is electronic money actually legal tender?

So, Why the hell are bank statements adorned with £ symbols.

Electronic money is NOT £'s until it is converted into promissory notes.

Clear mis-representation by Banks I would imagine.

A more detailed question about Interest on money issued.
Please also listen to our TNS radio broadcast referring to our questions to the BoE.

http://www.youtube.com/user/chotaboy66#p...

or Google Mike Montagne on TNS Radio, Mathematically Perfected Economy.

It is TIME!!

Dear Mr. Norman,

Here again are our four questions. In response to your dispute that
they fail to request recorded information, following each of our
original questions, I provide revised versions detailing what
recorded information is requested (as requested, but which of
course may not make the obvious questions any clearer than each
already are). In response to your assertion the questions are
unintelligible and unfocused, I further provide brief explanations
of the intelligibility of each question directly beneath the
original and revised forms of each, that it is reasonably
incontestable that each are exceedingly focused and intelligible.
Should further clarification of intelligibility or focus be
required, particularly as you have raised no specific issue of
non-intelligibility or lack of focus, I provide such substantial
further explanation of the context and nature of this inquiry
beneath our re-submission of the same questions, that particularly
in this further explanation, little possible genuine reason could
remain to contest either intelligibility, focus, or what kind of
permitted material the questions indeed ask for. These indeed then
are explicit formal requests for recorded information.

I trust therefore that you will find that each intelligible
question is faithfully provided as a request not just for any
obtuse or ambiguous recorded information which veritable scrutiny
might determine again to be evasive or inconclusive, but that each
and every one of our FoI questions is submitted instead as an
explicit request for the *prevailing* recorded information you have
affirmed we indeed have rights to be supplied. That is, we are
after the best answers the bank can provide, which best justify
banking practice, if the bank indeed has made any genuine,
veritable effort to justify its practice at all. You are certainly
free to answer then, if true, that no such information has ever
existed. But I think a decent respect for the opinions of your
fellow man nonetheless would compel the bank to provide the best
answers to these vital questions it can. Nonetheless, since you
have raised a fact your actual obligation under FOI only compels
you to furnish recorded information, we of course leave it to you
to raise the purported legitimacy of your bank to whatever extent
and according to whatever strategy the bank and/or yourself intend
to pursue amidst a time obviously experiencing the ramifications of
our questions:

1) What lawful consideration do you claim the BoE (Bank "of"
England) gives up when it creates money ?

1R) What lawful consideration (property of commensurable value),
equal to the money created (which is the principal) DOES THE
PREVAILING RECORDED INFORMATION claim the BoE gives up when it
creates money ?

This is a plain question, related to world-wide practice of
contract law (which therefore would relate to obfuscations of our
promissory obligations imposed practically anywhere in the world),
which plainly demands to know what thing of value the bank gives up
to every purported debtor in the creation of money (not in
purportedly loaning out already existing "money" otherwise, *later*
claimed to be the property of the purported banking system). In
other words Mr. Norman, if the purported bank does not give up
something in the creation of money which is commensurable to the
debt it indeed claims it creates, there is no debt according to
regularly recognised contract law (which principle, we understand,
the bank nonetheless may claim to operate in authorised defiance
of).

2) How then does the bank (or does the bank) claim there is a debt
to the bank ?

2R) WHAT PREVAILING RECORDED INFORMATION INDICATES HOW the bank
claims, or whether the bank claims, debts to the bank exist in the
creation of money, in respect to producing further representations
of our promissory obligations, and in respect therefore to the
lawful consideration (property of commensurable value, equal to the
principal) the bank may or may not claim to give up in producing
further representations of our promissory obligations, which in
turn are to circulate as purported money?

How could any banker claim our original question is unintelligible?
Does the bank claim a debt results to the bank, in the bank's
purported creation of money, as a result of its obfuscation of our
promissory obligations? Or does it not?

Of course it does. The bank does not destroy or retire the payment
of principal, *never* claiming the principal is the property of the
bank, or thereafter somehow becomes the property of the bank, does
it ?

Indeed the bank claims debts equal to the principal are owed the
bank; but how so; for exactly what lawful consideration (giving up
of original property of value, equal to the principal created)?

3) What is the claim to interest then, when the bank can do no more
than absorb the costs of merely publishing evidence of our
promissory obligations *to each other* ?

3R) WHAT IS THE PREVAILING RECORDED INFORMATION, indicating and
justifying explicitly what are the banking system's claims to
interest then, particularly if the banking system has no actual
material contribution to the creation of money in respect to our
issuance of promissory obligation than absorbing the negligible
costs of merely publishing evidence or mere further representations
of our promissory obligations *to each other* ?

Possibly you simply presume it is unquestionable whether the
banking system gives up lawful consideration commensurable with the
debts it claims in its production or publication of mere further
representations of our promissory obligations. Quite possibly you
simply presume that the process of creating money (or monetising
our production) should be universally mis-understood somehow to
naturally, legitimately, lawfully or otherwise satisfy needs to
clarify and to justify how your obfuscation of our promissory
obligations can and should result somehow in actual debts to the
purported bank, for this misunderstanding is certainly regular
practice; it is likewise the common misunderstanding of dupes, even
as no submissive dupe can their self explain how their promissory
obligation to pay principal from circulation can rightly be
obfuscated instead to a purported debt to the purported banking
system. But particularly owing to the ramifications of this
process, and thus to our experience how this obfuscation has
multiplied falsified debt into terminal debt across the world, the
question is not therefore unintelligible. In fact on the contrary,
the whole possibilities of vitality, justice, or inevitably
terminal monetary failure hinge on this question. The question
pertains to how, given whatever credibility of your possible claim
that the bank gives up lawful consideration, you might claim
interest is justified by property which is quite obviously,
questionably either the pre-existent, justifiable property of the
bank, or a representation of the bank's possession -- for certainly
either possibility is questionable when the purported money (or
rather, device) is only created representation of our own
promissory obligations, which in turn then are obfuscated into
falsified debts to the purported banking system, which falsified
debts (or evidence of possession) in turn are only wrongly said to
comprise risk, purportedly justifying interest. Obviously, if there
is no lawful consideration given up by the bank, not only is there
no actual debt to the purported banking system; no property of the
bank even exists as could be subject to risk, ostensibly justifying
interest. To resolve these very intelligible questions then, it is
helpful (if not a reasonable obligation of the bank) to have the
banking systems' official answer, for if the banking system truly
exists as a benefit to the people, as opposed to a device of their
destruction, the former fact hinges upon whether the bank could
rightfully launder principal into its possession, only upon which
fact it could rightly claim interest is justified in multiplying
otherwise falsified debts to the bank into terminal dispossession
and failure. Obviously then, we believe even that the bank has an
indispensable interest in answering this question most
conclusively, for otherwise, the entire remainder of humanity would
be compelled to recognised the gravest crimes against itself,
perpetrated in fact by evident, purposed falsifications of
purported banking.

4) How is it possible even to maintain a vital circulation without
accumulating inevitably terminal sums of debt ?

4R) WHAT IS THE PREVAILING RECORDED INFORMATION THEN, further
hoping or purporting to justify any obfuscation of our promissory
obligations by detailing how is it possible even to maintain a
vital circulation without accumulating inevitably terminal sums of
debt, as a consequence of imposing interest against risks which
obviously could not exist unless the principal of newly created
money, merely instead representing our promissory obligations, is
not even the rightful property of the bank (which it cannot be, if
the bank only claims falsified indebtedness, without having given
up lawful consideration) ?

This question too is obviously intelligible and germane, as of
course is already explained in our description of how the resultant
obfuscation of our promissory obligations inherently produces the
present global failure. In providing an accountable answer,
recorded documentation would have to demonstrate how it is both
possible and plausible to otherwise replenish the circulation.

The questions therefore Mr. Norman are indeed very serious and
focused; and the stakes of the answers are no less than we have
quite carefully explained.

Moreover Mr. Norman, particularly as we who are forced to assume
the falsified debts can be aware of no commensurable property given
up by the bank, it nonetheless cannot possibly be our cause even to
oppose you, if you confess what indeed appears to be obvious self
evident facts, that we can resolve the resultant issues and move on
as an intelligent, disciplined, and just public would.

Are you unwilling to do that?

Neither we nor our questions are going away, Mr. Norman. These
questions will remain germane throughout all further ages, which
will judge us on how the answers duly supplied by the Bank "of"
England truly answer to any questions of justice and terminal
failure -- which questions of course are evident in everything
around us. There are millions of reasonably concerned citizens
already who are certainly interested in the vital answers to these
questions. And certainly there will soon be billions more, for a
world already bearing the weight of terminal sums of debt which
your obfuscation can only multiply further beyond us, is certainly
at least doomed to wake.

In the case nonetheless that you still maintain these questions are
unintelligible, yet again I can only apprise you of the requisites
of accountable material, by providing what in fact is a minimal
background to understand their nature and ramifications. If you now
understand they are intelligible questions, just answer please. If
not, either explain how these questions are not intelligible to
you, that we may further clarify what are obvious issues; or rely
upon the following further explanation of their context:

If the business of banking were truly conducive to the general,
common purposes of society (which purposes at least are to prosper
to our capacities, and without denial of just reward for our
production), first I suppose it would be gentlemanly in return to
thank you for your fourth of July email and PDF, which of course
again responds not to our questions, but in which, instead, you
pretend to justify your evasion by merely asserting that our
questions were unintelligible; that they are unfocused; and that
they don't even request recorded material.

Of course they do.

The reason you have not answered these fundamental questions is
they are so focused and conclusive as to inspire world-wide
indignation, should you be unable to provide satisfactory answers
-- which of course is impossible, because the afore-described
obfuscation is absolutely unjustifiable. We indeed even expect that
you will never answer to our satisfaction, not because (as you have
intimated) you are not obligated to respond to unfocused,
unintelligible requests for veritable opinions or tenets of
banking, but instead, are only obligated to respond to requests for
recorded information. Thus in order to comply with the restriction
you evidently intend to exercise, we indeed have even provided
versions of our same questions which in each and every case indeed
request the stipulated, recorded information.

If it were the case nonetheless that our questions are in fact
unintelligible, we wonder still how it is, that in this further
reply, you on behalf of the bank do not instead ask for
clarification of whatever expressions or concepts may have been
perceived in fact to be unintelligible.

Obviously nonetheless, regardless of any purported question of
intelligibility, the documentation your response cited could hardly
explain or justify either the bank's rightful monetisation of our
promissory obligations, or, on the other hand, what would have to
be its obfuscation of monetary process... for, just for example,
neither your cited documentation nor any other historic
documentation which even the most diligent scholars can be aware
of, ever explains a very plain thing -- whether or not the
purported bank ever once gives up lawful consideration in the
creation of money, commensurable with every debt the banking system
obviously does indeed claim from us.

It is not even difficult to answer these questions then, Mr.
Norman.

As we have carefully explained however, both the whole fate of the
world, and even a purported fact or possibility of representation
in governments installed to power always to preserve this ever
unjustifiable obfuscation despite its perpetually unjustifiable
consequences, hang in the balance of the answers to these four
questions.

You merely declare furthermore that these questions are
unintelligible. But the reasons you might do so, too, are plain.

Our subsequent questions were even plainer, for they merely ask
first yet again if indeed you do claim the banking system gives up
lawful consideration in the creation of money; and in turn, whether
and how you dispute any of the obvious related facts to the answers
to those questions, which we anticipated and provided in lieu of
your refusal to answer, in our own open, truthful disclosure to the
bank. We of course nonetheless, perfectly well understand how and
why a wilful disclosure of justifying answers to these due
questions may never be offered by any purported banking system, for
these questions reveal the very adverse core purposes of purported
banking; the answers to which therefore invalidate not only
everything about purported banking, but even the claims of the
purported banking system to collect upon its falsified debts.

