Trust oriented mortgage discussion

The nature, history and formation of Trusts.

Trust oriented mortgage discussion

Postby Highspirit » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:59 pm

I totally agree that the mortgage agreement as an agreement overall must be a promise to pay. However, the only original signature of the 'borrower' only appears on the application form which doesn't include mortgage repayment details or anything to do with the actual mortgage as you are only applying at that stage for a mortgage. However, you do have to sign the application, in a box, and send it back to the lender. My recent findings would suggest that this is in fact the start of an implied Trust and your signature from this is the silent agreement to enter the Trust.

Then, the only other place your signature appears is on the Mortgage Deed which can of course form another Trust being the 'Deed of Trust' and the Trustee being the Land Registry, Beneficiary being the Bank but who is the 'Grantor'? And what powers does the Grantor have. Now, the Deed of Trust I think must be an implied Trust deriving from the Mortgage Deed which means of course that the Lender can manipulate the Trustee and Beneficiary without your knowledge if you do not Express the 'Trust'. The 'Grantor' once expressed holds superior title but it must be expressed.

Now, that means your signature only appears on 2 documents, the Deed and the application. The Application itself cannot be deemed a promisory note on its own, nor can the deed and these with the Terms and Conditions form the mortage agreement. That means we want to see the original Mortgage Deed and the Original application form which forms the agreement, do we not? As far as the Deed of Trust is concerned then this is surely only implied and no hard evidence exists unless the Trust is expressed by the Grantor. The court will construe a Trust but not see physical evidence apart from the Mortgage Deed.

So, what forms the promissory note in respect of UK mortages?

In addition, I now understand that we are not actually paying back a Loan, we are in fact paying for an insurance policy for 25/30yrs because we didnt Express the Trust and the 'lending' was issued on the public side when it should have been issued on the 'Private' side by the expression of the Trust when the house would have been paid in full. In other words, we continue paying for the insurance policy until we wake up and the lender is happy for us to stay asleep.

Anyway, all new stuff worth researching.

HS :)
Know Thyself
Highspirit
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:39 pm

Highspirit wrote:So, what forms the promissory note in respect of UK mortages?


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.

In addition, I now understand that we are not actually paying back a Loan, we are in fact paying for an insurance policy for 25/30yrs because we didnt Express the Trust and the 'lending' was issued on the public side when it should have been issued on the 'Private' side by the expression of the Trust when the house would have been paid in full. In other words, we continue paying for the insurance policy until we wake up and the lender is happy for us to stay asleep.


With respect, it is a loan, not an insurance policy. Only the mortgagee loans the money to himself and pays it back to the alleged lender, plus interest. I have seen no evidence that your theories on trusts are supported by anything other that the misleading, unsubstantiated opinions of so-called US commercial redemption gurus.

Peace
Nothing, except the truth, is like it seems to be.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
User avatar
The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:38 am

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby Highspirit » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:11 pm

Thank you for your reply Michael and with total respect I reply.

The only man I have come across teaching the Trust and the Trust aspect (New Trust Technology) is Christian Walters and he is not endorsing commercial redemption. In fact he states that the Creditor and Debtor route has been a blind alley with limited success which we have been led down by the nose. That this route has been allowed to have a degree of success to keep the crowds going the wrong direction. Personally after looking into redemption for over a year I think what he says does have some merit. In fairness to him, he gives all his information for free, absolutely no cost at any time for anyone which sort of adds credence to what he is saying for me. He also has weekly call ins where he updates and answers questions quite openly. He is saying there is another layer to this that we have missed and that is the 'Trust' aspect. That absolutely everything is a 'Trust' whether we can see that or not. This would also make sense as 'Trusts' are a very convienient way of masking law. He teaches that there is of course the Private and Public side to all Banking although technically we are the Banks ourselves and therefore the lenders by way of our signature. I dont think this guy can be ignored and we should kep an open mind as if what he says is true then we really are missing the elephant in the living room and that would be to our detriment. Christian is quite open about how he thinks we have been deliberately mislead about the way loans and redemption work and offers his ideas for solutions where we should express the Trust, become the Grantor and then and only then use the Creditor/Debtor route to operate in commerce.

For anyone serious in this area of research it has at least got to be worth taking time out to listen to and either embrace or dismiss with reason as it just might be a key to the whole process we are missing.

Thank you and Peace to all

HS
Know Thyself
Highspirit
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby rodgreenwell » Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:05 am

Thanks for all the sterling work by all who are posting here...

Michael: I think we all agree that the banks never lent any of their money... the promissory note is a key component in our requests for information and pivotal in our notices. I absolutely agree ... but as with HS, I am struggling to find the document or documents plus any alonge that "represents" the promissory note. You refer to the mortgage agreement. Is that a stand alonde document or a suite of documents? I have two mortgages, in both cases the only wet signatures appear on (1) the initial application form and (2) the mortgage deed. The motgage offer would appear to be the ideal document to form a PN as it contains all the terms, value, interest, and capital plus repayments, but this document is not signed. The mortgage deed is signed and its terms encompass the mortgage offer... but that is all I can relate it back to. I have in both cases had responses from the bank saying that my signature did not provide the funding instrument or create a promissory note... OK, I know that this is not the case but not being able to isolate the document/s which form the PN is frustrating...

Any suggestions are most welcome:

HS: I am finding the NTT audio's extremely interesting and will pursue further and my thanks for the link and heads up.
rodgreenwell
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Location: Budapest Hungary

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby bustthematrix » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:00 pm

Hi Rod

Perhaps Michael has already answered your question, and the issue now is, do you agree with him or not?

If you do agree, then at least you now know that for the most part, the actual PN document is hidden. Since you/we are the 'maker of the note' however, we still have every right to request sight of the original, as we do any other document we create.

If you don't agree with him, you'll probably want to accept that the PN is a composite of the various documents you actually sign.

Either way, you have the right to 'see and examine' the original, which is never produced!
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby bustthematrix » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:15 pm

rodgreenwell wrote:I have in both cases had responses from the bank saying that my signature did not provide the funding instrument or create a promissory note...

Any suggestions are most welcome:...

I suggest you do not take their word for it. :gasp:

Various independent and unconnected references YOU have thoroughly researched (which I could list here but of course won't...) clearly show that they are involved in fractional reserve lending and that they do not do this by 'buying' or 'borrowing' money from the money markets at lower rates in order to lend out a higher rates and so earn a margin. That's what they wish us to believe. We know better...

So if they've said that in writing...ask them to verify their statements by producing the actual official accounting for your loan account...shouldn't be too hard should it??? And remind them that penalty of perjury and full commercial liability are serious matters... :grin:

Remind them also, that whoever is making those statements should have first hand personal knowledge of your own account and be ready to swear to it, otherwise, you can only accept statements on the lender's behalf from somewho does. Ultimately, how can YOU be certain that the respondent is simply not expressing their sincerely held belief or understanding which in fact does not represent the truth of what really happened? :wink:
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby rodgreenwell » Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:38 pm

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 :puzz:

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...
rodgreenwell
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Location: Budapest Hungary

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby bustthematrix » Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:44 pm

Rod

Do you believe or not that in the process of transacting your mortgage, you created a promissory note that conforms to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882?
Do you believe an original of it exists?
Do you believe you have a right to see it - the original?
Do you believe that anyone BUT the holder of that note has the right to discuss your debt obligations with you? Do you believe they lent you real money?
Do you believe there was full disclosure in the contract?
Were the terms and conditions - LAWFUL?
Do you believe the average person working for a lender or even their lawyers know the real truth about fractional reserve lending and it's implications on money creation as it applies to contract law? Only the very senior elite really understand this fraud at it's core .

I take your point about knowing specifics regarding the PN but for me, these above are the big questions.

Is it not better to let the lender's worry about showing that their transactions are entirely lawful and free from fraud? That they are involved in fractional reserve lending and as such are committing massive contractual fraud unless they can prove otherwise?
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby rodgreenwell » Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:32 pm

Thanks BTM, really appreciate your feedback and the comments below are not intended to be confrontational or controversial. And whilst both Michael and yourself have eloquently expressed your views, which I am happy to accept in principle, but my question was, "which document/s form the Promissory Note." To date, no definitive conclusions ....
To quantify: .....
bustthematrix wrote:Do you believe or not that in the process of transacting your mortgage, you created a promissory note that conforms to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882?
Absolutely....... But that is/was not my question
bustthematrix wrote:Do you believe an original of it exists?
Absolutely....... But that is/was not my question
bustthematrix wrote:Do you believe you have a right to see it - the original?
Absolutely....... But that is/was not my question
bustthematrix wrote:Do you believe that anyone BUT the holder of that note has the right to discuss your debt obligations with you?
NO ... But that is/was not my question
bustthematrix wrote: Do you believe they lent you real money?
NO ... But that is/was not my question
bustthematrix wrote:Do you believe there was full disclosure in the contract?
NO ... But that is/was not my question
bustthematrix wrote:Were the terms and conditions - LAWFUL?
NO ... But that is/was not my question
bustthematrix wrote:Do you believe the average person working for a lender or even their lawyers know the real truth about fractional reserve lending and it's implications on money creation as it applies to contract law?
NO ... But that is/was not my question
bustthematrix wrote:Is it not better to let the lender's worry about showing that their transactions are entirely lawful and free from fraud? That they are involved in fractional reserve lending and as such are committing massive contractual fraud unless they can prove otherwise?
Agreed... BUT... (1) I (we) do not know specifically which/what documents form the PN which is/are pivotal and contingent in/to the fraud... (I would prefer to have clear suspicions of which document/s than to assume, that one just simply exists) (2) The banks (liars) say no fraud exists and that your signature did not provide the asset/funds for the loan (lies I know but still little tangible proof and no suspected documents used as the provision of the fraud (again, making an assumption that one exists, even if you believe it to exist is laudable but...) and (3) The banks, at the time of writing have not/will not provide the documentation requested to prove our "suggestion" of fraud (of course they won't for obvious reasons...) but they say no fraud exists, we cannot refer to the specific documents upon which traceability of the fraud via the accounting would confirm.... Not just in our existing notices but in the majority of historical cases in the past.... No recordable evidence to confirm.

That is not to say that I do not believe 100% that fraud has taken place. That is not to say that I do not believe 100% in this process to expose the fraud, I am already well down the line in a number of cases... but I need to be sure of my facts and do not subscribe to "blind faith" ...it has a habit of biting back...
rodgreenwell
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Location: Budapest Hungary

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby rodgreenwell » Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:43 pm

WOW!
As a result of writing my last post and pondering on previous responses from FMOTL Michael and BTM, I have had an AHA moment.... :sun:
Thanks to you both... :clap: :shake:
I think I have worked it out :cheer:
rodgreenwell
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Location: Budapest Hungary

Next

Return to Trusts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron