Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sick Of Paying Your Mortgage? You May Not Have To Pay!

page: 11
67
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Cranky old man and
Bill from Covina...

^^^They get it.


Why can't you?




posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by die_another_day
"Sick Of Paying Your Mortgage? You May Not Have To Pay!"

It sounds like one of those ADs from a company saying that you can settle you IRS tax at 10% of the original.


Fact is, you borrowed money at set interest for 15-30 years.

You have to pay it back because it's BORROWED.
There are many people out there who shouldn't have bought $300,000 homes for a family of 4 at $50,000 annual income.
edit on 10/13/2010 by die_another_day because: (no reason given)


I agree people who could not afford a home should not have purchased a home worth 6 times their
combined annual income...

However I feel you don't have a grasp on the situation which precludes the possibility of
you actually understanding what actually happened when you thought your signature
brought you actual money to buy a home.

The FACT is you signed your name with a promise to pay and the bank
FAILED to provide consideration for your signature (or promise to pay)
YOU didn't borrow a CENT (FACT)

Since the bank (fraudulently) obtained the copy of the note on the house/property...(in the 1st place)
AND since they never gave you anything in order to actually buy the property they win twice
while YOU end up paying (albeit with a fiat currency) PRINCIPAL and INTEREST...

Once this is done...You will never get the original debt instrument (which I bet you didn't know) still
has value after the debt has been paid (or so you thought you paid it off)


The income tax system is just ANOTHER fraud perpetrated on the unsuspecting
people who think the federal income tax pays for our infrastructure or ANY service we use
as citizens of our respective provinces or states (which in itself is another fraud)

Perhaps its time you dug a little deeper?
Here is something to think about...

What is the movie Pirates of the Caribbean really about?



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I just wanted to weigh in here on the side of the homeowners. Without divulging too much, I personally know a gentleman in Dallas, TX that has been working on perfecting a process based on the very real legal underpinnings of this subject, and he has helped over 100 people rid themselves of their mortgages, with the process ending in a federal lawsuit that the defendant banks have settled and the records sealed, whereby the homeowner gets their home free and clear, as well as settlement money. If the banks were not committing fraud, this would not be possible. And, while I do think it's irresponsible for those who can easily pay their mortgage to use this information to skip town on their mortgages, it is within their legal right, as victims of fraud, to be made whole. My only fear is that this is a honey pot that the government is using to entice the masses to take the final step in crashing our country's economy.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What a dishonest, cowardly and dishonorable thing to encourage people to do... I guess the OP will start spouting garbage about armed takeover of government next. Fail.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chinesis
 

Ok. I'm looking at my Note. Not for the first time, but to provide an accurate quote:

I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this note is called the "Note Holder".

If the Note is transferred, my name as "Borrower" remains on the note and my payments now go the the new "Note Holder". Seems pretty clear. I don't think I'd be willing to pay an attorney to fight it. I would lose.

And yup, there's my signature agreeing to those terms.
edit on 10/12/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Hello Phage, if Citi bank holds my mortgage originally but sells it to Goldman Sachs who bundles it up with 50,000 other mortgages and sells it to some Japanese company who goes bankrupt and the company it owes the money to doesn't want the derivative because it is full of garbage mortgages and some good ones (yours) then my question Phage is who do i make my mortgage payments to?



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by daptodave
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What a dishonest, cowardly and dishonorable thing to encourage people to do... I guess the OP will start spouting garbage about armed takeover of government next. Fail.


Nice emotional knee jerk reaction there!!

If you took time to gain more than a superficial understanding of what is at issue here you would not say that. The OP has a good point in that your mortgage payments should only be submitted to the party who owns the beneficial interest in your mortgage and who is entitled to receive the payments on your mortgage note. If your mortgage loan was made at a local bank and that bank is still the institution to which your payments are going, then these "defenses" likely don't apply to you.

But if your mortgage loan has changed hands, was securitized, and/or has moved from one servicer to another and to another over the years, then there's a good chance that the entity to which you are making your mortgage payments may not have the right to receive those payments.

If you're current on your mortgage, then don't ruin your credit or risk the initiation of a foreclosure by suspending payments right away. But it certainly can't hurt for you to demand that the bank or other entity to which you are sending your money demonstrate that they in fact have the right to collect the payments on your mortgage loan.

I have some excellent language for a letter asking your bank, the mortgage assignee, or servicer to prove they are entitled to receive your payments. I'd be happy to share it with anyone who would like it. It's much better than what you find on the "show me the note" website. In fact, I would be very cautious about putting your personal information into that web form and sending it. You have no idea what they might use it for.

