Let’s watch a Freeman ruin his life! In RealTime!

[wserra]

it was only down for maintenance.

Sorta like this is "down for maintenance":

[bmxninja357]

website maintenance is only slightly easier....

and i was only pointing out that it was not gone but temporarily off line. i am no advocate of winstons material.

peace,
ninj

[Burnaby49]

Mary Croft however is still MIA.

Winston hasn't been very active. The last entry in the Current News section was in January 2013.

[Burnaby49]

It is now five days since Motorhead's last post so it looks like he has more pressing issues than more advice from the WFS. That doesn't stop Meta from giving it however! his latest contribution;

Meta
Freeman on the Land

Posts: 6784
Thank you received: 251
Karma: -18
That's the crux of the matter.

Why did the home dweller agree to pay. Now he/she is obligated to pay.

Dont you think he/she should have re-negotiated the Mortgage so it was plain the Mortgage was already paid upon signing the paper?

Meta

Brilliant. Go to the bank and renegotiate your mortgage on the mutually agreed basis that you have no intention of ever paying it back and you actually owe them nothing for all the money they've given you. Why wouldn't any bank leap at the opportunity to keep you as a client by agreeing to it? I wonder if Meta's ever tried it.

[wserra]

I wonder if Meta's ever tried it.

Actually, he has. The refrigerator company told him to just keep the box.

[Jeffrey]

My money is still on Shrout being the next big name to come tumbling down.

[Burnaby49]

If you want a little light amusement this evening pull up a chair, get a coffee (or in my case something stronger) and read the whole "I paid my mortgage with a promissory note" discussion from start to finish;

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/49- ... te?start=0

As you recall it started with motorhead10 in desperate need of advice on how to stop the bank from foreclosing on his home after he rashly dove into the deep end of the Freeman pool and went full sovereign. From his first posting (I've broken it up into paragraphs to make it more legible);

In February 2014, after research of the uncitral, Bills of Exchange act, Bank of Canada Act, Bank Act, and various other gov't acts and laws. I learned about the bank lending us our own money we created with our signature, and I learned about Birth Certificates, persons, and the debt slave system., I asked for a meeting at the bank and asked to see my mortgage documents. They didn't have them in house and said they could fax them from Montreal. I asked to have the originals brought in with my signature, so he said it would take 5-7 days and I said that's fine.After waiting for them to call, I called them on the 8th day. The same representative said, Oh they just came in yesterday.

I went in to the bank the next day to find fax copies of a mortgage agreement and mortgage approval with no signatures that had arrived the day after my first meeting. I set up an appointment with the manager and when I went to see her a brought with me a notarized promissory note to pay for the mortgage and a conditional acceptance letter. The bank manager said, "I can't honor that, it's made out to you." I said, "Yes it is, according to the bills of exchange act." Since she would not accept my payment, I gave her a conditional acceptance letter.

The series of notices continued unanswered and I have gone into arrears from nonpayment since April 2014. During this process I have since become a secured party creditor by placing a lien on my person and have also copyrighted my name if that has any effect, I'm not sure.On Aug 1 I received a Demand Letter from the banks' solicitors and will go ahead with power of sale if the arrears are not received by Aug 8. I sent the solicitors a notice to provide evidence of the signed mortgage note, and that I had complete title of the property and they would need my permission to go ahead with a power of sale.

I spoke to Micheal Tellinger after his stop in Canada in May 2014. I asked him about the secret to having the bank accept a promissory note. He said to go to the bank headquarters and deliver it through the mail room to the chief financial officer. As the bank is going to do a power of sale of my property, I sent the lawyers my note to see if they would accept it and they would not. They say it is not lawful money of Canada. I hopped on a plane and flew to Toronto the next day after receiving their letter denying my payment. I delivered a joint and several note (promissory note) to settle the full amount of the mortgage to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. As the note and cover letter were not in an envelope they called up to the CFO and read off the note. The CFO's office said they would accept it. I tried to get a delivery stamp but they don't have a stamp. I received a manifest for the package I delivered. I put the papers in an envelope and they received it.

This happened on September 10, 2014 and I received a letter on October 2, 2014 from the bank's lawyer stating again that this is not lawful money of Canada. I'm getting frustrated with this whole issue and not sure what to do next. I have paid my mortgage with money in the form of a financial instrument. Do I have to sue the bank now? Any help would be greatly appreciated as this situation is very stressful to get them to acknowledge the law. According to the bills of exchange act this debt can be set-off with a note. What is your opinion on this matter and what would you do? This morning I was informed that my property has been listed in the newspaper for mortgage sale. The auction is in 1 month.

Instead of conceding to unassailable logic of his arguments and extinguishing his mortgage, as he seemed to expect, the bank did what all Canadian banks seem to do nowadays with Freemen deadbeats and went straight to foreclosure. I suppose experience has taught them that they are just racking up unnecessary legal expense by making futile attempts to deal rationally with them.

Anyhow the WFS posters initially tried to give him probably sincere, but certainly disastrously incorrect, advice on how to counter the bank. All failed and motorhead10 stopped posting over a week ago. However this has not slowed things down at all and, in motorhead10's absence the posters have moved from his problem to savagely attacking each other. It's like a cage of rabid hyenas!

The only one trying to counter the madness is bmxninja357 who is telling them the totally unacceptable truth that their fantasy world of wishing away debt with magic papers is just bullshit. So they've all turned on him.

JackieG

Ninj,
You are simply a disgusting little man with no idea about anything to do with freedom. Many here wish you would simply disappear. The main reason this forum has gone to hell in a hand bag lies at your doorstep. As usual you make claims and off zero evidence.

The "claims" for which bmxninja357 presents zero evidence is his statement that motorhead10's methods don't work. Personally I think that the real world evidence of motorhead10's imminent eviction through foreclosure is evidence enough but what do I know compared to JackieG's fever dreams? Unlike bmxninja357's unsupported statements JackieG has presented unimpeachable evidence to prove his position, his own unsupported statements! Works for me! Here it is along with what I assume is a touch of anti-Semitism;

To date there are literally thousands of cases where the so called "borrower" walked out of court in possession of their home with no one to make the mortgage payments to.
Is that illegal like ninj suggests?
According to ninj that isn't right.
Anyone Who, has read the original post I made in The Five Letters will get the idea who ninj supports.
Ninj supports the racial group that started banking.
Its ingrained into him and he can not help himself.
Everyone pray for ninj.

Although, if "thousands" have won in court I'd assume that JackieG has at least a few citations he could cite to back this claim up. I guess I'm just quibbling.

To give a flavour of JackieG's lunacy I'll quote his latest posting as faithfully as I can. I've left out the emoticoms.

If people who favour the customer over the lender are able to use the law to stimulate change, any imbalance created by giving people their real estate for free will best correct itself through a change in banking laws and practice, NOT through perpetuation of the present system of GRAND THEFT of the entire wealth of society by the banking cartels.Under the present system, someone HAS to get something for NOTHING. There is no other way.
Either the bankers continue to get interest payments for NOTHING at risk, or customers get free real estate after "borrowing"that was created out of NOTHING and having the "loan" either canceled for fraud, or discharged in bankruptcy, or the lender gets the real estate from the customer for NOTHING, following a foreclosure on the loan that was created out of Nothing[/u].

The answer is to stop basing bank lending on NOTHING.

The federal courts in Canada have stated that either the common man wake up and use the common law, the rights and freedoms available to him....or lose it for ever.

That is your choice

In other news about the efficacy of Freeman Mortgage Magik ™ check out the sad saga of the Volks and their foreclosure disaster.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10123

When I last posted on them in early October they were in the process of filing an action in the Federal Court of Canada which was supposed to nullify the foreclosure. I've been following the Federal Court action but not reporting on it until it was finished. Well it's done and the results were very bad for the Volks. They have been evicted and the court hit them with costs. I'm going to the Vancouver office of the Federal Court tomorrow to see if I can get some of the documents then I'll update the Volk's discussion.

[Jeffrey]

Ninj supports the racial group that started banking.

Oh dear. Anti-semitism on WFS?

[rogfulton]

Ninj supports the racial group that started banking.

Oh dear. Anti-semitism on WFS?

How is that possible?

[Burnaby49]

The WFS discussion has really run off the rails. In the last ten hours or so it has added about four pages of comments, none to point on motorhead10's problems. Instead it has turned into a bare knuckle brawl about anti-semitism. Well at least they are having the discussion.

[littleFred]

To date there are literally thousands of cases where the so called "borrower" walked out of court in possession of their home with no one to make the mortgage payments to.

Although, if "thousands" have won in court I'd assume that JackieG has at least a few citations he could cite to back this claim up. I guess I'm just quibbling.

JackieG then did produce a citation: Boyko 2007 Foreclosure Decision -- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Steele, 2008 WL 111227

Problem is, this case is on a different issue. Even I, a non-American non-lawyer, can see that. Deutsche Bank wanted to foreclose on some mortgages. But the original mortgage was with a different company. Okay, said the court, so was the mortgage assigned to you, Deutsche Bank? DB merely said, "We have the mortgage."

The court said, "You haven't proved diddly-squat. You haven't proved you have the mortgage, and the mortgage documents say you don't. So you can't foreclose." (I paraphrase heavily.)

So JackieG got it half right. The borrowers weren't kicked out of their homes. But nor were they forgiven their mortgages. The court said nothing about whether the borrowers had to continue paying (which I suppose they weren't, hence the foreclosure attempt). Nor did it say the borrowers never had to pay back the mortgage. The only argument was who they had to pay it to.

