Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Redemption is NOT Debt

  1. #1

    Redemption is NOT Debt

    Name:  HAMP Approval letter.jpg
Views: 213
Size:  345.6 KB

    About HAMP refinancing after redemption...

    Redemption Cancels Debt and Vice Versa



    At least that is what I hope people get from these HAMP 2 success stories. Debt and redemption are mutually exclusive concepts. Since last year there have been instances where the husband enjoys redeeming lawful money by demand, and the wife is hesitant. When the couple presents tax returns the bank handling the refinancing cannot consider there to be any (taxable) income by the breadwinner husband.

    Hi David,

    Yes I did do that already. 2% mortgage is very nice. I’ve had for about a year now.
    This suitor is speaking about refinancing his home through HAMP.

    Hey MJ,

    Yes, you had a big hand in getting this. It was earlier on in the process but I truly believe God puts certain people at certain places to make certain outcomes possible. It was funny when I was getting it as everyone was confused with my 1040's that I had to submit for income verification. One of the attorneys was asking me questions about this but after a couple days they just went silent and I thought oh no we aren't going to get the HAMP. A lot of weird things happened but again I think that is just God getting the ducks lined up.
    So now the couple enjoys the security of the bank's blessing, and has very affordable monthly payments, based solely on the wife's income.

    Again, while this is a great selling point for new members here it is a great mental exercise to ponder how and why the bank attorneys would after consideration exclude the husbands income from their financial calculations?

  2. #2

  3. #3

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Thanks for the Link Doug. That looks much more interesting that anything with NESARA in the same breath!

    So far nothing comes of clicking it...

    Interestingly is just suspends my browser and I wait, and wait...


    ???


    Working: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...4%22%5D%7D&r=1

    https://www.congress.gov/member/alex...4%22%5D%7D&r=1


    115th CONGRESS
    2d Session
    H. R. 5404

    To define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    March 22, 2018

    Mr. Mooney of West Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services
    A BILL

    To define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. Findings.

    Congress finds the following:

    (1) The United States dollar has lost 30 percent of its purchasing power since 2000, and 96 percent of its purchasing power since the end of the gold standard in 1913.

    (2) Under the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent inflation objective, the dollar loses half of its purchasing power every generation, or 35 years.

    (3) American families need long-term price stability to meet their household spending needs, save money, and plan for retirement.

    (4) The Federal Reserve policy of long-term inflation has made American manufacturing uncompetitive, raising the cost of United States manufactured goods by more than 40 percent since 2000, compared to less than 20 percent in Germany and France.

    (5) Between 2000 and 2010, United States manufacturing employment shrunk by one-third after holding steady for 30 years at nearly 20,000,000 jobs.

    (6) The American economy needs a stable dollar, fixed exchange rates, and money supply controlled by the market not the government.

    (7) The gold standard puts control of the money supply with the market instead of the Federal Reserve.

    (8) The gold standard means legal tender defined by and convertible into a certain quantity of gold.

    (9) Under the gold standard through 1913 the United States economy grew at an annual average of four percent, one-third larger than the growth rate since then and twice the level since 2000.

    (10) The international gold exchange standard from 1914 to 1971 did not provide for a United States dollar convertible into gold, and therefore helped cause the Great Depression and stagflation.

    (11) The Federal Reserve’s trickle down policy of expanding the money supply with no demand for it has enriched the owners of financial assets but endangered the jobs, wages, and savings of blue collar workers.

    (12) Restoring American middle-class prosperity requires change in monetary policy authorized to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

    SEC. 2. Define the dollar in terms of gold.

    Effective 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act—

    (1) the Secretary of the Treasury (in this Act referred to as the “Secretary”) shall define the dollar in terms of a fixed weight of gold, based on that day’s closing market price of gold; and

    (2) Federal Reserve Banks shall make Federal Reserve notes exchangeable with gold at the statutory gold definition of the dollar.

    SEC. 3. Disclosure of holding.

    During the 30-month period following the date of enactment of this Act, the United States Government shall take timely and reasonable steps to disclose all of its holdings of gold, together with a contemporaneous report of any United States governmental purchases or sales, thus enhancing the ability of the market and of market participants to arrive at the fixed dollar-gold parity in an orderly fashion.

    It may sound like it is solid but implementation is problematic at best. It might be obvious where the gold is, but only to the redeemed:



    This is classical "gold back into the system" from the Senate Report.

    Name:  PL94-564_3.jpg
Views: 86
Size:  217.1 KB

    Undoing Secretary KATZ from the '70's is going to really deflate a lot more than MOONEY's ego!

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/...mm/current.htm

    Domestic gold is at $42.22/fine troy ounce. That is going to be crashing, especially to investors. So I think after watching PAUL for many decades that getting this through the house is a long way from seeing any effect. Rather MOONEY is trying to appeal to people wanting change?
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-02-18 at 03:53 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    133

    "If it's not on the tax return we can't count it."

    "Congratulations! You are eligible for a Home Affordable Modification."

    I like these mortgage success stories because the bank confirms the dual nature of American currency. Lawful money vs private credit. The banker looks over the couples HAMP application and tax return and feels something is missing - where's the self-employed husband's income? Where's the Schedule C (business income)?

    Husband responds with something like "I made money, redeemed lawful money, here's the profit & loss statements; but there is no schedule C. It's not included as taxable income on the Form 1040."

    Banker: If it's not on the tax return we can't count it.

    Translation: If it's not on the tax return as income we can't count it towards a loan of Federal Reserve credit.
    Meaning: Only admitted Federal Reserve income counts as money towards a loan of Federal Reserve money.

    In the end, the modified monthly loan payment was exactly the HAMP 31% of the wife's income. The bank did not count any of the husband's income ... it wasn't Federal Reserve income.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
    "Congratulations! You are eligible for a Home Affordable Modification."

    I like these mortgage success stories because the bank confirms the dual nature of American currency. Lawful money vs private credit. The banker looks over the couples HAMP application and tax return and feels something is missing - where's the self-employed husband's income? Where's the Schedule C (business income)?

    Husband responds with something like "I made money, redeemed lawful money, here's the profit & loss statements; but there is no schedule C. It's not included as taxable income on the Form 1040."

    Banker: If it's not on the tax return we can't count it.

    Translation: If it's not on the tax return as income we can't count it towards a loan of Federal Reserve credit.
    Meaning: Only admitted Federal Reserve income counts as money towards a loan of Federal Reserve money.

    In the end, the modified monthly loan payment was exactly the HAMP 31% of the wife's income. The bank did not count any of the husband's income ... it wasn't Federal Reserve income.

    Well put. But instead of the husband responding, I think it is best to simply allow the bank attorneys to feel the pressure of law. They have to abide in the HAMP 2 guidelines, and at the same time they must abide in Title 12. So if they are worth their weight in salt, then the low mortgage payments come about.

    MORTGAGE - Death Promise.

    If only the wife has pledged DEBT/DEATH/DOUBT then that is all there is for traction. The bank of course wants to retain ownership over the home, allowing the wife use to keep up their property until the loan principal and especially the interest is paid off.

    I had a great conversation yesterday. Love and redemption go hand in hand. Fear and debt (guilt) go hand in hand. The precepts of either are mutually exclusive ultimates. - meaning that they cannot both exist within system parameters at the same time. One cannot feel fear while in love. And one cannot feel love while frightened or guilty. Redemption cures debt. Debt only exists for the unredeemed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •