How credit cards & bank loans REALLY work - Learn, & this will change your whole life!!

[banker_rhymes_with]

No, right first time. Pretend Limit fits the bill perfectly.

 

A true Overdraft or Account Limit should incur no engineered or penalty charges, in the same way that an attempt to withdraw cash beyond the funds available from an ATM incurs no charges.

 

Once a True Limit was set on our Accounts, there were no more charges. It took a major dispute with our useless bankers to get there, but we got there. They stopped anything going out, except what they wanted for themselves, and there were no charges when they did.

 

The idea that banks should charge left, right and centre, is at the root of the problem. Once you do not accept that, it starts to become clearer.

 

I have no problem with a fair Monthly account charge, but the obscene charging culture of the banks must come to an end.

 

Until we understand this, we will remain neck deep in the problem.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[rickyd]

so back to monthly account charges for everyone then? I remember this last time around and much prefer the current option.

 

Its not like there's a huge secret here, account balances have never been easier to track with internet and telephone banking. you can even see where you are from ATMs unlike years ago when we all had to to keep track of sending by making notes in our cheque books.

 

Lets stop pretending here's a big mystery here - the banks need fees and charges to make money so they aren't going to go away any time soon.

 

That's why they kept on appealling until they got a decision that suited them.

 

The government has always understood this and now they are the major shareholder in three banks, they will do everything they can to reinforce thebanks' potion, they cannot afford to do anything else.

 

There will be small victories along the way, and all power to anyone claiming against the system, but a wholesale change isn't on the cards anytime soon.

[shinobi101]

You can't deal with the Courts, they are not there to help you but to make a profit as they are ALL corporations!!!! ( all Ministry of Justice DBA whichever court etc) . i keep everything in the Private, I don't go near the Public (courts)

 

the Purple colour should tell you all !!!!! ( geddit)

 

I understand that the ministry of justice is a private company, and is mostly there to screw the consumer and help the banks.

 

The questions is when the bank has had enough of you being difficult, and and gets the courts involved, you receive a summons. What do you do then?

 

I will almost definitely get to this stage as I haven't paid anything since last May.

[Bill Shidding]

they will do everything they can to reinforce thebanks' potion

 

Just had visions of Mandy, Straw and Brown in witches hats:D

[shinobi101]

Just had visions of Mandy, Straw and Brown in witches hats:D

 

Many a true word spoken in jest:D

 

There are many (very) serious claims of senior political figures etc taking part in black magic rituals. If you can cope with it, David Icke's site probably gives some of the most detailed info available. David Icke Website - Home

 

George Bush and John Kerry are both confirmed members of a small and very sinister secret society called the skull and bones society. They were both asked about it (on camera) during their election campaign. Both simply said it's "too secret to talk about"

 

I don't want to hijack this thread with this, but just to highlight that those you mention are not good people.

 

One of our senior politicians (can't remember which) thinks of us (the people) as "cattle." I guess that's why they're always finding new ways to milk us:lol:

[Bill Shidding]

Hi Shinobi, Hopefully we won't find any horses heads in our cars tomorrow!

[shinobi101]

Hi Shinobi, Hopefully we won't find any horses heads in our cars tomorrow!

 

Not much surprises me anymore - but that would do it:lol:

[nuke em]

I understand that the ministry of justice is a private company, and is mostly there to screw the consumer and help the banks.

 

The questions is when the bank has had enough of you being difficult, and and gets the courts involved, you receive a summons. What do you do then? you need to check out the Commerical Redemption solution to your troubles

 

i suggest you get up to speed by listing to these 2 very good podcasts ( which have links under each chapter for refs ( 1st one about 90 mins , 2nd about 2 hours)

 

Lawful Rebellion | The Lawful Rebellion Guide Pt.1 | Over time, we will seek to give people as much standing as possible with Lawful Rebellion | Common Law, Commercial Redemption, Sovereign, Common Law |

 

plus

 

Lawful Rebellion | The Lawful Rebellion Guide | Over time, we will seek to give people as much standing as possible with Lawful Rebellion | Common Law, Commercial Redemption, Sovereign, Common Law |

 

 

I will almost definitely get to this stage as I haven't paid anything since last May.

 

 

The ministry of justice is a private company, correct and is does business as Northampton Bulk Clearing Court, Leeds CC, Leciester CC court et all, they are ALL defacto Courts running as private for profit enterprises under the MOJ

Edited January 10, 2010 by nuke em

[lookinforinfo]

are the major shareholder in three banks' date=' they will do everything they can to reinforce thebanks' potion, they cannot afford to do anything else. .[/quote']

 

The government [and the Tories] are also among the banks

largest debtors. It will be interesting to see if the Labour debt is reduced as a result.

[shinobi101]

The government [and the Tories] are also among the banks

largest debtors. It will be interesting to see if the Labour debt is reduced as a result.

 

This is one of the ways the fraud built into the system becomes obvious. The government can print, or otherwise create, its own money. There is no reason for the govt to borrow fake money from a private bank and then fleece the taxpayer to repay that which never existed.

 

It's quite comical really, but most people are really sucked in by all this.

[shinobi101]

The ministry of justice is a private company, correct and is does business as Northampton Bulk Clearing Court, Leeds CC, Leciester CC court et all, they are ALL defacto Courts running as private for profit enterprises under the MOJ

 

Just curious nuke em, have you successfully rebutted any "invitations" from the MOJ yet?

 

I will listen to those podcasts in full, but do you use the statutory declaration of true name, or something else?

[charley2212]

I understand that the ministry of justice is a private company, and is mostly there to screw the consumer and help the banks.

 

The questions is when the bank has had enough of you being difficult, and and gets the courts involved, you receive a summons. What do you do then?

 

I will almost definitely get to this stage as I haven't paid anything since last May.

hi shinobi ive not paid since march 09 , excellent thread , great reading , think a voice or vehicle is needed to educate the masses if change is what s needed , and it will be

[davefirewalker]

Ive not paid two of my cards since the latter end of 2006 to begining 2007........Ive had the charges and ppi back and goaded them,........but they still wont take me to court??????

 

I feel unloved

 

Dave

[shinobi101]

hi shinobi ive not paid since march 09 , excellent thread , great reading , think a voice or vehicle is needed to educate the masses if change is what s needed , and it will be

 

We need some clear and simple explanations which explain the technical details clearly and comprehensively, without leaving out important stuff.

 

The links provided by nuke em in post 308 above are very good. There is a section on affidavits on that site as well, which makes extremely interesting reading.

 

I have raised the issue with my bank, but haven't recieved a reply yet (except from their debt collectors)

[nuke em]

Just curious nuke em, have you successfully rebutted any "invitations" from the MOJ yet?

 

I will listen to those podcasts in full, but do you use the statutory declaration of true name, or something else?

 

 

listen to them, you will learn a lot,

Yes i have rebutted a few invitations from "courts" ( which is only the MOJ are doing business as... xxxx Court )

 

i have 2 methods that seem to work, One is simply to put a sticker over the address on the envelope rec'd saying

 

No Contract

Return to sender

 

and pop it back into the post box

 

after all a Summons is an offer to contract with a legal fiction ie not a human. if you answer their offer to contract you create the joinder they need between the you human and your legal fiction (name). A summons can only be served on a legal fiction not a human. A subpeona is used for a human

 

So when they write to you as JOHN DOE all in caps, they are addressing the legal fiction. same if they address you as Mr, Mrs , Miss ?????, the fact they are using a title also means they are addressing the legal fiction

 

the second method is to is make the Judge/Magistrate part of the litigation process, whereby as they are now part of the process you are entitlted to ask for the Justice's roll number, their oath of office etc

 

listen to the audio in this link, Maurice explains it very well, although from the angle of the CSA ( another massive fraud) , his given court examples are a good shining light to more knowledge.

 

He also explains the power in affidavits !, well worth a listen

 

You will learn for example that the private for profit mag courts take 8% as "commission" on all liability & judgement "orders" , so it not really hard to see who benefits in this on-going [problem]

 

Lawful Rebellion | Dead Beat Dad’s Says Affidavits Work

 

listen to the audio !|

 

 

ps do not use statutory declaration of true name, you are entering back into their world!, use affidavits!

Edited January 30, 2010 by nuke em

[nuke em]

Ive not paid two of my cards since the latter end of 2006 to begining 2007........Ive had the charges and ppi back and goaded them,........but they still wont take me to court??????

 

I feel unloved

 

Dave

 

 

 

Notice of Unloved

 

You, Davefirewalker are hereby Noticed that you are now unloved!

 

 

By The System!

 

If you fail to respond to this Notice within 7 days, you will be summoned to appear at the private for profit "Unloved Court" where we will administer justice by getting you to give us your money. Trickery abound!

[nuke em]

More info is available here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/242278-recd-summons-court-its.html#post2702036

[shinobi101]

0h yes, yes indeed , currently working on over half a million's worth between my friends & myself. using Contract law...

 

nuke em, which aspects of contract law are you using? I'm looking into contract law but it's a vast subject. Some ideas on what to look into would be really helpful. I've been thinking in terms of mirepresentation or possibly unjust enrichment. What's working for you?

[nuke em]

For ANY contract to be lawful it must comprise the following:

 

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract. – Theevin Banks Plc bank did not provide full disclosure,

 

B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION. As you now know, Theevin Banks Plc did not provide anything of value, I did!

 

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree. These do not exist, as you are now well aware!

 

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings – A “wet” signature was never given by Theevin Banks Plc!

[pt2537]

well you fall on difficulty from point 4 right away

 

go read Goodman v J Eban Ltd (1954) and you will see that it doesnt need to be a written signature

[shinobi101]

well you fall on difficulty from point 4 right away

 

go read Goodman v J Eban Ltd (1954) and you will see that it doesnt need to be a written signature

 

Unfortunately that's true.

 

Acceptance can be by words or conduct. (Brogden v Metropolitan Railway co 1877)

 

Also, when post is used an acceptance is effectively communicated on posting. (Household Fire Insurance v Grant 1879) This applies even if the letter is lost or delayed!!!! [source: Nutshells contract law]

 

Hence you can have offer and acceptance without a signature.

 

How about the other stuff though? How would you present it so that the drones can understand what they're reading?

[shinobi101]

Looking at contract law, if the contract says "cash loan" like this one does on page 2 of the PDF: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/250385-barclays-agreement-enforceable.html

 

which implies the lending of real money that actually existed (including pre-existing money of account i.e. not necessarily bank notes, just money in the bank)

 

could this be an actionable misrepresentation if:

 

1. The money didn't exist before the date of the loan application.

 

2. The money was somehow created by the bank as a result of the loan agreement.

 

3. The misrepresentation induced me to enter the agreement on terms I would never have agreed to if I had known about this. (This one is definite!)

 

I note that "mere silence" is not accepted as misrepresentation, but it does say "cash loan" on the agreement.

 

Although if it's not enforceable that could save all the trouble as I could make an affordable arrangement for the others.

Edited March 15, 2010 by shinobi101
missing word

[charlie*]

NO

- meeting of the minds,

- disclosure

- equal consideration

 

All this equates to an invalid agreement under contract law.

 

I will never tire of saying that the banks create money when it is

borrowed.

They do this simply by having you sign their 'agreement' which they

then treat like a cheque and pay it into a 'transaction account' in

your name and thus it is a debt on the bank. Your money, your

deposit = just the same as any other payment IN.

 

They then transfer that to YOUR account as a loan to you.

 

So yes, the money/credit they would have you think they loaned

to you did not pre-exist you signature on their promissory note.

 

Seems to me, now that knowledge about contract law is spreading

that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is working for then banks more

and more as the judges gain confidence to twist the details in

favour of the banks.

 

Not so sure twisting contract law is quite so easy... it's very

straightforward.