Trust oriented mortgage discussion

The nature, history and formation of Trusts.

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby bustthematrix » Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:38 pm

HS

Brilliant post - thanks for bringing some clarity to the Trust side of things for me. The mortgage deed = deed of trust is certainly a biggie in relation to mortgages as that deed is all that's needed to charge your house at HM LR AND all they produce to repossess!

BUT, why can't you revoke the Power of Attorney? All it would take is the revoking of the 'trust' in which the POA is granted? If we are the Grantor of the Trust, which we clearly are, why can't we simply revoke it and serve notice of this to both the lender and HM LR?

The case for this is all the more strengthened imho when you have established a Notice of Dishonor and gained estoppel against the lender. Once the estoppel is in place and the Dishonor noted and notarised, what stops one from simply revoking the trust and thereby revoking the Power of Attorney?

If anything, it would compel the lenders to come out of the woodwork to try and honor the Notices which we know they can't do. For me, it seems BOTH the Creditor-Debtor AND Grantor-Beneficiary-Trustee routes can work together?

I just want to know..., why, if I can create a Deed of Trust, why can't I revoke it? Especially where the alleged 'Beneficiary' has possibly been engaged in fraud against the Grantor and is acting dishonourably...??? The Trustee should not have problems with this, especially when the dishonour of the Beneficiary is clearly shown.

FMOTLKa Michael, nice to see you 'back'. Pls forgive the interim hijack of this thread. It was unintended and the mods should sort it soon enough. On the other hand, perhaps they should leave everything here and just copy whatever is relevant to a new thread to discuss the Trust side of things more specifically? Moving some posts might render some unmoved posts no longer meaningful as some posts address both lines of attack.
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby Sophia » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:30 pm

We are duplicating this portion of the thread and starting a new one, however michael's latest posts are invaluable and i hope he will let this digression remain as a learning curve so that the two different paths are clearly highlighted. please refrain from continuing the digression and post on the new thread. many thanks. :sun:
michael, please pm me if you absolutely want this section removed, otherwise we will act as above. lol
User avatar
Sophia
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:19 pm

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby bustthematrix » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:34 pm

Hi Sophia

A link to the new thread would be most welcome... :grin:
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby bustthematrix » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:36 pm

The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael wrote:Where is the evidence that the Creditor/Debtor approach has been used successfully?

1. I have discharged in excess of 30K's worth of fradulent claims against my STAWMAN by the banksters, with no entries being made on the credit file.

2. I have discharged in excess of 12K's worth of fraudulent claims against another party's STRAWMAN, who will soon be owed in excess of 100M in Accounts Receivable, with legal proceedings about to be issued.

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/96/the-a4v-of-robin-hoody-a-bankster-in-dishonour

3. I have discharged just under 30K's worth of invalid claims by the Taxman.

4. I have discharged a bogus estimated bill from the energy bandits and their interlopers, who now owe me in excess of 26M in trademark violations.

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/143/EBICLCW
Peace

Anybody wanna argue with results? They always speak for themselves. :yes:
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: Trust oriented mortgage discussion

Postby rodgreenwell » Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:26 pm

The thing we need to remember here is that this is relatively "new" to most of us and it is important to keep options open.... My thanks to HS for "expressing" the trust and certainly his enthusiasm for something new should be applauded and credit given for bringing it to our attention. Thanks m8 very much appreciated :clap:

Is IT the answer, well as all things time will tell.... in principle and in theory there is merit in trust technology and I for one will be continuing to research and educate myself in the workings of such, as I know others here are also.

For what it is worth, there is nothing wrong with educating yourself on the options.... as my 9 year old nephew once said... uncle Rod there are many ways to skin a rabbit..... wise words for someone so young .... although he did qualify it it by saying... " the best way is to stick your hand up his bottom and turn him inside out!!! Is this the best way to skin the rabbit???? who knows but maybe it is worth investigating further to find out for yourself. (gloves recommended for this method by the way!)

Personally, I am applying creditor / debtor at this moment. It has nmerit and as BTM rightly says, you cannot argue with results,,...
BUT NTT is on my list of priorities and I will be working on it and applying in the near future as I know others will as well......

Nothing wrong with having options, and as my nephew said... there are many ways to skin a rabbit!!!

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

Re: Trust oriented mortgage discussion

Postby Highspirit » Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:38 pm

Hi BTM, I do not wish to argue with anyone my friend. CW's information and links are widely available on my previous posts where he gives his success and views in his audios. He has been involved with creditor/debtor for many many years and now sees why there is little remedy being achieved, in his words he has left Creditor/Debtor behind for good. He states it should be 'Grantor/Beneficiary' and I think you will see his theories expanding and gaining popularity rapidly.

