Re. Legality of BMoney

UPDATED!

From Pomorie, Bulgaria, EU:

On February 12 our special video about legality of BMoney (Barclays/BOE/British debt to Beloy) was released as we promised to you three days early. That documentary proves legitimacy for (a) existence of the Barclays' debt to Beloy, and (b) the sum of the debt counted in trillions (Beloy proposed to limit the sum of settlement to several millions, but the Barclays staff insists the debt must be paid in full). Today, one month later, we are starting distributing it worldwide (initially it was provided for members of BMoney Club only).

Here are just several citations from that video:

"... Since 2000, I got from the Barclays no money at all!

That is undeniable fact.

Together with the fact the Barclays owns me money, and I have a official letters from the Barclays that confirms that fact. Which in other words means existence of a certain debt of Barclays to me. And that becomes an undeniable fact too. Now add to it another undeniable fact: The Barclays officially stopped to communicate with me about the debt. And I have another letter from the Barclays that confirms that fact. And all those undeniable facts together means a fact of stealing my money, which under any definition implies an intentional "act of taking another person's property without that person's freely-given consent". And any fact of stealing cannot not be denied just because of discussing an actual sum of theft. For calling theft a theft it does not matter whether its amount is small or big. All that matters is a fact of stealing by itself. And truth in this case the is crystal clear: "Yes, it was a stealing".

... Although the Barclays CEOs may keep insisting they acted according to their rules, that's their problem only. And that problem only grows in geometric progression over the time. It's up to the CEOs how to rise questions of improving their system for avoiding compromising their rules in exceptional cases like mine. The Barclays staff has power (and obligation) for improving the system they are a part of, rather than pushing their customers to do the job on their own expense. But for the last 18 years the Barclays has not lifted a finger to correct the problem.

 I am sure the Barclays has the best lawyers the money can buy. But all their efforts to prove the Barclays did not take away my money are pointless here. Moreover, if they continue applying their high paid efforts for proving the opposite, it will evolve into accepting the banking model in general allows such kind of stealing, which I personally want to believe does not. In turn, that will kill money!!! Together with main principles behind the money, starting from rights for private property. Because money is a mechanism for exchanging property rights. And once there is an evidence that that mechanism is questioned, or totally destroyed as in my case, that fact will cancel property rights for financial elite no matter in what form they have their property, - in GBP, US$, gold, real property, powerful lobby in government, etc. Respect for your possesions, in any form, will be destroyed!

So, it's not a question weather the Barclays is in debt to me. It's crystally clear it is. The only question is HOW MUCH?

How much is a

TRUST INTO MONEY?

Imagine the Trust on sale.

Imagine you are trying to buy the Trust.

How much it could be?

Since 2012 I charge the Barclays with

1 MILLION US$ for every day of its delay!

May I apply ANY percentage

for the Barclays' debt to me I want?

In this particular case

Short answer is

YES!

... Although a loan interest can be a subject of some legislative limitations, however, that only if both sides signed an official loan contract. But the Barclays simply avoided signing any loan obligations to me. In result, although one might argue there is no formal document that Barclays could show  in the court as evidence of breaking certain legal limitations, if any, about rate of my interests. There is no physical evidence of existing loan obligations of Barclays to me. But the debt exist, - and that is undeniable fact!

So, on the one hand there is a fact of debt of Barclays to me.

And on the other there is no legal document proving the debt with 100% certainty.

What level of interest on the debt could be then?

What is a price of the Barclays's debt?

And the answer is: 

ANY MY PRICE!

... Look, that's true that on the market, everybody may have his own opinion on price of any product. However, a final word is always on the side of seller. For example, you may ask a trader to sell to you for a penny something that he is currently trading in thousands or millions. You may say you want his product for YOUR price. But chances are the trader will simply not agree for your price, right? And what you can do about that? Nothing! Because seller always has a final word about the price. In any particular deal on the market, it's a seller who actually sets the price. 
... As a compensation, the market provides (a) opportunity to negotiate the price and come to a mutual agreement about certain equilibrium price, and (b) opportunity to simply walk away without striking any deal. By not making any move towards any settlement about my case during last 18 years, and finally sending me an official letter couple years ago that Barclays completely stops any communication with me, eliminates any opportunity (a) for any negotiating the price. And although the Barclays's lawyers  may keep convincing their CEOs such behaviour is very smart, it is not: Among other things, it completely eliminates any rights of the CEOs for doubting my right for setting any interest for the Barclays's debt I want. Even if it's a million or billion per day. The Barclays's CEOs have granted me that right because of giving up their own part of that right by attempting to avoid their personal responsibility and simply walking away. But unlike participants on a free market, the Barclays CEOs are not free to walk away, because they cancelled that (b) opportunity by undeniable fact of existence a debt to me. And the fact of leaving the market with a product, price of which is not approved by seller, let alone without paying for it at all, is called stealing. And if the Barclays's lawyers decide to deny the fact of their CEOs' stealing, the only way for doing it is by cancelling current market model and replacing it with the one where stealing is legitimate. For everyone!

... And if the Barclays CEOs really believe it's unfair or illegitimately, well, I provided the Barclays with a real opportunity to stop the case for a minimal price. In 2012 I said to the Barclays: On the twelth year of your failure to return me my original deposit with the percentage we officially agreed on, just do it now within following 30 days, - and that will be the end of the whole story. In other words, I proposed to the Barclays' CEOs a deal with a ZERO price for any settlement. But the Barclays rejected that option. And up to now I have not obtained from the Barclays a penny. ... Thus, the Barclays's lawyers "outsmarted" themselves by encouraging their CEOs to simply give up their rights to influence the price. In result, any percent rate I set for the Barclays's debt is perfectly legal."

Although Barclays CEOs would be glad to consider a sum of my bet is limited only by the sum on my savings account with them, which is a small amount. However, 

my real collateral is a fact of 

existing Money per se.

Our bet is on existence of money system!

All risks of this project equivalent to

betting on the opposite event,

- DEATH OF MONEY!

Wanna try?

But that's not all:

The most exciting part of this video is presenting this case in terms of the Admiralty (Sea) Law, a real law for money! See a second part of our video serial "BMoney Legality" for more!!!

P.S.

ATTENTION! IMPORTANT!

If the Barclays decide avoid paying its debt through eliminating the creditor physically, it will eliminate itself:

"1. There are my direct heritor, relatives, friends, successors, and even comminities, in addition to the official will.

2. It's not a big sum for me personally (let alone for you): only 1 Million, or 1%, while 99% will go for changing the world for the better.

3. It will also mean End Of Money, as there will be created a debt you are officially unable to return, - never! In other words, the Barclays' CEOs created a debt that is IMPOSSIBLE to return. And that situation will last forever! Current masters of money will officially become debtors forever!

Well, as I understand a similar status is actually a de-facto thing for the most successful businesses. But you will need to confirm that fact publically. Who will deal with your business then?

Anyway, you will not be allowed to create any other form of debt before you pay your previous debts. Your name will be Perpetual Bankrupt! And ALL your current property must be taking away to serve your debt. And that can appear the end of your rule. No matter what court can say about it, all people will be aware any your future money project is illegal!!!"

International team for supporting S. Beloy

from Pomorie, Bulgaria, EU