Is a debt contract akin to slavery?

[the worm that turned]

Advice greatly appreciated here.

SO LETS PRETEND THE FOLLOWING: When I applied for a mortgage (debt) recently I insured that the application form was completed in lower case, even though it asked for it in BLOCK CAPITALS. I willfully did this because I wanted to sign it as "me" the human being not "ME" the legal fiction.

The contract was returned to me to sign and to my surprise they kept my name in lower case so I duly signed.

Since then I have learnt that the GBP (pound) is actually not recognised against any standard (as confirmed by the bank of england plc website). So in effect the pound is a piece of paper worth another piece of paper, i.e. worthless.

As my contract requires me to pay off my debt of £xxx,xxx GBP using GBP it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually pay off this debt. So in effect I am being held in financial bondage or slavery by this company, which is unlawful and a blatant breach of my human rights under common law.

If I had knowingly or unknowingly signed my contract as FIRST-NAME LAST-NAME in capitals I would have been contracting using my legal fiction. As I willfully signed the contract as me as a human being, it is a contract between a human being and a corporation and therefore subject to common law (or the law of the land).

Does anyone agree that if this occurred I might have a relatively strong case here to get this debt written off due to breach of human rights.

[pri01]

Sorry, I am following this concept and finding it really interesting yet very complex to understand. I am getting there though. However, now I know why they ask you to print your name above your signature. I always thought that it was asked for so that they could read it more clearly. You know how obscure some signatures can look like. Lower case for me now all the time.

[danster82]

Advice greatly appreciated here.

SO LETS PRETEND THE FOLLOWING: When I applied for a mortgage (debt) recently I insured that the application form was completed in lower case, even though it asked for it in BLOCK CAPITALS. I willfully did this because I wanted to sign it as "me" the human being not "ME" the legal fiction.

The contract was returned to me to sign and to my surprise they kept my name in lower case so I duly signed.

Since then I have learnt that the GBP (pound) is actually not recognised against any standard (as confirmed by the bank of england plc website). So in effect the pound is a piece of paper worth another piece of paper, i.e. worthless.

As my contract requires me to pay off my debt of £xxx,xxx GBP using GBP it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually pay off this debt. So in effect I am being held in financial bondage or slavery by this company, which is unlawful and a blatant breach of my human rights under common law.

If I had knowingly or unknowingly signed my contract as FIRST-NAME LAST-NAME in capitals I would have been contracting using my legal fiction. As I willfully signed the contract as me as a human being, it is a contract between a human being and a corporation and therefore subject to common law (or the law of the land).

Does anyone agree that if this occurred I might have a relatively strong case here to get this debt written off due to breach of human rights.


Let say I loan you 1000 and I had 2000 in my account which I had earnt through my labor and so I now have 1000 in my account you have essentialy borrowed my labor upfront to payback in the future which to me is legitamate you knew exactly what you was doing I knew exactly what I was doing its an agreement and so no you are not a debt slave. That would be a legal debt contract because the contract would have "consideration" which is one of the legalitys required for a binding contract this is where both parties put somthing up of value. So with the banking system they created the debt from your signature at the point of loan and thus did not exchange anything themsleves of value and cannot possibly sustain a loss and in that case you are a debt slave.

I dont know what the procedure is with morgages these days does the bank buy and own the property with the money created of which your listed a tenant whilst still paying the morgage or does it give you the money created to buy and own the house which they then reposses on failure to payback debt.

If you own the house then that would be greate because you could just say the morgage debt is merely an alleged debt and for them to prove to you the debt actualy exists by provinding the loss's they sustained to loan you the value of the house.

[marpat]

Advice greatly appreciated here.

SO LETS PRETEND THE FOLLOWING: When I applied for a mortgage (debt) recently I insured that the application form was completed in lower case, even though it asked for it in BLOCK CAPITALS. I willfully did this because I wanted to sign it as "me" the human being not "ME" the legal fiction.

The contract was returned to me to sign and to my surprise they kept my name in lower case so I duly signed.

Since then I have learnt that the GBP (pound) is actually not recognised against any standard (as confirmed by the bank of england plc website). So in effect the pound is a piece of paper worth another piece of paper, i.e. worthless.

As my contract requires me to pay off my debt of £xxx,xxx GBP using GBP it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually pay off this debt. So in effect I am being held in financial bondage or slavery by this company, which is unlawful and a blatant breach of my human rights under common law.

If I had knowingly or unknowingly signed my contract as FIRST-NAME LAST-NAME in capitals I would have been contracting using my legal fiction. As I willfully signed the contract as me as a human being, it is a contract between a human being and a corporation and therefore subject to common law (or the law of the land).

Does anyone agree that if this occurred I might have a relatively strong case here to get this debt written off due to breach of human rights.

But in the end you wanted to have a morgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you ask for one that was more than you could afford?

It fucks me off when I see this sort of thing, people who are prepared to take on debt then try and use some lame excuse to not pay it back. If you did not want the debt then perhaps you should not have taken the mortage.

[grachtengordel]

SO LETS PRETEND THE FOLLOWING: When I applied for a mortgage (debt) ........

Since then I have learnt that the GBP (pound) is actually not recognised against any standard (as confirmed by the bank of england plc website). So in effect the pound is a piece of paper worth another piece of paper, i.e. worthless.

