2014 will be the 100th anniversary of the ‘Bradbury Pound‘: debt- and interest-free ‘treasury money‘ as the UK equivalent to Abraham Lincoln’s ‘greenback’ – the sane, honest and healthy alternative to ‘bank money‘: dishonest credit produced by banks from thin air.
James Gibb Stuart, author of the Money Bomb – banned from the shops in 1983 – as the ground breaking book wrote this article about the Bradburys.
The writers of the Bank of England Act 1694 knew about the power of creating money and trading with it aka usury or making money out of money – the deadly sin of riba in Islam. In 1913 the Federal Reserve followed suit. Syria and Iran are the only countries left without a Central Bank a la Anselm Rothschild:
“Give me the power to issue a nation’s money; then I do not care who makes the law.”
Posted in Bank of England, Family Law, Globalisation, Judges, Ministry of Justice, MPs, Parliament, State kidnapping, The Rule of Law, The Rule of Money, UK Government, Victim cases
Tagged Abraham Lincoln, Crime, Forum for Stable Currencies, Foster care, House of Commons, House of Commons of the United Kingdom, James Munby, Merlin Hanbury-Tracy 7th Baron Sudeley
It’s not just me who learned from victims of financial exploitation and legal oppression and therefore understands the term ‘kleptocracy‘.
There’s also an interesting book: Our Corrupt Legal System [Except Rich Criminals] and there are those people who write Wikipedia definitions.
This 39-page document is a list of good questions and a treasure trove of quotations relating to the capitalist debt-based system that rules the world today.
The Bank of England Act 1694 was written when the Bank of England was founded to create £1.2 million from nothing and lend them at 8% to William III to finance his war against France.
Section XXVI was written with the intention not to “seriously oppress Their Majesties subjects by the corporation not to trade“. A fine of three times the value of abusive trading is foreseen.
Nowadays, the Bank does not only trade extensively, but keeps creating money from thin air and supervises all other banks that trade extensively with Dishonest Money.
EDM 1297 spelled it out for the last Parliament before the election.
EDM 597 repeats our request to “tackle the serious oppression of HM subjects”.
Here’s my second input to the Your Freedom data base of “ideas” for the Coalition Government:
This act was written when the Bank of England was founded in 1694 – with the intent “not to oppress Their Majesties’ subjects”.
Its Section XXVI says the “Corporation is not to trade”. That means no “financial products”. No buying and selling of currencies, debts or other “instruments” such as “central bank money” created through “quantitative easing”.
The Act is published by the Office of Public Sector Information which is Part of The National Archives.
The Act seems to have been written with the intention of “Their Majesties’ subjects not to be oppressed” by the Corporation.
Our Early Day Motion 1297 suggests that Her Majesty’s subjects have been seriously oppressed and that this oppression needs to be addressed.
More on Enforcement of Bank of England Act 1694.
Why the idea is important:
- Austin Mitchell MP has formulated in Early Day Motion 1297, tabled on 20/04/2009, that HM subjects have been seriously oppressed by the Bank’s failure to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system over which it presides; and therefore suggests that this oppression should be dealt with as the Act provides by fines three times the value of abusive trading.
- Under the subervision of the Bank of England, all monetary and financial institutions turn electronic entries into “money”, as if their “credit money” had been printed and minted by the Royal Mint.
- Economists have created a pseudo-science to camouflage what banks are doing and what the effects are of the banks’ privilege to create “money” from thin air.
- Nobody checks how good “credit money” is or how much is reasonable or appropriate. Thomas Edison proposed to print bills “to move trade enough to prevent stagnation but not enough to permit speculation”. See Repudiate This Lie of a Debt!
- “Central bank money” requires interest, but nobody creates the interest necessary to pay off any “credit money”. Therefore everybody needs to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. This means an acceleration of the need to borrow for those who need money. Since WWII, the share of Cash compared with “credit money” in the economy has gone down from 47% to barely 3%. See What is the Cash Crumble?
- Debts are legally enforceable. Banks encourage debts, mortgages and credit, while the Government is cutting public expenditure and announces an “austerity budget”. The only budget item that has grown is the payment of interest on the national debt. See The growth of interest payments in austerity budget.
- Hence the financial industry controls the real economy by controlling the national debt and lobbying in Westminster. Labour MP Norman Smith said in 1945 “there is always enough money for war, but never enough for health and education.”
- Our submission to the Treasury Select Committee Green Credit for Green Purposes suggests that the Treasury finances jobs with Cash that it can create without interest as easily as banks and the Bank of England do it for interest.
- The Treasury does not have to borrow or tax. It can use the Public Credit for Public Purposes.
This article is an interview with J.S.Kim, founder of the investment consulting firm SmartKnowledgeU.
It is an excellent analysis with the simple conclusion: ignorance is the key to their profits.
I just wish he also proposed how to get rid of central banks…
We should have guessed. “Fobbing off” is the policy of anybody who gets accused or questioned. When it contains inaccuracies, it presents us with challenges:
- who gets ‘honest justice’ in a profoundly ‘dishonest money system’?
- what can parties, injured by the establishment, do when they are up against impunity of the establishment?
- who controls the controllers?
Here’s the the two-page letter that Mervyn King sent to Austin Mitchell MP:
We then wrote:
“Her Majesty’s subjects have been led to believe that the United Kingdom is governed by common law which ensures that wrongdoing will be punished and that justice will prevail. We also have been led to believe that a person who helps to conceal criminal activity will be liable for prosecution as a partner in crime.
We would be most grateful then to know the authority–statute, case law, custom or privilege–that the Bank of England relies upon to ignore evidence of fraud. There must be a specific answer to this important question, even if the answer is that there is no answer.”
The second fobbing off letter from Mervyn King looks like this: