Virtual-Vaccine for Cognitive-Dyslexia

Triangulating Reality – As easy as 1 – 2 – 3

Canada is the poster-child for everything that is wrong in the world.

Seventy-six years ago at the end of WWII we were fewer than 12 million people in possession of about one-tenth of the planet’s broadly-defined diverse natural resources. Today we have an embarrassing level of widespread poverty and ever-growing naked-authoritarianism to avoid and evade meaningful accountability.

Notwithstanding any theories-of-conspiracy to the contrary, at a minimum, there is only one explanation in Canada as there is throughout the rest of the world.

CRIMINAL. INCOMPETENCE.

The tip of the iceberg is the 1990 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ratifying a unanimous panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal – (overwhelming dominated by former-bank-lawyers and solicitors) – that criminal / racketeering offences by corporate entities are not illegal.

Thirty years later a relative handful of non-productive deadbeat-financial-institutions own everything.

[1] What happened to the $10 trillion?

http://werex.org/what-happened-to-the-10-trillion/

[2] Praying for a miracle.

http://werex.org/praying-for-a-miracle/

[3] POP QUIZ on credit/charge-card accounts.

http://werex.org/pop-quiz-short-answer-key/

Three short articles that can be read in about a total of 45 minutes (5 + 10 + 30 respectively) and that will change your view of the world forever.

For the people behind it, if this Virtual-Vaccine for Cognitive-Dyslexia goes truly viral – COVID will be the least of their worries.

[1] WHAT HAPPENED TO THE $10 TRILLION ($10,000,000,000,000)?

Why are so many of us underperforming our birthright?

For the majority in Canada the answer is because in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ratified the equally unanimous decision of a group of ex-bank-lawyers calling themselves the Ontario Court of Appeal that criminal-law violations and racketeering offences committed by financial corporations are not illegal, because:

[1] The criminal law only provides that offenders will be severely punished but does not otherwise directly state: Don’t do it;

[2] Financial corporations are not among the class of persons to whom the criminal law was intended to apply; and

[3] The financial corporation had been counselled and assisted (aided and abetted) by “two leading Toronto law firms” / members of the BAR.

But the decision wasn’t just clinically insane by existing medical and psychiatric standards – it was also what the lawyers call precedent. Virtually all commercial crime sections of the Criminal Code are of the same form – none of them directly state – Don’t do it.

Thirty-one years later, a typical mortgage in Canada today has between 14 and 24 prima facie domestic criminal-law and international-racketeering / treaty-law violations / offences.

That is why, as just a relatively minor (tip-of-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-like) example, your nominal mortgage is most likely in the form of a wager or game-of-chance. Virtually every mainstream mortgage includes a provision to the effect:

8.11 The Borrower agrees that neither the execution nor registration of this mortgage …will oblige the Lender to advance any…money hereunder but the advance of money from time to time will be in the sole discretion of the Lender. [This provision allows the bank to charge-off the lead-underwriter’s (pretended-borrower’s) assets as an entry-fee for a wager to account for the bank’s otherwise unearned (unaccounted-for) gain (i.e., so that it does not have to pay-back the secured-credit that it first receives from the note-issuer / pretended-borrower / creditor-in-fact) (Registered Standard Mortgage Terms MT900180)].

In plain English, and reduced to its essential and material elements, a typical nominal mortgage transaction is:

“First, legally and unconditionally convey to us all of the assets (everything real or financial and specific to this nominal transaction), and then maybe we will agree that we owe you something in return, and maybe we won’t.”

The scope and scale of criminal and international racketeering-law violations is simply mind-boggling, and all hiding-in-plain-sight. It is not about whether you subsequently win the wager or game-of-chance – it is about the bank doubling its accounting (capital) gains and real profits by putting the alleged transaction into the form of a wager. From there on it’s all about leverage leverage leverage.

That is why the owners of the private banking system own virtually everything, even though they do not produce anything tangible.

The former bank-lawyers, who are directly appointed as judges by the former bank-lawyer or bank-director normally occupying the prime minister’s office at any given time, are masters at pretending that they don’t understand why these practices are illegal and criminal even as the People and the nation itself are systematically looted and harvested in violation of literally dozens of laws against precisely those practices.

As an ultimate failsafe they add general disclaimers to their securities that the parties agree to disregard the criminal law and all other laws:

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 – (SUN LIFE FINANCIAL (GSA – General Security (Master) Agreement) in this particular case)].

Seventy-five years ago, at the end of WW 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 an embarrassing level of widespread poverty, while a relative handful of elites and elite families, domestic and foreign, own virtually everything.

They will tell you that I don’t know what I am talking about because I am not a lawyer. They will tell you that I am not capable of understanding their process of reasoning, which regardless stands on its own (res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself):

“[T]here is no doubt that the corporate plaintiff [directly funded / reinsured by the CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce)] committed an offence under s. 347(1)(a) by entering into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate” [also via front-loading ($45,000 kick-back converted-in-advance) contrary to s. 347(1)(b), (and also forgery / falsified-securities and money-laundering) to conceal it] [and] “The parties…acted on the advice of their solicitors” [described elsewhere by the trial judge as “two leading Toronto law firms”]

and / but

“…[The criminal law [Section [347(1)(a)], … provides only for punishment of persons agreeing to receive interest at criminal rates but does not prohibit agreements providing for such rates….”

