Debt
Elimination
is a moral and ethical approach
to taking back your power and
real freedom.
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.
