America's Hope - Thomas Schauf - Vol

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
This book explains in everyday English the federal

publications up to 1986 and what bankers explained to Tom.
Bankers told Tom that they want this to remain a secret. They
even tried to get Tom to swear to secrecy. The bankers wrote the
loan agreement. If it is good for America, why not explain all of
the details to all voters?
Tom says stop fighting the bankers and stop going to court.
Court is risky. Use the banking system to your advantage like
the judge, lawyer, sheriff, politician and CPA to accumulate
wealth or use the vote to change things.
Money can control the media, politicians, judges and the
church. Today's banking violates the Bible as the Church
remains silent. Why silent? The Church has a secret agreement
with the bank (IRS tax deductions) to remain silent as the
Church gets a financial benefit. 2 John 9-11 says stop supporting
the Church with false teaching. If you obey, the Church has to
tell the truth or have no money to operate. Why does the bank
need to control the Church? The answer is Revelations 13.
Someone working with the government in 1982 was working on
a national ID card to track all Americans by satellite. He was
scared, and explained how this would take all rights and
freedoms away. He said to expect a terrorist attack to convince
Americans to accept this new slavery. Banks fear that the
Church will object so the banks control what the preacher says
by money – the IRS tax deduction. (The IRS is the collection
agency for the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.)
Why support any church like this? Freedom costs. Bankers
fear voters will learn the truth and reject the bankers' agenda.
If you want to help us sell books and save America, send a
self-addressed, stamped envelope saying "I want to be a book
reseller," to:
Tom Schauf
c/o
P. O. Box 97015
Las Vegas, NV 89193-7015
Thanks for helping us save America.
Distributed locally by:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Thomas Schauf has a diverse background. He gradu-

ated from Northern Illinois University with a Bachelor of
Science with double majors in accounting and finance.
After graduation, he worked as a staff accountant for
Motorola. He worked for a small certified public account-
ing firm, owned and operated his own business brokerage
firm and certified public accounting practice. Over a pe-
riod of nearly ten years, he has testified in a number of
cases as an expert witness in business valuation, and has
taught the arts of business valuation, business acquisition
and negotiations to buyers, CPAs, and lawyers on a na-
tional level in colleges and major universities. He has
taught lawyers and thousands of CPAs the art of valua-
tion and negotiations in his copyrighted course designed
to meet continuing education requirements. He has been
a controller, and the head of purchasing and personnel for
a major manufacturing company. He was also a real es-
tate broker and aircraft flight instructor (CFII).
DISCLAIMER
People reselling the Top Secret Banker's Manual and books one
and two may offer consulting services and/or other products.
Please be aware that Tom Schauf has no partners and that any-
one you contract with for consultations or other services is act-
ing as an independent agent. Tom Schauf has no control over
what other people offer you as consultations, comments, ad-
vice, information or products. Tom Schauf is not liable for what
these others may offer or the results thereof.
America's Hope: To Cancel Bank
Loans Without Going to Court
Who funded the bank loan check, borrower or banker?

The bank loan concealment revealed.
If the bank paid their debt, you would be out of debt.
You be the judge and the jury and decide if a bank loan
is bank robbery in reverse.
Thomas Schauf
Nothing But The Truth Press

c/o Thomas Schauf
P.O. Box 97015
Las Vegas, NV 89193-7015
Notice: Mr. Schauf trained, hired and paid an
individual(s) who signed an agreement(s) of confiden-
tiality to write for Mr. Schauf. The agreement prohib-
ited the individual(s) from writing commercially for
others on Mr. Schauf's subject without Mr. Schauf's
written permission. After receiving the materials, this
party then refused to edit or write and wrote to Mr.
Schauf explaining they would not honor the agreement
and would use the money to write commercially for
another.
This information in this book is exclusively Mr.
Schauf's property. It is illegal to make a derivative of
this copyright. Please help us by informing us of any
derivative's of this copyright.
Copyright © 1997 by Thomas D. Schauf

Copyright was transferred to and is owned by a trust.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author.
Printed in the United States of America
Seventh Printing: April, 2002
10
Contents
INTRODUCTION 7
TEACHING METHOD 10
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11
PUBLIC NOTICE 12
DISCLAIMER 13
DEFINITIONS 15
1. HIGH SCHOOL POP QUIZ 23
2. SECRET BANKER'S MEETING 28
3. AMERICAN BANKING SYSTEM ON TRIAL 35
4. TWO BANKING SYSTEMS 39
5. UNITED STATES NOTES VS. FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES 45
6. FORMER FDIC BANK AUDITOR TELLS ALL 50
7. ACTUAL CASH VALUE 56
8. INTENT OF AGREEMENT 58
9. BANK AUDITOR FROM TEXAS 61
10. MORE AND MORE PROFESSIONALS JOINING TO SAVE
AMERICA .............................................................................................................. 63
11. HOW DOES SOCIETY VALUE MONEY? 66
12. WHAT IS MONEY IN AMERICA? 68
13. IS THE PROMISSORY NOTE MONEY ACCORDING TO THE
BANK? .................................................................................................................... 75
14. RANCHER STAMP 77
15. DID THE BANK DEPOSIT THE PROMISSORY NOTE? 78
16. THE SIGNATURE 86
17. WHO LOANED EXACTLY WHAT TO WHOM? 88
18. MONEY VERSUS CREDIT 91
19. WHAT IS A BANK LIABILITY? 93
20. CONSIDERATION 95
21. MONEY VERSES WEALTH 97
22. EXPERT WITNESS 101
23. FALSE WITNESS: FORM vs. SUBSTANCE 103
24. THE WITNESS STAND 107
25. HOW CREDIT CARD COMPANIES TRICK YOU 115
26. AMERICA'S NEWEST JOKES AND FAVORITE SAYINGS 116
27. SHORT STORIES 119
28. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW CANCELS YOUR
BANK LOAN...................................................................................................... 126
29. THE BANKERS' WAR 128
30. THE ORIGINAL AND LAWFUL THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA .............................................................................................................. 129
Revised 4/23/02
31. IS THE GOVERNMENT BANKRUPT? ..................................................... 133
32. INSOLVENCY......................................................................................................138
33. WHAT CREATES INFLATION? ................................................................... 140
34. WHAT CAUSES RECESSIONS AND DEPRESSIONS? ......................140
35. I FEAR BANKERS MORE THAN STANDING ARMIES ...................142
36. LED INTO THE TRAP WITHOUT KNOWING IT-
DECEIVED AND BEING DECEIVED....................................................... 144
37. DO MONOPOLIES CONTROL AND FLEECE THE PEOPLE? ....... 146
38. HOW CAN THE BANKS LOSE MONEY? ...............................................148
39. IF BANKS ARE CREATING ALL THAT MONEY,
WHY IS THERE NOT MORE INFLATION? ..................................... 150
40. IS THERE A MEDIA BLACKOUT? ............................................................ 151
41. MEDIA AND THE INTERNET ......................................................................152
42. FOR THOSE WHO SAY THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY,
EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING.......................................................................153
43. SECRET BANKER'S MANUAL REVEALS ALL ................................. 155
44. ECONOMIC SOLUTION .................................................................................157
45. STRATEGY TO GET AMERICANS OUT OF DEBT ............................161
46. WHY WE SHOULD CARE WHERE THE MONEY
CAME FROM.......................................................................................162
47. QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK TOM SCHAUF ........................................... 163
48. THE BANK BOOKKEEPING ENTRIES PROVE THE TRUTH ...... 173
49. QUOTES.................................................................................................................182
50. LAW OF THE LAND ........................................................................................ 216
51. YOU BE THE JUDGE ......................................................................... 216
52. WARNING.............................................................................................................220
53. THE FUTURE AND YOUR INVESTMENTS...................................229
54. MORE DECEPTION AND GREED TO FOOL PEOPLE .....................231
55. YESTERYEAR AND THE FUTURE ...........................................................234
56. OUR MISTAKE - THEIR GAIN ....................................................................237
57. MY RELATIONSHIP TO RESELLERS ......................................................239
58. ANCIENT HISTORY .........................................................................................239
59. SHOULD I SUE THE BANK ......................................................................... 243
60. HELP WANTED .................................................................................................. 245
61. YOUR RIGHTS, THE LAW, AND STOPPING TYRANNY ...............246
62. WHAT DOES TOM SCHAUF STAND FOR? ..........................................253
63. LEARN THE SECRETS OF MAKING MONEY ....................................256
BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................258
AFFIDAVIT..................................................................................................................261
ORDERING BOOKS................................................................................................262
America's Hope: To Cancel Bank Loans
Without Going to Court
INTRODUCTION
If the government issued cash using United States Notes

(cash) interest free, like President Andrew Jackson, President
Abraham Lincoln, and President John F. Kennedy, the national
debt could be zero, your personal income tax could be zero,
and the average American could have very little, if any, debt.
History shows President Kennedy was assassinated within a
few months of issuing United States Notes. Upon his death,
President Johnson immediately replaced the United States Notes
with Federal Reserve Notes. If President Kennedy had lived
and continued printing United States Notes interest free, tens
of trillions of dollars the banks now have would be in the hands
of American citizens. If he had lived, the national debt could
be zero and your personal income tax cut to zero.
For every dollar of United States Notes issued by the gov-
ernment interest free, the citizens have one less dollar of tax
and one less dollar of debt. Economically speaking, a United
States Note gives the citizens an economic benefit similar to
having gold or silver currency. Only the government can create
money, giving bankers and non-bankers equal protection. Banks
must only loan other depositors' money and stop creating money
like a counterfeiter.
The banks demand that only they print the money and loan
it to the government at interest, creating the national debt of
five trillion dollars. The banks create money and loan it to citi-
zens as they buy homes, cars and farms. For every dollar the
banks print and loan to citizens, the citizens have one more
dollar of debt. The banks believe it is good business to create
money, loan it out, and force you into more debt paying them
interest.
If your neighbor could counterfeit money and loan it out at
interest, he would be rich. If he was not stopped, he would end
up loaning money to nearly every person owning a home, car,
farm, or business. Nearly everyone in America would be pay-
7
ing your neighbor interest or he would foreclose and own the

property. This is why counterfeiters go to jail. Economically
speaking, there is little or no difference between your neighbor
counterfeiting money and the banks creating money and loan-
ing it out at interest.
The Revolutionary War was fought to stop banks from cre-
ating money and loaning it out. The Constitution allowed gold
and silver as currency, prohibiting banks from creating money.
This is why the media and the banks hate the Constitution.
America's history shows that the banking system has
changed from one where the government issues the money, to
one where the banks issue the money. When enough people wake
up, the government will issue the money once again and people
will become debt free. If we remain asleep, the banks will con-
tinue to create money and the people will end up having huge
debts. The people are waking up once more, pushing for the
government to follow presidents Andrew Jackson, Abraham
Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. All we need do is follow these
great American presidents and expose those who would sup-
port the enemies of our Revolutionary War.
Educated people want United States Notes issued interest
free and banks want to create money and loan it out. This is the
secret the media tries to hide, the bankers try to conceal, the
judges ignore, and the lawmakers support. Obviously they have
a financial interest in creating money and loaning it out at in-
terest. If the American population knew the truth and under-
stood why we fought the Revolutionary War, they would vote
out every lawmaker, judge and policeman aiding and abetting
the banks.
This is why this book is sweeping the nation. People are
talking and informing others. Brochures and cassette tapes are
being copied and distributed. If we followed president Abraham
Lincoln and the Constitution and if the banks paid their debts,
the national debt would be eliminated, personal income tax
eliminated and people would be out of debt in a short time.
Please join us in exposing the truth. Be a leader. Tell your
friends. Get groups of people to pass out the brochures, copy
the cassette tape and lend out the book to others. When enough
8
Americans learn the truth and what the media has hidden from
us, every real American will want to follow presidents Jack-
son, Lincoln and Kennedy and eliminate our debt.
All freedom-loving Americans who believe in the Revolu-
tionary War, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, join us in
getting this message out so we can get the support of the Ameri-
can people. We cannot correct it if we all believe a lie. But we
can correct it if enough Americans learn the truth and want out
of their loans. It will be up to you to save America.
9
TEACHING METHOD
To make things simple, this book will begin with the basic
concepts. These concepts will be repeated with new informa-
tion added as we progress. Different illustrations will be added
with more sophisticated arguments and teaching given. The goal
is to have an average, non-banker able to argue the bank loan
agreement like a CPA expert witness.
Key concepts will be repeated a number of times in various

illustrations to be certain you understand the idea. If you do
not understand the key concepts, you will be lost. For those
who understand it the first time, please be patient with those
who need repetition. About half of the population needs
repetition to grasp new concepts and many people who claim to
understand without repetition find that upon being examined,
they do not. It is important that bankers know this book ex-
plains to everyone exactly how to argue the bank loan agree-
ment like a CPA expert witness.
Experience has shown that even a competent CPA bank

auditor occasionally requires 20 minutes of instruction on some
of the concepts included in this book, while others understand
these concepts immediately. Therefore, we have chosen to re-
peat some of the material more than once, in slightly different
words, and with different examples, to be sure that non-profes-
sionals can clearly grasp the information.
The goal of this book is to arm you with the information

you will need to argue against a CPA expert witness, and win!
10
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ancient history records leaders like Hannibal and Caesar

fighting against the bankers. No book would be complete with-
out acknowledging the Bible's condemnation of today's bank-
ing system. Moses gave the bookkeeping entries of today's bank-
ers and condemned it. History acknowledges Moses as the first
lawgiver prohibiting today's banking system. The Apostle Paul
called it a swindle. The Apostle Paul insisted anyone involved
in this practice be thrown out of the church.
President Andrew Jackson fought the moneychangers and
won his battle. He read and believed the Bible. President Jack-
son followed the Bible's condemnation of today's banking sys-
tem. President Jackson declared that, "the Bible is the rock on
which our Republic rests. I thank the President and Congress
for making PL 97-280, 96 Stat 1211 law proclaiming the Bible
to be the "WORD OF GOD." This law allows Americans to use
their religious beliefs in condemning the banking practice.
I thank Attorney General Janet Reno for her statement: "It
is very important... that Congress represent the people of the
United States and not one special interest group." I thank Judge
Martin Mahoney for admitting that the banks operate contrary
to public policy.
11
PUBLIC NOTICE
This book was not written with the aim of overthrowing

the government. This book is designed to expose the truth of
the bank loan agreement and illustrate its economic effect on
Americans. It is explained in everyday terms that people can
relate to and understand. This book is pro-American and pro-
claims Americans' right to free speech and the practice of reli-
gion. I am merely putting forward this information as part of
my political platform as a candidate for President of the United
States.
THIS BOOK IS PROHIBITED FROM BEING USED IN
COURT. It is not designed to be used in court and people are
prohibited from using it as an exhibit in court. You may, how-
ever, take notes and use those notes, questions, and Federal
Reserve Bank publications as court exhibits — but use of this
book is prohibited. Upon receipt of this book, the reader agrees
not to use the information contained herein as an exhibit in court.
If the government, bank, or any other agency attempts to
stop this book from being distributed, by accident or design, or
if I die or am placed in jail to silence this book, steps have been
taken to copy this information and have it distributed from hun-
dreds of locations throughout the nation. This will happen if
there is any attempt to suppress this information.
The banks may create a depression or a cashless society as
a result of this book. We must inform as many Americans as
quickly as possible to be sure everyone knows the truth and
who to blame. I believe that if brochures are copied and dis-
tributed like wildfire, the banks will not dare create a depres-
sion in order to force us into a cashless society, or try to call a
constitutional convention to end our rights. America's future is
up to you. Please spread the word quickly.
12
DISCLAIMER
This book is based solely on the definitions as given in this

book, as well as Federal Reserve Bank publications and stan-
dard bank bookkeeping entries. This book presumes equal pro-
tection under the law and that all material facts must be dis-
closed in an agreement. The basic presumption of this book is
that a loan is not an exchange.
I am not claiming that bankers, politicians, or CPAs are
criminals. I believe the general public is misled as to the truth
of the bank loan agreement regarding who provided the origi-
nal capital in funding the bank loan check. The general public
is misinformed as to the economic consequences of such bank-
ing processes. This book will not claim that bankers are crimi-
nals, but endeavors to show the general public the economic
effect of a transaction according to the bookkeeping entries.
The reader must use the glossary of terms unique to this book.
(Example: "counterfeit" is defined as private banks creating
money. "Stealing" or "theft" is defined as the bank obtaining
the borrower's promissory note (loan agreement) without loan-
ing one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money.) The
words counterfeit, theft, larceny, etc. have been used to describe
similar or like economic effects. In this way, non-accountants
can understand the real cost and risk of the bank loan agree-
ment. I have written this book according to my research, belief,
theory, and religious conviction.
THIS BOOK CANNOT BE USED IN A GOVERNMENT
COURT AS EVIDENCE. Attorneys representing banks may
contact me to help stop this book from being entered as evi-
dence in court. I refuse to be the expert witness or testify in
court unless I agree in writing and am paid to do so. This book
was written to create a political solution, not to correct the bank
problem in court. A political solution will save the economy
and the nation. We must be responsible and protect the economy.
I believe we have the best government and nation in the world,
13
and we should use the vote we have to correct the nation's prob-
lems. Before one can vote intelligently, one must know the
whole truth.
The problem is that people believe that the bank agreement
discloses all material facts. Borrowers would never dream that
the Federal Reserve Bank publications show that the banks do
the opposite of what most borrowers believe. This book will
present evidence allowing the reader to be the judge and jury
and decide for themselves if there is a fraud or not. According
to certified public accounting ethics, I believe I must tell the
truth about this banking system.
No other party is to speak on my behalf. If I did not publish
an idea or piece of information or place it in writing and sign it,
I take no responsibility for it. I am concerned that people will
misquote me or take my meaning out of context. By changing
one word, the entire meaning can be obscured. Therefore, I ask
that people not quote me or this book.
Do your own research before taking any legal action. Tom
Schauf is not giving legal advice — he is merely giving informa-
tion to become elected. This book is based on information be-
lieved to be correct, but it is up to you to research it. It is pos-
sible that the FED may change their publications in the future
in order to change their previous quotes.
This book uses information from Federal Reserve Bank
publications up to 1996. After 1996 I do not know what Fed-
eral Reserve Bank publications will say. Do your own research.
14
DEFINITIONS
The definitions of words in this book are unique and only

pertain to this book. It is suggested that one use a law dictio-
nary for legal definitions of words used in this book.
Agreement: Written terms and conditions between two or

more parties stating specific performance each party must do
to bind the other party to the agreement. There is no agreement
without mutual consent. There can be no mutual consent if there
was a concealment and one party did the opposite of what was
expected. Material facts must be disclosed, authorization must
be granted, permission must be obtained, and adequate consid-
eration (money) must be given to have an agreement. Example:
In the agreement, who was to provide the funds to issue the
bank loan check? Was it the borrower or the bank? Was the
bank to loan you legal tender as consideration loaned to obtain
the promissory note or was the bank to loan you the opposite of
legal tender? The cost and risk of the agreement changes sig-
nificantly depending on the answers.
Asset: Anything owned that can be sold. A car, house, legal

tender, promissory note, securities, and bonds can be sold, so
they are assets to the one who owns them. Banks record legal
tender as a bank asset. Banks also record owing legal tender as
a bank liability.
Bank agent: Anyone who benefits from the current banking

system and/or is responsible for enforcing the banking system.
Bank employees, police, attorneys, media, judges, lawmakers,
and anyone aiding and abetting the trustees (Congress) of the
bankruptcy of the United States. Anyone dependent or benefit-
ing from favors of bank money, either directly or indirectly, or
loans to be in business. A foreign agent or unregistered foreign
agent representing a foreign interest, such as judges, police,
15
and attorneys as in U.S.C. Title 22, Sections 610 - 615, or in

any court case making them foreign agents, or any other law.
Bank-controlled media and publishing companies: Any

media or publishing company that is biased in favor of the cur-
rent banking operation or refuses to give equal time and repre-
sentation to exposing the whole truth as outlined in this book.
Media which has bank debt and is dependent on the bank to
renew the loan or where the bank may withdraw the loan. Me-
dia which is dependent on advertising dollars whereby a bank
can ask borrowers not to advertise with such media that expose
the whole truth and nothing but the truth concerning the al-
leged bank loans.
Bond: A bond is a promissory note — an IOU agreeing to re-

pay the principle plus interest.
Check: The Federal Reserve Board defines a check as "a

draft or order upon a bank or banking house purporting to be
drawn upon a deposit of funds for the payment at all events of a
certain sum of money to a certain person therein named or to
him or his order or to bearer and payable instantly on demand"
(definition as per Black's Law Dictionary). Please do not for-
get that the bank claims a bank liability is a debt. To make a
checking account balance into money, equal protection must
be denied and money must be redefined to mean the opposite,
or the promissory note is money or check kiting. It appears the
bank may lead people to believe it is check kiting if one writes
a check without first having a checking account balance (asset)
to match the amount of the check. The checking account bal-
ance has no value without legal tender, recorded as a bank as-
set, offsetting the liability. The check merely transfers a bank
liability checking account balance from one checking account
to another. A check is not money. A check acts LIKE money
because you can exchange it for cash.
Consideration: The reason for entering into the agreement.

Consideration must be something of value, such as an asset or
16
legal tender (cash). A check written without first depositing an

asset (money) so that the check can be cashed is illegal consid-
eration. If the check was the funds loaned to obtain the promis-
sory note, then the promissory note cannot be used to fund the
check. If the promissory note were used to fund the check, then
the check cannot be the consideration loaned to obtain the prom-
issory note because the bank owned the promissory note before
the check paid for it. Either the promissory note had to be loaned
to the bank or the bank stole the promissory note to fund the
check. Stealing the promissory note means that no valuable con-
sideration was given to obtain the promissory note.
Counterfeit(er): To forge. To alter or change a document

after it was signed without knowledge or permission or autho-
rization of all parties signing the document. An intent to de-
ceive by passing the forged document as a genuine one that
was not altered. Example: after the promissory note was signed,
the bank stamps the back of the instrument, thus allowing the
bank to use the promissory note to fund the check. The bank
created money.
Counterfeit money: For purposes of this book, this means

money banks created or caused to be created and loaned at in-
terest. It does not necessarily mean the banks committed a crime.
Credit: The postponement of the payment of money. The

postponement of the payment of money cannot be transferred
by check if a check must have a sum certain of money to make
it valid. Is the promissory note money or credit? The definition
of a promissory note means the promissory note must be paid
in money. How can it be money and mean money is owed at the
same time unless there is more than one kind of money, legal
and non-legal tender, at the same time?
Damage: In court you cannot win damage awards without

showing you were damaged. One has a damage if one is the
victim of a theft. The bank believes they were damaged if you
do not repay the loan. Likewise, you were damaged if the bank
17
did not loan you other depositors' money or if the bank refused
to repay the loan from you to the bank.
Deposit: Money or negotiable instruments (checks) or com-

mercial paper (promissory notes) handed to a bank; the bank
credits a checking account, demand deposit account, savings
account, or certificate of deposit, creating a bank liability. The
depositor loaned the bank money or funds, allowing the de-
positor to withdraw the money deposited or loaned to the bank.
Equal protection: Bankers and nonbankers having the same

rights. Bankers cannot create money or credit and loan it out to
nonbankers.
Exchange: Trading value for value. To barter or swap. Ex-

ample: You give the bank something of value worth $100 and
they swap it for something of value worth $100, giving you
back $100. A $100 loan is where one party hands $100 to an-
other party, to be repaid at a later date. Stealing $100 from one
party and returning the $100 back to the victim is not a loan.
The stolen $100 does not legally belong to the thief; it belongs
to the victim. An exchange is not a loan. Chicago Federal Re-
serve Bank publication Modern Money Mechanics (p. 6) claims
the bank exchanged the promissory note for credit in the
borrower's transaction account and called it a loan. The bank
simply redefined the word exchange and called it a loan. The
borrower hands the lender $100 and the lender hands the $100
back to the borrower, claiming the lender loaned the borrower
$100. For this exchange, the borrower must pay a fee as if there
was a loan. The borrower lost $100, the lender gained $100,
and, for this privilege, the borrower must repay the $100 plus
interest.
Forgery: Counterfeit. Most people think it means your sig-

nature was signed by another person, however, a forgery in-
cludes changing a document after it was signed. When the docu-
ment was signed and then altered, your signature becomes null
and void.
18
Fraud: Intentionally perverting the truth for the purpose of

inducing others to rely on a lie or misinformation. False state-
ments or half-truths and half-lies, with the other party relying
on such information to enter into an agreement, in order to have
the party part with something of value, such as a legal right or
property. Knowing one will breach the agreement before enter-
ing into the agreement . Example: The bank claims they will
make you a loan. The bank conceals that there is a loan from
you to the bank exchanged for a loan from the bank back to
you. It was concealed; the bank never loaned you one cent of
legal tender that existed before you signed the agreement to be
loaned as consideration to obtain your promissory note. The
bank called an exchange a loan and never repaid the loan from
you to the bank. The bank received your property for free in-
stead of loaning you legal tender to obtain your promissory note,
thus changing the cost and the risk without the borrower being
aware. The bank's omission, concealment, false statement, and
breach of agreement changed the cost and risk. If people un-
derstood, they would have voted out every lawmaker, judge,
and police official aiding and abetting such a practice. This is
why the bank hides the truth.
Fraudulent concealment: The hiding and/or suppression of

facts which would significantly change the cost or risk of an
alleged agreement. To mislead the borrower as to which party
supplied the capital to fund the bank loan check. In or out of
court, misleading or hindering the acquisition of information
disclosing a right or transaction in an alleged contract or agree-
ment. Planning to escape investigation, suppressing the truth,
or preventing inquiry to the truth.
Interest: The charge for the use of borrowed money, not the
opposite of money or the postponement of the payment of
money.
Larceny: To steal. Theft by gaining possession of another

party's property by using a trick, fraud, or policy or device de-
signed to convert the property into another party's possession
19
and having the economic effect of a theft. Depositing a promis-

sory note instead of loaning legal tender to obtain ownership of
the promissory note. Placing an illegal lien on property with-
out fulfilling the agreement. Originating or reinforcing a false
i mpression and not correcting the false impression or prevent-
ing one from obtaining the truth as to the correct information
regarding the real cost and risk of the transaction in the alleged
agreement which might change the judgment of a party enter-
ing into the agreement. Example: Was it an exchange and then
charged as if there was a loan, or was there a loan? Who pro-
vided the capital to fund the check? Exactly who was to loan
exactly what to whom?
Liability: A bank liability means the bank owes a depositor

legal tender (cash). A liability is a debt, IOU, checking account
balance, demand deposit account, savings account, certificate
of deposit, or check. An unpaid obligation. A scorecard of how
much legal tender or cash the bank owes depositors. A promise
to pay. A liability is something you owe. A promissory note is
owing money. A liability is a legally enforceable claim on the
assets of a bank. Transferring a liability by check from one
checking account to another checking account is not payment
of a liability. The liability remains on the bank books. Payment
of a liability is proven when the liability no longer remains on
the member bank's balance sheets. A bank liability is recorded
in the accounting books on the far right hand column of num-
bers.
Lien: The right to someone's property or assets as a result

of money they owe or are in default of paying. The bank re-
ceives the lien on your house if you take out a loan. If you do
not repay the loan, the lien on the house allows the lender to
foreclose and obtain the house.
Loan: Money or asset advanced or delivered to another party

to be repaid at a later date with or without interest. The agree-
ment can be expressed or implied. Example: If a bank receives
a promissory note from a borrower and records the promissory
20
note as a loan from the borrower to the bank, the bank assets
and liabilities increase by the amount of the loan to the bank.
When a bank claims it granted a loan, the bank's assets and
liabilities increase by the amount of the promissory note. It is
the same situation if the bank received the promissory note in a
fraudulent conversion and loaned the value of the stolen prop-
erty back to the victim. The question is, did the bank hide this
transaction? Did the borrower give the bank permission? Did
the borrower have knowledge? If there was no knowledge, how
can there be mutual understanding or an agreement? Was it a
loan, theft, or did the borrower have knowledge? According to
the accounting records, it is either a loan to the bank or it is a
theft. According to the accounting records, at a minimum it is
an implied loan to the bank because the bank recorded it as
such. You have a right to receive the loan back in "its equiva-
lent in kind", meaning you have the right to receive the princi-
pal and interest paid to the bank. If it was stolen, most people
would want their stolen property back.
Misleading: Delusive, to misrepresent, to deceive, and to

lead astray.
Money: As defined in this book, money must be a bank

asset. In this book, the Federal Reserve Bank defines money as
a bank liability. This book believes a bank liability is not money.
For illustrative purposes, in this book, the word money can be
used as the bank's definition of money being a bank liability.
The point of the book is to show money (legal tender) is re-
corded as a bank asset. Owing legal tender is a bank liability. If
owing money is money, then it is the opposite of legal tender.
The bank deals in legal tender and the opposite of legal tender
(checkbook money) and call both money. Treasury Notes, not
Federal Reserve Notes, are called United States Notes.
Promissory fraud: When the bank claimed they would loan

you a bank check payable in cash and when the bank policy
showed intent to breach the agreement and use the promissory
note to fund the same check that was to be the loan consider-
21
ation for the promissory note, it was a misrepresentation of the

lender's agreement and advertising.
Promissory note: A promise to return money loaned to a

borrower with or without interest. An unconditional promise to
pay a sum certain in money. Please note, it does not say the
opposite of money or credit, which is the postponement of the
payment of money.
Stolen: Theft, receiving something for free when you agreed

to loan something of value. A plan to deny another party equal
possession under the law, money, credit, or agreement to ob-
tain something for nothing. A dishonest act or wrongdoing to
willfully retain control of another party's property without au-
thorization or beyond authorization and permission given, with
intent to deprive the party of their property. For purposes of
this book, stolen or theft means the bank obtained the promis-
sory note or credit card agreement without earning the money
to loan, like nonbankers earn money, and/or without loaning
one cent of other depositors' money, and by creating money or
bank liabilities to obtain the bank loan agreement, promissory
note, or credit card agreement. Example: The bank records the
promissory note on the bank's assets and increases the bank's
liabilities. The bank obtained the promissory note for free sim-
ply by increasing the bank's debt and not paying the debt and
making it appear that the bank paid for the promissory note by
transferring the debt to another person by means of a check.
The banks could obtain the liens on the nation's assets and na-
tional debt simply by increasing the bank's debts and not pay-
ing them. To steal.
Thief or theft: Obtaining the promissory note without the

bank loaning other depositors' money and by creating money
having the economic effect of counterfeiting. Obtaining the
promissory note by increasing the bank liabilities. To steal.
United States Notes: This book refers to Silver Certificates,

Greenbacks, and paper money issued interest-free by the gov-
22
ernment as United States Notes. A note is an obligation. By

being a United States Note, it shows whose obligation it is to
pay. Generally speaking, it is obvious that a United States Note
is cash and is not paid but merely circulated as money or re-
deemed for silver or gold. For purposes of this book, we are
only looking at the general economic effect — not long-winded
legal arguments on exact theories of paper money or gold and
silver coins.
Wealth: Property/asset which has value and can be sold.

Wealth includes your labor, because labor is exchanged for
goods and services. People barter wealth for other people's
wealth. For example: ten chickens exchanged for one pig. To-
day, money is used to help facilitate exchanging wealth.
These terms are designed to illustrate the economic effect

of the bank loan agreement using everyday language. The au-
thor is not claiming the bankers are criminals. You are the judge
and jury, and you decide whether there is a fraud and whether
we should vote to cancel your bank loans.
1. HIGH SCHOOL POP QUIZ
Mr. Jefferson taught high school economics. The class was

studying recessions and learned that banks create recessions to
increase their profits and that recessions and bank loans were
directly related. Mr. Jefferson taught from the Federal Reserve
Bank publications. After he taught the class about bank loans,
he gave a pop quiz. Mr. Jefferson ordered his class to clear their
desks and take out a piece of paper and a pen. He gave the class
one essay problem: Using everyday language, explain the eco-
nomic effect of a $100,000 bank loan.
The first student wrote, "There are two banking systems.

Under the U.S. Constitution, everyone has equal protection
23
under the law. There is no economic effect of stealing or coun-

terfeiting. The banks loan out other depositors' money to bor-
rowers. We fought the Revolutionary War to stop the European
banking system because it denies us equal protection. Under
the European banking system, the banks do not loan other de-
positors' money. The banks create the money like a counter-
feiter and loan out the newly created money. Counterfeiting and
stealing have the same economic effect because the bank ends
up with nearly all the property for free. If a counterfeiter could
create all the money he wanted, he would create money and
loan it out. Soon the counterfeiter would own the promissory
notes (bank loan agreement promising to repay the loan) and
the liens (a creditor's claim against your house or car to insure
repayment on the loan) on nearly every house, car, farm, and
business in the nation. It is like printing money to buy all the
property and renting it back to the citizens. The lender (coun-
terfeiter) owns the liens and collects the interest for free, just
like buying the property and collecting rent. It is like stealing
the property and renting it back to the victim of the theft. Coun-
terfeiting is more sinister than stealing; people can easily see
an out and out theft and use their vote to stop it. Counterfeiting
is not as easily seen. People think they are loaned other deposi-
tors' money, but the lender knows it is new money that was
created as if by a counterfeiter. Modern day bankers know bet-
ter than to counterfeit cash and go to jail, so they create check-
book money. They know your labor produces a payroll check.
Your labor is worth money. American bankers merely shift the
value of your future payroll checks to their pocket for free un-
der the guise of a loan. Thus, they receive the liens on the
nation's assets for free and charge the citizens interest on what
was taken. Counterfeiting creates inflation and devalues money,
destroying the property of other citizens.
People are fooled into thinking that the banks give deposi-
tors' interest so they can loan the money out. The truth is, the
banks agree to only create new money in relation to money on
deposit. Example: if the bank has $1,000 on deposit, it can cre-
ate $900 in new money (which people call checkbook money).
They loan out the $900 of checkbook money knowing few
24
people use cash. People use cash for small purchases and checks
for larger purchases.
Under the constitutional banking system, the people own
their homes, cars, farms, and businesses with very little debt
compared to the European banking system. in the European sys-
tem, for every dollar counterfeited and loaned, at the moment
the loan papers are signed, one dollar of wealth is immediately
transferred from the citizen's pocket to the banker's pocket for
free. Just before the American Revolutionary War, the colo-
nists used colonial scrip (money) under a constitutional bank-
ing system. In a sinister plot to obtain the colonists' property
for free, King George of England forced the citizens into a Eu-
ropean banking system, thereby allowing the banks to obtain
nearly all the colonists' property for free and forcing them to
pay interest on what was taken. According to founding father
Benjamin Franklin, this was one of the primary reasons for the
Revolutionary War. The Constitution prohibits the European
banking system by requiring gold and silver money and equal
protection. Imagine if Congress forced the citizens to surren-
der their assets to the bankers for free. Then the bankers re-
turned the value of the assets back to the citizens as loans from
the bankers to the citizens. Imagine Congress allowing bankers
to legally steal or counterfeit."
Mr. Jefferson was amazed to see how well this student un-
derstood the two banking systems and gave him an "A."
The next student wrote, "Think of the United States as a

big casino. One can use cash to buy dinner or cigarettes. If you
wish to play the slot machines, however, you must use casino
tokens. There are two kinds of money, cash and tokens. Tokens
are the private money used within the casino. Players trade $100
cash for 100 tokens. The law requires the casino to have one
dollar of cash or cash equivalent (an asset that can be sold for
cash) on hand for every token the casino issues. If you have 25
tokens left at the end of the day, you may exchange them for
$25 cash. Nearly everyone uses tokens because they are more
convenient than cash. Merchants outside the casino accept them
25
as money because their value is equal to cash. The casino bank

offers loans of 100,000 tokens if the borrower signs a $100,000
promissory note agreeing to repay the tokens. The $100,000
promissory note can be sold for $100,000 cash, so the promis-
sory note meets the legal requirements to be a cash equivalent.
The casino uses the promissory note to issue and fund 100,000
newly created tokens. The casino received $100,000 value from
the alleged borrower for free, used it to create new tokens, and
returned the same $100,000 back to the alleged borrower as a
loan. Receiving the promissory note for free is like receiving
stolen property. Nothing of value was loaned to obtain it. The
new tokens are like new money, like counterfeit money. It is
like stealing and counterfeiting rolled into one transaction un-
der the appearance of a legal transaction. The agreement only
agreed to use the promissory note to repay a loan, not finance
new tokens given back as a loan. The tokens are not legal if the
promissory note did not fund the value of the tokens. If the
note funded the value of the tokens, the bank loaned nothing of
value to the borrower. It is like depositing $150, with the bank
returning the $150 back to the depositor as a bank loan; the
bank loaned nothing to own the $150 deposit. The bank does
not legally own the promissory note until the bank fulfills the
agreement and first loans $100,000 of actual cash value to the
borrower. The borrower expected tokens to be backed by other
depositors first depositing cash, not the casino owner using the
value of the promissory note to fund the newly issued tokens.
If the bank received the promissory note for free, it is the same
as a thief getting your future payroll checks for free when they
are used to make the loan payments. Stealing future payroll
checks, or stealing a car and selling it for cash, and depositing
the payroll checks, or cash from the car sale, and then return-
ing the money back to the victim as a loan is really stealing, not
a true loan. Bankers know that no one in their right mind would
agree to this, so the written agreement conceals the fact that
the bank does not loan other depositors' money, and the bank
gets the money from the borrower for free and returns it to the
victim as a loan. If you replace the word `token' with the words
`checkbook money,' you just described American banking."
26
Mr. Jefferson was amazed at the student's insight and gave

him an "A+".
Another student wrote, "The bank acts like a moneychanger

and charges you a fee as if there was a loan. You loan the bank
a $100,000 promissory note that can be sold for $100,000 cash.
The bank invests nothing and records receiving the $100,000
promissory note as a loan from you to the bank, thus funding
the loan from the bank back to you. A $100,000 loan from you
to the bank was exchanged for a $100,000 loan from the bank
back to you. It is like exchanging a newly created IOU for an-
other newly created IOU. The bank demands that we use the
bank's IOU as new money (counterfeit) and the bank never pays
their IOU. Then, we must work to earn the bank IOU (money)
to repay the principal and interest on the loan from the bank to
us. The bank even got the people to call the bank IOU check-
book money. When people use checks, they use the IOU as if it
was money. It is like exchanging $100,000 of American money
for the same value of German money and then having the bank
charge a $100,000 fee, plus interest, for the transaction. It is
like depositing $100,000 of future payroll checks at the bank
and withdrawing the money as a loan from the bank to you."
The teacher gave him an "A."
The next student proposed that it was like the old gold-
smiths of several hundred years ago. Everyone deposited their
gold at the goldsmith for safekeeping. The goldsmith gave the
depositors a gold receipt showing the amount of gold coins
deposited. The merchants used the gold receipts like money,
knowing they could exchange the receipts for gold coins. Soon
there were few people using the gold coins. Instead, they were
using the receipts as money. The goldsmiths realized they could
create gold receipts without actually having the gold to back it,
because few people ever asked to exchange the receipts for gold.
The goldsmiths advertised that they could loan money at 10%
interest. People flocked to the goldsmiths. Farmers agreed to
lien their farms and sign promissory notes. The goldsmiths cre-
27
ated new gold receipts (promissory notes agreeing to pay gold

coins), because people used these receipts as money instead of
the gold coins. Instead of loaning $100,000 of gold, the gold-
smith received $100,000 in actual value of gold for free (he
received the borrower's promissory note for free and could sell
it for gold). The goldsmith created new money like a counter-
feiter when he created new gold receipts (tokens) and loaned
them out. If you replace the word gold receipt with checkbook
money, you just described today's American banking system.
Mr. Jefferson gave him an "A+." He congratulated the stu-

dent, saying that using the example of gold receipts was an ex-
cellent way to explain the banking system.
We will use this illustrative pop quiz as a building block
and add to this concept as we go along.
2. SECRET BANKER'S MEETING

I believe we have the best government in the world. I per-
sonally believe that neither government officials nor the voters
understand banking procedures and money transactions the way
bankers do. I have talked to certified public accountants who
were themselves confused, so I can certainly see how Congress
and the President could be confused. This book is designed to
clear up the confusion, giving you the methods to cancel bank
loans without going to court.
To best illustrate the problem, I present the following hy-
pothetical story. This book will prove that the economic and
political effect illustrated in this story has happened in America.
An invitation went out to the top bankers in the world, ask-

ing them to meet and discuss how they could work in unison to
increase bank profits. A month later, a dozen of the top bankers
met in secret. Before the meeting began, they stood around talk-
ing about the good old days. One of them said, "If only we
28
could create money and loan it out. That would increase prof-
its." Another replied, "If only we could become moneychangers,
exchange $100 for $100 and charge $100 plus interest for the
exchange." Yet another spoke up and said, "How about making
the borrower deposit $100 while we withdraw the $100 and
give it back to him as a $100 loan?"
Doubting Thomas said, "People would never be so stupid
as to allow us to do that."
Richard, who called the meeting, rebuked him, saying,
"You're wrong, Thomas. I have devised a plan to do exactly
that, without the people ever suspecting what's being done. Ev-
eryone please be seated and I will explain how we can end up
owning nearly all the wealth of the globe without ever loaning
one cent of other depositors' money." He went to the front of
the room and explained the following: "Gentlemen, I have a
bill in my hands that I wrote, and that the Congress and the
President will pass, making it legal for us to convert the prop-
erty of the world into our hands without people ever realizing
it. Today the people own their homes, cars, farms, and busi-
nesses debt-free because the government prints money like
President Lincoln did. We will stop Lincoln's successors and
ensure that only the banks can create money. We will then loan
it out at interest. Every time someone receives a $100,000 bank
loan, the bank will create $100,000 of money and loan it out.
The people will have $100,000 of new debt that never existed
before, while the bank will have a lien on their house or farm.
If they do not repay the loan, we get the real estate for free.
When someone buys a house, they are dependent on obtaining
a bank loan to purchase it. The average house sells every 7.5
years, so in less than 10 years the banks will have these coun-
terfeit liens on most homes. Every loan from a bank will ensure
that the people will have more debt, not only in principal bal-
ance but also by paying us interest. If they do not pay us the
interest, we foreclose and take their property. In short, the bank
creates the money and buys up the nation's assets, ending up
owning nearly everything. Today, people can own a $100,000
house debt-free because of Lincoln. Tomorrow, the same house
will have a $90,000 mortgage on it and the bank will receive
29
10% interest. Each year, we will receive $9,000 of the

homeowner's income for free, simply because Congress and
the President will make it legal. We will have to breach the
loan agreement, but, since no one understands banking, no one
will sue. Credit cards, student loans, car loans, house loans,
commercial loans, and government loans will be financed by
the money we create and loan out at interest.
The new law will create a new personal income tax (IRS)
so that the government will have the money to pay interest on
the national debt that the banks will receive for free. The bank
will pay 2.5¢ for $100 of cash. The bank will then loan the cash
to the government to finance the government deficit. The gov-
ernment will give the bank back a $100 government bond and
then tax the citizens $8. The government will give the $8 to the
bank in the form of 8 percent interest ($8.00) on the $100 gov-
ernment bond that the bank received for 2.5¢. It will be like the
government giving banks the cash as a gift, and the banks re-
turning the money back as a loan. Soon, the government will
create a $5 trillion deficit by overspending, forcing the people
to pay nearly 40 percent of their IRS tax to the bankers.
We will force the wives to work as much as their husbands
so that the banks can receive more profit. If a family has an
income of $50,000, they will pay $10,000 in income tax. Forty
percent of the tax ($4,000) will be paid to the banker for inter-
est on the government bonds they received for 2.5¢. The family
will have a $100,000 house with a $90,000 mortgage, paying
the bank 10 percent interest. So, there again, the bank will re-
ceive $9,000 for free. Two car loans, student loans, and credit
cards would mean another $30,000 of debt at 10 percent inter-
est, giving the bank another $3,000 for free. The banks will
receive an average of $16,000 from this family alone. Today,
the banks get nothing, but when we get this bill through, we
could get 32 percent of an average family's income for free."
Another man, Frank, spoke up, explaining how the state,
county, and city governments need loans just like the federal
government. "The banks," he said, "will create money and loan
it to the state, county, and local governments so that the Ameri-
can people must pay taxes to cover the interest on the money
30
the banks create and loan out. Government is the biggest mo-
nopoly. All we have to do is get the money for free and loan it
to the monopoly. Then we use the judges and police to collect
the taxes, and we get nearly half of it back for free. To get the
judges, police, and lawmakers to join us, we will show them
how to profit from foreclosures. Sheer greed will enforce this
banking system. The law will allow us to take from the Ameri-
cans, putting their money and wealth into our hands without
ever loaning one cent of other depositors' money. Many states
have a 7% sales tax and a 3 to 5% income tax. The banks could
get much of this tax once we get the monopoly into enough
debt. Gasoline tax, utility tax, sales tax, real estate tax, and state
income tax could be as high as 10% of a family's income. The
banks could receive nearly 40% of the tax for free, which is 4%
of families' income. Add the 4% to the 32% calculated earlier
and the banks could receive about 36% of an average family's
income for free."
Doubting Thomas continued to argue that the people would
never allow this, and that the media would expose it even if it
got through Washington D.C.
In response, Richard explained, "The major media is easy
to control. They cannot exist without bank loans either. They
know that if they upset the banks, they will not get the loans
they need to stay in existence. With all the bank profit and re-
tirement money to invest, we can own a portion of the major
media and publishing companies as well. Anyone speaking
against the banks will be labeled as a conspiracy nut or an anti-
government group. That will shut people up.
If we collect nearly 36 percent of the income from fami-
lies, we have plenty of money to be one of the largest political
funders of Presidents, Congress, judges, sheriffs, and other of-
ficials. They need the media and money to get elected. Let ev-
eryone argue over the little issues, but never allow this secret
to be revealed. Anyone running for political office to correct
our banking system will never receive favorable major media
attention and will never get elected. Any lawmaker opposing
the banks will be taught a lesson by having the media favor
their opponent in the next election. The banking interests will
31
simply withdraw financial support from those who oppose them

and give financial support to political candidates who help us
continue our banking system. Other lawmakers will learn by
example, thus keeping them in line.
"We have to sell the idea to the American people without
them understanding the truth. We will give the bank a name to
make it sound governmental, making the people think it is fed-
eral, but it will be privately owned. The central bank will give
back to the government any profit, but the government cannot
audit the bank and the bank pays no IRS tax. We simply load
up the bank expenses so there is little profit to give back to the
government. Whether or not we give back profit is irrelevant.
This just makes it look good to the public so they will not get
wise and vote us out. The profit is in the local banks creating
money and loaning it out. We will simply deceive the people.
Today, people think they can only deposit cash, checks, drafts,
and wire transfers into checking accounts. The new banking
law will allow us to deposit the bank loan agreement or prom-
issory note (contract borrower signed agreeing to repay the loan)
into a checking account. A $100,000 promissory note can be
sold for $100,000 of cash or government bonds, so depositing
a promissory note is just like depositing cash. The bank will
receive a $100,000 promissory note from the borrower, deposit
the promissory note, or sell the promissory note for $100,000
cash and deposit the cash. Then the bank withdraws the funds
and returns it back to the same borrower, calling it a bank loan
check. The bank never invests or loans one cent to obtain the
promissory note. The promissory note acts like new money be-
cause it can be sold for money. The promissory note is depos-
ited, creating a new checking account balance (bank liability
owing money). It has the economic effect of $100,000 of coun-
terfeit money, or of stealing the $100,000 promissory note and
returning the value of the stolen property back to the victim as
a loan.
Economically speaking, it is similar to stealing the victim's
(borrower's) future payroll checks, depositing the payroll
checks, and returning the money back to the victim as a loan
instead of a return of the capital earlier deposited. The bank
32
loans nothing of value, but obtains the promissory notes, liens

on the nation's homes, cars, farms, and businesses, for free.
For every $100,000 loan, the people have an additional $100,000
of debt that did not exist before. If people loan their neighbors
money, or if banks loan other depositors' money, $100,000 is
not shifted from the people to the banks for free. The bank loan
agreement is the problem. We cannot explain the truth in the
agreement. The bank must conceal and omit the part about the
borrower being the lender, creditor, or depositor. If people un-
derstand the truth, they will never agree to it."
Mike spoke up and explained that, if the bank was to be
truthful in the bank loan agreement, it would say: "The bank
loans no legal tender or other depositors' money to fund the
bank loan check. The borrower agrees to loan the bank the
$100,000 promissory note, and the bank loans the same
$100,000 back to the borrower. The borrower must repay the
loan back to the bank, but the bank never repays the loan from
the borrower to the bank."
John was so excited he jumped up, interrupting Mike. "It is
like the borrower asking for a $100,000 loan. The moment the
borrower signs the $100,000 promissory note, they've created
a paper that can be sold for $100,000 cash. Because the prom-
issory note has interest, an investor will pay $100,000 for the
$100,000 promissory note. The investor's money is safe because
of the collateral, which is the lien on the house or car. If the
borrower does not pay the loan, we foreclose and get our money.
The bank loans nothing; it simply deposits the $100,000 and
withdraws it again, returning it back to the borrower as a bank
loan check. The new $100,000 acts like new money. The bank
gets the $100,000 check and the $100,000 promissory note for
free. The bank gets the borrower's future labor for free or the
bank forecloses and gets his or her house for free. The bank
does not give up $100,000; they receive $100,000 and return it
as a loan to anyone stupid enough to give them $100,000 in the
first place!"
Sam said, "Depositing the promissory note is like deposit-
ing cash, because it can be sold for cash. Banks sell depositors'
cash for government bonds to get interest. So we will not only
33
deposit cash, we will deposit the promissory note and then sell
the promissory note for government bonds. It makes no differ-
ence whether cash or promissory notes are deposited; we sell
both to get government bonds that can be sold later for cash if
we need it. Depositing a $100,000 promissory note is like de-
positing new money, creating a new deposit. Then, the check is
written from this new deposit. The check has cash behind it so
it is not check kiting. We loan nothing for the promissory note,
we get it for free, and then loan it back to the one we stole it
from. If we can keep stealing and returning the value of the
stolen property back to the victim as a loan, the bankers will
end up owning the world for free. We can control everything!"
Joe explained what he loved most about the idea: "It is too
confusing to explain this to a jury. If we foreclose, the victim
has no money to take the bank to court and hire an attorney and
expert witness."
Peter was sitting quietly in the back of the room, thinking.
He said, "Let me get this straight. On a national level, the gov-
ernment gives us $100 cash for the cost of printing it, and we
loan it back to the government who gave it to us for free or
printing cost. And when local banks grant a $100,000 loan, the
borrower gives the bank $100,000 for free, and the bank re-
turns the $100,000 back to the borrower as a loan."
James interrupted and asked, "How can the bank receive
$100,000 from the borrower for free when the borrower needs
money and is going to the bank for a loan?"
Charles spoke up and said, "The minute the borrower signs
the $100,000 promissory note, the note can be sold for $100,000
cash. When you deposit the cash or promissory note into a
checking account, there is a new checking account balance of
$100,000 that acts like money. It is like creating $100,000 of
counterfeit money. Whatever is deposited, by law, becomes the
bank's property. People use checks to buy things instead of cash,
so we do not need cash, we need checkbook money."
James spoke up and said, "It is simple. The government or
the people give us money or something that can be sold for
money, and we get it for free. Then, we return it back to the
same person and call it a loan. The people will never figure it
34
out because they think it is a loan. We will simply conceal the

fact that we took the money we're lending from the borrower
himself. If the borrower has no idea they gave us something
and no idea what we did with it, we can do it all day long."
Richard said, "All we have to do is promise the politicians
money to get elected. When they retire, we give them consult-
ing fees and make them rich for passing the laws that take from
the American pocket and put into our pocket for free. Money
will control the media. Those who understand the system will
become rich at the expense of the ignorant."
Debbie finally piped up and said, "You haven't even seen
the best part yet. I used my economics background to write a
bank manual showing banks how to expand and contract the
money supply, forcing Americans into foreclosure and bank-
ruptcy. Banks can create planned recessions and depressions to
own the wealth of the nation for free. Our plan is to foreclose
on all farms, ranches, homes, cars, and businesses. What Ameri-
cans own today will be ours tomorrow, simply because a pri-
vate organization will control the money."
Richard concluded the meeting by making everyone take a
vow of silence on the subject.
One cannot prove that this secret meeting, or one like it,
ever occurred. But one can look to see if the results predicted
in such a meeting occurred. This book will prove that the eco-
nomic effect of the plan discussed in this meeting has occurred
in America.
Once you learn the banking secret, you can help foreclo-
sure victims and legally divert money from the bankers' pock-
ets, back to the citizens where it belongs.
3. AMERICAN BANKING SYSTEM ON

TRIAL
I have been a certified public accountant for many years,
and have testified in court as an expert witness in financial
35
matters for nearly a decade. I have also taught thousands of

CPAs nationally for CPE (continuing professional education)
programs. A couple of years ago, one of my students, a bank
auditor, proposed to me that all bank loans are fraudulent and
proceeded to explain why. I am not defending the notion that
they either are or are not fraudulent. Neither do I propose that
the bankers and auditors are white collar criminals. My aim is
to see to it that you understand the whole bank loan agreement
so that you may judge for yourself. I will present the evidence
as given by the Federal Reserve Bank publications and the bank
advertising and loan agreement. To understand this book, you
may need to refer to the glossary for definitions of unique terms.
Throughout the book, I will be citing the publications or offi-
cial operations of the Federal Reserve Bank up to the end of
1996. In the past four years I have used a manual and cassette
tapes to teach people how the banks operate. I have found that
many of the words and concepts are new to most people. Some
people understand the material very quickly, but the majority
of people who contacted me thanked me for repeating the basic
ideas and giving a number of illustrations. If you are a quick
study, please be patient with those who read a few chapters and
then put the book down for a while before reading on. New
words and concepts are difficult to absorb, so repetition is
needed for most readers to understand them. This book was not
written for bankers and certified public accountants. It was
written for the person having trouble reconciling their check-
book to the bank statement and the person with no business
background.
To win back America, we need everyone to learn the mate-
rial thoroughly. Even if you pick up on the concept quickly, the
additional illustrations will help you to teach others. At all times,
this book will presume that there should be equal protection
under the law, money, credit, and agreement, and that the agree-
ment should have full disclosure. At all times, this book will
illustrate the economic effect of the bank transaction. The bank
bookkeeping entries will tell the truth. We will not argue whether
Federal Reserve Notes (cash) are lawful or not. We will pre-
sume Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender recorded as a bank
36
asset and checkbook money is a bank liability owing legal ten-

der, as proven by the bank publications. The aim of this book is
to use the bank's publications, agreements, and court cases to
prove our point. I believe you should be the judge and jury and
weigh the evidence for yourself. The biggest fear the banks and
government leaders have is that voters will discover the truth
about the banking system and vote out every lawmaker, judge,
and police official supporting it, voting in leaders who will bring
justice to this land.
I believe it is only human nature for one group of people to
take advantage of others, but only if they can get away with it.
It is the voters' responsibility to vote in honest statesmen who
will not allow deception to continue and who will stop corrup-
tion and give us equal protection. It appears that the major
media's job is to stop the truth and to elect politicians who will
follow the banks. It is your responsibility as an American to get
the truth out to all Americans. We need statesmen who will rep-
resent the majority of the people and not allow banks to obtain
America's wealth for free, leaving the victim in perpetual debt.
If you decide the bank is guilty, I will present you with a solu-
tion to cancel your bank loans without going to court.
The court is in session. You are the judge and the American
voter is the jury. The plaintiffs against the banks are the found-
ing fathers of this nation, who gave us a constitution requiring
money of gold and silver, equal protection under the law, and
the right to contract. The plaintiff is now reading the charges
against the banks. They are as follows:
The banks are charged with violating the bank loan agree-
ment. The banker is charged with advertising that he will loan
a check as consideration (money) loaned if the borrower signs
the promissory note agreeing to repay the money. The lender is
charged with forging the promissory note, recording it as a loan
from the borrower, and using it to fund a loan from the bank
back to the same alleged borrower. The bank fails to loan other
depositors' money or repay the unauthorized loan from the al-
leged borrower to the bank. The damages are equal to stealing,
default, or counterfeiting.
37
(Additional felonies and breaches of agreement will follow

as you read this book.)
The controversy lies in the agreement, not in the Federal

Reserve Notes. The bank wrote the bank loan agreement and
recorded the bookkeeping entries. The borrower intended the
promissory note only to be used as a guarantee to repay the
money loaned. The banker's intent was to receive actual cash
value from the alleged borrower for free and to return the funds
as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower. This funda-
mentally changes the cost and risk of the loan, allowing nearly
all the citizens' property to be given to the banks for free. The
controversy is over who agreed to loan what to whom. Who
agreed to fund the bank loan check, the borrower or the banker?
This book will show that the bankers had intent and knew
exactly what they were doing. The lawmakers, judges, and po-
lice had knowledge and allowed this practice to continue, even
though they took an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitu-
tion, which gives everyone a Republican form of government,
which prohibits the banks from stealing and counterfeiting, and
which provides equal protection under the law.
For the last year I have offered a $1,000 reward to the first
bank president or CPA bank auditor who signs the bank audit
to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, answering each
and every question I ask regarding bank loans, money, credit,
checks, bank bookkeeping entries, bank policy, and other bank-
ing questions. The meeting would be public and recorded so
people could obtain the information. The meeting must be at a
time and location I agree to. The banker or CPA must agree to
give all the specific details to the questions answered under
penalty of perjury and not simply claim they do not know the
answers. The bank must qualify as a member bank of the Fed-
eral Reserve Bank. If the banking industry has nothing to hide,
then the bank presidents or CPAs are challenged to come for-
ward and show the world the truth. The bankers have been chal-
lenged by the American people to sign the affidavit in the back
of the book in order to prove their innocence. So far, the bank-
ers have refused to either take the $1,000 reward or sign the
38
affidavit. Their silence tells us everything we need to know.

The Federal Reserve Bank publications' admissions are prima
facie evidence that the allegations in the lawsuit are true.
WARNING: IN ACTUAL COURT CASES, DO NOT FILE

THIS SAME LAWSUIT. THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATION AND
TEACHING PURPOSES ONLY. A real judge will throw out
the case if you discuss things like gold and silver or the bank
never loaning you anything of value. As you read the book, you
will know how to argue with a real bank auditor, attorney, or
judge, using the arguments a real CPA expert witness would
use.
4. TWO BANKING SYSTEMS

Most people believe we follow the Abraham Lincoln or
Constitutional banking system. The Constitutional banking sys-
tem is a system whereby the government creates money. The
government has three ways to receive money: taxing, borrow-
ing, or printing money (including minting coins of gold or sil-
ver). When President Abraham Lincoln needed money to fi-
nance the Civil War, he decided not to rely on taxation or bor-
rowing. He printed the Greenback (cash, also known as United
States Notes) and used this to pay the soldiers and buy war
supplies. When he printed the money, there was no debt and no
interest because there was no loan. If the government has tax
revenues of $500 million and spends $600 million, there is a
$100 million deficit. Lincoln's solution was simply to print the
$100 million needed to pay government expenses. This saved
the taxpayers $100 million in taxes and also prevented them
from having to borrow money and pay it back with interest. All
money circulated into the economy would come from the gov-
ernment printing the cash and spending the money. With
Lincoln's system, there is no government debt. Everyone ben-
efits. Everyone saves in taxes and everyone has equal protec-
tion. The banks cannot create money; they can only loan out
39
other depositors' cash. There is no stealing or counterfeiting.

Nearly all the homes, cars, farms, and businesses in the coun-
try would be debt-free. Not so with the opposing banking
system .
The second banking system is called the European banking
system. Under this system, the banks create the cash or money.
The banks are privately owned and do not loan other deposi-
tors' money. If the government runs a $100 million deficit, the
bank prints the cash (or the government prints the cash and gives
it to the bank for the cost of printing, paper, and ink). The bank
then loans the same $100 million cash back to the government
as a bank loan. To ensure the government will pay the loan back,
the government gives the banker $100 million of government
bonds. Bonds are like promissory notes agreeing to repay the
loan. The government must pay 10% interest to the bank for
the $100 million cash loan. They collect $10 million in taxes,
and the $10 million is paid to the bankers for interest on the
loan. Within twelve months, the government owes the $100
million principal plus $10 million in interest. There is only $100
million in cash to pay $110 million owed. The government now
has a new deficit of $150 million plus the $10 million in inter-
est due. The government then prints $150 million in cash and
gives the cash to the bank for the cost of printing, which the
bank then lends back to the government at 10% interest. Within
twelve months, the government owes the bankers $100 million
for the first year, plus $150 million for the second year. The
interest is 10% of $250 million, calculated to be $25 million,
plus the $10 million of interest from the previous year. The
total money the government owes the bank is $285 million.
Unfortunately, there is only $250 million printed to pay the bank
toward the $285 million in principal and interest. World his-
tory shows the banks typically foreclose on the nation just like
they foreclose on a house. Soon, the bank files bankruptcy
against the government and the bank owns the nation. All of
the nation's assets are collateral for the national debt. There is
never enough cash to pay the principal and interest. To stop an
economic collapse, the banks must keep loaning more and more
money to the government, with taxes increasing and increas-
40
ing. Soon the economy will fall into a depression and the banks
will foreclose on the national debt. Nearly all homes, cars, farms,
and businesses end up in the hands of the bank.
When the European banking system grants loans, the bank
loan agreement conceals one very important fact: the bank first
receives the money they loan from the borrower for free. The
bank then loans this money back to the borrower as a bank loan.
Just as when the government gives the bank cash and the bank
loans the cash back to the government, the same thing occurs
when local banks grant house loans, car loans, student loans,
business loans, and credit cards.
This book will use the Federal Reserve Bank publications
to prove that we are under the European banking system. Most
Americans will argue that they do not give the bank $100,000
actual cash value for free and that the bank returns it back to
them as a loan. This book will not only expose how this trick
works, but will teach you how to argue the point like a certified
public accountant expert witness, destroying the arguments of
a judge, attorney, or banker.
Would you agree to give the bank cash, or something that
can be sold for cash, allowing the banker to deposit the money
and write a check back to you as a loan? Of course not. The
banker believes this is what you agreed to. Most Americans
know that if you deposit $100 cash into a checking account,
there is a new deposit of $100 and the bank owes you $100.
You can ask for the cash back as a return of your capital earlier
deposited, or write a $100 check. The $100 deposit funds the
check. We know the bank cannot return the $100 back to us as
a bank loan. Most Americans believe the bank will loan them
$20,000 of other depositors' money if they sign a promissory
note agreeing to repay the money. The banker does the oppo-
site of what most Americans believe the agreement is, chang-
ing the cost and the risk of the alleged loan. The banker knows
that if you deposit $100 cash, they can sell the cash for $100 of
government bonds, with the banker receiving interest. Govern-
ment bonds are just like cash. If the banker needs cash, they
sell the government bonds. The trick is this simple: instead of
depositing cash, the banker sells the $20,000 promissory note
41
(agreement to repay the loan) to investors for $20,000 cash.

The banker then takes the cash and sells it for $20,000 of gov-
ernment bonds. Instead of depositing cash and selling the cash
for government bonds, the banker sells the promissory note for
government bonds and deposits the bonds. The banker deposits
$20,000 to create a new $20,000 deposit, which acts like print-
ing $20,000 of new money. You can write a $20,000 check from
the new deposit. Then, the banker writes a check from the
$20,000 deposited earlier and gives the check back to the bor-
rower as a bank loan check. The banker received $20,000 for
free from the alleged borrower, used it to create a new $20,000
bank deposit that acts like new money, and returned the same
money back to the person as a bank loan.
The alleged borrower signed the promissory note (agree-
ment to repay the loan) hoping to receive other depositors'
money, giving everyone equal protection. The bank never in-
tended to loan anything of value for the promissory note. The
bank intended to receive something from the borrower worth
$20,000 for free and then return the money back to the bor-
rower as a loan. Receiving something for free without permis-
sion is stealing. Selling the stolen property for government bonds
or cash and depositing the government bonds or cash to create
a new bank deposit (checkbook money) is equivalent to creat-
ing new money. The stolen property is used to create new money.
Now you have an economic effect similar to stealing or coun-
terfeiting rolled into one transaction. This book will now give
the details of the evidence. The conclusion is that the bank re-
ceives the liens on the nation's assets for free. The written loan
agreement never authorized such a transaction.
Most Americans will argue that we are not under the Euro-
pean banking system because, when a borrower goes to the bank
for a $100,000 loan, the borrower does not have $100,000 to
give to the bank. If you think that we follow Lincoln's example
today and loan other depositors' money, that we are not under
the European banking system, you were tricked right along with
most Americans.
If you earned $1,000 in the past 10 days and deposited the
money into a checking account, would you allow the bank to
42
keep it for free and then return the $1,000 back to you as a bank
loan? Of course not, unless you are completely insane. Would
you agree to allow the bank to take the money you will earn ten
days in the future, deposit the money, and return it back to you
as a loan? If you are that gullible, I want to loan you some
money. Your future labor represents the future payroll money
to fund the loan repayment required by the promissory note. If
you object to letting the bank have your $1,000 payroll check
for free and giving it back to you as a loan, you would object to
the European banking system. If you want justice and equal
protection, you will follow Lincoln's and our founding fathers'
Constitutional, gold- and silver-backed banking system. Banks
hate gold and silver because they cannot manipulate the prom-
issory note, deposit it, and create new money (a new bank de-
posit). If you believe that no class of citizens has the right to
steal and counterfeit legally, then you agree with Lincoln and
our founding fathers' Constitution. If someone kept stealing your
future payroll checks, depositing them, and returning the money
back to you as a loan, you would be poor and in perpetual debt,
paying interest to the thief. It is very profitable to steal and
counterfeit, especially if you have the aid of government to
enforce it.
National Geographic (Jan. 93, p. 84) claims that the banks
create money and loan it out at interest. Later this book will
show you Federal Reserve Bank publications confirming that
this is true. There is a controversy as to who owns the Federal
Reserve Banks. It is true that local banks own part of the Fed-
eral Reserve Bank in their district. But these local banks do not
appear to have control over the Federal Reserve Bank. This
kind of ownership means little if anything to most Americans.
Encyclopaedia Britannica claims it is privately owned. The FED
does not pay IRS tax but does pay real estate tax. Some re-
searchers believe it is owned by the government. The economic
effect remains the same whether it is government or private. I
do not wish to explain the details regarding the corporate status
of the United States government and/or who owns the Federal
Reserve Bank. It is sufficient to say that the Federal Reserve
Bank is a federally chartered agency of the federal government.
43
ARE YOU MAD YET? Remember how Ross Perot and Bob
Dole went on national television wanting a balanced budget?
Both were given information about banking and how the Fed-
eral Reserve Bank operates. Do you think they are smart enough
to know about Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution? Did they
tell you 32 out of the required 34 States passed a constitutional
convention under the guise of needing a balanced budget and
that the bankers funded a new constitution to replace our exist-
ing one? It was to be a constitution wherein everyone loses the
freedom of speech and religion, along with our other rights.
The bankers' goal is to end our Constitutional gold and silver
money and equal protection. Notice how the media is silent
about the truth. They are trying to talk you into a balanced bud-
get, while all we have to do is follow Lincoln's example. Bob
Dole made a small fortune with his television advertisement
pushing a cashless society, allowing the banks to have absolute
control over every citizen through the use of credit cards. The
banks create the problem/deficit, then they push for a constitu-
tional convention to solve the very problem they created. The
solution, then, is designed to end our rights. We would never
agree to ending our rights unless we had a problem that needed
to be solved. If the American people understood the truth, no
one would believe Bob Dole or the media and we could correct
the problem. If you study and research, you will find the banks
and the United Nations are working together with the same
agenda. But that's left for another book.
I thank the grassroots organization of United We Stand for
helping to stop the constitutional convention and helping people
become aware of the banking problem. They know about the
Federal Reserve Bank and the problems it has created. I be-
lieve if we can get this book out to the people of United We
Stand, and if they support equal protection, we could restore
America to her former greatness. I thank the grassroots for their
gallant efforts to expose the truth. Grassroots Republicans and
Democrats are just beginning to see the benefit of following
the Constitutional banking system. The Republican and Demo-
crat leaderships may be receiving favorable media coverage and
money from bankers, forcing them to remain silent, but the faster
44
the grassroots movement grows, the faster the change will take
place.
The solution is simple. We need 200 people in every state
to distribute 1,000 brochures, and soon ten percent of the people
will want out of their loans. The ten percent will grow. Edu-
cated Americans will support us. As the numbers grow, states-
men will run for office to represent the people and not the banks.
We must wake the voters up. We must expose the big lie so we
can vote out every lawmaker, judge, and police official who
would aid and abet the enemies of our founding fathers in the
Revolutionary War.
Two great Americans said it all. In Bulletin (Nov. 1991,
p.4), President Andrew Jackson is quoted as saying, "If the
American people only understood the rank injustice of our
money and banking system, there would be a revolution before
morning." Automaker Henry Ford Sr. said, "It is well enough
that people of the nation do not understand our banking and
monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a
revolution before tomorrow morning" (see bibliography #10,
p. 11). We do not need guns or bombs. America has the greatest
government in the world. All we need is an informed populace
willing to vote out anyone who thinks one class of citizens
should have the legal right to enforce an economic effect of
stealing and counterfeiting against the other citizens.
5. UNITED STATES NOTES VS. FEDERAL

RESERVE NOTES
If the government runs a deficit and needs money, cash is
printed in either United States Notes (cash) or Federal Reserve
Notes (cash). The bank or government pays the cost of paper,
ink, and printing. If the government prints United States Notes,
it spends the cash and there is no debt or interest to pay. For
every dollar printed, there is one less dollar of tax and one less
dollar of debt. If you want this cash, you must work to earn it.
45
No one gets a free ride by acting like a counterfeiter. Everyone

has equal protection and no one receives a lien on your home
for free. A dollar bill (cash) has value and people accept it as
money regardless of whether it is a United States Note or a
Federal Reserve Note.
The bankers believe that cash or checkbook money has no
value unless the bank receives a government bond for free and
the bond gives value to the newly issued cash to match the newly
issued bond. The bankers believe that the bank should receive
government bonds for free and then print cash to match the
amount of the government bonds, giving the cash back to the
government as a loan. Bankers believe the bonds give the cash
value. The bankers argument is flawed, because if the value of
the cash is based on the value of the bonds, then the bank is
claiming the cash has no value in itself and therefore, if the
bank loaned the cash to the government, the cash has no value.
The bank loaned nothing of value to the government to obtain
the bonds. The Federal Reserve Note is a bank IOU that the
bank has not paid. Imagine loaning someone an IOU you refuse
to pay and having them give you back a government bond. The
government bond gives your IOU value. You keep the bond and
receive interest and you still never pay your IOU. If the taxpay-
ers make the bond good, the taxpayers can make a dollar bill
(cash called United States Notes) good. The difference is that
the banks do not receive interest for free.
Simply stated, if the government needs money, they can
print United States Notes (bills) and use the cash to pay the
government payroll or expenditures. There is no loan, so there
is no interest. If we use Federal Reserve Notes, the cash is
printed and given to the banks for the cost of printing. Then the
bank loans the cash back to the government. The government
gives the bank government bonds, paying the bank interest. If
we stop giving the cash to the bank, to be returned back as a
loan, the taxpayers save the principal and interest the banks
receive for free. Using Federal Reserve Notes is a legal way to
take from the taxpayers and give to the bankers. Then, the bank-
ers use part of the money to get lawmakers, judges, and police
elected to support them. The government leaders and bankers
46
win at the expense of the taxpayers. The late Thomas Edison

explained the matter of issuing currency this way:
If our Nation can issue a dollar bond (interest bearing) it

can issue a dollar bill ( interest-free). The element that makes
the bond good makes a bill good also. The difference be-
tween the bond and the bill, is that the bond lets money bro-
kers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional
20 percent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who
contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say
that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30
million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one prom-
ise fattens the usurers (interest collectors) and the other helps
the people (see bibliography #12, p.46).
The next time someone claims we should use Federal Re-

serve Notes instead of United States Notes, ask them if they've
read Thomas Edison's quote. The bankers just receive the as
sets of the nation for free and force us to pay the interest on the
assets. Is it unfair? The bankers will say it is legal and autho-
rized by lawmakers. Many bankers simply think this is just good
business. The bankers have one major problem. The contract
or bank loan agreement has a major flaw and does not allow
this. The lawmakers, judges, and police have a contract prob-
lem also. Their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is a con-
tract with the American people.
Without us knowing it or agreeing to this in the bank loan
agreement, the bankers have implemented the medieval feudal
system, wherein the nobles own the land and rent it to the serfs.
Economically, this is the situation we have in America. Every
time a house or car sells and people go to the bank to finance
the purchase, the bank receives the lien and promissory note
for free, forcing us to pay the interest or rent. And if we refuse,
they foreclose, kick us off the property, and find a new tenant
(borrower). Whether they create money to buy the land and rent
it back to us, or create money to obtain the promissory note and
charge interest, the rent and the interest is the same. This feu-
dal system was a class system our founding fathers abhorred.
In it, nobles were above the law. Today, in court, it seems the
47
bankers are above the law. Do you know of a banker who has
gone to jail for violating the U.S. Constitution or bank loan
agreement? The medieval, feudal system denies equal protec-
tion under the law, as does today's American banking system.
The courts, lawmakers, and police have enforced this medi-
eval, feudal banking system, denying us equal protection under
the law. The banks have demanded the serfs give up one-third
to one-half of their payroll check to them, paying all the inter-
est forced upon us. Why should we allow the banks to conceal
the whole truth about the real bank loan agreement, allowing
the economic effect of theft and counterfeiting to continue? It
continues because Americans believe the big lie.
Once Americans educate their other fellow Americans, we
will repeat history and change the banking system. Outraged
Americans will demand the government create interest-free
United States Notes and that this cash be the only money al-
lowed in circulation. If you want money, you must earn it and
not create it like banks do today. If money is loaned, the bank
must loan other depositors' money and not create it.
Today, Congress and the President are too fearful to change
the laws and follow Lincoln's example, and they will continue
to be until we organize and send out enough brochures to enough
Americans so that the population will support the change and
make it safe for lawmakers to follow their oath of office to up-
hold the U.S. Constitution. The lawmakers, political candidates,
and judges are waiting on you to do your job to spread the word
and get the truth out. We must show that the media is biased
and supports the medieval, feudal banking system of nobles
and serfs. Greed and the love of money run the bankers, gov-
ernment leaders, and the media. To correct the problem, we need
you to join us in distributing brochures and cassette tapes. If
we have 25 hairdressers in every state joining us, and if they
convert 100 clients each, we will have 2,525 people wishing to
follow Lincoln. Wives could stop working and maintain the
same standard of living. If these 2,525 converted one more per-
son each, we would have 5,050 people talking, 252,500 in all
50 states. If the average person passed out 100 brochures, one
in every four voters would want to follow Lincoln. Soon the
48
whole country will follow. You and your group of friends could
get 25 people in your state interested and watch American his-
tory repeat itself by changing the banking system once again.
Senator Bob Dole's book Trusting the People (p. 8) explains
that, in 1995, the government paid over $230 billion on the
national debt. This is nearly 40 percent of every dollar the fed-
eral government collects. The $230 billion in interest and 40
percent of taxes going to the bankers for free will be a part of
the past and never be repeated in American history. People will
again remember the reason we fought the Revolutionary War.
In my next book, I will explain how judges, police offi-
cials, and lawmakers can double their money every 6 to 8 months
without risking one cent. You cannot rely on the courts to give
you justice if the judges and police are quietly doubling their
money every 6 to 8 months. Why would politicians vote to end
doubling their wealth? Once you learn how easily it can be done,
you may decide to join them. But for those with a conscience, I
will illustrate a way to use the same method to help restore this
country's economic stability and security. If you were a police-
man or judge enjoying the benefits of a feudal noble, doubling
your wealth at the expense of the others, you would not stop
until the nation was outraged. It is clearly up to the voters to
change the system.
President Kennedy issued United States Notes just before
he was assassinated. I owned one of the Kennedy dollars, called
a silver certificate. This cash was issued interest-free. Within a
few months, he was assassinated. If President Kennedy had lived
and continued, today the national budget could be balanced,
your personal IRS tax eliminated, your home, car, or farm could
be debt-free, and you could be living in prosperity. The three to
six months of labor the banks receive for free from you today
could be all yours to spend. Today they spend it, but if Kennedy
had lived, the money would be yours. Trillions and trillions of
dollars that the banks have today would be in the hands of
American citizens if Kennedy had lived and continued printing
his United States Notes. Immediately after he died, President
Johnson withdrew the Kennedy dollar and issued Federal Re-
serve Notes in their place. Who benefited most by Kennedy's
49
death? One death and trillions and trillions of dollars were kept
in the hands of the bankers, with nearly half your labor being
given to the bankers for free in the medieval, feudal banking
system. Just one bullet shifted the wealth of every American.
The people may not know, but bankers surely know the differ-
ence between the United States Notes and the Federal Reserve
Notes.
I believe President Kennedy would have lived if he had first
exposed the banking scheme on TV and then issued United
States Notes. Media control is essential to keeping the money
system secret, essential to deceiving the nation and making ev-
ery American a serf instead of the free American our founding
fathers intended. Now we need to act like we are free and tell
the world the whole truth, end the debt slavery, and become
free once again.
6. FORMER FDIC BANK AUDITOR

TELLS ALL
(True Story)
When I lived in Illinois, I was asked to fly to Arizona to

meet with a former FDIC bank auditor who had decided to join
us in exposing the banks. We met for several hours in a library.
Being accountants, we used accounting language such as deb-
its, credits, liabilities, and assets. I will translate the conversa-
tion into layman's terms so you can understand what the bank
loan agreement really is.
I began the meeting by reading and paraphrasing the bank
publication Modern Money Mechanics (p. 3). It was discussing
goldsmiths. People deposited gold coins in exchange for gold
receipts. The banks would redeem the gold receipts for gold
.coins upon request. Depositors began using the gold receipts as
money instead of the gold coins. When people asked the banks
for loans, the banks simply created new gold receipts and loaned
the new gold receipts as money to obtain the borrower's prom-
issory notes. In this manner, the banks obtained the liens on the
50
nation's assets for the cost of printing new gold receipts. Gold
receipts are really bank notes.
The publication went on to explain how transaction depos-
its are the modern counterpart of bank notes (gold receipts). It
was a small step from printing notes to making book entries
crediting the deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers could,
in turn, "spend" by writing checks. I asked the bank auditor, if
we replaced the word gold with cash, and gold deposit receipt
with checkbook money, would this describe American banking
today? Does that gold deposit receipt represent a check or bank
promissory note? Yes. Did the bank redefine the word money
by calling the gold receipt money, just as they call a checking
account balance checkbook money? He said yes, and that it is
not going to change until the people realize what is happening.
You went to the bank for a loan of gold coins. The bank
created $100,000 of new gold deposit receipts and loaned you
a slip of paper owing you $100,000 in gold coins without the
gold coins on deposit to make the gold deposit slip valid. The
deposit slip was a fake; There was no money behind it. It is like
counterfeit money. Who would agree to being loaned a slip of
paper? You owe the bank $100,000 in gold coins, and the bank
has given you a piece of paper without the money to back it. If
the bank paid you the gold it owed you, and you paid the bank
the gold you owed it, both debts would be canceled. Key les-
son: If the bank paid their debt, you would be out of debt. In-
stead, they tell you to use the gold deposit receipt as money.
The $100,000 promissory note the borrower signed can be
sold for $100,000 in gold coins, and this is why the promissory
notes are called the banker's gold. The bank loaned a fake, a
piece of paper with no gold behind it. The borrower was tricked.
The borrower must work to earn $100,000 in gold coins, plus
interest, to repay the bank. Today the promissory note can be
sold for $100,000 in cash, so the investor can receive interest.
The borrower's labor to repay the loan is worth $100,000 in
cash today. Key lesson: Your labor is equivalent to money. Your
labor is your property. A $100,000 promissory note has the
equivalent value of $100,000 legal tender because it can be sold
for that amount.
51
The bank loaned nothing of value. If merchants were told

the truth, they would not accept this deposit slip without value.
It is like writing a check without first depositing money. All the
bank did was take something of value (the promissory note or
the borrower's future labor), sell it for $100,000 in gold coins
or cash, and loan it back to the borrower. The bank gained
$100,000 in gold coins and loaned nothing. The gold deposit
slip people used as money is no different than our checkbook
money. Checkbook money is a bank liability owing cash. Few
people use cash; they use checks. Key lesson: The bank did not
loan one cent of legal tender to obtain your $100,000 promis-
sory note. The bank received $100,000 from you and acted like
a counterfeiter, loaning you the newly printed money (check-
book money).
The deposit slip represents a checking account balance,
which is a scorecard of how much cash the bank owes us. In-
stead of handing the merchant a deposit slip, we hand the mer-
chant a check, which transfers the bank liability from our check-
ing account to the merchant's checking account. When we used
gold deposit slips, the bank owed us money, just as with a check-
ing account balance today. If we gave the merchant deposit slips,
the bank would no longer owe us the money. They would owe
the merchant the money. We can no longer spend that money.
Now the merchant can spend it. Key lesson: A bank liability, a
deposit slip, a debt, an IOU, checkbook money, a check, a ca-
sino token, a promissory note, or a bank note are all the oppo-
site of money. They are worthless without an asset to redeem
them. A bank liability is merely a bank scorecard showing how
much legal tender the bank owes customers. A check is not
money. If you write a million dollar check without first depos-
iting the million dollars, you go to jail. A check merely trans-
fers a bank liability from one checking account to another with
the assumption that there is a bank asset (cash) to exchange for
it.
If you deposit cash, the bank uses the cash to buy govern-
ment bonds that can be sold for cash, making your check valid.
So, what if the bank stole your car or promissory note, sold it
for government bonds, and used the government bonds to fund
52
the bank loan check? The check would be valid. The seller of
the house received a check. He does not care if other deposi-
tors funded the check or if the borrower funded the check. Key
lesson: According to the agreement, was the bank to loan you
money to obtain the promissory note, or was the bank to de-
posit the promissory note and return it back to you as a loan? It
would be different if the people used only gold coins to buy
merchandise? If the bank can trick you into using casino to-
kens (or checkbook money or deposit slips) in place of real
gold coins, you do not know if the value to back up the tokens
came from you or other depositors. If we only used cash or
gold coins and the banks could not create money, then we would
know for sure we were being loaned other depositors' money.
Would it matter whether the borrower funded the bank loan
check or whether other depositors funded the check? If the bor-
rower deposited his $1,000 (earned by his labor) into a check-
ing account and was forced to withdraw it as a loan, he would
have lost $1,000 and had a $1,000 debt. If he does not pay this
debt, the bank forecloses. If this continued, the nonbankers
would have huge debts and all their wealth would be transferred
to the bankers.
I proceeded to explain the bank bookkeeping entries and
asked the bank auditor to stop me if I was wrong. If Tim depos-
its $100 in his checking account, the bank records the cash as a
bank asset and records a $100 bank liability. The $100 liability
is like a bank scorecard saying the bank owes Tim $100. The
deposit is like Tim loaning the bank $100, as proven by the
$100 liability. Because Tim loaned the bank $100, Tim can re-
ceive back the $100 in the form of either cash or by writing a
check to a merchant. Key lesson: If you deposit money at the
bank, it is like loaning the bank the money. You have a right to
receive your money back. Key lesson: The promissory note has
value because it has interest and collateral (lien.) Without in-
terest or collateral, few people would buy it.
If Tim loaned the bank $5,000 in diamonds, the diamonds
would be recorded as a bank asset and a new bank liability of
$5,000 would be recorded. If Tim did not want the diamonds
back and it was agreed that the bank would repay the loan by
53
giving Tim a $5,000 check, the loan from Tim to the bank would
be paid in full. The bank exchanged the $5,000 in diamonds for
a $5,000 check, just like the bank exchanged the borrower's
promissory note for a check. Tim had to earn $5,000 to buy the
diamonds, just as he must earn the money to repay the loan. He
earned the money, so he has the right to spend the money. If the
bank stole what Tim earned and deposited the money, returning
it to him as a loan, it would be an injustice to Tim. Key lesson:
An exchange is the same as a deposit. The bookkeeping entries
are the same. Receiving $5,000 in diamonds from a borrower,
selling it for cash, and returning the cash back to the borrower
as a loan is a fraudulent conversion of the diamonds. Taking
our previous example, the bank records the $100,000 promis-
sory note as a bank asset, creating a new $100,000 bank liabil-
ity called checkbook money. This is really an unauthorized loan
from the borrower to the bank. The bank returns the loan back
to the borrower by issuing a check for $100,000. The check
merely transfers the liability from one checking account to an-
other. Bank loan agreements do not disclose the unauthorized
loan from the borrower to the bank. Example: A bank adver-
tises that it loans money. You apply for a $100,000 loan. The
bank gives you a $100,000 check. What really happened? The
bank implied that they loaned you $100,000. The truth is that
the bank recorded a loan from you. The bank owes you the
$100,000 they agreed they would loan you as required to le-
gally own your promissory note. The bank paid you $100,000,
they still owe you $100,000 more for the deposit (the unautho-
rized loan to the bank). The auditor agreed that this is true,
according to the bank bookkeeping. The bank loan checks need
cash or an asset (promissory note that can be sold for cash) to
make the check legal. The Federal Reserve Bank publications
admit that the bank never loaned one cent of legal tender or
other depositors' money. The FED publications admit that the
bank used the promissory note to fund the bank check. Stealing
the promissory note or recording the promissory note as a loan
from the borrower and then using it to fund the check is essen-
tially the same. Bank assets and liabilities both increase whether
it was "loaned" to the bank or stolen. Whether it was stolen or
54
not, most people want their property back. Stealing and refus-
ing to pay a loan is essentially the same thing. I asked the former
bank auditor to tell me if I was wrong. He said I was correct.
About one hundred years ago, Rothschild claimed the
nonbankers would never learn the secret. He claimed the simple
people were too stupid to learn how the bankers stole every-
thing. The oldest bank trick is this simple: People think they
can only deposit cash or checks into a checking account. The
checking account balance acts like a substitute for the real
money or cash deposited. It is like exchanging cash for a ca-
sino token and using the token as the money. The trick is to get
people to use the token as money, or checks and checking ac-
count balances as money, instead of cash. The next trick is that
a bank can deposit anything into a checking account as long as
it can be sold for cash. For example, if I stole cars or diamonds
and the bank cooperated and allowed me to deposit the stolen
property, it would be like depositing cash as long as the stolen
property can quickly be sold for cash. If one deposits cash, the
bank sells the cash to buy government bonds that pay the bank
interest. In hours, the bank ca ell the bonds for cash, making
the bonds the equivalent cash. If one deposits stolen cars or
diamonds and the ban exchanges the stolen property for gov-
ernment bonds, it is like depositing cash. The bank knows it is
easier to sell pro promissory notes than stolen cars or diamonds.
One telephone c 11 and the promissory notes are sold for gov-
ernment bonds. It is done every day. It is like depositing gov-
ernment bonds (cash) to issue a check.
The oldest bank trick in the world is to make you think you
received a loan which you are then willing to repay. You got an
alleged bank loan check with cash behind it. The question is,
where did the cash come from?
The bank auditor replied, "I think you finally understand."
Key lesson: The bank does not own the promissory note until
the bank fulfills the agreement and gives you consideration
(money) in accordance to the agreement. Depositing funds and
stealing the deposit is called a fraudulent conversion. It is a
felony. The key question is, did the borrower agree in writing
to be the depositor and fund the bank loan check?
55
7. ACTUAL CASH VALUE
Actual cash value means the cash price you can sell an item
for in the ordinary course of business, without being forced to
sell it. When you apply for a $100,000 bank loan, you sign a
$100,000 promissory note. The note funds the $100,000 bank
loan check back to you. What is the actual cash value of the
promissory note? It is $100,000, because the bank sells it at the
end of the day for $100,000 in government bonds, which has
value equal to cash. What is the actual cash value of the new
bank loan check? It is $100,000 because you can receive
$100,000 cash. They merely exchanged actual cash value for
actual cash value, and charged you as if there was a loan. Some
of you may want proof. Federal Reserve Bank of San Fran-
cisco publication Monetary Policy in the United States (p. 13)
states that, "bank loans is funded... by banks creating new de-
posits." They claim there was a loan. The truth is, it was an
exchange and they called the exchange a loan. The proof is in
the bookkeeping entries. No actual cash value was loaned as
consideration to obtain the promissory note, and the proof is
that the note funded the check. The proof that the note funded
the check is the new money, the new deposit, as the FED publi-
cations so clearly admit. If you gave the bank $100 cash as
collateral for a bank loan, and the bank loaned you nothing, but
deposited the $100 cash and used it to fund a bank loan check,
refusing to return the $100 cash collateral, would you be mad?
That is exactly what the bank did to you. When you hand the
promissory note to the bank, it has equal value to the bank loan
check. After the loan is repaid, the promissory note has no value
because the loan payments stopped. When they return the note
it has no value, which is the same as refusing to return the $100
cash collateral. If we followed the Constitution and only used
gold and silver as lawful money, the bank could never use your
promissory note to fund the bank loan check. The bank would
be forced to use other depositors' money to fund the check,
giving you equal protection under the law. This is why the bank-
56
ers hate the Constitution, gold and silver money, and equal pro-
tection. Next time the media claims a group is anti-government,
I bet that group believes in the Constitution and in gold and
silver.
You are receiving the training of a bank expert witness.
Volume II will significantly increase your skills. Volume I is
the basics to get everyone up to the same level. Volume II is the
bankers' nightmare.
The banks know they cannot answer the following ques-

tions without exposing everything. Ask the banker to give his
personal opinion on the following questions.
If the bank demands I place $10,000 cash as security with

the bank to receive a $10,000 loan, and the bank deposits the
$10,000 into a checking account, did the bank loan anything so
far? No. If the bank deposits the $10,000 to issue a $10,000
check from the deposit and returns the $10,000 check to me,
did the bank loan me anything? No. Did the promissory note or
lien act like security for the alleged loan? Yes. If I deposit
$10,000 cash into a checking account, does the checking ac-
count balance increase by $10,000? Yes. Does the $10,000 cash
deposited and the new checking account balance of $10,000
mean there is now $20,000 of money that can be spent? No.
The $10,000 cash is exchanged for new money called check-
book money. You may spend the checkbook money by using a
check or you may exchange the checkbook money back into
cash. We ask the question to prevent the bank from claiming
they can create checkbook money without first depositing an
asset, money, having equal value to the new checkbook money
created. Checkbook money has equal value to legal tender, cash,
just like a promissory note has equal value to cash because you
can sell it for cash. Depositing cash, a check or a promissory
note/lien security merely means that one exchanged the value
of the funds deposited for equal value of checkbook money. An
exchange of equal value is not a loan,.
57
Mr. Banker, please answer the following questions. If one

deposits the $10,000 promissory note/lien does the checking
account balance increase by $10,000? Yes. Does the new
$10,000 checking account balance act like new $10,000 of cur-
rency one can spend? Yes. If the bank deposits a $10,000 prom-
issory note, does the bank receive the promissory note for free
and create $10,000 of new money in the same transaction? Yes.
Does this have an economic effect similar to stealing the $10,000
promissory note or future wages and counterfeiting rolled into
one transaction? Yes. What right does the bank have to take
$10,000 of actual cash value from a customer, deposit it and
withdraw the money and the bank keep the $10,000 as the bank's
property without the customer's knowledge, authorization, or
permission? None. The book will prove this is the situation us-
ing the Federal Reserve Bank publications. Do you see why the
bankers and government leaders fear this book? If this book got
into enough Americans' hands, the leaders would be forced to
follow the Constitution and great American Presidents like Lin-
coln, setting all Americans free of bank loans. The average
American wife would have the option to stop working, stay
home and have the same standard of living produced with both
husband and wife working today. If you keep giving your
$10,000 worth of future wages to the banker for free and they
return it back to you as a loan, both spouses must work to sup-
port the banking welfare.
8. INTENT OF AGREEMENT
One of the requirements to become a certified public ac-

countant is to take a business law course. The course I took in
college taught that a loan contract has the following essential
elements: 1) an agreement with mutual understanding, 2) com-
petent parties, 3) based on the approval, willingness, of both
parties, 4) supported by consideration (money). The lender has
to give up money to the borrower, 5) made for a lawful pur-
58
pose, 6) in legal form. An agreement must have full disclosure

of material facts. Do I loan you my money or do you give me
your money for free and I return it back to you as a loan? It is
material who provided the money loaned.
The course taught that an "offer" expresses the intent and
willingness of the one making the offer to do or not do certain
things. The three requirements of an offer are: 1) Contractual
intention (the state of mind as to where the money is coming
from to make the loan), 2) definiteness (known positively, for
certain, sure), 3) communication of the offer to the other party.
If an offer is vague or indefinite or if essential provisions are
lacking, there is no offer or acceptance or agreement. For an
agreement to be valid, there must be mutual understanding.
Independent certified public accountants audit banks, act-
ing like police to protect the public. The CPA must follow audit
guidelines. These guidelines require the CPA to know the in-
tent of the borrower's agreement and be sure the agreement and
economic effect of the bank bookkeeping entries are in agree-
ment. As judge and jury, you must decide if the agreement stated
"loan" or implied loan by the words interest, borrower, and
lender, and whether the bookkeeping entries show an exchange
but charged you as if there was a loan, significantly changing
the cost and the risk. The CPA must have the competence to
know the difference and must have investigated this require-
ment in the audit investigation.
As the judge and jury, you must make a decision on whether
there is a valid agreement or whether there was an intentional
breach. The facts are simple: the bank advertised and wrote an
agreement implying that they would loan money, credit, or a
check to the borrower if he signed an agreement, a promissory
note, to repay the loan. The judge and jury will now consider
the intent of both parties on a typical $10,000 bank loan.
Intent can be stated as simply as whether the bank led the
alleged borrower to believe the bank would loan a bank check
(cash equivalent) if the borrower agreed to sign the promissory
note to repay the loan? Most borrowers I talk to believe the
reason they signed the promissory note was simply to agree to
repay the check loaned to them. That was the intent of signing
59
it. Only the alleged borrower signed the agreement, so only the
alleged borrower's signature is relevant to the intent.
The bank had a far different intent in writing the agree-
ment. The bank intended to receive actual cash value of $10,000
for free from the alleged borrower and return the $10,000 back
to the borrower as a loan. The law allows the bank to create
new tokens (checkbook money called bank liabilities, deposits,
and IOUs) to match cash or government bonds the bank owns.
The bank simply used the promissory note to obtain govern-
ment bonds for free and used the government bonds to create
10,000 new tokens (new money) as if someone deposited cash.
The money supply increased by the amount of the promis-
sory note. The bank exchanged the promissory note having ac-
tual cash value of $10,000 for bank tokens (checkbook money)
having actual cash value of $10,000. The bank received $10,000
for free from the alleged borrower and returned it back to the
alleged borrower as a loan. The bank required the alleged bor-
rower to repay the alleged loan in cash or tokens.
If the alleged borrower knew the bank loaned nothing of
value for the promissory note, they would use their vote to
change the system. When we took an opinion poll of the Ameri-
can people and told them the whole truth, they agreed they never
had the intent to give the bank $10,000 of actual cash value for
free and have it returned back to them as a loan. They had no
idea, so they could not have had intent to fund the bank loan
check. The borrower believed the tokens loaned were financed
by other depositors. The alleged borrowers had no idea they
financed their own loan and had to pay back the principal and
interest to a third party who never loaned any actual cash value.
The bank knew the truth and what their intent was. The
bank wrote the agreement, they advertised and had the intent
proven by the bookkeeping entries. They claimed there was a
loan when, in fact, the economics prove that no loan existed.
That there was an exchange and a charge as if there was a loan,
I believe, shows that the bank intended to make false state-
ments, false representations, to conceal the exchange in the
agreement with the intent to reinforce a false impression, and
60
failed to correct a false impression by showing the true intent

in the written agreement and bank advertising.
Why did the bank change and conceal the true intent? It
obviously changes the cost and the risk of the alleged loan. The
exchange allows the bank to obtain the assets of the nation for
free and to force us to pay them interest on what they received
from us for free. If the bankers' intent was not concealed, in-
formed Americans would be outraged and vote out everyone
aiding and abetting the bankers.
Can we prove the intent of the borrower? Sure we can. What
borrower do you know that is stupid enough to agree to give
the bank a gift of $10,000 of actual cash value and have the
bank immediately return it back to the same person as a loan?
Americans are not that stupid; they have to be tricked into it.
Can we prove the intent of the bank? Yes, by the bookkeeping
entries, the stamp on the back of the promissory note (as will
be discussed later), and bank policy.
9. BANK AUDITOR FROM TEXAS

(True Story)
A radio station in Texas invited me to speak about bank
loans. After I spoke, a man called, identifying himself as a
former CPA bank auditor. He told me he always knew that some-
thing was wrong, but could never quite put his finger on it. In a
matter of minutes, I explained how I felt. The bank auditor was
concerned that he could go to jail. I suggested we do some role
playing, as if we were in court. I told him to pretend he was on
the witness stand. I said, "Do you have the competence to con-
duct the bank audit?"
He said yes. He admitted that under CPA ethics he had no
choice but to say yes.
I asked, "Did you determine if the bank legally owned the
promissory note?"
He said, yes, that this is part of the audit requirement.
61
I asked him, "On a $100,000 bank loan, how much legal

tender must the bank loan in order for the bank to legally own
the $100,000 promissory note?"
He responded that it would have to loan $100,000. I knew
he had just made a fatal mistake.
I asked, "What does a $100,000 bank liability mean?"
He said it means the bank owes $100,000 of legal tender.
I asked him if a check is money or merely an order to pay
money?
He gave the standard reply, stating a check is the same as
money because you can redeem it in cash.
I asked him if, according to the Uniform Commercial Code,
it is money or merely an order to pay money?
He said, "Don't worry about it."
I said, "Do you have the competence to answer the ques-
tion?" I knew he could not say no if he took on a CPA bank
audit assignment. He finally confessed that it is not money, it is
merely an order to pay money.
I asked, "According to the standard bank bookkeeping en-
tries and according to the Federal Reserve Bank policy and pro-
cedures, who provided the original capital to fund the bank loan
check? Was it the bank or the borrower?"
He said, "If I answered that question, I might go to jail."
He admitted the check and liability is not money. He ad-
mitted the bank must loan $100,000 of legal tender to the bor-
rower in order for the bank to legally own the promissory note.
That means the promissory note cannot fund the bank loan
check. He became very upset and concerned. He explained that,
if the bank does not legally own the promissory note, then the
audit was incorrect and must be changed. If this were done, it
would open the door for a lawsuit. He very well might go to
jail. The next day he called me, claiming he'd found a weak-
ness in my argument and charging that the banking procedure
was not check kiting.
I asked him if the word loan meant money advanced to a
borrower to be repaid at a later date, usually with interest.
He said yes. He had no choice, he had to say yes. This defi-
nition comes from the dictionary.
62
I asked him if the bank records legal tender as a bank asset.

He said yes. This refuted his claim that the local banks have
a license to create the opposite of legal tender (bank liability
called checkbook money owing legal tender) and loan the op-
posite of legal tender to the borrower.
I asked him if it is standard policy for the banks to record
promissory notes as a loan from the borrower to the bank. Ob-
viously the answer is yes.
He knew I had the Federal Reserve Bank publications show-
ing the standard bank bookkeeping entries, which recorded the
promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new bank liability.
This is economically the same as loaning the promissory note
to the bank, and the bank loaning the value back to you. He
knew that, if it is material to disclose a loan from the bank to
you, it is equally material to disclose a loan from you to the
bank. If it was not a loan, it had to be a theft. He could not
answer the question.
I asked him, "According to your understanding, is the prom-
issory note money or not?"
He told me he could not answer this question in court with-
out going to jail. Later in the book, I will explain why he gave
this response.
10. MORE AND MORE PROFESSIONALS

JOINING TO SAVE AMERICA
(A true story)
Jeff, a California CPA, asked me to train him as an expert
witness. I had him listen to my 15 hours of cassette tapes and
read my manual. I then flew to Los Angeles and met him at a
friend's house. I spent hours writing on a chalkboard, explain-
ing the bank loan agreement. The best way to teach him the
concepts was to hold a mock trial. I asked Jeff to pretend he
was the bank president or CPA expert witness on the witness
stand. As an expert witness, you must know everything about
63
America ' s Hope: To Cancel Bank Loans
banking. You cannot claim you do not know an answer to a

question in the area you are testifying in. I asked Jeff, "Do you
know the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures regard-
ing loans, deposits, and bookkeeping entries?" He said he did.
"Is a bank liability a banker's debt?" I asked.
He said yes.
"Do banks charge interest for the use of borrowed money?"
"Yes they do," he said.
"Is this a $100,000 promissory note?" I said hypothetically,
holding up a piece of paper. He said yes.
"If the bank refused to loan the borrower a $100,000 check
as consideration for the promissory note, do you believe the
bank would legally own the promissory note?"
He said, "If the bank refused to loan the money, the bank
does not legally own the promissory note."
"Does a bank liability mean the bank owes legal tender?"
He responded yes.
"Is the check money, or merely an order to pay money?"
He responded, "It is not money. The Uniform Commercial
Code says it is not money. It acts like money with the assump-
tion that there is legal tender deposited to make the check valid."
"Is it your assumption that the bank followed the Federal
Reserve Bank policies and procedures?" He said if they didn't,
they would go to jail. "Is it your opinion that the bank legally
owns the promissory note?"
He said yes.
I said, "Jeff, if this were a real court case, I think you would
be headed to jail. At the very least, you would have lost the
case." He asked me what the problem was.
I explained that the check could never be the consideration
loaned for the promissory note. If the check was the consider-
ation loaned, then there was no cash or asset behind the check,
making the check illegal. The FED publications state that the
bank never loans other depositors' money or legal tender as
consideration for the promissory note. According to the FED
publications, the promissory note is used as the value to fund
the check. If the promissory note funded the check, then the
check could never be the consideration loaned because the bank
64
owned the promissory note without loaning one cent of legal

tender. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The question
is, did the bank steal the promissory note or record it as a loan
from the borrower to fund the check? Did they then lie and
claim the check was the consideration loaned to obtain the prom-
issory note?
Key lesson: Most nonbankers believe the bank bookkeep-
ing entries were the opposite of what the agreement actually
was. There is no agreement without mutual understanding. Did
the agreement imply a loan of the bank's money to the bor-
rower or a loan of the borrower's money to the borrower? The
banker does not want to answer which came first, the chicken
or the egg.
Jeff asked me, "What if the bank sold the promissory note?"
Was the promissory note stolen? Look up the words "re-
ceipt of stolen goods and property" and I think you will agree
that the one who bought the promissory note understood the
bank policy, standard bookkeeping entries, and agreement. They
had knowledge and intent. Buying a car you know was stolen
makes you guilty. As judge and jury, you must decide if the
acquisition of the promissory note is receipt of stolen goods or
property.
Stealing is defined as obtaining another's property through
a trick, a dishonest act without authorization, or permission
given, larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, or other wrong-
ful acquisitions. Larceny is defined as obtaining property by
unauthorized means through fraud, false representation, inten-
tional perversion of the truth, deception with intent, or precon-
ceived plan to convert or steal. Larceny by fraud or deception
is defined as obtaining property by deception, using or creating
a false impression, and/or reinforcing a false impression, or pre-
venting one from obtaining the correct information that may
alter the transaction. The deceiver fails to correct the mislead-
ing information which he previously created. Example: the bank
claimed there was a loan when there was only an exchange of
equal value, and then they charged you as if they loaned you
their money. The deception changed the cost and the risk of the
transaction. Through this trick, the banks could obtain nearly
65
all the property in the nation for free. Judges and attorneys have
routinely refused evidence into court. Larceny by fraud, extor-
tion, and concealment are committed when a court prevents one
from bringing evidence into court for one's defense. The law-
yer reinforces a false statement, claiming there was a loan, con-
cealing that the bank took actual cash value from us, returned it
back to us, and claimed it was a loan from the bank and not a
return of the unauthorized loan from us to the bank. Please look
up the words conspiracy and white collar crime as well. The
bank told you that you received a check you can cash for legal
tender, and that the check was the loan allowing you to buy the
house or car. All one has to do is follow the money
trail—bokepng ntries— to see that this is not the case.
e
11. HOW DOES SOCIETY VALUE MONEY?

Money is only worth the products it can buy. Money is val-
ued by the labor required to obtain it. Your employer gives you
a paycheck because you sold your labor to him in exchange for
money. Before money existed, people bartered their time for
other people's time. Joe agreed to work five hours to fix Randy's
wagon, and in exchange, Randy agrees to work five hours to
fix Joe's plumbing. Money merely made it easier to barter one's
labor; it is the medium of exchange for other people's labor.
Money can be valued in time, and banks charge interest for the
time money is borrowed.
labor—mneyf When you buy food, you barter your
the farmer's labor. A gold coin has value in itself. You could
melt the coin down and people will still trade their labor for the
melted gold. If everyone counterfeited money and stopped work-
ing, people would have houses full of cash and no food, water,
electricity, or gas to fill their cars. Bankers know labor is more
valuable than counterfeit money. Labor produces wealth. A
counterfeiter receives your labor for free and devalues the money
66
and savings by the inflation caused by creating the counterfeit

money.
If your neighbor loaned you $10,000, he worked 1,000 hours
to earn the money. You will work 1,000 hours to repay the loan,
plus interest. Money was the barter mechanism to exchange
labor for labor, value for value. No one stole anything from
anyone. If banks loaned other depositors' money, you would
receive a loan of their labor, to be repaid with your labor. No
one stole or counterfeited. No one received another person's
labor for free.
But the bank never loaned you value for value. They did
not loan you 1,000 hours of labor to be repaid by 1,000 hours
of your labor, plus interest. The bank received 1,000 future hours
of your labor for free, and this labor gave value to the new
money that the bank created and claimed it loaned to you. Your
labor funded the bank loan check. The bank received your la-
bor for free when you paid the principal and interest. Then,
often, the bank forecloses and receives the property for free.
The borrower is constantly giving the bank his labor without
receiving any of the bank's labor or other depositors' labor in
return.
The banks claim Congress gave them the right to create
money and receive Americans' labor for free. A thief and coun-
terfeiter can receive your labor for free, too, unless they are
caught and go to prison. If you are constantly stolen from or
forced to give your labor to another for free, you will be poor,
in debt, and bankrupt, while the one receiving your property
for free gets rich without working.
The cost of bank-created money is the cost of having today's
value of your future payroll checks stolen and used to create
new counterfeit money value that is loaned back to you at in-
terest. It is not only the cost of stealing and giving you back a
debt in place of the property (future payroll checks) stolen, it is
also the cost of inflation and devaluation of currency created
by the counterfeit money.
The cost of Lincoln's money eliminates the cost of stealing
and paying new interest on new debt. Lincoln needed
$449,338,902 in taxes, borrowed funds, or newly printed green-
67
backs to finance the war. The bankers wanted Lincoln to print

the money and give the cash to them for free, or to have them
create the money and loan the cash back to Lincoln at 24% to
36% interest. That would cost the taxpayer $449,338,902 plus
$161,762,000 in interest every year. The great-great-grandchil-
dren of the taxpayers would be paying the great-grandchildren
of the bankers this interest today if Lincoln did not refuse to
give the cash to the bankers for free and return it as a loan to
the government. Lincoln printed $100 for less than one cent,
making a profit of $99.99 for each $100 printed. The new money
was used to pay the soldiers and bought the guns, saving tax-
payers the money. Lincoln's solution saved the taxpayer
$449,338,902 plus interest. The controversy is over who re-
ceives the $449,338,902 for free — the taxpayers (government)
or the bankers? The government is supposed to belong to the
voters; it was never intended to be taken from the voters and
given to the bankers.
The cost and value of money is much more than labor, in-
terest, and debt. It has to do with who controls the government.
The value or cost of money determines if you are an economic
slave or free, as our founding fathers intended. Do the citizens
own the country and government or do the banks?
If you are forced to give your labor away for free, over
time you will be broke and will lose your country. United States
Notes are the bankers' nightmare and the citizens' salvation.
Real Americans who love our government and Constitution and
know we fought the Revolutionary War to stop banks from cre-
ating money and only allow the government that privilege will
conclude that President Abraham Lincoln was right, and that
United States Notes have the greatest value to society.
12. WHAT IS MONEY IN AMERICA?

Most people know that gold and silver is lawful money in
the United States according to our founding fathers and the U.S.
68
Constitution. One cannot lawfully redefine money without an

amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I can argue that Federal
Reserve Notes are not legal nor lawful using the law and court
cases. I would have to write another book to present the evi-
dence. However, for the purposes of teaching you the real bank
loan agreement, we will call Federal Reserve Notes legal ten-
der. It would take too long to explain how Congress passed
bills taking away gold and silver and substituting them with
Federal Reserve Notes; it suffices to say that they did it.
Instead of the government creating the money, the banks
created it. How did the banks create money? The Federal Re-
serve Bank of Richmond publication, Your Money, says, "Fed-
eral Reserve Banks pay 2.5 cents for each note produced by the
Bureau of Engraving and Printing" (p. 12). The bank buys $100
of cash for 2.5 cents, making a profit of $99.975. The Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago publication, Two Faces Of Debt, says,
"Federal Reserve Notes are liabilities" (p. 4). A liability is a
bank debt or an IOU. Rockefeller got the money for free or for
the cost of printing the money. This is how Rockefeller got so
rich. He was a smart man. The bank his family owns creates
money. No wealth is produced; it is simply shifted out of your
pocket and put into the bank's pocket. The bank gives back
some of it to get the Congress, judges, and sheriffs elected,
ensuring more laws are passed and enforced in favor of the
banks. Greed and the love of money run this country.
According to court cases years ago, judges would have ruled
that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. What did the
bank do? They simply redefined the word money and made the
definition mean the opposite of what lawful money used to be.
Gold and silver are assets and could never be liabilities. Years
ago, you could exchange a Federal Reserve Note for gold or
silver, but not today. Today, if you ask the bank to give you real
money for a $10 Federal Reserve Note, they give you back ten
$1 Federal Reserve Notes. A Federal Reserve Note is the oppo-
site of gold or silver (asset); the paper money is a bank liability
for the real money. It is a bank IOU. For every dollar the banks
print, the nonbankers are forced into one more dollar of debt,
owing the banks more money and interest. It is like the banks
69
printing money and, for every dollar they print, they buy some-
thing while having you repay the bank principal and interest on
the money they created. The banks cannot lose.
The Federal Reserve Bank publications simply redefined
"money" to mean the opposite of what the traditional meaning
was. A simple illustration: years ago cash was scarce, so people
used horses like currency; they bartered. The bank had a better
idea. Instead of using a horse as currency, the people gave the
bank a $500 horse and the bank created 500 tokens worth one
dollar each. The bank received the horse for free by creating
500 new tokens and giving you the new tokens. People used
the tokens as money instead of using horses like money. To-
kens are really bank notes owing cash. Tokens became check-
book money. Checkbook money stopped people from stealing
cash. For safety reasons and out of convenience, people used
checkbook money for large transactions and cash for small pur-
chases. The bank simply expanded its operations by exchang-
ing newly created tokens for matching amounts of promissory
notes that can be sold for cash. Casinos force you to use cash or
tokens (liabilities) as money, and the banks force you to use
cash or checkbook money (liability) as currency, thereby forc-
ing their private Monopoly money upon the citizens.
The people did not see the banking secret. When the bank
created new tokens and exchanged the tokens for horses, the
bank ended up owning all the horses for free. It was so profit-
able that the bank expanded their operation, exchanging nearly
anything of value for newly created tokens. Soon the bank owned
nearly everything. They learned that counterfeiting works bet-
ter than outright stealing.
Key Lesson: Any asset — farms , ranches, cattle, gun pow-

der, houses, cars, cash, promissory notes, liens on houses, gold,
silver, diamonds, or anything else of value — can be bartered
and traded just like money. A bank token by itself has no value.
The proof is that no one will accept a check (liability/token)
that cannot be cashed. The bank must receive an asset from us
for free that has equal value to cash and can be quickly sold for
cash to match the newly created bank tokens (liabilities) so that
70
people will accept the token as money. The banking monopoly

forces the token as a medium of exchange by only accepting
cash and tokens to be deposited, unless one deposits promis-
sory notes, and the currency created by the deposit is returned
to the depositor as a loan.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago publication Modern
Money Mechanics, (p. 2) uses the logic that, if people use to-
kens in place of cash, then only cash and tokens need be con-
sidered money. The Federal Reserve Bank is wrong and here is
the proof. Cash is an asset. Tokens are bank liabilities repre-
senting the value of the matching asset earlier deposited, creat-
ing the token (checkbook money). The token is the substitute
for the earlier deposited asset. The asset gives the token value,
so the correct conclusion is that only assets are money and li-
abilities represent a substitute of the asset earlier deposited.
The bankers have a secret. If you deposit cash (asset), the cash
becomes the bank's property and they owe you back an equal
amount of cash or checks. If you deposit a promissory note
(asset), it becomes the banker's property just like depositing
cash. The banks know you cannot create new deposits (liabili-
ties, tokens, IOUs, checkbook money) without first depositing,
or loaning 'e bank, an asset (cash, check, promissory note) to
create the bark liability (checkbook money). This bank liabil-
ity becomes a token/substitute for the real money, which is a
bank asset. They deposit your money (promissory note/asset)
and they keep the money (asset). They use your money to cre-
ate a matching amount of private bank money (liability). They
then return your deposit back to you as if they loaned you other
peoples' money, hoping you do not find out that they loaned
you your own money.
The proof is in Modern Money Mechanics (p. 2). Just as a
token is a casino liability, checkbook money is a bank liability.
The publication states, "This (is a) transaction concept of
money." It then lists demand deposit (bank liability/tokens) and
other checkable deposits (bank liability/tokens) as money. The
next page explains that banks learned how they could create
money/tokens by exchanging a borrower's promissory notes for
newly created bank notes (bank liabilities/tokens) and loaning
71
the bank notes back to the alleged borrower as money. "In this
way, banks began to create money." The next paragraph states,
"Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank
notes." Remember a transaction deposit is a checking account
balance (bank liability/token). Then it explains how issuing a
bank note is like making a bank bookkeeping entry that creates
a deposit (bank liability/token) for a borrower which can be
spent by writing a check. The check merely transfers the funds
(tokens) from your checking account to another checking ac-
count. Both the deposit and bank note are bank liabilities used
as private bank money (tokens). The bank liability is spent like
money and is used in place of cash. To use private bank money
like cash, one first deposits cash (asset) or a promissory note
(asset) having actual cash value. The asset is exchanged for a
token (liability) or checkbook money (liability owing the cash).
Every dollar deposited is matched with a new bank liability or
token. Now the depositor spends the token like money because
the real money was exchanged for a substitute (liability/token).
No one will use the token as money without first depositing an
asset so one can cash the check. The token is dependent on
cash behind it if it is to be used as money, thus proving the real
money is a bank asset (cash), and not a liability (token).
Creating new money proves that they did not loan you other
depositors' money. A token is not legal tender because it is owing
cash, which is the opposite of cash. Modern Money Mechanics
gives the details, explaining that the bank did not loan you other
depositors' money. Richmond Federal Reserve Bank publica-
tions Your Money and Our Money claim that demand deposits,
traveler's checks, and interest-bearing accounts are not legal
tender, even though they are "usually accepted in payment for
purchases for goods and services." These publications admit
that they loaned you a bank liability called a demand deposit or
checkbook balance traded by check.
Modern Money Mechanics explains how the promissory
note is "exchanged for credits in the borrower's transaction ac-
counts," thereby creating new money. The new money is then
given back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan. Your Money
and Our Money claim that "the loan in fact becomes new de-
72
posit money." Federal Reserve Bank of New York publication I

Bet You Thought... states, "Commercial banks create checkbook
money whenever they grant a loan..." Then it gives the details
on how the bank exchanges a promissory note for a newly cre-
ated deposit and the new deposit becomes new money. The pub-
lication then explains that checks are not money, they simply
transfer bank liabilities/tokens from one checking account to
another checking account. "They are simply order forms...to
move transaction balances."
The banks want tokens as money because the borrower will
not know if the tokens loaned came from other depositors' la-
bor or if the bank exchanged your promissory note for newly
created tokens, loaning you your own labor (money) back to
you.
If everyone only used cash as money, issued interest-free
by the government, the bank could only loan other depositors'
money. By exchanging the promissory note for tokens, new
money is created. The bank received money or actual cash value
for free from the alleged borrower and returned an equal amount
of actual cash value back to the same borrower as a bank loan.
The economic effect of stealing and counterfeiting could be
stopped if we all stopped using credit cards and checkbook
money. This is why the bankers are pushing for a cashless soci-
ety where only checkbook money is used, giving the bank ab-
solute control over you.
I know of no other business like this. The borrower hands
you $100,000. You hand the $100,000 back as a loan. The bor-
rower repays the $100,000 plus interest. We should all become
bankers, judges, police, or lawmakers in order to benefit from
this system, or hire legal counsel to give us equal protection, or
vote out anyone aiding and abetting the bankers. The bankers
do not fear you suing them if they can control the judges. They
fear an informed populace agreeing that our founding fathers'
Constitution prohibits such a banking system. We can never
vote out the politicians aiding the bankers until we can get
enough brochures and cassette tapes copied and distributed and
people reading this book. We need informed voters to correct
the problem. Whoever owns or controls the media controls the
73
money and the government. Our brochures, tapes, and this book
will become our media to expose the ugly truth about our bank-
ing problem.
Conclusion: Any asset is money. A car, house, cash, prom-
issory note, lien on a car or house, anything that has value that
you own and can trade is money. The banks created a monopoly,
forcing your to transfer your assets to the bank for free. The
bank gives you back an equal amount of private bank tokens
representing the value of the asset. The banks then only accept
cash or tokens as money, forcing private bank liabilities (IOUs/
tokens) to be used as a substitute in place of the real money, i.e.
car, house, or promissory note. In the process, the bank obtains
the nation's assets for free through money creation. Then the
bank loans us back the substitute money (liability) represent-
ing the money the bank just took from us.
The Constitution our founding fathers gave us gives us equal
protection and gold and silver currency, and prohibits credit
(bank tokens, liabilities, IOUs). The citizens are not forced to
transfer their assets to the bank for free to obtain money. One
cannot redefine the Constitutional definition of money, i.e. gold
and silver coin (asset), without an Amendment to the Constitu-
tion or a constitutional convention.
The Constitution demands equal protection, prohibiting two
classes of citizens. Our founding fathers' Constitution prohib-
its those who can legally transfer wealth from your pocket into
theirs, use it to create money, and loan it back to you. In the
future, informed voters will decide if the bankers are right or if
our founding fathers were correct. Our job is to tell everyone
what the real bank loan agreement is. The bankers know they
must conceal the truth.
I talked to bankers who redefine words and call checks cash
because you can get cash for the check. We know that a check
merely transfers money previously deposited. The banks claim
that they do not steal nor counterfeit. They redefine it and call
it good business or monetizing. Monetize means to make into
money. They made the asset (house, promissory note, cash) into
checkbook money/tokens by matching the value of the asset
with new tokens. The economic effect is similar to stealing and
74
counterfeiting, but monetize sounds legal. Redefining words

does not change the economic effect of the transaction. Some-
one still transferred an asset from one party to another without
the authorization of the one who lost the asset.
13. IS THE PROMISSORY NOTE MONEY

ACCORDING TO THE BANK?
From previous chapters, we learned that the bank has forced
us to use bank IOUs (tokens) as money. I Bet You thought...
teaches us that the bank IOUs (checkbook money) have no value
without first depositing cash or promissory notes to create the
bank IOUs traded as money. It explains how banks create money
(bank IOUs), "based on a borrower's promise to repay..." The
publication then explains how the alleged borrower's promis-
sory note and secured collateral gives the newly created bank
IOU value. The banks create money "against the value of those
IOUs." The IOUs they are referring to are the alleged
borrower's promissory notes. It continues to explain how banks
are monetizing debt. Monetizing is simply explained as creat-
ing a new bank IOU (called new money) to match a promissory
note (IOU) to repay the loan. The publication then admits,
"Money doesn't have to...be issued by the government." A
simple IOU can be used as money.
The same publication admits that promissory notes are
money by admitting that any item having the following three
traits is money: 1) anything individuals or banks "generally
accept in exchange for items of value", 2) a standard of mea-
suring value, 3) purchasing power stored for future spending.
When the bank sells, deposits or exchanges the promissory note,
it is proof that the bank used the promissory note as money. It
has a standard of measuring value (it has equal value to cash)
and purchasing power is stored (it retains its value because the
principal and interest are returned or foreclosure results).
75
Apply the bank's definition of money to bank checkbook

money and you have just proved that checkbook money is not
money. The bank checkbook money is merely a score card of
money banks owe depositors. It is a standard of measuring value
owed for the asset. Money owed disqualifies checkbook money
as a standard of measuring value; the new asset and new liabil-
ity represent the same funds deposited. A check or checking
account balance (liability) without cash (asset) behind it has no
value. It is an IOU that cannot be paid. The publication admit-
ted that the value of the bank's IOU (checkbook money, token,
liability) came from the borrower's IOU (promissory note/as-
set). People do not accept checks that cannot be exchanged for
cash, proving the bank's IOU/token is not money per the bank's
own definition of money. The bank token/liability is merely a
substitute representing the real money recorded as a bank asset
(cash). The promissory note (asset) has equal value of cash,
making the promissory note equal to money (asset). The bank-
ing monopoly uses tokens/IOUs/checkbook money when you
repay the alleged loans in an attempt to force the tokens to be
used like money, but the value behind it is a bank asset. In court,
it is common for the bank to claim that the promissory note is
money to the bank, but not money to the alleged borrower. How
can it be money and not money at the same time? If they admit
it is money to the bank, then the banker must admit that they
received money from the alleged borrower to fund the check. If
this is the case, where is the money loaned to issue the check?
I received a telephone call from someone suing a bank who
claimed that there was not a bona fide signature on the promis-
sory note and that the promissory note was a forgery. He de-
manded that the bank produce the original promissory note so
that he could prove it was a forgery. The bank responded by
claiming that the promissory note had burned, and that they
only had a copy of it. The bank knew that on the back of the
promissory note was stamped "pay to the order of", just like a
check, and that people trade these notes like money. The bank
also stamps the words "Without Recourse.", which completely
eliminates the drawer's secondary liability. Does this show you
that they know the promissory note is a hot potato? The bank
76
did not want to show that they altered the promise to pay money
into money itself. Altering a document makes the document a
forgery, and then they would have to admit that you gave them
money to fund the check. They had to conceal the evidence and
claim that the original burned.
14. RANCHER STAMP

(A true story. Names are changed to protect
the identity of those involved.)
This is a true story every American must hear. I met with a
Midwest rancher who showed me documentation of how prom-
issory notes/security agreements are used like money to issue
bank loan checks.
The rancher owned a commercial dry lot feeding facility
for cattle. As customers buy, they need financing. The rancher
made an arrangement with the bank to give each customer a
bank loan check without it costing the bank one cent to issue.
The rancher had the customer sign a promissory note. Un-
known to the customer, the rancher stamped the back of the
original promissory note "pay to the order of Bank # 1 Colo-
rado With Recourse Rancher Trust." The copy of the promis-
sory note given back to the customer never showed the stamp
altering the note into money. The rancher hands the promissory
note to the bank and the bank stamps the back of the original
promissory note "pay to the order of Bank # 1 Colorado With-
out Recourse." This means that the bank receives the value of
the promissory note just like a check, which also says "pay to
the order of."
The first stamp marked "with recourse" made the rancher
and customer liable for the note. When the bank stamped the
note "without recourse", the bank was no longer liable for re-
paying the note. The bank then used the note (money) to fund
the bank loan check to the customer. Over $1.6 million were
created in 10 months. The bank never used one cent of their
77
own money to fund the check and received $1.6 million plus
interest in return. It was pure profit. The money loaned to the
customer came from the same customer, because the note was
altered and changed. Many ranchers and banks are involved in
this practice.
15. DID THE BANK DEPOSIT THE

PROMISSORY NOTE?
Regardless of whether one exchanges the promissory note
for credit in a transaction account, or for a check, or deposits it,
all are essentially the same bookkeeping entry. Economically,
all three are the same. About ninety percent of the balances in
customers' accounts, such as demand deposit accounts, savings
accounts, certificates of deposit, and checking accounts, were
created when the bank granted a loan. The Federal Reserve Bank
publications and bank balance sheets prove this. The question
is, how can one issue a check or create a checking account bal-
ance without first depositing the money? The banks may start
redefining words, as they have in the past, but economically
speaking, it is the same thing as depositing the promissory note.
If one used cash instead of a promissory note to issue a check
or to create credit in a deposit account, it would be called a
deposit. So I will claim that the bank deposits the promissory
note and returns the proceeds back to the depositor as a loan.
Depositing cash is depositing money you earned in the past.
Depositing a promissory note is depositing the value of your
future earnings and having it returned to you as a loan. The
bank is receiving your promissory note and your future payroll
checks for free, depositing them, and returning them back to
you as a loan. This is why the bank does not want to admit that
they deposited the promissory note and called it an exchange.
A deposit is like loaning the bank the funds. If one deposited
cash and the bank returned it back as a loan, it would be a fraudu-
lent conversion. This is why people say it is a felony when the
78
bank does the same thing with the promissory note. As the judge
and jury, I ask you to determine whether this is fraudulent or
not.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York publication The
Story of Banks is summarized as follows: By depositing $5,000
into the bank with a 10% reserve requirement, the bank can
lend up to $4,500 ($5,000 times 90%). When the $4,500 is de-
posited, the bank can loan another $4,050 ($4,500 times 90%).
When the $4,050 is deposited, the bank can loan another $3,645
($4,050 times 90%). The bank's assets thereby grow by $12,195
($4,500 + $4,050 + $3,645).
The publication then explains how, through a $5,000 de-
posit and three loans, the banks received $13,550 in new de-
posits and lent $12,195. The most interesting point made in the
publication is the admission that banks, credit unions, and sav-
ings and loans create a lot of new money when they grant loans.
Read it carefully and you will see that the bank first received
$12,195 in new deposits and then made $12,195 in loans. You
will find the new deposits of $12,195 were created by deposit-
ing promissory notes or exchanging promissory notes for credit
in the borrower's account.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York publication The Story
of Checks and Electronic Payments claims that you deposit cash
and checks. Cash and checks have actual cash value. The FDIC
Call Reports (i.e. bank balance sheets) prove that all checking
account balances are matched by an offsetting bank asset which
can be converted into cash to pay the checking account balance
(liability). This proves one cannot create a new deposit balance
(liability) without depositing something of value that can be
exchanged for cash.
The Federal Reserve Bank admits, that, if you deposited
funds at the bank, you loaned the bank the funds. Federal Re-
serve Bank of Kansas City Publication Banking Regulation
claims that a deposit becomes a liability of the bank, placing
the "...bank and the depositor in a debtor-creditor relationship."
The bank is the debtor and the depositor is the creditor or lender
to the bank. The alleged borrower is first the creditor, deposi-
tor, and lender to the bank, proven by the bank recording the
79
promissory note as a bank asset matched by an offsetting new

bank liability called a deposit. The increase in assets and li-
abilities is the proof. The loan back to the same person is the
check transferring the bank liability, the checking account bal-
ance, to another account. Two loans were exchanged and only
the borrower repaid the loan; the bank never repaid the promis-
sory note loaned to the bank by the borrower.
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago publication ABCs of Fig-
uring Interest prove that the borrower is the lender to the bank.
It explains how the new deposit is a loan to the bank. When one
opens or deposits money into a savings account, "an individual
makes a loan to the bank."
The bank receives a new asset (promissory note) having
actual cash value from the alleged borrower. This asset is used
to create a new deposit (a bank liability called a checking ac-
count balance, also known as a transaction account). This is
the loan to the bank. The check transfers the money to another
account, which is the loan to the alleged borrower.
I Bet You Thought... states, "Checkbook money is created
by currency deposits." People deposit cash and checks. If check-
book money is created by currency deposits and new deposits
are created when banks grant loans, then checkbook money is
created by depositing promissory notes.
Modern Money Mechanics explains the details of exchang-
ing the promissory note for "credits in the borrower's transac-
tion account." Please note the phrase "borrower's transaction
account" is possessive. When did the borrower give the bank
written permission and authorization to open up a checking ac-
count (transaction account), deposit the promissory note (today's
value of future payroll checks to repay the alleged loan), and
withdraw a check from the deposit without the signature of the
alleged borrower on a signature card or on the check?
Your Money states, "...the loan in fact becomes new deposit
money." Everyone knows you cannot have a new deposit with-
out depositing money or something having actual cash value. A
deposit is defined as entrusting money (asset/cash) in the cus-
tody of a bank to be withdrawn upon the depositor's request.
There must be an asset (cash/check/promissory note) deposited
80
to create a new bank liability (deposit/checking account bal-

ance/checkbook money). The asset deposited was the promis-
sory note, or they sold it and deposited the proceeds. They can-
not deposit it nor sell it until they legally own it. To legally
own it, they must first loan consideration (money or actual cash
value) in accordance with the agreement. They cannot take an
asset from us, deposit it, and claim it is their property without
authorization, permission, and knowledge of both parties of the
agreement. A bank must act as a fiduciary (trusted position) of
the depositor. The conversion (unauthorized transfer of the
promissory note from borrower to bank) took place at the time
of the deposit. The deposit transferred ownership of the prom-
issory note from the individual to the bank without any loan
taking place. The deposit means the bank obtained the promis-
sory note for free and the bank used it to create an equal amount
of new checkbook money (liability/checking account balance).
Clearly, the bank violated contract law and acted in an unau-
thorized manner, transferring your wealth to the bank for free
and returning it back as a loan. Loaning other depositors' money
ends both theft and new money creation.
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago publication Public Debt:
Private Asset states that, "The bank then uses our money to
make loans..." No one can logically argue that the bank owes
depositors money that is in their accounts. Even this publica-
tion agrees with that statement. The publication is correct, the
bank did use our money to loan. The problem is, we did not
know we loaned ourselves our own money. The bank forced us
to loan ourselves our own money and to repay the money to the
bank as if they loaned us other depositors' money. If we loaned
ourselves our own money, we should repay ourselves our own
money. Who do you know that is stupid enough to loan himself
his own money and repay a third party the principal and inter-
est when the third party refused to loan their money? If anyone
is this insane, send them to me; I would love to receive their
money for free.
Here's the bankers' secret. The trick is, the bank deposits
the promissory note and then uses our money to make loans
back to us. Once the banker admits that he deposited the prom-
81
issory note, then we can repay the loan in its equivalent in kind,
i.e., a second promissory note with no interest or lien. If we
have equal protection under the law, money, credit, and agree-
ment, and if the alleged borrower created the money for the
first alleged loan, why not create some more and repay the loan?
The bank refuses the second note, demanding tokens or cash,
thus proving the banker is merely a moneychanger and not a
lender. The second note has value because the banker can use it
like money to buy your house if, and when, you ever sell it. If
the banker demands you repay the second note, have him en-
dorse the back and keep the note and then give him a new note.
The bank publication admits it is money and they deposited it
before. They don't want your second note because they don't
want you to do to them what they did to you in the first place.
The banker must deny you equal protection to keep his bank-
ing system.
If both parties repaid their loans, the loans would cancel.
But the bank refuses to repay your unauthorized loan to them,
while they demand that you repay their loan. Again, equal pro-
tection is denied if the bank is to keep their European feudal
banking system, thereby owning the nation's assets for free and
forcing us serfs to pay the nobles their rent (interest).
The bank owes us for the deposit in the transaction account
because they altered the agreement and made the borrower the
creditor, lender, and depositor. The bank should return this
money to us as a return of our loan or deposit to the bank. They
received it for free and should return it. They advertised that
they would loan us money. That implies they loaned us their
money. They gave us one check for the earlier deposit. That
was a return of our original capital. They called this a loan, but
we never received a loan of actual cash value from the bank in
order for the bank to obtain the promissory note. If they want
us to pay them back, I believe they should either loan us the
money to fund the bank loan check or return the loan from us
to the bank. In either case, the bank loan is canceled. No rights
can be acquired by fraud.
The promissory note acts just like a check; both say "pay to
the order of." Both have value and can be exchanged for cash.
82
A promissory note has equal value to cash or a check and is, in

fact, a check made payable to the bank. The bank deposits it to
create new tokens.
By depositing the promissory note, the bankers can manipu-
late the money supply and, in a second transaction, take addi-
tional wealth (equity in your home or farm) from you and trans-
fer it to the bank. The new money creation creates inflation,
forcing house prices to increase and increases the equity in
homes. The bankers want your equity for free just like they
want your promissory note for free. By decreasing the money
(promissory notes) deposited to create new money, the banks
can cause a bank-induced recession as outlined in the Federal
Reserve Bank publications. By the banks creating $100 at 10
percent interest, you must repay $110 in one year, but there
exists only $100 to repay $110. If the bank does not create an
additional $10 by depositing a new $10 promissory note, there
is not enough money to pay the bank loan, forcing a contrac-
tion in the money supply and thereby creating a recession.
People are put out of work so they cannot service the debt, forc-
ing foreclosure. The banks can scientifically predetermine what
percentage of the people they can put out of work, forcing fore-
closure to gain the equity in your home for free. The foreclo-
sures employ attorneys, sheriffs, auctioneers, and judges, all
financed by the one being foreclosed on. It is more profitable
for a bank to foreclose on a $200,000 home with a $70,000
mortgage than for the borrower to repay the alleged loan. The
bank is repaid the $70,000, and receives $130,000 bonus by
forcing you or your family members out of work or to be un-
deremployed so you cannot make the payments.
Volume II of this book and Mr. Schauf's seminar have more
details on this subject. Mr. Schauf has found a way for you to
help others going through foreclosure. Using a high moral stan-
dard, Mr. Schauf keeps the $130,000 from being transferred to
the banker, keeping it in your hands. Someone must receive the
money, I believe it should not be the banks, but the citizens. By
depositing the promissory note, the banks can receive it and
the equity in your home for free, leaving the victim homeless.
The deposit gives the bank an incentive to debauch the cur-
83
rency, causing inflation and creating a recession for their profit.

The banker's $70,000 was turned into a $130,000 gain. The
banker tripled his money by forcing you out on the street. With
this knowledge and marketing tool, you can turn the tables and
make the deposit work to your advantage.
Mr. Schauf's plan uses current law and business savvy in a
network of people, allowing individuals to use this concept like
the bankers, but in an effort to save families, not destroy them.
Mr. Schauf is hoping to teach leaders his theory. Learn how to
earn $5,000 part-time showing others the concept. Mathemat-
ics shows that if one doubles $5,000 every 6 months, in 5 years
it nets over $5 million. You must decide if the potential $5 mil-
lion will go into your pocket, a friend's pocket, or the banker's.
When you learn what the bankers know, you will understand
why you will never get rich earning $5.00 per hour. You get
very rich if you earn $5,000 part-time and double your money
every 6 to 8 months. People who understand how profitable the
banking system is do not want it changed. Money is power. If
you want it changed, it will take money and power to do it. If
you are broke and bankrupt, you are not a threat to anyone. Just
decide if you should have the potential $5 million or if the banker
should have it. Will you help people or allow them to be vic-
tims? If you wish to learn this concept and how to market this
idea to others, write to Mr. Schauf. When you learn to stop fight-
ing the banks and courts, and outwit them in making money,
you will simply transfer money the bank would have received
for free back into your pocket. Stop getting mad, just get even.
Learn the secret to making lots of money and then apply it to
your advantage. You decide if you will be a slave or a king. The
secret is in making the deposit work to your advantage.
A true friend will share this secret of the very wealthy with
other friends and profit from the knowledge. We hope you wish
to quit your $5 an hour job. We hope you utilize our marketing
concept to your advantage. How many of your friends want to
end their $10 an hour job and obtain millions of dollars, leav-
ing the slavery for freedom? Start by sharing this book with
others. Complete the training and make money by helping oth-
ers. For the record, I am not recommending buying foreclosed
84
properties. Stop profiting from the misery of others—help the

victims.
As the judge and jury, you must decide if the written agree-
ment ever agreed that the alleged borrower be the lender, credi-
tor, depositor, or the one giving the bank the money to fund the
check and never have the capital returned unless the bank re-
turned it as a loan from the bank to you. As judge and jury you
must decide if there was written permission or authorization
for the bank to take actual cash value from you and deposit it,
and for the bank to receive it for free. Was this a theft, larceny,
or conversion and fraudulent concealment? You must examine
the bank policy to prove the banker's intent. Intent is needed to
prove criminal activity. Remember, the bank advertised a loan.
The written agreement the bank wrote said interest, which is
defined for the use of borrowed money. It did not say exchange
and charge as if there was a loan. It did not say you were the
lender, depositor, or exchanger. The bank advertised, wrote the
agreement, and wrote the bookkeeping entries proving their
intent.
Can the bank prove I am wrong? To prove I am wrong, they
must prove the Federal Reserve Bank publications are wrong.
If the bank claims they loaned other depositors' money, they
must prove they violated the Federal Reserve Bank policies and
procedures, which could land them in jail.
As I see it, if the bank claims that the promissory note was
not loaned to the bank or deposited, they must prove that the
promissory note was given to them for free, stolen, converted,
or that they violated the Federal Reserve Bank procedures. No
borrower I talked to knew that they gave the bank actual cash
value in the amount of the loan for free and that the bank re-
turned it back as a loan. The Constitution gave us the right to
contract, making the written agreement the highest law. Con-
gress cannot change the agreement without violating the Con-
stitution.
As judge and jury, please look up the following definitions
in a law dictionary and ask yourself if the bank committed the
following crimes: mail fraud, wire fraud (calling you to pay),
fraudulent conversion, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent mis-
85
representation, false statements, embezzlement, promissory

fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraud, forgery of the promis-
sory note, forgery of the check withdrawing the funds from the
borrower's transaction account, extortion, white collar crime,
deliberate deception, trick, breach of contract or agreement, de
facto contract, insurance fraud (to FDIC), deceptive advertis-
ing, deceit, theft, larceny, slavery, attempt to suspend the Con-
stitution through national bankruptcy, illegal lien, threat to bring
fraud on the court to collect money, bad faith, filing forged docu-
ments at the county level, or any number of other crimes.
The title insurance companies must have known exactly
what was happening. They participated in it and filed the records
at the county level. They insured it, so it makes me wonder if
you can collect the insured value because of their involvement.
This is an interesting legal question.
16. THE SIGNATURE
The bank's attorney offered evidence that the borrower

signed the promissory note and received a check. The borrower
claimed that the document was a forgery. As judge and jury,
you must determine who is telling the truth.
If you sign a $200 check and mail it to Tim and he alters
the check by changing the $200 to $20,000, is your signature
on the check a bona fide signature? The definition of bona fide
means an act done in good faith without fraud or deception; an
act done without notice of fraud. Signature means a mark or
written name to authenticate a writing or document. One places
a signature on a document to authenticate the validity to the
document. Forgery means to alter a document with intent to
defraud. Forgery makes the signature null and void.
The question is, did your signature validate a $200 or
$20,000 check? The altering of the document makes the docu-
ment a forgery, and your signature no longer attests to the va-
lidity of the forged document. The forged document may have
86
your handwriting or name at the bottom, but your signature is

not lending validity to the authenticity of the document because
it was altered.
The Rocky Mountain News (Sun., Feb. 9, 1997) printed an
article entitled "Officer charged with forgery" in which a Den-
ver patrolman who lost his drivers license in a drunken driving
case was charged with using a phony license. The patrolman
pleaded guilty. A forgery does not only mean the signature was
forged, it may also mean the document was altered.
The bank knew that they would not loan one cent of other
depositors' money or legal tender to obtain the promissory note.
They knew they would record it as a loan from you to the bank
and enter the bank bookkeeping entry as if they deposited it.
They stamped the back of the note to validate it or to have the
note act as money to fund the check. That stamp and deposit
(exchange) fundamentally altered the document, along with the
cost and risk of the loan, and did the opposite of what the
borrower's signature had endorsed. The stamp allowed the
promissory note to fund the check instead of other depositors'
money.
The question is, was the promissory note with the borrower's
signature validating a document which agreed only to the re-
payment of the loan by the borrower, or did the borrower agree
to loan himself his own money and then repay the bank as if the
bank had loaned him other depositors' money? Only the bor-
rower can testify, because the bank does not sign the agree-
ment. A notary can claim you signed something, but how can
they claim the document was not forged? To do that, they must
determine whether the promissory note is or is not money. If
you agreed that it was not money, the document would need to
have been forged after you signed it. The bank exchanged the
promissory note for credit in the borrower's transaction account.
When the check was withdrawn, was that check a forgery? How
can they deposit and withdraw without your knowledge or with-
out your signature to open up the account or as approval for the
check? As judge and jury, you decide whether there was a forg-
ery involved or not.
87
17. WHO LOANED EXACTLY WHAT TO

WHOM?
To save repeating, simply combine earlier quotes from the
Federal Reserve Bank and the bank bookkeeping entries to prove
that the promissory note was recorded as a loan from the al-
leged borrower to the bank. The loan to the bank was proven
by the promissory note recorded as a bank asset matched with a
new bank liability. The loan to the bank funded the bank loan
back to the same alleged borrower. The funds being returned
back to the same alleged borrower is proven by the check trans-
ferring the newly created liability to another checking account.
Two loans were exchanged. The Federal Reserve Bank's poli-
cies and procedures, the bank balance sheet, the bank book-
keeping entries, and the bookkeeping entries in Modern Money
Mechanics prove it.
Bankers call it a loan. The money trail shows a deposit or
exchange. The truth is that the borrower's promissory note
funded the bank loan check. The new bank liability is the proof
that either there was a loan to the bank, the promissory note
was stolen, or the bank received it for free.
Some people question me, asking how I know for sure that
the bank bookkeeping entries recorded it as a loan to the bank.
The proof is in the accounting principles and the policies and
procedures mandating standard bookkeeping entries for banks.
Bank auditors confirmed the bookkeeping entries are standard
for all banks. There may be a short or long version, but the net
result is the same. My next book, Volume II, and the cassette
tapes go into more detail.
Please watch out for one bank trick. They may claim that
you can cash the bank loan check and receive cash resulting in
no new bank liability. If you receive cash, there is no new li-
ability. When the seller of the house you are purchasing depos-
its the cash, the new liability results. Anytime the promissory
note is recorded as a bank asset, and the promissory note is
used to fund the bank loan check, a new bank liability will ap-
88
pear. The newly created bank liability means the bank received
the promissory note for free.
The banker cannot answer one tax question (if he does, he
could go to jail): How did he get the promissory note for free?
If a person or business received $100,000 for free, the IRS is
right there demanding taxes. It could not be a gift, because the
borrower had to have known. There was not a loan of actual
cash value to the alleged borrower as consideration loaned to
obtain it. If there is no loan, there is no need to repay it. If it
was a loan to the bank (not taxable to the bank), every Ameri-
can would demand the loan be returned, canceling every bank
loan. If the loan to the bank was forgiven, it is taxable to the
bank. If it was stolen, it is taxable to the bank. The bank tax
return, signed under penalty of perjury, will tell us if it was a
loan to the bank or if they obtained it for free.
To avoid the tax question, the banker must then claim that
the bank checking account balance is money. If it is money, the
bank could never be obligated to allow you to write checks off
the checking account balance, nor obligated to give you cash
for the money in your checking account. Legal tender is re-
corded as a bank asset and owing legal tender is a bank liabil-
ity. If a bank liability is money per the bank or judge, then that
money is the opposite of legal tender. The bank liability and
the promissory note both owe legal tender, which is the oppo-
site of legal tender. If money is deposited at the bank, there is a
new bank asset and liability. The new liability and the new as-
set represent the same deposit. If the bank claims the bank li-
ability is money, then the matching asset (cash, check, promis-
sory note deposited) is equally money. The new liability repre-
sents the matching asset and the new asset deposited represents
the matching new liability. For the banker to win, he must prove
legal tender (asset) deposited ceases to be money or legal ten-
der and the new matching bank liability is money. The banker
must prove that one can issue a check without first depositing
cash or something having actual cash value (asset) to fund the
check (liability), thus proving check kiting is now legal. The
bank must prove that they are no longer obligated to exchange
checks (liability) into cash (asset). The bank must prove that
89
they no longer owe us the money in our account. The liability

is merely a token representing the real money (asset).
Did you hear about the robber who got caught? He claimed
he was just borrowing the money. Unauthorized borrowing is a
theft. An unpaid loan is really a theft. If you do not repay your
alleged loan, the bank takes you to court. Perhaps you should
do the same to the bank.
As judge and jury, you should ask the banker a few ques-
tions. If a depositor deposits a $50 gold coin, and the banker
gives the depositor a $50 gold coin receipt, allowing the de-
positor to exchange the receipt for the return of the gold coin,
in your opinion, is the gold coin (bank asset) money or is the
gold receipt (bank liability) money? Obviously, everyone, in-
cluding the banker, knows the gold coin is the money. If I de-
posit $100 cash in the bank and the bank gives me a $100 bank
deposit receipt, crediting my account by $100, is the receipt
money or is the cash the money? Obviously, owing money is
not money. Cash is the money. This just proved the bank liabil-
ity is not really money. It proves that the bank asset (cash) is
the real money having the real value.
If you deposit the cash at the bank, you really exchanged
the cash (bank asset) for an equal amount of checkbook money
(bank liability) which you can spend by check. If you are forced
to earn cash and give the cash to the lender for free, and if the
lender deposits the cash, exchanging it for checkbook money
and returning the checkbook money back to you as a loan, you
will need both husband and wife working to put bread on the
table. If you follow Lincoln's banking system and quit giving
your payroll check away to the banker, your wife could stop
working and you could maintain the same standard of living. If
both work, you could double your wealth. If you are continu-
ally stolen from, you will have to work more to put bread on
the table. Stop the stealing and counterfeiting and you will have
more wealth. For the banks to receive your wealth for free, they
must call the bank liabilities money. They even have you call-
ing it checkbook money.
90
18. MONEY VERSUS CREDIT

Did the bank loan agreement say they would loan you credit?
As an expert witness, I want to use the bank's definition of
money and credit. Federal Reserve Bank publication Your Money
states, "Money is a medium of exchange." Our Money states,
"Credit is the postponement of the payment of money." Court
cases confirm the same definitions. By using the Federal Re-
serve Bank definitions, policies, and procedures, you can nail
the coffin shut on the argument. They cannot say they do not
know or follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and proce-
dures. Interest is defined as a charge for the use of borrowed
money. It does not say for the use of the postponement of the
payment of money. Is the bank now going to redefine the words
money, interest, and credit?
Blacks Law Dictionary claims that the Federal Reserve
Board explains a check is payable in a certain sum of money.
Federal Reserve Notes are recorded as a bank asset. A bank
liability is a bank scorecard showing how much legal tender
the bank owes depositors, so the liability is not a certain sum of
money. The bank check cannot, by the bank's own definitions,
pay credit, a postponement of the payment of money. Did the
bank loan you credit? A loan is defined as an agreement to have
money transferred from one person to another which must be
returned, with or without a charge for the use of money. (i.e. a
loan is temporary use of an item which itself or "its equivalent
in kind" must be returned with or without a fee for the use of
the item.) Money is not credit. The bank policy is to use the
same bank bookkeeping entries as if the bank recorded the prom-
issory note as a loan from you to the bank. It is an implied loan
because the bank recorded it as a loan from you to the bank and
the new liability is the proof.
If you have equal protection under the law, money, credit,
and agreement, you have the right to do one of two things. De-
mand your promissory note back plus all past payments so that
you get "its equivalent in kind" back, or repay the bank loan in
91
credit. Give them some of your postponement of the payment

of money. They created it so why can't you do the same? They
will try and deny you equal protection under the law, money,
credit, and agreement. This is the CPA bank auditor's night-
mare. They had intent. It is their definitions, their agreement
which they wrote, their bank bookkeeping entries, and their
advertisement claiming they made a loan. Do we have decep-
tive or unfair trade practices showing confusion and misunder-
standing? Remember, no rights can be acquired by fraud.
Can you imagine the bank foreclosing on someone as the
alleged borrower is notifying the court, bank, the banker's at-
torney, and sheriff of a bank fraud? Imagine the victim being
foreclosed on, then suing the bank and the banker's attorney
for conspiracy to defraud and bringing fraud on the court. The
attorney will be placed on the witness stand and the former
victim will ask him all the right questions. If he commits per-
jury, he automatically loses his bar membership. He is no longer
an attorney. Many attorneys have malpractice insurance. Are
you starting to see why judges do not wish to hear any of these
arguments in their court?
I was in one court case where we demanded that the judge
make a decision whether a promissory note is or is not money?
The judge flew off the bench, with his robe flying behind him.
The bank attorney followed him back to the judge's chambers.
They made it clear they would not discuss the issue. When an-
other banker was asked a similar question, the judge broke his
pencil and ordered no more questions of this nature be asked.
If it is money, you give the lender some more of the same kind
of money. If it is not money, the bank committed check kiting
and gave you illegal consideration. Imagine how a judge would
react if we discussed the credit issue. If there is an agreement,
the lender must give you the details of the agreement.
92
America 's Hope: To Cancel Bank Loans
19. WHAT IS A BANK LIABILITY?

The Dictionary of Banking Terms defines a liability as, "a
legally enforceable claim on the assets of a company." It ex-
plains that the funds the bank owes are bank liabilities.
Black's Law Dictionary defines a liability as a "duty to pay
money... all character of debts." It defines a debt as "a sum of
money due by certain and express agreement."
Throughout the Federal Reserve Bank publications, they
call these bank liabilities money or checkbook money. We have
learned that they are really tokens. The American Heritage Dic-
tionary of the English Language defines tokens as something
"used as a substitute for currency." The bank substitute (liabil-
ity/token) represents the real money, cash and promissory notes,
recorded as a bank asset. An asset has value because you can
sell it. A liability/token has no value by itself.
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago publication Public Debt:
Private Assets states that, "banks owe us the money that is in
our account." Do not forget the borrower's transaction account
that was created by depositing the promissory note. The next
sentence claims the bank loans out our money earlier depos-
ited. If we are the depositor, the bank owes us the money de-
posited. Then they loan us our own money. The bank owes us
for the deposit which created a bank liability. The bank liabil-
ity is the prima facie evidence that the bank owes us the money.
The bank claims we owe them for the alleged bank loan. The
bank liability owing us money cancels the liability we owe.
Federal Reserve Bank publication Two Faces of Debt states
that, "Federal Reserve Notes are liabilities", and then explains
how our currency is really unpaid bank IOUs. It is like you
buying cars, houses, and boats simply by giving the seller an
IOU and never paying the IOU. People then use your IOU like
cash. The publication then claims that the bankers know that
deposits are banker's debts (IOUs).
Any accountant will tell you a liability to the bank means
you loaned the bank something of value or the bank received
93
something having actual cash value and deposited it. They know
a new liability will also result if the bank stole your property,
deposited it, and returned the value back to you as a loan. cer-
tified public accountants universally know a liability is a debt
owing money. The FED publications clearly admit bank assets
and liabilities (IOUs) both increase when banks grant loans.
An IOU owing money is the opposite of money. The banker
cannot discuss whether he loaned you money or the opposite of
money. If he loaned you the opposite of money, you need to
repay in the opposite of money—that is, a promise to pay money.
The banks add money and the opposite of money together
and call it money. That is like adding apples and a slip of paper
called an IOU (owing you apples) together and claiming the
total is the number of apples you have in inventory today. Even
a child knows an apple and an IOU owing an apple are not the
same. Your child will chose an ice cream cone to eat, not an
IOU owing an ice cream cone. The banker tried to sell you the
IOU and never intended to give you the money. The bank IOU
has no value and is worthless if it cannot be paid by a bank
asset.
The bank IOU is just like a casino token. If the bank can
get you to use the token as money, they can steal and counter-
feit. If everyone must use the real money—cash or gold and
silver coins—as money, giving everyone equal protection un-
der the law, then stealing and counterfeiting will cease to exist.
Interest and tokens are the bankers' secret weapons, used in a
silent war to seize your property and return it back to you as a
loan. They keep the war silent, concealed, so they can quietly
continue. They know if the voters learned the truth, the steal-
ing and counterfeiting would end. It is your responsibility as
an American to stop the bankers from denying us equal protec-
tion. The only way to stop a secret war is to expose it. We must
inform all Americans so we can all join in saving the Republic
for Which We Stand.
94
20. CONSIDERATION
As judge and jury, you must decide if the bank gave con-
sideration in accordance with the agreement, contract, and ad-
vertisement. The Dictionary of Banking Terms explains consid-
eration as the lending of money in exchange for a borrower's
promise to repay the loan. The key words are, "lending of
money." Remember how the bank redefined money? Instead of
calling gold or cash money, they redefined money to mean ow-
ing gold or owing cash. Typically, the lender loans you a check
or some similar instrument. Remember how the bank redefined
the word loan, calling it an exchange? By changing the defini-
tion of the word money to mean the opposite of money, and
changing the definition of the word loan to exchange, the mean-
ing of the agreement has been completely altered. It now means
the borrower funds the bank loan check. The Law Dictionary
defines the following:
Consideration—inducement to an agreement. The cause,

motivation, price, cost, money, or impelling influence which
motivates a contracting party to enter into an agreement.
Contract—an agreement reached by mutual understanding

which creates an obligation to do a particular thing. Each party
must give up something of value. Competent parties, subject
matter, legal consideration, mutuality of understanding, and
mutuality of obligation, along with full disclosure of material
facts are essential for a valid contract.
Did the agreement agree to an exchange, stealing, or a loan

as consideration for the bank to obtain the promissory note?
What was the legal consideration the bank loaned to obtain the
promissory note? It was not the check because the promissory
note funded the check. The contract or agreement is the highest
law.
95
Adequate considerations—I recommend you look this up

in Black's Law Dictionary. If it "shocks our sense of morality
of fairness", then it is not adequate consideration.
The agreement called for a loan, not an exchange. The agree-

ment was for the bank to loan you a check or similar instru-
ment that is redeemable in cash. Did the bank give the bor-
rower consideration in accordance with the agreement? The
Federal Reserve Bank admits that the check is redeemable in
cash and that you must repay the alleged loan. The Federal
Reserve Bank also admits that the bank used the note signed by
the borrower to fund the check. What was the money (cash)
loaned as consideration to obtain the promissory note? No cash
was loaned. The bank received an asset for free and never loaned
an asset to obtain the promissory note. It appears to me that
stealing the promissory note and returning the value of the sto-
len property as a loan is not moral and would shock the con-
science of most Americans.
As judge and jury, you must judge the following in accor-
dance with the policies and procedures of the Federal Reserve
Bank:
1. Did the bank give consideration in accordance to the alleged

agreement? (No.)
2. Did the written agreement say loan or exchange? (Loan.)
3. Did the bank loan legal tender or the opposite of legal ten-
der? (The opposite.)
4. Did the bank loan the check backed by cash as consideration
loaned to legally obtain the promissory note? (No.)
5. Did the bank obtain ownership of the promissory note with-
out loaning one cent of legal tender or other depositors'
money? (Yes, but not legal ownership.)
6. Did the bank significantly change the cost and the risk of the
written agreement? (Yes.)
7. Is it true that the bank does not give up wealth to the bor-
rower, but instead receives wealth from the borrower? (Yes.)
96
8. Is it true that the bank check or checkbook money (liability)

has no value without an asset called cash to give it value?
(Yes.)
9. Did the cash come from the borrower's future labor, which
has value today and that the bank used to fund the check?
(Yes.)
10. What was the valuable consideration loaned if the bank re-
ceived the promissory note for free? (None.)
21. MONEY VERSES WEALTH
Bankers know the difference between money and wealth.

If you can print money, you can buy everything in America,
including the media (through advertising money and owner-
ship.) You can buy judges, sheriffs and congress by political
contributions. If bankers control the media, they control the
congress and the information Americans hear.
Wealth is anything that you can sell. You can sell a house,
car, farm, business, gold, silver coins, promissory notes, bonds,
stocks and investments. Most people sell their 40 hours a week
for a payroll check. Yes, labor produces wealth. Houses, cars,
farms, roads, factory goods, food, gas, and services are pro-
duced by labor.
Why is it illegal for a counterfeiter to counterfeit money
and lend it out? The counterfeiter would obtain nearly all the
wealth of the nation for free without using a gun. The counter-
feiter gets your labor for free as you work to obtain money to
repay the loan or the counterfeiter forecloses and gets your home
or car for free. Counterfeiting and stealing both result in ob-
taining the victims wealth for free. One uses a suit and tie as he
prints money and lends it out and the other one uses a gun.
The bank gets the borrower's promissory note for free. He
then deposits the promissory note, making it money, and re-
turns the value of the money (promissory note) to the victim as
a loan. The bank got your promissory note for free. The bank
97
gets your labor for free. And if you fail to repay the loan, the
bank gets your home in foreclosure for free. The minute the
bank deposits your promissory note and gets your money (prom-
issory note) for free, the banker's wealth is increased and your
debt is increased by a simple bookkeeping entry. If the bank
lent other depositor's money, and the money was returned to
the one who funded the loan (you) no theft or wealth transfer
would take place. But, instead, the bank gets new money for
free and returns it to you as a loan. Now the banker gets your
wealth for free by making you work for the banker (to repay
the loan) or by foreclosing and getting your home or car for
free. Debtor's are the banker's slave. Only slaves work for free.
The banker needs you working to produce food, cars, gas
for the cars, homes, roads, bridges, bank buildings and services.
Then the banker gets a free ride by printing money and getting
your production for free. Who has the biggest building in town?
Often the banker does.
The banker knows that if everyone stopped working, and
stayed home with a money making machine, everyone would
have piles of millions of dollars in their living room. If the
farmer, grocery worker and gas station attendant stopped work-
ing to print money, there would be no food. or gas to buy. Ev-
eryone would starve. If everyone had to work, and could only
barter food for gas, or a car for a motor cycle, the bankers would
have to produce wealth to survive. The banker could not print
money to get your wealth (gas or food or car) for free. If we
had no money, and could only barter, the problem would be
corrected. If the banker could not print money he would have
to work like everyone else. He would have to build a house and
barter one house for another house.
Why should you have to work to produce wealth, but the
banker can obtain wealth without working, by printing money
and getting a house for free? Why does the counterfeiter go to
jail, but the banker creates new money and sits on the board of
directors of the church and local businesses? It's because the
banker is smart enough to not print cash and go to jail. The
banker prints money as bookkeeping entries (non-legal tender,
like a casino prints casino tokens) so it is not technically coun-
98
terfeiting. But he gets a benefit similar to counterfeiting. The

banker gets the benefit without going to jail. To stop the banker,
you have to sue him for breach of agreement and the banker
knows that few understand how to explain it in front of a jury.
The banker is smart enough to give part of the spoils, or booty,
to the preacher, judge, sheriff, lawmakers. This money keeps
the banker's secret a secret and keeps the banker's money-mak-
ing machine going.
Bankers give advertising money to the media and the me-
dia has bank loans. Banks can control the media by advertising
and loan money. Without it, the media is out of business. Many
in power want to correct the system, but fear if they speak up,
the bankers will heavily fund their opponent next election and
have the media swing the election in favor of the banker's can-
didate. Judges and politicians alike profit from the secret
banker's system through investments. They get foreclosure
properties before the general public does, and make huge prof-
its. One judge bought foreclosure properties, amassing a $8
million fortune in a few years. You guessed it—he was a fore-
closure judge. The judge helps the bank and the bank helps the
judge. They call it good business. Others call it dirty business.
Politicians use computer-generated buy-sell signals on invest-
ments, making huge profits, all because of the secret banking
system. The preacher wants the banker's tithe money and loan
money. And they fear that if they condemn the banker, the tithe
will stop, the bank will foreclose on the church and the preacher
is out of business. The preacher puts the banker first and God
second. This is idol worship. The bank controls the church in-
stead of God controlling the church. The bank controls the gov-
ernment instead of the voters. The CPA needs bank loans for
his clients and he gets new clients from the bank. The CPA says
nothing so that he gets paid his fees. It is all about profit and
depends upon secrecy. The banking system cannot continue
without the help of politicians For a price, politicians help con-
tinue it to their benefit and profit. Their god is money and the
love of money.
We have a political party who will join us, if we distribute
enough emails and put up enough web sites to get the truth out
99
to the voters. Voters will join us if they know that we can win.
And we can win if you help us get one American to join at a
time. The bankers use deception and we must use the truth to
win. The key is the vote. Politicians have a price. Give them
enough money and they change their views and sell their vote
to the highest bidder. You can never trust anyone who will sell
their vote to the highest bidder. Even if the current politicians
change the banking system, you cannot trust them. They have
proved to us that they will sell themselves to the highest bid-
der. What else will they do to you? We need honest people in
government. We need politicians who represent the people, and
not the bankers or special interest groups who steal our wealth,
our rights and our liberties.
Bankers use deception and we use the truth. Please help us
by hosting a web site, or by getting out emails to bring people
to the web sites. You can help us make a huge impact for the
freedoms we deserve in America. We have a political party that
will join us if we get the web sites up and emails out. When we
have converted enough Americans to the truth, and it is safe,
they will join us. Please help us make it safe to correct the prob-
lem. Help us convert the voters to the truth. You can have the
government you deserve. But, if you do nothing, you deserve
to have your children be the banker's slaves. Or, you can help
us to set your children free. You really can make a difference.
Join us while we have the freedom to correct the problem. Your
job and money mean nothing if they take your freedoms away
or manipulate the money supply and create a bank induced de-
pression for their further profits. The time to act is now. Help
us save America and get out the truth today.
100
22. EXPERT WITNESS

An expert witness has special skills or knowledge in a cer-
tain area, such as banking. The expert assists legal counsel in
determining the court strategy. The expert knows the strengths
and weaknesses of both the plaintiff and defendant. Most people
think it is the primary responsibility of the expert to testify. It
is not. In Chicago, I testified for nearly ten years. My primary
job was to give courtroom strategy and show legal counsel how
to crush their opponents. I was known for showing legal coun-
sel what questions to ask their opponent that would destroy them
no matter how they answered. You want the expert for the other
side to agree that you are correct.
The bankers' strategy is to make sure you are bankrupt or
lose your house so that you will have no money to sue them
with. I believe their goal is to make sure most people do not
have enough money to hire an attorney or an expert witness.
Experts do not take a percentage of the win, you pay them huge
fees before they walk into court.
My strategy is to train you just like I would train a CPA to
be an expert witness. I have trained about 2,000 CPAs nation-
ally. Part of the course gave the CPAs expert witness training,
so I am qualified to train you and your legal counsel.
The first thing you must do is obtain all the literature from
the opponent. In this case, it is the Federal Reserve Bank pub-
lications. I have already done this, studied them, and given you
the information you need. The next thing is to understand the
information. I have carefully explained it in this book, having
had years of experience in banking and knowing how to train
you to exploit the banks' weaknesses and minimize your own. I
will then show you how to use CPA expert witness arguments
to ask the questions that give the bankers' witnesses the sweats.
The beauty of filing a lawsuit is, if the case goes to a jury trial
and if the bank defends it by bringing in a CPA expert witness,
the expert must know everything and cannot say he does not
know or understand. My goal is to train you to take on their
101
expert witness, discussing the agreement and exposing the truth.

If you can get the bank's expert witness to agree you are right,
you may not need to hire an expert.
If you hire an expert witness, the bank will have a strategy.
You pay thousands of dollars to hire and schedule an expert for
trial. The bank delays the trial. You still have to pay the expert.
The bank delays trial several times until you are out of money
and can no longer hire the expert.
If you are trained like an expert, you know how to question
the banker's expert and turn him to your advantage. The banks
will not know whether you have read this book or my second
book (with many more questions). This book does not have all
of the court strategy that you need, but it shows you the basic
fundamentals of banking. My goal is to teach you some of these
fundamentals and expert witness procedures.
You may wonder why I repeat myself so often in this book.
It is to give you firsthand experience of the kind of repeat a
jury needs to hear. The more they hear something, the more
believable it becomes. The more evidence and the more wit-
nesses, repeating the same information, drums the point into
people's heads. My goal is to win Americans to the truth. It is
possible you may not have any choice but to defend yourself in
court. If that is the case, I want you to tackle their expert and
win the argument.
People have taken the information in this book and charged
others thousands of dollars for it. You are getting it for the cost
of the book. I have been the leader in researching this subject.
The others are following me. Always remember that courtroom
strategies constantly change. Many of the people following me
are using old strategies that may not help you.
I am concerned that people will claim they know me, that
they talk to me often, and that I will be their expert witness if I
am needed, when in fact, I have never heard of the group or
individual and may not actually endorse the group. Please be
wary of people using my strategies or claiming they know me
to entice you to give them a fee. Every three months, my lead-
ers have a new letter from me. This letter will enable you to
know who my leaders are. I suggest that you work with the
102
genuine leaders who have my latest information and not the

others who are only reading the book and do not have my most
current strategies.
Once you have the CPA expert witness training, you can
argue with political parties and neighbors or conduct seminars.
This book and Volume II, plus all my cassette tapes for leaders
and distributors, will teach you the CPA expert witness type of
training that will give a banker or his expert witness nightmares.
I encourage you to contact me and become a distributor or leader
so that you will have the latest strategies.
Once you understand banking like an expert witness, you
may decide it is easier to spend your time doubling your money
every 6 months instead of fighting in court. If you and your
friends could quickly obtain tens of millions of dollars, the
money could be used as a political solution to regain our rights,
freedoms, liberties, and Constitution. Wealth in a country that
is not free is not real wealth.
23. FALSE WITNESS:

FORM vs. SUBSTANCE
Before an attorney can sue, he must show that the defend-
ing party breached the agreement. The attorney needs a wit-
ness to give testimony that there is an agreement and that the
agreement has been breached.
If Rich testifies in court that there was a loan when he knew
that there was only an exchange of equal value, Rich would be
giving false testimony and would be called a false witness.
In a normal court foreclosure, the lender does not come to
court to give testimony. The bank attorney uses the alleged
promissory note with the alleged borrower's signature as the
witness in court to claim that there is an agreement, that there
was a loan, that the lender fulfilled his agreement, and that the
alleged borrower did not fulfill the agreement to repay the
money. Instead of the attorney using Rich to give oral testi-
103
mony, the attorney uses the promissory note as the witness and
as the evidence to sue the alleged borrower.
There is a legal concept of form vs. substance. The form is
the promissory note, which says that the lender lent money to
the alleged borrower. The substance is the money trail—the book-
keeping entries. The substance shows that there were two loans
exchanged, equal value for equal value. The borrower was re-
quired to repay his loan to the bank plus interest, but the bank
never repaid the debt it owes. IOU was exchanged for IOU.
The two newly created IOUs cancel each other.
Substance—true transaction—shows that the borrower was the
lender to the bank. Then the bank repaid the loan from the bor-
rower to the bank. The form—the alleged bank loan agreement—
shows the opposite.
Example: You sign a paper that says you were lent $10,000,
but no one lent you one cent to obtain the promissory note. A
thief stole $10,000 worth of diamonds from you, sold them for
cash, and returned the cash to you as a loan. The form says that
there was a loan; your signature also says that there was a loan.
The true transaction, though, proves that there was no loan.
The substance—the money trail and the bookkeeping entries—
proves that someone took something of value worth $10,000
from you, exchanged it for a different asset of equal value, and
returned your $10,000 to you as a loan that you now have to
pay off with interest. The attorney sues you, claiming that your
signature proves that you received the loan. You hire an expert
witness to prove that there was no loan, that the substance of
the true transaction was an exchange, and that you were charged
as if it were a loan.
Economically speaking, what is the difference if a stranger
received your $10,000 worth of diamonds for free, or if he got
a $10,000 lien on your property for free, or if he received
$10,000 of your future payroll checks for free? The substance
of the transaction is the transferral of $10,000 of property from
you to the stranger for free. The transfer of wealth is precisely
how bankers obtain liens on the nation's homes, cars, farms,
and businesses for free. If a robber were to use a gun to transfer
104
your wealth, you would place him in prison. If a banker does

the same thing by using "form," an attorney, a judge, and a
sheriff, you think it is legal.
Does the attorney use the promissory note just like a wit-
ness to give false testimony in court, claiming that the lender
lent money, cash, or cash equivalent to the alleged borrower?
The attorney could be disbarred for bringing fraud into the court.
The substance was an exchange of value for value. If the form
and the substance disagree, one must rely on the substance over
the form because substance always wins over form.
Example: You give Rich $100 for five boxes of toys. Rich
says, "Here are the five boxes. Sign this paper that says you
received the boxes." You sign. Rich refuses to hand over the
five boxes and claims that the form—the paper you just signed—
says that you received the boxes. You would tell the judge that
you acted in good faith by signing because you were told that
you would receive the five boxes standing in front of you. Af-
ter you had signed, Rich refused to let you have the boxes. The
form—the paper—says that you received the boxes, but the sub-
stance—the true transaction—clearly shows you never received
what you had bargained for. If the attorney uses the form (pa-
per) in court to claim that you received the boxes when, in fact,
he knew that you had never received then, the attorney brought
fraud on the court to sue you. The form—the paper—would be a
false witness against you.
Is the promissory note used as a false witness? The promis-

sory note has the borrower's signature agreeing that the lender
lent the borrower money.
Few people disagree that the one who provided the original
funds to fund the bank loan check should be repaid the money.
Few argue that we should have equal protection and full dis-
closure. The lender concealed the true substance in the agree-
ment.
If a banker received $10,000 of capital from Joe and de-
posits the funds into a checking account, should the bank re-
turn the $10,000 to Joe? If all bankers agree that the answer is
105
"yes," then all bank loans in America should be canceled to-

morrow.
If the bank received $10,000 from Joe and lent the same
$10,000 to Joe, should the bank return the $10,000 to Joe? The
foreclosure attorney must argue that the bank should not return
the $10,000 to Joe. Joe believed that the alleged borrower should
repay the lender, and the lender should repay the one who funded
the bank loan check. The foreclosure attorney must argue that
the parties agreed to the terms and the one who funded the loan
should never be repaid the money. How could the judge rule in
favor of the bank, claiming that the one who funded the loan
should never be never be repaid the money? Imagine faxing
that ruling to everyone in the nation!
The attorney wants only the form—the promissory note with
your signature—as a witness in court. You want the true sub-
stance—the true transaction—and the whole truth and nothing but
the truth. Without the masses of the people joining, you will
remain in debt, We need you to join in copying and in distribut-
ing the brochure. Keep in mind that the signature on the prom-
issory note is always used as a witness against the borrower to
create a situation in which the borrower automatically incrimi-
nates himself—self-incrimination!
Some attorneys object to allowing the bookkeeping entries
entered into court as evidence. The attorney must rely on the
form and stop the substance. Extortion occurs when the court
does not allow information into court for one's defense.
How does one get the substance into court? One needs a
CPA expert witness to bring the substance into court. There are
ways to get past financial statements of banks that have gone
out of business even up to ten years ago. The CPA expert wit-
ness needs to use notices and bank financial statements to prove
substance over form. Obviously, bankers may read this book,
so the secret for the expert witness cannot be revealed here.
However, you can expect the judge and bank attorney to
attempt to stop the CPA expert witness from testifying. I be-
lieve that the CPA's testimony could disbar the attorney. If your
CPA testifies, the bank needs to bring in an expert witness it-
self to counter your expert. Now you have 600 questions from
106
Volume II to ask the bank expert witness. I do not believe the

bank expert will want to testify, knowing that you have 600
questions that he must answer.
What would happen if 200 people in every State were com-
mitted to copying and distributing three brochures every day as
they went to the gas station and the grocery store? Just three
brochures a day calculates to one million brochures distributed
every month. How long would it take before attorneys decide
to join us and stop foreclosing? If you were an attorney and
believed that 5% to 10% of the population will learn the truth,
would you continue to foreclose? What if you believed that it
was just a matter of time before everyone would find out and
would want justice, and you could be disbarred? Would you
stop working for the bankers and join the people? Brochures
are very important to winning the nation. Without the masses
joining, you will remain in debt. We need you to join in copy-
ing and distributing brochures.
When the politicians believe that there are enough voters
to vote them out of office, the politicians will vote in Tom
Schauf's banking solution or be voted out of office. At that time,
the politicians will listen to the people and turn against the bank-
ers.
24. THE WITNESS STAND

This is a hypothetical illustration which represents a com-
bination of real court cases, depositions, and interviews with
bankers that I have witnessed.
The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in.
The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the rou-
tine questions concerning the banker's education and back-
ground. The attorney asked the banker, "What is court exhibit
A?"
107
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 bor-
rower 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 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 promis-
sory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of
business."
108
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 bor-
rower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan
the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or bor-
rower 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 bor-
rower 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 bor-
rower 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 $50,000 which is used to fund a
109
$50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then re-

quired 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 agree-
ment?"
The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked "Ex-
hibit B" to the banker. He said, "Is there anything in this agree-
ment 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 bor-
rower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan
$50,000 to the borrower?"
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 Re-
serve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans."
The attorney asked, "What are the standard bank bookkeep-
ing 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".
110
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) in-
crease, do the bank's assets increase by an asset that has actual
cash value?"
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 prom-
issory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?"
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."
111
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 trans-
action? "
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 attorney said, "Do you believe the bank does this with-
out the borrower's knowledge or written permission or authori-
zation?"
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?
Does this 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 attorney said, "If the bank transferred $50,000 actual
cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the
transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the bor-
rower?"
112
The banker said, "No." He knew that one must first deposit
something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promis-
sory 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 attorney asked, "Does the bank pay IRS tax on the ac-
tual 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 bor-
rower? "
"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 attorney asked, "Are you telling me the bank policy is
that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) with-
out 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
113
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 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 ac-
tual 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 ac-
tual 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?"
114
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."
Volume number two has hundreds and hundreds of ques-

tions with explanations about why these questions are asked.
Each word is important and many people change the questions
to their demise. There is an art to asking questions. Legal coun-
sel will be able to take these questions and be sure they are
worded in a manner that can be asked in court. These questions
were worded for textbook purposes to illustrate a point.
25. HOW CREDIT CARD COMPANIES

TRICK YOU
The front cover of Readers Digest (Jan. 1997) reads, "How
Credit Card Companies Trick You." I think Readers Digest left
out the trick that enslaved Americans. Many of the credit card
companies, according to the research I found, create money and
loan it out to you. Instead of recording a promissory note as a
bank asset, they record the credit card purchase and your al-
115
America ' s Hope: To Cancel Bank Loans
leged agreement to repay it with interest, as a bank asset. Are

they magicians that they have such power to trick us? If the
agreement is good for America, why do they have to conceal
the whole truth? Are they afraid that people will vote them out?
Senator Bob Dole was one who advocated a Balanced Budget
Amendment. However, he appeared in a commercial during the
1997 Super Bowl game pushing the cashless society. I wonder
who is paying him. Whose side is he on and why does he not
advocate full disclosure? When we question our U.S. Repre-
sentative about our banking system and his best response is,
"What would we put in its place?" Don't you wonder, if per-
haps, you have spent more time studying the all-important bank-
ing system than he has? Not all credit/debit cards create money,
but I believe most do.
Americans owe $1.2 trillion in credit card debt. Nearly 60
million households owe an average of $6,000 on their credit
cards.
26. AMERICA'S NEWEST JOKES AND

FAVORITE SAYINGS
What did Lincoln and Kennedy have in common? Bank
profits skyrocketed when they were killed.
What is the difference between a license to manufacture

money and a license to steal? Nothing.
Who has a license to manufacture money and loan it out?
Banks.
What bank expense is never shown on the statement of in-

come and is essential to keep the banking system operating?
Owning the best politicians money can buy.
Local banks don't loan legal tender, they manufacture non-

legal tender and loan it out.
116
Do you know what bank robbery in reverse is? A bank loan.
Why do banks hate the U.S. Constitution? Constitutional

money—gold and silver—prohibits the banks from getting your
property for free and calling it a loan.
What is the difference between a banker and a politician?

The banker gets your wealth for free and gives part of the spoils
to the lawmaker to make it legal.
What is the proof that bad money drives out good money?
You're broke, aren't you?
Do you know how the banks stole the government? The

Federal Reserve Note created the government bankruptcy. The
bank stole my government. The borrower is the slave to a coun-
terfeit lender.
What historical figure wanted to hang bankers? Martin

Luther. (Do not hang anyone unless they are tried in a lawful
court, convicted, and sentenced.)
Guess what REAL Americans are calling banks?

Moneychangers.
Do you know why the average American cannot get out of

debt? You loan the bank the money for the check and they refuse
to repay you.
Hitler and Stalin would be proud of our Congress.
The KGB and Gestapo would have loved the cashless soci-
ety.
What is the difference between the KGB and Gestapo com-

pared to police seizing citizens' property and receiving bonuses
for seizures? I don't know.
117
Will you accept unlawful money today?
Will you accept non-redeemable notes issued from a pri-

vate bank? You just did!!!
REAL Americans only use cash.
Cash means freedom! Using credit cards is voting to be a

slave in a cashless society.
Using a credit card is a vote for your future slavery.
If the banks paid their debt, I would be out of debt.
Do you know how Rockefeller got so rich? His family got

Congress to pass a law so his bank could buy $100 for 2.5 cents.
Anyone doing that would be filthy rich. If I could create money
like the banks, I would be filthy rich too.
What is the best-kept secret in America? Banks can create

money like counterfeiters, except they are licensed to do it.
If one person stole all the property from the other 260 mil-
lion Americans and returned the value of the stolen property
back to the victims as a loan, who would be rich and who would
be poor? What is the difference between doing this and coun-
terfeiting to obtain liens on nearly every home, car, farm, busi-
ness, etc.? It's the same thing. Do you know why bankers love
Congress so much? They made it legal for a private organiza-
tion to create money!
What government is bankrupt because they let a private bank

create money and then loan this same money back to the same
government at interest? The American government.
What country would do this: If you want a $100,000 bank

loan, you give the bank $100,000, for free, the bank returns
your $100,000 back to you in the form of a bank loan check,
118
and then you have to repay the bank the loan? Would you agree
to this? This is why bankers love Americans.
27. SHORT STORIES

(All true)
In December 1995 I attended a class for CPAs that I needed
for continuing education requirements in order to keep my CPA
license. There were about 100 students attending. I sat in the
second row from the back. I turned around and talked to the
auditor behind me. He said he was an employee for one of the
big CPA firms. I asked him what he did there. He said he au-
dited banks. I found him interesting. I asked him if he could
teach me a few things. He said, "Sure, what can I teach you."
I replied, "On a $100,000 bank loan, how much legal ten-
der does the bank have to loan in order for the bank to legally
own the bank promissory note?"
He responded, "That's easy, $100,000."
"Does the bank record a loan from the borrower in the
amount of $100,000?" I asked.
He said no. "Why would you loan the bank $100,000? You
are the borrower. You are going to the bank for the loan, not the
reverse."
I said, "I get it. I loan the bank the promissory note and
they loan me something, am I right?"
He wanted to know where I graduated from. He said, "The
bank loans you $100,000 from other depositor's money."
I asked, "Is a check money, or merely an order pay money?"
He responded, "It doesn't matter, you can get cash for the
check."
I responded back, "Legally, what is it, money or merely an
order to pay money?"
He again replied, "We think of it as money."
119
I said, "I do not care want you think. I want to know the
law. Do you have the competence to know?" I knew he had to
say he did because he did the audit.
He responded, "Legally it is not money."
I asked, "Does the bank record legal tender as a bank as-
set?"
He answered yes.
I asked, "Does a bank liability mean that the bank owes
legal tender?"
He said yes. Then he asked, "Why are you asking all these
questions?"
I said that several CPA bank auditors I knew had said that
bank loans were a fraud, and I wanted to know more. He ex-
ploded and said that whoever was selling those manuals and
tapes should be put in jail. I thought to myself, "I never men-
tioned a manual or tapes." I realized he knew about them from
some other source. He demanded to know who I was. I gave
him my CPA business card.
He looked at my name and said, "I have seen this name
before."
I suggested we go on with our discussion. I asked, "Does
the bank disclose all material facts?"
He said, "Yes, they have to or it is fraudulent concealment."
I asked, "Does the bank deny borrowers equal protection
under the law?"
He said no.
I said, "On the $100,000 bank loan, if the bank refused to
loan $100,000 of other depositors' money or legal tender, does
the bank legally own the promissory note?"
He said no, because the bank never fulfilled the agreement
to loan the money.
I asked, "Does the bank have to follow the Federal Reserve
Bank policy and procedures when granting loans?"
He said, "Of course they do, it is the law. They have no
choice"
I asked, "What are the bank bookkeeping entries for a loan?"
He said, "The bank replaces the other depositors' cash with
the promissory note."
120
I asked, "Is the promissory note recorded as an asset, and

the bank gives the borrower cash?"
He said yes.
"Does the bank give the borrower a bag of cash?"
He said, "Get real, it is a check."
I said, "What happens with the check?"
He said, "If you are buying a house and the bank finances
it, the seller of the house deposits the check in his checking
account."
I asked, "What is the bank bookkeeping entry?"
He said the check was recorded as a bank asset and a De-
mand Deposit Account was recorded as a bank liability.
I asked, "Does the check cancel out because it was recorded
as a liability and then as a bank asset?" He agreed it cancels
out. I said, "What do you have remaining?"
He said, "A bank asset called a promissory note and a new
bank liability." Then he got the most horrid look on his face
and said, "I never realized it before, but every bank loan is a
fraud." He asked me where I found this out. I told him I was an
expert witness, it was my job to know.
He said, "No one is to find out, no one is to know this! Do
you realize what will happen if people find out? The auditor
will get sued and maybe put in jail. Now I have to reissue the
audit opinions. If I do this, I will get sued for sure. If I do not,
and someone finds out...oh, I don't know what to do." The key
thing was, he knew that I knew the bank bookkeeping entries
and he could not get away with lying. He knew that if he in-
sisted that the loan money came from other depositors, the bank
could never, under any circumstances, record the promissory
note as a bank asset. If other depositors' money was loaned, the
bank assets and liabilities would have to decrease. The oppo-
site had happened, the bank assets and liabilities increased,
showing that the borrower funded the loan. He knew as an au-
ditor he had to perform tests to be sure the bank fulfilled the
agreement. Everything he said earlier meant he agreed that the
bank did not own the promissory note. Believe me he was not
happy. He wanted me to return his business card. I said, "No,
one of my clients may want to sue you some day." I told him,
121
"Now that you have admitted to a fraud, will you revise the
audit opinion and expose it?"
He would not respond and I thanked God that I had never
audited a bank.
I was in my car, on the way to a meeting. I was going to be

about a half an hour early when I saw signs in a strip mall claim-
ing to be a financial institution making loans. I stopped, walked
in, and asked to speak to a vice president. I told him I was a
CPA and wanted to know how they could benefit me. I asked
the vice president if I could call him back and tape record the
telephone call, so I would not have to take up his time writing
notes. He agreed. A few days later, I called him back and re-
corded the call with his permission. He explained that they acted
as a broker for 30 different banks in the area. The broker in-
vested none of their own money. You signed the loan agree-
ment and they took the agreement to one of the banks and re-
turned with a bank loan check.
I asked, "Where does the bank get the money to fund the
check?"
He explained, "The money comes from other investors."
I asked if the bank had to follow the Federal Reserve Bank's
policies and procedures? He said they had to or else the banker
would be arrested for committing a criminal act. I asked, "What
is your legal connection with the 30 banks?" He said he acted
as their agent. I asked, "On a $100,000 bank loan, how much
money or paper do I loan the bank?"
He replied, "You do not loan to the bank, the bank loans
you the money."
I repeated the question another way and said, "On a
$100,000 bank loan, does the bank receive $100,000 value from
me for free and use this to fund the $100,000 bank loan check
back to me?"
He said that it would be stupid for me to loan myself my
own money and pay the bank the principal and interest as if the
bank had loaned me their money.
I later talked to a CPA who audits these loan brokers and he
tried to convince me that the broker loans their own money.
122
When I asked the CPA my questions, he admitted that the bro-

ker and the bank who issued the bank loan check never loaned
legal tender to obtain the promissory note. He admitted that the
bank used the note to fund the check and, therefore, that the
check could not pay for the note. He could not tell me whether
the egg or the chicken came first.
A car dealer sold cars and financed the cars right there in
his office. He privately explained that he has power of attorney
from the bank to loan the bank's money. He said that the bank
told him never to sign the loan papers. Is the car dealer a co-
conspirator with the bank? You have to ask an attorney. Ask
your lawyer about ambiguity of contracts or resolution of un-
certainty. I understand that if the bank wrote the agreement and
there is uncertainty (who provides the money for the loan check,
you or the other bank depositors?), the court should rule in fa-
vor of the one who did not write the agreement.
The false statement that the banks constantly give me is
that they loan other depositors' money and follow the Federal
Reserve Bank's policies and procedures. This is an impossible
statement. I went into my bank in a suburb of Chicago and asked
the lending officer: If I were to get a $10,000 car loan, would I
have to give the bank $10,000 or loan the bank something of
value worth $10,000 to fund the bank loan check. He said no,
that would be a fraud. If he is correct that it is a fraud, then the
Federal Reserve Bank and his own bank are involved in a felony.
One day, when I lived in Hanover Park, Illinois, I walked

up to the teller to cash a check and asked her a simple loan
question. Who provides the money to fund the check? She went
to get her supervisor and asked me to repeat the question. I
talked in a normal tone of voice and was very polite, repeating
the question. She took me to the side and said, "We do not like
you asking those kinds of questions in our lobby." The next day
the bank called me and told me they were closing out my ac-
count. They explained that I was a troublemaker, asking too
many questions. They did not want me in their lobby asking
questions or telling people how the banks operate. They sent
123
the check through the mail. I went to their bank, to the drive up
teller, avoiding the lobby as they'd asked. I sent the check
through the little tube. Ten minutes later, they refused to cash
the check. No other customers were there to delay it being
cashed. I asked them what the holdup was. They would not an-
swer me. I asked them to either cash it or return it immediately.
They returned it. I went directly to the police and told them
that the bank had threatened me because, as a CPA, I'd uncov-
ered a massive white collar crime at the bank. To my surprise,
the bank called the police saying that I'd been told to not come
onto the property of the bank and had driven onto their prop-
erty anyhow. How else could I cash the check? To clear out my
lockbox at the bank vault, I had the police escort me for fear of
being arrested. All I did was ask a question about who funded
the bank loan check. They made it very clear that they did not
want anyone knowing the truth. What will they do when mil-
lions of people copy and distribute my brochure and affidavit?
One person walked into a bank and showed the banker my
40 most basic questions. The borrower said, I want to know the
answers to these questions. The banker looked at the questions
and said, "Who gave you these questions?" The borrower would
not tell them it was me. The banker said, "You are not to know
this." Then the banker threatened to call the FBI, claiming he
should not be asking these questions. The borrower was upset
and called me.
I said, "If the FBI claims we should not know what is in the
agreement, it just proves my point that there is a fraudulent
concealment and that they should arrest the banker." I said, "Tell
the banker Tom Schauf will give the bank $1,000 if he will
answer all of my questions, explaining the whole truth and noth-
ing but the truth about the bank loan agreement, under oath and
under penalty of perjury. This banker was one scared puppy.
Once I started asking a bank vice president these same ques-

tions. I wish I'd had a video camera to show how his hands
shook. If I didn't know any better, I'd have thought he had
Parkinson's disease. If he'd had a glass of water, I bet it would
have been all over the floor.
124
I walked into a bank asking for the supervisor. A lady came

over. I asked her, "Who funds the bank loan check? Is it from
capital you directly receive from the borrower, or is it from
other depositors, or do you create the money?"
She said, "From other depositors. This is why we pay inter-
est to depositors, because we loan their money out to borrow-
ers."
I kept quiet, knowing the Federal Reserve Bank says that
the banks are limited in creating new bank liabilities called
checking account balances in the alleged loan process. This limit
is in relation to the other depositors at the bank. The other de-
positors' money is not loaned out. New bank liabilities are cre-
ated and traded by check from one checking account to another.
I showed her the bank bookkeeping entries and she admitted
she'd lied to me earlier.
She pulled me over to the side and explained, "We are not
supposed to tell people where the money comes from. Who in
their right mind would agree to create $100,000 of value by
signing the promissory note, then use this newly created value
like money to deposit into a checking account, then trade these
bank liabilities or checkbook money from one checking account
to another checking account, allowing the bank to place liens
on nearly all the nation's assets for free, forcing you into debt."
She explained, "No one is to know this secret. Even if creating
checkbook money is legal, it makes no difference. People will
figure out it's not fair. If people understood the truth, they would
vote to end this banking system." She wanted to know who told
me about this. I would not say.
I asked, "How can there be an agreement if the bank did the
opposite?"
She said, "Who cares? You got a check."
One man was going through bankruptcy. The court ordered

him to list his assets and liabilities. He listed the money that
the bank's balance sheet showed it owed him and never paid
him. At the bankruptcy trial, he showed that he was owed an
asset from the bank in the amount of the original promissory
125
note, plus the interest he had paid. He knew that the bank had
recorded the promissory note as a loan from him, which makes
it an asset in his bankruptcy. The judge did not know what to
do. This man would call me, just laughing, because the judge
and bank attorney were trying to figure out how the bank owed
him more money than he owed the bank. He would call me
saying that when his bankruptcy case would come up in court,
the judge would say, "Next case" and skip his case until the
next month. This went on for months and months. I understand
he lived on his farm for a long time while they tried to figure
out that mess.
When I moved from Illinois to Tucson, Arizona, my friend

helped me move. He had his son join in helping me move my
furniture. The man's son was on the board of directors at a bank.
He was very nice. His father and I confronted him about the
bank's standard operating policy. He could not deny anything
we were saying. He continued working for the bank because he
wanted the money and didn't believe enough people would find
out. Americans hate being lied to and stolen from. It will be
interesting to see what the future holds for this nice young man.
I have recently been in court depositions listening to the

bankers absolutely lie under oath. I heard them say that they
loan other depositors' money, that legal tender is the only money,
etc. Because people believe these lies, this nation is being de-
stroyed.
28. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE

LAW CANCELS YOUR BANK LOAN
Why is equal protection so important? What does equal pro-
tection mean? Equal protection is defined as a constitutional
guarantee wherein no person or class of people shall be denied
the same equal protections of the law enjoyed by other persons
126
and the enforcement of contracts. Remember, under the law, a

corporation is treated like a person. Concealing the economic
effect of stealing and counterfeiting denies equal protection.
Never forget that an agreement or contract is a mutual agree-
ment, and you cannot have mutual agreement without full dis-
closure.
Pretend for a moment that nonbankers and bankers had equal
protection under the law, and that the written bank loan agree-
ment showed full disclosure so nonbankers could fully under-
stand the agreement. If this were true, and the bank paid the
debt it owed in obtaining the promissory note, your debt would
be canceled. Under equal protection, if the bank used your first
promissory note to fund the check, would they not then have to
accept a second promissory note with no interest and no lien to
discharge the first one? Under equal protection under the law,
if the bank recorded the first promissory note as a loan from
you to the bank, would not the bank then have to repay you the
principal and interest you paid them to receive "its equivalent
in kind?" Under equal protection under the law, if the bank can
create non-legal tender money and spend it, why can't we do
the same. If the bank accepted money we created to issue a
bank loan check, would they not then have to accept more to
discharge the first alleged bank loan?
Under full disclosure, what agreement did we sign and have
mutual understanding of at the time of signing? What gave
Congress the right to deny us equal protection under the law?
Are there two classes of citizens, bankers with one set of rules
and nonbankers with another, so that banks can prey upon the
nonbanker's wealth? If there is a bank loan agreement, we want
to know what the full agreement is, or we want out of the al-
leged loan. If the bank cannot answer all our questions, how
can there be an agreement with full disclosure and mutual con-
sent?
If we have equal protection under the law (and do not have
two classes of citizens) plus full disclosure in the written agree-
ment so nonbankers can understand who provided the funds to
issue the bank loan check, we would be out of debt. No one
would be so stupid as to vote in politicians forcing this system
127
on us if we understood the whole truth. No one would agree to

an unconscionable contract, an unenforceable contract, or an
ultra vires contract if we understood the whole truth.
I can just hear an attorney saying that the bank has a li-
cense and you do not. What if we answered the attorney by
asking what the intent of the founding fathers of the Constitu-
tion was? The intent was for Congress to issue gold and silver
or United States Notes, giving everyone equal protection. How
can you redefine the intent and meaning, allowing the banks to
create money and denying us equal protection, forcing us into
debt just like a counterfeiter of United States Notes would?
29. THE BANKERS' WAR
Amongst the nations of the world, the United States of

America was unique. Our Constitution and the Constitutional
banking system was a threat to every monarch and government
in the world. If our founding fathers were successful, every citi-
zen in every country would overthrow the monarchs and bank-
ers and join America in claiming their freedom. The kings in
Europe knew they did not have to invade us to control us. All
they had to do was get their banking system established in
America and they could stay in power.
Europe's system depended on Titles of Nobility. One set of
rules for Nobles and another set of rules for serfs. The Nobles
owned nearly everything and the serfs paid the Nobles rent.
The Nobles acted much like American bankers today. Our found-
ing fathers hated this class system, wishing to give everyone
equal protection under the law and, with gold and silver, to pre-
vent a bank takeover. One of the biggest secrets in America
today is the original Thirteenth Amendment, ratified and never
repealed but simply replaced during the confusion of the wars.
Researchers David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Brian March ex-
posed this secret. A few years ago I received their research show-
ing 24 States and/or territories with 76 publications and an origi-
128
nal Constitution with the Original Thirteenth Amendment. Re-

search shows it appears to have been ratified either once or
twice — on December 10, 1812 and/or on March 12, 1819. In
the War of 1812, the King of England ordered the records of
Congress to be destroyed in a fire to destroy this Thirteenth
Amendment, hoping it would be replaced by another. The Thir-
teenth Amendment would destroy the Monarchs of the world
and the king was trying to keep his power. He knew if America
was successful, his countrymen would follow America's ex-
ample and demand the same, thereby forcing him out of power.
Titles of Nobility, by Gary Hunt, exposes even more de-
tails. I recommend you read his material.
30. THE ORIGINAL AND LAWFUL

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, re-
ceive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without
the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pen-
sion, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any em-
peror, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to
be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of hold-
ing any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
In the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9,

clause (8):
"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States:

And no person holding any office of office of trust under them,
shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present,
emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King,
Prince, or foreign State."
129
Article 1, Section 10, clause (1):
"No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confed-

eration; grant letters of marque or reprisal; coin money; emit
bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender
in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto
law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any
title of nobility."
When one receives a license, it comes from the executive

branch...except for attorneys' licenses. In some states, the state
Supreme Court licenses attorneys. I ask you, what authority
under the Constitution and the three branches of government
do the courts have to license anyone? How can a private orga-
nization govern themselves by giving a Bar Card to a member
to practice in a court and prohibit the remaining population from
practicing? This acts like a Title of Nobility. Can Congress del-
egate their authority and responsibility to a private organiza-
tion? No. The court-licensed attorneys or Bar Card-carrying
attorneys control all three branches of government. The attor-
neys now interpret the law and the Constitution for all other
Americans. Three branches of government exist to prevent one
organization from taking over the nation, yet the attorneys con-
trol all three branches.
It is believed, and research points to the fact, that attor-
neys' Titles of Nobility comes from England, as does the Bar
Association (which appears to be controlled or owned by banks).
Attorneys take an oath (contract with the people) to uphold the
U. S. Constitution and the state Constitution. It is required that
attorneys and judges be U.S. Citizens. If the original Thirteenth
Amendment is upheld, the attorneys and judges are not U.S.
Citizens and cannot put you in jail. Lawmakers with attorney
licenses cannot pass laws. Even if they do, the nation is bank-
rupt and not sovereign, so it has no effect as law of a De jure
government.
Titles of Nobility were used in Europe to designate a rank
or dignity or privilege presented over others who otherwise
would be of equal status. Our founding fathers hated this class
130
system and brought it to an end. The powers in Europe thrived

on this system, keeping their families in power. They simply
tried to implement this class system in America in order to ex-
tend their wealth and control. Our founding fathers envisioned
America to be different, giving everyone equal protection. To-
day, you need an attorney to represent you in court and are not
allowed counsel of your choice as the Constitution guarantees.
The Bar attorneys reinterpreted the Constitution to create a
monopoly, forcing you to hire their members and to meet their
agenda. If a Bar attorney will not cooperate with the Bar, the
Bar disbars him or her so that they cannot practice, nor even
have a law challenged. Judges insist you hire an attorney, not
counsel, of your choice. One private organization controls court
decisions affecting every citizen and the laws we live by. The
Bar Association, the media, and the banks have far more con-
trol and a different agenda than most people realize.
Do you see why government law enforcement threatened
to kill me or plant evidence on me so they could silence me in
jail? They had to hide the truth about the banks' operations, the
original Thirteenth Amendment, and the Emergency War Pow-
ers and Trading With the Enemy Acts to remain in power and
take your wealth and rights. If people understood the whole
truth, they would have been voted out a long time ago.
I need you to spread the word to make it happen and restore
your freedoms. Join me in making America free again.
Here is a history lesson about the original Thirteenth

Amendment and the War of 1812. In the mid-1700s, Mayer
Rothschild, one of the most successful European bankers, was
reported to have bragged: "Permit me to issue and control the
money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws" (p. 198,
see bibliography #12). He knew that if he controlled the banks,
he controlled the lawmakers. Alexander Hamilton was appointed
as Secretary of the Treasury in 1788 by George Washington. In
1790, Alexander Hamilton, a bank agent, submitted to Con-
gress a proposal for the First Bank of the United States. Tho-
mas Jefferson, then Secretary of State, attempted to stop it with-
out success. The investors of the bank were never revealed. It is
131
believed Rothschild was an owner. The newspapers called it "a

great swindle." The bank was passed with a twenty-year char-
ter to allow the people time to discuss the bank and its merits
and decide if they wanted to allow it to recharter by 1811. Presi-
dent James Monroe let the charter lapse. On January 24, 1811,
the bank was voted out of business. Within five months Britain
was at war with America. In 1814, a British force arrived in
Chesapeake Bay. Against all military logic, the British force
first targeted the records of Congress and completely destroyed
them instead of destroying the military fortifications. Why were
these records so important? The King knew if the original Thir-
teenth Amendment, stored in the records of Congress, survived,
his reign was over. The King could not control America with-
out his bank, nor if the original Thirteenth Amendment suc-
ceeded.
Today's police, attorneys, lawmakers, and judges are in the
same situation that the King was in. When the King destroyed
the Thirteenth Amendment, he must have forgotten, or did not
realize, that the State Capitals had copies. When the banks own
or control the media and publishing companies, they simply
delete our true history. The judges, police, and lawmakers have
been told and shown the evidence of the original Thirteenth
Amendment. If they allow it to exist, they would not only be
removed from power, but how many people would want to try
them for conspiracy or treason? There are many angry people.
Why not give them amnesty if they come over to our side very
quickly? Once they know the truth and we can document they
were told, then it shows their intent and it is up to the voters to
decide the outcome.
Money is a powerful means to persuade lawmakers to vote
in the European banking system. Again it happened. In 1816. A
second European bank was granted a 20-year charter. Just as
President Jefferson predicted, the bank inflated the economy
and contracted the money supply, creating a depression in 1819
with a large number of bankruptcies and a debtor population.
The banks simply repossessed the property and owned it with-
out loaning one cent of other depositors' money. Again the popu-
lation woke up and Andrew Jackson ran for the Presidency with
132
the campaign to cancel the European banking system. Real

Americans rallied behind Andrew Jackson and elected him to
office. A second time history repeated itself and President An-
drew Jackson ended the Bank's charter, setting America free
again from the Nobles. All we need to do is repeat history again,
first by education so that the people will know the truth and,
secondly, vote correctly to set themselves free.
31. IS THE GOVERNMENT BANKRUPT?

The government is bankrupt, according to Rep. Traficant
of Ohio. On March 17, 1993, he said, "Mr. Speaker, we are
here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trust-
ees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt
entity in world history, the U.S. Government." To confirm this,
look up HJR 192, Trading with the Enemy and Emergency War
Powers. The bankruptcy took away the gold and silver. When
you walk into a court, look for the gold fringe flag on a pole. It
is a symbol of a military court, created through the bankruptcy.
It would be impossible for the government to be bankrupt to-
day if the government printed sovereign United States Notes,
interest-free, and if this were the only money allowed in the
nation.
Why did Rep. Traficant say that Congress was the official
trustee of the government's bankruptcy?
I recommend you use Black's Law Dictionary and look up

the words bankruptcy and bankruptcy trustee. You will find the
bankruptcy trustee can collect assets, sue debtors, defend court
actions, administer the estate, and "set aside preferences of li-
abilities owed." I believe foreclosure victims lost properties
because judges are acting like trustees, "setting aside prefer-
ences" (setting aside the unauthorized loan to the bank). The
judge is acting like the trustee of the national bankruptcy, forc-
ing us into this bankruptcy and forcing us to lose our property
133
to the bankers. The bankers never could have done this if poli-
ticians upheld their oath of office to defend the U.S. Constitu-
tion. Politicians have full knowledge of what they have done.
This book is the proof that politicians and bankers knew and
should have known all along. Can the judge set aside the debt
the bank owes and force you to pay your debt to the bank by
setting aside preferences? Examine the court foreclosure pa-
pers very carefully and I am convinced you will find the an-
swers.
The government in bankruptcy is a corporation. By Con-

gress refusing to print sovereign United States Notes interest-
free, and instead printing Federal Reserve Notes and allowing
local banks to create bank liabilities used like money, the gov-
ernment and its citizens are forced into debt and bankruptcy.
However, there is never enough money to pay the debt. The
creditors own the nation's assets. When people tell me they own
their house free and clear, I explain that, under the bankruptcy,
your house is collateral for the national debt. The banks control
the country because they are the creditors. Congress is the trustee
for the bank. The banks reversed the whole power structure by
creating money.
The banks want you to think that you have rights under the
U.S. Constitution. In bankruptcy, your rights, by an agreement
that was not disclosed to the American public or understood by
the people, are suspended under the Constitution. Your rights
were exchanged for privileges, forcing you to have licenses.
The police enforce the licenses. Do you see why the law claims
that Congress cannot delegate responsibility to a private orga-
nization? If President Kennedy had lived and continued print-
ing United States Notes interest-free, giving us equal protec-
tion under the law, the banks could not be the creditors, bank-
rupting the nation and controlling us. The first thing President
Johnson did as President was to stop printing those United States
Notes, replacing them with Federal Reserve Notes. Some coin
dealers now have the Kennedy dollars. President Kennedy was
not going to escalate the war in Vietnam. In his place, President
Johnson created huge war debts, thereby creating more taxes
134
for the people and income for the banks. You lost your govern-
ment and your rights in bankruptcy because most Americans
do not understand money. Without sovereign United States
money, we are forced to use unpaid bank liabilities as if they
were money. If you sue the bank to pay the debt they owe you,
and if the banks are forced to pay in substance and not allowed
to create more bank debt, then they will have a major problem
that will result in cancelling your loans and the national debt.
The media makes you think that America is a democracy.
In the pledge of allegiance, you say, "I pledge allegiance to the
flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all." It says "Republic," meaning Constitutional,
not a democracy, or mob rule. Government lawmakers, judges,
and police take an oath, a contract with you, to uphold the U.S.
Constitution. Article 4, section 4 of the Constitution says, "The
United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a re-
publican form of government, and shall protect each of them
against invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of
the executive... against domestic violence." Ask yourself, do
we have the Republican form of government our founding fa-
thers intended for us? If I told you I wanted to buy your car,
gave you a check with no money behind it, and took your car,
is that theft? Yes. What is the difference between that and using
your promissory note to fund the bank loan check with the bank
receiving the lien for free. In both cases, the victim lost money
and is in debt for the loss. What is the difference if it is done on
a national level? Who should own the country, "We the People"
or the bankers? Who obtained the nation's assets for free?
If you want to have your chickens stolen, hire a fox to guard
the chicken house. You cannot blame him. That's what he's sup-
posed to do. It's in his nature to be sly. I blame the one who
hired him. The solution is simple: if Americans want out of
their bank loans, all we have to do is expose the real bank agree-
ment to enough Americans. If Americans want to double their
wealth, all they have to do is educate enough other Americans
about the truth behind banking policies. The threat of our vote
135
and public pressure exposing the media blackout will force the
change.
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the Coun-
cil on Foreign Relations (CFR) for 16 years, warned about the
bankers' intentions. In the book Why A Bankrupt America, he
is quoted as saying, "The most powerful clique in these elitist
groups have one objective in common. They want to bring about
the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence
of the United States. A second clique of international members
in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and
their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking mo-
nopoly from whatever power ends up in control of global gov-
ernment" (p. 27, see bibliography #10). Many of our members
of Congress belong to the CFR, along with members of media
and other powerful positions.
In 1957, U.S. Senator George Malone said, "I believe that
if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has
done to them over the past 49 years, they would move on Wash-
ington: they would not wait for an election... It adds up to a
preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social indepen-
dence of the United States" (Ibid. 9). They know the truth but
must remain silent to remain in power. Recall the words of Tho-
mas Jefferson, who warned us about the banks, "Single acts of
tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But
a series of oppressions; begun at a distinguished period, and
pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (admin-
istrations), too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of
reducing us to slavery" (Ibid. 13).
The U.S. Constitution separated government into three
branches. In bankruptcy, the banks become the creditors to all
three branches and controls all three. The borrower becomes
the servant to the lender.
Founding Father James Madison said, "The accumulation
of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same
hands, whether in one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very defi-
nition of tyranny "(p. 193, see bibliography #2).
136
Congressman Lewis McFadden, former Chairman of the

House Banking and Currency Committee, understood:
We have in this country one of the most corrupt institu-

tions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Re-
serve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank, hereinafter called
the FED. They are not government institutions. They are pri-
vate monopolies which prey upon the People of the United
States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and
domestic swindlers; rich and predatory moneylenders. (see
bibliography #10, p. 9).
He continued,
Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board

to conceal its power but the truth is that the Federal Reserve
Board has usurped the Government of the United States. It
controls everything here and it controls all our foreign rela-
tions. It makes and breaks governments at will. No man and
no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arro-
gant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve
Board and the Federal Reserve Bank. These evildoers have
robbed this country of more than enough money to pay the
national debt. What the Government has permitted the Fed-
eral Reserve Banks to steal from the people should now be
restored to the people... The Federal Reserve Act should be
repealed and the Federal Reserve Banks, having violated their
charters, should be liquidated immediately. Faithless gov-
ernment officers who have violated their oaths should be
impeached and brought to trial. (p. 170-4, see bibliography
#12)
He was there when the bankruptcy occurred. If anyone

should know, he should. The media blackout just kept you from
learning the whole truth. They now think you will fall for the
balanced budget propaganda. Anyone listening to the lies will
come up with the wrong solution. Now you know better, and
we also have a solution. The politicians have made it clear who
they represent. Congressman McFadden wanted to correct the
problem, along with other Congressmen, but they could not
137
because they were not able to inform enough Americans. The

media made sure there was a media blackout. If enough Ameri-
cans find out the whole truth and help our leaders uphold their
oath of office, we will be debt-free and you would be doubling
your wealth. Knowledge is power. If too many people find out
the truth, the lies will end and everyone will want out of their
debt.
As a plaintiff, if you expose the bankruptcy, the judge may
throw out the case. The judge does not want the bankruptcy
exposed. Is the court a bankruptcy court administrating the bank-
ruptcy? If you sue, you have to decide what court to sue in and
if the bankruptcy makes a difference. If you win, it may be
because the judge does not want the truth exposed; the judge
does not want the bright spotlight on the banker's activities.
Wisely use this spotlight of truth to win.
32. INSOLVENCY
If the bank auditor knows that the bank did not fulfill the
bank loan agreement or that the bank is insolvent, this must be
disclosed in the audit opinion or a dirty opinion must be given.
(A dirty opinion means the bank is insolvent or involved in a
fraud, or that they never legally owned the promissory note.)
The users of the bank financial statements need to know the
truth so that they can make informed investment decisions.
Is the bank insolvent? To determine this, we need to know
what insolvent means. The Dictionary of Banking Terms de-
fines insolvency as, "the inability to pay debts as they mature."
It further explains insolvency as not being able to pay debts. A
bank is considered insolvent if the ratio of liabilities to assets
is zero or near zero. If assets over liabilities is zero (more li-
abilities than quality assets available to pay the liabilities), the
bank is considered insolvent. If the bank records the promis-
sory note as a loan from the alleged borrower to the bank and if
the bank repays the loan in "its equivalent in kind" (meaning
138
the principal and interest), the bank never has the money to
repay the loan, making the bank insolvent. If it is insolvent, the
bank never has actual cash value to loan to the borrower to
obtain the promissory note.
From this book you have learned one thing. If everyone
went to the bank and closed out their checking accounts, cut up
their credit cards, and only used cash, the banks would have to
pay all the debt they owe borrowers. The government would
have to print United States Notes—cash— interest-free, or it
would be obvious to everyone that the leaders of this nation
represent the banking interests. If the bank does not print new
Federal Reserve Notes, can the bank convert its assets to pay
all the bank debt? No. There is not enough cash to pay the bank
debt. They would, by definition, be insolvent because they are
unable to convert assets into cash to meet financial obligations.
Are the banks insolvent? Did they loan you cash or give you a
liability owing you cash? If they are insolvent, how can they
have loaned you cash?
If you study the words insolvency and bankruptcy, you will
find that the bank can never be insolvent because they never
intend to pay the bank liabilities. They only trade the bank li-
abilities from one checking account to another by check. You
can argue that if everyone demanded the bank pay the bank
debt owed for the promissory notes by demanding cash, the
bank is insolvent unless they create more debt by printing more
Federal Reserve Notes. The only alternative is having the gov-
ernment print cash interest-free by printing United States Notes.
If the bank is not insolvent because they never intended to pay
the bank debt, it proves that the bank never loaned money and
never intended to loan you actual cash value to obtain your
promissory note. If they admit that they are insolvent, they could
not make the loan. If they claim they are not insolvent, they
must prove that they obtained the promissory note for free.
139
33. WHAT CREATES INFLATION?

Increasing the money supply beyond the goods and services
available causes inflation. We've all heard stories of a loaf of
bread costing 10¢ or a fancy house costing $35,000 years ago.
Why did the price go up? It is best illustrated in this example:
If the nation had only $100 and 100 loafs of bread, the obvious
price of the bread is one dollar. If the money supply is increased
to $200 and only 100 loaves of bread are available, the price of
a loaf is increased to two dollars. The breadmaker gets smart
and produces an extra 100 loafs, creating a total of 200 loafs
and the price of a loaf drops to one dollar. As long as you add
production as you add dollars to the money supply, there may
be little if any inflation.
34. WHAT CAUSES RECESSIONS AND

DEPRESSIONS?
Decreasing the money supply causes recessions and depres-
sions. There is no difference between a recession and a depres-
sion except for the amount of money in circulation. If the U.S.
constitutional banking system our founding fathers created was
followed, there would be no recessions nor depressions in
America. Congress would be sure that there was an adequate
supply of money and not allow one group to manipulate the
money supply and profit from debauching it.
It is the bank's policy to create recessions in order to in-
crease their profits. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago publica-
tion Modern Money Mechanics (p. 6) gives the bankers instruc-
tions on how to create a bank-induced recession or depression.
Did the banks create the 1929 Great Depression? Congress-
man Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Committee on
Banking and Currency from 1920 to 1931, accused the Federal
Bank for creating the crash. "It was not accidental. It was a
carefully contrived occurrence.... The international bankers
140
sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they

might emerge as rulers of us all" (see bibliography #8, p. 191).
Congressman Charles Lindbergh, the famous flyer's father,
wrote this about the Federal Reserve Bank shortly after it was
created: "depressions will be scientifically created" (see bibli-
ography #2, p. 124).
Thomas Jefferson said, "If the American people ever allow
private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation
and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up
around them will deprive the people of all property until their
children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered" ( see bibliography #12, p. 247).
These three famous people knew how the banks create de-
pressions using the European banking system. They warned the
nation to use only the U.S. constitutional banking system, yet
we did not listen. Today, our plan is to warn the whole nation
so the banks cannot crash the economy, creating another de-
pression and forcing us into a cashless society.
How did the banks create the Great Depression? From 1923
to 1929, through alleged loans, the banks increased the money
supply by 62%. Easy money created a business boom. Banks
created money and loaned it to borrowers wishing to buy stock.
You could buy $1,000 in stock for $100 down and finance the
other $900 with a 24-hour call loan from the bank. The stock
prices went up and up, fueled by the money the banks created
and loaned out to buy stock. The insiders sold their stock at a
great profit and bought government bonds or held cash, wait-
ing for the crash. In unison, the banks called the 24-hour bro-
ker call loans due. The nonbankers were forced to sell their
stock to pay for the loans. Everyone sold and the crash began.
Within a few weeks, $3 billion of wealth vanished. The wealth
of one of the insiders, Joseph P. Kennedy, grew from $4 mil-
lion in 1929 to $100 million by 1935. It is no secret. Sell your
stock on the high side and buy on the low side. After the crash,
cash was scarce. Those who were on the inside, those who sold
their stock before the crash and held cash, now bought compa-
nies for 10¢ on the dollar. Great fortunes were made at the mis-
ery of others. Between 1929 to 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank
141
reduced the money supply by 33%, thereby creating the Great

Depression.
It is wicked enough that the bank never risks or invests one
cent of legal tender or other depositors' money and loans you
your own money at interest. It is even more sinister when the
banks control the gambling odds and force you to lose at their
whim, taking all your property for their added profit. The bank
receives your promissory note and lien for free, receives your
monthly loan payments for free, and then forecloses and re-
ceives the equity on your home or farm for free. The bank policy
is to create recessions to force a percentage of people to de-
fault, putting you out on the street. All the European banking
system does is shift the wealth from you to the bank. By buy-
ing foreclosed properties, judges, police, and lawmakers can
make a fortune.
Today, the same situation exists as did just before the Great
Depression. Will we learn our lesson and save the nation by
exposing the bankers?
35. I FEAR BANKERS MORE THAN

STANDING ARMIES
President Thomas Jefferson said, "I sincerely believe that
banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than
standing armies" (see bibliography #10, p. 20).
President Andrew Jackson said that the bank "would be
more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military
power of the enemy" (see bibliography #7, p. 308).
Founding Father James Madison said, "History records that
the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, intrigue,
deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over
governments by controlling the money and its issuance" (see
bibliography #8, p. 79).
If the government issued United States Notes interest-free
and if the banks could not create money, then the banks could
142
not create wars for profit, running up huge government debts

in order to receive the interest. If banks could not create money,
they could not create recessions nor depressions, nor obtain the
liens on the nation's assets for free. Wealth buys favor with the
media. It can be used as social engineering to change the way
that people think. The media elects lawmakers. The lawmakers
know that, if they wish to be re-elected, they must vote the way
of those who financed them into office. In effect, the one with
the most money wins. If the banks create the money, they win.
They control the nation.
One day after I was done conducting seminars for certified
public accountants, I talked to a man who identified himself as
the head accountant of a very large bank. I said, "You know all
the bank loans you grant are a fraud."
Without any hesitation, he said, "I know."
I said, "Are you afraid of going to jail?"
Again, without hesitation, he said, "No."
I asked him why not.
He said, "The banks control the judges. We have them
elected. If they want a job, they have to cooperate with us. We
control both the media and who is elected to office. The only
thing we fear is the population learning what we have done to
them. If they wake up, we will have to flee the country." He
laughed.
I will never forget what he said. This is why courts have
thrown out perfectly good cases against the banks. The banks
can control the judges, but not the brochures. Brochures and
small books were used to begin the Revolutionary War and fight
the British. China used brochures to win a nation for commu-
nism. Brochures will now be used to set America free from the
banks.
If a foreign army invaded America and won the war, they
would control the country, create new laws, and we would pay
taxes to them. What is the difference between a military army
conquering us and the banks obtaining the nation's debt and
property, forcing us to pay them interest on all the money they
create? The banks received the spoils of war without firing one
shot or spending one cent. The banks control the government,
143
the lawmakers, the judges, and the police. The fact is, they used
judges and police to obtain forty percent of the nation's income
tax as interest on the national debt and the liens they obtained.
Either you give the conquerors your labor for free or they fore-
close and take your assets. It is much easier to conquer and
control a people who think they are free. The media has labeled
those who object to this as anti-government so that other citi-
zens will not join them in the fight for their freedom.
A nation is not sovereign if they do not have a treasury
printing sovereign money, interest-free. The banks proved this
by foreclosing on the national debt, making Congress trustees
of the national bankruptcy. The creditor owns the nation in bank-
ruptcy. This is the secret not disclosed in court. We will be set
free if we make the banks repay our loans to them, or make the
private banks pay the debt due us. All we have to do is spread
the truth to enough Americans in order to compel them to cor-
rect the problem. We cannot be conquered if the truth is re-
vealed. It is up to every American to get the truth out so we can
correct the problem. If even half of all Americans understood
this and agreed to help correct the problem, we would be free
Americans, refusing to be conquered.
36. LED INTO THE TRAP WITHOUT

KNOWING IT.
DECEIVED AND BEING DECEIVED.
A little boy was petting his pet rattlesnake. After he was
done petting it, he stood up and started to walk away, when the
snake bit him, sending poison throughout his body. The little
boy was shocked and said to the rattlesnake, "Why did you bite
me?" The snake replied, "I'm a snake and that is what snakes
do, they bite people."
People who deceive are masters at deception. They will lie
with a straight face. What if you stopped listening to the lie and
only looked at the fruit of their works? If the banks and those
144
aiding and abetting the banks kept lying to you, should you
believe them in the future? Only a fool would. Did the media
tell you the whole truth when they said we needed to balance
the budget? Did the banks tell you the whole truth about the
alleged bank loan? How much of the lie did you believe before
you learned the truth?
I have listened to a number of individuals working on the
inside, creating computers and computer chips for a cashless
society which they believe is coming in the near future. They
have come to me, pleading with me to get the message out be-
fore it is too late. They explain that the banks and government
will have absolute control over everyone. They have even shown
me the national I.D. card and the small computer chip that is to
be implanted under your skin, as they are doing with animals
today.
I heard one of the top insiders who developed the chip ex-
plain it this way: First, they plan on implementing a national
I.D. card. They must identify everyone so they can disarm
America without objection. They need to mark every person
with an identification system. We know people will object to
surgery. To overcome this, we developed a small computer chip
which is round and about the size of a grain of rice that can be
injected by a needle. We figure people will accept it because it
will be like getting a flu shot. The computer chip will be placed
just under the skin of the forehead, just below the hairline, or
the right hand. Those two places are chosen because that is
where your body temperature changes the most. The change in
temperature recharges the little battery in the chip. The chip
will be used like a credit card, a medical file, criminal record,
and a means to locate you at any time. By locating people and
knowing where everyone is at anytime, we will know who com-
mitted what crime. No more drugs and everyone pays taxes and
child support. After the chip was developed, I heard this man
explain how he had come to read Revelations, Chapters 13 and
14 (the last book of the Bible). After he developed the chip, he
learned he had fulfilled Biblical prophecy. Needless to say, he
accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and is telling others
how true the Bible really is.
145
The Federal Reserve Board is planning to establish a check-

less, cashless society in the United States. The retailer will pay
the bank 2 to 4 percent per transaction. The consumer pays in-
terest to the bank if the balance is not paid within 25 days. The
bank will require a fee for every transaction. Nothing will be
bought or sold without the mark of the beast.
37. DO MONOPOLIES CONTROL AND

FLEECE THE PEOPLE?
Government is the ultimate monopoly. Lawmakers set the
controls, judges rule to uphold the laws, and the policeman's
gun enforces them. If government gives license to one group to
steal and counterfeit, people suffer. With the stroke of a pen,
such counterfeiters can shift wealth from your pocket to their
own. If oil companies conspire to fix oil prices, or prevent the
production of a car getting 100 to 200 miles to the gallon, you've
been fleeced. If the FDA refuses to allow you to use inexpen-
sive medical alternatives that work, and forces you to use a high-
priced drug, you've been fleeced. If an inexpensive cure to can-
cer or AIDS was discovered and not put on the market because
it would put the American Cancer Society out of business, or
stop very profitable AIDS research, you would have been
fleeced. But what if the monopolies found ways to bribe law-
makers into passing laws benefiting such practices? Research
will show that bankers have a direct interest in the oil and drug
companies.
What about the war on crime and drugs? Police, judges,
and attorneys would be laid off if crime declined significantly.
If we fixed the banking problem, people would have higher-
paying jobs and, theoretically, fewer people would commit
crimes. As financial difficulty is one of the major factors in
divorce, by fixing the banking problem, there could conceiv-
ably be less divorce, which could in turn cut crime by having
more children raised in loving homes, nurtured by parents who
146
love each other. High crime rates allow police, judges, and at-
torneys to create and benefit from a legal industry. Police re-
ceive bonuses from writing tickets and arresting people. They
seize property under the pretense of a drug bust and keep the
property without ever going to court. One deputy sheriff ex-
plained to me that the deputies kept such money for themselves,
never reporting it to the IRS.
The television show Dateline had a story in January of 1997
which showed Louisiana police pulling over out-of-state driv-
ers for improperly changing lanes. The people claimed they did
not even make lane changes. The primary purpose of such a
procedure was to seize property. If you had an expensive car,
you were targeted. Dateline brought in their camera and was
picked up without violating the law. The nation was outraged
and many people wrote back to Dateline, saying that this was
one of the clearest violations of human rights, as well as one of
the clearest cases of the abuse of power, that they had seen in a
while.
Asset forfeiture laws are aimed at drug traffickers. All they
need is probable cause to seize your car and put you in jail. The
police officers receive a bonus for seizing your assets. Louisi-
ana police were making a business out of pulling over innocent
victims and seizing their assets. It is more profitable than taxa-
tion, and quicker. A cop is paid less than $200 a day, but can
seize $100,000 in a day without ever having to go to court. Why
would the police or the judicial system want innocent people in
jail? To pay off the elected public officials and their support-
ers. The courts have a gold-fringed flag, which symbolically
upholds the national bankruptcy created by the banks. Bank-
ruptcy takes away your Constitutional rights. Gun owners know
this process through the controversy over the right to bear arms.
Their rights were replaced by a privilege, a license to have a
gun. Notice how the government is turning the jails into private
institutions to make a profit. Cut the food and medical benefits
to prisoners and the profits go up. Use slave labor and profits
go up. The ones aiding and abetting the banking institutions
are the ones behind the judicial system perpetuating such prac-
tices. I believe a large percentage of the prison population could
147
be classified as political prisoners. People exposing govern-

ment activities have been thrown in jail and silenced.
These government-created monopolies illustrate the NEW
WORLD ORDER (one-world government) that our banking
system and government are pushing onus. A few wealthy people
influence the judicial system to fleece citizens for a profit. The
wealthy, in turn, reward the politicians who cooperate, giving
them money and media backing to stay elected. The wealthy
can decide who is and who is not elected. Uncooperative poli-
ticians receive media smears. He who owns the gold makes the
rules. Control over the creation of money, the media, and the
judicial system is the ultimate monopoly.
As long as citizens falsely believe that there is freedom and
equal protection, no change will take place. The wealthy must
maintain the illusion that this is the land of the free, home of
the brave, with equal rights for all people. Freedom is costly to
maintain. Diligence is required or it will be stolen from you.
The wealthy fear the truth. They fear an educated populace. It
is up to you to decide if such information will spread or be
silenced. Think about it! The future of our nation hangs in the
balance. Truth and justice, or bankruptcy and slavery. The de-
cision is ours.
38. HOW CAN THE BANKS LOSE MONEY?

How can the bank lose money if it can create money? The
loss is simply an accounting loss on paper. If people only used
checks as money, no one would know the difference except the
bank. First, the bank can create money in relation to savings
accounts and certificates of deposit. The bank cannot just cre-
ate trillions of dollars; that would lead to hyperinflation. The
bank can only create small amounts of inflation at a time by
creating relatively small amounts of money. For example, if the
bank had $1,000,000 in savings accounts and certificates of
deposit, the bank could create $900,000 of new checkbook
148
money to loan out. The $900,000 new bank liability must be

redeemable in legal tender. The bank did not create legal tender
to match the new $900,000 liability they created. The bank must
sell the promissory notes for government bonds that can later
be sold for cash. Why government bonds? There is not enough
new cash created to match the new $900,000 of bank liabili-
ties, but there are enough government bonds available. The al-
leged bank loans inflate the economy. The more money cre-
ated, the more prices go up.
The people were loaned $900,000 and must pay the bank
back $3,000,000 with interest. The people must pay back
$2,100,000 more than there is money in the economy. The banks
must create and loan out more and more money, so you must
work to earn money to repay the interest or the bank forecloses
on your property. The more loans, the more debt and interest
people pay. Suddenly, the men must ask their wives to work to
pay the interest. Soon, both the husband and wife cannot earn
enough to pay the interest. Either the children must start work-
ing, or the family runs out of money. The more interest they
pay, the less groceries, shoes, dresses, and vacations they have
money for. The less people spend, the less revenue businesses
have. Businesses have to cut costs and lay people off. The bank
forecloses on your house and car because you cannot pay the
interest. House prices go down because people cannot afford to
pay the high prices; house prices are only as high as people can
afford to pay. When you bought the house it was worth $250,000.
The bank placed a lien for $230,000 on the house to be sure
that you pay and they get their money. Because families have
less money due to enormous debt, they cannot afford to pay the
high prices of homes and the prices drop. The appraiser lowers
the appraised value from $250,000 to $200,000. You now owe
$30,000 more than it is worth. You decide to let the bank have
it because it is cheaper to get a lower-priced house. The bank-
ing system loses $30,000. They owe a $230,000 liability cre-
ated by loaning you the $230,000 bank liability, backed by your
promissory note and lien on the house. The lien is only worth
$200,000, not $230,000. The bank forecloses, pays the attor-
149
ney $10,000, and has $190,000 left to pay the bank liability of
$230,000. It is a paper loss of $40,000.
The Federal Reserve Bank has control over the money sup-
ply, interest rates, and the economy. According to one bank
auditor, the goal is to close out the small banks, to end up with
one huge bank, and to force total control of the economy. No-
tice how big banks are buying out small banks that have paper
losses.
The government passed the NAFTA and GATT agreements.
The American worker making $10.00 per hour must compete
with a Chinese prison laborer who may be paid 10¢ or less an
hour. American wages must go down to compete with China's
labor, but you still owe the bank the same amount. You get
squeezed and cannot pay the interest. Why would the banks
want NAFTA and GATT? Anytime one can debauch the cur-
rency and know ahead of time where to invest, there are huge
profits to be made.
Imagine Mexico selling beef cows for significantly lower
prices than ranchers in the southwest United States. The ranch-
ers would lose their ranches, not being able to sell their beef at
high enough prices to pay their loan payments. How would the
bank profit? If the ranch was worth $2 million and owed the
bank $500,000, there is a quick $1,500,000 profit. Is it true? I
can tell you that I have received telephone calls saying this is
happening. Whether it is true or not does not matter, because it
could happen in almost any industry. The banks pushed Con-
gress to pass NAFTA and GATT. The media supported Con-
gress passing the agreements. It was done to increase the prof-
its of certain banks and media corporations.
39. IF BANKS ARE CREATING ALL THAT

MONEY, WHY IS THERE NOT MORE
INFLATION?
Inflation is not only the price of bread going up; inflation is
your standard of living declining. A few years ago, only one
150
spouse needed to work to pay for the family budget. Today,

both spouses need to work. This is the result of inflation. Banks
create money and loan it out, so why is there not more infla-
tion? Who owns the $5 trillion of national debt? Much of it is
owned by foreign interests. When you pay taxes, the tax money
is sent outside our borders, decreasing the money supply in the
United States. The IRS takes your earnings and decreases the
money supply further by using your taxes to pay interest to
foreigners who hold the government bonds. Do you think that
these people are interested in what is best for America?
40. IS THERE A MEDIA BLACKOUT?

John Swinton, former Chief of Staff for the New York Times,
was one of America's best-loved newspapermen. His peers
called him "The Dean of His Profession." John was asked to
give a toast before the New York Press Club, and in so doing
made a monumentally important and revealing statement. He is
quoted as follows:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history,

in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know
it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opin-
ions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never
appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opin-
ions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are
paid weekly, similar salaries for similar things, and any of you
who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be
out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my hon-
est opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-
four hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the
journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to
vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country
and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and
what folly is this toasting to an independent press? We are the
151
tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the
jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents,
our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men.
We are intellectual prostitutes." (see bibliography #12)
Read Enroute To Global Occupation by Gary Kah to learn

of one bank owning or controlling a significant portion of the
media and publishing companies.
41. MEDIA AND THE INTERNET

If you found out there was a conspiracy involving the banks
and media and you exposed it, what would you expect the banks
to do? You guessed it—use the media to smear those exposing
them; make them sound like conspiracy nuts. They know that
no one wants to be associated with a nut.
A true story: A few years ago a local newspaper reporter
called me asking for an interview. He claimed he wanted to
expose the banks. I met with him. He asked me if I knew a man
(John Doe). I said I'd heard his name, but I did not want to be
associated or connected to him in any way. The article came
out saying I was trying to expose the banks, then went on to
say, "Mr. Schauf knows (John Doe) and he thinks the Russians
control the weather." Only crackpots believe in such things. The
article was there only to smear me.
A major radio station called, inviting me to be a guest and
expose the banks. On prime time radio they started accusing
me of being a Jew hater. They kept claiming that I believed the
Jews were committing a conspiracy. I kept saying I'd never
said such a thing, that I never researched this, and had no infor-
mation about Jews. I only knew about banks. For about ten
minutes this kept going on. Then I said, "Did you ask me here
to discuss religion or banking?" They said banking, and we con-
tinued talking about banking.
152
Without my authorization, someone took my old manual

and put it on computer disk. Information was subtracted and
added. Can you imagine the problems this could create for me—
someone receiving counterfeit and forged information? What
if they put this on the Internet? Someone did put my informa-
tion on the Internet without authorization. There was a typo.
He claimed I had a wrong date. That was the excuse he used to
try and discredit my information. This book may have typos,
but can people prove me to be materially wrong?
Others have put my information on the Internet. They change
the information and claim I said or agreed to something I never
had. By leaving out a few key paragraphs or words, one can
completely change the meaning of what it is I am saying. This
is the reason I do not give others the right to speak for me.
All I am asking for is equal protection under the law, agree-
ment between bankers and nonbankers, and full disclosure so
that the average person signing an agreement can fully under-
stand exactly who loans him what according to the bank book-
keeping entries. Why would anyone want to fight me on this
issue? If the media tells the whole truth, why do they discuss
the balanced budget and create a media blackout concerning
the Federal Reserve Bank? Stop allowing the banks to obtain
$100 in government bonds for 2.5¢ and we will balance the
budget. If this banking system is good for America, we should
tell everyone. Do they think we should hide the truth?
42. FOR THOSE WHO SAY THERE IS NO

CONSPIRACY, EXPLAIN THE
FOLLOWING
If one person or group of people could create money, would
they own much of the nation's assets over time? If one had the
power to create money, could one obtain the liens on most of
the homes, cars, farms, ranches, planes, and businesses over a
period of time without loaning one cent of legal tender or other
153
depositors' money? Would the people be paying more interest

under today's banking system than the one I propose? What is
the difference, economically speaking, whether the banks stole
from the borrower and returned the value of the stolen property
as a loan to the victim, or if the bank legally created money and
loaned it out to the same borrower? Does not the same result
occur? Does not stealing and counterfeiting shift the wealth
from the victim to the thief or counterfeiter? How can this hap-
pen without the lawmakers, judges, police, and other profes-
sionals behind the scenes? If we were under gold and silver or
United States Notes issued interest-free by the Republic, and
this being the only money used in the nation, could the banks
obtain the liens on the nation's assets without loaning one cent
of legal tender or other depositors' money? Would there be a
national debt? Is it not true that, if you have wealth, you have
power? If you can create money, is it not true you could practi-
cally own the entire world? If you do not call this a global con-
spiracy, do you call it good business? Are others being forced
into involuntary servitude?
Anyone can say there is no conspiracy. I want proof that
there is not one. I want those saying that there is no conspiracy
to answer all my questions; I will happily provide a forum to
prove they are right. My guess is that the ones involved in a
conspiracy will say there is no conspiracy, and smear anyone
who disagrees. The people who know the truth and who know
what famous men have said, will expose the truth to others. If a
conspiracy is exposed widely enough, it will end.
If there is no conspiracy, why did James Warburg, a mem-
ber of the CFR say, "We shall have one world government
whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."
Concerning the New World Order, why did Richard Gardner
state that it "will be built... but an end run around national sov-
ereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more
than the old fashioned frontal assault."
154
43. SECRET BANKER'S

MANUAL REVEALS ALL
One of the heads of a major university read Tom's banking

books. After reading the books the head of the university de-
cided to expose the truth about banking. Later in 2001, this
individual saw that the university taught a banking class. He
went to the university book store to buy the books for the bank-
ing class and they would not sell him the books like all of the
other university classes. To get the books for the banking class
you had to get a bank president to give written authorization
for you to attend the class and you only got the books in class.
The head of the university insisted that he had authority to see
the class materials as the bankers objected. After much resis-
tance from the bankers, he obtained the books. He gave Tom
the teacher's manual and student's books. Tom put this infor-
mation into the Secret Banker's Manual. The class curriculum
explained the banking laws and taught that if someone were to
sue the bank in a certain way the bank wins and if one were to
sue the bank in another way the bank loses. This information
was tested resulting in people having their mortgages canceled.
We cannot guarantee future results. The manual also reveals
what bankers do to obtain huge returns on investments using
computer generated leads telling you when to buy or sell in the
market place. The university curriculum proves that the bank-
ers know exactly what they are doing and how to profit from
the banking system that they forced the nation into.
Several people have tried to copycat the information charg-

ing $1,000s. The copycats run into trouble when things change
and the copycats cannot copycat because the new strategy
changes. This is why Tom printed the Secret Banker's Manual
so that you can obtain the original for a fraction of the cost of
the copycats. It shows you to laws, strategy and notices that the
bankers fear you will learn about.
155
This manual is so powerful and revolutionary that you must

sign an agreement to keep the information confidential. You
cannot lend the manual out - your friends must buy it for them-
selves. Learn how to use the secret banker's information and
you could really profit from the information. If you do not learn
how it works and use it to your advantage, you will live like a
slave like your friends and neighbors. Be smart and use the
system to your advantage. Ask your friend where to buy a copy
or do a internet search on Tom Schauf to find a distributor. Better
yet become a distributor and sell the manual. There are three
ways to return the wealth back to Americans. we can use the
vote, cancel loans or use high returns on investments using com-
puters to generate buy or sell signals. High returns on invest-
ments is the way to go.
156
44. ECONOMIC SOLUTION
Before we can discuss the solution, one has to understand

the problem. The problem is that private banks create money
and loan it to the citizens at interest. If $100 of money is cre-
ated and loaned to you at 10%, by the end of the year you owe
$100 plus $10 of interest and there has been only $100 of cur-
rency created to pay the $110 owed. There is never enough
money to pay the banks. We must correct the problem without
destroying the economy.
Illustrative Example:
Citizens owe banks principal and interest $1,500,000

Government owes banks principal and interest $1,000,000
Total money owed today through bank loans $2,500,000
The original money loaned was less than $2 million, with

interest it totals $2,500,000. Citizens will owe $250,000 in in-
terest ($2,500,000 at 10% interest) this year to pay the bank to
stop foreclosures. The banks must loan out $250,000 of new
counterfeit money this year so there is a new $250,000 that can
be earned and returned to the banks as interest or homes will be
foreclosed on. If $250,000 of new money is not created, there
will never be enough money to pay the banks because the prin-
cipal cannot repay the principal plus interest. If the new
$250,000 is not created, the banks will cause a depression by
contracting the money supply by $250,000, and they end up
owning all the property anyway.
Solution: The government prohibits the banks from creat-

ing counterfeit money. Banks can only loan other depositors'
money. The government creates the money like Presidents Lin-
coln, Kennedy, and Jackson intended. Instead of the bank coun-
terfeiting new money and loaning it to the government at inter-
est, the government creates the money with no interest or debt
to banks, thereby stopping an economic collapse. For every
157
dollar the government creates, interest-free, there is one less

dollar in taxes needed to fund the government. The govern-
ment creates additional money above and beyond the $250,000
hiring the unemployed and underemployed to repair and build
roads and bridges and for other government projects. Tax money
is saved by creating money, so people pay less in taxes and can
use the money saved to buy more goods and services, which
then creates more jobs. Money could be loaned at no interest
from the Federal government to state, county, and city govern-
ments to cancel interest-bearing bank loans. Stopping interest
helps states, counties, and cities balance their budgets and lower
taxes. Without adding production to the money supply, there
are too many dollars chasing too few goods, creating hyperin-
flation. Computers will watch for inflation so just the right
amount of money is created. Tax incentives will be given to
increase the number of factories. Interest-free or low interest
loans will be granted from the federal government to build new
factories. More factories must be created so there are more goods
produced to match the new dollars created; thus, there is less
inflation. The new factories will add new high-paying jobs.
More jobs mean less crime and more taxpayers.
As people have more money, they will pay off loans. Not
every bank loan can be canceled in the first day. It took over 80
years to create the problem; it will take a few years to correct
it. As time goes on, there will be no bank-counterfeited money
owing interest in circulation. Those benefiting from the change
will have the opportunity to have their cars, homes, farms, and
businesses free and clear of any debt. If one citizen loans out
money to another, that citizen collects interest and the other
pays it. The interest stays with the citizens. The wealth is not
shifted from the citizens to the banks by bank theft or counter-
feiting. The net debt is zero. No new money is created at inter-
est. The total net debt can never exceed the total money the
government created. For example, today, if the government
needs $1 million to operate and collects $800,000 from 1,000
tax payers, banks counterfeit $200,000 and loan it to the gov-
ernment at interest, creating another $200,000 of government
debt and $20,000 more interest for taxpayers to pay annually.
158
The solution is to create money with no interest and hire the

unemployed and underemployed, creating more taxpayers. In-
stead of 1,000 taxpayers paying $800,000 in taxes, you have
1,300 taxpayers paying $800,000 in taxes, lowering the aver-
age taxpayer's taxes from $800 to $615.39. Once the govern-
ment debt is paid and no more taxes are needed to pay the in-
terest, personal income tax can be abolished forever. There are
enough import, export, excise, sales, and business tax methods
to stop the IRS from harassing you.
For every dollar the government creates interest-free, the
people have one less dollar of debt and less taxes. No interest
expense means taxes are cut significantly. Bank debt is can-
celed or paid off by interest-free United States Notes, created
by the government and earned by the citizens to pay off bank
loans. Bankers will learn new job skills, producing goods and
services and not shifting wealth from nonbankers to bankers.
Banks must loan lawful United States currency to obtain the
promissory note. Bankers cannot obtain the liens on the nation
for free and the citizens will no longer work 3 to 6 months ev-
ery year to pay banks interest on money they counterfeited and
returned as a loan. The 3 to 6 months of labor will belong to the
citizens; they can use it to buy more land, cars, boats, airplanes,
motor homes, and the big diamond ring they always wanted for
their wives. You will have the money to take vacations you only
dreamed about before. It will be better than winning the lot-
tery.
President Lincoln's Greenbacks—United States Notes—
saved the Union. A London Times editorial explained the cen-
tral bankers' attitude toward Lincoln's Greenback: "If this mis-
chievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America,
shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that govern-
ment will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off
debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary
to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without
precedent in the history of the world. The brains and wealth of
all countries will go to North America. That country must be
destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe" (p.
104, see bibliography #8).
159
You must expect the government, banks, and media to try

to stop us. They cannot stop us from ending slavery, tyranny,
and bringing back the U.S. Constitution if enough Americans
want their bank debt canceled. It is up to you to make it hap-
pen. They cannot control people copying and distributing and
faxing the brochures on a local level and exposing the truth.
You will decide the future of America. America is in her most
desperate hour and she needs you. If we do not fix it, you and
your children will be enslaved forever in debt and a cashless
society. If you fix it, you will be free at last and will signifi-
cantly increase your standard of living. Exposing the truth to
enough Americans will fix the problem. We all want out of debt
and to be free; we just have to inform the people about the truth
and stop believing the lies.
Allow Abraham Lincoln's money program to live on and to
free us. Listen to the wise words of Lincoln:
The government should create, issue, and circulate all

the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power
of the government and the buying power of consumers. The
privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the su-
preme prerogative of government, but it is the government's
greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these prin-
ciples, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be sat-
isfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of inter-
est. The financing of all public enterprises, and the conduct
of the Treasury will become matters of practical administra-
tion. Money will cease to be master and become the servant
of humanity (Ibid, p. 103-4).
Who, but a banker or a politician, funded by the banking
interests, or one receiving benefits from the banking money
monopoly, can argue with the wise words of Lincoln? I believe
if Lincoln knew that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank
had his picture on a Federal Reserve Note, he would turn over
in his grave and spit at the bankers. The bankers had the most
to gain by his death. As in the case of President Kennedy,
Lincoln's assassination ended debt and interest-free money.
Bankers will argue, that, if the government prints money, it will
lead to inflation. Congressman Wright Patman, the former chair-
160
man of the House Banking Committee, says, "It is a fallacy to

think, as many do, that the greenbacks were inflationary. In the
only sense that matters, the relative or comparative sense, they
are not. That is, $450 million in greenbacks is no more or less
inflationary than $450 million in bank deposits, or any other
bank money created to pay for $450 million in interest-bearing
bonds" (p. 24, see bibliography #6).
Do not be sucked in by more half-truths. The banks usually
say government-issued currency creates hyperinflation. The
truth is, Lincoln's Greenback created inflation like the Federal
Reserve Note did in World War I. More production efficiency
in factories creates less inflation. The banks quickly point out
that Germany, after World War I, had hyperinflation. They con-
veniently leave out the fact that the Allies took the factories out
of Germany and that it became an agrarian state. Adding money
without increasing factory output does create inflation, which
destroys any economy. Hitler proved that creating money free
of debt and interest and increasing factory output creates a very
prosperous economy.
45. STRATEGY TO GET AMERICANS OUT

OF DEBT
No one can intelligently make a decision without the whole
truth. If we receive false information and base our decision on
misleading data, our output will be just as faulty. Garbage in
means garbage out. To correct the problem, we must get the
truth out so people can make proper decisions.
Before anyone is willing to change, they need to know why
they should change and what the benefits might be to do so.
They will wonder, "What do I have to gain or lose if I do or do
not change?" If we correct the system, we will be out of debt
and will significantly increase our real wealth.
No one joins a loser; everyone wants to join the winners.
Have you ever noticed anyone say during the election season,
161
"I want so and so to win, but he does not have a chance, so I

won't waste my vote?" They seem to think that it is important
to support the winner and vote with the "majority." A candidate
may be a moral, Christian man and well-qualified, and the voter
may like everything he stands for, but he votes for the "win-
ner." It should be known as supporting "the lesser of two evils."
How can we make any justification for voting "wrong?" Wrong
is wrong. To win, we have to show everyone the strategy and
lead them to victory.
46. WHY WE SHOULD CARE WHERE THE

MONEY CAME FROM
Abraham Lincoln's Greenbacks created no interest. If you
receive a loan of other depositors' money, there is no new debt
created. Labor is loaned and returned as labor, giving everyone
equal protection. If the banks can steal or counterfeit, in a few
years they will own the nation's loans, create inflation, and for
every dollar created, they will raise one dollar of debt that the
nation must repay. The people must forever pay interest on all
the currency issued to the counterfeiter. All property will even-
tually be liened or foreclosed on to pay this debt. The counter-
feiter receives all this wealth without contributing anything. If
this does not strike you as fundamentally wrong, then you must
think that our founding fathers were wrong to conduct the Revo-
lutionary War that gave us our freedoms. What we have in
today's banking system is the old feudal system, only worse.
And if you think it doesn't matter who funded the check, then
you probably think there is nothing wrong with the following:
1. You deposit money and the bank returns it as a loan.

2. The bank deposits your promissory note into your check-
ing account and returns it to you as a loan.
3.A deposit means that you loaned the bank money. You
loan the bank the promissory note, the bank loans the value
162
back to you, calling it a bank loan. You must repay the bank,
but the bank never repays you.
4. You agree to the bank stealing from you and returning
the value of the stolen property back to you as a loan.
5. You deposit your future payroll checks into a checking
account and when you withdraw the money, it's in the form of
a loan from the bank to you. You believe that you should repay
the bank loan. The bank should never return the money to you,
the depositor who provided the capital that funded the loan.
47. QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK

TOM SCHAUF
Q. Does the Federal Reserve Bank return profits to the gov-
ernment?
A. Yes. If you are an accountant, you know that you can adjust
expenses to be sure there are little, if any, profits. In ac-
counting, we call it smoke and mirrors. If the banks create
money and loan it out at interest, you will be kept in debt
paying interest.
Q. You say we need equal protection. Can anyone be a banker

and still make sure there is equal protection?
A. You have to look at the intent of the founding fathers' Con-

stitution. They intended gold and silver to give us equal
protection. Counterfeiting ends your right to equal protec-
tion.
Q. Can you trust the government to create money when creat-

ing it causes inflation?
A. Americans know that they can vote Congress out if Con-

gress overprints money. The banks are just using this ar-
163
gument, like propaganda, to trick you again. Today, the

banks can create a recession or depression to increase their
wealth at will. If we create United States Notes, you can
nearly double your wealth and end bank-created recessions
and depressions. United States Notes ends the economic
effect similar to stealing, counterfeiting, and swindling.
Q. Should I feel right about getting my house for free?
A. Under the Constitutional banking system, you are not get-

ting it for free. You are repaying the loan to the bank, and
the bank is repaying their loan to you. All debt is thereby
canceled.
Q. Why do you think that the FED published books exposing

the truth?
A. Before I came along, people had the FED publications but

never understood what they meant. The FED tried to con-
vince us that the banks were benefiting us. I took their pub-
lications and acted like an expert witness to expose it. One
man needed my expert witness training to understand and
expose these practices. The FED never dreamed that some-
one like me would come along and unravel it. As it was, it
took me three years, living off my savings, to put it all
together. Other expert witnesses would never spend three
years living off their savings. This is what the FED counted
on. They never expected me, or anyone, to do it.
Q. Can we win?
A. Everyone wants out of their loans. We will win if we can

get enough Americans informed and organized. Andrew
Jackson won the Presidency on this issue. We will simply
repeat history.
Q. What if the media smears Tom Schauf?
164
A. If they do this, we have contingency plans that will make it

work to our advantage.
Q. What happens if they jail or kill Tom Schauf?
A. First of all, God called me to do this, so God protects me.

To be prudent, plans have been made. If I do not contact
certain people every few days, the plan is triggered, and
Pandora's box will be opened.
Q. What is the probability that the banks will crash the

economy?
A. If we get books and brochures out quickly enough, they

would be foolish to crash it. If 1% of the population knows
the truth, by word of mouth 10% of the nation will know
in a few days. In weeks, every American will know who to
blame and what to do about it. The banks' first choice is a
cashless society to gain absolute control over you. They
may use the computer problem in the year 2000 to create
economic instability to further their plans.
Q. What is your view on guns?
A. At the writing of this book, I have never owned a gun. I do

not want to accidentally shoot myself. Governments are
trained to put down riots and armed rebellions. That is what
governments do best. If 1% of the population went ballis-
tic and started shooting, the police or Army could stop it.
The media would be used to turn everyone against those
rebelling and the rebel forces would be wiped out. The gov-
ernment does not fear this. They fear 1% of the population
passing out brochures to the nation and 90% joining the
1 % to vote out the government regime that has been keep-
ing the people in slavery. The 90% do not need guns to
become free.
165
Q. What are our options if the police, judges, and attorneys

violate their oaths and our rights?
A. Elect me president of the United States and I promise that

if anyone commits a crime, a grand jury will review it. If
they are guilty, they will stand trial. Tens of thousands of
people all over the nation are recording names, places,
times, and evidence of their rights being violated. Many
faithful government agents have come to us asking for
amnesty. We grant it provided that they join us now and do
not straddle the fence, waiting to see who wins. Judges
behind the scenes have joined us, giving us suggestions as
to what to do in court. Honest law enforcement and mili-
tary leaders have joined us to keep their oath of office. I
am very proud of these Americans. We need to pray for
our government leaders and help them keep their oath of
office.
Q. Do you hate judges, police, and lawmakers?
A. No. Jesus said to love them and pray for them. If I love my
neighbor, I will not allow him to continue to act sinfully. I
will not be in partnership with wickedness, lies, or half-
truths.
Q. Are the banks acting like moneychangers?
A. If they refuse to accept the same kind of currency that they

used to fund the check, they know they are merely acting
like moneychangers. The bank liability is without interest
or a lien, just as is your second promissory note.
Q. Can we wait four more years?
A. Yes, if enough brochures and books get passed out quickly

enough, and if enough Americans learn the truth and want
out of their bank loans.
166
Q. What do you mean by history repeating itself?
A. King George tried to take away guns from the Colonists. If

he had, today we would be directly under British control.
The conquerors must take away your guns before they go
to their next agenda. History will show that, once the
nonbankers wake up, the people will be set free. This is
why the banks and government are so fearful of our bro-
chures. Watch Australia. They will be the first nation to be
indoctrinated into the cashless society and have their guns
confiscated as an experiment. Soon, America will follow
if we do not get our brochures out quickly enough.
Q. Do you think that the government will try and correct all
this before the next presidential election?
A. Yes, if we get out enough brochures, they will have no

choice. They will correct it if they wish to remain in power.
Q. Do you trust them?
A. Would you trust someone who deceived, lied, and misled

you? They try to talk you into a balanced budget without
telling you the source of the problem. They created the
national debt, then instead of fixing the problem, they want
a balanced budget. Behind the scenes, they tried to get a
Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution, end-
ing all our rights and making the current banking system
lawful. They create debt problems, thereby contributing to
divorces. The wealth shifts from the married couples to
attorneys. Then we have trouble collecting child support.
The solution is to correct the banking problem and help
the people have the money to stay married. Two spouses
working to pay interest means less time for the family. If
children do not get attention from their parents, they may
seek attention from gangs or be involved in drugs. The
bank's solution is a cashless society to stop drugs and crime.
Force people to prepay at the gas pump because criminals
167
might flee without paying. Their solution is the conve-

nience of ATMs or credit cards. Every time you use an
ATM or credit card, you just voted for a cashless society.
Bank-induced recessions create crime and less taxes are
collected. Wrong solution. If we just end the interest scam,
we will not need personal income taxes to balance the bud-
get. Create prosperity and crime is reduced. Less crime
means less police, jailers, judges, and taxes. Fix the prob-
lem and you have less crime, divorce, taxes, and you do
not have to be enslaved in a cashless society. We just need
to end their banking system and institute the Constitutional
banking system to fix the problems. Stop teaching people
violence and sex on T.V. and promote honesty and righ-
teousness, and you will have less crime, and V.D., and di-
vorce. If we do not turn and go down the right road to
freedom, they will want a national I.D. card to be sure the
person using the credit card is really you. The I.D. card
will be sold to stop crime by tracking every person's loca-
tion. If a crime occurs, they will know who was there. Be
honest, this sounds good until you realize that you gave up
your freedoms to the ones who gave you the current bank-
ing system. The criminals will find a way to circumvent
the system and the government will have more control over
you than the KGB or the Gestapo. Clearly, government
officials took us down the wrong road. I say vote them out
of office and put in real Americans who will follow the
U.S. Constitution as our founding fathers intended.
Q. Why do you believe banks are in compliance with Federal

Laws?
A. Laws cannot be in conflict. What does Federal Law say

about equal protection, the U.S. Constitution, oaths, a Re-
publican government, fraudulent concealment, court pro-
cedure, etc. The bank or judge may say everyone knew the
law when you signed the agreement, so there is no con-
flict. I say, "wrong again." Bank lending officers routinely
say they loan other depositors' money. Federal Reserve
168
Bank of Chicago publication Public Debt: Private Assets

says, "The bank then uses our money to make loans" (p.
2). If it uses our money to make loans, then this statement
is in direct conflict with the statement that the bank cre-
ates money and loans it out. Who creates the money, the
government giving us equal protection or the banks creat-
ing it like a counterfeiter? It changes the cost and risk. If
we believed the lie, we could not ever vote intelligently.
The agreement, bank literature, and advertising is full of
so much confusion that even the banks and auditors have
come to believe the lie. If it is a material fact that there is
a loan, then all the material facts should be in the agree-
ment.
Q. Are the courts fair?
A. You cannot answer this until you understand Emergency

War Powers, Trading With the Enemy, the U.S. Constitu-
tion, and De jure versus De facto government. Use the law
dictionary to understand De facto contract (oath), De facto
court (see court), De facto government, and De facto judge.
Then realize that the jury can judge the law as well as the
facts. One person on the jury can say, "this is a bad law"
and set the accused free. Judges only want the jury to think
they can judge the facts only and often delete the part about
judging the law. With this in mind, make your decision.
Q. Why does the risk of the loan change?
A. If a thief stole your property and returned it as a loan, you

have now lost your property and have a debt in its place. If
the people have debt, they must have income to service
the debt. If the bank creates a recession by contracting the
money supply, people lose their jobs. The bank either re-
ceives your labor (interest payment) or property, while
never loaning or risking one cent of legal tender. Banks
historically expand and contract the money supply to in-
crease bank profits. They could not easily do this if the
169
government issued United States Notes (cash) interest-free.

The bank acts like a casino. They determine the odds of
you winning or losing. With a bank loan, they risk nothing
and you lose everything. They can change the odds at any
ti me by creating a recession, forcing you to lose your prop-
erty.
Q. It seems like the banks and government can do anything

they want. What can we do about that?
A. They cannot do anything they want. Watch the media. They

use the media to get us to endorse their agenda. They need
us to approve. They know if the people wake up and reject
their agenda, it is over for them. They are very vulnerable
right now. Too many people are upset with the govern-
ment. We have a window of opportunity to educate every-
one. More and more people are listening. As an example,
many people hate the IRS. If they thought there was a way
to end it and balance the budget, they would jump on the
"band wagon" with us. I just talked to two ladies who were
mistreated by the police. They want to do anything they
can to tell people the truth. The more the government up-
sets people, the more people are joining us. The more
people that want out of their loans, the more they will join
us. We have powerful government leaders behind the scenes
joining us. CPAs and lawyers are beginning to see we are
right and are becoming willing to help us. Some candi-
dates are running on the platform to correct the banking
problem. The media is trying to keep a lid on it, but the lid
is about to explode right off. They cannot keep it quiet
much longer and they don't want to be exposed when the
people wake up. All we have to do is expose it and we win.
Q. What started you exposing the banks?
A. I feel God sent me to expose the banks and turn the nation
around. I hate being lied to and stolen from. I hate that the
banks never loaned one cent of legal tender to obtain my
170
r
promissory note, and that they can change the odds, risk-
ing my money, by creating a bank-induced recession. As
an expert witness, I expose these things. I decided to use
my training to show others how to present the argument
and win. I told the bankers to correct it, or I will expose it.
Q. Do you think all the government agents are involved in a

sinister plot?
A. No. I think many are ignorant when it comes to money, or

they are deliberately ignoring the truth. I do not think most
of them have ever read the U.S. Constitution nor studied
it. We must get the truth to them and let them know that
more and more Americans are joining us. They are human.
If someone gives you money to get elected and says "pass
this bill," how many of you would take the money and
pass the bill? The only way to stop this behavior is to turn
everyone against the European banking system.
Q. Is the media too powerful?
A. No. If enough people found out that the media is the banker's
propaganda arm—used to herd you like sheep to the slaugh-
ter—you would use alternative sources.
Q. Did the government ever threaten you?
A. Yes. They suggested that if I did not stay quiet, I might

catch a stray bullet, or they may find drugs or a gun on me
and send me to jail, or harm a family member. On Decem-
ber 10, 1996, at 9:30 A.M., in Atlanta, Georgia, an attempt
was made on my life. Within ten minutes, the police were
notified. They did nothing. We knew who it was, the
weapon they used, and the police never did anything. The
more brochures that are distributed, the harder it is to si-
lence me. I am not afraid, for I believe God is protecting
me.
171
Q. What do you think of President Clinton?
A. I think if we get enough brochures copied and distributed,

he will correct the banking system and be the next Ameri-
can hero. It is not safe for him to do so until the banking
problem becomes common knowledge. I believe he is wait-
ing for us to do our job and wake up America. There are
definite indications that this is a very real possibility. We
just have to make it happen. He knows Presidents Lincoln
and Kennedy printed United States Notes and were assas-
sinated. Someone tried and failed in an assassination at-
tempt on President Jackson after he issued money from
the Treasury interest-free. If you want President Clinton
to help you, you need to help him get the job done. I do not
think he is as powerful as people think. The Secret Service
guards the President, and they report to the Federal Re-
serve Bank. That should scare any President wanting to
change the system. The media could destroy him overnight.
It is not easy being President. He needs our prayers and
support to be the hero.
Q. The Bible says a cashless society is coming, so why fight

it?
A. We are called to expose the deeds of the wicked. If we

repent, God will give us extra time. We need to expose the
truth so more will see the Bible is true and come with us.
Q. Why are you promoting Lincoln as a hero? Are you un-

aware that people in the know believe he was the one who
got us into the mess we are in today?
A. I am a relative of Lincoln through my mother's mother. I

have the right to tell you that he is not the hero people
think he is. I hate to tell the truth about Lincoln and de-
stroy everyone's illusion. Few people know the truth about
Lincoln, so I decided to get as much mileage out of his
name as I could to attract the general population to this
172
issue. More people join us because of Lincoln than know

the truth as to what he did. The media would love to call
us antisocial or use name calling. With Lincoln's name, it
is harder for them to do it. Lincoln's name will bring in the
average American to our side. Without Lincoln's name, the
media would try to associate us with every hate group there
is.
Q. How is banking connected to religion?
A. The European banking system - debt currency - goes back

3,000 - 4,000 years. This system was outlawed in the Bible.
The coming of a cashless society is predicted in the Bible.
There is a silent war of ideas and the Bible gets in the way
of the bankers. The history is fascinating! So many people
want this history because if they know history, they can
figure out the future.
I have put together two, ninety minute cassette tapes that
people may copy and distribute. These tapes cover the his-
tory of banking and the Bible, and who is really behind the
banking system. In three hours, I reveal secrets that few
people know about. Moreover, I offer the evidence to prove
what I say. If you think Volumes I and II reveal secrets,
just wait until you hear these tapes. The information is so
i mportant for you to listen to and to internalize that I al-
low you to copy and distribute the cassettes to your friends
and relatives who also need to hear what I have to tell them.
48. THE BANK BOOKKEEPING ENTRIES

PROVE THE TRUTH
Bookkeeping is very simple. It is the story of the money
trail. Once you know the money trail, the banker cannot lie to
you. If you wish to argue with the bank and prove your point,
you must understand the money trail.
173
I flew from Chicago to Louisiana once to hear a trial. The

bank accountant was on the witness stand. The accountant was
being cross-examined and was asked, "According to the bank
bookkeeping entries, what did you loan the borrower?"
He waited two or three minutes before answering as he
squirmed in his seat. He looked at the judge as if to say "Help
me." The silence grew so loud you could hear a pin drop across
the room. The silence was so overwhelming, the whole jury
focused on him, waiting for his answer. Finally he answered,
"A bank liability."
The judge exploded and said we must stop any further ques-
tions about the money issue. The judge knew that the liability
meant the bank owes the borrower money for the borrower's
promissory note. The bank liability is the equivalent of a bank
promissory note owing the borrower money. The judge had to
know that it was mathematically impossible for the bank to loan
the borrower the same bank promissory note, owing the bor-
rower money that the bank refused to pay the borrower.
Other accountants have out and out lied on the witness stand,
requiring more questions to expose their lies. I am convinced
this accountant told the truth because he knew that we were
familiar with the bank bookkeeping entries and he risked being
exposed and going to jail for perjury. The truth is very power-
ful and overcomes lies, if you know how to expose it.
Bookkeeping entries have two columns of numbers, one on
the left and one on the right. These tell us what the bank owns
and what money the bank owes to customers. The left hand
column is the asset column. The asset column records what the
bank owns. Cash and promissory notes are assets and recorded
in this left hand column. How do you know if something is an
asset? It is easy to tell. If you can sell it, it is an asset. Assets
have value. The right-hand column, generally speaking, is the
liability and capital column. The liability means you owe money
to someone. You cannot sell a liability. You cannot sell some-
one what you owe them. Some people call the left column a
debit and the right column a credit. Just remember that it is a
way to determine how much the bank owes you. The bank li-
174
ability is merely a scorecard to record how much legal tender

the bank owes each customer.
Think of the banks as one big bank working in cooperation,
acting in unison. The following examples will show you the
bank's bookkeeping entries for deposits and the alleged loans:
Example #1: If you deposit $6,000 cash in the bank, these

are the bank bookkeeping entries:
Cash $6,000 Debit (asset)

Demand Deposit Account (DDA) $6,000 Credit (liability)
This entry shows that the bank deposited the money into a
checking account. The cash is recorded as a bank asset, show-
ing that the bank owns the money. The bank creates a bank
liability of $6,000, showing the bank owes you $6,000. This
$6,000 liability on the bank's books is a scorecard showing how
much the bank owes you. It means you can get your $6,000
cash back or write a check for $6,000. The legal tender is re-
corded as a bank asset and owing money is a bank liability. The
key thing to remember is, when you deposit $6,000, the bank
assets and the bank liabilities both increase by $6,000. If money
is withdrawn, the bank assets and liabilities both decrease by
the amount of the funds withdrawn. If the bank records receiv-
ing a loan from you in the amount of $6,000, the bank records
the cash as a bank asset and records a new bank liability of
$6,000. That is exactly what the bank did when you deposited
the cash. When the bank grants you a loan, replace the word
cash with the word promissory note. If the bank grants a $6,000
loan, you sign the $6,000 promissory note and the bank records
the promissory note as a loan from you to the bank when they
record the promissory note as a bank asset and create a new
bank liability. The $6,000 liability means they owe you $6,000
of legal tender. If they owe you for the $6,000 cash, they also
owe you for the $6,000 promissory note because they altered
the agreement and made you the lender and not just the bor-
rower. A DDA, or Demand Deposit account, is the same thing
as a checking account or transaction account.
175
Example #2: If you withdraw $2,000 from the checking

account, these are the bank bookkeeping entries:
DDA $2,000 (debit)

Cash $2,000 (credit)
Earlier, we credited the bank liability by $6,000, showing

that the bank owes you $6,000 for the $6,000 cash you depos-
ited. Now, the bank is giving us back $2,000 cash, so we debit
the liability account, subtracting $2,000 from the earlier $6,000
and leaving $4,000 that the bank owes you. Earlier, you depos-
ited $6,000 cash, which the bank put in their bank vault and
which was recorded as a bank asset, because the bank owns the
$6,000 cash you loaned them. Now the bank is giving you $2,000
back. The credit to cash takes away $2,000 from the $6,000
cash earlier recorded as an asset and you get the $2,000 cash
back, leaving $4,000 cash left in the bank vault. The remaining
bank liability of $4,000 means that the bank owes you the $4,000
cash that is in the vault.
Simply stated, you loaned the bank $6,000 cash. You re-
ceived $2,000 back. The net amount of the loan remaining is
$4,000. The bank now only shows it owes you $4,000, as evi-
denced by the $4,000 bank liability. If you deposit a check in-
stead of cash, just replace the words. In bank accounting terms,
some banks call checks "Reserve at the Federal Reserve Bank"
or "RFRB" in their bookkeeping entries.
Example #3: If you deposit a $5,000 check the bank book-

keeping entries are as follows.
"RFRB" $5,000 (Asset)

DDA $5,000 (liability)
You can get cash for the check, so checks act LIKE cash
but are not cash. The bank owes you $5,000, as proven by the
$5,000 liability. You can write a check or get cash on the $5,000
the bank owes you. The deposit is like you loaning the bank the
money, as proven by the $5,000 new bank liability.
176
Example #4: If you write a $1,500 check, the bank no longer

owes you the $1,500, so the bank liability must be reduced by
$1,500. The bank bookkeeping entries record you receiving
$1,500 and reducing the bank liability of $1,500. The entries
are as follows:
DDA $1,500 (asset)

RFRB (check) $1,500 ( liability)
We simply do the exact opposite of example #3 when we

deposited a check. The check does not pay the liability the bank
owes. The check merely transfers the liability to another check-
ing account (DDA), so the bank owes the money to another
bank depositor. The bank liability never decreases.
If the bank loaned you other depositors' money, the bank
bookkeeping entry would be the same as in examples #2 and
#4. If the bank withdrew the funds from a Certificate of De-
posit or Savings Account, then replace the words Demand De-
posit Account with the words Certificate of Deposit or Savings
Account.
If the bank issuing the loan funded the check from other
depositors' money, those bank depositors cannot spend the
money loaned to you. If the bank granting the loan loaned other
depositors' money, the bank assets and liabilities would decrease
by the amount of the loan. If the bank obtained and claimed
ownership of your promissory note without loaning one cent of
other depositors' money and used the value of the promissory
note to fund the check back to you, the bank assets and liabili-
ties would both increase by the amount of the alleged loan. If
the bank stole your promissory note and returned the value back
to you as a loan, or if you loaned the promissory note to the
bank and they returned the value back to you as a loan then, in
both cases, the bank assets and liabilities increase by the amount
of the promissory note.
Example #5: When banks claim that they grant loans, this
is the bank bookkeeping entry. Please notice that the bank first
records your promissory note as a loan from you to the bank, or
177
steals it, and claims the bank owns it without loaning one cent
of legal tender.
Promissory note $40,000 (asset)

Where is the money that paid for the promissory note? There
was no legal tender or other depositors' money loaned. Notice
how the bank liabilities and assets increased by the amount of
the alleged loan. The new liability means the bank owes $40,000
for the promissory note. The new $40,000 bank liability means
the bank recorded the promissory note as a loan from you to
the bank just as your deposit of cash is a loan from you to the
bank. Now the bank trades this $40,000 liability in the DDA
from one checking account to another checking account (DDA)
by check, making it appear that the bank paid money for the
promissory note. Then the bank sells the promissory note for
cash or government bonds that can quickly be sold for cash so
that if you demand cash for the check the bank can give you
cash, making you think there was a loan. This new $40,000
bank liability, traded by check from one checking account to
another, acts like $40,000 of new counterfeit money.
There was an exchange of a loan from you to the bank for a
loan from the bank back to you. If I give the bank $100 cash
and they give me back a $100 check that I can spend, it is an
exchange of $100 value that I gave the bank for the $100 value
the bank gave back to me. The cash is money I earned in the
past. The bank exchanged a promissory note having a fair mar-
ket value of $40,000 of legal tender that investors are willing
to pay $40,000 for. Why would investors pay $40,000 for the
$40,000 promissory note? They pay it because I will pay them
$40,000 in cash that I will earn in the future, plus interest se-
cured by a lien.
178
Example #6: The bank issues a check to the seller of the

house that the borrower is purchasing.
DDA $40,000 (asset)

Check (RFRB) $40,000 (liability)
In Example 5, the bank recorded the promissory note as a

bank asset. It created a new bank liability in the borrower's
transaction account, called a Demand Deposit Account. The
check transfers this bank liability from one bank to the bank
depositing the check. In this example, the Demand Deposit
Account (DDA) that was earlier credited and recorded as a bank
liability is reversed by taking the $40,000 out of the liability
column and recording $40,000 as a bank asset, creating a zero
balance. To balance the bank's books, we record a liability of
$40,000 to the check.
One of the presidents of a bank in Elgin, Illinois told me
that their bank simply deposits the promissory note and ex-
changes it for a check, bypassing the first credit (liability) to
DDA and then reverses that out by a debit (asset) to DDA. When
he told me this, I asked him if we could pay the bank back with
the same kind of money the bank used to issue the check. He
said, "Of course."
I said, "Good. I will give you a second promissory note
with no interest or lien." He got angry and hung up the tele-
phone, saying he did not have time to talk to me. I found out
the hard way that he denies you equal protection.
Example #7: The person who received the bank loan check
deposits the money in his checking account.
Check (RFRB) $40,000 (asset)

No cash was ever transferred, only the liability was trans-
ferred. The Demand Deposit Account, which is a checking ac-
count, shows that the bank owes you $40,000 of legal tender.
When the check is deposited, you will see a credit on your check-
ing account statement showing you can spend the money.
179
Example #8: The person receiving the $40,000 check wants

$5,000 cash.
DDA $5,000 (asset)

Cash $5,000 (liability)
The cash that was in the bank vault and recorded as an as-
set must be taken out of the vault and given to you, so the bank
must record the cash leaving the bank by decreasing the asset
column, placing $5,000 in the liability column. The bank no
longer owes you the $5,000, so the bank takes $5,000 out of
the amount they owed you. If anyone deposits the cash again,
the bank liabilities will again increase by the cash deposited.
Example #9: When the bank sells the promissory note for
legal tender or government bonds, this is the bank bookkeeping
entry.
Cash or government bonds $40,000 (asset)

Promissory note $40,000 (liability)
The bank merely exchanged the promissory note for cash

or government bonds that can later be sold for cash, which can
be available to pay for a bank check. The bank must sell the
promissory note to cover up the truth. If an accountant looked
at the bank's balance sheet and saw promissory notes as a bank
asset offset by bank liabilities, any accountant would know the
bank recorded the promissory notes as a loan from the borrower
to the bank and never loaned one cent of legal tender.
I asked a banker, "Where do you get the money to buy gov-
ernment bonds?"
He said, "We invest the depositors' cash for bonds so that
the bank can get interest." The truth is that the bank exchanges
promissory notes for checkbook money and uses the checkbook
money to buy government bonds, so that the bank balance sheet
does not give away the secret.
180
Example #10: The bank buys government bonds just like

promissory notes.
Government bonds $100,000 (asset)

If you sign a promissory note and never make one payment,

the bank receives your house for free, including your down pay-
ment, and they never loaned you one cent of legal tender. The
bank did have expenses. They had to get the lawmakers, judges,
and police elected to carry this operation out, and had to own
the media to be sure that their secret was not revealed. Oh, I
forgot, the banks had to hire the lawyers to sue you.
The certified public accountant who audited the bank had
to conduct tests to be sure the bank performed under the al-
leged bank loan agreement and legally owned the promissory
note. You be the judge and jury: did the CPA commit a fraud
and did he aid and abet a crime? The CPA must know the bank
bookkeeping entries. The CPA is there to police the bank and
make sure things are on the up and up. The CPA audits the bank,
giving the general public confidence in the bank's financial
records and operations. Did the CPA commit a fraud? The CPA
cannot plead ignorance. Once the CPA took on the audit as-
signment, he said he was competent to conduct the test. I will
give you a hint. The promissory notes are the bank's inventory.
In a similar case, if inventory is missing and the CPA did not
test to find out, the CPA is guilty. If the company did not pay
for the inventory, the CPA must know this. Did the bank pay
the debt associated with the promissory note? The answer is
no. Did this change the cost and the risk to you? Yes. The CPA
had to know this if he was competent to conduct the audit. This
is why the CPA does not want to testify. In the past, the judge
and bank would do everything possible to stop the CPA from
testifying. I suggest you look under the Journal of Accountancy
for the latest CPA legal updates. One of the biggest fears the
CPA has is that, if you bought stock in the bank you are about
to sue, or if you claim you relied on his audit in making your
decision, then he is accountable. That allows you to bring the
181
CPA into the picture. You may have forgotten who the CPA was
when you took out the loan, but if you say you relied on the
CPA's audit, he is in big trouble. By the way, other CPAs see
this as a good way to make big bucks, testifying against other
CPAs and banks.
I have spoken to lawmakers, judges, police, attorneys, and
CPAs. They continue to act in favor of the banking interests.
Share this book with them to be sure they know the truth. I say
it is time to make a clean sweep and vote them out. Vote in real
Americans who will not represent the banking interests. We need
people who cannot be bribed, people who have ethics. We do
not need baby-kissing politicians who enslave the same baby
in debt to get elected. The lying, stealing, and counterfeiting
must stop.
49. QUOTES
As judge and jury, please listen to the following testimony
before deciding for or against the banks.
United States President James Garfield stated: "Whoever

controls the volume of money in any country is absolute mas-
ter of all industry (legislation) and commerce... And when you
realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way
or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have
to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate"
(p. 32, see bibliography #5).
Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England during

the 1920s and the second richest man in England: "Banking
was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers
own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power
to create deposits (money), and with the flick of the pen they
will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take
it away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disap-
182
pear; and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier

and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves
of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them con-
tinue to create deposits" (p. 8, see bibliography #18, Feb. 3,
1986).
Mr. Rothschild, a famous London banker, is reputed to have

said: "It gives the National Bank almost complete control of
national finance. The few who understand the system will ei-
ther be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors
that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the
other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of
comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives
from the system, will bear its burden without complaint, and
perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to
their interests" (Lightning Over the Treasury Building, John
Eldom, p. 41). He admitted to a concealment and collusion.
The England bank operates just like the Federal Reserve Bank
and our local banks.
Henry Ford, Sr., automaker: "It is well enough that the

people of the nation do not understand our banking and mon-
etary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolu-
tion before tomorrow morning" (p. 11, see bibliography #10).
U.S. President Andrew Jackson: "If the American people

only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking
system, there would be a revolution before morning..." (Bulle-
tin, Nov. 1991. p. 4).
Founding Father John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson,

stating: "All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses on
America arise, not from defects in the Constitution or Confed-
eration, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from down-
right ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation"
183
President Abraham Lincoln: "We the people are the right-

ful masters of both Congress and the Courts—not to overthrow
the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the
Constitution" (p. 2, see bibliography #10).
In 1913, Congress gave the private banks the right to print

money. Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Mr. Eccles, was asked
by Congressman Patman, "Mr. Eccles, how did you get the
money to buy these two billion dollars of government bonds?"
Mr. Eccles said, "We create it." Mr. Patman said, "Out of what?"
Mr. Eccles responded, "Out of the right to issue credit money"
Congressman Charles Lindbergh wrote: "In no case has

government so singly neglected its function as in its failure to
issue money and control the charges made for its use" (p. 152,
see bibliography #2).
Representative Wright Patman, former chairman of a House

Banking committee: "The Federal Reserve Banks create money
out of thin air to buy Government bonds... The Federal Reserve
Bank is a total money making machine" (p. 7, see bibliography
#8).
Paterson was behind the Bank of England, which is like the

American banks. The initial stock offering sales pitch institut-
ing the bank read: "Paterson hath benefit of interest on all money
which it, the Bank, creates out of nothing" (Ibid. p. 51).
President Andrew Jackson: "If Congress has a right under

the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to be
used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or cor-
porations" (p. 35, see bibliography #22).
Governor Morris wrote a letter to our Founding Father James

Madison describing banking motivations: "The rich will strive
to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always
did. They always will..." (p. 79, see bibliography #8)
184
The third President of United States, Thomas Jefferson: "A

private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater
menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army" (Ibid.
p. 81-2).
President Lincoln: "The Government should create, issue

and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the
spending power of the Government and the buying power of
consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not
only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the
Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption
of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium
will be satisfied. The taxpayer will be saved immense sums of
interest. The financing of all public enterprises, and the con-
duct of the Treasury will become matters of practical adminis -
tration. Money will cease to be master and become the servant
of humanity" (Ibid. p.103-4).
Congressman Louis McFadden, former chairman of the

House Committee on Banking and Currency from 1920 to 1931,
remarked about the Federal Reserve Bank: "A super-state con-
trolled by international bankers and international industrialists
acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure"
(Ibid. p. 158).
Congressman Lindbergh's remark concerning the Federal

Reserve Bank: " This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on
Earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible govern-
ment by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may
not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few
years removed... The worst legislative crime of the ages is per-
petrated by this banking bill" (Ibid. p.151).
A New Monetary System quotes Congressman Charles

Lindbergh: "Take, for example, the Federal Reserve Act. That
law gives the big bankers authority to rob the people." "Office-
holders," Mr. Lindbergh said, "understand that, by joining with
185
the interest to exploit the people, their reelection is more cer-

tain than if they serve the people who elect them. By joining
the exploiters, their campaign expenses are paid, the support of
the `machines' and capital press is assured, and if by chance
they should lose, they are appointed to some office that suits
them equally well or better. On the other hand when they do
support the people, as occasionally a few do, usually the vot-
ers, at the request of the profiteers, defeat such at a succeeding
election and they scarcely ever land an appointive office" (p.
141).
Why a Bankrupt America? quotes Daniel Webster: "A dis-

ordered currency is one of the greatest political evils. It under-
mines the virtues necessary for the support of the social sys-
tem, and encourages propensities destructive to its happiness.
It wars against industry, frugality, and economy, and it fosters
evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the contriv-
ances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has
been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper
money" (p. 8).
Why a Bankrupt America? quotes Ron Paul, former mem-

ber of the U.S. Congress: "Strictly speaking, it probably is not
necessary for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it
could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be
too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind
of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The
present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to wa-
tering the milk: too much water and the people catch on" (p. 8).
Why a Bankrupt America?: Congressman Wright Patman

Congressional Record, May 5, 1975: "In its 60 year history, the
Federal Reserve System has never been subject to a complete,
independent audit, and it is the only important agency that re-
fuses to consent to an audit by the Congress' agency, the Gen-
eral Accounting Office... GAO audits of the Federal Reserve
will, moreover, fill the glaring gap that now exists in our infor-
mation about the Fed's activities and programs. As things now
186
stand, the only information that we get on programs of the Fed

is what the Fed itself wants us to have" (p. 11).
Past law of the United States Code, at Title 12, Sec. 152:
"Lawful money of the United States shall be construed to mean
gold and silver coin" (Ibid. p. 12).
United States Constitution, Article 1:8, "The Congress shall

have power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of
foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"
(Ibid. p. 12).
United States Constitution Article 1:10, "No State shall...

coin Money; emit bills of Credit; make anything but gold and
silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" (Ibid. p. 12).
A New Monetary System (p. 137) explains: following Chair-

man Patman's order to investigate the banks, he was severely
reprimanded by the committee members for such a requirement.
Angrily, they demanded that he produce the specific evidence
which they themselves had blocked his staff from obtaining.
After charging the bank of raising an annual kitty of millions to
pay lobbyists and bribe Congressmen, Mr. Patman went on to
describe how the banking lobby had been snooping into the
most intimate details of the private lives of the Congressmen,
including family matters, drinking habits, and bank affiliations.
The Social Security and Pension Conspiracy by Howard

Metz: The IRS and banking are part of the second and fifth
planks of The Communist Manifesto. Metz explains how the
Rockefellers have worked for five decades to control the Ameri-
can Government and dominate the U.S. economy. According to
Metz, the Rockefellers plan to consolidate and control the world
economy through money creation and loans, making govern-
ments dependent on the bankers.
Howard Metz explains that the Federal Reserve Bank is

managed by foreigners and their names seldom are known and
187
rarely appear. They profit through government control and cre-

ating money. (It is well known Rockefeller controls the New
York Federal Reserve Bank. The income tax and Federal Re-
serve Bank both started in 1913. A new tax was needed to pay
the interest on the new government debt the banks would re-
ceive for free through money creation)" (p. 108, see bibliogra-
phy #2).
The Dan Smoots opinion of the CFR, expressed in their

July 20, 1964 report, described the mutually similar aims of
that organization and international communism. Both wanted
to create a one-world Socialist system that would include the
United States. That, of course, would destroy the U.S. as a free
and independent nation. "The Council on Foreign Relations calls
its grand design a `new world order'—code words for a one-
world government."
Tom Schauf: "They cannot go to a one world government,

the United Nations, without their current banking system fi-
nancing it and obtaining the assets of the nations for free."
In 1935, Frank A. Vanderlip said, "We have already tried

borrowing and spending our way to recovery. We have had num-
berless hopeful and well-meant experiments, aimed to bring us
out of the depression. Thus far, we have not emerged, nor will
we, until the fatal defects of our money system are corrected.
To those defects, more than anything else, I attribute the de-
pression " (Lightning over the Treasury Building, R. Elson, p.
74).
In 1935, Marriner Eccles, Chairman of the Federal Reserve

System said, "The banks can create and destroy money. Bank
credit money. It is the money we do most of our business with,
not that currency which we usually think of as money" (Ibid.
74).
Irving Fisher, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Yale, said,

"When a bank lends or invests, it extends credit, i.e., creates
188
check-book money. When it gets loans paid, or sells invest-

ments, it contracts credit, i.e., destroys check-book money. In
normal times, such creation and destruction of money roughly
balance. But when they do not balance, the Nation's money is
inflated and deflated and causes a boom or a depression" (Ibid.
75).
Summer H. Slichter, Professor of Business and Economics

at Harvard, said, "When banks grant credit by creating or add-
ing to bank deposits, subject to check, new dollars are created.
It is true that the new dollars are not stamped out of gold. They
are credit dollars and are created by the stroke of a pen rather
than by dies and stamping machines, but their purchasing power
is not less than the dollars coined at the Government Mint. In
other words, the principal way in which dollars are created is
by borrowing. This means that the number of dollars in exist-
ence at any particular time depends upon the ability and will-
ingness of the banks to lend. The volume of purchasing power
fluctuates with the state of men's minds; the growth of pessi-
mism may suddenly throw millions of men out of work, or the
growth of confidence may create thousands of jobs overnight"
(Ibid. 75-76).
Mikhail Gorbachev stated to the Politburo in November of

1987: "Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all
you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the
coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption.
There will be no significant internal changes within the Soviet
Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to dis-
arm Americans and let them fall asleep" (p. 24, see bibliogra-
phy #10).
Rep. Wright Patman (D-TX), former chairman of the House
Banking and Currency Committee, warned 35 years ago: "The
Federal Reserve Banks create money out of thin air to buy Gov-
ernment bonds... The Federal Reserve is a total moneymaking
machine" (p. 7, see bibliography #8). In the same book, an au-
thor writing under the pen name Dr. R.E. Search explained that
the practice of usury inevitably leads to the development of a
189
powerful ring of money lenders who stop at nothing to per-

petuate the charade. Corrupting public officials further enhances
their power. The officials, in turn, protect the usurers. Whole-
sale murder isn't beyond them. The end of the process gener-
ally is to overthrow free governments and establish dictators or
despots that they can control through the use of money (p. 28,
Bulletin, February 1989: The Rothschild family was a pow-

erful European banking family with the power to create money.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who
writes the laws," Rothschild is reputed to have said.
[The Rothschilds] conquered the world more thoroughly,

more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars
before or all the Hitlers after them." writes Frederic Morton in
The Rothschilds, A Family Portrait (p. 2).
The Rothschilds were heavily involved, as Gustavus Myers

points out in his History of the Great American Fortunes: "Un-
der the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence
in dictating American financial laws" (p. 3).
Bulletin, February 1989 quotes Napoleon: "When a gov-

ernment is dependent for money upon bankers, they, and not
the leaders of the government, control the situation , since the
hand that gives is above the hand that takes....Money has no
motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without de-
cency; their sole object is gain"(p. 2).
As reported by Pastor Lindsey Williams in his book To Se-

duce a Nation, Kennedy gave a speech at Columbia University
10 days before his assassination in which he said: "The high
office of the President has been used to create a plot to destroy
the American's freedom, and before I leave office, I must in-
form the citizen of his plight" (p. 2, Bulletin, Nov. 1991). Co-
lumbia University claims he never spoke there. I personally
talked to an individual who heard the President say these words
190
and testified to me that the President made the speech at Co-

lumbia University. This individual was so shocked by what the
President said that he listened to the news that evening. The
news never reported anything and the speech was covered up
and forgotten. The fact is, JFK took steps to eliminate the power
of the bankers' control over the American currency and mon-
etary system. On June 4th, 1963, Executive Order 11110 was
signed by President Kennedy to issue $4,292,893,815 in new
currency called United States Notes. If this currency had con-
tinued to be created and issued, the Federal Reserve Bank would
most likely have been ended, the budget balanced, and your
personal income tax reduced or eliminated. If President Kennedy
had lived, the banks would have lost over ten trillion dollars
plus the interest. The trillions of dollars the banks have today
would be in the hands of the people. I owned one of the $2.00
Kennedy dollars issued in 1963. After Kennedy's assassination,
these "Kennedy Bills" were quickly withdrawn from circula-
tion, never to be issued again.
Bulletin, November 1991: From the autobiography of Ben

Franklin, as reported in Money Creators by Gertrude Coogan:
"...the inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own
money permanently out of the hands of George III and the in-
ternational bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolution-
ary War." In Senate document number 23 from the Committee
on Banking and Currency (p. 23)
Just before the Revolutionary War, Benjamin Franklin vis-

ited England. He was asked to account for the colonies great
prosperity. His reply : "That is simple. It is only because in the
Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip
and we issue it in the proper proportion to the demands of trade
and industry." (Confirmed in Lightning Over the Treasury Build-
ing, John Elson, p. 28-31).
Soon the Rothschild's bank saw an opportunity to exploit

the nation. The bankers had the English pass a bill taking away
Colonial script, forcing the colonists to use debt money issued
191
from England. Benjamin Franklin explained that this was the

cause of the Revolutionary War. Within one year from that date,
the streets were filled with the unemployed. When colonists
were forced to exchange two units of script for one unit of bor-
rowed money from the Rothschild's bank, England forced a
depression in the Colonies. Rothschild explained, by control-
ling the money he controlled the colonists. Five years later the
first armed clashes of the Revolutionary War took place in Lex-
ington and Concord (p. 28-31, see bib #22 and p. 70-71, see bib
#8). See Senate Document No. 23, page 98, by Robert L. Owen,
former Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, United
States Senate.
On Horns of the Beast quotes President Wilson, who voted

in the Federal Reserve Bank: "Our system of credit is concen-
trated (in the Federal Reserve System). The growth of the na-
tion, therefore, and all our activities, are in the hands of a few
men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the
most completely controlled governments in the civilized world
- no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a govern-
ment by...a vote of the majority, but a government by the opin-
ion and duress of a small group of dominant men. Some of the
biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and
manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a
power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so in-
terlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not
speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of
it" (p. 152).
Quoted in Repeal the Federal Reserve Bank, President Wil-

son said: "I have unwittingly ruined my country" (p. 31).
Bob Dole's Trusting the People clearly shows how much

the IRS monster has grown. Their employees have doubled in a
decade to more than 100,000. As a result of this new crew of
marauders, more than 1,500,000 hard-working Americans face
liens on their property, sometimes with no warning at all, every
year. This pirating is also rewarded by the agency which gives
192
"commissions" to the IRS agents for the property confiscated

in the process. That perverted zealousness, in itself, may ex-
plain the ten-fold increase in "penalties imposed by the IRS...
since 1980" (p. 25).
Shall we examine the police force that enforces the bank-

ing system?
U.S.A. Today, February 26, 1997: More than 60,000 police

(10%) who have a criminal conviction could have their fire-
arms taken away. Police groups are lobbying lawmakers so the
police can be exempt from the new Federal gun control law,
keeping their jobs and placing others in jail for having a gun
with the same conviction the cop committed and was exempted.
Advocates for victims' rights oppose changing the law or mak-
ing special exemptions for police. "If we have identified (a
police officer) as a violent individual, he shouldn't be in that
job," says Rita Smith, of the National Coalition Against Do-
mestic Violence. "They certainly would be a very bad repre-
sentative to intervene in a domestic violence call."
U.S.A. Today, January 29, 1997 and February 26, 1997,

printed an article regarding evidence that the FBI crime lab pos-
sibly slanted evidence in favor of prosecutors. It may result in
overturning criminal convictions. Sen. Charles Grassley, (R-
Iowa), expressed that FBI agent Fredric Whitehurst was sus-
pended in retaliation for claiming FBI evidence is biased—con-
taminated in favor of prosecutors. Whitehurst expressed con-
cern that the clothing Timothy McVeigh was wearing at the time
of the Oklahoma bombing could be contaminated.
Dateline, January 1997, showed Louisiana police pulling

over out-of-state cars, including Dateline's driver, who com-
mitted no traffic violations, claiming they had probable cause.
The officers were merely seizing cars, money, and other items
of value. It was obvious the police intend the seizures to be a
profit-making business. Citizens were interrogated without
cause. People wrote back to Dateline: "I was terrorized. The
193
police acted like angry bullies. It was the most complete pic-
ture of power abuse and violation of human rights I have seen.
The police acted no better than the drug dealers. How can we
instruct our children not to rob when the cops are doing it? The
law (drug seizures) should be changed to protect the citizens
from abuse." Will Dateline show the police enforcing the cur-
rent banking system, converting the nation's assets to the bank?
What would people think if they knew the cops enforced

the bank's theft of your property and future labors for free and
returned it as a loan? The only difference between a loan and a
seizure is a seizure is obvious and a loan is a trick; economi-
cally it is the same. These seizures fulfill the fourth plank of
the Communist Manifesto and violates our founding fathers'
Constitution.
The American Bulletin (p. 1, Feb. 1997), quoting Founding

Father Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people
to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
Freedom From War, the United States Program For Gen-

eral and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, Depart-
ment of State Publication 7277: This publication discusses tak-
ing away Americans' right to own a gun, disarming our mili-
tary, and turning our sovereignty over to the United Nations,
which the banks control.
Why A Bankrupt America (p. 11), quoting Congressman

Wright Patman: "In the United States we have, in effect, two
governments... We have the duly constituted Government... Then
we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated gov-
ernment in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money
powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution."
America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations,

by William J. Federer (p. 330): On September 6, 1819, Thomas
Jefferson wrote:
194
"The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of

the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please."
On September 28, 1820, Jefferson wrote to William Jarvis:

"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbi-
ters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doc-
trine indeed, and one which would place us under the despo-
tism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men,
and not more so... and their power (is) the more dangerous,
as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other
functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution
has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to what-
ever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its
members would become despots."
On June 12, 1823, Justice William Johnson wrote a letter

responding to Thomas Jefferson's letter:
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back
to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what
meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against
it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Repeal the Federal Reserve Banks (pp. 162-70): In 1968,

Judge Martin v. Mahoney ruled against the bank, canceling a
bank loan. Two weeks later, he was assassinated. Just before
his assassination, he wrote the following concerning the case:
"There is no lawful consideration for these Federal Re-
serve Notes to circulate as money. The banks actually ob-
tained these notes for the cost of printing. A lawful consider-
ation must exist for a Note. As a matter of fact, the `Notes'
are not Notes at all, as they contain no `promise to pay' (See
17 American Jurist, Section 85, 215).
The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks of Minnesota,

San Francisco, and the First National Bank of Montgomery,
is contrary to public policy and contrary to the Constitution
of the United States, and constitutes an unlawful creation of
money, credit, and the obtaining of money and credit for no
195
valuable consideration. Activity of said banks in creating

money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the
United States.
The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks exer-

cise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit
and issuing Notes at the expense of the public, which does
not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is obliquely de-
signed for the benefit of an idle monopoly to rob, blackmail,
and oppress the producers of wealth.
The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act are,
in their operation and effect, contrary to the whole letter and
spirit of the Constitution of the United States, for they con-
fer an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties;
they hold all of our fellow citizens in dependence; they are
subversive to the rights and liberation of the people.
These Acts have defied the lawfully constituted Gov-

ernment of the United States. The Federal Reserve Act and
the National Banking Act are not necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the legislative powers granted to Con-
gress or any other powers vested in the government of the
United States, but on the contrary, are subversive to the rights
of the People in their rights to life, liberty, and property. (See
U.S.C. Title 31, Section 462)
The meaning of the Constitutional provision, 'NO

STATE SHALL make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a
legal tender in payment of debts' is direct, clear, unambigu-
ous, and without any qualification. This Court is without au-
thority to interpolate any exception...
Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 432, is in direct conflict

with the Constitution insofar, at least, that it attempts to make
Federal Reserve Notes a legal tender. The Constitution is the
Supreme Law of the Land. Section 462 of Title 31 is not a
law which is made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is
unconstitutional and void, and I so hold...
196
No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve

Notes are acquired through the use of unconstitutional stat-
utes and fraud. The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds
them. (See 1 Mer. Jur. 2nd on Actions Section 550). Slavery
and all its incidents, including peonage, thralldom, and debt
created by fraud is universally prohibited in the United States.
This case represents but another refined form of Slavery by
the Bankers. Their position is not supported by the Constitu-
tion of the United States."
Judge Martin v. Mahoney's additional writings will be in

Tom Schauf's second book, along with a number of other court
cases.
Case: First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly,

Dec. 7, 1968. You will not find this case in the law library, but
we have the proof that it happened. Because of the bankruptcy
of the United States, attorneys and judges have used case law
to claim Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender, ignoring other
case law stating Congress cannot delegate their responsibility
to a private organization. It is believed that the banks control or
own the Bar Association, which interprets the law and has its
members pass the laws. Please remember that every policeman,
attorney, judge, and public official took an oath of office to
uphold the U.S. Constitution. This oath is a contract with you.
There would be no bankruptcy of the United States if the oaths
of office were upheld. As judge and jury in this case, you must
consider Judge Martin v. Mahoney's testimony and decide if
the police, judges, attorneys, and lawmakers violated their oaths
of office.
Why a Bankrupt America?, last page: U.S. Supreme Court

in America, Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S.
382, 442, "It is not the function of our Government to keep the
citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to
keep the Government from falling into error."
197
Spotlight (p. 8, Feb. 3, 1986), Congressman Louis

McFadden: "The Federal Reserve (Banks) are one of the most
corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man
within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Na-
tion is run by the International Bankers."
Spotlight (p. 8, Feb. 3, 1986), Horace Greeley: "While boast-

ing of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact
that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a sys-
tem of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel
than the old system of chattel slavery."
Simply calling the bankers `thieves', U.S. News and World

Report writer Mortimer B. Zucherman told the public clearly
that they were robbed with the savings and loan disaster, and
were still being robbed. The public got conned, and is still be-
ing conned. Those responsible for this - the politicians, bank-
ers, and businessmen - still exist. Zucherman called this fiasco
the country's "biggest single financial scandal [and still] one
of continuing deception and cowardice" (p.81, see bibliogra-
phy #4).
Savings and Loan Unethical Bailout (p. 82), Congressman

Jake Garn: "I'm not going to ask the taxpayer of this country to
bailout fraud, mismanagement, and abuse of managerial power
by savings and loans."
Congressman William G. Lipinski of Illinois, in his fall is-

sue, 1990, newsletter to constituents:
Not one person who mismanaged and stole from the ac-
counts of thousands of depositors has been sent to jail. The
Justice Department has been dragging its feet on more than
2,300 frauds and embezzlement cases and it has left thou-
sands of referrals and complaints untouched.
I voted against the Financial Institutions Reform, Re-

covery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 for two reasons. There
198
was no guarantee that those responsible for the savings and

loan fraud would go to jail, and Illinois would bear an unfair
proportion of the financial burden of the bailout.
The message this administration is sending is absurd and

offensive; if you rob a bank by walking in the front door
with a gun and a bag, you will go to jail, but if you walk into
the corporation office of that bank with a suit and a pen and
rob investors of their savings, you will not be prosecuted.
I am very disappointed with the Administration's unwill-

ingness to prosecute those responsible for the problem.
I remain committed to seeing that the savings and loan

board members and executives, regardless of their political
connections, are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Repeal The Federal Reserve Banks (pp. 8-11): the follow-

ing are excerpts from Congressman Francis H. Shoemaker of
Pennsylvania during the 73rd Congress, 2nd Session, page 7813-
15, May 1, 1934:
...the greatest steal ever permitted by a legislative body

in American history. I refer to the passage of the law which
extended the rights of the Federal Reserve Bank to borrow
money on United States securities. The great unanswerable
question is, why do we keep on in this camouflage and fi-
nancial policy of issuing tax-exempt, interest-bearing secu-
rities when we know the law permits the colossal steal I wish
to call attention to here?
This old law provides that upon tender of the Federal

Reserve Bank, a private organization, to the Federal Reserve
agent, a United States Government official, of certain collat-
eral on the cost of printing the bills—which is now 0.7 cents
each—the government shall coin and pay the Federal Re-
serve Bank currency equal to the collateral tendered.
199
All the benefits, such as interest and premiums, go to

the bank and not the Government. The collateral is stored in
the safety-deposit vault of the bank itself.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt wishes to float nine bil-

lion in bonds.
Here is the possible workout:
The Government delivers the bonds to the bank.

