The Natural Congregation of Yahweh is what the secular world, modern traditional 'Christians',

and the modern 'Jews', would phrase as, "The Natural Church of God"

Acceptance/Redemption:

 We hear of "redemption" of our alleged "equity" and often this term is spoken of in conjunction with the concepts of "Acceptance for Value" utilizing the notion of "Bills of Exchange". Support for the various manners in which this information is commonly presented is often spuriously and erroneously attributed to certain Biblical events and writings. To believe that this "financial redemption" is in any way Biblically supported, one must by all accounts either not believe the Bible or not know what it says.

 Simply put, the Messiah did not die on the cross to redeem us of our financial obligations or any of our other earthly responsibilities. On the contrary, He evidenced that we must carry out our obligations just like He did. He accepted His obligation, His "charge" to sacrifice Himself on behalf of each of us. He did not merely accept His charge "for value", He accepted His charge, in fact. He PAID in full His obligation; He paid His Credit with substance, not with fiction. He then claimed His eternal life as His Equity, because He had paid for it by meeting His obligation; by making His "sacrifice".

 To claim anything, one must have sacrificed or "paid" something. If we expect to claim our eternal life, we must also expect to pay for it. The Messiah sacrificed His sinless Self, in order that we might graciously receive God's gift of forgiveness of our sins, not forgiveness of our earthly obligations to one another. We are commanded to "pay taxes where taxes are due" and to be a "doer of the word, not a hearer only".

 In other words, we are to accept our charges and perform the respective and substantive obligation that comes with each of them. For example, if we have a debt obligation in the "fiction" world, such as an outstanding credit card loan, car loan, mortgage, etc., we cannot simply utilize a Bill of Exchange or any other fiction paperwork to "claim our exemption", nor can we "accept for value" the obligation presented to us by the fiction creditor. The obligation HAS NO VALUE until we actually and factually pay for it - until we perform our sacrifice!

 We are not meant to simply accept them (our charges) and endorse them back "for value". Such a manner of "Acceptance for Value" is fiction, in that we are attributing fictitious, or un-paid value to the obligation. Otherwise the Messiah might just as well have accepted His charge to die on the cross by endorsing it back as "accepted for value". He knew His charge; His obligation had no inherent value in and of itself, therefore He could not pretend to accept it for value. The value; the Redemption of our sins had to be "paid" for by His performance. Thank God, He was not deceived!     TOP ^
 

Credit and Equity:

Banks do not loan money - they issue credit, which is entirely different. When credit is granted by a bank, new dollars are concurrently issued into circulation. You and I loan money to each other - we don't issue credit because we are not licensed to. We might "extend" credit to one another, but this is basically a deferral of payment, not an issue of new dollars.

 Credit is issued against a promise to perform called a Promissory Note. It is a vehicle to enable a "credit-worthy-party" the ability to purchase goods prior to having earned the actual ability to pay for them. Credit, by definition, is some-thing that enables a purchase of an asset before the actual ability to pay for it is achieved. So bank issued credit is an advance of money to a third party against a promise of performance by the nominal borrower, administered by the bank as fiduciary to the public.

 Banks do not take security for any loans or mortgages. As hard as that may be to accept, it is true. The credit beneficiary or nominal borrower pledges his own security as a guarantee of his performance, i.e., as security for his payment obligations, not as security for the credit/loan granted by the bank. Technically, this is extremely important from the bank's perspective.

 At inception of a new credit issue (what we call loan), neither the bank or the nominal borrower have any equity in the transaction. Because the security is not pledged to guarantee the credit, but is rather pledged to guarantee the nominal borrower's performance, it is not a direct aspect of the transaction, unless and until default. That is why the borrower retains title and possession and why the bank must prove non-performance and obtain a court order prior to taking the security. Hence it is NOT part of the equity of the transaction.

 Equity in a credit/loan transaction is only created upon receipted delivery of payments of principal and/or interest and is claimable upon expiry of any/every loan term, simply by endorsement of the then paid for Promissory Note which acts as the Bill of Exchange.

When the credit is issued, effectively, new value-able debt dollars are created immediately upon transfer of the credit to the "seller" of the asset (house, car, whatever). The banks claim that they issue "credit" to the nominal borrower, and transfer it as "debt money" to the asset seller. This is supposedly justified first, by virtue of the fact that the seller can actually "spend" the money, and further in that they are regulated to have at least one pre-paid debt dollar in their "reserves" for each new debt dollar issued against credit. Further, the nominal borrower has promised to deliver pre-paid debt dollars to the bank in excess of the amount transferred to the asset seller over a given term, which theoretically, provides the basis for which the asset seller can actually withdraw his proceeds from time to time as required.

 Because the credit is issued against the promise of performance, there is no cost involved by either party. "Credit" is a legal pretence, and a Promissory Note is also a legal pretence. There is no substance aside from paper and ink to either, but they are both very real and very legal. Only the receipted delivery of debt dollars which proves performance, evidences any true equity/substance in a credit/loan transaction. Hence the holder of the payment/delivery receipt is the only party justly entitled to claim the equity he produced.  

It holds therefore, that as the payment obligations are met, and the bank systematically invests those payments, that any profits earned on them should also accrue to the benefit of the equity contributor, or at a minimum on some form of joint venture basis, which is what the banks claim the Act provides for. But if we did not know it was our equity, and did not claim it, then we also forfeit the profits earned from their investment of it.