“The purpose of [the criminal law [s. 347(1)(a)]] is to punish everyone who enters into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate. It does not expressly prohibit such behaviour, nor does it declare such an agreement or arrangement to be void. The penalty is severe, and designed to deter persons from making such agreements. … It is designed to protect borrowers … It is not designed to prevent persons from entering into lending transactions per se…. Therefore the agreement [which the Court / judges have found and acknowledged to be contrary and offensive to the criminal law, and which criminal law is a designated racketeering offence] is not fundamentally illegal.” (Thomson, (William E.) Associates Inc. v. Carpenter [1989] 34 O.A.C. 365).

Lawyers are trained in the art of deceiving humans by stringing together statements that are not categorically false.

Eventually they lose not just the ability to perceive reality, but even the ability to understand that there is such a thing as reality. Once so qualified, they are directly appointed as judges.

The primary theoretical difference between a Court of civil / commercial Law, and a mafia Don or Godfather, is that the Godfather has jurisdiction over contracts that are offensive to the criminal law.

If Jimmy the Kid issues a contract on Johnny the Weasel, and Rocco the Enforcer then whacks Johnny the Weasel, then he can go to the Godfather for an adjudication if Jimmy the Kid refuses to pay him.

Her Majesty’s Courts, however, are presumed not to have any such jurisdiction, and are in fact obligated in such case to provide for all involved to be charged with murder, or as an accessory to murder.

The former bank lawyers running the commercial courts in Canada don’t get that.

Since 1990 the implementation and then massive expansion of this racketeering-based business-model (basically a double-cross-leveraged-double-counting device), and their ability to get away with it, has allowed the private financial system to harvest at least an extra / bonus $10 trillion of unearned-wealth / unjust-enrichment for itself ($10,000,000,000,000), or an average of about $1 million from each of ten million Canadian households.

But it’s ok because they made sure that we never even saw it, so how can we miss it?

If you can employ cross-leveraged–double-counting to capitalize interest in advance, or even just sufficient nominal loan-fees contrary to GAAP and the criminal law, and get away with it, then you can near literally buy the Earth with proceeds of crime in a single generation.

And that is precisely what we have.

Timothy Paul Madden, forensic-financial-economist, and historian of equity, law, and policy.

______

[2] Praying for a miracle

The money-power isn’t afraid of a virus – it is afraid, and quite properly terrified, of a meaningful and competent audit.

To appreciate the role of language, try to imagine our current reality if from the beginning the nominal COVID virus had been called the Misdirection virus or the Shell-game virus.

If you truly want to understand the nominal COVID phenomenon, start by reading your mortgage. [http://werex.org/mortgage-payment-abatement-advisory/]

Here is one of at least a dozen scandalously criminal provisions in a typical nominal mortgage security prepared by solicitors for a major Canada-based multinational financial institution (and the same in substance as with all the other banks):

NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of any Statute [any lawful Act of Parliament, including the criminal law]… this contract [and security] shall remain in full force and effect.

WTF!

To cut to the chase, that is a direct order and instruction, originating from the mind of a senior financial solicitor and member of the BAR, to the judges of Her Majesty’s Courts, that they are to wholly disregard the laws of the Crown (the laws of Canada).

WTF!

And the judges of Her Majesty’s Courts are in fact knowingly obeying those orders, and in additional direct and positive dereliction of duty.

Judicial notice shall be taken of all Acts of Parliament, public or private, without being specially pleaded. R.S., c. E-10, s. 18., (federal / Canada Evidence Act).

WTF!

All of which duties are a manifestation of the foundational relationship and limitations defined by and as English Law:

The principle of law is clear. The courts, which exercise the judicial power of the Crown, will not enforce a contract that Parliament, which exercises the legislative power of the Crown, has made unlawful. In the words of Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnson [1775]:

“The principle of public policy is this: Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act.”^{^[1]}

WTF!

It is because in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ratified the unanimous decision of a panel of a gang of appointed former-bank-lawyers calling themselves the Ontario Court of Appeal, that criminal and racketeering offences committed by financial corporations are not illegal because the criminal law only states that offenders will be severely punished but does not otherwise directly state: Don’t do it.

WTF!

And, critically, because all of the co-offenders and the criminal / racketeering arrangement itself, including falsification of securities and conversion / laundering of the proceeds, had been counselled and aided and abetted by Members of the Bar Association.

“[T]here is no doubt that the corporate plaintiff [directly funded / reinsured by the CIBC / Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce] committed an offence under s. 347(1)(a) by entering into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate” [also via front-loading (a $45,000 criminal-rate-of-conversion-concealment-fee) converted-in-advance contrary to s. 347(1)(b), (and also forgery / falsified-securities and money-laundering) to conceal it] [and] “The parties…acted on the advice [and assistance] of their solicitors” [described elsewhere by the trial judge as “two leading Toronto law firms.

WTF!

If a commercial contract is lawful and legal, then the bank / banker, for example, is an anticipated principal party to the (anticipated subsequent) agreement, and the client of the bank’s solicitor(s) who prepare(s) the contracts and securities (for the nominal-borrower’s signature) and chooses or vets the wording. And the bank and its solicitors have solicitor-client privilege.

But if the facts, as here and as so found, establish that the agreement is contrary to the criminal law, and such criminal law is, as here, a designated racketeering / organised-crime and money-laundering offence, then the actual and legal status of the man or woman who was previously the solicitor flips – and they and their BAR association become the principal offender and ringleader of the resulting criminal organization.

Section 462.3(c) (counsel to commit an enterprise-crime / designated offence):

“enterprise crime offence [now [post-2001]] called a “designated offence”]” means

(c) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (b.1) [e.g. ss. 462.3(a)(xiii.1) (s. 347)(criminal-interest-rate / rate-of-conversion)].

Technically the solicitor(s) and the BAR association are the ringleaders (and controlling-minds) in law, and the bank / banker is both a co-party to the solicitors’ offences, and bagman or holding-vessel for the resulting proceeds of crime.

WTF!

Then to tie-up the loose-ends, the former bank-lawyers, many of whom had been directly appointed as judges by a former bank-director (Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, formerly of the same CIBC (co-offender in this case) spelled-out the real object of their sedition against the laws and People of Canada. Henceforth the nominal Crown Courts have the self-declared power to enforce criminal / organised-crime contracts in favour of banks and other designated friends of the Crown – and against the little people – depending on the former-bank-lawyers’ personal 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…

WTF!

It is because a decade earlier in 1981 the government / Crown-in-right-of-Canada unlawfully and illegally revived the long-outlawed and criminal practice of non obstante or the giving of permission to friends of the Crown to violate the (civil) law, and then extended it into the criminal-law-realm (!!!!) so that its banker friends would be able to systematically violate the then (soon to be) new anti-money-laundering law under the Criminal Code:

Senator Buckwold: Then….the bank, theoretically, could be prosecuted for [money-laundering / receiving or converting interest-in-advance]

Mr. Wong…theoretically, yes. That is one of the reasons this section 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 money / credit system] that it apply. It then becomes a question of the Attorney General’s discretion. (Select Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce) (SSCBTC) transcripts; 4-11-1980 [November 4, 1980], 24:28)

WTF!

The private financial system in Canada at the time (late-1970’s and early-1980’s) was all but officially insolvent and bankrupt, and the only way out was to massively cook-their-books by illegally capitalizing and cross-leveraging interest in advance (already illegal under GAAP).

But they regardless didn’t think it through very far and (at best) failed to realize that, even if the AG decides not to prosecute, the violation-in-fact of the new criminal law against interest-in-advance (or ex-temporal fraud – a fraud against time) is an automatic strict-liability offence against the separate anti-racketeering and anti-money-laundering sections of the domestic criminal law, and under the international anti-organized-crime-and-anti-money-laundering treaties to which Canada is a contracting state party.

It is a recognised principle of international customary law that a state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its international obligations. (Zingre v. The Queen et al. [1981] 2 SCR 392) [Otherwise any nation could get out of any treaty obligation by merely enacting a contrary domestic statute].

And here again, it also automatically and overwhelmingly criminalized the BAR Associations and all of their members worldwide. And, within a matter of mere days, all member-institutions / banks of the world’s tightly-interconnected private financial exchange / money-laundering-in-fact systems such as Visa International, MasterCard International, Amex, SWIFT, and EuroClear, etc., and all of their solicitors, and all of whom knowingly and admittedly trafficked in fact in, and further leveraged, the resulting proceeds-of-crime irrespective of whether the AG later chooses to prosecute any or all of them domestically for the initial / triggering offences. It’s an offence-in-fact and an offence-in-law – it’s not just a technicality.

Ground-Zero for the monumental global cross-criminalization double-whammy was the private de facto city-state called The City of London – henceforth officially confirmed or recognized-in-law also, as the Global Ringleader and Mother-of-all-criminal-organizations.

WTF!

That is why in 1990 the controlling-minds / members of the BAR Association quietly deposed the Crown in right of Canada, and de facto installed an imposter in its place.

That is why today these members of the BAR are metaphorically b*tch-slapping Her Majesty in public and in broad-daylight, and then just as brazenly registering their sedition and treason at the Crown’s own Land Title Offices (also to rub Her Majesty’s nose in it) while everyone material keeps their bleeping mouths shut about it – or else.

Today there isn’t a mortgage in the world that is worth the proverbial paper it is printed-on – except as evidence in criminal jurisdiction of the mind-boggling number of criminal and racketeering offences being committed by the ringleaders and authors-in-fact of the racketeering and money-laundering instruments.

Here again, it is not just a technicality – the principal activity in fact of the members-in-fact of the global BAR associations is the falsification of financial securities and the concurrent / subsequent trafficking-therein.

That is why the coherence of nominal disclaimers and contingencies in the nominal securities has continued to deteriorate to the point where they appear to have been drafted by cartoon-villains like Dr. Evil:

4.3 If the Interest Rate stipulated herein [7.75%] would, except for this clause, be a criminal rate [greater than 60% p.a.] 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^{^[2]}].

In plain English, the clause / disclaimer provides that the bank has complied with federal securities law by declaring that the actual or net amount advanced to the issuer of the mortgage (nominal borrower) is $2.1 million, and that the rate of interest defined by the stipulated payments is 7.75% per annum.

Provided, however, that if it should be discovered or raised as an issue that the bank’s declaration is false (which it is on both counts – and flagrantly so), then the rate of interest is amended and increased to 59% per annum and applied against the amount secured regardless of the amount actually advanced (zero as and when executed and converted to the bank’s balance sheet).

In terms of its essential and material legal elements, it is the same as a bill of lading that declares that the containers / goods carried under it contain flour and sugar, provided however that if it should be discovered or raised as an issue that the containers in fact contain cocaine and heroin, then a certain chemical shall be added so as to change the chemical structure to something that is not illegal! This kind of, again at a minimum, egregious and profoundly-dangerous incompetence has infected and saturated the entire financial and legal worlds.

It is how and why Madoff Investments, for example, was able to run a naked-Ponzi-scheme in broad daylight for 25 years. Nobody noticed because it is all a Ponzi scheme.

Otherwise, the only thing missing from the disclaimer in the sworn and registered security is that it would be more consistent with reality were it to be written in crayon, and acknowledged as having originated from the games-room of a psychiatric facility.