The Government delivers the currency to the bank.
The bank returns the currency to the Government.
The bank keeps the bonds which will pay interest to the
bankers.
You will notice that every dollar ($1) invested by the

banker draws a yearly interest of $0.9583. You will also no-
tice that the extra burden the President [Roosevelt] is put-
ting on the people is about $1,000,000 for every working
day of the year for the interest on the $9,000,000,000 of
bonds. Furthermore, the only difference between giving these
$9 billion of "printing press" money directly to the people
instead of selling it to the bankers and buying it back again
is that the bankers are paid by the Government $258,750,000
a year by the latter method. It is still "printing press" money.
I want to call your attention here to the difference between
"sound" and "unsound" money. "Sound money" pays inter-
est to the bankers. "Unsound money" pays them no interest
... but the President bravely held down to only $9 billion for
the robbers, making a small daily dole for the impoverished
bankers of $708,904... are determined that the monetary poli-
cies of the government are a part and parcel of the manipula-
tion ... to further this diabolical scheme by men who are mis-
leading him ... we find that 5 Farmer-Labor members, in-
cluding myself, who were aware of the dangers lurking in a
bill of this kind, and could not bring ourselves to sell out the
people of the United States in this subtle way.
In Repeal the Federal Reserve Banks (p. 40), Congressman

Patman explains that the same banking system that America
has today was like the goldsmiths in Amsterdam. When the col-
200
lapse in the banking system came, as it will in fractional re-

serve banking, the people in Amsterdam hung the banker(s).
Thomas Jefferson: "If the American people ever allow the

private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation
and then deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow
up around them will deprive the people of all property until
their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered" (p. 32, see bibliography #10).
Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House

Committee on Banking and Currency from 1920-1931, knew
exactly who to blame for the Great Depression: "It was not ac-
cidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence... The interna-
tional bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here,
so that they might emerge as rulers of us all" (p. 191, see bibli-
ography #8). He described it as the greatest piece of thievery in
history.
Congressman Charles Lindbergh: "Depressions will be sci-

entifically created" (p. 124, see bibliography #2).
If you invested in stocks and knew the future, you would

make a fortune. The FED has secret meetings to determine the
future interest rates and money supply, thus affecting the stock
market. FED chairman Burns states that a "killing can be made
simply by knowing the next few months' newspapers ahead of
time" (p. 123, see bibliography #2 )
Bankers will argue that when the government prints money,

it leads to inflation. Congressman Wright Patman, the former
chairman of the House Banking Committee said: "It is a fal-
lacy to think, as many do, that the `greenbacks' were inflation-
ary. In the only sense that matters, the relative or comparative
sense, they were not. That is, $450 million in `greenbacks' is
no more or less inflationary than $450 million in bank depos-
its, or any other bank money created to pay for $450 million in
interest-bearing bonds" (p. 24, see bibliography #6).
201
Founding Father James Madison: "History records that the

moneychangers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, de-
ceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over
governments by controlling the money and its issuance" (p. 79,
President Jackson described how the bank: "...would be

more formidable and dangerous than a naval and military power
of the enemy" (p. 308, see bibliography #7).
President Thomas Jefferson made a second statement: "I

believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our lib-
erties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money
aristocracy that has set government at defiance. The issuing
power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people
to whom it properly belongs" (p.35, see bibliography #22).
Norburns' A New Monetary System talked about how

Jefferson and Hamilton argued about the creation of a FED-
type bank early in the nation's history. The authors impressed
upon readers the propaganda campaign put together against
those who opposed them. Jefferson exposed how Legislature
members were bribed and profited from the scheme. Govern-
ment control was established as the Hamilton group of clients
were given a charter "to establish the bank." Abuse, intrigue
and deceit were used. As a result, not only was the government
controlled, but also the people, by issuing money as they saw
fit (p.18).
Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr. (again): "Politics have

been controlled by a trick. The decoy has been to hold up beau-
tiful and true principles for honest action... the same ideals stated
in different words are advanced by the other party. When the
election is over, the capitalists control...a few of the leaders
from inner circles controlling those of their own gang on the
outside by bribes of patronage, committee favors and other fa-
vors" (p. 135, see bibliography #6).
202
Sen. Elmer Thomas: "Any time Wall Street wants a bill

passed, they send a suggestion down to Washington and we are
kept here sometimes until midnight to pass the bill. But if Wall
Street is opposed to legislation, it cannot be gotten out of Com-
mittee and it cannot be gotten before the Senate for consider-
ation, and it has no chance of passing" (Ibid. p.136).
The following was taken from the New York Herald, "Any-
one who wants any legislation buys it with cold cash." (Ibid. p.
137).
The Norburns also revealed the incestuous nature of the

political banking system. The 1968 Federal Reserve listing of
the top stockholders of each National Bank "contained the
names of dozens of Congressmen and their relatives" (Norburn,
p. 138). Coincidentally, at that time a dozen members of the
House Banking Committee and nearly 100 of the full House
body have proprietary interests in banks, savings and loans, or
bank holding companies (p.138, see bibliography #6).
Congressman Usher Burdick: "We Republicans in the West

want to know if Wall Street... and the international bankers con-
trol our party and can select our candidate? ...There is nothing
to the Wilkie boom for President except the artificial public
opinion being created by newspapers, magazines, and the ra-
dio. The reason behind this is money. Money is being spent by
someone, and lots of it" (p. 205, see bibliography #8).
Tom Schauf: "Banks cannot create gold or silver coins, but

they can create the opposite, a gold deposit slip or checkbook
money. Real money is gold, the opposite of gold is owing gold.
The bank will try to loan you the opposite of the real thing.
What is the difference between one person counterfeiting money
and the bank creating money and loaning it? In both cases, it
creates inflation and forces the people into debt for the amount
of the new money. For each dollar created and loaned at inter-
est, whether nationally or by local banks, the people lose one
203
dollar of equity and the bank gains one dollar of equity. The
counterfeiter goes to jail if caught, while the banks use a por-
tion of their profit to elect lawmakers, judges, and law enforce-
ment officials. In one case, the police put you in jail, in the
other case, the police benefit, but in both situations, the people
lose their wealth to the one who created the money. The power
of elections are shifted from the people to the bank, and if the
bank controls who is elected, then they control our government.
The people are deceived into thinking that their vote counts,
while the bank controls the media and both parties of the elec-
tion. Once enough Americans learn the truth and spread the
word far and wide, it will catch like wildfire. All real Ameri-
cans will rally to vote out every lawmaker, judge, and police
official aiding and abetting the bankers. The wealth stolen from
the people will be returned to them. The wealth of the wicked
is stored up for the righteous and all we have to do is lawfully
take back what is ours. By God's authority, we will take back
what the devil stole and demand that he return it back to us
seven-fold."
Savings and Loan Unethical Bailout (pp. 158-9): Congress-

man Stephen Neal received $101,300 from a bank Political
Action Committee (PAC) in 1989-90. Senator Phil Gramm re-
ceived $95,425 from a bank PAC. Congressman Frank
Annunzio, Chairman of House Banking Subcommittee on Fi-
nancial Institutions, received $26,750 from a bank PAC.
CitiCorp of New York spent nearly $1.7 million in contribu-
tions in six years. The NCNB Corp., a Charlotte, North Caro-
lina-based bank, doled out $553,207 to candidates in the 1990
election, four times its donation in 1986. Over the same time
frame, the bank's assets tripled to $66 Billion and expanded to
seven states, to become a super regional bank.
In Rocky Mountain News, Section B, February 9, 1997, U.S.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "When an in-
dividual donates money to a candidate or to a partisan organi-
zation, he enhances the donor's ability to communicate a mes-
sage and thereby adds to political debate, just as when that in-
204
dividual communicates the message himself." The article con-

tinues, discussing how the Democratic and Republican Parties
received more than $250 million in soft money contributions
in 1996 - three times the amount collected in 1992.
U.S.A. Today, February 21, 1997, 9A: The Republican Na-

tional Committee received a total of 17 million dollars from 50
individuals. Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., who chairs the House
Appropriations Committee, wasn't shy. "There's an absolute
difference between soliciting under the law, as this outfit is
doing... and what the Democratic National Committee was ob-
viously doing in soliciting from foreign nationals, foreign
agents, drug smugglers, Buddhist temples, and God knows what
else."
The Arizona Daily Star (Feb. 16, 1997, A3) discussed how
campaign donors sought to influence U.S. policy and how they
attempted to capitalize on White House connections.
USA Today (p. A1, 1/29/97) quoted President Clinton, say-

ing that it probably would have been better if Comptroller of
the Currency, Eugene Ludwig, didn't attend a White House
coffee sponsored by the Democratic National Committee in
May, 1996. Clinton thought that it was improper for the nation's
top bank regulator to mingle socially with some of the country's
leading bankers. Banker's donations after the meeting amounted
in some cases to over $300,000.
Congressman Dan Burt (R-Ind.), believed Clinton had

"misled the Congress and the American people" (USA Today,
p. A1 , 2/26/97). The fundraising scandal that Burton's panel also
looked into showed how $50,000 and $100,000-plus support-
ers of his re-election campaign were ready "to start overnights
right away," as the President put it in a 1995 note.
William Greider, author of Who Will Tell The People, ad-

mits that some federal legislators are for sale, especially mem-
bers of the "money committees." Those on the Banking, Ap-
205
propriations, Ways and Means, or Finance have an easy time

raising "campaign funds from everyone." "If you're on Bank-
ing or the Finance Committee," said Senator Dale Bumpers, "
you don't even have to open your mouth. They'll throw money
at you over the transom." Campaign money undoubtedly drove
many of those congressional votes and framed the attitudes of
legislators. "We've had a lot of liberals who were good on hous-
ing and would take care of the banks on the other side," said
Jake Lewis, a longtime committee staff aide. "As long as they
took care of the banks, they could be as liberal as they wanted"
(p. 65-67).
Savings and Loan Unethical Bailout by Rev. Casimir Frank

Gierut (p. 160-2, 234-5) explains how thirteen banks made po-
litical contributions of over $12 million within five years.
The Federal Reserve Bank (p. 219), Congressman Wright

Patman of Texas: "The members of Congress have terrific pres-
sure from the banking lobby that will profit so handsomely from
this give-away. Our exposures are scandalous and shocking but
they are only printed in the daily Congressional Record, which
is read by few people..."
The Federal Reserve Bank (p. 210), Rep. Wright Patman

(D-Tex.): "Many of the bills Congress passes are never men-
tioned in the public press, either before or after passage. And
most are mentioned only in a capsuled way, characterized with
slogans which frequently mislead more than they inform. There
is usually someone around to supply the slogans which the press
picks up." When Congressman Patman ordered an investiga-
tion of the banks, his committee stopped him cold turkey (p.
137, see bibliography #6).
Lightning over the Treasury Building by John R. Elson

claims that the Federal Reserve banking system is unconstitu-
tional and unscrupulous, maintaining a very expensive and pow-
erful lobby in Washington which dominates our government.
206
"Less than 1% of the people have been influencing our think-

ing and controlling our voting."
President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "Sixty families in

America control the wealth of the Nation" .
H.S. Kenan, author of The Federal Reserve Bank, describes

the President's office very much like that of an elected mon-
arch, since United States financial interests control the nomi-
nating process of both political parties. As a result of this hand-
picking, whichever nominee wins, stays under the control of
New York financiers, who then again control the Controller of
the Currency, as well as the Department of Treasury, State, and
Justice. National politicians who are successful, Kenan points
out, are actually skilled actors who give the electorate the im-
pression that they are exercising great power, but they actually
are not. Lawmakers claim they are just following the crowd,
following the system that the voters set up. They believe it is
the voters' fault for allowing this to continue. Congress believes
that there is little they can do because they must meet the de-
mands of the powerful banking lobby to receive the campaign
money needed to get re-elected (p. 210)
The Federal Reserve Bank (p. 9), quotes President Abraham

Lincoln: " I see in the near future a crisis approaching that un-
nerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my coun-
try; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in
high places will follow, and the money power of the country
will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the preju-
dices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands,
and the Republic destroyed." HIS PROPHECY HAS BEEN ALL
BUT FULFILLED, BUT THE VOTE OF AN INFORMED
POPULATION WILL RESTORE THE NATION AND THE
WEALTH BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHEN ENOUGH
AMERICANS WANT THEIR BANK LOANS CANCELED.
On February 24, 1997, an ABC news program "Freeload-

ers" featured John Stossel interviewing economist Walter Wil-
207
liams. What Stossel suggested was that America's biggest free-

loaders are not panhandlers, or even people on welfare, but rich,
well-connected people able to use the power of the govern-
ment—in the form of political lobbyists—to freeload in a more
clever and insidious way. Economist Walter Williams called
them corporate "welfare queens" and a lot less moral than pan-
handlers, who don't exert any strong-armed tactics as lobbyists
do. Lobbyists ask Congress to take one person's money and
give it to another and then they bore you with the details why
you should be happy it was taken. "That is immoral." The well-
connected do not steal like a thief; they are "more clever and
insidious" than a panhandler. They lobby Congress to make it
appear legal (February 24, 1997, ABC, Freeloaders, by John
Stossel).
Lines of Credit: Ropes of Bondage, by Robert Henry

Goldsborough (p. 1), cites that, in 1920, Winston Churchill
wrote: "From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl
Marx, down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa
Luxemburg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (USA), this world-
wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the
reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development,
of envious malevolence, and impossible equity, has been steadily
growing. It played... a definitely recognizable part in the trag-
edy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century, and
now, at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the
underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have
gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have
become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous
empire." It also states (p. 8-10) that: "New York bankers fi-
nanced the Russian Revolution for their profit." It states (p. 13):
On November 6, 1986 U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-
Oh.) said: "We must see to it that we will not permit the reli-
gious right to take over this country... Do not let the forces of
evil take over to make this a Christian America." He called
Christians evil. The ultimate goal of the communist conspiracy
208
is to destroy Christianity. No wonder, Senator Metzenbaum was

believed to belong to several communist organizations.
Ex-FBI official Dan Smoot: "I am convinced the objective

of this invisible government is to convert America into a so-
cialist state and then make it a unit in a one world socialist
system" (p. 19).
The late Dr. Bella V. Dobb, a former member of the Com-

munist Party who later became a Christian, said: "Who is the
hidden power, the real leader, behind the entire world wide com-
munist conspiracy? If the final authority for the atheistic com-
munist conspiracy could be unmasked, it would be Satan" (p.
38).
Sen. Robert M. LaFollette (R-Wis): "The Federal Reserve

is a scheme backed by powerful financial and business inter-
ests to secure stronger control upon the capital and credit of
our country. It will work a great loss and harm to the American
people" (p. 8-9, see bibliography #8).
Rep. Louis T. McFadden (R-Pa), former chairman of the

House Banking and Currency Committee (June 10, 1932): "We
have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the
world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and
the Federal Reserve Banks. This evil institution has impover-
ished and ruined the people of the United States...and has prac-
tically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through...the
corrupt practices of the money vultures who control it. What
king ever robbed his subjects to such an extent as the Federal
Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks have robbed us?
I think it can hardly be disputed...that the control over our gold
and our credit power through the Federal Reserve System has
fallen into the hands of powerful international financiers."
"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United

States Government institutions. They are not Government in-
stitutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon
209
the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves

and their foreign customers, foreign and domestic speculators
and swindlers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceit-
fully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who
came here from Europe."
"The danger that the country was warned against came upon
us and is shown in the long train of horrors attendant upon the
affairs of the traitorous and dishonest Federal Reserve Board
and the Federal Reserve Banks. This is an era of economic mis-
ery, and, for the conditions that caused that misery, the Federal
Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks are fully liable.
This is an era of financial crime."
"Through the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Re-

serve Banks, the smugglers, bootleggers, speculators, and swin-
dlers in every country of the world are operating on the public
credit of the United States Government. Meanwhile, and on
account of it, we ourselves are in the midst of the greatest de-
pression we have known (1929). From the Atlantic to the Pa-
cific, our country has been ravaged and laid waste by the evil
practices of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve
Banks."
"According to the Rev. Charles Coughlin, who has lately

testified before a committee of this House of Representatives,
71,000 homes and farms in Oakland, Michigan, have been sold
and their owners dispossessed. Similar occurrences have taken
place in every county in the United States. The people have
been driven out as victims of the dishonest and unscrupulous
Federal Reserve...
"The Federal Reserve Banks are agents of the foreign cen-

tral banks. They use our bank depositors' money for the benefit
of their foreign principals. They barter public credit of the
United States Government and hire it out to foreigners at a profit
to themselves. All of this is done at the expense of the United
States Government and at a loss to the American people.
210
"The Federal Reserve Board invited the world to come in

and to carry away cash, credit, goods, and everything of value
that was movable. The United States has been ransacked and
pillaged. They act for foreign principals and they accept fees
from foreigners for acting against the best interests of the United
States."
Rep. McFadden continues: "Billions upon billions of our

money have been pumped into Germany by the Federal Re-
serve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. Her worthless pa-
per is being negotiated here and renewed on the public credit
of the United States Government and at the expense of the
American people. On April 27, 1932, the Federal Reserve out-
fit sent $750,000 in gold, belonging to American depositors, to
Germany. A week later, another $300,000 in gold was shipped
to Germany in the same way. About the middle of May,
$12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Federal
Reserve..."
"The magnitude of the bank acceptance racket, as it has

been developed by the Federal Reserve Banks, their foreign
correspondents, and the predatory European-born bankers, set
up the Federal Reserve institutions here and taught our brand
of pirates how to loot the people."
"They are putting the United States Government in debt to

the extent of $100,000 per week, and with this money they are
buying up our Government securities for themselves and their
foreign principals. The Federal Reserve Board is not producing
a loaf of bread, a yard of cloth, a bushel of corn, by its check
operations in the money market."
"The Government and the people of the United States have

been swindled by swindlers deluxe, exchanging that Federal
Reserve currency for gold. Such were the exploits of Ivan
Kreuger. Every dollar of the billions Kreuger drew out of this
country on bank acceptances was drawn from the Government
211
of the United States and the people through the Federal Re-
serve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. They have been
peddling the credit of this Government and the signature of this
Government to the swindlers and speculators of all nations.
"A few days ago, the President of the United States went
before the Senate in behalf of the moneyed interest and asked
the Senate to levy a tax on the people so that foreigners might
know that the United States would pay its debts to them. Most
Americans thought that it was the other way around. What does
the United States owe to foreigners? When and by whom was
debt incurred? It was incurred by the Federal Reserve Board
and the Federal Reserve Banks when they peddled the signa-
ture of the United States for a price. It is what the United States
Government has to pay to redeem the obligations of the Fed-
eral Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. Are you
going to let those thieves get off scot-free?"
"We should investigate this treacherous and disloyal con-

duct of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve
Banks."
"The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and the Fed-

eral Reserve Banks, having violated their charters, should be
liquidated immediately. Faithless government officials who have
violated their oaths of office should be impeached and brought
to trial. Unless this is done by us, I predict that the American
people, outraged, robbed, pillaged, insulted, and betrayed as
they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath and send a
president here who will sweep out the moneychangers" (p. 9,
see bibliography #8 & p. 14-17, bibliography #5).
Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz) in the 1960s: "Most Ameri-

cans have no real understanding of the operation of the interna-
tional moneylenders...The accounts of the Federal Reserve Sys-
tem have never been audited. It operates outside the control of
Congress and through its board of governors, manipulates the
credit of the United States" (p. 8-9, see bibliography #8).
212
Rep. John R. Rarick (D-La): "Congress has abdicated its

responsibility. In 1913 the power to coin and regulate money
was conferred on the Federal Reserve—a private banking mo-
nopoly..." (Ibid. p. 8-9).
University of Nevada Economics Professor Murray N.

Rothbard isn't fooled. The author of twenty-one books, he de-
scribes Greenspan and Company as THE problem. While they
like to pawn themselves off as inflation hawks, the FED and
the private commercial bankers aren't part of the inflation so-
lution. Rothbard, more significantly, sees the boom and bust
cycles as contrived by them. That destructive churning is the
main reason for their existence. Stopping the legalized coun-
terfeiting that the FED engages in stops the inflationary credit
system. He recommends, then, abolishing the FED, and return-
ing to a gold standard. In that way, the country would have a
monetary system based on market-produced metal, serving as
"the standard money, and not paper tickets printed by the Fed-
eral Reserve" (Ibid. 270-71).
Robert H. Hemphill (Credit Manager, Federal Reserve Bank

in Atlanta): "We are completely dependent on the commercial
banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circula-
tion, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money
we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely with-
out, a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp
of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is
almost incredible, but there it is. It (the banking problem) is
the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate
and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization
may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the de-
fects are remedied very soon" (p. 247, see bibliography #12).
Dr. Hans F. Sennholz, Chairman of the Department of Eco-

nomics at Grove City (Pa) College stated: "The Federal Re-
serve System facilitates the government's own inflationary fi-
nancing in `period of emergency'. It makes easy the inflation-
213
ary financing of budget deficits and the inflationary refunding

of government loans. It stabilizes the government bond market
through inflationary methods and manipulates this market to
the advantage of the government. It does all this by wrecking
the purchasing power of the dollar; by subtly stealing from the
people of this country what it thus provides for the government,
through a process exactly on a par with the coin-clipping of
ancient kings—but much more diabolical because so much less
visible" (Ibid. p. 250-1).
In 1931, eight years before Hitler invaded Poland, Congress-

man Louis McFadden said: "After WW I, Germany fell into
the hands of the German international bankers. Those bankers
bought her and they now own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They
have purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil,
they control her production, they control all her public utilities.
There is no country in the world today of which the inhabitants
are so enslaved as are the Germans."
"The international German bankers have subsidized the

present Government of Germany and they have also supplied
every dollar of the money Adolph Hitler has used in his lavish
campaign to build up a threat to the government of Bruening.
When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German interna-
tional bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into
submission...Through the Federal Reserve Board...over $30
billion of American money over and above the German bonds
that have been sold here has been pumped into Germany...You
have all heard of the spending that has taken place in
Germany...modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her
gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways,
her perfect factories. All this was done on our money."
"All this was given to Germany through the Federal Re-

serve Board...and what is worse, Federal Reserve Notes were
issued for it... Here you have a banking system which has fi-
nanced Germany from start to finish with the Federal Reserve
Notes and has unlawfully taken from the Government and the
214
people of the United States. The Federal Reserve Board...has

pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that they dare
not name the total" (p. 193, see bibliography #8).
Tom Schauf: "The simple way to explain the economic ef-

fect of American banking is to say that the government prints
the cash. The government gives the cash to the bankers for free.
The bankers return the cash back to the government as a bank
loan. The government gives the bank government bonds to en-
sure that the taxpayers pay the bank interest. On a local bank
loan, the alleged borrower signs a $1,000 promissory note prom-
ising to repay the $1,000 loan. The promissory note has actual
cash value of $1,000 because it can be sold for $1,000 cash.
The borrower hands the bank actual cash value of $1,000 for
free, the bank returns the actual cash value back to the bor-
rower, calling it a bank loan. The borrower's intent in the prom-
issory note was only to agree to repay the money. The banker's
intent was to use the promissory note as actual cash value that
they received for free to create new checkbook money. Receiv-
ing something of value for free and using this to create new
money is similar to stealing and counterfeiting."
President Wilson, who voted in the Federal Reserve Bank,

afterward said: "I have unwittingly ruined my country."
I place the U.S. Constitution into evidence, which is the

oath of office of the President, Congress, judges, and law en-
forcement.
Evil People Rule When Good People Do Nothing.
One American asked: "Will America's tombstone read,

"AMERICA DIED BECAUSE THE GOOD PEOPLE OF
AMERICA DIDN'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED.'?"
Why a Bankrupt America, last page, quoting Abraham Lin-

coln: "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cow-
ards of men."
215
50. LAW OF THE LAND

The general misconception is that any statute passed by leg-
islators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of
the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land,
and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impos-
sible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This
is succinctly stated as follows: "All laws which are repugnant
to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5
US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,

there can be no rule making or legislation which would abro-
gate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, p. 491
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it

imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it
is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425, p. 442
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though

having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is
wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitu-
tionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely
from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no
courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177, late 2d,
Sec. 256
51. YOU BE THE JUDGE

Put yourself in the judge's situation: Tens of thousands of
Americans are passing out Tom Schauf's brochures and read-
ing his books. People are wanting out of their loans. The num-
216
bens of people are growing daily. You fear that the whole coun-
try will soon know the truth. Your election campaign fund re-
ceived money from the banking interests. You fear being
smeared by the media if you go against the money interests.
You wonder what will happen if too many people read those
brochures, win the election, and take you to court. If you were
a federal judge, you may not worry about elections, but you
would worry that you received money from the Treasury. People
are finding out that the Treasury, the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), and the Federal Reserve Bank are all intercon-
nected and paying your salary. Your court represents the bank-
ruptcy, yet you swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The people found out that they were lied to and they are mad!
They want out of their loans and an end to the IRS tax.
As an expert witness in the court system, I have gone to
fundraisers to get judges elected. The attorneys privately told
me that they felt obligated to contribute money because they
practice before the judge. The lawyers help get the judges
elected. The lawyers know that if the European banking system
is replaced with Constitutional Banking, that you will have twice
the wealth. If the banking system is fixed, then lawyers will
earn less money in divorces (lack of money is the number one
cause of divorce). The unemployed will have good paying jobs
so that they will no longer need to steal. This means less fees
for attorneys. One CPA making a living filling out 1040 tax
forms told me that he wants to keep the IRS. You cannot blame
him. Nor can you blame the 100 million taxpayers for not want-
ing three to six months of their labor taken from them to fi-
nance a national debt the banks received for the cost of print-
ing paper. Your city, county, and state debt was financed like
the national debt. The politicians, judges, police, attorneys, and
the CPA industry was built on the European banking system.
They want your money to keep it going.
This is a true story. As an expert witness, I appraised busi-
nesses for property settlements in divorce. I would keep the fee
as low as I could. Too many times I heard attorneys tell me to
not let them settle out of court. The house has $50,000 equity
in it; if the divorce keeps going and the arguing continues, the
217
attorneys will split the $50,000 between both sides. "If you want
work again as an expert witness, you know what to do", they
said. As a Christian, I had to end this kind of work.
Let's say you are the judge and you know how the system
works. You understand Trading with the Enemy, Emergency
War Powers, who controls or owns the media, the bankruptcy,
and that the banks are the creditors. It is not in your interest to
rule against the banks. Deep down, you want out of your own
loans—but if you rule against the banks, your career may end.
You then decide to listen to the court case of someone suing the
bank.
I will give you some strategy. The CPA expert witness is
the one creating the strategy to sue the bank. I reviewed old
court cases to see why people lost. I learned that you cannot
sue and win if you say the bank never loaned you anything.
Those arguing whether Federal Reserve Notes are legal or not,
lost. If you say the bank created checkbook money, you lost.
One attorney sued, claiming the bank loaned out the same dol-
lar to five people at the same time. You guessed it—it got thrown
out. Many people lose on procedure. Lawyers know procedure
and they use it to win, even if you have the right arguments. If
they lied to you in the past, what makes you think that they
changed their nature and became saints? They may have hired
someone who has the same nature they have. Do not presume
everyone is as honest as you; that is what got you in trouble in
the first place.
Part of the strategy the banks use is simple. If they fore-
close on you, you have no money to hire an expert witness. You
could not afford to hire me as an expert witness and they know
it. I want money in advance. If you fly me in and the judge
postpones the court until next week, you still have to pay the
airline ticket plus my daily fee. The bank knows this, so if I
show up, expect them to postpone the court date until you are
out of money to pay me. Our strategy is to only have the bank's
expert testify. You do not need an expert witness, although it
can be to your advantage to have one. If your opponents know
you have one, they know you mean business and that you know
the answer to the riddle. They also know that you know how to
218
question their expert and get to the truth. The banks do not know
if you read this book and took notes, but they do know that
they do not want these questions asked in court.
Your goal is to sue without the court throwing out the case,
letting an honest jury hear your arguments and decide if you
are right. Your goal is to have the bank's expert witness admit
that the bank does not legally own the promissory note. You
know as well as the bank that the bank's expert witness must
answer all the questions and cannot say he does not know the
answer. You know from past court cases that you cannot dis-
cuss the money issue, such as gold, silver, United States Notes
versus Federal Reserve Notes, or the U.S. Constitution. It is
also best in most situations not to discuss the bankruptcy.
As a judge, you want to help the bank. You and the bank
attorney agree that the borrower went to the bank to buy a house
and he got the house. He got a check that can be exchanged for
cash. The check is not check kiting, so if the suit against the
bank says check kiting, it can be thrown out. The bank has a
promissory note with the borrower's signature, promising to
repay the loan. The judge and bank attorney cannot understand
what the problem is. The bank attorney knows you must prove
that you were damaged to win. He and the judge are wondering
how were you damaged. You made the loan payments for the
last 10 years, so you obviously agreed and ratified the agree-
ment.
If you tell the judge you were loaned a bank liability, he
will laugh and say: "So what? You got the house. You need to
repay the bank the money they loaned you." If you argue that
the bank never loaned gold or silver, it is not news to the judge,
he knows that. Remember, the court represents the bankruptcy.
The judge and bank attorney will say, "You got a check, so pay
us back the money we loaned you. We have your signature giv-
ing validity to the promissory note." If you successfully sue the
bank, you have to break those two arguments in such a way
that the court cannot throw out the case.
219
52. WARNING
Please do not file the following lawsuit. I fear even putting

this in the book. We change strategy every six months—what
worked before may not work today. If you file, please use the
latest materials. This example is only for educational purposes.
For illustrative purposes, consider the following. Someone
is suing the bank, alleging the following: The bank advertised
that they loan money. I applied for a loan. They refused to loan
me legal tender or other depositors' money to fund the alleged
bank loan check. The bank misrepresented the elements of the
alleged agreement to the alleged borrower. There is no bona
fide signature on the alleged promissory note. The promissory
note is a forgery. The promissory note—with my name on it—
obligates me to pay $100,000 plus interest, giving it value to-
day of $100,000 if it were sold to investors. The bank recorded
the forged promissory note as a loan from me to the bank. The
bank used this loan to fund the alleged bank loan check back to
me. The bank refused to loan me legal tender or other deposi-
tors' money in the amount of $100,000 or repay the unautho-
rized loan it recorded from me to the bank. The bank changed
the cost and the risk of the alleged loan. At all times, the bank
operated without my knowledge, permission, authorization, or
agreement. The bank denied me equal protection under the law.
The bank refused to disclose material facts of the alleged agree-
ment and refused to tell me if the agreement was for me to fund
the alleged bank loan check or if the bank is to use the bank's
legal tender or other depositors' money to fund the bank loan
check. They refused to disclose whether the check was the con-
sideration loaned for the alleged promissory note.
Now the judge has a problem. You are claiming a forgery
of a document and the bank refuses to disclose material facts as
to who funded the bank loan check. The bank must answer the
lawsuit or default. If the bank answers, they need to prove that
there is no forgery. To do this, they must disclose if the promis-
sory note is money or not money. They cannot say that the bank
220
recorded the promissory as an unauthorized loan from you to

the bank. If they say it is true, then you want your loan back.
They do not want to claim they denied you equal protection. If
they operated without your knowledge, permission, or authori-
zation, then they have no agreement with full disclosure. As
the suit was filed, the following interrogatories accompanied
the lawsuit.
Mr. Banker, according to your understanding of the alleged

agreement, was the borrower to provide the capital or money
to fund the bank loan check to the same alleged borrower?

agreement, was the bank to loan other depositors' money or
legal tender to fund the bank loan check?

agreement regarding the $100,000 bank loan, how much legal
tender must the bank loan the borrower in order for the bank to
legally own the promissory note? If he says zero, he will look
pretty stupid in court. If he says $100,000, he lost. If he says he
never loaned legal tender, then you do not have to pay legal
tender back.

agreement, was the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank
policies and procedures regarding the alleged loan? If yes, you
know the bank bookkeeping entries. If no, they are in trouble.
If they do not know, then they do not understand what the agree-
ment is any more than you supposedly do. If no one know-
theris what the agreement is, how can they argue and claim
an agreement?

agreement, does the bank legally own the promissory note with-
out loaning one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money
to obtain the promissory note? If they say yes, they admit there
was no loan. If they say no, they lost. You just need them to
221
give you a yes or a no. If they do not know, how can they de-
fend themselves. What is the agreement then?
Mr. Banker, does a bank liability such as a Demand De-

posit Account mean that the bank owes the depositor legal ten-
der? Is a bank liability a bank debt owing legal tender?
Mr. Banker, describe what the money looked like that you
loaned the borrower. He can tell you what Federal Reserve Notes
look like. They are about 2-5/8 inches by 6-1/8 inches, with
green on one side and black on the other side, saying Federal
Reserve Notes. If they loaned you the bank liability owing you
the legal tender that they refused to pay you, I do not know
what size or color that comes in. Imagine them saying they
loaned you $100,000 but they never saw the money and do not
know what it looks like. You want them to look very silly for
answering the lawsuit.
I do not think it is likely that they will answer these ques-

tions. They may say that they do not understand the questions
or say you are harassing them. Truth is, they do not want to
answer the questions. What can they say? Will they admit the
bank created a new bank liability, agreeing they recorded the
promissory note as a loan from you to the bank? Did they steal
it?
The bank must come back and claim that the promissory
note is not a forgery. Expect the bank to claim they lost it or it
burned. I have yet to see them show an original. They do not
want you to see the words, "pay to the order or without re-
course" stamped on the back of it. You still do not know what
the agreement is. Was it to change the promissory note into
money? If yes, does the bank agree you gave it money to fund
the bank loan check? If the promissory note is not money, did
you agree the bank loans nothing, owns the note, sells it for
money, and returns it back to you as a loan? They do not want
to be trapped into answering these questions.
If the bank who granted the alleged loan is the one who
still holds the promissory note, you want to see the bank book-
222
keeping entries. If someone purchased the promissory note, he

was not there, so how did he know what was agreed to or if the
bank advertised to loan money. Most likely, he never saw the
original promissory note until after it was forged. If you were
smart, you sent the current holder of the promissory note a let-
ter and notice and caveat explaining the situation and offering
proof. Did he ignore it? Will you force him to answer it in court?
They may claim the bank auditors guaranteed the bank is
not involved in a fraud and complied with the Federal Reserve
Bank policies and procedures. Did you ever think of suing the
CPA as a co-conspirator? That may stop their argument that
everything is on the up and up.
At this time, as a judge, you may not want to make a deci-
sion. You may tell the bank to produce the original promissory
note to prove there is no forgery. Let them know you will not
accept a copy. They could have forged it after the copy was
made. They have to bring in the original to prove these were
the papers you agreed to and signed. You hope they do. You
also want to see the bank bookkeeping entries to show who
funded the check. You want to see their advertising to see if it
is misleading. At this time, you want them to answer all your
questions as to what the agreement was. Who was to provide
the money to fund the check? This question is vitally impor-
tant. You must know if the promissory note is or is not money
per the bank policy. Do not ask according to the law. If you do,
the judge will stop you and claim only he can make those deci-
sions; he will never tell anyone what the decision is.
Expect the bank to put you in a deposition. They will swear
you in—to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They
will ask you if this is your signature on the promissory note.
Learn the difference between a name, a signature, and a forged
document. If the notary claims it is your signature, ask him the
following questions: To what is your signature giving validity?
It may be your handwriting, but is it your signature giving va-
lidity to this document? Remember, if you wrote a check for
$200 and I changed the $200 to $20,000, is it still your bona
fide signature? Is the document forged? Is the document valid?
If someone did that to my check, I would call the sheriff and
223
claim they forged the document and that it no longer contains

my signature. What would happen if you reversed the deposi-
tion and claimed you do not have enough information to make
the determination? What if you asked the bank attorney: Do
you stipulate the document is an agreement? Do you stipulate
that it is not money? Do you stipulate the bank is to loan me
$100,000 of legal tender in order for the bank to legally own
the promissory note? Make the bank attorney explain what the
agreement is. If you do not understand what the document or
agreement is, how can you agree to it, claiming that your sig-
nature gives it validity? As an expert witness I learned that if I
did not know whether something took place or not, the best
thing to say was, "I do not recall agreeing to this or signing
that." Someone asked me, one time, if I recognized my signa-
ture on a document. I responded, "Looks like a masterful forg-
ery to me. I never agreed to this." They did not know what to
say.
They may ask you, "Did the bank loan you the money?"
You know that you never saw the money; the bank cannot even
tell you what the money looks like, so how do you know they
loaned you the money to fund the check? The seller of the house
may know. As far as you know, he is satisfied. The bank attor-
ney may ask you if you own the house. You know you live there,
and there is a lien on the house. You are not a lawyer, and it
looks like they want you to answer a legal question. If you
owned it, I doubt if you would be there in court.
If the bank attorney asks me whether I agreed to the loan
because I made bank payments for the last ten years, I may say
something like, "I went to the police and they refused to arrest
the banker. I never knowingly agreed to be stupid by loaning
myself my own money and paying you back as if you loaned
me your money. You illegally placed a lien on my property and
used extortion to force me to pay you. Extortion payments do
not ratify an alleged agreement. I believe you are involved in a
fraudulent concealment because you refuse to answer all my
questions as to what the agreement is."
Ask your legal counsel how to handle the deposition. I only
gave you a sample of questions the bank is likely to ask you.
224
Your legal counsel will give you ideas how to honestly answer
the questions. You want to put the bank president, CPA bank
auditor, bank controller (accountant), bank attorneys, and lend-
ing officers in a deposition or on the witness stand in court.
Your goal is to get them to admit they knew or should have
known they were involved in as many felonies as you can get
them to admit to. Ask questions about Federal Reserve Bank
policy or their bank policy in order to show they had intent.
You need intent for criminal charges. Through the questions,
you want them to admit they do not legally own the promissory
note. People have called me, claiming the bankers pleaded the
Fifth Amendment. The judge may not allow you to question
them, but the legal eagles tell me the judge cannot do this. Be-
lieve me, funny things happen in court and you never know
what to expect. If they do not answer, I do not know how they
can defend the lawsuit.
You want the deposition to prove that the bank is still mak-
ing false statements, just like they did before the alleged loan.
The deposition is to prove the bank bookkeeping entries are the
opposite of the alleged bank loan agreement. Do not allow the
deposition to stop until you obtain your objective. You must
find out what the real bank loan agreement is according to the
bank or the entity who bought the promissory note.
At this time, the bank knows that they cannot answer any
of the questions or lawsuits without exposing the truth. They
know if they answer, the nonbankers will fax the bank's an-
swers to the four corners of the nation. They know people are
misled as to what the real agreement is. They know the bank
bookkeeping entries are the opposite of what the agreement is
and if there is equal protection and if there are material facts
missing.
Imagine the banker going to the judge, saying that the bank
complied with all federal laws. The bank was audited and re-
ceived a clean bill of health. Imagine the borrower at this time
claiming the bank did the opposite of what the alleged agree-
ment said, which changed the cost and the risk, whereby no
one in their right mind would loan themselves their own money
and repay a complete stranger the principal and interest as if
225
the stranger loaned his own money, when, in fact, they never
worked one day to earn the legal tender to loan to you and never
loaned you other depositors' money. They loaned no legal ten-
der to obtain your promissory note, placed a lien on your prop-
erty, and used the U.S. Mails to receive loan payments from
you, yet they never risked nor invested one cent of legal tender.
Is this the federal law they say they are in compliance with?
Now you have an argument and need to go to court.
You just made the bank look silly. According to the bank
bookkeeping entries, did the bank steal the promissory note,
did they record it as a loan from you to the bank, or did the
bank loan other depositors' money to obtain the promissory
note? How can the judge rule the bank invests no legal tender?
The borrower is the one who provided the legal tender to fund
the check and then the borrower had to pay the banker the loan
payments while the banker never risked nor loaned one cent of
legal tender. Are you telling the borrower that he agreed to this?
Would you agree to this Mr. Bank attorney? Does this federal
law allow banks to be involved in fraudulent concealment? Does
this federal law mean the banks obtained the liens on nearly
every home, car, farm, ranch, factory, business, and aircraft
without loaning one cent of legal tender or other depositors'
money?
Are you telling me the borrower authorized and gave per-
mission for the bank to open up a borrower's transaction ac-
count and exchange the promissory note for credit in the
borrower's transaction account, allowing the bank to withdraw
a check out of the transaction account without the borrower's
signature on the check, and this same check is called the bank
loan check?
Who would be stupid enough to deposit $100,000 into a
checking account, withdraw the $100,000, and call it a bank
loan, allowing the bank to obtain the $100,000 of money de-
posited for free? Are you calling me stupid?
If the bank attorney said yes, ask him to show you where
you gave this permission in writing. Was he personally there
and did he witness you giving permission? Ask the bank attor-
ney if, to qualify for a bank loan, one of the requirements is
226
that you have to be completely stupid? Do you have to agree to

leave out material facts in the alleged agreement? If I am loan-
ing myself my own money, why would I have to qualify for a
loan? Are you telling me that I agreed to waive my right of
equal protection under the law? Where is this in the written
agreement?
Mr. Bank Attorney, are you telling me you are defining the
word loan and the word exchange as meaning the same thing?
Are you telling me that when you say loan, you mean exchange?
Was there an exchange that took place and the agreement omit-
ted the word exchange and instead said loan? YOU WANT TO
PUT THE BANK ATTORNEY ON TRIAL FOR DEFENDING
THE BANK. YOU WANT HIM TO SAY, "THESE QUES-
TIONS ARE RIDICULOUS. THE BANK NEVER DID THIS."
If he falls for this, you have him. If he says, "Of course this is
how the bank operates," then you show the agreement never
disclosed material facts. Thank the bank attorney for admitting
the truth, so we can fax his response to everyone in America.
Mr. Bank attorney, how can you take an oath to uphold the
U.S. Constitution and defend your client engaged in the Euro-
pean banking system, which is directly opposed to your oath?
Your goal is to bring in this attorney as a co-defendant as you
sue the bank. An attorney cannot bring fraud on the court. The
judge and bank attorney may say, "We do not care what the
agreement is, as long as you received a check, you must repay
the bank the money." Now it is time to look up federal law
prohibiting involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is pro-
hibited in the Thirteenth Amendment. Every year, the bank re-
ceives about 3 to 6 months of your labor for free. If that is not
slavery, I do not know what is. The bank monopoly gets your
labor without loaning you their labor of equal value.
At this time, the judge and bank attorney may try and rede-
fine words to force the law and agreement to match their agenda.
Do not let them redefine words. I gave you definitions in this
book so the banker cannot redefine words and have you fall for
it. You need to look up the following definitions in the law dic-
tionary so you are not tricked again: bank, deposit, liability,
debt, check, interest, agreement, equal protection, material fact,
227
fraudulent concealment, fraudulent conversion, false pretense,

theft, fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraud by concealment,
actual or constructive fraud, fraud in the execution, mail fraud,
false statements, false representation, promissory fraud, fraud
on the court, consideration, illegal consideration, extortion,
RICO, frivolous, fiduciary (bank fiduciary responsibility in the
borrower's transaction account), counterfeit, forgery, signature,
bona fide, failure of consideration, white collar crime, unfair
trade practices, larceny, larceny by deception, trick, legal fraud,
good faith, bad faith, monopoly, moneychanger, loan, exchange,
legal, and lawful.
CAN YOU HEAR THE BANK ATTORNEY AND JUDGE
SAY, "WHAT DO YOU WANT?" YOU SIMPLY RESPOND,
"I WANT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW AND
FULL DISCLOSURE IN THE AGREEMENT. I WANT TO
KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE BANK BOOKKEEPING EN-
TRIES, EXACTLY WHO LOANED WHAT TO WHOM. IF IT
IS A MATERIAL FACT THAT THE BANK PUT IN THE
AGREEMENT THAT THEY LOANED ME SOMETHING, IT
IS EQUALLY MATERIAL TO PUT IN THE AGREEMENT
THEY RECEIVED A LOAN FROM ME OR RECEIVED
SOMETHING FREE FROM ME. I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW
THE COSTS AND RISKS BEFORE ENTERING INTO AN
AGREEMENT. I BELIEVE THE ONE WHO PROVIDED THE
CAPITAL THAT WAS DEPOSITED AND LOANED SHOULD
BE REPAID THE MONEY."
THEY HAVE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE AT THIS TIME.
IF THEY AGREE, YOU WON. IF THEY DISAGREE, THEY
LOOK FOOLISH BECAUSE THEY JUST AGREED THAT
THEY DENIED YOU EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE
LAW AND ARE INVOLVED IN A FRAUDULENT CON-
CEALMENT.
There are many ways to approach suing the bank. I only
showed you one method. If you were to file an actual court
case, I suggest hiring legal counsel to reword the lawsuit, add-
ing the proper legal requirements. This book only has limited
questions. The second book will have more questions and rea-
sons as to why we ask the questions. Expect the banker to lie.
228
Expect the banker to refuse to answer the questions. If you were

a banker, would you answer the questions?
WARNING: THIS BOOK IS NOT MEANT TO BE USED
TO SUE A BANK. IT IS ONLY MEANT TO TEACH YOU
WHAT THE REAL BANK AGREEMENT IS. I WANT YOU
TO BE THE JUDGE AND JURY AND DECIDE IF THERE IS
OR IS NOT A FRAUD. YOU DECIDE WHETHER THE BANK
TOLD YOU THE WHOLE TRUTH OR IF YOU FELL FOR A
TRICK.
If you want this banking system changed, you must help.
This involves distribution of this book and the materials ac-
companying it in order to educate the public. It also involves
casting an educated vote and electing the politicians who will
represent the people, not the banking interests. If we cannot get
such politicians into office, vote for me and I will work to stop
these practices myself.
53. THE FUTURE AND YOUR

INVESTMENTS
No one can fully predict the future. If your financial ad-
viser does not understand banking and the effects it has on the
economy, I do not understand how they can predict the future
economy. What is safe to invest in? During the Civil War, smart
Confederates exchanged Confederate money for British Pounds.
If the South lost, Confederate money would be worthless. Those
who made the exchange saved huge fortunes. I believe our
economy is very vulnerable to bank-induced recession or pos-
sibly even depression. If the people's income decreases for any
reason, house prices and the stock market could plummet. Bank-
ers make profits from unstable currency and stock markets. The
stock market has skyrocketed, but I expect the market to go
way down. No investment is safe when banks can create an
unstable economy for their profit. Please note that the govern-
229
ment can confiscate gold, as in 1933, for their own profit, but
are less likely to confiscate rare coins.
One must watch the money supply and the amount of new
loans. If the government balances the budget, there will be less
money created. If not enough new money is created, the
economy could collapse. If we remain under the European bank-
ing system, we must create new money to keep the economy
from collapsing. I fear that the bankers may wish to create a
depression. When bankers feel threatened, they tend to con-
sider this option. If the majority of the nation's people are out
of money and out on the street, the bankers usually feel they
are no longer a threat. This is why it is so critical to get out the
brochures and cassette tapes and have people read this book.
If we switched to a Constitutional banking system, we would
be safe from these bank-instigated depressions and could work
our way out of debt very quickly if the government cooperated.
I feel that the only safe investment is to correct the banking
problem. Having all the money in the world is meaningless if
the banks can control the stock market and government lead-
ers. If they continue to force the people into a cashless society,
wealth will be meaningless. Without freedom, you have no real
wealth.
Your best investment is in the time and money to correct
the banking takeover so we can prevent a depression and a con-
stitutional convention to end our rights. Today, when you play
the stock market, you are gambling and the bankers control the
odds. They will win. Even if you are personally out of debt,
your house and investments are collateral for the national debt.
You will go down with the others. It is only a matter of time.
The best investment you can make is to get out the brochures
and encourage others to distribute them in mass to save the
country.
230
54. MORE DECEPTION AND GREED TO

