"Now it's Time for YOU to Discover What
You Are NEVER Supposed to Know"
The truth about ANY alleged "loan" you ever received from any bank or other lending institution
has been carefully hidden, carefully kept out of your education. So it's not your fault that you
haven't heard the following information before. You're not ever supposed to know. But if you can read, now you will know...
The Bank or Credit Card Company Advertises to Loan You Money...
If I were to loan you $100, my assets would decrease $100. When a bank or other
"lending" institution "lends" to you or anyone else, their assets actually increase!
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago used to publish Modern Money Mechanics. They stopped largely because of this quote from Page 6, Last Paragraph:
"What they [banks] 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 [the amount of the "loan"]."
Now, when was the last time you lent money to a friend and suddenly found you had more funds?
So the "lending" institutions (including credit card companies) "accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts." What exactly does that mean?
Accepting Your Promissory Note...
Now, when the lending institution "accepts" your promissory note in exchange for credit to your transaction accounts, that means that they add money (they credit money) to your checking account(s), but not the one(s) that you know you have. The funds for the addition to the "secret" account(s) came from depositing your promissory note! (Except the credit card companies actually deposit your application/agreement - and monetize
it even if you are not approved! Again, you provide the source of the funds that are deposited into your account.)
How can they do that? Well, they're bankers. Your promissory note is a note.
Look at a dollar bill. It says "Federal Reserve Note" on it, doesn't it? You bet. See, a "note," according to The Dictionary of Banking Terms, 4th Edition, by Thomas P. Fitch, is "legal evidence of a debt or obligation."
That means that a "note" is "owing money." That means that what we call "money" or "cash" today is really owing money.
So since "money" now days means "owing money," and your promissory note is "legal evidence of a debt or obligation," (owing money) that counts as "money" and can be deposited.
If you have any "loan" agreements or a copy of any of your promissory notes to hand, I would suggest that you read it over carefully. Here's why:
Nowhere in your agreement does it tell you that the lending institution who provided the "funds" was going to NOT loan you money, but use your own note to fund the "loan" back to you. Nowhere does it tell you that, according to their own bookkeeping entries, the bank was going to make you provide the value for your own "loan" first.
Their bookkeeping entries tell the truth about what happened. Nowhere in the agreement or 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 obligation of a party."
Those words are "Pay to the Order of". Either way, and even without those words, they can deposit the note, which is "legal evidence of a debt or obligation" into your "transaction accounts" that you don't even know you have. And now I don't think they even give you a deposit receipt!
The current banking system has redefined "money" as "owing money." So they can apparently do it. But they still haven't given any consideration for the alleged "loan" have they? (No.) And that's against contract law, which basically says that there must be valuable consideration from both sides (both or all parties involved in an agreement) for an agreement to be valid. And contract law also gives the requirements of contracts so they may be valid and enforceable.
There must be a meeting of two (or more definitely stated) minds in one and the same intention. The intention must be a distinct and common intention. The intention must be communicated. There must be at least two definite parties. The two parties must be in agreement as to exactly what each must do. There must be a reference to legal relations. The consequences must affect the parties involved. The rights and liabilities must be definite. And the thing to be done or foreborne must be reducible to a money value.
A voidable contract is one that is capable of being affirmed or rejected at the option of one of the parties, but which is binding on the other. Hey, they wrote the agreement, make them explain it.
Anyway, all they've done is converted your promissory note into "funds" that they then "loan" back to you. And now you have to pay them again, plus interest? Huh? Where in the agreement does it say that you are providing the value (through the promissory note that they received from you) to fund your own loan? Is that a mutual intention? Is that what you agreed to? Is that written in the agreement?
Have you ever said to a friend, "Here, sell this asset I'm giving you for free, then return the money to me, and I'll pay you
that much more plus interest."??? Absurd, huh? Yet that's what happens when banks and credit card companies "lend" you credit. Did you ever really agree to that? What ever happened to "Truth in Lending?" I don't know about you, but I never agreed to be that stupid.
When You Deposit Money into Your Checking Account...
When you deposit money into your account, it's exactly like loaning the bank money. You have lent the bank money, and the bank's assets and liabilitites both increase by the amount of the loan.
Now, we know that an "asset" is something of value, something that is either money or can be sold for money, right?
A "liability" is something that you "owe," isn't it?
Banks MUST Use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
In banking, they MUST use something in accounting called "GAAP," which stands for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (or something equally as strict). We know that because of Title 12 of the United States Code, §1831n.
One of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles is called the "Principle of Matching," which basically says that for each asset there has to be a matching liability, and vice versa. The Principle of Matching.
In other words, when you deposit your payroll check, the bank has a new asset in the amount of the deposit. If you deposit $1,000, the bank now owns that $1,000. They also have a new matching liability, which means that they owe you that $1,000 whenever you want it.
