Friday, July 06, 2007
You Got to Admire (06-11-07)
I will give Mr. Alsup credit for his zeal. For what ever his political commitments might be he has made it clear he will do what it takes to secure them. A recent example of his extraordinary behavior was his interference in our administrative procedures. We sent a Freedom of Information Act to the clerk of the court and Mr. Alsup issued an order denying our relief. This is non-judicial and the clerk could have responded with the same content as the judge’s order. This makes one wonder if this is the move of a coward trying to guard his assets as it were. The foia was for some sensitive information that of course would blow apart their fraud. To me, Mr. Alsup has done all he can in every ruling opportunity to keep us away from that holy grail of the actual commercial contracts and transactions involved in this case. He wants desperately for his foolish presumption to become fact. My desire for obtaining the truth requires far less energy than protecting a lie. We’ve all met those people who have so many balls in the air trying to juggle the lie’s exposure. It’s a lot of work. The truth has a way of just being present.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Ezekiel 11
1Moreover the spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the LORD's house, which looketh eastward: and behold at the door of the gate five and twenty men; among whom I saw Jaazaniah the son of Azur, and Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, princes of the people.
2Then said he unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city:
3Which say, It is not near; let us build houses: this city is the caldron, and we be the flesh.
4Therefore prophesy against them, prophesy, O son of man.
5And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them.
6Ye have multiplied your slain in this city, and ye have filled the streets thereof with the slain.
7Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Your slain whom ye have laid in the midst of it, they are the flesh, and this city is the caldron: but I will bring you forth out of the midst of it.
8Ye have feared the sword; and I will bring a sword upon you, saith the Lord GOD.
9And I will bring you out of the midst thereof, and deliver you into the hands of strangers, and will execute judgments among you.
10Ye shall fall by the sword; I will judge you in the border of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
11This city shall not be your caldron, neither shall ye be the flesh in the midst thereof; but I will judge you in the border of Israel:
12And ye shall know that I am the LORD: for ye have not walked in my statutes, neither executed my judgments, but have done after the manners of the heathen that are round about you.
13And it came to pass, when I prophesied, that Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died.
THE LORD GAVE ME THIS SCRIPTURE LAST YEAR CONCERNING THIS CASE...THIS MRONING I OPENED UP MY BIBLE AND IT FELL ON THE SAME PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE. I DONT KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHO ITS FOR BUT THERE ARE MEN (OR MAYBE ONE PARTICULAR MAN)WHO ARE CONNECTED TO THIS CASE IN SOME WAY WHO ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF MISCHIEF AND OBSTRUCTION....THIS PERSON(S) IS ON TRIAL IN THE COURT OF THE ALMIGHTY RIGHT NOW (AND YOU THOUGHT IT WAS K&S ON TRIAL) AND IF THEY ARE LOOKING AT THIS BLOG RIGHT NOW THEY NEED TO REPENT AND CHANGE THEIR WAYS QUICKLY. THEY NEED TO REALIZE THAT G-D GIVES US A CHANCE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT BUT WHEN WE CONTINUE TO RAIL AGAINST HIS PEOPLE WE ARE ON DANGEROUS GROUND WITH HIM. HE ALLOWS HIS PEOPLE TO EXPERIENCE PERSECUTION AT THE HANDS OF MEN FOR A SEASON BUT THEN THOSE MEN START TO ACT AROGENT AND THEN THINGS START TO BOOMERANG BACK AT THEM BUT WITH GREATER FORCE.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS IS WHEN HEROD HAD JAMES KILLED AND WANTED TO DO THE SAME WITH PETER...THEN THE CHURCH PRAYED AND THE ONE WHO ENDED UP DEAD WAS HEROD.
I KNOW THIS SOUNDS HARSH AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT COMING FROM ME (OBVIOUSLY) BUT I BELIEVE THE SPIRIT OF G-D. I HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE...ONLY YOU DO AND G-D DOES SO YOU HAVE TO ANSWER TO G-D. WHOEVER YOU ARE I HOPE YOU HEAR AND OBEY G-D...HE IS THE RIGHTEOUS JUDGE.
what happen now that mr. wanton soup has file a "writ of mendacity"??
this mean that the govt. have the mendacity to not pay up??
those mendacious #@%*#@$
now herod, HE was one MENDACIOUS b*****rd! whew!!!!!
when he know he was gonna die, that mofo have everybody kill....
borhters, sistas, kids, aunts, uncles, every mofo was history with him.
it like, if i go, then everybody gonna go too......na na na na na......hey hey hey, good bye!!!!
SOP 1 thru 1000. Please, please, please just shut up and go away. Can you not see that most all of us on this blog are sick and tired of your bloviations. Please go somewhere else to post your inane ramblings.
dg, i mean pg,
i acutely honored that yo read my potst......
SOP, Did I say I read your posts? Don't flatter yourself.
S skip
O over
P post
I admire Bill Alsup like the dog shit stuck to the bottom of my shoe.I admire Alberto(Gonzo)Gonzales standing in front of congress, the press and the American people,under oath.testifying he can't remember shit about squat.According to the few ,nothing means anything.Untill they wan't to use it against you in a court of law.Call up the IRS and the State and tell them you want your name in lower case.They will tell you its crock,dumb,meaningless,twist,delusional,fiction,obfuscate,self aggranizement,general ineptitude,general incompetence,gibberish,rantings and your a dumb idiot to think other wise. You forgot the grand daddy of legal word smithing. Frivolous.
ok, wantnot, yo had enuf time to collect yo money. too much time.
now i gonna do it my way like f stinara do it....
