Promissory Notes and Deeds of Trust

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

What nonsense. If you don't want to fool with the banks, pay cash. If you borrow, though, you'd better do what you promised to do and pay on time.

Geez, people, buying on credit is not an inalienable right.

How does one "pay" "cash" (LOL) without being a "fool with the banks?"

What is YOUR definition of "credit?"

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Chartered banking is not an inalienable right. As such there are restrictions, and questions of equity arise.

A contract can adjusted by the courts if need be, and there are many considerations here: legal, economic, practical, and political.

It's very rare for a court (outside of the bankruptcy context) to alter a contract's terms after the fact. The only example that comes readily to mind is a covenant not to compete, under which one party agrees not to engage in a business that competes with one being run by the other party. Courts often adjust the geographical area and/or the time period within which such covenants are enforceable. Sometimes, though, the covenants are totally unenforceable on public-policy grounds, especially where the party against whom enforcement is sought is a former employee.

The usual way to address perceived issues of fairness is to enact legislation that applies prospectively.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

all banks do is monetize the value of the property.

I doubt banks do that in order to create the illusion of a "loan," the bookkeeping antics with the promissory note creates that.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

So this is the racket- get legal title to all these houses etc, at no cost, screwing the owners out of their equity and forcing people into the street.

War IS a racket.

[indio007]

If you don't want to fool with the banks, pay cash.

How can you use a bank note aka cash without fooling with a bank?

Imagine this scenario and the question of the day...
I get a bank to "loan" me 100k.
I don't pay a red cent back to the bank... ever.
I just gained 100k and paid nothing.
Why isn't my 100k of income taxable?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

it is taxable- called "windfall profits" and informed on a 1099.

[phreeman2003]

Doesn't the author of that book claim there's a suspense
account (or some such category) to cover their assets (impending tax liability). That's a silent t, of course.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

it is taxable- called "windfall profits" and informed on a 1099.

Ah yes the 1099WP... I almost forgot.


There's no tax because there is an equal exchange of currency. Why do you suppose the interest is tax deductible?
It's because the FED or the FED affiliated bank you are dealing with may have posted a profit/income versus your currency.
If you didn't do anything with your alleged loan money the interest gained by you would be taxable.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Keep in mind I am a very "untaxed" individual here.

Originally Posted by indio007

There's no tax because there is an equal exchange of currency.

Thats why there is no tax on the initial loan transaction.

But when we are released from our side of the obligations, this is taken as an accession to wealth- there is no longer an 'equal-exchange': like you said, the 100k was for free.

Here's an argument for cost: getting that 100k did cost something anyway- goodwill, credit rating, investment expectations, intangible losses.

Someone has to bother with this so the burden of pursuit is elsewhere anyway. Not too worried regardless-I'll take a free 100k even if taxed.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

It's very rare for a court (outside of the bankruptcy context) to alter a contract's terms after the fact. The only example that comes readily to mind is a covenant not to compete, under which one party agrees not to engage in a business that competes with one being run by the other party. Courts often adjust the geographical area and/or the time period within which such covenants are enforceable. Sometimes, though, the covenants are totally unenforceable on public-policy grounds, especially where the party against whom enforcement is sought is a former employee.

The usual way to address perceived issues of fairness is to enact legislation that applies prospectively.

There are a lot of examples of clever judicial reasoning that manages to achieve political ends.

Perhaps..."equal protection". There is clearly a government-established monopoly on open-market credit, like local utility monopolies. So this creates certain obligations of "fairness". Just tilting at windmills, here...

Someone just has to do the research and come up with a legally sound argument based on the economic facts of the transaction- maybe there are issues arising from the bank charter and other governing laws. 'truth-in-lending', 'recission', whatever.


Or, it could be contractual, in that a 'reasonable expectation of future credit' is built in to the process from the get-go. Since there is no economic loss to the system here. Or some other reason.

It is grossly unfair to create a situation that depends on new credit for equity and then cut that credit off- this is a wagering scheme, perhaps thats legal but there are restrictions on gambling, and usury. A loss of equity and title-rights translates to an effectively higher rate of interest than was originally contemplated by contract, and may exceed the legally permitted rate..

Whatever ties the process up for years and years will do just fine.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

notice in the first video: the lawyers describes the principle of equity as "fairness". He also says that foreclosures are done in equity.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LqAWCg...eature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U4tP1f...eature=related

the next step is to show the wrong of forced payments.