[Campaign] Rights first - "Certificate of Title" to my home described me as the "Tenant".
Love For Life Campaign
action at loveforlife.com.au
Tue Dec 11 17:39:37 EST 2007
*Then comes the issue as to why are the people paying for mortgages and
exorbitant interest rates, often paying for the price of 2 to 3 houses
to own one, in the belief they will own a home/land outright 100%, when
in truth they are not able to own the home/land and are just tenants?
What will a judge say to this and what will the banks and the
governments position be, when you consider that tens of millions of
citizens are working very long hours, many doing more than one job,
often working 20 to 30 years in the belief they are paying off a
mortgage to own a home/land = FREEDOM ....... FOR WHAT?
Just to be tenants?
Is this what we call the price for being a serf?
If they are tenants then home buyers-borrowers-mortgagees are paying
exorbitant rents, much higher than those who are just renters.
What about inheritance?
What are our children inheriting from us and what are parents breaking
their backs and stressing out all those years for? Then you add all the
taxes we pay and you can see very very clearly "incontrovertibly" that
the people are in fact "SLAVES" (hu-mans) of the Establishment. If the
hu-mans can't be woken up by this unarguable ("Certificate of Title" as
Tenant) **evidence, then gees we are all in deep shit and will have to
work very hard to get out of it.
Its time for MANS revolution of love. We need to start re-creating
community as I explained in my previous email see here:
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/2571
We will only achieve victory if we serve each other as MAN, coming
together as MAN to form united communities for MAN but we will all lose
if we all stay as we are as self-centered individuals, each fighting
their own Hu-Man personal battles without MANS community support.
How much more time will it take before everyone wakes up to this truth.
I hope its only around the corner in a matter of months instead of a few
years when it will be all too late for hu-mans.
Arthur Cristian*
John Wilson wrote:
> Dear Jack,
>
> Looks perfectly straight, to me.
>
> I have a "Certificate of Title" to my home ...but only a copy for
> which a clerk at the Lands Office pressed a button on his computer and
> out it came. On it, I am described as the "Tenant"...not the owner.
>
> I've said for years that only when we get Trial by Jury back in full
> swing, will we be able to put right all this injustices of not having
> the Right to Property.
>
> The argument you are putting forward is correct....but, without a
> Jury, merely "Pie in the Sky".
>
> Therefore, the first and most important issue is Trial by Jury.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> John Wilson.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jack <mailto:happyharper at shaw.ca>
> *To:* John <mailto:jhwilson at acay.com.au>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2007 9:43 PM
> *Subject:* Re: a staggering 1/4 homeowners are in default
>
> *Dear John,***
> *Think about this!*
> **
> *Let this sink in.......*
> **
> *Then I will give you more.*
> **
> *Jack*
> **
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> Imagine that on a previous date certain, a loan was taken out
> from a recognized financial institution by John Doe.
> Subsequently John Doe paid the loan
>
> obligation in full or retired the obligation in some
>
> proper manner. *A problem arose when the bank was*
>
> *unable to return the original signed promissory*
>
> *note/obligation in consideration of this payment by*
>
> *John Doe.*
>
> The banking system, and in fact our entire
>
> financial system, private or public, is such that only
>
> "original" signed notes or obligations are enforceable
>
> (duplicates, certified copies, or normal copies are not
>
> enforceable in any court) *and clearly only the return*
>
> *of the original signed promissory note in*
>
> *consideration of payment in full can be accepted as*
>
> *fully discharging the obligation and all potential or*
>
> *contingent liability associated with it.*
>
> The bank in question *either sold or assigned*
>
> *the original note to a third party immediately* after
>
> inception of the original loan as part of their normal
>
> banking practice, thus they were unwilling and or
>
> unable to return the original note which remains
>
> outstanding in the hands of others. *Technically and*
>
> *legally this note is still enforceable in spite of having*
>
> *already been paid (see */*Bills of Exchange Act*/). The
>
> bank's presumption that their client, John Doe, would
>
> simply overlook this fact was erroneous and contrary
>
> to sound business notwithstanding that several tens of
>
> thousands of their lesser informed clients may follow
>
> such an ill-advised course of action on a day to day
>
> basis.
