Understanding The Origins Of Coporate Jurisdiction

Bail In……… have been warned…..

The Bankers EU and the European Commission had “bail-in” plans as long ago as October 2010 for all of the countries in the European Union

October 2010

Crisis Management

Note.- Select 3rd bullet-point heading:

Final technical discussions to prepare the Commission’s proposal for a European framework for bank recovery and resolution

Discussion Paper for the “bail-in” plan. Ref. mark Oct 2010 titled:

Discussion paper on the debt write-down tool – bail-in

March 2013

Why the Cyprus Bail In Is a Bigger Deal Than You Think

March 2013

Here We Go Again: EU Lawmaker To Push For Bail-In Resolution Law For Deposits Over €100K€100k

March 2013

With Cyprus Bail-In, Europe Bids Adieu to ‘Too Big to Fail’

Note.- 1st paragraph, last sentence, reads in part:

“… , and the financial burden shared by creditors and depositors, rather than automatically shouldered by taxpayers.”

Comment.- Depositors are those with a bank account

April 2013

Covered Bonds Will Be Spared in EU Bail-In Rule, Lawmaker Says

Note.- Paragraph 10 reads:

“The EU faces a self-imposed June deadline to adopt legislation for handling bank failures, which requires approval from the parliament and national governments before it can take effect.”

Comment.- This is just a formality. It will pass. One sure assumption to make is, do not think your money in your bank account will ever be safe. There are no guarantees.

April 2013

EU mulls bank law to impose losses on depositors

April 2013

Europe Is Warming to Depositor Theft aka ‘Bail-In’

April 2013

Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever

April 2013 – WHOOOOPS!

At $72.8 Trillion, Presenting The Bank With The Biggest Derivative Exposure In The World (Hint: Not JPMorgan)



Political Charters Create Corporate Countries As Fictions

In matters between people, entities are created beyond the ‘bodily confines’ of an individuals freewill as ‘necessary fictions or fabrications of convenience’ to assist individuals in providing a place or space in which willing or agreeing individuals commonly understand what their dealings are to be, with respect to each other. It is by this very process that a corporation is created to reflect the corporation/cooperation of individuals working together, or in company, towards a common cause (the meeting of the minds) to which they had given their individual consent, in agreement to what they had arranged. By virtue of being an individual, the meeting of one individuals mind with that of another individuals mind creates ‘a meeting or merging of minds’ that can have no independent existence of its own in reality or in nature. Individuals remain just that, individual in existence, or to put it another way, individuals as ‘real things’ that exist independently of each other in nature or in the jurisdiction of Natural Law. Yet, this ‘meeting of the minds’ is a third entity, a combination that is necessarily a fiction. That fiction, being ‘the merging of the minds’, defines itself and its operations through the agreement of the participants to it and can only ‘exist’ as a consequence of individual participants agreeing to it. When this happens, what becomes the ‘idea or operations’ of the third entity as ‘a meeting or merging of minds’, maybe noted on paper to aid either of the participating individuals memory to its creation and purpose. The ‘paper’ being just a formal presentation of – the ‘fictional third entity’ or the ‘meeting of minds’ and its operations as ‘ideas’ that it contains and which were arrived at by the agreement of the individuals to it. We can see then, that when individuals come together to conduct dealings with each other they necessarily create fictional third entities. All such fictions are a corporation in which agreeing individuals in each others company can work for, or towards. That is the essence of a corporation or company.

Any individual or individuals may draw-up such corporations in-advance, or ahead of there being anyone to have ‘a meeting of the mind’ with, to bring their ideas of operations for corporation, or working together, into being or into fictional existence. Corporations drawn up in advance in such a manner are clearly controlled and owned by those who brought them into existence. They remain inactive until such time an individual has a merging of the mind with them. Such corporations are clearly drawn up to benefit their creators, and await the merging of someone’s mind to them in order to advance the interests of their owners. Such corporations created in advance are done so by charter, and anybody has the freewill right to create or establish them, and as such are the owners of the corporation or company that is created from their charter. The charter is simply a corporation drawn up or created in anticipation, or in advance, of other individuals wanting to have a meeting or merging of the mind with the individual or individuals whose mind it represents and whose minds are behind its creation. Care must be taken to have dealings with chartered corporations, lest you are found to be at a disadvantage. The tendency of chartered corporations is to find agents or employees to work for them and therefore anyone that contracts to them are not doing so on an equal footing but are held to be in an inferior position to that of their owners for whom an individual would be effectively working for. Any free-willed individual may elect to join the jurisdiction of a chartered corporation or incorporated company as an employee, or choose not to join the jurisdiction of such a corporation or company, regardless of the operations or business that corporation or company had been drawn up to engage in.

Charters create fictional entities called corporations, and different ‘forms of corporations’ may be created by different ‘forms of charter’. Nevertheless, they are corporations all the same. A Country is created by Political Charter written on ‘paper’ as a constitution, whose ‘business’ it is as a corporation, is to provide a ‘service’ through which its ‘membership, agents or employees’ may act out their lives within its jurisdiction or ‘control’.

A corporation of whatever description and nature, be it one created by Political Charter for people to act out their lives, or simply to conduct business of a more limited nature, cannot exceed its authority above an individuals natural rights or replace those rights, regardless of whether or not that individual is a member-citizen or employee of the corporation. To do so would be a perversion of the truth; that man’s natural position is above that of a fiction. This must always remain the reality regardless of the dignity of those advocating for such a fictional corporation or whomever the owners of that corporation maybe.

With the foregoing in mind, the website link to the title THE LAW by Frederic Bastiat is an absolutely insightful brief read that ought never to be ignored:



The original incorporation charter of Krakow (08.06.2013),1261,the-original-incorporation-charter-of-krakow-08062013.html

Categories of Political charters

List of sovereign states by date of formation


Obtaining full disclosure of territorial jurisdiction

and knowing a little in-advance ‘where that territory really is’, in the eyes of those claiming jurisdiction, is of importance towards understanding that those claiming and presuming jurisdiction over you in their disingenuous way of allowing you to deceive yourself, really never had legitimate authority over you in the first place, even long before any claim was made against you.

Once this is understood, the bankers can never turn to the support of ‘their’ government as a legitimising authority, and in-turn the government can never turn to the support of non-consenting people for legitimacy.

Why should any of this matter ? The reasons can be simply put. All one would need to do, is ask themselves –

What reasonable man of sanity,

would stand nonchalantly by,

effectively supporting their wealth being confiscated,

through the knowing complicity of government,

that enacts wealth confiscating measures, statutes and legislation,

as a veil of legitimacy for bankings debt-falsification through the lie of economy ?

Who indeed would sign-up for the misrepresentation of their economic activity as misrepresented debts falsified for the benefit of bankers on the orders of government whose territorial jurisdiction was inoperative against those who ceased to be in governments jurisdiction, as and when they chose to be ?

This orchestrated sham, I hear you say, does not matter to you since you have no credit or loans from the various finance houses or banks. You live within your means and from day to day.

Sadly, thinking that you have been acting responsibly will not help you.

Money is still allegedly owed to the bankers central banks through ‘their’ government proxies as a so-called National or Sovereign Debt. This is as a consequence of government ‘falsely’ alleging a necessity to borrow from the bankers for the benefit of the member-employees of the corporate country over which government has jurisdiction – whose members are also commonly called ‘citizens’ or any other synonyms used to described employees. For example, taxpayers, nationals, the public, and so on.

As a result, government in collusion with the banking systems lie of economy, are advocates of the bankers deliberate misrepresentation of debt away from its true owners, the people individually – to whom it belongs. This misrepresented debt is the debt that the bankers falsify to themselves and claim as theirs, and then from its entitlement go on to provide credit which amounts to the theft of the true debtors credit, since it was the true debtors entitlement from his debt that provides for credit to be created in the first place. Having misrepresented debt and falsified it to themselves in order to obtain credit which does not belong to them, the bankers as false creditors then falsely claim they have provided the people, through their government, with something, a loan. By these means, the bankers claim money is owed to them and expect to receive payments against these artificial debts, that originated from stolen credit, and that they claim the people owe through government as a National or Sovereign Debt.

(see: Issuers and Owners of Credit – in the links provided below)

Government participation in the lie of economy through governments actions of untrue or artificial borrowing from bankers, which in turn creates an artificial National debt, that exponentially increases for the benefit of the bankers as false creditors, and that results in the bankers confiscating everybody’s wealth as ‘unearned’ reward by claiming falsely that debts are owed to them, legitimises the bankers lie of economy,making it appear genuine, warranted, necessary, and the only true means of providing for an economy. Of course, as is evident, this is all hogwash.

 These artificial loans are deliberately and disingenuously entered into by government, and by government doing so, are increased astronomically by government, allowing for the misrepresentation of economic activity into artificial debts which are then converted to unearned reward for the banks. All this is done, as government pretends all the while to be oblivious to the bankers lie of economy that is the banking system. In this way it can be said that government action can be characterised as deliberate.

Government having the gall to claim authority over people outside of governmental territorial jurisdiction, and to then demand that they pay through taxation for an ‘artificial National Debt’, which has been brought about by way of misrepresenting debt away from its true owners, the people, for the benefit of bankers as false owners of this now misrepresented debt to the bankers, from which the bankers then steal the entitlement to create credit, which then becomes the artificial debt owed to them as loans taken out by government, amounts to an absurdity by government and the bankers. After all, government merely administers to the needs of a ‘corporation’, for which it is employed to do so. As with any other corporation which is created by ‘its form of charter’, its ‘executive board, governing board, or government’ which provides ‘governance’ for the corporation, has no authority over those who are non-members or non-employees. Charters create fictional entities called corporations, and different ‘forms of corporations’ may be created by different ‘forms of charter’. Nevertheless, they are corporations all the same. A country, whose ‘business’ it is as a corporation, provides a ‘service’ through which its ‘membership or employees’ may act out their lives. The corporate-countries government is merely the ’employee board of executives’ or administrative instrument providing ‘governance or government’ for the corporate-country on behalf of its OWNERS. The corporate-countries governing body of employees, exerts its control on the rest of the corporate-countries membership or employees, through its branches or subdivisions referred to as government departments and agencies (and through also all the other corporate branches or corporate-subdivisions of that corporate country; that is to say, its secondary-governments or ‘authorities’ and their subdivisions, sometimes referred to as local-government and their agencies). The corporation is brought into existence, created, or is established on a ‘piece of paper’ by its OWNERS. That ‘piece of paper’ is called a ‘Political Charter‘. Only those within corporate-governments jurisdiction, that is to say, those who ‘chose to admit to membership or citizenship of the corporate-countries territorial jurisdiction, or simply admitted to being in that jurisdiction’, would be subject to false claims of liability known as taxation, or indeed any other claim of liability within that territorial jurisdiction of a corporate-country.

This is how the artificial ‘National Debt’ to be paid by those admitting to be in a governments, a states, a nations, a countries, or a regions (EU) jurisdiction or any other corporate jurisdiction, either as taxpayers, subjects, citizens, members of the public, persons, individuals, or just plain normal people of that territorial-jurisdiction in question, is brought about.

It will be readily appreciated that because of the diabolical machinations of the lie of economy, all sorts of liabilities must be invented and created to strip you of your wealth on the pretext that the National Debt is a legitimate concern for everyone. Although seemingly not related, these liabilities range from taxing you on the rain that falls on your property and property tax itself, to ‘fines’ for breaking some or other rule on the roads, or just some other fabricated and insane liability to extract your wealth for debts that are not genuinely owed to the banking system. Government, together with its agencies, are in the business of doing this in every and all aspects of your life.

Without a full appreciation of the implications of jurisdiction, property and assets that a people worked hard towards in trying to improve their lot, are wrongly used as ‘collateral’ for the inevitable failure to pay the artificial national debt. The house, the car, or whatever property you thought belonged to you, becomes collateral; and that includes you or your family and future generations who are also considered to be liable for the National Artificial Debt.

The further cruel aspect of all of this nonsense, is that these artificial debts to the banking systems lie of economy are designed to be impossible to pay. But nevertheless, they will be wrongly paid to the banking system by entirely stripping everyone of their personal wealth and lands, including stripping people of their freewill to make choices, whether or not people considered themselves to have behaved responsibly by not having any ‘so-called loans’ from the bankers and their finance houses.

This of course leaves everybody destitute and a serf to whom exactly ?

The corporate owners of the banking system and the corporate countries ?

How would they then compel everyone to pay for these artificial debts? By people consenting to accept a territorial jurisdiction they know nothing about because they did not seek full disclosure – that is how.

In acquiring an understanding of this subtle yet ancient ploy of deception that provides a mirrored-map of the world for those who would gaze into it and deceive themselves into thinking it is the very ‘stuff’ and substance of reality, and not just ‘a piece of paper’, comes the realisation that the truth does not and will not inevitable matter. What truly matters is whether you are even conscious of yourself, of freewill, from which vantage point a panorama emerges to the underlying simplicity of this grand scheme of enslavement. The confiscation of the world and everything in it, for the benefit of the advocates and owners of this ‘grand lie of economy’ that strips you of your freewill and wealth. That is the simple underlying nature of this diabolical scheme – Feudalism.

Without facing the truth and quelling your ‘fear’ to just opening your eyes to see the obvious, and then speak about it amongst yourselves and without embarrassment, you will remain enslaved. Do not depend and rely on Pretenders, Impostors, and their ‘Experts’ of every kind and description. What truly matters is to realise the simplicity and nature of this deception, a deception that allows for you to deceive yourself. What truly matters is to take responsibility for your own life and each others lives.

If but one of you is made victim to this lie of economy by the banking system, and its misrepresentation of what should be your greatest treasure – your ‘freewill’ to express and present your personal and private affairs as you so ‘wish’, without interference from the banking system in its taking of undeserved and unearned reward as artificial debt owed to them, then, as is the case now, we all fall and forever remain doomed as VICTIMS of its cruel machinations.

What truly matters is YOU, YOUR FREEWILL, insofar as no injury, harm, or damage to others and their property is caused; and care is taken to avoid reckless behaviour at the risk of causing injury to others.



I sold home in Cyprus when my husband died…and bank kept my money

The Confiscation of Bank Savings to “Save the Banks”: The Diabolical Bank “Bail-In” Proposal

Bail-in and the Confiscation of Bank Deposits: The Birth of the New Financial Order

BOE’s Carney’s DIESELBOOM: Policy-Makers Working Diligently to Devise an International “Bail-In” Regime

‘UK must unfurl global bankers’ grip on economy’ – Impostors of Every Description
(Note. – It is impossible for government to issue something which does not belong to them. See links below under Issuers and Owners of Credit to understand how credit is genuinely created.)

how central banks buy the economics profession

Issuers and Owners of Credit

Ruinous euro rescues

IMF revisions to 2013 GDP growth forecast –
Page 48 of the World Economic Outlook Report, Table 2.1 Real GDP Projections for 2013

IMF Slashes Growth Forecasts

MFW obniża prognozę wzrostu dla Polski,18494,5468901,1,news-detal

The Great Global Tax Grab is Already Underway
(Note.- To understand why you should not be paying Tax to Central Banks via Governmnet read articles under heading above, ‘Issuers and Owners of Credit’)

Millions fear losing job would mean losing home
(Note.- To understand why you should not be making mortgage repayments to Banks read ‘THERE IS NO DEBT ITS JUST YOUR IMAGININGS’ and ‘MISREPRESENTATION’: click on links under title ‘Issuers and Owners of Credit’ given above)

David Stockman: “We’ve Been Robbed By The Fed”

Charts in Text Format of Interlocking Directorships and Family Linkages
Who Is Running America?

