How bankers get you with a home loan.

Subject: FW: Your House Loan in a Nutshell.


At your convenience, please read the article for an accurate accounting of what a home loan is and how it may differ considerably from your presumptions of the way banking and lending are routinely conducted.  Your realtor and your banker may never be the same after digesting the process that is taken for granted because it's too complicated or too hard to understand.  Here, the attorney's court transcript clearly outlines the fraud, and there is no statute of limitations for fraud!


"Fraud vitiates the most solemn of contracts ab initio"


David
Readers,


It's all in National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly case.  It's still on Internet.  Let me share with you a banking experience that stunned me about six years ago.  I went into Umpqua Bank in Medford, Oregon to cash my compensation check.  It was on a Saturday, very laid back day; and the male teller who usually waited on me recognized me and said that he would help me in a center-of-the-room station.  So, we met there.  I handed him my $1000.00 check to cash and he began writing his part of the transaction.  As he was writing, he was summoned to an emergency phone call.  I told him to take it, I wasn't in a hurry.  Just accommodating those who would serve me without question.  He was gone it seemed like forever.  Only one other busy woman in the bank.  I leaned over the counter just stretching in boredom and happened to see the banking deposit slip he was making out and it said, $60,000.00?  I was stunned in suspicion?  I thought he was going to give me 60K.  Feeling like a bank robber, I just kept my mouth shut when he returned and he finished writing and the slip was out far enough that I saw what he was writing: He then put down $1000.00 withdrawal from the 60K?  He signed it and handed me $1000.00?








So, what happened in essence is this: somewhere there's an account or many accounts up in my name, social security number, corporate USA account, or maybe all of the named and more set up in my name; and Umpqua Bank, for its services, withdrew/deposited 60K in their bank for the transaction and gave me $1000.00 of the transaction? 








Perhaps someone with 'banking' transaction knowledge can share with us and let us know just what took place!  I'm very interested in that!








Thank you,


~Eagleinflight             
Very interesting article.


YOUR HOUSE LOAN IN A NUT SHELL     !!!!!!!!


Banking FRAUD In America ADMITTED IN COURT Date: Tue, 24 Jan     2012 16:15:28 +0000


Banking in America


This is an       actual court transcript - an interview with a banker, who is under oath,       about a foreclosure. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn       in. The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the routine       questions concerning the banker's education and background. Then this       conversation followed:


The attorney asked the banker,       "What is court exhibit A?"


The banker responded by saying,       "This is a promissory note."


The attorney then asked, "Is       there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the       defendant?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe the agreement includes a lender and a       borrower?"


The banker responded by saying,       "Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower."


The attorney asked, "What do       you believe the agreement is?"


The banker quickly responded,       saying, " We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a       check."


The attorney asked, "Does this       agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or       money within the agreement?"


The banker responded by saying,       "Sure it does."


The attorney asked, `"According       to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written       agreement?"


The banker responded by saying,       "The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the       money and the house and has not repaid the money."


The attorney       noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory       note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked,       "Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand       this written agreement?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the       right to enforce payment from the borrower?"


The banker said, "Absolutely we       own it and legally have the right to collect the       money."


The attorney asked, "Does the       $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means       the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of       business."


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "According       to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value       must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally       fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory       note?"


The banker said,       "$50,000."


The attorney asked, "According       to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank       refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or       borrower own the promissory note?"


The banker said,       "The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the       money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how       the borrower financed the purchase of the house."


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe that the borrower agreed to provide       the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the       $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay       the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"


The banker said,       "No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check,       there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge       interest on money it never loaned."


The attorney asked, "If this       happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note       and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal       payments?"


The banker said, "I am not a       lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions."

The attorney asked, "Is it bank policy that when a borrower       receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value       from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and       this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower       must repay?"


The banker said, "I do not know       the bookkeeping entries." 


The attorney said, "I am asking       you if this is the policy."


The banker responded, "I do not       recall."


The attorneyagain asked, "Do you       believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith       provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund       a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to       repay plus interest back to the same       bank?"


The banker said, " I am not a       lawyer."


The attorney said, "Did you not       say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand       this written agreement?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney handed the bank       loan agreement marked "Exhibit B" to the banker. He said, "Is there       anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing       where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank       to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the       $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000       plus interest?"


The banker said,       "No."


The lawyer asked, "If the borrower provided the bank with actual       cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and       returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in       your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the       borrower?"


The banker said,       "No."


The attorney asked, "If a bank customer provides actual cash value       of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back       to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for       $50,000."


The banker replied,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Did the       agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it       call for a $50,000 loan?"


The banker said, "A $50,000       loan."


The attorney asked, "Is the       bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks       grant loans."


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "What are       the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the       Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?" The attorney handed the       banker FED publicationModern Money Mechanics, marked "Exhibit       C".


The banker said, "The promissory note is       recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is       created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the       borrower."


The attorney asked, "Is this       not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?"


The banker said, "This is the       standard way to do it."


The attorney said, "Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange       of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note       funded the check, must they not both have equal       value?"


The banker then pleaded the Fifth       Amendment.


The attorney asked, "If the       bank's deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank's assets increase by       an asset that has actual cash value?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Is there       any exception?"


The banker said, "Not that I       know of."


The attorney asked, "If the       bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank's books having       actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer       of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?"


The banker thought for a moment       and said, "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Is it the       bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new       liability?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney said, "Does the       promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank       loan check?"


The banker said       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Does this bookkeeping       entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank       loan check?"


The banker said, "Yes, the bank president told us to do       it this way." 


The attorney asked, "How much       actual cash value did the bank       loan to obtain the promissory       note?"


The banker said,       "Nothing."


The attorney asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank receive       from the borrower?"


The banker said,       "$50,000."


The attorney said, "Is it true       you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly       payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or       other depositors' money to obtain the promissory note in the first       place? Is it true that the borrower financed the       whole transaction?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Are you       telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value       for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the       same person as a bank loan?"


The banker said, "I was not       there when the borrower agreed to the loan."


The attorney asked, "Do the standard FED publications show the       bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the       bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank       loan?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney said, "Do you       believe the bank does this without the borrower's knowledge or written       permission or authorization?" 


The banker said,       "No."


The attorney asked, "To the       best of your knowledge, is there written       permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual       cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for       free?


The banker said,       "No."


"Does the creation of the new       note payable (now a bank asset) allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual       cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower,       forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest?       "


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney said, "If the bank       transferred $50,000 actual cash value (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes Payable)       from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the       bank loan anything of value to the borrower?"


The banker said, "No." He knew       that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash,       check, or promissory note) to fund a check.


The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to first transfer the       actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount       of the alleged loan?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The       attorney asked, "Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value       transferred from the alleged borrower to the       bank?"


The banker answered, "No, because the       actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to       the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not       taxable."


The attorney asked, "If a loan       is forgiven, is it taxable?"


The banker agreed by saying,       "Yes."


The       attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value       that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a       loan from the bank to the alleged       borrower?"


"Yes", the banker replied.       


The attorney said, "You never       pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower       and keep as the bank's property?"


"No. No tax is paid." said the       crying banker.


The attorney asked, "When the       lender receives the actual cash value (the promissory note) from the       alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is       the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent       of legal tender or other depositors' money?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Are you       telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note       (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors' money or       legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds       deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from       the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same       person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to       obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this       right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to       me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus       interest? Do you think I am       stupid?"


In a       shaking voice the banker cried, saying, "All the banks are doing this.       Congress allows this."


The attorney quickly responded,       "Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and       misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and       without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value       from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a       loan?"


The banker said, "But the       borrower got a check and the house."


The attorney said, "Is it true or false that the actual cash value       that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower       and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for       free?"


"It is true", said the       banker.


The attorney asked, "Is it the       bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to       the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank's property, which they       loan out as bank loans?"


The banker, showing tears of       regret that he had been caught, confessed, "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Was it the       bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return       the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?"


The banker said, "Yes." He knew       he had to say yes because of the bank policy.


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan       check?"


The banker answered, "I was not       there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower's       mind."


The attorney asked, "If a       lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the       money, do you believe the lender is damaged?"


The banker thought. If he said       no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said       yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank       of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, "If a loan is not       repaid, the lender is damaged."


The attorney asked, "Is it the       bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund       the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the       borrower?"


The banker said, "The bank       returns the funds."


The attorney asked, "Was the       actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as       a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to       the borrower?"


The banker said, "As a       loan."


The attorney asked, "How did       the bank get the borrower's money for free?"


The banker said, "That is how       it works."Regards,


Bollingbrooke Institute


Website http://www.bollingbrookeinstitute.org
Email:       info@bollingbrookeinstitute.org

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM TAKEOVER VIDEO

Can you believe it …. they sent my Census form back!


In response to the question: "Do you have any dependents?"


I replied -


"12.1 million illegal immigrants;


3.1 million crack heads; 4.4 million unemployable people,


901 thousand people in over 85 prisons; and 565 idiots in Congress.


Apparently, this was NOT an acceptable answer

Who did I miss ?

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

A Muslim officer crying "Allah Akbar" while shooting up an army base is considered to have committed "Workplace Violence" while an American citizen boasting a Ron Paul bumper sticker is classified as a "Domestic Terrorist".

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend                     more money.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration class on a college campus is perfectly acceptable.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...                  

The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display                     the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if..

Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the "State's" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if..

The rights of the State come before the rights of the individual.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iphones, TV's and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Your government can add anything they want to your kid's water (fluoride, chlorine, etc.) but you are not allowed to give them raw milk.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe".

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

You have to have your parent’s signature to go on a field trip but not to get an  abortion.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.                    

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burqa is only subject to having her neck and head searched.                    

Unfortunately, this list could go on and on. Our world has been turned upside-down. We are in distress. Where do we go from here?

We are in upside land when you can’t have the TEN COMMANDMENTS posted near a court house yet we have IN GOD WE TRUST printed on our money.

www.GuardDogbooks.com

BUSH 15-TRILLION DOLLARS FRAUD

Bush, Fed, Europe Banks in $15 Trillion Fraud, All Documented

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

———————-

Below is one of the strangest stories in financial history, one involving the US government lying about hundreds of thousands of tons of imaginary gold, illegal wire transfers and loans totaling $15 trillion. The video, from the House of Lords, is amazing in itself.

What it doesn't express is where the money came from though Lord James of Blackheath proves conclusively that an effort was made to say it came from a gold reserve in Brunei that, in fact, never existed.

At surface, it appears we have stumbled upon the largest terrorist organization in the world and have found original documents tracing its funding to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, two of the top financial officers in the US. A cursory review of terrorism statues in the US indicate that all transactions we will learn about are, in fact, to be assumed “terrorist money laundering” and that the only thing preventing the immediate arrest of hundreds of top financial officials is their political connections alone.

YouTube - Veterans Today - Lord Blackheath exposed the fraud.

We will be able to offer an alternative, more insights, some hard intelligence and some very valuable background that we hope will offer insightful and realistic perspectives on this amazing story.

On February 16, 2012, Lord James of Blackheath, member of Britain’s House of Lords presented evidence of an illegal scheme begun, he has thus discovered, in 2009. His documents including originals signed by Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner, show the illegal “off the books” transfer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of $15 trillion to, initially, HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation) London and then to the Bank of Scotland.

The Bank of Scotland, under royal charter but restricted from involvement in any such transactions, simply “gave” the money to 20 European banks to use in a highly profitable scheme of co-trading “fresh cut” MTN’s (mid-term notes), generating trillions of dollars in profits over 3 years, none of which is shown on books, none has been taxed or has benefited shareholders in those banks.

As Blackheath outlines, the “deception and cover” for this transfer is the imaginary seizure of 750,000 tons of gold by agents of an unspoken entity (confirmed by the highest official sources as the Bush family and CIA), the listed “source” of the money.

The government of Indonesia confirms this to be an utter fabrication and that the individual named had 700 tons of gold (about half of what Gaddafi was holding), not 750,000. It is noted that only 1,500 tons of gold have ever been traded in world history, as stated in the House of Lords.

The issues that are initially brought out, issues inconsistent with international convention and starting the reader on what is only the surface discovery of two decades of crimes involving dozens of governments are as follows:

• At no time has the Federal Reserve Bank of New York been authorized to hold the funds indicated
• However, documents held by Lord Blackheath prove, conclusively that they did hold such funds and transfer them in a manner as to obscure their origin by using HSBC and the Bank of Scotland. This process, seemingly involving Alan Greenspan, Timothy Geithner and others would appear to be “money laundering” until some other explanation were found. None has been offered.
• The “collateralization” of these funds, being 750,000 tons of gold, is proven to be fantasy. These funds then, in no way or manner, are related to Brunei. The presentation of this false transaction has been conclusively proven to be a “cover and deception” project such as an intelligence organization would use.
• The transfer of these funds, all done without any authorizations, governmental or otherwise, particularly without agreements, payment of interest to the United States and without knowledge and approval of congress makes every aspect of this criminal in nature, a violation of innumerable statutes.
• The receipt and use of these funds by the 20 banks, two of which are Wall Street’s largest, and the use of these funds to generate profits while the funds themselves are held “off the books” and the profits hidden and laundered, themselves the earnings of funds received through criminal acts makes any and all involved part of a criminal enterprise.

WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM

There is no record of the Federal Reserve being authorized to “create” $15 trillion, equal to the entire national debt of the United States. There is, however, proof that funds that totalled, at one time, $27 trillion had been earned surreptitiously, disposed of as part of an intelligence operation against the Soviet Union and then later stolen with accusations made against George H. W. Bush as being the perpetrator.

I have spoken with two individuals, one President Reagan’s intelligence coordinator and the other Chief Legal Cousel for the Central Intelligence Agency regarding these funds. Both have indicated that former President Bush had asked that these funds, totalling $27 trillion, be transferred to his control, that threats were made by Bush and that many involved in this operation suffered, issues including murder, illegal arrest, torture and detention among them.

The individuals I am speaking of repeatedly met with President Bush over these funds, disputed his claim to them, and indicate that the majority of the funds are the property of the people of the United States.

These funds are the mysterious “Wanta” funds, monies earned through years of currency trading aimed at collapsing the Soviet Union, a plan originated by President Ronald Reagan, then White House Intelligence Coordinator Lee Wanta and CIA Director William Casey. I have been told that, while this operation went forward under President Reagan, he had ordered that his successor, George H. W. Bush not be “briefed” out of “mistrust” for Bush.

The funds themselves were earned through a scheme of trading Soviet roubles at enormous profit, a practice that eventually collapsed their government. A portion of the profits are subject to current litigation in the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Lee presiding. I have over 2,000 pages of documents on this case which shows a remainder of the original funds had been transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by the Bank of China, a party to the rouble trading practice, in 2006 and is claimed as totally owned by Ameritrust Corporation. That amount was $4.5 trillion of which we hold the SWIFT transfer documents.

The other monies, which “likely” make up from the unspent portion of the missing $27 trillion, may well constitute all that is recoverable.

Wanta, sole shareholder in Ameritrust, has offered his companies share, valued by the court now at $7.2 trillion, entirely to the American people as intended by President Reagan.

The origin of the additional funds, issued by the Federal Reserve during the 80s and 90s, totalling nearly $8 trillion is unknown. High ranking sources within the US government indicate that this can only be either the remainder of funds Wanta raised or profits made from them after the majority of funds were stolen.

Stories, some quite good actually, and personal interviews plus my own review of documents would place the theft or conversion of these funds initially with:

• The Bush family
• The “P2,” a Masonic lodge operating out of Switzerland involved in dozens of terror bombings tied to “Operation Gladio”
• People around Wanta himself including the CIA

What is lacking is a source for half of these funds. Technically, they don’t exist as there is no record of them being originated by nor transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York though there are clear and discernible records of them being transferred out of that institution which never possessed them, according to their 2010 audit, in the first place.

WANTA MONEY

The transfer of Wanta funds, they can be assumed to have no other origin as they track into the Federal Reserve banking system while in escrow and are currently awaiting payment based on the orders of President Obama in accordance with findings of the federal court, is complicated by the Scottish transfer.

Either Wanta has claim to the entire amount or it is the property of the US government. That no effort has been made to secure the funds or enforce criminal and civil remedies to recover enough money to pay the entire US national debt and more, as with earnings, we are nearing well over $30 trillion by this time, is an indication that a criminal conspiracy with enough influence to overrule our own government is involved. Whether that “conspiracy is, as noted, the Bush family, rouge sections of the CIA or a secret society such as P2, one we can prove or others we only suspect exist, is another story.

The lack of action, here or as requested by Lord James in Britain, is, in itself, proof of both the seriousness and actuality of these events and the powers that can prevent any inquiry when irrefutable documents such as SWIFT transfers are available. In fact, Lord James has offered a wealth of documents which, when combined with the 2000 pages of Wanta “discovery” from the Federal Court, constitutes more than prima facia evidence of money laundering, conversion, terrorism or worse.

Thus, the inaction in the face of overwhelming and unquestioned proof is inexplicable.

