Global Relief is on the way
Bonded Equity Exchange Credits
A new global and transparent crypto-currency
You don’t have to mine them
Because you have already earned them
Recovering your equity entitlement / asset is free
If you have ever had a registered mortgage(s) at a recognised financial institution, then there is a restitution / equity entitlement for you in the WEREX Special-Salvage-and-Restitution-Trust to the same value as the registered Principal Amount(s).
World Equity Repository & EXchange
The Wealth of the World
Restored to its Rightful Owners
Activate your Seat on WEREX
CLAIM YOUR MORTGAGE EQUITY
300 Million People Worldwide have been systematically and unlawfully deprived of the USD-equivalent of more than
$150 Trillion ($150,000,000,000,000)
Global Financial Virus
An effective global Financial-Black-Hole (FBH) Virus was released in Canada in early 1981 when the lobbyists who control the (English) Crown-in-Right-of-Canada unlawfully and illegally engineered what is technically a law-of-apartheid to exempt certain legal-persons, called banks, and private financial institutions more generally, from a certain criminal law.
If the financial-crime section of the Criminal Code were arranged logically by ranking all offences by how much money is obtained in fact in violation of them, then this particular criminal offence would not only be ranked Number One, but is in fact more than 100-times greater than the next closest competitor, and regardless greater than all of the other criminal offences combined.
It is the criminal law against capitalizing interest in advance (or otherwise before it has been earned). More specifically it is the criminal law under s. 347(1)(b) against receiving / capitalizing or otherwise converting any payment or partial payment of interest at a criminal rate. Interest in advance is interest capitalized at an infinite and therefore criminal rate (anything above an effective or real 60% per annum).
If you can (1) capitalize even a small portion of interest in advance, (2) conceal it, and (3) get away with it, then you can effectively buy the Earth with falsified-securities within a single generation. That is why it is a Financial-Black-Hole-Virus – it collapses all the world’s assets into an ever-increasingly-small and concentrated group of human owners who use the banks they own as a public-front to hide what is really happening.
Although the same technicality was raised indirectly on several occasions, at one point it was directly brought to the attention of the Senate banking committee (by Mr. Paul-Emile Wong, Consumer Research Branch, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to Senator Buckwold) that loan-fees would automatically offend the proposed new criminal law because the rate of interest conversion “being infinite, it would certainly be above 60 per cent [per annum],…”
[Continuing: (in material part, emphasis added)]
Senator Buckwold: Is that illegal?
Mr. Wong: As the section stands, that would be illegal, yes.
Senator Buckwold: Then looking at the reverse aspect, the bank, theoretically, could be prosecuted for charging a criminal rate of interest for a standby fee [or any other loan-fee received / converted in advance (or more generally from the loan / credit proceeds on the same day)]
Mr. Paul-Emile Wong, Consumer Research Branch, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: …theoretically, yes. That is one of the reasons this [soon to be new] section [of the Criminal Code] is unusual, in that it requires the consent of the Attorney General before [criminal] prosecutions are initiated, thus preventing the application of the section to [criminal] commercial practices to which it was not intended [by the bankers and other controllers of the credit / money system] that it apply. It then becomes a question of the Attorney General’s discretion [administrative apartheid]. ((Senate Select Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce) (SSCBTC) transcripts; 4-11-1980 [November 4, 1980], 24:28)
But as wrongful, illegal, scandalous (and wholly ineffective to protect the bankers – see below) as it was and remains, that is only half the story.
Although the bankers and their de facto agents on the Senate banking committee were desperate to protect their (already technically illegal under GAAP) ability to charge loan-fees (leveraged-double-counting-fees), the new criminal law in fact and in law criminalized the whole process by which banks acquire assets in fact – not just loan-fees but virtually all of it.
About half of all mortgages, for example, employ the following seemingly innocuous form of deceit and unjust / unearned enrichment (e.g., from a standard Bank of Montreal mortgage):
2 (1) In return for the Lender’s agreeing to lend the Principal Amount to the Borrower [The bait], the Borrower grants and mortgages the Land to the Lender as security for payment of the Mortgage Money [a separately defined unconditional sum / amount regardless of any subsequent actual loan or advance] and the fulfillment of all the Borrower’s other promises and agreements as set out in This Mortgage until the Borrower has performed all the Borrower’s obligations under This Mortgage.
and / but
(14) Whether or not:
(c) the Lender has advanced to the Borrower part of the Principal Amount, the Lender does not have to advance the Principal Amount or the rest or any further part of the Principal Amount to the Borrower unless the Lender wants to. [The switch]
There are in fact at least half-a-dozen prima facie domestic criminal and international racketeering offences on the face of the mortgage. The most obvious for most people (once pointed-out) is the above Bait and Switch. But the Bait and Switch is itself a criminal fraud device to confuse and conceal the separate false, fictitious and / or illusory consideration device.
The bank (owners and management) expressly and directly holds out the bank’s bare agreement to lend as a separate and distinct (double-counting) service to the pretended-borrower and for which the pretended-borrower unconditionally agrees that it owes (and will pay) the named amount of Mortgage Money (plus interest) to the bank. The bank also unconditionally obtains the legal-title to the property by it. (At this point the bank has also obtained (real-estate-secured) credit from the pretended-borrower by fraud or false-pretence contrary to s. 362).
That part is already illegal and criminal under GAAP – a bank (or any other alleged creditor) is not allowed to hold out its bare agreement to loan as a separate or distinct consideration from the loan itself (i.e., even if it were a true money-lending transaction).
If the bankers were to apply the same device to deposits, then the bank would give you a deposit credit of $200,000 for a deposit of $100,000 – being $100,000 for the deposit and another $100,000 for your bare agreement to make the deposit.
The fact that the bankers do not do so is prima facie evidence of their awareness of its criminal substance when they use it to double-count on pretended-loans.
But then, and regardless, under the subsequent Switch provision, the bank compounds-the-felony by negating the Bait-clause with “the Lender does not have to advance the Principal Amount … unless the Lender wants to.” At this point the offence of Bait and Switch is complete under the criminal law. It also defines an illegal wager-in-law.
All that matters at this point (under the criminal law) is that the bank obtains something of value to the bank (execution and registration (or otherwise delivery) of the legal-title and mortgage security in favour of the bank) but with no liability or obligation by the bank to return anything of value to the party from whom it obtains the thing of value to the bank.
But otherwise at that same instant, and however brief the period may be, the bank owns all the assets on the asset side, and has no liabilities on the liability side, and the bank’s net position is solidified or crystallized or capitalized.
That is the financial ratcheting-device by which all bank-assets globally balloon over time at a rate that is more than ten-times-greater than their declared income. It is what creates the global financial asset-sink (financial-black-hole) by which the owners of the private banking system will soon obtain all of the assets on Planet Earth.
The mortgage and legal-title to the property is not security in the sense of being something that is owned by the nominal borrower and merely held in the custodial possession of the bank. It is an unconditional and irrevocable transfer of ownership of the real-estate property to the bank, with an embedded repurchase-option that allows the issuer to buy the property back from the bank by paying it all the money and interest and doing everything else that the mortgage requires of them.
The fraudulent accounting device had been illegal for centuries but this is the first time that a major (G7 at the time) first-world country has directly identified it and made it expressly criminal, and then formally enjoined it with several international treaties on money-laundering and the disposition of proceeds of crime. The most prominent being the United Nations (UN) Convention on Transnational Organized Crime.
But most critically – none of this is affected in the slightest by any Canadian politician’s political decision on whether to prosecute (or not) their friends in the banking business.
Prosecuted or not, it is still malum in se or evil / wrongful of itself. It is still illegal under GAAP. It is still criminal under the criminal law. And it is still racketeering and money-laundering under both the domestic criminal law and the international treaties.
And it means unequivocally that the right of property in the securities never passed to the bank in law or in equity, and a constructive and actual trust (in favour of the pretended-borrower) was created at the moment the securities were registered or otherwise came into the banks’ beneficial possession.
Notwithstanding the additional criminal Bait and Switch, the private banking system’s basic business-model here is to employ its bare agreement to loan as a separate (double-counting) loan-fee by which to capture 100% of the pretended-borrower’s transaction-related assets. That is why it is criminal under the criminal-interest-rate law.
And regardless of how the Canadian banks came to expressly violate the criminal law in obtaining that result – all banks everywhere (globally) are doing the same thing and have been for generations. And they – and their solicitors / lawyers – are all technically part of the same global criminal organization as defined under the international treaties.
The nominal bankers arrive at any given nominal credit transaction with metaphoric empty pockets, and do not contribute anything that they do not obtain from the other two parties. The banker arrives with nothing, yet walks away with the legal title to the property from the seller / vendor in one hand, and a promissory note (immediate undertaking and underwriting of liability) and mortgage from the nominal debtor in the other.
A most critical socioeconomic aspect of it, of course, is that from the isolated position of the vast majority of its victims, they cannot tell the difference.
A quid pro quo (as (falsely) claimed under the securities) is an equitable exchange of something for something (else) (and of more or less equal cost and value to both parties), and they assume that it costs the bank $100,000 to loan them $100,000. They don’t understand that the banker arrived at the transaction with nothing, and walked away with a $300,000 premium ($100,000 from the promissory note (underwriting credit now), plus another $100,000 due on the maturity date, plus $100,000 by the legal title to the nominal physical security)) in exchange for his otherwise unfunded and unsecured agreement that the bank owes them $100,000. The pretended bank’s liabilities increased by $100,000, in offset of a $300,000 increase in its assets.
Credit insurance versus reinsurance
An important reason why the masses cannot see what is going on is because the owners of the private pretended-banking system have planted a cognitive-virus in our collective psyches that banking is money-lending.
As long as you accept that false-premise, it remains virtually impossible to understand the means by which you are being robbed.
But just as with a maze-puzzle, it is vastly easier to identify the correct path by starting at the centre and working your way out, than it is to start on the outside and work your way in.
In the present situation the first step is to appreciate the difference between credit-insurance and credit-reinsurance.
Back when the majority of larger consumer transactions were settled by check / cheque, a merchant could, for example, purchase a form of simple credit-insurance called check-insurance.
Assume, for example, that a $1,000 check is used by a retail customer to pay for a suite of furniture from a furniture store. The merchant would have to follow a set of procedures / rules as set by the insurer, but for a premium of, say, 1% (or $10 on a $1,000 check), the insurer would guarantee payment on the check.
The most important aspect is that the insurer does not provide any funds under the normal operation of the business – it is only underwriting the risk of default or NSF status in exchange for the 1% premium. That in substance is simple credit-insurance.
But now assume that at some point the credit-insurer says to the merchant: “I have restructured my business to make it more efficient. Henceforth the procedure is that all of your customers are to write their checks to me, and in return I will give you an immediate deposit credit for 99% of it. I will then collect my 1% premium directly from your customers when I cash their checks.” That in substance is credit-reinsurance.
Most critically, after a simple credit-insurance transaction, there is still the same amount of money or credit in the system. But after a credit-reinsurance transaction there is a near doubling of the relative money supply. After the transaction, the customer’s former $1,000 in their checking-account now belongs to the credit-reinsurer, and a new $990 comes into the system as an unsecured debt (nominal deposit balance) owed by the reinsurer to the merchant.
Before the change-over, after $1 trillion of such transactions, the insurer will have obtained $10 billion as aggregate premiums, but otherwise $1 trillion of retail customer balances will have been simply transferred to aggregate merchants to pay for the merchandise.
But after the change-over, after $1 trillion of such transactions, the credit-reinsurer has $1 trillion in assets that it owns 100% as its own funds and property, balanced by $990 billion of unfunded / unsecured liabilities to the same merchants (and / plus $10 billion in its pocket as premiums).
That is what the owners of the world’s aggregate private banks are doing. After fifty years in the modern era (1970 – 2020), they have gone from having about $1 trillion in assets (in circa 1970) that they 100% owned as their own property, balanced by $1 trillion of unfunded and unsecured liabilities to merchants and other nominal depositors, to having $250 trillion of assets (today) that they own 100% as their own money and property, plus another $250 trillion in legal-titles to the underlying real-estate and other collateral-security / real-assets, all balanced by $250 trillion of unfunded / unsecured bare-liabilities to nominal depositors – and which they are now actively planning to simply walk-away-from when it all comes crashing down.
“Sorry, but the aggregate $500 trillion of financial plus real assets on our asset side – that’s our money and our property – we own it.
The other $250 trillion on the liabilities side – well those are unsecured liabilities, and the world’s aggregate depositors are simply out of luck. Looks like their governments will just have to arrange a bail-in while we banks / bankers, and the people who own them, all abscond with the half-a-quadrillion-dollars in both financial assets and real-assets, including all the infrastructure-assets, factories and machine-tools, power-plants, and commercial and residential real-estate-property, and rolling-stock (planes, trains, automobiles, trucks) and ships, etc. etc.”
“But But But – But how could you have possibly obtained half a quadrillion dollars of financial and real assets ($500,000,000,000,000) over a fifty year period without producing anything tangible, without violating the criminal law?”
Answer: “We can’t and we didn’t – We violated literally dozens of domestic and international racketeering and anti-money-laundering laws to systematically loot the lot of you. It’s just that your political representatives, whom we own and control lock, stock and barrel, (illegally) chose not to prosecute us for it. Don’t you remember?:
[T]hus preventing the application of the [criminal law] section to [criminal] commercial practices to which it was not intended [by the bankers and other controllers of the credit / money system] that it apply. It then becomes a question of the Attorney General’s discretion.
Direct False Receipts – The Other Half
Now, thus far, all of this may seem a little confusing to those who don’t fully understand the accounting principles.
But recall above we said that the above procedure applied to about half of all mortgages. The other half is much easier to appreciate in terms of its obvious criminal substance.
With this half, the only thing of financial substance that a bank puts into a mortgage transaction is the false-receipt that it obtains from the pretended borrower. It is in-your-face-criminal and sold to a trusting public as “A common practice in the industry”.
Under this half, the first thing that a nominal creditor requires, directly or indirectly, in the alleged or pretended making of a mortgage loan, is that the nominal borrower swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the bank / nominal creditor has already paid them the loan proceeds when in fact it has not.
In the following typical case of a mortgage-based small-business-loan in Canada where the bank and the nominal-borrower each had their own solicitors, the issuer-of-the-secured-credit / nominal-borrower was required to sign under oath and penalty of perjury the following:
In consideration of the Principal Amount of lawful money of Canada, now paid by the Mortgagee [Bank / Creditor] to the Mortgagor [Borrower / Debtor], the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Mortgagor doth grant and mortgage unto the Mortgagee, its successors and assigns forever, ALL AND SINGULAR the Lands subject only to the Permitted Encumbrances.
where (by clause 1 (xiv)) ““Principal Amount” means the principal amount described in PART 1 of this mortgage [i.e., $2,100,000.00].”).
As and when the writings / securities were signed, witnessed, sworn under oath and notarized, and delivered / registered (executed), the payment and receipt clauses were objectively and verifiably and categorically false. The bank had paid in fact no money, lawful or otherwise, to anyone, it did not concurrently do so, and it was expressly under no obligation to do so in the future.
The real-estate-secured-creditor-in-fact / pretended-borrower was also required to pay the solicitors’ fees for both parties and which totalled about $16,000.
So with respect specifically to the pretended-borrower’s own solicitor (who was paid about $8,000), why would that solicitor even allow their client to swear under oath and penalty of perjury that they had received $2.1 million of “lawful money of Canada” “now paid” and “the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged” when that solicitor was in fact well aware that they had not done so?
Just to be clear, the sworn financial and legal security makes two precise representations in law: (1) that the bank had in fact paid $2.1 million to the pretended-borrower, and (2) that the pretended-borrower had in fact received $2.1 million from the bank. And both sworn statements / representations were objectively and wholly false.
The instant that falsified security is delivered to the bank directly, and / or registered at the public land title registry, there is a $4.2 million net swing in favour of the bank.
The issuer of the security has in fact advanced $2.1 million of real-estate-secured-credit to the bank, and the banker does in fact record it on the bank’s books as $2.1 million received from the pretended-borrower, while the registered security states precisely the opposite – that the bank had already made and delivered an equity investment of its own pre-existing money, being $2.1 million of “lawful money of Canada”.
And the only answer that either of the solicitors has to it is that it is “a standard business deal” and that the fact of the false statements is not material.
This is how the whole financial-world works.
In this particular case, the owner of the corporate entity issuing the mortgage was an actual and constructive trustee / officer of the corporation (as its sole director and shareholder). The banker said in essence: “As a condition of obtaining the bare chance of receiving the (pretended) loan we require you to first commit an act of libel against your corporate person / entity by swearing under oath and penalty of perjury that you witnessed that person / corporate entity commit an act of debt by receiving a $2.1 million loan from the bank. Technically we are asset-stripping your corporate entity and obtaining all of its assets by criminal means, and so we need you to first also commit a strict-liability criminal offence – to make us technically partners-in-crime – so that you cannot sue us in equity if you later discover our fraud-in-fact or fraud(s)-in-law, and so that we don’t have to carry that possibility as a contingency on our accounting books)”
particeps criminis … 2. The doctrine that one participant in an unlawful activity cannot recover in a civil action against another participant in the activity. (Black’s Law Dictionary (1999) (7th ed.))
“Also, please disregard the fact that the solicitor is suborning perjury from you. Do you want the (pretended) loan or don’t you? If you do, then raise your right hand, swear, and sign here. If you don’t, then there is the door. And please initial here that you agree that we have not employed any form of coercion.”
The larger reason (i.e., on top of loan-fee front-loading) that pretended-banking (credit-reinsurance-in-fact) is such an obscenely profitable business is because that false-receipt is the only thing the bank / banker ever contributes to the alleged transaction.
Deposits Practice and estoppel
As an additional quick and obvious test, tell the same banker that you want to make a $2.1 million deposit and that all you need from the bank is a sworn and notarized receipt (and negotiable / registered security!!!) from it claiming / swearing that you have already made the deposit. The banker will call the police and have you arrested (along with any employee of the bank who might otherwise attempt to comply with your request – this isn’t bleeping rocket science).
The other half of the nominal banking system is obsessed with, and essentially defined by, electronic, computerized, and human-operated systems and sub-systems designed around one central purpose – and that is to make it impossible in practice for anyone to obtain and / or act upon a receipt for money paid to a bank or banker before it has been paid in fact.
The (pretended) bankers cannot (because of what is called estoppel) maintain such extensive systems designed to ensure that they never give receipts for money before they actually receive it, while concurrently claiming that they do not understand the substance of their own wrongful (and prima facie criminal) acts of soliciting, obtaining, converting, and trafficking in such objective forgeries and falsified securities.
Bankers and bank-solicitors spend half their time making absolutely certain that they never give receipts for money before they have received it in fact, and the other half systematically obtaining false-receipts, sworn under oath and penalty of perjury, from pretended borrowers.
The entire global pretended-banking system is technically a criminal-organization in-fact and in-law. We are all being systematically looted by a professional-criminal-class.
At the end of fifty years the private banks appear to own everything and they have an aggregate total of the USD-equivalent of $250 trillion in unfunded and unsecured (kited) liabilities outstanding globally, about $150 trillion of which is from mortgages (including the interest on them).
Everyone suspects the banks and bankers of cheating a little bit – but no one has managed to grasp that it is 100% fraud and forgery – all the time. We haven’t been able to see the fraud because it is all fraud – all the time.
So while you are riding-out the CORONAVIRUS crisis – take the time to read the rest of the attached WEREX information package and IPS (Intellectual Property Security).
BLOW. YOUR. MIND.
Then you will realise that you can spend up to the next 30-years paying off what is in fact the bankers’ debt to you.
Or you can regardless activate your seat on WEREX and simply agree with the system’s other 300 million victims of the same fraud as to the extent and amount by which you were personally targeted and victimized, and obtain restitution in Gold-limited and Bonded Equity Exchange Credits (“Beeks”).
Again, there is no cost to activate your seat or to obtain your restitution entitlement.
And there are no courts or lawyers involved – We are simply recognizing that the system is saturated with conflict-of-interest, and we are quite legitimately invoking the equitable doctrine of necessity to obtain a remedy through the mutual agreement of the victims.
And it is a fair and valid equity remedy even if everything the bankers have done were to have been legal instead of so objectively, scandalously, and admittedly criminal.
As a species, going back thousands of years, we keep repeating the same folly of going to, and expecting a remedy from, the same institutions and people who robbed us in the first place. If we are to survive at all – that has to stop. It stops here. And it stops now.