How can we pay a debt with a debt?

DISCLAIMER NOTICE: This article and all other posts on this blog is intended for educational purposes only. None of these posts constitute legal advice in any way. If you want legal advice, and a wordy, rambling rebuttal of this article, and a dent in your wallet, go see a lawyer.

This is my understanding and it could very well be totally wrong or wrong in places. It is for my readers to decide.

How can we pay an alleged debt? when all we have to pay with is pieces of paper that in itself is a promise to pay.

Each note we have in circulation is a promise to pay! it states that plainly on the face of the note. So we have an alleged debt and
we pay it with more debt, how does that work? to me all we are doing is making a bigger debt, we are digging a bigger hole for ourselves
and our progeny.

All debt notes are borrowed into existence by our signatures as new money, which is really just more debt, so please tell me where
the wealth is? is it in we the people or in the banks? I would say we the people are the value. Our time, and our energy drives the
whole thing, but what do we get for our efforts more debt and if we do not give them our debt notes thereby making the debt bigger,
our property gets stolen.

To me the whole system is a giant private banking *ponzi* scheme and quite possibly a fraud. These accounts were never designed
to balance they were designed to enslave us with mind numbing debt for all of us, our families and our families family. We have been
enslaved to run around a hamster wheel to nowhere until the wheels come off.

It is my understanding that almost all Governments went bankrupt in the early 1930’s. They are all in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, this
would include all Countries in the EU, every single one of them, and we the people of Europe are unwittingly the collateral for a debt
that is not ours as there is no means to pay any debt because the system is designed such that we cannot pay it down, that is deliberate
fraud is it not?

When we receive a letter from a debt collector or a bank we could ask the following questions:

  1. Validation of the debt (i.e. the actual accounting showing company name with real losses, if any);
  1. Verification of your claim against me (a sworn affidavit or a hand signed invoice in accordance with The Bills of Exchange Act 1882);
  2. A copy of the contract signed by both parties and therefore binding both parties to the agreement.
  3. A certified copy of the Original Note (Credit Agreement), under penalty of perjury and with unlimited liability with confirmation that this Note, has never been sold.
  4. Furthermore confirm the name of the individual who is the duly authorised representative from your company, who has carried out due diligence under The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and what actions s/he has taken in relation to this account.

I am currently working on a template for validating an alleged debt which when finalised I will put on it’s own page in the top menu.

For furthering your education on how currency is generated with all it’s hidden secrets take a look at this video below.

If we have a chance and it would be better in the public we could ask a politician the following questions:

1. Do you agree with me that we use fiat currency?

2. Do you also agree with me that fiat currency has no intrinsic value and the only reason it works is because we have faith that shops etc take it in exchange for goods and services?

3. Do you also agree that we cannot pay a debt with another debt?

4. So would you agree that because we are paying a debt with a debt we are creating a bigger debt?

5. Would you agree that the system is therefore fraudulent?


1. He has to answer yes.

2. He has to answer yes.

3. He has to answer yes.

4. He will not want to answer this question.

5. He will not want to answer this question either.


Our Reply to Mrs May – 11.12.2017

This link is “The List’s” reply to Mrs May Letter. Note the mention of “Austerity” which is a political decision taken by most Corporations/Governments  and does not have to be that way. Are not all Governments Sovereign and if they have the political will can print their own money of credit as an example the “Bradbury Pound” used before during the second world war. Why do we have Private Banks controlling the economies of these Corporations pretending to be Governments?

: Our Reply to Mrs May – 11.12.2017

Leave a comment

First Reply

The link to the first reply from DExEU Correspondence Team i.e. the PM by a proxy. Note the use of the term “Partners” not Countries, could that be because they and we are Corporations are all Corporations. We are in a Corporate merger and now we are leaving.

:First Reply

Leave a comment

Email to Mrs May 5.12.2017

The third letter sent from “The List” sent as a reminder to Mrs May also denoted as a fact.

: Email to Mrs May 5.12.2017

Leave a comment

Second Email-24.11.2017

This is a link to the second letter which was sent to the Prime Minister. The full colons denote a fact.

: Second Email-24.11.2017

Leave a comment

First letter-24.11.2017

This is a link to the first letter sent to the Corporation commonly known as the Government from The List – Brexit dot com

: First letter-24.11.2017

Leave a comment

Background to the General Election Manifesto 2015 and the EU Act 2015


  1. The Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015 promised a referendum on membership of the EU in the following terms: “We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.” The Conservative Party won that election in May, 2015. The British people were given a politically and constitutionally binding promise in the election manifesto that they would be given the final and deciding say in a referendum in which the majority would prevail.
  2. During the debate (Hansard) on the Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015, the Foreign Secretary said:- “This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.”  He went on to say “Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House.”

See source

European Union Referendum Act 2015.

Leave a comment

Bercow Petition

via Bercow Petition

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: