Conspiracy: mortgage-agreement-is-a-promissory-note

 

Use our posting form to send us conpiracy talk.

 

My take on the mortgage agreement is that when you sign the mortgage agreement, you're actually creating a promissory note i.e. a promise to pay. It's exactly like a bank of England £10, £20, £50 note you may have in your pocket.

Therefore, with the bank's assistance, you've created cash/a credit note/a promissory note.

Let's call them credit notes from now on. The banks are supposed to keep these credit notes because the holder of this originally signed credit note can prove it's that particular bank that you are to pay.

However, after your first mortgage payment, this credit note is sent to an office with all other credit notes and they are digitised and are sold on the financial markets.

Therefore the bank has sold the credit note and no longer has the original credit note. They do have a photocopy of the credit note, but a photocopy means nothing.

Another thing people don't know is this; when you sign the mortgage agreement, then unknowingly to you, you gave Power Of Attorney to the bank, meaning they have signed you into all kinds of agreements to 'legitimise' what they have done.

Except it's not legitimate, it's fraud and deceit. Obviously at this point the mortgage/credit note is void and there is nothing to pay the bank.

Now in USA, different financial companies buy and sell the photocopy of the credit note and you as the mortgagee are told that the mortgage has been sold to a new financial company so you are to pay them. Except you don't owe anything as it's now void.

In USA, a decade ago maybe, someone decided to ask the financial company to produce the original credit note and the financial company could only produce the photocopy. This person took it to court as the claimant and the financial company's answer to not having the original credit note is that the mortgage had been sold so many times that it got lost at some point.

The judge awarded in favour of the 'mortgagee' because it couldn't be determined who the 'mortgagee' owed money to. After this it got some media exposure and 1000s of people in USA repeated this and won against the financial company and had no mortgage to pay. i don't know whether the judges in USA have been told to stop awarding in favour of the 'mortgagee' now though.


For American people this is a web site to visit. http://goo.gl/764nfD

Listen to the owners of what lies in your debt web site on talk shoe radio

http://goo.gl/sQoLSK

You can listen to earlier radio programs of what lies in your debt on Youtube.



In UK, Eire, it appears that no judge will award in favour of the 'mortgagee' if you did take the bank to court for not having the original credit note.


Personally, i would say that what Roger Hayes is doing with his sister's mortgage i.e not paying the mortgage until the bank answers his questions will only lead to an eviction notice in several years time. If the sister doesn't leave the property, the police will be called to throw her out (even though it's a civil matter between the sister and the bank and police don't get involved in civil matters.). When the sister is thrown out, the bank take vacant possession of the property because no one is living there anymore. The sister could break back into the property because the property is still registered in her name at that point.

However at some point the bank will manage to get her name off the register and then it's over for her and she's lost the property. (unless you do what Laurence Easeman did and make a nuisance of yourself if the bank tries to auction the property off. listen to this interview with him - http://goo.gl/929OIR

So in UK, Eire you can't use the lack of original credit note to set aside the mortgage.


The Money Masters documentary

Written by Editor033

Newer Articles →
Comments
Enter your comments





 

 

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass