A friend recently tendered, in good faith, a promissory note to the CEO of Nationwide Building Society to settle and close his mortgage account.
This article examines what happened when the tender of this lawful form of currency was made and how Nationwide is seeking to rely on a dishonest statement in order to extort moneys it falsely claims are owed.
It should be read in conjunction with this previous article in which I cite the investigation, material evidence and conclusions of Professor Richard Werner concerning how the Licensed Credit Brokers, of which Nationwide is but one.
First and foremost, it is of crucial importance that we distinguish between what is a bank and those who are merely masquerading as such.
Each and every ‘bank’ in the UK is actually a Credit broker, licensed under the aegis of the Bank of England (BOE) of which William Paterson, founder of the BOE in 1694, then a privately owned bank, stated,
“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”
Any and all so-called ‘banks’ are in fact merely credit brokers, licenced by the BOE, which are in the business of buying and selling securities like Deeds of Mortgage. As Professor Richard Werner states,
“I will tell you key points about banks. In case you thought banks lend money, they take deposits and lend money. You are wrong . Banking was developed, modern banking was developed, in the United Kingdom in the 17th century and the legal facts are very clear but not very well known. Banks do not take deposits and banks do not lend money. That’s a fact.”
Whilst the system of credit creation is duplicitously used to enslave the people by way of its misrepresentation of any and all loans (including mortgages), it is also a fact that we, as blessed creative living souls are the creditors of the credit system. It is, quite literally, a fact that it cannot exist without us.
Credit is created from the individual’s own creative abilities which are transformed into a system whereby this capacity is utilised to create money as debt also know as hypothecation:
“from medieval Latin hypothecat- ‘given as a pledge,’ from the verb hypothecare, based on Greek hupothēkē .”
His promise (pledge) is what creates the credit. In this sense, it is not true to state the credit is created out of thin air. Interestingly a mortgage translates as a ‘dead’ pledge (promise).
“late Middle English: from Old French, literally ‘dead pledge,’ from mort (from Latin mortuus ‘dead’) + gage ‘pledge.’ ”
A promise satisfied by death? A promise without life? Why might that be the case? Death of what or who? Does it mean it is a promise which will only be satisfied when the individual dies? How could that be the case? Why would its extinguishment be dependent upon his death?
If the credit is created by the individual’s capacity to create then has a loan actually taken place?
It is a fact that the licenced credit broker ( the fake ‘bank’) does not lend its own funds – the book keeping entries prove that. The mechanics of credit creation under a fiat currency system are based entirely on the hypothecation of the individual’s promise to pay. That, of course, is how and why Bank of England notes are backed only by hypothecation or what is an illusory promise. A ten pound note can no longer be cashed in for ten pounds of sterling silver.
There was a time when I was of the view that I had actually received moneys from the bank’s own coffers and, that being the case, I had to pay it back as it was not mine. I genuinely believed that a loan had been made and that it was one which I had solemnly promised to pay back. This I dutifully did, to the best of my ability, compound interest and all, to a total amount that equated with double that which I falsely believed I had borrowed – £67, 747 on an initial loan of £34, 000.
It was, however, an illusion. In fact, the whole thing was one big lie put to paper by way of the Deed of Mortgage which operates as a charge over the house in favour of the ‘bank’. Money has only the value we attach to it. Just like playing a game of monopoly. Pieces of paper are accrued or lost by way of the roll of the dice. It is a game of chance and decision in which the Bank of England has all the power.
So, if a ‘mort-gage’ is a promise/pledge to the death, what would its opposite be? A promise of life?
God gives us life. Satan, death. A mortgage is a work of satan. From this it follows that a mortgage is anti-life, which is likely related to the French origin of the term.
“Satan Old English, via late Latin and Greek from Hebrew śāṭān, literally ‘adversary,’ from śāṭan ‘plot against.’ ’’
Given the extent to which Western Civilisation is built upon the key tenets of the holy science currently known as Christianity, why then would the church of God not warn its flock about the inherent workings of such a device that is designed to enslave, ensnare and is of such an invidious nature as to be abhorrent to spiritual practice? So much so that Jesus, the inspirational being at the heart of its teachings, turned over the table of the money changers (bankers) when he discovered them to be operating in the temple?
No man of God should be going anywhere near a mortgage for it is a devilish device designed to entrap his soul, at least on the basis of its etymological origins, to a promise of death and yet the Church of England is hugely invested in the very financial apparatus that the Bible condemns.
Regardless of one’s take on the nature of this realm, we are here, in our avatars, to live – it is a journey of the soul.
A mortgage, founded upon the false pretext that a loan has taken place is the opposite to that. Thus, it is anti-life. Inevitably, mortgages that spring from a fiat currency are effectively unconscionable devices used for the purposes of indentured servitude that tie the people down by way of stealing energy via the fake ‘charge’.
I realise this may seem simplistic to many who will claim that I am reading too much into it and that it means no such thing because of its every day usage but that would be an appeal to common practice and, as such, fallacious. For the facts of the matter are plain:
1. No loan takes place, the credit is created by the pledge, the promise to pay.
2. The promissory note created on the back of the void mortgage deed is, in effect, a cash asset (deposit) given to the bank by the purported ‘mortgagor’.
3. Usury is the immoral practice of charging interest on purported loans. When no actual loan has taken place, it is self-evidently iniquitous, to put it mildly.
4. There is no valid power of attorney.
5. The failure to disclose how the real nature of the transaction by which credit is created renders the agreement void.
6. There is no lawful contract signed by both parties and as required at law, under s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989.
7. The mortgage deed is a lie put to paper, signed by the individual under the instruction of his conveyancing solicitor before he is the beneficial owner of the home, with the necessary proprietary interest.
