MAN BEATS BANK - And Creates Mortgage Banking MERS Bomb - Lost Paperwork Means F

[Serpo]

The following process is for discharging credit card debt, mortgage debt and most court orders to pay.

If you are locked into the debt cycle take a moment to read the following and decide for yourself whether or not your banksters still hold the original instrument of indebtedness that locks you into debt. Then follow the concept outlined in these documents EXACTLY and never back down!
http://www.mindwarpsectorfour.com/creditcard.html

[SLV^GLD]

insert popcorn graemlin here

[mrnhtbr2232]

The U.S. government is the largest lawyer mafia out there with an unlimited supply of digital money to stall for time. Their banking friends may not have a leg to stand on in terms of original notes, but that assumes impartiality in the law. As the Patriot Act clearly shows, many things can be legislated away or restricted, and what seems slam dunk today can just as easily be amended tomorrow. Nothing is beyond these people anymore.

[platinumdude]

I always believed that if you took out a loan you should pay it back. The best solution is not to borrow more than you can afford. Really, only borrow to get a house, and pay that off as quickly as possible. I did and I'm debt free.

[silver solution]

I always believed that if you took out a loan you should pay it back. The best solution is not to borrow more than you can afford. Really, only borrow to get a house, and pay that off as quickly as possible. I did and I'm debt free.


Bible says their evil system is wrong and you do not have to pay them back. You pay but the year of release comes up and you pay no more.

[po boy]

I always believed that if you took out a loan you should pay it back. The best solution is not to borrow more than you can afford. Really, only borrow to get a house, and pay that off as quickly as possible. I did and I'm debt free.


Bible says their evil system is wrong and you do not have to pay them back. You pay but the year of release comes up and you pay no more.


Jubilee?

[po boy]

Quiet title action? Take it to 'em.

[Twisted Titan]

It appears he waged a successful campaign

Two things he needs to be minful of:

1) He needs to constantly monitor his credit to make sure he is not stuck with this bill again.

2) He needs to be mindful that laws can change at any time and they will go against the little guy


Other then that I do tip my hat to him for posting actual letters with there responses.


T

[freespirit]

Bible says their evil system is wrong and you do not have to pay them back. You pay but the year of release comes up and you pay no more.


where exactly in the bible does it say this?

[Horn]

I always believed that if you took out a loan you should pay it back.

Too bad speculating house flippers, and wanna be slum lords don't operate like that.

[7th trump]

I always believed that if you took out a loan you should pay it back. The best solution is not to borrow more than you can afford. Really, only borrow to get a house, and pay that off as quickly as possible. I did and I'm debt free.


Bible says their evil system is wrong and you do not have to pay them back. You pay but the year of release comes up and you pay no more.

Bible also says to render to Ceasar what is Ceasars.
No different than you volunteering to take a loan. You should pay it back if possible. If you can not from forces outside your ability (economy manipulation) then you will look innocent in the eyes of your Father.
Its the right thing to do because two negatives doesnt make a positive. And no where in the Bible will you ever read God promoting evil.
You got yourself into the mess then get yourself out of it.
However, the only time you will read God saying anything giving the system trouble is to mystery Babylon. Mystery babylon isnt quite here yet. But then again many wont know you are in babylon. In fact, most will have the mark in regards to mystery babylon and 666.

[po boy]

...only borrow to get a house, and pay that off as quickly as possible.

You owned the house the instant you convinced the previous owner to vacate. The bank added nothing to the process but an illusion. For that illusion most people are endowed with incentive to work for the next 20-30 years. Society believes this is a win-win situation (for society).

This is actually outlined in Modern Money Mechanics which was printed by the FED itself. The pdf can be found for free on the interwebs for those so inclined.

As to the Bible references.... divers measures to me says no FRN at all what form can we use then hmmm sounds like gold and silver.

"Bible also says to render to Ceasar what is Ceasars" was this not a reference to taxation not mortgages?
Where's a 30 year mortgage in the bible? I'll save you the time it's not.
Maybe I'm not see thing correctly but as far as I can tell I'm supposed to stay out of commerce(Ceaser's Game) or Canaanite trafficing. Of course reading comprehension wasn't one of my strong points.

[freespirit]

Bible says their evil system is wrong and you do not have to pay them back. You pay but the year of release comes up and you pay no more.


where exactly in the bible does it say this?



...anybody?????

[Plastic]

Bible says their evil system is wrong and you do not have to pay them back. You pay but the year of release comes up and you pay no more.


where exactly in the bible does it say this?



...anybody?????




The only thing close I could find is Nehemiah 5.

1And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews.

2For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live.

3Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth.

4There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards.

5Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards.

6And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words.

7Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them.

[Jazkal]

Bible says their evil system is wrong and you do not have to pay them back. You pay but the year of release comes up and you pay no more.


where exactly in the bible does it say this?



...anybody?????

Which part?

About what the bible has to say against usury?

Or what the bible has to say against unjust weights and measures?

Or bout the year of release, aka the Jubilee?

[po boy]

Bible says their evil system is wrong and you do not have to pay them back. You pay but the year of release comes up and you pay no more.


where exactly in the bible does it say this?



...anybody?????

Which part?

About what the bible has to say against usury?

Or what the bible has to say against unjust weights and measures?

Or bout the year of release, aka the Jubilee?



First 2 Thou shall not steal

as to the third I'll leave it to the learned. (read I'm lazy)

[freespirit]

i was looking for a reference that says its ok to not pay your credit card debt?

i'm all for using their system against them (finding loopholes, etc) but i think its dishonest to agree to use the money at their terms and then just "decide" you don't wanna pay it back. not being able to pay it back is a different story, imo, but the posts fail to clarify the distinction between the two.

i doubt i could walk into my bank and say "i'm not paying my loan back anymore because the bible says what you're doing is unjust."

i agreed to pay the loan back @ a set rate of interest, it would be dishonest for me to go back on my word. also a sin.

[po boy]

i was looking for a reference that says its ok to not pay your credit card debt?

i'm all for using their system against them (finding loopholes, etc) but i think its dishonest to agree to use the money at their terms and then just "decide" you don't wanna pay it back. not being able to pay it back is a different story, imo, but the posts fail to clarify the distinction between the two.

i doubt i could walk into my bank and say "i'm not paying my loan back anymore because the bible says what you're doing is unjust."

i agreed to pay the loan back @ a set rate of interest, it would be dishonest for me to go back on my word. also a sin.



I think the bible scholars, those practicing strict interpretation would not have any bank accounts at all much less a mortgage.

Now those with a mortgages beliefs aside should be knowledgeable in the laws pertaining to their situation and the scams banks run.Banks do illegal shit as many here know. Even default is in most contracts thus being totally legal.

Mixing the to work to the advantage of banks alone. Knowing loop holes in the law isn't being a bad person it is being wise and prudent.Why bend over if you don't like it?

[freespirit]

if you agreed to the deal, you should stick to it. if you thought you weren't going to like paying it back, you shouldn't have taken the deal.

the impression i have from what you're telling me is it's ok to break a deal because one decides they don't like the terms. that seems dishonest to me. if you don't like the terms, turn down the deal. but if you make a commitment, you should stand by it, otherwise your word is no good.

remind me to never loan you money...lol
;D

[Jazkal]

If I write you a check for $1000. And you turn around an endorse the check over to John.

Do I still owe you a $1000?

[freespirit]

only if you borrowed $1800....$200 would be interest....lol

[po boy]

i was looking for a reference that says its ok to not pay your credit card debt?

i'm all for using their system against them (finding loopholes, etc) but i think its dishonest to agree to use the money at their terms and then just "decide" you don't wanna pay it back. not being able to pay it back is a different story, imo, but the posts fail to clarify the distinction between the two.

i doubt i could walk into my bank and say "i'm not paying my loan back anymore because the bible says what you're doing is unjust."

i agreed to pay the loan back @ a set rate of interest, it would be dishonest for me to go back on my word. also a sin.




LOL I don't borrow credit thanks for the non offer.

You should read Modern Money Mechanics to grasp what is really going on in credit debt transactions without this knowledge your missing quite a bit.

A contract requires a meeting of the minds as well as other things.If one is without full knowledge then the contract should be void on it's face.I have written a few and of those have delivered on all.

Not all things are what they seem although if one is dishonest though with holding vital information it can be very profitable.

Bank have large buildings because they are full of honor of this I'm sure.

[Awoke]

I don't understnad the language "Original instrument of indebtedness".

Wouldn't that be your house, or whatever you bought in the credit?

[Jazkal]

That would be the Mortgage Note you signed. It is a financial instrument, just like a check.



EDIT:

as far as Credit Card accounts, I'm guessing that would be the original contract that you signed.

[freespirit]

Bank have large buildings because they are full of honor of this I'm sure.


i was thinking more about my own ethics and code of honor, not the banks.

i stand behind my word, but i am fully aware the bank will not, if possible.

[Horn]

i agreed to pay the loan back @ a set rate of interest, it would be dishonest for me to go back on my word. also a sin.

If the loan originator & magistrate knew in advance the property under said loan was going to be worthless before its term was up (which was the case), the only thing you should need to offer is your eye.

[Awoke]

So him using that language equates to him saying "Show me the note"...?

Got it. Thank you. I would love to put all this to the test, I really would. I am completely debt-laden and living check to cheque, but my wife would never stand for it. She is a person of honour, like FreeSpirit, in that she figures "We borrowed teh credit under the agreement that we would pay it back".

If the chance ever arose (ie: if she ever got pissed off enough at the system to let me try it) I would love to try this out.

My only question is, if you were to try this manuever, and took it right to the end, unless you hold the actual deed to your land and the deed to your house, you wouldn't technically be able to say that you owned it, would you?

[Horn]

My only question is, if you were to try this manuever, and took it right to the end, unless you hold the actual deed to your land and the deed to your house, you wouldn't technically be able to say that you owned it, would you?


Possession 9/10ths.

[Glass]

So him using that language equates to him saying "Show me the note"...?

Got it. Thank you. I would love to put all this to the test, I really would. I am completely debt-laden and living check to cheque, but my wife would never stand for it. She is a person of honour, like FreeSpirit, in that she figures "We borrowed teh credit under the agreement that we would pay it back".

If the chance ever arose (ie: if she ever got pissed off enough at the system to let me try it) I would love to try this out.

My only question is, if you were to try this manuever, and took it right to the end, unless you hold the actual deed to your land and the deed to your house, you wouldn't technically be able to say that you owned it, would you?


In this case you would need to ensure that you had the greatest claim to the property being disputed. The property, what ever it is, can be subject to a secured party claim. The party who has the highest interest (1st in line perfected security) has the greatest claim.

Here is an example: A bond holder Vs a shareholder.

Both parties hold something known as a liability from a company. One is considered a secured party, the other is considered unsecured. The bond holder is considered to be a secured party and has a greater claim than the shareholder or unsecured party.

As we have seen in the banking fiascos or Ireland and Iceland the bond holders considered that they had a greater claim to the assets of the banks than did the shareholders. As a result, shareholders were either wiped out or temporarily convinced they were not because of a Govt guarantee. Iceland told the bondholders that they would have to wear losses on the failure of banks but they refused.

If a company ceases to exist - stops trading, then it makes no money and bond holders have worthless paper. If a company is put on life support and all profits are directed to bond holders to the 100% exclusion (a dividend moratorium) of shareholders then no "hair cut" to bond holders. Once the bond holders get their 100cents on the $1 paid back the company is then cut loose - life support is removed and the shareholders get the scraps which is usually $0.

Anyone, who can demonstrate an interest in some kind of property can establish a record of their secured interest. You don't even need to be in possession of the property. If the secured party are first in line eg. they are the 1st to record their interest, then they get the first $ that become available from the asset (if it is liquidated) or from the surety for the asset.

Then, when any matter discussing the liquidation of the asset is discussed the 1st in line secured party can present their secured part claim for settlement.

[Twisted Titan]

Ask the GM bondholders ( courtesy of Barack Obama ) what they think about this.......

[Awoke]

Anyone, who can demonstrate an interest in some kind of property can establish a record of their secured interest. You don't even need to be in possession of the property. If the secured party are first in line eg. they are the 1st to record their interest, then they get the first $ that become available from the asset (if it is liquidated) or from the surety for the asset.

Then, when any matter discussing the liquidation of the asset is discussed the 1st in line secured party can present their secured part claim for settlement.


So would a locker full of Guns and Ammo be sufficient to establish a record of my secured interest? Or are there some form you fill out? hahaha.
Stupid question, but I don't get it....

[po boy]

Vid on quiet title action
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5yv0a0GHQc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5yv0a0GHQc)

livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/quiet-title-may-not-be-the-answer-for-everyone-but-it-can-definitely-work-for-some/ (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/quiet-title-may-not-be-the-answer-for-everyone-but-it-can-definitely-work-for-some/)
A Utah court case in which the owner of a Draper townhouse got clear title to the property, even though he still owed $132,000 on it, raises new legal and financial questions about a property-records database created by mortgage bankers.
The award of a title free of liens means that whoever owns the promissory note on the Draper property — likely a group of faraway investors — no longer has the right to foreclose to collect on a delinquent loan. Indeed, the townhouse owner has sold the property and kept the money. Those who own the promissory note probably don’t even know what occurred.