[Burnaby49]

Jackieg goes on and on about how huge numbers of American mortgages were apparently (he's short on hard proof or facts) cancelled for various reasons. Let's, for sake of argument, accept that. However none of these reasons relate to his bullshit boasts that Canadians can just write promissory note to the bank and the banks have to forgive your mortgage and not collect on the note.

The US had a massive mortgage crisis because of many factors but it was largely the result of extremely lax lending standards that resulted in American banks granting a huge number of mortgages to people who had no hope of paying them off. The banks did this because they faced no risks. Their goal was not to hold on to the mortgages and collect on them like regular debt, their business plan was to collateralization these mortgages into bundles which were sold off to investors as securities. The banks didn't care at all about the quality of the mortgages because the repayment risks passed to the buyers of the bundles. So they issued mortgages to anyone who walked in the door without caring if they could make the payments or not. When the mortgages in the bundles started to default the owners of the collateralized securities found that the record keeping was so shoddy that nobody knew what was in the bundles and there was no documentation to legally prove that the mortgages actually existed. So many mortgages were "forgiven" in the sense that the owner of the mortgage could not provide proof that the morgagee actually owed the money.

From a Canadian context, jackieg's context, so what? He's either too stupid, or too dishonest, to concede that the situation is entirely different up here. It is no accident that he keeps referring to the United States, a foreign country, rather than prove his case with Canadian citations. The case he does cite is German and seems to be a problem about nothing deeper than shoddy record keeping. In other words he is doing a lot of aggressive posturing on an issue about which he apparently knows nothing. The American mortgage crisis did not carry over to Canada because the rules are far more conservative here and our banks cannot dump their mortgages by collateralizing and selling them. They must hold them to maturity and are therefore very careful about granting them because, if they fail, the issuing bank eats the loss. So when Freemen idiots, like my current targets the Volks or motorhead10, whom jackieg is trying to pump up with false hope, pull the "I paid it in full when I signed the mortgage" scam the banks go nuclear. AND THEY ALWAYS WIN. Read my Volks postings. They tried all of the arguments that jackieg claims to believe actually work and are now living in a rental having squandered away over a $100,000 of their own hard earned equity through their stupidity, Motorhead10 is missing in action because he is probably, futilely, trying to salvage something from the wreckage. So let's have jackieg give some relevant CANADIAN citations that will back up his arguments and help the people he is so recklessly advising. He is probably able to be so bold because, like the American banks I mentioned, he has no personal money on the table. It's easy to rant and bluster when you are advising others to risk their money rather than yours.

[littleFred]

... So many mortgages were "forgiven" in the sense that the owner of the mortgage could not provide proof that the morgagee actually owed the money. ...

Thanks.

I'm curious: what happened to the ownership of the property? If the residents stopped paying the mortgage, and no lender could prove they owned the property, could the residents then sell the property and buy another, entirely free of any mortgage?

Naturally, relying on toxic debts and poor paperwork in hope of escaping a mortgage would be high risk. But not quite a stupid as relying on promissory notes, I think.

[Burnaby49]

... So many mortgages were "forgiven" in the sense that the owner of the mortgage could not provide proof that the morgagee actually owed the money. ...

Thanks.

I'm curious: what happened to the ownership of the property? If the residents stopped paying the mortgage, and no lender could prove they owned the property, could the residents then sell the property and buy another, entirely free of any mortgage?

Naturally, relying on toxic debts and poor paperwork in hope of escaping a mortgage would be high risk. But not quite a stupid as relying on promissory notes, I think.

The issue wasn't that the mortgagor couldn't prove the mortgagee owned the property, titles were all recorded properly. The problem was proving the existence of the mortgage. The collateralized mortgages were bundled together often with hundreds, perhaps thousands of mortgages in one security. but in the frenzy of 2005-2007 (I believe) to issue these things the lending institutions were incredibly sloppy about paperwork. It was just lend money, bundle the mortgages, and sell them before they exploded. The security holders were pension funds, mutual funds etc, institutions who knew nothing about mortgages. So when property values started collapsing and mortgage borrowers who'd maxed out and were right on the financial edge stopped paying the security holders were overwhelmed. In many cases the original issuers were so lax about paperwork that there was nothing the mortgage holders could take to court to prove the debt. Everybody knew that there were mortgages but the courts required proof. These are probably the cases that jackieg claims support his moronic opinion.

Another big problem with this that I neglected to mention was value. The idea of the bundled mortgages was, theoretically, risk mitigation. The bundles would contain a mix of high-interest risky mortgages, mid-range risk mortgages, and what seemed to be safe mortgages on the theory that if the high risk ones ran into trouble the low risk would still give an assurance of returns. Two problems with this, When the high risk ones collapsed they took the mid risk ones down with them, everybody had problems when US house prices put so many mortgages under water and borrowers just walked. That lead to the second problem; the theory behind bundling them into securities was easy liquidity. The securities could be sold in a liquid market in whole or by shares of the larger value. But when mortgages collapsed nobody knew what the bundles were worth because determining value required individual valuations of each mortgage in the security. An overwhelming task. So liquidity disappeared and the market froze.

None of this happened in Canada although the banks did their best to join in. The Canadian banks put a lot of pressure on the government to change the banking regulations to allow Canadian banks to collateralize mortgages just like in the US. They complained that they were being hamstrung in competing with American banks because they couldn't do this. The federal government told them to get lost. So they kept issuing the same old plain vanilla mortgages they had in the past because they couldn't, unlike American banks, dump the crap on suckers. They came out looking like geniuses after the US collapse.

[Burnaby49]

Motorhead10 returned WFS for an update posting. He's still living in the illusion;

motorheadv10
NOW ONLINE Newbie on the Land

Posts: 10
Thank you received: 1
Karma: 0
I went to the auction today. The banks' lawyer was there as well. The bank bid $11,500 and i bid 21 silver dollars. Sold for 11500.. I said hey my bid is worth more!! Silver trumps paper. Your fiat currency is worthless compared to my silver. But ignorance prevailed in this case. I asked the lawyer what the definition of lawful money was and he didn't know. I told him it was gold and silver coins. So now I'm wondering if I should take the auctioneer to court for disregarding my bid. What a mess this has become for me. I may just call the lawyer Monday and try to settle because this fight sounds good but holy fuck it's difficult and stressful.

And as a side note i don't like all the negativity on my thread. Quit fighting each other.

Thanks

Apparently in his world a silver dollar is worth more than $575 of "fiat currency". If this is how he runs his financial life I can see why he got foreclosed.

[Fmotlgroupie]

Motorhead10 returned WFS for an update posting. He's still living in the illusion;

motorheadv10
NOW ONLINE Newbie on the Land

Posts: 10
Thank you received: 1
Karma: 0
I went to the auction today. The banks' lawyer was there as well. The bank bid $11,500 and i bid 21 silver dollars. Sold for 11500.. I said hey my bid is worth more!! Silver trumps paper. Your fiat currency is worthless compared to my silver. But ignorance prevailed in this case. I asked the lawyer what the definition of lawful money was and he didn't know. I told him it was gold and silver coins. So now I'm wondering if I should take the auctioneer to court for disregarding my bid. What a mess this has become for me. I may just call the lawyer Monday and try to settle because this fight sounds good but holy fuck it's difficult and stressful.

And as a side note i don't like all the negativity on my thread. Quit fighting each other.

Thanks

Apparently in his world a silver dollar is worth more than $575 of "fiat currency". If this is how he runs his financial life I can see why he got foreclosed.

I'm no expert, but I think he's realized the attractiveness of making nice too late; once the bank has finished the auction it's already done everything the hard way, and he's thrown away his last leverage.

Also, $11,500? What was he living in, a used car?

[erwalkerca]

Also, $11,500? What was he living in, a used car?

Old mobile home on a rental pad probably.

[Dr. Caligari]

Also, $11,500? What was he living in, a used car?

If no one else was bidding, the bank had no reason to bid higher. The house might be worth much more.

[Burnaby49]

Also, $11,500? What was he living in, a used car?

If no one else was bidding, the bank had no reason to bid higher. The house might be worth much more.

Weren't you paying any attention? There was a higher bidder; motorhead10 offered 21 silver dollars. That was clearly a much higher bid that the purported winning bid of $11,500 paid with that fiat garbage that I'm ashamed to call Canadian currency. The only explanation is the one that motorhead10 so insightfully realized, collusion between the auctioneer and the bank.

It's beyond me why someone as astute as motorhead doesn't follow the obvious path to millions he seems to truly believe in. He claims that the 21 silver dollars were worth more than the $11,500 bid. So, at a minimum, he values the dollars at $548 each in fiat money. You can buy one Canadian Silver Dollar .800 fineness 23.3gr for $18 Canadian, free shipping, right now on Ebay. So he buys one silver dollar for the $18 fiat then exchanges it for its true value of $548. He uses this to buy 30 more silver dollars on Ebay which are worth, as he tells us, $16,440 fiat. He exchanges those for their value in fiat, deducts his original $18 price he paid for the first silver dollar, and he has $16,422 clear profit he could have used to outbid the bank. Or, screw the property and instead use the $16,440 to buy 913 silver dollars on Ebay. He'd soon own all of Canada. At least he will if his stated position on Silver dollar value is correct rather than just Freeman babbling.

[Dr. Caligari]

if his stated position on Silver dollar value is correct rather than just Freeman babbling.

I'll take door number 2.