The Promissory Note

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 .”

In essence, it is the promise to pay (pledge) which 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 this hypothecation or what is an illusory promise, as per the definition above. A ten pound note can no longer be cashed in for ten pounds of sterling silver.

Note: the hypothecation is essentially a chimera as, in credit-based financial system, it is simply the individual’s promise to pay that creates the line of credit which is used to purchase the property outright.

More on this can be read in the comment below the essay, posted today (27/08/25) by Pat Cusack

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.

________________________________________

Thank you for reading and listening to this Rogue Rant. As ever, I am very grateful to those who have chucked a few quid into the coffers by way of the Buy Me a Coffee button and/or have taken out a subscription to my Substack pages where, if you like, you can also support me by taking out a paid subscription which will grant you ‘first dibs’ on my output.

August 27, 2025 4

The Mortgage Monkey

The Great British Mortgage Swindle in Real Time.

This Rogue Cast (070) is a condensed exposition of the various components that comprise the multi-levelled racketeering operation which is revealed in the Great British Mortgage Swindle (TGBMS) the eviscerating documentary that was released in late 2018.

Whilst I have written extensively about TGBMS, this episode stands as a real-time expose of how the entire racket is predicated on the ignorance and common practice of the conveyancing solicitor.

The viewer is encouraged to read this essay on how, in 2015, I sued the conveyancing solicitor who advised me that the mortgage agreement I entered in 1994 was Lawful, along with this Rogue Cast, ‘the Knight Who Shut Down My Negligence Claim.’

Both illustrate exactly how and why the courts of the British Isles are engaged in covering up the swindle to the point of rolling out a Knight of the Realm to assist them in their manifest support of what is an industrial-scale racket.

For those who haven’t’ watched TGBMS, it can be viewed here for free.

The podcast stands as an exposition of how a current application for a loan to buy a house (secured by a mortgage) is unfolding and is laid out in in a step-by-step account of the role that is played by the conveyancing solicitor.

Regular readers will not be surprised by the various deceptions that take place during the process of the application and what is laid out is the demonstrable professional negligence of the solicitor who is, in effect, wholly reliant upon the common practice of those who specialise in these matters. The appeal to common practice is, of course, a logical fallacy on the simple basis that just because a practice is done commonly, that does not necessarily make it Lawful.

The entirety of the racket is predicated on the false notion that a loan is made. This essay explains exactly how and why it is false.

It is to be noted that all of this applies to each and every mortgage application, whether in the Isles of Britain or elsewhere in the world.

The swindle is wholly dependent upon the ignorance of the duped individual who, in reality, is the one who funds the purchase of the property in its entirety.

As stated previously, the licenced brokers (the ‘banks’) are in the business of wheeling and dealing in securities – they do not make loans but only extend credit and in this industrial scale fraud, the creditor (the mortgagor) is the one who provides the funding by way of his signature on a deed to a property he does not own at the time he signs the incomplete deed (it is not dated).

This is in contradiction of s1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989.
The agreement for a loan for the disposition of an interest in land (which includes mortgages) is, as a matter of fact, illegal in every case as it is not in writing and is never counter-signed by a duly appointed officer of the fake lender, which is a breach of s2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989 (the LPMP Act 1989).

The issue of a valid contract can be read in this essay, TGBMS – No Contract?

In this current situation, which is developing right now in Nottingham, we can see how, like a conjuring trick, the deception is dependent upon the ignorance of both the ‘punter’ and his legal advisor.

Naturally, it is largely dependent also upon the false notion that a loan has been made from the fake lenders’ coffers when, in accord with the monetary mechanics of modern finance, the credit is created by deposit of the fake mortgage deed in an account from which it is streamed.

Agreement means contract and in this essay, I explain exactly how a valid contract requires the agreed terms, conditions and performance of both parties. At most, the lender should be paid an administrative fee only.

In this situation, at the behest of the conveyancing solicitor and because there is no performance (loan) made by the bank, then it is what is known as a nudum pactum, literally, a naked agreement.

As an interesting aside, the question may be reasonably asked, how is it that virtually no one who leaves the public fooling system understands what actually constitutes a valid contract?

