How can banksters play games with people's lives?
The banksters "lend" money for a person to buy a farm, and then wait for a bad year, and get the farm back, and then repeat. The only way you got out of the mortgages was through death (mortgage = death note, or you will pay until you die) Thus, the term, "He bought the farm".
The banksters, by hook and by crook have made houses, farms, commercial real estate, all of it, more expensive. Basically, when you can borrow money from a bank, you can offer more money for a place. And, other people do as well, ratcheting up the price higher and higher.
So, the banksters moved beyond their give it out, take it back scheme. Now, they were making money by raising the prices. And then came fractional reserve banking, and the banksters could make money, the entire purchase price of the house, with every mortgage. (this on top of the scheme that would return many homes back to the bank.
Banksters never play fair
Ever wonder how the banks get away with telling the customers that they have 90 days to work out any errors the bank might have done (and you have to PROVE it) but the banks can notice things years down the road, and then, before even consulting/notifying you, take the money from your account? This is totally, and completely unfair, but "the law" falls on the side of the corporation being more knowledgeable and less likely to make an error. Even if the bank has been known to swindle their customers.
All the contracts are created in dollar terms. You might think this is fair. You borrowed money, and they expect to be paid back in money. However, you, trade your time/work/effort for money, and they just print it out of thin air. Money does not mean the same thing to each party.
The mortgage/loan is so lopsided, that one person sued the bank, stating that they offered nothing in the contract, so therefor the contract was invalid. The bank never put any of their money into the deal. And when you have a contract, both parties have to contribute something (it cannot be a gift). The court case was found in favor of the homeowner, which actually became a homeowner and the mortgage was determined invalid.
I specifically pointed out "homeowner" because under today's mortgage contracts, you are the "tenant". No where within, are you the homeowner. Even after you pay the mortgage off.
The banksters do not play fair
Banks should stay out of Real Estate
It is not bad enough that banksters are playing games with the money, but did you know they are also the ones behind making houses scarce? Both by "encouraging" municipalities to enact minimum house sizes, and making cost adding construction standards.
The banksters also decide which housing projects get built and when. You don't think that the banksters aren't playing favorites when they decide which tract builder gets loans? While also making people who want to build their own homes jump through soooo many hoops, and paying through the nose for "construction loans".
Most people believe that this is just the way it is, but it is not, it was made this way.
The Amish put up a new house for a new family in almost no time. And when it is finished being built, it is all paid for.
Loan Contracts, if they were actually fair.
A contract between two people is fair when done in dollars. The baker and the candlestick maker have the same problem of turning their wares into a medium of exchange. The banks make money, while the person paying the loan has to turn whatever they do into dollars. How is that fair? (or of equal consideration?)
(And the banksters don't have to play the game of getting deposits to balance out the loans made anymore)
Under the loan/mortgage, the lender takes on almost no risk, while the borrower takes on huge risk, from all angles, including acts of God. The banksters make sure that they will get paid, or have collateral to minimize their losses. And, what are they really risking? Money they printed out of thin air. Lets say it was a farmer who got the mortgage, this person takes on the risks of, bad weather/bad harvest, bumper crop making all the food prices drop. Seed prices/feed prices dramatically rising. Diseases the destroy crops/cattle. Bandits, wildfires, hail storms… all of these the farmer has to deal with, and the banksters do not care, just give us "our" money.
Then this farmer, who is a professional at growing crops, has to turn into a salesman, and turn his crops into money.
Further, the farmer has to be wary of banksters coming and selling him vaporware. Specifically the banksters went around selling loans to buy tractors which would make the farmer able to create more grain… which ended up with a lot of grain that couldn't be sold, because many tractors, made a lot more. So, no one had the money to pay the loan, and the banksters got the farms.
If we wanted to make the loans fair, the bankster should be paid in kind. Like bushels of wheat. The banksters should also be in the same pot as the farmer, if bad things happen. But, they are not. They have foisted all the risk onto the borrowers, and are able to do this because they have made themselves the only source of money.
The bankster are evil through and through.
Ford said …revolution by tomorrow morning.
However, things have gone on so long and gotten so bad, that when the public finally realizes how bad the banksters have been, there won't be a bankster to be found err the morrow comes.
Their are prophesies of jevvs fleeing America. The banksters will be that hated.
People will follow them to the ends of the earth and dig up their bunkers.
You have failed to mention the point of the suit. the bank literally never had any money they loaned to the borrower. Banks do not hand over money they already have when they make a 'loan'. That money you have 'borrowed' is just a credit in your account at the bank. It never existed prior to the loan being made. When you pay the bank is when the bank gets the money that it says you were lent.
That's why he won the case. He wasn't actually loaned any money at all. The bank just said he had money in his account. That's how commercial lending works to this day. Whatever money is said to have been lent to borrowers doesn't exist in the coffers of the bank, but they credit the borrower on their books. That's where money comes from and why we call it a 'debt based monetary system'.
I'm going to restrain the rant that is bursting below the surface about how banks are swindling thieves for whom hanging is too good.
Thanks!
Your reply is upvoted by @topcomment; a manual curation service that rewards meaningful and engaging comments.
More Info - Support us! - Reports - Discord Channel
Push all that rage into a blog!
But still, even when we know all this, even when we know how many were screwed over by Wells Fargone, there are still people who say they love banking there.
@valued-customer you should start a blog no joke
anyway on the topic of bankz, please watch the last 5mins of this vid...skip to 48mins. Guaranteed worth your time.
It is difficult to understand what he means by the Certificate of Live Birth, and how it enables him to claim he is a benefactor whom is a creditor of the debt, owed by the trust that the Birth Certificate assigns us as beneficiaries of the Trust, whom own the debt the beneficiaries owe. I have no idea how to get such a document, or what court action he plead guilty to and attached his bill for the money owed the benefactors of that trust. I think you have linked this before, and I have seen it before, but neither understood then.
My best guess is the earlier discussion when he speaks about symbolizing the surname with all caps, italics, or underline, the cross symbol, and etc, are an attempt to explain, but I fail to understand how differentiating between the surname and the Christian name are achieved by his Certificate of Live Birth, or where to get such document.
I agree wholly that any such scheme has not been known to me, not been agreed to by me, and I have not signed knowingly any contract to that effect. It is a tenet of common law that consent requires compos mentus, that we must be competent to sign a contract that obligates us, or such contract is null and void, and being deceived that there is no such trust or assets, or our assignation as beneficiaries annuls our status as benefactors, renders any such signature on any such document or contract void, as if it had never been done. Fraud is not enforceable by any lawful court, and this is the precedent I am familiar with. However I am not aware of any lawful court, while perhaps Justice Courts at the county level may be such courts, I am not certain they are particularly lawful either, as in Oregon my recollection is they are under the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon, which I suppose by these testimonies to be part of the admiralty piracy, the trust system Romley treats. As a child non compos mentus, my parents made such decisions for me, presumably similarly deceived, but now I am not a child, and no decisions by my parents to encumber me obligate me to suffer such encumbrance, and I am compos mentus today to be properly availed such opportunity to contract or to decline if such party as the trust concerned has interest in my assent and obligation thereby. None such has done so, nor informed me of the existence of assets I am owed by that trust, which I do not assent to exercise my authority to administer on my behalf. I reckon I can do that just fine myself.
As to a blog, I have the valued-customer account here. I have considered other venues from time to time, but there is a learning curve to each and all of them, and while I am sure I could work it out, they all seem to have problems, such as substack is causing presently by demanding it's creators in Oz meet the requirements of the new ID law - even though it's not required to meet the standards of that law - or be locked out of their accounts. I don't think Hive can do that, there being no corporate office that can be held responsible to do that, sent notice, or sued, charged, accused or any such thing, of failure to comply. Perhaps the several witnesses can be held accountable to their jurisdictions to approve code that achieves the purposes of those several states, but it would be a more unwieldy process in which all the jurisdictions of all the consensus witnesses would have to adopt identical requirements and severally apply such responsibility concurrently, which is possible for them to do, but not currently their practice.
