Sep 21, 2013 8:31 PM

This one goes through the entire discovery process re the 'loan' and shows some of the bankster/lawyers dirty tricks...

http://freespeechaustralia.org/

When one applies for a loan/mortgage, is the "note" signed first and lodged as an asset?

Then the man/woman return as the debtor to sign the contract?

I ask because people make the point that if the note is sold on by the bank then they are not owed anything by the man/woman... But are the note and the contract 2 separate arrangements? Does the contract stand regardless of whether or not the note was sold on?

My understanding is that you offer a mortgage as security in exchange for a loan (you then assume the role of a borrower, customer etc)...you repay the loan over time (if it says in the loan that it's assignable & you agree to it, then you agree to fulfilling the liability to the lender on the understanding/agreement that they will pass it on to the assignee).

Once the loan agreement has been paid off by you, you want the original security (mortgage that you offered) back...it has an agreed upon value the same as the loan amount, so that's the amount you invoice them for, fault, default & lien them for.

So what if the bank sell the original security that they deposit as an asset? Securitization...

I ask because people here are obviously struggling to repay mortgages and are opting to question the validity of the mortgage if the "note" was sold on... Does the bank still have grounds to enforce the contract...?

You lien them for the value of the original security (plus costs)

I can't think where I read this, but the whole argument about the mortgage gets split into 2 jurisdictions:

If you default on the mortgage, you are in breach of contract and the 'lender' has every right to enforce the contract- I think that falls under a civil claim.

If they have committed fraud in onselling the note, or not actually lending you any funds etc, you need to pursue that criminally.

I had a situation like this in Australia where I had defaulted them re where the funds came from, who holds the original note etc & consequently stopped paying the mortgage.

Their response (paraphrased): Take us to the Supreme Court...in the meantime, we're going to come & repossess the property.

At the time, I didn't know much of anything, so I have complied until I have my ducks in a row so to speak.

Ok, that explains a bit more alright... So they pursue you as the debtor while you pursue them as the creditor...

So if they end up taking the house but you get the valuable security back it's win win no? :D

Ummmm...no :D

I'm now adhering to the principle of completing one relationship first (that of borrower/customer), then billing them for the value of the original 'valuable security' (I think Scott referred to it as the 'original instrument of indebtedness')

I vaguely remember the first time Scott spoke on this. A long while back... I remember him say....."....but people forget they signed a contract...." or something to that effect...

I'd imagine the note can only be re-claimed once the contract is complete...

I like to think of it this way:

I go to a loan shark and offer my watch (the valuable security), in exchange for $200.

I do whatever I do with the $200 (buy a jacket, some new shoes, whatever), but over the next 2 months I pay the loan shark the $200 plus whatever other terms we agreed (an extra $40 interest for example)...our lender/borrower relationship is over.

I now want my watch back.

The problem with mortgage companies is they say something like this:

'The original valuable security no longer has any value'...which what they're really saying is that the original valuable security no longer has any value to the relationship because the transaction is now complete.

Your watch (or the valuable security) still has the agreed upon value that you negotiated before you exchanged it for the $200 in the first place.

If you don't get it back, you bill the loan shark (mortgage company, whoever) for the original agreed upon value, default them, get an ex parte or default judgement in your favour, send in the sheriffs or whoever to recover the value of your 'valuable security'...or sell the debt to a third party & recover your value that way.

I used this as a template for an ongoing process Eamonn O Brien :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFeJc8PrEes

Once you perfect the lien, you can deposit it into your private trust (adding to the book value of the corporation...the corporation is now the holder in due course & immune from countersuit), exercise it (get the sheriffs to take property of the debtor/garnishee their wages etc) or assign/onsell it to a third party (which is what a mortgage company can do with their first charge/lien over the title to your property)...the possibilities are numerous.

I'm in the middle of this process currently...will update in due course :-)

Stuart Stone are you liening the bank and the CEO or CFO?

I am purely involving the mortgage company because the mortgage was sent (via solicitor) back to them....this is the only part I can verify because they are the only party I dealt with.

Whatever the mortgage company has subsequently done, I have no evidence & no idea.

Now the 'loan' part of the relationship is over, they are the people I want the security back from....where they get it (or the equivalent value) from is not my concern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QHKdxAVW-_U

2 great vids, cheers Stuart...

:D

When it says the bank's "publications" whats the official name for the documents?

Here's the one for the bank of England: Check p103(in the publication, not the pdf reader), bottom left of the page http://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bank-of-England-Ist-Quarterly-Report-2008-p.103-bottom-left-para.pdf

'banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer�s current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank �writing a cheque on itself�. That is, banks extend credit by creating money'

http://ia600202.us.archive.org/3/items/ModernMoneyMechanics/MMM.pdf

p6: Right hand side

'Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.'

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf

p9: A realistic model needs to re?ect the fact that under the present system banks do not have to wait for depositors to appear and make funds available before they can on-lend, or intermediate, those funds. Rather, they create their own funds, deposits, in the act of lending. This fact can be veri?ed in the description of the money creation system in many central bank statements, and it is obvious to anybody who has ever lent money and created the resulting book entries.

"....but people forgot they signed a contract". If the contract was for a "Loan" and there is no "Loan" is there still a valid contract?

Probably not, but while you're arguing that in criminal court (re the fraud perpetrated against you), you're getting reamed for breach of contract in another jurisdiction & possibly losing your home...

I don't know enough yet to fight that on two fronts...but I DO know how to administratively deal with the return (of the value) of the original security once the 'loan' agreement has been satisfied :D

Just a bit more 'evidence' re mortgages & promissory notes...all hidden in plain sight: Although it's from UK clubhouse rules, it probably has its equivalent in all commonwealth & USA legislation:

The Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 189 defines a security as follows: �security �, in relation to an actual or prospective consumer credit agreement or consumer hire agreement, or any linked transaction, means a mortgage, charge, pledge, bond, debenture, indemnity, guarantee, bill, note or other right provided by the debtor or hirer, or at his request (express or implied), to secure the carrying out of the obligations of the debtor or hirer under the agreement;

The Administration of Justice Act 1970, Section 39 states: �mortgage� includes a charge�

The Bill of Exchange Act 1882, Part 1(2) states: �Bill� means bill of exchange, and �note� means promissory note.

�The principle is that a bill, cheque or note is given and taken in payment as so much cash� (see Jackson v Murphy [1887] 4 T.L.R. 92).

"We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary" (see per Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar[1969] 1 W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA)

The Bills of Exchange Act 1882, Section 30(1) states:

Every party whose signature appears on a bill is prima facie deemed to have become a party thereto for value.

They're all one in the same entity but disguised very cleverley......this is great stuff Stuart Stone....have ye your first banker kill notched up on your belt yet ? Keep this up as it's magnificent powerful remedy !! :-D

Affidavits have been sent, they have 14 days to rebut, then it's time for an ex parte judgement & collect or assign...will keep updating on here when the time comes mate :D

Just in case we needed more admissions/convincing about 'currency' being conjured up out of thin air (ie: not backed by anything tangible)...here are a collection of quotes from a few people from many & diverse cultures, just to hammer the point home:

Could be useful to quote some of these when presenting evidence to support your claims: :D

http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/famous-quotations-on-banking/