 An interesting aspect of many mortgage documents is what is called a "Statutory Notice" that forms a concluding part of the body of the document. This Notice always says something along these lines: "Upon payment in full of the payment obligations hereunder, the mortgagor may redeem this mortgage or assign this mortgage..."

It is vital to get the implied message behind the Statutory Notice. If the nominal borrower has the right to assign or redeem his mortgage AFTER making all of the payments, it MUST STILL HAVE VALUE! The unwritten, but nonetheless just as important aspect of the Notice, is that if the nominal borrower elects not to assign or redeem his mortgage, then he must obviously be "gifting" it to the holder. They put it in writing for a reason. By doing so, they avoid any fraud. They tell you straight out that you have the right to redeem the mortgage AFTER you have made all of the payments. It follows, even though they don't spell it out, that if you "redeem" it you can then endorse it back in exchange for your equity.

 This redeeming or assignment of your paid up mortgage has absolutely nothing to do with the original security pledged to back your performance. Because the same document always says that "upon payment in full of the payment obligations hereunder, the mortgagee shall cause a release of the security pledged hereunder and discharge any registered lien or ..." This is an absolute condition of the mortgage and is not subject to whether or not you redeem it, assign it or forfeit it.

 An example regarding equity might translate something like this: If Joe buys Mary's house for say $100,000 and Joe arranges 100% "credit" to do this, Mary receives a transfer of $100,000 in alleged "debt money" from Joe's bank that Mary can spend immediately. The mere fact that Mary can spend/withdraw it without restriction proves that it is not "credit" in Mary's hands.

 Joe has bound himself pursuant to the credit obligation, to produce that $100,000 plus interest, and Joe's subsequent delivery of the total of that money to the bank becomes the proof that Joe has performed his credit obligation. Once Joe fulfils his credit obligation the original new issue of credit becomes fully pre-paid debt money, paid for by his production. Originally it cost the bank nothing to "issue" the credit, and it cost Joe nothing to "issue" the Promissory Note, but over the life of the transaction it costs Joe the total of his interest and principal payments to pay off his credit obligation.

The bank claims it transfers in advance of Joe's performance, the principal amount to Mary, hence they do not have possession/control of the original amount of the Promissory Note, ergo they cannot have received it as their "equity", nor could they have unjustly enriched themselves by its investment or by selling it. They claim that if they sell Joe's Note, they are not un-justly enriching themselves, they are merely ensuring that they have in their reserves at least one in twenty pre-paid debt dollars in order to back/support the transfer of spending ability to Mary's account.

 In their fiduciary capacity, banks do not collect the principal or the interest payments on behalf of themselves, rather they collect the principal as security during the term of the loan, on behalf of Mary the house seller, because based on Joe's promise to perform, they actually advanced that money to Mary under the fractional reserve provisions before Joe earned/delivered it and/or from the proceeds of their sale of Joe's Note. Upon expiry of the loan, if no default occurs, the principal then is no longer required as security for Mary the house seller, so it can be redeemed by Joe, the nominal borrower as his equity (otherwise it would be retained by the bank, which of course has enjoyed a no-cost participation in the transaction from inception).

 They obviously do not collect the interest for Mary the house seller, so they can only be collecting it pursuant to their JV investment provisions of the Act, which means there must exist a joint venture partner, which is Joe. Hence Joe has an entitlement to share in the interest payments Joe has made, as in fact Mary has already received the principal equity from the Promissory Note from the transaction at inception.

Simply put, the equity equal to the original principal has already been claimed by and paid to Mary the house seller, and the banks are simply "floating" it on Joe's behalf within their fractional reserve provisions, and/or paying for it on Joe's behalf by selling his Note.

 The banks claim that the common allegation that they only transfer "credit" to Mary the house seller at inception of the transaction, is preposterous and without any foundation in fact or in law, and there is no just claim to any equity therein. They claim that the Act stipulates that anything Mary can spend and that is therefore accepted as currency is deemed to be "money" and from their perspective they mean "debt money" or pre-paid dollars, the opposite of credit, which is not-yet-paid-for dollars.

 They claim very adamantly that the various Acts and the book-keeping systems they use as well as the courts, will all uphold this explanation as "legal" and within the meaning and intent of the legislation. In summary they are saying Joe has a just claim to the JV share of interest payments he could have negotiated as his equity. Joe has no claim to any equity of the principal amount of the Promissory Note as this was already paid to Mary the house seller. Joe's additional benefits from the transaction are of course he enjoys possession of Mary's former house, which at the end of it all represents his increase in equity in addition to his interest and principal payment components.    TOP ^

NATIONAL  DEBT,  TAXES  AND  INTEREST:

It is correct that the interest causes the National Debt to increase almost exponentially, but we must be aware of the point of our productivity. In other words, if I go out and be productive and "earn" say $100,000, then that $100,000 must have by definition, been "loaned" into existence, largely and almost universally, as new credit. The reason is that almost every dollar that is earned is earned from this same source of new issue. I don't have any way of doing the accounting, but if you add up all of the business operating loans, all of the personal loans and all of the capital loans and all of the credit card loans, etc., in a given year, you will find that the total is miraculously close to the annual gross national product. Hence what we produce is paid for with new credit/money that is loaned into circulation. Or when we pay for our production we pay with borrowed capital, ergo our National Debt grows in direct proportion to our productivity at a minimum.

 The matter of interest just throws it right off the scale. It’s crazy, in that we owe a National Debt directly for whatever we produce because we naturally want to get paid for that production, plus we owe interest on the production we pay for, because we must pay for everything with borrowed money! Thank heaven that the money we borrow is from ourselves, or in other words, to our collective credit. Another way to make it perfectly clear is to simply say it this way: “If we all go out and produce $1Billion more total production than last year's total, then that extra $1Billion worth of dollars that we all want to get paid for our share of that extra production also has to come into existence to pay us via the issue of new "credit", there is no other way.”

 The credit is to our benefit to claim against our proven productivity, i.e. our income statement. The more each of us produces the more we are entitled to claim as on offset of what is owed to us. In short, money is loaned into circulation to support productivity, to enable that productivity to be exchanged/paid for as it is produced. The credit/loan is balanced out or written down instantly upon proof of performance, because the "receipt" for payment is proof that delivery of payment in exchange for production has occurred, and this consummates the transaction. The money that was used to consummate this transaction is now fully backed by the actual product hence the "security" that stood behind the credit is released to its owner. In this case that is to the de facto bond holder; you and I; to whoever proves performance by possession of receipt/proof of income.

 Your tax return acts as your "Bill of Exchange" to prove your income and entitle you to claim your proportionate share of the credit entry. But because the Treasury Account Credit is NOT MONEY and it is only an entry provided to "account" for our productivity and to cover our government operating expenses, you can only claim it to offset your tax liability. In other words the more productive you are the more DEBT money you have provided real backing for, hence the LESS you owe against your credit. By being productive and by properly filing your tax return, you provide the off-setting entry that causes the reduction of the national debt credit entry.

 The interest that is charged on the national debt also goes to your credit. This can be looked at two ways. First it increases your available credit which means you can be more productive and have more to claim, or because you have more to claim you must be more productive. Either way, it is only a credit entry, not real money and their may be some justification in that it forces more production, and indirectly penalizes the non-producers in society. The only problem with our National Debt, is that because very few actually claim it, it just keeps getting bigger because all new production is always being paid for with new money issue, that is loaned into circulation.   

 There is no tax payable on the Treasury Account Credit because it is merely an off-setting entry. Tax liabilities are supposed to be offset with the available Credit (non-money) in the Treasury Account pursuant to the Act by treating the tax return as a Bill of Exchange, which correctly authorizes the entry adjustment. The tax return is where you truthfully enter you "income" as proof of your having the ability to "deliver" $X in Debt Dollars that are unencumbered (not pledged or promised for delivery to offset any bank administered credit in your favor), as an offset of the government administered credit in your favor. Lots of large corporations and all of the banks do this all the time, as well as a few individuals.    TOP ^

ON EQUITY MATTERS:

All financial institutions that are licensed to issue credit and to deal with the public, i.e. banks, do not "loan money", they "issue credit". The difference is important. You or I as private citizens are not licensed to issue credit, hence if we loan money to one another, one of us actually has to have possession of the real debt dollars prior to making the contemplated loan. Banks DO NOT LOAN MONEY - THEY DO NOT LOAN DEBT DOLLARS - THEY ISSUE CREDIT !!!! And there is nothing fraudulent about it !!!! 

 Credit is a "book-keeping" entry. It is a legal pretense and it is issued against the security of your promise to pay/perform/be productive in the form of a Promissory Note. The rationale for the bank’s pretense being just and equitable is simply because your Promissory Note is also a legal pretense until you prove otherwise by your performance. It costs a bank NOTHING to issue credit, except for a little ink on paper, just like it costs you nothing to issue/endorse the Promissory Note. Mortgages, personal loans, credit cards, car loans, etc., are all credit instruments and are all issued at no cost to the issuing bank, and at no cost to the nominal borrower, hence neither the issuing bank nor the borrower HAVE ANY EQUITY in any of the transactions upon inception.

 Only the borrower has potential equity, because only the borrower has promised to perform. The bank is only licensed to act as fiduciary on behalf of the Nation’s citizens (who all have a just and equitable interest in maintaining the value of the real Debt Dollars by monitoring the credit issue). The Promissory Note is your true Bill of Exchange that progressively becomes your equity as you pay for it. Once you meet all of the obligations, you possess the only claim to all of the debt money that was delivered as proof of your performance.

 Pursuant to the Act, your promise to pay enables the bank to "issue credit". The bank "holds" your promise to pay as security for your performance. You perform and prove your performance by actual delivery of payment, and only then does the bank release your Promissory Note back to you. Then you are supposed to endorse your receipted Promissory Note (converted Bill of Exchange) back to the bank in exchange for the debt money that YOU EARNED. The Equity that is produced/delivered and receipted belongs solely to you.

 YOU EARNED IT and YOU DELIVERED IT which proves that YOU OWN IT. You are the only one that ever has any equity in the transaction. The bank is merely licensed pursuant to the Act to make sure you don't issue credit that you cannot support. They are entitled to charge you their standard administrative fees but the interest and principal goes back to whoever provided the equity, and that is you. The Act says so, and in a court of equity, the court says so. Have you ever asked for your equity after paying back YOUR credit that the bank issued TO YOU, or have you just gifted it to the bank like most others?

 You convert the original "credit" or ledger entry into equity, not when you earned it, but when you deliver it to the credit-holder. That is what credit is. It is a fiduciary issue of non-backed credit (not money) to enable us to purchase an asset prior to having earned the actual money to pay for it. The fractional reserve system allows for you to be issued $20 worth of credit so long as there is at least $1 real pre-paid debt dollar on deposit. The credit is not issued against that real dollar on deposit. The ratio is simply an accounting requirement. The credit is issued against the Promissory Note.

 So when the credit entry is entered, it is immediately "transferred" to the vendor of the property being purchased and then they get to pretend that it can be used just like it were real dollars. Now if everyone that was following this legal pretense actually tried to withdraw their non-existent dollars, we would have a run on the bank. The banks are also regulated to ensure that you have a minimum of 25% equity in house mortgage credit issues, or if not you must have mortgage insurance, and they are further restricted in many areas of credit issue.

 These types of things act to protect the solvency of the system that the banks are licensed to administer for us. It is our legal responsibility to understand these things. If we do not understand them and thus we feel taken advantage of or abused by this system, then perhaps it is high time we looked into trying to understand the system rather than simply alleging it to be fraudulent. It is not fraudulent, but many of us have been very easily duped by it because we did not know the rules.    TOP ^

Claiming “our” Exemption: Underlying Economic Principles:

A lot of efforts have been focused on determining the validity of making a "claim against our exemption". This "exemption" purports to be the amount of credit available at a national level that somehow represents our collective entitlement. In short, we each potentially have "equity" in this balance of credit.

 We have generally been under the impression that there is no alleged lender that loaned our nation the greater portion of what we euphemistically refer to as our National Debt. Rationally we know that no such "third party" exists, rather the "lender" per se, is really us - the collective citizens that are the bond for that debt, or more correctly, we are the "credit grantors". This ledger entry that is entered on the books of the "nation" is entered as an off-setting entry to the equivalent amount of "debt money" that is issued and in circulation. Thus, the nation's books reflect this National Debt as a positive, or "credit" entry on our behalf, generally headed under "Savings Account".

 We, the citizens of the nation, being the collective bond holders, or credit grantors, therefore have a collective and/or individual pro rata claim to the balance of this amount owing by the nation; it is our "equity", or nominally, our “exemption”. We were originally, and continue to be the only parties to the cumulative transactions related to the ongoing creation of this National Debt with capacity to have brought any equity to the table.

 Our collective share of equity, or entitlement to this credit balance; our exemption, is tied to our collective contribution, and is precisely equal to the total "credit" we have historically "granted" to the nation, whether in actual form or de facto. All of our debt money; our currency is really instruments of discharge, and one hundred percent of it was issued into circulation against our collective credit, our productivity as supported by our collective promises to perform, our promissory notes, mortgages and other security “instruments”, as well as our de facto good faith, which stands behind government issued credit instruments such as Treasury Bonds, Canada Savings Bonds, etc.

 Money exists because we have thusly guaranteed its value. When we perform on this guarantee; our promise to be productive (by meeting credit obligations), our direct liability with respect to our promissory notes is "discharged" and the underlying debt money should then literally be "paid" for, but generally it is not. It would only be paid for if we were to use our fully discharged and receipted instruments (promissory notes, etc.) as an off-set, or claim against the credit balance (exemption). We don't!

 Woe to us for the reality of what it is that we do! We "gift" our discharged (paid for) notes to our banker that originally "issued" the credit on our behalf; that banker that was licensed to cause the corresponding increase in the supply of debt money. This banker-former "credit issuer" (not "credit grantor"), becomes the holder-in-due-course of our promissory notes that originally caused the commensurate issue of new debt money. That holder-in-due-course is now holding the entitlement to the equity in the nation's credit. That holder-in-due-course is the only party holding an instrument that can be used as an off-set or claim against the credit balance.

 We may even be doing worse than this! Technically, or "legally", the banks have become the holder-in-due-course to any claim against our exemption credit balance, with/by our written (albeit unwitting) consent. Mortgages and loan agreements virtually stipulate this intended result in advance of it actually occurring. The language used is tantamount to deliberate deception, but nonetheless it states what it effects - our tacit agreement to the “gift”.

 Mortgages generally, have a clause that effectively demands that the nominal borrower deliver all rights, title and interests to the title of the subject property to the bank (the alleged lender) in perpetuity. The same mortgage generally, has a clause that states the bank is only obligated to "discharge" its security interest in the title, with no mention of delivering said title back to the nominal borrower.

 When you study the wording of the Bills of Exchange Act, it becomes clear why these things are so. All "payment obligations" made pursuant to mortgages (or any alleged loan for that matter) are defined generally, and are set out quite clearly as to be made by delivery of some form of “bill of exchange”, or instrument of discharge, including, but not limited to "cash". Hence the reality of delivery of payment as required pursuant to such a mortgage, only serves to discharge the liability, not to extinguish the alleged or actual debt.

 That is what the "instrument" says on the face of it. Failure to demand the return of the discharged mortgage instrument causes that instrument to become the property of the "holder". It is still an outstanding "debt", as it has not been "paid". Any delivery of the defined "payments” only causes your own personal liability to be "discharged".

 This being the case with a mortgage for example, the bank could not deliver title back unencumbered. Hence their rationale for not agreeing to within the wording of the instrument itself. Any such written agreement to return the title to you would require absolute payment, and in these circumstances where payment only serves to discharge the liability (not extinguish the debt), the mere act of agreeing to return the title would be fraudulent on their part. All they could agree to do is what they have done, and that is to "discharge" your liability in consideration of your meeting the defined payment obligations (delivery of bills of exchange).

 Once your liability is discharged and the bank's possession of the as yet "un-paid" instrument has been effected, the bank simply re-assigns the remaining and actual obligation/liability as an off-set to the "credit" balance owing to us by the nation (the National Debt); your share of the credit now in their favour!

 Hence all previously or currently mortgaged properties, including any First Nations "Indian" Reserves, whether or not "payment" has been delivered pursuant to said mortgages, are and remain fully encumbered to the extent cumulatively, of all previous mortgages nominally secured by that property. Further, the actual titles to these properties have never been returned to the party causing any such "discharge(s)", because that party has not actually "paid" in substance, only in manner of discharge/re-assignment of the obligation. This is the only real reason behind why we can only obtain an "abstract", or "certificate" of title to our real property.

 All previous alleged loans of every type, not just mortgages, have been issued with the underlying intent to defraud us out of any just equity claim that we might have in our collective "credit"; our exemption. When we qualify for credit, we "hold" a potential right to claim that proportionate amount, just as soon as we deliver "payment" as required, but only if we demand return of our mortgage, loan or promissory note (the "instruments" per se), as evidence of our claim.

 That payment as required is consistently defined as some form of "Bill of Exchange" (which we should now understand why), and subsequently, when after we have made it, we then habitually forfeit our promissory note (or instrument), the bank then becomes the holder-in-due-course of that note or instrument, which then evidences their claim to our credit exemption, which they make in our stead but not on our behalf! No wonder they do not want us to ask for the return of our actual security instruments!

 Summarily speaking, the banks hold the mortgage paper and all other loan security instruments, as de facto "holder-in-due-course". Thus in the event of financial collapse, real or fabricated, the national debt or more correctly, the people's collective credit; nominally the Treasury Account, which represents an amount owed to us, is now held by the banks. It is in direct pro-rata proportion to what we have collectively qualified for in terms of prior credit, causing the commensurate issue of new money into circulation, and it represents that amount of labour we have expended to "discharge" our respective liabilities. It means that we have actually paid for it (our exemption entitlement) with our real productivity, but it also means we have actually given away our right to claim it to a party that has contributed (produced) nothing at all!

 Furthering this example, in the event of financial collapse, real or fabricated, the banks as holders-in-due-course of all of the historically issued security instruments, literally own all properties and all credit receivables. Thus the rest of us literally, have nothing, unless we can orchestrate a successful and viable alternative method to facilitate the exchange of our productivity. And even that is limited to whatever we may be able to produce on "their" land, unless we can figure out how to “pay” for it in “substance”, (which would require delivery and acceptance of some form of “legal tender” or acceptable production).

 In the event of such a financial failure, even if we look at someone like Bill Gates who allegedly has some $60 billion in so-called "cash", he would still have nothing because the banks would have evidence of their prior claim to any of the credit balance that lies behind and thus secures the issued debt dollars (cash) he held in his various deposit accounts. In other words, all of his prior "credit" was "willingly" and cumulatively assigned by him to his creditors whenever he "borrowed" money, which by manner of mathematics can be easily deduced to have been a much greater amount than any surplus of residual cash he may possess.

 His possession of the "debt" dollar instruments on deposit in “cheque-book” or electronic form, is literally like his getting stuck holding the hot potato. Unless he can provide actual payment (which by definition would require delivery and acceptance of some actual payment or production) to extinguish the liability associated with his $60 billion in debt dollars, his prior creditors would simply "call" his obligation. He is after all, the holder-in-due-course of the debt dollar account balances, the debt instruments, hence he will be the one caught in possession of the last remaining debt obligation - with no conceivable means of paying it, and his only prior means of off-setting it, now snugly held in the hands of his former bankers. He will not just have nothing like the rest of us, he will simply have a lot more of nothing!

 Is it yet clear that it matters not how fraudulent were the circumstances behind the original issue of a Bill of Exchange, rather it matters only to the holder-in-due-course that the signature is genuine! This may be more than just another good reason to consider barter! And it may be more than just another good reason to promote radical change in our thinking generally!    TOP ^

Redemption Fever:

The comments below in “italic” letters are in response a few (bolded) excerpts from a (28 page) document, entitled “Redemption: Frequently asked Questions”, which document was received unsolicited. These responses are included in this page, because they are relevant to the subject matter being presented and they also provide insight into the grave misunderstandings that seem to be so prevalent to this topic, particularly by a segment of the movement that seems determined to be able to get/demand “something for nothing”. The rest of the 28 page document is not worthy of serious comment in our opinion.

 Are the “Bonds” in the packet actually “Bills of Exchange” as referenced on page 2-6 of the manual, Step 8?

A. A Bill of Exchange is the same as a Bond, and the same as a Promissory Note. They are all promises to pay, made by you, and that’s all they are. “Whenever you give me the gold back, I’ll pay you.” (Tape 7-2-03) The reason you do this: the bond is a promise to pay. If I give you 5.00, I have simply given you a promise to pay. When you give someone a bond, he is sitting there holding this promise to pay. Now the onus is on him. He now has the debt on his hands. Now he has to decide what he wants to do with it. We keep trying to pay stuff. We can’t. There is no money to pay a debt with. You can discharge a debt, and that’s all you can do. (Tape 7-2-03)

 The foregoing is premised upon false understandings of the monetary system and is thus entirely erroneous. Cash, or as in this example, $5.00, or a Bill Of Exchange, or any other promise to pay that is a de facto "Financial Instrument", is indeed money and has real value in the hands of intelligent, fully informed parties. If the party or parties that authored this promotion, would read the entire Acts as quoted in part throughout, not just those sections that are convenient or that would be "nice" if they would apply, they would find that a promise to pay is not always convertible, nor is a Bill of Exchange always a promise to pay or is it the same as a bond. It depends upon whether or not they were originally issued as "financial instruments" or simply as "commercial documents", and there is a significant difference.

