What would be the likely response if any should I choose to write to the Central bank?

Dear sir

It has come to my attention that you and not the government of Canada print money and loan it to the Canadian government . This deception has lead to the average Canadian wrongly believing they as a nation are in debt when in truth the Canadian people have been robbed and held hostage to pay interest on the theft

It has come to my attention that you are not an elected official and that by wrongly lending money to the government of Canada and holding hostage the peoples that you have become the owner of the government and by controlling the circulation of money with no oversight or democratic representation

This is clearly in my opinion a charge of treason and interference with many elected governments Provincially and federally I believe there is ample evidence of a bloodless coup

I therefore ask that you surrender yourself to the nearest RCMP detachment and make a full confession available in order to avoid further costs for a trial

Because you are not the government of Canada the money you have printed is counterfeit and not the currency of this land Because you have used these counter fit notes to purchase to the government you should immediately confess to treason interference counterfeiting and holding hostage the peoples of Canada in a racketeering scheme of absolute evil with the purposeful design in mind of enslaving the peoples of this Dominion

-----------------------------------

What would be the likely response if any should I choose to write to the Central bank

Laughter

A free beating

A restraining order

A job offer

A confused secretary who tosses it in the rubbish bin right away ?

--- Something completely different ?

I think you'll hear the sounds of crickets in the night. Nothing. I think it will get passed up the chain until it reaches the first person who knows what your Central Bank actually is, and then you'll be put on a watch list. I hear there are over 1 million American citizens on the no-fly list (I'm more than likely one of them). I have no info on Canada, but I can look it up.

So Trout, you get the deal with your currency, but you buy right into Climate Change? Why? Don't you realize that they are both being done by the same bunch of Progressive hucksters?

Probably no response. I'm sure your Central Bank probably behaves much like the Federal Reserve does. In America, we have a Ron Paul. In the rest of the world, as far as I know, no prominent politician stands up to the central banksters.

A confused secretary who tosses it in the rubbish bin.

A Bush autograph

Does canada not print thier own money?

Anybody know how much you have to put down on raw land?

Hello my husband and I live in PA and are currently looking into purchasing vacant land to build our own home on in about 2 years. We would like to buy land now and make payments on it for 2 years before we build a house. We currently own a home. I have heard you have to put a certain percentage down but I can't seem to find any information on bank websites about land loans. Thanks!

what is the seller asking for?

there is no specific %

for many years(before the creative mortgage surge) one had to have 10% down for a home and their payments could not exceed 25% of their income

this might give you some guideline but you are not talking a residence

In recent times, about 30% is typical.

Ask a lender.

Could be 25% of sales price or higher in these hard-to-get-a-loan days.

Could even be 30% - 50%.

If the seller will finance it for you, could be ZERO. They might accept payments. This is the difference between institutionalized financing and seller financing. Good luck.

If my land owner has bankruptcy, and my apartment building goes into foreclosure. Can the bank take my things?

HELP!?!?!?!?

YOU ARE SAFE.....however I was in a similar situation....the land owner lost the property...our leases were no longer valid and I had to take the old landlord to court to get my deposit back. The landlord knew he was losing the property and collelcted the sept rent, and then the new owners wanted the september rent as they had not gotten it. all of us had to pay the rents for september and then take the previous landlord to court to get our monies back..he filed bankruptcy so each one of us tenats was out 2,400. for the rent and the deposit x 10 tenants......and we could do nothing about it. the new owners brought us leases to sign where the rent was higher and they wanted a deposit from all of us...I did not sign the new lease and moved.....contact an atty about where to send your rents since the property is in forclosure. the bank may want the money sent to them and placed in an escrow account. contact an atty so that you are not skrewed like all of us were

The bank cannot take your personal property, but they can order your eviction.

Your things are yours.

What is the difference between a land title and land parcel?

Can I use land parcel as collateral for loan at any bank in Philippines?

A Transfer Certificate of Title issued by the Registry of Deeds, which is under the Land Registration Authority of the Philippine government, (not by anyone or anybody else)is the best form of land ownership. It is document that can be sold, exchanged, mortgaged or pawned.

As to the parcels document, maybe you are referring to a Tax Declaration,which is issued by the municipality. You can't mortgage it in the bank. For you to get a land title(if the land is not yet titled), get in touch with the local assessor of your municipality or to the register of deeds in your area, so they can advise you what steps to follow, Bring with you the evidences that you and your family paid the taxes in the past years.

You need to be clear on what is ownership of real property and what is not.

A"Deed of Absolute Sale" is the Official document proving ownership of a parcel of land.

A "Tax Declaration" form is NOT a certificate of ownership. It merely allows you to occupy the land at the convenience of the Government.