As my contract requires me to pay off my debt of £xxx,xxx GBP using GBP it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually pay off this debt. So in effect I am being held in financial bondage or slavery by this company, which is unlawful and a blatant breach of my human rights under common law.

Yup, a 'debt' is a form of slavery, definately 'financial bondage'

if I had knowingly or unknowingly signed my contract as FIRST-NAME LAST-NAME in capitals I would have been contracting using my legal fiction. As I willfully signed the contract as me as a human being, it is a contract between a human being and a corporation and therefore subject to common law (or the law of the land).

Does anyone agree that if this occurred I might have a relatively strong case here to get this debt written off due to breach of human rights.

you could try it, if you don't ask , you don't get

[number_6]

If you really can convince yourself that a debt is akin to slavery :rolleyes: perhaps you should ask yourself why did you go and beg the slavemaster to be his slave? You were not forced, unlike a slave. Perhaps it was your greed in the hope of obtaining property for yourself, and not the bank's.

[grachtengordel]

But in the end you wanted to have a morgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you ask for one that was more than you could afford?

It fucks me off when I see this sort of thing, people who are prepared to take on debt then try and use some lame excuse to not pay it back. If you did not want the debt then perhaps you should not have taken the mortage.

Well you sir, are the MASTER of the "lame excuse". this man posted a genuine question and is seeking remedy, he doesn't need to "excuse" himself to anybody , least of all an army 'droid' who claims there is no such thing as morality and advocates animal sacrifice in his pretentious "i want to bum alistair crowley" posts

the reality of the banksters conjuring is well documented all over the net and especially this forum, educate yourself before siding with corporations against human beings

what are you even doing here? trolling up the 'freeman' section? crawl back to your absurd fantasist threads about alistair crowley and all the other ridiculous play-acting aristocrats and their high camp parlour games and pentagrams, crawl on your belly serpent

[grachtengordel]

perhaps you should ask yourself why did you go and beg the slavemaster to be his slave?

I doubt anyone has to "beg" for a mort-gage. in the U.K., The banks usually ADVERTISE their usury schemes and thus make an 'OFFER' to the lender. they make an 'APPEAL' to the potential customer and 'beg' them to 'accept' their 'offer' to enter a 'contract'

you know i cant keep away from your posts 'number six', they attract me like a fly is drawn to dog$**t.

[danster82]

But in the end you wanted to have a morgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you ask for one that was more than you could afford?

It fucks me off when I see this sort of thing, people who are prepared to take on debt then try and use some lame excuse to not pay it back. If you did not want the debt then perhaps you should not have taken the mortage.


Let me take that silver spoon out your mouth

You might want to consider that the morgages is the shelter for the population of the country therefore if you access your logic you will realise that people had no choice as if the basics of life such as shelter food and travel = overspending as far as mainstream media is concerned then who is wrong the people or the system? The morgage lenders had no choice but to lend to people as the people are the only customers for morgages unless we live in your world where only the haves can buy up all the property because they are the only ones with the money which they have leeched from the populace and so the only ones who can responsibly take out a morgage.. and the havenots can pay rent to them happily ever after..

[Ian2day]

National debt is a form of slavery as you are born into paying off debts from the previous generations. Slavery of which was outlawed under common law in IIRC 1807.

[tusme]

But in the end you wanted to have a morgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you ask for one that was more than you could afford?

It fucks me off when I see this sort of thing, people who are prepared to take on debt then try and use some lame excuse to not pay it back. If you did not want the debt then perhaps you should not have taken the mortage.
It really "fucks me off" :) when people like you refuse to see the big picture...whether you've taken on debt or not, you're bloody-well still part of the "enslavement program"...!!

Why is it so hard for you to see, it's a "rigged game of debt...with interest", with all the odds stacked against the consumer...all consumers...forever!!

Hmm, just co's you purchased your house in 1 full payment, in cash...doesn't mean you're exempt from the "enslavement program", mate...!! :eek:

Now imagine yourself oneday (GOD forbid), being enslaved and were told, "in the end you wanted to have enslavement" :eek:, furthermore, "if you didn't want enslavement then perhaps you should not have taken the enslavement"...!? :eek:

As always, Marpat, your logic is nothing but skewered, right down the middle of being effed-up...!! :confused:

All debt is akin to slavery...period!! It's a negative energy, which serves only the selfish purposes of the slave-master...!!

Cheers

[foobar]

I have mixed feelings on this.

It's true that if somebody willingly borrows money, then they should accept that they have agreed to make all possible effort to pay it back.

It's also the case that it is quite possible to pay back a mortgage and get the deed to your house.

However, here's where the dishonesty comes in on the banker's side of the equation.

The bank is allowed to create money they didn't earn under the fractional reserve system. We also have a central bank which attempts to control the price of borrowing (rather than the price being determined in a true free market where the amount of money people want to borrrow is balanced against the amount of saved money which is available to lend).

If lots of credit becomes cheaply available, then this means people bidding for houses will bid the price of the houses higher. So in effect, the fact that the banking system can create credit out of nothing causes a demand for the credit in the first place because it pushes the price of houses up.

So if the banking system wasn't allowed to commit fraud by lending on fractional reserve, it wouldn't have cost as much because he wouldn't be in a bidding war where all the participants had access to artificially cheap virtual credit.

In a system of honest money and honest banking practices, interest on savings would've been much higher in the last 10 years, and houses would have cost a lot less.

He might not have needed a mortgage to buy his house at all, because saving up and buying it outright would've been a much more realistic prospect. Or if he did take out a mortgage, it would've been for a substantially smaller amount.

