Summary and Transcript The One People Show July 8, 2013
Summary and Transcript The One People Show July 8, 2013
Hosts: Lisa Harrison, Bob Wright, Chris Hales and Brian Kelly
This show was essentially about . . . preparing for when Heather in Morocco will release the next documents we will use at the banks . . . all while Helen in Australia is laying down the banking path, based upon her recent banking adventures.
Lisa and show hosts are focused on helping everyone be as prepared as possible for when Heather releases the documents . . . and she will NOT be releasing them until they are Absolutely Perfect!
. . . more about this here from D –
A big thank you to all who cleared the distorted energetics around those working hard in Morocco last week! – from Lisa.
A fun discussion around a brilliant little ten minute mini-movie American Kabuki posted – “One Hundred Dollars (now with English subtitles) Exchange of Value in Action” –
. . . and from a galactic perspective, it must be so comical to watch. . . humans passing paper money around . . . when we could be doing this simply via mutual agreements! . . . so this little illustration/story is a very easy way to quickly see how money can be taken out of the equation . . . within our communities first!
Uwe and Scott (about 20mins into show) report and discuss where they are at, that is very helpful.
Lisa shares (about 50mins into show) where she is seeing things from a bigger picture and influx of walk-ins now.
Calls taken (about 56mins into show), starting with Mike and more educational discussions.
Around 1hr 11mins into show, Helen from Australia starts sharing what she has been doing with the banks . . . and is jaw dropping savvy! So here is a detailed transcript from The One People’s Transcription Team of what Helen has to say:
Lisa: Helen, we’ve told everybody what you’ve been doing. They love the idea of having them come to you, I have to say. So just briefly, you’ve had five visits so far from brokers. Just give us a recap on the responses you’ve had from them.
Helen: Okay, well, do you want me to name the banks themselves?
Lisa: Yes, that will be helpful for the Australians listening.
Helen: Okay. The first bank was ANZ. The next one was the NAB. The next one was CBA. The next one is a credit union called Vic Teachers Credit Union and the last one just gone was Citibank.
So, in a nutshell, I just used a little sheet that had I got from Uwe and Scott that had a statement from the IMF that said: “Under the present system, banks do not have to wait for depositors to appear and make funds available, before they can on-lend or intermediate those funds. Rather they create their own funds or deposits in the act of lending.” This fact can be verified in the description of the money creation system in many central bank statements and is obvious to anybody who has lent money and created the resulting book entries.
So I just sort of gently … what I said to each of them was … when I was setting the appointment up and when they turned up, is that my objective is to look at what my options are. I’m looking to get some additional funding and I wanted to see what the options were outside of the normal lending process and that I’d read about the issue of promissory notes and how the banks accepted those as cash. But also I wanted them to explain to me about what they knew about the banks’ creating the funds; where did the funds come from?
My husband was here for most of those meetings as well, which was good to get his perspective. But in a nutshell, the only one that really sort of said anything was the ANZ and this gentleman had been in banking for about 27 years. He did admit the fact that the banks create money from the act of lending and that they don’t necessarily have the funding there. The very act of lending is what creates the extra money. So he sort of alluded to that, but he said to me also that nobody asks about this. Nobody knows about it really generally and nobody asks about it.
Then I sort of asked him about how are promissory notes used? One of the quotes I got from ‘Modern Money Mechanics’ on my little sheet, it says “What they do when they make loans is accept a promissory note in exchange for credits to the borrower’s transaction account.” So I asked him what this means and what did they understand about it. Out of the five, four of them said categorically there was no such thing used in their bank. Categorically, four of them, except the ANZ, also said that banks ONLY use funds they either have or funds they borrow, or the profits they make from the difference in interest, i.e. they pay depositor interest and then they lend it out at a higher interest rate. So categorically, all of them denied that there was any … that in fact saying that the IMF statement was wrong and that it might apply in some situations, but it definitely didn’t apply to general banking practice.
Lisa: Now, you didn’t get the feeling from these guys that they were just feeding you a line? You actually felt that this is what they believe; they truly believe this.
