November 13, 2013
Ms. Frederieke Hegger
Dear Ms. Hegger,
I have been asked to write you regarding my 1968 thesis (formal proofs) of inevitably terminal monetary failure under the present global obfuscation of our currency; of a singular monetary justice, or “mathematically perfected economy™”; and of a singular just means for transforming terminal “banking systems” into mathematically perfected economy™ — immediately, and even virtually without cost:
My work was not only the original monetary presence of the modern internet; digital accessibility preceded the formal internet by nearly ten years in documentation and computer models I provided to the 1979 Reagan Campaign, and to the 1983 and 1984 Reagan Administrations, which were posted largely to collegiate bulletin boards of the pre-internet era. Documentation which has been provided in fact to every sitting United States’ President since and including Gerald Ford, proves an intentional obfuscation of our currency in which “banking systems” do not give up commensurable consideration in a criminal subversion of our promissory obligations to each other, and thus by which, in the purported creation of money, “banking” only obfuscates obligations to each other, into falsified debts to banking.
In “banking’s” purported creation of money, neither then is any legitimate claim to the principal at stake, as only ostensibly justifies “interest.”
Contemporary “banking systems” therefore no more than publish further representations of our promissory obligations to each other; yet “banking’s” obfuscation of our currency imposes an implicit obligation to sustain a vital circulation, as the obfuscation itself compels paying principal and interest out of a circulation comprised of only some remaining principal; and as it is impossible or impractical to persist in servicing even the initial falsified debts of the obfuscation unless we continually reflate the circulation by borrowing back into our general possession the principal and interest that we pay out of our general possession. Principal therefore returns to circulation as new debt, equal to whatever prior extents of falsified debt it would otherwise resolve — in turn, making it mathematically impossible to pay down prior sums of falsified debt; whereas interest on the further hand then is borrowed back into circulation as new debt, above every prior sum of falsified debt.
A sum of falsified debt therefore increases by ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of falsified debt, until even at an inherently escalating rate, we inevitably succumb to a terminal sum of falsified debt, which not only exceeds a remaining capacity to service it, but in so exceeding remaining capacities to service further debt, destroys any veritable credit-worthiness to borrow further — as nonetheless remains indispensable to sustaining a vital circulation (by a perpetual escalation of otherwise unnecessary “borrowing”).
Thus the final stages of inevitable failure, defeasance, and dispossession under this global obfuscation of our currency are inherently characterized by rapid deflation of the circulation. This property of inevitable failure then is only artificially attended by present federal overspending on a global scale.
In fact nonetheless, in material I provided to the Reagan Administration, I myself prescribed these prospective means of “artificial sustention” — or artificially extending the maximum practical lifespan of the obfuscation by essentially pouring money back into circulation in explicit and perpetual violation of requisite credit-worthiness — not to advocate artificial sustention, but instead to prove the limited effectiveness and ultimate failure of each seeming abuse of “banking.” In other words, my original work not only developed undesirable means of temporarily extending the lifespan of a terminal system of dispossession (which means I feared “banking” might resort to); it proved the limited effectiveness and lifespan of these means of artificial sustention, instead to compel political integrity to see our only plausible alternative was not only to adopt mathematically perfected economy™ — but to do so most immediately (to minimize the sum of injustices otherwise inflicted).
Reagan, if you may remember, announced his candidacy asserting that he would reduce federal tax rates ten percent per year for 3 years, and that this would both balance the federal budget and offset (if not solve) price inflation.
My work on the contrary, had proven more than ten years earlier that we do not suffer circulatory inflation (as is generally *only presumed* to cause price inflation); that the only plausible and possible cause of price inflation is instead perpetual multiplication of falsified debt by interest (which forces industry to increase prices to maintain margins of solubility over the perpetual escalation of falsified debt industry is ultimately forced to service); and that given the escalation of private debt which had manifested by the time Reagan would take office, that as the private sector had already absorbed as much escalation as it could sustain, that nothing short of federal overspending on a scale which had never before been exercised would even succeed in sustaining a vital circulation. Reagan therefore would *necessarily* accumulate more federal deb than any President before him, unless he adopted mathematically perfected economy™.
In fact Reagan’s 1979 campaign staff had my material for months (with many staunch advocates) when Reagan eventually turned infamously to Carter (in debates between the nominees) to pronounce the $150b of federal debt Carter had accumulated *over 4 years*, as “unforgivable.”
Once he was elected, interaction was broken off. I presumed I would never hear from Reagan’s staff again. But in late 1982 I received a telephone call from a staff person who first apologized for the long silence; then pledged that there were strong advocates who were battling for my propositions; and further then confessed that all of my projections were coming true to the letter.
Ultimately, she confessed that they feared a near term manifestation of the terminal monetary failure, defeasance, and dispossession my work proves is an inevitable consequence of sustaining a circulation subject to the present obfuscation of our currency. She asked for my thoughts on how far off the failure might be. I re-explained how, under the double-digit “prime rates” we suffered, the failure was very close. I explained why I did not expect the failure would transpire within the remainder of Reagan’s first term, but that it was quite possible, if not probable, it would transpire some time into a second term, if he should succeed to a second, given the failure of his preposterous means for balancing the budget and arresting price inflation. This off-hand projection would correspond to market collapses which eventually took place in the middle of his second term.
She asked in turn if there was any way to more definitely ascertain the remaining lifespan as might rule out more immediate manifestation.