So, while their assets increased, so did their liabilities. Hm, when you deposit your payroll check, it works out just like when you took out a bank "loan"... Both the assets and liabilities of the bank increased.
Doesn't that seem a little strange to you?
How We Got Our Current Banking System...
Would you like to know how it got this way? How we got such a fraudulent banking system? How our so-called "leaders" in Congress let such a thing be unleashed upon the very people they're supposed to help protect?
You know, though, this type of banking system is not new in history. We actually find out about it in the Bible. Look at St. Luke 6:34, just 3 verses after the Golden Rule.
"And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? For sinners
also lend to sinners, to receive as much again."
"...to receive as much again" (plus interest!) See, Jesus knew that this type of banking system consisted of merely accepting one form of money, then changing the form of the money to another. That is exactly the same as being paid again for a "loan." Exactly.
Then we move forward in time and find our Forefathers creating a Constitution to protect us against such a system. "Congress shall have the power...to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin..." (Article 1, section 8, clause 5) Congress does not coin money, they don't regulate the value of money, either. And they certainly do not regulate the value of foreign coin.
Then in the Constitution we have that "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of debts." (Article 1, section 10)
When was the last time a State worker was paid in gold and silver coin? You know, like judges, like senators, like governors, sheriffs, etc.? Don't they take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States? I guess they only uphold the parts they want to.
Anyway, then we get to 1910. Something started then. Something dreadful. It was the planning of our current Central Bank, the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Act was not only unconstitutional, but it also provided for no way to pay off the principle amounts borrowed! It said how the interest was to be paid, but not the principle. Amazing ommission, isn't it?
Listen to The Creature from Jeckyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, the foremost researcher on the planet of the start of the Federal Reserve System. You will need the RealOne Player to listen.
Yes, The Banking System is Unconstitutional, But SO WHAT
Judge Martin Mahoney said so in 1968. Then he was promptly assassinated. Hopefully you just listened to The Creature from Jeckyll Island, so you have a good idea why.
If you listened to The Creature from Jeckyll Island above, you know how the money is created in this nation. It affects the government the same way, and yet not one branch of government will stand up and do a thing about it. They won't because they're absolutely terrified of what will happen to them. Look at what happened to Judge Mahoney!
It is said in political philosophy that the people get the government that they, as an aggregate whole, deserve. Given that's true, it would then be up to the people to KNOW what is going on and to learn more and stand up for themselves - as an aggregate whole. And pass the word on to the people they know.
You see, this "banking system" has been around a long time. It plays on the hard work and labor and future earnings of decent, productive people.
In an attempt to expose what the banking cartel was doing, Congressman Charles Lindburg read a letter he had received anonymously. This was in 1917. The letter is called The Banker's Manifesto. I highly recommend that you read that. (It isn't any wonder that Mr. Lindberg's son was kidnapped, was it? Golly, who do you think was responsible for that?)
What about the CPAs who Audit the Banks?
The bank auditors must know GAAP. They must know the laws that pertain to the banks. They also have to follow those laws and GAAP. There's another principle of GAAP called Representational Faithfulness, which basically requires that the bookkeeping entries prove the event that caused the bookkeeping entries to have to be recorded. In other words, if two CPAs looked at the bookkeeping entries, they could tell what event took place, and they would be in agreement on what exactly the event was.
Don't you think they could call one or two people and ask if they lent money to the bank? That's what the bookkeeping entries show - and they know it! Where is the paperwork that proves that the bank lent you any of their own assets?
So, what are the bookkeeping entries? NOW - please get your accountant to read this if you don't understand this, get the auditor who performed the audit at your bank, get the bank president, judges, sheriffs, attorneys, ANYONE who understands anything about accounting, the law, enforces the law, interprets the law, or makes the law. DO NOT just take my word for it because that alone might not convince you - and it shouldn't. The bookkeeping entries will PROVE that the substance (bookkeeping entries) do not match the form (the agreement).
People think that banks lend other depositors' money. You're about to discover that isn't true.
Now, a check is not money; it is an order to pay money. A check acts like cash, but is not cash. The bank records legal tender as an asset, so there is a matching liability, which means the bank also owes that legal tender to the depositor. In order for a check to be "good" there must be funds in the account it is drawn from.
The bank must disclose all material facts, otherwise it is fraudulent concealment. If the bank refuses to loan, say, $100,000 to someone, then they can not possibly own the promissory note. The bank MUST follow Federal Reserve policies and procedures.
The bank replaces other depositors' cash with the promissory note. The promissory note is recorded as an asset to the bank, and there's the matching liability. Then the bank cuts a check to the "borrower" or to whomever is supposed to receive the check.
Then the "borrower" or whoever receives the check deposits the check. The check transfers bank liability from one account to another account within the system. So the deposited check is recorded as an asset, and the demand deposit account (checking account) is recorded as a liability.
The check cancels out because it is recorded as an asset and a liability. What remains is the asset called a promissory note, and the matching liability - which remains on the books! Both parties benefitted, both the bank and the "borrower." There was an exchange, value for value. Nowhere in the bank loan agreement did you agree to have the bank deposit the promissory note (recorded as an asset) they received from you for free. Did you agree to that? And that fact was never revealed to you, was it?
Again, you don't have to believe me. Go to your local bookstore and find the Dictionary of Banking Terms, 4th Edition, by Thomas P. Fitch. Look up the word banking power. That's just as good
as Modern Money Mechanics, if not better, at proving the point.
It's just like when you buy a gallon of milk, you exchange your $2.50 for the gallon of milk - you don't now owe the store another $2.50 plus interest, do you? Well, if the store is the bank, and the gallon of milk is the "loan" then YES, apparently you do think you have to pay again. Even though you already provided the source of the funds.
The bookkeeping entries show that you first loaned the bank the value from which they then cut a check. According to the bookkeeping entries, there were two loans exchanged - one from you to the bank, and one from the bank to you.
Only the bank refuses to pay back the loan from you to the bank!
Is that equal protection? If the bank repaid your loan to them, the "loan" from them to you would be ZERO. (See "Claims and Defenses in Recoupment" in the Uniform Commercial Code.)
When you make a deposit, the bank's assets and liabilities increase by the amount of the deposit. When a bank "lends" to people, which logically seems as though their assets should decrease, the assets increase by the amount of the loan, and their liabilities increase by the amount of the loan - just like when you deposit money into your checking account!
If the promissory note is recorded as a bank asset with a matching liability, and they decrease the amount of the liability owed by the amount of your promissory note, where is the loan? The bookkeeping entries do not show that there was a loan, merely a value for value exchange. Both parties benefitted.
It's the same economic effect as counterfeiting, stealing and swindling. That's why lawful money is gold and silver coin - Because the current banking system could not exist if we used only lawful money. Anyway...
How to Prove Me Wrong and Receive $500
This is how you can prove me wrong; it's the only way you can prove me wrong and collect your $500:
Take this affidavit to the bank president where you have a loan. The bank must have at least 30 employees. Have the bank president sign the affidavit saying I'm wrong, have it notarized, then agree to bring the affidavit to a national press conference where someone special will ask the bank president about a couple hundred questions about the bank loan agreement in front of all those folks from the press. The bank president must tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Then, when the bank president honestly answers the questions in front of the national press conference and hands over the signed and notarized affidavit, that bank president will receive $1,000 and you will receive $500 for finding that bank president.
So far in over seven years, not one bank president has stood up to the challenge. Will yours? Is your bank president honest enough, daring enough, and willing to tell the truth about the bank loan agreement? Will your bank president accept the challenge proving me wrong? Find out. Ask. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
What Are You Going to Do?
Are you going to sit back and do nothing, and let the unethical and distinctly harmful banking system we have continue to infest your life? Take your childrens' future labor? Take yours? And keep this nation in its downward spiral?
Or do you want to do something about it? Do you want to stop being an economic slave? Or is it okay for the funder of your "loans" to not be repaid? It's your choice.
If you want to do something about it, I invite you to give me a call at (607)563-9038 or fill out the form to request more information. I'll give you a call on my dime and we can discuss it more, and how you can be assisted.
One more thing: I won't talk anything about "debt consolidation" or refinancing or bankruptcy.
The bank loan works how the bank loan works, and that includes credit cards. If you think it's unfair
how the credit card companies can just deposit your applications (which they call agreements) like money, then charge you insane interest on top of it, then please call me or request more information.
Thomas Jefferson told us all how to keep our freedom when he said, "Know the law and be well-disposed to use it." That's the secret. And the law says that something can be done. But it won't be done if only a few people stand up and say, "Enough!" It takes the voices of millions of voters who are outraged by what the government has allowed to happen.
So you're welcome to think whatever you want. If you have the courage to do the research, if you have the strength to face the truth, then I urge you to call me, or request more information. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
David Echard or
If you know of anyone else who might be able to benefit from this information, or a banker, bank auditor, bank controller, CPA, judge, sheriff, or attorney, then please let them know about this site!
P.S. (If you're still having a tough time with this, do the research. Take the affidavit proving me wrong to your bank president. Hey, if I'm lying to you, that person will accept the challenge, sign the affidavit, have it notarized, and answer a couple hundred questions from the originator of all this information in a national press conference. I'm willing to back up what I know with money. Will your banker step up and accept the challenge?)