So BuyerCo/SellerCo had to issue and register two separate and distinct securities with different (but consecutive) securities registration numbers from the Land Title Office / Registry. One for the Mortgage, and one for the Assignment of Rents.

In this case the project was to take a well-located 40-suite (large suites) residential apartment building, that was already owned near free and clear by one of the constructive partners, and renovate and convert it to an 80-suite (smaller / half-size suites) extended-stay hotel / motel business, at a cost of about $2 million.

The owner of BuyerCo had the concept and the experience and management expertise in the hotel / motel industry, and the owner of SellerCo was the near clear-title-owner of the property that was both strategically located and had an ideal layout for the conversion.

The existing apartment / residential accommodation business had an annual cash flow of 40 suites times about $12,000, or $500,000, more or less.

If the owner were to issue an Assignment of Rents, then the receiver of it would receive a legal security covering (or securitizing) that $500,000 per year.

As an extended-stay hotel business, however, the same building and operating business would generate 80 suites times $25,000 per year, or $2 million per year in cash flow.

Most people who have occasion to even think about it, believe that the Assignment of Rents is a kind of contingency provision that is triggered by an act of default, and which then allows the banker to step in to receive the rents directly from the tenants. While that is true, it is far from the whole truth.

Most anything of any substantial value, basically anything with a serial number – has both a legal-title and a use-title (“yoose”-title) or equity title.

A most simple apparent example is as with a rental car. The rental company owns and possesses the legal-title, while the renter temporarily obtains the use-title or use of the vehicle as represented by the rental contract. The renter enjoys the use of the vehicle for one purpose (e.g., to go to the beach), while the legal-title holder employs the same vehicle in a profit-making (car rental) business enterprise.

Likewise, assume that you own outright 10,000 new vans or pick-up trucks, and that you decide to employ them or invest them in the operation of a global package-delivery service to make business profits. At the same time, you can pledge the legal-titles to the same trucks or even the operating business itself as security / premium for credit (albeit in the existing bogus system) by which to obtain capacity to invest in the stock markets so as to earn an additional income stream and return on the spread, and, again, effectively from the same trucks.

What the private financial system does under the Assignment of Rents is to apply the same title-duality or divided-titles directly to financial instruments and, as here, directly to money (cash flow) itself.

There is in fact precedent for at least the bare concept. There is for example a certain 1950’s era Bank of Canada $1,000 bill (currency note) that is still valid and worth $1,000 as legal tender.

But the same chattel or thing has an alternative and real market value of about $14,000 as a collectors’ item or numismatic item.

But, and critically, it can only be used as one or the other at any given time, and not both concurrently as with the Assignment of Rents.

So if there were to be an act of default, then the bank / banker would step in under the Assignment of Rents to demand and receive the rents directly from the tenants / guests. But in such case it is now also obtaining the actual or equity title to the rents, while concurrently continuing to enjoy the legal-title to the same rents in the financial markets.

In 2006, the owner of BuyerCo discovered or was informed during a chance encounter with a former associate (while attempting to trace the nominal mortgage in the markets), that, after the nominal transaction, the bank had obtained what it is called a CUSIP or securities registration number on the separate Assignment of Rents, and that it was then being used in a basket of securities that had been used to secure some form of bonds that were trading on the London Exchange and the NYSE.

The nominal loan transaction lasted in fact for about 10 years to 2006, during which BuyerCo/SellerCo paid the bank an additional total of about $1.5 million in interest called interest under the mortgage (plus payment-again or re-payment of the kited principal).

But over the same ten year period the total cash-flow from the rents, and securitized by the Assignment of Rents, was $2 million per year, or $20 million total, or about 14 times more / greater than under the nominal mortgage transaction.

So if we do an equity-audit of the whole nominal transaction, we may well find that the bank obtained more ill-gotten-gains / unjust enrichment from the Assignment of Rents than it did from the equally falsified mortgage.

For those who may be somewhat confused, the concept is quite simple.

There are two de facto parallel universes operating on this planet, one for the 99%, and one for the 1%.

The de facto national anthem for the 99% is “Working on the Chain Gang”.

The de facto national anthem for the 1% is the “Money for Nothing” song (I want my MTV).

As long as you are a member of the 1% Club you can convert virtually anything of value into more income for yourself – as long as you take it away from a productive member of the 99%.

Is that clear?

We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as an arm of the entrenched-money-power. 

At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience. 

At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.

Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game is over.

Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X (an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider. 

So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn’t. We’ll let you know next time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.

Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template.

Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually exclusive, the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both, and we’ll let you know if and when it becomes important.

So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure that that question is never presented in that way.

After person, the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo-like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in advance).

Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and received by the debtor for their own use and control?

Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount received?

Is the amount of principal a question of fact? Or of the agreement of parties?

[Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]

Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): “I will loan you $10,000 at 20% per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you $15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or loan fee of $5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds.”

In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it $10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the debtor for their own use? Or is it $15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is it $20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets ($15,000 mortgage + $5,000 cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?

Is it a noun/fact? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question that theoretically cannot exist.

Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense, while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in more specialized financial dictionaries.

So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or regulation defines it to the effect “The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees”, while virtually every financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent alternative/contrary meaning.

This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.

Thus principal means the nominal creditor’s actual and net investment, unless it doesn’t.

With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.

With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth. With a financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child’s play. With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street.

And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little people of the product of their labour.

As in: You have received the principal amount ($10,000) and you are going to pay back the principal amount ($15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged) interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective – according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in time.

It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything.

A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit, discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution, etc., all of which mean either “X” or its conceptual opposite “Minus-X” at the option of the entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic arbitrage.

Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate reality via congo-linguistic parallax. The first two are mine, and the last two are from the American and English Courts, respectively.

1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic. We perceive reality very largely as a function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it. The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think it.

2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of perceiving reality beyond labels.

3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion:

“A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).

4.

One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.

I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith.

The mother-of-all-false-premises is that banking is money-lending.

Banking is not money-lending – it is credit-reinsurance.

Banking is an equity extraction business passed-off as an equity investment business.

Modern banks do not advance credit to nominal debtors – they obtain credit from nominal debtors, and then insure or reinsure or nominally guarantee that credit in favour of the vendor / seller of the real-estate or other property being sold and purchased with the credit.

The credit / money, per se, does not even exist unless and until the nominal debtor underwrites it by agreeing that they owe it (i.e., by assuming / underwriting / accepting the liability). In about 98% of all nominal credit transactions, what we are conditioned to describe and label as borrowers or debtors are in fact / substance (equity) the lead-underwriters and creditors-in-fact / equity.

More precisely, however, in the vast majority of cases – also about 98% of them – the bank is a credit reinsurer. The nominal debtor creates the credit / money by underwriting the liability, and insures or secures that (their) credit with a pledge / attachment of physical security (e.g., real estate or automobile or whatever) and hypothecation of their future income (normally from labour) to service it.

Normally, then, the bank receives insured / secured credit from the lead-underwriter, and then homogenizes or reinsures it (while stripping off the nominal security as a reinsurance premium for itself) in favour of the vendor / seller of the property being acquired with the credit.

In some cases, such as nominally unsecured credit-card debt, the bank is more precisely a direct (and / but only nominal) credit insurer, but normally they function as (nominal) reinsurers. But, with that clarification and understanding, I will refer to the general function as credit reinsurance (and with further clarification where appropriate).

The nominal bankers arrive at any given nominal credit transaction with metaphoric empty pockets and do not contribute anything that they do not obtain from the other two parties. The banker arrives with nothing, yet walks away with the legal title to the property from the seller / vendor in one hand, and a promissory note (immediate undertaking and underwriting of liability) and mortgage from the nominal debtor in the other.

Mainstream criticism is virtually non-existent, and almost all non-mainstream criticism of the private nominal banking system focuses on the many and varied frauds against the nominal / pretended debtor and issuer of the financial security.

But there is a concurrent equity-fraud against the seller / vendor, and corresponding (additional) independent unjust / unearned enrichment of the bank.

Assume the most simple configuration of three parties – a vendor, a purchaser, and the bank as purported middleman, and that the vendor is the clear-title owner of the property being sold.

The purchaser issues a note-and-mortgage-secured-liability (underwriting credit) equal to the purchase price to the bank, and which the bank receives and recognises as a commensurate increase in its cash-equivalent money assets. The bank now owns the nominal security, or what the Criminal Code defines as a “valuable security” equal to the amount of debt that it evidences.

The bank then agrees that it owes the purchaser the amount of the purchase price via a deposit-account-liability in the amount of the purchase price, but which did not cost the bank anything material to create (in equity), and more so (in law) because it is unsecured.

