# Foreclosure Defense (Use the UCC)



## Svarstaad (Dec 5, 2009)

. . . 

In light of the fact that virtually all promissory notes taken by banks, mortgage companies, etc., were sold at some time after the "closing" for the respective transactions ---  without the right in discovery to physically inspect, and photocopy the original wet-ink instrument, (production of the original instrument), meaning that the bank, mortgage company, etc., retained physical possession of the NOTE, standing in court to enforce the instrument in foreclosure is impossible pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. (UCC). 

This is the law behind -- "Show Me the Note!"

*Statutory Requirements For Establishing The Riight To Enforce An Instrument*

1.  Prove status of *holder* of the instrument. (UCC § 3-301(i)); or

2.  Prove status of *non-holder in possession of the instrument* who has the *rights of a holder*. (UCC § 3-301(ii)); or

3.  Prove status of being *entitled to enforce the instrument as a person not in possession of the instrument pursuant to UCC § 3-309* or UCC § 3-418(d). (NOTE is lost, stolen, destroyed).


*UCC § 3-309, requirements*.

    a.  Prove possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred. (*UCC § 3-309(a)(1)*). 

         i.  If illegality or fraud were involved in the original transaction, it cannot be proved that the person is entitled to enforce the instrument.(See *UCC § 3-305. DEFENSES*) 

    b.  Prove non-possession of the NOTE is NOT the result of a transfer. (*UCC § 3-309(a)(2)*).

_NOTE:    If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument._ (See *UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)*). 

    c.  Prove that the person seeking enforcement cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (*UCC § 3-309(a)(3)*).

_NOTE:    If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. _(See *UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)*).

    d.      A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) *must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument*. (*UCC § 3-309(b)*). 

****************

*UCC § 3-309    Enforcement Of Lost, Destroyed, Or Stolen Instrument.*
(a)  A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if
(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument​ (A)  was *entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred*, or
        (B)  has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was *entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred*;​(2)  the *loss of possession was NOT the result of a transfer by the person* or a lawful seizure; and​(3)  the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.​(b)     *A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument.* If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

****************

An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. (*UCC § 3-203(a)*).

If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee. (*UCC 3-203(d)*).

****************

If the bank, mortgage company, etc., sold the NOTE, they have no right to enforce the NOTE, through foreclosure or court proceeding pursuant to the fact that the UCC bars such claimant from invoking the court's subject matter jurisdiction of the case.

****************

Even if the claimant produces the original wet-ink NOTE, there is a defense to the action pursuant to UCC 3-305.

Illegality and false representation (fraud) perpetrated in the transaction.

Did the bank disclose the SOURCE of the money for the transaction?

Did the bank inform the NOTE issuer that the money for the transaction was provided at no cost to the bank?

Did the bank disclose that the NOTE would be sold at the earliest possible convenience, and that such sale and receipt of money from a third party would actually pay off the NOTE?  (Satisfaction of Mortgage).​
Many discovery questions to be asked when a claimant initiates foreclosure proceedings.

***********

Many assume that the bank/broker/lender that begins the process is actually providing the money for making a &#8220;loan,&#8221; when in fact, the bank/broker/lender is only making an &#8220;exchange,&#8220; of notes, at no cost, and then, coercing the issuer of the promissory note into the comprehension that he is receiving a &#8220;loan.&#8221;  The following was stated in *A PRIMER ON MONEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 88th Congress, 2d Session, AUGUST 5, 1964, CHAPTER VIII, HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE GIVES AWAY PUBLIC FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE BANKS * [44-985 O-65-7, p89]

"In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, *banks create money without cost to themselves*, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds."​
	In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer's promissory note as if the property and the Note already belonged to the bank/broker/lender. 

	So, if the bank used the promissory NOTE, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face amount of the promissory NOTE, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promissory NOTE, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a DECEPTIVE PRACTICE, FRAUD.


. . .


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 6, 2009)

OH that is GOOOD!!! Wow.. Excellent post!!! I'm impressed!


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 6, 2009)

Yeah.  Let's make mortgage lending a thing of the past.  From now, cash on the barrel head.


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 7, 2009)

. . .

Are you a teacher?  "Rabbi?"

It is perceived that your comment promotes the continuation of mortgage "loan" fraud. 

Making a "loan" is something entirely different from the scam operating at present.

It is apparent from the present economic collapse that allowing bankers to first create the mess, and then, employ bankers to fix the mess, will just lead to another banker created mess.

Are you a banker?

A good source for comprehension of the right way to build an economy can be found at the references below.

The Natural Economic Order, Silvio Gesell
Get the book here: geokey (dot) de (Fslash) literatur (Fslash) doc (Fslash) neo (dot) pdf

Fslash = "forward slash"

** Forum Rules deny me the right to provide hyperlinks until after 15 posts.** 

Search string: "Story of Worgl"   (pronounced Vergle)
(Use quotation marks as shown)

Worgl was an experiment that proved what can happen when honesty is an element in the money system used in a community.

The experiment was terminated at the barrel of a gun by threatened military force. The termination of the Worgl story of honest money was orchestrated by bankers. 

***********

The comment about "cash on the barrel head" is what comes after the people regain rightful ownership of their property from those who used fraud and deception to cheat them.

. . .


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 7, 2009)

Are you a flat-earther?  An idiot?  An ignoramus?
Perhaps all three.
And you're going on iggy....


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 7, 2009)

. . .

Well, it didn't take long to for you to expose yourself, now, did it?

Mark of a shill.  Go straight to vitriol and ridicule.

You're not very cerebral, are you?

Your last post was not on point.

Would you like to have a discussion about the money scam?

If your answer is "no," go "play" somewhere else.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 8, 2009)

. . .

After digesting the statutory requirements (**) for enforcement of a promissory NOTE, and it is determined that the foreclosure claimant had failed to establish standing pursuant to the statutory requirements of *UCC § 3-301 and UCC § 3-309*, it would be logical to conclude that the foreclosure was wrongful pursuant to the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case, therefore, the court's judgment in favor of the foreclosure claimant is voidable.

** See message at: US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Law and Justice System >Foreclosure Defense (Use the UCC) > message 1.​
An action to void a judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case can be brought up at any time, even after judgment, appeal, and subsequent execution of the judgment.  See Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b), (void judgment - lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

NOTE: there is a distinction between the term subject matter jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction over the case.​
subject matter jurisdiction is a broad and general term referring to the courts general subject matter jurisdiction over a class of case types.  Without this jurisdiction, judgments of a court are VOID.​
subject matter jurisdiction over the case is a sub classification within the general subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a particular case makes the judgment in that case VOIDABLE.​
See the following case for an explanation of the difference: *Edwin A. Hisle and Olive Sue Hisle Cook v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government*, Appeal From Fayette Circuit Court, Action No. 65-CI-17431, Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals, No. 2006-CA-001733-MR.​
If the demand to *"Show me the NOTE!"* and that means the *original wet-ink NOTE*, was unfulfilled, it is more than likely that the foreclosure claimant had no right to enforce the NOTE.

In light of the fact that virtually all promissory notes taken by banks, mortgage companies, etc., were sold at some time after the "closing" for the respective transactions --- *without* the right in discovery to physically inspect, and photocopy the original wet-ink instrument, (production of the original instrument), meaning that the bank, mortgage company, etc., retained physical possession of the NOTE, or that the foreclosure claimant can PROVE *a valid assignment of the rights of the holder to enforce the instrument in an unbroken chain of valid assignments from the present holder of the original wet-ink NOTE to the foreclosure claimant, standing in a court to enforce the instrument in foreclosure is impossible pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. (UCC). Therefore, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the case.*

Without possession of the original wet-ink NOTE, or proof of authentic and valid assignment of the rights of the present holder of the original wet-ink NOTE, no foreclosure action can be sustained when confronted with the *Statutory Requirements for Establishing the Right to Enforce an Instrument*

If the bank is suing to enforce a NOTE and foreclose on property, and it can be shown through discovery that the bank sold (transferred) the NOTE, the bank lost the right to enforce the NOTE. * See UCC § 3-309(a)(2).*

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 9, 2009)

. . .

Authoritative foundational basis for the determination of the right to enforce an instrument in a foreclosure proceeding:  The foreclosure claimant must predicate the claim upon proof and evidence of physical possession or valid assignment of BOTH the NOTE and the Mortgage Agreement.  

"*The note and mortgage are inseparable*; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity." [Fn3 _Jackson v. Blodget_, 5 Cowan 205; _Jackson v. Willard_, 4 Johnson 43.] Quotation and Footnote from:    Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872). (emphasis added)
(Access *Carpenter* here:  supreme (dot) justia (dot) com (Fslash) us (Fslash) 83 (Fslash) 271 (Fslash) case (dot) html)

The above referenced current and binding opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, was recently utilized as basic law in *Landmark Natl Bank v. Kessler*, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access Landmark here: [www (dot) kscourts (dot) org (Fslash) Cases-and-Opinions (Fslash) opinions (Fslash) supct (Fslash) 2009 (Fslash) 20090828 (Fslash) 98489 (dot) htm]

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

Selected excerpts from:  AFFIDAVIT OF WALKER F. TODD, 5-DEC-2003, at ¶ 11.

Access the affidavit here:  nrgnair (dot) com (Fslash) MPT (Fslash) zdi_tech (Fslash) ucc (Fslash) Walker.Todd.Affidavit.signed.w.Decision (dot) pdf

Attested Qualifications: (¶ 2)

My qualifications as an expert witness in monetary and banking instruments are as follows. *For 20 years, I worked as an attorney and legal officer for the legal departments of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland.* Among other things, I was assigned responsibility for questions involving both novel and routine notes, bonds, bankers acceptances, securities, and other financial instruments in connection with my work for the Reserve Banks discount windows and parts of the open market trading desk function in New York. In addition, for nine years, I worked as an economic research officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. I became one of the Federal Reserve Systems recognized experts on the legal history of central banking and the pledging of notes, bonds, and other financial instruments at the discount window to enable the Federal Reserve to make advances of credit that became or could become money. I also have read extensively treatises on the legal and financial history of money and banking and have published several articles covering all of the subjects just mentioned. I have served as an expert witness in several trials involving banking practices and monetary instruments. A summary biographical sketch and resume including further details of my work experience, readings, publications, and education will be tendered . . . upon request. (emphasis added)


Quote: (¶ 11)

When a commercial bank makes a business loan, it accepts as an asset the borrowers debt obligation (the promise to repay) and creates a liability on its books in the form of a demand deposit in the amount of the loan. (Consumer loans are funded similarly.) Therefore, the banks original bookkeeping entry should show an increase in the amount of the asset credited on the asset side of its books and a corresponding increase equal to the value of the asset on the liability side of its books. *This would show that the bank received the customers signed promise to repay as an asset, thus monetizing the customers signature and creating on its books a liability in the form of a demand deposit or other demand liability of the bank.* The bank then usually would hold this demand deposit in a transaction account on behalf of the customer. *Instead of the bank lending its money or other assets to the customer, as the customer reasonably might believe from the face of the Note, the bank created funds for the customers transaction account without the customers permission, authorization, or knowledge and delivered the credit on its own books representing those funds to the customer, meanwhile alleging that the bank lent the customer money.* (Emphasis added).


Quote: (¶ 11)

If [a banks] response to this line of argument is to the effect that it acknowledges that it lent credit or issued credit instead of money, one might refer to Thomas P. Fitch, BARRONS BUSINESS GUIDE DICTIONARY OF BANKING TERMS, Credit banking, 3. Bookkeeping entry representing a deposit of funds into an account. But [the banks] loan agreement apparently avoids claiming that the bank actually lent [any] money. They apparently state in the agreement that the [borrower is ] obligated to repay [the bank] principal and interest for the Valuable consideration (money) the bank gave the customer (borrower). The loan agreement and Note apparently still delete any reference to the banks receipt of actual cash value from the [borrower] and exchange of that receipt for actual cash value that the [ ] banker returned. (Emphasis added). [inserted by ed.]


*******END QUOTES BY WALKER F. TODD*******


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

With the foregoing in mind, here is the reason for comprehending the information outlined below:

*The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, and the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.*

*Carpenter v. Longan*, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872) (SCOTUS).
(Cited in  Landmark National Bank v. Kessler, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)).

            The importance of the findings of the Supreme Court of Kansas cannot be overemphasized. It is generally the law in all states that if the law of one state has not specifically addressed a specific legal issue, the court may look to the law of states which have, and use those decisions as guideposts, for making its own decision. The Kansas Supreme Court acknowledged that the case was one of "first impression in Kansas," which is why the Kansas Supreme Court looked to legal decisions from California, Idaho, New York, Missouri, and other states for guidance and to support its decision.

            Even if, during discovery, the bank invites you to one of their offices, and actually produces the original, wet-ink promissory note, bearing serial number xxxxxx, you can say with comprehension of ALL the facts that the signature purported to be your signature on said note, is NOT your signature.

Heres why 

            You did NOT SIGN said note with full knowledge of all the facts relevant to the transaction, because there are TWO (2) elements to a signature.

(1) actual physical act of signing;

(2) informed validation and attestation of the verity of all of the elements of the transaction.​
*Signature.* The act of putting ones name at the end of an instrument to attest its validity.  Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Pg. 1381. (BLD6-1381).

In commercial law, any name, word, or mark used with the intention to authenticate a writing constitutes a signature. UCC §§ 1-201(39),3-401(2). (BLD6-1382). _[since publication of BLD6, UCC § 3-401(2) has been changed to UCC § 3-401(b)]_​
*UCC § 1-201(39).   "Signed" includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.

            **UCC § 3-401(b).   A signature may be made (i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and (ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.​
    Did the bank, mortgage company, etc., disclose to you all of the elements of the transaction?

    Did the bank, mortgage company, etc., disclose to you that your signature would give the impression that you had intentionally attested to the verity, truthfulness and validity of all of the elements of such transaction?

*Sign.* To affix ones name to a writing or instrument, for the purpose of authenticating or executing it, or to give it effect as ones act. To attach a name or cause it to be attached to a writing by any of the known methods of impressing a name on paper. To affix a signature to; to ratify by hand or seal; to subscribe in ones own handwriting. To make any mark, as upon a document, in token of knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation. See also Cross; Execution; Mark; Signature. (BLD6-1381).​
*Signatory.* In general, a person who signs a document personally or through his agent and who becomes a party thereto. (BLD6-1382).​
*Signature. * By signature is understood the act of putting down a man's name, at the end of an instrument, to attest its validity *[valid]*. The name thus written is also called a signature. Vide to Sign. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)​
The generally accepted legal definition of signature is very broad:

[t]he act of putting ones name on the end of any instrument to attest its validity *[valid]*; the name thus written. (BLD6-1381 (1990)).​
   See also Websters New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1934)
defining signature as the name of any person, written with his own hand to signify that the writing which precedes accords with his wishes or intentions..

*Attestation:* The act of attesting; testimony; witness; a solemn or official declaration, verbal or written, in support of a fact; evidence. The truth appears from the attestation of witnesses, or of the proper officer. The subscription of a name to a writing as a witness, is an attestation. [1913 Webster]​
*Authentic:* Genuine; true; real; pure; reliable; trustworthy; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested. Competent, credible, and reliable as evidence.
(BLD6-132)​
*Authenticum:* In the civil law, an original instrument or writing; the original of a will or other instrument, as distinguished from a copy.​
*Authentication: * The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed.Evid.Rule 901. (BLD6-132)​
*Valid:*Founded on truth of fact; capable of being justified; supported, or defended; not weak or defective. (BLD6-1550)​
*Verification:* 1. 	Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. (BLD6-1561)​ 2. 	(Law) (a) Confirmation by evidence. (b) A formal phrase used in concluding a plea. [1913 Webster]​
*Verity: * Truth; truthfulness; conformity to fact. The records of a court import uncontrollable verity. (BLD6-1550)​
         Every effort imaginable is being made by those operating the Federal Reserve scam, to disconnect the individual from the notion that your SIGNATURE attests, without the knowledge of doing so, to the so-called validity of the transaction that piles a debt upon the signer, and unjustly enriches the bank. This part of the scam is most important to the perpetrators.

         The bank promotes the false representation that your signature ONLY represents YOU, and fails to disclose the most important aspect of the term signature, which the bank then uses for a purpose hidden from YOU because so much money is involved.

         Signature also indicates that the signatory agrees that the matters discussed (on paper or other) are within his wishes.

      There are TWO (2) very important aspects or elements to the term signature.

          This is a VERY important point because if someone has, by false representations, orchestrated a situation wherein you enter into an agreement without full comprehension of all of the elements involved in the transaction, you are not liable to the provisions of the agreement. This is the reason for asking questions in discovery.

          Signature places in motion many unique and strange events:

1.   It boldly states that the signatory has consented to the full terms of the agreement, and becomes a party to that agreement. By doing so, the full stipulations (if any) as to how matters of conflict and dispute are treated apply; these administrative or remedial solutions are not always handled through standard court proceedings.​
2.   Many credit applications have a stipulation or inclusion, that by applying your Signature, ALL of the information that you have given to be reviewed for credit worthiness (also via your credit-report) is true, complete, and certain. (or The Truth, The whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth). In essence you are swearing that you have NOT lied, deceived, or entered into the agreement with any preconceived intent to commit any fraud or other nefarious means. (You did not conduct business with the intent to screw anyone.)​
Usually, there is really NOTHING in the agreement that holds the alleged creditor liable if THEY were to commit a fraud or other nefarious act. That is because you have the Free-will to EXIT the agreement if you can prove that the alleged creditor has not acted in good faith.

   Unfortunately, the creditor will never discuss options of the consumer for wrong doing on the part of the creditor: this of course is no accident.​
3.   In relation to a credit agreement, the signature is the origin and the beginning of the promise-to-pay creation process. The Signature is the BAIT of the bait and switch scam.​
4.   With the application of your signature to a promissory NOTE, you have made it possible for the scammers to create money out of thin air. The NEW obligation created the PRINCIPAL, just not the interest money that you allegedly owe.​
      A 'hand writing analysis can NOT bear evidence to the first hand knowledge of facts.

      Your signature, (particular scratching pattern, style, etc.), is NOT the important point of relevance  your *FULLY INFORMED CONSENT*    is what is signified by your signature, and that issue has significant intrinsic value.

      Was anything about the disclosures and non-disclosures made by the bank relevant to the NOTE, and the mortgage transaction, a false representation by the bank?  Was there any false representations evident on the face of the promissory NOTE? (There are many relevant facts that the bank failed, by either refusal or neglect to reveal).

Heres a short list of undisclosed elements of the transaction:

&#9679;   The actual source of the money;

            &#9679;   The transaction was at no cost to the bank;

            &#9679;   The loan was really not a loan;

            &#9679;   That the bank would be enriched by at least 10 times the face value amount of the NOTE;

            &#9679;   That the bank was going to sell the NOTE and pocket the proceeds;

            &#9679;   That even after the sale of the NOTE, the bank would continue requiring you to pay over installments equaling the face value amount of the NOTE plus interest plus fees;

            &#9679;   The first words of most NOTEs goes something to the effect of: For value received , if the value received by you actually had no cost to the bank, just exactly what value did the bank bring into the transaction?​
     The following was stated in A PRIMER ON MONEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 88th Congress, 2d Session, AUGUST 5, 1964, CHAPTER VIII, HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE GIVES AWAY PUBLIC FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE BANKS [44-985 O-65-7, p89]

   "In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, *banks create money without cost to themselves*, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds."
[www (dot) scribd (dot) com (Fslash) document_downloads (Fslash) 18077819?extension=pdf]

     In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer's promissory NOTE as if the property and the NOTE already belonged to the bank/broker/lender.

     So, if the bank used the promissory NOTE, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face value amount of the promissory NOTE, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promissory NOTE, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a Deceptive Practice, False Representation, and Fraud.

     You were required by the bank to attest and validate the transaction, evidenced by the existence of the NOTE and the mortgage agreement, with your signature affixed thereto, without full knowledge of what was going on. (Did you know about those elements of the transaction noted in the short list above?)

     Were all of the aspects of what the bank was doing revealed to you in such a way that you could comprehend the actual nature of the transaction you were about to VALIDATE with your signature?

     Do you think you might have been tricked into signing a promissory NOTE without knowing "every aspect" of ALL of the facts relevant to the nature of the transaction that you were offered and urged to validate by your signature?

THE BAIT AND SWITCH:

     The bank actually performed the old Bait & Switch trick, as called by those in the confidence and grifter/grafter rackets.

     Unfortunately this is not some quaint story about some clever fella of yesteryear; this con-game is real, and it was used to con you. Getting familiar enough with the terms and overall con-job to the point where you have obtained comprehension of the scam is difficult at first, but you have a most vested interest in doing so.

     When an individual affixes his signature to a promissory note, they are normally required to state a variety of private information. It is quite common for the signer-in-waiting to volunteer their address, phone number, social insecurity number and other information. At the bottom of the agreement is a line where the individual applies their Signature.

     When the application/contract is accepted by the bank, it has become a signed document, right? Well, this document is also known as a negotiable instrument, a different kind of currency as recognized by the laws and codes of commerce. (Similar to a check, draft, certificate of deposit, etc.).

     A bank or lending institution has a license to do something that we are not authorized to do; the bank can monetize a negotiable instrument. The bank has NOT loaned anything of value; the bank has only received a negotiable instrument that has been used to create money because of the SIGNATURE affixed to such instrument.

           The Switch in the bait and switch scam comes from what occurs next.

ADDITIONAL NOTE:  Definition of the word Money:

1.   The medium of exchange (emphasis added) authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency . UCC § 1-201(24)*

2.   Assets that can be easily converted to cash .

3.   Capital that is invested or traded as a commodity.
(Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition)​
*UCC § 1-201(24) "Money" means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries.​
*Fiat money.* 	Paper currency NOT backed by gold or silver.

*Lawful money. *	Money that is legal tender for the payment of debts.

*Real money.* 1.   Money that has metallic or other intrinsic value, as distinguished from paper currency, checks, and drafts.​
2.   Current cash, as opposed to money on account.​
*Money demand.* A claim for a fixed, liquidated sum, as opposed to a damage claim that must be assessed by a jury.​
*SWITCH:*       Now that the alleged creditor has received your signed promise to pay (monetized YOUR negotiable instrument) they take the newly created asset and post it to THEIR ledger books as THEIR asset. With this NEW asset on the books, they magically create money that can be spent into the economy.

    This new asset they CLAIM to be THEIRS is what they are allegedly LOANING back to you with high rates of interest attached.

*ALL AT NO COST TO THE BANK. *

&#9679;    The bank has taken YOUR asset, claimed it to be theirs, and made the false representation that the bank loaned its own money to you at interest. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?

            &#9679;    The bank probably sold the original wet-ink NOTE, which, even at a discount, was all profit. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?

            &#9679;    The bank, pursuant to Federal Reserve policy, created 10 times the face value amount of the NOTE for its own enrichment. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?

            &#9679;    The bank will be enriched by an amount equal to at least 10 times the face value amount of the NOTE, and upon any default, gets the pledged property for resale. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?

            &#9679;    If the bank declares a default on a NOTE, the bank will take advantage of a write-off credit on their corporate taxes. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?​
The bottom line on signatures is this:

*The signature that you affixed to any instrument is only valid until you discover that false representations of the facts relevant to all the elements of the transaction were deliberately orchestrated, and that you were wrongfully induced to sign because of those false representations and non-disclosures.*

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2009)

Where exactly did you copy and paste this from? You have holes big enough to drive a garbage truck through.  Specifically the intersection of Article 3 with Article 2, Federal regs, State specific non-UCC statutes and common property law - not to mention basic knowledge of things like recording statutes! First principles, always look at your first principles. You ignore the very definition of negotiable instrument in order to prove, among other things, that transferring a negotiable instrument for value ("negotiating" it) pays off the note and - I can't even say it with a straight face - equals satisfaction of mortgage, which is a separate transaction conveying either a lien or interest depending on the jurisdiction and is governed by state specific common property law and statute. 

I didn't even get any further. People do not try this at home, or with your home!


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

. . .

Thank you for the comment.

You write in simplistic generalities.

The issue is having knowledge of the scam to formulate questions in discovery.

Possession of the original wet-ink NOTE.​
If the NOTE was ever transferred.​
STANDING of the foreclosure claimant.​
Please provide other DEFENSES if you have any, to validate your suggestion to abandon all hope of any defense, and just move away from the property.

Is "giving up" your inference?

In light of the banking scam and fraud that is taking place?

The fight must start somewhere.

Where is your suggestion for a starting point?

Please be specific about the points you have brought up.

I'd like to know about the "whys," with specifics of your objections.

Or are the specifics for those objections a secret?

Thanks

***********

UCC § 3-104.  NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.

(a)  Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:

(1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;

(2) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and

(3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain (i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, (ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or (iii) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.

(b)  "Instrument" means a negotiable instrument.

(c)  An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection (a), except paragraph (1), and otherwise falls within the definition of "check" in subsection (f) is a negotiable instrument and a check.

(d)  A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article.

(e)  An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order.  If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft," a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either.

(f)  "Check" means (i) a draft, other than a documentary draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank or (ii) a cashier's check or teller's check.  An instrument may be a check even though it is described on its face by another term, such as "money order."

(g)  "Cashier's check" means a draft with respect to which the drawer and drawee are the same bank or branches of the same bank.

(h)  "Teller's check" means a draft drawn by a bank (i) on another bank, or (ii) payable at or through a bank.

(i)  "Traveler's check" means an instrument that (i) is payable on demand, (ii) is drawn on or payable at or through a bank, (iii) is designated by the term "traveler's check" or by a substantially similar term, and (iv) requires, as a condition to payment, a countersignature by a person whose specimen signature appears on the instrument.

(j)  "Certificate of deposit" means an instrument containing an acknowledgment by a bank that a sum of money has been received by the bank and a promise by the bank to repay the sum of money.  A certificate of deposit is a note of the bank.

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2009)

Remember first principles. Start with understanding your topic.

1. What is the UCC?
2. In what jurisdiction is the UCC, as you quote it, law?


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

. . .

UCC § 3-201.  NEGOTIATION.

(a)  "Negotiation" means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.

(b)  Except for negotiation by a remitter, if an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the holder.  If an instrument is payable to bearer, it may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone.

**********

UCC = Uniform Commercial Code.

COMMERCE

MONEY

Courts are dealing with contracts in commerce.

I am surprised that you would make such comments as though you have no knowledge of the UCC.

You're kidding with me, aren't you?

Please don't make me do all of your research for you.

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2009)

It's a simple question. Who wrote the UCC, and where is it law?

Here's a clue:

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

Notice:



> The UCC is a model code, so it does not have legal effect unless UCC provisions are enacted by the individual legislatures as statutes that are applicable to their respective jurisdictions. Currently, the UCC has been enacted *(with some local variations)* in 49 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, as well as partially in Louisiana.



For those State speecific variations, including which versions of the various articles have been adopted as modified in each individual State:



> To view the UCC as adopted by a specific state, consult the appropriate table in the Uniform Laws Annotated (Practice & Procedure KF 879.A45 U51 & Westlaw: ULA), or the relevant sections of that state's statutes. In addition, LexisNexis contains a source in tabular form that shows state variations in adoptions of the UCC, the UCC Reporting Service - State Variation Table. (Short name: UCC; TABLE.) Westlaw offers a similar service in the database UCC-VAR.



Still want to play, or do you want to go back and learn what you're pasting first?


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

. . .

The UCC has been adopted by virtually every state in the Union.

Except Louisiana, which operates under tthe form of Napoleonic Civil Law.

Surrrrly you know this.

