You are here

Top Secret Banker's Manual (Tom Schauf) REFORMAT

Primary tabs

856.72 KiB1039
This torrent has no flags.

PDF ocr-only, no page images, 150 pages. This is a reformat of the pdf ("Top Secret Banker's Manual.pdf" created 2004 -- 10.4MB) uploaded at various sites.

In case of connection problems: add the backup tracker to your client:


This was a poor scan: dual page landscape mode in a low-res 150dpi grayscale and skewed like a drunken sailor (apologies to sailors and drunks). Also it is missing the last few pages of the book (Appendices):

(a) Pages 148-9:
Proof of Mailing and Certificate of Service 148
(b) (Possibly) page 151, unless page 151 as well as page 152 was blank:
Acts, Statutes, Regulations, Terms.............................................150
(c) Completely missing: Excerpts from Tom's first book.................154

Neverthless the subject was engaging enough to persuade me to do a reformat to read the book, which is the new version here. Half the pages remain off-center because of the skewed page images and the auto-splitting which I don't have time to correct, but printed it looks alright. A plain text unformatted (iso) dump also is included (2 or 3 overstrike charcters in the pdf version will not replicate). Revision date on page 3 is illegible but best guess is 09/12/03.

"In Malachi Chapter 1, Esau means red head child and Rothschild the banker was a red head child. Esau (Edomites) settled by the Black Sea where the Rothschilds, the bankers of today, came from Edom and changed their names to Jewish names claiming to be Jews but were not. See Revelation 2:9, 3:9. The Bible claims that today's bankers are of the synagogue of Satan. See Genesis 25:30-34, 27:30-46. ..." pages 90-91.

Author Tom Schauf says that when a borrower takes a loan of money and gives a promissory note in return to support the signed loan agreement the note is new money so it is an exchange of money for money -- the bank has not provided new money from others on a matched basis on which it can legitimately charge interest. For more general principles see the sections dealing specifically with credit card debt, where there is NO promissory note.

The person who penned the book cannot spell or write normal, cursive prose. For example, his spelling of Foreword is "Forward" (just like in "Dr." John Coleman, a.k.a. Clark, a.k.a. Pavlovsky: "The Conspirators' Hierarchy -- The Committee of 300" ); he calls a lis pendens (pending court action per the law dictionary) a Liz Pendens on page 88 (section purportedly written by one R.D. Hollis) and generally repeats himself haphazardly. It seems he doesn't know the difference between principle and principal -- quite an accomplishment for an accountant. Some sentences don't parse at all or make any sense without changing them -- see for example top of page 42 (where done beyond correcting obvious typing errors, marked with [ ] ). On page 150 the reference to a 1994 Securities and Exchange Act looks as if it should be to a 1934 Act of that title, possibly as modified in 1994:

So treat the contents with all due caution. The document is out of date. Note his warning that strategies (and laws) change every 30-90 days or more frequently -- and consider that the book is now nearly ten years old (and may have been replaced with one or more updates at ).[now dead link]

Still, for all its faults it has some interesting gewgaws in it, not just his technical arguments, and it might promote greater awareness of the money scam. Also strands of its theme remain topical, for example mortgage foreclosures in the U.S. have generated court cases where foreclosure was avoided because the bank could not produce the promissory note or deed:

"The bank works on presumption [sic] hoping that no one demands the original note or who owns the note. If you cannot find the note, some States allow one to reconstruct the note. How can they reconstruct it if the one doing the reconstructing has no personal knowledge and you are arguing the terms and conditions of the note? Only you have first hand knowledge, only you were there signing it. Some States allow the attorney to use a copy of the public record where the note was recorded in the country record and certify the copy as the original. Again the attorney has no personal knowledge and it could be forged, stolen and we still do not know who owns it. They still cannot explain our 6-7 terms in dispute in the back of this manual in the notices claiming breach of agreement. ..." --page 31.

I doubt that his technical arguments will play much part in the successful removal of the fractional reserve / multiplier based debt money system, although in practice they might still secure some wins where the money claimed is so small as not to interest the lender. However, I have not checked out how the substantive argument itself has evolved, or if it is succeeding (or not) currently, so please consider posting any information you may have on matters such as whether Schauf is still alive, whether anyone is using his concept and applying the methodology and with what success, etc.

The book refers to other materials also by Tom Schauf: "Tom's banking books" (untitled 2-volume banking book) and his audio cassette series: "Argue Like a Bank Loan Expert Witness".

Urls mentioned: [dead link] [dead link] [resolves to ]

"They let us know that your vote means nothing. You were just voting for banker candidate #1 or banker candidate #2. Banker wins—you lose. They set up a system to keep you in debt, to get your wealth for free and to keep the banker in power in a government run by the bankers. WE MUST CHANGE THE SYSTEM FROM THAT WHICH HAS ENSLAVED US, BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED FOR US—WITH EQUAL PROTECTIONS, LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS FOR ALL, WITH NO NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER TO ENSLAVE AMERICANS." (page 72)

"Those going to court arguing the banking system will lose. If you tell the judge that the bank lent credit or did not follow the Constitution, you also lose. A class action lawsuit will fail. If you do not show that the capital for the loan came from you, you lose. If the bank can show that the bank lent you the bank's money, the judge will force you to repay the money regardless if you deny it is your signature or not. The bank will use the form—agreement—with your signature to claim that the bank lent money to you. To be successful you must show that the substance, bookkeeping entries (GAAP), were the opposite of the form, substantially changing the cost and risk." (page 97).