The Gods of the Copybook Headings by Rudyard Kipling



“A map is not actual land, it is a piece of paper defining fictional jurisdictional-territory by presenting it as an abstract illlustration pretending to mimic actual places on the land and what people commonly ‘call’ the actual land where they are.”


Definitions for charter

Chartered company

Colonial charter

Royal charter

Fictional Sovereign or State Corporations As Political Charters (A Fictional Idea or Fictional Noun)

List of sovereign states by date of formation

Crown corporations of Canada

Heads of Crown Corporations

Municipal corporation



City government in the United States : with a chapter on the Greater New York charter of 1897 (1894)

Page 1 – Chapter I. Government of American Cities

‘A CITY is a municipal corporation’


Commentaries on The Modern Law of Municipal Corporations including Public Corporations and Political and Governmental Corporations of Every Class

Page 17 – Chapter I. Introductory – Historical View.

§13. The state.

A state is a body politic, or society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength. In this country the term is, of course, applied to the members of the United States. The definition given above applies to the states of this country, and it is clear from that definition that each state is in many important respects a corporation.



The History of the Boroughs and Municipal Corporations of the United Kingdom


Doncaster Borough Charters 1194-1836

In paragraph six, we read:

‘…the royal grantors of the charters.’

(Note.- He who grants something is known as the grantor and is clearly the owner of what is granted as its creator.)

In paragraph eight, we read:

‘Finally, important official documents, like the charters, were not signed by the kings and queens who granted them. They were shown to be genuine not by having the monarch’s signature, but by having a copy of the monarch’s Great Seal attached to them, …’

(Note.- As with ‘constitutions’ charters should not be signed, since no one is in a position to validly enslave everyone according to their dictates. People can freely and willing choose to operate within the jurisdiction of such charters by accepting to recognise themselves as ‘fictions’ in order to reside and comply with the ‘rules’ of the fictional jurisdictional world of a charter.)


British borough charters, 1042-1216

The charters and letters patent granted to the borough by Richard I. and succeeding sovereigns

charter – a corporation brought into existence by charter. He who ‘creates or establishes’ the charter remains its owner.

Registrum honoris de Morton; a series of ancient charters of the earldom of Morton, with other original papers (1853)


The European Union

(Note. – The most important part of any legal document to consider is the preamble of a document, or where they define the contracting parties.)

Treaty Establishing the European Community

The preamble in paragraph 10 to this treaty provides the clue that the European Community is a corporation. This is quite in keeping with the notion of freewill. People possessing freewill do create, and that which is created by them is owned by them. What you create or ‘establish’, you rightly own. Those who wish to make use of what you own may do so by signing or admitting to being in the territorial jurisdiction of your creation. Of course, they are just as free to operate outside of that jurisdiction. Paragraph 10 reads as follows:

‘Have decided to create a European Economic Community…’




Treaty on European Union (consolidated version) Preamble EU Treaty (Maastricht 1992)

Another example of a corporation. What you establish you own as your creation. The phrase in question is to be found in the Table of Contents headed ‘Preamble’ and reads as follows:

‘HAVE DECIDED to establish a European Union…’



Maastricht Treaty

The Single European Act

The Single European Act Luxembourg – 17 February 1986

The Lisbon Treaty


Admiralty & Maritime Law Guide – Maritime Law by Country

Krakow’s Oldest Known City Charter Dates Back to 1257


Municipal Corporation

Municipal corporation


28 USC § 3002 – Definitions

 (15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;


 The Charter of The City of New York 1819



District of Columbia – Organic Act of 1871


Report of the Charter Revision Commission to the Governor of the State of New York (With Proposed Amendments) 1900

p.53 reads:


The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate

and Assembly, do enact as follows:

Section One. Chapter three hundred and seventyeight

of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninetyseven,

entitled “An act to unite into one municipality

under the corporate name of The City of New York, …

(Note.- By illustration, the members of the Senate and Assembly form the higher and lower executive employees, or high ranking agents of the corporation representing the stockholders, that is, the grantors, their assigns & beneficiaries; The people form the lower ranking contracting employees, or low ranking agents within the corporation; And the owners or stock-holders being the grantors, their assigns & beneficiaries of the corporation, remain hidden.)



