Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-07-2009, 08:01 PM   #1
the worm that turned
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 983
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Mortgages - Where is the consideration?

This is a theoretical letter that COULD be sent to a mortgage company. Please read and comment. I do not claim to be an expert here so all comments gratefully received.

The letter:
------------------------------------
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On dd/mm/yyyy Joe Bloggs (“I”) and Jenny Bloggs (collectively “us” or “we”) signed a form requesting for The Bank (“you”) to provide us with a loan account with an overdraft facility of 250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand) pounds.

To ensure there is no confusion, pounds is the term given to the currency used in England, where we reside, it is also often referred to as GBP, Great British Pounds, Sterling or merely given the symbol £.

At the time of signing the aforementioned form neither of us fully grasped exactly what was occurring by way of signing the document, and to be honest we still cannot say for certain that we do. We believe that the creation of a bank account with you enabled us to complete on the purchase of our home, notably the house with the number ##, located on the street called Somewhere Avenue in the town of Newtown, in the county of Made-up-shire, nearby to an assigned postcode [XX# #XX].

We have been entered onto the Title Deeds of this property and therefore are the acknowledged owners of these deeds, and therefore to our understanding of the house and associated lands.

Since dd/mm/yyyy it has come to the attention of us, via the Bank of England website and reading of the Gold Standard Act 1925, that the pound is no longer linked to a standard or anything else of value. By this we mean that if a man or woman carrying a promissory note (bank note) issued by the Bank of England with the wording written across it that states “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of…” attempts to exchange this with the issuer for something of value, they cannot, and will only be provided with a similar promissory note. Therefore money has no true value.

This has caused us no end of confusion and concern. The main reason for concern is that we took the assumption that when The Bank offered us an account containing 250,000 pounds you actually had an asset equal to this value to balance this against. We could only assume at the time that you did indeed have an object of value, such as gold, and that the giving of 250,000 pounds (potentially in the form of promissory notes linked to gold or another valuable asset) equated to such an object of value. As we now learn that the money you have lent is not actually backed against anything of real value, then we are struggling to see what it is in fact that you have offered in consideration for your end of the bargain. Or to put it simply, we have offered the surety (security) of our bricks and mortar house, what have you offered?

At present we feel that we are in a very precarious situation, as we feel that if indeed a contract was put in place during the signing of the aforementioned form, it MAY be invalid and/or unenforceable, because for a contract to be enforceable in English Law it must meet the following criteria:

1.Agreement
2.Consideration
3.Intention to create legal relations
4.Form
5.Capacity
6.Consent
7.Legality

In relation to each we have the following to say:

Agreement - A meeting of the minds did occur as we were in agreement that you would offer us a valuable asset of 250,000 pounds in return for our repayment of this sum plus any interest accrued.

Consideration – We have promised to provide our house as surety for the loan of 250,000 pounds from you and agreed to pay back to you the loan amount plus any interested accrued. In light of the recent findings described above we cannot at present see any consideration provided by you.

Intention to create legal relations – This appears to have been fulfilled by both parties.

Form – We have signed an agreement and a formal document with you, however we require sight of a legally binding contract with wet signatures from both parties

Capacity – As can clearly be seen from our signed agreement form we, both Jenny and Joe have signed the form as a man and woman, with our names in full lower case and not in the capacity of a legal entity called a person. Therefore any agreement, if it were accepted would be between the legal entity or company called The Bank, and the living breathing, man and woman, Joe and Jenny of the family Bloggs.

Consent – Although we consented at the time to enter into such an agreement, we were not fully aware of the situation as outlined above in relation to a potential lack of consideration by The Bank. We also felt that there was a lot of undue influence from the current system within England that insists that a property must be bought with the backing of a bank, or building society (as one of the few companies capable of lending money).

Legality – The legality of the lending of money by banks, particularly in light of the information we have discovered since dd/mm/yyyy is not something we feel we are in a position to determine. We can confirm from our part that we believed at the time that it was a legal requirement to sign an agreement such as this to allow us to borrow money in order to take ownership of the Title Deeds and therefore our house.

As you can see from the points we have raised we have a number of unanswered questions that MAY lead to any contract between parties being invalid and/or unenforceable in a court of law in England.

At this stage we would like to make an offer to settle this account by us providing you with zero (0) pounds, and in return a written confirmation from you that the account is closed with no further allowance for recourse by either party. The aforementioned property and associated Title Deeds would remain the property of us.

We would very much appreciate your response to all of the points raised in this letter and look forward to hearing from you within 14 days of the date of this letter.

Sincerely and without ill will or malice



Joe and Jenny of the family Bloggs

Last edited by the worm that turned; 04-07-2009 at 06:16 AM. Reason: spelling
the worm that turned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 08:22 PM   #2
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

I think this is marvellous stuff, it gets across exactly how big a fraud has been perpetrated on us.

You'll keep us updated on developments, won't you?
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 08:29 PM   #3
the worm that turned
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 983
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
I think this is marvellous stuff, it gets across exactly how big a fraud has been perpetrated on us.

You'll keep us updated on developments, won't you?
This is purely theoretical at the moment

Cheers for the comments. If I receive some further positive comments etc and people think it is worthwhile I may well do it myself.
the worm that turned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 12:49 AM   #4
bsmurph83
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: a foreign jurisdiction
Posts: 649
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

this looks pretty good, well done... just a quick spellcheck: you used the word 'precocious' when I think you meant to say 'precarious'.

Thomas Anderson has some materials in Book 1 of his which is used to zero mortgages if you're interested in it. Not a cheap buy though... Right now I can't really be arsed typing it all out. It'd take ages! It's Australian material but would still apply in UK... worth a mention
bsmurph83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 01:31 AM   #5
arty2000
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Michigan,USA
Posts: 4,239
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

got any info for the US this sounds really interesting and please post as developments arise...thanks
__________________
peace and love my friends

Last edited by arty2000; 04-07-2009 at 01:31 AM.
arty2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 08:08 AM   #6
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Just a small thought ...

Remember, to "pay back" the money + interest, you gave your labour; the only item of value that was exchanged.

The bricks and mortar was the security; your labour was given ... for what?
It is your labour and credit that supports your promissory notes ... what supports theirs? This is where the "consideration" needs to be evaluated.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 12:07 PM   #7
heebeejeebee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North West UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

some additional info that you might find interesting

http://www.fmotl.com/LoansScam.htm

And now for something that gets really silly
 
Mortgages. The method for obtaining the cash amount is the same as described above. But there is more to mortgages that meet the eye. (More, over and above, straight loans).
 
Here a property, in the form of a dwelling, is being transferred from one owner to another (actually one keeper to another, not owner, but that's another subject).
 
Now, it is illegal to mortgage a property you don't own. The property is considered to be the security on the loan. How can you be providing 'security' when you don't - at that time - actually own the thing?
 
And, secondly, it is illegal to transfer a property/dwelling that has not yet been paid for.
 
So ... what does this mean? You can't establish a loan, because you don't have any security to offer. Therefore you can't pay for it, because you can't get the loan money. (Err ... no. You can't offer you current home as security, because you are probably in the process of selling it!) And, since you can't pay for it, the Seller can't transfer it into your name.
 
But ... on the other hand ... people can and do establish mortgages, do buy homes, and do move house.
 
How is this done?
 
Well ... it happens by 'magic'. The Bank/Building Society uses 'magic'.
 
Not really paranormal 'magic', of course ... more akin to fraud, in actual fact.
 
John Dempsey, of Sovereign Trust, explains in absolute detail how the Magic Bank operates http://www.freewebs.com/debtfreesovereign/
__________________
Unbuckle your seatbelt and pay attention!

Roage
heebeejeebee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 01:07 PM   #8
danster82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 3,923
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

I wouldn't bother refrecning gold as the value remember money is anything that is considered valuable.

Instead say you need accounting proof that the signed agreement was PURCHASED from you for the value of 250,000 by the bank so the banks accounts would show a loss off 250,000 which they cant because you have come to believe that the Signed agreement was not purchased from you and instead the sum was created via accounting alone and thus no consideration.

You see you could of taken your own signed agreement legally binding you and floated it yourself on the market and people could buy it from you for the value you have requested offering diffrent interest payments for their risk.... thats how a free and open market would work they bid for your signed agreement because they are interested in profit they can make from interest payments which is fair for their risk.
danster82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2009, 06:23 PM   #9
the worm that turned
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 983
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Thank you all for these great comments. I have had a few more ideas on this and the below amended letter might be more appropriate - what do we think?

-----------------------------------
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

To ensure there is no confusion, pounds is the term given to the currency used in England, it is also often referred to as GBP, Great British Pounds, Sterling or merely given the symbol £.

On dd/mm/yyyy Joe and Jenny of the family Bloggs (collectively “Us” or “We”) signed an application form requesting for The Bank (“You”) to provide Us with a Loan Account (“Loan”) for the amount of 250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand) pounds.

We understand that the creation of this Loan enabled Us to complete on the purchase of our home, the house with the number ##, located on the street called Somewhere Avenue in the town of Newtown, in the county of Made-up-shire, nearby to an assigned postcode [XX# #XX].

We are entered onto the Title Deeds (“Deeds”) and therefore are the acknowledged owners of these Deeds, and therefore the house and associated lands.

We signed an agreement between Us and You dated dd/mm/yyyy for the release of the Loan to us, and it could be argued that this agreement formed a contract between both parties.

In an attempt for Us to fully comprehend what a contract is, We have undertaken research and We assert that for a contract to be enforceable by a Court of Law in England it must contain the following:

1.Agreement;
2.Consideration;
3.Intention to create legal relations;
4.Form;
5.Capacity;
6.Consent;
7.Legality.

In relation to any contract that may or may not exist between You and Us, We have the following to say for each topic numbered 1 to 7 above:

Agreement - A meeting of the minds did occur as We were in agreement that You would offer Us a valuable asset (Consideration provided by You) equivalent to 250,000 pounds and in return We would provide repayment of this sum plus any interest accrued, and We would offer our property as security (Consideration provided by Us).

Consideration Provided By Us – We have promised our house as security and therefore this is the Consideration provide by Us.

Consideration Provided By You – We cannot be certain of any actual Consideration provided by You. If You claim that the provision of a Loan for the amount of 250,000 pounds is Consideration provided by You then We will require proof of an actual valuable asset directly linked to this Loan amount and proof of accounting to show that you actually purchased this agreement from Us.

Intention to create legal relations – This appears to have been fulfilled by both parties.

Form – We have signed an agreement with You, however We require sight of a legally binding contract with wet signatures from both parties.

Capacity – As can clearly be seen from our signed agreement We, have signed the application form and agreement as a man and woman, with our names in lower case and not in the capacity of a legal entity called a person. Therefore any agreement, if it were accepted would be between You acting as a commercial legal entity, and Us as the living breathing man and woman, Joe and Jenny respectively, of the family Bloggs.

Consent – Although We consented at the time to enter into such an agreement, We were not fully aware of Consideration potentially only being provided by Us.

Legality – The legality of the lending of money by banks is not something We feel We are in a position to determine. We can confirm from our part that We believed at the time that it was a legal requirement to sign an agreement such as this to borrow money in order to take ownership of the Title Deeds and therefore our house.

At present We will continue to provide payments as set out in the agreement between You and Us. For Us to continue making these payments We require You to provide Us with a clear and concise definition in plain English of the Consideration that You have provided in relation to any contract that may or may not exist between You and Us and this must be provided to Us within 14 days of the date of this letter.

If We do not receive a satisfactory response to this request within the timeframe stipulated above We cannot be certain that any contract that may or may not exist between You and Us is actually enforceable in a Court of Law in England.


