In fairness lookforinfo, I too am almost £200k in alleged shortfall to the Banks, I am trying to offer help in the best way I have found. The Banks will sell the property whenever they want, they will walk all over people and that is more than apparant. There is no harm at looking into the fraud aspect of what the Banks have done whilst trying to get advice about the shortfall from elsewhere at the same time. I too have been confronted with this dilemma. Terry

LOL, have to adjust my tin foil hat for that one and tune in to the base station on Mars and come back to you. OK, you see the 'conspiracy' label has been very convienient for the lenders to use so that you will not look too closely at what I am saying. That is up to you but I too was in your very cautious shoes not too long ago but I decided I had nothing to lose by doing so. Having said that I am only giving you the facts and truth am I not. UK Bank Notes say 'I promise to Pay' do they not? UK Bank Notes used to be backed by Gold & Silver, did it not? In fact the term UK Pounds Sterling comes from the very fact that it was worth Silver at a point in History. If you checked the definition of real 'Money' you will see that to be called 'Money' it has to be substance based with something like Gold. The UK sold all our Gold to pay for debts in the 1930's which is why it could not use Gold any longer. In fact the UK itself went into Bankruptcy but they have kept this fact from the public. They operate in Bankruptcy where they are allowed to continue 'trading' but must continuously re-schedule their 'debts' to the satisfaction of their 'Creditors'. Their Creditors being the Banks. They then replaced real money with 'Fiat Currency' which is backed by? Oh yes, nothing whatsoever apart from the sweat equity of the UK people. If you didn't know by the way, the Bank of England is a Private Company with undisclosed shareholders. The show the Govt put on in 1946 saying that the BoE is now a public Bank has been totally proven to be wrong and misleading. They did a one 2 one Stick swap, the BoE is a private Bank. The USA lost all its Gold in 1933 by the way, as did Canada, Australia and others around the same time period. So, the new Central Banks then start printing 'Fiat Currency', this fiat currency is a private currency being printed by private Banks and in fairness might as well be Monopoly money or bottle tops. The only value it has is perceived value of the people, other than that, nothing at-all. So if you think that the facts I have just explained about Money are Mad, then please do tell me how because I don't want to continue and tell you how you have been de-frauded if you can't see how real money is not in circulation anymore. But, up 2 you because many of us are using different strategies with this in mind and saving houses from repo and keeping lenders off our back as we chase them for the fraud. Or, maybe thats all in my imagination Namaste Terry

Oh I have got the evidence, would love them to prove they haven't committed Fraud and theft. That would be very interesting in deed. How did they never lend a bean (or a sausage)? Well it will depend how trapped in the system you are as to whether or not you are willing to review the evidence. Like you point out, it's not something that should be said lightly is it? OK. I will start with one simple thing, what is the definition of real 'Money'? Please check the things out I say and decide for yourself but what I will say is that hundreds and hundreds of people in the UK are now seeing this as the truth and the evidence gathers pace. Look at a UK Bank Note, it says on the front 'I Promise to Pay', have you ever wondered what that really means? I mean really ,means? Now you may already know that it means its a 'promissory note' or in other words an IOU. The so called 'money' in your pocket is all promissory notes and we are all passing around a 'promise to pay' or 'IOU's' It is 'Fiat Currency' it has nothing of substance to back it up like it used to have up until the 'Gold Standard Act 1931'. Please check the defintion of 'Fiat Currency'. There are some serious questions need answering by the Banks about this believe me and I can tell you why. Want to know a lot more? Im serious when I tell you about my shortfall but they won't get away with it now I know the truth. Terry

It's incredible I know, I have almost £200k in mortgage shortfalls from the theft and then sale of 2 properties by the Banksters. The fact they sold them for Penny's on the pound really makes me wonder how the hell they can run a business doing that. In fact, if they really did lend the amount they claimed to have done and have lost that amount off their accounting then why would they sell the properties for penny's on the pound? The simple answer is this; They did not ever lend you a bean. Not a sausage either. And no im not trying to be funny, im dam right serious and people need to wake-up before the Banks have us all out in the streets. Am I challeging them on their fraudulent claim? Too right I am. Have they committed Fraud, too right they have. I am really sorry you are facing this shortfall but if people don't wake-up as to how this all happens and the real crime being committed by the Banks, then we will continue to suffer at their hands and so will our children and childrens children

I think it is fair to say that the Banks seem to run things round here. All these claims now being turned down. Funny how they always seem to find an escape route though isn't it. Funny how a case can seem watertight almost but that little tiny hole is ripped wide open by the Banks. (Bank Charges for one). Then they don't have to produce an original document in court. Smells funny to me when a Judge decides the lender only needs to produce a constructed document. I thought is was very important for original paperwork to be produced to prove claims in a court or defend them. Now it seems that the Bank can re-write the law whenever they please to suit them. I thought that the original document they can now just 'con-struct' was an original 'con-tract'. Aren't original 'Con-tracts' valid or needed in court anymore? Or is that just for Banks? Can they just sell (ooops I mean Lose) them and then produce a 'con-struct' because the Judge 'decided' it was OK for that? All a bit suspicious to me that the Banks seem to be able to re-write the law to fit them. Am I wrong in thinking that the UK Taxpayer has recently given the Banks over £2Trillion as a bail-out? Can someone please tell me why that £2Trillion didn't go to the UK Taxpayer who could then clear all their debts and mortgages by then giving it all to the Banks. They would have all their money and we would be clear of debt. Sounds pretty simple to me. Oh, sorry I forgot, the Banks wanted the £2Trillion + the Gov't wanted to have a reason to increase Taxes, plus the Banks can then lend our money back to us again and charge us interest AND the Banks can still enforce and collect all that outstanding debt still AS WELL!! Is it me or do the Banks seem to control the Government AND re-write the Laws to benefit them as well? Ummmm this is all very suspicious to me

Bookworm TRUE- You cannot 'Pay' a debt with a 'debt', it is a fact. If you are going to try and correct me then please have the decency to revise and research your replies correctly. And at least read my post properly if you intend to make BOLD False statements. Now, lets look at your allegation of this being false; As I posted you cannot 'Pay' a debt with a debt. Have you researched the words 'Pay' and 'Purchased'? They are very different. You see, a promise to pay (and lets face it you cannot deny that the UK Bank notes are promises to Pay can you?) is a debt being carried forward is it not? It is an IOU, a promise to pay, a promissory note. It is NOT PAYMENT, it can't be becuase you are promising to pay. If someone gives you a fiver for something he/she has made 'legal tender purchase' of that item. You now have a promise to pay you a fiver (you do not have any value at-all) only a promise from someone that will will pay you a fiver. I know it sounds daft but it is very very true. The evidence is written on every note before your very eyes. You then use that very same Fiver to go and 'purchase' something yourself and pass on the debt/promise to pay. Next, we look at the UK Bank notes as being promissory Notes (check Bills of Exchange Act 1882 for full breakdown). That means they are 'debt notes', Im sorry but if it is only a promise to pay then it is a debt and therefore a debt note. By using a promise to pay to purchase you are in fact augmenting the debt not discharging it. How is it at-all possible to pay or discharge a debt with another debt? You can set-off the debt to the future by using your promise to pay yes but you cannot (as I stated) DISCHARGE the debt. That is real basic stuff. OK, thats your point there completely pulled apart. Now, please don't be vague and flippant, if you think there are falsehoods in my post then please tell me what you think they are and correctly back them up with real evidence not some half baked conspiracy theory you have. Then you can give me a chance to respond correctly like I have done above. The point is my closed minded friend is that this information needs to get out there very widely indeed. I think its amazing if others are posting this stuff, it shows it actually reaching people and opening their minds. There is real remedy out there for people who have been made victims of Bank Fraud, and yes, it is FRAUD. But, closed minded 'gate-keepers' like you only get in the way of people who are trying to help others. So instead of making sweeping closed minded statements, why don't you point out another falsehood in my post so I can embarass your knowledge once again. My weekend is wonderful

***Groans*** at Bookworm. You my friend have a very closed mind. Wake-up, smell the coffee or simply leave this thread alone. You think this is FOTL? Please, you have already labelled and boxed this information in your closed tiny mind have you? If you disagree with my comments, then YOU give me evidence to the contrary. But, you are stuck inside a small mind so probably can't. PLEASE GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY COMMENTS!!!!

OK, I know this thread will be jumped all over by the some here who will disagree with every word I say. Please people, do your own research and discover the real Truth. My point here being that you DO NOT owe any money at-all and I am going to tell you why you don't. You do not need solicitors for what I am going to tell you and there are plenty of people in the UK now seeing the Truth who are able to help and assist you FOR FREE. We are a growing Army of people who have now seen what the Banks have really been doing to us and been allowed to do to us and its disgraceful. In fact I am not a religious man but may God have Mercy on their Souls. Please bear with what I am saying, it all comes together at the end. Please, if you think I am offering information that is not true then at least have the dignity to rebut my points with your own evidence. I have no big Ego to worry about and I may learn something from you but what I am about to disclose is the result of long hours and months of research. The one's who dismiss this information are probably the ones whose interest it is to keep this mad illusion going. First of all Money - Look at any UK Bank Note and it will say on the front ''I Promise to Pay....'' right? Ever wondered what that really means? Maybe you know already but haven't really questioned it. It means all 'Money' as you know it is a 'Promise to Pay', an IOU if you like. That means we are all passing around 'promissory Notes'. UK Bank Notes are Promissory Notes. Our 'money' is in fact 'currency', or 'Fiat Currency'. Please check the definiton of 'Real Money' and 'Fiat Currency'. In 1931 the UK passed the 'Gold Standard Act' which removed the Gold standard from our Bank Notes. In fact our real money used to also be backed by Silver which is why it got the name 'Pounds Sterling'. The early 1930's was a time of great depression was it not. What in fact happened is that the UK sold off all its Gold to pay off all its Debts so it couldn't back the Bank Notes with real money anymore. The UK (without telling the public in certain words) went Bankrupt. What in fact then happened is the Private Company 'Bank of England' (which is still a Private company today) then replaced real money that was previously backed by Gold and Silver with what we still see today 'Fiat Currency' or 'Promissory Notes'. It is exactly the same throughout most of the world. You see, the UK went into Private Bankruptcy where it is allowed to continue trading as it reschedules it's debts. So, 'Fiat Currency' was issued as a 'Stop Gap' if you like until 'real money' backed by substance could return. That is why it says on your notes 'I Promise to Pay...' because the promise should be fulfilled when real money returns (which it will not do anytime soon). Now, the Govt sold all the UK's Gold assets, whose assets were they? They belonged to you and me, Joe Public. But they sold all our wealth we ever had to the point where we could not use 'real money' anymore to 'Pay' for anything. Now we only 'Purchase' things because until real money returns we can only 'Promise to Pay' or issue IOU's. There was a time when you could walk into the Bank with a Bank Note and exchange it for its value in Gold or Silver. What do you get now if you went to exchange your Notes? Oh yes, just another new Note back. That means that our 'Fiat Currency' may as well be bottle tops because it is not actually supported by anything but our belief. It also means that 'Fiat Currency' are in fact 'Debt Notes' are they not? If you are handing over a Promise to Pay then are you not actually handing over a debt? Which makes the Note a debt Note. Question - Can you pay a debt with a debt? In otherwords can you discharge a debt with a promise to pay in the future some-time? I say 'Discharge' a Debt. Answer - No you cannot pay a debt with a debt, that is called Fraud. What you are in fact doing is only 'setting-off' the debt with 'legal tender' fiat currency, promissory notes. You are in fact augmenting the debt not discharging it. OK, if you do the research behind what I am saying here you will discover that there is no money of substance in circulation, only fiat currency, promissory notes which are Legal Tender NOT LAWFUL TENDER. There is a huge difference. To 'Pay' for something means to lawfully buy with real money. To 'Purchase' something means exactly that, purchase, not buy because you have not used real money, just promissory notes/privately issued tokens. Right, lets look at a contract, say a mortgage contract. What are the essential elements of any lawful contract? 1. A meeting of minds 2. Valuable considertaion brought to the table by all parties. 3. Full disclosure. If these things are not met you do not have a Lawful Contract. Lets look at the mortgage contract; Is there a meeting of minds? Well does the Bank (a corporation/company have a mind?) Or, does someone have to give the meeting of minds from the Banks side, maybe the CEO for example. OK, we all know that any contract to be lawful has to be signed by both/all parties right? Or, is the mortgage agreement (contract) a Unilateral contract? By Unilateral I mean that the only signature on the contract is you the alleged 'borrower'. Does one signature on a contract make a contract between parties? Why do you think that lenders do not produce the original agreement when requested to do so? There are many reasons for this but certainly one of them is that it does not reflect a lawful contract. What about valuable consideration? You the Man/Woman bring your credit worthy ability to 're-pay' the loan which you offer the property in support of as security as well and you sign the 'Mortgage Deed' (oh Deed, now that might get you thinking about Trusts). Anyway, the fact is that you have brought valuable consideration to the con-tract have you not? What do the Bank bring to the table? Ummm let me think.....!! You might think they bring 'Money' to the table to Loan you so you can purchase the house/property....WRONG!! Firstly we know that real money does not exist, it's fiat currency/promissory notes and it has no substance value behind it. OK, so they don't bring real money to the con-tract so what do they bring? Well, they bring 'Credit' to the con-tract. They 'credit' the solcitors Escrow account with 'digits' and that is transfered to the 'seller' to 'Credit' his account so you can complete the 'Purchase'. Wait a minute here, Credit!! what id Credit? Credit or as the Bank will term it 'Bank Credit Money' is in fact purely digits on a screen and no matter how you look at this, Credit is NOT legal tender. Please check it out. So, lets go back to the con-tract. If the Bank have not signed it and not brought anything of value to the con-tract then do we have a con-tract? It gets worse (for the Banks case) much worse. You see, did the Bank disclose to you that Credit was being loaned to you and in fact Credit is NOT legal tender? And there is much much more the Bank didn't disclose to you as well. Lets look again at the agreement/con-tract. Now it only has your signature on it, ever wondered why? Did you ever ask? Was it ever disclosed to you? I didn't think so. OK, so you go to the bank and complete their agreement and sign it to say that you will 'pay' back the amount you are allegedly borrowing over a certain period of time with interest right? This becomes your side of the con-tract does it not with the property as security. So you have promised to pay the lender lets say for example £100k + Interest. You have completed a document and signed it to that effect yes? Do you know what you have really just done? Oh, they didn't tell you this either did they. You have just signed and created a promise to pay or should I say a 'Promissory Note' to the value of the £100k + Interest. Yes, a £100k Bank Note backed by your labour and effort and promise to pay. Ring any bells? You have just created a legal tender promissory note that has the value you signed for. Please check the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (still in force and use today) to discover what a promissory note is and the fact that it is legal tender. Remember, there is no real money in existence, only privately issued Tokens that we put belief in. The only thing backing them is our sweat equity. Are you seeing what happened here? The Bank take your promissory note (worth £100k+) and they place it into a deposit account of their own. They now have an asset worth £100k+ on their books. A real legal tender note. They didnt tell you this either did they? What do they do then? Well, have you ever heard of Fractional Reserve Banking? Please check out what it is if you haven't but essentially what it means is that the bank are allowed to lend around 10 times the 'money' they have on deposit by way of Credit. This is nothing more than 'money' from thin air. Then by using your promise to pay which has now become a promissory note/negotiable instrument they fraction your deposit and lend you non-legal tender called 'Credit' off the back of your Note. Ingenious isnt it. You have borrowed non-legal tender 'Credit' which derived from your legal tender note. You have essentially been lent your own 'money' however it's now been converted to credit. Yes, the bank never actually lent you anything, you are the banker, you gave them a promissory note, they said thank you very much, banked it and gave you credit in return from that very note, digits on a screen LOL. So tell me, how valid do you think that agreement/con-tract now is? No solicitor is going to tell you this truth because it is not in their interest to expose what is going on. Is it a Con-tract atall that you have with the Bank for your mortgage? It may be something completely different to what you think. So, what do the Bank then do? They demand that you pay them monthly payments by way of Bank Notes from your sweat equity. You have to 're-pay' them in 'money' you have worked for whereas they only lent you non-legal tender 'credit' from thin air. They are demanding your sweat equity in return for their thin air credit that was issued off the back of your legal tender promissory note. that is extortion and slavery in my books. Oh, remember the lender never seems to be able to find your 'original' agreement? That is because they sold it and made even more legal tender for themselves. Greedy or what, but we know it doesn't stop there don't we. They manipulate their interest rates to cause arrears for many struggling people as they lose their jobs etc. Then they swoop fast to 'Possess' (not re-possess because they never owned it in the first place) your house. They kick you out into the street without a care in the world as to what they are doing to you and your family. They then cash in their insurance policy (you didnt think they would insure the income stream from you?). The insurance pays out in full so they get all their tender back. They sell it for penny's on the pound for a quick sale and then chase the previous owner for the shortfall. How sick is that? The Bank never brought anything to the con-tract, never risked any tender, never lost any tender and used your promissory note to enrich themselves further and then boot you out of your home without a care and made more tender in doing so. It's just business you know. In fact mortgages are an amazing income stream for Banks as they build into their business plan just how many houses they can take and enrich themselves further. So now you know part of the Truth and if you think different then please evidence your comments rather than rubbish mne with flippant remarks. You may ask why do solicitors not see this and do something about it? I will then reverse that question to you. Look at all the recent decisions going in favour of the Banks like Bank Charges etc. And never forget this, a solicitors and Barristers duty is ALWAYS to the court first and the client LAST. And, all courts are in fact private companies running for profit not justice. Silly suggestion you think? Fact is stranger than fiction when you look deep enough. Now I know there are many who make a living out of controvesy using the CCA etc at court so will not be happy about the information I have presented. They will be even less happy when I tell you that you do not need solicitors to reach a remedy for this problem. Yes, there are solutions to be had. If you would like more information about the solutions, if you are open-minded enough then please PM me and I will give links for sites and forums in the UK. If you are closed minded and resistant to this informatin then please offer evidence to the contrary and not silly remarks. I thank you for your time Namaste Terry

DiddyDicky, I am a peaceful man, you are attacking me for no reason atall. You are rude and offensive. I have not highjacked anyones thread, I am contributing what I find to be valuable and relevant information on financial agreements under the CCA and why they are not 'agreements'. I won't even lower myself to comment on your childish 'drivel' statement. In peace

Thank you humbleman, but as you can see by the response here then people are not willing to hear the truth. I am very happy to provide links to forums and helpful completely free sites that I am involved with that are helping many others in the UK with a different approach. As you point out, I joined 18months ago and researched this site intensley for months on end. I utilised templates, made phone calls, I did everything. My thoughts were to use the CCA and record all my success here. That explain anything for you? Anyway, im not in this for any reward apart from helping others see what could be an additional approach and what harm is there in that? I became very dissappointed with the CCA route and about a year ago I came across the information why it has limited results. You can see this information for yourself and make a decision from there, I only ask people to keep an open mind. There is always CCA to continue with or fall back on. Too many closed minds here to start a thread, I have learn't that in just half a day. Peace to you all Terry

PT, I also find your remarks quite insulting. I have evidenced everything I have said yet you attack me without provocation and without offering to support your argument with any evidence, why? Is it because you know I am right? CCA is not getting the results is it? be honest, tens of thousands of cases now on hold, why? because the banks will not allow the mass results to happen, and you know it. Bank Charges case is a classic example. I pointed out why agreements are flawed and I gave my evidence and you are attacking me now for putting that information forward and you do not even have the curtesy to rebut what I am saying but you are happy to attack me. I suspect that is because you know I am right. The evidence that I am right is overwhelming and for anyone half bothered they will see for themselves. As a solicitor or legal rep pt, is your first duty to the court or to the client? You haven't rebutted or mentioned that comment previously so I take it I was right. The client comes second. I know about the CFA, I have been involved with CCA and that route for 2yrs now and discovered why it doesn't work like we would want it to or even like it is meant to do. You have seen the CCA completely disregarded by the courts, especially in relation to having to produce the original agreement. I am not saying and never did say that you were taking tender directly form 'clients' but there is no doubt that there is financial motivation behind your stance. That motivation to help others I am sure is well intentioned. My argument is not with you, my point is that there is no such thing as a financial agreement as people have been led to believe. The Bank do not have to produce the original agreement because it's a negotiable instrument/promissory note. Why I seriously ask has no soilicitor or Barrister challenged that in Statute? There is also other reasons that this issue has not been raised in the main courts and that is because the banking [problem] is so Big. I urge you sir to check out if real money exists, or, as I profess, do we only have promissory notes. If real money does not exist how can we have lawful contracts? Any lawful contract has to have lawful consideration brought by all parties including the Bank. The Bank as you will see do not add their signature to any financial contract, have you ever wondered why? That makes financial contracts Unilateral and not Bilateral. As you will know, that has severe implications alone as far as contract law is concerned. Why have the solicitors never challenged that aspect of financial contracts? One signature on a contract does not make a contract. There has been no meeting of minds. So we have obvious aspects of contract law not being challenged, why not? I know the answers because I wasn't getting the results from CCA. You must surely know that the signed agreement is a promissory note but you have decided not to comment on that. You have also decided not to comment on the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. And the fact that 'clients' are in fact being 'lent' their own money off the back of their own promissory note. These are the same notes you hear about day in day out on the news when you hear about Banks Monetising their assets. Those assets are our promissory notes that they are using to give Credit back to the 'person' signing the agreement. People are 'borrowing' their own money and then paying it back with interest. Why are solicitors not challenging those aspects? 99% of what I said there can be proven beyond all doubt. These are highly important features to any apparant contract. Why are solicitors not challenging them? Now, remedy. As you can see, there is little remedy (imho) using CCA. Where else and how else can contracts be challenged? Is the High Court the only route open to victims of the banks? Please answer that one for the sake of the people on here. Also what about commercial remedy in international Law, what about UNIDROIT Principles of 1994, are solicitors taking that to the court to challenge contracts? I don't see that but I do see people getting great results who are privately addressing these issues in the right environment. I will reitirate, my argument is not with you, you decided to attack my information that was addressing 'Agreements' in connection with financial contracts. My points are very valid. Namaste

Thank you, firstly I notice you say you are legally qualified. That puts you in a position of self interest so your comments should be viewed with suspicion. Im not saying you don't help others, just that there is actually a financial motive for you to do so. As you are qualified in Law, and financially orientated as well it would appear, then I would assume you also know that money does not exist. That since the UK Govt removed the Gold Standard in 1931 we now only have 'Fiat Currency'. You should also know all about promissory notes and the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and negotiable instruments. So, tell me, why are you not telling people about this vital information that can show them how to get a result without resorting to the CCA? Legal Tender interest for your own pockets maybe? Would certainly appear so. Secondly I did not say that all cases would lose, in fact I said they will allow some wins to keep people on the wrong path, seems I am right again. I do not see an overwhelming abundance of success using the CCA which is exactly what I have been saying. Reading the thread you point to it does seem that people were delighted to at last see something of a result. I am quite worried that these results are not prolific on this site but then you know why not already, you are after all legally qualified. Please, once again, rebut with evidence what I am saying, not point to a single success story that is getting masses of attention because someone actually got a result for once. You will also be aware I am sure of the tens of thousands of cases that have now been put on hold since Carey v HSBC+Others. Is this getting a lot of your attention and promotion as well? I think not. You see, these cases were all go with greedy solicitors advising their clients just a few months ago. Where do they stand now? Well we will wait and see but they are not in the position they thought they were just a few weeks ago. Please, be the educated 'person' you say you are and rebut my points with the evidence that real 'money' does exist and promissory notes are just my crazy imagination. Thank you

LookinforInfo, I totally rspect your point, however my point is in direct relation to financial agreements. The agreement itself is a promissory note/negotiable instrument. Not an agreement. That is why you are not getting the result at court and never will. I am not relying on USA information which is easy to grab hold of and use as a tool of dismissal. I would suggest the founder here was likeme and had perserverance like me. His approach worked at the time, he was almost right but it is in fact much deeper and the CCA approach is not getting desired results. The results of 100,000 people being the plain fact that the CCA is not the answer or they would all be here singing its praises as of course so would I. If it worked I would be still trying to use it. The fact that Bank Charges was on-going for so many years with no real result yet is also an indicator that the Banks are getting the results not us. Please check out my points and rebut them rather than dismiss them out of hand. Money does not exist. Namaste PS - I think you are not really looking for the sites and forums you mention becuase there are many that have evolved wth success and in the UK so in fact they are speaking volumes. Oh not claims companies though, no way, the information I refer to is freely available and where other good people in the UK help those who come to the conclusion that money does not exist.

I have no idea who nukem is but it does sound like he has also found the truth. Alternatives are abundant for those who can see the truth that money does not exist. Please keep fighting your corner with the CCA but I don't see many results forthcoming that are helping the masses of people having problems. And of course, the CCA route has been hammered for several years now without any real progress. You are wasting your time and energy. Please show with proof just one 'person' who has managed to get hold of their 'original wet signature agreement'. Conspiracy? Oh thats ok then I must be a nutter. That's a typical comment from someone who is making money from the poor victims of the lenders as they tell them the CCA is your only remedy. It is also a typical comment of someone who is ignorant and too lazy to actually discover the truth for themselves. Please debate with me and put forward your own arguments to counter my points. Your remedy is withn courts of Equity and private processes. If you want to go blindly down the worn out path of CCA then so be it. You will lose amost every time. Then again maybe a Court of Equity is a figment of my conspiracy imagination. For those that are waking up to the fact that there really isn't any money and you've been taken for the ride of your life I suggest you start looking away from the CCA into other avenues that work. You have to discover this for yourself though, if you are happy thinking the CCA is your answer then good luck, if you want to be directed to research information of what I am talking about and discover the real truth then please pm me. There are those who are stuck in their own Conspiracy of believing real money exists. They will find out the truth one day. Namaste

Lexis, thank you for your comments but you may misunderstand a significant amount of what I have said. Firstly do you know of the different types of court in the UK? Admiralty Courts, Courts of Commerce and Equity Courts? Are you familiar with Private Law processes and decisions in Chambers (or in Camara). What I think you are refering to are courts dealing with Statutes, for example the CCA. I am not suggesting for one moment that you go before a Judge utilising the CCA because you will always lose. The proof that you will always lose is right before your eyes in as much as recent results to do with Bank Charges etc. Look at how many people thought that Bank Charges were a definate win. It was a major loss on the basis of the laws used before that court. I am saying, forget the CCA, it is useless and you will never get a mass of victory's against the Banks using their Laws. You will get the odd result of course, thats because they want you following the wrong path. Are there other ways? Absolutely there are. Also this is much more fundamental than you realise. Did you check the defintion of 'Money'? If you did you will soon realise that 'Money' does not exist, it is a redundant term. The Gold Standard Act of 1931 removed anything of value that supported 'money' at the time. The banks then went on to print 'Fiat Currency' not 'Money' (please check the defintion of Fiat Currency). This 'Fiat Currency' is not money, we use the term 'money' but in fact 'money' as we think it is, is not 'money' by its legal definition. Please prove me wrong. The Govt removed the Gold standard from our Bank Notes in a time that the UK was entering Bankruptcy and all the country's Gold was sold to try and pay debts so it couldn't sustain the Gold Standard any longer. The Gold Standard being the value behind our money at the time. The Gold reserves held by the UK being sold. Therefore they couldn't possible back the Notes up with Gold they didn't have. As the UK entered then what was technically a 'Bankruptcy' and removed the 'Value' from 'Money' they needed a replacement and thats where 'Fiat Currency' came in but Fiat Currency is NOT lawful tender, it is legal tender and the difference is enormous. So, please dismiss any notion of 'Money' as 'Money'. What you have in your pocket is not 'Money' by legal definition it is 'Fiat Currency' (a promise to Pay, an IOU) it is not money. The only value it has is the belief you have in it (and that means it could also be bottle tops) and the sweat equity you are prepared to give to possess equitable title of a private 'Promissory Note'. So I think we should be happy now that there is no such thing as 'Money', only promissory notes. The evidence is written before your very eyes on every UK Bank note. So, forget the CCA, its useless and if you try going to a Judge with the truth you will not win in a Statutory Court because you still think money exists and you have not even challenged that one simple point. Im being very serious here, you have to completely dismiss the CCA,you will not get any significant victory's using it. OK, back to promissory notes etc. The money in your pocket Lexis is a promisory note, an IOU, prove me wrong. Money in the Bank is not Money in the bank, it cannot be and never will be until 'Money' supported by substance returns. You have Credit in the Bank. when you go and deposit your 'Notes' in the Bank you actually 'depose' yourself of that amount of 'credit tokens/promissory notes'. Those 'notes' you have 'deposed' yourself of can be used by the Bank however they see fit. They do not have to tell you what they are doing with it either. You no longer own those promissory notes you have deposited (deposed yourself of). If you think you have taken a loan from the Bank then think again. Let me give an example; You sign a £10k Loan Agreement with XYZ Bank. XYZ Bank get you to sign their agreement which by legal definiton becomes a 'Promissory Note'. In other words you are promising to repay them £10k+ Interest right? If you don't believe that you are promising to repay them then please read any agreement. Once signed the the agreement is taken by XYZ and accepted by them and endorsed by them. At that point it becomes a 'Negotiable Instrument' (Promisory Note). Please check the definiton of Negotiable Instrument and check the meaning of the word 'Note', I think you will be surprised. OK, XYZ Bank then have an 'asset' worth £10k + Interest in their hand in value as you have promised to 're-pay' that amount. Remember, there is no such thing as money so Promises to Pay are recognised as legal tender. You have just given them a £10k Note (plus interest worth). They place their 'Note' into a deposit demand account as real value/legal tender worth. The Bank has just added a huge asset to their Bookkeeping in their accounts (your promise to pay). The problem here is that you don't know this and ignorance is no defence. Then, XYZ Bank carry out a currency exchange using 'Fractional Reserve Banking' (please check out what that means if you don't already know), and they transfer the £10k of Credit (not legal tender) into your account. Now, this is not cash, no lender will give you a suitcase containing £10k in cash, they will only do it by 'Credit' or digits on a screen (not money). Yes you can nip down the cash point and take out £300 maybe but thats not £10k in cash and anyway, the notes themselves are only promissory notes and the cash point won't allow you to take out £10k. So what XYZ Bank actually did was give you credit based on your own promissory note/legal tender note. They created the credit from your promissory note/negotiable instrument and gave you what was yours anyway. They then have the asset (promissory note) which they monetise or securitise on the financial markets. Why? because your promissory note is worth legal tender and that legal tender was rightfully yours. Why do you think no-one in several years now has managed to get hold of the original agreement with a wet signature? They have sold it thats why. They sold it because it has value that you were never told about and was never bothered to find out about either. Now, if you use the CCA and take your case to a Statutory High Court then that's your lookout, you will lose, and you will lose because you thought money still existed and you didnt bother to do your research that it has in fact been replaced by 'Fiat Currency'. If you go to court with the wrong notion then do you really think for a second they are going to put you right? That is not their job. It is your job to be aware that money does not exist and take your claim to the proper court through the proper channels. Here is a Maxim in Equity, and Maxims stand as truth in a court of Equity; 'Equity Aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights' Solicitors and Barristers etc have no inclination of helping you dicover this information and thats even if they know themselves. Why? Because how much legal tender will they lose if they told you money didn't really exist as you think it does? How much do they earn using the CCA to take cases to court? You do not need a Barrister or Solicitor to take your claim and get a result throught the proper channels but they are not going to help you do that as it is not in their interests to do so. By the way, do you know where the first duty of any Solicitor or Barister lays? It is not with the client, it is with the court. So Lexis, I totally agree with what you say, you will never, ever get a result in a Statutory court trying to fight your case believing money actually exists and using the CCA to do so. There are others ways of doing this and getting the result you desire from a Judge and even if you don't there are other ways of winning. This applies to every single alleged debt out there including mortgages. You have NEVER EVER been lent any 'Money' to begin with and your 'Promissory Notes' that you signed and own have been used by the Banks to give you Credit and then make themselves a terrible amount of legal tender. You are the 'Lender'. The Truth of money and lending is out there and people need to find it. I have given some leads to the information in this post which if you do your research you will find I am telling the truth. This is not an 'Argument' or a 'Point' for discussion, it is a fundamentlal truth. Namaste

Thanks gh, good question. The promissory note you sign you actually abandon because how many people actually know it is a promissory note? In fact this 'note' is now a 'Negotiable Instrument' and you are in fact the owner as it carries your signature. However people just don't know this and have no idea what is really happening. As you are the owner of the 'note' (not the agreement) then the 'Bank' become 'Holder-In-Due-Course', but, they sell the 'note' witout your permission because you abandoned it. If people realised that the agreement is in fact a promissory note/negotiable instrument then they would realise the Bank have an absolute duty to produce that document as you own it and it bears your signature. When people demand to see the original 'agreement' the Banks know that you have not worked out what is really happening and they deny it. They do this firstly because of the legal maxim below and secondly because you are ignorant to the fact that the agreement is a promissory note/negotiable instrument. They have sold it and know it cannot be produced so they need an argument to lean on and they have found it. You see people actually believe they are the 'borrower' and when they get the 'Credit' into their account they don't question the process, they think they have actually 'borrowed' money when in fact they haven't. We all know the legal Maxim, ''let him be deceived who be deceived''. They are not really doing anything wrong by not disclosing these facts. They are however not disclosing what they do with your 'note' which is an act of Fraud. But, if you do not prove that you know what is happening then they treat the 'note' as abandoned and claim right of ownership. One way they know that you do not know what is happening is how you append your signature on their paperwork as being 'unqualified' ie what we would term a 'normal signature'. Secondly you have to remem,ber that all Bank of England 'Notes' in circulation are printed and owned by the Bank of England which is without any doubt (and I know of the 1946 Act) a privately owned company. Because the BoE is privately owned by undisclosed share-holders then the 'notes' they print are all privately owned. You hold equitable title when it is in your hand but the BoE own Legal Title and can call all notes in at any time they want to. They own them. Bit like Monopoly money if you like. They also regulate how much that 'note' is worth in 'purchasing power' as well by controlling interest rates and inflation etc. People need to wake up to the fact that the only thing that backs up our Bank Notes is our sweat equity as Gold and Silver are long gone. I hope that answers your question.

I am having success, it costs me nothing but postage and I have completely rejected the CCA. Firstly, you have to accept that you are the lender and the 'Bank' is the 'Borrower'. What did the 'Bank' lend? They 'lent' your signature on the original agreement which without telling you they sold (monetised) and made lots of money. This is why they will not and cannot produce the original agreement. You have to realise that the 'Agreement' is not only an agreeement. When your signature (unqualified) is appended, it is also a 'Promise to Pay' or a promise to repay the amount you are allegedly 'borrowing'. This applies to credit cards, loans mortgage whatever. Have a look at a UK Bank Note. What does it say on the front? ''I Promise to Pay the Bearer etc'' right? In other words all UK Bank Notes are 'Promises to Pay' and not actual 'Lawful' payment. Legal Tender, yes but not 'Lawful' payment. We are all passing around a promise to pay at some point in the future. Why are we doing this? I can cover that later but please understand that you really are only passing around a promise to pay in the future. OK, the signed Loan agreement is a 'promise to pay' and if you do not believe that then please check it out further. It is therefore a 'Promissory Note' and is 'Legal Tender' according to the in use 'Bills of Exchange Act 1882'. Promissory Notes are legal tender. What you are actually doing is putting your unqualified signature on an agreement and creating a promissory note which in legal definition is also a 'negotiable financial instrument' that the bank can monetise (and do). Let me cover this part now. We all know that a recent High Court ruling has stated that the lender does not need to produce the 'original' agreement right? They can get away with producing a copy on one that you would have signed. Well, thats because you believe and have not pointed out that the agreement you signed is in fact a 'promissory note/negotiable instrument. And, because it carries your signature then you own that instrument and the 'Bank' became 'Holder-in-Due-Course'. So, when you go to the 'Bank' asking for an 'original AGREEMENT' then of course they have argued they do not have to produce the 'Agreement' because once it is signed by you it becomes a 'negotiable instrument/promissory note' and worth a lot of money to the 'Bank'. They can't produce the original agreement because they have sold it on long ago, but it gets worse than that, or better depending which way you look at this. Your promise to pay has created an 'asset' on the Banks books. You have given them a Legal Tender promissory note (like a UK Bank note if you like). They take your signed agreement, treat it as a promissory note/negotiable instrument because that's exactly what it is. They pay that instrument into a demand deposit account as cash/legal tender and then they cary out a currency exchange where they then advance you 'CREDIT' by way of digits into your account. Credit is not legal tender. They have essentially taken real tender from you and converted it to Credit and then given it back to you. They give you Credit based on your own legal tender promisory note. YOU are the lender, the Bank are the Borrower'. OK, I know how hard that is to grasp for many but it is the truth and this is where you need to start looking for your remedy. Why can they use your signed agreement as a legal tender promisory note? OK, first of all check out the definiton of 'money' and you will find that it means something that is backed by substance like Gold or Silver for example. That is how UK 'Money' got its name as UK POUNDS STERLING (SILVER). What backs up your UK Bank Note these days? Since they removed the God and Silver Standard in 1931. The answer is nothing atall. Nothing backs up your UK Bank Notes apart from what it says on the front, 'A Promise to Pay', no better than an IOU. When they removed substance backed 'money' from society they then issued what is now known as 'Fiat Currency' which is simply a 'Promise to Pay. When does that promise come good? When substance backed money returns thats when and that is no time soon. In the meantime we are all just using promises to pay. Therefore a promise to pay note has value as legal tender only, not Lawful tender. You now know that the Bank is in fact the 'borrower' and you lent them your promissory note (signed loan/credit card agreement) which they gave you Credit for in return (non legal tender), and then sold the valuable asset (your promissory note/negotiable instrument) so they could make much more legal tender again. Ingenious yes, corrupt? most certainly. So for all those that say they are not trying to avoid their 'debts' then I beg you to re-think what you actually mean. Yes you have bought goods and 'purchased things with your 'Credit' they gave you but they gave you that Credit because you gave your signature and promise to pay on a promissory note (signed loan agreement) that they treated as an asset, banked it and then sold your promissory note on the markets without your permission. They gave you your own 'money' back and you need to see how they have done that. In other words you owe NOTHING atall and they owe you BIG TIME. Forget using the courts as you are familiar with, they will only ever support the Banks and you now know that from the cases regarding Bank Charges and the recent decision regarding the original agreement. Surely those recent decisions must be making you think about this. Anyway, food for thought, there are many ways to skin a cat