A valid contract will contain the following elements:

The agreement of the parties to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions – this can be oral, or in writing, as is required under s2. of the 1989 LPMP Act.
Consideration by both parties (the duped individual is promising to pay via the credits he earns but the bank’s performance is an illusion – no loan is made).
A written contract will contain the terms of the agreement and will be signed by the parties.
In short: the fake lender is in breach of these stipulations. It is also worth noting that without full disclosure as to where the funds originate, then any agreement becomes null and void.

As the podcast shows, the former Nottingham Bank was located in the magnificent building on Thurland Street in Nottingham. Said building has two monkey statues fixed to the stone work: commonly recognised as a mortgage monkey.

The solicitor in each and every case is being paid for his professional knowledge and from this it naturally follows that he should know the Law of Mortgages.

However, he does not for he has been miseducated during the course of his years of study in the legal system, which is, in essence, a mirror of the Talmudic system which has formulated a series of complex ‘get out’ clauses to ‘permit’ any and all unlawful stratagems.

In 2014, the case of Scott vs Southern Pacific was ruled upon by the Supreme Court, with Justice Lady Hale issuing a (unheeded) warning that there is no right to grant a charge unless you are the owner of the property –

Without exception, the conveyancing solicitor will instruct the client not to date the deed – in line with the bait and switch deception whereby the individual goes into the arrangement as the creditor and ends up as debtor.

All of which is predicated on the credit system which controlled by the financiers to their advantage and to the detriment of everyone else.

The 1989 Act makes it plain that there has to be a contract signed by all parties.

The questions which arise from this current real time expose of the duplicity of the conveyancing solicitor are straightforward:

Is it lawful for me to sign a mortgage deed over a property which I do not own?
Where is the contract as per the Act?
Can you confirm that the ‘Bank’ will be making a loan of moneys from its own coffers?

The Kuwait Bank vs Sahib case, which was between 2 banks, not between a mortgagor and a bank made it plain as long ago as 1996 –

UNITED BANK OF KUWAIT V SAHIB & OTHERS
(1996) Times, 13 February
Deposit of deeds does not create charge

COURT OF APPEAL
Published 13 February, 1996

Before Lord Justice Leggatt, Lord Justice Peter Gibson and Lord Justice Phillips

Judgment February 2, 1996

Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, which provided that a disposition of an interest in land had to be in writing in a document signed by both parties incorporating all the terms of the agreement, abolished the long established rule that a mere deposit of title deeds relating to a property by way of security created a valid equitable mortgage or charge of the property without more.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of the third defendant, Societe Generale Alsacienne de Banque SA (“SoGenAl”), from part of the judgment of Mr Justice Chadwick (The Times July 7, 1994; (1995) 2 WLR 94) in the Chancery Division when he granted a declaration that, as between SoGenAl and the plaintiff bank, United Bank of Kuwait plc, SoGenAl did not hold any equitable mortgage or charge over the undivided share belonging to the first defendant, Hadi Haji Sahib (“S”), in the proceeds of sale of the property known as 37c Fitzjohn’s Avenue, Hampstead, London… continued here

All of which may add up to the refrain,

One rule for thee but another for me.

and the selective application of the Law of Mortgages.

It is hard to escape the fact that the solicitor is acting simultaneously for the bank as well as the individual punter – is this ever disclosed? No. The conflict of interest is another element of TGBMS.

Is there any aspect of the transaction which is lawful? I would argue not in the least.

To reiterate this essential point, these are the most salient questions an indivdual can ask of his conveyancing solicitor,

Is it lawful for me to sign a mortgage deed over a property that I am not the owner of?
Where is the agreement for the loan?
Can you confirm that there does not need to be a written contract, signed by both parties as per the LPMP Act 1989?
Can you confirm that I will be receiving the loan from the bank’s own funds?

Common practice is what they will rely upon but that does not make it lawful.

How competent, therefore, are these conveyancing solicitors?

Both the separate documents that the husband and wife are being asked to sign – one for him promising to continue working into his 70s and one for her to relinquish her spousal share of the equity in the house are manifestly void and fall as fatal breaches of the Consumer Rights Act – as soon as an individual is disadvantaged, that’s a breach of the act.

At Law, the statutory regulations listed here and elsewhere have to followed by the licenced lenders but they are not. Why? Because it is a criminal racket.

In short, the conveyancing solicitors know nothing about the Law, let alone the statutory regulations they are legally required to comply with.

The notion that the LPMP Act does not apply to individuals is fallacious
There is no mortgage contract containing the signatures of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, along with the terms and conditions, in a single document.