The "mortgage mess" was not caused by people who got in over their heads by taking mortgage they can't afford. Those folks were making the payments called for by the mortgage note they signed. Then the dreaded adjustable rate kicks in about three years after the mortgage loan was written and they can't afford the higher payment. But when they took out their adjustable rate loan they were assured by their loan broker and lender that they shouldn’t worry because when the adjustable rate kicks in they can just refinance at a fixed and affordable rate. That was a bald faced lie which the lenders and loan brokers perpetuated just so that they could skim their commissions, points, and other fees just for writing the loan. Many families who could afford to pay their $1,800 per month mortgage installment could no longer afford it when it increased to $2,400 to $2,800 per month.

Mortgage lenders are vipers. They get their funds at roughly 1% or some other very low percentage rate and "lend" the funds to you at 6% or so and then continually increase the rate on each adjustment date. And the index used for the adjustments is LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate which, as of today was just 0.7775%)! But that's another treatise all by itself.

On a $300,000 loan, if the bank is paying 1% for the funds it lends to you at 6%, the bank is making a 500% profit on its cost of those funds. It pays $250 per month for those funds while you are paying the bank $1,500 per month in interest plus an amount toward principal. The bank’s monthly profit is $1,250 or 5 times its cost.

The best historical analogy to the current system of home ownership based on mortgage loans written at these rates of interest is the medieval feudal system where the peasant's right to occupy their land/home was conditioned on paying the lord who lives in the castle on the hill a large portion of the peasant's work product. Things have changed very little over the centuries. The only difference is in how the peasants of today are conditioned to accept the current system as being "the way things are" much like the air they breathe.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by epsilon69

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chinesis
 

Ok. I'm looking at my Note. Not for the first time, but to provide an accurate quote:

I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this note is called the "Note Holder".

If the Note is transferred, my name as "Borrower" remains on the note and my payments now go the the new "Note Holder". Seems pretty clear. I don't think I'd be willing to pay an attorney to fight it. I would lose.

And yup, there's my signature agreeing to those terms.
edit on 10/12/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Hello Phage, if Citi bank holds my mortgage originally but sells it to Goldman Sachs who bundles it up with 50,000 other mortgages and sells it to some Japanese company who goes bankrupt and the company it owes the money to doesn't want the derivative because it is full of garbage mortgages and some good ones (yours) then my question Phage is who do i make my mortgage payments to?


The better question is "who has the right to receive my mortgage payments"? or stated differently, "who is the holder of my mortgage note"? If the entity to which you're sending your monthly mortgage payments doesn't own the note, then you may as well be giving your monthly mortgage payment to the transient begging funds at the freeway exit.

The mere fact that some servicer has sent you a letter telling you they now own your mortgage loan or that they are the agent for the owner of the loan and to send them your payments doesn't prove that they own the loan. Heck, I own your loan!! Send me the payments! I'll U2U my bank routing number and account info so you can pay me electronically and with a smile on time every month! Rather than make that mistake, have them show you the documentation proving they own the loan before sending them your money. This may require some study on your part, but it may prove to be well worth the effort in today's fraudulent money grubbing environment.
edit on 10/14/2010 by dubiousone because: To correct some spelling errors.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Alex Jones was talking about the mortgage fraud pandemic today and this topic was brought up by his attorney guest. It's a very interesting interview and you should watch it if you find this interesting. Heres a link Youtube Link



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
well, I guess we can forget about washington being much help...

Foreclosure Fiasco's Trail Goes to Washington: Jonathan Weil
www.bloomberg.com...

I've been searching everynight for an answer, still really haven't found any....
maybe some of those on here that are defending the right for these banks to foreclose can answer me...
(don't worry if you can't, I sent an email to my elected representative asking the same question...
won't be surprised if he can't either!)

but, well....
it's my understanding that all this fraud that the banks are doing well...
they have to if they want to foreclose on the house!!
they have to because these mortgages were mishandled from day one! according to some articles I have read, there is no way to correct this problem, at least there isn't unless congress writes new laws, that somehow makes what they did suddenly legal retrospectively!!
so, well, they have to commit fraud, use robosigners and hire doc x or whatever it's name is to "create" your file....

well, if they have to resort to fraud to foreclose on a house that someone hasn't paid on in the past six months...
will they have to if someone pays their final mortgage payment and expects a nice clean deed to their home??

if they do, it's kind of like if you bought a car and the lender that lent you the money for it came one night and decided to take the thing for a joyride (after all, it's his collateral, isn't it?? and totals the thing while driving 100 miles an hour down the street...
would you still feel you owned him any money for the car after that?

by what I've read, it's gonna take a decade or two to get this mess straightened out, till then, any homeowner who's had their mortgage securitized is open to lawsuits, regardless of weather or not their mortgage is paid up! if they want to sell that house, well, the title might not be insurable....
this my dears, is a headache I did not borrow money for!
the banks, those who bundled these notes, mers....someone totaled the title to the house! they've broken the contract!



