Proof of Consideration - What's that then?

[signalnorth]

What is proof of consideration? It gets mentioned on John Harris's site in relation to the Banks being unable to prove you owe them the mortgage, but with no further explanation. Can anyone shed any light on this?

[chateaux]

http://www.lonang.com/curriculum/3/s33e.htm

In addition to the requirement of proof of agreement, the common law, also required proof of consideration. Blackstone defined consideration as the "reason which moves the party contracting to enter into a contract." Proof of consideration was essential before the common law would recognize an agreement to be legally binding: "A consideration of some sort or other is absolutely necessary to the forming of a contract, that a nudum pactum or agreement to do or pay any thing on one side, without any compensation on the other, is totally void in law; and a man cannot be compelled to perform it." W. Blackstone, Commentaries, 445 (1769).

From what I understand and I stand to be corrected: With the banking system when you take out a loan, you are securing the asset (its your signature after all) and the bank is putting nothing in other than typing a few digits into a computer screen and then taking vast sums of interest...

[dondaz]

From what I understand and I stand to be corrected: With the banking system when you take out a loan, you are securing the asset (its your signature after all) and the bank is putting nothing in other than typing a few digits into a computer screen and then taking vast sums of interest...

Very nice people they are not!:eek:

[vladmir]

From what I understand and I stand to be corrected: With the banking system when you take out a loan, you are securing the asset (its your signature after all) and the bank is putting nothing in other than typing a few digits into a computer screen and then taking vast sums of interest...
yep, and this bloody evil scheme is explained quite clearly in this video animation movie, called "money as debt".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

[vienna]

http://www.lonang.com/curriculum/3/s33e.htm

In addition to the requirement of proof of agreement, the common law, also required proof of consideration. Blackstone defined consideration as the "reason which moves the party contracting to enter into a contract." Proof of consideration was essential before the common law would recognize an agreement to be legally binding: "A consideration of some sort or other is absolutely necessary to the forming of a contract, that a nudum pactum or agreement to do or pay any thing on one side, without any compensation on the other, is totally void in law; and a man cannot be compelled to perform it." W. Blackstone, Commentaries, 445 (1769).

From what I understand and I stand to be corrected: With the banking system when you take out a loan, you are securing the asset (its your signature after all) and the bank is putting nothing in other than typing a few digits into a computer screen and then taking vast sums of interest...


has anyone acheived success discharging a loan/mortgage, to your knowledge?

[dboss]

In Ellen Brown's book "Web of Debt" she mentions the case of Jerome Daly in Minnesota in 1968 who successfully got his mortgage declared invalid for lack of consideration on the part of the bank. Don't know if anyone's used this argument successfully since in the US or Uk but in theory it should still apply.

[danster82]

if you look up "requirements of a binding contract" consideration is one of the requirements and it simply means both partys in the contract have put up something of value and therefore both partys can sustain a loss.

And it would seem the reason this is done is to prevent abuse of contract law where one party has no possibility of sustaining and loss and will put as many people into contract with them if that was the case... ah ha and that is now the case since the conception of fractional reserve banking.

If I make a loan to you contracted I have put up money which I have earnt therefore it has value and it will be my account deposit minus the loan I gave to you but when they loan to you so called money they create the amount out of thin air by computer accounting they did not take it from their deposits so it was not their networth minus the loan it was their networth + the loan whenever they make a loan they can instantly say their networth is up by the amount of the loan because they didnt take the loan from their own store of value and thus no consideration, the contract is non binding and why would you pay back a contract your not bound by law to pay?

The implications are massive because it means literally all the debt in all the world is fraud.

People argue "but if the banks cant lose then why are they all losing out now" the reason is like I said above their networth is calculated by all the loans they have made and goes up as long as they are making new loans out of thin air but when its not paid back their networth drops by the amount that wasnt paid back so the "toxic debt" is that process but the worth they said they had wasnt theirs in the first place. Sort of like me putting all my money on a roulette wheel calling red and while the wheel is spinning I tell everyone "My networth is up!" but not completely like that example unless the money I first put on the roulette wheel was conjured out of my magic hat then it would be.