===============================
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENACTING YOUR TREATY AS LAW
PURPOSE: As a Creditor of UNITED STATES and all other sub-corporations private and public, you are owed equity and interest for the gold and all property that you "loaned" them starting March 9, 1933 to date. There is NO MONEY. In order to start getting your equity back, you must NOTICE your DEBTORS of what you expect them to do and the consequences if they do not comply, but first you must ESTABLISH THE LAW. Your treaty is a contract to the WHOLE WORLD and tells the world what you want and how things are going to be done in this CREDITOR/DEBTOR relationship. This file contains all the documents you will need to PERFECT YOUR LIEN and TAKE BACK YOUR EQUITY;
A. Instructions
B. Treaty
C. Notice of Default and Entry of Assent to Contract
D. Certificate of Assent - from a third party witness saying no response was received
E. Notice of Commercial Lien - to be recorded at the County Recorder
1. The following steps are sequence of events that must occur to get your treaty established and enacted as the supreme law of the land.
a. Word process the Treaty for all of the correct information
b. Print the Treaty out, read it several times for correctness and MAKE SURE YOU DESIGNATE A THIRD PARTY RECEIVER WITH NAME AND ADDRESS, then get it notarized
c. Send the Treaty by registered mail, return receipt so you have proof that they received your Contract you are in the process of creating.
d. If you have not received a response in twenty (20) days, send Notice of Default and Entry of Assent to Contract allowing Respondents ten (10) additional days to respond.
e. Send the copies of the above documents to the Respondent(s) and keep the originals
f. After ten (10) additional days get take the Certificate of Assent to the THIRD PARTY RECEIVER and have them Notarize their signature.
g. Word process the NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL LIEN and notarize it
h. Take all of the Notices that you have done from the Treaty and arrange them in a package from the first on the bottom to the Certificate of Assent on the top.
i. Place the NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL LIEN on top of the package, copy the package, then staple the original together, then record the document at the County Recorder. Take the receipt of the recording, make a copy and send it along with the copy of the lien you just recorded to the Respondents.
j. File a UCC-1 Financing statement with SECRETARY OF STATE for your state, with Henry Paulson, US SECRETARY OF TREASURY as the DEBTOR, for $100 Billion, and you the CREDITOR and assign the security interest to a TRUST with you as BENEFICIARY, a third party as TRUSTEE and the DEBTOR (corporation) as GRANTOR/TRUSTOR. No documents need to be drawn up for the Trust and it does not need to be recorded - ANYWHERE - because it is a PRIVATE TRUST. You do not need to file all of the other notices with the UCC-1, but you do need to reference the county docket and page or filing number. The reason you use a trust is that it is a third party (like the banks use - such as a Title Company or a Reconveyance company) and therefore a witness if this is ever brought up in court. For reference look up UCC 1-202, and Blacks Dictionary under prima facie evidence. You will see that this cannot be refuted unless by other similar evidence.
k. Within a month after you recorded the COMMERCIAL LIEN, send Respondent, now as DEBTOR, a NOTICE OF DEBT COLLECTION giving them 30 additional days to pay you the amount of the lien. Notice them again in 60 days.
2. You now have a perfected lien that has been seasoned. You can do several things at this point;
3. You can deposit this lien in a bank as a Certificate of Deposit and get a whopping 4% annual interest rate
4. You could sell it for cash (at a discount) at anywhere from 25 - 90% of face value.
5. Keep the lien and pay for products you want, such as vehicles or real estate, by filing a UCC-3 as a partial assignment of the lien until you have used it up.
6. You could initiate involuntary bankruptcy where you have a forced sale of the Respondent's property. This is the exact procedure the banks use to take property from people and never set foot in the courtroom. This is basically how the IRS takes away property;
a. When the Respondent does not pay you, this is called a BREACH. You see, the Trust (testator) actually "dies" when the trust is breached and as a result, the first Trustee becomes the grantor and has to be substituted by a third party in order to execute or carry out the Deed (the will) by liquidating the property. You will need to make a second TRUST and SUBSTITUTE the first Trustee so they can record a Notice of Trustee Sale in 60 days if the Respondent breaches.
b. After 60-90 days from the time you recorded the lien, record 2 documents;
1. Notice of Substitution of Trustee Sale - the cover page
2. Statement of Breach and Non-Performance - attachment
c. Have the Trustee that you substituted sign by notary the Notice of Trustee Sale, then record it at the county Recorders. This action gives the Respondent 90 days to pay you the amount owed or you have a public Sale, in which all of the collateral goes up for auction and the highest bidder gets the collateral. You keep selling off their collateral until you satisfy the lien. Designate a public place where you are going to have the public auction. Then advertise it in the local monthly paper that lists all of the foreclosures, and Trustee Sales for 90 days. Also put a copy on the public notice board at the Superior Court where all the other foreclosures are advertised.
d. When sale day comes, have the Trustee describe the property by reading the Notice of Trustee Sale, which includes giving the legal description and amount against the lien. Whoever is going to bid must have in their possession $1,000.00 cash, not a check or money order. Start opening bids and keep a record of who is bidding and how much they bid. The last one to bid is the winner.
e. The Substituted Trustee then gives the highest bidder a TRUSTEE'S DEED, which is signed, notarized and recorded.
f. If no one shows up, then the property you listed as collateral is yours. The Substitute Trustee then gives you a TRUSTEE'S DEED, which is prima facie evidence in any court if challenged.
g. If the collateral is real estate, you can now have a Realtor sell it, or sell it your self.