Your bank nonetheless at least purports to account for all sorts of
complex phenomena, even as, in the interest of clarifying the
intelligibility and context of our questions, we have shown how
your bank and its fellow banks around the world can only be the
very cause of the present global depression. Is it true then that
you have no more defence against the obvious facts than to merely
assert without qualification that these plain questions are
unintelligible, and that you have no responsibility to respond to
arguments?

Our questions are not just a cause, Mr. Norman; they are questions
of your legal and/or otherwise legitimate authority to perform the
role you do in the issuance of money. The facts of that role are
not themselves a cause, Mr. Norman; nor is to state the evident
case in the interest of clarifying context from the outset,
essentially or strictly to argue cause. Nor is to state those facts
as they are perceivable, to argue cause. These are merely to openly
clarify the very things we ask of you: what indeed are the facts at
hand?

Nor then is it our cause to merely assert or complain that you do
not give up lawful consideration in the creation of money. We ask
under FOI privilege because obviously, it is rightful that the
people know the answers to these questions. If the bank has no
argument which would justify its existence, most particularly
against a fact of such a destructive role as it indeed appears to
play, then still we would expect that a decent respect for the
opinions of humanity would at least compel you to answer at least
to whatever extent you can, even if no recorded information answers
any of these questions for the obvious reasons the object of
unjustifiable dispossession is the very purpose of purported
banking, for wilful admission would put purported banking into a
better proper perspective than to hide behind purported
technicalities as if they insulate purported banking from duly
answering -- for the latter instead intimates not only
knowledgeable, but even persistently intentional guilt.

Thus we have already explained the intelligibility and focus of
these questions, because in fact this critical obfuscation of our
promissory obligations denies us economy by perpetually multiplying
costliness in the form an irreversible, perpetual multiplication of
falsified indebtedness into terminal indebtedness. This surely
instead is a very antithesis of actual economy -- which on the
contrary would be comprised always of a vital eradication of all
redundant and unjust cost.

If on the other hand you defend the cited obfuscation of currency,
then defend it by answering the questions, which are obviously
germane therefore to diligent consideration.

Our purpose was not to argue with you; our purpose of this FOI
inquiry in fact remains to get plain, factual answers to the
submitted questions, which of course are important to documenting
the bank's claimed answers to these questions, or its refusal to
answer these questions -- the latter of which of course, you have
already provided. We understand of course, how and why you may
strive simply never to provide commensurable answers. After all, if
your present objection of non-intelligibility were warranted, you
likely would have raised non-intelligibility in response to our
first inquiry; and no one in the world could readily understand the
context and implications of these questions. But they are already
part of a global dialog, focused upon and perceiving the
disposition of your response.

In respect to this global audience ourselves, we have already in
our first inquiry carefully provided the background against which
we ask these critical, intelligible questions.

We have explained how, according to the pattern exercised by the
bank (as we the subjects of the pattern can understand from the
facts at hand) we, the actual obligor (as opposed to purported
debtor), issue a promissory obligation; how the real creditor gives
up the property we acquire for a promissory obligation; and which
promissory obligation can only rightly suffice as currency if the
integrity of the obligation is maintained. If the value of money
increases or decreases for example, either the real creditor (who
acquires the money) or the obligor (who is obligated to pay it out
of circulation) are damaged. These too of course are issues which
are to be resolved in the perfection of economy. And yet sir, is
the legitimate and very attainable perfection of economy something
we are simply to refrain from, merely to preserve a terminal system
of exploitation solely for the sake of what we errantly call
"banking"?

We plainly maintain from the facts at hand that the purported
banking system gives up no lawful consideration whatsoever, even in
the purported banking system's obfuscated process of monetisation.
In the creation of money in fact, it can no more than absorb some
negligible cost of publishing what is no more than a further
representation of our promissory obligations. In an interest in
actual justice, we have provided the purported banking system with
an opportunity to put to rest our only plausible perception that a
purpose obfuscation of natural monetisation processes is in fact
terminal to the natural, common interests of subject people.

Already resolving any genuine questions of focus or
intelligibility, we have already explained how the purported
banking system obviously does not give up anything of commensurable
lawful consideration in the arrangement, because of course, if we
purportedly borrowed money from the banking system to purchase a
house for instance, which money of course must be created before it
can exist in any other fashion or possession, and in which creation
neither does the banking system give up any commensurable lawful
consideration, then of course there is no real debt to the banking
system at all. Instead, as the real creditor has been paid in full
(only so long too as the integrity of the resultant currency is
maintained), the nature of the remaining obligation instead is to
retire paid principal from circulation. Paid principal therefore
Mr. Norman, would be the rightful property (or representation of
property) of no one.

We therefore asked you two extremely plain questions, which neither
you nor the material you cited possibly answer:

1) What lawful consideration do you claim the BoE gives up when it
creates money ?

2) How then does the bank (or does the bank) claim there is a debt
to the bank ?

You now tell us these questions are in your opinion,
unintelligible. Would you answer our four questions conclusively,
if we just re-submit them to you then without any background
whatever indicating what truthful answers must account for?

Obviously, these questions pertain to the very validity of
purported banking. It hardly is likely that justifiable banking
practice (or creation of "money") exists then, without the very
answers we are asking for.

Presumably then, this is the very fact for which you have
intentionally avoided providing any facsimile of an answer at all.

We further explain in our subsequent response to your first
evasion, that obviously, the banking system *does* claim there is a
debt to the bank as a consequence of this obfuscated process of
creating money. That question, "does the bank claim there is a debt
to the bank?" could not be plainer, could it? Are you, indeed
yourself a banker, possibly *unaware* that the banking system
claims debts exist to the bank as a consequence of the process of
creation of money? Is the concept of this question still
unintelligible to you? Answer then how we can make the question
understandable to you, a banker, with respect of course to the
monumental implications of the question's obvious answer.

Of course the banking system claims there is a debt to the bank as
a consequence of no more than publishing evidence of our promissory
obligations to each other -- which obligations instead are not the
property of the bank, but on the contrary are obligations to pay
and to retire principal from circulation (because fulfilled
promissory obligations on the contrary are no longer evidence of
value or commitment to deliver so much value in fulfillment of the
obligation). This again, Mr. Norman, is not an argument of an
ostensible cause which we haven't even declared to you; this is
merely the very explicit consideration a worthy answer must account
for.

The alternate version of this same question (2, as it was phrase)
is "How then does the bank claim there is a debt to the bank?"

Obviously, if the bank does not give up lawful consideration
(something of value equal to the debt in principal it claims to
create to itself), the bank in fact then has no rightful claim to
the principal. Instead the principal should be retired, according
to the natural life cycle of a promissory obligation (the *case*
for which we are prepared to present to you in further invalidation
of the integrity of potential answers, should you contest the
issues either by mere theoretical assertions, *or in recorded
material*, which indeed we do request of you).

So these are the foci of our questions, Mr. Norman, as you have
requested we reveal to you, and as we have no interest in
attempting somehow not to disclose these vital foci to you, for
this very set of questions is in fact critical to the very rightful
destiny of all men.

We doubt therefore that the exceedingly explicit focus of these
questions has in fact escaped either yourself or the opinions and
strategies of the purported banking system, Mr. Norman, even as you
needlessly remind us to keep our request focused. We ask then, if
you still maintain a lack of focus exists, where in fact is the
lack of focus, either?

Thus it is your remarks and evasion which themselves have asked for
this clarification; and of course, in procuring these answers then,
we are obliged to explain only as we have. How could we better
explain that focus to you, Mr. Norman, particularly if you even
contest it?

