Since I have expressed my STRAWMAN Trust, both by public notice and private declaration, it seems I may be in a perfect position to execute a remedy that is currently the subject of much discussion among the research community; namely, New Trust Technology, which is based upon theories developed by the researcher commonly known as Christian Walters.
A justifiable Cause of Action for an equitable claim against the TRUSTEES of the aforementioned trust has already been established, after they were instructed to make appropriate disbursements to the rightful BENEFICIARY, but emphatically failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations, without ever denying either the existence of those duties or the trust itself, giving rise to the lawful presumption of their agreement to the terms clearly expressed in three special delivered missives.
While the Courts of Chancery would seem to beckon a claim by the injured BENEFICIARY, having listened to Christian Walters’ most recently available work, I still have unanswered questions about an alleged mortgage remedy, which has been a persistent topic of discussion on certain forums. I also have some significant concerns about widespread misunderstanding regarding the Law of Securities and the manner in which credit is created.
By no means can I reasonably claim to have read every piece of research material on these subjects, nor have I yet had time to review all of the material available on the Law of Trusts. However, it remains that certain questions need to be addressed.
NTT Mortgage Remedy: Fact or Fiction?
The legal and equitable owner of a property (the GRANTOR) appoints the CEO of the Mortgage Bandit (who is also a registered BENEFICARY of the mortgage trust in the event that the GRANTOR defaults on the mortgage agreement)) as TRUSTEE of the Mortgage Trust, thus [at least in theory] collapsing the Trust on the basis that the TRUSTEE cannot be both BENEFICARY and TRUSTEE without another party sharing the beneficial interest, in the event the individual concerned accepts the appointment.
In simple terms, the CEO of an alleged lender cannot be forced to accept the appointment as TRUSTEE. Therefore, the trust would not be terminated (which is necessary for the legal title to revert back to the GRANTOR) if the Mortgage Bandit refused to accept the appointment.
However, even if it was accepted, the GRANTOR is also a BENEFICIARY, since, unless he defaults on his obligations to the trust (making monthly payments), he retains ownership of both legal and equitable title, as well as peaceful possession of the property, in which case, the trust would not terminate upon the acceptance of the appointment of the alleged lender as TRUSTEE. This is because [in spite of claims to the contrary] it is permissible for the TRUSTEE to benefit from the property in his care, provided that he is not the only beneficiary.
Since the GRANTOR retains ownership of legal and equitable title to the property in a Mortgage Trust, while the Land Registry holds the documents of title in trust, the GRANTOR must also be deemed a BENEFICIARY, while simultaneously acting as TRUSTEE of the mortgage account, as expressed in the Mortgage Agreement.
It is my humble opinion that the failure of this theory’s exponents to distinguish between the two trusts which arise from a property purchase has caused much confusion and a certain degree of false hope for those currently seeking an urgent remedy. The Emperor’s Clothes involuntarily spring to mind, notwithstanding the best of intentions.
Furthermore, what about the Land Registry? Are THE CROWN not holding the property deeds until the Mortgage Bandit’s charge has been removed from the registry? In the opinion of several very experienced commercial lawyers and barristers I have discussed these issues with, the Law of Property Act 1925 and its subsequent amendments stipulate that this is most certainly the case.
Indeed, a senior partner in a commercial law firm and seasoned trustee of a mid-sized private trust, recently confirmed that, in the absence of the consent of the Mortgagee (the alleged lender), the Land Registry will only remove a charge if the application for removal is supported by a Court Order, necessitating a clear, provable Cause of Action for legal proceedings, which the proponents of NTT have not yet been able demonstrate.
That is not to say that there is not a remedy to be had by bringing an equitable claim against the Mortgage Bandits, whether for unjust enrichment, breach of trust or failure to make appropriate disbursements, after appointing themselves BENEFICIARY of a negotiable instrument (promissory note) they made and depositied in the name of the owner of the property; an act duly authorised under the Power of Attorney granted to the alleged lender in the Mortgage Deed by the Mortgagor (the alleged borrower).
However, there is no avoiding the fact that this course of action would necessitate the establishment of material evidence supporting the injured BENEFICIARY’S claim, in order for the High Court to recognise its validity. To date, I have seen no evidence that filing notice of such a claim on a UCC-1 Financing Statement [as CW suggests in his audio recordings] has ever been recognized as evidence of a trust by the Courts of the England & Wales, which begs an obvious question: is there any evidence that New Trust Technology has been successfully administered anywhere on the planet? As yet, I have seen none, but I will post all future developments [if any] on this thread.