 A Financial Instrument per se, is any instrument issued to a licensed bank or financial institution, in consideration of that institution issuing an equivalent amount of "credit", and providing the issuer with a commensurate amount of "debt money", as a means of "spending" that credit in advance of production. A Financial Instrument is most commonly a promise to pay, a mortgage document or some other form of security instrument which may be convertible (by the Bills of Exchange Act) into a claim against our pro-rata equity entitlement of the nation's credit balance (nominally, Treasury Account exemption, or "Redemption") much like a Bill of Exchange, similarly to a dollar denominated bill, or common currency - money.

 A commercial document on the other hand, is merely an instrument which is issued between parties where neither party to the document is licensed to create new credit or cause a commensurate and concurrent debt money issue. A commercial instrument may well be a promise to pay, a mortgage or other form of security instrument, worded precisely like a financial instrument, but in such a case it is not convertible into a claim against the nation's credit balance, as if it were a Bill of Exchange or a dollar denominated bill, because no new credit or debt money was created by its issue.

 A Financial Instrument in any form has potential to be of value; real value. Debt money for example possesses the inherent value equal to the production that was promised by the necessary original issuer of a promissory note that caused its creation. Without the existence of that promise to pay, which is a direct and absolute promise to pay via production (to be productive), the debt money could not have been issued in the first instance. It is NOT, as many people purport, issued by fiat. It is one hundred per cent of the time issued by licensed institutions against qualified "credit". This credit is just another word to describe the promise to pay; the promissory note or other Financial Instrument that embodies the inherent requirement for production (of goods or services) in order to satisfy the credit "obligations" as set forth in the Instrument itself. The only loose exception to this fact, is when by legislative authority, the nation issues collective credit in favor of its citizens in the form of a bond or treasury note. New money is thus created, but it is still collectively supported by the “bond” or guarantee of the people, hence it is to the people’s credit, because it is being “purchased” (paid for) with their production.

 The only aspect of "redemption" that these people discuss, that would or could be nominally interpreted so as to be considered true, is as follows:

1. When a credit "grantor"; i.e., a nominal borrower in any credit/loan associated with a licensed financial institution, delivers payment of his credit obligations to his credit issuer, that nominal borrower is then entitled to ask/demand return of his discharged promissory note or Financial Instrument, per se, and to use same as a direct claim against the outstanding credit balance of what these people (the author) euphemistically refer to as the Treasury Account, or more correctly the credit balance of the national debt. This act would result in his immediate possession of pre-paid, or value-added, real "money".

 2. When a productive party engages in commercial activity that results in his possession of a surplus of dollar denominated debt instruments (debt money), that party is entitled to make an equal and off-setting claim against the credit balance of the national debt, nominally the Treasury Account, and in particular for any outstanding taxes that may or may not be payable on his surplus or residual debt money. Again, this act would result in his immediate possession of pre-paid, or value-added, real "money".

 The proof of the value is not only in the fact that at some prior time, the subject currency was issued against a promise to deliver payment (which is a de facto promise to prove performance/productivity) and the productivity has subsequently been accomplished, it lies in the fact that virtually every thinking party can define with precision, exactly how much of this "money" they will accept in exchange for their own production; ergo REAL VALUE.

 The problem lies in the fact that almost no-one understands this and less actually do it - make the appropriate claim against their equity in the nation's credit balance that is. The banks and licensed financial institutions do it all the time, particularly with the Financial Instruments that we regularly "gift" to them. This happens when we fail to ask or demand them back upon satisfaction of our payment obligations, or "discharge" of our liability.

 That is also why the banks do not want you, generally, to be running around with a lot of “cash” form debt money, because THEY have claimed the exemption on almost ALL of the debt money and do not like to let it out of their control (because at least they understand that after or once that exemption has been claimed, that respective debt money has REAL VALUE). “Legally” it is de facto, theirs, because when you or most others like you may have had an opportunity to make your respective claims, you rather “gifted” those entitlements to a bank that claimed your entitlement in your stead, but not on your behalf! Or alternatively, you exchanged the real value-able bank notes (cash) for electronic cheque-book money that only has a value limited to the periodically available nominal insurance coverage.

 The whole point of our being able to "discharge" our liability via satisfying the payment obligations of an alleged loan is to provide us with our then entitlement to make the claim. We are NOT entitled to make the claim prior to discharging the obligations, such as the cult followers of the unsolicited author are doing when they try (even if they succeed) to eliminate a mortgage or other existing debt obligation prior to actually meeting the payment obligations of that debt. That is entirely fraudulent and will ultimately catch up with all of them.

 Further, the entire 28 page document is replete with evidence of self-serving, and very selfish rationale for justification of their behavior. As a thinking man of God, or as these people like to proclaim, a sovereign, I am quite satisfied for example, that it is much safer for me and my family if everyone, sovereign or not, were restricted to driving at posted speeds. I cannot think of a more just manner of effecting this than to impose some penalty for those that would abuse my comfortable margins of safety.

 The "Redemptionists" however, would have that it is quite preferred to claim their acts of reckless inconsideration toward others, as an exemption and to thusly “redeem” themselves from any moral responsibility as well as from any financial obligation to pay the allegedly “unjust” tax. Basically, they want to steal everyone else’s credit to satisfy their own immediate desires and eliminate their true responsibilities.

 Yes even I know how to off-set this (speeding ticket) tax against my entitlement to the nation's credit, but that is a ridiculously selfish, counter-productive and financially inferior manner in which to deal with the issue. It is akin to the old and equally spurious acceptance for value terminology, where again, there is no "value" in the speeding ticket, so how can any honest party accept it and pretend that there is? Or how can any un-selfish party use such a worth-less, or value-less, or frivolous document to justify the destruction of that much purchasing power belonging to everyone else.