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 





Its sickening. Its just like that too just exactly what Dick Durbin blurted out.

Wall Street Owns Congress


G. Edward Griffin gives a really good explanation of the symbiotic relationship between Politicians and the Banksters. It is all about sucking the people dry without them figuring out how it is done.




From the Bank of England forward all the governments of Europe had central banks for a very good reason. The kings and princes of Europe had learned from hard experience that they could raise the taxes of their subjects only so high and then they had a revolt on their hands and they tended to lose their jobs (and heads). It appears that that natural level was about 40-43%; people will tolerate taxes up to about 40-43% and then they start digging in their heels and they just won't allow it to go any further. But with the central bank mechanism in place the lid was off. Now these governments could tax their people 50%, 60%, 70% and in some cases 80% of everything they produced and they did not have a revolt on their hands. They did not have resentment because the people didn't know that they were paying a tax. They knew that prices were going up, but they didn't understand why, they didn't know who was getting their lost purchasing power.


With all the information available about the mechanics of how Bankers are stealing the poor and middle class blind, I can not believe ANYONE in their right mind could actually keep defending them. I guess some people enjoy being serfs and feel good about handing over 75% of their pay checks to the Morgans, Warburgs, Rockefellers, and Rothchilds in return for nothing but a boot in the rear


I guess I will keep trying to put the info out there and hope some of it sticks



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jefwane
 


I am hoping for Jail sentences too. Otherwise we could be looking at repeats of THIS An attack against one of the wealthiest families in the world and long time member of the Bilderberg Group. A more recent Assault

Trials and jail is much better.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sdocpublishing
 





People who purchased homes they can't afford have and created this foreclosure problem are going to try and get their homes for free?


If the politicians and bankers had been honest in the first place we would not be seeing the problem. People, with the help of the "bailout money" would have been able to refinance in a manner that allows them to pay the banks. But that is not what the banks wanted and the banks OWN the politicians.

This economic collapse was carefully orchestrated by the FED just as the Crash of 1929 was. The banks lobbied long and hard to repeal the Depression-era law called the Glass-Steagall Act and to get the Community Reinvestment Act passed, so they could set up the collapse. They also made sure the CDSs that let them win big from foreclosures were not regulated thanks to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000) The taxpayer money used to bailout AIG went to paid off the CDSs the banks collect if they can force a homeowner into foreclosure. There is no limit to the number of pay-off made on the same house.

Remember every year the heads of the IMF and World Bank meet at David Rockefeller's home in Westchester New York. In Sept. 14, 1994 David Rockefeller, speaking at the UN Business Council, said:

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

So what is ACTUALLY happening?
We read in the papers that people are not taking advantage of Obama's Loan modification plan. And then we read that over 50% do not "stay" in the program. So what happens to the poor folks like me that DO go for an Obama loan modification?



Senior investors, who are typically financial institutions, own the AAA tranches that are insured against default by AIG, and they WANT to foreclose on the Middle Class so that insurance payments kick in. Conversely, the junior tranche investors want workouts with homeowners because their investment is not insured.

 
“To ensure that the mortgage servicer pushes default instead of workout, the servicer is paid double (50 basis points versus 25 basis points) by the MBS to service a loan in default. Why do you think your servicer tells you that you must be in default before it will consider a mortgage modification, a practice known as invited default?
 
“Simply put,” says Parker, “the government bailout of AIG has actually encouraged foreclosures because the taxpayers continue to fill AIG’s coffers with enough cash to pay out insurance on defaulted home loans.”
www.realtytrac.com...


The Obama Loan Modification Program is a TRAP



I speak from experience. I was lucky and was able to sell off enough assets and badger enough people who owed me money to scrap together the cash needed to buy myself out of the trap.

The Bank strung me along for 14 months misplacing paperwork, placing me on hold and generally driving me crazy. After fourteen months I was handed a bill for close to $20,000 and a month to pay.

After I scrapped up the money and tried to pay the bank THEN the fun started. The bank took another six months to finally give my lawyer the actual amount owed!

It cost me over $5,000 dollars in lawyer fees, most of the money going to the banks lawyer because the @#%$# bank would not answer the simple question
"How much do I owe you?"


So please do not consider those who got trapped criminals, if they are like me they did nothing wrong except trust the @#$#@ government.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
There has been a systematic dismantling or outright destruction of all of our "trusted" institutions in the U.S.
Growing up, I trusted the banks, even though my grandparents DID NOT. I trusted my schools to be teaching me the true history of the U.S., and the world. I trusted the Senators and Representatives to be doing what they believed was in the best interest of the nation, and their constituents. I trusted the FDA to make sure the food was safe. I trusted the Social Security Administration when I began working. I trusted Wall Street when I invested in stocks.
Not any more, and this is a tragedy. The entire strength of this nation was BECAUSE of the fact that people TRUSTED their government and their institutions. With that gone, so is our strength, as a NATION.
Meanwhile, I see pictures of Joe Biden and the other clowns grinning.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 





Contract law is the law of both the world and to some extent consciousness at large. Simply stated, to get something you must give something, and the deal must be VERY clear to all parties involved with no effort to deceive included.

Most folks believe the bank lends you money and you sign and contract, a contract you can't understand and don't have time to fully read, that says you'll pay them back with interest. Fair enough, but that isn't how it works, that is a lie.


SUPER comment and very clear.

I would just like to add that this aspect of "Contract Law" was tried in court.
First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script.


Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

The court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world. He wrote in a local news article:

This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.

Needless to say, however, the decision failed to change prevailing practice, although it was never overruled.


The Bankers of course got even:


ustice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank. He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.4 Since that time, a number of defendants have attempted to avoid loan defaults using the defense Daly raised; but they have met with only limited success. As one judge said off the record:

If I let you do that – you and everyone else – it would bring the whole system down. . . . I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank. . . . We are not going behind that curtain!



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 





The best historical analogy to the current system of home ownership based on mortgage loans written at these rates of interest is the medieval feudal system where the peasant's right to occupy their land/home was conditioned on paying the lord who lives in the castle on the hill a large portion of the peasant's work product. Things have changed very little over the centuries. The only difference is in how the peasants of today are conditioned to accept the current system as being "the way things are" much like the air they breathe.


I agree with that statement except the medieval serfs KNEW what the actual setup was and agreed to a system of exchanging his labor for protection. As shown by the comments here most people are unaware of the REAL system. This was done so we would not revolt.




From the Bank of England forward all the governments of Europe had central banks for a very good reason. The kings and princes of Europe had learned from hard experience that they could raise the taxes of their subjects only so high and then they had a revolt on their hands and they tended to lose their jobs (and heads). It appears that that natural level was about 40-43%; people will tolerate taxes up to about 40-43% and then they start digging in their heels and they just won't allow it to go any further. But with the central bank mechanism in place the lid was off. Now these governments could tax their people 50%, 60%, 70% and in some cases 80% of everything they produced and they did not have a revolt on their hands. They did not have resentment because the people didn't know that they were paying a tax. They knew that prices were going up, but they didn't understand why, they didn't know who was getting their lost purchasing power.

It was a nifty arrangement for these governments. It was at that point in history that governments' wars began to heat up. They always had wars but they were relatively small things because wars are expensive and the people won't pay more than 40% for everything including wars. But now that they had a way to tax higher than that, they could engage in very expensive wars. It's at that point in history that Europe plunged headlong into continuous war and big, very, very expensive wars. The people paid for them uncomplainingly through the process of inflation.
www.bigeye.com...


Actually I am very surprised that the people here at ATS are not well education on the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve SCAMS.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 

The fabric of our society has been ripped apart as you have pointed out. Nicole Johnson has a very good, well researched article of what happened to our American culture and WHO intentionally destroyed it at "History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job,"



With World War II, America saw its agricultural system intentionally subjected to political policies that radically transformed it. What was once a decentralized system that provided a means to self sufficiency and independence for tens of millions of farmers was purposefully centralized into a capital-intensive fossil-fuel dependent system that restructured local economies, permitting their wealth to be extracted by what are now transnational cartels dedicated to the so-called free market and globalized trade at all costs.

This transformation was the result of organized plans developed by a group of highly powerful “ though unelected “ financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to better serve their collective corporate financial agenda. This group, called the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation’s foreign policies.

CED determined that the problem with American agriculture was that there were too many farmers. But the CED had a solution: millions of farmers would just have to be eliminated....

Over the next five years, the political and economic establishment ensured the reduction of "excess human resources engaged in agriculture" by two million, or by 1/3 of their previous number.

