Why your mortgage is a constructive fraud...Submitted by hawkiye on Thu, 08/06/2009 - 10:52
Here’s an exchange of emails that has occurred a few years back between me and a friend of mine regarding the morality of debt elimination:
I'm just now maneuvering into a $120,000 or so mortgage. My current is $51,000, but I want more money to build cabins. What has concerned me about the process you are suggesting is that when I asked for a credit card, I promised I would pay back. When I took mortgage money, I promised to pay it back. I keep my promises. I don't see how you can effectively maneuver around that basic tenet. Do you see?
Here’s my reply:
I apologize for this long message, but there is so much more to know to understand your moral position, true status and the reasons for your present servitude. This is a summary, but it is vital to grasp the issues which are actually more than life and death in scope. This has a powerful spiritual dimension as well.
You have been convinced that you borrowed, therefore you owe. But you are assuming a voluntary servitude that is not required of you by law and you were not informed of this by the responsible party. There has not been disclosure of the material facts by the bank or credit card company and they had nothing to give in return. They convinced you to give them the title to the property in exchange for your own credit. It is not the bank's money that bought the house. You did not receive value from them. Your own promissory note supplied the credit. In return for your credit they rent it back to you for thirty years and hold title for having supplied nothing to the transaction. Furthermore, your promissory note was eventually sold multiple times without your permission or knowledge even though it belongs to you. In monetizing your Promissory Note, the bank increased its wealth by 9 times the note and subsequently demands that you pay back the principal plus interest....on your own credit.
Your note created money for them and yet you keep paying and paying. The bill of exchange you obtain for the $120,000 mortgage is worth $1,080,000 to the bank by monetizing it on the discount market. As a "thank you" for the privilege of using your Promissory Note to vastly increase its own assets, the bank wishes for you to pay back the $120,000 you created with your credit plus interest, which over thirty years would nearly triple the cost of the mortgage AND you gave them the collateral of the house that you already paid for with your Promissory Note. Are you still worried about your moral position?
In our debt elimination process there is no reneging on contract for two reasons. First, the debt is discharged by a surety bond and bill of exchange following existing statutes and administrative procedures. Secondly, there was no contract from the beginning. A "mortgage" is not a contract just as the Constitution is not a contract. A Contract requires two (2) or more parties (Offeror and Offeree) who, at the time of its execution or adoption, covenanted to be bound by it as evidenced by the signature(s).
The practiced pattern of the "mortgage" lending industry, and their well publicized activities, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that: (1) every "Mortgage Lender" did intentionally obtain their customer’s Promissory Notes, by non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of the material fact; (2) that the mortgage lender was not risking any of their own assets in the transaction and, (3) that the "Lender" did intentionally obtain their customer’s notes by concerted action, which would accomplish the unlawful things described herein, with full knowledge of the end results of their individual participation. In a just society, they would be charged with fraud, larceny and conspiracy to defraud (RICO). I will explain:
A "Mortgage Lender" is not a party to a mortgage under the laws of contract. No agent/principal for the mortgage lender will sign a mortgage contract. The reason for the missing signature is because the agent/principal is fully aware that the mortgage lender is not tendering any consideration in the transaction. Therefore, having provided no consideration and having given no indication of any desire to participate as a party to the contract by signing the contract, neither the mortgage lender nor any other third party who may acquire the mortgage, has any legal authority to impose the terms of the mortgage. The contract fails for lack of consideration.
There is no power of attorney in the mortgage granting the mortgage lender the legal right to use the individual's Promissory Note for the mortgage lender's personal financial gain, without compensating the maker of the note. There is no written granted authority, or disclosure in the mortgage for the mortgage lender, or any other party, to "pool," "encumber," "pledge," "hypothecate," or “trade” the individual Promissory Note on the secondary market where all trades are cleared by the Federal Reserve and are trades "off the books” without compensating the maker.
You, the maker of the note in the mortgage "contract," have made no appointment of representative status to any agent/principal of the mortgage lender. After obtaining the note, the non-authorized actions of the mortgage lender concerning the individual Promissory Note creates implied obligations for the maker to undisclosed and unknown parties to the original transaction.
If the mortgage were a contract, then the mortgage lender would have had to tender consideration and possess the original unmarked and unaltered note in order to sell the note or enforce the contract. Otherwise the contract is "voidable."
When the mortgage lender obtains the customer's Promissory Note without consideration, they have committed an act of "Constructive Fraud" by acts of concealment of material facts. These acts of concealment of material facts establish a Breach of Contract, since the mortgage lender has a legal duty to act in good faith and disclose all material facts relative to the transaction.
Having obtained the customer's Promissory Note by Constructive Fraud, the mortgage lender is not justified by "implied consent" to enforce the contract, as that consent, implied or otherwise, cannot be given under a cloud of non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of material facts, or a state of duress. Do you think the bank holds the moral position here?
If the sovereign has the rights of sovereignty over himself and his property, then each is capable of entering into a social contract. But by the use of mortgage, those who are sovereign are deceived into use by privilege, of what they think they possess by right. A privilege is granted by an authority, whereas a right is a natural heritage implying ownership. Because the 14th Amendment to the Constitution has placed the sovereign under the protection of the United States CORPORATION which administers the District of Columbia and all other Federal territories and possessions, the mortgage lender, the lawyer and the judge take advantage of the Sovereign under the undisclosed concept that the individual is a perpetual child who is incompetent, a ward of the State, and not legally capable of entering into ANY contract, while yet enforcing an implied contract. Are you still concerned about your moral stature?
But, a contract creates the law. Therefore, a contract is a living body of law and is an agreement made between living people. When a contract’s sponsors and promoters reduce to a document words and terms that convey privileges and authority which those sponsors and promoters have no right or lack the capacity to convey, it is illegal.
You think YOU have a moral responsibility? The moral issue is instead the banking industry's long term practices of constructive fraud by breach of contract and nondisclosure as well as larceny.
There's much more that demonstrates that your moral issue is rather to uphold your right to be considered a Sovereign rather than a subject. At the moment you are considered before the law to be incompetent and in need of caretaking. Your employees, the several levels of government, have taken without permission your substance to be collateral for the debt they’ve created.
Since you have not taken the position that you are capable of accepting responsibility, you are treated as though you were irresponsible. You seek licenses to be granted by them as though they were the Lord of the Manor and in seeking privileges from them continue a subservient status of subject by presumption. They presume that since you have not taken control of your own affairs, you are content to remain under their care. So morally, to avoid this issue you are permitting the governments to usurp power from you and collectively from all other Sovereigns who do not know they have lost their status under a constitutional republic. By default you and all others who are unaware have created the impending dictatorship by inaction. There will be hell to pay for that. Here is a moral position that cannot be overlooked.
Since 1933, the US has been bankrupt and money is no longer available but for the debt instruments that, when used to repay debt, actually increase the national debt. Having withdrawn substance for commerce, only the government can extinguish our debts. That is the action of the surety bond and a bill of exchange instrument to discharge your debts.
Furthermore, by "switching chairs" with you, the mortgagor manages to become the acceptor of your offer and ends up holding the contract in due course...meaning as holder they retain the right of ownership whereas you obtain the privilege of its use! When title is registered, the true owner of the property-- car, house, boat, etc.--is the state. Therefore you must pay rent to the feudal lord who owns the property to which you have acquired the privilege of its use--taxes, license fees, etc. You own nothing and retain privilege at the sufferance of the State.
Similarly, getting a marriage license, a driver's license, or a dog license establishes ownership and privilege. Just as a serf would have to obtain permission from the Lord of the Manor to join in conjugal bliss with a mate, the first right of intercourse went to the Lord of the Manor so that the first child would be his. Today the marriage license legally assigns all produce from the partnership as first right of the State. You have obtained a privilege of companionship and children but not the right to protect and nurture them as you see fit. Hence, the State can determine whether the children can be raised by their parents or taken from them and placed in foster care as wards of the State. And once in foster care, many of the children disappear.
Do you note the immorality of the system? This is the system you support by non-action, and establishing your rights to your own substance which has been taken from you without your knowledge or permission is the beginning of taking back the power you inadvertently let slip away. Not your fault. The schools, attorneys, the media, the government, the banks do not provide you with the information to make an informed decision. That does not diminish your own responsibility to become informed. Now you have a clearer idea of what the stakes are, you understand some of the consequences of being uninformed, and you have the choice of pretending you don't know or that it's too complicated for you
Hope that clarifies your moral position. It's your choice now.