Trust oriented mortgage discussion

[bustthematrix]

I think I have worked it out

Oh please, do share...

[MrFrodo]

Quite!

You cannot say that and then go quiet :P

MrFrodo

[free_spirit]

This is ridiculous, talk about riding roughshod over people. They're not even recognising the basic
principles of a contract here.

J

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2009/12/high-court-ends-debt-avoidance-loophole

[Free... well almost]

Hi all,

I don't have a mortgage and am mostly ignorant of the process but... Having read through the last few pages of this thread, I think I might have had the same AHA moment as Rod all be it in a less knowledgeable way.

Your signature on the mortgage application creates a signed obligation to perform - if accepted. The mortgage deed you signed is lodged with Land Registry (as already suggested by FMOTL Michael) and is now securitised based on your mortgage app/OTP. The morgage company can then raise the funds by putting THEIR security interest/deed on the open market.

IMHO technically they ARE lending you the money but its money raised by your obligation to perform! is there any need for a PN in this scenario. If they are acting fraudulently then why do we expect them to follow any law what so ever. All they need do is give the appearance that they are as most people will not question them.

Rod, i'm with you in respect to Christian Walters NTT theories. Colourable common law may well be in affect.

Just my thoughts

[nameless]

From what I have gathered from another forum, from someone who questioned a solicitor, there is a mortgage deed and there is a separate loan account. The mortgage deed comes under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), and the loan account comes under the Law of England and Wales. Make of this what you will.

[Free... well almost]

From what I have gathered from another forum, from someone who questioned a solicitor, there is a mortgage deed and there is a separate loan account. The mortgage deed comes under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), and the loan account comes under the Law of England and Wales. Make of this what you will.

Hi nameless, could you provide a link to that thread?

thanks

[nameless]

A quick scan through, as there are many pages, and it is about page 13. The whole thread is a very good read.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71143&highlight=Worm+turned&page=13

[Karl:J]

This is ridiculous, talk about riding roughshod over people. They're not even recognising the basic
principles of a contract here.

J

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2009/12/high-court-ends-debt-avoidance-loophole

Whether they provide a copy or the original agreement to me is of no consequence, it was one of the criteria for nullyfying the debt, the other criteria still exist and proving a contract even exists without the flesh and blood signature of the other party, also proving accounting that proves they brought substance to the table before signing the contract, proving they suffered loss, confirming that our signature was what infact created the credit so really we are just revoking our consent for them to use the credit for their purposes and zeroing it all out, all these seems far more important that whether they can produce the original or a copy.

[rodgreenwell]

Hi Free... good post and yes aha! moments are to be enjoyed...

CW stuff is becoming more interesting the more I research... colourable law IS in my opinion being utilised and everything can be construed as a trust.... OK still a long way from being sure but it is certainly worthy of evaluation and investigation...

Have another solution on the PN.... what if the app form containing your signature is alonged to the offer .... = Promissory Note! monetised and lent back to you as credit.... bank guilty of conversion also.... OK just thoughts at present but beginning to make some sense....

[Highspirit]

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 :)