Helen: Absolutely! Absolutely and so much so, that one of them … the lady … they’re all very nice people let me tell you this. The lady from the CBA … basically my husband said she’s got the ‘cone of silence’ over her ears. It’s almost like they couldn’t believe it or it didn’t come into their concept of reality; therefore, they couldn’t accept it. It was just like a broken record, “No, no, no, it’s not like that.” I made them draw me little pictures, “could you please explain further?” They just … there was no … no room in their reality…
Bob: Helen, at this point maybe it might be good to ask them where that information is under the banking regulations, that they do their business that way or in their company policy. Because according to the Federal Reserve regulations, it works this way. So either you’re not following the Federal Reserve regulations, or you’ve created your won policy, can you please show me where it says that?
Caller (Mike): One of the things I was reading from ‘The Economist’ was what’s happening is when they have a reserve requirement that they need to meet when they put their fractional reserve system, right? So what happens is they just make loans all quarter, or whatever period of time and as long as they meet that reserve requirement, they look and see how many loans they’ve made, then they go and borrow what they need to meet that reserve requirement. So yeah, technically that’s true, they’ll just keep lending the money out and they don’t really have it, but as long as they meet that requirement for the Federal Reserve to have that minimum reserve requirement, they’re fine.
Helen: They all knew about sort of the reserve, that the bank has a certain reserve, but I believe that none of them actually understand one single thing about the fractional banking routine. The last guy from Citibank DID however admit that if somebody’s got a deposit of $100,000 dollars that the bank can then lend that out, but in the depositor’s mind the money is still there – in their mind only, but it actually isn’t. Then he did let slip that then they can lend it out again, but when I pressed him about that he backtracked really majorly. “Oh no, no, no!” So he sort of did, but they won’t even go down the … either they don’t know about it, or they won’t even go down the road of admitting that is actually what’s going on.
Chris: Helen, you have spent some time in a loans processing center in a bank some years ago.
Helen: Yes, I worked for a few months with the Westpac Mortgage Processing Center in Adelaide.
Chris: Okay, how many loans a month were they putting through?
Helen: Oh god, thousands – it’s a factory. It’s a processing factory.
Lisa: Yeah, some refer to it as a “sausage plant” earlier.
Chris: Yeah and that factory was just a matter of people in cubicles checking documentation and passing it through. One of the comments we had before was about the way that they manipulate the figures on the loan application to guarantee that you get the loan. They do that without the knowledge of the person making the application. Now you’ve got some actual proof that they’re doing that.
Helen: Oh gosh, I worked in that field a year ago, very dedicated, working very long hours, helping people put their paperwork together for FOS and stuff like that.
Chris: You’ll need to explain what ‘FOS’ is.
Helen: Sorry. FOS is what is our supposed independent regulator; it stands for Financial Ombudsman Services. So what they’re supposed to be is an independent area for the public to make complaints if they feel that there’s something funny going on with their bank. However, because of the amount of bank fraud, document fraud that is happening in Australia, it’s not just random, it IS systemic. When I was helping some people with this area, every single loan I looked at trying to help people sort out what the bloody mess was, the figures had been altered from what the borrower had originally inserted. This is dead easy to see. A 12-year-old can see it. All you got to do is put side-by-side the original information or wet-ink documents or verifiable, taxable stuff, next to the documents that have then been being filled out in someone else’s handwriting to see the obvious problem.
But what happens in banking in Australia at least is what I know, is that when you sign a document, and you sign that application, you never ever see a document that’s signed by the bank or the lender. So what happens is you sign that thinking that the figures that I provided are what the bank is gonna assess the loan on. In actual fact what then happens if it’s the broker, they are definitely under instruction from the bank, because the broker is the bank’s agent so the broker or the bank’s assessing agent is altering the loan details, particularly the income, the assets and the expenditure to make those numbers fit so the loan can be approved.
Now I’ve got truckloads of proof. Another lady called Denise Brailey she’s got thousands of documentation of proof of this. So FOS is supposed to regulate this and be the…
Chris: Just to stop you there Helen. What they’re actually doing then, is you make a loan application for, say 500,000 dollars and you make a statement in that application that you’ve got certain costs per month, you’ve certain income coming in, certain costs going out and the broker is supposed to be under an obligation to make sure that you can afford the loan, but what they do in fact, they in collusion with the bank, they actually either put up your assets or reduce your costs.
Helen: And or both
Chris: And or both… to make the actual figures you put in fit the amount of money that you’ve requested for.
Chris: And you don’t know it. They’re actually fiddling your figures.
Lisa: Well this is what just happened in the states too and the equivalent of FOS over there who was doing the investigation looking into all the banks’ paperwork just put their hands up in the air and went “Yeah it’s all too hard!”