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. IT IS CERTAIN THAT THERE WILL BE IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS PROCESS AND WE WILL STRIVE TO GET THE INFORMATION TO YOU. IN THE MEANTIME, LEARN IT, IMPROVE ON IT YOURSELF, AND SPREAD IT TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW WHO WANTS TO COLLECT MUCHO $$$$$ AND IS DETERMINED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF THEIR WORLD.
j. File a UCC-1 Financing statement with SECRETARY OF STATE for your state, with Henry Paulson, US SECRETARY OF TREASURY as the DEBTOR, for $100 Billion, and you the CREDITOR and assign the security interest to a TRUST with you as BENEFICIARY, ....
==============================
"PARA J" above is a mistake. The correct amount should read $4.5 Trillion....not a measly $100 Billion. What can yo buy with that?
All inquiries are frivolous unless deemed otherwise to have legal merit, so says the man hiding behind the curtain wearing a tutu.
Let's continue to support K&S!
SOP this is not the place to just post and post these long drawn out comments or advise.
Take it to another forum. Maybe Neo's
When they started with the lie they had to continue to lie and protect that lie.
They're attempts to discourage have not worked.
I stand and remain in the battle!
Notarial dissent: Refute these publications!!!! Do you know any court cases that said that these federal reserve publications CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE? "Economic theory" it is not. If you think so, then explain the theories in context of how it's explained. It is all presented as factual as to how the lending process works. All the different publications from the different Federal Reserve Banks seem to agree how the process works.
This post may be long, but I can't understand why all of this information is just written off or ignored. I've never heard any comments on this stuff ever in the lender's favor on any blog.
I'm particulary interested in your response to these statements:
1. Loans are made by crediting the borrower’s deposit account, i.e., by creating ADDITIONAL deposit money.” Seems to me your journal entries you gave me DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT!!!!! How come?
2. The actual process of MONEY CREATION takes place primarily in banks.”
3. "Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. WHAT THEY DO WHEN THEY MAKE LOANS IS TO ACCEPT PROMISSORY NOTES IN EXCHANGE FOR CREDITS TO THE BORROWERS' TRANSACTION ACCOUNTS. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions."
4. Does the bank owe us the money that is in our account? If not, then you agree there is not equal protection under the law, right?
If reserves are unchanged, there can't be a legitimate loan where the lender risked their own assets. If the lender risked their own assets, there would be no "money creation" or "additional deposit money".
Let's hear your explanation of what you call "economic theory" in light of what is really being said.
___________________________________
FROM THE HORSES MOUTH
THE FEDERAL RESERVE ON MONETIZING YOUR PROMISSORY NOTE
I recently requested copies of various publications published by several branches of the Federal Reserve Bank. The quotes reproduced below are taken verbatim from several of these publications. They explain that the customer of a bank is the depositor when he obtains a loan and that he is entitled to the return of his deposit. The explanations you will read below admit that banks or depository institutions within the Federal Reserve System do not loan money from their own assets but rather, they create money by simply entering the amount created or crediting it in an accounting ledger.
Hats the Federal Reserve Wears
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
PO Box 66
Philadelphia, PA 19105-0066
215-574-6115
Paragraph 6, Paragraph 3:
“Money for loans comes from two sources: 1) people who have saved and are willing to lend their savings; and 2) institutions such as banks, which have the power, within limits, to CREATE MONEY in checking-type accounts when they make loans.”
Paragraph 8, Paragraph 3:
“Federal Reserve notes are the only kind of paper money issued today.”
Modern Money Mechanics
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Public Information Center
PO Box 834
Chicago, IL 60690-0834
312-322-5111
Page 3, Second Column, Paragraph 1:
“Who Creates Money? … The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. … checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers’ accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrower’ accounts. …
Page 7, Example 3, Expansion-Stage 1:
“Expansion takes place only if the banks that hold these excess reserves increase their loans or investments. Loans are made by crediting the borrower’s deposit account, i.e., by creating additional deposit money.”
“Stage 7: Expansion continues as the banks that have excess reserves increase their loans by that amount, crediting borrowers’ deposit accounts in the process, thus creating still more money.”
“In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries. The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.”
As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers’ accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers’ accounts.
In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency. This unique attribute of the banking business was discovered many centuries ago.
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.
Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could ‘spend’ by writing checks, thereby ‘printing’ their own money. – Page 3
If business is active, the banks with excess reserves probably will have opportunities to loan the $9,000. Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system. Page 6.
Page 24 says: “Loans add to bank deposits.” The June 1992 edition shows standard bookkeeping entries from Page 7 to 33 proving that money is recorded as a bank asset and a bank liability is evidence of money a bank owes. The bookkeeping entries prove that banks accept cash, checks, drafts and promissory notes as money deposited to create checkbook money, which are bank liabilities which shows that the bank owes money to the one who deposited money at the bank.
Page 6 says, “What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange (an exchange or swap is not a loan) for credits to the borrowers transaction accounts” (emphasis added). Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise. Then the next sentence explains that the bank assets and liabilities increase by the amount of the alleged loan. “Bank do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created.” (emphasis added).
