Love for Life

The Bankers Absolute Worst Nightmare.....REVEALED!
by Jack Harper
10th June 2008

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!