Helen: It is, but the problem you’ve got to remember too is that the banks, these so called independent organizations are actually funded by the banks. And our problems started when the banks were deregulated and they could start to police themselves. And we all know how well that works.
So in a nutshell the big problem in Australia that’s this huge pushes but the government is actually too busy worried about what’s going on behind the curtain kind of thing. Is that you’ve put your loan application in, surprise… surprise you get the loan approved, you think it’s all good so you struggle on… a few years later you’re suddenly all of your reserves of cash are out; you can’t afford it. So you wonder what the hell happened, feeling like an idiot and embarrassed for getting into this situation. But what’s happened by law you were supposed to be given a copy of your loan documents showing both signatures, that is the lender and the borrower, that’s the only thing that makes a legal contract. But you’re never given any copies. You’re given what are called ‘client copies’ that are just a cover sheet here and they’re not the actual documentation. Therefore you never realize that the fraud has been perpetrated against you until it’s too late. Then what happens is the banks move in immediately sending their lawyers to default you quickly. They move in, repossess the home.
Now, in Australia we’ve got a different situation to America in repossession. In America my understanding is that if I default on my loan I can pretty much put the keys in the letterbox and walk away and there’s no recourse. In Australia they’ve stitched it up so that if I default on my loan, the bank can firstly claim the mortgage insurance that I’ve paid for, which people think is to protect them, but it’s only to protect the bank. I rang and there are only two mortgage insurance companies in Australia, one called Genworth and I forget the other one, but huge businesses.
So you pay the mortgage insurance to protect the bank in case you default, so they get paid out on the insurance. The second thing is because they foreclose on you, they take the home away, so they now have the home in their hands. They can then sell it for whatever they want without having to really make a big effort; because it’s just money for jam. Whatever they sell it for is a hundred percent profit. The fourth way they can get you, get paid for the loan, sorry that’s the third way. The fourth way is that when you, once they foreclose, once they have sold, in Australia they can still chase you for the rest of the money and bankrupt you.
But not only that, because of the problem of securitization, pretty much since 1986 in Australia, as soon as you sign that loan document they sell them into mortgage-backed securities; which is just they pool your loan into, you know three thousand other loans. They sell it as a security stock item on the stock market and investors buy into it, so they break the chain of title and who the real party of interest is the big question. So the fifth way they’ve got a return on that single mortgage is because they’ve already sold it and they’ve been paid immediately.
So it’s really, it’s systemic and our regulators are saying there’s no problem, the FOS kind of protection agencies are saying there’s no problem. They’re annual reports tell you how many times they find or make a recommendation or determination in favor of the banks.
The other thing that they’re doing just to make it even more interesting for the poor, the great unwashed is that in the so-called informal remedy sessions when you get with your bank and FOS and yourself; the banks are actually bringing their lawyers in to see sit in those informal sessions and so they’re intimidating the poor borrower in other ways as well. So we got big problems here and of course that we know that they’re just making the money out of our signature and that they’re monetizing it. But not everybody knows yet.
Lisa: Yeah you know I think it’s a good point too that in here, Australia that they do come after you. They will sell a house that is worth say five hundred thousand dollars, that you owe five hundred thousand dollars on thanks to all the interest, for two hundred thousand, usually to one of their mates, and then come after you and bankrupt you and take everything you’ve got to make up the balance.
Helen: Exactly. But the problem is or the issue is they’ve already been paid two or three times. They’ve received the value of that property two or three…
There was a case in Melbourne a few years ago where a six hundred thousand dollar house valued at, the guy only owed a hundred grand on it, the bank foreclosed and sold it for a thousand dollars.
Lisa: Yes, I remember that one.
Helen: You remember? So we got big issues here, but obviously now we know that the banks are foreclosed and we’ve just got to wake the people up and let the banks know that we know.
(Multiple people talking)
Mike: I wanted Helen to answer if possible.
Chris: And your question? Can you repeat the question Mike?
Mike: Yeah I had a question about any of those bankers you were speaking to, talked about double entry bookkeeping and how that works.
Helen: A couple of them did. They understand that when a deposit comes in, it goes on one side and then it goes out on the other. And when they lend money that’s then a credit for the bank; you know, an asset for the bank. Because it’s an I.O.U. It’s a bit like as a business owner if I write invoices at the end of the financial year that aren’t paid until the next financial year then they go on as an asset cuz its cash still coming in. So they do understand that, but then their eyes just glaze over when you talk about the fact of the signature creates the asset or the loans.