FOOL PEOPLE
There are deceivers in this nation. It does not matter if it is
the media, banks, courts, government, religions, a trusted friend,
or family member. It makes no difference. These deceivers are
experts in their field. They have had many years to perfect their
deception to the point where it is difficult to know that we are
being deceived. You and I work on the presumption that they
have told us the truth. They know that they tricked us. It is up
to you to spread the truth.
A few years ago, I produced a written manual and 15 hours
of cassette tapes explaining the alleged bank loan agreement.
No one was to receive the material without signing an agree-
ment to keep the material confidential. Agents of the bank re-
ceived a copy of the material. The next thing I knew, people are
receiving a computer disk with my copyrighted material, claim-
ing to have my latest material on disk. People were selling it or
giving it away, and others copied and distributed the disk so
people would not buy from me. I had purposely left out vital
information in case something like this happened. Someone
altered the information to be sure that whoever used it would
lose in court. All you need is a little false information mixed in
with the truth to lose. You can guess what happened. The coun-
terfeit information spread like wildfire because people wanted
it free instead of buying the genuine article. I had people call-
ing me; they were going to jail or losing a civil action case
against banks because they decided to violate my copyright and
buy a fake. Free counterfeit information is like counterfeit
money. Do you know how much money this counterfeit infor-
mation saved the banks in court costs? You have to admit, who-
ever it was that created the counterfeit information must be a
brilliant strategist. Everyone knew I stopped working for over
three years and lived off savings to research this banking issue.
The bankers knew I needed to sell my manuals and tapes to
231
survive. When the counterfeit information came out, people

stopped buying the genuine manuals and tapes from me.
What is the other advantage in having counterfeit informa-
tion circulate? The people I sold information to were told that
if I died or were put in jail, everyone was to copy and distribute
the information. Think about it, if something were to happen to
me now, who would know if it was genuine or counterfeit? I
will tell you this, plans have been made in case anything does
happen to me. New information will be copied and distributed
from hundreds of locations all across the nation on such a mas-
sive scale it will make history for generations to come. Any
attempt to stop the information from spreading will trigger the
distribution. I give the banks, government, and courts fair warn-
ing.
One person asked me to write a book with him. I said no.
He stole my information, breached confidentiality, and wrote a
book about the IRS and banking. He never really understood
the issues; he only wanted to make money selling the book. He
even claimed he won court cases. The strategy that he claims
works is faulty. I had to help more people out of jams because
of the greed of this man. You will not win in the regular courts
on the premise that the Federal Reserve Notes are illegal or
that they loaned a bank bookkeeping entry.
I received a telephone call from someone asking me if I
knew a John Doe. I said no. The caller claimed this John Doe
was telling people that he talked to me every week and that he
was working as my agent, helping people sue banks. I said I'd
never heard his name. The caller explained that this John Doe
was charging people $1,000 for information on how to get out
of their bank loans and credit cards. I instructed him to tell
people that I'd never heard of this John Doe. Please be aware
of John Does in the future.
I have always told people, "If you feel the bank breached
the agreement, hire competent legal counsel. I am not your le-
gal counsel. I do not make guarantees and I give no proof. No
one selling any of my information is to give proof or guaran-
tees. No one, not even an attorney, can guarantee an outcome.
The stakes are huge. The bank cannot afford to have it become
232
public knowledge that they lost, and neither can you. We have
a nation to save, not to destroy, and the banks know it."
Why is it that I refuse to give proof? If a bank settles out of
court and you sign a settlement agreement agreeing never to
discuss what happened, and information leaked out, you
breached the agreement and you will have to pay the bank debt.
All I can tell you is that if you are the first court case, so what?
If you are not the first court case, so what? Someone can win
today and another can lose tomorrow using the same argument.
There may be new case laws after the book is published. I can
assure you of one thing, this one book is not enough to win in
court. As this book is being written, I am writing book number
two. The second book has hundreds of questions to ask the bank,
the reasons why we ask the questions, and why they do not
wish to answer. All I can do is tell you what I know. At the end
of 1996, as I am writing this book, I am not aware of a single
jury trial where all these arguments were argued and the banks
won and published the case. I can tell you from the best infor-
mation I have at the end of 1996, that the bank attorneys have
tried to do everything in their power to stop a jury trial. Even
so, the bank attorneys have had cases thrown out so they can-
not be argued. If the banks won and if it were public knowl-
edge, I think the banks would show you the court case.
Where I have people teaching my information, they will
receive a letter every three months from me, stating that I al-
low them to instruct. Hopefully this will slow false informa-
tion from spreading. If someone is distributing my informa-
tion, they are not my legal agents and they cannot speak on my
behalf. I only train people to help others better understand this
information. If you wish to have additional training and be in
the know as to the latest information I have concerning the
courts, I would love to work with you. I am looking for people
to conduct seminars and sell information.
I do not want people who want to "bring down the banks."
I do not want to destroy the economy. The nation must change
the banking system. I want people who wish to bring the nation
back to its former greatness and glory under our founding fa-
thers' Constitution. I need people to teach others the money
233
issue and how to get our rights and liberties back. I need people
who are willing to do this within the law and in a peaceful man-
ner. I need you to help us make history.
55. YESTERYEAR AND THE FUTURE

To understand the future, one must know the past and re-
member how things have changed. Our founding fathers un-
derstood exactly what problems we have today because they
had similar problems over 200 years ago. Our founding fathers
gave us a Constitution granting us currency backed by gold
and silver. Today the banks have redefined money and made
money the opposite, forcing us into perpetual debt. Our found-
ing fathers signed a Declaration of Independence; our Congress
signed a Declaration of Interdependence, giving us the oppo-
site of what our founding fathers gave us. Before, the people
controlled Congress. Now, the money interests control Con-
gress. The Constitution prevented banks from destroying our
economy to gain a profit. Today Congress delegated their re-
sponsibility to the banks so they can own the nation's assets for
the cost of printing money. They can also scientifically create
depressions. The banks—Rockefeller—have quietly tried to
push for a constitutional convention in order to rewrite the Con-
stitution, taking away every right of freedom we have, includ-
ing those of speech, religion, and, of course, gold and silver, to
give today's banking system legitimacy.
Our founding fathers were tax protesters, trying to protect
us from big government intrusion into our lives. Congress to-
day wants a cashless society, claiming that, if you have nothing
to hide, you will accept a cashless society. Total absolute con-
trol over every citizen is the power grab they want us to agree
to. Our founding fathers gave us a sovereign nation. Congress
has been passing treaties with the United Nations to turn our
nation over to foreigners. They are even talking about a United
Nations tax on Americans. Our founding fathers gave us guns
234
to protect ourselves from domestic enemies within the govern-

ment. Just like Hitler, Stalin, and King George, who took away
the guns because they did not trust the citizens, State Depart-
ment Publication 7277 calls for disarming Americans and turn-
ing our sovereignty over to foreigners. The media calls you a
nut if you believe in your constitutional rights and is using
emotions to disarm you.
Japan did not invade the mainland because American civil-
ians were armed. They feared the armed civilians more than
our military. Today, we have large numbers of foreign military
troops within our borders. Can't we defend ourselves, or is there
a hidden agenda? Congress wants a national I.D. card so they
can identify and track every American and can take away the
guns. With all the sophistication of electronics, we cannot stop
drugs without taking away your rights. A simple old fashioned
reward, large enough to encourage people to turn in drug deal-
ers caught on video, would be more effective than current strat-
egies. No rights would be violated nor freedoms taken away.
No drug dealer would deal, simply out of fear of being caught.
Before abortion was illegal. They changed the law and now it
is legal. What was immoral two hundred years ago is now moral
because some lawmaker changed the law. Before adultery and
living together were socially unaccepted and outlawed. Today
the media takes great pride in pushing adultery. Result: it is not
popular in high school to be a virgin. V.D. is spreading like
wild fire, killing our population. If you dare think like our found-
ing fathers, they label you as anti-government in the new pro-
paganda war. Instead of the whole news, they only give you the
news they want you to have and silence the rest. Before, we
fought the Revolutionary War to stop today's kind of banking
system. In the past 85 years, the majority of the Presidents have
been bankers or directly linked to the powerful banking fami-
lies, enforcing what our founding fathers fought to prohibit. A
few years ago, one husband without a college education could
support a wife and family. Due to the debt that the banks force
on us through money creation, it requires most families to have
both the husband and wife work to pay all the bank loans and
235
taxes and to pay interest on the national debt that was not there
just a few decades before.
All this social engineering occurred and caused a flip-flop
of power because the nation believed the big lie about who
funded the bank loan check. We were ignorant of the nature of
coins, money, and credit. Before, "We the People" had control
over who was voted in. Today, the media and banks control
both political parties. Whoever you vote for, you vote for the
bankers' politicians. The deceivers knew what they were do-
ing. Those who believe it is wrong to lie and deceive never
dreamed that deceivers could lie to us and use social engineer-
ing to change a nation. Now it is obvious that bankers have a
different agenda than non-bankers. Others want your wealth,
freedom, and power transferred to themselves. The money in-
terests are not satisfied with just running the banks; they want
to control the nation. Only you can change it by distributing
brochures and forming groups to expose the truth and outrage
the nation. If you do, your children will have freedom from the
banking influence. If not, you lose every freedom you enjoy
today. America's future depends on what you do today. Have
our soldiers fought in vain only to hand over the country to the
bankers? Rally behind me and over 10,000,000 Americans who
wish to save this great nation and return our freedoms. Our
founding Fathers knew that freedom carries a heavy cost. Many
died to create and preserve it. I ask you to distribute brochures
to preserve what freedom we have left, to gain all our freedoms
back, and to significantly increase your wealth. Bankers took
your wealth. Now, if not stopped, bankers will have absolute
control over you. Bankers want absolute control of the nation.
The future depends on what you do today. Will it be freedom or
slavery for you and your children?
The people did not change. Someone is trying to change
the people. We must remember our history, roots, and what
America is all about.
236
56. OUR MISTAKE - THEIR GAIN

Soon after the first printing of this book, I called individu-
als who purchased it. This is when I realized I'd made a mis-
take. People were buying the book with the intention of using
the arguments in court, trying to prove to their friends that it
works. They were hoping the court win would cause everyone
to buy the book. I think the bankers were sitting behind their
big desks laughing at us, knowing this strategy would not work.
I have received a number of telephone calls from people claim-
ing that these arguments work in court if the case is not thrown
out. I have no proof that anyone won. Telephone calls telling
me their loans were canceled is not proof. Some rumors were
found to be false and other stories I believed.
Bankers know the courts are military courts, due to the bank-
ruptcy of the United States. The bankers are the creditors. The
gold fringed flag, the Federal Reserve Notes, and being denied
Constitutional lawful money of gold and silver are the proof.
The judge's job is to deny the Constitutional gold and silver
and equal protection under the law and to uphold the bankruptcy.
The judge understands the argument about the bank loan agree-
ment. His job is to make sure the bank process appears to be
legal. Judges are not stupid. They know that if you won and
could fax the victory to every American, the economy could be
destroyed. The only way to save the economy is to print United
States Notes interest-free, giving all Americans equal protec-
tion. Judges will not rule on a political decision about whether
we should use Federal Reserve Notes, United States Notes, or
gold and silver. Their courts cannot even hear that argument. It
is a political hot potato. And a case will not help a judge's ca-
reer if he rules against the bank. He must look for an excuse to
go to summary judgment in the bank's favor. The only other
solution is to have an out-of-court settlement whereby the bor-
rower must agree never to discuss the details of the settlement
or he must repay all of the loan. I believe this has happened in
a number of situations. I have been told how courts will issue
237
gag orders due to national security if a plaintiff actually wins

in court. The government and bankers cannot allow anyone to
win and brag about it. If you do win, it will not be because they
think you are right. It will be because they do not want the truth
exposed.
If you want to win in court, you must get the support of
hundreds of people in your area. To win the support of the
people, put on seminars, challenge the judges, sheriff, and lo-
cal bank presidents to prove you wrong. When they see hun-
dreds of people showing up at the meetings to cancel bank loans,
they will realize they have a problem, and that is when you can
win in court. They know 200 angry people in a group, deter-
mined to distribute 1,000 brochures, tapes, and books each, will
win a nation if it is done in every state.
We must get the message out to the people as a political
solution, not as a solution for the courts. If you want your wife
to have the option to stop working and maintain the same stan-
dard of living, then we need to get the word spread far and
wide and educate the people to vote for the candidates that will
follow Lincoln's example. Congress was given 1.7 million pe-
titions to correct the banking problem. Congress and the media
ignored Americans wishing to follow Lincoln and the Consti-
tution. Now we need to make a clean sweep and vote out ev-
eryone who thinks we should give the money to the banks for
free. The economic effect of stealing and counterfeiting must
end. Congressmen accepting money from the bankers to get
elected should be exposed. This will never happen without edu-
cating enough American voters. It is our job not only to wake
them up but to organize and win the elections.
Rather than spend time fighting in court, I recommend that
you learn how to double your money every 6-8 months the way
the bankers do. Money is power. If you turn $5,000 into $5
million in five years, and if 20 of your friends join you, you
would have the money to change the banking system and fol-
low the Constitution. For details, see the back of this book.
Double your wealth by helping foreclosure victims and
stopping the transfer of wealth from us to the banks.
238
57. MY RELATIONSHIP TO RESELLERS

Anyone can buy books in quantity at discount prices and
resell them at retail. I have no legal control over what someone
says or what information they might add to my book. Do not
associate me with other groups. Please realize, if I do not say
this, the media or government could plant a mole and claim I
agreed to things I never dreamed of.
I have a real concern that others may use my name to advo-
cate an agenda that is not mine. I am concerned that people
may use the Internet to misquote me. Changing only a few words
can change the meaning. If someone is using my name or pro-
gram in an unethical manner, I need to know who it is and a
telephone number and address to contact them in order to have
it stopped. I cannot know if I am not told. I need your help. If
you see something unethical, please tell me.
Resellers and seminar leaders do not speak for me. They
are independent. These individuals are acting like our found-
ing fathers, to restore the glory of this nation. The people must
learn the truth so they can act in a manner that will help us keep
our founding fathers' Constitution.
I need you and thousands of others to copy and distribute
brochures. I need 500 seminar leaders to join us. The truth must
get out and I depend on you to do it. There might be a bad apple
in the thousands joining us, but let us not allow the "bad apples"
to spoil the barrel. If you want to be a reseller or seminar leader,
just write me with your address and telephone number. I am
waiting to hear from you.
58. ANCIENT HISTORY

Many people believe that debt currency, an anti-Constitu-
tional banking system, started in Babylon. If you study an an-
cient book written about 3,500 years ago, it is clear that it pro-
239
hibits today's banking system. The name of the book is

Leviticus. Chapter 6 clearly explains what happens when a per-
son "deceives his companion in regard to a deposit or security
entrusted to him, or through robbery or if he has extorted from
his companion, or has found what was lost and lied about it and
sworn falsely, so that he sins in regard to any one of the things
a man may do: then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty,
that he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by
extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost
thing which he found, or anything about which he swore falsely;
and he shall make restitution for it in full, and add to it one-
fifth more."
Judge Mahoney called today's bank loans robbery. Con-
gressman Louis McFadden, former Chairman of the House
Banking and Currency Committee, claimed bank loans are a
swindle.
Is it deception to get a borrower to falsely swear that the
bank loaned the bank's money when in fact the bank took the
borrower's security, deposited the security (money) and returned
your money to the same borrower as a loan?
It is interesting that the law of Israel made it a crime to
charge interest to another citizen. The author of Leviticus also
wrote Deuteronomy. The 19th chapter in Deuteronomy contains
the following: "If the witness is a false witness and he has ac-
cused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he
had intended to do to his brother." If we had followed the an-
cient law of Israel, then today's banking system would be out-
lawed. Every time a banker takes an alleged debtor to court to
collect using the false witness (the promissory note with your
signature claiming there was a loan) you would have your debt
canceled, and the banker would now have to pay your debt. If
Moses, the author of these two books, were here today, judging
and enforcing the law as he did 3,500 years ago, your debts
would be canceled, and the banker would be forced to pay your
debts.
Jesus kicked out the moneychangers, calling them robbers.
Are we being swindled? To swindle means to cheat or to de-
fraud a person of property or money. Did the bank conceal the
240
true nature of the agreement and transaction to obtain your prop-

erty for free? The early church condemned today's banking prac-
tice by refusing to give Christian burial and communion to
moneychangers (today's bankers). If the church leader even
received alms or offerings from a moneychanger, the church
leader was suspended.
According to the New American Standard Holy Bible, 1
Corinthians 5: 9-13, if a person claims to be a Christian and is
a swindler (banker), the swindler must be removed from the
church. Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House
Committee on Banking and Currency called today's banking
system a swindle. Judge Mahoney called today's banking sys-
tem robbery.
If you are a banker, you know one thing about human na-
ture: ethics can be purchased for a price. Many preachers would
refuse to be involved in or to approve of a swindle. If a swin-
dler put $100 into the offering plate each week, would the
preacher remain silent? Suppose the preacher is afraid that the
members would quit the church and stop tithing if he were to
say that swindlers must be removed from the church. History
shows that nearly everything evolves around the love of money
and who can get his hands on it. Who has the correct informa-
tion? Who believes the lies?
Most preachers say that it is a sin to steal and to lie (breach
agreements). When it comes to a swindle, and it affects the
preachers salary, you will learn just how ethical and honest the
preacher really is and whether he really believes what he says.
Expect the preacher to wiggle, wanting his salary and not want-
ing to become involved. Expect him to say that he does not
understand or that he does not want to know or that it does not
pertain to his job.
What the preacher is really saying is that he loves the de-
ception and that he will allow the swindle and the deception to
continue; he is saying that he does not love the truth and does
not want to preach the truth because he is more interested in his
salary. I was in a church like that one, and I left it. How could I
pay tithe to a religious organization supporting what I believe
to be a wicked crime?
241
One church I attended promoted a moneychanger by adver-

tising for him in the Sunday Morning Bulletin. I confronted the
preacher and gave him my book. He said that he did not want
to know. I asked the preacher to have the moneychanger tell
the truth in the written loan agreement so that there would be
no lying and deception. I explained that if I go to church, I
should be told the truth. I should not be told a lie or be sub-
jected to deception through his advertising. He said that he
would continue to support the moneychanger; then he asked
me to leave the church. The preacher always spent about ten
minutes before each offering pushing the people to give ten
percent of their salary to the church. Later, I discovered that
the church paid out about $600,000 in salary to the church staff.
I was able to count as staff, the preacher, three other men (and
possibly their wives), a secretary, the preacher's two daugh-
ters, and possibly the preacher's wife and his mother. The
preacher was protecting the family's profits.
I do not believe the preacher can remain silent on this is-
sue. If he refuses to come clean and tell the congregation the
truth, then we must question him on every other issue. When
the congregation stops tithing to his religious organization, he
will get the message.
What would happen if the churches followed the Bible and
the congregations started passing out the brochures? In a short
time, the banking system would be corrected. The wealth would
return to the people and the church would have more than
enough money to support the churches' activities. The church
would tell its people about the banker's dream of a cashless
society prophesied 1,900 years earlier in Revelation. The truth
could save the nation.
The preacher is like the major media. Because of money,
he remains silent on an issue he should be boldly speaking out
on and informing the congregation. If a swindle is a swindle,
we should expose it. If the bank loan agreement is good for
America, we should expose the whole truth about the financial
transaction and the economic effect that is similar to stealing
and counterfeiting, and leaves Americans in perpetual debt with
very little money.
242
Ancient history is about to repeat itself. When the member-

ship of the church refuses to tithe to a church who will not kick
out the moneychangers, the doors of the church will close for
lack of money. Churches who are pure and kick out any swin-
dler will be supported by the people and will grow stronger
and stronger. All we have to do is spread the truth and support
preachers who preach the truth. Just stop tithing to preachers
who refuse to tell the truth.
59. SHOULD I SUE THE BANK
I am against suing the banks, but I am for a political settle-

ment. Definitely, do not enter into a class action lawsuit. I ex-
pect the banks to bring a class action lawsuit against themselves
to be sure the people lose and they win. There are trillions of
dollars at stake. If a judge rules against the bank, it not only
ruins his career, but the bank can create other problems. No
matter how valid your argument is, it is the judge's responsi-
bility to uphold the national bankruptcy. I have seen many
strange things happen in court. Courts have railroaded and de-
nied people rights and forced foreclosures even when the bor-
rower correctly claimed the promissory note was a forgery and
the bank never loaned one cent of legal tender as consideration
to obtain it. One person sued the bank and the bank never an-
swered the lawsuit and the court refused to sign off on the pa-
perwork. Even though the bank refused to answer, the judge
ruled in favor of the bank and then took the borrower's prop-
erty.
Too many times, people tell me they want to win in court,
prove my information works, and fax it to everyone in the na-
tion. The government will try and stop you from faxing a win
to others. They fear everyone will cancel their bank loan. Un-
der European banking, if the bank paid its debt, which cancels
your debt, there is no currency left. We need to print sovereign
United States Notes, interest-free, to save the nation from eco-
243
nomic ruin. We need a political solution, not a court decision.

No judge will allow you to fax a win against banks to anyone.
The court will seal the case and you will not be able to discuss
it with anyone. It is possible that you may get out of your loan,
but I predict you will not be allowed to discuss it with anyone.
I make no guarantees and give no proof of wins.
If you sue, do not expect the banks to play fairly. The judge
may receive a bribe. The judge knows if we follow the Consti-
tutional banking system, there will be less crime, less divorce,
fewer foreclosures, and many attorneys and judges will be out
of business. You are asking the judge to commit financial sui-
cide by ruling in your favor. The only way to win in court is to
distribute my brochures to enough people that the judge and
lawmakers know that everyone will be aware of the truth in a
short time. The judge must rule in your favor or he will be in
fear of being dethroned from his lofty office and labeled as a
bank agent, and be dealt with accordingly as a conspirator
against the people. When enough people remember history and
how we fought the Revolutionary War to stop today's banking
system, the voters will join us and want out of their loans. People
will understand that the judge breached his oath to uphold the
U.S. Constitution. Distributing my brochure, free cassette tape,
and book is the key to winning and stopping foreclosures.
If too many people win in court, all the bankers have to do
is change the rules and make it very difficult for us to continue
to win. If enough people wake up and want out of their loans,
the bankers cannot easily change the rules in favor of the bank.
The politicians will have to vote in laws that favor the people
or the people will vote them out of office. The safety of this
nation rests in the people learning the whole truth about bank-
ing and following Abraham Lincoln.
244
60. HELP WANTED

Lawmakers, judges, police, and the media will not help the
people until the voters wake up and are able to vote them out.
We must begin a grassroots effort to get the voters informed
and support the Statesmen who are campaigning for office to
correct the problem.
Americans needed to return this country back to the sort

our founding fathers intended.
We need seminar leaders full time and part time. The pay is
excellent. Buy Mr. Schauf's books wholesale and sell them re-
tail. Be instrumental in making history, changing the banking
system, and returning the wealth back to the people where it
belongs.
Distributors needed. Whether you purchase 10 books whole-

sale to distribute or become a major marketer, you are needed.
Leaders that can help organize groups to educate and get

brochures distributed, you are needed in our country's most
desperate hour.
Help is needed to get Mr. Schauf on radio and TV. We need

you to contact your local stations and ask for Tom Schauf to be
the guest and to spread the good word.
Writers are needed to write editorials in newspapers to get

the word out.
People willing to learn how to become wealthy using the

system instead of fighting it are needed. Money is power and
money can be used to correct the system. People with millions
can do more than people who are broke.
245
Every American is needed to get the truth out so that

America can be set free.
If we have 200 people in every state copy and distribute

three brochures every day as they go to the gas station or gro-
cery store, we will get out almost one million brochures every
month. One million brochures equals one percent of voters
wanting out of their loans. Soon, one percent — then five
percent — then ten percent of voters will want out of their loans.
Soon, the nation will join us and we will win. It is up to you to
organize and make it happen.
Applicants, please write and include a self-addressed,

stamped, business size envelope, your telephone number, and
the best time to reach you. Tell us that you wish to save the
country and be a leader, wholesaler, seminar leader, etc. Tom
Schauf wants to talk to you and he thanks you in advance for
your help.
If you wish to join and help save America, write to Tom

Schauf, c/o P.O. Box 97015, Las Vegas, NV 89193-7015.
61. YOUR RIGHTS, THE LAW, AND

STOPPING TYRANNY
I would never have written this book without including this

chapter. This book must be taken as a whole and not divided
into sentences nor taken out of context to change any mean-
ings. We need a political change. All we ask for is a bank loan
agreement with full disclosure as to who funded the bank loan
check, the economic effects to nonbankers, and equal protec-
tion under the law between, bankers and nonbankers. Vote me
in as President and I will correct the problem.
246
Jury rights are critical to winning in both civil or criminal

courts. If this information is ever on trial, I would inform the
jury of jury rights. A juror has the right to not only judge the
facts but the law as well. The judge will try to stop the jury
from finding out that the jury can judge the law. What does that
mean? If lawmakers pass bad laws, the jury can make that law
null and void and find the accused person innocent. One juror
can save a person from going to jail if he feels it is a bad law.
The following information is critical for this book. The in-
formation below is from a brochure by the Fully Informed Jury
Association (FIJA).
TRUE OR FALSE? When you sit on a jury, you may vote

on the verdict according to your own conscience. "True," you
say — and you're right. But then...
(1) Why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only
the facts," that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of
the law, nor the motives of the defendant affect your decision?
In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and
provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full
and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.
But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, es-
pecially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the
verdict according to their conscience. Instead, they end up as-
sisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who
will admit to knowing about this right... starting with anyone
who also admits to having qualms with the law.
We can only speculate on why: Distrust of the citizen jury?
Disrespect for the idea of government "of, by, and for the
people"? Unwillingness to part with power? Ignorance of all
the rights and powers that trial jurors necessarily acquire upon
assuming the responsibility of judging a case? Actual concern
that trial jurors might "misuse" their power if told about it?
(2) How can people get fair trials if the jurors are told they
can't use their consciences?
247
Many people don't get fair trials. Too often, jurors actually
end up apologizing to the person they've convicted — or to the
community for acquitting when evidence of guilt seems per-
fectly clear. Something is definitely wrong when the juror feels
ashamed of his or her verdict. They should never have to ex-
plain, "I wanted to use my conscience, but the judge made us
take an oath to apply the law as given to us, like it or not."
Too often, jurors who try to vote their conscience are talked
out of it by other jurors who don't know their rights, or who
believe they are required to reach an unanimous verdict because
the judge "said so."
If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts," their job
could be done by computer. It is precisely because people have
feelings, opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we
depend upon jurors, not upon machines, to judge court cases.
WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN TO SERVE, REMEMBER:
(1) You may, and should, vote your conscience;

(2) You cannot be forced to obey a "juror's oath";
(3) It is your responsibility to "hang" the jury with
your vote if you disagree with the other jurors!
THE RIGHT DECISION WHEN THE LAW IS WRONG.
"FIJA" is a national jury-education organization which both

educates juries and promotes laws to require that judges re-
sume telling trial jurors "the whole truth" about their rights, or
at least to allow lawyers to tell them. FIJA believes "liberty and
justice for all" won't return to America until the citizens are
again fully informed of their power as jurors and routinely put
it to good use.
248
DID JUDGES FULLY INFORM JURORS IN THE PAST?
Yes, it was normal procedure in the early days of our coun-

try and in colonial times. If the judge didn't tell them, the de-
fense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders under-
stood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed
of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its
proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.
John Adams, our second president, had this to say about
the juror: "It is not only his right, but his duty ... to find the
verdict according to his best understanding, judgment, and con-
science, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, put it like this: "I
consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man
by which a government can be held to the principles of its Con-
stitution."
These sound like voices of hard experience. Were they? Yes.
Only four decades earlier, a jury had established freedom of
the press in the colonies by finding John Peter Zenger not guilty
of seditious libel. He had been arrested and charged for print-
ing critical, but true, news stories about the Governor of New
York Colony. "Truth is no defense," the court told the jury! But
the jury decided to reject the law and acquitted him.
Why? Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed
the jury of its rights; he related the story of William Penn's
trial, of the courageous London jury which refused to find him
guilty of preaching Quaker religious doctrine (at that time an
illegal religion). His jurors stood by their verdict, even though
held without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days.
The jurors were fined and imprisoned for refusing to con-
vict William Penn, until England's highest court acknowledged
their right to reject both law and fact, and to find a verdict ac-
cording to conscience. It was exercise of that right in Penn's
trial which eventually led to recognition of free speech, free-
dom of religion, and of peaceable assembly as individual rights.
American colonial juries regularly thwarted bad laws sent
over from mother England. Britain then retaliated by restrict-
ing both trial by jury and other rights which juries had won or
249
protected. Result? The Declaration of Independence and the

American Revolution!
Afterwards, to forever protect all the individual rights they
had fought for from future attacks by government, the Founders
of these United States included trial by jury, meaning tough,
fully informed juries, in our Constitution and Bill of Rights in
three separate places.
"Bad law", special interest legislation which tramples our
rights, is no longer sent here from Britain, but our own legisla-
tures keep us well-supplied. That is why today, more than ever,
we need juries to protect us. The court represents some level of
government, federal, state, county, or city, pressing charges
against a defendant. Though the government has almost unlim-
ited funding, it can be held in check by the appeal process and
by our jury system.
In 1895, a divided Supreme Court held that there was no
Constitutional requirement that juries be informed of their right
to nullify. (Spars and Hanson, 156 US 64). Note that they did
not deny the right! Most in the legal profession do not approve
of jury rights because it puts the jury in power. They argue that
it will create anarchy, but juries used to be informed of their
rights and there was more justice then than now!
Did you ever stop to consider how demanding the jury sys-
tem is on our common law? The jury must consist of peers
(equals) of the defendant, there must be twelve jurors (unless
the defendant were to waive this right), the evidence must prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict must be unani-
mous. It is quite a system! How often have you heard the re-
sults of a criminal trial and wondered how a jury could have
reached such a verdict? All too often it seems that it is the inno-
cent who are unjustly punished.
Sometimes jury members tell you they had no choice be-
cause the judge said they must base their verdict only on the
facts presented during the trial. The judge misled them! Prior
to this century, juries were informed they had the duty to judge
not only the facts, but whether the law was unjust or misap-
plied and what the motives of the defendant were.
250
Today juries still have that duty. This power permits the
people to administer not only the law, but justice, and to nullify
unconstitutional or unjust laws. For example: there is a law that
prohibits firing a gun into the air. It is a good law because the
bullet may fall on someone and injure them. But... a man en-
tered a woman's home, armed with a knife and demanded
money. She brandished a revolver and the man backed toward
the door. She fired over his head and he ran off. She was ar-
rested for firing a gun into the air!
In this case, the jury must decide if the law was properly
applied and examine the motives of the defendant. She clearly
broke the law; however, they could find her innocent. Some-
times the law itself may be judged. For example, during the
1850s, juries refused to convict persons for the harboring of
runaway slaves. They believed the law was wrong.
Many judges may disagree with informing jurors of their
rights, but they cannot punish jurors who choose to vote their
conscience or question why they reached such a decision!
References:
* 1771: "It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, in that
case to find the verdict according to his own best understand-
ing, judgment and convictions, though in direct opposition to
the direction of the court." Second President of the United
States, John Adams.
* 1789: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imag-
ined by man, by which a government may be held to the prin-
ciples of its Constitution." Third President of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson.
* 1852: "For more than 600 years, that is since the Magna
Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English
or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it
is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the
facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the
accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and
251
paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold

all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive,
and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution
of, such laws." From an essay on the Trial By Jury by Sander
Spooner.
* 1969: "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize

the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is
contrary as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence....
If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is ac-
cused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the ac-
tions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their
logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts
must abide by that decision." 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
* 1991: "It stands to reason that when popular discomfort

rises to such a degree that juries regularly refuse to enforce a
law, legislators are more, not less, likely to take notice." Justice
W.C. Goodloe, Retired, Washington State Supreme Court.
* "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no

courts are bound to enforce it." 16 AmJur 2d, Sec. 177, late 2d,
Sec. 256.
In modern America, we still find ourselves appealing to our

legislatures to "grant" various liberties, such as equal rights for
women, for gays, for minorities, etc., having been mesmerized
into believing the government has the power to make such
grants. By doing so, we are permitting government to assume
powers it has never been given by the people, especially not by
our Constitution. Just by asking, we are saying that the govern-
ment can also deny our rights and liberties when it chooses.
Hopefully, this doesn't mean we will have to write the Dec-
laration of Independence all over again in order to remember
the guidance, therein, that all rights are inherent, being "en-
dowed by our Creator" ... as "unalienable." Human rights can
neither be given nor denied by any human nor earthly power. It
is only by false acceptance of the idea that authority can grant
252
them that we permit despotism to take them away (Godfrey

Lehman).
Why haven't I heard about "jury rights" before now? In the
late 1800s, powerful special interest groups inspired a series of
judicial decisions which tried to limit jury rights. While no court
has yet dared to deny that juries can "nullify" or "vote " a law
or bring in a "general verdict," some hypocritically have held
that jurors need not be told about these rights!
Today, it's a rare and courageous attorney who will risk
being cited for contempt for telling jurors their powers without
first obtaining the judge's approval.
However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972, the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an
"...unreviewable and irreversible power ... to acquit in disre-
gard of the instruction of the law given by the trial judge. The
pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of
its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for ex-
ample, acquittals under the fugitive slave law."
62. WHAT DOES TOM SCHAUF STAND

FOR?
America first, with all rights and liberties envisioned under
our founding fathers' U.S. Constitution. America, an
,indept sovereign nation. Restoring honest money, rejecting the
cashless society.
Bringing back manufacturing jobs to America and giving

people the higher paying jobs they deserve.
A strong military to defend our borders and national

inters et out of the United Nations. Return State rights and State
.G
citizens.
253
Ending personal IRS tax and balancing the budget by end-

ing bank-created money, issuing United States Notes free of
interest, and giving us equal protection under the law. The gov-
ernment can collect enough taxes through business income tax,
sales tax, excise tax, and import and export taxes. A prosperous
economy will give us more tax revenues.
Restoring family values by cutting taxes and bank debt, al-

lowing wives and mothers to have the option to stay home and
maintain the same standard of living today as with both spouses
working today.
Stable, loving homes (part of the result of eliminating the

stress of debt). Honest money will cut divorce rates and we
will see more mothers with the time to stay home and help their
children grow up.
Not denying students their religious freedom.
Keeping the church separate from government taxes. Al-

lowing the church freedom of speech instead of IRS tax deduc-
tions denying churches their proper function and right to speak
out on political issues.
Encouraging students to use the Golden Rule, teaching right

and wrong as our founding fathers taught it. Giving babies the
right to choose life, not death.
Restoring this nation to the glory that our founding fathers

intended. They intended this to be a Christian nation.
Employing the unemployed and underemployed by correct

ing the banking system.
The right to have private retirement alternatives instead of

Social Security. Protect Social Security for those who wish to
continue by protecting the economy and making it prosperous.
254
Protecting Medicare for those who wish to continue using

it.
Seeking better, more cost-effective medical alternatives

without the government hindering us from using vitamins, min-
erals, herbs, and other natural treatments.
Freeing all political prisoners in America and putting the

real criminals in jail.
Allowing juries to judge the law as well as the facts, and to

be properly informed of this right by the court. Allowing citi-
zens to judge, convict, and sentence judges and police who vio-
late their oaths of office.
Ending the Emergency War Powers and Trading With the

Enemy Acts. Abolish any law that is in violation with the U.S.
Constitution, making null and void any Amendment not law-
fully passed and reinstituting those passed and ignored.
Restoring education. Let parents choose the school or the

home school that their children attend. Use a voucher system.
Promoting alternative energy sources.
Promoting jobs in America first. Trade with other countries

in a responsible manner that benefits all Americans and not just
the rich.
Fighting crime by creating prosperity. There will always
be crime, but we can cut it significantly by creating an economy
that is thriving, with good paying jobs available. Guns are not
the issue. A person with no money or food is desperate enough
to commit a crime. We need to help create a situation where
less people are desperate by correcting the banking problem.
Citizens receiving compensation for losses due to current

government agents' violations of their oaths of office to uphold
the U.S. Constitution. If you lost property due to illegal gov-
255
ernment seizure, fraud on the court, bank loan fraud, taxes, law
enforcement abuse, etc., you will be compensated for your loss
provided you are upholding the intent of our founding fathers'
Constitution.
The government passed laws to arrest people wanting to

change the banking system, calling them financial terrorists, or
lobbyists. These laws prove the current government regime is
working for the banks. I'm merely running for president and
this book describes my platform. I need your help to get elected,
or help Charles Collins become president (912-994-4064). Ei-
ther of us are capable of correcting the problem. This book was
written like a court case so you can decide who is right and
wrong. If you agree with Tom Schauf, help spread the word so
we can fix the problem.
63. LEARN THE SECRETS OF MAKING

MONEY
This book has shown you the secrets of banking and how it
has harmed the citizen. If the banking system has upset you,
you will most likely become more upset over what the drug
companies, telephone companies, and major corporations have
done to you. If people understand what these large companies
have done, I believe we could turn this knowledge into wealth
for the average family. Having a job is defined as only one pay-
check away from ending your incoming cash flow and filing
bankruptcy. One of my goals is to begin using my CPA and
business brokerage background to show people how to own your
own business and bring the wealth back into your pocket where
it belongs. Most people have a dream to work for themselves,
have extra money to take the vacations and have the extra car,
vacation home, boat, and airplane. Today, the wealthy know
how to make money. If we can show others how to honestly
make extra money and not be dependent on a paycheck, fami-
256
lies will be better off and marriages will improve by eliminat-

ing the financial pressures.
Colleges teach you how to be an employee. My goal is to

show people how to stop being employees and own their own
businesses. In the near future, I want to begin helping people
become independent. If this interests you, send me a letter, your
telephone number and the best time to reach you, and a self-
addressed stamped business size envelope to Tom Schauf c/o
P.O. 97015, Las Vegas, NV 89193-7015.
Imagine having the banks return all the money they recorded
as a loan from you to them, plus owning your own business. It
could easily happen if we get the truth out to enough people.
257
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) Committee to Restore the Constitution Newsletter, Bul-
letin (Colorado: Non-Profit Corporation) P.O. Box 986, Ft.
Collins, Colorado 80522.
2) Howard Metz, The History of the Federal Reserve, How

to Replace it or How to Reform it! (New York: Metz, 1990).
3) M.J. "Red" Beckman, Walls In Our Minds (Billings:

Common Sense Press, 1990) P.O. Box 1544, Billings, Montana
59103.
4) Rev. Casimir Frank Gierut, A.B.; B.A.; A.A.S., Savings

and Loan Unethical Bailout (Westmont: Taxpayers Against
Bailouts, 1992) P.O. Box 156, Westmont, Illinois 60559. (I
highly recommend this book.)
5) Rev. Casimir Frank Gierut, Repeal The Federal Reserve

Banks, Pandora's Box of Criminal Acts (National Committee
to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act, 1983), P.O. Box 156.
Westmont, Illinois 60559. (I highly recommend this book.)
6) Charles S. Norburn and Russell L. Norburn, A New Mon -

etary System (Omni Publications, 1975) P.O. Box 900566,
Palmdale, California 93590.
7) William J. Federer, America's God and Country Ency-

clopedia of Quotations (Fame Publishing, Inc. Coppell, Texas,
1994).
8) Bill Still, On The Horns of the Beast, The Federal Re-

serve and the New World Order (Reihardt and Still Publishers,
1995) 4250 Cedar Creek Grade, Winchester, Virginia. To order
call 800-345-6665; (highly recommended by Tom Schauf.)
258
9) America, The FED, and the IRS: A legacy of Greed and

Deception (Video) A Documentary — Commentary . Association
For US Constitutional Research, Los Angeles, California.
Divvy10) Kidd, Why a Bankrupt America (Project Lib-

erty, 1995) P.O. Box 741075, Arvada, Colorado 80006-9075.
11) Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, Trusting the People (New
York: Harper Collins, 1996).
12) H.S. Kenan, The Federal Reserve Bank (Los Angeles:

Noontide Press, 1970).
13) William Greider, Who Will Tell The People (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1993).
14) Howard Metz, The Social Security and Pension Con-

spiracy (New York: Metz, 1981).
15) Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, The Coming Cashless

Society (Harvest House Publishers, 1996).
16) Thomas Fitch, Dictionary of Banking Terms (Barron's

Educational Series, Inc., 1993), 250 Wireless Boulevard,
Hauppauge, New York 11788.
17) Robert Henry Goldsborough, Lines of Credit: Ropes of

Bondage (Washington Dateline, 1989), P.O. Box 5687, Balti-
more, Maryland.
18) The Spotlight, 300 Independence Ave. SE, Washington,

D.C. 20003
19) The American Bulletin, Article: Putting the Record

Straight - "Titles of Nobility" vs. Representatives of the Na-
tional Archives, Library of Congress and others. February 1997),
(541) 779-7709. (I highly recommend you subscribe to The
259
American Bulletin. They have the latest and hottest informa-

tion in the country.)
20) The Piracy of the U.S. Constitution History of the

Missing 13th Amendment (American West Publishers), P.O. Box
986, Tehachapi, California 93581, (805) 822-9655
21) Operation Vampire Killer, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix Ari-

zona, 85066
22) Lightning over the Treasury Building, John Elson, (Form

Publishing Co.)
260
If the bank is innocent and has nothing to hide, have them

sign this:
AFFIDAVIT
The undersigned affiant, being duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:
That he/she is an officer of the below named financial institution, a na-
tionally chartered commercial bank or lending institution or organiza-
tion purchasing promissory notes, hereinafter called bank. That, as an
officer of the bank, he/she has the authority to execute this affidavit on
behalf of the bank and to bind the bank to its provisions. It is understood
that an exchange is not a loan. It is understood that the borrower's prom-
issory note is not used to fund any check. It is understood that the bank
does not record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a bank
liability. It is understood the bank complies with and follows the Federal
Reserve Bank's policies and procedures. It is understood that the bank
does not use the same or a similar bookkeeping entry to record the prom-
issory note as a loan to the bank. It is understood that when banks par-
ticipate in granting loans the economic effect is not the same or similar
to stealing, counterfeiting, or a swindle. Banks who follow the Federal
Reserve Bank's policies and procedures deny customers neither equal
protection under the law, nor money, nor credit. The bank fully discloses
to each and every borrower all material facts concerning if the borrower
provides the funds to issue the bank loan check or if other depositors or
investors fund the bank loan check. It is understood that the one who
funded the loan should be repaid their money. It is understood that cash
is the money and a bank liability indicates that the bank owes cash. I
agree that if I have made a false statement regarding bank loans, then
any and all loans or alleged loans issued or purchased at the bank are
forgiven, without recourse, and shall immediately be considered null and
void. Signed under penalty of perjury.
Signature of Bank Officer

Print name of Bank Officer
Name of Bank
Address of Bank
City/State/Zip ___
Sworn to and subscribed before me this __day of ____, 20__.

Signature of Notary Public - - - - - - - - - - - - -
261
ORDERING BOOKS
Volume 2 of this series is described in detail in the follow-

ing pages.
The Secret Banker's Manual detailed in chapter 43 describes

laws and strategies that the bankers do not want revealed in
court. This manual is constantly being updated. It also gives
you information on investments with potentially high rates of
return. You must sign an agreement to keep the contents of the
manual secret before you can purchase it.
To order Tom's other books, ask your local distributor or

use the internet. Search under Tom Schauf for a distributor near
you.
262
VOLUME II
The American Voters Vs. The Banking System

By Tom Schauf
This book is the sequel to Mr. Schauf's first book. Volume
I was designed to bring everyone up to a certain level of knowl-
edge. Volume II presumes you know the material in Volume I
and shows you why people have lost in court. One judge and
one attorney working for the banking interests accidentally gave
us the information everyone needs in court. There are more
quotes from the Federal Reserve Bank to prove our case, in-
cluding FED quotes of false statements claiming that they loan
other depositors' money or they must admit that they deposited
the promissory note.
Mr. Schauf has taught thousands of certified public accoun-
tants on a national level in courses for continuing education to
renew CPA licenses. These courses teach CPAs the art of testi-
fying as an expert witness. Volume II will give you the training
to dismantle the bank loan agreement and to ask the bank's ex-
pert witness hundreds and hundreds of questions to prove that
the borrower funded the check. Some questions are designed
for the bank auditor and others for the banker. Volume II teaches
you how to ask the same questions in different ways. Arguing
with the bankers without having Volume II is like getting half
dressed for your wedding. One of the secrets of winning is hav-
ing the banker's expert witness agree that you are right. When
they learn you own Volume II, they will know you have the
training needed to destroy their arguments. Volume II will give
you the ability to become the banker's worst nightmare. Vol-
ume I combined with Volume II teaches you why we ask the
questions so you can follow the twists and turns of your oppo-
nent and expose them for who they are. Seminar leaders, legal
counsel, and anyone arguing for a political change needs Vol-
ume II. Volume II is the advanced course and Volume I is the
prerequisite. Mr. Schauf only wishes to sell Volume II if you
have purchased Volume I. The discount price of Volume II is
263
$25.00 and includes shipping and a bonus cassette tape per-

taining to the book. If ordered without tearing out the coupon
in Volume I, the cost is $50.00 Do not copy the coupon. This is
your incentive to buy Volume I when you buy Volume II. If you
do not own Volume I and wish to order Volume II, I suggest
you order the two books together so that you receive both books
for $50.00. This price includes shipping. To order, please clearly
print your name and mailing address with zip code (or postal
code in brackets). We suggest you give your telephone number
so we can call if we have trouble reading your writing. Send
$50.00 to Tom Schauf, c/o P.O. Box 97015, Las Vegas, NV
89193-7015. Arizona residents send an extra 7% for sales tax.
Please make out money orders or checks to Tom Schauf. Cash
is welcome, but we are not responsible for cash. Depending
upon inflation, we reserve the right to increase our prices ac-
cordingly.
264

America's Hope - Thomas Schauf - Vol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

America's Hope - Thomas Schauf - Vol

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

America's Hope - Thomas Schauf - Vol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

This book explains in everyday English the federal

Thanks for helping us save America.

Distributed locally by:

Thomas Schauf has a diverse background. He gradu-

Who funded the bank loan check, borrower or banker?

Nothing But The Truth Press

Copyright © 1997 by Thomas D. Schauf

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or

Printed in the United States of America

Seventh Printing: April, 2002

If the government issued cash using United States Notes

ing your neighbor interest or he would foreclose and own the

Key concepts will be repeated a number of times in various

Experience has shown that even a competent CPA bank

The goal of this book is to arm you with the information

Ancient history records leaders like Hannibal and Caesar

This book was not written with the aim of overthrowing

This book is based solely on the definitions as given in this

The definitions of words in this book are unique and only

Agreement: Written terms and conditions between two or

Asset: Anything owned that can be sold. A car, house, legal

Bank agent: Anyone who benefits from the current banking

and attorneys as in U.S.C. Title 22, Sections 610 - 615, or in

Bank-controlled media and publishing companies: Any

Bond: A bond is a promissory note — an IOU agreeing to re-

Check: The Federal Reserve Board defines a check as "a

Consideration: The reason for entering into the agreement.

legal tender (cash). A check written without first depositing an

Counterfeit(er): To forge. To alter or change a document

Counterfeit money: For purposes of this book, this means

Credit: The postponement of the payment of money. The

Damage: In court you cannot win damage awards without

Deposit: Money or negotiable instruments (checks) or com-

Equal protection: Bankers and nonbankers having the same

Exchange: Trading value for value. To barter or swap. Ex-

Forgery: Counterfeit. Most people think it means your sig-

Fraud: Intentionally perverting the truth for the purpose of

Fraudulent concealment: The hiding and/or suppression of

Larceny: To steal. Theft by gaining possession of another

and having the economic effect of a theft. Depositing a promis-

Liability: A bank liability means the bank owes a depositor

Lien: The right to someone's property or assets as a result

Loan: Money or asset advanced or delivered to another party

Misleading: Delusive, to misrepresent, to deceive, and to

Money: As defined in this book, money must be a bank

Promissory fraud: When the bank claimed they would loan

ation for the promissory note, it was a misrepresentation of the

Promissory note: A promise to return money loaned to a

Stolen: Theft, receiving something for free when you agreed

Thief or theft: Obtaining the promissory note without the

United States Notes: This book refers to Silver Certificates,

ernment as United States Notes. A note is an obligation. By

Wealth: Property/asset which has value and can be sold.

These terms are designed to illustrate the economic effect

1. HIGH SCHOOL POP QUIZ

Mr. Jefferson taught high school economics. The class was

The first student wrote, "There are two banking systems.

under the law. There is no economic effect of stealing or coun-