The purchaser then assigns the bank’s deposit-liability-to-the-purchaser, via cheque, to the vendor. Now the bank agrees that it owes the vendor the purchase price.

When the transactional-dust-settles, the vendor has exchanged their clear-title-interest in the property, for an unsecured deposit-liability of the bank, while the purchaser has exchanged their future income stream for the bank’s agreement to accept the purchaser’s agreement that they owe the bank the purchase price (plus interest). Is that clear?

Every such transaction is a double-cross-leveraged socioeconomic fraud where the alleged middleman is systemically robbing or defrauding both of the other parties, while making it appear that they are merely reallocating assets and liabilities between the two parties.

From the nominal bankers’ perspective there is only one material reality, and that is that real equity assets go in, and only unsecured liabilities go out.

The acid test is the bank’s balance sheet. If the bank were making an equity investment, then its cash-equivalent / money assets would decline by an equal amount with the making of an equity investment or loan. And there would be no change in its liabilities. An equity lender does not incur any liability to anyone by making a loan.

But if it is acting as a credit-reinsurance provider, then its liabilities will increase by the amount of credit that it has received and re-issued / re-insured, and its assets will also increase by the amount of the de facto premium that it has received (legal title to the property, plus the note and mortgage) for its assumption of that liability to the vendor through the nominal debtor.

That is why virtually all such so-called financial institutions (de facto asset harvesters) have assets or assets under management (AUM) that consistently (year-after-year) increase at a rate that is roughly (or rather at least) ten times greater than can be accounted for by their declared income. It is systematized unearned and unjust enrichment and fraud.

Money-lending versus credit-reinsurance

In terms of the difference in fact / equity, there is a material difference between banking and insurance / reinsurance, and that difference has been (at least selectively) recognised and acted upon for hundreds of years. It is not just academic, but the nexus of the global financial system in practice. More specifically we are addressing true investment banking (money-lending) on the banking side, and credit-insurance / reinsurance on the insurance side.

Banking, per se, means the loaning / investment of money as equity, per se, and not the otherwise unfunded (or rather negative-funded) assumption of risk or liability. A good way to recognise and appreciate the monumental difference is via the business of bottomry (The bottom in bottomry refers to the hull or bottom of a ship; also involving pledging the ship and / or its cargo as security but that is not necessary for this simple / general process example).

Assume that you are a wealthy 18th century man or woman in London, and that you are offered the chance to participate financially (in whole or in part) in a planned commercial venture.

It will cost £100,000 (paid up front) to charter and provision a ship and crew to sail to India (and return) and another £100,000 to purchase a full cargo of peppercorns and other spices in India to bring back to London where they can be readily sold to wholesalers for £500,000. The potential profit is therefore a net £300,000 on a £200,000 investment.

But there is also a carefully-monitored-and-estimated one-in-three chance that the ship will sink in a storm during the year-long voyage, and so the expected (calculated average) loss is £66,667. The risk insurer also needs to make an average profit to be induced into the risk underwriting, and so we will assume a total premium of £100,000. Now the required investment is a total £300,000, and the potential profit is reduced to £200,000.

But the investors gain an advantage because with the risk insurance there is a 2/3 chance that the business venture will be successful (and yield a 60% gain), and a 1/3 chance that they will merely recover their investment.

At this point the nominal investor or player would choose to participate in either the business investment venture, or in the insurance or risk underwriting of the business venture / voyage.

The critical difference is that if they chose to participate / invest in the business venture, then that requires a net outflow / investment of their existing investment money. But if they chose instead to participate in the risk insurance underwriting, then they would receive a net inflow of premium money up front in exchange for their legal and financial assumption of the risk(s) of the voyage.

The insurance function is a negative or contra-investment (an extraction of equity) because the assumption-of-risk premiums (£100,000) have to be paid up front to the risk underwriters from the funds / equity (total £300,000) contributed by the business venture investors.

Virtually everything that a modern nominal bank does is under the insurance / reinsurance function (taking money / equity out now in exchange for the issuance of risk / liability) and not the business investment function (putting money / equity in now). With the exception of nominal cash advances under nominal credit / charge-card accounts (which are actually cash loans), most everything else results in the nominal bank taking net money (equity) out of the system via the reinsurance (premium for liability-assumption) function, and almost never putting it back in under the equity investment (money-lending) function.