In a real and honest free market, yes people who voluntarily borrow money should pay it back. But what we have here is a system where one side of the deal are effectively being allowed to commit a fraud which makes borrowing more necessary than it would otherwise be, so what the original poster is trying to do is respond by committing a fraud of his own.

We're basically debating how to use common law to remedy a situation where people are being dragged into debt because our financial system is not actual free-market capitalism, it's a form of government-approved fraud dressed up to look like free market capitalism.

Whatever the ethics of the situation are, we're currently watching this fraud collapse in on itself. There are going to be a lot of people in the original poster's situation soon.

[grachtengordel]

If lots of credit becomes cheaply available, then this means people bidding for houses will bid the price of the houses higher. So in effect, the fact that the banking system can create credit out of nothing causes a demand for the credit in the first place because it pushes the price of houses up.

thats a really good point, I had not realised just how housing prices are forced up, GENERATNG the need for credit. thus they can keep dangling the 'carrot' of 'home ownership'(freedom) in front of the average man. they can keep it just 'out of reach' indefinately. thanks for posing this

with the banking system they created the debt from your signature at the point of loan and thus did not exchange anything themsleves of value and cannot possibly sustain a loss and in that case you are a debt slave.

another very important point, this is where the 'sting' is

[danster82]

I have mixed feelings on this.

It's true that if somebody willingly borrows money, then they should accept that they have agreed to make all possible effort to pay it back.

It's also the case that it is quite possible to pay back a mortgage and get the deed to your house.

However, here's where the dishonesty comes in on the banker's side of the equation.

The bank is allowed to create money they didn't earn under the fractional reserve system. We also have a central bank which attempts to control the price of borrowing (rather than the price being determined in a true free market where the amount of money people want to borrrow is balanced against the amount of saved money which is available to lend).

If lots of credit becomes cheaply available, then this means people bidding for houses will bid the price of the houses higher. So in effect, the fact that the banking system can create credit out of nothing causes a demand for the credit in the first place because it pushes the price of houses up.

So if the banking system wasn't allowed to commit fraud by lending on fractional reserve, it wouldn't have cost as much because he wouldn't be in a bidding war where all the participants had access to artificially cheap virtual credit.

In a system of honest money and honest banking practices, interest on savings would've been much higher in the last 10 years, and houses would have cost a lot less.

He might not have needed a mortgage to buy his house at all, because saving up and buying it outright would've been a much more realistic prospect. Or if he did take out a mortgage, it would've been for a substantially smaller amount.

In a real and honest free market, yes people who voluntarily borrow money should pay it back. But what we have here is a system where one side of the deal are effectively being allowed to commit a fraud which makes borrowing more necessary than it would otherwise be, so what the original poster is trying to do is respond by committing a fraud of his own.

We're basically debating how to use common law to remedy a situation where people are being dragged into debt because our financial system is not actual free-market capitalism, it's a form of government-approved fraud dressed up to look like free market capitalism.

Whatever the ethics of the situation are, we're currently watching this fraud collapse in on itself. There are going to be a lot of people in the original poster's situation soon.


Not to mention the other obvious fact that when the bank forcloses on you they now own the property... so they start with nothing and end up with the property of not only houses but the property of the whole country but public and private some say that is even the plan they put out the credit as they cannont sustain a loss all they want is the legal contract that says when you fail to pay back THEY own the value behind the contract so they get the property with a morgage contract. therefore they put the bait on the line (easy credit) once their computer models sees maximum forclosuer possbility they withdraw credit from the system and reel in the catch.

I dont personaly see it this way but I guess its a good theory.

[Ian2day]

National debt is a form of slavery as you are born into paying off debts from the previous generations. Slavery of which was outlawed under common law in IIRC 1807.

Therefore direct taxation is illegal under common law in England and Wales.

[marpat]

Well you sir, are the MASTER of the "lame excuse". this man posted a genuine question and is seeking remedy, he doesn't need to "excuse" himself to anybody , least of all an army 'droid' who claims there is no such thing as morality and advocates animal sacrifice in his pretentious "i want to bum alistair crowley" posts

the reality of the banksters conjuring is well documented all over the net and especially this forum, educate yourself before siding with corporations against human beings

what are you even doing here? trolling up the 'freeman' section? crawl back to your absurd fantasist threads about alistair crowley and all the other ridiculous play-acting aristocrats and their high camp parlour games and pentagrams, crawl on your belly serpent


How enlightened you are not!!:D

If he took the debt on willingly then he should pay it back.

Talking about animal sacrifice I wonder how many Credo has killed this year.

[marpat]

It really "fucks me off" :) when people like you refuse to see the big picture...whether you've taken on debt or not, you're bloody-well still part of the "enslavement program"...!!

Why is it so hard for you to see, it's a "rigged game of debt...with interest", with all the odds stacked against the consumer...all consumers...forever!!

Hmm, just co's you purchased your house in 1 full payment, in cash...doesn't mean you're exempt from the "enslavement program", mate...!! :eek:

Now imagine yourself oneday (GOD forbid), being enslaved and were told, "in the end you wanted to have enslavement" :eek:, furthermore, "if you didn't want enslavement then perhaps you should not have taken the enslavement"...!? :eek:

As always, Marpat, your logic is nothing but skewered, right down the middle of being effed-up...!! :confused:

All debt is akin to slavery...period!! It's a negative energy, which serves only the slave-master...!!

Cheers

The fact is whether or not it is rigged or unfair, if somebody has taken a loan out, knowing full well they will pay it back with interest, then that is their problem. I would not get a loan to buy a house then try and bullshit my way out of paying for it.

I think it speak for a persons lack of integrity when they are happy to take these loans but look for excuses to not cough up what they agreed to pay.

[malvern]

when you contract ...you contract, the fact it is a writtern contract is just that, but all contract writtern or not are contracts..... it's the hidden lies in and behind these contracts that the state and banking system does not show worries me and how they have taken away the education so that they can control and taxes our every point of life and they feel that its ok. As for the question it is a long battle but one that is being won fighting banking and morage debt, deconstructing every doc to find the law or not as the case may be ..... your contract was taken out by you and common law is there to stop harm,,,, fraud , and that means you aswell as the bank.... so the way in which you sign just states " who you are " but you have still agreed to the blood money contract by placing what is your mark... but that does not stop you questioning the unlawfull blag that banking system is doing with our substance.



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[marpat]

If people feel it is all unfair and that they dont want to pay into it then they should simply not take any loan out. I think it is hypocracy anyway that people go aon about money being false and how the banks rip us off, yet they use money every day of their lives.

I guess every person in this forum is in a form of debt just to stay on the internet but people accept that as a necessity and pay what they need to.

You are all slaves to this debt system anyway.

[johntrevy]

Therefore direct taxation is illegal under common law in England and Wales.

But we dont operate under "common law", Under admiral law, this is perfectly legal (unfortunately)

[Ian2day]

I disagree. A child who lacks an education can not enter into contract. Therefore all contractural agreements between uneducated people and others are null and void. The world is full of fully grown children. People who are phsyically of adult size but lack an adults level of knowledge or mental state of development.

[grachtengordel]

Talking about animal sacrifice I wonder how many Credo has killed this year.

I don't know Credo, watched a video of him speaking, don't know if i believe him or not. why would you assume that someone who posts on a David Icke forum will automatically revere any man who David Icke has ever referenced?

The world is full of fully grown children. People who are phsyically of adult size but lack an adults level of knowledge or mental state of development.

thats a pretty accurate assessment of our culture in the U.K.

[tusme]

The fact is whether or not it is rigged or unfair, if somebody has taken a loan out, knowing full well they will pay it back with interest, then that is their problem. I would not get a loan to buy a house then try and bullshit my way out of paying for it.

I think it speak for a persons lack of integrity when they are happy to take these loans but look for excuses to not cough up what they agreed to pay.
Hmm, so it's OK for the financial institutions to bullshit people into purchasing debt...yet, when that same bullshit gets them into trouble, they expect the people's taxes to bail them out...!? How does that work...!? ...or does your logic not apply to them...!? :confused:

Perhaps you might want to explain what kind of integrity they or you have...!? :confused:

Cheers

[marpat]

I disagree. A child who lacks an education can not enter into contract. Therefore all contractural agreements between uneducated people and others are null and void. The world is full of fully grown children. People who are phsyically of adult size but lack an adults level of knowledge or mental state of development.


Well this is true in the case of people who enter into contracts with banks but then show a lack of intent to pay what they have agreed to. If they cannot understand such principles then they should be banned from getting loans.

Perhaps they should do a mental test on people who apply for loans to ensure that the individual is capable of knowing what they are signing up for.

[marpat]

Hmm, so it's OK for the financial institutions to bullshit people into purchasing debt...yet, when that same bullshit gets them into trouble, they expect the people's taxes to bail them out...!? How does that work...!? ...or does your logic not apply to them...!? :confused:

Perhaps you might want to explain what kind of integrity they or you have...!? :confused:

Cheers

Well in regards to this thread I pay my debts and I do not take loans for things that I cannot afford to pay. In fact, I dont even take loans as the wages I work for cover my expenses.

I never said bankers were good or fair people and I think this bail out thing is shit. I have already emailed my MP about this and asked what we get in return but with no response. What happened there though is an agreement between the government and the banks, not us, even though it is our tax money. They 'speak on our behalf' apparently.

I agree the financial world is really shit but I just dont get people who get into debt then look for ways to not pay it off!! I have been right at the bottom before with almost no money so I know how hard it can be.

[malvern]

I agree the financial world is really shit but I just dont get people who get into debt then look for ways to not pay it off!! I have been right at the bottom before with almost no money so I know how hard it can be.


so you understand the state of depression that no money and debt can course, and you understand that lack of true education has left most in a less than suitable state to understand the system that they have been given to contract in and as for getting themselfs into this so called debt , it was spoon fed to them by the very same bankers whom get these graet bonus and reenforced by our government as the way to go.... so some of these families beleived that they were doing the best for the family unit and swollowed the lies and false stories that they where told .... not all have taken out the debt with the aim of not paying ...this has fallen in arond them and thier families and our government has bailed out the banks, making the ones who did what they thought was the best they could for thier families to take the flack and the bankers load thier pocket and reclaim ownership of family home from a debt that they allowed to grow and they feed.... the banks gave these things away , would you loan some down the road you just met £1000 ....so who is at fault and who should we help ........companies or families ..... does this world need more rich bankers or does it need strong and happy families and communities ?




freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[foobar]

The fact is whether or not it is rigged or unfair, if somebody has taken a loan out, knowing full well they will pay it back with interest, then that is their problem. I would not get a loan to buy a house then try and bullshit my way out of paying for it.

I understand your point, but here's the other thing: When the banks couldn't meet their own contractual obligations, they just begged the government to give them shovel loads of our money for free. The original poster isn't getting any bailout. I agree with you about personal integrity and respecting agreements whole-heartedly, but what's going on in our society is a rigged and one-sided system where some well connected parties don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

They commit fraud to create credit from nothing which pushes up the price of various essentials (thus actually creating an increased need for that imaginary credit), and then when this bubble collapses we all have our earnings forcibly deducted via the tax system, or have our savings devalued via inflation in order to bail them out.

In a real and honest system of trade between free people this wouldn't be allowed to happen. The original poster is simply trying to play them at their own game to get to keep the roof over his head. Yes, dishonesty cheapens the soul, and none of us should engage in it, but can you hand on heart not see why they've been driven for looking for a sneaky way out of this trap ?

I'm new to this whole freeman on the land thing, but the just and honest thing to do would seem to be to end the bailouts and to use common law to end fraudulent banking practices, whilst simultaneously asking the people who profited from fraud to assist in funding the recovery of all the ordinary people who've found themselves without an income.

I'm not a communist, I don't believe in 'free stuff for everybody no matter how little work they do', but I do think that people have been financially burdened by slick criminals and I don't want to see anybody going hungry or losing the roof over their heads whilst the same criminals get given free money 'for the good of the system'.

[tusme]

Well in regards to this thread I pay my debts and I do not take loans for things that I cannot afford to pay. In fact, I dont even take loans as the wages I work for cover my expenses.

I never said bankers were good or fair people and I think this bail out thing is shit. I have already emailed my MP about this and asked what we get in return but with no response. What happened there though is an agreement between the government and the banks, not us, even though it is our tax money. They 'speak on our behalf' apparently.

I agree the financial world is really shit but I just dont get people who get into debt then look for ways to not pay it off!! I have been right at the bottom before with almost no money so I know how hard it can be.
Well, in regards to this thread, the question was asked, "Is a debt contract akin to slavery...?"

And the answer is unquestionably, a resounding, YES!!

Why? Because the fate that haunts us all, does not apply to them...!! Simple as that...!! :mad:

What we're discussing here, Marpat, is a Global issue...your "I'm alright jack..." attitude is an indication of how little you know (or care to know) of this sitution...unfortunately!!

Yes, people have got themselves into debt...but, what cannot be denied is, the "greed is good" mentality which all these institutions and establishments have propagated and encouraged over recent years...!?

So you've "contacted your local MP, to say the system is shit"...so what's all this negative projection (on this thread) going on then...!? :confused:

Your problem is our problem...our problem is your problem...!! Unless we understand this Truth, the current financial woes will become part of our psyche for generations to come...!? Is that what you want...!? :confused:

It's quite admirable, that, as you say, you started at the bottom...how much recognition would you like for that achievement...before realising our (& your) enslavement will make a mockery of it all...? :confused:

My good friend, it is not those who now find themselves endebted to the System, who threatens your good legacy...it's the System!! :)

Cheers

[the worm that turned]

But in the end you wanted to have a morgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you ask for one that was more than you could afford?

It fucks me off when I see this sort of thing, people who are prepared to take on debt then try and use some lame excuse to not pay it back. If you did not want the debt then perhaps you should not have taken the mortage.

woooah there marpat. I think you are missing the point a bit. If these guys were genuinely lending money to people as human beings knowing that it would officially be impossible to pay off the debt by using a worthless money system, that would be wrong wouldn't it??

Banks earn billions in interest and still go cap in hand to governments for bail outs from us which they then distribute however they want. Is this again a system you agree with.

You should also read the original post again - LET'S PRETEND! i.e. it is not real. My financial matters are of no importance to this discussion, it is about taking back our freedom from slavery.

[number_6]

The world is full of fully grown children.

Good evening, children. The lesson for today...credit.
Rule 1: If you borrow money from the big bad banker so that you can spend it on goodies for yourself, beware, because one day the big bad banker will want you to pay him back. If you don't want to pay back money to the big bad banker, DON'T FUCKING BORROW ANY!

[marpat]

woooah there marpat. I think you are missing the point a bit. If these guys were genuinely lending money to people as human beings knowing that it would officially be impossible to pay off the debt by using a worthless money system, that would be wrong wouldn't it??

Banks earn billions in interest and still go cap in hand to governments for bail outs from us which they then distribute however they want. Is this again a system you agree with.

You should also read the original post again - LET'S PRETEND! i.e. it is not real. My financial matters are of no importance to this discussion, it is about taking back our freedom from slavery.


OK, so you are just testing the water but I still feel it is wrong to enter an agreement with a bank then look for a way to take their money and get out of paying it back.

The way I see it, if people want freedom from debt then dont get into debt.

And I do think its crap that the banks are being bailed out by us, but what can we do about that? I emailed my MP to ask what we are getting for in return for the banks being given our money. Basically I stated that we do not get a choice about paying taxes and neither do we get a choice in how they are spent, which I told him sounds like extortion. I have had no reply!!!

Dont get me wrong, I am for the common person, being one myself, but people should not allow themselves to get into situation they may struggle to get out of. When they do this they do end up heavily burdened. When I was broke we got by with almost nothing, £10 a week for food for 2 people. I see people taking huge loans out that they struggle to pay just because they want a holiday in he sun and I just fail to feel any sympathy for them. An analogy would be if a person saw a sign that told them not to swim in the sea because of dangerous currents then who's fault is it when they ignore reason and go swimming then get into trouble? people need to take personal responsibility for their financial burdens.

As for slavery, I think everybody is a slave to something in this life, it is just a matter of degrees to how free a person really is. How many of us are wage slave because we have families that need food and clothes? even David Icke himself is a wage slave and is happy to accept false financial tokens for the price of his books and talks.

[scotfree]

If you take a Loan ~ If you pay Taxes,
you are paying taxes with borrowed money,
If so YOU are a SLAVE.

[kale]

Basically I stated that we do not get a choice about paying taxes and neither do we get a choice in how they are spent, which I told him sounds like extortion. I have had no reply!!!

.

You haven't even replied properly to original post, you just keep stating that if someone takes a loan from a bank they should pay it back, now worries, we get your point.

I have been right at the bottom before with almost no money so I know how hard it can be.

So if you've been there why wouldn't you be advocating the eradication of taxes and interest all together instead of preaching the opposite.

You make no sense what so ever. OP also stated in capitals

LETS PRETEND.

Back to the topic at hand.....

The mortgage contract is legally binding document.

From an admin point of view I think the signature would have to match that on your other ID documents that you take to a bank to prove who you are.

Lets say the signature differed from the one on your passport or drivers license but they did a proper background check and found out it was really you then the signature stands.

All money has the legal tender declaration on it.

If we (the general public) all started to print our own notes and use them
as we do money today that would be fantastic, money for the people made by the people.

[the worm that turned]

Back to the topic at hand.....

The mortgage contract is legally binding document.

From an admin point of view I think the signature would have to match that on your other ID documents that you take to a bank to prove who you are.

Lets say the signature differed from the one on your passport or drivers license but they did a proper background check and found out it was really you then the signature stands.

I was more referring to if someone knowingly signed a contract using their human being person, rather than their legal fiction. The signature is really just a confirmation that it was done by you. I also think the signature is overated. I do not have signatures on any contracts from my banks etc (any reason why they don't have to sign the contract anyone?). Also, look at those letters from TV Licencing where the same person has various different signatures!


All money has the legal tender declaration on it.

If we (the general public) all started to print our own notes and use them
as we do money today that would be fantastic, money for the people made by the people.

Great point but is it legal to start printing your own money. Maybe it is illegal (i.e. open to fines/imprisonment according to Acts/statutory instruments) but not unlawful with regards to Common Law. I know they do this in Lewes in Surrey and somewhere else in Cornwall, but they back it against the GBP!!!!

[the worm that turned]

If you take a Loan ~ If you pay Taxes,
you are paying taxes with borrowed money,
If so YOU are a SLAVE.

I would need to read the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT or other relevant documentation but is the human rights act strictly that, an ACT. If so, then by effect isn't it just adopted by our society for legal fictions (PERSONS) and therefore is not actually applicable under common law?? I hope I am wrong.

[the worm that turned]

OK, so you are just testing the water but I still feel it is wrong to enter an agreement with a bank then look for a way to take their money and get out of paying it back.

The way I see it, if people want freedom from debt then dont get into debt.

And I do think its crap that the banks are being bailed out by us, but what can we do about that? I emailed my MP to ask what we are getting for in return for the banks being given our money. Basically I stated that we do not get a choice about paying taxes and neither do we get a choice in how they are spent, which I told him sounds like extortion. I have had no reply!!!

Dont get me wrong, I am for the common person, being one myself, but people should not allow themselves to get into situation they may struggle to get out of. When they do this they do end up heavily burdened. When I was broke we got by with almost nothing, £10 a week for food for 2 people. I see people taking huge loans out that they struggle to pay just because they want a holiday in he sun and I just fail to feel any sympathy for them. An analogy would be if a person saw a sign that told them not to swim in the sea because of dangerous currents then who's fault is it when they ignore reason and go swimming then get into trouble? people need to take personal responsibility for their financial burdens.

As for slavery, I think everybody is a slave to something in this life, it is just a matter of degrees to how free a person really is. How many of us are wage slave because we have families that need food and clothes? even David Icke himself is a wage slave and is happy to accept false financial tokens for the price of his books and talks.

This seems to be a very idealistic view point i.e. don't borrow money if you can't afford to pay it back. But our entire society is based on debt. Our government borrows money from ???? every year putting our entire country into more debt. Banks, Credit Card companies, etc etc encourage us to borrow everyday. I agree, don't overstretch yourself, that is true but we (the majority of british people) have to borrow money to live.

You could argue that the system would support people if they are struggling, indeed a lot of people in this country are happy to be given a free house and money each week. But this is paid for by the country going into more debt and then those that are earning money being urged (through advertising by irresponsible companies) to borrow money to help support this system.

Well done to you for living off £10 per week on food but I think this is something that could not be sustained or indeed carried out by the majority.

So the argument of "if you want freedom from debt then don't get into debt" is too simplistic. What we all really need to be doing is looking at and trying to implement a better system where we don't NEED to be getting into debt.

[the worm that turned]

Good evening, children. The lesson for today...credit.
Rule 1: If you borrow money from the big bad banker so that you can spend it on goodies for yourself, beware, because one day the big bad banker will want you to pay him back. If you don't want to pay back money to the big bad banker, DON'T FUCKING BORROW ANY!

I think all of us on here understand your RULE 1 but borrowing money to buy a house for your family is not really buying goodies for yourself, it is called trying to live.

Companies encouraging people to borrow who can't really afford is irresponsible and immoral. That is not to say that the borrower shouldn't take some of the blame too.

Very patronising post that isn't really adding a great deal to the discussion.

[number_6]

[QUOTE=the worm that turned;821369]I think all of us on here understand your RULE 1 but borrowing money to buy a house for your family is not really buying goodies for yourself, it is called trying to live.QUOTE]

So, it is ok to use this corrupt system, and obtain "ficticious" money for our own gain when it suits us, and at the same time describe this system that we have voluntarily signed up for as slavery? Remember, slaves did not have a choice. Nobody forces anybody to borrow money, everybody has a free choice.
My reference to children was because a previous poster was saying that many people who sign up for a loan have the minds of children, and may not be aware of what they are getting in to. I disagree. 99.9% of adults will be aware that a loan must be repaid, after all when you agree to the loan you are made aware of the level of repayments.

[the worm that turned]

[QUOTE=the worm that turned;821369]I think all of us on here understand your RULE 1 but borrowing money to buy a house for your family is not really buying goodies for yourself, it is called trying to live.QUOTE]

So, it is ok to use this corrupt system, and obtain "ficticious" money for our own gain when it suits us, and at the same time describe this system that we have voluntarily signed up for as slavery? Remember, slaves did not have a choice. Nobody forces anybody to borrow money, everybody has a free choice.
My reference to children was because a previous poster was saying that many people who sign up for a loan have the minds of children, and may not be aware of what they are getting in to. I disagree. 99.9% of adults will be aware that a loan must be repaid, after all when you agree to the loan you are made aware of the level of repayments.

Yes it IS ok to use this system and class it as slavery, because I am not aware of ANOTHER OPTION to use. I'll give you a great example though. I recently had a product fitted in my house, but instead of paying for it with make believe money I designed the guy a website. Perfect, everyone is a winner. Sadly I cannot offer my bank a great new website in exchange for a house though :(

Rob Menards Cunning Plan may be the way forward but it will take a good few years to bed in, but it is a start.

As for your comment about children. We may well be fully grown adults but we are acting as children. We rely on a state to support us and provide us with a system that we adopt from birth. We don't really understand how it works, or indeed it is hidden from us.

If there is a BIG SECRET being held from us that we are actually all slaves and 99.9% of people aren't aware of this then we are being duped. Therefore if we have entered into a debt or loan prior to being aware of this then YES we have got the right to question this debt and try and get out of it!!!

[Ian2day]

Well this is true in the case of people who enter into contracts with banks but then show a lack of intent to pay what they have agreed to. If they cannot understand such principles then they should be banned from getting loans.

Perhaps they should do a mental test on people who apply for loans to ensure that the individual is capable of knowing what they are signing up for.

Most men don't fully mature before 25 and this is widely known. The self actualising tendency can be delayed indefinately by a lousy life or a deliberately poor educational system. Which is designed to keep most of the people in ignorance without achieving them ever really being able to achieve autonomy/Freeman status.

With a vast proportion of the adults never fully maturing due to this suppressed actualising tendency, then any form of contract is illegal and thus null and void. This is before we even get into the unfair terms in contract act. If a clause or part of a contract can be shown to give one party an unfair advantage, then the contract is also null and void.

The very reason that politicians were elected, was that they were supposed to be of a higher education standard than the Urban common man and so would be able to use their highly developed discernment on issues affecting the Urban community. What MP's etc have failed to do is to ensure that the education system turns out fully developed adults with the ability to critically think and discern for themselves. The education system has not improved inline with the amount of credit available to the population. The population is at a distinct disadvantage when compared to those who held the power to issue credit and curreny.

Instead MP's have been concerned with the indefinate extenuation of a culture of exploit and oppress. The entrepreneurs see a society full of conflict as creating areas to exploit for financial gain at the expense of their fellow human beings uneducated position.

Of course tptb don't class us as human beings, they see us as people or as a person, a ficticious entity. Perhaps challenging tptb whilest quoting the unfair terms in contract act, may have some effect when approached by a policy enforcement officer.

[the worm that turned]

Most men don't fully mature before 25 and this is widely known. The self actualising tendency can be delayed indefinately by a lousy life or a deliberately poor educational system. Which is designed to keep most of the people in ignorance without achieving them ever really being able to achieve autonomy/Freeman status.

With a vast proportion of the adults never fully maturing due to this suppressed actualising tendency, then any form of contract is illegal and thus null and void. This is before we even get into the unfair terms in contract act. If a clause or part of a contract can be shown to give one party an unfair advantage, then the contract is also null and void.

The very reason that politicians were elected, was that they were supposed to be of a higher education standard than the Urban common man and so would be able to use their highly developed discernment on issues affecting the Urban community. What MP's etc have failed to do is to ensure that the education system turns out fully developed adults with the ability to critically think and discern for themselves. The education system has not improved inline with the amount of credit available to the population. The population is at a distinct disadvantage when compared to those who held the power to issue credit and curreny.

Instead MP's have been concerned with the indefinate extenuation of a culture of exploit and oppress. The entrepreneurs see a society full of conflict as creating areas to exploit for financial gain at the expense of their fellow human beings uneducated position.

Of course tptb don't class us as human beings, they see us as people or as a person, a ficticious entity. Perhaps challenging tptb whilest quoting the unfair terms in contract act, may have some effect when approached by a policy enforcement officer.

Brilliant post. The question is, can we put together a team of intelligent human beings to challenge this corrupt and unfair system to free us from it? I think we can and I think we should!! Anyone else?

[grachtengordel]

So, it is ok to use this corrupt system, and obtain "ficticious" money for our own gain when it suits us,

yup, i do it all the time and I tell them "you won't see penny one, you slag"

"this corrupt system" USES me when it suits 'it' , so I will use and abuse the system til it collapses under the massive burden of my treachery

what is your problem? why do you care if a few people don't pay money to a huge corporation? why bother to even read these topics if all you have to say is "obey your masters" ,"don't rock the boat" , "resistance is futile" ?

don't you have something better to do? , like going through your neighbours dustbin to find evidence that they have not paid enough tax to your masters

[yozhik]

I posted this elsewhere, but have not received a reply.
Given this post questions mortgages and fractional banking; maybe this is an appropriate place to repost it ...

I know this has been posed as a question before, but I have never seen an answer to it ...

The Official "Sell" Job

1. The purpose of the bailouts is to clear the toxic debts from the banks' books, which are ostensibly "bad" mortgages ... correct?

2. The bailout funding is a public debt; i.e. it is a debt of the taxpayer ... correct?

3. The premise is to free up credit, by providing liquidity into the market ... correct?

4. There is also a major drive to increase consumer confidence and consumer spending ... yes?

5. Experts are also calling for savings to increase ... yes?


So why not give the bailouts directly to the homeowner, to pay off the mortgage?


The Result

1. It clears the "toxic debt" by paying off the bad mortgages; the banks' books are cleared.

2. If the taxpayer is being lumped with additional future debt, then why not give them the borrowings, now ... rather than a promissory note of potential future upside gains, hypothesised on the potential improvement to the banks' performances.

3. It provides liquidity into the market by clearing the toxic debt and by the homeowner transferring the bailout money into the hands of the banks anyway. (if they pay off their mortgages, it must go to the banks)

4. Consumer confidence/spending is increased by providing more disposable income by reducing mortgage repayments.

5. More disposable income would result in more income available for savings.



Seems to me the bailouts are creating future debt for the taxpayers, without a pay off.
Where is the quid pro quo?
The deal is too one sided.
Creating future debt without addressing the current debt.
Much easier to sell the bailout as future debt for settlement of current debt ... a deferment, if you like.

Everyone wins.

Taxpayers keep their homes, increase disposable income to stimulate the economy and have the opportunity to increase savings.

Banks get rid of their toxic debts, gain crucial liquidity and can move forward.

Consumer confidence returns, savings increase, which in turn would drive consumption, production and employment.

Am I missing something here?
Seems by redefining the entry point of the bailout funds, it addresses all of the concerns and provides many of the solutions.

Can someone PLEASE help me understand how this proposal to redirect bailout funds is flawed?

Just one last question to ponder;
If the bailout money is given to the banks to clear "sub prime mortgage toxic debt" ... then what exactly is it that the homeowner is making monthly payments towards? If the bailout funds have "cleared" the toxic debt - i.e. they no longer exist on the banks' books ... why is the homeowner still being forced to make payments on a debt that no longer exists?


.

[the worm that turned]

I posted this elsewhere, but have not received a reply.
Given this post questions mortgages and fractional banking; maybe this is an appropriate place to repost it ...

What about those people that don't have a mortgage? How much does each mortgagee receive?

I think the real problem is that the puppets are creating a new way of continuing the paychecks to the puppet masters, rather than trying to help out us slaves to the system.

[yozhik]

What about those people that don't have a mortgage? How much does each mortgagee receive?

I think the real problem is that the puppets are creating a new way of continuing the paychecks to the puppet masters, rather than trying to help us slaves to the system.

Oh, exactly.
The point being that if the real goal was as has been stated, then what is being done, is not the solution.
The "solution" being executed is to a different "problem" ... as in, problem-reaction-solution :rolleyes:

If you want to destroy a tree, you don't take a chainsaw to it half way up the trunk ... you need to remove it by the roots.
The bailouts don't go anywhere near the roots ... so the question is; why not?

This brings us (inevitably) to your post.

Think of the mortgage and banking scam as a HUGE ponzi scheme ... immediately you see how this bailout situation works ... you pour money in at the top to bring some instant cashflow, to free the cogs again ... but you still have a ponzi scheme at its heart ... which is what all banking and debt is.

One big huge fraud.


.

[number_6]

yup, i do it all the time and I tell them "you won't see penny one, you slag"

"this corrupt system" USES me when it suits 'it' , so I will use and abuse the system til it collapses under the massive burden of my treachery

what is your problem? why do you care if a few people don't pay money to a huge corporation? why bother to even read these topics if all you have to say is "obey your masters" ,"don't rock the boat" , "resistance is futile" ?

don't you have something better to do? , like going through your neighbours dustbin to find evidence that they have not paid enough tax to your masters

This is a typical attack seen often here, by so called freethinking people. Freethinking that is until somebody has the audacity to disagree with their opinion.
I have no masters. I am my own master. But I do have self respect and honesty, something you obviously lack. Why ask if I don't have something better to do? Have I not got the right to post my own opinion on this forum, or do you hold the monopoly on that?