Greater New York Charter of 1901



The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws


History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States




1774 – 1775

Organization of the First Continental Congress. – Origin of the Union

Last paragraph of page 3 and the beginning of page 4 reads:

‘The political organizations of the colonies have been classed by jurists and historians under the three heads of Provincial, Proprietary, and Charter governments.’

(Note. – These are all forms of corporations that refer to their jurisdictional territory and ownership within a larger fictional label-title or fictional corporate title, or fictional corporate country.)






Page 7 reads:

‘Their written constitutions had taken the place of the royal charters…’

 Page 16 reads:

‘So far as it could properly be called a government, it was a government for the States in their corporate capacities, with no power to reach individuals…’









 (Note.- The ‘common’ people can never acquire ownership since they are not the creators of these corporations. What is created remains in the ownership of its creator or creators and their assigns, despite the use of any ‘terms’ to be found in the instrument that ‘defines’ what has been created. For example, the term ‘people’. People are, of course, already ‘free’ on the land as ‘non-contracting parties or people’ under the jurisdiction of Natural Law. They are also ‘free’ to then contract with a fictional corporation in its fictional territory under its fictional jurisdiction, and become liable for the fictional corporations policies as, of course, ‘contracting-parties or people to an agreement’. If such contracts are no longer a benefit to people and they choose to remain contracted, then the position becomes one of Slavery By Consent:


The American Revolutionary War Never Ended


Definitive treaty of peace and friendship between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America [microform] : signed at Paris, the 3rd of September, 1783 (1783)


TO THE VICTOR, THE SPOILS – Transcript of Treaty of Paris (1783)

The United States is Still a British Colony

USA a British crown colony




The Virginia Company Of London, 1606-1624


Conquest ofVirginia, the third attempt, 1610-1624 : Virginia founded under the charters of 1609 and 1612 : an account based on original documents of the establishment of the colony, by the Virginia Company of London (1939)


The First Charter of Virginia; April 10, 1606


A short account of the first settlement of the provinces of Virginia, Maryland, New-York, New-Jersey, and Pennsylvania, by the English. To which is annexed a map of Maryland, according to the bounds mentioned in the charter, and also of the adjacent country, anno 1630. London: Printed in the year MDCCXXXV (1922)


A history of colonial Virginia : the first permanent colony in America, to which is added the genealogy of the several shires and counties and population in Virginia from the first Spanish colony to the present time (1923)


The Real Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States – Titles of Nobility and Honour

Titles of Nobility and Honour Thirteenth Amendment Ratification and Publication Table


Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom




The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Article VII.

Last paragraph reads in part:

‘In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,…’


Statutory Instruments 1997 No. 1778 SOCIAL SECURITY – The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997


Encyclopaedia Britannica

International Law


(Paragraph 1)

‘Jurisdiction refers to the power of a state to affect persons, property, and circumstances within its territory.’


The Avalon Project – Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy





It ‘must’ be firmly understood that you cannot be held to an agreement by someone signing or contracting on your behalf without your explicit permission. If someone is held in high esteem because of their title, position or office, they still cannot contract you to an agreement without your permission, or even present a contract to you without ‘full disclosure’. To do so would make such an arrangement ‘null and void’, that is, it would have no ‘effect and force’ of law as an obligation towards it. There is no law where you have not contracted – CONTRACT IS THE LAW.

Anyone may of course freely choose to contract themselves into something considered ‘virtuous’, like a pretended nations jurisdiction or the combined jurisdictions of those same nations presented as one large authority like, for instance, the European Union (EU). That is their ‘freewill’ prerogative to do so.

In realising the importance of naturally having the freewill to contract, it becomes clear that ‘no one’ has any business meddling in your affairs, or contracting you to an ‘agreement’ without your explicit permission, regardless of how important ‘they’ consider themselves to be or are considered to be. It is simply not their business or in their jurisdiction to do so, regardless of the antiquity of ‘their’ office or the reasons ‘they’ cite as to the antiquity of what ‘they’ represent, or even how good an idea it is they have, be it an idea of a country, nation, kingdom, subject, citizenry, union, constitution, and so on.

These manufactured ‘opinions’ of the many and varied fictional ideas produced and pronounced with earth-shaking gravitas are just that, ‘opinions’ that meddle in your life and have nothing to do with you unless you concede to them. This remains the reason why constitutions can never be signed. Someone cannot sign you onto their ‘opinions’ or somebody else’s ‘opinions’. The only signatures constitutions are likely to retain are signatures of the ‘witnesses’ to them. Witnesses are not party to a contract that ‘claims’ to speak for everyone else without each and every individuals personal and explicit consent first being given.

Constitutions must remain unsigned, because no one of SANITY would dare have the temerity, aside from the ‘barefaced cheek’, to sign or contract into an ‘opinion’, or others ‘opinions’, on someone else’s behalf, without even that someone else’s explicit permission to do so.

This is the reality of how we exist and relate to each other; without even accounting for the requirement and necessity of having to have ‘full disclosure’, with regards to making known the parties involved and where they are to be found, as well as the merits or disadvantages of any ‘agreement’, that must be presented personally and separately to each and every individual for there to be fairness in dealings between people.

Without ‘full disclosure’ as to the underlying implications (slavery) of any imposed and pretended agreement, as well as each and every individuals explicit permission or consent being sort to such an agreement, then such a contract or agreement becomes ‘null and void’.

Those who would accept what would be infact a ‘presentment to contract’ or ‘an offer of acceptance’, that is, an offer presented for acceptance, would be within ‘their rights’, only with regards to themselves, to accept such ‘presentments to contract’.

Whether those who accepted such presentments formed a majority, would be irrelevant to the individual who refused such offers of presentment’.

Such a position is an entirely reasonable one, since each and every individual is expected to take responsibility for their actions, and must do so, in order to exercise freewill. The farcical notion of thinking that you could have the option of imposing your views, opinions or agreements on others, simply because you formed a majority, would be tantamount to ‘endorsing slavery by majority’ – an absolute and total absurdity. ‘So much for’ democracy.

Nevertheless, how then is it possible to be made to honour contracts without your explicit permission, if it is reasonable to say that ‘no one’ has any business meddling in your affairs, or contracting you to an ‘agreement’ without your consent.


It is ‘full disclosure’ that reveals that an agreement can only apply to you if you admit or agree to being under the jurisdictional territory where agreements could be imposed on you even without your consent.

Admitting to using or residing in someone else’s territory would more than likely expose you to their rules.

The key to not being interfered with and having your affairs remain private, would then be to establish full disclosure and show that it had been met by verifying the meaning of terms without assuming you understood what was meant.

Since admitting to being in a jurisdictional territory where others claim authority to be able to impose agreements on you, even without your consent, by virtue of simply being or admitting to being in that territory, is altogether contrary to having your private affairs remain private, it would be then prudent to verify where the jurisdictional territory you agreed you were in, and that compelled a claim of having jurisdiction over it, and therefore over you, was to be found.

A good way of finding out where this jurisdictional territory is, would be to simply ask questions in the nature of,

‘What is the jurisdictional territory that you have jurisdiction over’ ?

‘Where is the jurisdictional territory to be found that you have jurisdiction over’ ?

‘Do you have any witnesses or are you a witness with factual evidence to show that I was in (name territory)’ ?

‘Can you define that jurisdictional territory by telling me where it is on the land’ ?