Mike: That’s like the biggest mystery to me, is I’ve been trying to nail down that point when they create the asset on the one side of the book and the debit on the other side of the book. what I’m not entirely clear about is when as the loans getting paid back is that all profit for them, or does it just get taken away from the one entry on the books? You know what I mean?
Helen: Hmmm. Well they’re not answering that question because every time you ask the bank about, any of these people about, “Can you please show me the accounting?” Cause you know what do the numbers say? They can’t come to the party. And I’ve pressed Westpac about that, I’ve pressed Bank West about that and I’ve pressed Citibank about that in terms of other arrangements I’ve had with them. None of them can produce it and they won’t produce it because the lie is revealed and that’s the same thing with the banks in terms of people’s mortgage, their paperwork, their loan applications. You ask them for the full set; a full set of loan documents is about 37 pages right? They will only give you maximum 13; and it doesn’t include any of the information you want. They won’t give it to you because in the documentation is the lie.
Chris: Yeah and of the other part of the equation Helen is that the court system apparently works for them as well. Cause if you try to put that in front of a court and they won’t accept that as a valid argument. Scott has a saying that all they do in court is point to a piece of paper with your signature on it and say “Did you sign this?”
Helen: Yes. A lot of people have been caught out with that, yep.
Chris: And the whole paper trail is never put under the scrutiny of the court, ever.
Helen: That’s right! And look I think the thing is you only have to look at in some buildings the lawyers’ offices, head offices are in the same building as the bank’s head offices are. If they’re not kissing cousins I don’t know what’s going on.
But when I was dealing with, when I was helping people with their paperwork and we came across this statement all the time, yes, but you signed it saying that the income and stuff was true. And what I realized is, and I’ve seen this because I’ve seen a lot of documentation where a bank…we couldn’t work out what was going on. And you see…but in the old days of the faxes, it was the fax stamps that disclosed the fraud. We had one particular guy, yes we had his page, it’s got his signature, yes all, what I’ve said to you is all true and verifiable, but then we couldn’t work out how come that page of signature was attached to some other documentation he’d never seen before; to other pages. So when I looked at the fax stamp, what had happened is they’d taken the last page, or page two of where he’s saying “yes, it’s a declaration of everything is true” and they’ve connected that ‘allonge’, as they say, to two other pages of falsified income and financial statements stuff, saying that “but you signed off on this stuff”.
So what we’ve discovered is that yes, people are saying “I’m saying that this is all true” and then it’s being used against them because they don’t realize that that’s been ‘allonged’ with the falsified documentation.
Chris: So those documents created by the brokers that fudged the numbers are not the ones being shown in court.
Helen: No! Well you see the problem is the banks are using the excuse that they don’t need to show this paperwork because it’s ‘commercially sensitive’. There’s a particular document in the assessment process, an approval process called ‘A Serviceability Calculator’ and it’s the actual document where they have all the final figures that they use to approve the loan and it shows what the surplus is in terms of after all your expenses and the loan payments and how much do you actually have to live by, to live on over that year. And so this document called ‘The Loan Serviceability document’ is the actual proof of the numbers that the bank uses to approve it and when you can see that document, there it is. But what’s going on is the banks are saying that it’s ‘commercially sensitive’. Well of course it’s, and so then the regulators are saying “Oh oh well okay, it’s commercially sensitive, we won’t make them produce it”, even though that’s the very document that shows the fraud. So this is how they’re getting around it and the lawyers are supporting them in it. Because it’s all in their together, it’s a whole money making…the court system is obviously just a huge revenue tool. And that’s like when you go to court for example like a speeding fine, if you’re in a company they say “Look you can pay all the speeding fines and that way you won’t lose your demerit points” so I’ve been caught on that track and people pay thousands of dollars and all you need to do is look at their annual reports and their revenue projections for next year are always larger. So it’s just… a business, courts are a business.
Chris: Mmmm. It is and Scott just pointed out here in the chat, do you wanna read out what you just put in Scott?
Scott: Ah yeah, an interesting little quote from the ‘Constitution of Law Courts Limited’, a company limited by guarantee. This is a company that supposedly is the ‘Court of New South Wales’ and I’ll just read out this one sentence under the heading of ‘company objects’ or I guess ‘objectives’; to draw, make, accept, endorse, discount, execute and issue promissory notes, bills of exchange, bills of lading, warrants, debentures and other negotiable or transferable instruments.
Now if that doesn’t raise a little bit of suspicion about whether the court is acting more like a bank, then what does?
Brian: (choking/laughing) Yeah.
Lisa: That’s the Constitution of the Law Courts Limited of New South Wales? (Laughing) Oh dear! There’s nothing about law in there!
Chris: Well not that bit.
Bob: Well the actual, when you approach the bench, in legal terms the bench is the ‘bank’.
Lisa: It’s the teller, you’re approaching the teller.
Bob: Yeah, you’re approaching the bank.
Chris: Well the judge is basically there to settle accounts.
Chris: There’s no justice or justness in the system at all; it’s purely commercial.
Lisa: We’re preaching to the converted here, everybody listening knows all this.
Chris: Yeah they do know all this. And it’s going on in every country in the world. The template across the whole planet is fairly consistent, local variations aside, it’s fairly consistent. They’ve basically been lying on their documentation, the courts have been not requiring them to produce it when a confrontation ensues and they’ve been loaning out in large quantities, or making large quantities of loans to people who would, at levels they would never be able to afford; the apparent objective appears to be to take property away from people and keep them under stress…
Chris: …and keep the whole situation unstable because unstable means easy to direct.
I’ll just point out something, I’ll just point out one thing Helen: fighter aircraft are built to be unstable because they’re highly manoeuvrable when they’re unstable. And I’m convinced that they keep the stock market and the financial systems unstable because they can then push and pull at them and tweak them in whatever direction they want to.
Now the down side to that for them, as Lisa pointed out before, is when they put us under a lot of stress is we get unhappy and start paying attention to what’s going on and it wakes people up. That’s not our problem, that’s their problem, with the game they’re playing.
Helen: Well I think we’re just pretty much, the whole, the financial market is just their playground, it’s really just their playground. And we know that it’s all manipulated; the stock market. The guy from Citibank today basically said “Everything has just got whatever value somebody’s prepared to accept for it”. We know all our money’s, just because what our perception about it.
But ah, I’ve forgotten what I was gonna say before but anyway look, it’s rampant. If people want to, oh, if people have got problems with their mortgages though and they’re under pressure, the first thing they need to do is ask the bank for a copy of their loan application forms; the full set.
They won’t get them or they’ll get a modified or they’ll be lost or destroyed or (inaudible) and then put a complaint into FOS because once your bank starts to move against you, if you put your application into FOS for a complaint then the bank cannot move against you by law and then it gives you breathing space to sort out what’s going on.
So at the moment when I did the calculations back in September looking at the difference between case numbers and time, FOS were getting over a hundred and fifty new applications a day, now that’s not case numbers. And then they were telling those people it’s gonna be months before we can even get you a case manager. They are completely overwhelmed and of course they don’t know either and they’re not serving the public very well at all.
Chris: Yeah. Uwe has some views on the timing of that and Scott wanted to point out, I’m just reading out of the chat here, that the Financial Ombudsman’s Service or FOS that Helen’s referring to is actually called The Financial Ombudsman’s Services Limited, another company.
Helen: So it’s a business.
Chris: And also this structure actually exists in Australia, this is sort of an Australian centric discussion we’re having here. Uwe, you wanted to make a comment about timing, about that FOS application.
Uwe: Yeah, but just one minute quickly. Basically I was aware that FOS existed when I started my discovery process on our home loan in December and as we, Scott and I were asking such pertinent questions the lender didn’t stop. They moved straight into court, went to the local supreme court: the highest judge in the state and went for possession. They actually tried to get possession on our house inside five weeks. We came to the point where we really didn’t have a lot of room to move anymore. We offered to pay the arrears, they actually rejected that, they really wanted to set an example by the looks and then on the deadline, on the day of that deadline handing over possession, we lodged a dispute with FOS which was the first time. Now you can only lodge on the same loan I believe Helen, correct me if I’m wrong, one dispute so once that dispute was in the system it froze all the action and bought a lot of time.
Uwe: That’s basically, I just wanted to put that in.
Chris: Sure. Okay now Lisa, do you wanna go for some callers?
Lisa: Yes, let’s do that.
About 1hr 39mins into show, Randy from N Carolina asks some really good questions . . .
and Lisa states . . .
“WAIT! before going into the banks” . . . with Bob and Helen filling in the blanks.