________________________________________________________________________
I BET YOU THOUGHT..... – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK
“Banks create money by monetizing debt.” For example, if the Fractional Reserve is 10%, a bank that has on deposit $1 million (10% of $10 million) can loan an additional $9 million, money the banks don’t actually have-they’ve created money!
Checkbook money is ‘created’ by currency deposits. Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars
To accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower’s IOU.
Money creation bookkeeping isn’t gimmickry. Far from it. Banks are creating money based on a borrower’s promise to repay (the IOU), which in turn, is often secured or backed by valuable items the borrower owns (collateral).
Banks create money by ‘monetizing’ the private debts of business, individuals and governments. That is, they create amounts of money against the value of those IOU’s.
To create money, however, banks must have ‘excess’ reserves, funds exceeding those they are legally required to hold.
If a bank has excess reserves, it can create an amount of money equal to the excess, it can grant a loan. Borrowers write checks against their new deposits. When these checks are deposited at other banks, those banks collect payment from the borrower’s bank. Bankers know that when other banks present borrower’s checks for payment, they will have to transfer reserves on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
Page 5 says, “money doesn’t have to be intrinsically valuable, be issued by a government or be in any special form.”
Page 27 explains that the banks create new money by depositing IOU’s, promissory notes, offset by a bank liability called a checking account balance. Deposit creation, rather than currency deposits, accounts for most of the $375 billion of checkbook money.
Money is not limited to cash. Money is anything that has value and banks or people accept as money and money does not have to be issued by the government. Page 9 explains that cash and checkbook money have equal value.
_______________________________________________________________________
I BET YOU THOUGHT- FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF BOSTON
“There are no longer any specific backing requirements for Federal Reserve Notes.”
“Banks create money by monetizing debt.”
_______________________________________________________________________
MONEY, BANKING & MONETARY POLICY – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
It may not seem to make much sense, but banks actually ‘create’ money when they lend it. – Page 9.
Banks actually create money when they lend it. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does... This page also explains that when banks grant loans, they create new money. – Page
_______________________________________________________________________
BANKING BASICS – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF BOSTON
Contrary To popular belief, credit cards are not a form of money even though people often refer to them as ‘plastic money’. Credit cards users are actually taking out a loan.... Page 20.
___________________
TWO FACES OF DEBT – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO
Public Information Center, PO Box 834, Chicago, IL 60690-0834
(312) 322-5111
Page 19, Paragraph 3-5: “In their publication, the Federal Reserve admits to converting loan applications into money. They also admit to an obligation to return this money to their customers upon demand, just as they would return checks or cash that has been deposited into their bank.
Paragraph 3: “For an individual institution, they arise typically when a depositor brings in currency or checks drawn on other institutions. The depositor’s balance rises, but the currency he or she holds or the deposits someone else holds are reduced a corresponding amount. The total money supply is not changed.”
Editorial comment/Clarification:
From this paragraph, we conclude that when you deposit checks or cash into your account, the total money supply does not increase. Think about it. If you deposit a check at your bank, your account balance increases, but the account from which your check was written decreases an equal amount. If you are depositing cash, you are simply transferring money from one person to another person, or from one account to another account.
Paragraph 4: “But a depositor’s balance also rises when the depository institution extends credit, either by granting a loan to or buying securities from the depositor. In exchange for the note or security, the lending or investing institution credits the depositor’s account or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution. In this case, no one else loses a deposit. The total of currency and checkable deposits, the money supply is increased. NEW MONEY HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY EXPANSION OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION CREDIT. SUCH NEWLY CREATED FUNDS ARE IN ADDITION TO FUNDS THAT ALL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS PROVIDE IN THEIR OPERATIONS AS INTERMEDIARIES BETWEEN SAVERS AND USERS OF SAVINGS.”
Editorial comment/Clarification:
If through extending credit “new money is brought into existence” and if this money is in “addition to funds” other than what the institution provides in their operations, then, it is obvious that the lender does not loan any of their own assets or the assets of the depositors when a loan is given or when they “extend credit”.
“In exchange for the note..” (“the note” refers to your completed credit card or loan application, which is considered a promissory note) “...the lending or investing institution credits the depositor’s account ...” (creating your account and depositing the money into your account amounts to the same thing)
“...or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution.” (if they can write a check from your application/promissory and give it to another bank, this is further confirmation that your application has been converted into money)
“...the money supply is increased. New money has been brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit.” (if the money created from your loan application causes the money supply to be increased, and it is “new money,” it brings up the question—where did the money come from?) It was derived from your signature, which is your personal property. Since the banks have created the money using your personal property, it is your money. This means the banks are paying for your credit card purchases with money that belongs to you!
Paragraph 5: “But individual depository institutions cannot expand credit and create deposits without limit. (don’t you fee sorry for them) Furthermore, most of the deposits they create are soon transferred to other institutions. A DEPOSIT (OF MONEY) CREATED THROUGH LENDING (FROM YOUR LOAN APPLICATION) IS A DEBT THAT HAS TO BE PAID ON DEMAND OF THE DEPOSITOR, (THAT’S YOU) JUST THE SAME AS THE DEBT ARISING FROM A CUSTOMER’S DEPOSIT OF CHECKS OR CURRENCY IN THE BANK.”
