The Money Lenders & Changers

[Oatmeal]

I would like to relate an experience that I had with "moneylenders".

It was still ongoing this year, but things now appear to have reached an end, except that I am considering bringing some parties into further account over the matter.

In 2009 I ended up with an approx $9000.00 Visa card "debt".  A certain venture did not work out as planned, after I withdrew the money in one transaction.

I have had credit card debt in the past, but for a different reason.  I once got involved with a church that was based in Korea, and I went to Korea three times, plus other expenses, ending up with no house, and credit card debts.  Later someone lent me the money to pay off this debt, on the condition that I repaid that loan at $200.00 per week (no interest).

I approached the new debt in a different way:

It may be useful to you to understand how the supply of money is related to debt and how money is borrowed into existence.

Following is a quote that comes from the short documentary film "Money as Debt".  This film can be viewed on the Internet.  I do not however quote directly from the film but from another source that gives what I feel is better detail:

Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created -- brand new money.
-   Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955.

Here is a link to a page with links to the Money as Debt videos on YouTube

http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/Money_as_Debt_YouTube_links.html

In regard to credit card debt, I think that the information that I have given below is reasonably accurate, and I would not claim that my knowledge is perfect.  However I also speak from practical experience.  The bank no longer asks me to make credit card payments.

The bank does not lend you any of its money, nor any of its customers' money.  Your signature on the loan agreement form is monetised and the funds arise from that source.  The money is created.  In other words, the credit card applicant gives the bank a piece of paper that is then turned into cash or monetised by the bank, and this money is then 'loaned' back to the credit card applicant.  As far as I am aware, the bank passes this instrument on, as it has value and is therefore a form of money, and if you later asked the bank to produce this piece of paper as evidence of the debt that it is claiming that you have towards it, it cannot, as the bank no longer has it.

The bank cannot produce a copy of the accounting to show that it would occur a loss if you did not pay, that is to show that they lent you anything that it had it its possession before you signed the credit card documentation.

A legally binding contract requires consideration.  The bank does not bring anything to the table.

Credit card "contracts" are unilateral (uni = one).  You are the only one who signs, but there is no signature from an officer of the bank authorised to bind the bank in contract.  For a contract to be lawfully binding the signatures of both parties must be included, making the contract bilateral (bi = two).

The bank does not give full disclosure (it does not tell you where the money is coming from).  The Bank never discloses the nature of its actions and never discloses to the credit card holder that it was his own signature that created the funds.  The credit card holder is led to believe, by past conditioning, and by a deliberate policy of the Bank not to make full disclosure, that he is borrowing the Bank's money.  A legally binding contract requires full disclosure, and it must not be based on fraud.

Ex malificio non oritur contractus. A contract cannot arise out of an act radically wrong and illegal. Broom's Max. 851.

It is one thing to know about these things, and it is another to do something about it.  So in some trepidation I wrote to the bank, asking them certain questions and making certain requests (in regard to the validity of the claim of debt).  The bank did not answer my questions or address my requests.  The bank was not willing, effectively it refused, to provide simple answers to simple questions.  This put the bank thoroughly into dishonour.  The bank did direct me to the Bank's Disclosures Statements, but did not direct me to any particular section or page of the Statements, and did not appear willing to provide any help in deciphering or explaining the contents.  It did not want to give simple answers to simple questions.  Many of the questions required a yes or no answer, so there was no justifiable excuse for not providing answers, especially when it is considered that the bank promised to be honest and fair in all its dealings, to do what is right for its customers, and to conduct its operations with high standards of personal behaviour.

The bank will send you unsigned statements, but never a signed invoice (or a signed affidavit), if you should request one.

I was afraid to confront such a powerful identity, or what seemed to me to be a powerful identity, as a bank, and after presenting my original questions and commencing the confronting process, I recommenced payments, taking no further action for a period of more than a year.  I then decided to go for it.  I had made card payments with money that I had borrowed using the card, had lost on the exchange rate in bringing money back (and vice versa), and I did not want one wage out of four, or whatever it was, to go towards bank "payments".

Now you may question my moral integrity, but I made sure that my card was maxed out, and then stopped making further donations to the bank.  A car crash at 110 mph and one at 100 mph is sort of the same thing, and if things were going to turn out ok then it would have been a waste not to first max out the card.  It was perhaps fortunate that I did max out the card, because as the bank has no evidence of factuality of debt it is limited to sending you statements and saying, either directly or later though a debt collection agency, things like: "The user made payments and therefore admitted liability".  You can then say that it is obvious that the user admitted no liability and knew that the funds were all his as evidenced by his making a full withdrawal.  The bank may say that you are bound by the Conditions of Use that you agreed to by your use of the card, and you can then tell the bank that underpinning the Conditions of Use and crucial to its functionality is the banks promise to be honest and fair in all its dealings, to do what is right for its customers, and to conduct its operations with high standards of personal behaviour, and where are the full, complete and truthful answers to your questions?

After much correspondence, the bank would not or could not show that a debt existed.  Eventually the bank passed the matter over to a debt collection agency.  I wrote to the debt collection agency saying that the matter was in dispute, showing that the debt was not factual, requesting proof of debt, and saying that if it continued to harass me then it would be liable to and agreeing to pay me $500.00 per day for each day of harassment.  The debt collection agency continued to harass me, even though there was no evidence of debt, going so far as to list a default on my credit file, even though I had given it a number of warnings that the matter was not eligible for listing.  I then wrote to the credit agency, showing that the matter was in dispute.  I was able to show evidence of intensive communication between me and the bank, and between me and the debt collection agency, where I had tried very hard to get evidence of debt provided, but evidence had not been provided (only statements, which are not evidence of debt, had been posted to me).  I had made it clear that I was not refusing to pay any legitimate debt.  The credit agency removed the default.  I last wrote to the debt collection agency in July this year with a demand for it to pay me the balance outstanding on its account of $155,500.00 ($500.00 per day).  I have not heard from it since.

I have not heard from the bank for somewhat more than a year.

The debt collection agency had, in one of its letters, said that there was no existing contract between the bank and myself (it said that the bank had informed it that it holds contracts for seven years).  The fact is no lawful contract had ever existed.  With no contract between the bank and myself, as admitted by the debt collection agency, and no contract between the debt collection agency and myself, the debt collection agency's attempt to get costs from me was extortion, which I had great delight in pointing out to it.  Any contract between the bank and the debt collection agency was a matter between the bank and the debt collection agency, and I could not be forced to be a party to that contract if I did not choose to be.  Nobody in the debt collection agency was willing to personally sign or to take accountability for its letters, even though I requested this of it (all letters were "computer signed").  I made it clear to the debt collection agency that someone must take accountability for its correspondence, giving it a time limit in which to reply, or it was agreeing that its demands were based on fraud and had no substance.

In regard to the matter being in dispute, I want to emphasise that the dispute was a genuine dispute, not one that I made up, as the bank did not or could not prove factuality of debt.  The bank could not prove its claim and could not or would not present, or prove:

·   The existence of a contract signed by both parties (it should also be kept in mind that a legally binding contract also requires consideration, a legally binding contract requires full disclosure, and a legally binding contract must not be based on fraud).

·   That it was the holder of a valid and lawful original instrument of indebtedness in its original form (as in the contract above).  If such an instrument has been on-sold to another party then it is my understanding that the bank no longer has the right to claim on it.

·   A copy of the accounting to show that the claimed debt was a factual debt.  The monetising of the customer's signature/the credit card documentation with the customer's signature on it, provided funds that did not previously exist.  Effectively it is the customer that provides the funds, not the bank.

·   A signed invoice (not a statement), or a signed affidavit saying that the debt was factual.

·   Answers to my questions and the addressing of my requests, such a response being signed under full commercial liability and penalties of perjury, assuring and promising me that all of the replies and details given to the questions and requests were true and without deception, fraud or mischief.  The bank can't reveal the full true facts without the revealing of its fraudulent action.

I have not heard from the bank since somewhere near the middle of last year, the last letter from the debt collection agency was dated 30 May 2012, and the default placed by the debt collection agency on my credit file has been removed.  There has been no response from the debt collection agency in regard to its large debt towards me.

Please note that with the bank concerned I had read that it had digitised all of its credit card agreements (which do not fulfil the requirements of a lawful contract), although this would probably have made no difference to the final result.  Banks, as far as I understand, and have already mentioned, have already passed on this agreement, as it is a form of money.  In regard to digitisation, a copy of this agreement cannot be used to enforce payment, in the same way that a copy of a cheque cannot be cashed.  The original cheque must be used.  It is therefore possible to write to the bank to offer payment in full upon receiving its assurance that it will accept payment in direct and immediate exchange for the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.  The bank cannot comply with this request and has therefore refused offer of payment.  As a fair offer to settle has been made it can be argued that the claim of debt has no further basis on which to exist.  I have seen an example on the Internet where this approach has been successful, although it did go through the stages of a listing and then a removing of a default.

Information in regard to credit card operation can be found on the Internet, and it is possible to ask for assistance through this facility.  I made an enquiry through a United States based website and I received a well-worded response offering assistance, although I did not take up the offer.  Here is the link (look further down the webpage for: "Eliminate Credit Card Debt"):

http://the7thfire.com/freedom_sovereignty/eliminate_credit_card_debt.html#discover

This is not part of the discussion, but I am writing this last bit for conscience's sake: if there are any who wish to make use of any of the above information, please ensure that you do not do anything that would increase the likelihood of in the future being taken to one of the FEMA camps which are located in the United States and elsewhere.  That is, if such camps are a reality, of course.

[Craig]

I guess I'm not following.  Readers digest version. 

You say you rang up a $9000 credit card bill, and then did not pay it?
Why?
Where you forced against your will by the bank to use the card? 
If not how do you figure you don't owe it?
Who do you think pays the $9000 you default on?
I'll tell you who, I do with higher fees, and anyone who may own stock in the bank does also.

Now we can talk for days over the shady practices bank deploy to get your money and the predatory lending that happens; and we are not going to do that.   But that is not the case as far as I can tell with your story.

As John so bluntly stated, it looks like thievery to me too. I hope I just misunderstood your post.

Craig

[Patric]

I once dreamed of a society void of all forms of money. Everyone would simply work and get what they wanted......of course this will not work for the greedy would want to keep taking and then many would not work and still want. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. This be the scriptures I used to think if we could eliminate the money......we would eliminate the problem. LOL My theory was pure and good. Humanity is going to distort and cheat all systems involving money, trade, value etc. Just my two cents. My heart was in the right place. But our heart's are not yet in his Image. Stay tuned.....

[octoberose]

I too thought of Proverbs 22:7' " The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender." Dave Ramsey from Financial Peace University quotes that daily. His advice is very sound- with the exception of his belief in tithing. Your wife may actually enjoy his radio show and website.
Just wanted to add that as  I understand  it, if you take money out of a 401k  before retirement age you are hit with some pretty costly taxes and penalities. 

[G. Driggs]

I like Ray's explanation of the money lenders & changers.

http://www.bible-truths.com/fools.htm

AN ANGRY CHRIST IN A DEN OF THIEVES

Did JESUS ever get angry over crime and corruption within the church?

    "And they came to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to CAST OUT them that sold and bought in the temple, and OVERTURNED the table of the money-changers, and the SEATS of them that sold doves: And would NOT ALLOW that any man should carry any wares through the temple"(Mark 11:15-16).

Now then, were any of these activities being performed in the Temple ILLEGAL? No, they were not. The officers of the Temple allowed it according to their laws, and the Roman Government allowed it according to their laws. So these merchants in the Temple were not criminals. Or were they?

Jesus said they were CRIMINALS! But woe unto me if I should suggest that this same buying and selling in the Churches today is criminal! It IS criminal, I assure you, it is CRIMINAL. And they do FAR WORSE in today's churches! They not only sell trinkets and religious junk in the Church, they MAKE MERCHANDISE OF THE VERY WORD OF GOD ITSELF. THEY SELL THE WORD OF GOD FOR PROFITS! Here is what Christ said concerning their activities of buying and selling in the Temple:

    "And He taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the House of Prayer? But you have made it a DEN OF THIEVES" (Mark 11:17)!

Does anyone believe that Jesus was SMILING while He turned over their tables and accused them of making His House a "DEN OF THIEVES?"

Joh 2:16  And He said to those who sold doves, Take these things away from here. Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise.

2Pe 2:3  And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

[levycarneiro]

The Big Fat Fiasco videos, recently posted by Levy, show that the truth in regard to fat is not what we have been taught.

I would like to relate an experience that I had with "moneylenders".

Hello Oatmeal,

I don't see where one thing has to do with another. Yes, we may learn more and more truth during our lives, fat may be good, banks may not be correct or legal with people, we can learn all the ways they find to harm people's pockets, but anyway using their money and not paying them back is simply wrong.

God bless,
Levy

[Oatmeal]

Hi Levy

Everyone seems to have missed the main point of my post, that is: the money system is not as most of us think it is.  It is a debt based system, not a value (e.g. gold) based system.

I regret the fact that I mentioned the Fat Fiasco videos at the beginning of my post.  It was a late addition just before posting.

I do not understand your second comment.  How did I steal from the Bank, if that is what you are saying, when I had given to the Bank an asset equal to, or greater than, the value of the "loan"?

Remember that the Bank declined to answer my questions.  Why do you think that is?  Why do you think that my dispute was treated as valid, and the default listed on my credit record removed?

The Bank is unable to validate that I have a debt towards it.  However people on this forum are able to.  I don't know what their logical reasoning is.  Perhaps they should present their reasoning to the Bank and give the Bank some assistance in the matter.

Levy, if you gave someone $10,000, and they gave you a loan of $10,000 based on the $10,000 you had just given them, would you actually owe them anything?

The Bank cannot present any accounting to show that I have a debt towards it.  This is because the Bank's accounting shows that I gave the Bank an asset, that is, I gave it money.  The debt has already been paid, even before it occurred.  Do not confuse what you think money is (something like gold, or silver, or something that can be exchanged for such) to what it actually is today.

It is not my fault that the system is as it is, and if with knowledge I take advantage of the system, then it is with knowledge that I take advantage of the system.  I am not a slave to the Bank.  On this occasion the Bank was a servant to me, and exchanged the asset that I gave it into something that I could use.

I was very open and honest with the Bank in my first letter to it, explaining the logic as to why I did not owe it any money.  The Bank did not refute my argument at any time, and has not done so to this day.

Oatmeal

[Samson]

Wow! Now here's a thread that I didn't expect to get "Resurrected" In theory, JFK was right from the start, We are slaves of the Lender and We shouldn't borrow money, but pay the entire mess right away, but the reality for at least some of us, Our incomes aren't increasing proportionately to the Cost of Living, I received one raise in seven years from the tight wad cheap skates that employ Me and I'm unable to thoroughly work on Cars to maintain them. I despise borrowing Money and only did so involving the purchase of a reliable vehicle. Also, the pressure of Ones Spouse whether Husband or Wife is another factor in causing or influencing ones decision in utilizing credit options. We are at the mercy or lack thereof from these Creditors(Money Lenders), so if you don't need it, don't buy it, that's my Policy, but a Car in most cases is a necessity. From 1998-2006 I nursed two junkie Cars and got by.

I hope that this Thread gets locked, it has outlived it's usefulness. My initial point in starting this thread is the fact that just because what Creditors do is Legal, certainly doesn't make it ethical, ie-profit margins, interest rates, unreasonable terms of agreement, extending credit to those with inadequate income. Legal doesn't necessarily equate to what's ethical. I guess it's just another experience of Evil to humble us.

With God's help I was able to negotiate a bargain price for my Surgery & Dr's Fee's. I was up front with these Medical practitioners and what would have Cost 11 Grand was negotiated down to 3-4 grand, that's a rough estimate of my total expenses. I was honest & leveled with these Guys and so far I was rewarded. Thanks to God for that.

Samson.

[Rene]

I hope that this Thread gets locked, it has outlived it's usefulness. My initial point in starting this thread is the fact that just because what Creditors do is Legal, certainly doesn't make it ethical, ie-profit margins, interest rates, unreasonable terms of agreement, extending credit to those with inadequate income. Legal doesn't necessarily equate to what's ethical. I guess it's just another experience of Evil to humble us.

Per your request, Samson (Brad).  It is locked.

René