Check Signature Tiny Unreadable Words

[Bluegreen]

I can think of no better individual(s) to ask this question before I go to the bank than my fellow Avalonian(s):
What's this about the line under your check signature not being a solid line but a series of unreadable tiny words meaning (something else)?

[Zanshin]

The wording is usually 'authorised representative' repeated over and over in micro print,
although it may be the name of the bank (still means the same thing).

This is evidence that the checking account belongs to the bank and you are merely one of their agents.

When you deposit funds in the account you depose yourself of those funds - you give them to the bank.
They are no longer your funds, they belong to the bank - although you have a 100% interest in the funds.

It gets deeper, where in signing the application for the account - your signature creates the money.

The bank takes the application (commercial paper) to the Fed and accesses your Birth Certificate account to
draw down funds into an escrow account in their ledger which sits for 3 years until it is declared abandoned.
If we don't claim the funds (we created) using a 1099A tax form as an acquisition after 3 years the bank claims
the funds using the same form as an abandonment. This is the money they then fractionalize at least 10 times.

[genevieve]

Zanshin--

If I open a checking account by depositing $100 (FRN, not a check), the bank accesses my BC escrow account--for what amount? How can the bank access my BC account when I've already given them the $100?

What amount would we claim on a 1099A? (Not that I'd consider doing this kind of stuff, but I'm curious.)

Does the bank ALSO fractionalize the $100 I deposited?

This banking scam is really hard for me to wrap my mind around, and believe me, I have tried. I used to think I was pretty smart, but banking practices have given me a different think.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Zanshin]

Hi genevieve,

Brandon Adams has said the amount was $100 000, then back in about 2010 it jumped up to $250 000, as this
is the amount needed to open a treasury direct account (this might have been for a limited time).
I think in that case you would leave the amount blank on the 1099A. My limited understanding of
this form is to let the IRS know that the bank has drawn the funds from your collateral account and
letting the bank know that they know - effectively freezing the funds for the creditor (us).
What becomes apparent is that we fund the system with our energy - we are the creditors if we
know how to operate correctly. The banks are borrowing our energy to fund their very existence.

There are two levels of accounting going on in banking - call it private side and public side for simplicity.
The banks are licensed to convert private asset money (money of account) into public liability fiat money
(money of exchange).
All the fiat notes we use in the public venue are liability or debt because they were borrowed in to existence
from the Fed - ergo they must be paid back with interest.

The three agencies involved in the conversion are the Fed, the SEC and the DTC - Depository Trust Company
(55 Water St. NY. - this is the Jesuits, apparently moving upwards of $20 trillion in commercial paper [money of account] everyday).

Where all corp/orations (dead man/speaking) are just piles of paper, we (possessing living energy) are the
only thing of value in the system. Every time we sign some thing we give it value - the motion of moving the
pen over the page evidences the energy and intent of a living being backing the commercial paper.

So when we get a 'loan' from the bank we create the 'money' with our signature on the application (commercial paper). This authorizes the bank to draw down money of account from our collateral account into their escrow account. This stays off ledger to us whilst they create another ledger with a corresponding liability (fiat note) entry which the bank 'loans' to us and we have to 'pay back'. If we don't claim our interest in the off ledger asset in escrow with the 1099A (and get it returned to us by the IRS using a 1099OID[a whole other topic]) then after the 3 years the bank moves the asset into their consolidatedrevenue (without telling the taxman) and then fractionalize it.

This works the same if we open a deposit account or power, phone, gas, water, etc. account - where our signature
on the application funds the transaction. The statement of account is actually a request from the corp. to access our asset account and the remittance slip is really a cheque which if properly accepted and endorsed should zero the account - using money of account book keeping money - not hard earned sweat equity money of exchange. Again that's a whole other subject - under the title of Accepted for value (A4V). There's heaps of material on the net but personally I feel Brandon from Creditors in Commerce or Winston Shrout are hard to go past.

So the bank is fractionalizing our money of account asset not the fiat liability money of exchange sitting in the public side account.

This was really set up for our benefit back in 1933 when they introduced Birth Certificates, although it was immediately hijacked by the cabal. This is where the off ledger funding comes from for all the black budget programs. They are stealing our energy to fund the break away civilization but they are doing so with our consent.
This whole fiction construct was created to facilitate the amount of commerce that occurs daily and we have signed up for the benefits and privileges of having our affairs managed by this system.

So where 'Ignorance of the law (contract) is no excuse' the solution lies in educating ourselves as to the true nature of the system then taking responsibility for our action and the contracts we are involved in.

[genevieve]

Zanshin--

WONDERFUL explanation. Thank you so much.

I already understood some of the process, but didn't realize that the bank gets to tap into the collateral account--and for an amount way beyond my $100 FRN!
And this results from my signature I give them when I open the account, correct?

If what I just said IS correct, no wonder I've had such a hard time grasping this. My $100 converting to something like $250,000 for them is SO far out there that even now I'm asking the question: Is this correct?

