Answering The Banksters….

Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: American citizens
Hello, John.
You do realise, I hope, that every legal determination by any jury, is, and has always been, able to be appealed against in a higher court. Absolute Treason. In a Democracy, the People have Sovereignty, ie: the ultimate authority to make and impose laws. This Sovereignty is exercised by way of Trial by Jury. Only another Jury can set aside a Jury Judgment. Judges are inferior to and have no Jurisdiction over the People. It is Treason for Judges or Parliamentarians or Monarchs to commit an act intending to overthrow Democracy.. You appear to be under the impression that trial by jury was the ultimate decider of truth. Again, it’s called Sovereignty. But it is an incontestable historical Uncontested by lawyers. fact that the decisions of juries, and of ordinary judges, have always been able to be overturned by a higher court, consisting of a panel of judges, not a jury. Absolute Treason. The grounds for appeal have been set down over the years by these high court judges There is nothing higher than a Common Law Court, ie: where there is Trial by Jury, to make and impose what is the Law of the People, by the people and for the People.and they hinge on issues of natural justice, procedural fairness, equity and proper exercise of power. All issues to be judged by Juries.The nature of these interpretations have evolved over the centuries to keep pace with changing values while maintaining the core principles.Thomas Jefferson described the Judiciary as  “an irresponsible body advancing their noiseless step across the field of jurisdiction like a thief”  And in all cases, they base their decisions on what a “reasonable man in full possession of the facts” would regard as the right and proper choice. So, they acknowledge the pre-eminence of their masters but try to usurp that authority!
 
And it is obviously the case that the potential for interest rate variation is a “condition precedent” or essential feature of most bank lending instruments. Not ” bank lending instruments ” but banksters’ lending instruments. The terms of a contract must be certain, ie: cannot be variable, otherwise there is no contract created…..to make out that a voided contract is a valid contract is fraud….and to obtain money by fraud is stealing…the banks are thieves. Banks do still offer and enter into fixed rate mortgages and the fact of the fixed nature of the interest rate is known to both parties to the contract. That’s the only way a contract can be, ie: fixed meaning certain.The same applies to variable rate mortgages. You’re talking about fraud, here. All parties to such an agreement are fully aware that the rate of interest charged on the mortgage will vary depending on, and in line with, the changes to official government interest rates.Agreeing to fraud does not obviate the fraud.
 
This capacity to adjust interest rates in line with changes in official rates removes a major element of uncertainty and risk on the part of the lender..Which cannot impact on an existing contract. It can only influence the setting of the interest rates for new contracts where real/common law has it that the terms (eg: interest rates, etc.) must be certain/fixed/not variable.. And in recognition of this, the lenders charge a lower rate for this type of lending contract than they do for the old style fixed rate morgages that were the norm prior to banking deregulation. The expression is: “Come in, sucker!”You do not appear to have paid the market premium that applies for a fixed rate mortgage.Again, the banksters’ ploy of “dangling the carrot” of making their fraudulent contracts initially at a slightly lower interest rate than the then-current “market premium that applies for a fixed rate mortgage” is a fallacious one because, when they increase the interest rates, that is more than the “market premium that applies for a fixed rate mortgage” that applied when the loan was taken out …… “Come in, sucker!” is the banksters’ M.O.
 
Your argument, that the contract is void because of uncertainty, would only apply to a fixed rate mortgage, not a variable rate one that both parties have entered into freely and with full knowledge.”Full knowledge”? Common Law lays down 8 essential elements for the creation of a contract ….8 essential elements, including “certainty of terms”.  Does the lawyer tell the borrower that “certainty of terms” means that he/she must know exactly what he/she is to repay under the loan?  A reasonable man, in full possession of the facts of your case, would be left with no alternative but to conclude that you entered into a variable rate mortgage in full knowledge that the interest rate could go up, or indeed, as has been the case recently, go down. The fact is that there are 8 essential elements for the creation of a contract, including “certainty of terms”. A reasonable man determines what is right and that a contract that has not been created because variable interest rates negate/disallow/void/invalidate any contract. A reasonable man would recognize a con, judge against the fraudster, and protect the victim (even when the victim won’t accept that he/she has been conned) A reasonable man would conclude that when you took out the mortgage you opted to not pay the higher interest rate that would have applied to a fixed rate mortgage. A reasonable man would conclude that the fraudsters have exploited the ignorance of the law of their victims …an ignorance that has caused untold hardship and suffering to innumerable people, that has dispossessed the victims of their homes, their businesses, their farms, destroyed families and brought about divorces and suicides. A reasonable man would want to put an end to such evil.  A reasonable man would also conclude that you would have been quite willing to enjoy the advantages of a fall in interest rates but will not accept the commensurate disadvantage when they rise.Spoken like a real shyster.
 
And this brings your treatment by the law into a fuller focus. You expectation that you could enter into a variable interest rate mortgage which is generally at a lower rate than a fixed rate mortgage,and then complain because the interest rate was not fixed, would appear to indicate that you would not qualify as a reasonable man. Now you’re talking about me. I told the lender that there was no contract with variable interest rates and because of there being no legitimate loan contract being offered anywhere in Australia and because my home and business would otherwise be lost, I was under duress to accept the money but would fight the fraud in court …which I have been trying to do but, because the “Judges” are in league with the Banks, I have been denied my inalienable Right to Trial by Jury which has resulted in the denial of Justice….the denial of being able to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of my equals. Your responses and actions attribute all blame for your circumstances on others while you accept no responsibility for your own decisions. That’s for a Jury to decide.You appear to have difficulty in making proportionate responses to your circumstances and this propensity for disproportionate response makes it very difficult for both police and law officers to respond as they should. That’s for a Jury to decide. . It is very difficult to respond reasonably to an unreasonable man. After more than 13 years of trying to get a Jury, next Wednesday in the Parramatta Local Court, that procedure is to get under way ….. is the word “Hallelujah” appropriate?
 
From viewing more than two years of your correspondence I can advise that you have very strong symptoms of severe depression which is cheating you of the life you deserve. Wrong. I am exhilarated to be able to fight for what is right and to help others. Evil is evil … and all it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing, I am thrilled to be able to do what I can. I have research the law…real law…and that real law provides the remedy …and that remedy will come from the consciences of reasonable men and women in a fully informed Jury. It can and should be treated. And I make the suggestion that you seek treatment with the sincerest concern for your wellbeing.  Go to “beyond blue” http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx? and talk to people who have passed through the state that is curently impairing the lives of yourself and your family. If not for your sake, then do it for theirs. You are a shyster ….. you can fool all of the People some of the time, some of the People all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the People all of the time..
 
Regards
Ian Mott
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: And we haven’t even touched on the fact that the Banksters lend money “created out of thin air” …. one mustn’t forget Judge Martin V. Mahoney who said , “That sounds like fraud to me” and was murdered for his honesty back in 1968.
 
 
–~–~———~–~—-~————~——-~–~—-~
INTERNATIONAL MENS ORGANISATION
http://www.intmensorg.info
BACK UP WEB ADDRESS
http://www.internationalmensorganisation.info