Because the money lenders were not the sources of those goods and services. The merchants who provided the goods and services were paid, but the money lenders produced nothing. Furthermore, the money lenders never loaned anything. No money ever came out of their accounts to issue your lines of credit. They pretended to make loans, when actually nothing was ever loaned. That is called fraud. That is why this Liberty debt cancelation system legally works. “La Vérité” means “the truth”. We are simply confronting them with the truth, and they cannot deny it.

We strongly recommend that everyone read the book The Creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin. It is available at Amazon.com. That book reveals the fascinating story of the creation of the Federal Reserve banking system, and how what the banks of today are “loaning” has never been true money, but rather just fictions created out of thin air, in a sophisticated strategy for the bankers to take over and enslave the world.

If the "investors" you speak of -- and the term would be more accurately stated as "lenders" -- but in any case, if they are individuals, then the money they are lending is coming out of their accounts, and reducing their accounts by the amount loaned. Those are real and legitimate loans that should ethically and legally be repaid.

The loans that can be cancelled are really magic tricks. They are the vast majority of instances where Visas, MasterCards, and other unsecured lines of credit received money that the financial institutions created under the Federal Reserve system, and never had any deduction out of their accounts. Rather, they simply did a computer entry, where they created it out of thin air. This is called the Mandrake Mechanism. They have nothing at risk. The fact that they pretend otherwise is fraud.

Thus the reason we have a 100% success rate in cancelling those debts is that we challenge them to prove that they really loaned something, that money really came out of their accounts, and that they had something at risk. They can't do it.

The type of loans you are talking about would legitimately be repayable, UNLESS they were made by banks or financial institutions under the Fed system, using the Mandrake Mechanism.

It doesn't work to cancel debts that are legitimately owed -- such as money your friend or father loaned you, or say a department store credit card where you received merchandise from that store AND the store did not sell the paper to another loan servicing company. If the department store kept the loan paper in-house, then that is a legitimate debt. The invalid debts, which this set successfully cancels, are the money-out-of-thin-air debts under the Federal Reserve system such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and other institutional credit issues.

The reason is because out of the three parties to the transaction, only one of them is fraudulent. That is the so-called lender. You, the customer, are producing value with the hard earned money you are paying; and we, the merchant, are providing value with our hard earned product. It is ethical and sound thus far. We should be paid and you should receive good value, rightfully so. It is when the international crime syndicate called the money lenders insert themselves into the middle of the transaction and attempt to extort their cut, that we draw the line. No money came out of their accounts to issue the loan -- it was created out of thin air using the Mandrake Mechanism -- and no value came out of them either, in the way of goods or services.

One could argue, well, they provide the medium of exchange -- i.e. the money, and administer that system. If so, then the honest way to do it would be for them to charge a small nominal fee, such as 0.01% of every transaction worldwide, for maintaining the money system. That might be fair. It would be open, honest, transparently visible, and mutually agreed upon by everyone. But paying "back" 100% of the value of the transaction PLUS usurious interest, is nothing less than outright theft and extortion. It is a parasitic influence on the global economy and has destroyed countless lives. That is wrong and must be stopped.

We are not harming anyone or taking anything that isn't offered, by accepting credit cards to pay for our products. On the contrary, as sovereigns, we are exercising our God-given right to transact in commerce and provide our goods and services using whatever medium of exchange society has most agreed upon. The fact that a corrupt cabal has tried to insert itself as a fraudulent party to the transaction is the reason for our withdrawing our support from that behavior.
Further, for every debt cancellation system we sell, and for every debt cancellation system a new customer implements, the economy is improved by that much. The economy is improved because money that was otherwise going to the international crime syndicate -- which they then use to hire armies of mercenaries to organize the banking and court systems against us -- is money that is now going instead to one's own (presumably) harmless and life-supporting home living and household expenses and perhaps education or creative and constructive projects. It is withdrawing money from what is harmful in the world and redirecting it to what is helpful. That is a most beautiful fulfillment of the purpose of ethics.

Good question. A few months after the dispute process has begun, or at least after the debt has been cancelled, the credit card institution will close out that account. So no, that card will not be useful anymore. As a matter of fact, that institution would probably not want you again as a customer. After all, they're making a pretty lucrative racket by pretending to loan money when nothing -- not a penny -- EVER came out of their accounts to ANY credit card customer! So when they realize you're not going to play that game anymore, you're no longer a viable source of free money for them.
They can't prove that they didn't commit fraud . . . and so that is why they will let the debt go away when you challenge them head on. But on the other hand, they're going to keep their free gravy train going as long as possible. Customers who wise up to it are no longer welcome.

Further, in good conscience, it would not be ethical for the customer to deliberately create credit card debts and then cancel them, knowing in advance that it is a fraud. The action outlined by the Liberty system allows you to act in good faith, showing that you have learned about the fraud only AFTER having already unwittingly allowed the so-called "debt" to exist for some time, and after having mistakenly honored it by making payments to it.

These customers have felt hurt, guilty, and accused by such statements, and have wondered how to respond. The key principle in law to be aware of in this context is this:

"Fraud vitiates the most solemn Contracts, documents and even judgments" [U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, at pg. 65]. That is a Supreme Court ruling, and it has never been overturned.

This means you can rely on the Supreme Court for your justification. When you originally signed the loan agreement, they had committed fraud by failing to disclose to you that they were not loaning any money at all, out of their accounts. They further failed to disclose to you that they were in violation of various lending acts and failed to perform under those definitions.

They play on your conscience, by avoiding answering to those allegations, and instead distracting your attention over to your so-called “promises” -- just like a magician trick. DON’T FALL FOR IT!! If they had truly, genuinely, actually, and authentically loaned real money out of their accounts, DON’T YOU THINK THEY WOULD PROVE IT AND THE COURTS WOULD UPHOLD THEIR EVIDENCE?

Thus it is through no fault of yours that these facts were not fully disclosed to you at the time of signing. Since opening the account, YOU HAVE COME INTO NEW INFORMATION. Hence do not fall for their tear-jerking pull at your honest heart strings.

Why do you think the Liberty system has been undefeated? Why do you think it has never failed to eliminate the debts to which it is addressed, if the one implementing it followed its instructions totally and didn’t give up? Do you think this would happen if there were a genuinely moral, ethical, or legal obligation on your part to repay something?

Basically, YOU OWE NO RESPONSE TO THEIR DECEPTIVE STATEMENT at all. Just continue with the Liberty system, wherever you happen to be in following the Instructions and the Flow Chart.

