Trust oriented mortgage discussion

[Highspirit]

Hi BTM,

Things are moving along nicely thanks. Several processess are being done by different people and we will see where this takes us. Remember, it's totally new, there are no footprints to follow in this approach so mistakes may be made.

It will also be worth bearing in mind that if remedy is achieved in Trusts then I for one will not be providing anyone with templates or spoon-fed knowledge and I won't be shouting from the rooftops either.

As for your question regarding 'con-tracts'. The lenders appear to be using 2 Law forms which they can easily switch in and out of as they choose. The primary law form they choose is the one that the overwhelming majority of people believe in, that is con-tracts and Admiralty law.

If one believes 'money' actually exists (which many people do) then the contract and Admiralty Law form is sufficient to take the 'Debtor' a long way down the line.

It is no co-incidence that many 'con-tract' terms are also 'Trust Terms' so can easily be viewed as 2 different Law forms. The only difference being that any 'con-tract' requires consideration of value. Is the non-legal tender, extension of 'credit' thin air fiat currency' right and proper 'con-sideration'?

I think almost everyone who visits this forum would probably agree that we lost real money which could have been con-sideration back in 1931 when we also lost alloidal title.

You see, because there is no money which can be deemed to be legal or lawful as far as a con-tract is concerned then you simply don't really have a con-tract. Now, if there was real value being exchanged wouldn't you think you would have Alloidal Title?

When they stole our 'money' and gave us the fake stuff instead then they also divded titles of property. They had to, because you can't 'buy' property anymore only 'purchase' title. The titles being the 'Legal' title and the 'Beneficiary' Title.

Whenever you split title to anything you don't have a con-tract you have a Trust.

So, my conclusion is that if we have no money we have no con-tracts. However, they try and make people believe there is money and try and make them believe in con-tracts. The ideal thing for the Banksters then is that they can swap in and out of Law forms as they choose. And, of course Trusts, can be a silent Law form. However, at the end of the day, it's all Trusts (IMHO) and they are actually pursuing a 'Breach of Trust' which in general terms means that you are always the 'Trustee' in their 'Implied Trust' which can be construed in silence by a Judge in court. Therefore you think you are fighting on the same battlefield as your adversary (in Admiralty) but he swapped Battlefields without telling you (into Equity/Trusts) and you didnt turn up, guess what then....

Also as another personal opinion, if you check the definition of 'Agreement' it can be a 'Con-tract' or it can be a Trust (very clever), but, if someone is following a process of trying to get a lender into 'Agreement' by silence in 'Admiralty' (say with an unrebuuted Affidavit) then I think it is worth bearing in mind that you may think you have a con-tract by their silence (ie silence can be 'agreement' in Admiralty) but if you take that 'agreement' or 'con-tract' to fight the lender at court they will simply swap law form on you by using silent and implied/construed Trust Law. Therefore rendering your Admiralty process completely inneffective in a court of Equity which they took you into without even telling you.

So, everything imho is a Trust.

HS :)

[daringdaryl]

Hi

I am new to this forum but have read and listened to some of the links with re to trusts
It does seem to ring true and those in US seem to revoke their POA on mortgages utilising this.

I would be interested if you (HS) could provide me with the Skype connection and any other info that applies to this in the UK

This has always been the difficulty- working out how solutions shown in US actually apply & work under UK law & legal systems!

Have you actually sent off any Notices or Affidavits to any parties to EXPRESS the trust and prove there is a trust etc?
If so what results?

Regards

DD