 Do they not realize that when they make such frivolous claims against their exemption; when they "redeem" such an amount, it is actually and factually at the expense of everyone else - it is one hundred percent inflation caused willfully and in my opinion maliciously out of selfish disregard for fiscal reality, notwithstanding their obvious disregard for moral responsibility.

 And this is even precisely the same when they allegedly redeem themselves from any current payment obligations, such as stopping a foreclosure, paying out a credit card, paying off a loan, “discharging” a mortgage, or any other such foolishness with one of these "bonds". What they are doing is robbing the rest of us! It is outright theft and they are so blinded by their own selfishness that they cannot see it, nor in many cases will they even consider looking at the possibility, due to their passion for wanting to believe they can, because of some mythical "right", get “something for nothing”.

 Well, for a while they can, but when the rest of the people finally figure out that these few are getting it at everyone else's expense, who do you think is going to end up with the short end of the stick? They even have the gall to whine about government agents “fraudulently” interfering with their attempts to claim “what is theirs”. Fools! It is mine not just yours, and you have no right to mine without my permission!

 These people have for whatever reasons, failed to meet their financial obligations, and in many cases, their moral responsibilities. They have failed to satisfy their respective payment obligations of their respective loans, or credit facilities. In short they are financial failures who do not want to own up to their responsibilities. And having failed, they wish to magically “redeem” themselves from any obligation to be productive. Their lack of productivity bolstered by their even greater lack of responsibility for that lack of productivity, is what fuels their erroneous claims of redemption. They are an utter shame and disgrace to the rest us productive and responsible parties at large!

 Can you clear a bankruptcy off your credit? If so, how?

A. I don’t know how. You might try sending the competency document to the bankruptcy court telling them you were incompetent at the time, but have now come to your senses and you want this erased off your record, as you are now competent to handle your own affairs. (Tape 5/21/03)

 An application in bankruptcy is not anything at all to do with "competency", rather it is an issue of financial capacity and responsibility, which is probably why the cult-author has difficulty grasping its realities. The cult-author states that only straw men can conduct commerce, hence only straw men are technically capable of being financially liable. This is true, and because it is true, it is perfectly sound thinking to "divorce" one's true self from any of his alleged straw man's financial obligations by filing an application in bankruptcy.

 Normally, the true self or sovereign man is the de facto trustee for the straw man, appointed as such by the state. When an application in bankruptcy is filed, the state immediately terminates your appointment and appoints a new "Bankruptcy Trustee" over that straw man that has a name similar to yours. This new state-appointed Trustee is bound by law to accept all legal and financial responsibilities for the straw man until you are "discharged" from the PRIOR financial obligations. You are not obligated to cause your true self to be discharged from the prior obligations; that is purely a voluntary act. Because as the law clearly states, the true you cannot conduct commerce, hence you were never liable to begin with, and the newly state-appointed Trustee is now responsible for the only party (the straw man) that could ever have been liable. For example, the real man that I am has remained divorced from my alleged straw man, because that straw man has never been discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding that commenced over 16 years ago. I expect that straw man will remain un-discharged from those liabilities well beyond the rest of my natural life.

 It is the most competent thing to do in terms of disassociating any responsibility toward the state-created straw man that I never wanted in the first place. They made him, now they are responsible for him, and they can keep him! The state appointed Trustee must file all tax returns, must pay any taxes, must pay any fines, and must accept full legal responsibility for the straw man's actions or lack thereof. And as far as I am concerned, more power to him! I am quite happy to leave the new state appointed Trustee in full charge of that straw man, because as part of his limited appointment, he agreed NOT to cause the straw man to conduct any financial activity, hence it is now de facto "dead" at best, or "legally dormant" at worst.

 In any case, there is no confusion over legal or financial issues, as if or when any documents are delivered to me with the straw man name affixed, I simply send them on to the Trustee who MUST deal with them WITHOUT any involvement or responsibility on my part, because I, the true man have been declared independent of the straw man and financially "incapable" not incompetent (all live men are prohibited, thus incapable of conducting commerce). Since as most people know, we are in a "commercial" society with commercial law and commercial court, the BEST place to be is to be declared financially incapable, or outside of that jurisdiction BY THEIR ORDER, which is precisely what my situation is so long as the state-appointed trustee remains responsible for that straw man with a name similar to my own.

 11. How can we get back our money that we paid on our property taxes, since that was a mistake - like paying taxes with a 1040?

 This is self-defeating logic. How can you suggest ways to "get our money" back on the circumstances where it would be expedient, while at other times you claim you cannot pay obligations because "there is no money", and further make statements compounding that irrational thinking such as the alleged money has no value? If money does not exist, or if it has no value, what is the sense in placing a commercial lien demanding settlement in this "money" that has no value, or may not even exist?

Only an idiot would claim that money has no value. And to claim that there is no money presumably because it is not backed by gold or silver is even more idiotic. The oft quoted document that does not say there is no money, can only be interpreted to say there is no money if you deliberately omit the most important words in that document. And of course the term “fiat money” means literally that people are ordered (i.e., by fiat or by law) to accept it in discharge of liabilities notwithstanding that it has no substantial or utilitarian value in its own right. It also costs the Bank of Canada almost nothing to produce (a few cents to print a $100 bill/note).

 However this same principle of issue at no cost would apply to money allegedly backed by gold or silver. The difference is of course that the available amount of gold and silver would determine a finite, as opposed to an infinite supply, or a supply related to productivity. It would be just as foolish if “money” were to be issued that was allegedly backed by gold or silver, to think that such “money” could “pay” a debt. It cannot. Even if such money was issued, and people were literally ordered by fiat or by law to accept that (like they are ordered to accept productivity backed money), it could still only be accepted in consideration of discharging a liability.

 Gold-backed "money" is paper and it is fiction and it is preposterous to think that it has any substantial or utilitarian value in its own right. And to a point, neither does the alleged gold or silver that backs it. A seller who hands over his productive substance cannot rationally value the gold or silver or paper money alleged to represent the gold or silver, in absolute preference to the things that he believes that he can buy with it. Otherwise he would not ever buy anything with it! The fact that he would USE the gold or silver (or paper backed by gold or silver) to actually buy things, is the simple and absolute proof that the "things" that he purchased have more REAL value than the metal he merely used (in the stead of paper) to effect the exchange.    TOP ^

Redemption Procedure:

This whole topic of claiming exemptions, nominally “redemption”, seems to be a topic that confuses a lot of people for some reason. Basically, the process can be summed up like this. When new money is printed or issued into circulation it is always (without exception -otherwise it would just have to "pop" up somewhere) issued against "credit". Credit generally, is what you or I or any other party (personal or business) signs, actually or de facto, in the form of a typical loan agreement or credit instrument. Essentially credit means that the money is issued against your promise to perform the payment obligations, or in other words it is issued against your pledged productivity, whether that pledge was actual or de facto, as in the case of government issued credit and/or government expenditures.

So what this means is that you "owe" the productivity to the issuer of the money, which is the government that issued the money. The local banks and/or the central banks (Bank of Canada or US Treasury or Fed Reserve), are merely agents for the government insofar as issuance of currency/money is concerned. And the credit, that you granted, belongs to you, or in other words, the government owes you the equal amount of credit. In short, all money issued is issued by the government against your potential productivity, which is "metered" so to speak by how much credit you qualify for from time to time, and partly on good faith.

 The government records this credit balance that they owe to you as a "debt" on their books, typically referred to in part, as the National Debt. So what is an "exemption claim"? It is simply an off-set of what you may owe the government from time to time against what the government owes you. In other words, if the government owes you $10,000 (or whatever portion of the national credit balance), and you on a given year owe them $100 for taxes, you simply authorize them to deduct the $100 from that $10,000 they owe you, rather than paying them $100 and them still owing you $10,000. An exemption simply means you are exempt from paying for some particular reason, which in this case is because they owe you more than whatever it is you are contemplating paying them.

 You are entitled to two distinct types of exemptions. One as mentioned above is to off-set any tax liability that is less than what they owe you (and it always is). This type of exemption falls under the sub-category of your making a claim against the credit the government issued against your good faith, or by their de facto pledge of your production as a citizen. While not necessarily related to any specific "new" credit or issuance of money/currency, you may have gone out and been productive, thus earning surplus, or nominally “taxable” income by conducting normal commerce such as your "employment".

 Proof of these "earnings" entitles you to make a claim as an off-set of what the government owes you, thereby relieving you of any direct tax obligation. After all, the money you "earned" was issued by them against your credit in good faith, as was any additional money they may have spent on themselves (government expenditures), also issued against the good faith that you would be productive enough to off-set its issue. Hence when they issue money for their own expenses, they automatically create credit in your favour (and call it their national debt), which is why they always owe you more than you could possibly owe them.

 The second type of exemption is for every time you perform on a credit facility through a licensed financial institution. Every time you qualify for credit you cause a commensurate (roughly equal) amount of new money to be issued. And when you perform your credit payment obligations, you are entitled to claim possession of that ‘money’ because you have actually paid for it with your production.

 If this were not true, the only alternative would mean that when you qualify for credit, the bank, as agent for the government, issues the money at no cost to them, yet you must pay it back at full value plus interest! This could be construed that you must work hard to produce something so you can sell that something to make your interest and principal payments for the credit. You then deliver the proceeds of the sale of your hard work to the bank, and then the bank keeps all of that money you give them (the evidence of your productive performance - that you paid for with your labour). But the bank never did contribute or put anything into the transaction at all, except for their administrative efforts, and the privilege of using their license to “print” the original money. Worse, within this alternative example, the government then must retain the full outstanding debt (amount owed to you) on its books!

 To make either of the two types of claims you must have either evidence of surplus income, i.e., you have a taxable income to off-set the tax liability in the first instance, or you must have the ORIGINAL financial instrument that you granted to the bank (as credit issuer) in the second instance. This financial instrument (note, mortgage, etc.) is evidence of your entitlement to make the claim. It is proof that you have performed and by extension therefore, that you own the money that was advanced into circulation against your promise to so perform.

 The bank is only meant and licensed to act as fiduciary to ensure that when you apply for credit and thus increase the nation’s money supply, that you will indeed perform by producing value at least equal to that new money supply. Nothing exists in law or in fact to justify the bank’s taking and keeping possession of the money that you deliver as evidence of your performance against a credit facility. This aspect of their conduct can be nothing but outright and absolute theft with malice of intent. They know without any doubt that they contribute nothing of substance (or of any value, actual or perceived) to the credit transaction.

Grace and peace to you, from our Father, Yahweh, and Yah'shua our Messiah!

TOP ^

Previous Topic   -   Site Index

Updated on 10/06/2008