Sincerely and without ill will or malice




Joe and Jenny of the family Bloggs

Last edited by the worm that turned; 07-07-2009 at 06:26 PM.
the worm that turned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 03:23 AM   #10
cruise4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,865
Likes: 87 (62 Posts)
Default

I heard something about 'tenant' being in these contracts. It might make this issue more problematical if true. But great stuff. I was considering something along these lines as well. It's all fraud.
cruise4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 06:22 AM   #11
the worm that turned
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 983
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Since writing this again I have been thinking about Yozhik's comments (which as ever are very inspiring and valid) and it is true that my labour is actually consideration too. So I think I would add in that for my consideration it is -

The house I live in and the my labour to gain the money to pay the interest and capital.

Where Mr Bank is your consideration??

As for cruise4's last comment about a tenant, do you have any more info? What contract are you referring too, the loan agreement from the bank (mortgage loan)?
the worm that turned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 06:55 AM   #12
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

My comment re: labour was referencing the promissory notes that are in circulation.
The only "value" they have is our full trust and future labour. Period.
This is the only value backing ALL promissory notes and so (surely) is inherently the consideration that is being offered/traded.

Sidenote
Actually, it is more our "trust" that is underpinning the whole structure; trust that we will continue to provide our labour in return for promissory notes. The day we stand up and so "no thank you - I require more than a piece of printed paper issued by the privately owned Bank of England to remunerate me for my labour" is the day it comes falling down like a house of cards.

In this respect, our "future labour" is presumed to be part of the equation.


If the gold standard still existed, a promissory note could be redeemed for gold; the "value" supporting the note.
So, if it is simply our good faith (and labour) that supports the current promissory notes, then this is the only redeemable "value".

The question then becomes; "what value did the bank bring to the table?"

You brought your future labour; the value supporting the promissory note.
What did they bring?



Referring to another post, which made reference to the land titles having the word "tenant".
This also is my understanding.
In the documents pertaining to the purchase of property, you are only referred to as the tenant.
I have not been able to categorically confirm this, but neither have I seen it rebutted.

This could be due to your title only ever being "fee simple" and not "allodial title".
It could also be due to an inability to acquire assets when in a state of bankruptcy or it may even be directly linked to the promissory notes used to complete the contract not having anything of real value behind them.
The word "real" being the key word, as property is considered to be "real property" (real estate) and would need to be exchanged for something of "real" value.

All of these are mere wanderings in a fertile mind and are offered only as suggestions. I'm neither entrenched in these offerings nor am I married to them ... but they might act as useful manure to enrich and assist further ideas blossoming



EDIT

Part I General Principles as to Legal Estates, Equitable Interests and Powers

1. Legal estates and equitable interests.
— (1) The only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are—
(a) An estate in fee simple absolute in possession;
(b) A term of years absolute.
Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)


In English common law theory, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land. However, the Crown can grant an abstract entity—called an estate in land—which is what is owned. The fee simple estate is also called "estate in fee simple" or "fee-simple title" and sometimes simply freehold in England and Wales. In the early Norman period, the holder of an estate in fee simple could not sell it, but instead could grant subordinate fee simple estates to third parties in the same parcel of land, a process known as "subinfeudation." The Statute of Quia Emptores adopted in 1290 abolished subinfeudation and instead allowed the sale of fee simple estates.

The concept of a "fee" has its origins in feudalism. According to William Blackstone, the great common law commentator, fee simple is the estate in land that a person has when the lands are given to him and his heirs absolutely, without any end or limit put to his estate. Land held in fee simple can be conveyed to whomsoever its owner pleases; it can be mortgaged or put up as security as well. The owner(s) of real property in fee simple title have the right to own the property during their lifetime and typically have a say in determining who gets to own the property after their death. In a sense, one might say fee simple owners "own" the property "forever"; however, only holders of an allodial title on land really do own the land forever, and the land is not subject to property tax.


Now, also of extreme interest is the following section in the same Act;

Infants and Lunatics

F2 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F2 S. 19 repealed (1.1.1997) by 1996 c. 47, s. 25(2), Sch.4 ( with ss. 24(2), 25(4)); S.I. 1996/2974, art.2

20. The appointment of an infant to be a trustee in relation to any settlement or trust shall be void, but without prejudice to the power to appoint a new trustee to fill the vacancy.

