By Anna Von Reitz
This came in yesterday thanks to “Carpenter”. Most people reading this won’t know what to think of the raw data and what it means, so I will interpret it for you. Give a copy to all the judges, lawyers, and bankers you know. Shove their noses in it and rub hard.
The Rats That Be are trying to rewrite their contractual obligations to all of us by making up new legal terms and changing the Uniform Commercial Code after the fact.
They are trying to claim that the banks invested in us and our assets when in fact they solicited our investments in them under false advertisement and cheated us out of any equitable consideration. And now that they have willfully defaulted they want to seize our assets to pay off their debts.
Remember when you first saw a sign advertising “Home Loans”? Did you ever once think that the banks were advertising for you to loan your home to them? Well, that is in fact what they have been doing since 1933. The meaning of the sign changed and so did “the normal course of business” — they just didn’t bother to tell you.
During most of your lifetimes, what that “Home Loans” sign meant was — come here and loan us your house, so that we can loan credit back to you and all the other poor schmucks who don’t know any better.
Normally, if you loan someone your assets as collateral for them to loan credit back to you or anyone else, you get a hundred percent of the value of the assets paid back to you off of the top.of the transaction, plus another 30% at least as pure profit.
But in the Great American Bank Scam, the banks got a 100% value off of you and your assets, and then they loaned an amount 7 to 10 times the total out to other people just as defrauded and clueless as you were when you walked through the door.
Instead of you getting 100% off the top, the State of Whatever got its mortgage on your land and house paid off. Instead of you getting 30-40% of the profit from this little swindle, you got to pay off 5 times the value of the total loan, so you got to pay the bank back to cover any default by the other loans from the other marks that got credit as a result of you loaning your house to these fiends.
Okay? Oh, and, you were given the privilege of handing them over an unearned security interest in your assets, too.
Now they are trying to pretend that they invested in you, instead of you investing in them. And what in fact, if anything, did they invest? Paper I.O.U.s that they never paid off.
They are trying to pull this giant fraud off and make it stick —-right in front of our faces— using another “legal” sleight of hand, when we have been owed lawful contracting processes throughout.
Prior to 2015 when we brought our first international claims and Notices they were operating under one version of Article 9 and after 2015 they changed Article 9 to try to benefit themselves again and now this—- third strike.
Please publish this far and wide together with the fact that we do not accept their offer and are grandfathered in and do not accept any new interpretation of Article 9 recognizing the banks as investors in our assets nor do we agree to any representation of us or our interests.
We do not “agree” to any of the changes in Article 9 and we do not “agree” to any security interest being claimed by the banks in us or our assets — any of our assets, including our labor, our children, our land or anything else.
Everyone got that? The banks and the securities corporations are all dirty. They are all culpable. And they are trying to skin out of it, again, using more legalese and pure BS to grease their wheels.
Those who have eyes — here’s Carpenter’s report:
The vermin just changed the Law/legal Definition AGAIN, now on UCC § 9-607 – 9-610 to a NEW term “Investment control”. The Banks did not investment anything in people, they only extract -ed all people assets, HJR192 credits, $IOU’s, Trust, Bond, Gold, Slavery fund, etc:
Cornell.edu just changed the legal definition of the UCc 9-607… to Investment Control. Below is the old or current definitions:
§ 9-607. COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT BY SECURED …
www.law.cornell.edu › ucc › 9-607
APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS OF COLLECTION OR ENFORCEMENT; LIABILITY FOR DEFICIENCY AND RIGHT TO SURPLUS. › Uniform Commercial Code …
U.C.C. – ARTICLE 9 – SECURED TRANSACTIONS (2010 …
www.law.cornell.edu › ucc
9-607. COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT BY SECURED PARTY. § 9-608. APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS OF COLLECTION OR ENFORCEMENT; LIABILITY …
1309.607. (UCC 9-607) Collection and enforcement by …
law.justia.com › jd_1309607-581d
(UCC 9-607) Collection and enforcement by secured party. (A) If so agreed, and in any event after default, a secured party: (1)
Uniform Commercial Code § 9-607. Collection and …
advance.lexis.com › lpadocument
Uniform Commercial Code § 9-607. Collection and Enforcement by Secured Party, NY CLS UCC § 9-607. Summary. (a) Collection and enforcement generally.
See this article and over 2400 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.