I responded that it was possible to calculate the very latest moment of inevitable failure — that is, a moment when terminal sums of falsified debt would exceed a remaining capacity to service them; that I could engineer a computer application which would replicate the process of sustaining a vital circulation, amassing further falsified debt accordingly, until we inevitably suffered terminal sums of falsified debt. All I needed from her was the strategy or criteria by which the so-called Federal Reserve Banks would reduce interest rates, as we neared the brink of terminal failure at existing rates.
She asserted on the contrary that the Fed would have to maintain elevated rates, not only to combat price inflation, but to discourage the escalation of borrowing.
I asked her then how advocates were possibly promoting my proposition to any worthy effect, being as she failed to understand how my proposition is a proof that we do not suffer circulatory inflation; that from the beginnings of every normative implementation, we instead suffer terrific deflation in the parts of principal and interest paid from the general possession and re-borrowed [otherwise unnecessarily] as precipitates in a perpetual escalation of falsified debt; that interest is the cause not only of price inflation then, but of perpetual escalation of falsified debt as well; that elevated rates of interest impose more extreme rates of each then (so long as we maintain a vital circulation); and that on the contrary, the Fed would be forced to reduce interest rates. I asserted, “Trust me; you *will* do this.”
She apologized for her failed understanding, and yet though she further recognized the decisive implications, she could only confess that she did not even know if the Fed had such a strategy or criteria — or if the President could acquire such information if the Fed did.
This might seem to leave us powerless to well determine the rate of failure as affected by human administrations which would inevitably apply to the rate of failure; but so I offered to produce an algorithm which, as we approached failure at given rates of interest, would ratchet overall interest rates downward in the assumable pattern of reluctant concession after reluctant concession.
I produced this computer model then at my own cost — running literally thousands of scenarios over and over again, until I was satisfied with a pattern of reduction which I interpreted would reasonably match anticipated behavior of the “central bank” in regard to manifesting conditions. As it turned out, the algorithm in fact very accurately projected not only the pattern by which “banking’ was forced to reduce overall interest rates, but thus, that under the subject rates, we would succumb to terminal sums of falsified debt at approximately 2010 AD.
Thus as the world emerged from its second global war to begin a second lifespan of the obfuscation on a global scale, and under similar rates of interest… the present global monetary failure was accurately and conservatively projected thirty years ago from an implicit obligation to sustain a vital circulation by a perpetual escalation of “borrowing” imposed by a purposed and inevitably terminal obfuscation of the world’s currency.
A great danger to a world which will inevitably eradicate the blatant crimes of banking then, is that the related material is now the most plagiarized and compromised monetary proposition in history.
From its 1968 inception nonetheless, my work comprises a proof of singular solution.
It clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrates then, that to resolve a global dilemma of faux credit, we need no more than to restore the universal human right to issue unexploited promissory obligations, necessarily subject to an obligatory schedule of payment which retires principal at the rate of consumption of related property.
In other words, a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan under mathematically perfected economy™ would cost us only $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month — about 1/10th to 1/12th the periodic costs under “banking’s” intentional obfuscation of our promissory obligations to each other.
Owing to a criminal breach of trust which has never been justified, a transformation of the present obfuscation of our currency into mathematically perfected economy™ simply counts prior payments of interest toward principal, and reverts the schedule and disposition of payment to retire principal at the rate of consumption of the related property — not only in keeping with the natural life cycle and disposition of promissory obligations; but *necessarily* (as an obligation) to sustain immutable representation of entitlement (in “money,” to holders of money), by sustaining a perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation, remaining value of represented property, and remaining obligation *to pay* *the* remaining circulation *for* the remaining value of represented property — which thus cements the value of money to the value of property determined by the only truly free markets and enterprise, when it chooses to monetize the production of its industry.
I wouldn’t expect you to fully understand some of these fundamental propositions at least without walking yourself through their simple math. But neither can I expect you to understand that mathematically perfected economy™ is an indispensable singularity, if I were to offer less.
I will hope then that you will not only make a reasonable effort to understand facts which are not matters of opinion — that we suffer a terminal obfuscation which no legal court can even sustain, in its violation of all normative contractual principle; and that the only valid case of the people indeed, is to claim their sovereign rights to mathematically perfected economy and absolute consensual representation™ — immediately even, if we are to avoid a further worsening of events.
I invite you therefore to Skype me at m_montagne at your earliest convenience, that we may expand upon each subtopic, for your fullest understanding.
As a further example of present events, I have also attached a copy of my Wolfson Economics Prize submission. I further add that we are pursuing court cases across the world, in which to the moment, “banking” — benefiting even from international legal teams — has yet to offer a word of defense. That’s right: the vice president of the Bank of England for example hoped only to evade answering to our legal invalidation of the obfuscation — first claiming the question of commensurable consideration was incomprehensible, before finally asserting it would be too expensive to provide an answer to freedom of information inquiries.
Of course, I pointed out in my very question, that if “banking” *had ever* been justified, he need only point us to veritable documentation of the fact, comprehensive of commensurable consideration.
I might finally mention then, that “banking” will have no alternative but to answer not only this question, but the obvious question of knowledgeable public assent — when not only millions, but billions and trillions worth of property and falsified debt are tried by arguments of the obfuscation.
I will look forward to your call then — anticipating that from this scant account, you will at least realize it is quite possible that no more legitimate authority exists, not only to identify the root of global monetary failure, but to resolve all monetary impropriety.