Alabama Code 1975, the one presently being used, Title 7 -- UCC.

You're not going to make me do all this research for you for every state in the Union, are you?

Name one (1) or two (2) other states, other than Louisiana, and I'll provide you with the reference to the UCC adopted by that state.

I guess you really don't know about the law. 

Apologies.

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2009)

Ah, but what version and with what modifications? Therein lies the question. Use your "defense" in any real as opposed to hypothetial setting, and the details you're missing in this very first step alone will sink your imaginary model client.

Of course, even when I do your homework for you, you don't take the time to read it. That's the mark of the intellectually incurious and, of course, the goober attempting to dispense legal advice on the internet without a license. 

The only reason I would care enough to post a response is that some person who has no legal background, much like yourself, might read this and think it A) sets forth actual law applicable in their State as opposed to model law, and B) tries to use it with disastrous consequences.


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

. . .

Oh, ye of little faith, and no apparent research to validate your statements.

Here's a few of the UCC adoptions in union states:

**Kentucky Uniform Commercial Code is found at:  KRS Chapter 355

**Wisconsin:  Wis.Stat 401 et.seq.

**Georgia Commercial Code - Title 11

**Illinois:  COMMERCIAL CODE  (810 ILCS 5/) Uniform Commercial Code.

*********

This UCC system of law is called "uniform" for a specific reason.

The UCC is WORLD WIDE.

You can find the same law in England.  Do the research.

The different state will codify these commercial laws in titles and sections that may have a slightly altered section numbering scheme different from the online edition of the UCC at the Cornell site.

But, you see, we are off point, and into the rudiments of knowledge that should already be within your comprehension.

On my 16th post, I'll be able to provide hyperlinks to make it easy for you to look up the UCC.

This law is a "killer" tool if you know how to wield it.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

. . .

Please let me know what homework you have done for me.

You said:  _"The only reason I would care enough to post a response is that some person who has no legal background, much like yourself, might read this and think it 
A) sets forth actual law applicable in their State as opposed to model law, and 
B) tries to use it with disastrous consequences."_

Are you really for real?  Or just another shill attempting to silence discussion about a formidable tool (the UCC) to be used against the banking scam that will eventually reduce us all to poverty if not confronted with the proper questions?

You were joking, before.  You must be a banker.  Just a guess. I could be wrong about that.

I am imperfect.  That is why I asked for you to provide the SPECIFICS about your inferences and suggestions, _(which you have not done)_ and then, you revealed your severe lack of knowledge about the subject matter you were making comments about.

And not only that, you resorted to veiled threats and attack upon MY knowledge.

How gregarious of you.

How witty of you.

How revealing.

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2009)

What part of "first principles" do you not understand? 

Legal argument is like any other, you have to start with the basic foundation and link your points from there. I suppose you also have no concept of formal argumentative structure?

When you're talking about a foreclosure defense, applying the applicable local version of the code to the Note is the smallest part of your job - and one which you cannot even accomplish, not understanding the basic concept of jurisdiction. 

That means, among other things, there is a difference between utilizing State specific variants of a model code as adopted into law in the State courts where foreclosures are processed, and copying and pasting random provisions of model code (as _suggested_, but nowhere adopted) on the internet and telling people to go use them to avoid paying their mortgages.

We haven't even started on State non-UCC statutes, applicable Federal regs (for example Reg Z), UCC Article 1 (or 2, depending on the jurisdiction and variant), State common law, or when you start talking about the mortgage itself, various other State property laws like recording statutes.

Understanding the basics of jurisdiction is far less than 1L stuff, and what you are doing here is highly unethical at best. Leave the lawyering to the lawyers and go back to studying for those LSATS you'll be taking in 10 years, 'k?


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

. . .

Thank you for your non-specific, BS input.

It is obvious to me, that you are protecting the bank.

Probably a lawyer, shill.

Still writing in generalities.

There is something wrong with the comments you have made about the discussion subject matter.

Are you hiding a secret?

Refusal to discuss the issues presented, is a good indication of a provocateur.

Oh, well.

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2009)

Why yes, I am a lawyer. And I work in real estate. Any questions?


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

. . .

Why would anyone ask you a question, when you refuse to provide any answers?

How deceptive of you.

How typical of you, and your ilk.

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2009)

What a way to make a good first impression! 

Keep it up, you're at least mildly entertiaining.


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

. . .

Still off point, Goldcatt.

Thanks for the opportunity to accelerate my posts to more than 15.

You just refuse to discuss STANDING. Don't you?

Where's the NOTE?  (The bank sold the NOTE.)

Prove there is a valid assignment from the present holder.

Uh, oh.

Every UCC in 49 states require the same thing: validation of the right to enforce an instrument. (See UCC 3-301). Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3

Guess what  ---  That promissory NOTE, the unsuspecting "mark" "signed," IS a negotiable instrument  (instrument).

I perceive that more BS is on the way from you . . .

And of course, never a straight answer (NASA).

How predictable of you.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 13, 2009)

. . .

*"Shill"*

A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used.

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions[1] because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging character of their actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.

"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, *possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity.*

Legal Term:* "shilling"*  Slang term for posing as an innocent bystander at a confidence game but giving aid and assistance to the perpetrators of the scheme as a decoy."  (BLD6-1377).

. . .


----------



## Colin (Dec 14, 2009)

Hey! Svartarse, whatever you call yourself, You've just been served mate...by someone who knows what they're talking about. Carry on wriggling though, I love watching worms wriggle when they have nowhere to go.

Admit it old chap, your knowledge is half arsed...just like your name. But I must admit, I do love watching an arrogant fool get served by a clever woman. Best entertainment this week!

Oh and do feel free to abuse me back. I shouldn't think you're very good at that either.


----------



## Colin (Dec 14, 2009)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> *"Shill"*
> 
> ...



*Shyster:*.....An unethical, unscrupulous practitioner, especially of law.


Yep. That just about sums you up.


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

Very interesting.

You enter into a subject matter obviously far beyond your ability of comprehension and go immediately to vitriol and ridicule.

How cerebral of you.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

It seems that the subject matter introduced in the initial post in this thread, has attracted only those elements that are most threatened by the disclosure of the facts relevant to the subject matter.

Not one of the posts have honestly addressed any issue identified in the original subject matter.

The comments, posted to date, only serve to identify the ones making the comments as shills representing and protecting the criminals operating the scam.

No attempt has been made, by them, to address the issues.

How predictable.

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 14, 2009)

Says the bozo who doesn't know enough abut the shit he's spouting to understand the very basic general concepts of what makes a law, States all have their own laws, different sets of laws can apply to any one situation, and most of all the glaring fact that if it were that fucking simple everyone would be doing it.

Keep making yourself look dumb. I'm enjoying this. I clean up the messes made by incompetent idiots like you for a living, boy. And I'm good at it. But even the best can't always save a family's home when they listen to some arrogant idiot who doesn't know jack. You are a disgrace.

But keep exercising that one active brain cell, maybe some day you'll find another to keep it company. 

Oh, and have a nice day. Punk.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 14, 2009)

Thanks Goldcatt.  As I wrote, a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.  Adn Svaarcrap proves it over and over.


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

It  is revealing to discern that the comments by two others in this thread, one a lawyer, the other unknown, have never made an attempt to specifically discuss the subject matter.  They opt to hurl personal attacks.  Failing to provide any information of value about the subject matter.

Foreclosure Defense.

*Person entitled to enforce the instrument  UCC 3-301 *. Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3

[UCC 3-301 adopted into the Alabama Code, http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/7-3-301.htm

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

*If the foreclosure claimant declares that the NOTE is destroyed, lost, or stolen*, then the requirements of UCC 3-309 are applicable: Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3

[UCC 3-309 adopted into the Alabama Code http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/7-3-309.htm

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

*Defenses:* Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3

[UCC 3-305 adopted into the Alabama Code http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/7-3-305.htm

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

*Could it be that there are those who prowl forums, like this one, to detect any real effort to inform others about real tactics that could be effectively used against the criminal banks?*

*The Cornell UCC state locator can be found here:  LII: UCC - Locator*

. . .


----------



## manu1959 (Dec 14, 2009)

Svarstaad....interesting stuff....can you cite a case where this argument was put forth in us court and upheld on appeal....thank you


----------



## Colin (Dec 14, 2009)

Hey Svartarse! Stick to what you do best. Selling snake oil to the gullible!


----------



## California Girl (Dec 14, 2009)

Colin said:


> Hey Svartarse! Stick to what you do best. Selling snake oil to the gullible!



That seems to sum it up nicely - with the usual British 'straight to the point' forthrightness. Nice one Colin.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 14, 2009)

The Mortgage companies made a ton of bad loans, but they didn't fuck up their documents enough to get screwed like you are talking about.


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

Go To: 98489 -- Landmark National Bank v. Kesler -- Leben -- Kansas Court of Appeals

Actually READ a court decision.  (August 2009).

LANDMARK NATIONAL BANK,
Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
BOYD A. KESLER,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

MILLENNIA MORTGAGE CORP.,
Defendant,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC. AND SOVEREIGN BANK,
Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

and

DENNIS BRISTOW AND TONY WOYDZIAK,

Intervenors/Appellees. 

98489 -- Landmark National Bank v. Kesler -- Leben -- Kansas Court of Appeals

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

It seems that those who already have their minds made up, refuse to do any more research.

Could it be that those so adamantly opposed to foreclosure defenses being revealed, are those individuals fully complicit with the banking scam?

. . .


----------



## Colin (Dec 14, 2009)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> It seems that those who already have their minds made up, refuse to do any more research.
> 
> ...



Not really. It's just clear that a qualified lawyer like Goldcatt obviously knows a lot more about the subject than a cut and paste amateur.


----------



## manu1959 (Dec 14, 2009)

thank you for the two links....i read both links....would you mind pointing out which paragraph cites the ucc and the reason under the ucc the forclosure judgment was overturned....thanks again


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

GHook93,

Send a letter to the bank, mortgage company, etc., to whom you are currently making installment payments for real estate property.

Have your letter notarized and mail it via certified mail for proof of mailing and tracking.

Ask the bank, mortgage company, etc, to schedule a meeting where you can be afforded the opportunity to view the original wet-ink NOTE and original wet-ink mortgage agreement, with witnesses for validation of possession of the instrument.

Send the letter.  See what kind of response you get.

We've all been snookered by the banking cartel. 

Its time to end the thievery.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

MANU1959,

Take a deep breath, you must comprehend that the case was about MERS wishing to enforce an instrument in foreclosure.

The whole case was about STANDING, in words used by the court, upholding the requirements of UCC 3-301 PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.  
Access the law here:  Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3

Do you think that there is no correlation between the judgment in Kesler and the UCC?

When STANDING is challenged, you refer to statutes for the grounds of the challenge, and published judicial decisions upholding the challenge assertion. 

Presently I'll provide you with another case that is a bit more explicit for you. The US Federal District Court certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court about application of the Alabama adopted and codified UCC to a particular case.

Looking it up now.

. . .


----------



## jillian (Dec 14, 2009)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> MANU1959,
> 
> ...



you really need to stop pretending to play lawyer. your "legal advice" would be dangerous to anyone.

anyone who has a foreclosure issue should see an attorney in their own jurisdiction.

and debts can always be assigned unless otherwise agreed to.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 14, 2009)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> GHook93,
> 
> ...



Not close to foreclosure, could use a little off on my killer property taxes.


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

Atlantic National Trust v. Jack McNamee

GoTo:  http://www.alabamaappellatewatch.com/1060423.PDF

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has certified the following question to this Court, pursuant to Rule 18, Ala. R. App. P.:

"Whether an assignee of a promissory note who was not in possession of the note at the time it was misplaced, lost, or destroyed may enforce the note, or whether a party who is entitled to enforce a lost instrument may assign its rights to enforce the instrument, in light of the provisions of Ala. Code § 7-3-309(a)?"

This case is one case in many demonstrating the application of the UCC.

Good question about the UCC.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

Must be on target.

The shill lawyers seem to have the "high priest" mindset.

Fraud is in their words.   Hawking the "services" of lawyers. 

Do your own research.  Stop believing those that have vested interests in the banking scam.

Ask the questions.  Don't be afraid.  Can you write a letter asking for the opportunity to view, photocopy, and certify the NOTE and mortgage agreement?

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . .

This is an interesting read:

*WHERES THE NOTE, WHOS THE HOLDER: ENFORCEMENT OF PROMISSORY
NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATE*

by:

HON. SAMUEL L. BUFFORD
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

(FORMERLY HON.) R. GLEN AYERS
LANGLEY & BANACK
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS


GoTo:  http://www.msfraud.org/Articles/WHE...OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATE.pdf

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 14, 2009)

. . . 

Are all but lawyers too stupid to comprehend the following from:

*Where's The Note, Whos The Holder: Enforcement Of Promissory Note Secured By Real Estate*
by; Bufford & Ayers

*SUMMARY* [page 8 of 8]

The cases cited illustrate enormous problems in the loan servicing industry. These problems arise in the context of securitization and illustrate the difficulty of determining the name of the holder, the assignee of the mortgage, and the parties with both the legal right under Article 3 and the standing under the Constitution to enforce notes, whether in state court or federal court.

Interestingly, with the exception of Judge Bufford and a few other judges, there has been less than adequate focus upon the UCC title issues. The next round of cases may and should focus upon the title to debt instrument. *The person seeking to enforce the note must show that*:  (emphasis added)

(1) It is the holder of this note original by transfer, with all necessary rounds;

(2) It had possession of the note before it was lost;

(3) If it can show that title to the note runs to it, but the original is lost or destroyed, the holder must be prepared to post a bond;

(4) If the person seeking to enforce is an agent, it must show its agency status and that its principal is the holder of the note (and meets the above requirements).​
Then, and only then, do the issues of evidence of debt and default and assignment of mortgage rights become relevant.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 22, 2009)

. . .

I reviewed an interesting series of video presentations by Neil Garfield.
The facts he revealed were very helpful in the comprehension of the fraud being committed against the working man.  

See  Asset Securitization Comptrollers Handbook November 1997.  Garfield seems to have a pretty good handle on the information published in the handbook.

What Garfield said goes something like this: 

Fact:  Pooled" mortgages and NOTEs are insured 30 times on their face value amount.

Fact: the instruments pooled in the real estate pools are split-apart NOTEs and Mortgages.

Fact: i.e., a $100k  Note-Mortgage, will be split-apart, as separate accounting entities, and deposited separately into separate pools.

Fact:  the $100k NOTE will be deposited into pool A

Fact:  the $100k Mortgage will be deposited into pool B

The bank now has $200k in deposit accounts which it can "deposit multiply" by 10 times.  Federal Reserve scam.   (See Modern Money Mechanics by Chicago Federal Reserve Bank).

The bank now has $2Million.  Would you call that unjust enrichment?  The money was generated without disclosure to Joe Six-pack, the issuer of the NOTE. 

The two $100k pooled asset deposits are insured 30 times on the face value amount of each.

Fact:  the originating so-called lender had already contracted to sell the instruments from the transaction with Joe Six-pack to a so-called loan aggregator, investment banker or other entity in a Special Purpose Vehicle pool (SPV) and the bank was paid for the full loan amount plus typically a 2.5% return on the loan originated for each of the instruments split-apart into separate loan pools.   

Planned default occurs.

Bankers collects $6M on insured pooled asset deposits.   WOW! 

The bank, or someone, or many criminals, will have been enriched by as much as $8M on a $100k note-mortgage transaction after default.   Joe Six-pack does not have a clue.

Joe Six-pack is made feel as though he is a scoundrel for his default and should be punished after surrendering the property and being escorted into the street at the barrel of a gun.

The banks successful foreclosure, having not been challenged to prove the right to enforce the instrument in foreclosure, was NOT forced to prove STANDING pursuant to the local jurisdictions version of UCC § 3-301, and UCC § 3-309, then entitles the bank to sell the property again, and the bank does this all over again, and again, and again.

This is the reason banks would RATHER Joe Six-pack default on the loan.  The scam was prefaced upon keeping the money engine running because of defaults.

What a racket!

What a FRAUD!

Make the foreclosure claimant PROVE STANDING.  

Challenge the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 

Just do it.

See first posts in this thread, page one, about the UCC requirements to prove standing to initiate a foreclosure action.

Goto webpage here:  Wrongful Foreclosure
*About Wrongful Foreclosure*  (UCC references are hyperlinked).

Access the Garfield videos:

Foreclosure Defense: What You Need To Know (1/ 2)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9L4eRaIxLQ&feature=related[/ame] 

Foreclosure Defense: What You Need To Know (2/ 2)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ6lPaiKmwg[/ame] 

Part 1: The Assignment & Assumption Agreement
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3GN433J2c&NR=1[/ame] 

Part 2: The Assignment & Assumption Agreement
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKIGz0WgQSA&NR=1[/ame]

Neil Garfield, Esq, MBA, JD  
Livingliess Weblog 

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Dec 31, 2009)

. . .

*The Federal Reserve Has Set You Up:  Set Them Up  Right Back*

	With the economy in its present Federal-Reserve-orchestrated-condition, your eventual default on the promissory note and mortgage against your property is assured.

	Prepare now, for that inevitable day.  The following is one possible course of action against the criminal banks, do the research, you are capable of defeating "them" with their own laws:

References to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) are to the Federal UCC. Each state in the union, except Louisiana, has adopted the Federal UCC into its own law.  The Federal UCC can easily be cross referenced to your local jurisdiction.  When using the UCC in your jurisdiction, reference the version of the UCC adopted in that particular jurisdiction.
i.e.: UCC § 3-301  has been adopted in the Alabama Code at -- Ala.Code 1975, § 7-3-301.
The Cornell UCC state locator can be found here: *LII: UCC - Locator*​
	When in the position of being unable to make the next installment payment, or future scheduled installment payments, prepare for the inevitable claim from the bank to have the right to foreclosure and enforcement of the NOTE-Mortgage.

1.	On the day after the date of the day you are served with the foreclosure lawsuit summons, a critical time clock starts counting down.  By the last calendar day of the time-period noted on the summons as the time within which you are to ANSWER the foreclosure complaint, have prepared (1) for mailing via certified mail and (2) filing, in the case noted on the summons in the court docket, a  Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.  

1.1	Start counting days on the day after you are served with the summons to court in response to the banks foreclosure lawsuit, (all calendar days must be counted).  On the last day of the specified time period file your Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.  (See Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6)).  (Check the rules in the jurisdiction where the foreclosed property is located; if the court has local rules be sure to observe those rules also).

	1.2	There is no advantage in filing the motion early.  Filing the Rule 12(b)(6) motion suspends the time for filing an ANSWER.​
*About the Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted:*

2.		The foreclosure claimant (bank) is required to establish the courts subject matter jurisdiction over the case by evidence proving a valid cause of action.  That proof must be established pursuant to the requirements of *UCC § 3-301*, and if applicable *UCC § 3-309*, and should be affirmatively set forth in the foreclosure complaint.   

	The lawyers for the foreclosure claimant will fail to establish the courts subject matter jurisdiction over the case in the initial complaint, secure in the presumption that you will not question the banks standing to file the foreclosure action.  

	The lawyers that do this type of sloppy work are incompetent and probably in collusion with the judge who will overlook this defect in the complaint.

	Your ability to zero in on the issue of the banks standing to make a claim in foreclosure from the beginning, will immediately panic the foreclosure complainant.  	The lawyers who wrote and filed the complaint for the bank are also subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for filing a case where their client cannot establish the right to enforce the instrument.  No valid cause of action.  Such complaint, without valid cause of action is frivolous.  Ask for Rule 11 sanctions against the lawyers and their law firm.

	The lawyers have given themselves a 21-day safe harbor provision when filing a Rule 11 request for sanctions, giving those bastards time to correct their frivolous incompetence. So, check the rules and case law in your jurisdiction.  They made the rule.  Throw those rules back at them like a javelin.

	The Motion To Dismiss must also contain words making it obviously apparent that the  courts subject matter jurisdiction over this particular case is being challenged.  Once subject matter jurisdiction has been challenged it must be addressed and affirmatively established by the court.  It is an abuse of discretion for a court to fail, by either refusal or neglect, to address a subject matter jurisdiction challenge. 

NOTE: there is a distinction between the term subject matter jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

*subject matter jurisdiction* is a broad and general term referring to the courts general subject matter jurisdiction over a class of case types. Without this jurisdiction, judgments of a court are VOID.

*subject matter jurisdiction over the case* is a sub classification within the general subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a particular case makes the judgment in that case VOIDABLE.

    See the following case for an explanation of the difference: *Edwin A. Hisle and Olive Sue Hisle Cook v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government*, Appeal From Fayette Circuit Court, Action No. 65-CI-17431, Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals, No. 2006-CA-001733-MR. [http://162.114.92.72/COA/2006-CA-001733.pdf ]​
	For the bank to establish a valid cause of action, the right to enforce the instrument must be proved with evidence entered into the court record pursuant the following requirements of law:

3.	Prove status of holder of the instrument. (*UCC § 3-301(i)*); or

"Holder" means: (*UCC § 1-201(21)*)
	(A)	the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession; or
 	(B)	the person in possession of a document of title if the goods are deliverable either to bearer or to the order of the person in possession.
*http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-201*[/COLOR]][URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-201"]*Uniform Commercial Code - Article 1*[/url]​
	If the bank is the holder in possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage, (original wet-ink NOTE-Mortgage), evidence of possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage must be produced to establish standing to invoke the courts subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Authenticum:	In the civil law, an original instrument or writing; the original of a will or other instrument, as distinguished from a copy. (BLD6-133)​
4.	Prove status of non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder. (*UCC § 3-301(ii)*); or 

	If the bank is not the holder, but has actual and present possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage, the bank must produce clear evidence to establish that the rights of the holder have been assigned to the non-holder to enforce the instrument.

5.	Prove status of being entitled to enforce the instrument as a person not in possession of the instrument pursuant to *UCC § 3-309* or UCC § 3-418(d). (NOTE is lost, stolen, destroyed). 

	If the bank is not in possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage, the bank must produce clear evidence to establish the right to enforce the instrument pursuant to the requirements of *UCC § 3-309*.

*UCC § 3-309*, requirements.

6.	Prove possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred. (*UCC § 3-309(a)(1)*). 

7.	Prove non-possession of the NOTE is NOT the result of a transfer. (*UCC § 3-309(a)(2)*).

8.	Prove that the person seeking enforcement cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (*UCC § 3-309(a)(3)*).

9.	A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. (*UCC § 3-309(b)*).

*UCC § 3-301*.  PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.
"Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means 
(i) the holder of the instrument, 
(ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or 
(iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418(d).  A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.​
*UCC § 3-309*	ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED, OR STOLEN INSTRUMENT.
(a)	A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if
(1)  the person seeking to enforce the instrument
	(A)  was entitled ** to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or
(B)  has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred; 
	(2)	the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and 
	(3)	the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.​
***************************

	An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. (*UCC § 3-203(a)*).

	If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee.(*UCC 3-203(d)*)​
UCC § 3-201.  NEGOTIATION
	(a) "Negotiation" means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.​
*The note and mortgage are inseparable*; the former as essential, and the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.
*Carpenter v. Longan*, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872) (SCOTUS).  (Access *Carpenter* here:  *CARPENTER V. LONGAN*, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
*Carpenter*  recently cited in  *Landmark National Bank v. Kesler*, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)). Access Landmark here: [*Landmark Decision*]​
10.	Immediately after being served with the summons, mail the banks incompetent attorney a discovery request for production of documents; Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34  Production of Documents.  

11.	Production of Documents for the opportunity to inspect, photo copy, certify, and validate 
	11.1	The authenticum original wet-ink NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.2	All documents relating to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.3	All balance sheets relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.4	All insurance records relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.5	All records pertaining to any Credit Default Swap certificates relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.6	All records pertaining to guarantors relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.7	All records pertaining to any investors relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.8	All records pertaining to any money paid relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.9	All records pertaining to any assignment(s) relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.10	All records pertaining to any aggregator relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.11	All records pertaining to any pool relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.12	All records pertaining to any Special Purpose Vehicle relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.13	All records pertaining to any Special Investment Vehicle relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.14	All records pertaining to any Collateralized Debt Obligation relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.15	All records pertaining to any Collateralized Mortgage Obligation relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.16	All records pertaining to the present holder relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
	11.17	All records pertaining to any entity ever having physical possession of the relevant NOTE-Mortgage.

12.	The bank will have 30 days from the day they receive service of the request for production of documents to send you a response.  If the bank fails to respond with valid answers within 30 days after receipt of your request for production of documents, file a motion to compel the bank to comply with your discovery request.  Ask the court for Rule 11 sanctions against the banks lawyers.

13.	If the bank fails to establish a valid cause of action pursuant to the requirements of UCC § 3-301, and if applicable UCC § 3-309, the court will be forced to dismiss the case.   If the case is dismissed, the discovery requests are then moot.

14.	Once the case is dismissed, file a Quiet Title Action pursuant to the fact that the NOTE-Mortgage has been satisfied, that there is no holder in evidence, that the NOTE-Mortgage were acquired by the bank by false representation and fraud.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Jan 31, 2010)

. . .

If some scum-sucking debt collector tells you that his right to collect a credit card debt from you or foreclose on your property is under authority of UCC Article 9 tell him:

UCC Article 9 does not apply to:
	(1)	home loan promissory notes and mortgages; 
	(2)	collection of credit card &#8220;accounts.&#8221;

UCC § 9-109, Scope, states  [cross reference to your jurisdiction]

	(d)	*this "article does not apply to*: 
(5)  *[a]n assignment of accounts*, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or
*promissory notes*   [instruments]

		which is *for the purpose of collection only*;&#8221; (outlining & emphasis added)​
	UCC § 9-102(a)(65) "Promissory note" means an instrument that evidences a promise to pay a monetary obligation, does not evidence an order to pay, and does not contain an acknowledgment by a bank that the bank has received for deposit a sum of money or funds;

*"The note and mortgage [account] are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage [account] with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity."* [Fn3 Jackson v. Blodget, 5 Cowan 205; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johnson 43.] (emphasis added) 

Quotation and Footnote from: *Carpenter v. Longan*, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872).(Access Carpenter here: CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez)

The above referenced current and binding opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, was recently utilized as basic law in *Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler*, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access Landmark here: [Landmark Decision]
(98489 -- Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler -- Rosen -- Kansas Supreme Court)

The banks are engaged in fraud when, on the basis of a negotiable instrument, the credit card promissory note and the subsequent &#8220;account&#8221; created by the existence of such promissory note, the &#8220;account&#8221; is split apart from the promissory note and sold to the scum-sucking debt collector.

There is no right to enforcement of an &#8220;account&#8221; pursuant to Article 3, the section of the UCC governing negotiable instruments (promissory notes).

Under Article 3 the scum-sucking debt collector must establish the existence of a valid assignment of the note and the &#8220;account&#8221; from the original holder to have standing to enforce the instrument.  

*"SHOW ME THE NOTE"*  The original wet-ink note.

Because the criminal banks have sold the promissory notes to investors in the stock market who are betting on default with insurance in the form of &#8220;credit default swaps,&#8221; insurance on the notes/accounts, there is no possible way the scum-suckers can enforce the instrument behind the &#8220;account&#8221; if you properly object to the proceeding, which is founded in fraud.   "Show me the note!"

Did you know that you would be used in the manner in which you have been used?

Did the scum-sucking bank disclose to you all of the facts with respect to the transaction they were enticing you to become a part of?

Do you know how much the scum-sucking bank has been unjustly enriched by using your signature obtained by fraud?

Forget refinancing.  Check out Joe Lents in Boca Raton, Florida.  No note, no foreclosure.  No payments since 2002.  $1.5M property.