The deception runs through every aspect of our lives and it has been existent for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is nothing new under the sun,
“Now governmental borrowing was a fact of life. William and his government had surrendered the English nation’s sovereign prerogative to create and control its own money, and had passed on to the English nation a 1.2 million pound debt plus interest which had to be paid out of taxation. If the government created its own money, interest-free and debt-free, there would be no national debt and very little need for taxation as the government would not be short of the money for health, education and the armed forces. The English nation HAS NEVER RECOVERED, and is still paying interest on money borrowed to fight the Napoleonic Wars.
“In 1694 William – without consulting Parliament – borrowed 1,200,000 pounds in gold from the Jewish money-changers at 8 percent interest, which was to be repaid a year later. The Jews agreed to lend him the money on the condition that he gave them permission to establish a Bank of England and print for themselves in banknotes a sum equal to the King’s indebtedness. He thus agreed to pay them 108 percent in bank notes, plus the 8 percent interest” – Nicholas Hagger (Secret History of the West)
Richard Werner is 100% correct in his assertions, and to whom the following is entirely credited, but he is certainly not the first to express the facts, as he readily acknowledges herein. The reader is invited to read and re-read this carefully for it is the unassailable truth:
“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)]
According to the credit creation theory then, banks create credit in the form of what bankers call ‘deposits’, and this credit is money. But how much credit can they create? Wicksell (1907) described a credit- based economy in the Economic Journal, arguing that
“The banks in their lending business are not only not limited by their own capital; they are not, at least not immediately, limited by any capital whatever; by concentrating in their hands almost all payments, they themselves create the money required….”
“In a pure system of credit, where all payments were made by transference in the bank-books, the banks would be able to grant at any moment any amount of loans at any, however diminutive, rate of interest.”
[Wicksell (1907, 214)]
Withers (1909), from 1916 to 1921 the editor of the Economist, also
saw few restraints on the amount of money banks could create out of nothing:
“… it is a common popular mistake, when one is told that the banks of the United Kingdom hold over 900 millions of deposits, to open one’s eyes in astonishment at the thought of this huge amount of cash that has been saved by the community as a whole, and stored by them in the hands of their bankers, and to regard it as a tremendous evidence of wealth. But this is not quite the true view of the case. Most of the money that is stored by the community in the banks consists of book-keeping credits lent to it by its bankers.”
[Withers (1909, pp. 57 ff.)]
“… The greater part of the banks’ deposits is thus seen to consist, not of cash paid in, but of credits borrowed. For every loan makes a deposit ….”
[Withers (1909, p. 63)]
“When notes were the currency of commerce a bank which made an advance or discounted a bill gave its customer its own notes as the proceeds of the operation, and created a liability for itself. Now, a bank makes an advance or discounts a bill, and makes a liability for itself in the corresponding credit in its books.”
[Withers (1909, p. 66)]
We ‘know from Keynes’ contribution to the Macmillan Committee (1931) that Keynes meant with this that each individual bank was able to create credit:
“It is not unnatural to think of the deposits of a bank as being created by the public through the deposit of cash representing either savings or amounts which are not for the time being required to meet expenditure. But the bulk of the deposits arise out of the action of the banks themselves, for by granting loans, allowing money to be drawn on an overdraft or purchasing securities a bank creates a credit in its books, which is the equivalent of a deposit” (p. 34).
All of which points to the veracity and sheer matter-of-factness of Lord Denning’s famous assertion that,
“We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated like cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary,”
The foregoing brings us nicely back to the current situation in 2024 – namely that the delivery of a Promissory Note to the CEO of Nationwide, made by my friend, stands as a genuine settlement of the purported balance on his ‘mortgage’. The note is similar to this, which, by way of an example, contains the monetary value of the one I sent to Richard Pym, the then CEO of the Bradford and Bingley licenced broker that falsely claimed I owed them the stated total value (including their phoney legal costs as of April, 2010)
It is completely without doubt and factually correct to state that the licenced credit broker (Nationwide) has the ability to deposit the note in a special account and stream a line of credit that, as a matter of accountancy fact, will zero the balance. That, after all, is the very business it is engaged in.
I did the same some 14 years ago and the response was, more or less, the same as this which is dated 27th August, 2024.
It is hard to imagine a more blatantly dishonest statement. In fact, the Nationwide is attempting to rely on this lie in order to steal his home. That is as clear an example of fraud as can be envisaged.
Whilst I am well-aware that the individual who sent the letter simply does not know how the very institution he is working for operates in the business of credit creation, it matters not one jot – he is lying.
In each and every case that I know of, including my own, the ‘bank’ never returns the note. Why might that be the case?
It is also to be noted that this is a legal tender of currency, an honourable payment made using the same specie of currency from which the original credit to buy the house was created.
The licenced broker creates the credit from depositing promissory notes and securities but it will refuse a genuine attempt to clear the balance by way of the same?
Ask yourself this – is it possible to imagine a more blatant example of financial enslavement? Of tyrannical despotism? Of Satanic fraud?
After all, given we are the creditors of the financial system, how could we possibly be indebted?
Nevertheless and regardless of the dishonesty of Nationwide, anyone can issue a Promissory Note to settle and close a mortgage account. Am I suggesting you try it? Why not?
If we had a truthful financial system, then what would happen once the shackles of fake debt are removed?
The answer to the last question, for those who have read this far and are paying attention can be reduced to 3 letters – UCT.
And on that ‘note’, I will end for now, with the ‘promise’ of more to follow on this most salient issue.
Many thanks to all those who have helped to keep my work going via their donations through the ‘Buy me a Coffee’ button. I am currently banned from accessing my Faceborg account and Google/YouTube is preventing me uploading my latest RogueCast, so please like and share this post as far and wide as you are able and be sure to subscribe to the Rogue Male email list for all notifications.