FMOTLAKAMICHEAL has had some great success and I have never said he hasn't or even said that the method is flawed. Michael has been an inspiration to me in fairness and his knowledge has been widely spread to assist others in their plight against the Banksters. I have simply said that there is new information available that I found valuable and others do to. It is worth looking into for sure. I am not seeing the results from the debtor/creditor approach that when I set out on the journey I thought I would, and I reckon there are many here that would agree with that statement. However, I am still using the approach until I can apply Trust education which I feel has got to be the way forward.

I know there has been mention of the Trust Act 1925 but we have to remember, that is a Statute, as is the Bankruptcy Act 1869, in the public, but we should approaching the trust angle completely in the private as a realman not a 'Strawman'. Everything in the Trust education and approach is in the private, from your real man/woman with NON UCC filings. In relation to there having to be another Beneficiary, well that is only partly true, but in the context of remedy it is outrageously innaccurate. If you wish to continue the Trust then yes but if you want the trust to terminate (like in a mortgage for example) then you can merge the titles (from the private) and as Grantor you can move these titles with the aim of terminating the trust so that the proceeds go to the Grantor (in the private). Then again, you may not want to terminate the trust, you may want to change the titles around to your advantage and leave it running, it all depends. The point is, you only need 2 Beneficiary's if you want to maintain the Trust, which you don't. There are many different solutions and remedies using trusts, it all depends what you want to achieve. Bearing in mind I am new to Trusts but can see the potential.

I have discovered that if you seek remedy by using PN's in the public and Bonds all in the public via your UCC-1 etc then you are in fact increasing the public debt, we do not want to do that. We should go completely private where we can issue non negotiable debt instruments in the private and reduce the public debt. Don't get me wrong, I am seeking remedy either way but I would prefer to do it the private route.

I am not misleading anyone as suggested, that is bunkum, please research and judge for yourself. I believe my research to be sound and will not allow it to be destroyed by an argument that is half baked. Some of my understanding may be slightly innaccurate but I have no ego to protect so please feel free to politely tell me where I have gone wrong. I will research your critisisms and always get back to you with my thoughts. You do the research with Christian Walters first, listen to at least 10 of his audios, read about trusts and trust law (not just a Statute Act) then, if you still think creditor/debtor is the right way to go, come back and insult me, at least you will have a platform to do it from and I will happily accept your opinion with evidence, and I promise not to be rude.

Everthing is a Trust, it is overwhelmingly obvious to me and therefore we should be looking at anti-trust law etc for our remedies. Trust Law operates under the colour of contract law. You just cannot escape that IMHO.

Rob Menard has stated recently that you cannot lien your Strawman (I agree), you cannot be the agent for your Strawman (I agree). This is debtor/creditor and it is now becoming old information to me, which is getting results for the few but not the many. If you disagree thats fine because at the moment I am using this approach myself and will report any positives I have. I have been a Winston Scholar for over a year but I no longer agree with much of what he has to say.

Let's face it as well, there also seems to be a thousand ways of doing the creditor/debtor approach. Some use Copyright infringement, some think thats incorrect, some have different ways of doing A4V and argue their way is better, some say you can only A4V a real 'Bill' some say you can A4V a statement as well, it is all quite confusing. With Trusts it certainly seems much more straight forward. But, you only ever go the private route.

It hurts me to have been studying Shrout and creditor/debtor and then find there is a different direction that to me seems the right way to go. Trusts have been used for thousands of years to amazing affect, why not in everything now?

I urge everyone, as I have done for a few weeks now to research Trusts with Christian Walters. Especially if you are not getting the Creditor/Debtor results you are looking for right now and are wondering why. Yes, it maybe that your paperwork and filing etc are flawed or it might be as CW suggests, that creditors/debtors are being deliberatley led down a blind alley where there is some success to tempt others to follow it. You be the judge but please don't let others detract you from keeping an open mind about everything and at least looking into what is being offered. You might just be very surprised at what you find.

I conditionally accept that creditor/debtor is the only way forward, on Proof of claim that Trusts and Trust Law is completely irrelevant to achieving remedy :wink:

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

Re: Trust oriented mortgage discussion

Postby bustthematrix » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:46 pm

All good. Nothing like a lively polite debate! :grin:

So then, can somebody tell me, now that I know a little bit more about Trusts, is the Trust created by the Mortgage Deed a Revocable Trust or an Irrevocable Trust?

Is it true that the Mortgage Deed of Trust is a fraud because there is no consideration? What exactly does that mean? If so, what is that assertion based upon as it simply harks back to contract law?

Btw HS et al, I understand that Trust Law is simply a derivative of contract law and that a trust is a
contractual arrangement whereby property is transferred from one person (The Grantor) to another person or corporate body (The Trustee) to hold the property for the benefit of a specified list or class of persons (The Beneficiaries). http://www.ultratrust.com
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: Trust oriented mortgage discussion

Postby rodgreenwell » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:17 pm

Hi BTM....

