Topic: Please help! I got a lot of loans! (Read 153 times)

In a bank loan, the contract says there is a loan.
The bank ledger shows that there was no loan.
There is no way to repay a loan that doesn't exist.
The contract was broken right from the start by the bank by not making the loan.

All that is left is for the bank to be happy with the fee they received for setting up the paperwork. They should be happy that all the so-called borrowers don't sue them for breach of contract. As more and more people are finding out about the banks' breach of contracts, the suits will start happening.

learn contract law better..
you still have no clue

creating something is not the payment of the thing created
requesting something to be created is not the payment of the thing created
proof of the request is not the payment of the thing created

you trying to assume the: what, how or when something is created changes things and allows for a get out clause is a meaningless argument that wont result in a get out clause.
sorry it just wont

the contract is an agreement that the human needs to later pay X and have Y possessions at risk if they default. and thats all that counts

the only real get out clauses are:
* honour the contract and just pay up
* find proof the contract doesnt exist (request bank for copy and if they dont have it. it dont exist)
* threaten bankruptcy and come to a compromised payment plan of lower value, else they get nothing(but you get the consequences of the bankruptcy actions)

these are things i mentioned to you before and are the only directions should be advised people to try. not your waffly crap that you found on some freeman cultist site

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say. The signature certainly doesn't have value all by itself. The borrower could scribble his signature on the walls all day long, and it would be of no value to him (in most cases).

The borrower's signature isn't worth anything of value to most of the people in the world. They don't have anything to do with the loan.

The borrower's signature on the promissory note is worth the value of the loan listed on the promissory note. If he doesn't sign the note, generally speaking, he won't get the loan. The reason he went through all the hassle of the credit check and the talk with the banker is that he wanted the loan. He wouldn't have gone through the trouble if he didn't want the loan. So his signature on the note is worth it to him, because he gets the loan. He doesn't get the loan without his signature on the note. His signature on the note is very valuable to him. It is valuable to him in the amount of the loan.

The signature is worth it to the banker. He takes the promissory note, deposits it as a credit to his ledger, and then withdraws it in different form as a loan to the borrower. This means that he has the promissory note free and clear. Then he sells the note on the open market and makes a profit off the sale. He makes a profit even if he sells the note for less than its face value.

The buyers of the note only get perceived value, except if they make money down the road on their purchase of the note. But right in my post you quoted above, I suggested that you should Google "buying and selling of mortgage notes." All the people who buy and sell notes, only do it when the note is signed. The note is worthless without the signature. Some of these buyers and sellers might lose money. But if the borrower remains solvent and makes his payments on time, most of them will make money.

So, it is true that some signature somewhere might not have any value at all, and might only be a waste of time for the signer. But a signature on a promissory note has value for several people, and maybe a lot of people, depending on the circumstances.


Well, this is true regarding all kinds of verbal agreements. But some jurisdictions don't easily recognize verbal agreements. And if the parties are alone when they make the agreement, if one of them breaks the agreement, the other has to prove that there was an agreement before he can collect on it. This might be difficult for him if he doesn't have a recording or a video of the agreement being made.

Obviously there are all kinds of agreements set up without signatures. Our agreement to use this forum isn't made with the written signature. And the mods have already kicked many people off who broke the agreement in a bad way.

So, great. Now that we know that there are agreements that can be made without a signature, what does that have to do with the loan thing we are talking about?


They are absolutely buying the signature, right along with the paper. Check the OP. We aren't talking about somebody on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. But even there it is the signature. Stock brokers need to sign all kinds of paperwork to become stock brokers. This doesn't have anything to do with this thread.


Hey, man. Thanks for the training course in the particulars. Why don't you learn punctuation and grammar, and write a book?


That's reasonably correct. But you didn't make the proper comparison. The shop isn't a bank, authorized to create money with a borrower. Your strawberry doesn't fit this thread.


Of course a loan agreement isn't about how funds are created. The banks don't want people to know this stuff. People would become irate if they knew about this. They might even get the laws changed. So bankers don't make loan agreements about how money is created. They just let the process happen, and walk away with tons of profit for a few minute's work.


The borrower created the money when he signed the note. If the process goes all the way through and the borrower gets his money, he created the money. The bank ledger shows this.