[arten]

On John's latest video talk they say that someone had a £300,000 mortgage discharged and that people are taking on credit card companies and winning but I have not seen any specific information related to this but like many here would love to see it.

[hank_scorpio]

The first collection agency after me for my visa has stopped. There is a new one. They sent me an "offer" to collect the $670 from me lol. I have not attempted to contact them or answer to ANY of their phone calls or mail.

[hank_scorpio]

has anyone acheived success discharging a loan/mortgage, to your knowledge?
I am going to close my bank account on wednesday with the credit union I got the "loan" from. They can't stop me I still owe $2300 on it but the balance will be 0 on the account so wheres the problem lol. The account has $2 on it im going to withdraw it.:p From there I suspect it will be sold to collections where they will place a bet that they will get the money from me. Whats left of my credit will be gone forever, probably same with my co-signer who won't like that too much. The bank has already lied to both me and my co signer every time they call asking for money im now 2 months behind again on the 1st lol. They told me after 60 days they would put a lien on the car. 70+ days went by and nothing until my co signer cracked under pressure and paid some of it im not going to let that happen again. Success on wednesday I hope.

[arten]

The first collection agency after me for my visa has stopped. There is a new one. They sent me an "offer" to collect the $670 from me lol. I have not attempted to contact them or answer to ANY of their phone calls or mail.

Mate I am in a similar boat, well at the start of the process. I realize I have been duped so I am not paying back any more cash which I had to go and earn whilst they simply loaned me money that they generated from a computer screen. I am of two minds to print out some of my money and pay them with that lol
The interesting situation in my case is that the bank allowed me to open up an account in a name that is not my birth name and not my legal fiction so I am quite certain I have no debt or case to answer to.

[hank_scorpio]

I am thinking of a way of getting issued cards with credit and no trace. maybe if i said i was a dead guy. lol i have no idea if it would actually work. it would be perfect getting 3-4 credit cards even with 500 max then poof im gone. if it were possible you could repeat the process with new people you make if the credit is available that is.

[arten]

If you said you was a dead guy you would be commiting Fraud and that is Unlawful, you would have caused Harm and Loss which both go against Common Law.

[number_6]

has anyone acheived success discharging a loan/mortgage, to your knowledge?

I have a few questions regarding this action.
If the bank (as suggested here) are fraudulent in creating a loan to facilitate the purchase of a house, is not the borrower complicit in this fraud, and if he discharges the loan, is not the honourable thing to do, is to give the house back to the seller? If not, what happens in the future when the borrower decides to sell? The borrower will be in an untenable situation, knowing that the new buyer will be raising money fraudulently and they themselves will be the recipient of that fraudulent money, especially if the house is selling for more than the borrower paid for it. How can they justify keeping this extra fraudulent money for themselves, especially in the knowledge that the new buyer will be charged for this fraudulent money?

[1694]

has anyone acheived success discharging a loan/mortgage, to your knowledge?

Yes one man:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=18485

the Judge died shortly after awarding the decision.

The decision has been nutured though (at least in the US), you cant cite it as precident.

You could however just attempt the same thing and see what your judge (you wont get a jury trial for a mortgage case) says. If you convince the judge, job done, a well thought out case and a skilled charismatic orator might succeed.

[chateaux]

Think about money in this way.

Lets imagine you provide a service: Gym instructor and you provide 1 hour sessions.

Lets say I provide webdesign.

We can do a trade, you give me 30 sessions and I build your personal trainer website for you.

In terms of consideration we are both providing equitable value.

On my books I have a promise of 30 sessions that I can claim whenever. And you have a website that you have paid for with your future labour.

Now lets say we used money for this. You go to the bank and sign away your house and home and car and wife to borrow the 1000 pounds to pay me for the website. This comes at interest and no real consideration from the banks. AND WE are dealing with a third (turd) party who is selling itself as the GOLDEN BOY of the transaction "making it all possible". When in reality they are the snake in the mix.

Using the trade model the advantages are tremendous:
1. You have simply made a promise (which in my eyes is more valuable than the banks promise).
2. You can use your down time to pay off the promise (i.e. when you do not have other clients).
3. Your promise is not effected by inflation.
4. Your promise is not taxed.
5. Your promise comes at ZERO interest.
6. You are forging real relationships with real human beings.
7. Your life will improve as you are offering real value.

