New Gold-limited

Equity-backed

Global Crypto-Currency

Under Phase 1, everyone who has ever issued and registered a mortgage is entitled to receive the registered Principal Amount in an equivalent amount of Gold-limited and Bonded Equity Exchange Credits (BEEC’s pronounced “Beeks”).

The total number of BEEC’s (coins) in the WEREX (World Equity Repository EXchange) e-Vault is fixed by the total equity of all broadly-defined consumer-debt-securities worldwide, including (under Phase 1) registered mortgages worldwide, and can only be increased over time in direct proportion to new gold mined from the ground.[1]

If it takes 100-years, for example, to double the amount of mined-gold in the world, then it will take 100-years to double the total supply of BEEC’s.

10% of all disbursements are held back and applied as premiums for the account / seat-holder’s Good-Faith and Good-Conduct Bond. The premiums otherwise remain the property of the account / seat-holder and are effectively earned back (released / returned to them) over time by not having any material claims against their bond.

There is no cost to obtain your entitlement / asset from the salvage trust (operating as WEREX) that has been created to hold and administer the equity / capacity.

If for example, you have registered mortgages in your lifetime with (net) total registered Principal Amounts of the USD-equivalent of $1 million, then you are entitled to 1 million BEEC’s from the salvage trust, less 100,000 coins / BEEC’s to your bonding fund.

More details under the attached WEREX Introduction pdf.

Conventional start-up funding is by the sale of the developer’s Intellectual Property Security (IPS) and which is entirely optional and voluntary. Again, there is no cost to obtain your entitlement from the salvage trust. See again the WEREX Introduction pdf.

February 29, 2020

NOTICE OF EQUITY LIEN

TAKE NOTICE that Timothy Paul Madden, a being-of-conscience with adequate knowledge and acting in good faith, does hereby and hereunder declare and publish an EQUITY-LIEN on the EQUITY-TITLE(S) to all broadly-defined CONSUMER-DEBT-SECURITIES worldwide for which the issuer and equity-underwriter-in-fact did not obtain the equitable / underwriting credit in exchange for their undertaking of liability, and where some other party or entity obtained such credit to their own unearned and unjust enrichment (normally as and under the pretence of being a money-lender or creditor).

TAKE NOTICE that Timothy Paul Madden, a being-of-conscience with adequate knowledge and acting in good faith, does hereby and hereunder SALVAGE the aforesaid EQUITY-TITLE(S) and grant the aforesaid EQUITY-LIEN(S) and EQUITY-TITLES(S) into a SPECIAL-SALVAGE-AND-RESTITUTION-TRUST pro rata in favour of, and to the benefit of, the rightful and equitable issuers and owners of them.

CONSUMER-DEBT-SECURITIES include, but are not limited to, mortgages, promissory notes, securities for nominal personal, small-business, student, and consumer loans, credit/charge-card accounts, and nominal lines-of-credit, (and in any other form that is or may be recognized by the trustee / administrator of the salvage and restitution trust).

Under Phase 1 of the Restitution Process, anyone with a claim pursuant to a current or past registered mortgage or mortgages from a WEREX-recognised financial institution may exchange or liquidate their claim for an equivalent value in Gold-Limited and Bonded Equity Exchange Credits (a quasi-crypto-currency) from the trust operating as WEREX (World Equity Repository and Exchange).

[Under the initial sign-up / seat-activation process, however, only the single largest mortgage principal amount (of a given seat-holder) will be converted to BEEC’s (Bonded Equity Exchange Credits). Certain procedures are under development to prevent double-counting (because so many mortgages are renewals versus original transactions).  But eventually everyone’s net losses (including all of the interest they have paid) through mortgages to the system will be converted. Under Phase 2 all other nominal (non-mortgage) loans will be converted.]

The following brief explanation and details are in specific reference to Canada, but the same essential and material deviations and defects are being practiced worldwide to the extent that such is presumed in the absence of proof-positive to the contrary.

All broadly-defined and material financial institutions globally are regardless materially inter-connected within the meaning of the criminal law by and through organisations such as Visa International, MasterCard International, SWIFT, and other organisations of people who are clearly and unambiguously defined as “criminal organizations” under, among others, the United Nations (UN) Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. (Only to point out the fact of it, and not to concede any remedial jurisdiction to the said United Nations organization nor to any of the signatories to the said treaties – (all of whom are in breach of their treaties / contracts)).

Further, the above assertions and / or observations should not be taken as inflammatory. All material entities and parties have fully admitted the facts and law that establish such criminal-organization-status and have chosen – unlawfully (in dereliction of duty) and as a matter of policy – to not prosecute them (illegal and unlawful non obstante).

A much more detailed analysis and explanation can be found in and under the following Intellectual Property Security (IPS) publications (and which are security for the lien(s)):

  1. POP QUIZ (1 page), plus 6-page Short-answer Key.
  2. The Normalization of Fraud and Forgery (A brief history of illegal interest-in-advance or Front-loading) (36 pages).
  3. Money-lending my butt (Part 2 of Rule of Law my butt) (A brief explanation of how the global business of credit-reinsurance is fraudulently passed-off as banking / money-lending) (16 pages).
  4. The Free Loan Story (1999 exposé of the global credit/charge-card business) (65 pages).
  5. Nominal my butt (An exposé of the so-called (and ridiculously fraudulent) nominal method of interest calculation) (50 pages).
  6. Conspiracy Theory my butt (A 2019 update and summary of Nominal my butt and The Free Loan Story) (52 pages).
  7. Rule of Law my butt, Part 1, (75 pages) and
  8. Rule of Law my butt, Part 3, (30 pages)

Massive bad faith

Virtually all mortgages in Canada (and most everywhere else) are obtained by the nominal / pretended creditors by objectively criminal means. And it is openly admitted as such by the government and by the Courts and by the broadly-defined legal profession. There is no material controversy over the fact of it.

By its own admissions of fact and law, the Government of Canada is / are operating an unlawful and flagrantly illegal system of apartheid where it chooses, as a matter of policy, not to prosecute certain classes of legal-persons and their solicitors for violations of the criminal law. And these are real and substantive criminal offences, and with commensurate unjust enrichment of the criminal offenders, and real and substantive losses to the victims – they are not just technicalities.

In 98%-plus of all pretended credit transactions, the bank does not bring any pre-existing money to the transaction, but instead itself obtains (and then reinsures) the credit directly from the pre-qualified nominal or pretended-borrower (lead-underwriter and creditor-in-fact).

Every such mortgage employs at least one of three primary criminal techniques. This brief introduction deals primarily with the direct false-receipt technique to keep it simple, and as per this brief series of extracts from The Normalization of Fraud and Forgery:

Assume for the sake of exposition and argument that you are at home and you notice that a new neighbour is moving into one of the houses in your close-by neighbourhood. But for whatever reason, you really don’t like the looks of them and you suspect that they may be a child molester.

Now assume that I suggest to you that we go down to a lawyer’s office where you can swear an Affidavit under oath that you witnessed your new neighbour commit an act of child molestation, and that we then give the Affidavit to the lawyer to hold just in case they do in fact later sexually molest a child. Would you do it?

No, of course not, because the act of bearing false witness is a wrongful act of itself and your felony crime would be complete the instant you swear the false Affidavit and regardless of whether the one against whom you have borne false witness later does anything wrong.

Now let’s take it to the other extreme by assuming that, instead, you really like the looks of your new neighbour and you get the impression that they are so virtuous that they would even risk their own life to save a child who might fall into the nearby river.

I therefore suggest that we go and see a lawyer where you can swear under oath that you witnessed your new neighbour rescue a child from the river – and again give it to the lawyer to hold just in case it should actually happen. Here again, would you do it?

Well, here again, obviously not. Bearing false witness either for or against anyone or anything, or to any event, is a wrongful act in and of itself, any competent lawyer or judge knows it, and any lawyer who went along with it with knowledge would be disbarred and prosecuted themselves.

And finally, just be thorough, assume that you have no preconceptions about your new neighbour at all, and that he walks up to your front-door to introduce himself and to ask a favour of you. He explains that he has just moved in to the house across the street but has a bit of a problem that he needs to deal with. He then asks whether you would swear and sign an affidavit that you saw him standing in his new front yard the previous evening at precisely 9 p.m.

Even though you did not in fact see any such thing, there is nothing either distinctly negative or positive about someone standing in their front yard. So would you do it?

And here again, obviously not. It does not matter whether the thing falsely attested to is negative, neutral, or virtuous – or what you do with the false attestation after your swear it.

It is, however, in law a more and especially wrongful (aggravated) act or compounded felony to bear false witness to the wrongful act of another than to a neutral or virtuous act.

So by what alchemy-of-logic would any legal-professional ever conclude that it is acceptable to falsely swear under oath that you witnessed someone pay money to someone else (or to yourself) when both you and the lawyer know that it isn’t true?

Trafficking in false receipts

The first thing that a nominal creditor requires, directly or indirectly,[2] in the alleged or pretended making of a mortgage loan, is that the nominal / pretended-borrower swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the bank / nominal / pretended-creditor has already paid them the loan proceeds when in fact it has not.

As for example:

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 (nor even assumed any liability), lawful or otherwise, to anyone, it did not concurrently do so, and it was expressly under no obligation to do so in the future (under another provision of the nominal mortgage).

Stop. There.

The entire purported socio-financial-control system (bankers, lawyers, and judges) will go into panic-damage-control-mode to insist hysterically that that does not matter. But it absolutely does – both in law and in equity, and both in theory and in fact.

The falsified receipt is the credit / money itself[3] (or a direct conversion or ratification thereof) and the bank (management and owners) really does recognise and record its registration and / or the bank’s receipt and possession of it as a commensurate increase in the bank’s own cash-equivalent money assets (and as credit received by the bank from the issuer of the security).

That is why it has to be sworn under oath and penalty of perjury (otherwise, and among other things, management of any bank in the system could arbitrarily claim to have loaned $1 quadrillion ($1,000,000,000,000,000) or whatever is necessary to an accomplice to take-over or buy-up all the other players.)

And if and when there is a nominal default, the bankers have an employee of the bank swear an affidavit under oath that the bank’s foreclosure claim is directly based on the bank having loaned the named principal amount (made an equity investment) to the issuer of the security and that their sworn belief is expressly based on the (false) payment and receipt clauses in the registered mortgage. That is why the global foreclosure process is essentially a rubber-stamp process by the civil courts that almost never make any meaningful enquiry into the real transaction. (The employee cannot base their sworn belief on the bank’s records because if they were to check they would normally discover that the bank had made no such payment and that the sworn security is false – so instead they swear that they believe that the bank made an equity investment and payment to the nominal / pretended borrower because the mortgage says so – it may seem a fine point but the lawyers know what they are doing).

As and when the security is executed, the falsification is, among other things, in anticipation by the bank’s lawyers of committing a subsequent fraud-upon-the-Court (and notwithstanding that the Court / judges do not object to being so deceived).

But here again, it is regardless a fraud to bear false witness to any act of another (and / or yourself), but it is an aggravated or compounded felony to bear false witness to the wrongful act of another, and committing an act of debt by receiving a loan is a wrongful-act-in-law that directly affects the legal and equitable rights of the party to whom the false witness has been so borne. At one point such a false witnessing and swearing under oath would have been sufficient to put someone (the alleged debtor) into debtors’ prison as a constructive felon. Today it strips the real or equitable creditor (lead-underwriter / pretended-borrower) of their legal and equitable rights as creditor-in-fact, and it puts a falsified money-asset (a forgery / false-document) onto the bank’s balance sheet.

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 particepts criminis  (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 reason pretended-banking (credit-reinsurance-in-fact) is such an obscenely profitable business is because that falsified 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.

Estoppel is the same principle that legally prevents you from later claiming that the bank never loaned you any money as a defence in a foreclosure action – the bank directly relies on the false receipt under the sworn security (and the affidavit of its own employee) to estop you from going there at all.

Nor can a false document be converted into a genuine document by putting it into what is called escrow. If a document is false as and when it is created / executed (which is also the only time at which the truth of falsity of it can be definitively determined), then it forever remains a false document. If a purported Picasso painting is a forgery-in-fact, then it cannot be converted into a genuine Picasso by putting it into escrow:

In R. v. Lemire, [1965] S.C.R. 174, this Court held that the accused’s belief that his actions would subsequently be ratified afforded no defence. …., Martland J. (for the majority [of the Supreme Court of Canada]) held, at p. 193:

In other words, [the position of the accused is that] there is no intent to defraud within the requirement of s. 323(1) [now s. 380(1)] if the accused person, while deliberately committing an act which is clearly fraudulent, expects that that which he is doing may, at a later date, be validated. To me the very statement of this proposition establishes its error in law.

The accused had been properly convicted of fraud for issuing / submitting (converting) false receipts for payments that he had not made in fact (and even though he may have genuinely believed that his falsifications would be subsequently nominally validated) .