FLOOD OF WANTA LITIGATION AND INDICTMENTS COMING

Currently, Wanta’s legal status is as technical conservator and owner of $7.2 trillion. However, as nearly half that is owed in taxes and the court settlement required Wanta to purchase $1 trillion in treasury bonds, the federal government should show positive interest other than President Obama and a few others. More are being obstructionist with the payout and exercise of $3 trillion in US debt reduction.

This is, not only illegal but an indication of conspiracy.

In addition, Russian Prime Minister Putin has communicated that he awaits the agreed upon 3% payment of Russian taxes, initially on the $7.2 trillion. Will Putin want to be paid on the entire $15 trillion plus interest and will Russia and/or the US have interest in why the Bank of Scotland transferred these funds to 20 European banks to trade in MTN’s (mid term notes) without any authorization or agreement, any participation or sharing of profits.

As the funds, at least the half which the US government can claim ownership of, combined with the interest and earnings of, would quickly put the US “in the black,” again we look at, not just the press blackout on the Wanta litigation of the last 6 years but the press blackout on Lord James of Blackheath and the wealth of damning documentation he submitted to Parliament.

Nothing has been done since, it is as though the proof submitted was so dangerous that those moments in time have been erased by a mysterious g-d like power.

What makes Wanta dangerous is that he has begun to distribute funds, some to government entities, counties and states, law enforcement agencies, giving them standing, not just in recovering funds intended for their use but in helping prosecute anyone involved in interfering with or attempting to divert funds.

One grand jury is being formed to investigate diversion of Wanta funds even at this early date. It is likely that Wanta/Ameritrust funds earmarked for border protection could lead to the indictment of high ranking US officials. This is only the beginning.

If the Royal Bank of Scotland doesn’t think it should be expecting the biggest chargeback in the history of the world, they are in for a shock.

www.GuardDogBooks.com

Military drone aircraft used on US citizens...

The government recently issued 300 Federal Aviation Permits for low level flying drones to be used by law enforcement officers to find missing persons and people hiding in deep underbrush. The infrared see-in-the-dark technology allows them to be used night or day. 

    

            Law enforcement is also lobbying for radar transponders and clearance in populated areas to avoid collisions with low flying aircraft.

            The same technology used to take out Al-Qaida is now being used by local law enforcement officers on American Citizens. Sheriff Deputies are deploying them from the trunk of their cars. This has raised considerable controversy and privacy questions.

US to supply ‘Shadow’ drones to Pakistan: Defense officials

[Ed. Note: India is very nervous about this. India has Drones in the air now, provided by Israel. One of the first Drones India purchased was a Harrop Suicide Drone (see below for video). They have more advanced Drones in the air also. The US supplying Pakistan with the Shadow Drone is the first step to either being supplied with more advanced systems, or Pakistan altering the Shadow Drone to carry weapons. Here's what is in the planning stages by the US Military for the Shadow Drone, make it a Killer Drone, read below.]

New DOD Effort Arms Low-Flying Unmanned Aircraft With Precision Weapons
The Defense Department is planning a new pilot program to arm low-flying unmanned aircraft with precision weapons, a move to emulate strike capabilities of higher-flying Predator UAVs that Pentagon officials believe could point toward an entire class of small, unmanned systems capable of killing targets they locate. U.S. Special Operations Command will launch in fiscal year 2009 a technology demonstration effort to equip Shadow unmanned aerial vehicles with laser-guided munitions, according to Pentagon officials. . .“We’re going to weaponize Shadow for SOCOM,” John Wilcox, director of the joint concept technology demonstrations office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Advanced Systems and Concepts shop, disclosed. “We’re also going to look at weaponizing a couple more small UAVs.” With one-to-five-pound weapons, these tiny killers could take out high-value targets — “or hold a target at risk until bigger and better operational platforms with more ordnance get onto the battlefield.” 

1% TAX ON SS CHECKS This will get you going...

Direct Deposit for SS check 


ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?
1% tax on all bank transactions HR4646


Your income tax isn't enough for them. They got to gouge you another 1%.
Watch for this AFTER November elections; remember this        BEFORE you VOTE in case you think Obama's looking out for your best interest. 
        1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646 
        This government just cannot think of enough ways to hurt the American people! I sure hope this dies!!!!!

        FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! 
        1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED        IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check out HR 4646.




President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.


        This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your account, will have a 1% tax charged. ~If your paycheck or your social security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction. ~If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check into your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged. ~You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.. ~If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged. 
        Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed. 
        Oh, and by the way, if you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank. Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.

        Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "Oh,that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"! Think this is no big deal? 


Go back and look at the transactions you made on one year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it's no big deal?


" A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." - Barry  Goldwater

Global Banking Genocide Scam

The Road to Roota Theory postulates that there is a group of people in the United States as well as around the world that are working to remove and destroy the financial banking powers that have secretly controlled all aspects of our lives for hundreds of years. The original idea of this group sprang from the mind of Alan Greenspan and involved rigging markets with computer programs that he had invented in the 1960's. The original articles can be found here:

The Original Road to Roota http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/120.cfm

My understanding of the way the world worked was blown to bits and replaced with a more unified theory on all things monetary... all things that lead us down The Road to Roota otherwise known as the Road to the Gold Standard.

Greenspan's Golden Secret http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/101.cfm

The following concepts are the key support pillars in The Road to Roota Theory and I have linked the support articles as back up. Once you understand these concepts you will understand what is happening all around you as the world you once knew comes crumbling down to be replaced by a new and better system.

KEY COMPONENTS OF THE ROAD TO ROOTA THEORY:

1) All markets have been 100% controlled by computer programs since the 1970's in order to steer and control prices thus prolonging the fiat monetary system. http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/94.cfm

2) A powerful cabal of the world's elite have taken over that market manipulation process and twisted it to enhance their own profits while pretending to service their nation's best interests. http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/133.cfm

3) In the early 1900's the United States embarked on a secret policy to hide all of its own natural resources and exploit the rest of the world's until resource scarcity was fully recognized. http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/181.cfm

4) In order to support the oil backed US Dollar and the world's petro-based economic system the "powers that be" have hidden new energy technologies that would greatly benefit the world's population as well as the environment. http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/141.cfm

5) Since 911 there is a group of people and governments that have decided "enough is enough" and are in the process of removing the banking cabal from their seat of power. http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/120.cfm

6) The planned destruction of the fiat monetary system is the type of "Creative Destruction" event that will force the implementation of a new Gold Standard within the United States. http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/117.cfm

You may argue all you want about my interpretation and conclusions but there will be no arguing the final results. When the final crash comes the facts will show that the Road to Roota Theory was the closest thing to a "correct analysis" of the gold market available at this time in history.

This is your peek behind the curtain of the Great and Powerful OZ!

As we read the papers today the events are unfolding before us. The real question now is what will happen in the future? Will we be cast into a deep and dark depression with no hope for future generations or will we survive and even thrive as we make this transition?

Here is my interpretation of all the information found in the RoadtoRoota.com archives: http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/department36.cfm

These conclusions may sound way too positive and outrageously naive but everything I watch points to a very bright future…even if it takes a few bumps to get there!

1) The collapse of the fiat monetary system will be total and complete equalizing the playing field between the "haves" and the "have-nots".

2) All paper/electronic debt and assets will evaporate with the collapse of the fiat money system.

3) Those who have perpetrated the outrageous and monstrous crimes of the past 100 years will be hunted down and prosecuted (if they are lucky).

4) The US will issue a new gold backed currency (domestically) allocating it according to future social security payments due.

5) The US will allocate much of the new gold backed money to support the funding of schools, police, health care, infrastructure and other necessities for a fully functioning society.

6) Globalization will end upon the collapse of the derivative structure and all countries will end global trade concentrating on their own internal commerce.

7) All US overseas troops will return home to protect our borders and ensure the safety of our citizens.

8) The US population will be fully employed working to replace all the overseas production lost in the reversal of Globalization.

9) The United States will tap into its VAST natural resources that have been hidden away for years in National Parks, Military Bases and sites deemed "Ecologically Sensitive".

10) A vast array of new energy technologies will be revealed since there will be no more need for the "oil standard" that has supported the US Dollar for the past 50 years.

11) The implementation of the new monetary system will usher in a glorious new "Golden Age" that the world will embrace after years of being lead around like "Sheeple".

We are on the cusp of something truly momentous in the history of the human race. With the full transition there is no need to lose the free markets system. Truthfully, a true "Free Market" system has never been given the chance it deserves with all the market rigging of the past 100 years.

We will be free again. We will resurrect our Constitution and we 
will make the United States of America the Land of Liberty that 
our forefathers envisioned.