Note, however, that there is in fact one exceptionally lucid and coherent construction among the otherwise gibberish, and that is:

4.3 If the Interest Rate stipulated herein would,… be unenforceable for any… reason, then the interest rate chargeable on the credit… secured by this mortgage will be… 59% per annum].

Crazy like a fox.

It had been slowly but relentlessly unravelling for forty years, but by 2019 (at the latest) it was obvious to all concerned in and out of Canada that:

OMG! – We’re going to lose everything and we’re all going to jail forever!!!!! We need a miracle – because the only thing that can save us now would be a virus and pandemic that we also need to complete our global deposition of lawful authority everywhere!

Funny how that works. Whenever the money-power needs a miracle – it gets a miracle.

“Is this real world – or exercise?” How many times can you go to the same well before it finally runs dry?

I think we’re about to find out.

Whether COVID is a false-pretence or a true-pretence – it remains a pretence.

The attached (and / or linked) pdf’s are (1) The Normalization of Fraud and Forgery, (2) Calculation Fraud (high-school-level), (3) The psy-op goes on, an extended / historically-detailed version for those with a university-level education, (4) What Happened to the $10 Trillion?, to demonstrate the role and process of the nominal Courts (mostly former-bank-lawyers), and (4) POP QUIZ on Credit/Charge-cards, to demonstrate how viciously and systematically / pathologically the entrenched-money-power pathologically lies about everything.

Also: NOTICE OF ABATEMENT ( http://werex.org/mortgage-payment-abatement-advisory/ ) for a summary of rampant mortgage fraud.

1. http://werex.org/nominal-rate-real-fraud/

2. http://werex.org/what-happened-to-the-10-trillion/

4. http://werex.org/pop-quiz-short-answer-key/

For greater certainty, but not so as to limit the generality of the foregoing:

THE EMPEROR IS NOT JUST NAKED.

HE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF WALL STREET

**HAVING SEX WITH A CLOVEN-HOOFED GOAT,**

AND YELLING “YEE-HAW!”

_______

[3] POP-QUIZ on CREDIT/CHARGE-CARDS

Payments Volume Growth Boosts Visa’s 2018 Earnings; Key Initiatives To Drive Future Value (October 29, 2018): [Still waiting for fiscal 2019 figures – expected to be 12% to 15% greater]:

In fiscal 2018, Visa’s number of cards (including virtual cards) increased by about 80 million to 3.3 billion. The total [gross purchase] volume [throughput] surpassed a record $11 trillion [just for the Visa banks alone], driven by 182 billion transactions during the year [about 500 million per day for visa alone]. The company’s payments volume growth remained strong across the globe, with double-digit growth (in constant dollars) in all regions except Europe. [forbes.com website, December 17, 2018]

POP QUIZ

Everyone knows that by paying off their credit card balance in full every month that they are effectively receiving a free loan from the card-issuer (by total $ purchase-volume-throughput about 98% of all card-users do so in fact).

Question 1: How are the world’s aggregate credit/charge-card issuers able to pocket the USD-equivalent of about $2 billion a day ($2,000,000,000) in concealed-credit-charges – about $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) roughly every 18 months – making free loans? Explain your answer.

Question 2: Why does it cost as little as 1% or 50 cents to process a $50 credit/charge-card transaction to pay for gasoline, but up to 6% or $30 (60-times-more) to process a $500 credit/charge-card transaction to pay for dinner at an expensive restaurant? Explain your answer.

Question 3: Why does it cost-in-fact less than 2 cents to process a $1,000 debit-card transaction, but up to $60 (3,000-times-more) to process a $1,000 credit/charge-card transaction? Explain your answer.

Question 4: How are the world’s aggregate credit/charge-card issuers able to pocket $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) in concealed-credit-charges roughly every 18 months without all consumers overpaying by $1 trillion every 18 months? Explain your answer.

Question 5: Where do you believe the money comes from to pay out circa $400 million per day for air miles and membership rewards programs? Explain your answer.

Question 6: About 10% or $200 million a day of the total is a direct commission or handling-fees from VAT and other government sales-taxes that are run through these accounts. How are roughly 25,000 PhD’s in Economics globally able to remain oblivious to it? Explain your answer.

Question 7: Given that virtually every credit/charge-card transaction prima facie offends up to two dozen criminal-law / racketeering laws, how is it that the broadly-defined justice department of every country in the world fails to prosecute the card-issuers? Explain your answer.

Question 8: Does the minimum $10 billion per year ($10,000,000,000) that is kicked-back directly as rewards to card-carrying judges, lawyers, politicians, political-parties, court-system-workers, debt-buyers, and the owners and employees of credit-reporting agencies affect your answer to Question 7? Explain your answer.

Question 9: What allegedly-intelligent species on planet Earth has become so habituated to nominal authority over common sense that it can be systematically looted of $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) every 18 months while genuinely believing something as transparently ridiculous and flat-out-stupid as the free loan story? No need to explain your answer.

POP QUIZ

Short-Answer Key

How much is $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000)?

Before reviewing the POP QUIZ Short-Answers, and to grasp the enormity of the myriad crimes being committed, it is necessary to first grasp the enormity of the amount of wealth / purchasing-power that is being diverted into the pockets of the entrenched-money-power as an ongoing rake-off from the (mostly-labour-based) income of the masses.

Assume that you need to build, from scratch, (and sell) an automobile that sells for $50,000 in order to obtain $10,000 of gross operating profits. To obtain $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) in such gross operating profits from your productive activities it is necessary to build and sell 100 million (100,000,000) such automobiles!