You don't need bank services to create money. Get out a piece of paper, and write on it, "$1 franky1 dollar." You just created money. Probably nobody other than your wife will ever trade public dollars for your private money, but if they do, you could become rich.

Consider. Isn't this exactly what Bitcoin miners do all the time? They create private money (BTC) by mining, and there are some people who think it has value, and trade real, public money for it.


You got me on that one. In the OP, my assumption was that the joker was talking about money loans. Good thing he wasn't clearer about it. We might have missed out on all this fun.



My point in the OP was borrowing money from legal lending institutions. I even warned against defaulting on private loans, because private loans are absolutely not creations of new money. Such default harms the private lender.

But legal lending institutions (in the USA at least) aren't harmed at all by a default. Why not? Because the loan that is defaulted on was paid off before the borrower received the so-called loan money. It was paid off by the signed promissory note. That's what the bank ledgers show.

you have no clue
the signature is not worth the loan amount. the binding terms and conditions is the contract and the collateral at risk(personal possessions) is the collateral value. the signature just binds the contract

signatures are not needed to bind contracts and contracts are not needed to be a 'note' laws have many forms of contract so again the signature is not the significant thing.
the only reason to prefer a paper document with a signature is that there is less chance of identity theft as it needs a human hand signing it and not some hacker with a list of fake id's typing into some website
so paper contracts have less risk of complexity

traders behind the banks trading agreements are not buying the signature they are buying a proof that someone has put their assets at risk. it doesnt matter if its a note or a recorded voicecall. doesnt matter if its a signature or enough identity documentation/references attached to link the human to the contract.

also these traders dont buy at the contract value. they buy it at an assessed value of how much they can safely get back via asset seizure if the human defaults the agreement

if you go into a shop and say i want a strawberry. and i agree to pay $1 for it. that is not you creating the strawberry. that is you forming a sales contract of what you want and what your offering in exchange.
if you then take the strawberry without payment you have defaulted the verbal contract and thus police can get involved.

a loan agreement is not about how the funds are created its about the payment terms agree to.
it doesnt matter i the item in question was created over years and just stored. or created the minute of request.

the person making the loan did not create the money. else they would not need the banks services. it was the bank that created it on their computers.

by the way a loan does not have to be for money. and if its a product the loan does not require the exact product be returned plus extra. a loan can be for X and then an agreement that Y is the agreed return
where Y has nothing to do with X

EG i can make a contract with a neighbour where he gives me his lawnmower and i have to give him back a lawnmower and a bottle of beer. or i have to pay him in instalments and have my LED TV put up as collateral

please please please learn some basics

If the signature and the note have no value, then why doesn't the banker just loan the money without the signature and the note? If you think that money contracts have no value, try Googling "buying and selling of mortgage notes." It seems that there are a lot of people who disagree with you in the real world.

When it is proven that something in a contract is different than what the contract says it is, this is one of the basics of contract battles in law. If it says it is a loan, it better be a loan. When it is proven by bank ledgers to not be a loan, there is a contract problem.

There is a bank fee for writing up the loan contract. They are paid out of this fee. Even repayment of the false loan and interest is only purchasing ones good credit... for far more than it is worth.

You DID create money. Grocery store coupons are private money, just like the bank note is private money. All that the banker does for you is to trade your private money that you created, for public money.

Behind all the Internet non-signature contracts is a wet signature somewhere.

There you go with the freeman stuff again. You realize that debt collectors can go to jail for harassment if they don't back off at the request of the person they are harassing, don't you? When you win in court, you get a settlement, not a criminal record. But criminal records can be expunged through several methods, anyway.

the signature and the note has no value. its just a contract that holds a human being accountable and liable to have to pay up, either by the agreed payment plan or the agreed risk to the collateral of personal possessions.

its not the contract that has value. its the contract of collateral that can be obtained by that agreement

as for saying a loan is not a loan because you question how the origins of the funds came about.. sorry that stupid ploy does not work either
it does not matter how the thing being loaned was created. the contract is a 'meeting of the minds' that you owe the bank X for them doing something for you.

and that doing something for you could be anything. including creating money

YOU did not create the money. they did. YOU agreed to pay them for the funds they created

oh yea and by the way loans dont even need singatures either people can call up and do website loan applications to form the agreement. so atleast go do some real life research and realise the whole 'we ink value' has nothing to do with the wet ink signature being the value in itself

its just that by posting an application to a humans house or getting them to sign infront of a bank employee means that there is less requirement of identifying the human, thus less risk of any identity theft concerns

...
now if you want to know whats behind the curtain of how freeman try to get out of paying loans.
you know the 'la la la' stuff they dont like to reveal as its the actual things to try


here is their secret sauce
1. request the bank to provide a copy of the agreement to prove one exists (if the bank loses it. then they cant prove a loan even occured)
2. wait for it to go to a debt collector and ask the debt collector for proof of loan because if they dont have it they cant enforce the contract terms
3. at worse if first things dont work. threaten bankruptcy unless they are willing to come to a compromise of accepting pennies on the dollar

... but here is the problem even if you do this. you still may not be able to get what you want. they can still send the debt collectors around and they can still take you to court meaning that you then have a criminal record because thats the terms and conditions

You seem to forget the part about the contract for a loan. Doesn't the contract say that it was a loan to you the borrower from the bank? There was a meeting of the minds that says that it was a loan from the bank to you.

Then you find out that you were the creator of the funds that the bank merely traded for other funds, and that there was no loan. In other words, there wasn't a meeting of the minds after all. The contract is null and void for lack of meeting of the minds. The loan did not exist. Read my links above.

No meeting of the minds means no contract by contract law. Since you might have made payments on what you thought was a loan, the bank really owes this back to you. But most people are so happy to get out of the loan, that they don't seek to get the payment money back.

You really need to do a bit of studying about contracts and laws. Simple blabbing that the laws are wrong doesn't make it so.



BTW: Why do you keep on saying that the signature is not the value? Everyone understands that. All the signature does is creates the new money in the amount that is written on the paperwork. The note doesn't have value until it is signed. Once the note is signed, then it has value.

No wonder you don't understand how law works. You skew everything you read.

your the one proving you dont know. many samples of many topics and many people trying to correct you shows this.
the signature is not the value.

anyway. try to not use your freeman associates links. and dont misunderstand the non freeman stuff.. just seeing the stuff you linked made your failings obvious.

do some real research for once

by the way.
remember them terms and conditions o website memberships
they say please enter your email and click this button if you have read and fuly agree with the terms and condition..

by you doing as requested binds you to it.
it doesnt say 'dance bitch dance because i like to see you wiggle'
it doesnt say 'sign this document because i like the swoosh of your squiggles'
its to say you agree to be bound by the terms of the contract.

and its the content of the terms that are meaningful. you cant just say 'i didnt read it' and think your not bound by it.

in real law you have to find a clause in the contract that allows you to break the contract without penalty.
it involves understand the terms and conditions and content and not be playing foolish sci-fi mindames about the signature

an as predicted of what next waffle you may attempt. no pretending you go by a pronoun of a helcopter or a corporation or a dress wearing fairy will change anyones mind that you dont identify yourself as the human thats bound to the contract

Contracts are valid as long as the parties understand the terms of the contract. If they thought that they understood the terms and agreement at the time they signed the contract, but only later find out that they did not understand, the contract can be vacated for lack of meeting of the minds.

This doesn't mean that an equitable dissolution of the contract will be easy. That's what the courts are for... to help with an equitable dissolution.

But you don't really need to learn about contract law. You wouldn't understand it. So, go on your happy way. Ignorance is bliss... for you at least.

whats next are you going to numbskull some waffle that you think bitcoins value is not based on the movements of inputs and outputs and the values. but the signature itself is the value

sorry it is not. the signature just validates a contract that X ipput value moves to y output value(s)
try reading contracts. content and its the terms and conditions that are important. not the signature
the signature just is proof of validation that you agree to the terms

you are the one that has no clue of contract law
the signature is not the collareral in a agreement. the terms agreed of what is at risk of being taken(the penalty) is the collateral. the signature just makes it an agreement

money is not created due to value of the signature
its what is agreed to that is valued as if you do not repay as agreed, then they take the property that was agreed on as payment
the signature itself is not the value. its just the proof in court that holds you liable to the agreed terms

you utter idiot.
you are stuck in a decade old cult with mis-beliefs.

try actually reading a promissory note, a credit agreement. stop trying to find your freeman fanbase who obviously have no realworld experience.


a real promissory note. such as original 19th centuries bank notes were like
'i promise to pay the bearer the sum of 5 sterling pounds of silver on demand'
it wasnt 'heres my lovely signature isnt it beautiful'

It seems that you have signed credit agreements in ignorance of what you are really doing. People who have signed agreements are already in trouble by limiting their own ability to use their freedom.

If people are stupid and do stupid things, they will lose. Don't own a car and a house or anything else if you are afraid of losing them. Rather, place them into corporations and trusts and LLC's, like the wealthy do, so that they can't be lost if the man or woman loses a law suit.

Try to get a loan without signing the paperwork. This might be possible somewhere somehow. But generally it is not. So, the signature absolutely is a thing of value. However, if a lender doesn't want to loan to you, even the signature won't be of value.

If you don't think that you are loaning the bank money that you create when you sign the paperwork, study these:
https://freedom-school.com/money/the-borrower-should-repay-the-lender.pdf
https://apollosolaris.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tomschauf-topsecretbankersmanual2003_ocr_v-1.pdf
http://rodscontracts.com/docs/TomSchauf/002AmericanVotersVsBankers.pdf
https://www.freedom-school.com/two_faces_of_debt.pdf
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Modern_Money_Mechanics.pdf

The last two of the above are Federal Reserve Bank publications which show you that the bank never loans money. Rather, it simply makes a deposit of your signed note into an account, and then withdraws from that account to give you your loan. Bank ledger shows this. Tom Schauf, a former bank CPA shows this to you in the first 3 links, above. I know that you won't be able to understand this stuff, but I provide the links so that others can learn how we are being duped by the banking system.

It's about time you stop being a little slave troll. Wake up and learn contract law, and have the guts to use it. You are such a little whining sissy. Such a slavery lover! Wake up and smell the coffee. Such cowardice is unbecoming of anybody who posts as frequently as you do.

badecker and his freeman shit yet again
yet again linking channels featuring karl lentz. it seems you have not learned anything.
(facepalm)

badeker you have obviously never signed a credit agreement to know what really happens and all you can do is try refering people to bad advice of people that have no clue aswell and will just lead people into real trouble if that bad advice is followed.

badecker people can lose their possessions, car and house if following the bad advice. you utter idiot.
think before you type at how bad your bad advice can impact people

the signature is not the value
the signature is you signing an agreement that you are ok with being penalised if you do not pay. because no payment has been made by the signature. which means the need to recoup their losses somewhere
this is usually you agreeing that your possessions are put up as collateral and you are ok with debt collectors taking your stuff

the signature is not the value the signature just makes it easier in court for them to penalise you beause your agreeing to the penalties

by just not paying they can take the house, car and possessions as payment.

again the signature is not the value/payment. the signature is you accepting their condition.
its the conditions and penalties that you can incur that are important. as they are the true costs to you if you dont pay

you really are sucking up too much freeman coolaid.. you really need to get some real life experience in this stuff and stop just spoon feeding yourself freeman linked sites.

just wake up already and stop giving people bad advice

learn contract law.. not freeman fantasy
credit score is not the only thing at risk, you idiot

You already paid off the bank and credit card loans. When did you do this? When you signed the promissory note, or the credit application, etc.

What do I mean? I mean this. Did the paperwork you signed have any value before you signed it? That is, would they give you your loan without your signature on the paperwork? Of course not! Without your signature, the paperwork had no value. But when you signed the paperwork...

... it had enough value so that they gave you your loans. What this means is that you paid the loans off in advance of receiving the loans. How did you pay them off? With the valuable piece of paper that was given value by your signature on it. The lender thought the signed paperwork had so much value, that he gave your loan money. Value for value. You paid off your loan in advance of receiving it.

Now, your problem has to do with convincing the judge and jury of this. To help you with your studies to prepare you, learn everything here, and think about it deeply enough so that you understand it clearly - https://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos. Don't stop making payments until you understand what you are doing.

The thing that you are doing when you make payments is, you are buying and maintaining your credit score. If you stop paying, your credit score and rating will go down to zero. If you don't like the idea of having a low credit score or rating, the info at the website will show you how you can force the credit agencies (Experian, TransUnion, Equifax) to give you top credit ratings, or you will take it out of their funds in court.

If you happen to have some friends who loaned you some money, you can actually do the same thing to them. But don't. People operate on a different value system than the legal lending institutions do. You will hurt them if you don't repay them. Be a friend, and repay them. Friends are valuable.