Other characteristics that vary with types of debt are the collateral a borrower offers, if any, the contractual arrangement for payment of interest and principal, and the
negotiability of the debt instrument itself. – Page 1
In addition to issuing securities, the federal government, through the Federal Reserve System, issues non-interest-bearing debt-currency or paper money. Currency is so widely accepted as a medium of exchange that most people do not think of it as a debt. Technically, however, Federal Reserve notes are liabilities- Page 4.
Debt provides a money creation function. It also provides a means of creating entirely new funds – funds needed to finance the greater volume of new projects and spending that contribute to economic growth.
New money has been brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit – Page 18 & 19.
_______________________________________________________________________
TWO FACES OF DEBT – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK
“In addition to securities (IOU’s) the Fed issues debt as money. Most people did not realize that debts are assets.”
________________________________________________________________________
Points of Interest
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Public Information Center
PO Box 834
Chicago, IL 60690-0834
312-322-5111
Page 6-7, Paragraphs 7-10:
Banks and Deposit Creation: “Depository institutions, which for simplicity we will call banks, are different from other financial institutions because they offer checking accounts and make loans by lending checkbook deposits. The deposit creation activity, essentially creating money, affects interest rates because these deposits are part of savings, the source of the supply of credit. Banks create deposits by making loans. Rather than handing cash to borrowers, banks simply increase balances in borrowers’ checking accounts. Borrowers can then draw checks to pay for goods and services. This creation of checking accounts through loans is just as much a deposit as one we might make by pushing a ten-dollar bill through the teller’s window. With all of the nation’s banks able to increase the supply of credit in this fashion, credit could conceivably expand without limit. … When banks create checkbook deposits, they create money as well as credit since these deposits are part of the money supply.”
_____________________________________________________________________
Accounting Standards:
The Financial Accounting Standards Board publishes accounting standards in its annual publication Original Pronouncements. Under the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 65 (FAS65), “Accounting for Certain Mortgage Banking Activities,” it states that:
“1. Mortgage banking activities primarily consists of two separate but interrelated
activities: (a) the origination or acquisition of mortgage loans and the sale of
the loans to permanent investors from a variety of sources, including
applications received directly from borrowers (in house originations), purchases
from realtors and brokers, purchases from investors, and conversions of various
forms of interim financing to permanent financing.”
And under the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 91 (FAS91), “Accounting for Nonrefundable Fees and Costs Associated with Originating or Acquiring Loans and Initial Direct Costs of Leases,” it states that:
“4. An enterprise may acquire a loan by lending (originating the loan) or by purchasing (acquiring a loan from a party other than the borrower). This Statement applies to both a lender and a purchaser. This Statement shall be applied to individual loan contracts.” In other words, the phrase “originating the loan” means purchasing a loan from the borrower and “purchasing a loan” means buying the loan from a third party after it has been purchased from the borrower.
______________________________________________________________________
THE NATIONAL DEBT- FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILADELPHIA
The power [of creating money] also makes it possible for governments to pursue policies which could have even more disastrous results than bankruptcy.”
________________________________________________________________________
PUTTING IT SIMPLY- BOSTON FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
“When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”
_______________________________________________________________________
MONETARY POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO
p.13 “Bank loans are funded by banks creating new deposits.”
________________
A DAYS WORK AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK – FED BANK OF NEW YORK
“There is still another and more important element of public interest in the operation of banks beside the safekeeping of money; banks can ‘create’ money. One of the most important factors to remember in the connection is that the supply of money affects the general level of prices—the cost of living. The Cost of Living Index and money supply are parallel.”
______________________________________________________________________
GOLD – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO
“Without the confidence factor, many believe a paper money system will eventually collapse. Present experience indicates the system can operate without a gold guarantee however, and that the only confidence required is a firm conviction that money will be accepted in payment for goods and services.”
_____________________
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO – ABC’S OF FIGURING INTEREST
Page 2 explains that by depositing money in a savings account, an individual makes a loan to the bank.
___________________
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO – PUBLIC DEBT – PRIVATE ASSET
Page 2 explains “The bank owes us the money that is in our account.”
_______________________________________________________________________
"Federal Reserve bank credit does not consist of funds that the Reserve authorities get somewhere in order to lend, but constitute funds that they are empowered to create." (Federal Reserve Bank: Its Purposes and Functions, 1939 Edition) Evidence straight from the Federal Reserve’s own documents !! Almost like taking candy from a baby !!
________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion: “In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries…The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.” The Federal Reserve Bank publications I Bet You Thought, page 27, and Modern Money Mechanics, pages 2-25, and others admit that the bank creates new money every time that banks grant loans, that the promissory note is money, and that the bank records a loan from you to the bank, resulting in a new bank liability. The new bank liability shows that the bank owes you money from recording the promissory note or credit card application as a loan from you to the bank.
The bank does not fulfill its part of the loan agreement to legally loan you money, thus nullifying the agreement between the two of you, and releasing you from a “repayment” obligation. SO THE UGLY TRUTH OF WHAT THE BANKS ARE DOING IS TO LEND YOU YOUR OWN MONEY. YES, YOU, THE BORROWER CREATED THE FUNDS FOR YOUR OWN LOAN. The bank still owes you for the value of the converted funds they obtained for free due to the power of your signature. The bank never risked any of their own assets or the assets of their depositors in this transaction and in fact are forbidden to loan out their own assets due to the policies of the Federal Reserve. The banks bookkeeping entries, tell who loaned what to whom and how much. Therein lies what happened. Nowhere in the agreement or promissory note does the bank say that they’re going to alter the note (in violation of UCC 3-407, by the way) and change it into a draft AFTER you sign it so that it modifies “in any respect the obligation of a party” and they do it by “an unauthorized addition of words to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligations of a party.” These words are “Pay to the Order of”. Now the bank can sell or deposit this negotiable instrument, just like you can deposit cash or a check in the bank. This creates the value for your loan. The bank just gives this value (monies) back to you and call it a loan. This is not a loan but an “exchange”. However, the bank expects you to pay AGAIN by putting a mortgage on your property. The bank still owes you for the value of your deposit (promissory note). Yes, banks “create money” when they do a loan. They do not lend out their own assets. The Federal Reserve publications are clear.
