Trust oriented mortgage discussion

[Highspirit]

Going a little further as to why I think everything is a Trust;

Firstly we know in d/c that the 'Debtor' is the one being held to a 'con-tract' and is expected to pay. The d/c approach embraces you taking the role of the 'Creditor'. Now in a d/c scenario and situation that would be fine but I think most here will accept that because there is no real money there can be no contracts. Therefore the common law of contracts on its own is null and void. They took the Gold away and with it any value for consideration. They then wrapped common law round a Trust.

When we had Gold or substance backed real money we had Alloidal Title (Perfect Title) to anything we bought. However, when the gold went we only had 'Gifting' left. Gifting is 'Trust'. There was then split title and not perfect title anymore. Equitable title and Legal Title. Where you have split title using Trust terminology then you must have a Trust.

So, let's look at d/c again. The role of the Debtor is the same as the role of the Trustee within a Trust. The Trustee being the guilty party for not making payments for example.

Now, if you are approach a scenario as a Creditor with lets say a A4V for instance. The A4V is somethng you are expecting to be dealt with by your 'Trust account' are you not, as a Creditor to the Bankruptcy and becuase there is no 'money' then your 'Account' can 'pay' the bills. However, due to the nature of Trusts and the way the 'NI' trust has been set up, it could be a 'Discretionary Trust' and instead of you being a 'Creditor' you are in fact a 'Beneficiary'. However, because the 'NI Trust' is 'Discretionary' then the Trustee is able to pay or not pay the A4V. So, the Trustee is paying some but not others and this may explain the low success rate of A4V. It is all at the discretion of the Trustee especially if you approach as a 'Creditor' which may be the reason for the realtively low success.

Therefore it would make sense that if you approach everything as a Creditor then you are not recognising yourself as the 'Beneficiary' (as far as A4V is concerned). The reason being is because you hadn't expressed the trust.

Whilst you maintain you are a 'Creditor' in any given situation then you are not expressing yourself as the Grantor/Beneficiary.

Lets take the Mortgage scenario again and look deeper into that for a possible explanation;

1. You sign the 'Application' FORM (I would suggest you are FORMing a Trust - allbeit implied). Why? Because you sign with an 'unqualified' signature.

The 'Lender' secures the 'Funds' (oh look another Trust Term) from your 'Application FORM'.

2. Your signature on the 'Application' is a trust 'res'.

Now, a resulting Trust from the initial Trust is the 'Mortgage Deed' which again carries your orginal siggy. So you have another Trust.

So what has the alleged Lender done so far?

Well you have apparantly signed a 'Promissory Note' of sorts (which I believe is a combination of documents) and of course what you believe to be a con-tract.

The 'lender' has not disclosed to you that your 'Note' has been used to provide the 'Funds' for the 'mortgage' right? Non-disclosure in a con-tract right? It is also fair to say that you can't have a con-tract in these circumstances because there was no value of consideration right? Non-disclosure, lack of consideration alone would make a con-tract invalid right?

BUT

In Trust Law you can place someone into a Trust without telling them (Implied Trust) and without disclosing anything and using 'res'/property that has NO VALUE.

Therefore the alleged Lender has not breached any Law in Trust. However the alleged Lender can hide his motives of it being a Trust by pretending it's a contract until it gets questioned in court and then you have Creditors challenging contracts in Admiralty whilst the court is then construing a Trust in Equity. Many people are challenging their mortgage as a 'Creditor' and not the Grantor as they really are. They use implied Trust Law at court without saying anything and whilst you think you are standing there as a 'Creditor' in Admiralty, they are actually looking at you as a 'Trustee' in Equity (the guilty party).

When you signed unknowingly into the 'agreement/con-tract' of a Mortgage, you were being placed into an implied trust, but because no-one told you (as you are expected to know and silence is deadly), you signed with an unqualified signature and didn't express yourself in that trust as Grantor there and then. Therefore you are the 'Trustee' or 'Debtor' in that Trust as directed by the alleged 'Lender'.

So, what you should be doing IMHO is using a process (that we are putting together and is under development), that enables us to go nunc-pro-tunc (back to the beginning of the Trust) and express ourselves as the Grantor, serve Notice to the alleged Lender we are doing so, express and prove the Trust in full and move titles. We are telling them that we have now woken up to the fact that a Trust was going on from the start. We can merge titles and once we claim the Trust then we can claim the 'Special Deposit' we gave them (prom note) and demand that the 'funds' are dispersed to the Grantor/Beneficiary.

As Grantor we can also demand a full accounting of our 'Special Deposit' from the 'Trustee' (Lender) who cannot refuse title due to the implications of the Trust when it went nunc-pro-tunc. We can then prove they co-mingled 'Trust' funds from the private Trust which is a serious breach of Trust. They may have even 'securitised' our mortgage and committed serious offences of Breach of Trust, Co-mingling funds and Conversion.

It really makes a lot of sense to me that it never really was d/c, it is in fact 'Trust' but once again, that is my personal belief and it may not be yours but do you not think it's worth a peek at least?

How many other split title types of property can you think of that may involve a Trust? What about anything that you have registered and handed over Title too? You think there just might be an Implied Trust going on there as well? Are you really a Creditor or a Grantor/Beneficiary?

HS :)

[Highspirit]

Many (but not all) people refer to 'Mortgage Agreements' as 'Mortgage Contracts'.

However, the word 'Agreement' is a Trust term, as in Trust Agreement. And, if you check the legal definition of an 'agreement' it will almost fully tally with that of a contract, apart from this;

Definition - An agreement is not always synonymous with a contract because it might lack an essential element of a contract, such as consideration.

Now, once again for all those who think a Bank/Lender has breached con-tract, has the lender referred in their paperwork to you as a 'Mortgage Contract' or 'Mortgage Agreement'?

If they have referred to Mortgage Agreement (and Im not saying they ALL have) then is this not further evidence that it might just be a 'Trust' because it lacks an essential element of a contract, such as consideration? (You can apply this to many other types of agreements too of course).

Remember, they do not need to apply 'contract laws' to a Trust. They do not need consideration or disclosure or come to think of it maybe not even a meeting of minds to a large extent.

Therefore if you are challenging a Mortgage as a Creditor via Admiralty because of contract breach or contract fraud then you may have to think again. Under Trust Law (which they have implied) they have done nothing wrong on the surface of the 'agreement'/Trust. OK, there are issues going on with the Prom Note etc but that is all derived from your signature which is the Trust 'thing'/res'/'property' when you complete the Application FORM (ing) a Trust. The Trust 'res' being your unqualified signature which has NO VALUE as such. OK, we know there is issues going on with the 'Funds'.

No Disclosure, no consideration, limited meeting of minds = Trust = Agreement.

Now, bearing in mind that the alleged 'Lender' could be treating this as a Trust (without telling you of course) then lets look at some other aspects of the disclosure we may normally ask for;

1. Accounting (well Trustees are the ones who have to provide accounting and as yet you have not shown the alleged lender to be a Trustee) Remember, they are looking at this as a Trust, and you as the Trustee. Once again, by not disclosing accounts they have not done anything wrong. You may think they have because you are referring to a con-tract under Admiralty, they are looking at this in Equity (ALL TRUSTS ARE IN EQUITY).

2. Deed of Trust/Mortgage Deed disclosure (They don't have to, it's a resulting Trust from your 'Application' and they look at this as a Trust, not a con-tract. Once again they have done nothing wrong).

3. Disclosure of the Promissory Note (Original). Well, your signature is Trust 'res'/'thing'/property, and under Trusts they do not need to disclose it to you.

You have a Mortgage agreement and several Trusts operating, and you by way of your signature are the Grantor/Settlor/Beneficiary (Not Creditor) and you just haven't realised that yet. All IMHO of course.

Always in Peace

HS :)

[huntingross]

Hi HS

You seem to have this down enough to start a process.....!!

Will you be posting documents demonstrating how you're going about proving the trust and transferring the responsibility back to them.

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

Some charity trustees, and people thinking about becoming trustees, are nowadays influenced by the thought that they might be "personally liable" if things go wrong with the charity. What they fear is that, if they make a mistake in the running of the charity or if it gets into debt, they might have to make good any loss or shortfall out of their own private resources. While for a few people this can be a real worry that leads them to resign their trusteeship, it is in fact extremely rare for a trustee to be made "personally liable" in this way. Generally the law protects trustees who have acted reasonably from the consequences of honest mistakes, and trustees can take their own measures to reduce the risk still further.