The (legitimate) business of banking is the (cash / equity-out loaning / investment of money) financing of the commercial ventures. Banking results in the commensurate reduction / depletion of a bank’s existing assets with the making of a loan, and not the acquisition of a new liability. If a true bank (or any true equity lender) has $1 million in cash (loanable) assets, and makes $1 million in loan investments, then that bank will have run out of assets to loan. It may have a means by which to acquire more assets to loan, but its original stock is gone, and it has no outstanding liabilities with respect to those loans. Its $1 million in cash / equity is gone / invested (and at risk of default) but the bank does not incur any liability to anyone by making a loan or investment.

A credit-reinsurance provider, however, recognises and records a commensurate increase in its liabilities as a consequence of its credit-reinsurance function, plus a corresponding increase in its assets equal to the credit-reinsurance-premium taken / received at the time of the transaction.

Also, the financial institution cannot account for the fact of the asset without relying on the liability.

In most simple terms and / or the most simple (and objective) test:

When a lender makes a loan, then its assets decline by a commensurate amount, and there is no change in its liabilities.

When a credit reinsurer reinsures credit, then its assets increase by a commensurate amount, and so do its liabilities.

A money-lender purchases its assets with and through the investment of existing (equity) assets.

A credit reinsurer purchases its assets with the issuance of new and costless-to-produce (legal-debt) liabilities.

The most salient reality, however, is that all broadly-defined creditors are either one or the other.

There is nothing else out there.
_____

Hope it helps. Tim.

By whatever means, fate will have selected me for such power, and of course about 100 million people would have each paid an average of at least $10 in cash buying tickets to make it happen.

Also further assume, just to keep track of it, that the typical/average lottery-ticket-buyer earns $14 per hour, and nets $10 after nominal taxes, such that the $1 billion jackpot represents the product of an aggregate 140 million hours of labour already performed (plus whatever percentage the government keeps from total ticket sales).

But the cash would be mine regardless and I would own it in fact (possession) and in law.

Yet the next day if and when I deposit the cash in a private bank, the cash henceforth belongs in fact and in law to the bank, and I (henceforth) have an unsecured liability of the bank that I own and which I can trade with or assign to others by cheque (check), but which did not cost the bank anything of substance to produce.

Now the private bank also has $1 billion of new socioeconomic power by my decision to so favour it – a systemic gift of the equity and financial product of 140 million hours of labour already performed.

Now apply the same process to the (say) $5 trillion-plus of earnings from new broadly-defined labour services annually in the U.S. economy.

Assume that you work for a year to earn a cash payment of $100,000 in exchange for your labour and other skills and talents that others find useful in that amount. You too will have earned a certain amount of socioeconomic power.

But the instant you deposit the money into a bank account, it is no longer your legal or actual money, and you have unwittingly made the private bank an equal partner in the product of your year’s labour. Same with cheques/checks (and anything that is deposited) – the bank literally and legally owns your paycheque the instant you deposit it.

The same goes for all the illegal-drug-money globally. Even if the drug dealers could obtain every last coin and banknote on Earth, there is still only about the USD-equivalent of $1 trillion, or about a one-year supply for the world’s broadly-defined substance-abuse industries. So if it has been going on for 40 years-in-fact, then you know with certainty that virtually every last dollar of such drug money is being laundered-in-fact (converted to deposit balances) through private banks. It can’t go anywhere else. They are partners-in-theory and they are partners-in-fact.

Then if and when you participate in the financial markets, you find that your local bank, as all banks individually and collectively, is not just a scorekeeper, but an active participant on the economic and financial playing field. So even if you beat it, you give your gain back to it when you deposit it. When your opponent scores a point, it scores a point. When you score a point, your point is forfeit to your opponent, but you get a different kind of point as a consolation, so it is kind of all right.

And since at least my great-great-great-grandfather’s time, our global army of economic analysts, with more troops worldwide than Napoleon and Wellington combined at Waterloo, cannot figure out that unearned and unjust conveyance of rights of property in money itself, via deposits and the custom and practice of private bankers, is a multi-hundred-trillion-dollar annual business of itself, and the defining reality of our entire system. It has just never occurred to anyone that it might be important?