This offends Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, in accordance with the Court of Appeal decision in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib & Others [1996] –

a mortgage or charge will not arise without a section 2 compliant contract.

This is the dilemma posed in the Rogue Cast – being furnished with the facts of the matter, what would you do?

Thank you for listening and reading the accompanying essay. As ever, I am very grateful to those who have chucked a few quid into the coffers by way of the Buy Me a Coffee button and/or take out a subscription to my Substack pages where, if you like, you can also support me by taking out a paid subscription which will grant you ‘first dibs’ on my output.

All the very best, Michael.

December 21, 2024 1

Episode 54 – The Truth

Plainly expressed, the Truth is simple, which is in marked contrast to the falsehoods that are so manifestly pumped out right now, largely by the state-institutions of propaganda but also by individuals who put their rhetoric before the grammar (the data) and logic (reason).

However, the Truth is always a beautiful thing for when it is expressed, there is a resonance in our bodies by which we intuit it to be correct.

As John Keats expressed it in his Ode on a Grecian Urn,

When old age shall this generation waste,

                Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe

Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,

         “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all

                Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

Please join me on this impromptu RogueCast in which I distinguish between those who are simply morons and those who are gobshites.

Edit: this episode is dedicatd to one of my lovely supporters, Dina whose birthday it is today. Many Happy Returns, my dear and thank you for your generous support.

If you haven’t already, then please take the time to read these articles on promissory notes and the one on the promise to pay in order to add context to what I am discoursing upon.

Please note also that I will shortly be offering a Saturday night webinar, An Introduction to the Trivium, in which I will take the audience through a practical application of this keystone of the 7 Liberal Arts which stands as the most effective method for uncovering the truth.

Many thanks to all those who have helped to keep my work going via their donations through the ‘Buy me a Coffee’ button https://www.buymeacoffee.com/modb

As stated in the RogueCast, I have been denied any form of credit across a variety of platforms – I am currently banned from accessing my Faceborg account and Google/YouTube is literally blocking me from uploading my latest RogueCasts, 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.

Thank you for watching – yours, In Truth and Honour, Michael

Episode 53: Credit Where Credit is Due

Credit creation and the Deception of Banking.

In this ramble through the woods adjacent to Beauvale Priory, in Nottinghamshire, I examine the issue of banking and fake debt, with particular reference to the swindle inherent in every mortgage. The entire edifice of what we call money is, 100% credit based, as detailed in my previous articles, A Promise to Pay and The Promissory Note.

I encourage all viewers to first read the articles at my site, www.roguemale.org in order to avail yourselves of the unassailable facts of the matter. Each of the references can be read in yesterday’s post.

As stated previously, I will be offering a Webinar which will cover each aspect of this work on the financial servitude of modern day banking.

Many thanks to all those who have helped to keep my work going via their donations through the ‘Buy me a Coffee’ button https://www.buymeacoffee.com/modb

Please note, in a somewhat ironic turn of events, I have been denied any form of credit across a variety of platforms – I am currently banned from accessing my Faceborg account and Google/YouTube is literally blocking me from uploading my latest RogueCasts, 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.

Appendix and further references:

Authorities and References:

Rose and Hudgins (2013), Bank Management and Financial Services, McGraw-Hill

Ellinger, Lomnicka and Hare (2011), Elllinger’s Modern Banking Law, 5th edition, Oxford University Press

Henry Dunning Macleod (1906), The Theory and Practice of Banking, 2nd Volume, 6th impression, Longmans, Green & Co.

Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon), various publications

1. Rose and Hudgins (2013), Bank Management and Financial Services, McGraw-Hill

p. 539

“Chapter 16, Lending Policies and Procedures

“16-7 Parts of a Typical Loan Agreement

“The Promissory Note

“When a lending institution grants a loan to one of its customers, such an extension of credit is accompanied by a written contract with several different parts. First, the promissory note, signed by the borrower, specifies the principal amount of the loan. The face of the note will also indicate the interest rate attached to the principal amount and the terms under which repayment must take place (including the dates on which any instalment payments are due).”

p. 540

“The promissory note is a negotiable instrument. This customer-signed note represents that part of the loan process where money is created. When a borrower defaults, lenders generally sue for recovery of their funds based on the content of this note.”

2. Ellinger, Lomnicka and Hare (2011), Elllinger’s Modern Banking Law, 5th edition, Oxford University Press

p. 389

“Promissory notes are used to crystallize the maker’s promise to pay a given amount (often a specific instalment payable under a facility) to the payee. They are widely used in respect of all types of lending contract…”

p. 445

Promissory Notes

“… are principally issued to secure the repayment of loan instalments or sums due…”

“The principal advantage of a promissory note for the payee is that he may either receive early payment by discounting the instrument to a third party or sue for the face value of the instrument if dishonoured at maturity. In the latter case, the payee may obtain summary judgment for the amount of the instrument, as the defences that arise out of the underlying transaction are not necessarily available to an action on the note…”

“…promissory notes and bills of exchange differ in form – the latter involves the drawer giving the drawee an order to make payment, whilst the former involves the maker giving a promise to pay – so that an instrument taking the form of a bill of exchange may be reclassified as a promissory note and vice versa.

BEA 1882, s.5(2). See also Mason v. Lack (1929) 45 TLR 363; Haseldine v. Winstanley [1939] 2 KB 101.

“…the Bill of Exchange Act 1882 in general applies with the necessary modifications to promissory notes.

“The legal requirements for a valid promissory note are the same as for bills of exchange: there must be an unconditional promise in writing signed by the maker to pay a sum certain at a fixed or determinable future time to the order of a specified payee or to bearer. Haseldine v. Winstanley [1939] 2 KB 101. s.83(1). See also City Link Melbourne Ltd. v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 272, [33]

“This definition can cover an ‘IOU’ embodying a promise to pay, a bank cheque, or any other document howsoever named that fulfils the statutory definition. See Linac v. Lehmann [2001] DCR 718, [33]-[35]

“As regards payment, there is no requirement to present a promissory note to the maker…

3. Henry Dunning Macleod (1906), The Theory and Practice of Banking, 2nd Volume, 6th impression, Longmans, Green & Co.

(Henry Dunning Macleod, Barrister at Law, Inner Temple)

p. 311
“…the business of banking is not to lend money, but to create Credit.

p. 370
“…all banking advances are made, in the first instance, by creating credit.

p. 372
“A banker never lends money, in the first instance; we have already explained that the very essence of banking is to create Credit, or liabilities payable to bearer on demand.
… All banking advances, then, are made by creating Credit, or Deposits; and whether this Credit is transferred from one person to another … in no way affects its nature or its quantity.

p. 480
“Hence credit or debt in legal, commercial and economical language, means a right of action against a person for a sum of money. Such a right, credit or debt is a chose-in-action, and is included under the terms goods and chattels.

p. 482
“Definition of Instruments of Credit or Debt
Any written record of a fact is termed an Instrument. Any written evidence of a debt is termed an Instrument of Credit or of Debt.
A written contract by which one person is bound to pay (1) a certain sum of money; (2) to a certain person; (3) at a certain time; is termed an Obligation, or Security for Money, or a Valuable Security.
…
A written Promise made by one person to pay absolutely and at all events (1) a certain sum of money; (2) to a certain person; (3) at a certain time; is in modern language termed a Promissory Note, or, shortly, a Note.

…
A mere acknowledgement of a debt, not containing a promise to pay, is usually termed an I O U.

A Bill, Note or I O U is always a chose-in-action, that is, it operates as a charge, or Credit, against the person of the Debtor.

p. 407

“If a customer wants an advance, the banker discounts his customer’s Promissory Note; … He does this in exactly the same way as he discounted a bill. He buys the Promissory Note from his customer, and in exchange for it he creates a Credit in his favour in his books, which is termed a Deposit.

p. 408

“These banking Credits are… in fact, Capital created out of Nothing.

“Thus the student must carefully observe that in the technical language of commerce a “banker” is a trader who issues his own credit, in various forms, for money and debts. This species of business, no doubt, originated with the money changers: but yet money changing is not “banking”. Nor are “bankers” money lenders: in all cases whatever they issue nothing but their own credit…

4. Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon)

Empirical evidence that banks do not lend money but create credit:

Werner, Richard A. (2016), A lost century in Economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence, International Review of Financial Analysis, 46, July, 361–379, online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2015.08.014

Werner, Richard A. (2014). Can Banks Individually Create Money Out of Nothing? – The Theories and the Empirical Evidence, International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 1-19, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.07.015

Details on just how banks are able to ‘create money out of nothing’, while non-bank firms cannot do so:

Werner, Richard A. (2014). How do banks create money, and why can other firms not do the same? An explanation for the coexistence of lending and deposit-taking, International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 71-77, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001434 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.10.013

The above publication shows that the credit is created by the bank incorrectly and without obvious justification re-classifying one type of liability (its accounts payable liability arising from its obligation to ‘lend money/sums’ to the borrower in the loan contract) as another type of liability called ‘customer deposit’ – the latter being a form of credit that is commonly used to pay for transactions. No customer nor the bank made this deposit.

September 6, 2024 4

A Promise to Pay

The inherent honour of making a promise is that the individual should fulfill it. By tendering a valid form of payment in the shape of a Promissory note made payable on demand to the bearer, the individual is fulfilling his promise, under the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882: this act is the cornerstone of the financial system under and through which the licenced credit broker (the mortgage company/’bank’) creates the credit which is used to buy the house in the first place.

That is a fact that the ‘bank’ cannot get round –

Part IV Promissory Notes

83 Promissory note defined.

(1) A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.

(2) An instrument in the form of a note payable to maker’s order is not a note within the meaning of this section unless and until it is indorsed by the maker.

(3) A note is not invalid by reason only that it contains also a pledge of collateral security with authority to sell or dispose thereof.

(4) A note which is, or on the face of it purports to be, both made and payable within the British Islands is an inland note. Any other note is a foreign note.

84 Delivery necessary.

A promissory note is inchoate and incomplete until delivery thereof to the payee or bearer.

85 Joint and several notes.

(1) A promissory note may be made by two or more makers, and they may be liable thereon jointly, or jointly and severally according to its tenour.

(2) Where a note runs “I promise to pay” and is signed by two or more persons it is deemed to be their joint and several note.

86 Note payable on demand.

(1) Where a note payable on demand has been indorsed, it must be presented for payment within a reasonable time of the indorsement. If it be not so presented the indorser is discharged.

(2) In determining what is reasonable time, regard shall be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade, and the facts of the particular case.

(3) Where a note payable on demand is negotiated, it is not deemed to be overdue, for the purpose of affecting the holder with defects of title of which he had no notice, by reason that it appears that a reasonable time for presenting it for payment has elapsed since its issue.

87 Presentment of note for payment.

(1) Where a promissory note is in the body of it made payable at a particular place, it must be presented for payment at that place in order to render the maker liable. In any other case, presentment for payment is not necessary in order to render the maker liable.

(2) Presentment for payment is necessary in order to render the indorser of a note liable.

(3) Where a note is in the body of it made payable at a particular place, presentment at that place is necessary in order to render an indorser liable; but when a place of payment is indicated by way of memorandum only, presentment at that place is sufficient to render the indorser liable, but a presentment to the maker elsewhere, if sufficient in other respects, shall also suffice. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61/part/IV

In yesterday’s article, I provided a number of citations, including those of Professor Richard Werner which testify to the unassailable validity of this all-encompassing legislation, which is relevant to each and every English speaking country around this realm and even India.

The financial ring that controls it all is not backed by anything other than the Promise to Pay on the simple basis that the currency is all fiat – meaning it is not backed by anything of substance. In the case of the ‘UK”, the gold standard upon which the Great British Pound was backed was removed in 1931. The Bank of England has openly stated this is the case and that,

Debt consists mainly of debt securities and bank loans, but also includes trade credits, currency and deposits and loans by multilateral institutions. P31, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2008/quarterly-bulletin-2008-q1.pdf

Credit Where Credit is Due

In the above cited first quarterly bulletin from the Bank of England, the author, Charles Bean, Chief Economist and Executive Director for Monetary Policy, Bank of England states in his conclusion,

Summary and conclusions

Let me try to pull together some of my central themes.

I have stressed that we should take care to avoid talking about money when we mean credit. In a similar spirit, we should be clear when we mean total credit and when bank lending, but without assuming the two are divorced.

Notice how he conflates credit and lending when the two are manifestly not the same thing. This is the sleight of hand that underpins the operations of the credit facilitators and it is what Woodrow Wilson was lamenting some time after he had signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which placed credit-creation in the hands of the Rothschilds and their associates. Any country with a ‘Central’ Bank is under the same octopus of control,

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

Naturally, the question which should arise in the mind of anyone who has a mortgage over his home is this: should I deliver a promissory note to my mortgage company in order that it be deposited in a special account from which the credit can be created to zero the balance on my void mortgage?

Well, why not? After all, the entire racket is predicated on the promise to pay, as set in stone by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, and, irrespective of the cogniitve dissonance of the ‘bank’ staff, it is a lawful remedy that is available to us all. Were that not the case, there would be no dead pledge – mortgage – in the first place.

I would also add that it is important to stay in honour – tendering a valid form of a deposit in the shape of a negotiable instrument called a Promissory Note to settle a purported debt is, in my view, an entirely honourable act, as exemplified by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882.

Should you deliver the note to the CEO of the lender and some bean counter at the ‘bank’ claims that they cannot accept it, then they are lying to you. Further, in each instance, the note will not be returned to you. Why? It has value.

Either way, you have them by the short and curlies – after all, when a valid payment is refused, the debt is discharged.

Quite literally, you have nothing to lose.

Anyone wanting assistance is welcome to drop me a line and keep your eyes open for an upcoming Webinar in which I will expand further on this most interesting of possibilities.

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.

September 6, 2024 3

Episode 43: Hide and Seek

All children love a game of hide and seek. They like the thrill of concealment as much they enjoy the role of seeker. This week’s RogueCast is from Shipley Hall Park, Heanor and is about the metaphorical notion that we are in a perpetual game of hide and seek.

The game of ‘pee-ka-boo’ begins in infancy and continues throughout our sojourn in this realm – a realm in which things suddenly appear, then vanish. A realm in which thoughts fly through the receivers known as our brains, in a manner similar to how radio waves ripple in to radio sets.

We ignore, or choose to discount certain thoughts, whilst we simultaneously falsely think ourselves to be the originator of those thoughts, which ‘magically’ pop into our brains.

The realm we are in is one of dark and light – night and day -that dances around us as an invisible informed field – one which some may term the Akashic record (field). It is a perceived reality in which that which is hidden by the darkness is brought into bright relief when a light is shone upon it.

Light and dark – now you see me, now you don’t.

Open and hidden.

Thus, life teaches us that we are in a perpetual game of hide and seek. Sometimes we are hiding, sometimes seeking.

Each magician’s trick relies on deception, on the use of smoke and mirrors to conceal the sleight of hand. Like the media coverage of the UK General Election, it’s all hide and seek, a method of distraction of the factions and concealment of the hidden infiltrators.

All I wish to state on this particular subject is summed up by Mark Twain . who so succinctly wrote,

“If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let you do it. “

One of the more interesting aspects of the recent (s)election campaigning has been the revelation of media manipulation, which has revealed the old game of hide and seek in astonishing clarity.

if there is anyone out there who is unaware of just how scripted, corrupt and inverted the ‘media’ is, then these examples may go some way to helping you see. Or maybe not, for everyone – and I mean everyone – is in a self-perpetuating game of hide and seek.

There is always something to hide – thoughts, feelings, shameful tendencies … the list is endless and it is part and parcel of who we are. To have secrets, to conceal our thoughts or emotions is simply to be hman.

When you are the seeker, however, you are in the role of the one who is uncovering secrets.

The first example of an attempt by the media to influence the election is Channel 4’s purchase from another ‘media’ group footage of an actor, posing as one of Reform’s assistants. The bloke is an actor with his own IMD profile, agency and website.

He was acting out the role of a ‘right wing’ character. However, he got rumbled and he was outed within minutes as being a plant. The media co which sold the footage to Ch4, openly promotes its use of fake ‘hidden camera’ techniques.

The second is the BBC being found out to be paying members of its Question Time audience to question Farage.

The interminable game of life is one of Hide and Seek. Sometimes, we hide, sometimes we seek and all the while we are filtering out information just as we are selecting data that interests us.

in support of which, I offer this from the Kolbrin Bible (4:16 )

The Earth is not for the pleasure of man, but is a place of instruction for his Soul. A man more readily feels the stirrings of his Spirit in the face of disaster than in the lap of luxury. The tuition of the Soul is a long and arduous course of instruction and training.”

In what sense is the world a fiction?

The key? To know that you are a sojourner passing through a shadow-play construct in a biological-meat-suit; to remember how much closer you were to this realisation as a child, fresh from the source of all that is. Namely, God.

Further listening – Sheep Farm Podcast

July 8, 2024 4

Subscribe For Latest RogueMale posts