Sounds like you are trying to use a Tax Declation Form as collateral for a bank loan. You cannot borrow against property that is not yours.

You may not use the land parcel as collateral to the bank instead the bank requires that you present the lender with the Land Title Certificate.

Metes and bounds is a traditional method of land surveying in which the boundaries of land parcel are recorded in terms of relative directions and distance. The land parcel is also known as the legal boundary of demarcation of two units or more of land/s.

Certificates of Title are documents that may be used to establish the current owner of a piece of property. Along with identifying the current owner, a Certificate of Title will also provide other valuable information about the status of the property, including any existing easements or encumbrances on the land and buildings located on the property. Full disclosure of the status of the property on the Certificate of Title can help lenders and potential buyers to be fully apprised of the current situation of the asset, and thus make a decision about whether to move forward with the proposed transaction.

Along with providing adequate details about the nature of the property, the Certificate of Title will also provide essential information about the current owner of the property. This will include the name of the registered owner and some sort of identifying information that helps to establish the identity of the person named as the owner on the property title. Depending on the provisions required by local law, there may be other identifying information regarding the owner required as part of the body of the document.

The final key section of a Certificate of Title will detail any and all current claims that are in force against the property. These may include mortgages currently in force, loans that have been taken out by the owner and which utilize the property as collateral for the loan, and encumbrances such as a tax lien. Generally, the entity that is holding the encumbrance on the property will also be named in the Certificate of Title, making it relatively easy to verify the current status of the obligation.

A land title is a piece of paper, while a parcel of land is the physical object referred to by the said document.

Going to the Bank with a dump truck containing aggregates from this parcel of land would not be construed by the said commercial concern as "collateral". They always prefer the document, or the title of the land, usually insisting that there are no encumbrances thereto.

A land title is a piece of paper, while a parcel of land is the physical object referred to by the said document.

Going to the Bank with a dump truck containing aggregates from this parcel of land would not be construed by the said commercial concern as "collateral". They always prefer the document, or the title of the land, usually insisting that there are no encumbrances thereto.

WELL YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND AMERICAN BEFORE ASKING SUCH QUESTIONS YOU SILLY BLOKE:

A TITLE IS LIKE A NAME SEE A MUSIC TITLE AS IN "BAD" OF MJ

AND A PARCEL ? U SHOULD BETTER ASK THAT YOUR LOCAL MAILMAN

If the Jews gave back 22% of the land they stole (the west bank), would there be peace?

Are Palestinians the first refugee population in history? Hardly. But they are surely the first refugees who, as a group, have categorically RESISTED RESETTLEMENT, instead living for decades as wards of the international community. Indeed, in Gaza today, years after Israel renounced any territorial claims, there continue to be refugee camps. Why? Why -- other than to serve as incubators for hatred that produce recruits bent on martyrdom and mayhem -- are there Palestinian refugee camps in Palestinian territory?

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Nothing_Short_of_a_Miracle.asp

The trust deficit is exacerbated by the fact that after Israel quit the Gaza Strip in 2005, Palestinians, instead of building Singapore there, built Somalia and focused not on how to make microchips, but on how to make rockets to hit Israel. Thomas Friedman

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/opinion/04friedman.html?em&ex=1212811200&en=1ca1f27e6a40c673&ei=5070

.

been there, done that...

Israel, that is.

No, there wouldn't.

What you are dealing with really are two conflicting absolute beliefs: many Israelis believe that Israel is the land promised to them by their deity. Many people in the Muslim nations believe that any land once owned by Muslims belongs to Islam. For both sides, it is a part of the fundamental beliefs of many and perhaps most members of the majority faiths.

There is really no possibility of compromise between those two positions, sadly.

If the Jews gave back 22% of the land they didn't steal, there probably wouldn't be peace - just read some of the answers to this question.

Gotta love Sunset's comment: "The jews are easy prey right now" - spoken like a true carnivore.

And the "Jewish God=Judas killed Christ" bit would be comical if it wasn't so sincere. What a piece of work.

Don't worry, she's just pining for the fjords.

As a totally unbiased person I say this:

The jews have no business on other people's land.

God cursed these guys to wander around in circles since the day they killed Jesus Christ.

That's what the Good Book says anyway. Tom

Nothing was stolen. Even if it were true until Hamas the worlds most hated child killing group is completely wiped out Palestine will never have peace. Peace cannot take place when a child killing group resides among the people.

Tell the Muslims that despite what Allah says in the "Holy Quran" they don't own the entire world's territory and are not overlords over the "infidels"

Jews have been in this land for over 4,000+ years, that is NOT gonna change if some Genghis Khan/Adolf Hitler type warlord comes riding out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century with his band of savage killers to claim it as his own.

if G-d gave 22% of your brain that you werent born with, maybe ud have an answer

70-80% of PA Arabs poll that they will continue to fight Israel, even if given a state. However, Israel won the land during a war with Jordan who'd occupied it illegally during the independence war. Illegally because they started that war. PA Arabs didn't object until after Jordan attacked Israel & wound up with it.

Israel tried to give it all back in '68-'69 but got the famous three nos "no peace, no negotiations, no Israel."

There's a pattern here. The solution is to change the ideology of those who can't stand any of Middle East, not being Muslim --- so they stop riling up PAs with this false stolen saga.

======================

Michael's comments

Ignore that is was a people exchange, not refugee problem.

800,000 Jewish people were kicked out of Arab countries & absorbed by Israel.

More than the 700,000 Arabs who mostly left of their own will because their own leadership asked them too. Also it ignores, that ALL of that is a RESPONSE to Palestinian war & terrorizing of Israel. ALL of it...would stop if & when PA Arabs ask for peace collectively.

Rabbi for you

is an anti-jewish person pretenting to be Jewish to make false statments, Israelis don't make.

The land was not stolen. The land was promised. As we can see, G-d always keeps his promises. Israel was willing to disobey G-d and give up some of their land for peace. Yassir Arafat was once offered more than 90% of all the demands of the PLO and he refused. Land is not the main objective of terrorists. Jewish Blood shed is the main objective of terrorists.

You are confusing "stealing" with "winning land in a war that was started by one's enemies".

Israel did not steel any land from any one, it has belonged to the Jewish people for over 3000 year and will be theres for ever.Israel is here to stay its about time you get used to it.

Plus even if Israel withdrew completely from the westbank it will lead to a security disaster no buffer zone would exist to separate hostile Palestinian forces from Israel if it were to withdraw completely from the territories. Every Israeli government, and most nonpartisan observers, agree that Israel's security requires a presence in the Jordan Valley. Furthermore, Israel has a historic connection to Judea and Samaria, which have been home to Jews for centuries and have important religious significance to the Jewish people. Finally, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria could legitimately argue the territories in dispute belonged to them; this is not true of the Palestinians. The West Bank was never part of any country and the Palestinian claim to the territory is no better than that of Israel.

Israel has acknowledged that it will be necessary to withdraw from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, and has already withdrawn from large swaths of both, but its security needs are such that it cannot withdraw from 100 percent of those lands.

Jordan doesn't want West Bank back.

So, there is no giving it back.

Israel took the West Bank in a defensive war. That is not stealing. All the signs are that if Israel were to release control of West Bank, the attacks on Israeli citizens would increase again. There would not be peace.

Israel gave Gaza back and go t rockets back as a thank you

in recent talks Between olmert and abbu abbas, olmert asked if the arabs got all that they demanded would they sign a paragraph stating that there would be no further demands and would lay down their arms.

the arabs refused.

If I remember correctly Israel took the land from Jordan and if I remember correctly the Palestinians lived there under Jordanian rule from 48 to 67 without uttering a sound. Many still live in Jordan without uttering a sound, so why won't the Palestinians living in the west bank move to jordan, I'm sure that will bring peace to Israel.

Let me ask you this: If you believe the cause of the conflict is Israel 'stealing' the West Bank, was there peace before the 'theft' ? Obviously the conflict is not based on the West Bank, but the existence of a sovereign Jewish state.

Not until they give the Palestinians the 100% which belonged to them in 1947. Palestinians should be compensated too.

Even if the settlers gave back 90%, the rest 10% belongs to the Palestinians and they should have it back. It's their's and time doesn't change that fact.

I doubt it.

I know it's sad.

But, I can't deny it.

There wasn't peace before Israel held that land, evidenced by the very war that gave it to them! Why would there be if she gave it up? Israel has given up land for peace many times and to no avail. There won't be peace until the Arab world can recognize that Israel is there to stay.

No

We will give back nothing.

G-d gave it to us

I was there when he did

Regardless of the terminology used ("stolen"), there would not be peace as many of the opposing players, including Hamas, Hizbollah, and the leadership in Iran, advocate the destruction of the Israeli state.

Even if the Apartheid state of Israel withdraws unconditionally from the West Bank, the Gaza strip, and all of East Jerusalem, they still occupy 78% of historic Palestine.

The West Bank, Gaza, and E. Jerusalem only make up 22% of historic Palestine.

In 1948, the apartheid state of Israel was created by force over the backs of the native Palestinian people. At that time, 94% of the entire population were Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs, whereas only 6% of the entire population of Palestine were Jews.

The apartheid state of Israel would never exist today if it wasn't for the massive ethnic cleansing and mass murders of thousands upon thousand of innocent Palestinians who are indeed the native people of the land.

