Lawful Money redeemer here, how do I purchase a home?

[marcel]

simply put.

You are talking about going into debt. Picture debt as the opposite of redemption. Mutually exclusive ultimates. You cannot have one in the same context as the other. Like sugar and glass. The sugar caramelizes and incinerates long before you will find the glass is liquid enough to dissolve the sugar.

A private financier might be the only way. Somebody of financial means might become trustee and allow you to use the home as beneficiary. Without redemption, home ownership is nothing more than an illusion anyway. It becomes a choice of which trust do you sign endorsement of trust to.

^^.this.^^

[Michael Joseph]

Answer this question and you will have your answer if you really contemplate all of the aspects of the answer: Does a bank have to practice banking according to fractional reserve practices?

I have opened up a box here and I hope to give it the proper attention.

[Gavilan]

In my view, if you can find someone that has enough liquid assets that is willing to lend you the "money" to buy the house and take a mortgage from you that would be the answer. But if it is a bank, they want to see you participate in the system by claiming you are receiving income and they are willing to monetize your promissory note.

That's is the essence of their trick, if you are honest you can't access their credit system without paying USURY.

[lorne]

Does a bank have to practice banking according to fractional reserve practices?

Back in 2013 Richard Werner performed an experiment to determine - do banks really create money from nothing (but your signature)?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...57521914001070

[xparte]

http://statutes.laws.com/district-of....3rqHjpgl.dpufhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lq4QVg1E5E

[xparte]

http://www.iamsomedude.com/usufruct_reversion.html

[lorne]

John Titus has a new episode, April 15th, where we see in irrefutably cold detail how the criminal banking cartel maintains not only control of, but sovereign status within, the U.S.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_dBKAWHHQI

[marcel]

Snowden, found you a house.

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...seboat-3496224

[Michael Joseph]

Snowden, found you a house.

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...seboat-3496224

Funny, it being run aground and all. Michael rowed the boat ashore. Aloha or the Hebrews would say Eloah.

[Michael Joseph]

Answer this question and you will have your answer if you really contemplate all of the aspects of the answer: Does a bank have to practice banking according to fractional reserve practices?

I have opened up a box here and I hope to give it the proper attention.

I have read many a banking agreement to open up a general checking account [not special]. From what I can tell, the banks [that I have dealt with in my experience] are receiving an unsecured loan from the general depositor [DE means to abandon] upon the agreement that the banks will "generally" give the money back to the depositor/lender upon a righteous demand in accord with the agreement. The banking institution [depository] generally is insured against the extreme case [run on the bank] of a bankers holiday. Which gives the lender [depositor] the illusion of safety. I say illusion because are we to accept that FDIC insurance company can actually stand against a catastrophic run on the banking reserves? I think not.

Nevertheless, the system works until it doesn't work.

I have noticed recently that we have many lawyers with membership in LMT. I am wondering how many of these lawyers are sharing the information they learn with their banking bosses. What I am getting at is the following: If you read the typical banking agreement, it generally states that the bank may terminate their relationship with a depositor/creditor at any time for any reason. Of course, the bank would have to pay off its creditor [return the funds they have on loan]. What I am getting at is this: I have seen multiple banks close their doors now upon the accounting of their activities. And I have seen many a bank manager turn red in the face telling me "they cannot allow me any longer to sign checks the way we do."

We are playing a game and I am not going to let some flunkie tell me how I will qualify my signature. If he wants to prostitute himself to some middleman, then so be it, they can terminate our relationship at will. However, I will sign my demands how I choose and that is the end of the argument. I will dance with another woman and there are plenty of women out there to choose. However, the day may come when the bankers collectively get smart. And if and when that day comes, they will begin to terminate these relationships quickly and efficiently. What I am saying is there is no law that REQUIRES a person to receive a loan. Get it?

We have to look at the foundation of the relationship between creditor and banker.

