Copyright Notice:Copyright Notice:

Mike Montagne is founder/author of Mike Montagne is founder/author of Mathematically Perfected Economy Mathematically Perfected Economy

or MPE or MPE

ALL MATERIAL is subject to (C) ALL MATERIAL is subject to (C) copyright, trademark, and license by copyright, trademark, and license by

Mike Montagne and PEOPLE For Mike Montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy. Mathematically Perfected Economy.

The following presentation is a transcript of The following presentation is a transcript of a a half-hour YouTube video herehalf-hour YouTube video here, which is, in , which is, in turn, an excerpt of a longer, nearly four-hour turn, an excerpt of a longer, nearly four-hour

internet radio show called internet radio show called Cancel The Cabal from June 8th, 2014. Cancel The Cabal from June 8th, 2014.

Cancel The Cabal: Can we go ahead and get into what you're helping people do with school debt?

Mike Montagne: Yeah, well these actions, these Faux-Creditor Actions, they apply to any debt that precipitates from the obfuscation; exploitation of our production through the money system, through obfuscation of money. So a case that I can describe -- because it's exemplary -- is a case in Spain. I've been given power-of-attorney over this case in Spain. I'm not a lawyer. In this case in Spain I was told six months, a year earlier, that I might be required to provide help to these people. Mid-September of last year, these people who have two very substantial debts were visited by the bank to whom the debts are ostensibly owed, ABN Amro Bank which is a European bank. I believe it's headquartered in the Netherlands.

Anyway the debts are these and we have to understand these things to put all this into perspective. But this family (the gentlemen is a few years older than I am; I'm 62) they have this property, it's a small ranch in Spain, they are citizens of the Netherlands living in Spain and have ostensibly borrowed this money from this bank. And understand from what we said so far money is not actually borrowed into existence. We're the real issuers of money. Therefore the fact of credit doesn't even exist. So it's only by denial of our right to issue promissory obligations that we're actually in fact forced artificially forced to borrow money. So given that we have all that digested, we can put this case in to perspective.We're the real We're the real

issuers of money. issuers of money.

This property has been held by this gentleman's family since approximately nineteen-thirty, the first Great Depression. It's a small ranch in Spain - they call them fincas - so they have this finca which has been in their family since nineteen-thirty, over which time to now it's been refinanced many times. I was to be provided this history, it's been mentioned in conversation. I've never actually received the records. They're not really material to the case, but they are material to getting a perspective of the magnitude of the issues at hand with this bank and how they're resolved by a single letter here.This property has been held by this This property has been held by this

gentleman's family since approximately gentleman's family since approximately nineteen-thirty.nineteen-thirty.

Anyway, the last time that this ranch or finca was refinanced the best I can tell was about thirty years ago, somewhere in the vicinity nineteen-eighty or thereafter and the debt has been serviced as an interest only loan ever since then. And now we in the States here find will find that, that's an uncomfortable thing to think, that since nineteen-eighty. But this is pretty much standard practice I'm learning in Europe. Nonetheless at that time it was refinanced to have a value 5.3 million euros and it's an interest-only debt which means that all the payments that have ever been made against that 5.3 million of principal have never been applied to the principal. And we can all imagine how many times that this finca has been paid for just since nineteen-eighty, let alone since nineteen-thirty....the debt has been serviced as an ...the debt has been serviced as an

interest only loan...interest only loan...

So that's one of the debts. The other debt is a 1.6 million euro unsecured personal loan also issued byABN Amro Bank about six or seven years ago. This family - their son - they've got, you know, on their ranch they've got their own stables and barns, polo grounds. The house is what we would consider to be a mansion. In any case their son had a polo accident, fell from a horse, broke his neck and has since been paralyzed from the chest down. Mr. Van de Brand, who's a businessman had to quit working to take care of his son and he took out this 1.6 million euro unsecured personal loan to pay medical costs and two tread water while he wasn't working in his regular endeavors and took care of his son. So, we have the 5.3 million euros of property value and we have a 1.6 million euro unsecured personal loan or approximately 7 million euros of debt at stake here.

Approximately September 15th of last year the Van de Brands were visited by a Mrs. Inge Moonen ofABN Amro Bank. To the best I can tell, I don't know what her exact job description is, but she must be in charge of repossessions across Europe if she flies from the Netherlands to Spain to visit the Van de Brands and to apprise them to get their personal possessions in order; that they'll be out of their home within a week. So the next day or so Mr. Van de Brand contacts a gentleman, Jacob Schot, who's a longtime advocate Mathematically Perfected Economy in Europe. Jack is also a citizen of the Netherlands living in Spain, a neighbor of Carl Van de Brand's and they met each other just sometime over a year ago or so. And Jack had apprised me that I might be relied on to help with this case.

So two days after Inge Moonen visits the Van de Brands to apprise them to get their personal possessions together, that they're going to be evicted in a week, with five days left, we have a three-way conference call. Mr. Van de Brand gives me his basic situation and gives me power-of-attorney to interact with the bank on his behalf. What happens: I write the letter that I'm about to readto you and basically we never hear from the bank or its legal team in Spain since. That's approximately nine months ago now. No payments have been made. by the time the Van de Brands had contacted me in September last year they were more than a year in arrears on both these debts. Not a payment has been made then, since approximately 21 months, has been paid, and the last nine months transpiring since the letter that I'm about to read.

This letter presents two questions and as we would understand from the previous discussion that we've had those two questions invalidate any claim that the debt precipitates to the banking system. The banking system, in turn, cannot afford to take us to court then, in attempt to impose its implicit claims against the Van de Brands because if this matter is decided in a court of law on its veritable arguments then a legal precedent would be established which would bring down the banking systems across the world.

I have pilot cases since actually 1976 on this same matter and I found since - actually on my birthday, January 14, 1976 - that never does the banking system challenge my arguments. And the only reasonable reason to presume that would be is, if presented as these arguments are presented, that they realize they will lose and that therefore they can't go to. Because in losing they set a precedent which brings down the banking systems across the world. Now we can speculate how that's handled behind the scenes and of course, I've done so for many years obviously. But I'll leave it to your own intuition to imagine how that transpires so that we can concentrate on the matter at hand.Never does the banking system Never does the banking system

challenge my arguments.challenge my arguments.

I write this letter and it's basically over. We do hear once from the bank and we hear once from its legal team in Spain. I sent six letters to the bank all together. And the only time they replied was after I believe it was the third letter that I sent. I sent a letter every ten days for three letters and they replied that the reason that they didn't answer these questions I'm about to read - I'm about to read there's two questions here - the reason they didn't answer was they didn't have a copy our power-of-attorneyagreement to which I replied effectively, B.S., Mr. Van de Brand sent you himself copies of my letters, verifying therefore there indeed I had, in my own words, been granted power-of-attorney, interacting with the bank and himself. Furthermore since he provided my two questions, there wasn't any legitimate reason whatsoever that the bank not answer to Mr. Van de Brand himself, but that the bank had no case whatsoever.

So we never heard from the bank after I told the bank outright that they have no case whatsoever; no claim whatsoever to either the principal or the interest. They turn it over to their legal team a few weeks later. I didn't receive the letter from the legal team in Spain because, well, I doubt they actually sent it to me. But Mr. Van de Brand gets a copy of what they claim to have sent me and I don't receive for some reason. You can imagine why that would be, of course. So the legal team basically claims that Mr. Van de Brand has ignored all the appeals of the bank and that he's in arrears and that they have to process this debt immediately, which means of course eviction, foreclosure, repossession and resale of the property.So we never heard from the bank after I told the So we never heard from the bank after I told the

bank outright that they have no case whatsoever.bank outright that they have no case whatsoever.

Cancel The Cabal: So they're trying to bully him, basically.

MM: Yes. But I wrote about a ten-page letter taking this lawyer to school, proving that he was in violation his oath, if even represented the bank. I spanked him very very thoroughly. In fact it's a hysterically funny letter. You've never seen a - if I was the the legal team in Spain, I would be embarrassed to ever appear in a court of law where that letter might be read in the trying of this case because I re-present the questions that I presented in this original letter and, other further questions as well. And they don't answer and after I write this one letter back to their legal team in Spain we never hear. ...if I was the the legal team in Spain, I would be ...if I was the the legal team in Spain, I would be embarrassed to ever appear in a court of law...embarrassed to ever appear in a court of law...

So, two letters from the bank or, one from the bank, one from its legal team. The bank claims it couldn't answer my questions because it hadn't received power-of-attorney agreement which we immediately - we just had a verbal agreement - we immediately produced a written one, sent it to them with my immediate reply, B.S., Mr. Van de Brand sent you the questions himself, including my assertion that I'd been granted power-of-attorney, implicitly corroborating the fact in the very least. The bank claims it couldn't answer my The bank claims it couldn't answer my

questions because it hadn't received questions because it hadn't received power-of-attorney agreement...power-of-attorney agreement...

And so then we hear from their legal team. I'd be glad to read all these letters if you want, they're hysterical. The final one that I sent to the lawyer - and they haven't - they've never responded to that letter. And the Van de Brands are still in their home. Of course the problem here is that we don't have closure. But the fact of the matter is the bank is at bay. It cannot take them to court without losing on the further grounds of the fourth plank which I didn't express. Maybe I explained it, but our fourth plank of these Faux-Creditor Actions and the letter that I sent to the lawyer exercises the fourth plank. the Van de Brands are still the Van de Brands are still

in their home.in their home.

The fourth plank holds that being as the banking system has been allowed this unwarranted and unjustifiable power to obfuscate our promissory obligations to each other into faux debts by effectively issuing an irredeemable promise to pay - that is what it presumes to be a promissory obligation - for which it makes no provision whatsoever to redeem or pay. Therefore we as private citizens cannot be denied the like right and therefore the very letter that I send offers to resolve the debt in the very substance which it's ostensibly created. So if the court is to decide to sustain the implicit arguments of the banking system, then we've repaid the debt in full on the other hand by issuing an irredeemable promise to pay, which forces... ...we're not claiming to resolve the debt, but to ...we're not claiming to resolve the debt, but to

resolve the resolve the falsifiedfalsified debt... debt...

Cancel The Cabal: Just like they did.Yes. Which we're not claiming to resolve the debt, but to resolve the falsified debt, you see? So we're pleading for our first three planks, which is to resolve our promissory obligations to each other to the only rightful state thereof. So with all that in mind, we understand the scenario that this letter has been sent in. But it's being sent to people who may not even understand this obfuscation this letter then is exposing it to them. Tacitly at least, or implicitly, it's a shot across the bow. It's a warning, tongue-in-cheek of what we want to go to court over, tempting the banks to try us. Hopefully, what we want is to go to court. We want to go to court because these letters actually expose our entire strategy. We want to go to We want to go to

court.court.

There's no tricks to be played. We're not - this isn't a gimmick to get out of debt. It's arguments that resolve our debts to the only rightful state thereof, which resolve ninety percent of the world's debt, plus. It's probably the high nineties, very high nineties in fact. So anyway all that in mind think about these words as you'd receive them if you were the banking system. I'm certain that this letter and other letters that I do like it are relayed across the banking system."...it was after I sent this letter that you "...it was after I sent this letter that you

started hearing about bankers all over the started hearing about bankers all over the world committing suicide."world committing suicide."

What are we going to do about this? What would be the best ideas that you have?The central bank is going to say:

Don't you dare take these people the court. Because if this case is tried on the grounds that they're raising, the whole

ruse is up. We lose this power to obfuscate their promissory obligations into falsified debts to us. We lose this power to dispossess every country of the world by an obfuscation of their currency, which inevitably precipitates in terminal dispossession and dysfunctionality. We lose this. Here's a

check for whatever they owe you. Shut up, don't go to court, leave them hanging in limbo without closure. Because you go to court and we all come down and you're going to pay

the price for that.

So this letter is effectively turning banker against banker against banker, behind-the-scenes thinking what are we going to do? In fact, it was after I sent this letter that you started hearing aboutbankers all over the world committing suicide.Cancel The Cabal: Bingo!

