MSE News: Buy-to-let borrowers hit by West Brom mortgage hike

Lewis_Ranieri

Beetroothead, you persist with stupid remarks, please grow up.

Lewis_Ranieri

Dean,


sorry, your questions and more have been fully answered unless relating to my personal circumstances, which are irrelevant.


We all note Hoover 118 has extricated himself from the thread, unable to deal with technical matters.

BeetrootMike

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Dean,

Who do you think controls the Judiciary? Who do you think controls the "Court" System.


Enough said.

Ok Stephen, you win, who do you think it is?

BeetrootMike

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Beetroothead, you persist with stupid remarks, please grow up.

Oh dear, PLEASE don't get angry again!

BeetrootMike

Stephen, PLEASE be patient and explain.....

You seem to suggest that, in our case:

If WB don't mention POA then they loose and we win?

but, if they do mention POA then the conspiracy gets exposed and they all loose and you win?

Have I got it at long last????

dturner451

BeetrootMike wrote: »

Stephen, PLEASE be patient and explain.....

You seem to suggest that, in our case:

If WB don't mention POA then they loose and we win?

but, if they do mention POA then the conspiracy gets exposed and they all loose and you win?

Have I got it at long last????

Yes that's what message I am getting, but he doesn't seem to want to answer that part of it. Along with all the other questions like who is telling him from WB that they are not concerned, how he knows what both Marks are getting paid.


As soon as you ask a question that queries what he has said he cuts and pastes a case .

antrobus

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Antrobus, if a an Agreement were a Contract, it would be called a Contract, it's not, it's an Agreement. One requires full disclosure the other one not so. ....

I see.

So when, for example, the Office of Fair Trading referred to 'Consumer Credit Agreements' it was talking about things that are not contracts. On the other hand, it does seem that the law requires an awful lot of disclosure of the content of these 'agreements'. Are you sure you've quite understood the distinction?:)

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

...You appear short on the basics of mortgage note securitisation and what tools the Service Agents (Banks) utilise to move them off their books.

I don't think you quite understand what is going on with the process of securitisation if you think banks moved "them off their books".

antrobus

BeetrootMike wrote: »

Stephen, PLEASE be patient and explain.....

You seem to suggest that, in our case:

If WB don't mention POA then they loose and we win?

but, if they do mention POA then the conspiracy gets exposed and they all loose and you win?

Have I got it at long last????

You're getting there.

Pseudolaw often goes hand in hand with other conspiracy theories. Most pseudolaw practitioners believe there is a vast conspiracy to cover up a group of elitists that control all the judges, courts, juries and the government as a whole. This is why their ideas never work in court--not because they are wrong, but because there is a conspiracy to suppress them (just like the vast materialist conspiracy propping up the Darwinian orthodoxy). This dark group holds all the classic labels such as Masons, Illuminati, and Zionists.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw

I believe the Illuminati have already been mentioned.:)

Lewis_Ranieri

Mike, I think you mean lose?


I am not interested in Conspiracy Theories.


Power of Attorney is not some form of pseudo law or theory, it's in Black and White in WB docs.

BeetrootMike

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Mike, I think you mean lose?


I am not interested in Conspiracy Theories.


Power of Attorney is not some form of pseudo law or theory, it's in Black and White in WB docs.

I do mean lose, thank you!

Soooo.... do you agree that:

If WB don't mention POA then they lose and we win?

but, if they do mention POA then they lose and you win?