And finally, if need be, the pièce de résistance,

‘Do you have any witnesses or are you a witness with factual evidence that can show that I was in (jurisdictional territory name), including its territorial waters, seabed, and subsoil’ ?

For a more comprehensive list of geographic terms given after the wording, ‘include, includes, or including’, for the jurisdictional territory named

For a graphic representation

If there were a failure to provide answers to the questions you asked, these failed responses would then become

your facts or factual evidence

taken directly from the pretended jurisdictional authorities mouth

for your use in motioning a dismissal

based on ‘failure to show jurisdiction for a cause of action’ for whatever charge or charges were brought against you.

In this way, you could not be held liable for any claim made against you, in presenting what would be factual evidence taken from your questioning of those who claimed jurisdiction over you, by having them admit that you were never in their territorial jurisdiction.

Reference Source – Live Birth Certificate:



Maritime disputes

Maritime zones Australia.gif

It’s cold. It’s harsh. And it takes a lot of cash.

Surveillance zones and protected areas

Maritime Zones and Jurisdiction



Jurisdiction Over the Sea Bed and Subsoil Beyond Territorial Waters




Testimony of a banker 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.

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 $200,000 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 $200,000 note have actual cash value of $200,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $200,000 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 fulfil the agreement and legally own the promissory note?” The banker said, “$200,000.”

The attorney asked, “According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $200,000 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 $200,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $200,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $200,000 plus interest?”

The banker said, “No. If the borrower provided the $200,000 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 $200,000 bank loan, the bank receives $200,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $200,000 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 attorney again asked, “Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $200,000 which is used to fund a $200,000 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 $200,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $200,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $200,000 plus interest?”

The banker said, “No.”

The lawyer asked, “If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $200,000 which the bank used to fund the $200,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $200,000 to the borrower?”

The banker said, “No.”

The attorney asked, “If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $200,000 to the bank and the bank returns $200,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $200,000 for $200,000.”
The banker replied, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Did the agreement call for an exchange of $200,000 swapped for $200,000, or did it call for a $200,000 loan?”

The banker said, “A $200,000 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 publication Modern 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 $200,000 for $200,000?”

The banker said, “This is the standard way to do it.” The attorney said, “Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $200,000 actual cash value for $200,000 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, “$200,000.”

The attorney said, “Is it true you received $200,000 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 $200,000 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 $200,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?

The banker said, “No.”

Does this allow the bank to use this $200,000 actual cash value to fund the $200,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $200,000 plus interest? “

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney said, “If the bank transferred $200,000 actual cash value 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 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 $200,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 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 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 a wince 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.”

. . . And so it is!


How Bank Loans Really Work – This Is How Bankers Rob Us Blind

Testimony of a banker






The alleged Loan Contract = A PROMISSORY NOTE

Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 3 and 6

MPE™ video presentation

MPE™ in one day
(Note.- Read the comments or discussions section)

*Mike Montagne ( MPE ) with Live Mike on TNS radio. Aug 6th 2012
[Note.- The host of TNS radio does an excellent job in providing for an airing of mpe, however, as a point of observation that permits everyone to try and grasp the essential principles behind money (see: ‘THERE IS NO DEBT IT’S JUST YOUR IMAGININGS’ and ‘MISREPRESENTATION’ above as preliminary introductions on money), he fails to grasp the absolutely ‘natural’ necessity of having to provide and present your own representations, without interference, together with the natural opportunity correctly provided to you to be able to fulfil or make good on your promises to which those representations attach and correspond. This would be the only ‘just’ means of ‘naturally’ reflecting your private affairs, without interference from a third party whom by definition ought not to be involved whatsoever in any of your personal dealings – to which, as freewill accords – you chose to engage in. By this very means, your personal affairs remain your own and are not subject to distortion: At around 41:10 minutes, listen to the host of the programme to realise how easily one can slip back into the bankers and their proxies ‘corruptive thinking’ that allows them unwarranted interference in your affairs which would, as always, be detrimental to you.

Loss of income caused by banks as bad as a ‘world war’, says BoE’s Andrew Haldane