loan funds actually come from. His conclusion was what we have all suspected, they just get created out of nothing.
You’re right. Prof. Richard Werner borrowed €200,000 from “Raiffeisenbank” (Bavaria) on 7 August 2013, transferred it out of his “loan account” the following day, then paid it back . His journal article describing it is at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.07.015
Unfortunately, Werner can’t tell the full story in a journal article like that, but in a Twitter exchange in 2022, he told me that the process he saw "looks fraudulent".
The full story is that “creating Credit out of nothing” is the bank magician’s false claim, because it is impossible. It’s not just impossible; merely attempting to do it is illegal. It’s the same fraud as “creating a Debit out of nothing”, which is what you try to do if you draw a cheque for $1,000 when you know the Credit balance in your account is $0.00Cr. You could be sued for fraud if you did that, and so could the bank if it claims to “create Credit out of nothing”.
The mystery still surrounding “Credit creation” requires accounting knowledge to unravel.
Credit like this can only appear in the accounting record *after* something causes the bank to create a Debit. That order is implicit.
The *creation* process can’t begin unless the customer first signs a very valuable document and delivers (deposits) it into the bank.
The value of that deposit is represented by a “Debit” in the bank’s asset account; which forces them to write its matching Credit in their liability account. The accounting is similar when you deposit $1,000 in cash. The bank first gets the cash (debited to an asset account), THEN you get the Credit. You’ll never get Credit in a bank if you don’t first deposit “the value” yourself.
Those TWO entries, the *creative* Debit (from the deposit) and its matching Credit, are both needed to record the effects of that SINGLE deposit transaction (the customer’s document).
In the case I report, the bank is simply accepting a valuable deposit and creating a false account (telling a porky) by describing that DEPOSIT as a WITHDRAWAL (“Drawdown”) which they then pretend to lend to the customer, knowing they have stolen it from him.
Isn’t that just fractional reserve banking though? And with the fraction set to 0% in UK, USA, Australia and Canada, they can create infinite amounts of magic money like that.
So effectively the commercial banks have the same powers as the central banks in terms of money creation and they simply create money out of IOU's? I'm going to have to invest some time to read Warner's papers more closely to understand it.
What do you mean "without first stealing it from you"?
A lawyer described it to me as "conversion of a negotiable instrument". I translated that to "stealing".
Basically, a bank can't lend something it doesn't own. A Credit Balance is a bank liability. That also means its the asset of the bank customer. Saying "the customer OWNS it" is another way of saying "the bank OWES it to him".
If you want to "lend" someone something they already OWN, you first have to convince them that they DON'T own it, and that you DO.
When a bank takes the stance that it CAN lend you your own Credit Balance, it's *implying* that it owns it and *acting as though* it does. It's a "magic trick"!. And we keep falling for it.
I know some people whom are being hounded by creditors, due to no fault of their own making. I would like to present these arguments, as they are being sued by the 'bank.' I would like to say that there is no injured party. The bank did not loan any actual monies it received from real persons. The bank created monies, from a claim of fractional reserves. The monies did not exist before, were simply created out of thin air, there for there is no injured party. The bank did not lose any actual monies.
--
I wish this argument would work at the present time. At most, I would want the judge to rule on many elements, and approve one of the many. Your thoughts?
I can’t give you legal advice. Legal arguments are for legal experts.
My advice? Forget about “fractional reserves”! Try reading and understanding Richard Werner’s three papers on his experimental bank loan.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.07.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.10.013
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2015.08.014
There was a historical case where a US judge ruled exactly that, as the bank could not prove that they had actually provided a "consideration" when "offering" the defendant his mortgage. Needless to say, the aforementioned judge subsequently met with an early demise...
Regarding your point on how to stop it; the common law equitable lien process is the solution to mortgage fraud.
Under the common law, a lien right to seek a non-judicial remedy arises when a party commits a civil wrong doing against another party, who suffers loss, injury or damage, as per the English law of liens in Halsburys laws of England.
https://www.thebernician.net/mortgage-fraud-101-the-commercial-lien-process/
Once the lien is perfected after 90 days of non rebuttal, it becomes an account receivable capable of deposit.
More info here https://yummy.doctor/video-list/know-thyself-take-charge-of-your-mortgage-amandha-vollmer-adv-with-michael-obernicia/
Hi Calvin,
You guys have a brilliant arrangement with that UCT stuff. Very comprehensive! I’ve been watching the two Michaels for several years.
I'm focused on exposing their fraudulent accounting because the evidence is written in the banker’s WORDS, delivered to the customer on day one. Any competent CPA or forensic accountant should be able to spot it in 5 minutes. Maybe it can become part of your toolkit?
Sure. Reach out to Michael O'Deira on his rogue male website. The more of us that expose this fraud the better.
https://roguemale.org/
Do you mean the " Credit River" case? I have the court transcript. You can read about it here: https://mn.gov/law-library/legal-topics/copy-of-credit-river-case.jsp
I recall seeing a recent (this year) video from Richard Werner where he details how he delved into the accounts and databases of a big German commercial bank (for his research, he's a Professor at a university so they gave him permission) to see where loan funds actually come from. His conclusion was what we have all suspected, they just get created out of nothing.
You’re right. Prof. Richard Werner borrowed €200,000 from “Raiffeisenbank” (Bavaria) on 7 August 2013, transferred it out of his “loan account” the following day, then paid it back . His journal article describing it is at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.07.015
Unfortunately, Werner can’t tell the full story in a journal article like that, but in a Twitter exchange in 2022, he told me that the process he saw "looks fraudulent".
The full story is that “creating Credit out of nothing” is the bank magician’s false claim, because it is impossible. It’s not just impossible; merely attempting to do it is illegal. It’s the same fraud as “creating a Debit out of nothing”, which is what you try to do if you draw a cheque for $1,000 when you know the Credit balance in your account is $0.00Cr. You could be sued for fraud if you did that, and so could the bank if it claims to “create Credit out of nothing”.
The mystery still surrounding “Credit creation” requires accounting knowledge to unravel.
Credit like this can only appear in the accounting record *after* something causes the bank to create a Debit. That order is implicit.
The *creation* process can’t begin unless the customer first signs a very valuable document and delivers (deposits) it into the bank.
The value of that deposit is represented by a “Debit” in the bank’s asset account; which forces them to write its matching Credit in their liability account. The accounting is similar when you deposit $1,000 in cash. The bank first gets the cash (debited to an asset account), THEN you get the Credit. You’ll never get Credit in a bank if you don’t first deposit “the value” yourself.
Those TWO entries, the *creative* Debit (from the deposit) and its matching Credit, are both needed to record the effects of that SINGLE deposit transaction (the customer’s document).
In the case I report, the bank is simply accepting a valuable deposit and creating a false account (telling a porky) by describing that DEPOSIT as a WITHDRAWAL (“Drawdown”) which they then pretend to lend to the customer, knowing they have stolen it from him.
Isn’t that just fractional reserve banking though? And with the fraction set to 0% in UK, USA, Australia and Canada, they can create infinite amounts of magic money like that.
No. Werner's three papers about his experimental loan in Germany dismantled the "fractional reserve" theory, completely.
Banks don't lend reserves!.
They don't lend anything they possess.
They pretend to "lend" you your own credit., which you create with your promise-to-pay.
They can't lend it to you without first stealing it from you.
So effectively the commercial banks have the same powers as the central banks in terms of money creation and they simply create money out of IOU's? I'm going to have to invest some time to read Warner's papers more closely to understand it.
What do you mean "without first stealing it from you"?
A lawyer described it to me as "conversion of a negotiable instrument". I translated that to "stealing".
Basically, a bank can't lend something it doesn't own. A Credit Balance is a bank liability. That also means its the asset of the bank customer. Saying "the customer OWNS it" is another way of saying "the bank OWES it to him".
If you want to "lend" someone something they already OWN, you first have to convince them that they DON'T own it, and that you DO.
When a bank takes the stance that it CAN lend you your own Credit Balance, it's *implying* that it owns it and *acting as though* it does. It's a "magic trick"!. And we keep falling for it.