Highspirit wrote: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.
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:...
Absolutely....... But that is/was not my questionbustthematrix 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 questionbustthematrix wrote:Do you believe an original of it exists?
Absolutely....... But that is/was not my questionbustthematrix wrote:Do you believe you have a right to see it - the original?
NO ... But that is/was not my questionbustthematrix 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 questionbustthematrix wrote: Do you believe they lent you real money?
NO ... But that is/was not my questionbustthematrix wrote:Do you believe there was full disclosure in the contract?
NO ... But that is/was not my questionbustthematrix wrote:Were the terms and conditions - LAWFUL?
NO ... But that is/was not my questionbustthematrix 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?
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.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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest