RTS – Deryl Zeleny Interview with Chris Hales – Transcription

Posted: April 17, 2013 in One People's Public Trust (OPPT)

Posted from:




Excellent interview!  I pulled the following discussion around the fraudulent activities of the banks in making purported loans to their customers.  It something we all need to understand if we’re going to free our self from financial slavery. Stand up for truth when the truth is known, even if it’s hard for you to do.  The fear will leave when you realize you have absolute data.

Make sure you listen to the interview or read the entire transcription.

Deryl Zeleny’s Campaign Against Legal and Financial Corruption in Canada
An Interview with Chris Hales

April, 2013


Chris: The fact that they also refused to acknowledge the fact that the loan itself, regardless of the monetization of your signature on the loan application, that the loan itself is actually a fraudulent loan. It’s not actually a loan.
Deryl: It’s not a loan. It’s created X’s and helos (?). It’s created out of nothing. For a legal contract to exist, both parties must submit something of value.
Chris: Yes and they don’t, of course. They don’t submit anything.
Deryl: No they don’t. This is a money creation story, so let’s say it’s two children there. One is going to buy something off the other. They choose potato chips as the form of currency. Okay? So they’re barterting. The payment method will be 10 potato chips. One child can’t give you pretend potato chips. This is basically what the bank does. They give you pretend money. They create X in the helo (?). They have no authority to do that.
Chris: Well, also they’re actually coining money, which is against your constitution anyway assuming what existed, which means that for generations they’ve been illegally creating money.
Deryl: Yes, they have. Parliament is the only legal authority to coin money.
Chris: Yeah, now one of the aspects that I always try to point out to people when you look at the situation where a bank creates a fraudulent mortgage with someone who actually signs the application form and as you say they don’t bring any value to the table, the only thing that’s of value on the table is the person’s signature, because we have value. We hold the value in this entire situation and we’re lied to about that. People, for instance, think that if you bought a house and the bank’s giving you this money, that you’ve got this house and somehow or other, you feel if you stop paying this mortgage because you feel the bank’s created a fraudulent situation, you’ve got a free house.
Okay, what I’d like to point out to them is this, two weeks after that document is signed, let’s look at the balance sheet. The balance sheet for the person; the balance sheet for the bank. The person actually has what they believe to be a lawful debt, which they’re going to pay off over a period of 20 years. It might be a $500,000 dollar loan and it might cost them $1,000,000 dollars by the time they get to the end of that if they successfully get through to the end. The bank on the other hand has rushed out and monetized their signature, grouped it into some other bonds, created a financial instrument and sold it 10 times over. So that made at least $5,000,000 dollars two weeks later. Now what they don’t do is phone you up and say ‘Thanks Deryl, we did really well monetizing your signature. Don’t worry about paying us anything back, because it’s already paid for.’
Deryl: That’s exactly right. There’s actually three crimes that are committed here. The first one is there is really no loan made. It’s called a debt credit entry under the (inaudible) money mechanics. You’re obliged to pay back, like you said, that non-loan to them at an interest rate. Okay? So, under law of consideration, there is no contract. The contract is broken, because they didn’t provide you…
Chris: It’s null and void.
Deryl: It’s null and void. The second fraud is they have under LIBOR rigged the interest rate. So, they have fixed that and it has already been proven, admitted that and have been fined. So that’s the second fraud. The third one you mentioned is they bundle those mortgages together and sell them as mortgage-backed securities to another agent, they may (inaudible) 10 or whatever, so that mortgage is once again paid off, like you said, three, four, five, six, seven times. Yet you’re still paying your monthly mortgage and interest rate, even though that mortgage has been sold off.
Let’s also jump in to the other fraud and this is why all the banks are showing huge profits. Okay? Let’s say your home is worth $100,000 and you sign a mortgage for that. They take that original note, they go and monetize that under modern mechanics. They can make nine times out of that. So they would monetize that for $900,000 dollars, deduct $100,000 dollars from their books that they have to keep to 10% and put $800,000 dollars in their pocket. For instance, they sell it to Bank B. Bank B has that amount there of $900,000. They do it again and again. So that’s how they inflate it through the fractional reserve system.
Chris: (affirmative response) Completely fictitious.
Deryl: Completely fictitious. So that brings us up to present day.
Chris: Actually can I just add two more criminal acts?
Deryl: Sure, go ahead.