Just as the words “application fee” or “loan fee” or “commitment fee” excite a different area of your brain, than do the words “True-principal-amount and real-interest-rate obfuscation and concealment fee” or “GAAP-fraud concealment fee”, so too does the word “deposit” evoke a very different reality than the more conceptually accurate “gratuitous wealth transfer”. As in: “Hi Bob, I just got my paycheque, and I am on my way to gratuitously assign the right of property in my earnings to the bank. I’ll meet you later for pizza.”

Since the founding of the privately-owned Bank of England, for that matter; for 323 years our international army of bloodhound economists have failed to grasp the significance of this one all-encompassing and game-defining rule.

Now let’s see, why would an economist concern themselves with something as arcane as rights of property in money itself, in a global system that processes $98 of financial/money transactions for every $2 of actual GDP? You witness $3 quadrillion of financial transactions annually to support global GDP of $60 trillion (2%) and you Einsteins can’t think of a single reason why rights of property in the $3 quadrillion might have some effect on human socioeconomic relationships?

Assuming that there are about 7,000 substantive private deposit-taking institutions globally, then there would be one such special-player per million human players (labour units). Assume also that each special-player is substantially and beneficially owned and/or controlled by one vested-oligarch-family-unit, with the most senior (and largest by far) units having been in place for over 300 years.

In this game, all seven billion human players perform labour each day for wages and 90% of them, by amounts, deposit those wages into deposit (gratuitous wealth transfer) accounts at one of the 7,000 special-players/family-units, at which point the wages become the legal and actual property of the special-players/families. The special players call their special advantage a level playing field and which is their inherent right by the longstanding custom and practice of private bankers.

And for 323 years our inter-generational global army of economists cannot figure out “What’s wrong with this game?”

_____

Hope it help. Tim.

Assume that I am your payment agent and that you spend $60,000 from your salary ($5,000 per month) over the course of a year at various merchant establishments via a card that I give you for that purpose. Over the course of the year you also repay or reimburse me in cash / equity from your earned-income or monthly paycheques for that $5,000 per month or $60,000 total that I have paid out to merchants on your behalf.

Now assume that you discover that I have not in fact paid any of the said merchants, but have only agreed that I owe them, such that I have also retained or pocketed your $60,000 of cash (equity) reimbursement.

Does that make a difference?

It makes all the difference in the world.

In terms of procedure, approximately one billion card-users globally went to work an average of 25 days per month last year to earn at least an aggregate of $7 trillion (USD-equivalent) cash money / equity that they then paid to aggregate credit/charge-card companies (visa and mastercard banks alone) as what they believed to be reimbursement, while the said companies / banks have merely increased or kited their aggregate liabilities to the same merchants (and their assigns) by nearly $7 trillion while pocketing the $7 trillion of cash / equity.

It works out to about 10% of global GDP (i.e., just through the visa / mc credit/charge-card systems alone).

Do you think that that has some substantial effect on human socioeconomic relationships as opposed to a world where the aggregate card-issuers are required to actually pay the merchants instead of merely kiting / ever-inflating their liabilities?

I was a high-school junior / freshman in the early 1970’s when Howard Hughes purportedly became the world’s first billionaire. And although undoubtedly a great entrepreneur in his own right, his greater fortune had been given an immense head-start by, among other things, his inheritance of the Hughes Tool Company from his father.

So at that time we basically first needed the number “one billion” or 1,000,000,000 to account for the inter-generationally-accumulated fortune of the world’s purportedly richest man.

And also at that time I would estimate in good faith that the majority of my classmates and the public generally would have had some trouble even identifying the precise concept of a trillion. We had only just been introduced to only very occasional references to a billion and the word trillion would normally have been used merely as a general or generic reference to an astronomically large number.

Then as I lived my life through the 1980’s and 1990’s the term billion and multiple billions came into increasingly common use, especially in reference to the major financial fortunes won on the world’s stock markets.

Then the word trillion was increasingly needed to describe the aggregate fortunes of relatively small groupings of what were called dot-com billionaires. Notwithstanding that a billion is a thousand millions and a trillion is a thousand billions or a million millions.

Then as we passed into the first decade of the 21st century we were introduced to the term quadrillion (1,000,000,000,000,000) or one thousand trillions or one million billions to describe the nominal exposure of what is called the derivative markets (and which only exists to account for the money / liability itself).

So for all of human history to about the middle of the 20th century the concepts of million and multiple millions were sufficient to account for the inter-generationally-accumulated fortunes of the world’s richest man / men / families. But once then introduced and educated to appreciate what a billion is, at least we could have reasonably expected not to have to make the same adjustment again in our lifetimes or even our great-grandchildren’s lifetimes.

I also recall the major breakthrough of the late 1970’s when we achieved the great pre-tax $5 per hour for wages on entry-level jobs. Forty years later $10 per hour is about the minimum wage in practice. So based on that criteria we ought to be now speaking in terms of about two billion to describe the same top-of-the-pile that we needed one billion to describe in the 1970’s. And certainly no more than about ten billion.

But after the last fifty years of the global credit/charge-card system, if we pause and look back, we see that globally we have collectively earned the USD-equivalent of at least $100 trillion or $100,000,000,000,000, and that we have paid that amount to the aggregate banks as cash / equity reimbursement for the same amount that the banks have ostensibly paid to broadly-defined merchants on our behalf over the same 50-year period. (Less about $3 trillion in concealed interest / credit charges called “merchant discounts” – but that is a different fraud).

[2. For one billion card-users $100 trillion works out to an average of $100,000 per card-user over 50 years or $2,000 per year.]

But then we look a little more closely to discover that the banks / bankers collectively still owe the world’s merchants (and their assigns) the same $100 trillion and that they have never paid them at all, but instead endlessly kite their liabilities while taking our cash / equity to wager in the financial markets, to buy up most everything else, and to pay themselves ever larger dividends, salaries and bonuses.

Here again, the Big Five private banks in Canada had about $32 billion of total assets balanced by $32 billion of liabilities (i.e., they owed about $1,600 per Canadian times 20 million Canadians) in 1968 when the visa credit card system was introduced into Canada. Almost fifty years later the same five banks have over $4 trillion of assets balanced / off-set by $4 trillion of liabilities (they owe about $120,000 per Canadian times 35 million Canadians).

The near $4 trillion or $4,000 billion difference is a function of endlessly-kited liabilities. We keep feeding them our cash earnings from labour and other forms of production, and they keep pocketing the cash and kiting their liabilities to anyone and everyone.

The bank(s) merely agree that they owe the merchants by issuing them deposit account credits (“substitutes for currency”) that do not cost the banks anything material to produce. The merchant then writes cheques to its employees, suppliers and other service providers. Now the bank(s) agree that they owe the entities to whom the cheques have been written instead of the original merchant(s). But except in about 2% of cases the banks never actually pay anyone.

[3. And even then they are only discharging in favour of the Crown as lead underwriter/debtor. Legal tender is by definition evidence of Crown debt.]

Economists are trained to say that banks may create credit for free, but also that the same credit is destroyed when it is repaid, so it is not really as bad as it appears. But that is only half the equation and they essentially deal with the other half by ignoring it.

The bank’s credit asset is indeed destroyed when it is repaid in cash / equity, but the bank continues to hold and own the cash repayment as a much more valuable replacement for it. By process the loan asset was used to support the mirror-image creation of an off-setting liability to the vendor or merchant, and that liability persists long after the credit asset has been re-paid or converted to the debtor’s former equity (mostly from labour). In fact it persists forever or until the scheme collapses.

Taking today (the current 24 hours) as a snap-shot-in-time, the banks globally (through visa and mastercard alone) will collectively kite another $20 billion or $20,000,000,000 in new liabilities to merchants. Seven trillion dollars per year in gross throughput works out to about $20 billion per day and that is the current expansion rate of the gross credit/charge-card liability-kiting bubble.

As at late 2017 there have been a number of articles in the media about who from the current crop of mega-billionaires will become the world’s first genuine trillionaire. So we see that over the past 50 years the measurement standard for the world’s single richest human has increased by an approaching 1,000-fold (from $1 billion to $1 trillion), while the minimum wage in practice for the little people has increased about 5-fold (from about $2 per hour to $10 per hour). In practice it would appear that the vaunted level playing field has an actual slope of about 500-to-1 in favour of the entrenched money power.

Any bleeping moron could rule the world with the benefit of rules like that. Bankers are not financial geniuses. The only reason they own and / or control everything is because their great-grandfathers accidentally discovered the great stupid-ray that keeps the rest of us believing whatever they tell us regardless of how obviously and profoundly stupid.

We only need to keep in mind one thing to grasp / comprehend the fraud and scam that is banking, and that is that the global banking system essentially still owes to someone every last dollar that it has ever allegedly loaned / advanced to anyone. At the very end the nominal bankers (credit-insurers-in-fact) will both own everything and owe everything.

In 2007 the High Court of (the Province of) Gujurat in India made the following decision in a dispute involving two banking companies where one had sold / assigned its nominal portfolio of bad debts to the other: (Assignment of Debts (Appeal no. 156 of 2007) in KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. versus O.L. of M/S APS STAR IND LTD. (emphasis added):

24. In fact the concept of trading in debts is, by its very nature, abhorrent to the concept of banking in any form, either the form of primary business of banking or the additional activities…

48. (n). [T]he entire [sale or assignment] transaction is based on a speculative form of activity which can never be a permissible mode of activities as part of, or in addition to, or incidental to or conducive to the promotion for advancement of the business of a banking company;
So why would the judges of the Court say that? What is it that these judges know that the global public generally do not?

There are a number of independent reasons or routes by which the Court / judges would arrive at the same conclusion, but the short answer here is that equity dominates law (in this case the law of the contract) and the original merchants and / or their assigns have a superior equity title to the assets of the defaulting debtor(s) (who are the financial creditors-in-fact but that is another issue).

The merchandise provided by the original merchants is what created the legal-debts and the merchant(s) have still not been paid (i.e., the debts have been discharged (passed on or assigned to someone else) but not paid). The original bank has still not paid the merchants but only agreed that it owes them (and / or their assigns), and so that bank has an inferior claim to the money owing by the defaulting card-users. The nominal selling bank cannot sell the debts to another party because that original bank has itself still not paid for them. Is that clear?

This decision may well turn out to be one of the first cracks in the global system of control by the entrenched-money-power. If you think that the financial system is crooked at the front-end, it is breathtakingly and scandalously criminal at the back-end. Global nominal debt-collection and deemed-debtor-management practices would make Al Capone or even Attilla the Hun blush.

From a different perspective, the kiting of liabilities is also how and why Bernie Madoff, for example, was able to run a flagrant ponzi scheme in broad daylight for 25-plus years. It is all one massive on-going ponzi scheme and Mr. Madoff wasn’t doing anything that would cause anyone to point and say “Hey he shouldn’t be doing that!”. He wasn’t running a ponzi scheme on the back of an honest system – he was running a ponzi scheme nested and disguised within a larger ponzi scheme.

The larger system / arrangement is contrary to every rule of law and equity and is in fact utterly ridiculous but the bankers and the entrenched-money-power generally have employed the power of language to fraudulently induce the rest of us to believe that that is the way things ought to be.

It now becomes clear regardless as to the real purpose of the massive global movement to nominally eliminate cash. It is not the cash that the private bankers want to eliminate so much as cash convertibility of their liabilities.

Eliminating cash convertibility is functionally indistinguishable from printing a global aggregate of the USD-equivalent of about $200 trillion (or $200,000 billion) and making a gift of it to the private banking (credit-insurance) system. Over the past 50 years they have collectively kited $200 trillion of liabilities and now they are going to effectively / constructively cancel (default on) their debts for the common good.

But in both law and equity the nominal anti-cash movement defines the private global banking system as an absconding debtor whose goal is to avoid and evade their lawful and legal debts.

Another false premise in the systemized delusion here is that the socioeconomic damages created by pyramid / ponzi / kiting schemes occur when they collapse. The truly massive socioeconomic damages (misdirection and misuse of resources) occur while the schemes are working and not when they collapse.

And they could have gotten away with it forever – if they would not have become so greedy and flat-out-stupid.

The bankers and their solicitors have effectively committed the ultimate folly of believing their own legal-fiction-based word-games. The only thing holding their system together was the bare pretence of the legality of it and that is now gone. Again, not just in Canada but throughout most of the world.

In both equity and in law (in fact and in law) the entrenched-money-power – the so-called “1%” – are the greatest debtors in world history. The only thing preventing justice (equity) is policy – the policy of the former bank lawyers running the Courts (English Crown) that criminal offences committed by the entrenched-money-power-parasites-in-fact are criminal but not fundamentally illegal because the criminal law only provides that offenders will be severely punished but does not expressly state Don’t do it.

[The reference above is to the 1989/90 decisions of the Canadian appellate courts that criminal acts committed by creditors and their solicitors are “not fundamentally illegal” (Thomson, (William E.) Associates Inc. v. Carpenter [1989] 34 O.A.C. 365).]