For me the guy that accepted the trade. I have your 30 promises. Now I could do anything with this. Perhaps I trade 20 of them with a friend of mine in return for an old scooter. And keep 10 to work my gut off.

This trade model can work for everyone so long as we are doing something we are passionate about.

You can also see in this model how the money system fails. Lets say you make too many promises... you put out 1000 free sessions out there. Now you may struggle to fulfill your promises which devaluates them. The plus side is - there are SOO many men and women in this world that there is enough labour to get anything and everything done.

Lets say you promise to help a builder to build houses. In terturn for your labour each year you get a house (I mean you build them after all). This becomes something you can use to trade as you build up your portfolio.

Now in todays context a house is worth a fortune - however in the trade model, the items value will become quite compareable and easily attainable to everyone.

Anyway - I love the idea and am building a model around it so would be interested to hear your feedback!

- b

[the worm that turned]

Think about money in this way.

Lets imagine you provide a service: Gym instructor and you provide 1 hour sessions.

Lets say I provide webdesign.

We can do a trade, you give me 30 sessions and I build your personal trainer website for you.

In terms of consideration we are both providing equitable value.

On my books I have a promise of 30 sessions that I can claim whenever. And you have a website that you have paid for with your future labour.

Now lets say we used money for this. You go to the bank and sign away your house and home and car and wife to borrow the 1000 pounds to pay me for the website. This comes at interest and no real consideration from the banks. AND WE are dealing with a third (turd) party who is selling itself as the GOLDEN BOY of the transaction "making it all possible". When in reality they are the snake in the mix.

Using the trade model the advantages are tremendous:
1. You have simply made a promise (which in my eyes is more valuable than the banks promise).
2. You can use your down time to pay off the promise (i.e. when you do not have other clients).
3. Your promise is not effected by inflation.
4. Your promise is not taxed.
5. Your promise comes at ZERO interest.
6. You are forging real relationships with real human beings.
7. Your life will improve as you are offering real value.

For me the guy that accepted the trade. I have your 30 promises. Now I could do anything with this. Perhaps I trade 20 of them with a friend of mine in return for an old scooter. And keep 10 to work my gut off.

This trade model can work for everyone so long as we are doing something we are passionate about.

You can also see in this model how the money system fails. Lets say you make too many promises... you put out 1000 free sessions out there. Now you may struggle to fulfill your promises which devaluates them. The plus side is - there are SOO many men and women in this world that there is enough labour to get anything and everything done.

Lets say you promise to help a builder to build houses. In terturn for your labour each year you get a house (I mean you build them after all). This becomes something you can use to trade as you build up your portfolio.

Now in todays context a house is worth a fortune - however in the trade model, the items value will become quite compareable and easily attainable to everyone.

Anyway - I love the idea and am building a model around it so would be interested to hear your feedback!

- b

Great idea. I have already started doing this. I now have a nice new carpet in my nursery, he has a new website. Easy peezy lemon squeezy.

Next step flying lessons!!

[ipopacific]

if people want to see proof of freeman techniques working then put them in to practice yourself !!shit this world is on the way to complete slavery if we dont make changes ...just like hitler and his evil financiers envisioned ... it may be scary for u but if we continue to just react to enginered problems in this world rather then the calculated response of removing our energy they need to feed the system we will be enslaved in mind body and spirit not just the slavery used by clever language techniques, hypnosis, and our consensus ignorance.

we will win when we remove ourselves from fear!! to say... your not affraid for yourself but u are for your family ..IS STILL LIVING IN FEAR ..remove it or they will use it against u ...have u ever seen the movie "the green mile" there was a quote in there that sums up the evil pricks that run this world "they killed them with they love" remember lifes a dream if you can take control of your thoughts like any dream u determine were it takes u ..and while life is not real its only a dream the emotions (emotions =energy in motion) of the dream are very real and thats why they need us to live in fear thats there energy source its used as fuel to keep this matrix going..........

[tien an]

Think about money in this way.