So this is the letter I send this letter two days after the Van de Brands are notified in person by a woman flying from Netherlands - the woman I write - that they'll be out at their home within a week they've got five days left when when she gets his letter. Her name is Inge Moonen. So, without further ado...It's a warning, tongue-in-cheek of what It's a warning, tongue-in-cheek of what

we want to go to court over, tempting the we want to go to court over, tempting the banks to try us.banks to try us.

Dear Mrs. Moonen,

I have been granted power-of-attorney regarding the matter of ABN Amro versus Carl and Sue Van de Brand. I look forward to resolving related matters and over the next few days I do intend to furnish an initial response to the position of the bank as much as the bank's implicit position can be understood from circumstance and given information.That sentence puts into perspective a fact that the arguments for what must be their claims, if they're claiming payments have to be made of principal and interest, the arguments don't exist anywhere inthe world. And I've been researching this with help of many people for almost 50 years now.

I look forward to resolving related matters I say and over the next few days I do intend for each in an initial response to the position of the bank, whatever that is, as much as the bank's implicit position can be understood from circumstance and given information lacking any further given information then. All that can be understood from this circumstance is the implicit position, which of course is no legal argument.

I understand that contractual obligations may be asserted to exist which essentially then must derive not only from ostensible agreements between ABN Amro and other banks in the assumable transmission of ostensibly lent monies, but most importantly also from commensurable consideration originating in faithful performance of a public trust inherently existing in the ostensible creation and acquisition or transmission of money by and between the banks of banking systems.

I would be much obliged therefore for immediate, full and faithful disclosure of ABN Amro's prior knowledge of the trust it may or may not even agree exists in the proposition that money can indeed rightfully be lent into existence. Specifically we desire to know without confusion evasion or equivocation how it is that banking contends it creates money as purported debts to a purported banking system which may or may not even give up commensurable consideration in the process. This after all, is something we would expect you already know from such plentiful and faithful documentation as legitimate enterprise would already have provided.

...it's the unjustifiable imposition interest then, as if the principal was at stake, which

precipitates in terminal dispossession.

Thus it is, nonetheless, that we hope we may understand with appropriate certainty that such consideration as each resultant debt is indeed conveyed, that truly legitimate arrangements ensure to an actual creditor who indeed gives up property for promissory obligations, that the representation of entitlement which money must in turn represent then is ensured to every actual creditor......in which the bank cannot be one.

...and furthermore, that it is both possible and practical under prevailing conditions for resultant obligors to fulfill their natural obligations to every such actual creditor, when in practice they might only sustain a necessary or vital circulation by a perpetual escalation of borrowing, in which principal and interest only returned to circulation as irreversibly escalated and therefore inevitably terminal sums of otherwise falsified debt. In other words given such global conditions as would corroborate such projected consequences we're further concerned that the implied obfuscation of our promissory obligations to each other indeed inevitably precludes fulfillment of whatever contractual obligations banking otherwise might only claim utterly without legitimate grounds.

Given the grave ramifications of an irreversible multiplication of falsified debt then, it is of course also important... ...this is our second question. The first is commensurable consideration....it is of course also important in the affairs truly self-governed people that it can be demonstrated that already existing and assumably self-evident justifications of these processes are prior public knowledge and that such prior public knowledge has indeed conferred truly knowledgeable public assent. Necessarily then, the both must be comprehensive not only of the prospective lack of commensurable consideration but also have every potential implication.

That would be including inevitably terminal monetary failure dispossession and dysfunctionality.Thus assuming the evident volume of the requested material imposes no excessive burden... ...Because all the they required to provide these answers, if they exist, is to point us to where these accounts are that justify either question's answer in history...thus assuming the evident following the requested material imposes no excessive burden we also desire all the information you can provide as veritable testament to knowledgeable public assent.

I thank you then, not only on behalf of myself and the Van de Brands for your kind assurances regarding each of these vital dependencies, I thank you furthermore on behalf of all deserved citizens whose well being indeed depends upon their sovereign right to knowledgeable assent.

Warm Regards,Mike MontagneEnd of contest....we also desire all the information you ...we also desire all the information you

can provide as veritable testament to can provide as veritable testament to knowledgeable public assent.knowledgeable public assent.

Cancel The Cabal: Great stuff there! So commensurable consideration is the Achilles Heel of the fraudulent centralized banking system.

