Credit Cards and U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.
In the U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 is says,
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.”
Also in Section 10 it says,
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Now, let’s look to The Declaration of Independence.
Second paragraph.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….
bottom of second paragraph.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good!
Paragraph fifteen
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (For imposing higher interest rates on us without a meeting of minds nor our Consent)
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of separate accounts for old debts at the older lower interest rate.)
…
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms (altering fundamentally the Forms of meeting of the minds concept in Contract Law) of our Governments: (By taking away these rights the Governments has implied Nobility on the rights of Contracts from the perspective of the writer who is a banker/creditor.)
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our governments: (For conspiring with Congress to allow the other creditors information to be included in the calculations for increasing our interest rates and without any prior warning. Also conspiring to allow creditors to arbitrarily increase interest rates at their own discretion and without a new signed contract.)
***********************
From the above in most areas if King were substituted for creditor or lender or credit card and then you the debtor were the citizen then what is happening now is likewise the same scenario which was happening around the formation of our Country.
The Creditors are altering contracts which have a nebulious wording attached to them to allow them to change the credit card interest rate at any time and for whatever reason which may suite the lender. Congress has also gone ahead with this scheme and transposed its legislative rights to the creditors. However, since Congress cannot pass any ex-post facto laws allowing this type of a contract then law is Unconstitutional and thus the Contract is Unconstitutional.
I would therefore say that since we also have laws which if a contract is written up by one party then the party writing up the contract is totally at fault when the wording of a contract cannot be enforced by a judge. When one party changes a contract ex-post facto then you have nullified a contract and it should be voidable by the other party.
I would liken a provision like this as usuary. In some States if you charge usuary then the amount over the normal interest rate is indeed also payable back to the party being charged but the principle of the amount is also reduced. Since this is such a widespread disrespect for the Constitution then the principal amount should also not have to be paid. There should be some type of provision in the Narco Laws which should cover double or triple or quadruple damages also to be paid.
Since I am not an attorney nor do I pretend to be one I am not advocating anyone stop paying their credit cards but rather to address this issue with their attorney. If you have enough money to press the issue stop paying your credit cards and ask the credit card companies to reimburse you if they have previously increased your interest rate for no reason of your fault. That is if you have made regular payments on-time and regularly and they still have increased your interest rate. I think this is where this provision might take affect. Although in my thinking the creditors are collecting a penalty fee to get you back into compliance and the increasing of the interest rate even if your fault is an ex-post facto increase as well.
The other thinking might be that if your creditors increase their interest rates to such a point that you now cannot make your payments then in the old world you were obliged to be an indendtured servant to pay your bill back. In essence, this is what is being created. You contracted at a reasonable interest rate and now that things (macro-economic pressures) are beyond your contract the creditors are increasing your interest rate and then you will have to be extending all of your time and free-time to pay them back. So the old solution was indentured servitude or debtors prison and the new method is a court judgement or bankruptcy.
The ability to instantaneously change contracts is the infering of Nobility on a particular group. This notion of Nobility is expressly prohibited as noted above from the U.S. Constitution and the agregous noting of what happens under the cloud of Nobility.
Please advise as to what your opinion is as to this matter.
Thanks
Keith Ljunghammar
Posted by keithlj 
Posted by keithlj 
Posted by keithlj 