Another way to see the same fraud is that as and when the pretended-borrower signs and delivers the security, they normally have neither the capacity nor intent to honour the security unless the bank delivers the principal amount to them. But if the security were to say so, then it would be obvious that it is a conditional promise to pay and not an unconditional promise to pay, and the bank would be unable to employ the security as its source of funds for the alleged loan proceeds. The false receipt for proceeds already delivered is a falsification of the security that gives it the false appearance of an unconditional promise to pay. The bankers and their solicitors are not just defrauding the pretended borrower but are simultaneously committing and / or anticipating a massive number of frauds against the financial markets.

In the minds of the bankers and the financial solicitors, one fraud cancels out the other, while under the criminal law the second fraud is a compounding of the felony.

The bankers globally are committing massive financial frauds in the international financial markets by trafficking in falsified securities where the issuers and underwriters of them have been tricked into issuing false receipts in favour of the ringleaders / perpetrators by a tag-team combination of the bankers and their financial solicitors.

Perhaps more critically in terms of functional or practical purpose, the false payment and receipt clauses conceal and deny (and / or obfuscate) the fact that the bank is the lead-debtor in equity and gratuitous beneficiary of the lead-underwriters’ equitable undertaking of the liability. It is to hide and deny the fact that the bank is only reinsuring the credit that the bank first obtains and receives from the pretended debtor.

Ignoring, for the moment, (in respect of this particular case / example) the nominal loan fees (entry-fees and/or reinsurance-premiums-in-fact) and collateral securities (and the embedded disclaimers) (and the securities falsification to conceal it, and the wagering-format), a complete and accurate statement of the consideration to be provided and exchanged would have been as follows:

In consideration of (the pretended borrower) first agreeing that they owe a secured $2.1 million to (the bank), (the bank) will then agree that it owes an unsecured $2.1 million to (the pretended borrower).

That is a very different transaction from a loan of money – in fact it is the conceptual / mirror-image opposite. A loan of money would immediately cost the bank $2.1 million, while a credit-reinsurance transaction immediately gains the bank $2.1 million – with a $4.2 million difference in favour of the bank. That is how and why the private banks globally have come to own everything while producing nothing.

Equitable and actual / legal trust created

Most critically, the false receipt objectively defines the writing / document / security as a false document or forgery-in-law such that no right of property in it can ever pass to the bank. A constructive (equitable) trust is created at that moment (in favour of the issuer and equity-victim of it (the pretended-borrower) and which creates and supports an equity lien against all of the bank’s assets.

Money / credit-system manipulators shoot themselves in the foot

So how did all this massive criminal activity come about so suddenly – or rather become so open and obvious – in the relatively modern era?

The short answer is that, and over and above the false receipts and other direct falsifications of the securities, in 1980 certain members of the Senate banking committee recognised certain facts and principles under which neither of the banking industry’s two (of the total three) primary criminal techniques could (or would be able to) be done legally because of the then proposed amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada creating a criminal rate of interest conversion.

It was directly raised before the banking committee that in consequence banks would routinely violate the new criminal law and therefore be liable to criminal prosecution. The reply was as follows, (in material part, emphasis added):

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)

So everyone in government and the broadly-defined legal profession(s) knows, or ought to know, that what the bankers are doing in fact is flagrantly illegal under the criminal law and under Canada’s legally-binding international (anti-money-laundering) treaty obligations, but is being done anyway “At the Pleasure of Her Majesty”.

But that is itself a law-of-apartheid (or non obstante) that the Crown swore-off-in-perpetuity under the Bill of Rights in 1689. At no point has the English Crown possessed any such power as to be able to bestow on the Crown in Right of Canada.[4]

And more critically here too, it is regardless still a criminal offence and the AG’s decision on whether to prosecute criminally has no effect on the fact of the constructive trust that is created at the moment the false documents are sworn.

The money-system manipulators were too clever by half.

So how then do the banks’ solicitors deal with the admitted massive criminality under domestic and international-treaty law?

Simple. They add the following typical disclaimers to the sworn and registered securities:

NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of any Statute [any lawful Act of Parliament (including the criminal law)] relating to the rate of interest payable by debtors this contract [and security] shall remain in full force and effect whatever the rate of interest received or demanded by [the Bank].

