Request RE: The Treasury Department's Creation Of Bonds To RBA In Exchange Of Debt/Borrowed Money and ADI mortgages

steven made this Freedom of Information request to Department of the Treasury

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Department of the Treasury,

under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act

for the purposes of this request the adi means Authorized deposit-taking institutions that either has a current credit licence or has a subsidiary that holds a current credit licence, please clarify or correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm seeking information or documents that outline the process the treasury department uses to create the Bonds that the treasury department exchanges with the reserve bank of Australia in exchange for money borrowed as public debt.?

1) The context of the Bonds i.e who is being Bonded on the instrument.

2) Who is the signatory for this Bond. ?

3) A letter of authority from the Entity/s in the Bond Authorizing the signatory to create the Bond ?

4)Is it the working living men and women and their energy that is the value that backs the Bond ?

5) can the treasury use the working living men and women to create the Bond and and sign the Bond without disclosure ?

6) Does the context include a promise to pay back the borrowed money ?

7) Is the Bond indorsed and does the reserve bank Australia securitize and trade/sell the Bond as investments ?

8) under the BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1909 - SECT 89 Promissory note defined
is this Government bond the same as a promissory note ?

9) if the promise on the bond was not met, what would be the consequences

10) if the treasury can sign the people into a bond without disclosure then surely the people have the power to create their own bond/promissory note

11) what are the methods that are currently used but the ADI banks , anz, natrional, commonwealth and westpac r people depositing liquid cash into these banks

12) is this accurate , the adi don't take deposits from the people in any form of legal tender and the people are instead lending their money to the adi and adi deposits the money into the purported-depositor/ lenders/customers account? but the adi bank owns that money but the purported-depositor/ lenders/customers has to pay tax on all interest and this is why the adi deposits the liquid cash into purported-depositor/ lenders/customers account ?

13) is #12 tax evasion and fraud ?

14) the only 2 methods a customer/depositor can engage in transactions with and adi bank is lending money to the adi described in #12 and the other method is bailment where the adi is the custodian and the money is kept in a safety deposit box and the adi charges a services fee but the adi cannot access this money ?

15) courts have ruled that the customer/ depositor is lending money to the adi and deposits do not exists other than the adi depositing the money borrowed from the purported-depositor/ lenders/customer as mentioned in #12 ?

16) this would then qualify as a high risk loan from the purported-depositor/ lenders/customer to the adi because a security i.e mortgage has not been registered on the the loan for the purported-depositor/ lenders/customer who is actually just a lender, the adi would then be obligated to pay the market interest rate for such high risk unsecured loans in the form of liquid cash

17) in the case of a customer/borrower wanting to purchase a $500,000 home and the borrower who is also the lender as mentioned in #12,16 the home purchaser/borrower has $200,000 of liquid cash towards the purchase of the home , then unknowingly lends this $200,000 to the adi , the adi makes the borrower/lender/purchaser sign a loan agreement (not a contract) this loan agreement is in turn a promissory under the bills of exchange act this promissory note is back by the same energy that the treasury bonds are back by so there for it has value sum of money in the note plus interest and fee incurred in this case I will use the example of the $300,000 + $400,000 interest and fees total of $700,000, this is the total value of the note once the loan matures and the promise is fulfilled ?

18) can you see my dilemma? what loan their is no loan ? the borrower is never a borrower and only ever a lender, the adi is borrowing the $200,000 liquid cash from the purchaser of the home and then the adi is also borrowing the $300,000 principle created by the home purchaser signature on the promise to pay is this not the case ? if so please elaborate?

19) a bank account is opened on the purchaser name and the promissory note is deposited into that account ( without the knowledge of the purchaser) this is also related to the property title and the registered propriety owner listed on the title that matches the account name ?

19 or does the adi claim to buy the promissory note from the home purchaser and original creator of the note?

21) in order for the adi to be able to secuiritize the note and sell the note as investments to SEC wall street the adi would have to purchase the note from the original creator of the promissory note who owns the promised energy that backs the note ?

22) if the adi has indeed purchased the note then the home is paid in full ?

23) how can the adi sell a promise it did not creator unless the adi buys the note and takes the risk that the promise will not be fulfilled , that would be the banks equal consideration in the transaction which by the way is required for a contract , but their is no contract with 2 blue wet ink signatures nor is there equal consideration the adi brings nothing to the table and the adi risk is 00000 ?

24) how does the adi register the mortgage encumbrance on the title , or is this how the adi steals the promissory note by claiming this is the money from the adi to the home purchaser as a loan/credit and this then lien or this mortgage note as a security is sold off to investors in SEC wall street

25) this is fraud, so if the adi steals the promise from the home purchaser in order to register a mortgage as a security interest which is a fraud the adi then sells this security which it stole and then it holds the title also, under the 1959 banking act sect 39 has the following stated

"Australian currency" includes notes, coins, postal notes, money orders, bills of exchange, promissory notes, drafts, letters of credit and travellers' cheques payable or expressed in Australian money, and also includes rights, and ----> instruments of title<----, to Australian money.