It is a long road to understand trusts... not sure where you are at with CW but.....

bustthematrix wrote:Is it true that the Mortgage Deed of Trust is a fraud because there is no consideration? What exactly does that mean? If so, what is that assertion based upon as it simply harks back to contract law?
uhmmm... does a trust need condsideration???

bustthematrix wrote:Btw HS et al, I understand that Trust Law is simply a derivative of contract law and that a trust is a
what research are you doing BTM, are you listening to the CW audios? It is a little bit more complex than simply a derivative of contract law

bustthematrix wrote:So then, can somebody tell me, now that I know a little bit more about Trusts, is the Trust created by the Mortgage Deed a Revocable Trust or an Irrevocable Trust?
.... what does it say in your mortgage deed? did you give poa by signing the deed? Can the grantor revoke poa?
rodgreenwell
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Location: Budapest Hungary

Re: Trust oriented mortgage discussion

Postby Highspirit » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:32 pm

Hi BTM, this is how I and a few others view the 'Mortgage Deed' and what we could possibly do with it;

Firstly, all contract law is cloloured by Trust law (imho). It is impossible for any consideration to be brought to a contract when there is no 'money' in circulation. The lenders needed a way around this so they use Trust Law. The reason being that if you mask contract law with an implied trust then you can quite rightly and lawfully/legally not bring any consideration to the 'trust'. That is how they get round the 'consideration'. You also do not need to tell anyone that they have become part of an 'implied trust', this is how they get round non-disclosure because in their eyes (without telling you) you have entered a Trust, not a contract as you know it.

As the signor of the 'Mortgage Deed' you are in fact the 'Grantor' of the Trust. You just weren't told as you were expected to know. They do use the word 'Deed' so they are telling you there is a Trust. Your ignorance made you sign with an unqualified signature, whereas you should have signed as Grantor and expressed the Trust immediately. I think but i'm not sure that this is why they ask you to sign the mortgage deed before the mortgage funds are released and not date it. They want to know if you have signed as the Grantor!!! just my thought.

So the Trust is an 'Implied Trust' and they do not have to tell you that you are involved in one.

Every Trust must have a Trust 'res' (the property of the Trust). In a 'mortgage deed' we think this may be the t's and c's of the agreement and the actual property/house is the surety. (just our thoughts on this).

In Trust law, he who claims a Trust must prove a Trust. So, we have to look at the fact that we think we are involved in a 'implied trust' and we have to prove it before we can do anything as the 'Grantor' and move titles. The idea is that we express the Trust with our signature as the Grantor and then we all know the Grantor is king in a Trust.

The POA you refer to is generally included as a term in the t's and c's as being non revocable but that is confined to the t's and c's and not particulary the Trust.

The 'mortgage deed' is only sugned by you and a witness to your signature. We know it's a Trust because they have used Trust terminology ie 'deed'.

But, if we claim Trust, remember we have to prove trust before we can do anything with it. Therefore we are currently putting together a series of Noitces and Af'fidavits to challenge the validty of the document. After all, this is the only document they produce at court to steal your property off you.

If however let's say you are in court tomorrow for a possession order hearing and you have not served any Notices whatsover but have just learn't there may be an implied trust.

We believe (and this is not tested in any way, it is theory only right now) that you can put the Judge on the record and ask the court that due to the 'mortgage deed' document and the terminology used that you may be party to a silent/secret/implied trust and whether this is true. Now your reaction would depend on what they say but there is a series of questions you could ask that may lead to the Trust being expressed there and then.

This is something that is new remember, like many things it is untested but then it does make sense. You will have to prove the Trust yes but you are half way there by their terminology. You will also have to prove intent and purpose but this shouldn't cause a problem.

We also know that there is a huge fraud behind the Mortgage deed by way of using your promissory note and using 'currency exchange' to create credit.

Anyway, thats some of the very very basics but it does make sense when you research this deeper.

We are exploring proving the Trust in other ways which we are close to doing and then rescinding our siggys to be replaced by that of Grantor as a qualified siggy.

There are also many other aspects to this in that we are looking at a completely private approach. Forget using your strawman for example, it is completely private and we use the private side of banks and govt. Some really cool things are happening and it is now clearly possible to get ourselves into the private as realman where we want to be, place non negotiable debt instruments into the private side of banking and live off the interest being paid to us by the bank using our instruments in the public and paying us the interest.

All exciting stuff :)

Hope that helps, please bear in mind I am a newbie and you must research this stuff for yourself my friend.

HS
Last edited by Highspirit on Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Know Thyself
Highspirit
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: Turning Fraudulent Debt into a Commercial Injury Claim

Postby bustthematrix » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:48 pm

bustthematrix wrote:
rodgreenwell wrote: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:

Hi Rod
Still looking forward to hear what this is all about...?!?!?!

Won't you share???

I wait, I wait, I wait..., will Rod ever come through with morsels of his 'Aha' discovery?

Or have you done so already m8?

If so, I've missed it....
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Trusts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest