Epic Foreclosure Defense You've Never Heard Of! | Avoid Foreclosure Without Foreclosure Attorney

Copyright Notice:Copyright Notice:
Mike Montagne is founder/author ofMike Montagne is founder/author of
Mathematically Perfected Economy™Mathematically Perfected Economy™
or MPE™or MPE™
ALL MATERIAL is subject to (C)ALL MATERIAL is subject to (C)
copyright, trademark, and license bycopyright, trademark, and license by
Mike Montagne and PEOPLE ForMike Montagne and PEOPLE For
Mathematically Perfected Economy™.Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

The following presentation is a transcript ofThe following presentation is a transcript of
aa half-hour YouTube video herehalf-hour YouTube video here, which is, in, which is, in
turn, an excerpt of a longer, nearly four-hourturn, an excerpt of a longer, nearly four-hour
internet radio show calledinternet radio show called
Cancel The Cabal from June 8th, 2014.Cancel The Cabal from June 8th, 2014.

Cancel The Cabal: Can we go ahead and get into what you're
helping people do with school debt?
Mike Montagne: Yeah, well these actions, these Faux-
Creditor Actions™, they apply to any debt that
precipitates from the obfuscation; exploitation of our
production through the money system, through
obfuscation of money. So a case that I can describe --
because it's exemplary -- is a case in Spain. I've been given
power-of-attorney over this case in Spain. I'm not a lawyer.
In this case in Spain I was told six months, a year earlier,
that I might be required to provide help to these people.
Mid-September of last year, these people who have two
very substantial debts were visited by the bank to whom
the debts are ostensibly owed, ABN Amro Bank which is a
European bank. I believe it's headquartered in the
Netherlands.

Anyway the debts are these and we have to understand
these things to put all this into perspective. But this family
(the gentlemen is a few years older than I am; I'm 62) they
have this property, it's a small ranch in Spain, they are
citizens of the Netherlands living in Spain and have
ostensibly borrowed this money from this bank. And
understand from what we said so far money is not
actually borrowed into existence. We're the real issuers of
money. Therefore the fact of credit doesn't even exist. So
it's only by denial of our right to issue promissory
obligations that we're actually in fact forced artificially
forced to borrow money. So given that we have all that
digested, we can put this case in to perspective.
““We're the realWe're the real
issuers of money.”issuers of money.”

This property has been held by this gentleman's family
since approximately nineteen-thirty, the first Great
Depression. It's a small ranch in Spain - they call them
fincas - so they have this finca which has been in their
family since nineteen-thirty, over which time to now it's
been refinanced many times. I was to be provided this
history, it's been mentioned in conversation. I've never
actually received the records. They're not really material
to the case, but they are material to getting a perspective
of the magnitude of the issues at hand with this bank and
how they're resolved by a single letter here.
““This property has been held by thisThis property has been held by this
gentleman's family since approximatelygentleman's family since approximately
nineteen-thirty.”nineteen-thirty.”

Anyway, the last time that this ranch – or finca – was
refinanced – the best I can tell was about thirty years ago,
somewhere in the vicinity nineteen-eighty or thereafter
and the debt has been serviced as an interest only loan
ever since then. And now we in the States here find will
find that, that's an uncomfortable thing to think, that since
nineteen-eighty. But this is pretty much standard practice
I'm learning in Europe. Nonetheless at that time it was
refinanced to have a value 5.3 million euros and it's an
interest-only debt which means that all the payments that
have ever been made against that 5.3 million of principal
have never been applied to the principal. And we can all
imagine how many times that this finca has been paid for
just since nineteen-eighty, let alone since nineteen-thirty.
““...the debt has been serviced as an...the debt has been serviced as an
interest only loan...”interest only loan...”

So that's one of the debts. The other debt is a 1.6 million
euro unsecured personal loan also issued by
ABN Amro Bank about six or seven years ago. This family -
their son - they've got, you know, on their ranch they've
got their own stables and barns, polo grounds. The house
is what we would consider to be a mansion. In any case
their son had a polo accident, fell from a horse, broke his
neck and has since been paralyzed from the chest down.
Mr. Van de Brand, who's a businessman had to quit
working to take care of his son and he took out this 1.6
million euro unsecured personal loan to pay medical costs
and two tread water while he wasn't working in his
regular endeavors and took care of his son. So, we have the
5.3 million euros of property value and we have a 1.6
million euro unsecured personal loan or approximately 7
million euros of debt at stake here.

Approximately September 15th of last year the Van de
Brands were visited by a Mrs. Inge Moonen of
ABN Amro Bank. To the best I can tell, I don't know what
her exact job description is, but she must be in charge of
repossessions across Europe if she flies from the
Netherlands to Spain to visit the Van de Brands and to
apprise them to get their personal possessions in order;
that they'll be out of their home within a week. So the next
day or so Mr. Van de Brand contacts a gentleman, Jacob
Schot, who's a longtime advocate Mathematically
Perfected Economy™ in Europe. Jack is also a citizen of the
Netherlands living in Spain, a neighbor of Carl Van de
Brand's and they met each other just sometime over a year
ago or so. And Jack had apprised me that I might be relied
on to help with this case.

So two days after Inge Moonen visits the Van de Brands to
apprise them to get their personal possessions together,
that they're going to be evicted in a week, with five days
left, we have a three-way conference call. Mr. Van de Brand
gives me his basic situation and gives me power-of-
attorney to interact with the bank on his behalf. What
happens: I write the letter that I'm about to read
to you and basically we never hear from the bank or its
legal team in Spain since. That's approximately nine
months ago now. No payments have been made. by the
time the Van de Brands had contacted me in September
last year they were more than a year in arrears on both
these debts. Not a payment has been made then, since
approximately 21 months, has been paid, and the last nine
months transpiring since the letter that I'm about to read.

This letter presents two questions and as we would
understand from the previous discussion that we've had
those two questions invalidate any claim that the debt
precipitates to the banking system. The banking system, in
turn, cannot afford to take us to court then, in attempt to
impose its implicit claims against the Van de Brands
because if this matter is decided in a court of law on its
veritable arguments then a legal precedent would be
established which would bring down the banking systems
across the world.

I have pilot cases since actually 1976 on this same matter
and I found since - actually on my birthday, January 14,
1976 - that never does the banking system challenge my
arguments. And the only reasonable reason to presume
that would be is, if presented as these arguments are
presented, that they realize they will lose and that
therefore they can't go to. Because in losing they set a
precedent which brings down the banking systems across
the world. Now we can speculate how that's handled
behind the scenes and of course, I've done so for many
years obviously. But I'll leave it to your own intuition to
imagine how that transpires so that we can concentrate on
the matter at hand.
““Never does the banking systemNever does the banking system
challenge my arguments.”challenge my arguments.”

I write this letter and it's basically over. We do hear once
from the bank and we hear once from its legal team in
Spain. I sent six letters to the bank all together. And the
only time they replied was after I believe it was the third
letter that I sent. I sent a letter every ten days for three
letters and they replied that the reason that they didn't
answer these questions I'm about to read - I'm about to
read there's two questions here - the reason they didn't
answer was they didn't have a copy our power-of-attorney
agreement to which I replied effectively, “B.S., Mr. Van de
Brand sent you himself copies of my letters,” verifying
therefore there indeed I had, in my own words, “been
granted power-of-attorney,” interacting with the bank and
himself. Furthermore since he provided my two questions,
there wasn't any legitimate reason whatsoever that the
bank not answer to Mr. Van de Brand himself, but that the
bank had no case whatsoever.

So we never heard from the bank after I told the bank
outright that they have no case whatsoever; no claim
whatsoever to either the principal or the interest. They
turn it over to their legal team a few weeks later. I didn't
receive the letter from the legal team in Spain because,
well, I doubt they actually sent it to me. But Mr. Van de
Brand gets a copy of what they claim to have sent me and I
don't receive for some reason. You can imagine why that
would be, of course. So the legal team basically claims that
Mr. Van de Brand has ignored all the appeals of the bank
and that he's in arrears and that they have to process this
debt immediately, which means of course eviction,
foreclosure, repossession and resale of the property.
““So we never heard from the bank after I told theSo we never heard from the bank after I told the
bank outright that they have no case whatsoever.”bank outright that they have no case whatsoever.”

Cancel The Cabal: So they're trying to bully him, basically.
MM: Yes. But I wrote about a ten-page letter taking this
lawyer to school, proving that he was in violation his oath,
if even represented the bank. I spanked him very very
thoroughly. In fact it's a hysterically funny letter. You've
never seen a - if I was the the legal team in Spain, I would
be embarrassed to ever appear in a court of law where
that letter might be read in the trying of this case because I
re-present the questions that I presented in this original
letter and, other further questions as well. And they don't
answer and after I write this one letter back to their legal
team in Spain we never hear.
““...if I was the the legal team in Spain, I would be...if I was the the legal team in Spain, I would be
embarrassed to ever appear in a court of law...”embarrassed to ever appear in a court of law...”

So, two letters from the bank or, one from the bank, one
from its legal team. The bank claims it couldn't answer my
questions because it hadn't received power-of-attorney
agreement which we immediately - we just had a verbal
agreement - we immediately produced a written one, sent
it to them with my immediate reply, “B.S., Mr. Van de Brand
sent you the questions himself,” including my assertion
that I'd been granted power-of-attorney, implicitly
corroborating the fact in the very least.
““The bank claims it couldn't answer myThe bank claims it couldn't answer my
questions because it hadn't receivedquestions because it hadn't received
power-of-attorney agreement...”power-of-attorney agreement...”

And so then we hear from their legal team. I'd be glad to
read all these letters if you want, they're hysterical. The
final one that I sent to the lawyer - and they haven't -
they've never responded to that letter. And the Van de
Brands are still in their home. Of course the problem here
is that we don't have closure. But the fact of the matter is
the bank is at bay. It cannot take them to court without
losing on the further grounds of the fourth plank which I
didn't express. Maybe I explained it, but our fourth plank
of these Faux-Creditor Actions™ and the letter that I sent
to the lawyer exercises the fourth plank.
““the Van de Brands are stillthe Van de Brands are still
in their home.”in their home.”

The fourth plank holds that being as the banking system
has been allowed this unwarranted and unjustifiable
power to obfuscate our promissory obligations to each
other into faux debts by effectively issuing an
irredeemable promise to pay - that is what it presumes to
be a promissory obligation - for which it makes no
provision whatsoever to redeem or pay. Therefore we as
private citizens cannot be denied the like right and
therefore the very letter that I send offers to resolve the
debt in the very substance which it's ostensibly created. So
if the court is to decide to sustain the implicit arguments
of the banking system, then we've repaid the debt in full
on the other hand by issuing an irredeemable promise to
pay, which forces...
““...we're not claiming to resolve the debt, but to...we're not claiming to resolve the debt, but to
resolve theresolve the falsifiedfalsified debt...”debt...”

Cancel The Cabal: Just like they did.
Yes. Which we're not claiming to resolve the debt, but to
resolve the falsified debt, you see? So we're pleading for
our first three planks, which is to resolve our promissory
obligations to each other to the only rightful state thereof.
So with all that in mind, we understand the scenario that
this letter has been sent in. But it's being sent to people
who may not even understand this obfuscation this letter
then is exposing it to them. Tacitly at least, or implicitly,
it's a shot across the bow. It's a warning, tongue-in-cheek
of what we want to go to court over, tempting the banks to
try us. Hopefully, what we want is to go to court. We want
to go to court because these letters actually expose our
entire strategy.
““We want to go toWe want to go to
court.”court.”

There's no tricks to be played. We're not - this isn't a
gimmick to get out of debt. It's arguments that resolve our
debts to the only rightful state thereof, which resolve
ninety percent of the world's debt, plus. It's probably the
high nineties, very high nineties in fact. So anyway all that
in mind think about these words as you'd receive them if
you were the banking system. I'm certain that this letter
and other letters that I do like it are relayed across the
banking system.
"...it was after I sent this letter that you"...it was after I sent this letter that you
started hearing about bankers all over thestarted hearing about bankers all over the
world committing suicide."world committing suicide."

What are we going to do about this? What would be the
best ideas that you have?
The central bank is going to say:
Don't you dare take these people the court. Because if this
case is tried on the grounds that they're raising, the whole
ruse is up. We lose this power to obfuscate their promissory
obligations into falsified debts to us. We lose this power to
dispossess every country of the world by an obfuscation of
their currency, which inevitably precipitates in terminal
dispossession and dysfunctionality. We lose this. Here's a
check for whatever they owe you. Shut up, don't go to court,
leave them hanging in limbo without closure. Because you
go to court and we all come down and you're going to pay
the price for that.

So this letter is effectively turning banker
against banker against banker, behind-the-
scenes thinking what are we going to do? In
fact, it was after I sent this letter that you
started hearing about
bankers all over the world committing suicide.
Cancel The Cabal: Bingo!

So this is the letter I send this letter two days after
the Van de Brands are notified in person by a
woman flying from Netherlands - the woman I
write - that they'll be out at their home within a
week they've got five days left when when she gets
his letter. Her name is Inge Moonen. So, without
further ado...
““It's a warning, tongue-in-cheek of whatIt's a warning, tongue-in-cheek of what
we want to go to court over, tempting thewe want to go to court over, tempting the
banks to try us.”banks to try us.”

Dear Mrs. Moonen,
I have been granted power-of-attorney regarding the
matter of ABN Amro versus Carl and Sue Van de Brand. I
look forward to resolving related matters and over the next
few days I do intend to furnish an initial response to the
position of the bank as much as the bank's implicit position
can be understood from circumstance and given
information.
That sentence puts into perspective a fact that the
arguments for what must be their claims, if they're
claiming payments have to be made of principal and
interest, the arguments don't exist anywhere in
the world. And I've been researching this with help of
many people for almost 50 years now.

I look forward to resolving related matters I say and over
the next few days I do intend for each in an initial response
to the position of the bank, whatever that is, as much as the
bank's implicit position can be understood from
circumstance and given information lacking any further
given information then.
All that can be understood from this circumstance is the
implicit position, which of course is no legal argument.

I understand that contractual obligations may be asserted
to exist which essentially then must derive not only from
ostensible agreements between ABN Amro and other banks
in the assumable transmission of ostensibly lent monies, but
most importantly also from commensurable consideration
originating in faithful performance of a public trust
inherently existing in the ostensible creation and acquisition
or transmission of money by and between the banks of
banking systems.

I would be much obliged therefore for immediate, full and
faithful disclosure of ABN Amro's prior knowledge of the
trust it may or may not even agree exists in the proposition
that money can indeed rightfully be lent into existence.
Specifically we desire to know without confusion evasion or
equivocation how it is that banking contends it creates
money as purported debts to a purported banking system
which may or may not even give up commensurable
consideration in the process. This after all, is something we
would expect you already know from such plentiful and
faithful documentation as legitimate enterprise would
already have provided.
“...it's the unjustifiable imposition interest then,
as if the principal was at stake, which
precipitates in terminal dispossession.”

Thus it is, nonetheless, that we hope we may understand
with appropriate certainty that such consideration as each
resultant debt is indeed conveyed, that truly legitimate
arrangements ensure to an actual creditor who indeed gives
up property for promissory obligations, that the
representation of entitlement which money must in turn
represent then is ensured to every actual creditor...
...in which the bank cannot be one.

...and furthermore, that it is both possible and practical
under prevailing conditions for resultant obligors to fulfill
their natural obligations to every such actual creditor, when
in practice they might only sustain a necessary or vital
circulation by a perpetual escalation of borrowing, in which
principal and interest only returned to circulation as
irreversibly escalated and therefore inevitably terminal
sums of otherwise falsified debt. In other words given such
global conditions as would corroborate such projected
consequences we're further concerned that the implied
obfuscation of our promissory obligations to each other
indeed inevitably precludes fulfillment of whatever
contractual obligations banking otherwise might only claim
utterly without legitimate grounds.

Given the grave ramifications of an irreversible
multiplication of falsified debt then, it is of course also
important...
...this is our second question. The first is commensurable
consideration.
...it is of course also important in the affairs truly self-
governed people that it can be demonstrated that already
existing and assumably self-evident justifications of these
processes are prior public knowledge and that such prior
public knowledge has indeed conferred truly knowledgeable
public assent. Necessarily then, the both must be
comprehensive not only of the prospective lack of
commensurable consideration but also have every potential
implication.

That would be including inevitably terminal monetary
failure dispossession and dysfunctionality.
Thus assuming the evident volume of the requested material
imposes no excessive burden...
...Because all the they required to provide these answers, if
they exist, is to point us to where these accounts are that
justify either question's answer in history
...thus assuming the evident following the requested
material imposes no excessive burden we also desire all the
information you can provide as veritable testament to
knowledgeable public assent.

I thank you then, not only on behalf of myself and the Van de
Brands for your kind assurances regarding each of these
vital dependencies, I thank you furthermore on behalf of all
deserved citizens whose well being indeed depends upon
their sovereign right to knowledgeable assent.
Warm Regards,
Mike Montagne
End of contest.
““...we also desire all the information you...we also desire all the information you
can provide as veritable testament tocan provide as veritable testament to
knowledgeable public assent.”knowledgeable public assent.”

Cancel The Cabal: Great stuff there! So commensurable
consideration is the Achilles Heel of the fraudulent
centralized banking system.
MM: Absolutely. That's what it all comes down to. And a
debt does precipitate, we have to understand that. We have
to understand that debt is no injury against us. It's no
injury. Paul Grignon has been selling videos: Money As
Debt I, Money As Debt II, Money As Debt III, MAD III. It's his
misunderstanding that debt is the problem. You're looking
at the end result as a terminal sum of falsified debt.

Cancel The Cabal: Right. Cart before the horse.
MM: The problem is that the falsification of the debts, the
obfuscation of the debts of our debts to each other into a
falsified debt to the banking system is a lie that allows
them to pretend that the principal's at stake, thus
purportedly lending us money from their legitimate
possession into existence, which legitimate possession
cannot exist as representation of entitlement, because
they never gave commensurable consideration.

Cancel The Cabal: Right. Cart before the horse.
MM: But it's the unjustifiable imposition interest then, as
if the principal was at stake, which precipitates in terminal
dispossession, the form of which and that means of which
are terminal escalation of falsified debt by interest. It's
interest that is the second crime of banking. But we cannot
forget the first crime, which is to launder all the principal
ever so mal-created into the unwarranted and
unjustifiable possession of the banking system.

Cancel The Cabal: Right. So possession and dispossession,
irreversibly escalated debt fraud.
MM: There you have it.
Cancel The Cabal: Right. Amazing! Thanks so much, Mike.
Do you have a website?
MM: I'm the first monetary reform presence of the
modern Internet; you bet I do: perfecteconomy.com is
where the original web pages are still preserved in a state
they were in a long time ago, just as a historical record and
the new site, where you can sign the global amendment, is
perfectedeconomy.org.

We also have two Facebook groups:
Student Debtors for Mathematically Perfected Economy™
and People for Mathematically Perfected Economy™ at
Facebook.
You can join those groups where we have ongoing
discussions.

Resources:Resources:
Video Re-upload By MrPeaceAndLibertyVideo Re-upload By MrPeaceAndLiberty
Original Video by Trop68Original Video by Trop68
Full-Length Radio ShowFull-Length Radio Show
World People's MandateWorld People's Mandate
Perfect Economy Original WebsitePerfect Economy Original Website
People for Mathematically Perfected Economy™ at FacebookPeople for Mathematically Perfected Economy™ at Facebook

Resources (cont'd):Resources (cont'd):
Student Debtors for Mathematically Perfected Economy™Student Debtors for Mathematically Perfected Economy™
Money As Debt Undressed For ZombiesMoney As Debt Undressed For Zombies
Australia for Mathematically Perfected Economy™Australia for Mathematically Perfected Economy™
Holland for Mathematically Perfected Economy™Holland for Mathematically Perfected Economy™
Dead Banker CountDead Banker Count
Modern Money MechanicsModern Money Mechanics

The Alleged Loan Contract:The Alleged Loan Contract:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F3dueNVXy8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F3dueNVXy8
MPE Advocates on YouTube:MPE Advocates on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/user/mikemontagnehttps://www.youtube.com/user/mikemontagne
https://www.youtube.com/user/chotaboy66https://www.youtube.com/user/chotaboy66
https://www.youtube.com/user/trop68https://www.youtube.com/user/trop68
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrPeaceandLibertyhttps://www.youtube.com/user/MrPeaceandLiberty

Contract Essentials:Contract Essentials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bliNCLIzPuMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bliNCLIzPuM
US ConstitutionUS Constitution

Epic Foreclosure Defense You've Never Heard Of! | Avoid Foreclosure Without Foreclosure Attorney

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (8)

Último

Último (20)

Epic Foreclosure Defense You've Never Heard Of! | Avoid Foreclosure Without Foreclosure Attorney