. . .


----------



## Zander (Jan 31, 2010)

Welcome Svarstaad! You are our newest troll and cut-n-paste conspiracy theorist!  Good to have you aboard!

My "Ignore" list has plenty of room for you!


----------



## Zander (Jan 31, 2010)

PS -We just love jailhouse lawyers here!!


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 31, 2010)

I think it is all great information to know. Thank you, I will be reading through it all again. The few attorneys we had that tried to help in our case do not understand contract law. Since mortgages are actually contracts and written from contract law then wouldn't contract law be superior? 

On my corporate business loan Wells Fargo used an altered UCC filing. A poorly orchestrated cut and paste job for the attachment "A", tossed the original that they had gave me and this was admitted in court that it was altered but the banker claimed he did not know who in WF did that. The original attachment "A" I signed had on it what was given as collateral. It was never legally added to or changed. The bank chose instead to claim any and all equipment on the mine site plus the land which I nor my husband did not own and anything and everything they could get their grubby hands on at our shop and home, plus anything they could get that was stored elsewhere or in repair and the machine that had been designed to fail from the factory that was in the hands of the experts. They had no list of equipment at all and so they made up a list of equipment that they knew my husband and I owned or had control of then took it all and everything else that the sheriff could get (His have gun will travel cards were passed out along the way). They used this method under the state Replevin laws even though the original judge told them in chambers, "do not take anything you do not have make, model and serial number for" (that made no difference when they sent the sheriff out. Even stuff that was not listed in the motion for Replevin was taken. It was an absolute raid. From heavy equipment Rod used to make a small living with to tools he had since 1981, fishing poles, Christmas lights and the meat in the freezer, including our Thanksgiving turkey.) 

It makes me sick to know what has been done and is still being done to people who actually believed in the American dream.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 31, 2010)

Zander said:


> PS -We just love jailhouse lawyers here!!


Snide comments really are not necessary. Maybe you have no clue as to the people who some of these raiders have taken advantage of but I have met some of them personally. Even had them ask for my help and I'm not a lawyer but they could not find anyone to help them take on a bank that committed fraud and stole their house after they had spent years and all their money fixing it. Just because some people are not as educated as others it does not mean they are scum or lazy or any other crap word some may want to call them. I saw the papers of a couple who were trampled on by unethical sales people and an unethical mortgage lending company. They alter documents and lied their asses off to make these poor people believe that borrowing the money to have a chance at owning a home was possible and then they cheated them after they had fixed up their dream home. Two months these people were behind on their payments. The mortgage company told them they would give them two months after they had installed a new septic system at the house, after the city threaten them and a year of trying to figure out why the plumbing backed up. The realtor lied, the mortgage rep lied and altered documents and made up documents and the abstractor hid from them these documents. The mortgage company looked at the value and determined that the value of the house was much more than what was owed on it and they went after it. Surprise, surprise for all the people that they did that too now that market has drop and those same houses are on the books losing money. 

I was hired back in 1981 to assess houses for a company when the home owners were supposedly late on payments. Much to my surprise I learned shortly after being hired what that company was really doing. It was not because all these homeowners were behind on their house payments that these houses were being reassessed.


----------



## Svarstaad (Feb 4, 2010)

. . .

Here is a correspondence I would immediately send to a scum-sucking debt collector (ssdc) after receiving the FIRST letter from such ssdc.

To:  ssdc

Introduction

*SWORN DENIA*L

	With respect to the debt you reference in the attached copy of your letter of <date>:
	I  hereby deny that such alleged debt is my debt.
	I  hereby deny that such alleged debt is a valid debt.
	I  hereby deny that such alleged debt is a valid and authentic amount.

															_____________________
															<signature>

Sworn to and subscribed before me this _____ day of ______________, 20___.

__________________ 
Notary Public

______________________________________________
My commission expires:                              (SEAL)


_[correspondence cont'd]_


*QUESTIONS

YOUR RESPONSE REQUIRED BY THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) AND THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT (GLBA)*

1.	You have indicated that you are collecting a debt on an account, please provide the following required information:

1.1	Identify the entity from whom you purchased the referenced account;

	1.2	Produce and deliver an authenticated copy of any judgment (if applicable);

	1.3	Produce authenticated documentation that you and your agency are licensed to collect debts in (insert name of state);

	1.4	Produce an authenticated copy of the valid assignment, or chain of valid assignments, from the original holder of the original wet-ink promissory note, which is the foundational basis of the account in question, which confers upon you or your agency the right to enforce the instrument and the account;

1.4.1	See UCC § 3-301; <reference your jurisdictions version of UCC § 3-301>​
	1.5	Indicate whether or not you or your agency have made inquiry to any credit reporting agency or any of their affiliates for the purpose of acquisition of nonpublic personal information with respect to the undersigned;

	1.6	If you or your agency have made contact with any credit reporting agency or an affiliate of such credit reporting agency, your action comes within the ambit of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (GLBA) Public Law 106-102, 15 U.S.C. § 6801, et seq., enacted November 12, 1999, and specifically, 15 USC § 1681b.

			Pursuant to the authority of the GLBA; 

	1.7	Specify the grounds you rely upon as your authority to make contact with any credit reporting agency or affiliate of same, for the purpose of acquisition of nonpublic personal information with respect to the undersigned;  (15 USC § 1681b(a)) and

	1.8	Pursuant to the prohibitions of 15 USC § 1681b(f),

					Certain use or obtaining of information prohibited

1.8.1	Provide certification of your authority to obtain a consumer report from a credit reporting agency or any affiliate of such agency, with respect to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681b(f)(1)) and

		1.8.2	Provide an authenticated copy of the general or specific certification of the purpose for access to nonpublic personal information of the undersigned that you submitted to any credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681b(f)(2))  and​
	1.9	Pursuant to 15 USC § 1681e. Compliance procedures

1.9.1	Identity and purposes of credit users​
1.9.1.1	Produce an authenticated copy of any documentation proving that you provided proper identification to any credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681e(a)) and​
1.9.1.2	Produce an authenticated copy of your certification of the purposes for which you sought the information from any credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681e(a)) and

			1.9.1.3	Produce an authenticated copy of the document that you provided to certify to the credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned, that such revealed information would be used for no other purpose than that for which you certified.  (15 USC § 1681e(a)).​
__________________________
<signature>

____________________________
<date>

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Feb 5, 2010)

I made a typo in:

1.6 If you or your agency have made contact with any credit reporting agency or an affiliate of such credit reporting agency, your action comes within the ambit of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (GLBA) Public Law 106-102, 15 U.S.C. § *6801*, et seq., enacted November 12, 1999, and specifically, 15 USC § 1681b.​
above.

*Should be:*

1.6 If you or your agency have made contact with any credit reporting agency or an affiliate of such credit reporting agency, your action comes within the ambit of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (GLBA) Public Law 106-102, 15 U.S.C. § *1681*, et seq., enacted November 12, 1999, and specifically, 15 USC § 1681b.​


----------



## Svarstaad (Feb 5, 2010)

. . .

Some information about the law-breakers violating your privacy.  There is a remedy with some "teeth."  Do your own further research.

1.	If a scum-sucking debt collector (ssdc) who is unable to provide an authenticated copy of a valid assignment of the right to enforce the underlying promissory note which is the basis for any such account in question, which is the reason for a debt collection inquiry, it is highly probable that the ssdc unlawfully obtained access to your financial information, (Nonpublic Personal Information (NPI)) contained in a database(s) owned and maintained by credit reporting agencies, such as Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion credit bureaus and their contractual affiliates.  (See previous posts about the right to enforce an instrument UCC § 3-301; cross referenced to the version of the UCC codified in the laws of your particular jurisdiction).

2.	Contact the credit reporting agencies, each of them, and request a report identifying each and every instance where a third party, not affiliated with the credit reporting agency, gained access to your nonpublished personal information maintained in their database or the database of any of their affiliate(s).

3.	The credit reporting agencies are required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) to exercise due diligence and require certification from entities requesting access to nonpublished personal information maintained in their databases.

4.	15 USC § 1681e. Compliance procedures

4.1	(a) Identity and purposes of credit users

	4.2	Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information​ 4.2.1	identify themselves, 
		4.2.2	certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and 
		4.2.3	certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. 
		4.2.4	Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and
		4.2.5	the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. 
		4.2.6	No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.  (Outlining added).​
5.	The credit reporting agency(ies), violate the GLBA if they grant access to an ssdc that cannot validate the right to enforce an instrument (promissory note), which is the basis for creation of their so-called account which they are trying to collect.

6.	An account is a nullity without the underlying foundational basis for such account, in cases such as yours, where the promissory note, a negotiable instrument, is the actual basis for the creation of an account.

*"The note and mortgage [account] are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage [account] with it, while an assignment of the latter [mortgage/account] alone is a NULLITY."* (emphasis added)   *Carpenter v. Longan*, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872).   (Access the *Carpenter* case online:  < CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez >).​
7.	The above referenced current and binding opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, was recently utilized as basic law in *Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler*, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access *Landmark* here: < 98489 -- Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler -- Rosen -- Kansas Supreme Court >

8.	The ssdc commits fraud and invasion of privacy, and seriously violates the GLBA, which imposes criminal liabilities and makes those who do not comply liable to consumer remedy for the injury.

9.	The GLBA allows victims of violations of the GLBA to file a claim in Federal court without regard to the amount in controversy. (Which is usually $75,000.00)  The ssdcs access and acquisition to your credit report without permissible purpose violates 15 USC § 1681b.  Permissible purposes of consumer reports.  (Which is apparently common practice for the ssdcs.)

10.	15 USC § 1681n. Civil liability for willful noncompliance
10.1	(a) In general

	10.2	Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of
	10.3	(1)​ 10.3.1	(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or
		10.3.2	(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;​ 10.4	(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and
	10.5	(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court.

	10.6	(b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance​ 10.6.1	Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater.  (Outlining added)​
11.	The ssdcs willful failure to Comply with the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, by obtaining your nonpublished personal information under false pretenses makes the ssdc criminally liable, pursuant to *15 USC § 1681q.:

[a]ny person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under Title 18, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both. (Emphasis Added)​*
12.	All of the ssdcs debt collection activities clearly are subject to the GLBA, as most of the ssdcs regularly engage in activity that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking. Section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. § 1843(k)). (See § 4(k)(4)(F); and 12 C.F.R. § 225.28]. Including not only collection agencies, but credit bureaus.

13.	You have a cognizable and legitimate interest in pursuing further investigation in these areas, which are likely to lead to admissible evidence, such as copies of the notices required under the GLBA (16 C.F.R. § 313, et seq.), exactly how the ssdc obtained your nonpublished personal information, and under what or whos agreement or authority was the consumer report information obtained and disclosed. (See 16 C.F.R. § 313, 65 Fed. Reg. 33646 (May 24, 2000)).

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Feb 8, 2010)

. . .

*CLARIFICATION*

The "*Fair Credit Reporting Act*" [15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], is the short title for 
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 15, CHAPTER 41, SUBCHAPTER III  CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES, 15 USC 1681 et seq.

********

*Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act*
(Public Law 106-102)
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 15, CHAPTER 94, SUBCHAPTER I, § 6801-6809.

Protection of nonpublic personal information

privacy provisions relating to consumers' financial information. Under these provisions, financial institutions have restrictions on when they may disclose a consumer's personal financial information to nonaffiliated third parties. Financial institutions are required to provide notices to their customers about their information-collection and information-sharing practices.​
**********

Both Acts (FCRA & GLBA) are extremely useful for going after ssdc's. The provisions of the statutes noted in the previous posts are from the Fair Credit Reporting Act  (FCRA).

Additional questions for ssdc's formulated from the provisions of the GLBA are forthcoming.

***********

Also, in a Kentucky case about credit card debt collection, in state court, the inept and incompetent lawyer debt-collector, has, by his frivolous and frantic efforts to "get the money," caused the focus on forensic examination of the "always present" affidavit that accompanies the ssdc's motion for summary judgment.  It has been discerned that the "affidavits" that are being supplied to the courts are most notably, always PERJURED.  Along with fabricated evidence, which is "fraud upon the court."

Another reason for going after the scum-bags.

**************     

Apologies for the mix-up with the names of the consumer protection Acts.

If you are doing your own research, as suggested, you already caught my goof.

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Feb 8, 2010)

*yawn*

Nobody's getting suckered. You might as well save your cut n paste skills for something useful. Like arts and crafts hour at the halfway house.


----------



## Svarstaad (Feb 15, 2010)

. . .
*
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CREDIT CARD BUSINESS*

	All federally insured banks (FDIC) must follow what are called the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) which are found in the federal statutes at 12 USC § 1831n  Accounting objectives, standards, and requirements;

12 USC § 1831n(a)(1)
That there are certain accounting principles that must be followed by (FDIC) banks and financial institutions.

12 USC § 1831n(a)(1)
That certain reports or statements must be filed with federal banking agencies by insured depository institutions.

12 USC § 1831n(a)(1)(A)
That these reports and or financial statements must accurately reflect the capital of these institutions.

12 USC § 1831n(a)(2)(A)
That the institution's accounting principles shall be uniform and consistent with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.​
	"Anything accepted by a bank for deposit would be considered as cash." Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, 2003 ed., Wiley, page 41, Cash and Cash Equivalents.

*BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE "CREDIT CARD" SYSTEM AT WORK
THAT HAS VICTIMIZED YOU THROUGH YOUR OWN IGNORANCE*

	Upon approval, banks accept your signed "credit card" agreement as a promissory note and deposits your note as an asset. 

	That note is then monetized, and deposit multiplied by a factor of 10.  For example, a $1,000 credit limit,  agreement/promissory note is monetized to $10,000.00. $1,000.00 is credited to the "credit card" company's bank account.  And the rest, $9,000.00, is gravy.  (Did you get a kiss? A thank-you? $100.00 on the dresser?)  

	The banks use the attributes of the Federal Reserve deposit multiplier, to enrich themselves by a factor of 9 times the amount of the deposit.  ($9,000.00 in the example above).  (This multiplier factor can go as high as 23 times the deposit amount). 

	And now, it gets even better for the banks, because every time you use their "credit card" and sign a purchase transaction "receipt" slip, as authorized agent for the bank, you create another promissory note, which the merchant deposits into his account as cash.  Then, the banks once again, use the deposit multiplier money manufacturing scam to enrich themselves by a factor of approximately 9 times the amount of the new deposit; the face value amount of your credit card purchase transaction.   

	The Merchants bank deposits all of the signed "credit card" slips and uses the deposit multiplier money manufacturing scam to enrich themselves by a factor of approximately 9 times the amount of the deposit.  And on, and on, and on.

	How many times does this happen?  How many times have you and many others used a credit card?

	The criminal banks could not enrich themselves without YOU signing the notes, in ignorance, playing their fools game.

	And not only that, in the example above, it is a fact that the credit card company gained a full $1,000 from the original agreement that was signed by YOU.

	Even if you never use the credit card, the credit card company has received unjust enrichment of $1000 + $9000 (deposit multiplier) on the operation of the scam based upon your participation, by your signature on the promissory note or credit card agreement. 

	The credit card company is paid in full by the value of YOUR signature on all those promissory notes YOU generate.  The credit card company is never at any risk and never loses a penny even if YOU never pay.

	YOU were robbed.  Non-disclosure of the facts is fraud!
*
BACKGROUND BRIEF*

	The Federal Reserve has been very clear in their circulars that banks do not really lend or loan money. 

	Federal Reserve official publications reveal one example in the  Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs all negotiable instruments, and every state in the union has adopted and codified the UCC into their state statutes. 

	Two examples to prove the point about what the FED says about banks lending money. 

	FIRST:  Federal Reserve Publication, Modern Money Mechanics states on pg 6: 

Of course they [Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created.​
	So if banks do not really pay out loans from the money that they receive as deposits, where do they get the money to payout loans?

	The FED reveals in such a manner that it would take professional help to fail to comprehend: 

"What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credit to the borrowers transaction accounts.​
	In reality an exchange has occurred  

	So, the banks and the credit card companies are lying when they stipulate in their agreements that you are receiving a loan.  And then they charge you interest on a loan?! 

	The agreement never mentions the real nature of the transaction, an exchange founded in fraud, relying upon your ignorance. 

	SECOND:  The FED adds fuel to the argument in their publication "Two faces of Debt, pg. 19:

depositor's balance rises when the depository institution extends credit either by granting a loan to or by buying securities from the depositor in exchange for the note or security, the lending or investing institution credits the depositors or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution. In this case no one else loses a deposit and the money supply is increased. New money has been brought into existence.​
	Again, the FED uses the word exchange, which is being associated with the so called loan.

	Notice the quote clearly says that a depositors balance rises, (evidence the promise to pay is deposited) when a depository institution extends credit either by granting a loan to or by buying securities from a depositor. . . 

	How does that happen? 

	According to the circular, In exchange for the note, the lending institution credits your account.  Then, the FED reveals something that proves the bank or financial institution really did not lend their money as they implied or agreed  the FED discloses that as a result of this transaction, no one loses a deposit (thus no other person who had money deposited at the institution lost any deposit)  and actually the money supply is increased; New money has been brought into existence. 

	In truth, the new money brought into existence was done so by the deposit of the promissory note, predicated upon your signature.

*CRITICAL ISSUE:*  for an agreement or a contract to be valid, both parties to the agreement must fully disclose all of the facts relevant to the transaction.  Without full disclosure YOU have no way to competently authenticate by validation all of the terms of the agreement.  

	The indication that you have authenticated by attestation, all of the terms of an agreement, is evidenced by YOUR SIGNATURE.  There are actually two (2) elements or attributes of your signature.  Most people only have comprehension of one element or attribute: a particular scratching pattern, etching, or style of mechanical writing peculiar to a certain individual, made with pen and ink on paper.

	Here is the most important attribute of your signature:

	When a signature is affixed to a promissory note, the signer is normally required to state a variety of private information.  It is quite common for the signer-in-waiting to volunteer an address, phone number, social insecurity number and other information.  At the bottom of the agreement is a line where the signer applies their Signature.

	Before the word signature, is used again, a short review of the legal definition of signature, as well as some other definitions that are relevant to initiating an agreement or contract meeting the stipulations of laws intended to protect the rights of the parties to the agreement in the eyes of the law/courts.

Signature.

1.	A persons name or mark written by that person or at the persons direction. 

2.	Commercial law. Any name, mark, or writing used with the intention of authenticating a document. UCC §§ 1-201(37),*  3-401(b).**  (Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition)​
*UCC § 1-201(37).
	"Signed" includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.

**UCC § 3-401(b).
A signature may be made
(i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and 
(ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.

*signatory.* 
A party that signs a document, personally or through an agent, and thereby becomes a party to an agreement.​
*Signature.*
By signature is understood the act of putting down a man's name, at the end of an instrument, to attest its validity. The name thus written is also called a signature.   Vide to Sign.  Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856).​
	The generally accepted legal definition of signature is very broad:

*[t]he act of putting ones name on the end of any instrument to attest its validity; the name thus written. *  (Blacks Law Dictionary p. 1381(6th ed. 1990) (BLD6-1381)).​
See also Websters New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1934) 
(defining signature as* the name of any person, written with his own hand to signify that the writing which precedes accords with his wishes or intentions*).​
*Attestation:*
The act of attesting; testimony; witness; a solemn or official declaration, verbal or written, in support of a fact; evidence. The truth appears from the attestation of witnesses, or of the proper officer. The subscription of a name to a writing as a witness, is an attestation.  [1913 Webster]

*Authentic:*
genuine; true; real; pure; reliable; trustworthy; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested.  Competent, credible, and reliable as evidence.  (BLD6-132).

*Authentication:*
Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law. (BLD6-132). 

*Intention:*
Determination to act in a certain way or to do a certain thing.  Meaning; will; purpose; design. Intention, when used with reference to the construction of wills and other documents, means the sense and meaning of it, as gathered from the words used therein.  (BLD6-810).

*Verification:*
Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition.  Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party.  (BLD6-1561).

	Every effort imaginable is being made by those operating the Federal Reserve scam, to disconnect the individual from the notion that your SIGNATURE attests to the validity and authenticity of all the terms of whatever it is that you are signing.  This is so, because a flesh-and-blood individual is a living soul, and his signature represents, among other things, the individuals intentions either/or his informed consent to the terms of the writing.  

	The deceivers would rather that your only comprehension of the meaning of the term signature, remain confined to a particular scratching pattern, etching, or style of mechanical writing.     

	Signature indicates that the signer agrees that the matters committed to a writing are within his wishes.

	The concept of within his wishes, is a VERY important issue. If someone has forced you to sign, or used false representations of the facts relevant to an agreement, or has deliberately withheld facts relevant to the agreement, the signer cannot be held liable for the matter if it can be proven that the party taking the unfair advantage, has acted with such intentionally false representations. 

	Signature places in motion many unique events:

1.	It boldly states that the signer has consented to the full terms of the agreement, and becomes a party to that agreement.  By doing so, the full stipulations (if any) as to how matters of conflict and dispute are treated apply; these administrative or remedial solutions are not always handled through standard court proceedings. 

2.	Many credit applications have a stipulation or inclusion, that by applying your Signature, ALL of the information provided to be reviewed for credit worthiness is true, complete, and certain. (or The Truth, The whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth).  In essence a swearing that the individual providing the information has NOT lied, deceived, or entered into the agreement with any preconceived intent to commit any fraud or other nefarious means.​
	Usually, there is really NOTHING in these so-called agreements that holds the alleged creditor liable if THEY were to commit a fraud or other nefarious act.  That is because the signer has the free-will to EXIT the agreement if it can be proven that the alleged creditor (the bank) has not acted in good faith. 

	True to the criminal aspects of their business, the banks representative(s) will never discuss the signers (YOUR) options if you determine that the bank has committed wrong-doing with respect to the transaction:  this is no accident.

3.	In relation to the claimed loan, and the agreement, the signature is the origin and the beginning of the promise-to-pay creation process. 

4.	With the application of the signature to the promissory note, without full disclosure, the signer has unwittingly participated in a scheme to create money out of thin air.   The NEW obligation created the PRINCIPAL, just not the interest money that is allegedly owed.​
	The bottom line on signatures is this: 

*A signature that was provided pursuant to false representations, fraud, is voidable upon discovery of the fraud perpetrated in order to acquire the signature.*​
	A hand writing analysis can only determine that a signature is a particular scratching pattern, etching, or style of mechanical writing peculiar to a certain individual.  No inference as to the intent of the signer, or the circumstances under which the signature was acquired can be determined by a hand writing expert. 

	A signature, (particular scratching pattern, etching, style, etc.), is NOT the important point of relevance  FULLY INFORMED CONSENT is the most important element signified by a signature, and that issue has significant intrinsic value with respect to the fraud perpetrated by the money interests.

*WHAT DID THE BANK BRING TO THE TRANSACTION?*

	Another related issue, which may be more difficult to prove, considering that the courts will do everything in their power to protect the bank instead of you, is that the bank never really brought anything of value to the transaction.

	In other words, for there to be a valid contract/agreement, each party must provide something of value in return for the thing of value that they receive.

	What was loaned to you that should be repaid? 

	If according to the FED, whose regulations the bank must follow, 

(1)	the bank did not use other depositor's money, 
(2)	the banks do not really payout loans from its own money, or from money belonging to depositors 
(3)	the banks accept promissory notes/agreements in exchange for credits in a transaction (checking) account 
(4)	the banks issue a check or wire transfer from the money created by YOUR note; approximately 10 times the face value amount indicated on the note or instrument.​
	What did the bank lend? 

	The bank issued a wire transfer, credit, or check based upon the deposit of your promissory note bearing YOUR SIGNATURE.  The bank could not create money without YOUR HELP. 

	Again, GAAP says, Anything accepted by a bank as a deposit is considered as cash. 

	The promissory note is in fact an asset, and as an asset it has value that can be bought and sold.

	This explains why the FED says New Money is brought into existence with the deposit of the promissory note. It is money that was not in the bank or financial institution prior to the deposit of the promissory note. 

	Comprehend this, it is your SIGNATURE that allows the FED to create vast resources of New Money, and then use that money to control every aspect of your life.  Think about it.

	As stated in Two Faces of Debt Pg. 19:

such newly created funds are in addition to funds that all financial institutions provide in their operations as intermediaries between savers and users of savings.​
	These funds are in addition to the other funds.

	In reality, your promissory note/agreement is an increase of the financial institution's funds.  (Unjust enrichment by a factor of ~9). 

	Thus, from an economic standpoint you are far from getting a loan; in fact, you are actually making a deposit, but this has not been disclosed to you.

	And what does the FED say about that? 

	Again, in Two Faces of Debt, Pg 19: 

A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customers deposit of checks in a bank.​
	This is a very powerful, clear, and concise statement. It means that:

1)	When a bank or financial institution makes a loan, by fraudulently acquiring your signature on a promissory note, they (the bank) actually incurs debt.

2)	This debt is required to be paid on demand of the depositor of the promissory note.  (Thats YOU).

3)	It is the same as the debt the institution owes a person who deposits checks or currency in a bank.​
	When you deposit your paycheck or cash into a bank or financial institution, the institution has to record it as a debt owed to you on their books.  Gaining access to the evidence of the banks detailed accounting that will reveal the truth of the matter could be difficult.  If you were one of the criminals running the scam, how far would you go to protect the scam?  

*MEETING OF THE MINDS*

	This element of contract law known as meeting of the minds, must also be present in any valid agreement.  In other words, both parties must fully comprehend all of the terms and conditions of the agreement for there to be a meeting of the minds. 

	There must be full disclosure by both sides of all relevant material facts so that everyone knows and agrees with what is going on  it is called full disclosure.  

	If you are not aware of all of the material terms and conditions of an agreement, how could you possibly agree to those terms and conditions with your fully informed consent? 

	And if you did not agree to them because you were not aware of them, how can there be a valid agreement in place at all?  

	There has been no meeting of the minds. Therefore, no valid, enforceable contract.

	At this point, you should be able to comprehend that:

(1)	you did not receive a loan from the credit card company;

(2)	the credit card company profited from your signature;

(3)	every time you use the credit card, the banks profit some more as you cause new money to be created.​
	Why do you keep enriching the bank?    

	As if that is not enough, the credit card company demands that you pay them again, plus interest.  If you dont, the bank will eventually acquire the services of a court authorized goon with a warrant to take your property, or your life, at the barrel of a gun. 

	And if that is not enough, the banksters have all credit cards securitized by insurance policies in the event of default; they NEVER lose.  (Credit Default Swaps anyone?).

	Furthermore, there is no way for you to have understood all the terms of their contract, as full disclosure was not made to you at the signing of the contract. 

	Until you comprehend the scam, it is very difficult to perceive how the banks and credit card companies keep going when so many people with credit cards file bankruptcy.  

	Once you do understand the scam, you can perceive that they profit no matter what.

	The credit cards are a godsend for the credit card companies as they are free to create new money out of thin air. 

	The foregoing answers the question, Why do the credit card companies seem eager to offer credit cards like water? 

	The credit card companies have the audacity, and arrogance, to lie about their scam.  They pretend that the reason for the interest rate increases are due to the large number of defaults and/or bankruptcies  (Its YOUR fault!).

	Then, after all the money has been manufactured, and squirreled away in their vaults, they have the audacity to use the courts to ultimately authorize a gun-toting goon to come to your property,  stick a gun in your face and demand you surrender your property.

	BANKERS, LAWYER-LIAR BANKER REPS, AND DEBT COLLECTORS, ARE ALL LYING [expletive deleted] THIEVES!

	Must you continue doing business with them?  

	Stop the motor of the world with your power to withhold your value from the people who are using your life to effect your destruction.

	After having been extremely useful to the money interests, Edward Mandell House is reported to have said the following in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:

[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.  By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. 

		Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.

		Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us [berth certificate] will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.​
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. 

		After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the REGISTRANTS in the form of benefits and privileges. 

		This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call Social Insurance.  

		Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. 

		The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America. [emphasis added].​
. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 16, 2010)

Most of my work now involves bank foreclosures. A few numb skulls have trotted into court with that defense and were immediately informed that was not a defense under Georgia law.
A mortgage is a contract. If you violate the contract the mortgage holdercan accelerate and demand full payment.
We are a nation of laws, not men and their hair brained schemes.
Go ahead and try that mortgage hoax you have there and see how far you get with it.
Good luck. I hope Motel 6 has a room near you. We'll leave the light on for you.


----------



## Svarstaad (Feb 18, 2010)

. . .

Background information and comprehension of the scam is necessary to be able to ask the right questions.

Never admit having account/card/relationship with the bank/credit card company.  Make them PROVE it!

The banks cannot produce fact witnesses.  Show me the evidence.  Where's the note!

"I just don't recollect ever having such an account.  Prove it"  (Reagan/Bush defense).

Never traverse.  Always ask the important questions of the one bringing the claim.

"They" (the bank/credit card company) have to PROVE use of a credit card with a personal knowledge fact witness.

Impossible.  No proof of acceptance.

Research the rules of evidence, and the exceptions therefor, in the rules applicable to your jurisdiction.

Evidence of testimony of a cashier that witnessed use of a credit card is the only way to establish acceptance by use of such a card.   No way a cashier could competently remember a single transaction at the checkout counter.

Papers can be fabricated, and are routinely fabricated by lawyer-liar-attorneys in such cases. 

Banks/Credit card companies can't produce the original wet-ink note.

No evidence to link a "mark" to an account.   (Unless you stupidly "confess.")

Accounts (credit accounts) are under UCC Article 3 which defines "account" for purposes of Article 3 at UCC 4-104 - 

*"Account" means any deposit or credit account with a bank*, including a demand, time, savings, passbook, share draft, or like account, other than an account evidenced by a certificate of deposit;​
Banks and credit card companies and collectors, routinely fabricate documents.

Perjured Affidavits.    Do forensic analysis of such documents.  Such documents can be ripped apart by identification of the perjury that will be found within them.

"Personal Knowledge" means a fact witness that actually observed an event with their own senses, (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste).

And not only that, the claimant must prove "STANDING" under UCC 3-301. The right to enforce the instrument.   (See previous posts).

The statements made in the post above #62 (permalink) are for background information on the FRAUD being perpetrated upon people who don't know about the true nature of the banker vipers and thieves.  

Debt collectors are LIARS and FRAUDS.

Scumbags -- ALL!

******************

Gadawg73, If you haven't heard:

*&#8220;The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, and the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.&#8221;*
*Carpenter v. Longan*, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872) (SCOTUS). 

*Carpenter* recently cited in &#8211; *Landmark National Bank v. Kesler*, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)).

You have admitted that your work involves bank foreclosures, so, please publish the court name, location, and case number, for some of the cases where you have been "involved" in the successfull defense of someone in a bank foreclosure.  

Such cases are public record.  No privacy issues.

I'd like to read for myself how your "involvement" benefited someone in a bank foreclosure case.

In case you don't comprehend;  the so-called "contract," is a *"nullity"* if there is no valid proof of the original wet-ink promissory note.

And not only that, if the so-called "contract," was founded in  FRAUD, which it was, the so-called "contract," is, once again, null and void.

No evidence of the original, wet-ink promissory note,  VOID Contract;

Fraud committed by the bank, non-disclosure, VOID Contract.

. . .


----------



## Ron Obvious (Mar 5, 2010)

Svar, this is great stuff. We are currently fighting foreclosure in Connecticut and we are attacking them with the UCC. The lawyers are fit to be tied because they know we've got them by the balls.

Randy Kelton has some great material on this. "ruleoflawradio~DOT~com"

Next, we sue them in federal court for TILA violations. EVERY mortgage out there has at least one TILA violation which dissolves the mortgage.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 5, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> Background information and comprehension of the scam is necessary to be able to ask the right questions.
> 
> ...



I work for the banks. We go after dead beats.
Go up and down every street in this city and the For Sale signs of the bank owned homes are the ones we foreclosed on. Cherokee county, Ga. Go to Fulton county Ga. website and look up cases from all of the major banks and all of them that have raised your bogus defense have collapsed. 
Same with your neighborhood.
Quit being a dead beat and pay your bills. Many lie, cheat and steal like you do and want to find a way to get away with it.
We punished our kids when they were young for such. It is a shame you were never taught right from wrong.
Go ahead with it Moe. Someone has scammed you. We will get your house. 
If you spent as much time working to keep your home for your family as you do being a crook your irresponsible self would not be where you are.
I pity your family. Where do I make the donation for some food and clothing for them?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 5, 2010)

Carpenter v. Logan case law for dummies:
The latest precedent citing Carpenter is Beals v. Neddo and states:
"The doctrine is old and undisputable that the holder of negotiable paper, before maturity and without notice, takes it clear of equities between the original parties, and neither fraud or durress would invalidate it in it's hands"
Also cited in this decision was Sawyer v.Prickett
You have no standing with your Carpenter case.
Even on your BEST day you will not beat me. I know the law asI have to. Scammers are everywhere.


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 16, 2010)

. . .

Heres a logic flow for contemplation:

*Lend:*
	To provide money to another for a period of time, usually with interest charge to be incurred by borrower.  See also Loan.  (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed, p. 901 (BLD6-901)).

*Loan:*
	A lending.  Delivery by one party to and receipt by another party of sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest.  Boerner v. Colwell Co., 21 Cal.3d 37, 145 Cal.Rptr. 380, 384, 577 P.2d 200.  Anything furnished for temporary use to a person at his request, on condition that it shall be returned, or its equivalent in kind, with or without compensation for its use.  Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. V. Travelers Indem. Co., 58 Misc.2d 443, 295 N.Y. S.2d 983, 986.
	Loan includes: (1) the creation of debt by the lenders payment of or agreement to pay money to the debtor or to a third party for the account of the debtor; (2) the creation of debt by a credit to an account with the lender upon which the debtor is entitled to draw immediately; (3) the creation of debt pursuant to a lender credit card or similar arrangement; and (4) the forbearance of debt arising from a loan.  Uniform Consumer Credit Code, § 3-106.  (BLD6-936) 

*Provide:*
	To make, procure, or furnish for use, prepare.  To supply; to afford; to contribute. (BLD6-1224).

*Borrower:*
	He to whom a thing or money is lent at his request.  Borrower, within automobile liability policy covering borrower of vehicle during loading and unloading, may be defined as someone who has, with permission of owner, temporary possession and use of property of another for his own purposes.  Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. V. American Emp. Ins. Co., Tex., 556 S.W.2d 242, 244.  (BLD66-185).

*Borrow:*
	To solicit and receive from another any article of property, money or thing of value with the intention and promise to repay or return it or its equivalent.  If the item borrowed is money, there normally exists an agreement to pay interest for its use.  In a broad sense the term means a contract for the use of money.  The term may be used to express the idea of receiving something from another for ones own use.  The word loan is the correlative of borrow.  (BLD6-185).

*Conclusions from the foregoing definitions:*

1.	For a transaction to actually be a loan, the thing to be loaned must previously be in physical or legal possession of the lender.

2.	For an individual to be classified as a borrower, he must, with permission, be in possession of, and have the use of, the property of another.

3.	For a so-called lending institution, (lender) to loan money, such money must first be in the physical or legal possession of such lender.

4.	If a so-called lending institution, (lender), used your signature on a note, to create the money which was then returned to you in a form of cash, check, account balance, whatever, you did NOT receive a loan.  

a.	YOU did NOT borrow anything;  

	b.	YOU actually gave or loaned something of value to the bank/mortgage company/whatever;

	c.	YOU are actually the lender;

	d.	The bank/mortgage company/whatever; is actually the debtor;

	e.	The debtor is going to charge YOU interest and demand that YOU, the lender,  pay to the debtor, the amount YOU loaned to the debtor, plus interest;

	f.	If YOU do not pay, the debtor will go to a judge, get a warrant, which will be given to a goon-with-a-gun, who will put the barrel of that gun in your face to take YOUR property; 

i.	that goon-with-a-gun will KILL YOU if you resist.
Aint it nice to live in America?​
	Did the so-called lending institution disclose to you the information noted above when you were coerced to participate in the ongoing banking scam?

With the above information, do you think you might be inclined to ask for the bank/loan company/debt collector:

1.	Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate whether or not it is currently/presently in physical possession of the original, wet-ink promissory note; and

2.	Provide evidence (certified document(s))  to validate the present and current physical location of the original, wet-ink promissory note; and 

3.	Provide and attach an authenticated copy of the original, wet-ink promissory note, in its present and current condition; and 

4.	Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate whether or not the original, wet-ink promissory note (Agreement) was deposited as cash in a banking industry account or pool; and

5.	Provide evidence to validate the identity and ownership of any such account or pool into which the original wet-ink promissory note was deposited; and

6.	Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate the accurate amount of any cash, in any form of money, that was generated, or came into existence pursuant to the deposit of the original, wet-ink promissory note into any account; and

7.	Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate the identity of the current owner of the alleged account and the amount paid in any transaction involving the said promissory note with respect to said account; and

8.	Provide evidence (certified document(s)) of a valid assignment of the right to enforce the promissory note, if such note was sold, and presently in the possession of its present holder; and

9.	Provide evidence (certified document(s)), related in any way, for all transactions related to and involving the original wet-ink promissory note identified above; and

10.	Provide evidence (certified document(s)) of a valid assignment of the right to enforce the promissory note, if such note was sold, and in the possession of its present holder, who is NOT <name of the original lender>; and 

11.	Provide a certified copy of the security agreement that created or provided for a security interest in the obligation; and

12.	Provide a certified copy of the secured party's sworn affidavit stating that:
(A) a default has occurred; and
	(B) the secured party is entitled to enforce the mortgage.​
*GLOSSARY OF RELEVANT TERMS*

*Authentic* 
Genuine; true; real; pure; reliable; trustworthy; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested.  Competent, credible, and reliable as evidence.  (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 132   (BLD6-132)).

*Authenticum* 
In the civil law, an original instrument or writing; the original of a will or other instrument, as distinguished from a copy.  (BLD6-133).

*Authentication* 
The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed.Evid.Rule 901.  (BLD6-132)

*Valid* 
Founded on truth of fact; capable of being justified; supported, or defended; not weak or defective. (BLD6-1550)

*Verification*
Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition.  (BLD6-1561)
Law) (a) Confirmation by evidence.  (b) A formal phrase used in concluding a plea. [1913 Webster]

*Verity* 
Truth; truthfulness; conformity to fact.  The records of a court import uncontrollable verity.  (BLD6-1550)

*evidence* 
upon oath either/or sworn statement, testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.  (composed from definition of evidence, in (BLD6-555).

*personal knowledge,*
something which the witness actually saw or heard, as distinguished from something he learned from some other person or sources.  (BLD6-873).

*prove*
to establish, to render or make certain.  (BLD6-1224).

*show affirmative proof	*
to make clear or apparent by evidence, to prove the truth of matters asserted as tends to establish them. 

*show*
to make clear or apparent by evidence, to prove.  (BLD6-1379).

*affirmative proof*
such evidence of the truth of matters asserted as tends to establish them. (BLD6-60).

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 16, 2010)

. . .

Hey Gadawg73

The next time you want to lawyer-up, you might want to turn over a new leaf and tell the whole truth.

*REFERENCE:  Beals v. Neddo*

The Beals v. Neddo case did NOT disturb the *Carpenter* decision.  Do you know how to Shepardize a case?

A Kansas Circuit Court decision has not the power to overrule a United States Supreme Court decision.  As is observed by the reference in the Landmark case.  What law school did you get your certificate from?

The following was found online with a link to the PDF file to read it.

*Beals v. Neddo*, (Circuit Court, D. Kansas. February, 1880.)

Online URL:  http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F1/0002/0002.f1.0041.pdf

MORTGAGE DURESS ASSIGNEE WITHOUT NOTICE, Duress is not available.
as a defence upon the foreclosure of a mortgage, where the note and mortgage were purchased before maturity, for value and without notice.  

As to the question whether the purchaser in good faith of a promissory note before maturity, who takes an assignment of a mortgage securing the same, takes the security as the note free of equities, is one upon which there is some conflict among the decided cases, but the great weight of authority is to the affirmative. It is sufficient for this court that the supreme court of the United States has so held.  *The security is but an accessory to the debt, and follows the note and takes the same character.* *Carpenter v. Logan*, (sic) 16 Wall. 271, 275; *Sawyer v. Pickett*, 19 Wall. 147; 1 Jones on Mort. § 834, and cases cited.

The actual citation is *Carpenter v. Longan*, 83 U.S. (16 Wall. 271) 271 (1872)
Online Access:  CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

It seems the people seeking foreclosure in *Beals*, were in physical possession of the promissory note.

A situation NOT found TODAY.

The *Beals* case is inapposite to the issues brought up in this thread, which is focused on people who are in trouble TODAY, because of the banking system scam.

***********

*REFERENCE:  Sawyer v. Prickett*

U.S. Supreme Court
Sawyer v. Prickett, 86 U.S. (19 Wall. 146) 146 (1873)

Actual citation:  *Sawyer v. Prickett*, 86 U.S. (19 Wall. 146) 146 (1873)

Online URL:  SAWYER V. PRICKETT, 86 U. S. 146 (1873) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

"We have recently decided that the rule of bona fide holding applies to a case where the "proceeding is to foreclose a *mortgage accompanying a note*, with the same force as when the suit is brought upon the note itself." " [Footnote 3]
[Footnote 3]  *Carpenter v. Longan*, 16 Wall. 271.  (emphasis added)

This case was about a scam in which hustlers coerced farmers to mortgage their farms to buy stock.  

The people foreclosing on the farms actually were in possession of the promissory notes, to enforce the foreclosures.

Since then, and in many other cases, the courts have ruled according to the *Carpenter* decision, even as recently as the *Landmark* decision by the Kansas Supreme Court. 

*******

Although it seems very easy to do so, I am NOT trying to defeat you.

Just presenting facts.  If you cannot make a valid contribution, why dont you just be quiet?

If you DO post in this thread, please try to stay ON POINT with cases that are applicable to the situation in which a lot of people find themselves involved in  TODAY.

Your posts might then be of some value.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 16, 2010)

. . .

Hey Gadawg73:

It is not surprising that creatures of your ilk work for banks.

Scum-bags like you, swoop in to take advantage of people who have been victimized by the banking system.

People who have been denied their income because of --- banksters.

Scum-bags, such as you, step up to "pick the bones" of the "bankster" victims, when they are most vulnerable, and broke.  

When people have no knowledge of how to defend themselves, and no resources to pay for a valid defense from predators like you, when they are at their most vulnerable, instead of helping, you swoop down to "finish them off," and get them thrown into the street.

All in the name of FRAUD!

At the barrel of a gun!

What does your confession, "I work for the banks," say about you?

You are complicit in the scam, you are a willing accomplice!

Instead of seeking after the truth, you seek to uphold and defend the lie.

Your day of reckoning is near.  It will come upon you as a thief in the night.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 29, 2010)

. . .

New "STOP FORECLOSURE" doc.

Easy access to the 16 page PDF file at Google Docs, this URL:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...TEtMjFmMS00NDU1LTg4NTMtOTU2ZTY3MmE1MjU4&hl=en

Doc Intro -- 

*"STOP FORECLOSURES"

PRODUCE THE NOTE!*

To recover on a promissory note, the note holder (the foreclosure claimant) must prove:
(1) the existence of the note in question; and
    (2) that the party sued, signed the note; and
    (3) that the plaintiff (the foreclosure claimant) is the owner or holder of the note; and
    (4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note.​ 
    It is also true, in mortgage foreclosures, that any claim requires presentation of the &#8220;ORIGINAL&#8221; promissory note and general account and ledger statement. A claim of damages, to be admissible as evidence, must incorporate records such as a general ledger and accounting of an alleged unpaid promissory note. The person responsible for preparing and maintaining the account general ledger must provide a complete accounting which must be sworn to and dated by the person who maintained the ledger.

*POOLING AND TRANCHE-ING*

    By the METHOD of pooling and tranche-ing, the &#8220;players&#8221; in the banking scam convert the original negotiable instrument to a non-negotiable &#8220;writing.&#8221; (See Article VIII, UCC). 

"Tranche" is actually a French word meaning "slice" or "portion." The stock market investment scam, uses the term to describe a security that can be split up into smaller pieces and subsequently sold to investors.

    Mortgage-backed securities (MBS), such as a collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO), can often be found in the form of a tranche.  These securities can be partitioned based on their maturities and then sold to investors based on their preferences.  (Credit Default Swaps (&#8220;CDSs&#8221 are the &#8220;insurance&#8221; for CMOs).​ 
    Prior to &#8220;pooling and tranche-ing,&#8221; the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument, (NOTE), is deposited in the bank&#8217;s own deposit account, where the bank uses the Federal Reserve System authorized procedure of &#8220;deposit multiplication,&#8221; to create a cash deposit in the bank&#8217;s favor of 10-23 times the face value amount of the NOTE.  (See Modern Money Mechanics; Two Faces of Debt).  The bank separates the promissory note from the mortgage instrument, and deposits each as separate instruments to take advantage of the &#8220;deposit multiplier&#8221; TWICE for one transaction.  e.g.: 

 1. &#8220;borrower&#8221; signs promissory note and mortgage agreement for purchase of a $100k property; 
 2. bank uses &#8212; 
a. the promissory note as one (1) cash deposit, and
    b. the mortgage agreement as (1) cash deposit for a total cash deposit into the bank&#8217;s own account of $200k, times 10 (deposit multiplier) equals $2M now on deposit in the banking system.​ 3. The bank THEN sells the two separated instruments at face value amount plus ~ 2.5%, another $2.05k is added to the bank&#8217;s newly created windfall of $2M ($2,205,000.00).
 4. The bank then, cuts a check for $100k, to provide the newly created cash to the &#8220;borrower,&#8221; who is instilled with the false representation of an alleged &#8220;obligation&#8221; to pay back to the bank $100k PLUS interest, any fees, and penalties, while the bank walks away from the transaction table with a cool $2,105,000.00, for its own benefit.
 5. Then, because the Federal Reserve has engineered the money system, and the &#8220;borrower&#8217;s&#8221; ultimate default on the transaction is guaranteed, default takes place;
a. After default is declared, the CMOs, (Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) that had been issued and traded on the stock market at huge profits, would be declared in default, and 
    b. the insurance on the CMOs, known as CDSs (Credit Default Swaps) would be cashed in for another fabulous profit on the planned default.
i. The CDSs were the instruments the government paid in the bailout.  What a scam!​(A sweet deal, if you are an unconscionable, scum-bag banker).​ 
    The above scenario was made possible by &#8220;pooling and tranche-ing,&#8221; of the original wet-ink instruments, which means that when the so-called &#8220;lender,&#8221; the bank, sold and subsequently transferred physical possession of the original wet-ink note and mortgage agreement, which were negotiable instruments at the time of execution, the bank, received payment from the purchaser (&#8220;aggregator&#8221; of the &#8220;pool&#8221 of the promissory note and mortgage agreement.  ($205,000.00).  The bank was then in receipt of &#8220;satisfaction of mortgage,&#8221; having been PAID, and then some.  (Don&#8217;t forget the &#8220;Federal Reserve &#8220;deposit multiplier&#8221.  The original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument, executed and issued by the so-called &#8220;borrower,&#8221; is satisfied in full.

    The original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument was then ALTERED by the purchaser (&#8220;aggregator&#8221 to become a NON-NEGOTIABLE writing, and thus, was no longer an &#8220;instrument,&#8221; within the meaning of that term under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).  

    These circumstances, in and of themselves, VOID the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument.   (Don't make claims, get the bank to make admissions about these matters and reveal the truth using appropriate questions in discovery).

 Enforcement of the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument is now an impossibility.  The original &#8220;writings&#8221; have been materially ALTERED into something to which the &#8220;issuer,&#8221; the so-called &#8220;borrower,&#8221; is NOT a party.

    &#8220;A material alteration of a written contract by a party to it discharges a party who does not authorize or consent to the alteration, because it destroys the identity of the contract, and substitutes a different agreement for that into which he entered.&#8221; Mersman v. Werges and another, 112 U.S. 139, 5 S.Ct. 65, 28 L.Ed. 641 (1884). Online: 112 U.S. 139

    A new obligation arises between the seller (the bank), and the buyer (??), separate and apart from the so-called &#8220;borrower.&#8221; 

    Further, the method calls for the proceeds of payment from one note to be used as collateral (cross collateralization) for another.  This breaches the terms of the original wet-ink note which states that payments by the so-called &#8220;borrower&#8221; will be applied to what the &#8220;borrower&#8221; owes. 

    So, after &#8220;pooling,&#8221; &#8220;tranche-ing,&#8221; and alteration of the character of the original wet-ink writings, unknown &#8220;investor&#8221; in this scam receive &#8220;benefits&#8221; of multiple obligors plus insurance and credit default swaps and an investment grade rating that was obtained under false pretenses, without notification to the issuer of the original wet-ink NOTE, the so-called &#8220;borrower,&#8221; inhabiting the so-called, mortgaged property.

Cont'd here: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...TEtMjFmMS00NDU1LTg4NTMtOTU2ZTY3MmE1MjU4&hl=en

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 29, 2010)

How have you been victimized by the banks?
Did they force you to borrow the $?

Guess who owns 95% of the bank stock Moe? Pension funds of retired school teachers and police, fireman.
Those are the folks you are ripping off.
Why not sell your fancy car Moe and pay your house note? Your kids will thank you for it.
You have been fooled. None of your defenses are valid. Get over it. You learned a valuable lesson.
Pay your bills and keep your house.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 29, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> Hey Gadawg73:
> 
> ...




If you loaned your neighbor 100K at 5% and they did not pay I am sure you would accept arguments that they do not owe you the $.
You are a damn joke son. If you borrow the $ you have to pay it back. If you try a scam to avoid paying it YOU are the thief.
Not to mention a fraud also. 
Keep it up. All we want is our collatreral which we are lucky to get 50 cents on the dollar on these days so you have fucked us out of 50% of the vaklue being a dead beat.
Be careful Moe. IRS and DA are right behind us. Do not worry about us as we are small potatoes. However, the DA will give you 10 years for fraud. You do not strike me as jail material.


----------



## RodISHI (Mar 29, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> How have you been victimized by the banks?
> Did they force you to borrow the $?
> 
> Guess who owns 95% of the bank stock Moe? Pension funds of retired school teachers and police, fireman.
> ...


Guess who loses those "pension funds of retired school teachers and police, fireman", granny's life savings and various others money in those banks? Banks have lied, stolen, altered documents, used creative accounting, stripped tax payer coffers and committed vast amounts of fraud and fraud in the inducement. I know this to be fact as it was done to me. They strip and rip off everyone they can with other people's money and retirement funds. They have teams of attorneys, bought and paid for judges and the victims do not have a chance in hell against these deep pocket hucksters. In my case it was not for some chump change $250,000.00 house. Once these con men convinced a judge to fully ignore evidence and banker testimony admitting wrong doing on the bank's part, they also took away two lawsuits where I was financially damaged. The major lawsuit the bank had dismissed after they took it away from me. The one thing I want to stress and make perfectly clear here is that the bank had no desire what so ever to have this loan paid back. Period... How do I know this, because one of the bank vice presidents testified that he could not say with any amount of certainty how much or even if I was in default at the time the bank claimed a default. He was merely "guesstimating". You can live in that perfect little cocoon you have wrapped yourself in and keep telling yourself that banks do not cheat people if you like. There are a hell of a lot of people out here that know different.


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 29, 2010)

. . . 

Hey Gadawg73:

It is obvious to everyone that you are a scum-bag.

Why don't you reply with any actual validation for your position?

When people get the facts straight, about the banking scam, where will you hide?

Get your family to a secure, isolated location, now.

You have no argument when the facts are put to good use in the formulation of valid and relevant questions in discovery that will expose the scam.

Every time you open your mouth, (post in this thread), you insert both feet.  Just be quiet.  It is obvious that you have nothing to add.

With your knowledge, (maybe?), if you honestly analyzed the banking scam, you could do some good.  I think that circumstance would be, for you, like the camel going through the eye of a needle.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 29, 2010)

. . .

The hyperlink below is to a 7-page PDF file that shows a letter to Capital One.

The letter asks questions in a non-judicial format that will put the mortgage company on notice of what is coming if foreclosure/repossession is implemented with respect to an account.

Access:  Google Docs

Use the supporting case law found in the doc at:

Google Docs

to get started with your own research into the banking scam.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 30, 2010)

. . .

29-MAR-2010, 07:43 PM 
Gadawg73

*Svarstaad  comments in bold type.*

How have you been victimized by the banks?

*Used in a continuing criminal enterprise to profit from theft of property by deception. 
*
Did they force you to borrow the $?

*&#8220;They&#8221; run the education system and everything else.  Ultimately, in this country, the power resides with the People.  When the knowledge is no longer suppressed, and the information is properly disseminated, your world of fraud will come crashing down.   *

Guess who owns 95% of the bank stock Moe? Pension funds of retired school teachers and police, fireman.

*All blood-sucking government workers complicit in the scam for a paycheck. 
*
Those are the folks you are ripping off.
Why not sell your fancy car Moe and pay your house note? Your kids will thank you for it.
You have been fooled. None of your defenses are valid. Get over it. You learned a valuable lesson.

*YOU, Gadawg73, provide no validation or substantiation for your claims.  YOU are a CARTOON!*

Pay your bills and keep your house.

*Keep chanting the &#8220;party line,&#8221; Gadawg73, sooner or later, someone will come along to cover you up, like the cat-shit that you are. *

**************

29-MAR-2010, 07:47 PM 
Gadawg73:

*Svarstaad comments in bold type.*

If you loaned your neighbor 100K at 5% and they did not pay I am sure you would accept arguments that they do not owe you the $.

*If you found out that &#8220;your neighbor&#8221; 
** created $100k out of thin air, 
** falsely represented that the money was his, 
** made you believe that he was making an actual &#8220;loan&#8221; of something he possessed before he knew that you desired to borrow some money, 
** manufactured the money for the "loan" out of "thin air," at no cost to himself,
** that the &#8220;neighbor&#8221; was part of the &#8220;organization&#8221; responsible for making certain that you would inevitably default on the so-called &#8220;loan,&#8221; and 
** that such neighbor would then employ goons&#8211;with-guns to force you to abandon your property so he could take possession and make another profit from his fraud,
** what would you do? 

And, by the way, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bang their asses when they hop.*

You are a damn joke son. If you borrow the $ you have to pay it back. If you try a scam to avoid paying it YOU are the thief.

*You, Gadawg73, are the &#8220;damn joke son,&#8221; and a pathetic one, at that. The point being that no money was actually &#8220;borrowed.&#8221;  You scum-bag.
*
Not to mention a fraud also.

*You, Gadawg73, are the one acting in complicity with the banksters. That makes YOU the fraud.  You scum-bag. 
*
Keep it up. All we want is our collatreral which we are lucky to get 50 cents on the dollar on these days so you have fucked us out of 50% of the vaklue being a dead beat.

*The banking system has become fabulously wealthy with the money scam.  Pooling, tranche-ing, bailouts, the banking system has destroyed the entire WORLD.  Do you think anyone has any sympathy for YOU? *

Be careful Moe. IRS and DA are right behind us. Do not worry about us as we are small potatoes. However, the DA will give you 10 years for fraud. You do not strike me as jail material.

*Making threats?  The truth will come out!  The torturers will be vanquished!  Where do YOU want to be found.*

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Apr 8, 2010)

. . .

Questions about the actual, present, physical location, of the original wet-ink note will make them howl for protection. 

Become conversant with the Rules of Evidence, and the case law about same. 

Upon OBJECTION to HEARSAY, and false affidavits, in Motions to STRIKE --- 
Without CERTIFIED evidence properly before the Court, the banksters and debt collectors CANNOT PROVE THEIR CLAIM. 

This is the reason debt collectors and banks cannot survive a well structured series of questions in the form of interrogatories. 

Always OBJECT to UNCERTIFIED so-called "proof." 

Lawyers cannot introduce evidence before the Court with their own words and writings.
Only a competent FACT witness with "PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE" can provide evidence before the court.

Somebody has to swear to observation of the event(s) to "prove" such.

***************
The following reveals the reason that all of those auto-loan, home-loan, credit card transaction notes and agreement are gone: 

1. . . .   The original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument was ALTERED by the aggregator, when the original so-called lender, sold the note. 
The Wall Street crowd altered the original negotiable instrument
to a NON-NEGOTIABLE writing, encumbered by added conditions, and thus, 
the original wet-ink issued note was no longer an instrument, within the meaning of that term under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).​
A negotiable instrument is an UNCONDITIONAL promise to pay.

2. . . .    These circumstances, in and of themselves, VOID the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument. 

3. . .    Enforcement of the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument against the issuer, after alteration, is not possible. . . .  the original writings, have been materially ALTERED into something to which the issuer, the so-called borrower, is NOT a party.

MERSMAN v. WERGES AND ANOTHER

4. . . .   A material alteration of a written contract by a party to it discharges a party who does not authorize or consent to the alteration, because it destroys the identity of the contract, and substitutes a different agreement for that into which he entered. Mersman v. Werges and another, 112 U.S. 139, 5 S.Ct. 65, 28 L.Ed. 641 (1884). Online here.
< http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/112/112.US.139.html>

5. . . .  After pooling and tranche-ing, (P&T) a new obligation arises between the seller (the bank), and the buyer (-?-unknown to the issuer-?-), separate and apart from the so-called borrower. 

6. . . .  Further, the procedure, P&T, calls for the proceeds of payment from one note to be used as collateral (cross collateralization) for another note in the pool. CONDITIONS.  This attribute of changing the conditions inherent in the former promissory note and mortgage agreement (PN&MA) breaches the terms of the original wet-ink PN&MA which states that payments by the so-called borrower will be applied to the so-called obligation. 

7. . . .  So, after P&T, and alteration of the character of the original wet-ink PN&MA, unknown investor(s) in this scam receive benefits of multiple obligors plus insurance and credit default swaps and an investment grade rating that was obtained under false pretenses, without notification to the issuer of the original wet-ink PN&MA, the so-called borrower, inhabiting the so-called, mortgaged property. 

8. . . .  But, what the investor is holding is not the original PN&MA.  He/she/it is holding a stream of revenue with multiple conditions.  A conditional promise to pay is not a negotiable instrument. This circumstance was NOT within the meaning of the issuers informed consent to authenticate the original writing. What the issuer signed, in the midst of a cloud of non-disclosure, was NOT within his comprehension and therefore outside the pale of reasonable application of the term INFORMED CONSENT. 

9. . . . Consequently, the only party on record as mortgagee or beneficiary with respect to the original PN&MA is the bank who:

. . . . 9.1. . . .  has been paid in full as to principal, and

. . . . 9.2. . . .  has been paid in full as to disclosed fees, and 

. . . . 9.3. . . .  has received undisclosed fees as well, and

. . . . 9.4 . . . . has charged-off the so-called debt after default declared, and

. . . . 9.5 . . . . has declared the loss in the default as a tax write-off, and

. . . . 9.6 . . . . has received insurance payment on the loss. 

Where and how has the bank been injured?

10. . . . Because the bank failed to disclose all the facts relevant to the original transaction, and with the bank actually shielding the 3rd party purchaser of the PN&MA, the bank is actually falsely representing that it is standing as the real so-called HOLDER, whose identity and existence is being withheld from the so-called borrower,  big-time TILA violations.

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 8, 2010)

Good luck.


----------



## Svarstaad (Apr 8, 2010)

. . .

Banks in violation of National Banking Act.

Below is the statutory restriction on usurious interest. *12 U.S.C. § 85*. (National Banking Act) (With emphasis added).

The maximum rate, by statute is 7% APR,

or

1% added to the current rate of interest charged on 90-day commercial paper (9DCP).

The Federal Reserve periodically, and at odd intervals, sets the interest rate on 9DCP.

See the certified table of the interest rates on 9DCP, from the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, Minnesota, uploaded to Google Docs:

<https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6KARWQjetg_M2YxMTQ5NTItZTdmMy00Y2IzLWE3YzMtYTYwNjdhMjc3ODkz&hl=en>

The rate changes from time to time shown in the table.

For instance:

1. Table Entry Date: 05/01/08 to 10/06/08 (~ 5 months, 5 days) 

Primary Rate 2.25%
    Secondary Rate 2.75%​
2. During the 5 month time period a national bank, subject to federal law, 12 U.S.C. § 85, could charge interest at:

Primary Rate 2.25% + 1% (calculated APR of 13%) OR
    Secondary Rate 2.75% + 1% (calculated APR of 15%)​
The Primary and Secondary Discount Rates are charged depending on the banks status as a Primary or Secondary risk.

Did your credit card company charge you more in interest than allowed by statute during that time period?

If the credit card company is a national bank, or a subsidiary of a national bank, 12 U.S.C. § 86, mandates that the violation of 12 U.S.C. § 85,

"when knowingly done, shall be deemed a *forfeiture of the entire interest* which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon."​
If you file a lawsuit within 24 months of the occurrence, the bank has to pay you double the amount of all of the interest you were charged.

Dispute the debt amount owed.  If the bank violates any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, (FCRA), (and they probably will fail to abide by the provisions of the FCRA), you can file suit under FCRA, with several counts of the Complaint alleging remedy for violation of the National Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. § 85.  Just a threat of the lawsuit, (send them a sample copy of your impending lawsuit), will probably get you paid and your debt canceled. 

**********************

National Banking Act

TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 85
12 U.S.C. § 85. Rate of interest on loans, discounts and purchases

Any association may take, receive, reserve, and charge on any loan or discount made, or upon any notes, bills of exchange, or other evidences of debt, interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State, Territory, or District where the bank is located, or at a rate of 1 per centum in excess of the discount rate on ninety-day commercial paper in effect at the Federal reserve bank in the Federal reserve district where the bank is located, whichever may be the greater, and no more, except that where by the laws of any State a different rate is limited for banks organized under State laws, the rate so limited shall be allowed for associations organized or existing in any such State under title 62 of the Revised Statutes. 

*When no rate is fixed by the laws of the State, or Territory, or District, the bank may take, receive, reserve, or charge a rate not exceeding 7 per centum, 

or 

1 per centum in excess of the discount rate on ninety day commercial paper in effect at the Federal reserve bank in the Federal reserve district where the bank is located, 

whichever may be the greater, *

and such interest may be taken in advance, reckoning the days for which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt has to run.

The maximum amount of interest or discount to be charged at a branch of an association located outside of the States of the United States and the District of Columbia shall be at the rate allowed by the laws of the country, territory, dependency, province, dominion, insular possession, or other political subdivision where the branch is located. And the purchase, discount, or sale of a bona fide bill of exchange, payable at another place than the place of such purchase, discount, or sale, at not more than the current rate of exchange for sight drafts in addition to the interest, shall not be considered as taking or receiving a greater rate of interest.

*********

TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 86

12 U.S.C. § 86. Usurious interest; penalty for taking; limitations

The taking, receiving, reserving, or charging a rate of interest greater than is allowed by section 85 of this title, *when knowingly done, shall be deemed a forfeiture of the entire interest which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon*. *In case the greater rate of interest has been paid, the person by whom it has been paid*, or his legal representatives, *may recover back, in an action in the nature of an action of debt, twice the amount of the interest thus paid from the association taking or receiving the same: Provided, That such action is commenced within two years from the time the usurious transaction occurred.*  (emphasis added).

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 8, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> Banks in violation of National Banking Act.
> 
> ...



12 U.S.C. 86
"Any association may take, receive, reserve, and charge on any loan or discount made,or upon any notes, bills of exchanges,or other evidence of debt, INTEREST AT THE RATE ALLOWED BY THE STATE, TERRITORY OR DISTRICT WHERE THE BANK IS LOCATED."
"or"
many other situations which include
" when the rate is not fixed by THE LAWS OF THE STATE, or territory, or district, the bank may take, receive, reserve or charge at a rater not to exceed 7%."

Every United States State Legislature has set and passed legislation allowing banks to charge more than 7%. 

You left that out Moe. Why is that? Could it be it does not match your false and fraudulent agenda?
States set the interest rates ACCORDING TO THE VERY STATUTE YOU CITE.
Please quit posting fraudulent and incomplete information.


----------



## Svarstaad (Apr 8, 2010)

. . .

Hey Gadawg73:

I said NATIONAL BANKS.

Several of the biggest national banks have run to South Dakota, thinking they can get away from the federal statute.

You can't read the words "When no rate is fixed by the laws of the State?"

*In South Dakota, no rate is set by the State*: dawg.

So, you go to the section of 12 U.S.C. 85, that starts of with the words* "When no rate is fixed by the laws of the State"* eh, dawg.

Citibank Credit Card Agreement specifies Federal Law and South Dakota law governs the agreements.

Rates are set by contract, which brings up some questions.

SDCL:       54-3-1.1.   *Rate of interest set by written agreement*--No maximum or usury restriction.  Unless a maximum interest rate or charge is specifically established elsewhere in the code, there is no maximum interest rate or charge, or usury rate restriction between or among persons, corporations, limited liability companies, estates, fiduciaries, associations, or any other entities *if they establish the interest rate or charge by written agreement*. A written agreement includes the contract created by § 54-11-9.

Get your contract.

Violation of Federal Law brings the banks into a delicate position to defend.

Worth the challenge and the questions in discovery.

Make the claim, let the banksters try to wriggle out of the issue along with all of the other wrong-doing.

The banks are in a twilight zone with respect to their legitimacy of behavior.

Supine subjection is out, dawg.

Only a court can interpret statute.  Are you a "court?"

Produce some case law to support your contention.

Although, your last attempt to do the "case law shuffle," resulted in my shooting you down in about 5 minutes.

If you think you would like to try again, I'll be glad to review your proffer.  
Substantiation for your position is not a secret. is it?

Maybe, there have been no challenges in the past?

Many reviewed credit card statements, displayed interest charges in excess of the maximum rate set in the contract.

Read your contract.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Apr 8, 2010)

. . .

Here's some caselaw about interpreting statutes:

Crowe v. OTI, No. 45A05-0110-CV-458, (Ind.Ct.App. 2002)

I. Standard of Review

We also note that the interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts. *Spears v. Brennan*, 745 N.E.2d 862, 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). The court&#8217;s objective when construing the meaning of a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent expressed in the statute. *Turner v. Bd. of Aviation Comm&#8217;rs*, 743 N.E.2d 1153, 1161 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. Where a statute has not previously been construed, the express language of the statute and the rules of statutory construction control the interpretation. Id. If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it is not subject to judicial interpretation. *Spears*, 745 N.E.2d at 869. Finally, we have determined that if the moving party asserts the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and establishes that the action was commenced outside of the statutory period, the non-moving party has the burden of establishing an issue of fact material to a theory that avoids the affirmative defense. *Langman v. Milos*, 765 N.E.2d 227, 234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 8, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> Hey Gadawg73:
> 
> ...



The rates a national bank charges in your state are set BY THE LEGISLATURE IN YOUR STATE.
I just cited the dam statute YOU PROVIDED.
You have it backwards. Why in the HELL would banks run to a state with NO fixed rate like your claim of South Dakota? That makes no sense. They go the states WITH A FIXED RATE because in every instance the fixed rate IS HIGHER THAN THE 7%.
Your post and arguments are all over the place.
Show me ONE recent case anywhere in America where any of your claims were held valid.


----------



## Svarstaad (Apr 8, 2010)

. . .

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, dawg.

Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., one of the largest credit card scamsters, is domiciled in  SOUTH DAKOTA.

Have you taken your Prozac today?

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (May 4, 2010)

. . .

Home loan mortgage promissory notes, and mortgage deeds, along with credit card agreements/contracts, were pooled and transformed into United States securities through Securitization.

So, the signed wet-ink original promissory note (SWIOPN) and the signed wet-ink original mortgage agreement (SWIOMA), and the signed wet-ink original credit card agreement (SWIOCCA), have been transformed into United States securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, mortgage backed securities (MBS).

The following is from: Mortgage-backed security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortgage-backed security (MBS) is an asset-backed security or debt obligation that represents a claim on the cash flows from mortgage loans, most commonly on residential property.

First, mortgage loans are purchased from banks, mortgage companies, and other originators. Then, these loans are assembled into pools. This is done by government agencies, government-sponsored enterprises, and private entities, which may offer features to mitigate the risk of default associated with these mortgages. Mortgage-backed securities represent claims on the principal and payments on the loans in the pool, through a process known as Securitization. These securities are usually sold as bonds, but financial innovation has created a variety of securities that derive their ultimate value from mortgage pools.

In the United States, most MBS's are issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), U.S. government-sponsored enterprises. Ginnie Mae, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, guarantees that investors receive timely payments. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also provide certain guarantees and, while not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, have special authority to borrow from the U.S. Treasury. Some private institutions, such as brokerage firms, banks, and homebuilders, also securitize mortgages, known as "private-label" mortgage securities.

Residential mortgages in the United States have the option to pay more than the required monthly payment (curtailment) or to pay off the loan in its entirety (prepayment). Because curtailment and prepayment affect the remaining loan principal, the monthly cash flow of an MBS is not known in advance, and therefore presents an additional risk to MBS investors.

Commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) are secured by commercial and multifamily properties (such as apartment buildings, retail or office properties, hotels, schools, industrial properties and other commercial sites). The properties of these loans vary, with longer-term loans (5 years or longer) often being at fixed interest rates and having restrictions on prepayment, while shorter-term loans (13 years) are usually at variable rates and freely pre-payable.

************

The United States is in full complicity with the economic meltdown.

************

*Since the SWIOPNs, SWIOMAs, and SWIOCCAs, are United States securities, see the definition at 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1), the laws against counterfeiting securities are applicable:*

*18 USC § 471. Obligations or securities of United States*
Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

*18 USC § 472. Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities*
	Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
*
31 CFR § 411.1  The Counterfeit Detection Act* of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency, provided:  
	- The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
	- The illustration is one-sided  
	All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use. 
		Other obligations and Securities  
	- Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non-fraudulent purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less than three-quarters or greater than one-and-one-half times the size, in linear dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced.   Negatives and plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the purpose for which they were made.    

*18 USC § 473. Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities*
	Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 

*********

These statutes require that copies of the SWIOPNs, SWIOMAs, and SWIOCCAs, must not be used in any way to represent that they are of any value.

*If a copy of a security is presented and such copy has not been either decreased in size or increased in size per the requirements of 31 CFR § 411.1, it is a COUNTERFEIT.* 

If an attorney has entered into a court and represented a COPY of a SWIOPN, SWIOMA, or SWIOCCA, as something upon which a remedy can be obtained, such attorney has committed a misrepresentation in violation of state and federal professional ethics code, and fraud upon the court.

*NO REMEDY CAN BE GRANTED TO A CLAIMANT UPON THE FORCE OF A COUNTERFEIT OR A COPY OF A SECURITY IF YOU MAKE THE OBJECTION!*

**********

*Additionally: Demand the claimant attorney provide and deliver certified and authenticated proof of agency documentation, to establish the attorneys relationship to the plaintiff, if there is one.

Do not accept anything a lawyer-liar-attorney says without the production and delivery of certified and authenticated documentary proof for such statements.*

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (May 26, 2010)

. . .

  Here is something to think about: In a so-called mortgaged real estate transaction, the broker and the bank make numerous misrepresentations.

  The bank and the broker give the issuer of the promissory note the false impression that the issuer of the valuable promissory note has to &#8220;pay back&#8221; the face value amount of the promissory note plus interest and other fees, in Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs).

Without disclosure of:

the fact that the value of the transaction, in terms of FRNs, is inherent to the SIGNATURE of the issuer; and

the fact that the SIGNATURE of the issuer on the *signed wet-ink original promissory note (SWIOPN)* and the *signed wet-ink original mortgage agreement (SWIOMA) *represents the evidence of the actual value of the SWIOPN and SWIOMA; and

the fact that the SWIOPN and the SWIOMA are deposited into transaction accounts owned by the bank; and

the fact that the full face value amount of both the SWIOPN and the SWIOMA will be factored into an amount equal to or greater than ten (10) times the face value amount of the SWIOPN and the SWIOMA, separately, by the Federal Reserve &#8220;deposit multiplier&#8221; feature; and

the fact that the banking system will be enriched by a value amount of FRNs adding up to at least twenty (20) times the face value amount of the issuer&#8217;s SWIOPN; and 

the fact that the bank then sells the SWIOPN; and

the fact that the bank then sells the SWIOMA; and

the fact that the bank receives the full face value amount of the SWIOPN plus a premium, (FRNs); and

the fact that the bank receives the full face value amount of the SWIOMA plus a premium, (FRNs); and

the fact that both the SWIOPN and the SWIOMA are &#8220;securitized,&#8221; transformed into securities; and

the fact that securities may not be counterfeited; and

the fact that the only way to &#8220;cash&#8221; a security is to present the signed wet-ink original security (SWIOS) for redemption; and 

the fact that the bank utters a check from the immediate proceeds of the sale of the purchaser&#8217;s SWIOPN and SWIOMA; and

the fact that the bank misrepresents an uttered check made out in the face value amount referenced on the issuer&#8217;s SWIOPN, denominated as FRNs to be tendered as value given by the bank; and

the fact that the check uttered by the bank represents only half of the value of the issuer&#8217;s SWIOPN and SWIOMA, which were sold by the bank, and the proceeds of those sales received by the bank; and 

the fact that receipt of the FRNs tendered as the sale proceeds of the SWIOPN and the SWIOMA to the bank, actually satisfied the alleged debt purportedly evidenced by the SWIOPN and the SWIOMA; and 

the fact that the bank misrepresents to the issuer of the SWIOPN that the check uttered by the bank is a &#8220;loan&#8221; of the bank&#8217;s assets; and

the fact that the bank has actually incurred no cost to conduct the transaction; and

the fact that the bank experienced no diminution of the bank&#8217;s assets to produce the check uttered by the bank; and

the fact that the bank failed to disclose the source of the FRNs represented by the check uttered by the bank; and

the fact that the bank misrepresents that the &#8220;closing&#8221; is not really a &#8220;closing&#8221; of the transaction, (see definitions below), but is really the exact opposite; and 

the fact that the bank misrepresents, at the &#8220;closing,&#8221; that the long term transaction requiring the issuer&#8217;s installment payments of the full face value amount of the SWIOPN plus interest and fees, is to &#8220;pay back the loan&#8221;; and

the fact that without the actual SWIOPN/SWIOMA, which were made into securities, there can be no valid claim against the issuer to force the issuer to redeem the SWIOPN/SWIOMA in FRNs, or forfeit the property identified in those writings; and

the fact that the bank will institute foreclosure based upon a COPY of the SWIOPN/SWIOMA; and

the fact that the bank will misrepresent in foreclosure proceedings that COPIES of the SWIOPN/SWIOMA securities establish the bank&#8217;s right to remedy for the issuer&#8217;s failure to make installment payments of principal, interest, and fees; and

the fact that never in the history of the United States has a COPY of a security, when identified as such, EVER been  honored or forced to be redeemed; and

the fact that the laws against counterfeiting prohibit the use of anything but the signed wet-ink original security as representing a value that can be converted into other securities (FRNs), (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 472, 473, 474, and applicable regulations in the United States Code of Federal Regulations [e.g., 31 C.F.R. § 411.1]; and

the fact that when a lawyer enters into a court with a COPY of the SWIOPN and the SWIOMA seeking remedy in foreclosure, that such misrepresentation, COPIES OF SECURITIES as valid securities, is a defilement of the court and fraud by an officer of the court.​
******

Definitions &#8211; 

*Close:* _verb._ 

  To finish, bring to an end, conclude, terminate, complete, wind up; as, to &#8220;close&#8221; an account, a bargain, a trial, an estate, or public books, such as tax books.

  In accounting, to transfer the balance of a temporary or contra or adjunct account to the main account to which it relates.

  To shut up, so as to prevent entrance or access by any person; as in statutes requiring liquor establishments to be &#8220;closed&#8221; at certain times. Which further implies an entire suspension of business.  To go out of business. To bar access to. To suspend or stop operations of.

  To finalize a real estate transaction.

Black&#8217;s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 254.

*Closing.*

  As regards sale of real estate, refers to the final steps of the transaction whereat the consideration is paid, mortgage is secured, deed is delivered or placed in escrow, etc.  Such closings, which normally take place at a bank or savings and loan institution, are regulated by the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). 

Black&#8217;s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 255.

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2010)

Do you believe that when you borrow $ from an entity in the form of a mortgage that you do not have to pay it back?
When you signed the mortgage didn't you know that was a guarantee and a claim on your part that you agreed to pay it back?
Is your word to be trusted or not? Do you back up the commitments you make or did you falsely make claims?
A simple yes or no is all that is required.


----------



## Svarstaad (May 26, 2010)

. . .

Hey dawg:

Your questions are all founded in FRAUD.

The banks CANNOT justify the position YOU espouse, upon the FRAUD, and the MISREPRESENTATIONS inherent in the transaction.

COUNTERFEITING SECURITIES IS A CRIME.

The banks INTENTIONALLY COMMIT CRIME.

You are thoroughly DELUDED.

Go take your Prozac.

PS:  Did you know:

View attachment $DOLLAR.PESO.bmp

The $ is not dollars, no such symbol on FRNs. 



. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2010)

So you took the money and signed your name to it guaranteeing with your word that you would pay it back.
And now you will not honor your word.
You are the fraud. I feel sorry for your family.


----------



## goldcatt (May 26, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> So you took the money and signed your name to it guaranteeing with your word that you would pay it back.
> And now you will not honor your word.
> You are the fraud. I feel sorry for your family.



Might as well give up, G. This little asshole's been spewing his garbage for months now. I just hope there aren't desperate people somewhere thinking he actually knows what he's talking about.


----------



## Svarstaad (May 26, 2010)

. . .

Hey dawg;

You are an IDIOT!.

Here's the sequence --

1.  Bank misrepresent that a "loan" is to be made

2.  The issuer signs the promissory note  

3.  The bank THEN sells the issuer's note

4.  The bank THEN utters a check on the proceeds of the SALE of the promissory note

5.  The bank conducts the transaction at NO COST TO THE BANK.

You claim that you "work for the banks,"  it that is so, you do your "thing" without comprehension.

I'll say it again, YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

Do you want to talk about COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES FRAUD?

You scum-bag!

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2010)

Who forced you to sign the note?
Easy out for you next time dumbass:
DO NOT SIGN ANY LOAN DOCUMENTS.
Get it fool? If you did not go looking for a loan you would not be looking to cheat the banks.
If you are so smart, how come you didn't know any of your supposed facts BEFORE YOU SIGNED THE NOTES?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> Hey dawg;
> 
> ...



I just love the fact there are people like you. I LOVE it.
I get to legally go out and steal your house, your car and anything and everything else you have that you refuse to pay for. I get to take it back and give it to the people you refuse to pay, all legally with the full support of society and with a gun. I absolutely ENJOY doing it.
And the greatest thing about it is that there is NOTHING you can do to stop me.


----------



## Svarstaad (May 26, 2010)

. . .

Hey dawg:

You just confirmed yourself to be a scum-bag defender of the scam.

You are defending the fraud by issuing a warning to people to stay away if they don't want to be defrauded.

Most people had no idea about the scam when they ignorantly entered into the transactions and the fraud perpetrated against them.

Scum-bag.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (May 26, 2010)

. . .

Hey dawg:

You just confirmed yourself to be a scum-bag defender of the scam.

You are defending the fraud by issuing a warning to people to stay away if they don't want to be defrauded.

Most people had no idea about the scam when they ignorantly entered into the transactions and the fraud perpetrated against them.

Scum-bag.

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> Hey dawg:
> 
> ...



Most people sign loan documents and did not know they have to pay it back?
You are a dumbass.
But you better guard your stuff Moe because I am coming to get it. You can run but you can not hide.


----------



## Svarstaad (May 26, 2010)

. . .

Hey dawg:
You too, Goldcatt

You have an Oath of Office?

You have a bond?

You deal in counterfeit securities and fraud, you are going down.

Think about that, you dumb-ass scum-bags.

********************

Go to my Post #87 here: <http://www.usmessageboard.com/2346659-post87.html>

To see what caused the dumb-ass, scum-bag BAR-FLYS to start buzzing today.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 2, 2010)

. . .

*Extremely Important Issue*:

With respect to a real estate mortgage transaction (also applicable to auto-loan notes, and credit card agreements)   (evidence of debt)
the signed wet-ink original promissory note (SWIOPN), and
the signed wet-ink original mortgage agreement (SWIOMA), were

1. deposited as cash by a financial institution into a transaction account, and
2. thereafter, the SWIOPN and the SWIOMA were separately sold to an aggregator who pooled said writings, and
3. thereafter, Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) were issued against those writings, and
4. Credit Default Swaps (CDS) were issued as default insurance against those writings, and
5. pursuant to government regulation and authorization, the SWIOPN and the SWIOMA was/were rendered into a security, and
6. securities are regulated by the SEC and subject to all laws applicable to securities, and
7. No one can locate and produce the SWIOPN-SWIOMA after such writings are converted into securities.​
Every security writing, that I have EVER seen, other than Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), plainly and conspicuously displays on its face words that exactly duplicate or impart the same identical meaning as the following words:  VOID IF ALTERED OR COPIED 

How is it LEGAL for an attorney, an officer of the court, representing a financial institution, to seek and be granted a remedy, ordered by a court, that requires the issuer of a security, the SWIOPN-SWIOMA, to redeem or cash a COPY of such security?

There are very strict and burdensome penalties for counterfeiting a security: See
18 U.S.C. § 471
18 U.S.C. § 472
18 U.S.C. § 473
18 U.S.C. § 474​
Also, there are the requirements for copying securities at:  31 CFR § 411.1.  
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

These rules are applicable to a security such as a SWIOPN and SWIOMA.

This is the reason for "Show Me The Note."

The BAR-flys (lawyers) going into courts with COPIES of securities to get foreclosure judgments for the confiscation of property, at the barrel of a gun, are committing "fraud upon the court," when a court takes action to the prejudice of the defendant based upon the misrepresentation of the legitimacy of a *COPY of a security*. 

Failure to produce the original wet-ink security by the entity claiming the right to a remedy upon such "not in evidence" security, goes directly to *STANDING*,
identification of the actual "real party in interest."
See Rule 17, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, like rule mirrored in every set of rules used by the state courts.
US CODE: Title 28a,Rule 17. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity

++++++++++++

*15 USC § 77b.	Definitions; promotion of efficiency, competition, and capital formation*
United States Code: Title 15,77b. Definitions; promotion of efficiency, competition, and capital formation | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) Definitions
	When used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires 
	(1)	The term security means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a security, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing.   

Promissory Notes and Mortgage Deeds are characterized as Securities by definition. 

See: *12 CFR § 1.2(m)(3)*
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
	A residential mortgage-related security that is offered and sold pursuant to section 4(5) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77d(5), that is rated investment grade or is the credit equivalent thereof, or a residential mortgage-related security as described in section 3(a)(41) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(41)), that is rated investment grade in one of the two highest investment grade rating categories, and that does not otherwise qualify as a Type I security.

Securities are regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.   Very strict statutes and regulations govern what can and cannot be done with Securities.  

Reference requirements applicable to reproduction or copying of Securities:  

*18 USC § 8.	Obligation or other security of the United States defined*
United States Code: Title 18,8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined | LII / Legal Information Institute
	The term "obligation or other security of the United States" includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

*18 USC § 471. Obligations or securities of United States*
United States Code: Title 18,471. Obligations or securities of United States | LII / Legal Information Institute
Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

*18 USC § 472. Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities*
United States Code: Title 18,472. Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities | LII / Legal Information Institute
	Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

*18 USC § 473. Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities*
United States Code: Title 18,473. Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities | LII / Legal Information Institute
	Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.  

*18 USC § 493. Bonds and obligations of certain lending agencies*
United States Code: Title 18,493. Bonds and obligations of certain lending agencies | LII / Legal Information Institute
	Whoever falsely makes, forges, counterfeits or alters any note, bond, debenture, coupon, obligation, instrument, or writing in imitation or purporting to be in imitation of, a note, bond, debenture, coupon, obligation, instrument or writing, issued by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Home Owners Loan Corporation, Farm Credit Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, or any land bank, intermediate credit bank, insured credit union, bank for cooperatives or any lending, mortgage, insurance, credit or savings and loan corporation or association authorized or acting under the laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
	Whoever passes, utters, or publishes, or attempts to pass, utter or publish any note, bond, debenture, coupon, obligation, instrument or document knowing the same to have been falsely made, forged, counterfeited or altered, contrary to the provisions of this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

*18 USC § 513. Securities of the States and private entities*
United States Code: Title 18,513. Securities of the States and private entities | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) Whoever makes, utters or possesses a counterfeited security of a State or a political subdivision thereof or of an organization, or whoever makes, utters or possesses a forged security of a State or political subdivision thereof or of an organization, with intent to deceive another person, organization, or government shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Whoever makes, receives, possesses, sells or otherwise transfers an implement designed for or particularly suited for making a counterfeit or forged security with the intent that it be so used shall be punished by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.
(c) For purposes of this section
(1) the term counterfeited means a document that purports to be genuine but is not, because it has been falsely made or manufactured in its entirety;
(2) the term forged means a document that purports to be genuine but is not because it has been falsely altered, com*pleted, signed, or endorsed, or contains a false addition thereto or insertion therein, or is a combination of parts of two or more genuine documents;
(3) the term security means
(A) a note, stock certificate, treasury stock certificate, bond, treasury bond, debenture, certificate of deposit, interest coupon, bill, check, draft, warrant, debit instrument as defined in section 916(c) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, money order, travelers check, letter of credit, warehouse receipt, negotiable bill of lading, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest in or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, pre-reorganization certificate of subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting trust certificate, or certificate of interest in tangible or intangible property;
(B) an instrument evidencing ownership of goods, wares, or merchandise;
(C) any other written instrument commonly known as a security;
(D) a certificate of interest in, certificate of participation in, certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or option or other right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; or
(E) a blank form of any of the foregoing;
(4) the term organization means a legal entity, other than a government, established or organized for any purpose, and includes a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, foundation, institution, society, union, or any other association of persons which operates in or the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; and
(5) the term State includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.


*31 CFR § 411.1*  The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency, provided: 
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
	- The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
	- The illustration is one-sided  
	All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use. 
		Other obligations and Securities  
	- Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non-fraudulent purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less than three-quarters or greater than one-and-one-half times the size, in linear dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced.   Negatives and plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the purpose for which they were made.    

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 12, 2010)

. . .

It is reported that Edward Mandell House (Hause) had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson [1913-1921]. EMH was often characterized as President Wilsons alter ego.

Soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest _[birth certificates]_  over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading _[birth certificates]_ to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call Social Insurance.  Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.

As of latest 2009 estimates, (Demographics of the United States), there are approximately 223 million adults, alive, in America. If one in a million, of those Americans, does figure it out, that would mean that there are 223 people that are cognizant of the scam.

If the above purported statement by E.M. House is of any interest, or sparks any discernment about the REAL problem and suppression technology, banking, used to thwart mans quest to be free, do some research.

To get you started, here is a link to an affidavit by Walker F. Todd, a bankster- whore insider, where he reveals a little about the machinations of the Federal Reserve money cabal.

http://nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/ucc/Walker.Todd.Affidavit.signed.w.Decision.pdf

Note: The people Todd testified for, lost their battle against the banksters pursuant to the fact that they failed to attack the banksters STANDING, and made arguments (opinions) instead, acquiescing to the banksters unproven standing.

+++++++

Situation:

You have been deceived into participating in the bankster money scam by:

1.  Enticement, through bankster orchestrated ignorance, false advertising and fraud that the banksters would make you a loan so that you could become a homeowner.

2.  Your comprehension of a loan means that someone transfers possession of their property to you for a time certain, and that the property will ultimately be returned, with fees (interest) added for the use of the loaned property.

3.  Having programmed you to conduct the affairs of life pursuant to the bankster controlled and manipulated education system, and the religious structure, you do not have a clue about the real function of bankster business.

4.  The banksters, having engineered all, and particularly the present, economic catastrophes, also engineered many red-herring must address issues to divert attention and deceive, such as;
a.  taxation (fight against it with all your power)
b.  traffic tickets (fight against it with all your power)
c.  religion (incessantly argue and remain divided over such drivel)
d.  pie-in-the-sky utopian world (no-commie-land; no-state-land; no-poverty-land; no-hate-land; all-is-love-land)​
The whole time everyone is arguing about red-herring issues, having only the capacity to preach their own brand of programming, the banksters are robbing you via the money scam which is based upon the ancient system of pledging.

6.  Your life is in an economic shambles, and the property you have worked so hard for has been targeted for confiscation through foreclosure by the banksters that created the economic mess.

Strategy:

1.  Review the doc at:
Set Them Up Right Back

2.  Do further research to comprehend the depth of the fraud perpetrated against you and your neighbors by those friendly hometown banksters.

3.  At the first notification from a bankster that you are in trouble, and in impending danger of being dispossessed of your property through foreclosure, send the bankster the following:

++++++

NOTICE

In order to establish, on the record, substantiation of your claim(s) and threat(s), you are required to identify a place, date, and time certain, within 10 days of the date of this NOTICE, where the undersigned will be accorded the opportunity to inspect, and validate, all documents (writings) relevant to your claim(s) and threat(s).  The appointment so identified will take place within 20 days of the date of this NOTICE.

Response to this NOTICE 	required within 10 days of this NOTICE date

Presentation of documents  required within 20 days of this NOTICE date​
Thank you, in anticipation of your cooperation.

+++++++

All correspondence is to be transmitted to the banksters via United States Post Office, Certified Mail.  Return receipt is not required.  All you have to do is establish the fact that you mailed the correspondence.  Tracking can be evidenced online at: usps.com. 

Hope that the banksters resist you at every turn.  Such behavior only adds to the strength of your case against them.  

If, the banksters acquiesce to the rightful demand to inspect the documents, the BEST thing that could happen, is that the stupid bankster-whore BAR-flys actually produce a COPY of the Signed Wet-Ink Original Promissory Note (SWIOPN) and the  Signed Wet-Ink Original Mortgagge Agreement (SWIOMA).

If that happens, by all means, get the banksters to provide you with a copy of their copy.  If there is a Notary at the appointment location, get your copy certified as a bankster produced copy. 

YOU DO NOT COPY THE COPIES.  Get THEM to make the copies.

Let THEM be counterfeiters.  Theyre already banksters, screwem.

The banksters trapped you into a no-win situation, trap them right back.

Have fun with this.

You have them on the hook with this knowledge.

The banksters and their BAR-flys built the hook for you.

Just reelem in, skinem and eatem.

If the banksters file suit, use discovery to demand the opportunity to inspect and validate the documents, this time  under authority of the court.  Now, if the banksters fail to provide the proof of their standing, they are in contempt of court.

If you try to do this by hiring a BAR-fly to do it for you, the scum-bag BAR-fly WILL betray you.

Read all the case law you can find about STANDING and the real party in interest.

DO NOT fixate upon red-herring arguments about the bankster fraud and the money scam, you dont have to go there to stop a wrongful foreclosure.  That background information about the banksters fraud scam is to substantiate in your own mind the validity of your actions in defense of your property.  The courts will always protect the banksters if you bring up the background facts of the money scam.

The original securities, the SWIOPN-SWIOMA, are GONE.

Lose a 1000 dollar FRN and see how sympathetic the courts will be about requiring a bankster to cash your COPY of that 1000 dollar FRN; or listen to you whine about losing that 1000 dollar FRN; or  listen to you whine about the 1000 dollar FRN being stolen.  Yeah, right.

Counterfeiting a security is a serious crime.  Banksters counterfeit securities everyday, all day long. 

Evidences of debt, SWIOPN, SWIOMA, are securities.

Its time to hold the banksters feet to the fire.

The banksters CANNOT PROVE STANDING  case dismissed.

Go after the BAR-flys for their intentional disregard for their sworn duty to uphold their oath of faithful performance with respect to the laws of the United States and laws of the state within which they are licensed to practice law. 

Find where to acquire a certified copy of their Oath of Office, and all information required to allow you to file a claim against their required performance bond.  Put them out of business.

THEY, bankster-whore BAR-flys, are law-breakers, along with the banksters.

Defend yourself!  It aint no fun when the rabbit got the gun!

Quiet Title anyone?

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 13, 2010)

How come no one stopped me from taking that $80,000 boat from the dude that was not paying for it last week?


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 13, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> How come no one stopped me from taking that $80,000 boat from the dude that was not paying for it last week?



The voices in his head will ponder that and get back to you.


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 13, 2010)

. . .

For both of you scum-bag BAR-flys:

Any case you are involved in is public record, please post the case identifiers and court name and location, or names of the financial institution and the "debtor."

I'll come for you.

Go ahead you cowards, tell us where you are "operating" as bankster-whores.

I want your "faithful performance" bonds.

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 13, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> For both of you scum-bag BAR-flys:
> 
> ...



Let me go real slow for you.
I       am       in        your      front  and  back      yard. 
You better grow some eyes in the back of your head Moe. 
I absolutely LOVE what I do. I am going to legally steal all of your stuff and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me. 
Why?
Because you are a parasite and want others to pay your bills for you. 
If you want to stop me you can. Quit signing your name to documents and start paying your own freight.
But please keep it up and do not change. I need the business. 
Unlike you, I work for a living and pay my own way and back upmy signature.


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 13, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> For both of you scum-bag BAR-flys:
> 
> ...



Now that sounds vaguely like a threat. Careful there, son. You wouldn't want to blow a stroke over getting laughed at on the internets, would you?

My advice to you is to switch to decaf.


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 13, 2010)

. . .

No threats, just a promise.

You are a scum-bag, bankster-whore, BAR-fly, coward.

You will NOT reveal even the court name where you "took" the property of one of the bankster's victims.

You are reprehensible and a "chicken," running "scared" from a "real" fight.  

We are going to identify one of your victims.

Then, we will see . . .

Rave-on catshit . . . 

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 13, 2010)

I'd say if you're going to engage in that kind of personal attack it might be nice to know something about the person you're attacking so you don't make yourself look like even more of an ass.

Frankly, I'm not sure it's something you need to worry about. Looking like more of an ass is probably impossible in your case.

You keep digging, I'm sure you'll find that court reeeal soon. 

Oh, as far as my identity goes.....if you're willing to offer bigger money than the current record to get it, let me have first dibs.


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 13, 2010)

. . .

True to form, you scum-bag, bankster-whore, BAR-fly, cowards, reduce everything to money and selling yourselves, like the whores you are.

Looks like fat-boy likes feeding on the misery of bankster victims --
[ <Dad & Son Having Fun  http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=1rLPRPJahes&feature=related> ]

Your final court may turn out to be the front yard.

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 13, 2010)

Explain how you are a victim when you borrow $, guarantee to repay it with your notarized signature and use the property for free someone else paid for.
Name the bank that held your milk weak ass down and forced you to sign.
Go ahead and make all the threats you want Moe. This stuff is easy. I have been shot at, beat on, under fire and left for dead. Get in line, take your best shot but.....................
You better get it right because the last person, after a long line of other losers, that tried failed and paid tremendous consequences physically and mentally for it. You are not jail material, would not last a few days there because you are weak.
You do not even know what a performance bond is. The debtor has no claim to that you moron. The banks that hire me have claim ONLY if they pay me and I do not perform.
Thanks to you that will never happen.


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 13, 2010)

. . . 

So, true to form, as a bankster-whore, you advocate physical violence.

How Neanderthal of you.

This is NOT about physical violence, you bankster-whore.

You sound as one very accustomed  to calling out the goons-with-guns.

I still want your "faithful performance" bond.

You might need to be thinking about a career change.

. . .


----------



## Oddball (Aug 13, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Yeah.  Let's make mortgage lending a thing of the past.  From now, cash on the barrel head.


The owner of the property can always create a contract-for-deed and sell it for cash on the secondary market.

But that'd eliminate the need for the Fed or its worthless fiat currency.


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 13, 2010)

. . .

Time and time again, a valid defense for the bankster's foreclosure fraud is introduced in this thread, and these scum-bag, bankster-whore, BAR-fly, cowards misdirect the focus of the subject matter for the purpose of avoidance of discussion of the issue.

The last valid issue posted being, that banksters, and their bankster-whore Bar-flys, are misrepresenting COPIES of SECURITIES as writings upon which a remedy can be granted.

Passing off a COPY of a SECURITY as a valid SECURITY for the purpose of acquiring money, is called COUNTERFEITING.  FRAUD.

When a BAR-fly defiles a court to the point that the court ACTS upon such misrepresentation(s) (FRAUD), to the prejudice of the defendant, it is called fraud upon the court.

All individuals involved in such fraud are liable in such fraud.

BAR-flys, and people that work for banks (banksters), are REQUIRED to be BONDED.

BAR-flys actually swear an Oath, usually through the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State, (the filing office varies from state to state).

Provable Fraud is a good cause of action for a complaint against the faithful performance bond required by every state in the union.  (may be identified by a different name, but the bond still exists).

No bond, no work. 

Additionally, a video that shows a dad beating on his son with a weapon, could be construed as evidence of child abuse.  

What on Earth would prompt a sound mind to post such a video on YouTube?

See my post at Permalink #108.
[ <Dad & Son Having Fun http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=1rLPRPJahes&feature=related> ]

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 13, 2010)

See, there's where you're wrong kid.

Nobody's diverting discussion of any issue, because there is no issue to be discussed. You're so off-base there's nothing there to get you back into the same zip code as right. 

People who listen to you will get a visit from people like Gadawg. Pure and simple.

Back when you first started this rant people tried to reason with you. You do not listen to reason. We ridicule you so anybody desperate reading this thread understands you're full of shit and not to attempt what you're trying to put out there. It's a true public service.

That is all, proceed with your regularly scheduled foaming at the mouth and chewing on the carpet.


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 13, 2010)

. . .

Your statements, as usual, are totally without foundation.

Prove what you say.

Otherwise, your statements are simply without a scintilla of merit.  Rantings, exiting from an obviously poisoned mind.

Are you a child abuser, too?

Provide the PROOF of why what you say is true.
Validate your "proof" with case law.

Facts and law.

You NEVER offer any proof, just bullshit.

You are a cartoon.

. . .


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 13, 2010)

Child abuser? Am I getting under your skin there kid?

Don't hold back. Show us how you really think.

Somebody needs to count your meds there, son. I think you've been palming a few.


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 13, 2010)

. . .

And there you go  -- your statements, as usual, are totally without foundation.

Prove what you say.

Otherwise, your statements are simply without a scintilla of merit. Rantings, exiting from an obviously poisoned mind.

Provide the PROOF of why what you say is true.
Validate your "proof" with case law.

Facts and law.

You NEVER offer any proof, just bullshit.

You are STILL a cartoon.

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 13, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> And there you go  -- your statements, as usual, are totally without foundation.
> 
> ...



I will steal all of your stuff legally if and when I please.
And you are powerless to do ANYTHING TO STOP ME!
What more proof do I need?


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 13, 2010)

. . .

Now, isn't that a revealing post from an obvious scum-bag, bankster-whore, BAR-fly, coward.

You will "steal" all of my property?

Aren't YOU a cartoon.

*"I will steal all of your stuff legally if and when I please."*

I CAN stop you.  You won't like it.  It would probably end your "stealing" career.

You would have to hunt another way to victimize people.

How arrogant of you.

Your "venom" is not only evident in the way you "have fun" with your son.

Every time you guys open your mouths, you insert BOTH feet.

You would be well advised to just maintain silence.

You fat slob child beater.

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 13, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> Now, isn't that a revealing post from an obvious scum-bag, bankster-whore, BAR-fly, coward.
> 
> ...



Pay your bills and keep your stuff. Don't and I will legally take it from you.
And you know it.
Live within your means and pay your bills or continue to be a leech parasite.
You are mad because I already have some of your stuff on my lot. 
I like it so get used to it. I like it when you get mad. You let your guard down and it makes my job easy.
You can run but you can't hide. I have more respect for the gooks in Nam than you. 
You are a mama's boy. You can't even pay your own bills and cry when someone takes your stuff that you stole from them.
Thief. We have your signature giving us title to your stuff if you do not pay. 
Dumb ass. Next time PUT THE PEN DOWN. Fool.


----------



## Svarstaad (Aug 13, 2010)

. . .

Signature by fraud is no signature at all, you scum-bag, bankster-whore, BAR-fly, coward.

You don't have anything.

You cannot validate that you are the "real party in interest."

I have already posted some valid info on what a "signature" is, and what it means.

You obviously didn't read the info, or check it out for yourself. 

Hence, you make the "signature" mistake.

What a cartoon you are.

You just keep coming back with bullshit.

Your continuing blather is evidence of your incompetence.

It seems that a lot of the fat you carry around has to be lodged in your brain.

. . .


----------



## gcrispin (Aug 21, 2010)

Here is my First Draft of a Complaint.  I am doing the drafting myself.  I will next draft the following

Motion for TRO; 
Affidavit of Petitioner; 
TRO with bond; 
Motion for Preliminary Injunction; 
Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction; 
Order for Preliminary Injunction; and 
Briefs with perfunctory Rule 65 language for quick adaptation.

Comments and encouragement are welcome.

_____________________________________________________________________

1)Fraud of the Lender to induce the Borrower to sign the Mortgage and Note. Accordingly, the Mortgage and Note are invalid UCC 3-305(iii).

In that on or before September 12th 200* Lender or its Agent advised Borrower that a new mortgage and note was required upon transfer of the property.  The Lender or its Agent failed to advise Borrower that an exception to that requirement is the transfer of property or interest in property between one spouse and the other.  

The Borrower was the only borrower on the prior note and mortgage with the spouse having joint title to the property. - Exhibits A, B, C:


Federal Law 12 USC § 1701j-3(d)(7) provides an exemption: 

(7)a transfer resulting from a decree of dissolution of marriage. Legal separation agreement, or from an incidental property agreement, by which the spouse of the borrower becomes the owner of the property.

Accordingly it cannot be proved that the Plaintiff or any other Person is entitled to enforce the instrument.

2)Lender was not a person and had no legal capacity to act.  

UCC § 1-201(b) (27) provides the following meaning of Person:

"Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

Extract from the Dead of Trust  - Exhibit D:

Borrower is the trustor under this security instrument
(C) &#8220;Lender&#8221; is ************************* 
	is a CORPORATION
organized and existing under the laws of ********

************ Secretary of State Corporate Records do not list a Corporation named ********************** until December 2008. &#8211; Exhibit E:

UCC § 3-305 (a) (1) (ii) provides a defense:

(1)a defense of the obligor based on (i) infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract, (ii) duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor, (iii) fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms, or (iv) discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings;

The Note  Mortgage and Deed of Trust are a nullity 

3)Moot Transfer or Assignments of Rights, Ownership or Beneficial interest in an instrument.

UCC § 3-203 mandates that only a Person may Transfer or Assign Rights, Ownership or Beneficial interest in an instrument.

Accordingly, no transfer occurred.

4)************* [a CORPORATION organized and existing under the laws of *********** ] was not authorized to do business in ********** in 200*.

**************** Secretary of State Corporate Records do not list a Corporation Name of ****************8. - Exhibit F:

5)***************** [a CORPORATION organized and existing under the laws of NEW YORK ] was not authorized to undertake Lending in ************.

***************** Commissioner of Banks Records do not list a Corporation Name of ********************. - Exhibit F2

6)Fraud as to the character of the document.  Illegality and false representation (fraud) perpetrated in the transaction.

UCC § 3-305 (a) (1) (iii) provides a defense:

(1) a defense of the obligor based on (i) infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract, (ii) duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor, (iii) fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms, or (iv) discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings;
A)**************** in creating the document using a variation of their DBA &#8220;*******************&#8221; and representing that as a CORPORATION hid the character of the instrument and prevented the Borrower from (a) knowing the character of the Lender (b) performing reasonable due diligence.
B)The Lender did not disclose the SOURCE of the money for the transaction.
C)The Lender did not inform the NOTE issuer that the money for the transaction was provided at no cost to the Lender.
D)The Lender did not disclose that the NOTE would be sold at the earliest possible convenience, and that such sale and receipt of money from a third party payed off the NOTE and Satisfied the Mortgage.

7)Business records not to be relied upon.

The correspondence sent to the Borrower with erroneous personal information in Exhibit I:, inclusion of &#8220;Spouse of ****************&#8221; of which there is no such person in correspondence; and correspondence sent to &#8220;Spouse of *****************&#8221; of which there is no such person; indicate that the Business records of the Plaintiff are not to be relied upon.

8)Failure to Respond to a request for information pursuant to N.C.G.S. 45-93 

Borrower Attests Exhibit J, that  information pursuant to N.C.G.S 45-93  was requested on Saturday July 18th 2009.

Exhibit K: was deposited in the Federal Express deposit receptical in the ********** shopping center.  The Federal Express envelope was pre-addressed and prepaid, next day delivery by CLAIMANT for the return for the proposed forbearance agreement.  The forbearance agreement covering letter required that the signed agreement must be sent  no later than July 20th  200*.  On July 21st 200* Borrower called  CLAIMANT to confirm receipt of that delivery.  The CLAIMANT agent confirmed delivery and stated that as delivery had not been received by July 20th that the document would undergo a separate handling process.

Exhibit K4 is the Third Party Pre-Paid Shipping Docket

Exhibit K2 is the Federal Express Tracking document showing signed delivery and receipt  on July 21st 200* at 10:08 AM by *. **** 

9)No Standing due to Lack of Proof of a Debt.

In forgoing a response to the request for information pursuant to N.C.G.S. 45-93 Plaintiff has forgone STANDING pursuant to UCC § 3-301, and UCC § 3-309.

10)Court has no subject matter Jurisdiction on Notes sold as Investor Loans

If as the discovery documents would have shown, and is as indicated by the description in the proposed Forbearance Agreement Exhibit LG as &#8220;Investor Loan # ******&#8221; the original Lender, sold the NOTE as an &#8220;Investor Loan&#8221;, consequently, the right to enforce the NOTE has lapsed through a foreclosure or court proceeding; pursuant to the fact that the UCC § 3-301 and UCC § 3-309(a)(2) bars such claimant from invoking the court's subject matter jurisdiction of the case.

An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.
"[Fn3 Jackson v. Blodget, 5 Cowan 205; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johnson 43.] Quotation and Footnote from:Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872).

Standing in a court to enforce the instrument in foreclosure is impossible.  

11)Not in Default &#8211; NOTE Paid in Full and Mortgage Satisfied

The Lender Disclosed in the NOTE that the NOTE may be transferred.  The Description in 
the proposed Forbearance Agreement Exhibit LG as &#8220;Investor Loan # ***********&#8221; shows that the NOTE was so transferred.  

The sale and receipt of money from a third party as &#8220;Investor Loan # **********&#8221; payed off the NOTE and Satisfied the Mortgage.

Exhibit N: Affidavit by Todd Walker describes the processes used in by banks that  transfer a Note as collatoralized debt instrument such as &#8220;Investor Loans&#8221; , the result is that the Lender immediately receives payment in full on the NOTE. The conclusion of which is:

Plaintiff is using the Defendant's NOTE for its own purpose, and it remains to be proven whether the Plaintiff has incurred any financial loss or actual damages. 

Accordingly, the lack of proof of debt, timely created the reasonable belief that the Note had been paid in full.

12)Falsely Claimed Knowledge of no Written Requests for information pursuant to **G.S. 45-93

	The Notice of Hearing,  Exhibit H: claims in paragraph 3.:

3.The holder or servicer acting on the holder's behalf, has confirmed in writing to the substitute trustee that the holder or servicer acting on the holder's behalf, has no knowledge of borrower making any written request(s) for information pursuant to ** 45-93 within two years preceding the the of written statement.


Borrower Attests Exhibit J, that  information pursuant to **G.S 45-93  was requested on Saturday July 18th 200*.

Exhibit K: was deposited in the Federal Express deposit receptical in the ********** shopping center.  The Federal Express envelope was pre-addressed and prepaid, next day delivery by CLAIMANT for the return for the proposed forbearance agreement.  The forbearance agreement covering letter required that the signed agreement must be sent  no later than July 20th  200*.  On July 21st 200* Borrower called  CLAIMANT to confirm receipt of that delivery.  The CLAIMANT agent confirmed delivery and stated that as delivery had not been received by July 20th that the document would undergo a separate handling process.

Exhibit K4 is the Third Party Pre-Paid Shipping Docket

Exhibit K2 is the Federal Express Tracking document showing signed delivery and receipt  on July 21st 200* at 10:08 AM by *.**** 

Accordingly, one, or several of the following must be true:

(1).Falsely Claimed Knowledge of no Written Requests
(2).Business Records Not to be Relied Upon

13)Conflict of interest, Predatory Acts and Omissions of the Substitute Trustee

A substitute trustee has a fiduciary duty owed to both parties and may not advocate for a
lender without violating that duty. (see CPR&#8217;s 94, 137, 166, 218, 220). The ethical
prohibition against trustees advocating for the lender is frequently violated and grounds for
 challenging the entire foreclosure. (CPR 220 states that no other member of the Trustee&#8217;s
 law firm may represent the lender unless the trustee has resigned at an early stage in the
 proceedings.)

A) The Substitute Trustee has been provided a Limited Power of Attorney by the Plaintiff In addition to the appointment as a substitute Trustee, *********** County, ***** *********** Register of Deeds records at &#8220;BOOK: ******** PAGE: ***********&#8221; Exhibit L:, the Limited Power of Attorney from ***********. which states:

&#8220;FURTHER, the Attorney(s)-In-Fact is authorized to execute, acknowledge and deliver any instrument under seal or otherwise, and to do all things necessary to carry out the intent hereof, hereby granting full power and authority to act in and concerning the conduct of foreclosures and related proceedings as fully and effectually as the Principal may do if personally present, limited however for the purpose for which this authorization is executed, and subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein and in accordance with the standard of care of a fiduciary agent&#8221;

The statement &#8220;limited however for the purpose for which this authorization is executed,&#8221; does not refer to or define any limited purpose; such as to act only as Substitute Trustee.  Rather the Term &#8220;FURTHER&#8221; demands the Attorney act &#8220; fully and effectually as the Principal&#8221;.

Predatory Acts: 

In acting &#8220;fully and effectively&#8221; as the Lenders Attorney in Fact, the Substitute Trustee acting beyond those reasonably justifiable acts of a Substitute Trustee, has sent many multiple copies of documents to the Defendant and duplicating all documents to a non existent spouse at all addresses, that spouse was or should have been known not to exist in the knowledge of the Substitute Trustee.  Letters were received, far in excess of the requirement to communicate effectively and to such a daunting degree as to harass the Defendant.  

Conspiring with Third Parties to harass the Defendant.  John Doe released personal contact information in conjunction with information regarding the &#8220;Notice of Hearing&#8221; that was filed in ********* County on August 3rd 20** at 2:15 PM.  The letters of Exhibit N: offered purchase on the assumption of personal financial distress by the Defendant, the postage dates of several being August 3rd indicate that information was not from public records, but available and released by John Doe in sufficient time to have those letters mailed by August 3rd.

Receipt of those letters in advance of receipt of the &#8220;Notice of Hearing Prior to Foreclosure&#8221; was distressing to the Defendant and in reasonable belief was understood to be predatory and designed to cause distress; especially so in they were received prior to knowledge of and the release of public records of the Hearing.

Omission to Act:

In Exhibit K5 Defendant requested acknowledgement of receipt of the notice by August 11th 20**.  No Acknowledgment was received.

The request in Exhibit K5 to cease contact with the Defendant in relation to the collection activity was not acted upon in a timely manner.  Upon communication with the ************** agent on August 18th 20** the agent advised that there was no notation &#8220;Do Not Call&#8221; and she would notate the record.  On August 19th on a further call from a ************* agent, [B*****; Employee # ****] he confirmed that the Attorney acting on behalf of ************** was indeed *************.  The Substitute Trustee failed to timely communicate a request to cease and desist credit collection communications.

Upon seeking instructions from a staff member of *************** on Wednesday 11th at 1:43 PM, on what action to take for a Return of Service form left at the front door of *** ******* ******, which document was not sufficiently attached to any one of documents at that front door, Defendant invited and received a promise or return a phone call with appropriate instructions.  No call was returned.

Accordingly, the grounds for the entire Foreclosure are challenged base upon lack of Neutrality.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 22, 2010)

Save your time and $.
It will be easier to back up your word and pay the mortgage. Talk to the lender and maybe they can work out a change. 
U will feel better about it because it is the right thing to do.
Seriously, there is NO other recourse. Believe me, the banks do not want your housebut if you try any of this hocus pocus you WILL lose it. 
Talk to a lawyer unless you R one. If you listen to anyone that does not have experience as an attorney in your jurisdiction you are a fool.
Hire a lawyer.


----------



## gcrispin (Aug 24, 2010)

That was the question I asked 12 Months ago and got no response and still have had no response, only a claim without their warranty that there would be no other claimant.

The court will have to decide and then give me a warranty that their claim is valid.  Only then can anyone do the right thing.

The assumption, so I'm told, in law is that Lenders have better knowledge than I, and have to perform to statutory standards.  If they want to be bloody-minded that just increases the likelihood that they might loose and for no purpose, because the right outcome is just beyond their arrogance.

Thanks for the positive feedback and encouragement, even if it was stating the obvious.


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 24, 2010)

If that's your situation you definitely need to speak to an attorney licensed in your State. A person familiar with the state-specific laws and procedures will be able to explain the situation and help you work with the court if need be, as well as protect you to the best ability of the law while you try to sort it out. In most places you can get a free intial consultation with an attorney who can look over your situation and tell you if you have recourse and a ballpark idea of what it might cost to resolve the issue.

You may think you're saving money by going it alone, but seriously you're looking at pinching pennies now to throw away your house down the road. Only you can decide if it's worth the investment but common sense alone should tell you anything pitched anonymously on an internet message board is not going to be sound legal advice.


----------



## Svarstaad (Sep 15, 2010)

. . .

Excerpt From: *New Article on STANDING*

*The banksters and their whores (debt collectors) cannot prove STANDING to invoke the particular-case-jurisdiction of a court of the judiciary, whether that be in a federal or state venue. Without PROOF of the existence of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT, which the banksters seek to enforce, no INJURY IN FACT can be PROVEN.

Virtually every foreclosure judgment in favor of the banksters and their whores is VOIDABLE on the issue of STANDING. If the foreclosure claimant had no STANDING, the court that rendered the judgment for the bankster, or their whore, was without particular-case-jurisdiction, and the judgment rendered is VOIDABLE and can be attacked at ANY TIME on that ground.*

*When someone makes a claim against you, it is the CLAIMANTS burden to PROVE, with VALID EVIDENCE, the EXISTENCE of an INJURY IN FACT  STANDING. The foundational basis of the validity of the banksters and their whores claims rest entirely upon PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.*

Go To Article: *HERE*

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Oct 1, 2010)

. . .

Annotated and hyper-linked edition of this post can be found at this url address:  < STANDING > 

PRIMARY ISSUES OF STANDING 

The banksters will invariably misrepresent their STANDING to bring a foreclosure/enforcement action with naked conclusory allegations in their feeble attempt to meet the threshold requirement(s) which must be proved with actual evidence of an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized to invoke the Courts particular-case-jurisdiction.  (particular-case-jurisdiction see Hisle, p7-13)

STANDING is a critical issue going to the foundational basis of Constitutional government with respect to the doctrine of separation of powers.   (See Raines v. Byrd (96-1671), 521 U.S. 811 (1997).

  To meet the standing requirements of Article III,
"[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. "Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).
Allen v. Wright

We [The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)] have also stressed that the alleged injury must be legally and judicially cognizable. This requires, among other things, that the plaintiff have suffered "an invasion of a legally protected interest which is . . . concrete and particularized," Lujan, 504 U.S., at 560, and that the dispute is "traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process," Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 97 (1968). See also Allen, 468 U.S., at 752 ("Is the injury too abstract, or otherwise not appropriate, to be considered judicially cognizable?"). Raines v. Byrd (96-1671), 521 U.S. 811 (1997).

STANDING is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit.
SCOTUS said    From: 	Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
(90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992)

Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements:

*First*,    the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"  an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756;[*](n1) Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972); [n.1] and (b) "actual or imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical, Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)).

*Second*,    there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of  the injury has to be "fairly  trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not  th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976).

*Third*,    it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Id., at 38, 43.

	[*](n1)  By particularized, we mean that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.

  	The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990); Warth, supra, at 508. [emphasis added].

SCOTUS said    From: 	Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).

Article III of the Constitution confines the federal courts to adjudicating actual "cases" and "controversies." As the Court explained in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471-476 (1982), the "case or controversy" requirement defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded. The several doctrines that have grown up to elaborate that requirement are "founded in concern about the proper -- and properly limited -- role of the courts in a democratic society. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). [emphasis added]

All of the doctrines that cluster about Article III -- not only standing but mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like -- relate in part, and in different though overlapping ways, to an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government.

Vander Jagt v. O'Neill, 226 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 26-27, 699 F.2d 1166, 1178-1179 (1983) (Bork, J., concurring). The case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government. [emphasis added]. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).  Allen v. Wright

A real estate promissory note and mortgage agreement are null and void if separated. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) confirms this fact:

"The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity."  (emphasis added)  Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872).

(Access Carpenter here: CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 :: Volume 83 :: 1872 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez)

The above referenced current and binding opinion of SCOTUS, was recently utilized as basic law in Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access Landmark here:
 [ 98489 -- Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler -- Rosen -- Kansas Supreme Court ]

 +++++++++++++++


 The banksters and their whores (debt collectors) cannot prove STANDING to invoke the particular-case-jurisdiction of a court of the judiciary, whether that be in a federal or state venue. Without PROOF of the existence of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT, which the banksters seek to enforce, no INJURY IN FACT can be PROVEN.

Virtually every foreclosure judgment in favor of the banksters and their whores is VOIDABLE on the issue of STANDING. If the foreclosure claimant had no STANDING, the court that rendered the judgment for the bankster, or their whore, was without particular-case-jurisdiction, and the judgment rendered is VOIDABLE and can be attacked at ANY TIME on that ground.

When someone makes a claim against you, it is the CLAIMANTS burden to PROVE, with VALID EVIDENCE, the EXISTENCE of an INJURY IN FACT  STANDING. The foundational basis of the validity of the banksters and their whores claims rest entirely upon PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.

NEVER admit/confess to ANY ELEMENT OF THE CLAIMS made by a bankster or his whore (debt collector).

The CLAIMANT is required to PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CLAIM AGAINST YOU.

If the bankster or their debt collector whores cannot establish in the record the EXISTENCE of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT, they CANNOT PROVE AN INJURY IN FACT.

All assignments of the right to enforce an agreement must be traceable in an unbroken chain back to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT which MUST BE PROVEN TO EXIST.

The banksters SOLD the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT as MONEY for cash in their pockets. The bankster profited immediately from the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT. Now, after you have made numerous payments on a PAID debt, the banksters want to confiscate the property and do it all over again.

Going all the way to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT necessitates making the original so-called creditor, an indispensable party to the case brought to foreclose/enforce the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.

*This pattern of exploitation has got to STOP!*

Some critical facts and issues to burn into your mind:

(1) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE AN INJURY IN FACT, a concrete and particularized injury sustained by the party seeking foreclosure/repossession.

The banksters SOLD the original promissory note or evidence of indebtedness. The banksters got PAID for the value of the autographed original evidence of indebtedness. If the bankster got PAID the face value amount of the note, the bankster cannot prove existence of AN INJURY IN FACT THAT IS CONCRETE AND PARTICULARIZED (STANDING) to invoke the particular-case-jurisdiction of the court.

(2) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE AN ACTUAL INJURY IN FACT TRACEABLE to the alleged conduct of the defendant.

Banksters will invariably present a COPY of the so-called agreement. Without the AUTOGRAPHED ORIGINAL AGREEMENT there is no way to prove that the COPY is NOT PHOTO-SHOPPED, and, it is to be assumed that the criminal banksters actually fabricated the COPY in order to steal property.

(3) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE EXISTENCE of any alleged, valid ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT bearing the original autograph of the defendant.

The ONLY manner in which a COPY of any writing may be CERTIFIED as a TRUE COPY of the ORIGINAL writing is by SIGHT VERIFICATION by ACTUAL COMPARISON of the COPY to be certified to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING, and that certification must be SWORN by a person having been in the presence of the ACTUAL ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING, the individual certifying the copy must have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING. (Must have actually conducted the SIGHT VERIFICATION/COMPARISON of the COPY to be CERTIFIED with the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING).

Without presentation of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING or a properly CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT, the EXISTENCE of the alleged ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT cannot be validated and ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN to have EVER EXISTED.

Banksters are LIARS.

NEVER ACCEPT any allegation of indebtedness as valid if the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT cannot be PROVEN to have ever existed.

UNCERTIFIED COPIES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE.

EVIDENCES OF DEBT, (promissory note; mortgage agreement), that have been bundled, pooled, and securitized for manipulation and sale in the stock market, ARE SECURITIES.

*A PROMISSORY NOTE IS A SECURITY.

A MORTGAGE AGREEMENT IS A SECURITY.

A COPY OF A SECURITY IS VOID.   A NULLITY.

A COPY OF A SECURITY IS A COUNTERFEIT.

A COPY OF A SECURITY, that cannot be SIGHT VERIFIED BY COMPARISON to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING, must be considered to be a COUNTERFEIT, A FORGERY, PHOTO-SHOPPED, AND A FRAUDULENT writing.*

Presenting a COPY OF A SECURITY with the intent to force someone into parting with something of value in redemption for such a COUNTERFEIT is a CRIMINAL ACT punishable by fine, 10 years in prison, or both.

See 15 USC § 77b.Definitions; 
United States Code: Title 15,77b. Definitions; promotion of efficiency, competition, and capital formation | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a)(1) The term security means any note,  evidence of indebtedness,   and

18 USC § 513. Securities of the States and private entities
United States Code: Title 18,513. Securities of the States and private entities | LII / Legal Information Institute
 (a) Whoever makes, utters or possesses a counterfeited security  of an organization, or whoever makes, utters or possesses a forged security  of an organization, with intent to deceive another person, organization, or government shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.

(4) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE OWNERSHIP of any alleged original agreement autographed by the defendant.
Banksters will commit any act deemed necessary in order to conceal the facts about the sale and profit from the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED EVIDENCE OF DEBT. Once the details and all the facts are disclosed, the banksters CANNOT PROVE AN INJURY IN FACT in order to establish STANDING to invoke the particular-case-jurisdiction of a court.

(5) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE ANY ALLEGED DEFAULT by DEFENDANT for payment on any alleged valid EXISTING ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.
Without establishment of the existence of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT the banksters cannot establish that the defendant is in fact obligated in any way. Always consider what is claimed to be a COPY of the agreement is a fraud that has been fabricated and photo-shopped if it is not PROVED that the COPY has been sight verified by personal knowledge comparison to the ACTUAL ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.

Remember -- the criminal banksters have already SOLD the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT and put the face value amount thereof, in CASH, into their pockets. The banksters are NOT the present and actual HOLDERS of the ACTUAL ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.

(6) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PRESENT AND ACTUAL HOLDER of the alleged original agreement bearing the autograph of the defendant.

This issue goes to STANDING and the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST and the chain of valid authorization that must be present to qualify the plaintiffs right to bring a foreclosure/enforcement action. Without valid certified PROOF that the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, the ACTUAL HOLDER of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT, has authorized the plaintiff to sue in his behalf, the plaintiff has no personal stake in the matter, and therefore cannot establish STANDING to invoke the particular-case-jurisdiction of the court to bring the lawsuit against the defendant.

(7) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE PRESENT HOLDERS ALLEGED RIGHT to transfer the alleged agreement enforcement rights.
The right to enforce an evidence of debt must be proved all the way to the HOLDER of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT. Without such traceability there can be no STANDING for the plaintiff.

(8) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID CHAIN OF ASSIGNMENTS that lawfully establishes the right of the plaintiff to enforce the alleged ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.
Valid assignments can only be PROVED upon PROOF of the EXISTENCE of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT. Any COPY that has NOT been certified by SIGHT VERIFICATION/COMPARISON with the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT can be fabricated and photo-shopped. FRAUD.

AN AUTOGRAPH IS NOT THE SAME AS A SIGNATURE!

To start with, the word AUTOGRAPH begins with an A, and the word SIGNATURE begins with an S.

Autograph:
Ones handwriting; written with ones own hand. (BLD6-134)(1990).
[This means an original blue-ink/wet-ink autograph].

Signature:
The act of putting one's name at the end of an instrument to attest its validity; [emphasis added] the name thus written. 
 In commercial law, any name, word, or mark used with the intention to authenticate a writing constitutes a signature. UCC §§ 9 1-201(39)[37], 3-401(2)*. See also Cross; Sign; Signed. [emphasis added] (BLD6-1381-1382)(1990). [indicates current UCC section]

. . .*


----------



## Infinite Love (Oct 18, 2010)

Svarstaad,

In re: electronic applications with no signatures required...how are they binding and legally valid contracts in the US...they are verified and submitted by a bank representative....there is no signature per se...and in terms of personal knowledge....who has it and can attest to it under penalty of perjury....also, in terms of the one-sided duty--ie. the bank claims the customer is bound and agrees to the terms of the customer agreement and disclosures by either signing, using or accepting what is given...and that the bank has no duty to answer any questions about anything or give adequate assurance of due process and that their non response and non answers have no effect on the customers obligations or duties without limitation.....

For those who so quickly respond with "pay your bills" why are you presuming I don't?  You can be a loyal customer who pays their bills but still has questions and wants them answered...clearly, something is going on what with the bailout and all, and the daily news of this and that lawsuit and settlement by the big banks...why should we not ask questions and expect explanations and answers from those who handle our money?  When we've been longstanding customers who have trusted them?  

Thank you.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Oct 18, 2010)

Infinite Love said:


> Svarstaad,
> 
> In re: electronic applications with no signatures required...how are they binding and legally valid contracts in the US...they are verified and submitted by a bank representative....there is no signature per se...and in terms of personal knowledge....who has it and can attest to it under penalty of perjury....also, in terms of the one-sided duty--ie. the bank claims the customer is bound and agrees to the terms of the customer agreement and disclosures by either signing, using or accepting what is given...and that the bank has no duty to answer any questions about anything or give adequate assurance of due process and that their non response and non answers have no effect on the customers obligations or duties without limitation.....
> 
> ...



Hire a lawyer. Otherwise you are a fool.


----------



## Svarstaad (Nov 7, 2010)

. . .

On 10-18-2010, 07:44 Pm, Gadawg73 said:  

Hire a lawyer. Otherwise you are a fool.

Comment:   According to the perverted logic of Gadawg  a fool is anyone who doesnt . . .

Hire a professional driver to drive the car;

Hire a landscape professional to cut the grass;

Hire an electrician to change a light bulb;

Hire a gardener to plant a flower;

Hire a librarian to put your books on a shelf;

Hire a sanitation engineer to put out the trash;

Hire a dietitian to prepare your meals;

Hire a chronologist to determine the time of day;

Hire a plumber to clean the faucet filter screen/change faucet washer;

etc., ad nauseam.

Gadwag, YOU are the fool, and a scum-sucking debt collector bottom dweller, criminal, and a liar.

Only a fool would actually pay a lawyer-liar-attorney to betray them to the banksters, and the bankster-judge, who is fully vested in the real estate industry.

Rave on you piece of cat-shit. Someone will come along sooner or later and clean-up your mess.

The process has already begun . . .

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Nov 7, 2010)

. . .

Index of Svarstaad&#8217;s Substantive Permalinks

1.	#1 Permalink  UCC  http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...eclosure-defense-use-the-ucc.html#post1781677 

2.	#7 Permalink   UCC/Standing &#8211; Permalink
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...eclosure-defense-use-the-ucc.html#post1790035

3.	#8 Permalink   Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274 (1872)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...eclosure-defense-use-the-ucc.html#post1793680

4.	#9 Permalink	Excerpts from Affidavit of Walker F. Todd
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...eclosure-defense-use-the-ucc.html#post1804728

5.	#10 Permalink	Definitions Sign/Signing (other)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...eclosure-defense-use-the-ucc.html#post1804842

6.	#48 Permalink	Link to Where&#8217;s the Note
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-4.html#post1808749

7.	#50 Permalink	Garfield Videos
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-4.html#post1835182

8.	# 51 Permalink	The Federal Reserve Has Set You Up: Set Them Up &#8211; Right Back
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-4.html#post1859061

9.	#52 Permalink	UCC Article 9 N/A to Home &#8220;loans&#8221; 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-4.html#post1962069

10.	#57 Permalink	Letter to a scum-sucking debt collector
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-4.html#post1974971

11.	#62 Permalink	TRUTH ABOUT THE CREDIT CARD BUSINESS
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-5.html#post2012414

12.	#64 Permalink	Necessary background information and comprehension of the scam
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-5.html#post2023500

13.	#68 Permalink	a logic flow for contemplation:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-5.html#post2104394

14.	#71 Permalink	"STOP FORECLOSURES"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-5.html#post2154551

15.	#76 Permalink	Capital One Letter
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-6.html#post2155242

16.	#78 Permalink	Questions about the actual, present, physical location, of the original wet-ink note will make them howl for protection. 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-6.html#post2187305

17.	#80 Permalink	Banks in violation of National Banking Act
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-6.html#post2188458

18.	#86 Permalink	COPIES of Notes and Mortgage Agreements are Counterfeit Securities
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-6.html#post2274620

19.	#87 Permalink	Some misrepresentations made by banksters
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-6.html#post2346659

20.	#99 Permalink	Securities Fraud Statutes
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-7.html#post2571909

21.	#100 Permalink	 Not one man in a million could ever figure our plans
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-7.html#post2608081

22.	#125 Permalink	Article on Standing
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-9.html#post2736585

23.	#126 Permalink	PRIMARY ISSUES OF STANDING
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...losure-defense-use-the-ucc-9.html#post2794839

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 7, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> On 10-18-2010, 07:44 Pm, Gadawg73 said:
> 
> ...



You left out hire a surgeon to operate on your brain.
You are a fool so have at it. 
I absolutely love folks like you. I get to come and steal your stuff at your house in the middle of the night, legally. But you can easily make me go away: Man up, honor your word and PAY YOUR BILLS. 
Or continue to be a moocher and beg for cash remedies that someone else has earned that you want redistributed to you.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are a bad example for your family.


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 7, 2010)

The only people I feel sorry for are the desperate who listen to this moron thinking he knows what he's talking about, G. 

ANY legal advice pitched free on an internet message board is worth exactly what you pay for it, folks.


----------



## Svarstaad (Nov 7, 2010)

Here is an example of the ilk of you and gadawg73, goldcatt.
Both of you . . . cat-shit.

+++++++++++++++

Unicredit coerces people through intimidation. Fake courtrooms, fake judges.

Why is this story not getting massive mainstream coverage?
Local coverage, sure. But, the mainstream media should love this one. And yet, nothing.

Look at the fraudulent actions the company known as Unicredit America is going to!

    A debt collector in Erie, Pennsylvania, is accused of running a fake courtroom, complete with fake court documents and people dressed up like judges, to intimidate consumers into paying debts, according to the Erie Times-News.

What a scam this is-

    The scam allegedly involved people impersonating sheriff&#8217;s deputies appearing at consumers&#8217; doors to issue fake subpoenas, ordering people to appear immediately. The company, Unicredit America Inc., allegedly turned its offices into a courtroom, complete with a raised bench for the &#8220;judge,&#8221; a fake witness stand, a gallery for spectators and law books on bookshelves.

    &#8220;This is an unconscionable attempt to use fake court proceedings to deceive, mislead or frighten consumers into making payments or surrendering valuables to Unicredit without following lawful procedures for debt collection,&#8221; Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania&#8217;s attorney general, said in a press release.

    The attorney general&#8217;s office will appear in common pleas court today to request an order from a real judge to shut the company down and freeze its assets. The lawsuit also seeks civil fines of up to $3,000 for each person affected, and restitution for all the victims.

    The scam affected at least 370 people, according to reporting by the Erie Times News. Michael Covatto, president of Unicredit, told the paper on Friday that he was unaware of the lawsuit.

In this news article Michael Covatto fails to return phone calls.

A local lawyer was used by Unicredit to prepare legal papers and "subpoenas"

Unicredit engaged a lawyer near its office to help in the bogus collection process, according to the lawsuit. Attorney Lawrence D'Ambrosio allegedly prepared legal letters and "subpoenas" for Unicredit to use in the scheme.

D'Ambrosio, who was not sued in this case, could not be reached.

If you would like to read a bit more on this abuse of people, ordinary people, by a truly unscrupulous company. One of so many unscrupulous companies....

Company used fake courtroom, Pa. AG says

    Unicredit violated the state's Consumer Protection Law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Pa. accuses Erie collection company of using phony hearings, courtroom to deceive consumers

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> Here is an example of the ilk of you and gadawg73, goldcatt.
> Both of you . . . cat-shit.
> 
> +++++++++++++++
> ...



Those folks are frauds like you and need to receive jail time.
I ain't phony, abide by the law and legally obtain a REAL COURT ORDER to take your stuff.
You better grow some eyes in the back of your head.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 8, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> With the foregoing in mind, here is the reason for comprehending the information outlined below:
> 
> *The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, and the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.*
> 
> ...



*The Chinese would like their wall back.*


----------



## Vanquish (Nov 9, 2010)

Wall of Text hits you! (Crit hit!) 3000 points damage!

Besides the fact that the OP is off into weird territory now... why post all these walls of text? There seems to be something deep-rooted behind shoving this theory up on the net.

My money's with Goldcatt.


----------



## Svarstaad (Nov 10, 2010)

. . .

_Vanquish said:
Wall of Text hits you! (Crit hit!) 3000 points damage!
Besides the fact that the OP is off into weird territory now... why post all these walls of text? There seems to be something deep-rooted behind shoving this theory up on the net.
My money's with Goldcatt._

++++++++++++++++++++++

The on-point posts by Svarstaad about the mortgage scam being operated by those manipulating the government and most of the population, are founded in factual basis with references to valid, and currently applicable case law decisions made over the years.  

For those that are interested in the valid truth about the inability of the banksters and bankster-whores to conduct a valid foreclosure action review this Memorandum of Law which was actually filed in Ohio, resulting  in the bankster-whores failure to respond, because they cannot, and their immediate capitulation and plea for a deal with the victim of the foreclosure suit.  

GoTo PDF:  *Memorandum of Law w/Introduction* 

After readomg the Svarstaad posts, the inescapable conclusion must be made that your comment can be identified as to its exact nature . . . bullshit  (or, in your case, probably  cat-shit). 

One choosing to join ranks with scum like goldcatt and gadawg, can only be making the self identification that they are a clone of such self-professed scum and criminals.

Rave on vanquish, with your vacuous and empty words.

You pieces of cat-shit have come up with nothing of substance to refute Svarstaad's posts about the mortgage scam.

Your best is couched in posturing and intimidation.

Svarstaad's substantive research, and the case law precedents thereof, have already yielded positive results against the banksters and the bankster-whores in foreclosure cases in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.

One *judgment* in favor of foreclosure was just recently *vacated* pursuant to the facts about the total lack of standing and the inability of the banksters and the bankster-whores to make a valid case for foreclosure.

As more such cases are publicized and made known to the victims of the banksters and the bankster-whores, and the truth introduced into the sham foreclosure proceedings, feeble attempts at intimidation, like your little display of affection and support for pieces of cat-shit like gadawg and goldcatt, will mark you as being of the same ilk as those two reprobates and self-professed criminals.

You can always tell a lot about people by where they spend their money.

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 10, 2010)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> _Vanquish said:
> Wall of Text hits you! (Crit hit!) 3000 points damage!
> ...



OK, I will play ball.
Let's assume that under your theory you received a $100,000.00 loan from the bank.
And you can not pay the payments.
Next you file all of this stuff you have listed here stating you do not have to pay back the loan. 
How can the bank get you to legally make you pay the loan back? What does the bank have to do, under your theory, make people be responsible and pay back what they signed and promised to pay back?
What changes does the bank have to make with you so that you can honor what you agreed to pay back? 
How come you never raised any of these objections to bank policy BEFORE you signed the loan documents?


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 10, 2010)

That's right, you keep peddling snake oil and calling it a miracle cure. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to point and laugh.  

Yep, you can tell a lot about people by where they spend their money all right. Those who would rather crouch, spit, spin, cheat and LIE rather than pay a debt tell us a LOT about their character - or lack thereof.


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 10, 2010)

All right troll, I read your "Memorandum of Law" as far as I had to to know you're full of shit.

Before you even get to the securitization aspect you fail. Where on Earth do you come up with this stuff, and do you have the slightest clue about the difference between the promissory note and mortgage agreement itself? A mortgage agreement is NOT a receivable. It is NOT in itself an asset. It can NOT be deposited. It can NOT be securitized. It creates no debt. It means absolutely not one damn thing except in the realm of State-level property law and Article 9 priority. Not to mention that it doesn't even _exist_ in title theory states. 

Remember way back when, when it was pointed out to you that you're trying to peddle a one size fits all scheme in an atmosphere of fifty different legal environments? Yeah, still true.

Didn't even have to go further than that, although your entire spiel centers around your assumption that a receivable isn't an asset and the creditor's property. And that's as wrong as you can get it too, but it's not worth explaining if you can't even sort out what the basic documents mean.

Good lord, are ye dumb. This guy is dangerous, folks. *Do NOT try this at home. *


----------



## Svarstaad (Nov 11, 2010)

. . .

And again, nothing of substance from the vacuum-headed numb-skulls who won't read the Carpenter v. Longan decision.

The mortgage agreement DOES have value, dip-shit; the Note is worthless without it.

Where are all those ORIGINAL mortgages?  Bundled?, pooled?, tranched?

You are really showing your "stupid" now, cat-shit.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 6, 2011)

. . .

*BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
ONCE THE TRUTH IS KNOWN

YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN!*

1.  The bankster did NOT loan any money to you:

2.  At no cost to the bankster money was acquired:

3. The bankster transacted an EXCHANGE of YOUR Promissory Note, a form of money, for Federal Reserve Notes, and then deliberately, willfully, and with full knowledge of the false representation, told you that such an EXCHANGE of different forms of currency, was a loan:

4. The bankster converted your promissory note, a form of money, into Federal Reserve Notes, a form of money, this transaction is NOT A LOAN:

5. The bankster then used YOUR money (your note) converted into Federal Reserve Notes, to buy property in the banksters name;

a. Bankster indorsed YOUR Promissory Note WITHOUT RECOURSE and DEPOSITED YOUR Promissory Note in a bank transaction account the existence of which the bankster failed to disclose to YOU:​
6. ONLY money can be deposited into a bank account:

7. The bankster lied to you --  

a. by telling you that the bankster was providing a loan, which, to your mind was thought to embody the classical meaning of the term loan.

  b. By the Banksters deliberate manipulation of YOUR non-comprehension and YOUR lack of knowledge of the actual process;

  c. By the banksters false representation that YOU were receiving the banksters own money as a borrower of the banksters own money, a circumstance of fraud in the factum, among other non-disclosed facts that evidence the proof that YOU did not receive a loan:

  d. The bankster accepted and received YOUR promissory note;

  e. The bankster then made QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT of YOUR Promissory note, adding the phrase WITHOUT RECOURSE in the endorsement;

  f. The banksters QUALIFIED INDORSEMENT had the effect of removing all bankster obligation with respect to the two-party promissory note;

Definition:
*Without recourse.* *Words that* may be used by a drawer in signing a draft or check so as to *eliminate completely the drawer's secondary liability*. This phrase, used in making a qualified endorsement of a negotiable instrument, signifies that the indorser means to save himself from liability to subsequent holders, and is a notification that, if payment is refused by the parties primarily liable, recourse cannot be had to him. See U.C.C. § 3-414(1).
   An indorser "without recourse" specially declines to assume any responsibility for payment. He assumes no contractual liability by virtue of the indorsement itself, and becomes a mere assignor of the title to the paper, but such an indorsement does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of defects, or that he does not take on credit of the other parties to the note. See also Nonrecourse; Nonrecourse loan; With recourse. (BLD6-1603). [emphasis added]​
  g. The banksters non-disclosure of this fact made such QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT an UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION in any respect of the banksters obligation on the promissory note (secondary liability), (see *UCC 3-407*);

  h. The bankster negotiated YOUR promissory note in a DEPOSIT transaction, a requirement of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the undisclosed process;

  i. The bankster acquired the face value amount of YOUR promissory note, plus a commission, in Federal Reserve Notes, at no cost to the bank, by unknown machinations (See A Primer on Money, Congressional Report);

  j. The bankster, without cost to the bankster, lied to YOU by making the knowing, intentional, and willful false representation that the bankster was giving YOU a loan;​
8. The bankster NEVER loaned you anything:

9. You were deceived into thinking that you had received a loan:

10.  The deception that you actually or constructively received a loan is a false representation, fraud.

11.  Proof that you were deceived by the banksters false representations is found in the fact that you actually made PAYMENTS on a NONEXISTENT loan, such payments representing certain portions of YOUR LIFE which were EXCHANGED for (converted into) Federal Reserve Notes, which YOU then, delivered to the bankster as payments on a NON-EXISTENT LOAN:

12.  When the bankster indorsed YOUR note WITHOUT RECOURSE, as part of the deception, the banksters obligation was fraudulently modified which DISCHARGED your obligation on the note. The banksters alteration fraudulently made discharged the note because YOUR obligation was affected by such fraudulent alteration. (See* UCC § 3-407(a) & (b)*).

*UCC § 3-117. OTHER AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT*.
  Subject to applicable law regarding exclusion of proof of contemporaneous or previous agreements, the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. To the extent an obligation is modified, supplemented, or nullified by an agreement under this section, the agreement is a defense to the obligation.  (Pooling and Servicing Agreement [PSA]).​
13.  YOU have actually tendered a significant amount of YOUR LIFE, converted into Federal Reserve Notes, in payment for the property by deception:

14.  The bankster has made no such investment or payment. (See US Congress report,* A PRIMER ON MONEY*).

15.  YOU have PAID for the property:

16.  If the bankster has collected vast amounts of profits, at no cost, pursuant to YOUR note, the banksters taking of YOUR property is unjust enrichment for the bankster:

17.  YOU have PAID; the bankster has not risked or paid any value into the property:

18.  YOUR keeping the property is NOT unjust enrichment:

19.  YOU are not getting a free house by defeating the bankster with the LAW.

  "But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers' salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge." (emphasis added). [See 2nd paragraph, "Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141].  Link: *Patman.Primer.on.Money*

*AND, not only that:

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

  AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the banksters contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction;  recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the evidence of debt, (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of false or forged documents in a public office, which is A FELONY.   [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]*​
. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 6, 2011)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> _Vanquish said:
> Wall of Text hits you! (Crit hit!) 3000 points damage!
> ...



And by if they honor THEIR WORD.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 6, 2011)

Uniform Electronic Transactions Act


> Section 7 gives legal recognition to electronic signatures, records and contracts
> (a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
> (b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
> (c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.
> (d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 6, 2011)

. . .

The electronic signature act Section 5(a) states that transactions are not required to be in electronic form and 5(b) states
(b) This [Act] applies *only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means*. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties' conduct.​
The first allegation I would make is that the paper, whatever it is, does not contain my valid signature, so, it is COUNTERFEIT, FORGED, PHOTO-SHOPPED, and FRAUDULENT.

The best and simplest way to prove the allegation unfounded is sight verification of the genuine original instrument compared to the electronic edition.  Then, why would you need an electronic edition?   ONLY FOR FRAUD!

Also, when it comes to money, and other securities, no one in their right mind would cash a copy of a note or a security purporting to have the same value as actual money or an actual security.

But, knowing how silly you two common-taters are, I would hazard a guess that either or both of you would actually cash a photocopy of a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note.

You guys are hilarious.

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 7, 2011)

. . .

*BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
ONCE THE TRUTH IS KNOWN

YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN!*

1.  The bankster did NOT loan any money to you:

2.  At no cost to the bankster money was acquired:

3. The bankster transacted an EXCHANGE of YOUR Promissory Note, a form of money, for Federal Reserve Notes, and then deliberately, willfully, and with full knowledge of the false representation, told you that such an EXCHANGE of different forms of currency, was a loan:

4. The bankster converted your promissory note, a form of money, into Federal Reserve Notes, a form of money, this transaction is NOT A LOAN:

5. The bankster then used YOUR money (your note) converted into Federal Reserve Notes, to buy property in the banksters name;

a. Bankster indorsed YOUR Promissory Note WITHOUT RECOURSE and DEPOSITED YOUR Promissory Note in a bank transaction account the existence of which the bankster failed to disclose to YOU:​
6. ONLY money can be deposited into a bank account:

7. The bankster lied to you --  

a. by telling you that the bankster was providing a loan, which, to your mind was thought to embody the classical meaning of the term loan.

  b. By the Banksters deliberate manipulation of YOUR non-comprehension and YOUR lack of knowledge of the actual process;

  c. By the banksters false representation that YOU were receiving the banksters own money as a borrower of the banksters own money, a circumstance of fraud in the factum, among other non-disclosed facts that evidence the proof that YOU did not receive a loan:

  d. The bankster accepted and received YOUR promissory note;

  e. The bankster then made QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT of YOUR Promissory note, adding the phrase WITHOUT RECOURSE in the endorsement;

  f. The banksters QUALIFIED INDORSEMENT had the effect of removing all bankster obligation with respect to the two-party promissory note;

Definition:
*Without recourse.* *Words that* may be used by a drawer in signing a draft or check so as to *eliminate completely the drawer's secondary liability*. This phrase, used in making a qualified endorsement of a negotiable instrument, signifies that the indorser means to save himself from liability to subsequent holders, and is a notification that, if payment is refused by the parties primarily liable, recourse cannot be had to him. See U.C.C. § 3-414(1).
*An indorser "without recourse"* specially declines to assume any responsibility for payment. He *assumes no contractual liability by virtue of the indorsement itself, and becomes a mere assignor of the title to the paper*, but such an indorsement does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of defects, or that he does not take on credit of the other parties to the note. See also Nonrecourse; Nonrecourse loan; With recourse. (BLD6-1603). [emphasis added]​
  g. The banksters non-disclosure of this fact made such QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT an UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION in any respect of the banksters obligation on the promissory note (secondary liability), (see *UCC 3-407*);

  h. The bankster negotiated YOUR promissory note in a DEPOSIT transaction, a requirement of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the undisclosed process;

  i. The bankster acquired the face value amount of YOUR promissory note, plus a commission, in Federal Reserve Notes, at no cost to the bank, by unknown machinations (See A Primer on Money, Congressional Report);

  j. The bankster, without cost to the bankster, lied to YOU by making the knowing, intentional, and willful false representation that the bankster was giving YOU a loan;​
8. The bankster NEVER loaned you anything:

9. You were deceived into thinking that you had received a loan:

10.  The deception that you actually or constructively received a loan is a false representation, fraud.

11.  Proof that you were deceived by the banksters false representations is found in the fact that you actually made PAYMENTS on a NONEXISTENT loan, such payments representing certain portions of YOUR LIFE which were EXCHANGED for (converted into) Federal Reserve Notes, which YOU then, delivered to the bankster as payments on a NON-EXISTENT LOAN:

12.  When the bankster indorsed YOUR note WITHOUT RECOURSE, as part of the deception, the banksters obligation was fraudulently modified which DISCHARGED your obligation on the note. The banksters alteration fraudulently made discharged the note because YOUR obligation was affected by such fraudulent alteration. (See* UCC § 3-407(a) & (b)*).

*UCC § 3-117. OTHER AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT*.
  Subject to applicable law regarding exclusion of proof of contemporaneous or previous agreements, the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. To the extent an obligation is modified, supplemented, or nullified by an agreement under this section, the agreement is a defense to the obligation.  (Pooling and Servicing Agreement [PSA]).​
13.  YOU have actually tendered a significant amount of YOUR LIFE, converted into Federal Reserve Notes, in payment for the property by deception:

14.  The bankster has made no such investment or payment. (See US Congress report,* A PRIMER ON MONEY*).

15.  YOU have PAID for the property:

16.  If the bankster has collected vast amounts of profits, at no cost, pursuant to YOUR note, the banksters taking of YOUR property is unjust enrichment for the bankster:

17.  YOU have PAID; the bankster has not risked or paid any value into the property:

18.  YOUR keeping the property is NOT unjust enrichment:

19.  YOU are not getting a free house by defeating the bankster with the LAW.

  "But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, *banks create money without cost to themselves*, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers' salaries.) *The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge*." (emphasis added). [See 2nd paragraph, "Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141].  Link: *Patman.Primer.on.Money*

*AND, not only that:

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

  AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the banksters contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction;  recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the evidence of debt, (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of false or forged documents in a public office, which is A FELONY.   [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]*​
. . .


----------



## editec (Mar 7, 2011)

Now now, lads....this is a highly interesting debate that truly does not need _ad hominen_ attacks.

*Stick to debating the issues and leave the insulting activities to people too dumb make and defend their POVs.*

It is quite obvious that *both of you are capable of disagreeing without being disagreeable.*


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 7, 2011)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> *BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
> NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
> ...



So you are claiming that the bank never gave you any $$$?
How did you pay for your home???


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 7, 2011)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> The electronic signature act Section 5(a) states that transactions are not required to be in electronic form and 5(b) states
> (b) This [Act] applies *only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means*. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties' conduct.​
> ...



People that honor their word and pay their bills funny?


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 7, 2011)

. . .

[F]raud, under the *UCC § 3-407*, has been defined as 

"requir[ing] a dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than one was entitled to under the note as signed by the makers rather than only a misguided purpose." _Thomas v. Osborn_, 13 Wash.App. 371, 536 P.2d 8, 13 (1975).  Accord _Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar v. Taylor_, 368 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1985); _Bluffestone v. Abrahams_, 125 Ariz. 42, 607 P.2d 25 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1979). The general rule requires a party seeking discharge to show that the holder altered the instrument with a deceitful purpose. _Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar_, supra at 917.​
Bankster non-disclosure of all the facts about the banking system's exploitation of the makers promissory note, evidences a *dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than the bankster was entitled to* under the provisions of the promissory note and mortgage.  *The conspiratorial and secret plan of the banksters was carefully, intentionally, willfully, and deceitfully, withheld from the knowledge, and informed consent of the makers of the promissory note.*

Consider the following:

*Fraud  1.*	Bankster made the false representation that bankster is a "lender" and that bankster was going to "loan" money;

a.	*Lend.*	To give or put out for hire or compensation. To part with a thing of value to another for a time fixed or indefinite, yet to have some time in ending, to be used or enjoyed by that other; the thing itself or the equivalent of it to be given back at the time fixed, or when lawfully asked for, with or without compensation for the use as may be agreed upon. Term "lend" when used in a will means to "give" or "devise." To provide money to another for a period of time, usually with interest charge to be incurred by borrower. See also Loan.  (BLD6-901).​
b. *Loan.* A lending. Delivery by one party to and receipt by another party of sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest. Boerner v. Colwell Co., 21 Cal.3d 37, 145 Cal.Rptr. 380, 384, 577 P.2d 200. Anything furnished for temporary use to a person at his request, on condition that it shall be returned, or its equivalent in kind, with or without compensation for its use. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 58 Misc.2d 443, 295 N.Y. S.2d 983, 986. (BLD6-936).​
The bankster did NOT "provide" any money.  Banks are prohibited by the National Banking Act from lending the bank's credit, or the bank's  depositor's money.  Just exactly where did the money come from?  Stock holders in the bank would eviscerate a bankster for loaning bank profits that would otherwise be paid to the stock holders as dividends.  

The bankster failed to disclose to the maker of the promissory note (YOU), that the money did not come from a pre-existing store of value which was the property of the bank. In fact, the bankster made false representations that implanted into the mind of the so-called "borrower," (YOU), that the money came from an actual store of value which was the bank's pre-existing property; the exact opposite of the truth of the matter.  Such a false representation is "fraud in the factum."

c. *Fraud in the factum.*	Misrepresentation as to the nature of a writing that a person signs with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to obtain knowledge of its character or essential terms. See U.C.C. 9 3-305(2Xc) [now 3-305(a)(1)(iii)]. (BLD6-661).​
*Fraud 2.*   Bankster made the false representation that YOU are in actuality a "borrower."

a.   *Borrower*. He to whom a thing or money is lent at his request. "Borrower," within automobile liability policy covering borrower of vehicle during loading and unloading, may be defined as someone who has, with permission of owner, temporary possession and use of property of another for his own purposes. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Emp. Ins. Co., Tex., 556 S.W.2d 242, 244.  (BLD6-185).​
b.   *Property*.  That which is peculiar or proper to any, person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, *ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it*, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. *That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing.* (In part) (emphasis added) (BLD6-1216).​
*Did the bankster have actual possession of the money prior to the existence of YOUR promissory note?  NO!  Then, the money WAS NOT the property of the bankster, as such bankster caused you to believe.  The  false representation that the bankster was a "lender" and that YOU were "borrowing" the bankster's property (money) is FRAUD in the factum*.

Why would anyone in their right mind honor a FRAUD?!

Only a scum-sucking, bankster-whore, or debt collector whore, would ever mouth such false and fraudulent "religion," under the circumstances, as 

"People that honor their word and pay their bills funny?"​
when the one making such a statement is actively promoting and committing fraud on a daily basis; such scum attempting to make the VICTIMS of the FRAUD feel "guilty" for refusing to acquiesce and accommodate the fraud of the banksters.   

(more to come)

. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2011)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> [F]raud, under the *UCC § 3-407*, has been defined as
> 
> ...



If YOU knew it was a fraud at the closing table why did YOU take the $$$$$?
YOU are the fraud.


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 8, 2011)

. . .

The VICTIMS of the FRAUD were totally WITHOUT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the criminality of you bankster whores, and debt collector whores.

Your retort provides you with absolutely no place to hide, you piece of cat-sh_t.

YOU are the FELON, having, no doubt, filed false either/or forged mortgage instruments in public offices in Georgia. 

*O.C.G.A. § 44-2-43  (2011) .  Fraud, forgery, and theft in connection with registration of title to land; penalty* 

   Any person who: 
(1) fraudulently obtains or attempts to obtain a decree of registration of title to any land or interest therein; 
(2) knowingly offers in evidence any forged or fraudulent document in the course of any proceedings with regard to registered lands or any interest therein; 
(3) makes or utters any forged instrument of transfer or instrument of mortgage or any other paper, writing, or document used in connection with any of the proceedings required for the registration of lands or the notation of entries upon the register of titles;
(4) steals or fraudulently conceals any owner's certificate, creditor's certificate, or other certificate of title provided for under this article; 
(5) fraudulently alters, changes, or mutilates any writing, instrument, document, record, registration, or register provided for under this article; 
(6) makes any false oath or affidavit with respect to any matter or thing provided for in this article; or 
(7) makes or knowingly uses any counterfeit of any certificate provided for by this article
shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.​
+++++++++++++++

*Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office*

AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the bankster&#8217;s contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction;  recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the &#8220;evidence of debt,&#8221; (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of &#8220;false or forged&#8221; documents in a public office, which is A FELONY.   [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See *Carpenter*)]​
. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 8, 2011)

. . .

[F]raud, under the *UCC § 3-407*, has been defined as 

"requir[ing] a dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than one was entitled to under the note as signed by the makers rather than only a misguided purpose." _Thomas v. Osborn_, 13 Wash.App. 371, 536 P.2d 8, 13 (1975).  Accord _Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar v. Taylor_, 368 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1985); _Bluffestone v. Abrahams_, 125 Ariz. 42, 607 P.2d 25 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1979). The general rule requires a party seeking discharge to show that the holder altered the instrument with a deceitful purpose. _Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar_, supra at 917.​
Bankster non-disclosure of all the facts about the banking system's exploitation of the makers promissory note, evidences a *dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than the bankster was entitled to* under the provisions of the promissory note and mortgage.  *The conspiratorial and secret plan of the banksters was carefully, intentionally, willfully, and deceitfully, withheld from the knowledge, and informed consent of the makers of the promissory note.*

Consider the following:

*Fraud  1.*	Bankster made the false representation that bankster is a "lender" and that bankster was going to "loan" money;

a.	*Lend.*	To give or put out for hire or compensation. To part with a thing of value to another for a time fixed or indefinite, yet to have some time in ending, to be used or enjoyed by that other; the thing itself or the equivalent of it to be given back at the time fixed, or when lawfully asked for, with or without compensation for the use as may be agreed upon. Term "lend" when used in a will means to "give" or "devise." To provide money to another for a period of time, usually with interest charge to be incurred by borrower. See also Loan.  (BLD6-901).​
b. *Loan.* A lending. Delivery by one party to and receipt by another party of sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest. Boerner v. Colwell Co., 21 Cal.3d 37, 145 Cal.Rptr. 380, 384, 577 P.2d 200. Anything furnished for temporary use to a person at his request, on condition that it shall be returned, or its equivalent in kind, with or without compensation for its use. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 58 Misc.2d 443, 295 N.Y. S.2d 983, 986. (BLD6-936).​
The bankster did NOT "provide" any money.  Banks are prohibited by the National Banking Act from lending the bank's credit, or the bank's  depositor's money.  Just exactly where did the money come from?  Stock holders in the bank would eviscerate a bankster for loaning bank profits that would otherwise be paid to the stock holders as dividends.  

The bankster failed to disclose to the maker of the promissory note (YOU), that the money did not come from a pre-existing store of value which was the property of the bank. In fact, the bankster made false representations that implanted into the mind of the so-called "borrower," (YOU), that the money came from an actual store of value which was the bank's pre-existing property; the exact opposite of the truth of the matter.  Such a false representation is "fraud in the factum."

c. *Fraud in the factum.*	Misrepresentation as to the nature of a writing that a person signs with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to obtain knowledge of its character or essential terms. See U.C.C. § 3-305(2)(c) [now 3-305(a)(1)(iii)]. (BLD6-661).​
*Fraud 2.*   Bankster made the false representation that YOU are in actuality a "borrower."

a.   *Borrower*. He to whom a thing or money is lent at his request. "Borrower," within automobile liability policy covering borrower of vehicle during loading and unloading, may be defined as someone who has, with permission of owner, temporary possession and use of property of another for his own purposes. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Emp. Ins. Co., Tex., 556 S.W.2d 242, 244.  (BLD6-185).​
b.   *Property*.  That which is peculiar or proper to any, person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, *ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it*, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. *That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing.* (In part) (emphasis added) (BLD6-1216).​
*Did the bankster have actual possession of the money prior to the existence of YOUR promissory note?  NO!  Then, the money WAS NOT the property of the bankster, as such bankster caused you to believe.  The  false representation that the bankster was a "lender" and that YOU were "borrowing" the bankster's property (money) is FRAUD in the factum*.

Why would anyone in their right mind honor a FRAUD?!

Only a scum-sucking, bankster-whore, or debt collector whore, would ever mouth such false and fraudulent "religion," under the circumstances, as 

"People that honor their word and pay their bills funny?"​
when the one making such a statement is actively promoting and committing fraud on a daily basis; such scum attempting to make the VICTIMS of the FRAUD feel "guilty" for refusing to acquiesce and accommodate the fraud of the banksters.   

(more to come)

. . .


----------



## Svarstaad (Mar 8, 2011)

. . .

*BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
ONCE THE TRUTH IS KNOWN

YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN!*

1.  The bankster did NOT loan any money to you:

2.  At no cost to the bankster money was acquired:

3. The bankster transacted an EXCHANGE of YOUR Promissory Note, a form of money, for Federal Reserve Notes, and then deliberately, willfully, and with full knowledge of the false representation, told you that such an EXCHANGE of different forms of currency, was a loan:

4. The bankster converted your promissory note, a form of money, into Federal Reserve Notes, a form of money, this transaction is NOT A LOAN:

5. The bankster then used YOUR money (your note) converted into Federal Reserve Notes, to buy property in the banksters name;

a. Bankster indorsed YOUR Promissory Note WITHOUT RECOURSE and DEPOSITED YOUR Promissory Note in a bank transaction account the existence of which the bankster failed to disclose to YOU:​
6. ONLY money can be deposited into a bank account:

7. The bankster lied to you --  

a. by telling you that the bankster was providing a loan, which, to your mind was thought to embody the classical meaning of the term loan.

  b. By the Banksters deliberate manipulation of YOUR non-comprehension and YOUR lack of knowledge of the actual process;

  c. By the banksters false representation that YOU were receiving the banksters own money as a borrower of the banksters own money, a circumstance of fraud in the factum, among other non-disclosed facts that evidence the proof that YOU did not receive a loan:

  d. The bankster accepted and received YOUR promissory note;

  e. The bankster then made QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT of YOUR Promissory note, adding the phrase WITHOUT RECOURSE in the endorsement;

  f. The banksters QUALIFIED INDORSEMENT had the effect of removing all bankster obligation with respect to the two-party promissory note;

Definition:
*Without recourse.* *Words that* may be used by a drawer in signing a draft or check so as to *eliminate completely the drawer's secondary liability*. This phrase, used in making a qualified endorsement of a negotiable instrument, signifies that the indorser means to save himself from liability to subsequent holders, and is a notification that, if payment is refused by the parties primarily liable, recourse cannot be had to him. See U.C.C. § 3-414(1).
*An indorser "without recourse"* specially declines to assume any responsibility for payment. He *assumes no contractual liability by virtue of the indorsement itself, and becomes a mere assignor of the title to the paper*, but such an indorsement does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of defects, or that he does not take on credit of the other parties to the note. See also Nonrecourse; Nonrecourse loan; With recourse. (BLD6-1603). [emphasis added]​
  g. The banksters non-disclosure of this fact made such QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT an UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION in any respect of the banksters obligation on the promissory note (secondary liability), (see *UCC 3-407*);

  h. The bankster negotiated YOUR promissory note in a DEPOSIT transaction, a requirement of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the undisclosed process;

  i. The bankster acquired the face value amount of YOUR promissory note, plus a commission, in Federal Reserve Notes, at no cost to the bank, by unknown machinations (See A Primer on Money, Congressional Report);

  j. The bankster, without cost to the bankster, lied to YOU by making the knowing, intentional, and willful false representation that the bankster was giving YOU a loan;​
8. The bankster NEVER loaned you anything:

9. You were deceived into thinking that you had received a loan:

10.  The deception that you actually or constructively received a loan is a false representation, fraud.

11.  Proof that you were deceived by the banksters false representations is found in the fact that you actually made PAYMENTS on a NONEXISTENT loan, such payments representing certain portions of YOUR LIFE which were EXCHANGED for (converted into) Federal Reserve Notes, which YOU then, delivered to the bankster as payments on a NON-EXISTENT LOAN:

12.  When the bankster indorsed YOUR note WITHOUT RECOURSE, as part of the deception, the banksters obligation was fraudulently modified which DISCHARGED your obligation on the note. The banksters alteration fraudulently made discharged the note because YOUR obligation was affected by such fraudulent alteration. (See* UCC § 3-407(a) & (b)*).

*UCC § 3-117. OTHER AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT*.
  Subject to applicable law regarding exclusion of proof of contemporaneous or previous agreements, the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. To the extent an obligation is modified, supplemented, or nullified by an agreement under this section, the agreement is a defense to the obligation.  (Pooling and Servicing Agreement [PSA]).​
13.  YOU have actually tendered a significant amount of YOUR LIFE, converted into Federal Reserve Notes, in payment for the property by deception:

14.  The bankster has made no such investment or payment. (See US Congress report,* A PRIMER ON MONEY*).

15.  YOU have PAID for the property:

16.  If the bankster has collected vast amounts of profits, at no cost, pursuant to YOUR note, the banksters taking of YOUR property is unjust enrichment for the bankster:

17.  YOU have PAID; the bankster has not risked or paid any value into the property:

18.  YOUR keeping the property is NOT unjust enrichment:

19.  YOU are not getting a free house by defeating the bankster with the LAW.

  "But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, *banks create money without cost to themselves*, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers' salaries.) *The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge*." (emphasis added). [See 2nd paragraph, "Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141].  Link: *Patman.Primer.on.Money*

*AND, not only that:

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

  AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the banksters contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction;  recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the evidence of debt, (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of false or forged documents in a public office, which is A FELONY.   [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]*​
. . .


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2011)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> The VICTIMS of the FRAUD were totally WITHOUT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the criminality of you bankster whores, and debt collector whores.
> 
> ...



There is no law against and you can not fix STUPID.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2011)

Svarstaad said:


> . . .
> 
> *BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
> NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
> ...



Where do I show up and the bankster whorres give away free $$$.
Chicks for free also?


----------