This does not address the foundation, which is that no loan ever existed. All the Truth in Lending Act cite is referring to is if there are errors in the charges. If there are erroneous charges on the account, then one is required to notify them within 60 days. That has nothing to do with the fact that no loan ever existed in the first place, and the fact that they are in default on proving otherwise. And the Liberty documents do not request “receipts”. The above effort on the pretender lenders’ part to try to distract you into thinking you did something wrong, is just a sleight of hand – anything to get your attention off the central issue – that they never loaned anything. That’s why in an instance like this, your job is simple: to just “rinse and repeat”. Remember, it is the CONSTANT REPETITION of our central allegations that eventually makes them give up and go away. Stay firm and focused like a laser beam on following the Liberty instructions. No one who has ever done so, has lost.

You can get started immediately upon receiving the documents from the website. Most people only need 20 or 30 minutes to create the customized versions of the documents for each debt that is to be cancelled. Then after sending them registered mail (return receipt requested), within a few weeks a rebuttal will come from the pretender lender or their collection agent. The rebuttal will show that YOU HAVE WON, because it will FAIL COMPLETELY to even address any of the points in your dispute letter . . . much less answer them or prove that the debt is valid by fulfilling your demands for compliance with the law. Their letter will beat around the bush, claim this and that, but will strategically avoid answering the allegations made in your dispute letter. They are now caught, and they cannot escape. But, they hope that you will be intimidated and will acquiesce, or will get distracted and get off point.

So, you very calmly just print out, sign, and send registered mail (return receipt requested) the very same letter, as you will see in the instructions. Just follow the simple instructions that come with the program. Very simple. Like washing your hair, "rinse and repeat". A few weeks later, they will probably send another silly rebuttal. Once again it will completely fail to even address any of the points. So, repeat the same process. Send the letter again, according to the instructions. Very simple, very easy, and it doesn't take much time to do.

This process may go on for a few months. Gradually you will hear from them less and less. Most customers stop hearing from the pretender lender and their agents within 3 to 6 months. It is when you have not heard from them for a while, that you know they have given up. They know they are beaten, but they will never admit it in writing. You did see the Transunion report on our website showing the debt of one customer deleted, but the lenders themselves won't admit in writing that they were wrong . . . because then they would be liable for billions . . . trillions . . . of dollars worth of fraudulent debts to hundreds of millions of people over decades. It's a big thing. So, they would much rather just let you go, quietly.

It sounds like you are referring to procedures like those provided by Divine Province or Gold Shield Alliance / Freedom Club. They have the right approach and I applaud them for their efforts to make the cabal do the right thing. The problem is, as you know, that their success rate is very low. The cabal has just not been allowing those procedures to work most of the time.

Yes, you could engage the Liberty process simultaneously, and it would create a win-win-win situation for you. On the one hand, in practically all of the many hundreds of previous cases, it has resulted in the pretender lender ceasing their collection efforts. They go away and the card holder no longer is harassed or bothered by the phony bogus debt collection attempts.

On the other hand, in your case, it would also box the pretender lender into a corner. They have the choice of either honoring the process of creation of funds under public policy to liquidate the debt, as you are trying to enforce via the World Court; OR, they face being confronted with the alternative -- which is being caught in their fraud -- which the Liberty system does. So the Liberty system would both add to your enforcement, as well as liberate you from their collection attempts.

Why would the two be related? Are your supposed debts, or your payments on them, presently tax deductible? I am not a taxpayer, nor a tax advisor, so you would need to consult a tax professional for such answers. All Liberty does is cancel your unsecured debt. Unless you are a taxpayer and the debt is tax deductible, I don't know what implications the cancelation would have.

The good news is, the answer to your question is most likely YES . . . potentially . . . because all countries in the world operate under the same general monetary system as the US, more or less. The problem is, the legal cites in the Liberty system have never been adapted for other countries.

The Liberty system has laws cited, like "USC § 1692 et seq", and people in other countries would have to have a lawyer or paralegal find the equivalent for their nation and replace it in the Liberty documents. "USC" is the United States Code, and that only applies in the US -- that's why the introduction said at the top "Mainly for card holders in the USA".

However, this system SHOULD work for people in other countries 100% successfully, just as it does in the US, if one replaces the US laws in the set with the laws from that country. Do you have a lawyer or paralegal who can do that?

So to clarify, it's not the citizenship of the card holder that matters. It is from what country the card itself was issued. For example, if someone is Canadian but has a Visa from a U.S. bank, then that qualifies. The cardholder agreement must be under the U.S. jurisdiction, thus meaning the card has to have been issued in the U.S. for the Liberty system to apply as is, without legal modification.

Also, another method that can possibly work for non-US citizens and residents, is if the card holder in the foreign country can transfer the card balance to a US card. For example, if someone from Australia has $7000 AUD in Visa or MasterCard debt on an Australian card, and if that same person were to acquire an American Visa or MasterCard from a US bank, that person could ask the US institution if it would transfer the $7000 AUD balance from the Australian card to the US card. Most institutions are more than happy to do so . . . because it gives them more business, and therefore more revenues. To them, it really doesn't much matter what country the debt comes from.

Then once the debt is on the US card, it can be cancelled using the Liberty program.

You only need to buy the docs once. The rule is, one purchase per household. For friends and other households, another purchase is required.

No, you can only use the Liberty system for yourself and a spouse or someone in your household who shares your accounts and household expenses with you. The reason is that there is ongoing customer service, and we can't afford to provide customer service to people outside your household who didn't buy the program. If we allowed everyone to do that, it would mean we would have five or ten times as many customers to support, with no extra income to pay for it. So the others outside your immediate family and household each have to buy their own Liberty system. If you were to share it with them without our permission, then when they run into questions or perceived problems and need help, they would have no access to us to help them. You wouldn’t want that to happen.

We have never heard of any institution confiscating the checking account of a customer who is cancelling their credit card debt with the same institution. And at the same time, to prevent any possibility of it happening, we have recommended that they consider removing their checking account . . . or at least most of the money in it . . . from that institution and moving it to another institution. That is just simple wisdom to be prudent and cautious. "Better safe than sorry."

Yes. It will cost extra, a few hundred dollars, because you will have to sue them under the direct 1-on-1 guidance of one of our lawyers. The Liberty system by itself is just a letter writing campaign. That is sufficient to get pre-judgment debts cancelled, but it is not sufficient to reverse a judgment. To reverse a judgment, you will have to sue them.

Further, most Bar-licensed attorneys are wimps when it comes to going against the banks. They’re afraid of losing their licenses. And they’re mostly ignorant about the secrets of money and the Federal Reserve. So it would be hard for you to find an attorney to represent you, who would understand the content of the Liberty system and make it the centerpiece of the lawsuit.

If you are prepared to go Pro Se (representing yourself), or In Propria Persona (as yourself), and feel that you have the determination and the courage, then you could purchase the Liberty system, and we will introduce you to one of our non-Bar lawyers. He will provide personal consultation to you and will create the documents for you to file into the court case. You would follow the specific steps that he provides, and you would make the arguments in the customized documents he gives you the centerpiece of your lawsuit. The allegations in the Liberty system are undefeated and undefeatable by the pretender lender institutions.

Our lawyers have a 100% undefeated success rate in winning all of these cases, where the client fully cooperated and did not give up. He will show you how to absolutely force your opponents to answer what is in the Liberty documents. Otherwise they will weasel out of it and avoid having to answer, claiming they’re not required to answer. You have to force them to answer to The Truth. Our lawyer would provide the documents to file and the words to say, and what words NOT to say, to guide you to this victory.

It works the same on AMEX as it does on the other cards. We just don’t talk about it as much because a much smaller minority of our customers have AMEX and need to cancel the debts on it. Usually most people pay off their AMEX balances each month, as you know, but the “credit” AMEX issues is the same money-out-of-thin-air fraud that the Visas and MasterCards do. So yes, it can be cancelled just the same.

Yes, if it is an unsecured loan . . . meaning signature only -- not a mortgage secured by real estate or other hard assets. In other words, was a boat, a car, real estate, or other asset pledged as collateral, such that they could "legally" take that item from you if you don't repay the so-called "loan"? If not, then yes -- the Liberty system can cancel it.

Not really. Even if they give a deadline, you're not legally bound by it if you don't owe them anything. But just for maintaining the effectiveness of the campaign, it makes sense to respond within a reasonable time, like a week or two. In my own case, I usually responded within 2 or 3 days. In controversies like this, the one who is on the offensive usually has the advantage, so I hit right back quickly . . . to give them the strong impression that I am absolutely on top of them and We are neither wavering, unsure, wishy-washy, or lenient towards them. If you take too long, they might get the impression that you're weak, or apathetic, and you might be easier to push over.

Your strategy is simple. One a 1:1 basis, for each thing they send you, you send one response right away. The response will always be the first dispute letter and affidavit, until and unless they get more belligerent and threatening. Then use the second letter. That's it. It's as simple as that. If they don't respond point-for-point to the dispute letter and satisfy what it demands, and if they fade away from contacting you, then you have no need to pursue them any further.

There is no change to make. The first sentence is “Thank you for the statement of [date], that your institution recently sent me, expecting payment for an alleged debt.” That remains true whether you are current on your payments or not. In any case, do NOT include a payment with it, because that would contradict the point of the dispute letter and remove the credibility of your challenge.

Yes. Once you have the system, you have it for life, to use on as many unsecured debt cancelations as you wish.

There is no limit. In fact, it wouldn't make sense to cancel just a portion of a debt. It's all or nothing.

Send your Liberty documents always to the top management of the parent company. This takes care of all parties connected with it. Notice what is at the end of the dispute letter -- this sentence: "Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent, and Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal." "Principal" in this case not only refers to the parent company, but also to the entire hierarchy of the Federal Reserve system. Thus your letter to the superiors is simultaneously, legally, also notice to whoever is collecting.

We have never heard of Visa or any other credit institution cancelling, freezing, or restricting any remaining cards that you have not cancelled, for any other Liberty customers. The logic is this: even if they learn that you have challenged the illegitimate debt on the other cards, as long as you're still paying on the one card, why would they shoot themselves in the foot? It's pure gravy to them . . . so they're not going to stop you from keeping that account open and continuing to send in those payments.

We will certainly refund your money if the documents don’t get delivered to you for some reason. This has never happened. But once they are delivered to you, either by download or e-mail, whatever the method, you cannot return them. Now the information is yours. We cannot control what you do with the information. Nor can we control how the pretender lender institutions will respond to your filing of the documents with them. Thus once you have received the Liberty documents, there cannot be any refund thereafter. The good news is, since 2002, only about 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of the Liberty customers have asked for a refund. And their reasons were invariably because they lost courage and didn’t have the mettle to confront the bankers. That is testimony to the success of the Liberty program.

Yes, thank you for asking . . . we haven't had many people with student loans, so we haven't modified the letter or the affidavit for that purpose. But as you have suggested, just use common sense . . . modify it wherever necessary. Wherever either document refers to a "bank" or "credit card", etc., just change it accordingly. It is important that this be your own document, your own wording, because we’re not providing legal advice, or legal services, paralegal services, etc. We’re just providing a product, and the intelligence in it WORKS. So yes, adapt it as needed, without altering the basic concepts in it, and you should be fine.
As to whether to put the name of the originator of the loan or the loan servicer, normally it is best to put the name of the servicer – the one who is corresponding with you, sending you statements, and trying to collect. This is because, as stated at the end of the dispute letter, “Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent, and Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal.”

The concept of debt consolidation is contradictory to the debt CANCELLATION that Liberty offers, because it assumes that the debt is valid, and therefore merely negotiates how to pay it. Hence if you wish to switch from consolidation and negotiation to complete cancellation and elimination, you will simply have to completely cancel all involvement with the consolidation company.

It is probably best not to even mention to them the existence of Liberty or its cancellation product, because the people who do consolidation make their living and their livelihood from the philosophy that the debt is valid. That is the foundation assumption on which their whole industry is based. It is an assumption which the Liberty system disproves, which could be frightening to the consolidation people. When they are frightened, they will react with any kind of frivolous arguments to try to refute what Liberty is doing and discourage you from doing it. In other words, like any animal, they will defend their territory. It is sad.

Liberty rises to an entirely higher level of truth and success. It is at once more freeing, because it eliminates 100% of the debt, AND quicker, AND easier, AND more successful . . . PLUS is usually much less expensive than consolidation.

So being, if you wish to switch, you would have to simply abandon, cancel, and withdraw from the entire consolidation relationship. Give them any reason you feel is truthful but not too revealing -- just something vague like "I've found another approach I prefer to pursue -- thank you very much." Then come back to our website and enroll.

No, because those are not loans. Even though the words "debt" and "debit" are similar, they are opposites. A debit card simply accesses what is in your checking account. There is no debt to cancel.

Yes of course, providing they are the kind of unsecured debts for which the Liberty system is designed -- as specified elsewhere -- i.e. issued by U.S. institutions, not secured by collateral, etc. Just because it went to a 2nd or 3rd or 4th party collector means nothing. It doesn't matter who bought it and who is trying to collect on it. If it was a fraud in the beginning, it continues to be a fraud. Fraud nullifies debt ab initio (from the beginning).

Yes, the 100% success rate still exists. It is simply important to understand how this claim is justified. What we mean by the 100% success rate is first of all only applicable to the PAST, NOT to the future. We can only honestly and accurately comment about what has already happened in the past. What will happen in the future is not ours to predict. That's why we don't offer any guarantee. We don't offer a guarantee because we have no control over how well the customer implements our instructions, and we have no control over the response that the banking system will send. It's like selling you a car: we can guarantee that it is well made, but we can't guarantee that you won't drive it poorly and get into an accident.