BMW, to take a closely-representative example and frame-of-reference, has a market value (2019 market cap) of about $25 billion, and directly employs about 135,000 people worldwide. With $1 trillion you could theoretically purchase forty (40) such corporations and all their collective assembly plants and other infrastructure that would employ over five million workers worldwide.

A typical modern major automobile assembly plant working at more or less full capacity will produce about 1,000 new automobiles per day. So assuming 500 production days every 18 months, it would take the equivalent of 200 such assembly plants to produce 100 million automobiles over 18 months – that’s 200,000 such new cars every day.

If the costs could be directly itemized, then there would be or need to be two hundred (200) such automobile assembly plants worldwide, and all associated labour and manufacturing / sub-assembly plants (steel, aluminium, glass, plastics, chassis, tires, engines, transmissions, batteries, electronics, etc., etc.) all working up to 24/7 to produce the output necessary to obtain $1 trillion of gross operating profit.

If the core component inputs (from digging the ore out of the ground to make the steel, aluminum, etc., to pumping the oil from the ground to make the plastics, to obtaining the sand to create the window glass, etc., etc.) represent the same again as final assembly, then it would be necessary to marshal an army of ten million relatively sophisticated industrial employees and artisans to produce and sell 100 million relatively high-end automobiles to obtain $1 trillion of new discretionary economic power.

The entrenched-money-power obtains the same $1 trillion roughly every 18 months not by producing and selling 100 million (100,000,000) relatively high-end automobiles, but by running a few megawatts of electricity each day through an installed computer network that they have built up over a 60-year period, and paid for entirely with a tiny portion of the rake-offs themselves.

So let that sink in for a minute or two. A global computerized-bookkeeping-organization is quietly concealing and skimming the same amount from the global economy, every – single – day, as would require the marshalling of an industrial army of ten million skilled workers at 400 major industrial-scale / world-class factories and assembly plants to produce from scratch and sell 200,000 high-end automobiles, every – single – day.

They also and concurrently harvest (or double-dip for) another circa $500,000,000,000 ($500 billion) (on the same credit) every 18 months as interest-called-interest on outstanding account balances.

They then tell the public that the reason they have to charge such outrageously high rates on outstanding balances is that they have to cover their losses from the free-riders who take-advantage-of-them by paying their full balances every month!!!

And all in respect of actual processing costs that are no more than about $10 billion every 18 months. And even that is ten-times-greater than the accumulated inter-generational-family-fortune of the world’s then purportedly richest human and first billionaire Howard Hughes in the early 1970’s.

It is, in essence, a competition among all the card-issuers to see who can tell the most outrageous and in-your-face-stupid-story to the public and get away with it.

And at the end of each 18-month period, the aggregate card-issuers might also send the following group Thank-you Note to their aggregate cardholders:

“Dear Cardholder(s): We sincerely want to thank-you for paying an extra $1 trillion into your accounts over the past 18 months to cover our pretended Merchant Fees as such has given us all an extra $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) to spend on corporate jets, limousines, five-star hotels, vacation-resorts, mansions, beach-houses, Ferraris, Porches, Mercedes Benz’s, yachts, art-works, gold, silver, diamonds, etc., and, above all, Bonuses! Bonuses! Bonuses!

But more than that, because of the unique character of that wonderful thing that we here all know as interest (even though we almost never call it that by name) and because we skimmed the extra $1 trillion from your account-payment-stream, not only did we gain that extra $1 trillion as income and profits, but it was also not applied to reduce the true / actual outstanding balances of your accounts, so that after paying in that extra $1 trillion, you still owe us that extra $1 trillion!!! Hey! Life is great and we really really appreciate you taking advantage of us through our free loan system. Here’s looking forward to another great accounting period and another bonus $1 trillion of your earnings over the next 18 months! (Plus of course all the interest on the $1 trillion from this one)!”

SHORT ANSWERS

Question 1: How are the world’s aggregate credit/charge-card issuers able to pocket the USD-equivalent of about $2 billion a day ($2,000,000,000) in concealed-credit-charges – about $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) roughly every 18 months – making free loans? Explain your answer.

Short answer: They do pocket $2 billion a day as concealed credit charges, but they don’t make free loans. At best they are obscenely expensive loans. The card-issuers are, first, and for obvious reasons, pathologically and obsessively secretive about both the fact and amount of the concealed-credit-charges.

[Update (April 2020) – still waiting / searching for global fiscal 2019 figures, but for US by itself:

Card and Mobile Payment Industry Statistics | The Nilson …

nilsonreport.com:

Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover cards in the U.S. generated $6.698 trillion in purchase volume in 2019, up 8.5% over 2018.

___

Assuming U.S. accounts for 30% of global total, the global total throughput (just for these four card-issuers) would be the USD-equivalent of about $22 trillion. An average 3% Price Discount and corresponding (pretended) Merchant Service Charge (concealed-credit-charge-in-fact) would generate about $660 billion a year or roughly $1 trillion every 18 months – but that does not include the other approximate 25% of card-issuers (gas cards, department store cards, other retail cards, etc.). Nor does it include debit-card fees that are often 20-times greater than actual processing costs (e.g., 40 cents charged versus 2 cents actual cost). The all-in-cost of card-processing-fees (aggregate rake-off) worldwide may in fact already be well in excess of $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) per year.]

They also use the so-called clearinghouses, principally Visa International and Mastercard International, as de facto decoys to suppress public appreciation of the fact that well over 90% of the gross revenue is split more or less 50/50 between the nominal merchant’s-bank and the card-user’s bank. Whenever you see mention of revenues or profits for Visa or Mastercard they are almost always in reference to the relatively minor (but still absolutely huge) amounts retained or redirected to the clearinghouse (which was until relatively recently owned by the same banks / card-issuers anyway).

