Analysis: What are these "toxic assets"?

[mobes]

What are these "toxic assets"?
(thanks to indio007 from thinkfree)

Toxic assets ... what are they ? where do they come from?

Well, first things first , it all starts with getting a "loan".

There are 2 parts to a "bank loan".

1. The Sovereign Promissory Note
This is also known in the common law as a inland bill of exchange. It can only transfer only by assignment and are non-negotiable in the admiralty courts. It is not a negotiable instrument which can pass by acceptance alone. Ever wonder why these note's have text that starts with "For value received"?
The French (under Napoleon) went so far as to require an allonge to be attached to the note specifically detailing the value that was received. Every time the note transferred another allonge would be attached


2. The deed of trust/Mortgage Contract.
This is a contract in which the parties agree that if the "loan" of foreign bills of exchange (federal reserve notes) aren't repaid they will seize your property.


What these banks have done is bundle the note (which is non-negotiable) with many others into a pool and issued a bond using the bundled pool of mortgages as the collateral. They have in effect sold a non-negotiable instrument enriching themselves.

Once they have done this the "loan" is paid. They have sold your debt as a "mortgage-backed security/collateralized debt obligation."


Now imagine that someone stops making their "mortgage payments". Only the original party named in the Mortgage document has the right to foreclose. But they already got paid when they unlawfully converted your note.
They can not foreclose without producing the original note on demand. Which as you see they do not possess.

They parties that purchased these mortgage-backed security/collateralized debt obligation are counting on continued payment and if that fails the ability to liquidate the asset (your home) that backs the note that backs the bond.

The banks/or other holders of these mortgage-backed security/collateralized debt obligation have no lawful claim on the property/underlying asset and are holding a note that is not backed by a valuable consideration. They can not sell the worthless paper as that would be fraud .


If you are in foreclosure DEMAND THE ORIGINAL NOTE and counterclaim the return for your deposit of Sovereign Money.
At the very least a set-off will be applied and you will satisfy the claim.

[hurensohn]

I'm afraid that the title to the (most) houses is from the beginning defective. If it would have been a common law title, it would not be subject to neither property taxes nor zoning regulations.

You do have a point in regard to the bank, most banks can't present any proof of the original loan agreement.

[targa2]

It is not a common law title because it deals with negotiable instruments.  You do not own the title to the land itself.  Only to the equity.This goes way back to the Norman Conquest of the Anglo-Saxons and the common law that they practiced which was substance based.  When the Law Merchant was fused with their common law they lost the true title to their land.  This is an oversimplification but essentially accurate.

We have never owned anything outright.  We only own the privilege  of the  " USE " of property.  Look at the Canadian Bill of Rights.  It says you have the right to Life.....Liberty ....and the USE OF property.

In reading the law one must REALLY learn to read....and very very carefully, I might add.  I have been doing this for 10 years and I still know nothing.  I just know a lot more than almost 100% of the general population.

[hurensohn]

But who can actually own property in Canada? Is it the queen only as the monarch or is also extended to British lords?

But if it's a declaration of "human rights", let's check the legal definition of that term:

human being See MONSTER.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

Also note that the Magna Charta only applies to the Monarch and his Barons, meaning it's their contract.

[targa2]

By jove  I think he's got it !!!

[hurensohn]

Common law tites to land are still vaild, just see Hampton Roads estate stuff. (1989), even lesbian pedophile judges agreed that the title was not subject to blahblahbalahahahhabalh jew invented "land titles", please check it out. Hampton vs. Jew States. (look harder, it's there alright)

The United States have thrice tried to get island off the Hampton Roads under their "jurisdiction" and failed all the time in the courts. Do I speak for the catholic boys who sing and wait for a zionist dick? Or read the supreme courts deliberations on diffrent land titles?

I myself got so sick so I left.

Hint: Find contemporaty articles from 70 years ago and read them, they're not about Brittney Spears (Illuminati Which, see name) and her underwear but somewhat real issues.

In addenum: Of course they failed, verify at the supreme court verdicts. Well, the owners of the Hamptons had money from 1656 and not those total idiots at jackblood forum who's admins are total zionists. (that does NOT include the owner, but guess what slidders in?) [In reference of who can be an admin, but the common theme is that you can never mentiion the Babylonic talmud or that Israel owns HOLLY-WOOD and if you do, they try to slander you at every aveny) Too bad the Romans diden't just execute them all. So, no denial in actual fact, just sending email with fake postings to various ISPs, typical jew behavior.



You can of course never point out the fact that the head of "homeland security" is a Ukranian Jew like half the cabinet, they won't just deny it, they'll come after you with slander and they have established shit forums like http://www.jackbloodforum.com