need a legal bod for free

[maybelline]

Hi, sounds obvious but these cases are so complex, basically - I need a lawyer and I dont have any money. not surprising eh -

 

legal aid will not come to the rescue of those suffering at the hands of these sub prime lenders, they are bleeding us dry and taking our homes and so on, but where oh where is the legal help we need, (no offence to all the excellent sources here!)

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

In some areas of the country there are community legal advice centres, you could do a google search.

[maybelline]

thanks for this.

[I've got no money]

There are also still a few law centres around...

[maybelline]

thanks, last time I tried to run one of these agreement arguments by cab it was totally over the persons head, not their fault I know and provide a very valuable service.

 

the gist of it is specialised legal help, costs money!

[I've got no money]

thanks, last time I tried to run one of these agreement arguments by cab it was totally over the persons head, not their fault I know and provide a very valuable service.

 

the gist of it is specialised legal help, costs money!

 

I didn't suggest a CAB - I suggested a Law Centre - Law Centres employ Solicitors - there aren't many around but you do get them in some Cities...

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

maybelline where do you live?

[maybelline]

crikey, did I upset you that much!

[maybelline]

ok - near to a city, found the website with address, thanks:)

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

We have several in our area, however I'm not too sure if they advise people out of the area.

[nuke em]

why do you need a lawyer ? Represent yourself, be a litigent in person. file your own notices , send your own letters etc

[PriorityOne]

why do you need a lawyer ? Represent yourself, be a litigent in person. file your own notices , send your own letters etc

 

 

Totally agree. If I'd followed the advice of a certain solicitor many years ago, I would have lost my home...

[nuke em]

If you have a problem with a mortgage lender , consider this

 

Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, 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.

 

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. ( where did the lender get the "money" from that they lent you? i'll tell you where , no where it came into being when you signed the "document" )

 

"I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

 

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'.

 

 

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

 

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

 

 

did all of this happen when you signed your "mortgage" ?

 

 

thought not!

Edited July 21, 2009 by nuke em

[nuke em]

Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)

[I've got no money]

Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust').

 

I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with that...If you could point me to the specific statutory provision and/or precedent I'd be grateful.

 

My understanding of how the banking system should work is that an individual places money on deposit - the bank pays a rate of interest on that deposit. It then, or so the theory goes, lends that money at a higher rate of interest to a borrower. The difference in the two rates was the traditional way in which banks made a profit.

[I've got no money]

If you have a problem with a mortgage lender , consider this

 

Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO,

 

I don't understand what you mean

 

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.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by full disclosure - I wasn't aware that a mortgage was an uberrimae fidei agreement - perhaps you could direct me to a precedent - I always thought that they were basically contracts of insurance and perhaps agreements as to family property.

It is my understanding that in interpreting a mortgage the court will look to the written terms - unless there are issues of fraud and undue influence

 

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.

 

My understanding is that where an agreement is under seal, as for example a mortgage deed, consideration is actually not required. In any event there would be consideration - there would be reciprocity - both sides will have promised something - one to lend - the other to repay with interest

 

( where did the lender get the "money" from that they lent you? i'll tell you where , no where it came into being when you signed the "document" )

 

I don't understand the comment - in a mortgage the lender advances a sum of money to the debtor. That money is often (although not always) paid to a third party. I don't see how the execution of a mortgage somehow creates money. Again, in the good old days, a financial institution (such as a building society) would receive money on deposit and then lend that money to a borrower and secure the loan with a mortgage. Today what often happens is that the financial institution in fact funds the mortgage buy borrowing from other financial institutions.

 

 

 

"I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place.

 

You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'.

 

I really don't understand your argument - surely the money was in existence before you signed the agreement - upon signature they then transferred the money to you

They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

 

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash.

 

Again I don't understand the argument - the essence of a loan is that they give you money and you then pay it, together with interest, back...or am I missing something

 

But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'.

 

 

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

 

In a mortgage they are usually standard conditions imposed by the lender - you either accept them or you don't get the loan and indeed you sign to certify that you've agreed to them.

 

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

 

In my experience most mortgages are properly executed and witnessed

 

 

did all of this happen when you signed your "mortgage" ?

 

 

thought not!

 

I've made a few observations in bold italics

[nuke em]

I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with that...If you could point me to the specific statutory provision and/or precedent I'd be grateful.

 

My understanding of how the banking system should work is that an individual places money on deposit - the bank pays a rate of interest on that deposit. It then, or so the theory goes, lends that money at a higher rate of interest to a borrower. The difference in the two rates was the traditional way in which banks made a profit.

 

 

are you serious? banks have never worked like that! i know thats what people think they do, insofar as if i lent you a 1 pound coin, it was mine to begine with....but banks ...please

 

here is some help

Money as Debt

 

this book also explains it all

 

Web of Debt - How Banks And The Federal Reserve Are Bankrupting The Planet...

 

also you might want to research "fractional resereve banking"

[I've got no money]

are you serious? banks have never worked like that! i know thats what people think they do, insofar as if i lent you a 1 pound coin, it was mine to begine with....but banks ...please

 

here is some help

 

this book also explains it all

 

 

also you might want to research "fractional resereve banking"

 

The discussion began with you asserting that it was illegal for a bank to receive a deposit from an individual and then to lend that money to a third party.

 

My point was that as a matter of law your premise was fatally flawed and I explained the theory behind the banking system. Whether that theory currently works is another issue BUT that theory is based on the legal ability of a bank to lend money which has been deposited with it.

 

It was also the principle under which Building Societies originally operated

 

Effectively if you put your money in a bank account you lend the bank your money.

[nuke em]

The discussion began with you asserting that it was illegal for a bank to receive a deposit from an individual and then to lend that money to a third party.

- Correct, it is

My point was that as a matter of law your premise was fatally flawed and I explained the theory behind the banking system. Whether that theory currently works is another issue BUT that theory is based on the legal ability of a bank to lend money which has been deposited with it.

-Sorry, wrong Building Soc's are the nearest thing we have to what we think of as banks, banks on the other hand create money out of your signature

Only Banks/loan Companies operate the fractional reserve system of money creation, Building societies do not.

 

also it not a matter of law as you say, but of statute. There no laws made today only statutes & acts which are not the same thing

 

It was also the principle under which Building Societies originally operated

-see above

Effectively if you put your money in a bank account you lend the bank your money.

 

 

please read the web of debt by Ellen Brown, also watch the "money masters" video, google it , well worth the time

[maybelline]

but if you have a case that is not small claims then in order to proceed you need to fulfil criteria for legal aid, re strength of case, financial considerations etc,etc. also, some cases are complex and a barrister is necessary, especially if you get into appeals and so forth. thanks for input folks.

[I've got no money]

please read the web of debt by Ellen Brown, also watch the "money masters" video, google it , well worth the time

 

I'm afraid that I an not aware of any law which makes it illegal for a bank to lend a depositors money to a third party. Incidentally

my understanding is that a Statute is an Act. IMHO There are four sources of Law - Statute (Primary Legislation), Delegated Legislation (Statutory Instruments made pursuant to powers contained in primary legislation), E U directives and the Common Law (which is essentially Judge made Law). Although I would confess that many commentators regard EU Directives as equivalent to a Statute - I've always viewed them separately - its' the natiionalist in me...

 

I really would be grateful if you could point me to the precedent (statutory or otherwise) - which supports your proposition.

 

With respect your assertion that banks "create" money when a debtor signs a loan - there was me thinking that money was produced (both in hard cash and electronic form) by the Bank of England - is I would suggest is plain wrong.

Edited July 23, 2009 by I've got no money

[I've got no money]

but if you have a case that is not small claims then in order to proceed you need to fulfil criteria for legal aid, re strength of case, financial considerations etc,etc. also, some cases are complex and a barrister is necessary, especially if you get into appeals and so forth. thanks for input folks.

 

Sorry for hijacking the thread somewhat - I just felt that I had to respond to nuke ems points

 

I have to say that I agree with you.