As an additional cognitive firewall, when it is necessary or unavoidable to make public reference to them, all of the card-issuers refer to them as Merchant-Fees or Merchant-Discount-Fees so as to falsely and fraudulently state or imply that they are paid by the merchants.

The concealed-credit-charges are physically paid to the card-issuer by the card-user at the end of the concealed-credit-charge-accrual-period which the card-issuers call a statement-period or far more commonly a grace-period. The merchants have to agree to the rate and corresponding price discount, but it is the card-users who actually pay them – both in theory and in fact / practice.

Over any significant period it is the corresponding on-going aggregate card-user income that is being skimmed and harvested. Without that the business it is not feasible (and certainly not at this level).

And all of the card-issuers are legally required to – and do in fact – recognise and record the fees as credit-charges and interest-income received from the card-users and not the merchants. If the card-user does not pay, then the card-issuer never receives the fee at all, and that reality of banking and credit cannot be avoided by a label.

And if you do manage to corner them on it, they will blurt out something like: “It’s not a credit charge – it’s a discount for cash!”. So if a given merchant is required to give a 3% price discount for MasterCard, a 4% discount for Visa, and a 5% discount for American Express, then how much is the price of the merchandise and how much is the discount for cash? Well obviously there is no answer because there is a different concealed-credit-charge depending on the provider of the pretended free-loan.

Questions 2 & 3:

Question 2: Why does it cost as little as 1% or 50 cents to process a $50 credit/charge-card transaction to pay for gasoline, but up to 6% or $30 (60-times-more) to process a $500 credit/charge-card transaction to pay for dinner at an expensive restaurant? Explain your answer.

Question 3: Why does it cost-in-fact less than 2 cents to process a $1,000 debit-card transaction, but up to $60 (3,000-times-more) to process a $1,000 credit/charge-card transaction? Explain your answer.

Short answer: The cost of processing a transaction does not change with the amount or purpose of the transaction. The card-issuers simply adjust their fee-rates (required price discounts) to correspond to the maximum amount that can be concealed within the retail-price-structure of a given consumer-goods-and-services-provider. Margins are very tight for gasoline and so there is only a 1% to 2% concealed price discount for card-users. Price sensitivity at expensive restaurants is much lower and so the restaurant owners have to give up to a 6% price discount in exchange for access.

According to industry-trade-publications it costs the card-issuers less than two cents per transaction. The general attitude is: Look, if the broadly-defined public can be kept almost wholly in the dark, and then if absolutely necessary made to believe the story that it costs 60-times more to process a voucher for an expensive dinner at a high-end restaurant than to process one to pay for gasoline, and 3000-times more to process a $1,000 credit/charge-card transaction than a $1,000 debit-transaction, then why shouldn’t we take advantage of that and gouge them to the nth-degree? Yea, that’s it, we’re not really committing a massive and carefully coordinated global-racketeering-fraud, because our victims deserve to be screwed for being so stupid (for being in a stupor).

The public will believe anything that we tell them, so why not get obscenely and near-inconceivably rich for nothing by telling them lies? After all – who is going to stop us?

Questions 4 & 5:

Question 4: How are the world’s aggregate credit/charge-card issuers able to pocket $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) in concealed-credit-charges roughly every 18 months without all consumers overpaying by $1 trillion every 18 months? Explain your answer.

Question 5: Where do you believe the money comes from to pay for air miles and membership rewards programs? Explain your answer.

Short answer: Obviously they are not so able. For the aggregate card-issuers to harvest $1 trillion in concealed-credit-charges every 18 months, all broadly-defined consumers (cash, debit, cheque, credit (whatever)) have to overpay by $1 trillion every 18 months.

The money to pay for broadly-defined membership-rewards and air-miles programs (about $400 million per day or 20% of the gross) comes from the concealed-credit-charges.

This isn’t bleeping rocket science.

Question 6: About 10% or $200 million a day of the total (rake-off) is a direct commission or handling-fees from VAT and other government sales-taxes that are run through these accounts. How are roughly 25,000 PhD’s in Economics globally able to remain oblivious to it? Explain your answer.

Short answer: That some 25,000 PhD’s in Economics globally are able to remain oblivious to it is because most anyone with a PhD in Economics suffers from a severe case of SDS or Systematized-Delusion-Syndrome:

“A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).

These economists spend their professional careers obsessing over their logical processes of reasoning without it ever occurring to them that they might perhaps want to spend a little time examining their (false) premises so as to avoid insane conclusions like banks being in the free loan business.

Meanwhile, most bankers and their owners are laughing-their-asses-off at us because they make more money skimming the sales-tax revenue than they pay in income taxes! Isn’t that special.

Question 7: Given that virtually every credit/charge-card transaction prima facie offends up to two dozen domestic criminal-law and international racketeering laws, how is it that the broadly-defined justice department of every country in the world fails to prosecute the card-issuers? Explain your answer.

Short answer: The hierarchy / superstructure of the majority of nations in the world is comprised of de facto agents of the entrenched-money-power. Just as a convenient starting point, if we could go back in time almost 800 years to the castle of King Edward I (Edward Longshanks), then we would witness a general meeting that went something like this:

King: My Lords, who am I?

One of the Lords: Why thou art king sire.

King: That’s right. And as king, what is my job?

One of the Lords: Well your job is to reign over your kingdom and…

King: NO! My job as king – my real job – is to arrange things today to make absolutely certain that my great-grandson is king seventy-five years from now. And if I succeed, then all of your descendants will also be in the same privileged position as you are now, and it will continue like that forever.

Nothing substantial has changed in the ensuing near-800 years. Virtually everything these people do is to make certain that the little people including and especially the working-poor stay that way forever, so that they and their descendants will lord it over the rest of us, forever.

That is why virtually all truly important positions globally are made by direct appointment. That is why the vast majority of judges are former bank-lawyers or bank-solicitors directly appointed by former bank-directors or bank-solicitors. The entrenched-money-power decides who the people are allowed to choose from in so-called democratic elections, and then those de facto puppets directly appoint the people who occupy the positions that can make a difference. And nobody – but nobody – gets so appointed unless and until the entrenched-money-power has enough on them to make certain that they can be controlled.

The entrenched-money-power has one-year-plans, five-year-plans, ten-year-plans, twenty-five-year-plans, fifty-year-plans,100-year-plans, and quite probably 500-year-plans, and all the money they need to pay for the small armies of analysts and consultants and the all-around-sycophants needed to help them execute those plans, while the average or typical member of the-little-people whose wealth they harvest has at best a five-year-plan based on limited and normally deliberately erroneous / falsified information.

Question 8: Does the minimum $10 billion per year ($10,000,000,000) that is kicked-back directly as rewards to card-carrying judges, lawyers, politicians, political-parties, court-system-workers, debt-buyers, and the owners and employees of credit-reporting agencies affect your answer to Question 7? Explain your answer.

Short answer: Yes, absolutely. That’s one important reason why they make the kick-back payments in the first place. Once society’s de facto decision-makers and material administrators are on the gravy-train (and it doesn’t take much) it becomes almost impossible to even get them to see the massive criminality of it – let alone actually do their jobs and act upon it.

The Rewards / Kick-Back Programs began in earnest in the early 1990’s as an answer to the growing militancy of merchants who were being egregiously extorted in exchange for access to a government-protected closely-shared-monopoly.

From the opening pages of House of Cards – Inside the Troubled Empire of American Express (1992). The referenced newspaper articles all discussed amex’s fee schedule (required concealed price discounts and corresponding concealed credit fees):

[american express president] Jim Robinson was fuming…He stared at a grainy black and white photograph of a restaurant owner who had impaled an American Express Card on the tip of a foot-long butcher knife….The caption on the Boston Herald photo read “Pointed Protest.” …. The card attack wasn’t an isolated incident. The article in the Boston Herald was one of a dozen that Robinson was studying on that chilly April morning in 1991. They all described at length what AmEx’s staff had begun to call the “Boston Fee Party.” Fed up with exorbitant fees, roughly one hundred restaurants in the Boston area were threatening to stop accepting Amex plastic. “It’s too damn costly” said one protest organizer. For years American Express had charged [US] merchants a commission of 3% to 5% every time a customer used the green or gold card. The “discount fee”^{^[3]} had been common throughout the card industry. It had been a key source of revenue to every card issuer. But AmEx’s fee [required-price-discount] was the highest in the business. Visa, the leading bank card brand and AmEx’s closest rival, charged only 2%.…” [actually a range from 2% to 5.75%]^{^[4]} Did you see the paper? Did you see what’s happening in Boston?” Robinson thundered. He sounded panicked. “What the hell is this?”… “In my entire career, my entire career,” began Robinson,…“I have never seen anything as distasteful as this goddamn thing.” … “How could you let it get so far?”… “Do you know how this makes us look?”….”What I want to know right now is what we’re doing,”… “We can’t have our SE’s [concealed price discounts and concealed credit fees] paraded around in the goddamn papers”

In order to put-down the uprising, all of the card-issuers began the rewards / kick-back programs to force the card-users to put pressure on the merchants to shut-the-bleep-up about the price-discounts and concealed credit-charges – or else.

The collaborators-rewards-programs are the carrot for good-accounts, while the process of ignoring the accounting laws and legislative rules on defaults is the stick for bad-accounts.

Most briefly, this business is so mind-bogglingly lucrative – the greatest free-money-gravy-train in the history of the world – that the only way to control it among the privileged-players (card-issuers) is to require 100% write-offs on any account that has been in arrears for 180-days.

If a card-issuer makes a bad business decision by issuing either too many cards or (reinsuring) too much credit in respect of a given account – then that card-issuer is supposed to suffer the loss as a penalty for its bad business decision.

But their collective answer to that is: “NO! NO! NO! – The little people must never be allowed to form the idea that we are subject to ordinary rules, or that they can escape the consequences of our economic policies.”

That is why they disregard the law and purport to sell the defaulted accounts to debt-buyers for as little as four cents on the dollar even though the administrative overhead of it means that they actually lose money overall by doing so.

Everyone would be better off if they were to simply obey the law and write-off the account. The fact and amount of it would still be reported to the credit-reporting agencies, and the defaulting card-user would still find it commensurately more difficult and expensive to (nominally) obtain credit in the future – but the debt would be gone and everyone involved – and I mean everyone – would be vastly better off. It would also avoid or at least limit cascade-failure to their secured debt like car loans and mortgages.

But to the entrenched-money-power it is better to drive thousands upon thousands of people to abject poverty, despair, and even suicide rather than allow the little people to even form the thought that their betters should be or even might be subject to the same rules as themselves.

Short Answer: Humans.

And, here again, after, say, three consecutive cycles (4.5 years) of skimming $1 trillion every 18 months,^{^[5]} and stuffing an extra $3 trillion into their pockets as extra / concealed interest income, their outstanding balance interest rates are so high that their aggregate card-holder base still owes them up to another $5 trillion because of it!

