Quote:
|
Originally Posted by manros
Obviously, if it is true that the bank gets the money from that Third Party "prior" to the moment they lend it to me, is not my biz.
So, you are saying the money they lend now is not "fiat money", not any more.
I wonder how they do the conversion in their deal with the private investor.
|
Interesting manipulations by Goldskr;
I took a look over about ten posts and the point about the original note was really sound. Manros suggested that he owns the note.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_2.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_1.jpg
Notice that the note is sold - PAY TO THE ORDER OF. They will never produce the original note at the foreclosure hearing. (attached) Statute requires they do of course, but they cannot because they admit to the double enrichment.
The thing most notable is that Goldskr admits there is a slight of hand going on with a third party collateralizing the homeowner's credit and he is like the Wizard saying, "Do not look behind that curtain!!" Goldskr says that since they have brought in a third party to take the risk of creating the funds off your credit, that makes it okay?
What that means is that when the suitor tendered the letter of credit to the mortgager, the third party sent the summons to the foreclosure hearing. He Refused for Cause the summons but attached a certified copy of the Letter of Credit. Simple principal and agency.
There are no guarantees about these things. You are expected to understand the funds are generated off your own credit. The funds are a chattel mortgage and the home itself is the chattel on the warranty deed at the end of setoff.
I have never seen the Treasury check and therefore believe that the risk is the mortgager's or in Goldskr's third party world, with the third party should anybody be called on double-enrichment.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg
I would never try guaranteeing you that your home is safe if you simply offer legal tender in the form of a letter of credit on HJR-192 as a Treasury Account. Technically it is sound that if you offered to setoff the account and they decided not to risk redeeming the FRNs in lawful money, then the debt is waived.
Goldskr is simply a banker. It is obvious to all the members here I am sure that if you settle up your mortgage payments you get to keep your home. You are here exploring the mechanics of the loan to begin with. Goldskr admits to a slight of hand that allegedly removes your credit from the funding - but all that says is this new third party took the risk. They cannot take the home just because a third party tried to convince you that your own credit could be capitalized upon.
Regards,
David Merrill.