How a Judge in a Foreclosure Case could Solve the Foreclosure/Taxation Crisis

I am not an attorney, but if I were a judge in such a case, if the person that borrowed the money on a note and mortgage for a house went to court in a foreclosure case and the bank couldn't produce the note and mortgage and prove that they were owed the money and if the borrower signed a Declaration of Sovereignty as a Sovereign individual, not a subject/citizen, I would rule that the borrower would go ahead and make the payments to the various levels of government, let's say for example, consisting 2% of the interest and 1/3 of the principal to the city, 2% of the interest and 1/3 of the principal to the county, and 2% of the interest and 1/3 of the principal to the state, and 0% of the interest and 0% of the principal to the federal government (because the federal government allowed the international banker scam to exist in the first place, continue in the second place, and may have been created to bring this scam into fruition in the third place.)

Once the financial entity has not proven they properly own the note and mortgage within a reasonable time period, I would not allow them to come back later in an attempt to prove they own the note and mortgage. This would be their penalty for not doing things properly to begin with, but not only that, this would be correctly ruled because the private bankers have been the sole purpose that we have had any and all forms of taxation in this country from the very beginning and this form of economic model cannot persist to continue.

How would I as a judge decide if a lender had a right to a debt on a note and mortgage? Here is how I would decide. If the lender actually lent their own money to a borrower and had proven they had legitimately signed, witnessed and notarized documents to prove it, then that lender would have a right to a debt on that note and mortgage. However, if a so-called lender purchased a note and mortgage from a bank chartered by the federal reserve system whereby the original note is created because of money that is created 'out of thin air', that lender would be involved in a conspiracy of racketeering with the federal reserve system itself. Any lender purchasing a note and mortgage from a federal reserve bank that has created money 'out of thin air' would not legitimately have any rights to a debt on such a note and mortgage. Additionally, of course, any original bank that created money 'out of thin air' (most probably a federal reserve bank) in the first place would not have a right to a debt on a note and mortgage.

The only legitimate bank that could be authorized to 'create money out of thin air' would be a bank that is completely owned and operated by a national government for the benefit of all its people. In the so-called 'united States' that would not be a bank run by the federal government. It would be a bank specifically and completely owned and operated by a state government whereby the money is loaned into circulation (not spent into circulation) and the interest on the note is used to fund the operation of the people's government bank as well as the government itself, federal government excluded. (Eric WhoRU Williams would include funding the federal government but this writer would not because the federal government has been so deceptive and destructive in the past, funneling trillions of dollars off shore to international bankers and rogue governments around the world while dominating other countries and killing innocent men, women and children, how can we ever trust them again?)

Furthermore, I would completely revamp the balance of the loan into a term and payment that would reasonably be within the budget of the borrower.

As a judge, I would make sure that the mortgage, now being paid to the government, would be a simple interest mortgage that accrues interest monthly, and is simple interest except when it allows negative amortization instead of one that accrues simple interest daily.

I would also rule that since the borrower is a Sovereign individual, as evident by the Declaration, that furthermore HE IS EXEMPT FROM ANY INCOME TAX, ANY OVERTLY TACKED ON SALES TAX, and ANY PROPERTY TAX for the rest of his life. Hidden taxes would still be paid by this borrower until such time as the economic model of the No Tax Commonwealth could effectively be implemented. (Of course a judge these days would probably not rule on the status of a person in this way. They would reason or claim that this status would be unrelated to the case, but when looking at the whole economic circumstances and system of taxation and banking, if I were a judge, I would rule on it most expeditiously.
~~ gene karl, an anti-federalist understudy of Eric WhoRU Williams, who may have a slightly different opinion from his mentor, 2011.

How my ruling on this matter has evolved.

Originally, after listening to Eric WhoRU Williams, I developed the opinion that it is okay to rule that the so-called borrower doesn't pay the bankers a dime because of their 'create money out of thin air' banking fraud. Eric and I both agree on that I believe. However, Eric says that the people in the community that built the house haven't been paid. (I believe it is correct that they have. However, the government charged with protecting the life, liberty and property at that entity have not.) Eric concludes that the so-called borrower should not be allowed to 'steal' the house and that they would make payments to the government instead of the federal reserve bankers. Here is where I have in the past slightly disagreed with Eric. I have thought that it would be okay to rule that the so-called borrower doesn't pay anyone a dime when the so-called lenders cannot prove they are due the payments on the note. I reasoned that the home builders have already been paid, which I am pretty sure is the case, so why not screw the bankers back after they tried to defraud the so-called borrowers in more ways than one.

However, here is a little problem with that. First of all, we would still have to pay taxes because we would still be dealing with an extortion tax type economic system that should be corrected with a Commonwealth No Tax Economic Model. The government charged with protecting the life, liberty and property at that entity still needs to be funded and taxation as a source of funding is theft and is totally unacceptable.

Second of all, a popular belief in the 'freedom movement' is that instead of the private federal reserve banking system, we should instead have a system of smaller private banks to provide lending services to the general public. What? That is a smoke screen whereby the private international bankers can still gain their massive profits and their foothold into corrupting the system once again further into the abyss of debt. The very definition of 'bank' includes the power to create money 'out of thin air'. That power cannot be permitted to operate within private entities. That is a power that should only be reserved to local government entities operated by Sovereigns who have stepped down to be servants of the people operating a Commonwealth for the People who are not citizen/subject/slaves. That power must be shared among a Sovereign populace so that its benefits can be used to pay all the taxes of the government so as to not subjugate the People. Besides that, tell me, in such a system of private banks proposed by other advocates, how are you going to eliminate all taxation? You can't.

When I discussed this with a very good talk show host actively involved in foreclosure litigation and he told me how he would resolve the system with that same popular proposal (an idea promulgated by the private bankers I am sure) of having private bankers use gold and silver coin as money, basically trying to promote the concept that no money would be created out of thin air by these private banks, all the while forgetting that right now the super rich control the majority of all the gold and silver in the world, all the while forgetting that gold and silver will not work very well as money in today's electrical society as explained by Eric WhoRU Williams, all the while forgetting that the private bankers would be making all that passive 'income' as well while the rest of the populace would be subjected to a subject/citizen/slave status commonly classified as 'taxpayers'. That is when I decided for myself that no... we can't be lenient here. We need to go ahead and support the funding of the local and state governments with the No Tax Commonwealth model and have the payments being made to these local governmental entities. In fact, every judge that has any mortgage case in dispute should rule accordingly, cut the federal reserve right out of the picture and direct the payments of the notes over into the funding of the local governments. We cannot afford to have a stalemate and then end up with a different result. We must establish the No Tax Commonwealth model as quickly as possible. The time value of money is powerful. Let's spread this truth everywhere.

Short study on banks

Bouvier's Law Dictionary does a good job of keeping it simple yet revealing the truth about banks.

BANK, com. law. 1. A place for the deposit of money. 2. An institution, generally incorporated, authorized to receive deposits of money, to lend money, and to issue promissory notes, usually known by the name of bank notes. 3. Banks are said to be of three kinds, viz : of deposit, of discount, and of circulation; they generally perform all these operatious. Vide Metc. & Perk. Dig. Banks and Banking.

BANKBOOK ,commerce. A book which persons dealing with a bank keep, in which the officers of the bank enter the amount of money deposited by them, and all notes or bills deposited by them, or discounted for their use.

BANK NOTE, contracts. A bank note resembles a common promissory note, (q. v.) issued by a bank or corporation authorized to act as a bank. It is in fact a promissory note, but such notes are not, for many purposes, to be considered as mere securities for money; but are treated as money, in the ordinary course and transactions of business, by the general consent of mankind and, on payment of them, when a receipt is required, the receipts are always given as for money, not as for securities or notes. 1 Burr. R. 457; 12 John. R. 200; 1 John. Ch. R. 231; 9 John. R. 120; 19 John. 144; 1 Sch. & Lef. 318, 319; 11 Ves. 662; 1 Roper, Leg. 3; 1 Ham. R. 189, 524; 15 Pick. 177; 5 G. & John. 58; 3 Hawks, 328; 5 J. J. Marsh. 643.

2. Bank notes are assignable by delivery. Rep. Temp. Hard. 53 9 East, R. 48; 4 East, R. 510 Dougl. 236. The holder of a bank note is prima facie entitled to prompt payment of it, and cannot be affected by the fraud of any former holder in obtaining it, unless evidence be given to bring it home to his privity. 1 Burr. 452; 4 Rawle, 185 13 East, R. 135 Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.; Pow. on Mortg. lndex, h. t. U. S. Dig. h. t. Vide Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t. Note; Promissory note; Reissuable note.

3. They cannot be taken in execution. Cunning. on Bills, 537; Hardw. Cases, 53; 1 Arch. Pr. 268 1 Wils. Rep. 9 Cro. Eliz. 746, pl. 25

BANKER, com. law. A banker is one engaged in the business of receiving other persons money in deposit, to be returned on demand discounting other persons' notes, and issuing his own for circulation. One who performs the business usually transacted by a bank. Private bankers are generally not permitted.