MM: Absolutely. That's what it all comes down to. And a debt does precipitate, we have to understand that. We have to understand that debt is no injury against us. It's no injury. Paul Grignon has been selling videos: Money As Debt I, Money As Debt II, Money As Debt III, MAD III. It's his misunderstanding that debt is the problem. You're looking at the end result as a terminal sum of falsified debt.

Cancel The Cabal: Right. Cart before the horse.

MM: The problem is that the falsification of the debts, the obfuscation of the debts of our debts to each other into a falsified debt to the banking system is a lie that allows them to pretend that the principal's at stake, thus purportedly lending us money from their legitimate possession into existence, which legitimate possession cannot exist as representation of entitlement, because they never gave commensurable consideration.

Cancel The Cabal: Right. Cart before the horse.

MM: But it's the unjustifiable imposition interest then, as if the principal was at stake, which precipitates in terminal dispossession, the form of which and that means of which are terminal escalation of falsified debt by interest. It's interest that is the second crime of banking. But we cannot forget the first crime, which is to launder all the principal ever so mal-created into the unwarranted and unjustifiable possession of the banking system.

Cancel The Cabal: Right. So possession and dispossession, irreversibly escalated debt fraud.

MM: There you have it.Cancel The Cabal: Right. Amazing! Thanks so much, Mike. Do you have a website?

MM: I'm the first monetary reform presence of the modern Internet; you bet I do: perfecteconomy.com is where the original web pages are still preserved in a state they were in a long time ago, just as a historical record and the new site, where you can sign the global amendment, is perfectedeconomy.org.

We also have two Facebook groups:Student Debtors for Mathematically Perfected Economy and People for Mathematically Perfected Economy at Facebook. You can join those groups where we have ongoing discussions.

Resources:Resources:

Video Re-upload By MrPeaceAndLibertyVideo Re-upload By MrPeaceAndLiberty

Original Video by Trop68Original Video by Trop68

Full-Length Radio ShowFull-Length Radio Show

World People's MandateWorld People's Mandate

Perfect Economy Original WebsitePerfect Economy Original Website

People for Mathematically Perfected Economy at FacebookPeople for Mathematically Perfected Economy at Facebook

Resources (cont'd):Resources (cont'd):

Student Debtors for Mathematically Perfected EconomyStudent Debtors for Mathematically Perfected Economy

Money As Debt Undressed For ZombiesMoney As Debt Undressed For Zombies

Australia for Mathematically Perfected EconomyAustralia for Mathematically Perfected Economy

Holland for Mathematically Perfected EconomyHolland for Mathematically Perfected Economy

Dead Banker CountDead Banker Count

Modern Money MechanicsModern Money Mechanics

Resources (cont'd):Resources (cont'd):Promissory Obligation Is The Same As Cash:Promissory Obligation Is The Same As Cash:

http://info.fmotl.com/PromissoryNote.htmhttp://info.fmotl.com/PromissoryNote.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F3dueNVXy8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F3dueNVXy8

MPE Advocates on YouTube:MPE Advocates on YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/user/mikemontagnehttps://www.youtube.com/user/mikemontagne

https://www.youtube.com/user/chotaboy66https://www.youtube.com/user/chotaboy66

https://www.youtube.com/user/trop68https://www.youtube.com/user/trop68

https://www.youtube.com/user/MrPeaceandLibertyhttps://www.youtube.com/user/MrPeaceandLiberty

Resources (cont'd):Resources (cont'd):

Contract Essentials:Contract Essentials:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bliNCLIzPuMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bliNCLIzPuM

US ConstitutionUS Constitution

Slide 1Slide 2Slide 3Slide 4Slide 5Slide 6Slide 7Slide 8Slide 9Slide 10Slide 11Slide 12Slide 13Slide 14Slide 15Slide 16Slide 17Slide 18Slide 19Slide 20Slide 21Slide 22Slide 23Slide 24Slide 25Slide 26Slide 27Slide 28Slide 29Slide 30Slide 31Slide 32Slide 33Slide 34Slide 35Slide 36Slide 37Slide 38Slide 39Slide 40