What the 100% success rate means, then, pertaining to the past, is that out of thousands of customers since 2002, not a single one of them who completely followed its instructions to the letter, and did not give up, has failed to have the debt collectors go away and leave them alone. Further, the 100% success rate means that not once has Liberty's essential argument been shown by any lender or any court or any attorney or anyone else, anywhere, to be invalid. The essential argument and allegation in the Liberty dispute letter has thus proven to be invincible.

In about 1% or 2% of the cases, the customer was sued by the lender or a third party junk debt buyer after implementing the Liberty system. Thus it is a very small number -- and of those, we also have a 100% success rate, AGAIN on the same basis: that those who utilized our Legal Resources Package, followed its instructions perfectly and completely, and utilized the lawyer to whom we referred them, have had their cases dismissed. That means they won. They were victorious. This is because the pretender lenders and their agents have no defense to our allegations, but the defendants had to use the documents our lawyer provided them to file into the case, and they had to follow his simple guidelines. These basically consist of not letting the court or the opposing counsel intimidate oneself; not letting them distract one off into their line of questioning; and most importantly, it consists of holding firm like a laser beam to the essential allegations. It's as simple as that.

So it's not really hard . . . but some people failed because they got scared, they got confused, they listened to the wrong outside advice, they detoured off the proven path to success that we gave them, or they got stressed and tired and gave up prematurely, without persisting through to their victory. In other words, once again, our system has been 100% successful -- both for the 98-99% who accomplish it administratively -- and for the 1-2% who went to court -- IF they stayed on the tried and true path of what we have given them to follow.

We hope that this has clarified your concerns. Thank you for asking and giving us an opportunity to make it clear. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask any time.

Yes. Previously we used to say that this is an administrative process only, and that we don't assist with litigation, because it was so rarely ever needed, and we are not lawyers. However, in recent years we have had an unusually powerful and successful legal team to assist with such matters, and we have only wins and victories with no failures or losses - - on the condition that the client fully cooperates, follows the lawyer’s instructions without deviation, and does not give up. There may be any additional fees for litigation, depending upon how simple the matter is, but typically we’re talking only a few hundred dollars - - very small. Suffice it to say, we do make available formidable additional resources as backup support for anyone who gets sued or who may like to commence a suit as plaintiff. For more information on this, see https://brillianceincommerce.com/la-verite-legal-team.

Yes. The student loans were created just as fraudulently as the credit card debts. The system has been working with federally insured student loans, because they were created under same false, phony, money-out-of-thin-air process. The Liberty document content is undefeated and undefeatable. So far, we still have a 100% success rate in student loans being canceled without litigation. And, we have victory letters showing successes with defeating student loans, posted on our website. If you haven't seen them, take a look at them. They are in the Liberty section of our site, listed under where it says "Proof That Debt Elimination Works".

Nevertheless, student loan borrowers are not protected by as many consumer protection laws as credit card borrowers are. Some experts have observed that the quasi-government agencies that make student loans are a little more persistent in pursuing the "repayment" of such "loans". That is why, in an abundance of caution, we make you aware that if you use the Liberty system for student loans, be mentally prepared for needing a little more patience than our credit card customers go through.

If you fit with the 98% or 99% majority of Liberty customers, you would be likely to win your student loan debt elimination administratively, without going to court. But even if you happen to be one of the 1% or 2% who are “lucky” enough to get sued, the good news is that we now have a growing legal team to assist our customers when needed. Of course they would charge their own fees, but generally, they are very reasonable and low -- like in the hundreds rather than thousands -- as compared to typical attorneys. And, they have a 100% success rate, in all cases where the client fully cooperated . . . followed the lawyer’s instructions entirely, and did not give up. For information on the successes of our legal team, please see https://brillianceincommerce.com/la-verite-legal-team.

There is nothing unethical about creating money out of thin air -- IF it were to be offered equally across the board to everyone, openly with full disclosure, with equal opportunity, and with publicly sanctioned assistance in implementing it to all people without discrimination.

What is unethical is to do it like a magic trick, hidden behind the scenes, keep it a secret from everyone, pretend that the loans came out of their supposedly already existing, genuine, and limited funds, and that they would therefore be financially harmed if you don't pay it back. That is harmful dishonesty, plain and simple. It is deliberate and unjust enrichment designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Read books like "The Creature from Jekyll Island", by G. Ed Griffin, or "Secrets of the Federal Reserve", by Eustace Mullin (available at Amazon). They explain in crystal clear, irrefutable terms exactly how the "Mandrake Mechanism" works . . . how they create money out of thin air and pretend that it is real.

Further, most people don't realize that in all 50 states, it is illegal to loan credit. It is legal to loan money, but not credit. And yet that is exactly what the pretender lenders have been doing.

Thus the commercial remedies rightfully provided to us under the UCC have not worked for most people, even when presented properly, for the simple reason that the egomaniacal controllers have monopolized the benefits of the system for the insiders, at the exclusion and the expense of everyone else. It is for that reason that our credit card debt cancelation system challenges the fraud, rather than attempting to discharge the debt . . . and it is for that reason that this approach has been undefeated.

Users of this system usually do NOT have any blemish on their credit rating . . . for the simple reason that powerful legal language is included in the correspondence with the lending institutions.  If they misreport the account, they can be sued, and we would win if we sue them.  That is demonstrated in the letters.  They must show that you are not in default . . . but rather, the debt is in dispute. As long as it is in dispute, it cannot be considered to be in default. So blemishes on credit ratings are much more rare now, and even when they occur, they are erroneous and can be corrected.

You have asked some good and intelligent questions. The good news is, we have never heard of any institution raiding another account of the customer to compensate the credit card debt that they claim the customer owes.

This is due to the strength of the Liberty program. The questions, accusations, and challenges in the Liberty dispute letter and accompanying affidavit show the pretender lender that they are caught. If they were to take money from another account belonging to the same customer, they would be compounding their crime, and they know the likelihood is very high that the customer would then sue, using the arguments in the Liberty documents.

Against such a suit, the lender could not possibly win. We suspect that is the reason we have never heard of a single instance where such an institution went after another account of the customer to satisfy the so-called "debt".

Nevertheless, it can still be prudent to close any accounts you may have at an institution where you also plan to cancel a debt with the Liberty system, or at least remove most of the money from such accounts.  Even if we have never seen an institution raid a Liberty user’s account, there could always be a first time.  “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Yes and no. Yes, the Liberty system can provide the essential prerequisite to cleaning up your credit report.  The essential prerequisite is to get the debts cancelled.  Liberty handles the debt elimination.  We call it debt "validation" because it sounds nicer . . . we're giving the pretender lenders a polite opportunity to validate the legitimacy of their so-called debts. When they can't, then the debts are cancelled.  Once they are cancelled, the Liberty system has done its job.  Then you will need to do other things to clean up your credit reports.  We are not in the credit repair business, but we have partnered with Anthony Gaalaas and his company Your Credit Blueprint.  Your Credit Blueprint offers a proven system of removing the actual account (and also inquiries) from your credit reports.   For more information, see https://brillianceincommerce.com/credit-restoration.