Will to Fight said:
"They're attempts to discourage have not worked.
I stand and remain in the battle!"
__________________________________
Seems to me your particular situation is a success then if your lender is UNABLE to do anything to you of any consequence to date. At some point, the lender must give up.
Other than evidence of poor writing on the part of the Fed, and even poorer misconstruance by whoever you stole that gibberish from, the so called Fed documents will not stand up in court as anything but poorly written publicity pamphlets. It has been tried and been summarily rejected by every court it has been tried in.
The rest of this is nonsense you have been shot down on too many times before to bother repeating.
The poorly written and worded bit of gibberish Kurt insists on calling a FOIA request, is just another in a long list of stalling and non-productive activities that have been the hallmark of the dim and dimmer tour of the Federal justice system. The so very intelligent, at least in his mind, Kurt doesn’t seem to know, that FOIA only applies to Federal Executive Administrative offices, the courts being specifically exempt, and they prosecutor's office as well for the most part, particularly in matters of an ongoing prosecution or investigation. But then a little thing like reality never stopped him before. In any event, one more waste of time and one more pointless stunt in a long list of useless and pointless stunts.
Notorial Dissent said
It has been tried and been summarily rejected by every court it has been tried in.
So ND, can you give us specific examples, and cases to back up what you said?
So ND, can you give us specific examples, and cases to back up what you said?
___________________________________
No they cant...but it sounds good when they have nothing else to say or actually facts to back it up.
Notarial Dissent said: "The rest of this is nonsense you have been shot down on too many times before to bother repeating."
__________________________________
I've never heard a response whatsoever at any time on the Federal Reserve Publications other than the naysayers ignoring what is said there. No debate, no response, nothing, so how can there be any repeating?
I figured you couldn't respond at all.
http://www.usdoj.gov/iop/
index.html
"Like all federal agencies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) generally is required under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to disclose records requested in writing by any person. However, agencies may withhold information pursuant to nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the statute. The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies. Each state has its own public access laws that should be consulted for access to state and local records.
Each federal agency is responsible for meeting its FOIA responsibilities for its own records."
I can't think of any specific or valid reason why the particular request by K&S would be denied by Judge Alsup or the Court Clerk since K&S have an interest in these matters that they requested, & I don't see reasons for any privacy exclusions, reasons of national security, or other valid reasons of denial, etc. Seems to me that Judge Alsup's interference is improper without giving any valid reason for his denial of access to the information requested.
FOIA act exclusions below. I can't see any exclusions of denial of information that would apply to the request done by K&S:
This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
Judge Alsup just can't deny the FOIA request without any valid reasons & the Court clerk must also report in writing the reasons for the denial of the FOIA request, & this information is also reviewed by the Attorney General for compliance:
e)(1) On or before February 1 of each year, each agency shall submit to the Attorney General of the United States a report which shall cover the preceding fiscal year and which shall include--
(A) the number of determinations made by the agency not to comply with requests for records made to such agency under subsection (a) and the reasons for each such determination;
(B)(i) the number of appeals made by persons under subsection (a)(6), the result of such appeals, and the reason for the action upon each appeal that results in a denial of information; and
(ii) a complete list of all statutes that the agency relies upon to authorize the agency to withhold information under subsection (b)(3), a description of whether a court has upheld the decision of the agency to withhold information under each such statute, and a concise description of the scope of any information withheld;
(C) the number of requests for records pending before the agency as of September 30 of the preceding year, and the median number of days that such requests had been pending before the agency as of that date;
(D) the number of requests for records received by the agency and the number of requests which the agency processed;
Maybe the next step is to appeal the denial of information under the FOIA.
____________________________
Sample Appeal (Template)
Agency Head or Appeal Officer
Name of Agency
Address of Agency
City, State, Zip Code
Re: Freedom of Information Act Appeal
Dear [The Name of the FOIA Appeal Contact as listed on the agency's Web site]
This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552..
On [date], I requested documents under the Freedom of Information Act. My request was assigned the following identification number:________. On [date], I received a response to my request in a letter signed by [name of official]. I appeal the denial of my request.
[Optional] The documents that were withheld must be disclosed under the FOIA because....
[Optional] I appeal the decision to deny my request for a waiver of fees. I believe that I am entitled to a waiver of fees. Disclosure of the documents I requested is in the public interest because the information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of government and is not primarily in my commercial interest. [Provide details]
[Optional] I appeal the decision to require me to pay review costs for this request. I am not seeking the documents for commercial use. [Provide details]
[Optional] I appeal the decision to require me to pay search charges for this request. I am a reporter seeking information as part of a news gathering and not for commercial use.
If you have any questions processing this request, you may contact me at the following telephone number or e-mail address : [number and address]. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone Number [Optional]
What are the FOIA exemptions?
Exemption (b)(1) - National Security Information
Exemption (b)(2) - Internal Personnel Rules and Practices
- "High" (b)(2) - Substantial internal matters, disclosure would risk circumvention of a legal requirement
- "Low" (b)(2) - Internal matters that are essentially trivial in nature.
Exemption (b)(3) - Information exempt under other laws
Exemption (b)(4) - Confidential Business Information
Exemption (b)(5) - Inter or intra agency communication that is subject to deliberative process, litigation, and other privileges
Exemption (b)(6) - Personal Privacy
Exemption (b)(7) - Law Enforcement Records that implicate one of 6 enumerated concerns
Exemption (b)(8) - Financial Institutions
Exemption (b)(9) - Geological Information
Obtain the files that the FBI has on you:
http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/
fbifiles/fbifiles.html
I wonder if this agency can help at all with information requested:
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
Renee Barley
FOIA Officer
Room 1254
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004-2902
telephone number: (202) 220-5355
fax number: (202) 220-5350
I wonder if this agency can help:
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
Renee Barley
FOIA Officer
Room 1254
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004-2902
telephone number: (202) 220-5355
fax number: (202) 220-5350
mogel said...
Obtain the files that the FBI has on you:
http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/
fbifiles/fbifiles.html
=================================
waht good would it do even if you find out????
the Full of Bulls**t Investigations is totally CIA infiltrated, and you know how evil they are.
the oct. trial date again looks in jeopardy reading what is being posted on the comments secton of this blahg.
habakkuk said... So ND, can you give us specific examples, and cases to back up what you said?
**********
For the very simple reason that it was never allowed to be introduced, and therefore would not be in the official record of the case. Had this drivel ever been allowed in, I am quite certain that dim and dimmer, and our good old thieve it off the internet Moogey boy would have long ago been trumpeting it from the rooftops. Their very silence speaks volumes since they are so desperate to try and find a hint of validity to their swamp gas, and they can’t find it here. If in over twenty years some lame brain con artist couldn’t get it into court to try and prove his con, it isn’t going to fly any better now than it has all this time past. It is useless and nonprobabative crap. The vapor money theory which has been ruled officially and legally as crap in court is based on the aforementioned crap, so if A don’t fly B won’t either.
Moogs, there is nothing to say about them other than that they are poorly written, do not reflect reality, and will not now or ever stand up in a court of law as anything but proto waste paper. They are poorly written and poorly over viewed versions of economic theory, and that is all they are. They are dreck.
Moogs, other than that you copied the FOIA bit off the DOJ website you didn’t look very far. Please note the “agencies may withhold information pursuant to nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the statute” part. Among the exemptions are personnel records, and information on ongoing crimeinal investigations.
All that aside, the court clerk was not the person the request should have been sent to since they neither work for DOJ, or have any say over internal actions within DOJ, or have access or control of their records. If dim and dimmer had actually wanted antyhing the request should have been sent to the DOJ, and they could have denied it out of hand. The judge was within his rights as the request was not properly filed, had nothing to do with the clerk’s office, and was not within their scope of authority. And in any case the document was mostly gibberish and was asking for things that do not exist.
mogel said... Judge Alsup just can't deny the FOIA request without any valid reasons & the Court clerk must also report in writing the reasons for the denial of the FOIA request, & this information is also reviewed by the Attorney General for compliance:
*******************
Actually he can since he doesn’t have anything to do with FOIA for the DOJ, and the document was mostly gibberish in any case.
Notarial Dissent said: "Actually he can since he doesn’t have anything to do with FOIA for the DOJ, and the document was mostly gibberish in any case.
_______________________________
Is this some sort of admittance that the Judge can rule on issues OUTSIDE HIS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION? Is this some law principle you've learned?
Mostly gibberish? Are you saying for a fact that courts AREN'T bonded? And what is your proof of this? So if a court trampels over your rights, contracts, & freedoms, where do you go for financial relief & just compensation? Would that be one of your examples of not being able to state a claim upon which relief could be granted? So when a court or federal agency ruins your reputation, which federal agency do you go to in order to get your reputation back in tact after a dismissal or acquittal?
Moogey blathered Is this some sort of admittance that the Judge can rule on issues OUTSIDE HIS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION? Is this some law principle you've learned?
NO, it is a statement that the court clerk has nothing to do with FOIA requests, and cannot speak for or do anything with for or about the DOJ, if they wanted to do a FOIA they needed to send it to the office that had the material they wanted to see, they didn’t, the judge said it wasn’t part of their responsibility.
Moogey blathered Are you saying for a fact that courts AREN'T bonded?
Duh, yeah, Moogems, that is exactly what I said. Aside from your general lameness, the fact remains that the courts, and the prosecution are immune from suit, so this is all pointless.
Notarial Dissent: Did you see below that Judges are bonded for their actions:
http://www.statefarm.com/
insurance/business/surety_
bond_types.asp
They (public officials) Judges, prosecution team, etc. are responsible for their actions & therefore liable when they act outside their authority. Since the actions or decisions of the Judge & prosecution team, is what I meant by the "court," it appears you don't know what you are talking about as usual.
Directly from the link:
Public Official
A Public Official bond guarantees that elected or appointed officials will faithfully perform their duties. The bond amount as well as duties are usually specified by statute or ordinance.
Types include:
Treasurers
Tax Collectors
Peace Officers
Judges
Hunting & Fishing license agents
Notaries.
Underwriting aspects of Public official bonds include understanding the duties required of the Official, the reputation (character) of the official, and experience of the official.
Action upon official bond or undertaking.
Where a PUBLIC OFFICER is required to give an OFFICIAL BOND or
undertaking, and special provision is not made by law for the
prosecution of the bond or undertaking, by or for the benefit of a person who has sustained by his default, delinquency or
MISCONDUCT, AN INJURY, for which the sureties upon the bond or
undertaking are liable, such a person may apply for leave to
prosecute such official bond or undertaking. Such application
shall be made to the supreme court except as otherwise provided
in this article.
All States have laws like this one:
http://www.tenant.net/Other_Laws/
Pubofc/pubofc03.html
So the Dorean Group's recent petitions have merit & aren't frivolous since the prosecution's case is based upon their own fraud merely by filing their bogus charges.
Notarial Dissent said: "Actually he can since he doesn’t have anything to do with FOIA for the DOJ,"
______________________________
The District Court is a federal agency first of all, and Judge Alsup is under the jurisdiction of the DOJ, so I don't understand your justification at all.
latest Moogey nonsense Notarial Dissent: Did you see below that Judges are bonded for their actions:... snipped material
And did you happen to notice while you were copying all that out that it pertained to STATE officers? NOOO of course you didn’t, and did it flicker in the dim recesses of your little mind that these are Federal officers who aren’t required to give a bond.....NOOO of course it didn’t.
It also must have slipped your notice that the information you are quoting applies to state officials ONLY.
It also seems to have slipped your notice that courts and prosecutors have unlimited immunity from legal action, so there is no legal action that could be taken against them for the charges filed against dim and dimmer.
Moogey says something really dumbThe District Court is a federal agency first of all, and Judge Alsup is under the jurisdiction of the DOJ, so I don't understand your justification at all.
That will come as something of a surprise to the Federal Judiciary who have been quite convinced for the last two hundred odd years that they are a branch of government separate from the Executive and Legislative branches, and even more surprised to find that they come under the authority of the DOJ, which is a department under the Attorney General and the Executive Branch. Imagine their surprise when they discover that they have been confused all these many years. You be sure and tell the Supreme Court that, I am sure it will clear up their long standing misunderstanding about where they fit in the scheme of things. I just can't wait to hear their reaction.
Notarial Dissent said: "It also seems to have slipped your notice that courts and prosecutors have UNLIMITED IMMUNITY from legal action, so there is no legal action that could be taken against them for the charges filed against dim and dimmer."
_________________________________
"When Federal officials perpetuate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires and LOSE THE SHIELD OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY."
WILLIAMSON V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, 815 f.2D 369
So much for the "unlimited immunity" idea.
"Purpose of doctrine of official immunity is to ensure that government officials are free to exercise their duties without fear of damage suits in respect to acts done in the course of their duties."
Washburn v. Shapiro, 409 F. Supp. 3
It didn't say that the purpose was to promote a fraud upon the courts by government officials. It isn't their duty to protect "special interest" groups by violating other people's rights.
Notarial Dissent said: "and even more surprised to find that they come under the authority of the DOJ, which is a department under the Attorney General and the Executive Branch. Imagine their surprise..."
_________________________________
I'm sure when President Bush, the head executive government branch officer, fired all of those Federal Judges, they were pretty surprised allright. They probably said, What right & jurisdictional power does he have to fire me when it's a different branch of government altogether.
You're right, only State Judges are bonded, because there are no wrong doings or torts committed in Federal Courts by officers of the court upon the citizens of this country, so no bonding is needed, there are no checks and balances, each separate branch of government can do whatever they want, especially the Judiciary, all court officials & Judges are completely immune to prosecution and lawsuit, regardless of what they do with "unlimited protection", and yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny is real too. LOL
Moogies opens mouth and nonsense issues forth Moogie badly quotes a case against the Dept of Ag that has nothing to do with the judiciary and pretends he knows what he is talking about.
Moogs, there is a world of difference between the Dept of Ag and the Federal Bench, and the likelihood of a suit going forward against either a sitting judge or a prosecutor is slim to none, for the simple reason that they haven’t done anything outside of the scope of their offices. Dim and dimmer have been indicted by a legally impaneled Federal grand jury and will have to face charges, and that is not an actionable function.
Moogey then proves he really doesn’t know what he is talking about I'm sure when President Bush, the head executive government branch officer, fired all of those Federal Judges, they were pretty surprised alright.
Well, they might have been, EXCEPT, oh dumber than the average rock, those were FEDERAL PROSECUTORS, who just happen to work for the DOJ, and serve at the President’s pleasure. So once again you exhibit your ignorance of both fact, and reality.
You do gibber a lot when you get caught showing your ignorance. I told you a long time ago that Federal officers weren’t bonded. The only way someone could collect on an officer bond is if the officer did something provably illegal, and hate to break it to you, but normal functions of the office don’t qualify.
Notarial Dissent: If J.A.I.L gets passed, it will be much harder for Judges to hide behind their so called immunity. As far as no evidence of corruption by Judges, abusing their office and position, I must differ:
http://www.jail4judges.org/
JHS_Library/2005.htm
Judges, prosecuting attorneys, they all party together & they all seem to act the same, so it's understandable how I would temporarily get the difference confused. LOL
Post a Comment