26) the owners equity from the liquid cash in the case of this example the $200,000 and possible more due to capital growth is the value in that title as an instrument , this is being help by the adi under relationship , as a loan from the home purchaser to the adi which entitles the owner to a high risk unsecured loan with interest rate payable from the adi to the home purchaser/owner or the adi is holding the title as a custodian who charges a service fee and the owner can request the title and the adi will promptly return the title the adi's claim that the title is held for security is a farce , the adi already has the registered mortgage that was created through fraud I might add

27) I'm just going to recap ( please use this as main request and it my will that the following is clarified

(i) john citizen approaches adi aka banks for $500,000 to purchase home

(ii) john citizen has $200,000 liquid cash to contribute towards purchase of home

(iii) the adi offers no equal consideration ?

(iv) the adi brings nothing to the table?

(v) the adi borrows the john citizens liquid cash e.g $200,000 (undisclosed)

(vi) john citizen sign promissory note for $300,000 which is money and has real value backed by energy /promise to pay

(vii) the adi commits fraud by stealing the note of the original creator of the note , regardless of how it's done , we know who created it and it has value (otherwise treasury wouldn't be use to use the same method with the reserve bank) and the adi now has it.

(viii) after registering the security on the mortgage the adi sells the note anywhere between $300,000 and $700,000 ( the extra $400,000 comes from interest and fees compounding on the principle $300,000)

(ix) the adi also holds the title which is john citizen's equity derived from the liquid cash john citizen contributed ( this being the only real money in this whole transaction) equal to $200,000 .

$300,000 the note theft(later comes into existence as principle on completion of payments or foreclosure and sale)
$200,000 (title equity & only real money ) this is listed as the adi's asset and God knows what other Ponzi's initiate.
$300,000 (sale of note $300,000- $400,000 margin for investors 2008 gfc in mind false pretenses $700,000)
$400,000 ( interest and fees - compounding interest to go with the compounding fraud)
sub total $1.2 mil , that's not bad considering 0 risk 0 investment 0 consideration

why subtotal ?
like a late night infomercial " but wait their is more "

the foreclosure looks to be a desired result actually it is the goal , for 1 it's brings that $300,000 note/principle into existence a lot sooner , 5 years as opposed to 15-20-25 or 30 years, the fact that all loans have this interest only period with a illusion of an option that being 3-5 year period, which is obviously for 2 reason.

(a) john citizen will pay 3-5 years interest and he also paid stamp duty , council rates, city etc... the adi received interest
3 years $57600 - 5 years $96000 + fees the S.R.O $20000 stamp duty , local council anywhere $7000- 12000 , water util $4000-6000

(b)the 3-5 years interest only also lure people into borrowing and qualifying for loans that wouldn't normal be able to afford due to the small repayments , like man other John Citizen thought he would be able to do overtime or some money was coming his from compo or will and he would knock 100k and once the payments increase by 70-100 % due to interest and principle he would have already knock at least 100k off the principle, I mean that's what everyone else must be doing surely this must be the norm because everyone else has bought a home !!!

( The Grand Finally)
the transition from interest only to principle is a refinancing , now the treasury must have some knowledge of what I'm about to reveal.

the adi can foreclose at this point because your approval was based only on the first period that you could afford
but if you have been a good little sheep and you did not fall in to arrears the adi will refinance you with a new loan agreement and you wont even know it happened , you don't need to sign any loan agreements , they do it all for you , isn't that nice of them ????? , well it's the least they can do in return for the new note that they create which is once again sold /traded to investors C/O of SEC wall street, the note is sold 1-2 months after this transition and this is their favorite time to pull the pin and foreclose if you give them reason to and sometimes they will create their own reason through an evaluation of the property and because you still owe the principle a slight drop in property values can see you nudge over the LVR and they will foreclose.

John Citizen is pretty sure that he would have been better off renting and taking to grey street at least the violation would have been with consent and paid !

If you can please confirm or provide any documents related to the above but I have 3 very important questions that are the main focus

1)when the adi forecloses 3-4-5 years into a loan at the point to promise from the originator of the promise has been unable to fulfill the promise , adi has sold this promise with false pretenses and their own promise that the investment is AAA and it will pay off in the long run , but when it doesn't , what right does the adi have to any interest or the whole amount of principle that initiated from the home purchaser and original creator of promissory note containing the promise , sureply their is a law that would protect against this.

the reason why I ask is that if entities that makes these promises or steal the original creator of the promise (treasury*bonds adi theft of note) can benefit from the principle while undisclosed and the promise not being fulfilled, what is stopping John Citizen from writing a promissory note and selling it to unsuspecting investors while having no intention of fulfilling that promise ?

2) is their our version of Fannie may and Freddie mac that are purely loan servicers that continuously service the loans regardless if the loans are in default or are up to date , these servicers would rely on tax payer government funded bailouts if things were to go pear shape, is their such a thing in Australia

3) if the treasury knows this is going on and they do , and the treasury possess the power under the 1900 Constitution
which HCA have confirmed is the highest law of the land and is current and enforced, to control the supply of money, inflation and eliminating this never ending interest compounding on an ever increasing debt to a foreign power who is striving towards an inevitable result which is the demise of this federation and a future of pain and suffering along with the loss of the entire population property ? will be sending a mandate and an affidavit that will ensure this question is answered and those involved are held accountable, for this is an obvious deliberate oversight by those governing for the people and not over the people... TREASON !

I leave you with these last word from a great man.

The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society ... JFK

Yours faithfully,


FOI, Department of the Treasury

Dear Steven
We write to acknowledge receipt of your request, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).
Your request was received by the Treasury on 22 July 2019. The FOI Act provides that we have 30 days to process the request. This period may be extended if we need to consult third parties or for other reasons. We will advise you if this happens.
We will advise you if a charge is payable to process your request and the amount of any such charge as soon as possible.
We make the following assumptions that affect the scope of the request. These are set out below.
It is our usual practice:
• not to disclose the personal information of government employees or the personal contact details of senior government employees (including those of the Treasury). The names of senior officers will generally be released.
• not to release duplicates of any document captured within the scope of the request.
• only the final version of a document will be considered within scope.

Please inform us if you do not agree to the request being processed on the above assumptions. If we do not hear from you, your request will be processed on the basis that you do not intend to capture these matters in your scope
We will contact you using the email you provided. Please advise if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.
If you have any questions in relation to your application, please contact the FOI Team on 02 6263 2800.
Kind regards
Freedom of Information Officer
The Treasury
Ph: +61 2 6263 2800
e: [email address]

show quoted sections

FOI, Department of the Treasury

1 Attachment

Dear Steven


Please see the attached correspondence


Freedom of Information Officer

The Treasury

Ph: +61 2 6263 2800

e: [1][email address


show quoted sections


Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear FOI,

is Pexa owned by the state government and anz bank , westpac, national bank and comm bank
and if so then the stat government would then have a conflict of interest
States not to coin money
A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.

are the electronic intangible security bonds listed on the federal and state treasuries websites held by PEXA ? the remnants of the original hard copies already sold overseas by the banks.

if the same securities are being sold over again then it could be described as a type of Ponzi scheme

so PEXA is the Australian version of MERS? and I see some very familiar names from the 2007 GFC have joined the parts , HSBC, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch

the banks don't even lend money but some how the banks are allowed to keep the principle after a foreclosure.

they sell the note and have a mortgage secured for the value of the purported loan which is listed as an encumbrance on the title. but the title belongs to the owner

pexa and the banks are holding peoples titles unlawfully so they can force a quick easy sale

the 4 big aussie banks are publicly listed but the major share holders through private trusts link bank to goldman sachs , jp morgan , merril lynch and deutsche bank

and their are 40 services or more which more people believe are public services run by our government, services like magistrates, county, and supreme court are all under the 1 ABN 32 790 228 959 and this one ABN is own by all of one of these U.S banks ?, would that be correct

If i have the wrong information then please by all means let me know . because all of this does make some sense , well it does for me , it explains why certain people might feel as though they are being targeted yeah ?

Infringement Management & Enforcement Services
Sheriffs Office Victoria
Residential Tenancies Bond Authority
Coroners Court of Victoria
Office of the Special Investigations Monitor
Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
Registrar of Births Deaths & Marriages Victoria
Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages
Office of Emergency Services Commissioner
Consumer Affairs Victoria
Enforcement Management
Major Procurement Program Office
Professional Standards Council
Bureau of Emergency Services Telecommunications
Dispute Settlement Centre
Road Safety Enforcement Technology
Victim Support Agency
Corrections Victoria
Sentencing Advisory Council

do all these entities that share the same ABN share the one bank account ????
at the bank that owns them ???


how else can this be explained ? it's exactly what I assumed when I first discovered it

Yours sincerely,


FOI, Department of the Treasury

Dear Steven

On 11 September 2019 you submitted questions to the Treasury relating to PEXA, private sector organisations and the South Australian Government.

We are not able to assist with your questions as they do not relate to the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury.

We suggest you contact PEXA and the other private sector organisations you listed in your questions to obtain information on each organisation.

If you are seeking information on ABN numbers for South Australian Government Agencies, we suggest you contact the South Australian Government. Further information on submitting an FOI request on the South Australian Government is available at


Freedom of Information Officer
The Treasury
Ph: +61 2 6263 2800
e: [email address]

show quoted sections