In a word, yes.  References of satisfied customers are not allowed due to the privacy, confidentiality, and nondisclosure, but we have been seeing successful completions of these program payouts since the 1990s, including currently and presently.  So YES, clients are currently getting paid and the cash is flowing.

It varies from account to account.  If the investor put in $100M or more, it can be pretty quick, like within one week.  If he is putting in less than $100M, then the lesser amounts have to be aggregated before entering into trade.  It is unpredictable how long that will take, but it is generally under one month. And when we say "aggregated", remember, they're not touching the investor's principal; but they still have to aggregate the 1:1 lines of credit issued on the basis of the investor's capital committed.

The possibility of this is more answered on your side than on the trading team's side.  The reason for this is that no, the trade programs do not allow pools. They also do not allow borrowed funds.  So a group of investors could be assembled and their funds could be pooled in an LLC or corporation, but it would be illegal to inform them that their money is going into a BIIP.  It would be illegal to advertise it. It would be illegal to tell them that their principal capital is guaranteed or that the returns are guaranteed. This is because the trade platform does not accept pools and will not be responsible to multiple parties.  Therefore what investor would put up any money under conditions like that? "We can't tell you what your money is being invested in, and we can't promise any guarantees on it." Nobody would be interested in a deal like that. One LLC director or corporate president can serve as the signatory on the funds in that corporation, but remember, the trade platform require proof of history of funds - - where the funds came from.  If it is revealed that the funds came from smaller contributors who are expecting a return, the fund will be rejected. Only a single lump sum of capital controlled by a single signatory, or maximum two signatories, is permitted.

Yes, the investor can stop at any time.  He can remove his capital at any time. If he does, of course the returns will stop and most likely he will never be invited again in the future to participate, unless he had a really good reason for terminating, such as some kind of major disaster beyond his control, creating an emergency that merited the urgent need for the funds.

Yes, you can download it at this link: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/f3files/GENO-Tempate.docx     It's a 1-page Word document.

Russians may participate, and if they have over 100M in Sberbank, there is a platform that can work with that.  We've never heard of any other Russian banks being accepted, though.

North Korea and Iran are excluded from participating in these trade programs, as are their citizens.

The company can be a C-Corp or LLC or Trust or Foundation . . . as long as they have a Board Resolution appointing the signatory on the bank account to represent the company, as worded in the Corporate KYC template, that is fine.

That depends upon how many intermediaries there are.

        There are usually 5 points to split between us.  We generally split that 5% equally. So if you are direct to the investor, that means there are three of us.  5% divided by 3 = 1.67%. So unless there is a variation on the particular deal, your percentage would be 1.67% of the total the investor receives, each time he receives it, if you are direct to the investor.  It is not deducted from the investor’s amount.  It is just calculated on his account.

Intermediary fees are paid out of the Investor/Client's portion of the trade proceeds.  The investor is not responsible to pay them. If is is a standard 40 week trade contract, the intermediary commissions are paid directly by the platform.   However, in special situations, such as in compounding arrangements, the investor-client becomes responsible for paying the intermediary fees.

A bullet trade is a lump sum payment, one time.  A 40-week trade goes for 40 weeks and is usually paid weekly or biweekly.  Bullet trades only become available a few times per year. Some pay in 24 hours; some pay in 10 days, and some have a 40-week contract that go with them.  Meaning, that it may pay a lump sum payment in a few days or week, after which the proceeds can be added to the capital committed to the program for a 40-week contract.  Keep in mind that the details of deals change every week, so it is impossible to predict in advance exactly what kind of deal your investors will get. Generally the larger the investor's capital, the more choices he will be given.

We have signed hundreds of NDAs since the 90s and had client sign them, but have generally found that they're not worth much.  It's really up to you. But if it is for the purpose of avoiding circumvention, don't worry about that. The trade team itself includes non-disclosure and non-circumvention in its own contracts signed with the investor.  In other words, the investor is required to agree to non-disclosure by the trading team itself - - which the investor will respect a lot more than one from you, because he will be getting his money from the trade team. To ask him to sign one with you may not do much good, and it would be redundant, because the investor is already under non-disclosure with the trade team.

Intermediaries get signed into the deal that the investor-client agrees to with the trading team.  First the intermediary makes the introduction and lets the client submit his KYC intake documents. Then if he is approved and invited, all intermediaries will be brought into the documentation at that point.

Some other clients with 100M+ Invested

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/secondarymarket.asp   The secondary market is the public market, for stocks in US that's the NYSE, and companies have to IPO onto the NYSE.  For Medium Term Notes, Euroclear lists the MTN in the secondary (public) market.

Anybody with enough money can buy MTNs listed on Euroclear.

An individual, trust, or corporate entity is fine.

Intermediaries are not part of the NDA nor the Contract / Investment Agreement and as such are not supposed to know the details of the contract, but if they do, they're still not supposed to disclose it.  An intermediary can discreetly show payment of their intermediary fee, since they are not part of the NDA, but they cannot disclose the name of the Platform nor the name of the Client/Investor.

Only working intermediares should be listed on the GENO . . . everyone else should be covered by the working intermediaries under a sub-fee agreement.  Working intermediary means they've spoken directly with the client and are actively involved in getting the file able to pass Compliance.

Yes

Trustee info should be listed if a trust, or corporate officer info should be listed if a Corp.

Yes, except their EIN and banking info will be requested by the Paymaster at the appropriate time.

Master Commitment Holders and Commitment Holders are Investor/Clients.  If trading is on a best efforts basis, then the Platform/Trader usually splits the GROSS trading profits with the Investor/Client 50/50, then the Investor/Client pays any fees out of their gross 50%.  Total distribution of profit per tranche: 50% to Platform/Trader, 50% to Investor/Client. Of the 50% GROSS to Investor/Client, the Investor/Client NETs 85% of that (85% NET), because of the typical fees of 10% PPA for Platform Fees (bankers and attorneys), and 5% to Intermediaries.  However, when the Investment Agreement lists a contractual return, the Platform/Trader just pays the Investor/Client the stipulated amount and keeps the rest, regardless of what the Gross trading profits per tranche were, and then the Investor/Client pays the 10% PPA and 5% intermediary fee as usual.

Some other clients with 100M+ Invested

Typically trading occurs Mondays through Thursdays.  They adjudicate on Friday, and the Transaction Paymaster pays everyone at same time.

No BIIP platform on the planet accepts anything but cash in USD or EUR, or in a few cases, GBP.

All investors who have assets in other forms must liquidate those assets first. Borrowed capital is acceptable if it does not have a lien or encumbrance against it. This rules out mortgages. It is rare for anyone to have borrowed capital of the size required for the platforms that is free and clear of any liens or encumbrances.