About 1hr 47mins into show, see below for what Helen further discusses with hosts, rich with information and approaches that makes lots of sense!
Chris: I just want to find out what Helen’s views are on what aspects of the bank she would like to go to next to continue this conversation… what level? Helen would you like to step up given that four of the five interviews were what we expected. One was really good… where do you want to go with it?
Helen: Well, what I kept asking about “Well if you’re not sure about promissory notes and how they function etcetera and how they can be used more mainstream; who can I speak to?”
And none of them… they all had blank looks on their faces. None of them had any idea who to speak to. The Citibank guy told me “There’s absolutely no one I can recommend you speak to”. One of them… she knew there were promissory notes and I said “Can you put me in touch with someone I can speak to?” And she said “It will take me a month to do. I don’t know who to speak to, wouldn’t even have a clue.”
So what I’m wanting to do now is, the next level is to approach them about the commercial use of promissory notes. So I think I’m not going to get anymore from the mobile lenders. They just don’t know and they’re not willing to find out. So I think the next stage is to actually ring some investment lines and ask them about the use of promissory notes in terms of investments and how does that work. I think that’s the way I’m going to approach it. Because from the very bottom up it’s not going to work any further at this stage.
Chris: Now what if those lenders that you spoke to suddenly found they were having appointment after appointment where people were asking the same question. People who appear to be completely unrelated to one another were asking them the same question. How do you think they would deal with that?
Helen: I think they’re going to firstly look at it as a nuisance because “Another stupid question” kind or attitude; that’s my thing because they’re only focused on they know how to fill out lending forms, that’s pretty much it. I think that will be the first response. But the second response is they actually, physically don’t know how it works, or even who to speak to in their bank. So I think it’s going to take quite a few people then to start to make that shift, but I think what will work also as it comes from the top down, as the bank leaders are informed somehow through the documentation that’s coming through Heather, or some other form of documentation that might be being developed in other places. To go from the head down and so approach it from both points of view.
So let’s say the heads of the bank have been informed politely etcetera about this is the situation and people are now going to be coming to you and you need to be prepared. But then at the same time, have documentation that can be produced at the ground level to say look “I’ve received this, your executives know about this and I’m wanting to enquire on a personal level, so are you willing to look into this considering your executives are aware of this and wanting to help me?”
Lisa: Like I said I think we’re going to meet in the middle somewhere.
Chris: Look when we’ve got documentation to put in front of these people you can end the conversation by saying “Here’s my offer to contract, obviously you’ve never been briefed on this material before and I understand that, but will you please pass it on to your supervisor, with a request for them to pass it on to the bankers who deal with promissory notes?”
And have them push it up the system from their position.
Helen: Yes I think that would be the next stage from the grassroots level up is to have something that can say “Can you please pass it up”. Because two interesting comments I had from these lenders; one said that “There must be someone higher up who knows about it.” But she wasn’t willing to put me in contact with them because they don’t ‘speak to the public’. And which was interesting. The second was that it’s at a much higher level that the regular people are just aren’t able to have access to. So I think having something like that “Can you please pass it up the lineage?” would be a great thing.
Chris: I wonder if you happen to purchase a couple of shares in a bank and rang up some of these people and said “I’m a shareholder, I’m not the public, I want to talk to you about this…”
Helen: Yeah, I’m not sure… I think the easiest way through would be to just… like I’ve been doing all the mobile lenders and I’ve pretty much done all of the main ones now. Then to go into, we were planning to go into the banks to present our declarations etcetera, but it may be better for a bunch of us to go into banks and walk around and say “Can I speak to your lending manager?” Give them the documentation that explains what’s happening and saying “Can you please pass this up? I’ll be back in two days time for another meeting, a little chat, just to see what we can do, if we can do business together under the new rules”.
I think that’s going to be the next grassroots level steps for us out here.
Chris: Indeed! And if anyone else out there listening wants to do what Helen has done in their country, in their location? That will be very useful. Because we’ve had some indications from Bob that the first bank manager that was approached by his uncle, knew exactly what was going on. We might get a slightly different result. And if anyone has the urge to do this preparatory work, feel free to do it and get back to us and we’ll discuss it on next week’s show. Hopefully we’ll also have the documents in hand to start discussing as well. And that’s obviously what’s really needed to drive this to the next level, but there’s nothing wrong with doing this preparatory work because we’re learning how to talk to them. And that’s important.