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/trustee1.asp#Trustees%27

Indemnities

26. Protection against liability in respect of rents and covenants.

— (1) Where a personal representative or trustee liable as such for—

a) any rent, covenant, or agreement reserved by or contained in any lease; or

b) any rent, covenant or agreement payable under or contained in any grant made in consideration of a rentcharge; or

c) any indemnity given in respect of any rent, covenant or agreement referred to in either of the foregoing paragraphs;

satisfies all liabilities under the lease or grant [F20 which may have accrued and been claimed] up to the date of the conveyance hereinafter mentioned, and, where necessary, sets apart a sufficient fund to answer any future claim that may be made in respect of any fixed and ascertained sum which the lessee or grantee agreed to lay out on the property demised or granted, although the period for laying out the same may not have arrived, then and in any such case the personal representative or trustee may convey the property demised or granted to a purchaser, legatee, devisee, or other person entitled to call for a conveyance thereof and thereafter—

(i) he may distribute the residuary real and personal estate of the deceased testator or intestate, or, as the case may be, the trust estate (other than the fund, if any, set apart as aforesaid) to or amongst the persons entitled thereto,without appropriating any part, or any further part, as the case may be, of the estate of the deceased or of the trust estate to meet any future liability under the said lease or grant;

(ii) notwithstanding such distribution, he shall not be personally liable in respect of any subsequent claim under the said lease or grant.

[F21 (1A) Where a personal representative or trustee has as such entered into, or may as such be required to enter into, an authorised guarantee agreement with respect to any lease comprised in the estate of a deceased testator or intestate or a trust estate (and, in a case where he has entered into such an agreement, he has satisfied all liabilities under it which may have accrued and been claimed up to the date of distribution)—

(a) he may distribute the residuary real and personal estate of the deceased testator or intestate, or the trust estate, to or amongst the persons entitled thereto—

(i) without appropriating any part of the estate of the deceased, or the trust estate, to meet any future liability (or, as the case may be, any liability) under any such agreement, and

(ii) notwithstanding any potential liability of his to enter into any such agreement; and

(b) notwithstanding such distribution, he shall not be personally liable in respect of any subsequent claim (or, as the case may be, any claim) under any such agreement.

33. Protective trusts.

— (1) Where any income, including an annuity or other periodical income payment, is directed to be held on protective trusts for the benefit of any person (in this section called “the principal beneficiary”) for the period of his life or for any less period, then, during that period (in this section called the “trust period”) the said income shall, without prejudice to any prior interest, be held on the following trusts, namely:—

(i) Upon trust for the principal beneficiary during the trust period or until he, whether before or after the termination of any prior interest, does or attempts to do or suffers any act or thing, or until any event happens, other than an advance under any statutory or express power, whereby, if the said income were payable during the trust period to the principal beneficiary absolutely during that period, he would be deprived of the right to receive the same or any part thereof, in any of which cases, as well as on the termination of the trust period, whichever first happens, this trust of the said income shall fail or determine;

(ii) If the trust aforesaid fails or determines during the subsistence of the trust period, then, during the residue of that period, the said income shall be held upon trust for the application thereof for the maintenance or support, or otherwise for the benefit, of all or any one or more exclusively of the other or others of the following persons (that is to say)—

(a) the principal beneficiary and his or her wife or husband, if any, and his or her children or more remote issue, if any; or

(b) if there is no wife or husband or issue of the principal beneficiary in existence, the principal beneficiary and the persons who would, if he were actually dead, be entitled to the trust property or the income thereof or to the annuity fund, if any, or arrears of the annuity, as the case may be;

as the trustees in their absolute discretion, without being liable to account for the exercise of such discretion, think fit.

61. Power to relieve trustee from personal liability.

If it appears to the court that a trustee, whether appointed by the court or otherwise, is or may be personally liable for any breach of trust, whether the transaction alleged to be a breach of trust occurred before or after the commencement of this Act, but has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust and for omitting to obtain the directions of the court in the matter in which he committed such breach, then the court may relieve him either wholly or partly from personal liability for the same.

62. Power to make beneficiary indemnify for breach of trust.

— (1) Where a trustee commits a breach of trust at the instigation or request or with the consent in writing of a beneficiary, the court may, if it thinks fit, . . . F49 , make such order as to the court seems just, for impounding all or any part of the interest of the beneficiary in the trust estate by way of indemnity to the trustee or persons claiming through him.

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/82/trustee-act-1925

Namaste

[Highspirit]

OK I see what mz is posting there, I have in fact read it many times over in different formats in different Statutory Acts what is actually being said.

I would reccommend anyone reading this to get a copy of Gilberts Trust Law which is quite reliable and includes ALL Statutory Trust Law (happy to forward you a free PDF of it as well). There is much more to Trust Law than one may think. There is Private Trust Law to think of as well as Statutory and how it is applied.

I only ask that people look into this themselves, in fact I think mz has a good heart and good intentions and does contribute enormously with the information and processess. however, does that mean that he is absolutely right about everything to the exclusion of other possibilities?

Everyone should keep an open mind. Thats all I have ever wanted here, to make contributions of all knowledge for all to see, share and then do as you will with the information presented. Im not a disinfo agent out to subvert the work of anyone else.

Please look into and either dismiss or embrace Trusts for yourself on the evidence that is being presented.

If you think its nonsense then please ignore it.

Yes I believe we have remedy and in fairness Trusts is months old not 25yrs old+ like d/c. Lets wait and see how these remedies perform and take it from there, it's only fair on both sides. Im not trying to win a war, only show people there might be another tool in the box.

If im wrong and it's contracts then I will be the first to apologise, however if it really is Trusts then I would expext the same.

''When ever 2 or more people enter into Commerce they are forming a Trust'' - Winston Shrout

For anyone really interested in finding out about Trusts or dismissing it as disinfo bunkum then the info is always available for you, FREE, to listen to and pass off as complete TOSH if you like at www.movingtitles.com

However, right now, I believe it is quite genuine

I really do not know why MZ is trying to deny this information!! Make up your own mind please peeps.

Always in Peace

HS :)

[Highspirit]

In answer to your Q' HR, No actually I dont think I will make it public because of the ridicule and surprising closed minded attitude that it is attracting. I will share with others with open minds if it it works, not those trapped in the single mindedness of contracts.

Also please bear in mind, there are many who have been researching d/c for years and still have not committed to any process. Analysis Paralysis if you like. There are many ways presented of doing A4V, Liens in Negative Averment or Positive depending on what you want to achieve, etc etc etc. So much and so many 'Guru's' offering 'their' way of doing it.

New Trust Technology is less than a year old in total and less than 3 months in my own learning. D/C has been producing thousands of different remedy templates which evolve or are discontinued on an almost continous basis.

Please HR, if you intention was to ridicule by making that statement then you have to put NTT in context with d/c in the length of time it has been on the scene. NTT is developing all the time as will the avenues for remedy.

I don't have this all sorted, far far from it, it goes much deeper than the very basic highlights I have given it here. I am sharing my learning and understanding so far. I have no great Ego, I am happy to be corrected where I believe I may be wrong if real evidence against Trusts is brought forward. Like anyone else, I am looking for remedy and Freedom.

Always in Peace

HS :)

[rodgreenwell]

HS,

Your posts bring a smile to my face my friend... the responses somewhat sadden my heart

let those who ridicule or attempt to ridicle, ridicule, for you cannot help those who do not want to be helped ...as the saying goes.... "for you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink"

as for the more enlightened, or those seeking enlightenment, let them take heart from your enthusiasm and belief and have trust in themselves to find the answers they seek.... step out from the shadows of D/C and look at something new with a fresh pair of eyes, maybe, just maybe, you will see something you like.

To quote (not literally) from a learned contributor to these forums, there is no spoon feeding here, so if I may be so bold as to say ... if you want to know the process and solutions, the templates and methodology... as we endeavour for success, do not look here, for you will not find them... look into the mirror and ask, who is responsible for my success, it is neither HS or this forum.... but a combination of things, not least an open mind and a willingness to learn and apply...

This path we tread is oft difficult and stoney..... answers yet, No... solutions yet, No but we are working on them and we believe we are getting closer to real solutions... Is this the path we have been looking for, well friends, only time will "Tel," but I for one, like others I know, believe it to have merit in abundance and worthy of consideration and effort.....

The rest as they say, is down to you...

[bustthematrix]

OK I see what mz is posting there, I have in fact read it many times over in different formats in different Statutory Acts what is actually being said.

:

I really do not know why MZ is trying to deny this information!! Make up your own mind please peeps.

Always in Peace

HS :)

Hi HS

I think we're past the 'discrediting' issue now and there's little value in second guessing anyone's motives. I think it's clear to all followers of this thread that you are still conducting research into this.

To me, Fmotlkam is highlighting objections to the Trust approach which he is aware of. He's already said he'll change his tack once he starts seeing proof/results etc from the method... All you (or anyone else who knows about Trusts) need do in dealing with his or anyone else's objections to Trust technology is deal with whatever objections he raises in 'good faith'. Doing so will only strengthen your work and your research.

[Highspirit]

Hi BTM, I see no real evidence or content being offered that challenges my assertions of Trusts that I have laid out in the open here. The only rebuttal evidence being put forward is that of Statutory Trust links and content that has no real basis for challenging what I am saying, if anything it is supporting what I am saying and it would be easier if people just downloaded Gilberts Law on Trusts as a much easier Statutory reference. Gilberts is a highly respected reference manual although there are others as well.

New Trust Technology is highlighting where the Lenders have utilised Trusts to fill the void where the Common Law of contracts fell short when they removed Gold as value.

I have said it here and will repeat again. We all agree that there can be no contracts as there is no consideration of value, no bi-laterally signed 'contracts', no major meeting of the minds and no disclosure.

The lenders knew that their contracts fell short when Gold was removed and no value now exists but they haven't actually promoted that issue have they? We all know they have not come out and said ''OK guys, we have taken Gold so all contracts are off''. They didn't actaully promote the fact and make it widely known that we only have promissory notes (although it can be argued they didnt really hide the fact either). But it is not something we learned about in any financial education. Most people believe 'real money' still exists.

So, if you have no value and no disclosure etc then of course your contracts are null and void. The lenders needed something to fill the void and they have adopted Trust Law without even telling you becuase they don't have to. So because they didnt want to publicly announce and educate that real money had gone, and they couldn't tell you that you were being placed into a Trust either (because they would have to tell you that you are the Grantor with all the power) then they needed a solution. That solution is using Trust Law wrapped in the colour of Common Law. It's perfect.

They maintain the illusion of money and contracts but use slightly different terminology. They make you believe you have a contract and direct everything to you as d/c when in fact they are operating an Implied Trust. You then treat their presentments as if they are in d/c and you take on the role as Creditor in the Bankruptcy. What is in fact happening is that as long as you are happy to believe in contracts and being the Creditor then that's fine, you go to court in Admiralty and the court 'construe' a Trust in Equity. You think you have moved from being the Debtor to the Creditor when in fact whats happened is that you have moved from being the Creditor to the 'Trustee' in their implied Trust (which is the same as a Debtor). The court you think is in Admarilty is in fact in Equity as we all know that the courts can operate in different jurisdictions. The Trustee is always guilty.

The solution we believe (and we are working on prossesses that make a great deal of sense) is to go nunc-pro-tunc on your agreement paperwork where you signed as unqualified to now sign as the Grantor. The Grantor holds all the power of the Trust with their own Indenture now and can merge the titles of the Beneficiary (sole) and sole Trustee in the name of the Lender. The Trust of course must be proven because they are not going to tell you very easily that one exists. The elements of the Trust including Intent and Purpose we believe are not a problem to prove. When a Trust is claimed and proven then there is a Trust, period. A Trust does exist, it is not as if the Lender can just say no, you have proven all the elements and so one is there.

Once you have proven the Trust (that they hid from you) then you as Grantor can merge the titles mentioned and the Trust has got to then terminate. Once the Trust terminates then the 'Special Deposit' of the Trust (the funds from the promissory note) have got to be dispersed to the Grantor/Settlor (You).

This is based around a mortgage of course but there are many other elements to Trusts where you may not want to merge titles.

These are my research findings that others may agree or disagree with. I'm documenting my findings and understandings for those that are looking at this from a distance at the moment who may have an interest.

I fully understand fmotlakam's position of no fundamental evidence as yet, but, is that justifiable cause to dismiss for others? Even d/c must have had a time of being completely untested and brand new but people still researched it further and took action.

Always in Peace

HS :)

[bustthematrix]

Hi HS

Any updates? How are things evolving?

Re - your comment above about the lenders removing contracts, are you suggesting they do not try to enforce their contracts against the people when a default occurs?