Thus for someone who has real estate and that is their only source of cash, they would have no choice but to sell the real estate and then place the cash proceeds into the platform.

With unsurpassed returns and zero risk, the BIIPs available through the platforms are by far the best investments in the world. The price one has to pay to get into them is to come with the required level of cash - - clean, unencumbered, free and clear, of non-criminal origin - - and a nice, respectful, cooperative attitude.

The answer is yes and no. We will start with the "no", so the "yes" will be more clear.

Please understand that it is not just “our" platforms that do not accept bonds. No legitimate and authentic working and performing bank instruments trading platform on the planet accepts anything but cash USD or cash EUR. No other assets. When we say "cash", of course we don't mean physical currency. We simply mean United States Dollars in a bank account, or Euro Dollars in a bank account. No real estate, no gold, no oil, no SBLCs, no BGs, no bonds, no non-cash assets, and not even Swiss Francs or Japanese Yen.

They only work with USD or EUR. Period. That's it. 100%. That's the ONLY thing they accept. Cash is king. Please keep that in mind. Anyone who tells you otherwise is telling you a story. Of course if the client has capital in a major currency that is traded on the Forex, other than USD or EUR, the platform might accept it, but only because it is instantly convertible to USD or EUR. The trades are only conducted in USD or EUR.

But the "yes" is coming from collaborations with monetizers that are not the same as, but that are connected with, the platforms. We have not one, but several connections with monetizers for assets and for entry into bank instruments trading programs. Nevertheless, our question to the owners of the bonds is, why don't you just sell them and put the cash into a BIIP PPP? You're going to make a whole lot more money doing that than holding on to them. It is slower and more complicated to monetize them.

As often happens, a lot of stuff gets presented to us because the purveyors have something worthless that they couldn't get value from anywhere else. Their bonds are so exotic, or their other instruments are so questionable, that no bank will touch them and no legitimate monetizer or platform will touch them either. So they come to us, shopping it around. We've been seeing this ever since the early 1990s. It wastes a lot of time. If the owner could get their instrument monetized successfully, that means he or she could also get it outright sold. And if he can't sell it, then it may be unlikely he could get a line of credit against it either. So why did it come to us? You see the point?

Nevertheless, we have several genuine and major sources for monetization of assets. Their minimum value for consideration is 150M. We cannot know whether the actual instruments qualify until they are analyzed. But at least if the appraised value of the asset is at least $150M USD, it can be considered.

Naturally lots of questions would arise. For example, on the sovereign bonds, how old? How recent? And which country? But rather than getting into a long Q&A session about it, the best thing for us to do is for you to submit the paperwork on them to us, and we will have our people look it over.

Suffice it to say, if anyone on the planet can do something with them, we can. And if we can't, no one can. Therefore you have come to the right place to find out.

Previously we have written that BGs, MTNs, and SBLCs that are leased are not permitted for entry into BIIPs on the PPPs. However, further discussions have illustrated the need to unpack that concept and bring it more into focus.

Leased instruments cannot be placed into trading if the signatory on it is the lessee. It would be great to find a way for that to happen, however the ledger cannot be transferred therefore it cannot be blocked and traded. Alternatively, if the asset holder (the entity holding the actual cash) is willing to issue an instrument without any liens or encumbrances and have the client become the beneficiary, we would then have an opportunity.

A leased Instrument can be traded, but 95% of the time it isn’t, because the owner will not issue a block 760, 799 or even a MT542. It is usually leased for credit enhancement only. Unless the asset holder will join in the trade with the client (lessee), then they will not release or block the instrument for the use in a trade.

In some programs yes, and in some programs, no.  The paymaster we use is mandatory for certain programs because our group has had tremendous success with him for years.  He has an international reputation for efficiency, fairness, compliance, honesty, timeliness, reliability, and accuracy on payouts to everyone - - from clients to intermediaries and anyone else contractually agreed upon to be included.  It surprised us that he is even favored by the Zurich program in Switzerland.  You would think they would have their own local trusted paymasters, but they use ours!

Yes, but the term “monetized minimum” could be confusing.  The LTV must be $100M+, and most assets get discounted by 33% or more.  Preferably the asset would be worth $200M+, so that there is plenty of room to be above $100M after the LTV discount.  The figure $150M is just a benchmark.

Not for BIIPs.

Yes, same.

No.  This only happens in large cap programs, and even there, it comes out of the gross, not out of the client’s net.   Every bullet program is different.  Most of them do not deduct anything for projects.  The returns quoted are net to the investor after all fees, commissions, etc.

They do not have a way for anyone to apply for them.  The trading administrators already have databases of projects to choose from, so they don’t accept applications for that.  But you’re asking good questions.  The way for you to gain funding for your project is to find a wealthy investor and then have him or her, or “it” if it is an institution, participate in one of our zero risk platforms and share a percentage of the payouts with your project.  That’s how it is done.  That is a win-win-win situation, because the donor never donates his principal capital.  Instead, he increases his capital and multiplies it with zero risk through our platforms . . . so he wins there.  Your project receives whatever percentage you have negotiated with the investor.  The Earth and humanity win when the compassionate and benevolent benefits of your newly empowered project roll out.  The trading team wins due to receiving its fees deducted from the gross proceeds, and the introducing intermediaries win via the commissions they earn.  There are no losers.

As with every other sector of business and industry in the world, which has been a mixture of virtue and vice, so the bank instruments trading industry has had its share as well.  By the 1990s, risk to investor principal capital had been reduced to pretty close to zero, by the use of bank guarantees, and later, even better, the reserve account, in which the capital simply stays in the investor's own account.  But that privilege was available only to the $100M+ clients. 

Even so, while the $100M+ investors enjoyed positive performance and no losses, those with less than 100M were often subject to scams, because they weren't given the proper protection on their funds.  That made a bad name for the industry among the "small cap" investors.  At the same time, the industry was putting out smokescreens, denying its own existence in high profile publications.  This effectively made it next to impossible for small cap investors to participate safely, and equally as difficult for introducing intermediaries to earn commissions by consulting in this field.  And, in the 1990s and early 2000s, the global financial system in general was more dominated by negative forces. 

Today, since about 2018, we have been fortunate in that much of the bad energy has been cleaned out.  Many bad actors have been removed, computers have improved, safety mechanisms have evolved, integrity in the industry has increased, and now we have discovered who some of the benevolent administrators are.  These are the ones with whom we are now associated.  We refer to them as "white hats", meaning people in power who are using that power honestly, for generous and life-supporting purposes, and whose good words are seen to be backed by heavy investments in humanitarian projects that are truly uplifting the world. 

Those of us who serve as consultants in this field now have the added joy of bringing candidates to these white hats - - and watching the programs perform as promised, as contractually agreed, and with the same zero risk reserve account protection at the 1M level as used to exist only at the 100M level.  Now our 1M+ investors are being given the same VIP treatment that was only available previously to the 100M+ investors. 

Another problem that used to be rampant was circumvention.  A consultant like myself would work hard to bring good clients, and then other brokers would take them and give no credit to the originating introducer, in spite of non-circumvention agreements.  We do not suffer from this problem any more, because we have finally found and developed good relationships with the right authorities at the pinnacle of the industry. 

Ironically, now we have more of a problem finding nice and open minded clients.  Now that we have high integrity platforms that are performing, we face the new problem of finding clients who are able to overcome the "too good to be true" meme, and who don't come to the table with a "prove it to me" attitude.  So now we HAVE fantastic platforms with proven success and demonstrated integrity, so it is amazing to us how very few investors are awake, aware, alert, smart, intelligent, and wise enough to participate.   It is very simple to qualify and get the invitation.  Besides having the requisite minimum capital available, they need to be just plain decent, polite, cooperative, and open minded.

As stated inter alia, the BIIP industry provides the greatest investments on the planet, but the price newcomers have to pay for this is having no means of verification in advance - - except verification of the 100% absence of risk to one's principal capital.  That is the only thing you will be able to confirm in advance, before committing, by examining the contract, and by seeing that you are left in control of your capital - - that you are never asked to turn it over to anyone else.  That much can give you peace of mind.

But other than that, you must be satisfied to have no references of satisfied customers, no advance proof of payout performance, no BBB listings, no public record of the integrity of the players, and so on.  The only way most investors have ever seen proof is if they were fortunate enough to have a friend who did it and the friend would show them the proof.  If you don't have that, then you will just have to be content with allowing the contractually agreed upon time pass to see the payout performance for yourself.  But the fact that your capital stays safe in your own hands means that due diligence on the parties involved is never necessary for you.  This is because you will not need to trust anyone with your principal capital except yourself.

That’s an excellent question - - thank you.  The compliance departments look to see: That a candidate can show verifiable proof of the sufficient minimum cash required in USD or EUR, or a currency instantly convertible to USD or EUR;

That such capital is shown to be solely owned or controlled by the individual signatory signing on the trade contract;

That such signatory's KYC checks out as authentic;

That this signatory is not blacklisted in the BIIP industry.  Blacklisting happens when a client breaks a previous contract and pulls out prematurely.

That this signatory's funds are clean, clear, of non-criminal origin;

If it is a tear sheet program, that the funds are in an acceptable bank (see https://accuity.com/resources/bank-rankings);

That the prospective client is polite and respectfully cooperates with the intake procedures; and

That the prospective client doesn't demonstrate a "prove it to me" attitude. 

You need not worry about this unless you are coming in with 500M or 1B+.  At those levels, more and more attention is paid by the trading administrators as to what the recipient is doing with the money, to make sure they're not buying arms for guerilla groups, funding drug trade, or other illegal or harmful projects.  As long as it is seen that the money is going to generally harmless, constructive, and life-supporting purposes, the client is fine.  That is why at the large cap levels, information on the projects to which the money is going is requested. 

Examples of acceptable projects would include helping the homeless, the disadvantaged, orphans, children, abused women, disaster victims, refugees, the rain forests, provision of clean running water, organic agriculture, cleaning the oceans, bringing out new free energy inventions, housing projects for the poor, infrastructure projects anywhere in the world where they are needed, and so on.  The list is very long.  Basically it would include anything that most everyone would agree is making the world a better place.

No, it can be a week or two, if the client's money is ready and everything checks out.  If there are no glitches, red flags, failures of KYC compliance, or failures to cooperate, it can go quickly and smoothly. 

Now you mentioned "trust account set up".  That is provided by Brilliance in Commerce (BIC), not the trade platform.  Trust setup can be accomplished within a couple of business days from the date of purchase, but part of that timing again depends upon the client.  This is because the client must know who will be the two trustees, who will be grantor, and who will be beneficiaries, in order to put this information on the Trust Client Information Form.  That is a prerequisite to the trust being written.  But once the form is submitted, then the trust can be issued within one or two business days. 

If you are applying for a bank instruments trade platform and you want to get it going quickly, you may want to apply in your individual name or in the name of any existing legal entity you may already have, to get it going.  Then once that process is moving ahead, you could turn your attention to setting up BIC's House of Freedom International Natural Law Trust, and not feel pressured about the timing of it.   Once that is set up and the bank account is opened for it, you could then perhaps ask the platform to change where they send your payouts to the new account of the trust. 

The monetizers won't accept real estate, even if it is free and clear.  This is because the line of credit against it for trading would usually be issued by a public institution that is legally prohibited from officially recognizing the existence of the BIIP industry.  Therefore the stated purpose of the loan would be in conflict of interest with the lender’s policies. 

The monetizers are also very particular about other assets.  Generally speaking, think in terms of what any typical bank would loan on.  Accounts receivables against the US gov't would be very doubtful.  Who is going to enforce collection?  Also, our monetizers require a minimum appraised value of $150M before they will even look at it.  The easiest things to monetize are gold bars or coins sitting in a bonded warehouse with authenticated SKR, or Medium Term Notes (MTNs) listed on Euroclear, etc. 

"Bullet" is so called because it moves fast and ends within a short period; as distinguished from most other platform programs which stay open for months and have typically 40-week terms or 1-year terms with 40 banking weeks.  Bullets with tear sheet privileges and a short period like 10 days are favored by the traders because it is very unlikely the investor would lose patience and move his money within ten days.  It is a short enough period for most clients to comply with the contract and leave the money intact until the payout. 

Yes, perfectly stated.  You would not only be terminated from the program, but you would also be blacklisted throughout the entire industry and most likely never again permitted to enter any platform anywhere.  They keep a shared database of such information.  They take this seriously.  A client who is given such high yields without moving or “investing” his money, and then who is so ungrateful as to break the contract by moving his money before the completion of the contract will never again be welcome in any BIIP.  Remember, these programs are “by invitation only”.

It means that the client can leave his money where it is presently, as long as it is an acceptable bank, without having to move one’s capital to a different bank.  Therefore this is considered to be the number one most desirable and appealing arrangement for investor-clients.  In the old days, one bank would verify to another the balance in a customer’s account by tearing off a copy of the balance sheet and transmitting it to the other bank.  Today, of course, it’s all done electronically and instantly, but it still bears the same quaint name.

Bank instruments traders always need to issue a line of credit that reflects the amount the client has on deposit somewhere.  It is the line of credit that is used to trade instruments, not the client’s original principal.  If no administrative hold is placed on the client’s principal, the client could move the funds out of his account at any time.  That would pull the rug out from under the trader’s line of credit.  This is why an electronic verification is needed from the client’s bank.  It confirms to the trader that the principal underlying the line of credit is still in the account.  If the client were to remove his capital prematurely, before the end of the contract, he would be in violation of the contract.  That would result in all the profits stopping and the client becoming blacklisted.  This means he would never again be invited into any BIIP ever again anywhere in the world, by any BIIP provider.

