[The following is an original article]BY AARON ABELL
I don't use banks. Not personally, and not for my business. I haven't had a checking account now for about two years. I hate them! Why? It all began in 2010 when I heard a whisper of a rumour that the banks (at least all of them that participate in a central banking system) were cheating 100% of their clients, 100% of the time. I knew of the Wall Street bailouts and of the derivatives markets and all, but I couldn't imagine a dishonest operation organised on that scale, and that endemic to a particular industry. After about two years of searching on and off again however, I found proof of the most widespread and pervasive fraud in the HISTORY of the united States (that is, after that of the creation of the Federal Reserve and the IRS). Every single bank—let me repeat that again: every single bank, beit local, State, or global has robbed their account holders blind. And their customers don't have the slightest idea of the deception! It comes down to this: when you open an account and deposit your money, it is no-longer your property. It belongs to the bank.
Don't believe me? Here are some excerpts from court cases for your examination:
- Carr vs. Carr (1811) - “when money is paid into a banker’s[account books], he always opens a debtor and creditor account with the payor. The banker employs the money himself, and is liable merely to answer the drafts of his customers to that amount.”
- Foley vs. Hill & others (1848) - “The relation between a banker and his customer who pays money into the bank is that of debtor and creditor, the banker being liable to repay to the customer the money which he holds for him when required to do so by the customer. When a customer pays money into his account at a bank It ceases to be his money; it becomes the banker's money and he can deal it as his own. He is not vis-à-vis the customer in the fiduciary position of a trustee or quasi-trustee holding the money for the customer as for a cestui que trust.” (Note, a cestui que trust is basically the beneficiary of a trust)
- N Joachiamson vs. Swiss Bank Corporation (1919) - “Money placed with a bank on current account is, no doubt; in the position of money lent by the customer to the bank: Pott v. Clegg ; Foly v. Hill.”
- Guelich Explosive Co. v. Soberdash Coal Co., et al., 51 Som.L.J. 252 - “Unlike a general depository account which created the relationship of debtor and creditor between bank and depositor, special bank deposits made expressly for a particular purpose cannot generally be attached to satisfy the depositor's general obligations. Where such funds are considered special, the funds are said to be held "in trust" for the benefit of the third party.”
To understand the implications of this paradigm, we first have to understand what banking was like. Note: even though many commodities have been and continue to be used for money throughout the history of the world, we will keep to a strict, precious metal-only account, for simplicity's sake.
Also, I will only explain enough of monetary mechanics for you, the reader, to catch the gist of this piece.
The First Banks
The first banks were mere holders of other peoples' property. Years ago, people would place their gold or silver in a vault, and receipts were issued, signifying a certain sum of (gold or silver) money, and earmarked for the bearer of that receipt. The holder of that receipt could then buy and sell based on those receipts, thus employing the receipts as money. They were often gladly accepted because often, merchants knew they could take those receipts to the depository and redeem it for the sum of money printed on it. Counterfeit receipts were sometimes printed by depositories (to make additional, fraudulent profits), but those instances were few and far between if the law was honoured and fraud was not allowed to go unpunished.
For those familiar with the mechanics of fractional reserve banking, I invite you to skip this and the next paragraph. For all others, read on: The counterfeit receipts were fraudulent because they lacked the one element required of all honest deposit receipts: 100% backing by real gold or silver. They would claim to be backed by the specie, but in reality represented a lawful claim on property that did not exist. This represented a huge problem come the inevitable, mass redemptions that were only a matter of time. When that occurred, the depository would (obviously) not have enough specie to cover all outstanding receipts. Some people would get “their” money, but others would not, even though they previously traded real goods with the intent to ultimately obtain other goods, or money. Thus, the depository would have made a very real declaration via their printed receipts, promising each and every person holding them of their (the depository's) financial acuity, honesty, and security. Hence the fraud.
Fractional reserve banking is not only dishonest, but it has a devastating effect in whichever economy it is practised. It leads to monetary inflation, which is nothing more or less than an increase in the quantity of money, relative to the quantity of other goods. Literally hundreds of volumes have been published on monetary inflation and its effects, but I'll only give the very basics. An increase of the quantity of money relative to the amount of goods in an economy leads to more money chasing fewer and fewer goods. Imagine an auction. What happens to the bid amounts for the remaining items, if in the middle of the event each remaining bidder is given an additional $10,000? They will of course increase! To add insult to injury, a more accurate description of how inflation via fractional reserve banking operates would be if only a few people in the auction hall received $10,000. Those who did not receive the free money would be outbid ninety-nine times out of one hundred for each remaining item. Fractional reserve banking creates unnatural social inequalities, a general rise in the prices of all goods in an economy, and widespread poverty as those who do not receive the “benefits” of the cheap, easy money are constantly outbid in their efforts to obtain even those goods necessary to sustain life. It is truly a tool of Satan.
Things changed when States themselves began to take exclusive control of the supply of money in their respective countries, and they employed the help of well-known and -funded merchant families to first open then operate their national, or central banks. A 'central bank' means one central, powerful bank that possessed the sole authority to control monetary policy throughout a country. England's was the second of this kind, but most notable in the world. It would print and issue money created out of thin air, then lend it to governments and people at interest. The counterfeit bills (so called because bank deposits originally created bills of lading, which are (basically) evidences of property held in custody for another) ran alongside real ones (bills backed by gold or silver coin), causing price inflation and allowing the king to, among other things, wage war and run deficits.
The house of cards created by all of the money printing and lending failed at every instance because of the banks' afformentioned policy of specie redemption. They couldn't simply expect everyone to only want and use paper, so were forced by law to redeem their receipts on demand, in gold or silver as denominated. The banks that practised what is called “fractional reserve banking” (issuing more receipts than the amount of real money deposited in their institution) were technically bankrupt from the outset, and at some point each and every one of the banks were spotlighted as being so. Remember, being “bankrupt” is the condition where a company or person has more liabilities than assets or income to cover said liabilities. Not long after the Bank of England was chartered and the first waves of bank runs rocked the Kingdom, the bankers looked to the lawmakers to cover their fraud and deceit. National “bank holidays” and other mechanisms for delayed specie redemption were used, but to no avail. People left bank money again and again for the safety and security of their real money: gold and silver.
Thievery Reaches US Shores
Not long after the establishment of the Bank of England, almost every single other European country followed suit, only to have their respective economies rocked by wild price inflation, irresponsible speculation schemes, and an increased rate of poverty. Until that time, central banking in the US was virtually unknown. Thus, its economy and her people were free to prosper, for the most part, as they will. Exhaustive history aside, the British colonies in America keenly felt the tumultuous results of the BoE's monetary policies, leading to the widespread use of other nations' coin as money. The US did not see its first central bank until Alexander Hamilton convinced the then-Congress to form it. The First Bank of the United States' purpose, identical to the Bank of England, was to facilitate the growth of government and more importantly, ensure the enrichment of its backers at the expense of its people.
Its charter was not renewed, but in the very year the US's central bank ended, Carr vs. Carr was decided in Britain. There followed case after case where, initially in England but after the second central bank in the US was formed, the Second Bank of the United States, the courts ruled consistently in favour of depriving depositor's of their property to the benefit of the banks. Why the change in judicial practise, and what exactly does that spell for depositors and banks alike?
Sacred, Simple Property
The concept that people should own and possess exclusive control over their rightful property is not a new one. Neither is the practise of punishing those who undertake to violate this universal precept. I Corinthians 6:10 states, “Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Stealing and its close cousin, fraud, are practises completely antithetical to a just and orderly society. Once a society allows behaviour of those types to go unpunished, chaos and anarchy would quickly consume her.
Original banking dealt in the honest keeping of another's rightful property, and the exchanging of said goods via mutual contracts. Unfortunately, the adversary knows all of the ways and means to inspire men to defraud and cheat their fellows, so planted into the bankers' hearts the designs of fractional reserves. Also unfortunately, most of the bankers who were successful at those evil designs were wealthy and powerful members of their communities, allowing them to purchase influence and exemptions in their wrongdoings. The entire reason for operating an institution with fractional reserves is to make phenomenal monetary gain by fraud and deceit, and to obtain power and control over thesouls of men. Fractional reserves were well on the way of becoming the norm, but a banking and monetary system based on open fraud and deceit would never remain in force for long. Most people are simply too good at heart, and neither desire for people to take advantage of them nor wish to do so to their neighbor. Obfuscation and the strictest secrecy in motive and design were required in that new science of money, and both were achieved using simple trickery and real mechanics of property exchange.
Confusion and Contracts
Long before Carr vs. Carr in 1811, wicked bankers of every nationality made a great deal of their counterfeit money using the principle of mutuum contracts. Muttum contracts are loans made of a certain good, to be used for consumption, and to be paid back in kind. A perfect example of this would be a grain loan. The loan of say, wheat would be used for making bread or whatever, and be paid back at a future time, and in wheat. Wheat would be borrowed and returned. It of course would not be the same wheat lent, but because many commodities are what are called fungible, or interchangeable in satisfying an obligation, the lender could not complain in the slightest as long as the repaid wheat was of the same quality as was lent. Using this mutuum principle, dishonest bankers declared that depositors in reality “lent” them the amount of their deposits, to be used in the banking business, or in making loans and creating money, and it was only incumbent on the banks to pay back that certain sum of money, and not those particular monies or coins so deposited. This extended, and continues even today to cover allocated and unallocated deposits. Allocated deposits were kept in special locations in depositories, apart from the general, or unallocated deposits. Those deposits commanded a premium since special consideration was paid them, but many people were more than happy to pay to have “their” money returned to them.
This twisting of the mutuum agreement opened the tent flap for the most blatant of monetary abuses ever imaginable to enter. Since deposits were in reality lent to the banks, if, in the process of business the monies were lost in a bout of speculation of bad loans, the bank was relieved of the obligation to perform their duty to the individual account holder, namely the transfer and movement of the monies as required by the depositor. In addition, since the monies in the accounts were property of the banks, they were then free to practise fractional-reserve banking as they were only, according to each relative permissive law, risking their own money to make free interest amounts on loans.
Unfortunately for the banksters, merely passing a law does not make an act morally right. The mutuum principle may not be applied to bank deposits, and for three reasons. First, a contract (upon which principles they depend to carry forth their deceptions) requires all parties to be congnizant of all terms in the agreement and enter freely. Certainly a person is free to choose whether-or-not to use a bank in their daily lives, but no-where, in any bank account agreement or disclosure have I seen even a reference (legal or otherwise) indicating monies become the property of the bank upon deposit. And the banks certainly will not disclose this practise! I have been kicked out of no fewer than 5 banks when the managers or board representatives realised I was trying to have them admit that policy. The truth is indeed in black and white, but one must not only read the particular, referenced USC statutes, but familiarise themselves with the Uniform Commercial Code and the FDIC guidelines...and they will only really understand what it all means if they have been introduced to the truth! It cannot be sanely claimed depositors are to any degree cognizant.
Second, when asked outright, bankers will lie and tell their depositors the money is the property of the account holders! I have had no fewer than three branch managers and board representatives lie, unblinkingly, when I asked them directly whether-or-not the money I deposited in their bank was mine. This is an important fact because contract law states that even if all elements are present and apparent to the signer but they are deceived by the other participants, to the point they possess an understanding of the agreement and its elements opposite reality, it is void, and of no effect.
Third, it is simply unconstitutional. Justice Marshall, in Marbury vs. Madison declared, “...Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” The US Constitution enumerates specific, inalienable rights of all men, foremost of which is that of property. Governments and their attendant court systems may not rightfully deprive any man of his rightful property, which they have succeeded in doing to the every single banking customer in this country since 1913. It is wrong, not at all lawful, and the money in the banks rightfully belongs to each depositor!
Banking Today
Such is the landscape of today's banking. The deposits, allocated or un- become property of the bank to do with as they will, and they are only required to transfer and move funds equivalent to what is reflected in the account record, as directed by the account holder. That is under a normal, regular banking environment. According to US law banks may delay, reduce, or even deny the use of monies in one or all of their accounts, if the safety and integrity of the institution is in jeopardy. Proof of this was given, plain as day, with the demise of Washington Mutual. When they declared insolvency and shuttered their doors, it was the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Company) that “paid” all of the qualifying depositors the amount equaling their previous deposits. Washington Mutual, because they owned each and every dollar deposited in their institution, used all of those funds to pay off their bond holders and equity, etc., and not a single penny went to the actual depositors once bankruptcy proceedings were underway.
The FDIC, established in 1913 was just another facet of this bankster's deception. The banks, per US law owned the deposits, but what would keep account holders flocking to them; ensure the continued deposits and resultant revenues flowing? Faith in the central banking system was spun with the creation of the FDIC, which “guaranteed” each and every deposit at member banks, up to a certain amount. The ugly truth of that particular scheme is not only do member banks “contribute” a portion of their profits (made from creating money out of thin air), but if there were ever a shortage of funds (due to many large banks failing, as they did in 2008-2009), the Federal Reserve would make up the difference. And everyone knows where the Federal Reserve gets their money from: The Taxpayers. The fact that taxpayers end up footing the bill not only for the banks to make their wicked, unnatural profits but for the price of their own bread to increase year after year because of the multiplication of the money supply is unconscionable.
To recap:
- Banks own your bank deposits.
- They can use it or lose it at will, even deny you access to it if they so please.
- They use it to multiply the money supply unnaturally, robbing you of your savings and livelihood.
- They deceive you by placing you at the altar of the FDIC, which is funded, at the last, by taxes.
- They use a little-known principle of mutuum contracts to excuse their deception, and lie if necessary.
- The sole purpose of this banking system is to transfer wealth from the masses to the rulers. Period.
THAT is why I hate banks, and why I only use cash. I honestly hate using FRN's (Federal Reserve Notes) for my money, but I haven't found enough people to join me in using gold and silver as their money, and be accused of being traitors and terrorists. I plead with you, dear reader, to make a study of this subject, and loose the financial scales of darkness from your eyes! Cash is the most moral money available for regular use today, and I encourage all to be firm in your resolve to never support wicked institutions, and uphold the righteous. You will be blessed for doing what is right, as far as you have understanding, and especially as you educate those around you.
Yours in Freedom,
Aaron Abell
Disagree.
ReplyDelete