Their plan was so effective and so faithfully executed by its operatives in the US government that by 1974 the CED couldn’t help but congratulate itself in another agricultural report called "A New US Farm Policy for Changing World Food Needs" for the efficiency of the tactics they employed to drive farmers from their land.

The human cost of CED’s plans were exacting and enormous.

CED’s plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers’ lives ended in suicide [6], not unlike farmers in India today who have been tricked into debt and desperation and can see no other way out.


I was around in the 1950's so I remember the society that the bankers and CEOs trashed. It is about time they paid for their crimes against not only Americans but to citizens of other the other countries they raped.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by daddio
 





Your signature creates the authority for the FED to print the "money" FOR YOU, TPTB steal it and then tell you that you owe THEM with interest....... So how do the rich get richer and we get dumber........, by our own ignorance and stupidity. Stop feeding the machinations.


I had read somewhere recently that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 had a renewal date of 99 years. Do you know anything about that?

(I am assuming you have read A Primer on Money by the House Committee on Banking and Currency and other goodies so you might have the link.)

It is in fact a 99 year deal, it will more than likely be renewed as the FED seems to be trying to get most of the paper back, reel it in before anyone else figures out the scam. They are trying also to get more bonds from OUR treasury to sell overseas. More later. Wish more people would understand that there is no money....HJR-192.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chinesis

Originally posted by queenofsheba
The answer is Yes- I know what I am getting into when I sign my name to something, especially something as important as the biggest loan of my life; a mortgage.



You (unfortunately) don't know how the system works.

Example of my claim:
-You don't (ever) own your home.
-You are allowed to live in it, and maintain it.
-YOU pay property taxes which means you don't truly own anything.
-You pay rent to have that house on that land.

-You don't even own your own car, honestly you don't.

Repeat after me: "I am free."

I'm a pretty responsible adult. I have four lien-free titles on all four of my vehicles (payed in full). Who owns them, then? Is someone gonna come and take them? When my house is payed for in 8 years who will own it then? Yes, there are property taxes that need to be paid and I don't have a problem paying them. When I go to sell you mean I don't keep the money? Yes, there are taxes to pay. That's life. If you're saying no one is truly free because we all have to pay taxes for the society we live in and all that entails, I get that. Don't assume to know I don't know how the system works.





posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by queenofsheba
 

Hello Queen to understand the problem you have to think of it in a different way. Imagine that you took out a loan on a car and always made your payments. Now because you are such a responsible person the bank trusted you would make your payments and resold your loan to a group of investors, but in order to do this they had to transfer your pink slip. Now lets say you paid off your car and ask for the pink slip. The bank creates a fraudulent document to give you and you think you own your car. Guess what happens? A year down the road your car is repossessed by the group of investors who have the real documents. That is the extent of this problem.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I have seen this ruling. What is remarkable is the ruling is clear, yet when presented to folks they go blank. They seem to feel someone cheated to get the ruling, someone lied, but the ruling is obvious, without something loan, you can't loan anything. In all other aspects of society, people are outrage at the ponzi scheme, but when spelled out in bank form, the faces go blank and the argument reverts to "cheaters" and "they are irresponsible for not paying the loan back." The last phrase is mind control speak.

For the bank loaning nothing at all, they get: fees for processing the loan, they get to hold your property hostage, they get interest for the risk, they get PMI to guard against the risk of the risk and if all else fails, the court will provide them with a remedy for the nothing they might loose - and in the end the government can take away your place for no reason at all and with no recourse. How does this make any sense to anyone? The bank takes zero risk, but gets protected as if it is risking life and limb for you to just have a home.

Without the banks, we'd still have homes! Why don't people get this?

The deeper issue is this. The real reason for the banks loaning "money" is to keep the populace controlled through debt. We work to pay taxes, CC, mortgages etc. and we can't escape it. We are all under heaps of debt, our every move is controlled by the debt and the credit report that dictates our ability to get into more debt - right now every child born owes some 500k and spends their entire life trying to work that debt off. Those in control know this, they can control a lot of the population through religion, wars, fake famines and so on, but at the end of the day it is debt that is the greatest controller of all. When the banking crises hit, why didn't they let the banks fail? The did not want the debts wiped out. They don't care where you live or how you live, as long as you are in debt, preoccupied with losing your house, or your car and spending ZERO time evolving, connecting with others, learning about yourself and your reality. Just work to pay off debt.

Debt = control. As was stated earlier the institutions of control are crashing around us, they were only prison walls and nothing more.






top topics



 
67
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join