THE FINANCIAL SLEUTH

#TGBMS – SLEUTH INVESTIGATION DEMONSTRATES CONCLUSIVELY ‘MONEY CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR’ BY BANKS.

At the heart of #TGBMS lies the fact that the banks do not make loans of money from their own deposits and that they merely extend credit on the back of mortgage deed. It is a massive con but, happily, one which has been uncovered by many a financial sleuth.

For a number of years now, the fraudulent nature and illimitable potential for abuse of power associated with modern day banking practices has become increasingly clear to RM (and all those who have investigated the issue of monetary mechanics i.e how ‘loans’ are created by the purported ‘lenders’).

Back in August, 2009, RM stated in Court that it was his “duty” to get to the heart of this issue.  In that moment he became a financial sleuth; not out of choice but obligation.

The ‘modern’ mechanics of money are more simple than many would have us believe. It boils down to this:

the ‘promise to pay’ is what creates the credit.

When a loan agreement or a mortgage deed is signed, that creates a financial instrument. The fact that the individual’s promise to pay – whether it be by way of a loan agreement or the ‘dead’ pledge that is a mortgage – is a financial instrument that is founded on the hypothecation of his future earnings. In other words, he is deceived into ‘gifting’ the bank a financial instrument to which it is, in the words of Lord Denning, “as good as cash.”

Anyone who is actively investigating these matters is operating as a financial sleuth:

“sleuth |slo͞oTH| informal

noun

a detective.

verb [ no obj. ] (often as noun sleuthing)

carry out a search or investigation in the manner of a detective: scientists began their genetic sleuthing for honey mushrooms four years ago.

• [ with obj. ] dated investigate (someone or something).

ORIGIN

Middle English (originally in the sense ‘track,’ in sleuth-hound): from Old Norse slóth; compare with slot². Current senses date from the late 19th cent.”

The attached PDF (“Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence” by Richard A. Werner, Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development, University of Southampton, United Kingdom) is an academic and very practical investigation into the mechanics of how an actual ‘loan’ is created. It also consists of a fine piece of sleuthing: after enquiring at a number of High Street banks, the only bank that agrees to allow an in-depth examination of the actual creation of the €200, 000 loan is a small German one:

“Raiffeisenbank Wildenberg e.G., located in a small town in the district of Lower Bavaria […]. The bank is a co- operative bank within the Raiffeisen and cooperative banking association of banks, with eight full-time staff. “

The entire process is documented and filmed in August, 2013. The ledger entries are noted, as are the appearances of liabilities and assets on the books of the bank and its officers’ interactions with each other and/or other banks are recorded. As the author states, what is unravelled here is five thousand years of banking practice. It is interesting to note that the staff, though open to the process, are seemingly blind to the actual mechanics themselves – i.e none of them seem particularly clear as to how it actually happens.  This, of course, makes sense for the controllers – why would the House of Rothschild want anyone below a certain level of its modus operandi to be knowledgeable about how the process work? Once one knew, the truth would spill out to others and the game would be over.

Previously, the only time a court case has gone in favour of one who claimed he was loaned nothing, was the Credit River Case in America which resulted in a jury finding in favour of the mortgagor and the judge, Martin Mahoney being poisoned on a fishing trip.  Fishy, being the operative word:

“the 1969 trial of Jerome Daly vs the First National Bank of Montgomery. A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff’s sale, to be VOID. To be short and sweet, banks can’t legally foreclose on your house because the money put up by the banks never actually exists and makes the contract void.”

The case can be viewed here:

 

and read about more extensively here:

“Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn’t given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank’s president, took the stand. To everyone’s surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money “out of thin air” for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. “It sounds like fraud to me,” intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors.”

In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

“Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,  did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.”

The court rejected the bank’s claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world. He wrote in a local news article:

“This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.” SOURCE

The premise for Werner’s recent investigation is sound: he begins by stating his aim as to find out which of the 3 commonly held ‘theories’ about credit creation is true:

1. Are loans created from deposits which are loaned out?
2. Are loans created by way of fractional reserve banking practices, through ‘systemic interaction?
3. Are loans created out of thin air?

“According to the financial intermediation theory of banking, banks are merely intermediaries like other non-bank financial institutions, collecting deposits that are then lent out. According to the fractional reserve theory of banking, individual banks are mere financial intermediaries that cannot create money, but collectively they end up creating money through systemic interaction. A third theory maintains that each individual bank has the power to create money ‘out of nothing’ and does so when it extends credit (the credit creation theory of banking).”

It is a fine piece of financial sleuthing and one which demands to be read by any one with a fully functioning capacity to consider such matters – which, in reality, should be everyone on the simple basis that it is the gargantuan issue that affects us all.

In a previous article, RM explained how woefully inadequate his Economics A-Level had been in so far as it went nowhere near this issue of how money is created. John Meynard Keynes was the ‘guru’ whose work formed the basis for much of what was ‘taught’.  Werner is less than impressed with the work of said economist, a man who shifted his position and who was responsible for much of the confusion and fudging that dominated twentieth century thinking on these matters:

“Keynes used his considerable clout to slow scientific analysis of the question whether banks could create money, as he instead engaged in ad hominem attacks on followers of the credit creation theory. Despite his enthusiastic early support for the credit creation theory (Keynes, 1924), only six years later he was condescending, if not dismissive, of this theory, referring to credit creation only in inverted commas. He was perhaps even more dismissive of supporters of the credit creation theory, who he referred to as being part of the “Army of Heretics and Cranks, whose numbers and enthusiasm are extraordinary”, and who seem to believe in “magic” and some kind of “Utopia” (Keynes, 1930, vol. 2, p. 215).”

It is self-evident that when men rely on fake authority figures such as Keynes, and fail to sleuth the facts out for themselves, confusion and ignorance reign. In such a state, predators like the House of Rothschild and all those who know the ‘secrets’ of monetary mechanics are able to take control and completely dominate the world by way of their hidden knowledge. They are not gods but to the average man who has no such knowledge, they appear to be so.

In order to keep the secret, those Fake Gods Who Wear White Collars need to employ others who will not spill the beans. Thus, Freemasonic lodges and other hidden groups of influence are created to maintain and, when necessary, exert violence, in order to keep the secrets.

Recently, a man claimed to RM that exposing The Great British Mortgage Swindle amounted to ‘stealing the dreams’ of the ordinary man. On the contrary, it is exposing the nefarious greed of those who act as gods and prevent the ordinary man from reaching his full potential. That is the truth of the matter. It is also what makes ‘Money’ the world’s biggest religion – nobody appears to really know where and how it comes about yet billions believe in its magical nature without question:

Yet, over one hundred years ago, this very religion and its practices were being scrutinised:

“In modern times private bankers discontinued issuing notes, and merely created Credits in their customers’ favour to be drawn against by Cheques. These Credits are in banking language termed Deposits. Now many persons seeing a material Bank Note, which is only a Right recorded on paper, are willing to admit that a Bank Note is cash. But, from the want of a little reflection, they feel a difficulty with regard to what they see as Deposits. They admit that a Bank Note is an “Issue”, and “Currency,” but they fail to see that a Bank Credit is exactly in the same sense equally an “Issue,” “Currency,” and “Circulation”.”

[Macleod (1905, vol. 2, p. 310)]

“… Sir Robert Peel was quite mistaken in supposing that bankers only make advances out of bona fide capital. This is so fully set forth in the chapter on the Theory of Banking, that we need only to remind our readers that all banking advances are made, in the first instance, by creating credit” (p. 370, emphasis in original).

In his Theory of Credit Macleod (1891) put it this way:

“A bank is therefore not an office for “borrowing” and “lending” money, but it is a Manufactory of Credit.”

[Macleod (1891: II/2, 594)]

To return to the sleuthing Professor, the evidence uncovered by Werner confirms what RM and others have been asserting: the customer’s signature on the agreement (the pledge) creates the financial instrument which, in turn, creates the ‘magical’ deposit:

“Starting by analysing the liability side information (Table 7), we find that customer deposits are considered part of the financial institution’s balance sheet. This contradicts the financial intermediation theory, which assumes that banks are not special and are virtually indistinguishable from non-bank financial institutions that have to keep customer deposits off balance sheet. In actual fact, a bank considers a customers’ deposits starkly differently from non-bank financial institutions, who record customer deposits off their balance sheet. Instead we find that the bank treats customer deposits as a loan to the bank, recorded under rubric ‘claims by customers’, who in turn receive as record of their loans to the bank (called ‘deposits’) what is known as their ‘account statement’. This can only be reconciled with the credit creation or fractional reserve theories of banking.” [P15]

The conclusions of the report are clear: money is created out of the ether:

“It was examined whether in the process of making money available to the borrower the bank transfers these funds from other accounts (within or outside the bank). In the process of making loaned money available in the borrower’s bank account, it was found that the bank did not transfer the money away from other internal or external accounts, resulting in a rejection of both the fractional reserve theory and the financial intermediation theory. Instead, it was found that the bank newly ‘invented’ the funds by crediting the borrower’s account with a deposit, although no such deposit had taken place. This is in line with the claims of the credit creation theory.

Thus it can now be said with confidence for the first time – possibly in the 5000 years’ history of banking – that it has been empirically demonstrated that each individual bank creates credit and money out of nothing, when it extends what is called a ‘bank loan’. The bank does not loan any existing money, but instead creates new money. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks out of thin air. The implications are far-reaching.”

The implications are gargantuan indeed.

It is RM’s view that Werner’s conclusion that banks ‘create money out of thin air’  is correct up to a point. However, throughout the paper, he fails to take into account a number of issues:

For instance, his view that the credit/money is created out of thin air overlooks the fact that the individual’s promise to pay – whether it be by way of a loan agreement or the ‘dead’ pledge that is a mortgage – is a financial instrument that is founded on the hypothecation of his future earnings.

His conclusion could be clearer if he stated that no ‘loan’ takes place. It is simply an extension of credit made from the deposit of the cash asset (the promise to pay).  Ultimately, it is an elaborate game of ‘magical’ book-keeping with the banks currently hiding the other side of the ledger that demonstrates a deposit has been made.

Nevertheless, it is a splendid piece of research from which we can begin airing the facts of monetary mechanics and, as such, an individual could certainly enter it into court as compelling evidence in a claim/defence against a bank that no moneys are owed.

In the event that the sleuth professor is a reasonably paid academic, with a salary and a pension, the real issues may be beyond his comfort zone.  For instance, now knowing the facts, would he have the courage to challenge the bank to prove it loaned him anything and stop paying his mortgage and/or any fake loans in his name? Would he be prepared to take such a gamble on his home?

The ramifications of these findings are huge. Little wonder, Ross Cranston, acting as the presiding judge, stated in an initial aside to RM at the start of the hearing in February 2015 that if he allowed my claim for negligence vs the conveyancing solicitor it would result in the entire edifice collapsing.  Ross, RM would wager, does have some understanding of how credit is created, having also written papers on international banking law. Indeed, the banks and the judiciary have been warned, time after time:

As Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927:

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.”

And, Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, said in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report:

“When a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”

It was this awareness that led RM to challenge his bank to prove it had loaned him any of its own moneys. Of course, its CEO, Richard Pym (above), refused to do so on the simple basis he could not provide any evidence of such.

Slavery is where we are at – paying a fake mortgage debt under threat of eviction is extortion and is nothing short of indentured servitude. The genocidal lengths the banks go to collect on these imaginary loans is an issue Werner goes nowhere close to examining in his conclusion. Unlike the forthcoming #TGBMS which confronts the issue full on, in heart-wrenching and graphic detail.

Nevertheless, this report is an admirable piece of sleuthing and stands as another nail in the coffin for the fake money masters, the House of Rothschild and their sycophantic henchmen who operate at various levels within the rigged game. The rigged game of banking and its acolytes who inhabit the legal professions and the judiciary, that is.

From time to time over the last 10 years, RM has questioned his own sanity in regard to this very issue – it is so monstrous in its scope and effect that it couldn’t possibly be true, could it?  Well, it most certainly is. Thus, the converse is true: for an individual to believe he was in receipt of a loan is insane. Welcome to the nut house.

 

Acknowledgements: Richard Werner, for a brilliant piece of work;  Timothy Madden, another analyst whose work shines a light into the hidden world of monetary mechanics;  Jerome Daly for his stand against this iniquitous practice and, Martin Mahoney the judge with the balls who was bumped off. 

Further reading: http://www.rense.com/general70/cash.htm

PDF OF INVESTIGATION: prof-richard-werner-banks-create-money-from-nothing

TGBMS Links

Buy the DVD (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=3aa64175f0&e=483727ac6f) 

Watch on Amazon Prime (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=d173e8fbab&e=483727ac6f) 

Book Cinema Tickets (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=588e7d8966&e=483727ac6f) 

Download Free PDF of TGBMS: Next Steps (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=464b61d3d1&e=483727ac6f)