From Australia

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

From Australia

Sue Em
This occurred over 10 months.  A young fellow had a bank loan issue - was meeting the payments but struggling around them and having to ask help from friends and family.  He asked the bank for relief and they responded by putting up the interest rates and threatened him with bankruptcy if he defaulted.

Anyway, lots went on, he went to a Salvation Army financial consultant who could not get the bank to assist, although she suggested he give the bank an offer.  The offer was that he pay the principal if they dropped the interest - no response.

He then went to the Cth Banking Ombudsman (who we now know is the complaints portal between the Cth (de jure) parliament and the Aust Govt (de facto) administration).  The bank has to respond to this persona as there is a compulsory cost attached to letters from the Ombudsman.  So although there were responses - there was still no resolution.  And all the time, this young fellow was making the payments - but slipping further behind personally and mentally.

The young fellow completed his reversion back to the Cth - but did not tell any legal body - was waiting for responses first.  Instead, within several days of sending the reversion out, the bank got in touch and accepted his offer, but expanded it - he pay principal only (with a bank initiated reduction in that amount), they dropped interests AND fees.

They set up the new contract, he asked for amendments, which they agreed to EXCEPT for one wherein he wanted them to state they would not onsell the contract.

He set the repayment amount - which they also accepted BUT it had to remain in a 7 year contract - had to be paid out in the 7 years.  

So for the first year, he paid the agreed principal monthly, although to discuss the payments he could not go to a regular bank teller but had to ring a certain number.  At the end of the first 12 months, he was due to begin a large payment to remain in the 7 years.  

Although he had caught up on a lot of the personal loans, at the end of the year, with inflated utility costs, he was still financially constrained, so he took a chance in asking the bank to leave the payments at the lower amount, which would have put the 7 years in jeopardy.  Considering he had set the amount - we felt the bank would not agree.

He spoke to the persons he had been dealing with and was told he had a very rare loan - a LIFE loan - and should keep up his side of the bargain, but they would get back to him.  He got a reply on the same day, accepting he would keep to the lower payments, and they reduced the final loan total!

So the conclusions we came to were these:
1.  by reverting the interest in his estate back to the Cth, the bank was informed it had no more access to
his legal estate.
2.  His offer therefore was their only way of accessing their compensation outside of piracy.
3.  Any further monies they "feel" they are owed would be claimed in compensation and/or insurance claims.

What is also of great interest is the 7 year Life Loan.  Keeps within the C'est Que Vie act.  

The young fellow was aware that he could try and push the matter to a non-payment conclusion - but he had received a benefit from the loan and felt that he should treat it as a "lay-by" in some capacity - remaining honorable to cover what he had received in benefits.  

I would be interested in any extra thoughts on this result.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: From Australia

iamsomedude
Administrator
the REVERSION assigns the FUTURE interest ... the bank received this NOW, thus collapses that side of the Ledger.

Your friend is still holding the NAKED OWNERSHIP interest of which is the PRINCIPAL, the Treasury does not HOLD this interest YET, thus can not possibly holder-in-due-course of business to service this interest as Principal.

This is all corrected via a simple "declaration of surrender" for all court cases / debt collections are INTERNATIONAL because the Federal Reserve Bank is PRIVATE and the currency underwriting a transaction ALWAYS defines the TRUE jurisdiction of the resulting Contract of which operates within a TRUST because the PUBLIC is BANKRUPT, but acts AS-IF it were a PEACE broker, thus can monetize ANY breach of peace via Statutes, Codes, Rules, and Regulations and a Court Case is nothing more than a Declaration of War against a belligerent for the belligerent is WITH HOLDING an interest of which the PUBLIC is the Intended Beneficiary.

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: From Australia

derek moran
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: From Australia

Sue Em
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
iamsomedude wrote
This is all corrected via a simple "declaration of surrender" for all court cases / debt collections are INTERNATIONAL because the Federal Reserve Bank is PRIVATE and the currency underwriting a transaction ALWAYS defines the TRUE jurisdiction of the resulting Contract of which operates within a TRUST because the PUBLIC is BANKRUPT, but acts AS-IF it were a PEACE broker, thus can monetize ANY breach of peace via Statutes, Codes, Rules, and Regulations and a Court Case is nothing more than a Declaration of War against a belligerent for the belligerent is WITH HOLDING an interest of which the PUBLIC is the Intended Beneficiary.

Boris - the reversionary paperwork the young fellow put together was a Declaration of Peace under the Covenant of Grace & Redemption.  He included the Form of Live Birth and the Birth Certificate and it was sent to every relevant Commonwealth body.  I know he apologized for any belligerance he created and stated he would act in peace at all times.    

In Australia we have found that reversions that hold a foundation of God's law and are not written in legal terms, have been very successful in restoring peace in legal matters.  Simply referring to God's law has not been successful until the reversionary paperwork is done.  So combining the 2 works very well for that part of any problem.


iamsomedude wrote
the REVERSION assigns the FUTURE interest ... the bank received this NOW, thus collapses that side of the Ledger.
Your friend is still holding the NAKED OWNERSHIP interest of which is the PRINCIPAL, the Treasury does not HOLD this interest YET, thus can not possibly holder-in-due-course of business to service this interest as Principal.
So, if I understand this right - the reversion to the Cth "paid out" the future interest on the loan.?  Thus the only debt that bank could claim was the principal - which was under the agreed control of the young man?

Given the Dec of Peace in the reversionary documents were sent to the Treasury and the young man accepted the role of the holder of the office of Executor and appointed the governor-general of the Cth as the Trustee - what have we missed?

Is the Declaration of Surrender a specific document of financial surrender (returning to Caesar) then?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: From Australia

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
 
 
The Declaration we have put together is found within the Turnabout Docs I put into the post regarding the "Turnabout is ALWAYS Fair Play"

Try aligning your thoughts to something more like:

There really is nothing to "pay-out," there is only MERGER and CONSOLIDATION

CONSOLIDATION, civil law. The union of the usufruct with the estate out of which it issues, in the same person which happens when the usufructuary acquires the estate, or vice versa. In either case the usufruct is extinct. In the common law this is called a merger. Ley. El. Dr. Rom. 424. U. S. Dig. tit. Actions, V. 2. Consolidation may take place in two ways: first, by the usufructuary surrendering his right to the proprietor, which in the common law is called a surrender; secondly, by the release of the. proprietor of his rights to the usufructuary, which in our law is called a release.

When the usufruct was assigned to the Bank, the bank received its Estate in Expectancy (RELEASE of the usufructuary interest) which then settles the "debt"... When it is done this way, the "usufruct-naked owner" interests are NOT held in the Treasury under TWO distinct Trusts (usufruct - named owner), thus the Principal (naked ownership - usufructuary MEGER interest) is still held by your friend as PROPRIETOR (Trustee).

The Estate from which those TWO interests arise is the Living Soul. When those interests are held in Trust within the Treasury, the Treasury NOW holds BOTH interests it needs as holder-in-cure-course of those interests held in Trust allowing the Treasury to EXTINGUISH debt-obligations incurred during the operation of the NAME in PUBLIC by the one using such as PROPRIETOR (Trustee).
 
Read the Declaration of Surrender from the Turnabout Docs and Listen to the Turnabout Talkshoe Audio; the Declaration of Surrender also ACCEPTS what has been done by way of operation of law and EXPRESSES these TWO Trusts within the Treasury in fulfillment of the law.

These TWO trusts will now act like the Containers as discussed within Meet the Yokar.
 


~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: From Australia

Sue Em
Thank you - I am reading, reading, reading.....will be back.