Helen: One thing Chris, is that I didn’t bring up the fact about the foreclosures. I didn’t want to confront them with that. I did it softly, softly just from bank’s creating money from the signature and also about the use of promissory notes and treating them as cash. But, something like that would be really valuable if we could do it.
Bob: Typically what they would normally do is they would take that promissory note and discount it by ten per cent. Because by discounting it by ten per cent they put ten per cent of that in their reserves; which they can lend out nine times over.
Bob: So they’re actually getting the full value.
Chris: Well they won’t actually be able to play with the ninety per cent which will end up in an account for you. The ten per cent is there and that’s the fee that you’ve agreed to give them is it not?
Bob: Right! But that’s the way it worked in the past for people who understood how to write bonds or write promissory notes. It would be discounted by ten per cent. They would actually recover the full cost in the fractional reserve system because that ten per cent is all they need to keep in their for the reserve.
Lisa: Okay guys we’re running out of time and I just wanted Helen to briefly mention the public notice website. Can you give a….
Helen: Yes, oh look what I thought about for a while and spoke with BZ and Holly and went ahead with that. Basically with all our Courtesy Notices going out, and I’ve done truckloads and I know that other people have done truckloads. Some have done a couple here and there. But what I discovered is that ‘me’ as a little single person sending that in was that the banks can easily ignore it as we’ve known, pretending it’s not there and just shoving it on through the judiciary system; ignoring us because it’s not a public forum. So when I investigated and I thought “There are public notice boards everywhere and in the newspapers under legal notices or whatever and so I realized that the purpose of those public notice boards is to make sure that the public know and the community know stuff that’s going on; whether it’s legal notice or the latest face or whatever and so we set up the public notices website attached to the i-uv.com site. It is www.pn.i-uv.com
And basically what it is, is that people once they sent their Courtesy Notices of and/or invoices and statements, they can go to this site, click on the navigation where it says “Share your public notices” and they can upload it and we will publish it on that site. And that means it’s part of the public forum/community forum and so it’s not just now that there’s a Courtesy Notice between you and the ex-corporation. It’s public knowledge and they can ‘run’ but they cannot ‘hide’. And this is just normal process.
Then what you do is once we upload them for you, what you can do is just let that ex-corporation know that it has been posted as part of a public notices board and it is public forum. The amazing thing is that we’ve already got over one hundred something ex-corporations that have got Courtesy Notices. Some of them have got a lot, some just a couple, but the purpose is that it’s mainstream knowledge and that continues to expand the awareness and also lets the ex-corporations know and gives that individual confidence that their notice is in the public forum now.
Lisa: In the public domain basically.
Lisa: Thank you so much for everything you’ve contributed today Helen.
Helen: No worries.
Lisa: It’s been awesome.
Bob’s walking is getting less ‘funny’ now – (we are all behind you to keep us from laughing!)
Chris will be doing an update with Deryl in Canada and his progress to date this week, so keep an eye out for that . . . briefly, with more rounds in the courts (using OP documents and his years of knowledge), he has had the false charge of “criminal trespass” (on his own property) reduced to a misdemeanor . . . and has managed to get the right to challenge the bank . . . as to who actually owns the property.
There will be a new 5D Media Network (this site was founded by Lisa) weekly show – Sundays 8pm PST/Monday 10am AEST on how to re-purpose everything of the old system . . . as it is time to get this conversation started! Chris and Bob will be hosting this show . . . and everyone is invited to present next week, what and how they would like to re-purpose something. http://www.5dmedianetwork.com/
Uwe closes . . . on next week’s show, he will be teaching overcoming bank objections.
Here are the documents that Scott Bartle drew on to create his ‘BANCORRUPTCY’ video
In parting, one thing I would like to add is to keep remembering where Heather’s heart-focus in DO’ing is . . . at all times is . . . ENERGY!
This summary and partial transcript was brought to you by:
And the TOP Transcription Team
One Response to “Summary and Transcript The One People Show July 8, 2013”
Leave a Reply
Recent BEing and DOing
Removing The Veil
- Sandor Joseph Kovacs on An International Indictment Against the American Bar Association Has been Issued
- Kennyboy on PIZZAGATE EXPOSED BY FORMER CIA
- David Mitchell on EXPOSED: CIA – The Swamp Monsters
- steve whittleton on CBS NEWS Reality Check: Is ‘pizzagate’ fake news?
- TRON on Trump To Give Alternative Media White House Press Passes