Trust oriented mortgage discussion

[huntingross]

I can split it if someone wants to give me a marker and a new title

[rodgreenwell]

Hi HS,
Can you remove specific posts when splitting? Not sure how the system works, but if we can then it would be the case of moving 5 or 6 specific posts and dropping them into another thread... happy to suggest which posts if the posters do not object?

Oshun... good to see you back (although I know you never really went away...) how are things with you, any news?

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

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...

First and foremost, all the very best for the new year to one ansd all. Now for some belated responses to your questions.

What constitutes a Mortgage Agreement?

I have in front of me a Deed of the Trust for a property. Hidden in plain sight on Page 2 is the following:

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.

After the Customer submits the Mortgage Application, the Bank then serve an offer to lend the money required to secure the property, which the Customer then duly acecepts, thus enabling the Bank to create and sign a Promissory Note in the Customer's name, as an allonge to the implied Mortgage Agreement, which is just another promise to pay.

The note is then deposited in the Bank's Demand Deposit Account or a Depository Trust Clearing House, creating the credit (private commerial bank notes/paper) which the Bank receives in sterling and then transfers into the Customer's Mortage Account, claiming that it lent the funds that the alleged borrower created by accepting the offer of the loan.

Does this answer your question Rod?

Namaste

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

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 Mortgate Applicant (GRANTOR) grants Power of Attorney to the Bank (Beneficiary) in the Trust Deed, which is held in trust by the Land Registry (Trustee) once the agreement has been executed. Therefore, it would seem self-evident that people are already using the Grantor/Beneficiary approach to their detriment. How are you suggesting that they use it to their benefit HS?

If you want to know how trust law works in this jurisdiction, the Trustee Act 1925 is a must-read. If you want to know why the Creditor/Debtor approach would seem to be the right one, read the Bankruptcy Act 1869. If you want to know where I first heard the unsubstantiated theories with which you have hijacked this thread, it was on an mp3 of a private seminar given by Jack Smith in March 2009. I have since heard it regurgitated by Brandon Alexander Adams and a certain Chikimonki from Merseyside, among others, and yet I am not aware that any of them have been able to substantiate their many and varied claims of success.

If this does not apply to Christian Walters, please point me in the direction of the relevant webpages. Thus far, I have seen no evidence of a workable remedy in his work, but I am always open to new approaches.

Peace

[huntingross]

Hi Rod

I assume HS is me as I offered to split the thread ??

If there is no clean break, you could paste the addresses for each post and I could take it out to a new thread.....Title to be offered/agreed.

[rodgreenwell]

Sorry HR .... was speaking with HS and was typing at the same time...
will look at specific posts and let you know which I think should be split from the main thread...
sorry again.... having a "duh" moment
R

[rodgreenwell]

Thanks Michael, as ever your responses are clear and precise.... It has indeed answered my questions and clarified my thinking.
Again, very much appreciated....

[Highspirit]

Hi Michael, firstly I must apologise for the posting of the Trust information on what is a valuable thread that carries some excellent information )that I too am using), and the distraction this may have caused. I have requested this post be moved with the others to a new thread. Just wanted to respond to your post first.

As far as the Trust information is concerned I have only listened to the education that is being freely given by Christian Walters who has been providing the education for well over a year. I have not listened to anything from any of the other 'Guru's' you mention, some of which have no credibility with me anyway.

I came across the info on another website whilst researching only a few weeks ago and to be honest it made a great deal of sense.

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.

To answer your question about the Grantor/Beneficiary/Trustee of the 'Trust' and how to seek remedy, then I can only answer that with the knowledge I have gleaned in the last few weeks. Most certainly, I am not in a position to use this information at this moment in time, that is why I have never dismissed the Creditor/Debtor route. Trust research in new to me and there is much to understand and learn. I am a complete newbie to Trusts.

However, It made sense to me that because there is no 'money' then there can be no 'consideration' of value brought to any financial loan contract. Therefore under common law all contracts would immediately be invalid. They knew they would be invalid so they needed remedy for that. Therefore the understanding is that Implied Trusts and Trust Law would be the ideal solution and was introduced to mask the common law of contracts. No consideration is required to form a Trust and the 'person' you are forming the 'Trust' with does not need to be told that one exists.

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.

If the BC 'Bond' as it is commonly referred to is in fact a 'Life Annuity Trust', and I agree it is a Trust, then once again we are seeing 'Trusts' in action.

A mortgage lender in the UK always produces a certified copy of the 'Mortgage Deed' to steal your home. Never the promissory note. The 'Mortgage Deed' (a Trust) carries only your signature (apart from a witness) so is also in effect a 'unilateral contract'. The 'Mortgage Deed' binds you to the Terms and Conditions which include handing over POA to the lender until the mortgage is released. This POA cannot be revoked (or so they say). The 'lender' does not and will not produce the promissory note in court to steal your home/property becuase they can't do, it's gone. In fact, they have had their 'money' several times over so are more interested now in starting their stealing process again by getting hold of your property and getting somone new to mortage it. That is why they only need to produce the 'Mortgage Deed'. I have never seen a document referred to as 'Deed of Trust' (apart from one between partners buying a house together) in the UK nor a 'Trust Deed' but I would imagine we are referring to the 'Mortgage Deed' as titled.

The 'Mortgage Deed' is a 'Trust'. I think we all accept that. Now, the document supporting the 'Trust' holds our signature so we are obvioulsy the 'Grantor' but we were not told at the outset that that is what we are (no need to disclose anything in Trusts). What is the Trust 'res'? It might not be what you think it is. So, we didn't sign the document at the time with a 'qualified' signature/autograph. We just happily gave them our unqualified signature.

The 'Grantor', who knows he is a Grantor, holds power over the 'Trust' and is able to move titles. I do not think that Land Registry is the 'Trustee' of the 'Res' as the 'Trustee' by definition has responsibilities for all liabilities and payment of all 'bills'. Therefore I believe that you the 'Grantor' are also the 'Trustee' but the 'Deed' itself is not the 'Trust Res'. It is more likely that either the T&C's or the 'Property' are the Trust 'res'. The 'Mortgage Deed' document just being kept at Land Registry for neutral safe keeping.

The lender relies wholly on this document to steal your property. In addition, any 'Constructive Trust' has to be cleary shown as a Trust and eveyone involved has to know their title. That would mean that the 'Mortgage Deed' would need to clearly show 'Grantor', Trustee' etc. The 'Mortgage Deed' therefore must be a 'Implied Trust'. If it was a Constructed Trust then all titles would be clear and you as Grantor would have full knowledge of your powers under the Trust.

I believe therefore that they wish to do their best to hide the fact a 'Trust' does exist and it is therefore 'Implied'. There are few rules behind a 'Implied Trust' and they most certainly do not have to tell you one exists. Therefore, when you attend court and the Barrister flashes your 'Mortgage Deed', the Judge is allowed to construe a 'Trust' is in place, (without telling you) and he/she will deem you to be the 'Trustee' and in breach of your 'Trustee' responsibilities and allow the 'Lender' as 'Beneficiary' to steal your property. The 'Lender' (without you knowing it) is alleging breach of Trust (which is why they flash the 'Mortgage Deed' in court and not the 'Mortgage Deed' and or the promissory note). The Judge will construe the 'Trust', consider you in breach as a 'Trustee' of the T&C's and then release the surety (property) to the beneficiary (Bank). The court case could go something like this;

Judge - ''Mr Doe, have you failed to make payments on the loan for the last 6 months?'' (Have you breached your position of Trustee in this Implied Trust that I now construe because Im looking at the 'Mortgage Deed' you have signed as unqualified, so I cannnot tell you the power you hold as 'Grantor', and must therefore construe you to be the 'Trustee'?)

Mr Doe - ''Yes you honour'' - (Yes I am the 'Trustee' and I have failed in my duties and breached the 'Trust' and only given my unqualified signature not realising that I should have signed as Grantor because I was ignorant of the fact that a Trust was being formed and no-one told me and nor did they have to, so it's my own fault.)

Judge - ''In that case I find in favour of ROBBIN BANK and order that the property is delivered to ROBBIN BANK by xxxxxxxx(date)'' (In that case Mr Doe, because you have breached the Trust in your position as 'Trustee', that I have construed by the 'Mortgage Deed' before me, with your unqualified signature then the property which stood surety to the 'res' - (T&C's) now goes to the Beneficiary and should be delivered to them by xxxx date.''

You see, firstly they never disclosed there was a 'Trust' being formed. We had to know there was and act accordingly, but we didn't, and they do not have to tell us. For those that did know from the beginning it was a 'Trust' then they should have signed to that effect as 'Grantor' but of course probably didn't. For those that know about Trusts then it is clear the 'Grantor' holds the aces in a Trust and can appoint Trustees, Fiduciary's, Beneficiary's and of course, move titles. It is in the correct moving of the titles where remedy can be sought. Of course this 'Mortgage Deed' should also be attacked and made useless if possible.

I am not saying that the Creditor/Debtor route is invalid, I never have, I just uncovered what I thought to be relevant information worthy of more research with a possibility of offering another solution/remedy to the challenges we face with mortgages.

*****MODS**** I have only posted this here becuase I wanted Micheal to see my response to his query. Please move this post to the new thread as well. Thank you.

I only seek to expand our education with remedies in mind. The 'Trust' aspect is something I found useful and will continue researching this approach whilst also utilising methods of Creditor/Debtor as well.

Peace to everyone in 2010 and beyond. May this year be filled with remedy :)

[nameless]

As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with creditor/debtor process e.g. for loans and credit cards. It's just that the mortgage thing is different, and of course, we always knew that, but this trust angle is definitely the remedy route for mortgages IMO.

Picture being in court, not that I ever want to be, and question the judge asking him point blank if he is construing the trust. One wonders what his reply would be, or whether he would avoid it completely.

Great post HS. Could what you have revealed so far form the basis of an affidavit?


Mods, please remove this post as well.

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

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.

Where is the evidence that CW has sucessfully used New Trust Technology? I cannot find it and you have failed to tell me where it is posted.

Where is the evidence that the Creditor/Debtor approach has been used successfully?

1. I have discharged in excess of 30K's worth of fradulent claims against my STAWMAN by the banksters, with no entries being made on the credit file.

2. I have discharged in excess of 12K's worth of fraudulent claims against another party's STRAWMAN, who will soon be owed in excess of 100M in Accounts Receivable, with legal proceedings about to be issued.

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/96/the-a4v-of-robin-hoody-a-bankster-in-dishonour

3. I have discharged just under 30K's worth of invalid claims by the Taxman.

4. I have discharged a bogus estimated bill from the energy bandits and their interlopers, who now owe me in excess of 26M in trademark violations.

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/143/EBICLCW

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.

The Trustee cannot be the Beneficiary unless there is at least one other Beneficiary, thus making it impossible to merge the two, which represents a fatal flaw in your understanding.

What you have written above is confused, convoluted and badly researched. If you had read and understood the Trustee Act 1925 and the Bankruptcy Act 1869 you would know that the Trustee is indemnified against all liabilities except those incurred by willful deceit and fraud. Any debts he is bound to settle are paid from the income of the trust, not his own funds, because the Trust is liable, not the Trustee.

With all due respect HS, your lack of knowledge discredits most of your lengthy, detailed and misleading posts, and you are responsible for causing confusion where there was none. I look forward to every related post (including this one) being removed to a more suitable location.

Peace