Warning: Declaration of MyAuthPlugin::initUser(&$user) should be compatible with AuthPlugin::initUser(&$user, $autocreate = false) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php on line 37

Warning: session_name(): Cannot change session name when session is active in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/Setup.php on line 222

Warning: session_set_cookie_params(): Cannot change session cookie parameters when session is active in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2446

Warning: session_cache_limiter(): Cannot change cache limiter when session is active in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2451

Warning: Parameter 1 to MediaWiki_TIGAutoAuthenticate() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/Hooks.php on line 117

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/Feed.php on line 125

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10
http://www.aalf.org/wiki/index.php?title=LawyerArredondo270&action=history Revision history for this page on the wiki en MediaWiki 1.13.3 Wed, 04 Nov 2026 22:42:41 GMT http://www.aalf.org/wiki/index.php?title=LawyerArredondo270&diff=63180&oldid=prev <p>New page: #1 Mortgage Elimination provides a properly confidential administrative procedure which has so far been 100% effective. It's a non-confrontational method to insure there is not any litigat...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>#1 Mortgage Elimination provides a properly confidential administrative procedure which has so far been 100% effective. It's a non-confrontational method to insure there is not any litigation. After all, what bank can be dumb enough to need to take their own fraud into court with someone you never know their secrets and easy methods to cope with them? The &quot;lending&quot; techniques which can be used are beyond brilliant. It took some very, very smart individuals to figure out easy methods to look like lending money, truly have the value supplied the actual person getting financing. And which is what is happening.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> If you're a real, ethical one who believes that the party who funds credit must be repaid, only then do we will help you. When you get the facts, you'll be happy for being repaid for funding your own loan and wonder why the bankers thought they should be paid.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> All we're getting you is equal protection underneath the law, equal protection in the personal loan agreement, with regard to the full truth in regards to the personal loan agreement being revealed. The whole facts are NOT revealed to the borrower. The bank or some other loan company does NOT open up to you your MO is actually a good point for the bank - these people deposit as THEIR asset.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The bank does not let you understand the IOU is truly a &quot;IOU&quot; in the Uniform Commercial Code, and this it is going to be deposited to finance the loan. Nor did they tell you that this bank the liability to you of approximately the amount of the borrowed funds. (The bank owes you by their particular bookkeeping entries!)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The bank does NOT tell you that you just actually provided the real cash value on your own loan! Thus, the bank only appears for being lending you anything. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> That's right: banks and loan company only seem to lend money. Let's go on a quick have a look at how money is done in the &quot;government&quot; level, you have to'll find out how this is applicable to you and your alleged debt.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> But can it be money? Where did the Federal Reserve get the money to interchange for the government bonds? It made a bookkeeping entry. That's it! Money is done by finance institutions from thin air! Our government gave them that power if it made the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing; this is usury, the payment of great interest on pretended loans; important explanation for the hidden tax called inflation; the way in which wherein the Fed creates boom-bust cycles. This technique was developed by political and monetary wizards produce money your own nothing to the purpose of lending. This isn't an entirely accurate description because it implies that money is created first a while waits for someone to loan it.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> On the additional hand, textbooks on banking state that money is produced associated with debt. This used in is misleading because it implies that debt exists first one more kind of is converted into money. In truth, money is just not created until the instant it's borrowed. It is the act of borrowing that causes it to spring into existence. And, incidentally, it is the act of paying down the debt that causes it to completely disappear. There is no short phrase that perfectly describes that process. So, until you are invented along the way, we shall continue while using phrase &quot;create money your own nothing&quot; and occasionally add &quot;to the purpose of lending&quot; where essential to further clarify madness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So, why don't we now...see exactly how far these funds/debt-creation process recently been carried -- and just how dust and grime.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The first undeniable fact that needs to be considered is that the money does not have any silver or gold behind it whatsoever. The fraction isn't 54% nor 15%. It is 0%. It has traveled the path regarding previous fractional money of all time and already has degenerated into pure fiat money. The fact that most of it's inside the kind of checkbook balances other than paper currency is merely a technicality; and the undeniable fact that bankers talk about &quot;reserve ratios&quot; is eyewash. The hence-called reserves that they refer are, in fact, Treasury bonds and other certificates of debt. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Former Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman from the House Committee on Banking and Currency remarked about the Federal Reserve Bank: &quot;A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their very own pleasure.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> #2 Our cash is &quot;pure fiat&quot; through and through. Money by decree.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The second fact that has to be clearly understood is actually, in spite of the technical jargon and seemingly complicated procedures, the particular mechanism by which the Federal Reserve creates money is kind of simple. They do it exactly the identical way the goldsmiths of old did except, in fact, the goldsmiths were tied to the have to hold some precious metals in reserve, whereas the Fed doesn't have a such restriction.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The Federal Reserve is candid. The Federal Reserve is actually amazingly frank about this process.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> A booklet published the particular Federal Reserve Bank of New York tells us:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Currency can't be redeemed, or exchanged, for Treasury gold or another asset used as backing. The question of just the thing assets 'back' Federal Reserve notes has little however bookkeeping significance.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Elsewhere inside the same publication we are told: &quot;Banks are coming up with money depending on a borrower's promise to spend (the IOU)...Banks create money by 'monetizing' an individual can debts of companies people.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> In a booklet entitled Modern Money Mechanics, now withdrawn, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, $ 1 bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are just book entries. Coins get some intrinsic value as metal, generally far below their face amount.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> What, then, makes them instruments -- checks, paper money, and coins -- acceptable at book value in payment almost all debts with regard to other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the arrogance folks have that they will be capable to exchange such money for other financial assets and real services and goods whenever they opt to do so. This partly is a point of law; currency recently been designated &quot;legal tender&quot; by the govt -- that is, it must be accepted.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> In the small print of your footnote in a bulletin of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, we look for this surprisingly candid explanation:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Modern monetary systems employ a fiat base -- literally money by decree -- with depository institutions, in the role of fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves using the fiat base acting in part as reserves. The decree appears on the currency notes: &quot;This note is legal tender for debts, public and private.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> While no individual could refuse to accept such money for debt repayment, exchange contracts could be composed to thwart its used in everyday commerce. However, a forceful explanation in order to the why financial resources are accepted is the authorities requires it payment for tax liabilities. Anticipation in the must clear this debt produces a demand for the pure fiat dollars&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Now we don't require that you believe without some proof. I mean, it's just insane, right? Listen into a recording concerning the Story from the Federal Reserve System. It's FREE to your account, over one hour long, and yes it's called The Creature from Jekyll Island**, by G. Edward Griffin. Mr. Griffin is often a -respected authority on the creation on the Federal Reserve Banking System, and it has written a best-selling book of exactly the same name.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> #3 Money would vanish without debt.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> It is tough for Americans to come to grips with the indisputable fact that their total money-supply is backed by nothing but debt, and it can be even more mind boggling to visualise that, switch returned all had been borrowed, there would be cash left in existence.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> That's right, there'd stop one penny in circulation -- all coins and paper currency could be returned to bank vaults -- high would be not just one dollar in any one's banking account. In short, all money would disappear.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Marriner Eccles was the Governor with the Federal Reserve System in 1941. On September 30 of these year, Eccles was asked to give testimony prior to House Committee on Banking and Currency. The purpose of the hearing would have been to obtain information regarding the role in the Federal Reserve in creating problems that resulted in the depression of the 1930s.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Congressman Wright Patman, who was Chairman of that committee, asked the particular Fed got the money to buy two billion dollars in government bonds in 1933.<br /> This could be the exchange that followed.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ECCLES: We created it.&lt;br&gt;<br /> PATMAN: Out of what?&lt;br&gt;<br /> ECCLES: Out of the right to issue credit money.&lt;br&gt;<br /> PATMAN: And there is nothing behind it, will there be, except our government's credit?&lt;br&gt;<br /> ECCLES: That just what our money will be. If there were no debts within our money system, there wouldn't be any money.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> It must be remarked that, while money may represent an asset to selected individuals, when it is considered being an aggregate of the total money supply, it isn't a property almost all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think that he's increased his budget by that amount however he hasn't. His $1,000 cash asset is offset by his $1,000 loan liability, and his net position is zero. Bank accounts are exactly precisely the same on a greater scale. Add up all of the accounts inside the nation, and it might be in order to assume that each one that money represents a big pool of assets which offer the economy. Yet, just on this cash is owed by someone. Some will owe nothing. Others will owe repeatedly they rarely possess. All added together, the nation's balance is zero. What we predict is funds are but a great illusion. The reality is debt.