2. The business of bankers is generally performed through the medium of incorporated banks.

3. A banker may be declared a bankrupt by adverse proceedings against him. Act of Congress of 19th Aug. 1841. See 1 Atk. 218; 2 H. Bl. 235; 1 Mont. B. L. 12.

4. Among the ancient Romans there were bankers called argentarii, whose office was to keep registers of contracts between individuals, either to loan money, or in relation to sales and stipulations. These bankers frequently agreed with the creditor to pay him the debt due to him by the debtor. Calvini Lex. Jurid

A complicated short study on banks obfuscating the ability of banks to create money out of thin air.

Hypothecation compared to Rehypothecation

Hypothecation is the practice where a borrower pledges collateral to secure a debt. The borrower retains ownership of the collateral, but it is "hypothetically" controlled by the creditor in that he has the right to seize possession if the borrower defaults. A common example occurs when a consumer enters into a mortgage agreement, where the consumer's house becomes collateral until the mortgage loan is paid off. The detailed practice and rules regulating hypothecation vary depending on context and on the jurisdiction where it takes place. In the US, the legal right for the creditor to take ownership of the collateral if the debtor defaults is classed as a lien.

Rehypothecation is a practice that occurs principally in the financial markets, where a bank or other broker-dealer reuses the collateral pledged by its clients as collateral for its own borrowing.

Friends, the hypothecation and rehypothecation of collateral may be okay but it is the power of the original creation of money 'out of thin air' that must ONLY be allowed, that must ONLY be permitted to occur when it is used to eliminate all taxation of the populace as proposed in the No Tax Commonwealth economic form of government, otherwise the general populace end up as citizen/subject/slaves. I repeat. The original creation of money and credit is a proper function of localized nation-states and not that of distant government like that in Washington, D.C. or the North American Union, or the United Nations, nor is it the the proper function of private international bankers, private national bankers, or even private local bankers. The creation of money and credit by private local bankers is one thing, but to allow any currency created by private bankers to be used as a national currency even to the point that it is used in the payment of taxes which shouldn't even exist in the first place, goes, I'm sorry, but it goes beyond any boundaries of decency and fair play.

Email me if I'm wrong.

Let's say a home buyer wants to so-called 'borrow' $100,000 from a bank to buy a house. The bank creates the $100,000 note and mortgage out of thin air and pays the home builder or home seller the $100,000 while at the same time creating a note and mortgage that the so-called 'borrower' is supposed to pay.

This original bank then sells the $100,000 note to another financial institution at a certain price, possibly at a discount. The so-called 'borrower' is now expected to pay the new note and mortgage holder in accordance with the terms of the note.

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

The original bank just made up to $100,000 depending on whether or not they sold the note and mortgage at a discount. Correct? Email me if I'm wrong. This is where some of the $100,000 gets funneled up through the federal reserve system to the international bankers, many of whom are offshore. Correct? Email me if I'm wrong.

The borrower has to typically pay around 3 times the principal on a 30 year note or $300,000. About $100,000 has just been paid to the original bank by the new financial institution that could be made of private investors who now stand to gain around $300,000 minus $200,000 or a net gain of about $200,000 over 30 years. But the original bank just made a cool approximation of $100,000 in a very short period of time which would be even a higher return on investment. Of course, the original bank has to funnel a portion of the loot up through the federal reserve channels of which a portion of which eventually makes it to the international bankster pirates. Wouldn't you say this is 'passive income'? Correct? Email me if I'm wrong.

Folks, you've got to look at what is going on here.
You have 3 major power centers controlling this operation.
1. The pope and the vatican. (The religious persecution arm.)
2. The City of London financial center within the city of London. (International bankers)
3. Washington, District of Columbia. (The military occupation and police state arm.)
The international bankers are getting interest payments made to them because of all the bogus national debt the federal government has supposedly gotten themselves into. Taxation is being used to fund that debt and those payments to the international banksters. The international banksters are also making lots of money with all the debt and interest supposedly owed to them by the general populace in mortgages and commercial loans. Then add insult to injury and you have many many church goers who toss 10% or so of their hard earned money as tithes into the offering plate to tax exempt 501c3 corporate churches including the catholic church where a portion of those tithes dropped into the Roman catholic offering plate inevitably and most probably end up in the coffers of the pope and the vatican.

We couldn't be in a more precarious and dangerous situation of massive concentration of power and wealth, could we?

How are mortgage, pledge and hypothecation different from each other?

THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY" (World Superstate) part 1
THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY" (World Superstate) part 2
Free Vermont!: FOX's "Big Story" on VT independence effort
Thomas Moore - Burlington VT Secessionist Convention
Solutions to N.W.O. chaos
Come Out of Her My People

WHERE TO?