 

Whilst its' not impossible to run your own case - and many Caggers do. It is actually quite stressfull and the further up the Court system you go the more procedurally difficult it gets. IMO the problem comes in finding Lawyers who are good at Consumer Credit, the legal aid system seems to be just about dead on its' feet - there are now only a small number of firms that do it and as you point out it can be quite difficult to get.

 

Did you have any luck with a Law Centre?

[nuke em]

I'm afraid that I an not aware of any law which makes it illegal for a bank to lend a depositors money to a third party. ok' date=' read the banking Act the[/color']n Incidentally

my understanding is that a Statute is an Act. Correct but an Act is not law, it can have the force of law but only by consent ( ie my consent, your consent etc) there is a big difference between Legal & Lawful IMHO There are four sources of Law --, sorry, wrong use of the word law, legal would be a better choice) Statute (Primary Legislation), Delegated Legislation (Statutory Instruments made pursuant to powers contained in primary legislation), E U directives and the Common Law (which is essentially Judge made Law). Common Law is not Judges Law, Common Law started many years ago and was finally collected together in the Magna Carta in 1215 i think, There are only 3 main parts to Common Law that you need to comprehend. Not to Injure, Harm or cause loss to another soul/physical being . Although I would confess that many commentators regard EU Directives as equivalent to a Statute - I've always viewed them separately - its' the natiionalist in me...

 

I really would be grateful if you could point me to the precedent (statutory or otherwise) - which supports your proposition.

 

With respect your assertion that banks "create" money when a debtor signs a loan - there was me thinking that money was produced (both in hard cash and electronic form) by the Bank of England - is I would suggest is plain wrong.

Currency is Authorised to be issued by HM Treasury to the private for profit Bank of England, It is distributed by them as loans ( at the prevailing base rate) to the main UK clearing banks which then use that as collateral ( not any "deposit" from customers, which they are holding in trust for them). Then Under the magic of Fractional Reserve Banking they lend out under their "agreed" liquidity ratios of 10:1, 20: 1, 60:1 to anyone who will sign a promise to repay note - That's a Mortgage or Personal loan note etc to you and me.(collectivley all known as Debt Instruments) The agreed ratios & base rates come from the Bank of England/Gov ( political ends) depending on whether they want to create boom or bust - the higher the agreed ratios & The lower end user interest rates can be the more bubble such as our housing one are created

 

So as an example , The bank of England lends HSBC £100,000 at 0.25% pa ( current base rate, say) , HSBC monetized a piece of paper from Mr A , who has just signed a "Mortgage" for £1,000,000. The bank just created £1,000,000 out of thin air based just on a signature. Thats based on a liquidity ratio of 10 to 1

( Most of our wonderfull banks are in the 40 to 60 : 1 ratio ... oops!)

The bank ( Most banks do this) then sells off the Mortgage ( which is a debt note) in what they call MBS, ie Mortgage backed securities to investors. which then reduces their ratio and they do it all over again, and so they just got paid!!!!

 

of course the bank has been paid for the mortgage note, but it still insists on charging you "interest" for what? your own signiture ?

 

Under contract "Law" ( its law because we consent to it) Those who create the liability should also create the remmedy. The banks create the liability but not the remmedy ie the interest that you and i have to find by the sweat of our brow

 

Now this is all i will say on this now ( i take your point about hijacking this thread as well), so please read the links, ( education is very important here, The Web of Debt book by ellen brown, started me on my journey of discovery over a year ago and i have been learning ever since)

 

I used to think like you did, but when i lost my properties ( I was a BTL Landlord) i began to think something was very, very wrong. i had the same/similar beliefs as you do now for over 40 years but not nowadays. If i knew then what i know now i would have NEVER got into those properties! NEVER

 

-------

as to Maybelline's point, Maybelline could look at it like this..