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Robert Hemphill was the Credit Manager in the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money, Hemphill said this:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> If each of the loans from banks were paid, no person could have a very bank deposit, where there would not some money of coin or currency in circulation. This is an incredible thought. We are completely influenced by industrial municipal debt market banks. Someone must borrow every dollar we've got in circulation, cash, or credit. If financial institutions create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; not really, we starve. We are absolutely with out a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of image quality, the tragic absurdity individuals hopeless situation is sort of incredible -- there it is.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> With greatest gain that money in America relies on debt, it mustn't come youngster surprise understand that the Federal Reserve System just isn't the very least serious about seeing a reduction in debt this particular country, regardless of public utterances for the contrary.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Here is the bottom line the particular System's own publications. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia says:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &quot;A large and growing number of analysts, however, now regard the national debt as something helpful, if no actual blessing....[They believe] the national debt need stop reduced almost all.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago adds:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &quot;Debt -- private and public -- is not going anywhere. It plays an important role in economic processes.... What is essential is not the abolition of debt, it's prudent use and intelligent management.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> #4 More on Equal Protection&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Our founding fathers knew about this type of banking. That's why there was clearly provisions within the Constitution on the united States of America to prevent one of these banking system to infest our nation.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Article 1, Section 8, clause 5 states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &quot;Congress shall have the ability to coin money, regulate price thereof, properly foreign coin, and fix the conventional of weights and measures.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Article 1, Section 10 partly states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &quot;No state shall use any Thing however silver and gold coins coin youngster tender in payment of their debts;&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Is it tougher produce cash with &quot;creative bookkeeping,&quot; (or as President Bush says, &quot;Cookin' the Books&quot;) by depositing your MO not really telling you? Or would it be tougher to mine the silver and gold to mint the cash?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Mining is tough and expensive. Bookkeeping entries cost virtually nothing.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Take a look at the involving &quot;Bank&quot; in the 4th Edition of Black's Law Dictionary:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &quot;An institution, of great value within the commercial world, empowered to obtain deposits of money, to produce loans, and to issue its promissory notes (made to circulate as money, and commonly called 'bank notes' or 'bank-bills,') or to do anyone or even more of functions.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> If a MO is in order to circulate as money, like money it is usually deposited the savings account, can't it? You bet.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> That was not ever disclosed inside the loan from the bank agreement, maybe it was? No.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> See, if gold and silver coin were the money, the present banking system cannot exist. Our founding fathers knew that.<br /> <br /> Since the IOU is often a negotiable instrument, per the Uniform Commercial Code, at what point did the lender &quot;own&quot; the acceptance bill? A note is IOU. It says &quot;I owe you $X, which to be able to be repaid on a date, or through payments.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Did your vehicle your banker permission to show your &quot;promise to cover&quot; into money? Probably not. By the lender altering the note and turning it the acceptance, they changed the cost and the risk to as well as them. Before they deposit the note right into a checking account, you thought the agreement was that these people were about to loan cash. They were the people at an increased risk. It's your duty to reimburse them.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> When the financial institution deposited the note, your complete price of the money was funded by you, and you're now supposed to pay them? That's not that accepted, is it? Because with this banking system, you might be in &quot;debt&quot; with &quot;money&quot; that you provided property for. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> #5 What's wrong with a bit of debt?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There is usually a kind of fascinating appeal to this theory. It gives those that expound it an aura of intellectualism, the appearance of having the ability to grasp a fancy economic principle that's after dark knowledge of mere mortals. And, for your less academically minded, it includes the comfort of at the least sounding moderate. After all, what's wrong with slightly debt, prudently used and intelligently managed? The answer is absolutely nothing, provided the debt is based on an honest transaction. There is enough wrong with it if it's &quot;dependant on fraud&quot;.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> An honest transaction is during which a borrower pays an decided upon sum in exchange for that temporary involving a lender's asset. That asset might be anything of tangible value. If it were an automobile, for example, then the borrower would pay &quot;rent.&quot; If it can be money, then your rent is known as &quot;interest.&quot; Either way, the concept is the same.