Lets imagine you provide a service: Gym instructor and you provide 1 hour sessions.

Lets say I provide webdesign.

We can do a trade, you give me 30 sessions and I build your personal trainer website for you.

In terms of consideration we are both providing equitable value.

On my books I have a promise of 30 sessions that I can claim whenever. And you have a website that you have paid for with your future labour.

Now lets say we used money for this. You go to the bank and sign away your house and home and car and wife to borrow the 1000 pounds to pay me for the website. This comes at interest and no real consideration from the banks. AND WE are dealing with a third (turd) party who is selling itself as the GOLDEN BOY of the transaction "making it all possible". When in reality they are the snake in the mix.

Using the trade model the advantages are tremendous:
1. You have simply made a promise (which in my eyes is more valuable than the banks promise).
2. You can use your down time to pay off the promise (i.e. when you do not have other clients).
3. Your promise is not effected by inflation.
4. Your promise is not taxed.
5. Your promise comes at ZERO interest.
6. You are forging real relationships with real human beings.
7. Your life will improve as you are offering real value.

For me the guy that accepted the trade. I have your 30 promises. Now I could do anything with this. Perhaps I trade 20 of them with a friend of mine in return for an old scooter. And keep 10 to work my gut off.

This trade model can work for everyone so long as we are doing something we are passionate about.

You can also see in this model how the money system fails. Lets say you make too many promises... you put out 1000 free sessions out there. Now you may struggle to fulfill your promises which devaluates them. The plus side is - there are SOO many men and women in this world that there is enough labour to get anything and everything done.

Lets say you promise to help a builder to build houses. In terturn for your labour each year you get a house (I mean you build them after all). This becomes something you can use to trade as you build up your portfolio.

Now in todays context a house is worth a fortune - however in the trade model, the items value will become quite compareable and easily attainable to everyone.

Anyway - I love the idea and am building a model around it so would be interested to hear your feedback!

- b

Hot Damn! Bravo chateaux!
I like your way of thinking. Unfortunately I'm not as creative as you in that particular field.
I understand everything you say and believe it's got legs too, except this:

"Now in todays context a house is worth a fortune - however in the trade model, the items value will become quite compareable and easily attainable to everyone."

Can you explain that as well as you've done with the rest, please?

Heavenly Peace.

[tien an]

The last few posts (chateaux and ipopacific), are a good example of why I keep coming back to this site.

Thanks guys/gals.

Heavenly Peace.

PS Wormy, are you printing 'hour' tokens or anything like that or just 'trading'?

[the worm that turned]

The last few posts (chateaux and ipopacific), are a good example of why I keep coming back to this site.

Thanks guys/gals.

Heavenly Peace.

PS Wormy, are you printing 'hour' tokens or anything like that or just 'trading'?

No 'hour' tokens yet but I'm considering it :D

I've been freelance (self-employed) for over 4 years now and will NEVER look back to being employed by a COMPANY, unless I have created that company!

Trading is the way forward, we ALL have a skill and people always need things. If you don't have a skill learn one, two, three or more!

Let's start moving on this my fellow men/women (NOT PEOPLE)!

[1694]

Sounds like a LETS scheme.

Major draw back is we have a money monopoly, legal tender laws gives bank issued debt instruments a favourable position.

Legal tender laws are a huge stumbling block.

[dondaz]

This trade model can work for everyone so long as we are doing something we are passionate about.

You can also see in this model how the money system fails. Lets say you make too many promises... you put out 1000 free sessions out there. Now you may struggle to fulfill your promises which devaluates them. The plus side is - there are SOO many men and women in this world that there is enough labour to get anything and everything done.

Lets say you promise to help a builder to build houses. In terturn for your labour each year you get a house (I mean you build them after all). This becomes something you can use to trade as you build up your portfolio.

Now in todays context a house is worth a fortune - however in the trade model, the items value will become quite compareable and easily attainable to everyone.

Anyway - I love the idea and am building a model around it so would be interested to hear your feedback!

Hi chateaux, very interesting post mate. The world freeman society have been seriously discussing trade and setting up our own banking system. I myself have traded thousands of times without the use of money. Goods for goods as it were. This vid explains some of the basic concepts of trading much similar to your own examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsBQNeCluyY

Comments welcome!

[dharmic one]

Sounds like a LETS scheme.

Major draw back is we have a money monopoly, legal tender laws gives bank issued debt instruments a favourable position.

Legal tender laws are a huge stumbling block.

Could I ask a question here?

Are legal tender laws laws or statutes / Acts of parliament?

It states on the notaries public statement page that England is a common law jurisdiction.....

"The distinctive nature of the legal systems is well known - England and Wales and Northern Ireland are common law jurisdictions, Scotland is a Roman law based system with common law influences. Separate court structures and legal professions as well as distinctive laws ensure the preservation of the individual legal traditions."

see http://www.thenotariessociety.org.uk/public_statement.asp

I am interested in finding out how these acts / statutes apply in a common law jurisdiction.

I have read this and other threads with immeasurable interest and excitement as I have been pondering these very issues myself for months now. I came across the LETS scheme a while back and it seems as though they charged sterling for membership so I was put off. When I got a lump sum from an injury claim I considered setting up one of my own but didn't know where to start.

The way I see it, every single one of the billions of us has something wonderful and beautiful and useful to offer to the rest of us. There is no shortage of good intentions out there to be found. Resources may be limited ( if this is true....) but we can work together so that we are all fulfilled on every level at as little a cost as possible. I believe all that is required for these ideas to take root is accurate info on the law and shared good intentions between us. Nature creates the most beautiful things with the highest efficiency ( maximum fulfillment of potential with the minimum use of energy) It is wonderfully efficient and I believe we all have much to learn. But if we are open to eachother's beliefs and try to build our communities based on mutual respect we can all prosper honestly and freely.

Namaste

peace

[dharmic one]

Hi chateaux, very interesting post mate. The world freeman society have been seriously discussing trade and setting up our own banking system. I myself have traded thousands of times without the use of money. Goods for goods as it were. This vid explains some of the basic concepts of trading much similar to your own examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsBQNeCluyY

Comments welcome!

Hey dondaz....Am I right in thinking that I recognize your face from the John Harris stuff on here? We're loving the fact that people from our neck of the woods are so into this stuff......and immensely appreciative that you all give your time to share info and films with us. It's an exciting time and we're hoping to come to some of these meets that are being organised, maybe even organise one ourselves.....

thanks for what you're contributing to the world man, it's very much appreciated......

peace........

[1694]

Could I ask a question here?

Are legal tender laws laws or statutes / Acts of parliament?

It states on the notaries public statement page that England is a common law jurisdiction.....

"The distinctive nature of the legal systems is well known - England and Wales and Northern Ireland are common law jurisdictions, Scotland is a Roman law based system with common law influences. Separate court structures and legal professions as well as distinctive laws ensure the preservation of the individual legal traditions."

see http://www.thenotariessociety.org.uk/public_statement.asp

I am interested in finding out how these acts / statutes apply in a common law jurisdiction.

I have read this and other threads with immeasurable interest and excitement as I have been pondering these very issues myself for months now. I came across the LETS scheme a while back and it seems as though they charged sterling for membership so I was put off. When I got a lump sum from an injury claim I considered setting up one of my own but didn't know where to start.

The way I see it, every single one of the billions of us has something wonderful and beautiful and useful to offer to the rest of us. There is no shortage of good intentions out there to be found. Resources may be limited ( if this is true....) but we can work together so that we are all fulfilled on every level at as little a cost as possible. I believe all that is required for these ideas to take root is accurate info on the law and shared good intentions between us. Nature creates the most beautiful things with the highest efficiency ( maximum fulfillment of potential with the minimum use of energy) It is wonderfully efficient and I believe we all have much to learn. But if we are open to eachother's beliefs and try to build our communities based on mutual respect we can all prosper honestly and freely.

Namaste

peace


I would say not to waste too much time on the common law/statute law debate. Neither are really law, they are man made rules, they are however backed by law when it comes to enforcing the rules.

Can you walk through a wall? No. Laws of phsyics

If we cut a door way in the wall but society/the rulers or whoever passes a rule and calls it a law, that no on is allowed through the doorway, can you walk through the doorway? Technically yes, the rule, written or spoken, isnt going to tackle you to the floor if you try it, the rule is but an imaginary concept.

Now say we put to big strong well armed enforcers on the door to enforce the rule! Then we are back to law, can you phyicaly overcome the enforcers, or maybe outsmart them some how and get past them. The yes or no of that situation is not based on the imaginary rule, (you have already broken the rule thus proving the law is meaningless unless you consent to it*), it is based on the laws of the universe, the phsyics of phyiscal combat etc.

*That is why the peddlers of freeman methodologies dribble thier BS about how you must consent to acts and statutes for them to apply. Whilst you have to concent to a simple rule for it to "work", non concent doesnt mean you are immune from the law of the enforcers enforcing their will on you. Think about it, you can break a speed limit very easily, just by not consenting to the legal speed limit which would stop you if you did consent, there you go you have become a freeman..... Until two coppers with tazers, CS gas and asps lay some law on you.

I dont know whether the freeman movement is a deliberate miss interpretation in order to make money by selling the most believable lies; the half truths, or whether its just dumb people.

[the worm that turned]

I would say not to waste too much time on the common law/statute law debate. Neither are really law, they are man made rules, they are however backed by law when it comes to enforcing the rules.

Can you walk through a wall? No. Laws of phsyics

If we cut a door way in the wall but society/the rulers or whoever passes a rule and calls it a law, that no on is allowed through the doorway, can you walk through the doorway? Technically yes, the rule, written or spoken, isnt going to tackle you to the floor if you try it, the rule is but an imaginary concept.

Now say we put to big strong well armed enforcers on the door to enforce the rule! Then we are back to law, can you phyicaly overcome the enforcers, or maybe outsmart them some how and get past them. The yes or no of that situation is not based on the imaginary rule, (you have already broken the rule thus proving the law is meaningless unless you consent to it*), it is based on the laws of the universe, the phsyics of phyiscal combat etc.

*That is why the peddlers of freeman methodologies dribble thier BS about how you must consent to acts and statutes for them to apply. Whilst you have to concent to a simple rule for it to "work", non concent doesnt mean you are immune from the law of the enforcers enforcing their will on you. Think about it, you can break a speed limit very easily, just by not consenting to the legal speed limit which would stop you if you did consent, there you go you have become a freeman..... Until two coppers with tazers, CS gas and asps lay some law on you.

I dont know whether the freeman movement is a deliberate miss interpretation in order to make money by selling the most believable lies; the half truths, or whether its just dumb people.

Hmmmm! I think the point (forgive me if I'm wrong) of Freeman is to understand the system that has been put in place and not play a part of it, or at least play it in a fair way so that there are advantages to yourself (and other decent people).

To say, "Oh it isn't possible to do that because the Police will arrest me or stop me, or beat me", is, in my opinion a pathetic excuse and plays directly into the hands of fascism or communism or whatever dictatorship you wish to call it. If the Police men and all others realised what a ridiculous system this is heading towards (or some might say in) then I cannot imagine there will be a Police to enforce this BS anymore.

Peace

[1694]

Hmmmm! I think the point (forgive me if I'm wrong) of Freeman is to understand the system that has been put in place and not play a part of it, or at least play it in a fair way so that there are advantages to yourself (and other decent people).

To say, "Oh it isn't possible to do that because the Police will arrest me or stop me, or beat me", is, in my opinion a pathetic excuse and plays directly into the hands of fascism or communism or whatever dictatorship you wish to call it. If the Police men and all others realised what a ridiculous system this is heading towards (or some might say in) then I cannot imagine there will be a Police to enforce this BS anymore.

Peace

Well thats all very well and nice sounding, but if you try something and the police stop and beat you, you havent achieved the thing you set out to do, so you cant do it. Thats the law, regardles of the rules.

The law is what a man can do and what a man cant do, a variety of rules exist, but when it boils down to it law breaks rule.

They make their rules, you make your rules, the law decides.

Thats not to say the freeman philospophy doesnt have its merrits, but the legal hocus pocus about how you are supposed to be able to do this or that by the rules made up by the rulers to keep you ruled is just daft.