Your mortgage/car loan/credit card

April 01, 2012

All the money in existence in our monetary systems has been borrowed at interest from a bank. When all currency in the system is borrowed at interest, there is NO MATHEMATICAL WAY to pay one penny of interest without pushing some people off the table via cancellation of their obligations to pay principal through bankruptcy, or through the kind of cancellation programs offered.

Reform must come from the side of dissatisfied customers, because the lenders have NO motivation to move away from their current position of power and influence. If people who favour the customer over the lender are able to use the law to stimulate change, any imbalance created by giving people their real estate for free will best correct itself through a change in banking laws and practice, NOT through perpetuation of the present system of GRAND THEFT of the entire wealth of society by the banking cartels.

Under the present system, someone HAS to get something for NOTHING. There is no other way.

Either the bankers continue to get interest payments for NOTHING at risk, or customers get free real estate after "borrowing" money that was created out of NOTHING and having the "loan" either cancelled for fraud, or discharged in bankruptcy, or the lender gets the real estate from the customer for NOTHING, following a foreclosure on the loan that was created out of NOTHING.

The answer is to stop basing bank lending on NOTHING.

Now lets get something straight...concerning the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form as noted in letter # 1.

A copy is not the original instrument of indebtedness...
Something purported to be signed at a later date is not the original instrument of indebtedness...
A copy from a fax is not the original instrument of indebtedness...
A certified true copy is not the original instrument of indebtedness...
A sworn affidavit claiming lost note does not issue, as the original instrument of indebtedness...
Anything produced that does not contain your DNA is not the original instrument of indebtedness...
When you signed it you had your hands on it, didn't you?

Now...let's move on to clarify just exactly what took place at the bank...
For illustrative purposes...
You walk into a bank and approach the counter with (2) $10.00 bills (notes).
You ask the young lady if she would kindly exchange these for a $20.00 bill (note)
You exchange your two pieces of paper (notes) for her one (note).
Did the bank give you a loan?

Same scenario...
You are seated across from the banker or bankers rep...
You sign a piece of paper (note) worth $130,000.00 and give it to him in exchange for a check (note) for $130,000.00

Did the bank give you a loan?
Neither the check nor the promissory note was legal tender at the time you exchanged notes.
You simply exchanged a note worth $130,000.00 for another note worth $130,000.00.

I fail to see the loan.
All you did was exchange notes.
But you say, Mary, who you bought the house from cashed the check and turned it into legal tender to spend.
Okay...and may I suggest the banker did the exact same thing.

The banker placed the note on his books as an asset and sold a security interest in the note to a third party for more than he paid for it.
So...I still do not see a loan, do you?

Now...lets examine the note the banker took from me in exchange for his check.
I'm going to suggest the banker endorsed the note by stamping the back of it thereby converting the mortgage into a bearer bond.
This is why the bank never brings the original blue-inked signed note to court....it is no longer a mortgage note...by conversion.
It is evidence the banker is no longer the holder in due course.
What banker is going to bring evidence to court showing you do not owe him anything?

No one understands money or the nature of banking and that's why they pull the wool over EVERYONES eyes.

And that’s why on November 1, 2007 in Cleveland Ohio 14 people in foreclosure walked out of court in possession of their homes with NO ONE to make their payments to.

The bank could not produce evidence they were indeed in possession of the note at the time they filed the foreclosure.

No bank can.

No note=no standing=case dismissed.

What I suggest to anyone is that they look very closely at letter #1 where all one is seeking is an accounting of the mortgage this is the important part and the banks assurance they will return the note in exchange for payment.

After letter #1 is sent, the bank usually sends you an accounting of the total including any penalties.

But,....99.999999% of the time, the bank never gives you their assurance they will return the note in exchange for payment.

Pursuant to the laws of the Canada/USA/UK/NZ that is known as "refusing to accept payment".

Now I don't know about you but, if I owed you $100 and I signed an (iou) note to pay you back and a week later I offered to pay you in exchange for the evidence of indebtedness (iou) whereby you, refused to return the note upon accepting payment then do you think you could come back in a month and demand payment?

The difficult hump to overcome by anyone attempting to comprehend money and banking is laid bare in the indisputable fact of truth that no financial institution has ever lent a consumer one single $1.00.

O yes...I have heard it all to the point when it comes down to showing the detractors their flimsy arguments to this are based on nothing, but erroneous assumptions, presumptions and of course...red herrings thrown in as a last resort.

Jesus said,
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. (Matthew 5:25)

Example of agreeing with thine adversary along the way...

From: ____________________
Date: ____________________
To: ____________________
Re: ___(Credit Card, bank loan, mortgage, etc.)
Account Number:___________
To Whom it may concern:
I would like to make arrangements to settle the above referenced matter.

Please provide me with your statement of the amount owing as of ___(pick date 2 weeks out for example)___, together with your assurance that you will accept payment in direct and immediate exchange for the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.
Thank you very much.
___________________________
by: authorized party

Under NZ legislation, they must provide you with the iou on your payment. They will refuse, or offer you a copy or something else, but they will not assure you of the original instrument of indebtedness. In essence, they will refuse your offer to settle your loan… under NZ legislation that is akin to saying; the debt did not exist in the first instance!

 

 

 

Copyright Free 2011 - Live Free New Zealand