What after all, Mr. Norman, equivalent to a home, do we receive
from the banking system in assuming a promissory obligation for the
principal of a home? How is it justified that we may be forced to
pay many, many homes for each home which only we the people produce
-- in turn paying all this to a purported financial industry which
produces nothing but mere further representations of our very own
promissory obligations, and for which in the end, instead of
resolving obligations to pay and to retire principal from
circulation, and merely for an implicit obligation to maintain a
vital circulation all the while (which forces us to borrow
principal and interest back into circulation, merely to persist in
servicing a perpetual multiplication of falsified indebtedness), we
are ever unjustly saddled with perpetually increasing falsified
sums of debt, increased perpetually by so much as periodic interest
on an ever greater sum of falsified debt, until we suffer the
present terminal dispossession and failure?

These are not just plausible causes, Mr. Norman; they are the
questions we must have answered if we are to understand that the
purported banking system is a justifiable member of democratic or
representative governments and societies, as opposed instead to
existing in the most obtuse opposition to the very indispensable,
common objects of all the remainder of mankind. Nor can it be our
cause now to create such forms of government as we already have,
for they were created long ago; and the instruments for achieving
actual justice remain available to that indispensable purpose, in
which the material we request is incumbent.

But it is our obligation therefore to uphold the only tenets which
can serve humanity; and so, it is not your right nor your authority
to deny us answer, ostensibly based on a potential fact these
questions and their answers, or your lack of answer, may indeed
comprise some cause. So a further question is (if the question is
not rhetorical), whether in persisting in what we can only rightly
interpret from your answers so far, is an inevitably terminal
system of exploitation... whether this even comprises a willful and
criminal usurpation of the very forms of government history has
fought to establish; and thus whether indeed, this usurpation
itself explains how and whether the incumbent forms of government
nonetheless are indeed serving the people.

So plainly and explicitly then, this is the scope of our focus.

And so, in fact it is for your lack of credible answer, that we
believe too that even you anticipate the days of the present
obfuscation of our currency are numbered.

Therefore indeed, these are simple, straightforward requests for
recorded information, each and every question of which in fact can
only have one truthful, accountable answer.

If the banking system has no recorded account which could justify
such a destructive process as we have carefully and openly inquired
about then Mr. Norman, just say so, for that itself will cut to the
quick -- indicating in fact all we really need to know about
purported banking. But please do not discredit yourself by offering
mere purposed evasion, for that would instead indicate willful
persistence in what are obviously monumental crimes against
humanity.

I can only say in summary Mr. Norman, that if I were a banker, and
that if I were interested in providing a veritable justification of
banking, if there were such a thing, I would certainly answer these
intelligible questions by providing that justification. If on the
other hand, even lacking such justifications, yet I were interested
in justice, I would confess the truthful and perhaps shameful
answers to these questions, that the world finally achieve justice
by your blessing.

To be entirely and perfectly clear then, no less is at stake than
the very possibility of prosperity, as opposed to terminal
dispossession, So please should you find the reading of these few
paragraphs still unintelligible maybe we should arrange a face to
face meeting were we would invite a few key people like Mr King,
Lord Turner, Dr Paul Fisher, so we can discuss openly one of the
most important matters in these rapidly changing times.

Yours most sincerely,

Hi Angie,

What a wonderfull reply you gave to an answer from the boe.

I posted here:

http://endtheecb.ning.com/forum/topics/i...

So right!!!

The OP's question, although valid, does not really fall under the ambit of the FOI Act, as it is a general question of economics/law: is electronic money legal tender? That kind of information is available to the general public, just as any other matter of law.

IMO, the BoE's succint reply was helpful and sensible, although above the call of duty.

I was amused by Angie's indignant reply to them regarding their inability to predict her "unusual" preferred form of address. Bravo, for brightening everyone's day with your wit, Angie!