Now, to the question of applying for a benefit of the federal reserve banking system. I challenge the idea the FRNs are fiat currency and that they are created out of thin air. Those arguments are propounded upon the ignorant and boy does it tickle their ears. Loans do not come into existence except that a man or woman asks [applies or submits] for a benefit of said loan. Property is appraised and the only question left is who will pay the interest. The property itself secures the principle of said loan and thusly the issue of said FRNs are backed by the surety of said property. Thusly said FRNs are not fiat. What is left to consider is the question: Is the applicant a suitable credit risk to underwrite in terms of paying the interest on said loan? It is just that simple - a business decision made based on how the game is played.

Who then is the initiator? Is it the bank or the individual? It is the individual! And thusly the individual is made to place his/her signature on said application as evidence of the receipt of a benefit of said system. How then can such a one complain that he/she did not receive said benefit of this system? Plainly put, they cannot. This is the height of double mindedness.

Now, back to my original premise. Do lenders exist who do not employ the federal reserve banking practice? Absolutely! So is the BRAND controlling the individual or is the individual controlling the BRAND? Is this not all clever marketing foisted upon an ignorant mass so as to indicate the illusion of no choice? Who is to blame? Is it not ignorance? And who is ignorant?

Is the root cause not desire? Is this desire not at the foundation of that ancient tale? For the serpent did beguile Eve; and later, the banker foreclosed and out of the garden they both went. But before we begin to point a finger: "He called Their name Adam". So then desire is the fruit of emotion [the woman]. However, the Mind is to rule the Emotion. So finding a Mind willing to say "baby, anything you want" - is this not backward?

I had a roommate in College who graduated with his Engineering degree and kept living in our dorm house for another five years. I asked him one day, you can afford a new car, a new house, why do you continue to live in a house where the rent is $200 a month with a bunch of struggling college students? He responded: "In five years I will pay cash for my house and I will have no debt for the remainder of my life." My friend beat the Serpent at his own game! He of course, did without a woman for five years and to his credit he stuck to his plan. After a short sacrifice, he found the woman for him and he continues to live his life without being dominated by a woman who really only wants to be satiated by her lusts. My friend went his own way and is the thorn of the consumer industry. No woman can exert any power over him, he lives his life. The Mind rules the Emotion but these two live in peace according to the understanding that lust and desire have their place, but these have been subdued according to their role.

I have watched many a woman try to work her whiles upon my friend. He had a plan and he stuck to it. It is not hard to beat the serpent at its game. For Moses threw down his staff [central nervous system] and he picked it back up again!

I trust I have answered the question. Thou shall not commit adultery. How can a double minded man be stable?

Best regards,
MJ


P.S. There is no reason why one must have a relationship with any bank. If my boss pays me upon his private check drawn on a local bank, I may go to that local bank and negotiate said private check upon my demand for performance. I may have to pay a service fee, but that is acceptable unto my own books. Each one must be accountable to him/her self and thusly the Mind must always rule in the Heavens [Sarah/Abrum or Cerebrum].

[marcel]

Here you go Snowden, five acres in New Mexico for $2395, no private credit needed.

https://gokcecapital.com/tierra-grande-13/

[lorne]

You are suggesting he buy the boat and the 5 acres, haul the boat from Utah to New Mexico and park it in the backyard? Brilliant!

Brings to mind my first real estate purchase; less than $700.

[marcel]

Absolutely. And if code enforcement shows up tell 'em it's a boat not a mobile home. You're just fixing her up; ship-shape. And if another agent shows up asking about all the gold n silver (lawful money) their records show you bought, just tell em...

Lost in a boating accident.

[marcel]

It's odd. You try to help someone out and they run away.

700 lawful money dollars? Sounds like you bought vacant land.

[David Merrill]

It's odd. You try to help someone out and they run away.

700 lawful money dollars? Sounds like you bought vacant land.

?? Stand there with the county tax assessor saying that the mobile home is actually a boat? Like it has pontoons hidden under the skirt?