rodgreenwell wrote:BTM: thanks for your reply and in general I would agree with your comments; however I do not believe it to be quite that simple: The possible document/documents that make up the PN need to be grasped and understood, hidden or not, as the thrust of our questioning revolves around the existence of the PN.
As FMOTL Michael :
"The promissory note is created by the alleged lender as an allonge to the mortgage agreement which the alleged borrower signs in acceptance of the offer of a loan. That is why they can never produce it without incriminating themsleves."
Firstly, what constitutes the mortgage agreement The mortgage dee and the mortgage offer IMHO form the mortgage agreement.
Michael suggests that the PN is an allonge to the mortgage agreement that the "borrower" signs... In principle I am happy to accept this however, as the borrower I have signed just two documents: (1) the mortgage application and (2). the deed of trust...
Now: allonge definition: Allonge (from French allonger, "to draw out"), a slip of paper affixed to a negotiable instrument, as a bill of exchange, for the purpose of receiving additional endorsements for which there may not be sufficient space on the bill itself. An endorsement written on the allonge is deemed to be written on the bill itself. An allonge is more usually met with in those countries where the Code Napoleon is in force, as the code requires every endorsement to express the consideration. Under English law, as the simple signature of the endorser on the bill, without additional words, is sufficient to operate as a negotiation, an allonge is seldom necessary.
IF it is a combination of documents and the "original wet signed" mortgage deed is held by land registry then the "note" must have been securitiesed as opposed to monetised. If monetised and with the original being held at Land Registry, then certified copies of signature must have been used... uhmmm![]()
I still cannot see a definitive "PN" in the mortgage agreement, hidden or not, as it requires a signature... Maybe I cannot see the wood for the trees now which is why this post...
Power of Attorney
6. The Customer irrevocably appoints the Bank to be the Attorney of the Customer (with full power of substitution and delegation) in the Customer's name and on the Customer's behalf and as the Customer's act and deed to sign or execute all deeds, instruments and documents or take, continue or defend any proceedings which may be required by the Bank pursuant to this deed or the exercise of any of its powers.
Highspirit wrote:Rod is absolutely right IMHO. We have missed the Elephant in the living room by taking the Creditor/Debtor approach.#
OK we know how the lenders work. The take your promissory Note (could be a suite of documents together). Ths PN with the original signature is legal tender as per the Bills of Exchnage Act 1882. In other words, once accepted by the Bank it is a 'negotiable instrument' worth the amount of money written upon it, say £100k.
The one document I missed and didn't consider until now is the 'Application Form' which also carries your original signature.
Now, the PN is worth £100k and would be in normal circumstances you paying in full for whatever you were buying (becuase we are in Bankruptcy). However, we have never been told this and guess what? Our silence means we give permission for the way we think it is.
The Bank (the 'Borrower' of your legal Tender note) then pay this note into an internal deposit account. They have just added a significant 'Asset' to their books. But, they need to balance them. The Bank then 'exchange' your 'note' to 'Credit' and then extend this 'non-legal Tender' to your normal account. In other words, you have 'lent' the Bank £100k, they rubbed their hands and took it willingly off you. As crazy as it may sound, you are the 'Lender' (of your valuable signature/£100k). The Bank used your 'note' as the source for the credit which they produce from 'thin air' and by the use of 'Fractional Reserve Banking'. Then the bank put a 'Lien' o your property quite unlawfully and then ask you to start making payments on the loan with interest. So, OK, so far they have altered your 'note' (fraud) not disclosed this information to you (fraud) and fraudulently 'converted' your note to 'Credit' (Conversion fraud), asked to to make repayments on a 'Loan' that doesn't exist (Unjust Enrichment). And, when they are able to manipulate the interest rates and cause people to fall into arrears, they quickly and heartlessly steal your house off you (theft) and then have the fuckin nerve to sell it for peanuts (more theft) and then chase you for the shortfall in sale price to mortgage owed (demanding money by menace). Cash in their insurance policy so get paid IN FULL anyway for your failure to meet their criminal repayments. lol.
They brought no consideration to the contract, lost no money, spent no money and risked no money and got your house for absolutely nothing. And most of all this is ALL FECKIN TRUE!!!!!
OK, it is all an absolutely outrageous event and we know that judges are tucked tightly inside the Banks pockets so we always have to bear this in mind.
Now, it is bloody obvious how many crimes they have committed and they knew that the wall would start crumbling sooner or later and they would be exposed for their crimes (or will they, and were there any crimes committed?)
This is where the Elephant in the living room MAY COME IN. I say MAY as I am still researching in depth what I am about to say and which appears to be a viable theory.
All contractual law as we know it and think it works has been masked in the colour of law by 'Trust Law'. What you think is 'contract law' is in fact 'Trust Law' and you know what, you don't even know that it is encompassed by Trust Law becuase they do not have to tell you. It is all implied and your silence has got you in trouble again. Under 'Trust Law' they can do many things they want that they would never get away with under 'contract law' but when you see how your 'unqualified signature' has got you in trouble and given them permission to many things you thought were wrong then you will realise we have missed the ELEPHANT. You have through your silence allowed them to many of the things mentioned above. Guys, I think we may be largely going down a blind alley and we need to learn 'Trust Law'. We need to prove the 'Trust' and expess our intent of the original 'note', terminate the 'Trust' and distrubute the proceeds of the note back to us with interest. I think the Notice/Private Remedy route has some merit but guys, the Elephant will stay in your living room and not go away if you ignore Trust Law.
Now research for yourself and see what I mean. This is all new information and explains why many are not getting the results they want with the Creditor/Debtor approach. You should be using the 'Grantor/Beneficiary approach imho but the decsion is yours at the end of the day, I just urge you to start looking into 'Trust Law' and how we can go completely private with our lives and leave the 'Ficticious Public' behind us.
Its up to you, but I think you will be kicking yourself real hard n the future if you ignore this new information.
It is amazing how they have put everything into Trusts and they don't have to tell you and all courts can simply construe a 'Trust' without telling you and you are left holding the title of implied 'Trustee' without even knowing or being told and the 'Trustee' is the guilty party for loans. Then you wonder why you are not getting the results you want when you think you hold all the Aces. The fact is, those Aces count for nothing in Trust Law.
HS :)
The information available from Christian Walters is backed up by his own evidence of it working but 'Trust Technology' is very new as oppose to Creditor/Debtor which has a much more worn path but in fairness also lacks any real substance of success at this moment in time.
As far as reaching remedy with the Grantor/Beneficiary/Trustee then it is my understanding that we can move the titles within a Trust (as Grantor) and if we merge the titles of 'Beneficiary and Trustee', then the Trust will terminate and all funds released to the Grantor. This being just one remedy in theory.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests