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

[PeanutGallery]

I'm pretty sure whichever door he opens he's going to find a goat.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... 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. ...

You have to realize that in the heyday of the subprime mortgage boom, almost every foreclosure wound up creating an opportunity for yet another loan origination to a willing victim.

The system was designed to grind as many borrowers through the process as fast as possible, knowing that there was an almost inexhaustible pool to draw on and a foreclosure machine that is still infallible for the most part.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The fellow in this court case is under the same fantasy as too many SovCits in the US -- that dashing off a "promissory note" on his word processors somehow "pays" a debt. To explain to non-lawyers, a promissory note is a document promising to pay, at some future date, a sum of money. In other words, it's a document attesting to the existence of a debt - and probably prolonging the time before its payment. This guy already signed a promissory note or something equivalent when he got the mortgage, and now he thinks that his homemade promissory note (which contains, unlike the documents used by the bank, some terms that nobody would accept) somehow satisfies the mortgage debt so he never has to hand over real money. He also thinks that the bank MUST accept his homemade "promissory note" and cannot refuse it. He's wrong on all counts. Worse, he's creating a public record for himself that will probably discourage any other lender from ever helping him buy a home or a car.

Ah, so a note, which is a debt obligation can not pay off a debt is what your saying?

[arayder]

The fellow in this court case is under the same fantasy as too many SovCits in the US -- that dashing off a "promissory note" on his word processors somehow "pays" a debt. To explain to non-lawyers, a promissory note is a document promising to pay, at some future date, a sum of money. In other words, it's a document attesting to the existence of a debt - and probably prolonging the time before its payment. This guy already signed a promissory note or something equivalent when he got the mortgage, and now he thinks that his homemade promissory note (which contains, unlike the documents used by the bank, some terms that nobody would accept) somehow satisfies the mortgage debt so he never has to hand over real money. He also thinks that the bank MUST accept his homemade "promissory note" and cannot refuse it. He's wrong on all counts. Worse, he's creating a public record for himself that will probably discourage any other lender from ever helping him buy a home or a car.

Ah, so a note, which is a debt obligation can not pay off a debt is what your saying?

Let's cut to the chase and move the discussion on to what the coy boy really wants to say, but won't.

After a few pages of pseudo-socratic method and thread derailing PD will eventually get around to claiming that banks and mortgage lenders don't lend money.

PD has already had his hat handed to him on tho point: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10189

[Pottapaug1938]

The fellow in this court case is under the same fantasy as too many SovCits in the US -- that dashing off a "promissory note" on his word processors somehow "pays" a debt. To explain to non-lawyers, a promissory note is a document promising to pay, at some future date, a sum of money. In other words, it's a document attesting to the existence of a debt - and probably prolonging the time before its payment. This guy already signed a promissory note or something equivalent when he got the mortgage, and now he thinks that his homemade promissory note (which contains, unlike the documents used by the bank, some terms that nobody would accept) somehow satisfies the mortgage debt so he never has to hand over real money. He also thinks that the bank MUST accept his homemade "promissory note" and cannot refuse it. He's wrong on all counts. Worse, he's creating a public record for himself that will probably discourage any other lender from ever helping him buy a home or a car.

Ah, so a note, which is a debt obligation can not pay off a debt is what your saying?

Even if a promissory notes does pay off Debt #1, it creates Debt #2 for the amount of a note. Think in terms of refinancing a home mortgage -- in exchange for my Promissory Note #2, I am given money with which to pay off Mortgage #1.

[PeanutGallery]

I would wonder what would happen if a bank or financial institution were to 'accept' the promissory note and then demand that the Sovrun redeem it?

After all in writing it they have promised to pay although I doubt they understand the actual workings.

The reason why bank notes have value, is simply because banks have collateral. They can back up the promise and because of this it's easier and more convenient for people to trade small paper notes, which have a value assigned to them by a financial institution, than pounds of gold or engage in a barter economy.

However this is a derail prompted by PD feeling need to show how smart/stupid he is. In order to try and get this thread back on track I would like to pose a question to the esteemed Quatloosians, is the thread title correct? Are we watching a Freeman ruin his life, or given that he seems to have passed the point of no return is that life now ruined and are we simply gathered to watch the final blow?

[LordEd]

I did some following of this mindset with the GOODF group. Their belief comes from a misunderstanding of fractional reserve banking.

1. The bank gets a signature of the client's promise to pay.
2. The bank 'magically' adds numbers to the account.
3. The GOODF believe that money has been created by that signature, so by'paying it back' the bank has both money and signature, so has doubled up by fraud.

In a way money has been created. What they forget is that when the money is repaid, it fills a hole created by the debt and is essentially destroyed. If the bank lends too much beyond its ability to service cash requests, it fails and the depositors lose their money.

[Burnaby49]

However this is a derail prompted by PD feeling need to show how smart/stupid he is. In order to try and get this thread back on track I would like to pose a question to the esteemed Quatloosians, is the thread title correct? Are we watching a Freeman ruin his life, or given that he seems to have passed the point of no return is that life now ruined and are we simply gathered to watch the final blow?

Are you implying I'm so pathetic, so desperate, that I would give a discussion a misleading title just to have a catchy hook to attract readers? That I would sink so low that I'd mock a man when he's already down, buried in self-inflicted problems? Of course I would!

To answer your question he seemed screwed by the time I started the discussion since things had probably already gone past the point of no return with the bank by that time. However when it came out he had only about $11,000 equity at risk even I have to question my own title. At this point he has lost the $11,000 and ruined his credit rating. Painful but not irrecoverable. The Volks squandered over $100,000 in equity when they went off the rails and, given their demented Federal Court action, there is no way they are recovering their credit rating. Motorhead10 is just dabbling, the Volks are pros.

I'd prefer to not have this discussion locked while motorhead10's story is still in play so I'd suggest everybody just ignore our town fool for once and let him ramble. If he wants to have another moronic discussion about the real meaning of debt he can start his own discussion. Note that I've not commented in any of Patriotdiscussions various threads. There's no point, you're just feeding an ego with no brain attached.

As far as Motorhead10's WFS discussion is concerned things have gone totally off the rails. Demented obscene rants by Pigpot and stupidity from Jackieg. Little that even makes sense any more.

I enjoyed this very recent posting by Pigpot. The man has no self-awareness at all;

Not in the land of opinion Jack. You must remember the people that turn illogical fictions and fallacies into reality. Their EGO is the thing that drives their fictional bullshit. Grown ups acting like children.

Jackieg is Jackie Grant Harper who is one of the rogue's gallery mentioned in Meads v. Meads.

[174] Stated simply, Freemen-on-the-Land believe they can opt out of societal obligations and do as they like: Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 at paras. 6, 15, 369 Sask.R. 134; R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSCA 58 at paras. 19, 21; R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288 at paras. 28-32. A common theme in Freeman arguments is that state and court action requires the target=s consent, for example: Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 at para. 14, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224.

The case cited can be found here;

http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/20 ... DM4AAAAAAE

It didn't work out well for Jackie;

[12] This plaintiff attempts to use his notions of the Magna Carta to insulate himself from those portions of Canadian law that he does not like or finds inconvenient. The rule of law he so rejects is fundamental to the way of life that his fellow citizens have chosen through the democratic process. Historically the Magna Carta was enacted to deal with the issues of 1215. Any of those issues which still remain have been dealt with by modern legislation which consequently renders inoperative all Magna Carta provisions.

[13] The principle of the rule of law was concisely and authoritatively stated by Wakeling J.A. in Bacon v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance, 1999 CanLII 12234 (SK CA), [1999] 11 W.W.R. 51, 180 Sask. R. 20 (C.A.):

30 The protection we treasure as a democratic country with the rule of law as a fundamental postulate of our constitution is twofold. Protection is provided by our courts against arbitrary and unlawful actions by officials while protection against arbitrary legislation is provided by the democratic process of calling our legislators into regular periods of accountability through the ballot box. This concept of the rule of law is not in any way restricted by the Supreme Court’s statement that nobody including governments is beyond the law. That statement is a reference to the law as it exists from time to time and does not create a restriction on Parliament’s right to make laws, but is only a recognition that when they are made they are then applicable to all, including governments. [Emphasis added by court]

[14] In any event even the most generous reading of the Magna Carta does not lead to an interpretation that individuals may declare themselves free from all governmental and legislative restraint as is sought by way of relief by this plaintiff.

[15] In this case, the plaintiff’s assertion that the Magna Carta authorizes his declaration, his treaty and obligation on the defendants is a claim that is destined to fail. It is not reflective of any cause of action at law and hence is struck out.

[16] I have not attempted to incorporate the multiple arguments and objections taken by the applicants in both their written and oral arguments. Suffice it to say that most if not all of their submissions have considerable merit and would have led to a like conclusion.

[17] Rule 173 contemplates double costs against one who offends the rule. Plaintiffs have a right of free access to the court however that right of access gives rise to the corresponding duty to use it reasonably and in accordance with the court’s processes. Those who do not so conduct themselves do so at the peril of costs by way of penalty. In this case the defendants who brought formal motions seek costs.

[18] I order that the three sets of applicants who filed motions shall receive one set of costs each from the plaintiff. I fix these costs at a sum of $450 per set of applicants, namely, one set of costs for the applicants, Atchison and Lorje, one set for the applicant, Block, and one set for the applicants, Morgan and Danylyshen. Such costs shall be paid within 45 days.

[19] Although the defendant, Danielle Chartier, did not participate in these proceedings this decision is expressly intended and does encompass her position as defendant as well and this action is consequently dismissed against her as well for all the above noted reasons.

Jackie's take on his loss can be found here;

http://www.slaw.ca/2012/10/01/meads-v-m ... ants-case/

[littleFred]

Sadly, motorheadv10 hasn't posted on that thread since the auction of his trailer or whatever for $11,500. And he still has 21 silver dollars, which he reckons is worth more so he's quids in.

He has only ten posts on WFS. Perhaps this was a brief foray into SovCit territory, a last ditch attempt, nothing-to-lose. True he has been exploring the rabbit hole for nearly a year now but I'm optimistic that he now realises that home-made promissory notes aren't the answers to anything.

Jackie Grant Harper and Mr Ebert share the classic guru mantra: "Hey, I've had so many failures, I'm now an expert at failing! Follow me and do likewise!"

[grixit]

I have the judge up for reprimand before the CJC.

That was 2 years ago. We should be hearing of his great victory soon.

[notorial dissent]

Yup, just any ole day now!

[PeanutGallery]

I'm on tenterhooks.

Well I would be if I knew what a tenterhook was.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm on tenterhooks.

Well I would be if I knew what a tenterhook was.

It's a hook used to fasten cloth on a drying frames for woolen cloth, known as tenters. Those were necessary, in days of old, to prevent shrinkage.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Is there still some hope for our pal motorhead?

The banks' lawyer called today to inform me that the bank is willing to work with me. I need to get a new mortgage and pay them off by December 12.

Do they take silver dollars?

[LordEd]

There are 2 factors that will cause problems:
1. If motorhead is a believer, then he will buy into the next available scheme, not believing that the bank really means what it said.
2. Another bank may have difficulty in trusting motorhead will pay the mortgage. That's what you get for not honoring your agreements. Who would trust a freeman to do what they say?

[notorial dissent]

My view, Motorhead has two insurmountable hurdles, himself the dumb ass that he is, and the fact that he defaulted on the current loan for the reasons he did. I find it hard to believe that another bank, or whatever, would trust him not to do the same again, since he is a self proven idiot. His only hope would be to find private money that would charge him a premium rate, and then I'm not betting it would turn out one bit better. His kind of stupid doesn't go away.

[grixit]

My view, Motorhead has two insurmountable hurdles, himself the dumb ass that he is, and the fact that he defaulted on the current loan for the reasons he did. I find it hard to believe that another bank, or whatever, would trust him not to do the same again, since he is a self proven idiot. His only hope would be to find private money that would charge him a premium rate, and then I'm not betting it would turn out one bit better. His kind of stupid doesn't go away.

Oh yeah, the Friendly Guys will help you out. And Big Louie the collection agent will make sure that you never miss a payment. He takes cash, checks, credit cards, and kidneys.

[notorial dissent]

Kinda my thoughts on the subject.

[Burnaby49]

Is there still some hope for our pal motorhead?

The banks' lawyer called today to inform me that the bank is willing to work with me. I need to get a new mortgage and pay them off by December 12.

In other words if motorhead coughs up the entire outstanding debt in cash the bank is willing to save itself the trouble of actually having to sell his place and take a loss. However, given why he is in this predicament in the first place, I think motorhead is going to have some difficulty getting a new creditor to lend him funds.

[fortinbras]

I rather expect this twit to try to "pay them off" with some sort of certified bonded registered grand international promissory note, churned out of his word processor.