[Edit: such code would also have to be produced, which I doubt with a degree approaching certainty would prove competent to function. Further, that unwieldy process of coordinating jurisdictions, writing code, and so forth would take plenty of time to enable a hard fork to render the whole matter moot, because we could all join Gleep and leave Hive subject to that order without effect on Gleep. Changing witnesses would be simple enough and different jurisdictions would then be required to repeat the process, which could just be dodged again.]
In many ways Hive approaches lawful operation according to the common law, and while I'm not certain of it, I suspect the code that enables stakeholders to tax earnings and return them to the rewards pool may comply with common law. Rewards, rewards pools, and downvotes that tax creators, haven't before been considered under common law, and the claim of injured parties afflicted by such taxation hasn't been adjudicated by a jury sat for the purpose. I hope such downvotes taxing creators absent justifiable cause aren't lawful, because it is an injury suffered by creators, and the sophistry that the rewards haven't been paid out yet so they aren't actually the creator's yet is a false claim. Your wages aren't paid minute by minute either, and there is a withholding period during which taxes are withheld from them while they haven't been paid to you, but that doesn't mean they aren't your wages and owed you. The authority of states to tax is wholly different from the authority of stakeholders availed the ability by written code to tax with downvotes, and because taxation is theft and was not applicable by Congress authorized by the Constitution, a common law document, I think that such taxation isn't lawful on Hive either according to the common law, particularly not absent any justification for punitive purpose, and this is why so many flaggots have claimed so many reasons they flew the flags, such as spam, scam, plagiarism, and that most obnoxious, disagreement with rewards - which I think is just the same thing as saying 'I want to take your money'.
That's just blatant theft, as all taxation is in truth, but because the state must have money to effect it's claimed lawful purposes, such as the common defense, it must have a way to get that money, and tariffs are an example of a mechanism that only steals from foreign producers of goods for sale the lawfulness of such mechanism of taxation is far less onerous than the direct taxation of income, or of wages (which aren't the same thing at all). Anyway, I'm not aware anyone has attempted to empanel a grand jury under common law and consider prosecuting the matter, nor is there a common law jurisdiction or court I am aware of to do so, but certainly can be established under common law by sovereign people. Whether stakeholders on Hive would pay any attention to it, or whether any adjudication by such court could lawfully be enforced against Hive stakeholders are additional questions I cannot answer, but I expect they can be if majority stakeholders, particularly, will agree to observe common law.
Decentralization and anarchy is not lawlessness, after all, and I reckon the majority of Hive stakeholders might agree they are obligated to observe the application of common law to them and others. In the almost ubiquitous agreement that suppression of spam, scams, and plagiarism is desirable we glimpse that interest in applying the common law, as well as operations intended to prevent hacking and outright theft of accounts, and fraudulent dealings like circle jerks, botnets, and AI content. These are all elements of common law and seemingly natively agreed upon by Hive stakeholders across multiple nations, countries, polities, and jurisdictions, speaking a variety of languages and from every culture with access to the internet. This suggests the common law is ubiquitous and inherent to humanity, as Blackstone implies, written by God and applied to all men.
I wonder what @commonlaw thinks of this.
Thanks!
You need to watch the entire Justinian Deception youtube channel vids from start to finish to understand.
For a quick skip, if you already understand dog latin and you understand how the system took the sire name or family name and legalized (aka patented into becoming their property; then changing dictionary definitions of sire name, and slowly erasing such usages in society, replacing with "surname") it in their rendition within the system, known as Surname, then skip to his two vids (both 45mins) called BIRTHING-CERTIFICATES and LANGUAGE-OF-BABYLON
It's unlikely the user common law knows about this either. In fact, most in the "get out the system" movement such as freeman of the land, those trying to get the Cestui Que Vie, or those trying to correct their status by usage of the legal fiction, or those in the quantum parse grammer syntax, or the people who use the American way via the Assumed Named Certificate, cannot wrap their head around the fact that the surname belongs to the system, because they patented it.
How they patented it is a work of art. By watching Romley's vids and Rohan's on JD2 prosecutions rumble channel, you will know.
War is upon us elder-friend. Making articles like these will not serve you. It only serves as intellectual masturbation. It's come time to protect yourself against this system; your guns or my fists will be nullified if we are still in their system. That is the backdoor.
As a further resource, if you can understand what a National is, what a citizen is, what a occupier of a territory is, then knowing about the Vienna Convention and the International Humanitarian Law will serve you well. This is when your guns and my fists will find it's uses...
but until then, no matter what we say, as long as we keep the backdoor open, we are not nationals of our land; we have sided with the occupying forces of our land via the foreign-defacto governments who have usupred all lands via their corporative legal schemes (dog latin being the crux); we therefore have no rights to bare arms against whom we think are tyrannical (because we've sided with them unknowingly); we therefore can have all our assets stripped etc etc.
I am aware of dog latin, but not fluent in it, nor am I aware of any apps like Preply or schools like the Alliance Francaise that might teach me it. I do not understand sire name/surname effect at law, but grasp the concept that using a specific symbol or not can enter you into a system or not, such as the password to enter a speakeasy, or access to an account, such as the valued-customer account. So I grasp that using a symbol that mimics my actual name can enter me into jurisdiction of the land piracy that has replaced lawful governments on Earth.
The language of Babylon title reminds me that Khumric, which became Welsh, is claimed by some to be the language Egyptian Heiroglyphics represents in symbols. This seems a fantastic rabbit hole that might prove illustrative of how some of these legal machinations were devised. As I am not a linguist I have not plunged into that dark study, but your knowledge of languages far outshines mine, and you seem more familiar by far as well with the JD materials, so might find Khumric interesting.
Edit: I replied to the pre-edited comment, after which you added much.
This is indeed problematic. However the fact we are deceived deliberately from birth and are prevented from knowing the true obligations we undertake by so doing, lawfully and justly nullifies any such implied contract. The requirement that contracts specify the obligations signatories thereto undertake is violated by the deception intended to prevent us from understanding the actual obligations demanded of us. This is not lawful in the least.
That doesn't matter, of course, if it's able to be done. In the final analysis our rights are not negotiable. They aren't privileges. No contract, even should we be fully informed of it's effect, is able to dispense with our inherent rights, which are something we are comprised of, like our blood and guts. We are able to be coerced, even killed, by brigands, and we better be able to defend ourselves regardless of contracts, deception, or any power whatsoever, or we will be subjugated in durance vile.
Taxation is theft. Property is an expression of our will, and only brigands seek our property through subjugation. This is the essence of the common law, the law of nature, of God, if you will. Enormous and inordinate complexity has been employed in the imposition of such brigandry to steal our property, and regardless of every symbolic deceit, is contrary to the bare fact of our inherent and inalienable rights to our property, our lives, and our right to defend them from theft.
We have no less right to defend ourselves than dogs, and dogs will defend their lives. If we can not, then we are less than dogs, and that is blatantly not true. Whatever the claims of our deceivers seeking to reduce us to chattel, our sovereignty isn't imperiled. Our natural right to defend us from depredation can only end with our lives. Whether we exercise our rights successfully or not is a different matter, subject to negotiation and trial.
We may profit by surmounting their tricks to prevent their depredations by their conjured pretense of authority, but it's a pretense and no such authority exists. Power does exist, and that is a horse of a different color. Facing the reality that the people are deceived and schlep to courts to deliver their property when demanded, and neither will defend us from that expectation, it seems far preferable to employ such legal machinations to defend us rather than resorting to force of arms without the support of the militia of free men.
We are not constrained to do so. We are not required to be wise or have understanding to have rights. We are sovereign whether we can express it or not. We ARE our rights, and whether we are smart or not, whether we are strong or not, this can't be changed about us - even if we are convinced of it. Clearly it is better to succeed to defend our rights with ballots than to fail with bullets; to win in a contest of words rather than lose in a war at arms, and you are wise to seek to do so, if only because should we lose with words we are not prevented from winning with war. However the reverse is not true, and if we fall in the field there will be no further contest: all our property will be taken from our cold, dead fingers, over our dead bodies.
What do they have to compare it to? They like money, and the bank gives them money. They're in love!
Munies are bad,....
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
The glories of money...