>
> When the bank was legally noticed by John
>
> Doe that he was entitled to the return of his original
>
> note, or in the alternative, he was entitled to the
>
> financial benefits derived by the bank through the
>
> bank's sale and conversion of his note, the bank
>
> quietly acquiesced and contractually agreed that John
>
> Doe was entitled to the financial benefits derived by
>
> the bank through the bank's conversion of his note
>
> together will all subsequent interest and or capital
>
> profits earned by the bank on that conversion, simply
>
> because they were not able to return the note since
>
> they no longer possessed it (or in some cases
>
> endorsed it to themselves as /holder in due course/, as
>
> opposed to a third party). These issues are clearly
>
> supported by the /Bank Act/, the /Bills of Exchange Act/
>
> and many other such provisions of law.
>
> *The note, which is legally the property of the*
>
> *borrower, in this case John Doe, although temporarily*
>
> *(during the term of the nominal loan) it is held by the*
>
> *bank/lender as collateral security (not as owner) for*
>
> *repayment of the obligation, was presumed by John*
>
> *Doe (and tacitly admitted to by the bank) to have*
>
> *been sold by the bank at a market discount of its face*
>
> *value, resulting in the net proceeds of the conversion*
>
> *being deemed as "capital" of the bank.* The net price
>
> was then factored by the publicly advertised return on
>
> capital (offered to shareholders of the bank) from the
>
> inception of the loan (sale/conversion date) until the
>
> current date upon which the matter was brought to
>
> the bank's attention, resulting in a current value of the
>
> obligation in favor of John Doe.
>
> The bank then agreed contractually to this,
>
> being its fully responsible bank obligation to hold
>
> this current value in an account on behalf of John
>
> Doe as opposed to continuing to operate under the
>
> erroneous presumption that this value belonged to
>
> them. In summary, the bank's original clandestine
>
> actions and their subsequent acknowledgement by
>
> way of contractual obligations in settlement thereof,
>
> result in John Doe holding a properly and legally
>
> perfected bank obligation in his favor and against the
>
> bank in question. It is /de facto /a "fully responsible
>
> bank obligation" or bank deposit in favor of the
>
> recovered note holder, John doe, which is confirmed
>
> by the bank.
>
> *The bank agreed to John Doe's claim and they*
>
> *agreed to confirm John Doe's claim in consideration*
>
> *of John Doe not making any public outcry and not*
>
> *trying to enforce collection or payment of the*
>
> *recovered obligation. This means that although John*
>
> *Doe cannot literally spend his recovered note value,*
>
> *he can invest it (just like the bank had been doing)*
>
> *and have that investment capital confirmed as*
>
> *available and unencumbered for his investment*
>
> *purposes by the bank, and he can spend whatever*
>
> *earnings he may generate from that investment.*
>
> *You might be surprised to learn that just*
>
> *about every prior loan you may have had and*
>
> *subsequently paid out, falls into the same category as*
>
> *John Doe's loan, insofar as you most likely never did*
>
> *receive the return of your original promissory note in*
>
> *its original form as you were entitled to. This means*
>
> *quite literally and simply that you now have a valid*
>
> *claim against those lending institutions for 100% of*
>
> *the value of the original loan plus any and all interest*
>
> *paid, plus interest on that combined total from the*
>
> *date you paid it until the present date!*
>
> *NCOY has witnessed dozens of people*
>
> recover their equity in similar fashion as illustrated in
>
> the example of John Doe, and NCOY has witnessed
>
> the successful placement of some of these recovered
>
> notes into opportunities that generate significant
>
> income. You may review a brief explanation of a
>
> sample of the more common type of opportunities
>
> where such recovered notes are generally placed, by
>
> clicking here: *"Private Placement Trading"*
>
> (www.naturalgod.com/PrivatePlacement.pdf)
>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner
at http://lists.altnews.com.au/MailScanner.html ,
and is believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.loveforlife.com.au/pipermail/campaign/attachments/20071211/35a6c3f1/attachment.html>
More information about the Campaign
mailing list