This Blew My Mind.

I was listening to an audio file, and something the guy said just hit me up side the head with the lights turning on.

Here is the gist of the revelation:

How many parties are there to a contract? (Answer: at least 2)

OK, Now look at the instrument called a Deed of Trust.

How many parties signed the instrument? (Answer: Only one- You and your wife are considered one party, or parties of the first part)

Is that Deed of Trust a contract?

This same thing applies for your Credit Card App, and anything else only YOU signed.

Prove me wrong. They never agreed to be bound to the terms of the "alleged" contract.

Bob

[test]

I think what the credit card folks do would be termed "unilateral agreement", not even "unilateral contract".

Check out the videos on this site:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/

[Jerseee]

Mr. Incredible,

Good critical read and listening skills!!! However, they did not have to be bound by the terms since they created the terms.

The owner of a thing can do as he/she wishes with the thing. The user of the thing owned by the owner are bound by the owner's rules--even if they are ever changing rules.

Since they created the terms, they own the terms. Since the ALL CAPS person agreed to the terms, that's good enough for a contract since the ALL CAPS person had a choice to either accept or reject the offer.

What say you?

Originally Posted by Mr. Incredible

I was listening to an audio file, and something the guy said just hit me up side the head with the lights turning on.

Here is the gist of the revelation:

How many parties are there to a contract? (Answer: at least 2)

OK, Now look at the instrument called a Deed of Trust.

How many parties signed the instrument? (Answer: Only one- You and your wife are considered one party, or parties of the first part)

Is that Deed of Trust a contract?

This same thing applies for your Credit Card App, and anything else only YOU signed.

Prove me wrong. They never agreed to be bound to the terms of the "alleged" contract.

Bob

[Campy]

When a PN or application (contract) is signed by you, it is altered after you give it to them (back of note, stamped and directed to next party) Thats why gettingn the original is crucial. But in a contract, I am told there needs to be a meeting of the mids...full disclosure, regardless of a second signature and thats why there are most likely grounds for suit because there are major difference between "knowing vs signing".

Does anyone have cases on knowing vs signing?

Campy

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Mr. Incredible,

Good critical read and listening skills!!! However, they did not have to be bound by the terms since they created the terms.

The owner of a thing can do as he/she wishes with the thing. The user of the thing owned by the owner are bound by the owner's rules--even if they are ever changing rules.

Since they created the terms, they own the terms. Since the ALL CAPS person agreed to the terms, that's good enough for a contract since the ALL CAPS person had a choice to either accept or reject the offer.

What say you?

If they created the terms, then they are definitely bound by them, yes? Otherwise, it's fraud in the inducement.

But, as Grantor, YOU (me) create the trust, and if no one accepts it, is it valid?

I believe they don't sign it because they know it would finalize the fraud.

Is an offer valid with no signature, even if they did create it? Couldn't anyone type up a deed of trust?


Just my opinion.

[theghost]

Mr. Incredible, Dan Benham discusses these facts/issues on mysteriesofthemind.com audio archives. Is this where you heard it? If not, check them out, they are excellent, and a must hear. Download them and listen to them over and over, they are a wealth of great information. I loved your new movie, by the way.


QUOTE=Mr. Incredible]I was listening to an audio file, and something the guy said just hit me up side the head with the lights turning on.

Here is the gist of the revelation:

How many parties are there to a contract? (Answer: at least 2)

OK, Now look at the instrument called a Deed of Trust.

How many parties signed the instrument? (Answer: Only one- You and your wife are considered one party, or parties of the first part)

Is that Deed of Trust a contract?

This same thing applies for your Credit Card App, and anything else only YOU signed.

Prove me wrong. They never agreed to be bound to the terms of the "alleged" contract.

Bob[/quote]

[Jerseee]

Good point. Ever heard of a blank check? ever heard of someone signing a blank contract and the promoter fills it in later?

Something to think about...

Originally Posted by Mr. Incredible

If they created the terms, then they are definitely bound by them, yes? Otherwise, it's fraud in the inducement.

But, as Grantor, YOU (me) create the trust, and if no one accepts it, is it valid?

I believe they don't sign it because they know it would finalize the fraud.

Is an offer valid with no signature, even if they did create it? Couldn't anyone type up a deed of trust?


Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Good point. Ever heard of a blank check? ever heard of someone signing a blank contract and the promoter fills it in later?

Something to think about...

Look what I just found in the Rice McLeod Redemption Manual:

"The government then came up with a solution to the lawful contract and it is called the "Unilateral Contract", or a one-signature contract. In their own description of the unilateral contract, it says that they were probably written up by a lawyer or a group of lawyers to commit fraud with the intent to extort monies from the signers. The lawful problem with these contracts (aside from the fact that they only have the signature of one party to the contract) is that they have many hidden traps to which the party is not aware of its contents. In many cases such as bank contracts of signatures for checking purposes, the contract is never shown to the depositor. All contracts pertaining to Corporations signed by a one party participant are fraud from their conception and are used to extort monies from the people. They cannot be enforced except with our permission or consent by assent."


Bob

[Jerseee]

Mr. Incredible,

I know of uni-lateral contracts. But what I am talking about is a thought process. I'm trying to get you to go much deeper into the issue and not just deal with what's on the surface.

So with this in mind and what you have just posted about unilateral contracts...what do you think is the solution?

You see, you can't stop them from doing something that the law allows. And unilateral contracts are okay--its just what happens afterwards is where the problem lies. So knowing this, what would you think a viable solution might be to protect yourself from this?

hint: A.R.R.

have fun

Originally Posted by Mr. Incredible

Look what I just found in the Rice McLeod Redemption Manual:

"The government then came up with a solution to the lawful contract and it is called the "Unilateral Contract", or a one-signature contract. In their own description of the unilateral contract, it says that they were probably written up by a lawyer or a group of lawyers to commit fraud with the intent to extort monies from the signers. The lawful problem with these contracts (aside from the fact that they only have the signature of one party to the contract) is that they have many hidden traps to which the party is not aware of its contents. In many cases such as bank contracts of signatures for checking purposes, the contract is never shown to the depositor. All contracts pertaining to Corporations signed by a one party participant are fraud from their conception and are used to extort monies from the people. They cannot be enforced except with our permission or consent by assent."


Bob

[MortgageFree]

Anyone know of any UPDATED banks or credit unions that don't use this non-friendly service? Alternative options to banks?

Thanks for your advice!

mortgagefree@excite.com