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> When we try out a lender -- the bank or a private party -- and be handed a loan dollars, we have been for you to pay interest on the credit in recognition of the indisputable fact that the money our company is borrowing is actually definitely an asset which we wish to use. It seems only fair to repay accommodations fee for your focal point in the one that owns it. It just isn't easy to accumulate a motor vehicle, and it isn't easy to accumulate money -- a real income, which is. If the cash we're borrowing was earned by someone's labor and talent, they're fully entitled to get interest on it. But just what are we to think about money which is created by the mere stroke of the pen or the press of some type of computer key? Why should anyone collect a rental fee on that?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> When banks place credits into the checking account, they are merely pretending to lend cash. In reality, they have nothing to lend. Even the money that non-indebted depositors have placed with them was originally created from nothing in reaction to another person's loan. So what entitles finance institutions to collect rent on nothing? It is immaterial that men everywhere are forced by law to simply accept these nothing certificates in exchange legitimate goods and services. We are talking here, not about what's legal, but what exactly is moral. As Thomas Jefferson observed at the duration of his protracted battle against central banking in the Columbia, &quot;No you have a natural right to your trade dollars lender, he which money to lend.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Let us, , take a look at debt and interest a few of the light. Thomas Edison summed in the immorality of machine when he said:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> People who won't turn a shovel of dirt the actual project [Muscle Shoals] nor contribute one pound of materials will collect more cash...than will the folks who will supply each of the materials and do all of the work.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Is that an exaggeration? Let us the particular acquisition of a $100,000 home in which $30,000 represents the associated fee of one more thing, architect's fee, commissions, building permits, and that sort of thing and $70,000 is the price of labor and building materials. If the house buyer puts up $30,000 youngster put in, then $70,000 should be borrowed. If the financing is issued at 11% a new 30-year period, the quantity of of curiosity paid can be $167,806. That means quantity of paid to those who loan the money is about 2 1/2 times over paid to those who provide each of the labor and all of the materials. It is valid that figure represents the time-associated with that money over thirty years and easily could possibly be justified on the premise that lender deserves for being compensated for surrendering using his capital for half an entire life. But that assumes the lending company actually had something to surrender, which he had earned the main city, saved it, a while loaned it for construction of another person's house. What am i to believe, however, a few lender who did nothing to earn the cash, hadn't saved it, and, in reality, simply created out of nothing?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So how exactly does the bank loan actually work?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> 1. You desire a loan to your home.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. The bank advertises that loan money.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. You &quot;apply&quot; to get a &quot;loan.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. They place you via the ringer therefore make you glad and relieved that you were in a position to be authorized for mortgage. (You know, like they are doing you a very big favor.)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. They have you ever sign a MO.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> And here's the part you're never purported to know&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> 6. Since your promissory note can be sold for cash, it's a property.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 7. The bank deposits the asset into an account for about the regarding the note.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 8. The bank cuts you a cheque the particular deposit you never knew about (or transfers the money to those that should be receiving it).&lt;br&gt;<br /> 9. And you think that are obligated to pay a reimbursement on mortgage, when in reality that was made was an exchange.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> If the acceptance a good asset, what funded the bank's ownership in the note?&quot; Answer: They still don't really purchased it. They made an exchange - Your acceptance (asset on the bank) was exchanged for roughly the amount of the financing. You gave the bank a property worth $100,000 plus the bank returned $100,000 to you personally. Where was the borrowed funds? There wasn't one. But you really do must admit, it's brilliant.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> As a real, ethical one who believes that each one loans ought to be repaid, can you agree that the bank should repay your loan directly to them? After all, they deposited your MO. Your promissory note is asset that they exchanged for an inspection. Where's the financing?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Factually, there is not one. And since all lenders must be repaid, shouldn't the lender repay your loan for many years? If so, you wouldn't have the &quot;debt&quot; and would live better.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Quickly, whenever you deposit money within your savings account, does the lending company now owe you that money if you want it to be? Yes. The bank has a new asset, the $100 you deposited in your banking account. The bank also has a brand new matching liability that says the lender owes you $100. Assets = Liabilities.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The bookkeeping entries are nearly identical for downpayment in your savings account with regard to a new loan. By lending, financial institutions have more properties and investments. If had been to lend me $500, your &quot;pool of cash&quot; could be smaller. When a bank &quot;loans&quot; money, their &quot;pool funds&quot; increases. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [http://www.MyDebtRelease.com Credit card debt]</div> Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:18:05 GMT LawyerArredondo270 http://www.aalf.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:LawyerArredondo270