911, Australian banks, bank of England, banks, Bill Still, central bank, coins, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, FOI request, freedom, G. Edward Griffin, gold, gold standard, illuminati, inflation, interest, intrinsic, liberty, mandate, math, math’s, mathematically perfected economy, money, plagiarist, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, solution, sovereignty, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war
This is the Freedom Of Information request we put to the Bank of England back in 2011 at asking 4 simple questions
1) What lawful consideration do you claim the BoE gives up when it creates money ?
2) How then does the bank (or does the bank) claim there is a debt to the bank ?
3) What is the claim to interest then, when the bank can do no more than absorb the costs of merely publishing evidence of our promissory obligations *to each other* ?
4) How is it possible even to maintain a vital circulation without accumulating inevitably terminal sums of debt ?
Note: The end result was of course as usual “EVASION”.
You can put these questions to any bank, even peripheral banks . Try it & you will basically get the same response . They will evade answering these questions particularly the first knowing all too well if they do it will be self incriminating or admitting to theft.
Think about it — If they’re not stealing in the form of pretend loans they would simply answer the damn questions wouldn’t they? but their pathetic excuse for not answering them is that these questions are unintelligible. In the end the BoE claimed the expense they would have to forgo finding the answers to these simple questions would be too costly for them. Too costly for them alright because if they answered the questions it would end their crime of theft & they damn well know it.
All they have to do is answer the first question really, because if they can prove they give up consideration of commensurable value in the creation or any loan of money the following questions are made redundant, except question 4 of course, simply due the current escalations of debt, which they then have to explain how & why is not terminal, which we already know they cant answer, because no one on this planet can prove or demonstrate how the sum of interest is created & issued into circulation above the sum of principal that takes us back to question 1 again. In retrospect questions 2, 3 & 4 take you back to question 1, which is why its the first question, that’s hardly unintelligible.
Its really a YES or NO answer to the first question. Do you give up consideration of value in the creation of money? . Is your answer YES or NO?. If your answer is YES what consideration are you then giving up in the creation of money ? but they refuse to even do that. Unintelligible my arse — The question couldn’t be any more simpler.
We are only asking the bank the same question we would otherwise ask ourselves to identify who exactly is creating money, determining then if any loan transpires or not. So If anyone of us was asked if we give up consideration of value in the creation of money the answer would be logically YES, & if asked what consideration are we giving up — pure observation alone tells anyone with a half a brain that we are giving up our labour & production that has the only lawful consideration of commensurable value.
So if it is we who create all new money, which we have already proven to be the case for nearly 50 years already, predominately by the purchaser who issues a promissory obligation/note before publication, before any subsequent deposit — so how is it even ethically or rationally possible for the “obligor” (creator of money) to borrow what has not yet been paid & or deposited from the resulting sale?
The simple answer its not possible. To suggest we loan or borrow money from each other defies all logic & reason — putting the cart before the horse. Indicating further we are not even loaning or borrowing money from each other either, much less from a thieving bank. When the unadulterated debt is merely an obligation by the *obligor* to “pay & retire” the principal, free from exploitation or unjust intervention.
Make no mistake MPE is NOT claiming there is no debt, simply because the only debt that transpires is the true debt we have to each other. Therefore the argument is not to somehow get out of paying the debt altogether, but instead the intent to restore today’s falsified debts (phony loans) to their original unadulterated state where there never is any loan or borrowing.
Advocate / mentor, Co-founder, Co-director – Mathematically Perfected Economy™ (au)