A client being given the privilege of leaving his principal capital wherever it is presently is usually reserved for the $100M+ clients.  So to receive this privilege for small cap, i.e. under $100M, is rare and unusual.  By contrast, our other zero risk small cap programs presently available require that the client move his funds to a designated bank.  ($100M+ clients can almost always have tear sheet programs if desired.)

None of that goes to others.  Please confirm this when you see the contract, but normally the return quoted is NET to the client.  That is the normal protocol when quoting returns.  Platforms nearly always quote client returns as "net".  Fees and percentages to other parties come out of the gross, above and beyond the net. 

Yes, and the fact that clients who are clean, ethical, cooperative, and responsible with their funds are valuable to the traders.  By raising small clients into large cap ones, the traders have cultivated ideal clients for their own large cap trades.  Your success is their success, so when they have cultivated good large cap clients, those clients will tend to be loyal and stay with them for a long time.  That expands the success of the trading group. 

If you could do it quickly, and get your KYC in with it, that would be good.  Passports are requested because these programs are international, and BIIP participants identify themselves that way.  It is required to have a current passport in private trading.  No other form of ID will work.  You will have to get a new passport.  It can be done quickly.  You don’t have to go through the post office, which is slow.  As you may know, there are private passport agencies you can find.  For an extra fee of usually a couple hundred dollars, they will expedite it for you.  You can probably get it in a few days. ​

Yes, the POF is required as part of your KYC to commence the intake process.  On the other hand, you could show POF from your existing account and still move the funds after that, as long as you inform the trading team.  The sooner the better, so as to get the intake process started.  Sometimes transfers of that size from one bank to another can take longer than we expected.  Perhaps you could show the existing POF, include a note in your KYC that you intend to move the funds to XYZ bank, and offer to produce a new POF after the money has been moved. 

Yes, that is normal.  When you open and read the KYC form, you will see that that question is asked on the form.  Good questions.

Thank you for this good question.  Of course the trade groups with which we are associated cannot claim to adhere strictly only to the codes of any one religion, because those vary widely, even from congregation to congregation.  But certainly the ones with which we are associated are the ones that we have observed to be honoring their contracts, paying out as promised, showing benevolence, and showing compliance with all relevant secular laws.  The fact that they do not admit clients that are known to be dangerous to society is one evidence of their ethics. 

Dr. Buckminster Fuller, who had 48 Ph.D.s, in the 1970s did a calculation.  He totaled up all the wealth in the world, and then he divided it by the world's population.  What this calculation showed was that if it was evenly divided, every last man, woman, and child would be a multi-millionaire.  This mathematically proved that there was no shortage of supply.  There was only an inequity in distribution. 

This was not to advocate some communistic or socialistic redistribution.  It was only to prove that those who believe in "necessary evils", and that poverty is not possible to fix any time soon, are disproven by the numbers. 

It is our opinion that virtuous, well-designed, well-operated, and fairly administered high yield investment programs are among the very best ways to multiply wealth and increase abundant distribution in this world.  This is the philosophy, as well, of the best bank instruments trading administrators at the top of the industry - - the ones with whom we are associated.  Beyond their own profits, this is why they are involved in it.  They see it as improving the economy of the world.  We agree with this. 

So being, this should have the full approval of Heaven and Earth.  It should be seen as fitting with the ideals of all religions and all spiritual paths. 

It is also important to note that the trading itself in BIIPs has no losers.  It has exit buyers, but these are major institutions like pension funds that are heavily regulated, and they are not experiencing a loss when they make these exit purchases.  This was explained inter alia.

The Forex market, by contrast, always has a winner on one side and a loser on the other.  Same with commodities futures.  Same with stock speculation.  Purchasing stocks as investments for the long-term hold, like Warren Buffet does, rarely has losers, so that is better.  But all the markets that have winners at the expense of losers are not improving the collective economy very much, if at all. 

The BIIP industry, on the other hand, simply multiplies the medium of distribution via high speed quantum computers trading bank instruments at lightning speed.  It is basically a form of arbitrage, so it is pretty close to zero risk even for the traders.  They have a buyer lined up at a profit before they buy at a lower price.  Hence it only produces winners.  The buyers win, the sellers win, the traders win, the clients win, the intermediaries win, and the economy in general wins when all parties spend the money thus gained on life-supporting projects. 

That calculator was not intended to introduce a program.  Programs come and go every month.  It was simply an illustration of a typical program.  It only illustrated one that probably existed last year or the year before, but it was for illustration purposes only.  That is why it is in the Industry Overview, which doesn't change anywhere near as often as the Current Programs document.  The Current Programs document is the one to refer to for up-to-the-minute news about what is available NOW. 

This is a good question and is one that some others have asked. It is appreciated that less professional brokers of PPPs have been known to shop investor paperwork around, looking for acceptance at a platform. Then the investor starts receiving calls from unknown parties who have received his private information. Naturally this would be very unsettling. Thus, please consider the following points.

1. The first thing to realize is that absolute privacy is already nonexistent, before even coming to us. Credit data on just about everyone who has a credit history is already available on the underground dark net. Intelligence agencies already have everything about everyone in real time. Any money of any significant size is already showing on screens, along with everything about its owner.
2. Reputable consultants do not shop investor KYC forms. They submit them only and exclusively to the one place where they belong: the trade desk.
3. The most sensitive information is not requested in the initial intake documents. That is only requested later, after the contract is signed, and it only goes directly to the trader. It is never needed by the compliance officer or the intermediaries.
4. Most owners of substantial capital, such as $10 million or more, know that they should never deposit it at the ordinary street retail level of a bank, facilitated by the lowest paid bank clerks. That raises some small risk of fraud and attempted theft by such employees. Rather, most high net worth owners of capital do their banking at higher levels of the institution, typically called private banking, where much greater security is routine.

   In the PPPs, since the cash deposit or BI is required to be with a top 25 bank, there is nominal Financial Institution risk. These trade programs only occur among top 25 banks with AAA credit ratings, which is better than the US Federal Government, and the US Treasury is considered to be the “risk-free rate”. In addition, our recommended PPPs ONLY operate on Tier 1 platforms - - meaning we deal directly and only with the ‘highest of the high’ level traders. Not only are they of the highest integrity, but they also have the greatest proven credibility and reputation in the industry. They stand to gain endlessly more success by continuing to honor their client’s rights, and they have the most to lose by not doing so.

5. It is suggested to obtain and use a Protonmail email address. Protonmail has the most invulnerable email encryption in the world and protects email attachments as well, but only if the email is between one Protonmail user and another. The link to obtain your own account is https://protonmail.ch/invite.

Yes.  Here is the list of acceptable banks - https://risk.lexisnexis.com/insights-resources/article/bank-rankings-top-banks-in-the-world