Israel is in clear violation of dozens of UN resolutions and International Laws passed by the World Community, however none of these decisions have ever been enforced.

Israel remains today as the world's last racist apartheid state on the planet. The Palestinian will eventually get all of their land back, but they need the help of the world community.

Arafat wouldn't sign a deal in 2000 when Barak offered 95% of the WB. They will never be offered anything remotely similar. Clinton was pissed and Barak was ousted as PM since Israelis thought he was offering too much. (His hugging and kissing of Arafat didn't help either.)

No Israel would have to concede far more than that

1 Release all or most of the 11,000 prisoners they hold.

2 Open up the border controls between Gaza and Israel

3 Remove all the road blocks in occupied Palestine.

4 Allow the opening of the internation airport in Gaza

5 Allow the opening of the sea port in Gaza

6 Stop the sea blockade of Gaza

7 Forbid Israels military plans to fly over any part of Palestininian lands

8 Return to its 1947 borders

9 Demolish all the partition Berlin style walls

10. Allow the return of all Palestinian 4 million refugees

IF Israel agreed to all these conditions I feel sure that Hamas and the people of Palestine would agree to that peace plan but we all know this will never happen .

22 percent? that is nothing, how about the refugees? what about that? there is more to solve than just damage done to the west bank, there are bigger issues than that

Nothing less than 100% is acceptable to me.

The jews are easy prey right now. They are cornered without any moral power, with the "holocost" hoax shuttered and the Universe full of angry anti-semetics, anti-nazi, pro-peace people.

They say that their G_d (Judas) gave them the land but we all know what he did to Jesus Christ.

I think the jews never thing straight like we do.

That's because they are always getting married with very close blood relatives.

Even Einstein had an affair with his sister.

Wood Allen married his own daughter!

Disgusting!

I think I'll throw up

bye bye

No

The Zionists have stolen most of the land they hold.

Until Israel ceases to be a state based on racist principals and allows the Palestinians to return to their homes there will never be peace.

The “israelis” stole more than 22% of Palestine proper, even murdered Palestinians at a higher percentage than that.

Never, until the full land is back.

What is the distance of straight run-up a jumbo-jet needs before coming in to land?

Before an aeroplane comes into land it obviously banks around coming lower and lower while in its queue but what is the straight distance a 747 jumbo-jet needs?

Most airlines have a standard that requires an airplane to be "stabilized" (wings level, normal rate of descent, appropriate speed, airplane configured) on an approach at either 500 feet (visual approach) or 1000 feet (Instrument approach) above the ground, which are about 1.5 miles and 3 miles from the runway respectively.

Given the size and inertia of the 747, I would expect that airplane to be stabilized by at least 1000 ft/3 miles...

The majority of approaches at airports, in particular major airports, are called straight in approaches, since it is less risky flying these types of approaches and they work well with the Instrument Landing System.

With this in mind, the absolute minimum for a Boeing 737 is 5-10nm from the touchdown zone. Usually aircraft will be vectored in by ATC from 15-20nm away in a straight line or on base leg, giving the crew time to get the aircraft lined up and prepared for landing.

During a typical ILS approach, the localizer is usually picked up by 10nm and the glideslope usually comes alive by 6nm, though there will be variation from airport to airport. For example, with Atlanta, Georgia, the ILS approach commences at 13.6nm.

Obviously there are exceptions, such as Kai Tek, which was notorious for the bent approach at low altitudes with a Boeing 747. Aircraft didn't have much room to line up with the runway, so it involved a lot of skill and concentration. Norwich airport runway 09 also has a DME arc approach too, which leaves just under 10nm to line up with the runway and follow the glideslope.

very unpredictable.

you could do a stall landing. you must be very high up though.

you stall and fall at a steep angle and try and pull the 747 out of the dive.

or you could position your self perfectly 5 minutes after you take off your airport of origin.

Ideally you could just land straight in. Any banking around is to accommodate traffic, not for the benefit of the aircraft.

I want to purchase a mobile home with lot but bank will not finance?

i am looking to purchase a mobile home with a land but the banks will not finance it because they say the mobile home is on the land. is there anything i can do? i don't have a lot of money to put down maybe like 2000 dollars. i really want this place but i will have to completely move it and then set it back on the property. i went to a bank and they will only lend me a certain %. could i get a loan on the whole thing?? i need help!!

YES, pay cash.

Try a rent to buy deal with seller.

Your post isn't clear about what the problem is, why. Wizip may have answer.

Try another lender.

Generally a lender gives you a mortgage and it is only a percentage, you put down the down payment and they finance the rest. You don't have a RIGHT to get loan, you have to qualify, meet their standards.

Talk to them about converting it to real property.

Generally if it is placed on a foundation, wheels removed and title dtuned in to the DMV, it has a better chance.