reply to post by schuyler
Hawkeye is one of these "quote" respond, "quote" respond "quote" respond guys.
Actually I responded to you several times without doing that but you keep repeating non-sense so I decided to break down your argument which you now
conveniently refuse to read...
I'm not. I can't wade through that junk especially since it makes no sense whatsoever
Thank you for admitting you don't even read most of my explanations. Perhaps this is the key to your ignorance of the subject; refusal to give
anything that disagrees with your paradigm an objective hearing and research.
that he continually calls people names, calls them ignorant, and generally does whatever he can to anger you. I find this method of argument
dispicable at best and it certainly violates the laws of logic. I couldn't be around a guy like this physically. He could easily drive someone to
violence. He seems incapable of debating without high emotion and sneering, and this makes him ineffective.
Perhaps you should clean your own doorstep first before accusing me. It is the naysayers here who began name calling like moron and hag etc. So
perhaps I responded a bit harshly but I did not return the name calling to anyone specifically. Saying one is ignorant or foolish is not name calling,
it is an accurate observation of the knowledge of several on this thread.. I find it humorous you accuse me of high emotion right after refusing to
wade through my break down of your argument and calling it junk without reading it. Don't want to be confused by the facts?
Hawkeye insists there's no real money here. He says the Promissory Note IS the money and that is spontaneously created by the Note itself. Am
I not correct here so far? He also says the bank makes "millions" off of my $100,000 loan. Surely that is hyperbole. They "make" about $40,000 if
they are lucky. He also says I have been hoodwinked into 30 years of "slavery" over a fraudulent deal.
As soon as the bank deposits the note for 100,000 they increase their assets by 1,000,000 under fractional reserve laws (talk about money from
nothing) So do you still believe the banks can't create money on the spot? This is why they pull out all the stops to get people to take out loans,
refinance etc. this is how the majority of money is created in this country and around the world. (it is the lifeblood of the system. if banks
stopped making loans there would be no more money and the FRNS circulating would be too few and instant major depression. So they would print more
FRNS causing inflation. This recession is happening because fewer people are getting loans now as banks inflated themselves out of the market)
So anyway there is 1 mil right there, they then sell the note at least four times using derivatives, there's another couple mill but they usually do
this many more times then that. However lets keep it conservative and say they just made the 1 mill then the sold the note for 8o grand gee what a
sweet deal for the bank they make a mil right out of the gate plus another 80 grand on selling the note and then they charge you over 30 years and
you pay them another 200 grand at least when you figure the interest in. So if you got the house after just signing the promissory note still think
it was free? The least they could do is give you the house for enriching them to the tune of a million plus using your credit, but no the greedy
bastards proceed to enslave you for 30 years. on top of it all for the privilege of using your credit to enrich themselves
let me simplify it for you under fractional reserve. If I could do the same thing then if I have $100 in my pocket I can give you a loan for $900. So
where does the $900 come from? Nowhere and that is exactly what the banks do and why it is called money from nothing. This is where the 75
trillion dollar debt comes from . We and our property we THINK we own, is collateral on the debt and for the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES from
1933 which is well documented. The Mafia wishes they had a scam this good!
Should I get a free house out of this deal? If there is really no loan and if I really am not obligated to pay it back, then I just got a
$110,000 house for a down payment of $10,000. Talk about fraud. THAT would be fraud. Why should I get a free house out of this deal? Bear in mind that
our seller is happy and content.
Of course this is a false characterization of what's going on. I have explained it several times now. To simplify it; If I claim to loan you money
but instead of giving it to you I claim I will give it the seller. But later you find out that never happened and that I really had no money to loan
and I instead used your credit card to transfer funds to the seller but got you to pay payments to me for the next 30 years thinking I loaned you
money then I would be committing fraud. For all practical purposes that is exactly what the banks do. I know you believe otherwise which is why I say
people need to do their homework because if you are honest with yourself you have never looked in to how this really works and are just repeating a
belief with no real knowledge of how it actually works. I know I used to believe the same way like everyone else until I did my homework.
I see one area where I think Hawkeye gets his idea. It's just that he runs with it in the wrong direction. It's the BORROWER who is doing the
sleight of hand here, not the bank. Upon closing the borrower is the one who gets full title to the property, just like Hawkeye says. Check.
No you do not get full title you get an aliened title through the fraud of the bank who now owns the property because you gave it away to them after
already paying for the property in full using legal tender of the UNITED STATES.
Then it is the BORROWER who immediately puts up the property that is now his as collateral for the loan he has not yet paid. That's the
miracle part of the transaction. If you went to the bank and said, "Give me $100,000." they would demand you put up some collateral. here the thing
you are buying is itself the collateral. (same thing with a car loan.)
What loan? Prove there is a loan! You can't and and neither can the bank. Show me the paper trail of the money that was on account that the bank
drew from, that they loaned to you? If they wrote a check then it has an account number. So ask the bank to show the records of that account number
during the time of the transaction so we can see where the money came from that was deposited into that account? Of course you have never done this
but I and several others have. Which is why I say you speak in ignorance. They will not do it and the reason why is that account did not exist until
you signed a promissory note and they deposited it into that account, if they show the account they will expose their fraud. So they play games and
say the paper work is lost etc.
LOL at the borrower using slight of hand here! Where in the hell did you come up with that non-sense? How many borrowers do you know that read the
mortgage contract and papers before they sign it? Most of them still haven't read it after the fact and just took some bank or escrow agents word
for it on how it supposedly worked. By the way most agents don't understand how it works either. I have heard them tell people you don't need to
understand that or don't worry about it and people sign it anyway.
If it actually worked like most believe it does it would be real simple for the bank to prove it, and this would have been put to bed long ago. But
no bank to date can prove they loaned money and the law states they cannot use their own assets to back a loan and so they use YOUR ASSET which is
your credit in signing a promissory note, which is legal tender of the UNITED STATES according to law, some of which I already posted. Which is why
people by the thousands and growing are now taking on these banks and many have won.
Let's take the bank out of the equation for a moment. Let's say I borrowed this money from my mother-in-law. Exact same loan. Exact same
interest rate. Exact same Deed of Trust. Exact same Promissory Note. Exact same recording at the County. The only difference here physically is that
my mother-in-law's name is in the place of where the bank's name would go. No difference. Now go ask my mother-in-law if she thinks this money was
spontaneously created. Heavens, no, it was not. Her bank account is now $100,000 less rich than it was before.
No, the difference is your mother in law had the money sitting in an account somewhere and she can easily prove it. And she does not have a fraud
system of statutory policy that would allow her to play the shell game with a promissory note, and increase her assets times 9 based on the note.
That ought to tell you something when the banks refuse to show proof of where the money came from like your mother in law could do in a heart beat.
But she has a pretty cool asset now because if I pay as promised, she stands to make about $40,000 on this deal.
It is not an asset and no bank would consider it an asset in giving her credit, it is a liability until it is paid. But the note is legal tender and
the banks know this. If someone owed you money would you consider that an asset? No of course not is it not an asset until it is paid back with
The one overriding question I have that has not been answered is this: Why am I entitled to a free house?
As I explained above the house was not free you enriched the bank using your credit by at least a million eighty the least they could do is give you
the house. However to take it a step further all our labor, property, and wealth, is pledged as collateral on the national debt this is how the
government goes into debt we are the collateral and this elaborate scheme to use credit as money instead of sound money so the Federal reserve and
all the banks (who by the way are all agents of the federal reserve) could create as much as they want at will. This is coming to a head hence the
meltdown. According to the constitution our property cannot be taken without just compensation. So our ability to write promissory notes as legal
tender to discharge debts was given to us in law when they took our money. But they were not obligated to inform us, as it is all in the law for us to
read. However in our ignorance greedy elites and politicians saw the opportunity to take even further advantage of us and so now generations have
grown up believing what you state is how things are supposed to work not understanding the reality of what's going on.
"Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, stated,
“Under the new law, the money is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and
bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage
on all the homes and other property of all the people in the nation.” (which lawfully belongs to these private citizens.)
The National Debt is defined is defined as “mortgages on the wealth and income of the people of a country.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1959.)
Their wealth, their income…"
Section 16 of the current Federal Reserve Act, codified at 12 USC 411, declares that “Federal Reserve Notes” are “obligations of the United
So, we see the “full faith and credit” of the United States: which is the substance of the American citizenry: their real property, wealth,
assets and productivity that belongs to them, is thereby hypothecated and re-hypothecated by the United States to its obligations as well as to the
Federal Reserve for the issuance and backing of Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender “for all taxes, customs, and other public dues”.
Under the 14th amendment and numerous Supreme Court precedents, as well as in equity, PRIVATE property cannot be taken or pledged for public use
without just compensation, or due process of law. The United States cannot pledge or risk the property and wealth of its private citizens, for any
government purpose without legally providing them remedy to recover what is due them on their risk.
The provisions for this are found in the same act of “Public Policy” HJR-192, public law 73-10 that suspended the gold standard for our currency,
abrogated the right to demand payment in gold, and made Federal Reserve Notes for the first time legal tender, “backed by the substance or “credit
of the nation”.