Who could have guessed that working both sides of the street could be so lucrative?

“Yes, technically you paid us that $3 trillion from your labour income, but because we counted it as interest for our account, we didn’t use it to pay down your outstanding balances, and because our rates are so high, you currently still owe us another corresponding $5 trillion.”

Just to be clear, if you take a 4.5-year payment stream and apply it to the same aggregate account balance – less the amount by which that balance has been inflated by the pretended merchant fees, then at the end of the 4.5 year period the difference is not $3 trillion but $8 trillion!!! And it is comprised of the relative extra $3 trillion to earned interest income on the banks’ income statements, plus an extra $3 trillion of outstanding balances because the same $3 trillion that went to interest was not used to reduce the true-outstanding balances, plus another approximate $2 trillion of re-compounded interest at the 15% to 20% per annum outstanding-balance-rate for 4.5 years on the ever-ascending-balance-difference.

Although, to be fair, $8 trillion is just the theoretical maximum. In practice the total is only somewhere between $6.5 trillion and $7 trillion because the free-riders who pay in full every month don’t incur the 15% to 20% balance rates but would have used it (the concealed-credit-charges) instead to buy down their other lower-rate mortgage debt, etc.

And even though a reasonably-competent high-school student can easily figure out what is going on from the very figures that the Bankers Association has supplied to the minimum five-consecutive Parliamentary Investigations into the Credit/Charge-Card Industry in Canada over the past 40 years, the appointed members of those Investigative Committees who belong to the same political parties who are receiving direct kick-backs from the concealed-credit-charge revenue have never failed to officially conclude that the Card-Issuer’s official and transparently fraudulent explanation is correct, and that all Canadians need to keep running those purchases through the banks’ free loan system to take advantage of those same banks.

In every case the respective Committee has concluded that the bankers’ public explanation is correct – that they are forced to charge such outrageous rates on outstanding balances because they effectively lose money on every transaction where the card-user pays off their full-balance within the statement / grace-period so as to effectively receive a free-loan from the bank / card-issuer. From the various official conclusions / final-reports:^{^[6]}

the effective yield to card issuers is below the posted rate on credit cards…
..someone [“interest payers”] is financing credit card balances that are repaid before the end of the grace period..
What this discussion does highlight is that the grace period is costly to the card issuer – someone must be paid for the funds used to finance a purchase made with a credit card…
This practice is obviously costly for financial institutions. The bonus card-users receive by taking advantage of the grace period is a cost to the card issuer….
So, how do card issuers allow for the cost – the lost potential revenue – from those card-users who take advantage of the grace period?
That some cardholders receive what is in effect a free loan should not lead others to believe that they too deserve a free loan.

And all Canadians have to effectively pay the multi-million-dollar costs of these so-called government investigations that simply ratify the bankers’ ridiculous stories!!! Same in virtually all other countries around the world.

Meanwhile, the constructive-trust that just keeps getting larger from over fifty (50) years of flagrantly illegal sales-tax-skimming is now, with interest, well into the multiple-trillions of dollars! Compounded interest charges are a double-edged sword.

So when, exactly, are these technical and actual domestic and international racketeering criminals intending to pay it all back?

Bankers: When pigs fly! We’ll let you know. Meanwhile get back to work! After all, if we are ever held accountable to our criminal-law-violations and offences, then everybody knows that the economy will collapse!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

WARNING! – In the maximum 30 minutes it took you to read this eight-page short-answer-key, the global issuers of broadly-defined payment-cards skimmed another minimum $60 million ($60,000,000) from the global economy.

That sucking-sound you hear in the background is global liquidity and working-capital – the life-blood of commerce – but also of financial-parasites.

And that already-near-inconceivable fraud is then leveraged and cross-leveraged again through the mind-boggling fraud of the nominal-method of interest calculation.

The Rate is Nominal – The Fraud is Real: http://werex.org/nominal-rate-real-fraud/

The Psy-op goes on: http:/werex.org/the-psyop-goes-on/

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled programming.

______

It is all cogno-linguistic manipulation and fraud where virtually everything material is labelled as the cognitive mirror-image of its substantive-function to an ever-more cognitively-dyslexic public. And that public did not get that way by accident.

Snell v. Unity Finance, Court of Appeal, [1963] 3 All E.R., pp. 50-61, at p. 59. ↑
Technically the clause stipulates for 59.4% per annum because “ONE (1.00%) percent less” than 60% is 0.6% and not 1%, but the bank’s solicitors likely intended 59%. Basically, the clause provides that if the declared interest rate [of 7.75%] turns out to be false, then the nominal borrower agrees to amend the contract to increase the interest rate to 59% on the amount secured, regardless of how much is actually advanced. The clause also demonstrates that the solicitor who provided for it does not have an understanding of even junior-high-school-level mathematics. ↑
Note the absurdity of the literal definition of a discount fee as being a fee paid by the merchant to receive less than amount ordered by the card-user. No thanks. Just pay me the whole amount and there will be no need for the discount fee. ↑
This figure is extremely misleading. The US Federal Reserve system determined that the range of visa rates in the US at that time was 2% to 5.75%. It appears as though (at best) the authors contacted visa and were given merely visa’s best rate in the US. As they were writing a book about amex they likely did not follow up on the visa figures. Actually a case can be made for gross incompetence or willful blindness of the authors, who recognized the flaws in amex’s official story but did not take it any further. ↑
As a snapshot-in-time for measurement purposes – the actual amount is growing so fast that it will likely be closer to $1 trillion per year within the next four to five years. ↑
See The Free Loan Story for the individual Final Report citations. ↑