[The criminal rate law is offended because the bank converts all of the pretended-borrower’s assets as a loan-fee in-advance as a separate (double-counting) charge for the bank’s bare agreement to reinsure the credit – or rather the bare chance of it (there are multiple layers of objective criminality in the process).]

4.3 If the Interest Rate stipulated herein [7.75%] would, except for this clause, be a criminal rate or void for uncertainty or unenforceable for any other reason, then the interest rate chargeable on the credit advanced or secured by this mortgage will be ONE (1.00%) percent per annum less than the rate which would be a criminal interest rate calculated in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles [i.e., 60% – 1% = 59% per annum]. [Also note that this clause is as literally / clinically insane as it appears, and the solicitor(s) responsible are guilty of at least criminal negligence.]

And then the former bank-lawyers and bank-solicitors who dominate the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously backed them up by creating a new legal-test in Canada for falsified securities in Canada.

As of 1989/90 in Canada, whether a contract / security that is offensive to (in violation of) the criminal law remains valid as an asset to the nominal-creditor / criminal-offender, and a binding liability on the nominal-debtor / financial-fraud-victim, depends upon the appointed judges’ (former-bank-lawyers’) opinion of:

The serious consequences of invalidating the [criminal] contract, the social utility of those consequences, and a determination of the class of persons for whom the [criminal] prohibition was enacted…[5]

In the result, and by judicial fiat, and in prima facie furtherance of a worldwide racketeering scheme, Canada (1) ceased to be a parliamentary democracy and (2) became de facto government by administrative-apartheid where the criminal law is no longer the law of the land but instead selectively applied or not to different legal classes of persons “at the pleasure of Her Majesty” and as determined case-by-case by former bank-lawyers.

And it is not just s. 347 (criminal interest / rate of conversion) but an incredible range and number of collateral criminal offences to hide it, to deny it, and to launder it as well.

The role of the former bank-solicitor-judges was in effect: “Hey, look, the government / AG / is not going to prosecute for the first criminal / racketeering offence anyway, so what is the harm of falsifying the securities to hide it as well?[6] And once we get to that point, we (the Court) are pretty much compelled to further convert or launder it for them too. And of course even mentioning the multiple independent criminal and racketeering offences by the financial solicitors, in and of themselves, as well as aiding and abetting before, during, and after the fact, would be a public-relations nightmare – best to just leave it alone and let the market take care of itself.”

It’s all criminal and it’s all fraud, all the time – that’s why we can’t normally see it.

By its own admission the Crown / government is giving the bankers and the people who own them permission to violate the criminal law (to commit and profit from real and actual crimes / forgeries), and the lawyers and solicitors are openly suborning perjury from the producing-public and converting the falsified-receipts directly into the pretended loan funds.

And all of it is to aid and abet the systematic asset-stripping and looting of productive Canadians (and the rest of the world) out of their productive capacities and birthright, and to the egregious unearned and unjust enrichment of a small group of people who own the banks and who produce nothing but accounting profits by falsifying securities.

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 (falsified) mortgage from the nominal (pretended) debtor in the other.

Not quite seventy-five years ago, at the end of World War II, we in Canada were fewer than twelve million people in possession of about one-tenth of the world’s broadly-defined diverse natural resources.

Today we have ever-increasing widespread poverty while a relatively tiny controlling elite have done very well for themselves – by selling out the rest of us to domestic and international (and highly-organised and flagrantly criminal) financial interests who are operating openly and in fact under a game-of-chance / wagering-based racketeering-on-steroids-business-model and / or directly falsified-receipts and forgeries-in-law.

So how do we fight them?

Answer: We don’t. We go around them.

Timothy Paul Madden has invoked the equitable doctrine of necessity or equitable de facto doctrine to declare and publish an equity-lien on the equity-titles to all broadly-defined consumer-debt-securities on Earth where the lead-underwriter and equity-creditor in fact (the pretended-borrower / creditor-in-fact) did not obtain the equity or underwriting credit for same (virtually all mortgages, car-loans, business-loans, credit/charge-card-loans / advances, etc.) and to which they are entitled in law and in equity.

He has also independently declared and published a salvage-title / claim on the same equity-titles and granted same, and the liens, into a special-salvage-and-restitution-trust for the benefit of the rightful owners of those titles. The equity titles are (or had been) constructively abandoned or lost because the bankers never had any legal or equitable claim to them, and their rightful owners are not for the most part even aware of the existence of the equity-title as distinct from the legal-title.

Mr. Madden, however, well understands both the legal and equitable substance of those equity-titles, and that imposes upon him a legal and moral obligation to claim and salvage them in trust for their rightful owners.

All the People throughout the world who have been cheated by the ever-increasingly-and-flagrantly-criminal (pretended) banking system can provide for their own remedy by simply agreeing among themselves as to the fact and extent of their constructive and actual losses to the system.[7]

It no longer matters that the world’s civil court systems are overwhelmingly dominated by judges who are former bank-lawyers and bank-solicitors, and who have been most commonly directly appointed to their positions by former bank-directors, bank-lawyers and bank-solicitors. It’s not a global justice system – it’s a global conflict-of-interest system.

With Gold-limited and Bonded-Equity-Exchange-Credits (BEEC’s) these professional-language-manipulators are obsolete and regardless unnecessary.

In the closing words of Money-Lending my butt:

The great-grandfathers of the current generation of entrenched-money-power left to the latter a finely-balanced system that could be sustained indefinitely with a little maintenance and, above all, restraint. But the current generation are the equivalent of a bunch of blind-drunk frat-boys who never sobered-up after college.

As night follows day, something has to give.

A Global Remedy whose Time has Come

“The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.”

~ Lord Acton

  1. There are three equal thirds, (1) Financial equity (2) Gold equity and (3) Liquidated damages, but the controlling factor is Financial equity and which then automatically determines the size of the other two categories / coin-funds. Full details to be provided on the WEREX.org website.
  2. Sometimes the bank and its solicitors employ the fictitious or illusory consideration technique of substituting the bank’s bare agreement to loan to achieve the same result. Either way, the functional result is to make the security appear to be an unconditional liability of the nominal borrower when it is in fact a conditional liability that is dependant on the bank paying them the loan proceeds. But it is regardless constructive forgery under both English and Canadian Law (The Queen v. Gaysek [1971] SCR 888).
  3. Or rather one form of it. The bank can employ either the unconditional undertaking of indebtedness or the falsified receipt as its source of funds or basis of its subsequent or eventual issuance of a new unsecured liability (ultimately) to the vendor. Also, the wrongful act is complete upon the false swearing of the security and cannot be cured by escrow.
  4. The practice is unlawful and wrongful as founded in apartheid. Direct-apartheid is where, as a simple example, a government makes it illegal for Black People to walk on the public sidewalks. An administrative-apartheid or non-obstante-based government would instead make it an offence for anyone to walk on the public sidewalks, and then choose to only prosecute Black offenders and not White offenders. The Crown conceded in perpetuity under the Bill of Rights in 1689 that the law means the law of the land, and not the law of the person. Most generally, Apartheid is the act of using the law to create different classes of people (or legal persons) with different legal rights solely or substantively for the purpose of keeping them superior or subservient respectively.NON OBSTANTE. In English law.These words, which literally signify notwithstanding, are used to signify the act of the English king whereby he dispenses with the law, that is, authorizes its violation. He cannot by his licence or dispensation make an offence dispunishable which is malum in se [evil / wrongful-of-itself (like front-loading)]; but in certain matters which are malum prohibita [not wrongful but illegal only by statute], he may, to certain persons and on special occasions, grant a non obstante. (Vaughn 330-359 ; Lev. 217. ; Sid. 6, 7 ; 12 Co. 18, 7 Bacon Abr. Prerogative (D 7) 2 Reeve, English L.C. 8, p. 83. But the doctrine of non obstante, which set the prerogative above the laws, was demolished by the bill of rights at the revolution. 1 W. & M. Stat. 2 c. 2 ; 1 Bla. Com. 342 ; 1 Steph. Com. 460 ; (Bouvier’s L.D. 1883).
  5. Thomson, (William E.) Associates Inc. v. Carpenter [1989] 34 O.A.C. 365. Note also how quickly (in the same decision) the Court / judges commit the constructive Freudian slip of constructively referring to the criminal law as a “prohibition” notwithstanding the substance of their core ruling in the same case that there is technically no such prohibition. It is criminally insane either way of course, but that’s policy.
  6. Because the omission of the required rebate or kick-back conceals the violation of s. 347, it is automatically an offence under s. 397(1)(b) (Omitting a material particular from a valuable security for a fraudulent purpose).
  7. A legal-lien obtains its power from legislation and registration. An equity-lien gains its power from publication and knowledge-in-fact.