Do you know what happens to the frozen account funds after a 1099A has been filed? Is this a way to prevent the creation of more debt, since the bank would then not be able to access the $250,000?

Thanks again. One more piece of the frickin' puzzle is in place.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Bluegreen]

Thank you so much for this information, which is new to me.

[Zanshin]

Thanks genevieve and Bluegreen,

I still struggle to get my head around this stuff, and I've had a few years to absorb it now.
To paraphrase Winston 'Don't worry, as long as they don't run out of ink and paper - they'll
never run out of money.'
When we consider the PUBLIC side of the derivatives market is measured in QUADrillions, I
think that gives an indication of the magnitude of this creature.

Brandon does an excellent job of explaining how to claim back our interest in the funds using
1099OID's in his living temple classes 2009. When people started using his information they
clogged up the whole tax return system (a lot of of times with incorrect filings). People also got
cheques back from the IRS of up to $1 million. The IRS filed a suit against Brandon (and his
father and brother, I believe) but Creditors in Commerce is still going strong years later, so I
guess he was able to deal with it.

The concept is that as the Original Issuer of the funds we are entitled to an original issue discount (OID)
where the proper way to use the tax return is to return the funds to the issuer to be reused (less tax
plus a processing fee).
If we all reused the existing funds properly instead of creating new funds (by signing another loan application)
then we would reduce the national debt.
Brandon also advocated buying treasury notes with the OID money as most times it was money people had
not expected and could invest in buying the national debt back from foreign interests. A tax free return
on investment is also attractive.

CiC now conducts Mastery workshops to create a network of competent mentors to assist people
to become proficient in controlling their contracts through setting up private trusts to manage their
affairs - and just showing people how to conduct themselves as creditors, rather than the debtors
most of us have been educated to be by the public fool system

Rockefeller said 'Own nothing - Control everything'. The truly wealthy don't appear on the Forbes
richest list - on paper most of them are penniless paupers. The true power is in controlling the
debt, a skill they are taught from the cradle.

Sadly most people are completely unaware of the power they possess, but I am one of those who
feel this is changing - the truth bought daily on this forum cannot go back in the box.

One of the basic principles of being a true creditor as espoused by Brandon is service to others along
with taking responsibility for our selves in our actions and contracts.
Perhaps then, we will see a cashless society where the need for money becomes obsolete.

Creditors in Commerce audios are available free for some workshops - the video is available to members.

http://creditorsincommerce.com/audio

I've plugged Brandon's free video intros from Living Temple 2009 before:

http://creditorsincommerce.com/videos-watch

This first was Brandon's very first prepared public presentation and still one of the best around as far as
I'm concerned.

http://creditorsincommerce.com/videos-watch-cic-lt-001

Be Well.

[genevieve]

Thanks, Zanshin. I'll no doubt eventually watch/listen to some Brandon vids. Kinda' busy right now.

Have you used OID or A4V?

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Zanshin]

Hi genevieve,

haven't gone near the OID thing - although technically the Australian system is just a sub corp.
of the US global system. The concept being that FRNs are a global currency as the reserve for
the world - implying that the US is the only country in the world without a domestic currency.

I'm playing around with A4Vs at the moment and do have first hand knowledge of successes
using them - failures also.
The challenge seems to be compelling performance on the part of the corps and govt.
Tendering the instrument is the first part, but holding the recipient to account involves
having a good grounding in contract law and negotiable instruments law so as to use
their silence (usual response) as tacit acquiescence that the ledger needs adjusting.(zero the acc.)

I guess the one thing it always comes back to is knowing who we are - repeated ad nauseum
by Brandon and co.

Where realizing we are the authors of our experience extrapolates to our energy being the source
of the currency we are using to facilitate the flow of commerce.
This knowing forms the foundation that A4Vs etc. are not a way of getting away with not paying for
stuff - but rather that operating this way is to act responsibly as a creditor behaving honorably in
contract.
Backing ourselves with this solid foundation translates to being solidly grounded and stable when
challenged and tested by the system.

There will be tests.
This along the lines that we are operating under a blocked system of credit - where if everyone
could just sign for their stuff we'd all be driving Ferraris and no one would be taking out the rubbish.
[I don't subscribe to that view but that's the concept behind blocking the credit.]
So under that system if we behave incompetently in our contracting we don't merit the ability to
access our credit and our competency WILL be tested.

I guess my advice to anyone looking into this would be -

Know Who You Are, Know the role you are playing in your contracts,
Do your research, your due diligence -
then
Pick your battles and follow through to the end - giving up half way is not an option.

This basic knowledge of the true nature of how money functions is fundamental to any global reset
that is going to benefit the people and crucial to any efforts to attain a higher level of consciousness
for all.

Christian Walters always said - 'the ones running things at the moment don't amount to a hill of beans
compared to the rest of us'.
To simplify it I always liken it to the concept of a concerted boycott of one particular corporation's products
or services. How long would it take for a concerted grassroots effort by the people to topple one of these
multinational conglomerates?
If the cash flow dried up for long enough the other corps would tear the one apart like so many jackals.

May the truth set us free