Chris: Insurance fraud, because mortgages are insured. One of the reasons they have to put mortgages through a court is they have to get a court order to give to the insurance company to again refund them for this loss that they’ve made, because the property was foreclosed on because the person failed to pay this so-called loan back.   Now the actual loan itself is fraudulent, so the insurance claim against the foreclosure of the property is also fraudulent. The whole thing’s poison. So that’s another thing you can add to it.
Another one is a charge, which in Australia is called unjust enrichment. That’s again something that there’s fairly steep penalties for. Clearly when you look at the amount of money the bank would make in total out of you simply putting your signature on a piece of paper versus the thing that you get out of it if you successfully pay off the loan, which is a property. If you look at the period of 20 years and how much money they would make out of the monetization of that original signature, you would end up with a property…say it’s worth, you paid $1,000,000 dollars for it and at that point it’s worth $1.2 or $1.5 million…and say ‘god, I’ve done quite well’. Well look what the bank’s done. Don’t forget what we described a moment ago was simply the first few months of their activity with that monetized signature. That goes on for 20 years. In their ponzi scheme, builds up this HUGE value. So the amount…well, this apparent value. We know it’s not real. We know there’s no real value in it. There’s a value in a portion of it, but it’s only because you signed the piece of paper.
This is how in this country here where there’s 23-odd million people, the banks make $16 billion dollars profit per year out of 23 million people. That is ridiculous. This is how they’re doing it. It’s all completely fraudulent. They’ll be doing the same thing in Canada or just slight variations thereof, depending on how their systems actually work.
Deryl: All western nations and all central banks are doing this ponzi scheme. Nothing different than what Bernie Madoff did.
Chris: You’re, at this stage, if we bring it up to this present moment of now, you’ve got three properties which are in … are they all in the same stage of foreclosure? Have they all had the rubber stamp yet?    
Deryl: They’ve all had the rubber stamp. So now they’re getting their (inaudible) invoices, Declaration of Facts, and true commercial bill. Well, I’ve given one invoice out. I’m running behind, (laughs) but the others will get there shortly. There’s more important issues here at this time, Chris.
Chris: Yep, well you’ve actually already been evicted out of one of the properties. Do you want to describe that briefly? Because you spent a fair bit of time talking to the enforcement guys, who are the purported sheriffs or whatever they call themselves in your system.
Deryl: They call them actually enforcement officers. Let me get some dates here. I had received a notice again on the property that I live at that I had to be out by the 26th of March. The sheriff that I had spoke to in January, because I filed a motion and I got that one delayed. The bank actually withdrew until we went to trial. Anyway, the sheriff had come over on the 25th and I talked to Ken a few months earlier in January and he said ‘Well, you know you gotta be out of here by tomorrow morning’. I talked to him a bit and said “Well, I’m not leaving. This is what’s going on’ and he said ‘Well, okay, I will have to come over tomorrow and evict you.’ I said ‘If you do that, I will charge you.’ Everything was cordial and so forth and I said I’d get some paperwork ready for you.
So the 26th rolled around, I had various documents for him. We determined that they had set the swat team up at the top of the hill. There were four cars out there; this was roughly 10:30. We were waiting for them to show up. We had cameras and tape recorders and stuff ready to go and the documentation ready. They had come down at 10:55. They started down the driveway. Something happened and they backed out and left. We went ‘Huh, that’s strange.’ So we waited around another hour and it was decided that well, we’ll just go down to the courthouse and see what’s going on. So approximately 3:00, I went down, confronted the acting, alleged sheriff and I asked for the deputy Ken. She said he had left for the day.
Chris: Just to clarify something, because one of the comments in our earlier discussions was that you discovered that these enforcement officers do not work under oath and bond.
Deryl: Yes.
Chris: So they’re not, in no way are they a bailiff or a sheriff. They are just corporate employees acting as enforcement officers; as thugs literally, to carry out the orders of the unlawful courts.

Deryl: Yes, when I asked them…and I’ll get into that here…on the 26th, I went down at 3:00, confronted the alleged sheriff and I asked for Ken, the deputy there. She said he was not around, he had left for the day. I said I had some documents for him. I expected him in the morning and he didn’t show up. She said ‘Well, can I have the documents?’ I said “No, they’re not for you. They are for Ken.’ Then I asked her, ‘So why did you send the OPP to my place?’ She indicated that ‘Well, we had concerns.’




Be sure to read the complete transcription.  You will enjoy it…


  1. Au Matu says:

    Reblogged this on Au Matu.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s