21. A married infant shall have power to give valid receipts for all income (including statutory accumulations of income made during the minority) to which the infant may be entitled in like manner as if the infant were of full age.


A married infant????
If you ever wanted "proof" of your status being a "child", look no further.
There are multiple references to "infant" throughout the legislation.
Look for it. Comprehend its meaning. Realise its significance.

Quote:
The term infant derives from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak."
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman

Last edited by yozhik; 08-07-2009 at 08:57 AM.
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 09:02 PM   #13
the worm that turned
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 983
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
My comment re: labour was referencing the promissory notes that are in circulation.
The only "value" they have is our full trust and future labour. Period.
This is the only value backing ALL promissory notes and so (surely) is inherently the consideration that is being offered/traded.

Sidenote
Actually, it is more our "trust" that is underpinning the whole structure; trust that we will continue to provide our labour in return for promissory notes. The day we stand up and so "no thank you - I require more than a piece of printed paper issued by the privately owned Bank of England to remunerate me for my labour" is the day it comes falling down like a house of cards.

In this respect, our "future labour" is presumed to be part of the equation.


If the gold standard still existed, a promissory note could be redeemed for gold; the "value" supporting the note.
So, if it is simply our good faith (and labour) that supports the current promissory notes, then this is the only redeemable "value".

The question then becomes; "what value did the bank bring to the table?"

You brought your future labour; the value supporting the promissory note.
What did they bring?



Referring to another post, which made reference to the land titles having the word "tenant".
This also is my understanding.
In the documents pertaining to the purchase of property, you are only referred to as the tenant.
I have not been able to categorically confirm this, but neither have I seen it rebutted.

This could be due to your title only ever being "fee simple" and not "allodial title".
It could also be due to an inability to acquire assets when in a state of bankruptcy or it may even be directly linked to the promissory notes used to complete the contract not having anything of real value behind them.
The word "real" being the key word, as property is considered to be "real property" (real estate) and would need to be exchanged for something of "real" value.

All of these are mere wanderings in a fertile mind and are offered only as suggestions. I'm neither entrenched in these offerings nor am I married to them ... but they might act as useful manure to enrich and assist further ideas blossoming



EDIT

Part I General Principles as to Legal Estates, Equitable Interests and Powers

1. Legal estates and equitable interests.
— (1) The only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are—
(a) An estate in fee simple absolute in possession;
(b) A term of years absolute.
Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)


In English common law theory, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land. However, the Crown can grant an abstract entity—called an estate in land—which is what is owned. The fee simple estate is also called "estate in fee simple" or "fee-simple title" and sometimes simply freehold in England and Wales. In the early Norman period, the holder of an estate in fee simple could not sell it, but instead could grant subordinate fee simple estates to third parties in the same parcel of land, a process known as "subinfeudation." The Statute of Quia Emptores adopted in 1290 abolished subinfeudation and instead allowed the sale of fee simple estates.

The concept of a "fee" has its origins in feudalism. According to William Blackstone, the great common law commentator, fee simple is the estate in land that a person has when the lands are given to him and his heirs absolutely, without any end or limit put to his estate. Land held in fee simple can be conveyed to whomsoever its owner pleases; it can be mortgaged or put up as security as well. The owner(s) of real property in fee simple title have the right to own the property during their lifetime and typically have a say in determining who gets to own the property after their death. In a sense, one might say fee simple owners "own" the property "forever"; however, only holders of an allodial title on land really do own the land forever, and the land is not subject to property tax.


Now, also of extreme interest is the following section in the same Act;

Infants and Lunatics

F2 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F2 S. 19 repealed (1.1.1997) by 1996 c. 47, s. 25(2), Sch.4 ( with ss. 24(2), 25(4)); S.I. 1996/2974, art.2

20. The appointment of an infant to be a trustee in relation to any settlement or trust shall be void, but without prejudice to the power to appoint a new trustee to fill the vacancy.

21. A married infant shall have power to give valid receipts for all income (including statutory accumulations of income made during the minority) to which the infant may be entitled in like manner as if the infant were of full age.


A married infant????
If you ever wanted "proof" of your status being a "child", look no further.
There are multiple references to "infant" throughout the legislation.
Look for it. Comprehend its meaning. Realise its significance.
Brilliant stuff! So the next big question...

How do you no longer be classed as an infant?

And, in your opinion, is it even worth attempting to claim a contract for a mortgage loan is unenforceable due to lack of consideration?

I personally cannot see how a judge would rule in favour of a man or woman against the bank as if they did the entire system would collapse. How could you see something like this panning out?
the worm that turned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 09:22 PM   #14
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the worm that turned View Post
is it even worth attempting to claim a contract for a mortgage loan is unenforceable due to lack of consideration?
Hasn't someone posted on the FOTL forum with a case citation, where the mortgage was ruled fraudulent and the contract judged void or unenforceable?

I thought it was one of those lovely hidden gems we're not supposed to know about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the worm that turned View Post
I personally cannot see how a judge would rule in favour of a man or woman against the bank as if they did the entire system would collapse. How could you see something like this panning out?
Pssssssst ... it already has
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman

Last edited by yozhik; 08-07-2009 at 09:26 PM.
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 09:37 PM   #15
the worm that turned
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 983
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
Hasn't someone posted on the FOTL forum with a case citation, where the mortgage was ruled fraudulent and the contract judged void or unenforceable?

I thought it was one of those lovely hidden gems we're not supposed to know about.


Pssssssst ... it already has
Well yeah I guess you are right, it has collapsed but has since been propped up again with more pretend money. Surely a further catastrophe (such as ALL mortgages being declared VOID) would be a slight problem for the government and banks

Perhaps it's all delay tactics for something really nice they have in store for us. Perhaps it's all part of a big divine plan that we can do SWEET FA about!

In the meantime though, have you found the link to the previous case of the mortgage being declared void/unenforceable? Was it in England?
the worm that turned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 10:11 PM   #16
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the worm that turned View Post
Well yeah I guess you are right, it has collapsed but has since been propped up again with more pretend money. Surely a further catastrophe (such as ALL mortgages being declared VOID) would be a slight problem for the government and banks
Why?

What's the worst that could happen?
Another bailout?

Hmmmm ... so a bailout, to pay the banks for all mortgages being declared void?
This would be similar to our bond account money being used to set off those fraudulent mortgages, wouldn't it?

... can't see an issue, myself
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 10:29 PM   #17
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the worm that turned View Post
In the meantime though, have you found the link to the previous case of the mortgage being declared void/unenforceable? Was it in England?
http://educationcenter2000.com/legal...r_decision.htm
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 09:20 AM   #18
vienna
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,678
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

there's an actual court case in the 60s of someone winning a court case where the bank was trying to repossess his home, the judge ruled in his favour on this very point of bank providing no consideration

I've been trying to find where I read about it or saw it - I think it was in one of the zeitgeist films
__________________
www.vactruth.com -
"Through my extensive research I have discovered that vaccinations are causing impaired blood flow (ischemia) to brain and body. I have reason to believe that all are being affected and all vaccinations ARE causing the overwhelming rise in autism , specific learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, sudden infant death, gulf war syndrome, dementia , seizure disorders, some cancers it would appear, and much more"Dr A.MOULDEN
vienna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 09:35 AM   #19
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vienna View Post
there's an actual court case in the 60s of someone winning a court case where the bank was trying to repossess his home, the judge ruled in his favour on this very point of bank providing no consideration

I've been trying to find where I read about it or saw it - I think it was in one of the zeitgeist films
Not the one I linked to?
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 09:18 PM   #20
the worm that turned
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 983
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

So assuming I could avoid death, you are telling me there's a chance

Does anyone know of any examples in England?

Why was there not an influx of cases in the US after this?

Very strange...
the worm that turned is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:07 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.