 

A mortgage is a contract ( and an unfair one at that)

The court you might not want to conduct business with is actually a Court de Facto and operates as a business ( check them out , you will find they are listed in Dun & Bradsheet as a commercial entity)

Your soul/being might not want to do business with a commerical entity such as a "court"

 

if the contract can be proved to be unfair in its terms or there was not full disclosure by both parties then it can not be lawful , this can be established by exchanging paper ( Notices etc) with the other party ( that's writing letters to you and me)

 

also the Bank might not be able to prove that it lent you any "Money" ( as money itself is an illusion, backed not by anything but mearly the promise to "repay"...Repay What? i hear you ask...good question... have a look at a "banknote" and see what is printed on it)

 

or you might want to agree to "payback" the alledged "loan" upon proof their of a), b), c) & d) for example (you need to do your own research here to fill in your a,b,c, & d's for example)

 

Research Mary Croft's book and many others on this & other similar subjects to get you on your path to discovery

also

http://www.thetruthwillout.com/legalponderings.html

 

i am in controversy with my contract :D"issues" on many fronts, the last person i would turn to is a Lawyer ( whose first duty is to a "Court" & not me,,,their :rolleyes:client)

 

sincerely

 

Nuke em

 

 

 

edit

i knew you wanted the last post, so now you have..........

2nd edit

OMG i just saw you used to be a lawyer..that explains everything... and no , i do not understand you as in leagalise "i do not stand under you"

Edited July 23, 2009 by nuke em

[I've got no money]

So as an example , The bank of England lends HSBC £100,000 at 0.25% pa ( current base rate, say) , HSBC monetized a piece of paper from Mr A , who has just signed a "Mortgage" for £1,000,000. The bank just created £1,000,000 out of thin air based just on a signature. Thats based on a liquidity ratio of 10 to 1

If you've signed a mortgage for a £1,000.000 the bank has advanced those funds to either you or someone else on your behalf

of course the bank has been paid for the mortgage note, but it still insists on charging you "interest" for what? your own signiture ?

The bank has paid over the money...

 

Under contract "Law" ( its law because we consent to it) Those who create the liability should also create the remmedy. The banks create the liability but not the remmedy ie the interest that you and i have to find by the sweat of our brow

 

Now this is all i will say on this now ( i take your point about hijacking this thread as well), so please read the links, ( education is very important here, The Web of Debt book by ellen brown, started me on my journey of discovery over a year ago and i have been learning ever since)

 

I used to think like you did, but when i lost my properties ( I was a BTL Landlord) i began to think something was very, very wrong. i had the same/similar beliefs as you do now for over 40 years but not nowadays. If i knew then what i know now i would have NEVER got into those properties! NEVER

 

-------

as to Maybelline's point, Maybelline could look at it like this..

 

A mortgage is a contract ( and an unfair one at that)

The court you might not want to conduct business with is actually a Court de Facto and operates as a business ( check them out , you will find they are listed in Dun & Bradsheet as a commercial entity)

Your soul/being might not want to do business with a commerical entity such as a "court"

I don't know about the OP but I haven't got a clue what you are advising...

 

i am in controversy with my contract:D"issues" on many fronts, the last person i would turn to is a Lawyer ( whose first duty is to a "Court" & not me,,,their :rolleyes:client)

I think that you're comments are a bit of an over simplification. It is true that there are certain duties owed to the court - such as a duty not mislead it (which I have to say a duty not to lie to the court) is quite a good thing I think. There are at the same times duties to the client (such as confidentiality and a duty to act in the clients' best interests

 

sincerely

 

Nuke em

 

 

You really of no understanding what Law is or where it comes from...I think that you are confusing the basics. IMO you appear to be confusing an Act with a Bill and as far as the Common Law is concerned - the essence of the common law is that it is the Judges who say what it is. The common law is, on the classical analysis, something that is there and has always been there and that Judges' reach into it and extract the Law, usually based on decisions of other Judges...To suggest that Magna Carta in some way prevented any further development of the common law is, I am afraid, is IMO just plain wrong. Magna Carta was, 1215 - until 1875 there were Common Law Courts and separate Courts of Equity

 

I think you're right this argument is getting nowhere.

 

There is nothing in the banking act which acts as a general prohibition on a bank advancing depositors to money to third parties by way of loan

 

I would be really interested to know if any of your arguments haver actually been accepted in a court