Mortgage companies already know

[robhalford88]

So, Notorius Dipstick is on his high horse again, lying and deceiving.
Ok Mr Know-It-All, can you tell us HOW they create the funds for bank loans? The EXACT method? Then, when you have done that, can you explain why high profile bankers have admitted in the past that under fractional reserve banking, they create money from thin air?
Put up, or shut up. How fair is that?

[manros]

I am very thankful to all of your for your explanations (WB, I don't agree with you, but you have a respectful way to mislead people...Thanks for your decency)

I am sending a letter to the bank, asking them several questions related to the biggest issue here: WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?

I am making specific questions, the HOW, WHAT, WHEN, HOW COME, WHERE, etc.

I am also asking them to sign their correspondence to me.

I am not arguing nor fighting.

Any way, I want to open a file to deposit "evidence". I know David advises to open it in Federal court...I am ignorant, and the court operators are stupid. They tell me "distric" and "US" courts are one and the same for recording purposes, and send me to the county recorders home to open a misc. file wher I could file my letter.

This is a little detail, but so important. I want to do it right since I might need to go to court in the near future.

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by manros

I am sending a letter to the bank, asking them several questions related to the biggest issue here: WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?

The biggest issue should be whether you can get current in your mortgage payments or do you give the house and its equity back to the bank? It would seem that you are gravitating to the latter as you fill your mind with irrelevant babble that you rationalize to be constructive remedy for an illusionary wrong.

Your question of where did the money come from was pertinent back in the day of the Credit River decision but is irrelevant today as the funding process is different. If you had understood my previous post you would have realized that a third party was introduced into the money from thin air process. This is what insulates the banks from fraud and securitizes their collateral (your house) from default.

According to your mortgage agreement you borrowed actual FRN's (private debt obligations) and are expected to return the same plus interest. In this transaction there was no "money" out of thin air as the bank procured the funds from a third party. That is where the sleight of hand occurs and is irrelevant to your situation.

If you wish to waste your time that is certainly your prerogative, but if you wish to find correct answers you must ask correct questions. It seems that relevancy would be prudent as well.

gldskr

[manros]

gldskr, I think I am starting to get it now. But...

Can you please ellaborate a little more on the existence of that relationship between the bank and the third party? You said the bank got the money from a third party. How is that? I guess I can question the bank about the third party? Or I can not?

Any way, Who is that third party? or Who can be that third party?

Re: The equity. What is the legal basis (IF) for the bank's right to the equity on the home? It looks to me they only have right to the amount due to them, not to the "future equity". I am may be wrong on this for some reason.

Thanks for your participation.

[manros]

By the way, they never told me about the existence of this Third Party. I understand I got the right to know about it. Is not that lack of proper disclosure?
Is this Third Party stepping into the deal after the agreement to loan the money? I was never told.
It does not feel right.

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by manros

Can you please ellaborate a little more on the existence of that relationship between the bank and the third party? You said the bank got the money from a third party. How is that? I guess I can question the bank about the third party? Or I can not?

The third party is a warehouseman, a facilitator, a vendor, a broker, pick the word you're most comfortable with. The point is that the bank procures the funds prior to lending them to you and does not use your promissory note as the basis of the loan. These vendors may be individual investors, hedge funds, investment banks or the Fed itself. But asking a superfluous question like where does the money come from, is like asking your grocer who supplies his produce. Who cares?

Originally Posted by manros

Re: The equity. What is the legal basis (IF) for the bank's right to the equity on the home? It looks to me they only have right to the amount due to them, not to the "future equity". I am may be wrong on this for some reason.

Equity is relative depending upon circumstance. It can be positive or negative. Your house is the collateral used to securitize your pledge to repay the loan and upon foreclosure will be repossessed according to the mortgage terms. The value of the house will be determined by its ultimate buyer and any positive equity belongs to the bank, just as any negative equity will be your liability. This is why, if you have any substantial equity, it would be wise to bring your payments current.

Originally Posted by manros

By the way, they never told me about the existence of this Third Party. I understand I got the right to know about it. Is not that lack of proper disclosure?
Is this Third Party stepping into the deal after the agreement to loan the money? I was never told.
It does not feel right.

Why do you feel you have a right to know where the bank gets its funds? As I said, they have many sources, and these transactions are unrelated to the one you have with the bank. Disclosure is not necessary.

gldskr

[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.

[David Merrill]

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.

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

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?

I never implied that it was OK, I do not care for the process any more than you. The Credit River decision opened up a can of worms, which if not contained, would cause innumerable problems.

The borrower's credit had to be removed from the source of the funding. The funds are still fiat but have been created from someone else's credit. The borrower's credit now only relates to the quality of the note. The note is backed by the collateral.

The issuance of bonds is where the sleight of hand occurs. A corporation issues a million$ bond paying 15%, an investor buys that bond and puts up 100K, the rest is on margin at 6%. If all goes well, at the end of maturity the investor gets his 100K back and pockets the spread. The corporation is on the hook to the investor and the investor is on the hook to the broker/bank. The credit of both the corporation and the investor are used to create the funds. The corporations credit is used to rate the bond secured by its underlying collateral and the investors credit is used to fund the transaction. 900K is borrowed, 90% of which is fractionalized. 810K of new money is created.

Of course this is the same process that occurred previously with the wannabe homeowner, only now it happens further up the food chain.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Goldskr is simply a banker.

I assume this was tongue in cheek.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

...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.

The bank still retains the risk until the note is sold. The risk the third party obtains relates to their transaction with the bank only.

Contrast this process where one applies for FRN's and that of unsecured revolving credit where one applies for credit. In case of a breach, in the former the bank repossess the collateral; in the latter their only remedy is to terminate the credit. The object of the contract is different, so must be the remedy.

gldskr

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by gldskr

The borrower's credit had to be removed from the source of the funding. The funds are still fiat but have been created from someone else's credit...

And that credit is staked in the borrower's credit. Ergo when that party became the litigant, the letter of credit was proven. The same setoff was simply shown.

I assume this was tongue in cheek.

I meant that more literally that most readers expected. FRNs are the stock certificates of the Fed. Anybody carrying FRNs qualifies to be a banker. And furthermore if you own stock in any company, you are expected to be a responsible fiduciary - especially with FRNs, since they are really the only stock certificates around expected to go down in value - while you, Mr. Banker gain and profit on the fractional lending that caused the devaluation.

This third party simply took the risk of lending upon the borrower's credit. So when the LoC is tendered and the homeowner now owns the home, a new proceeding is started - this time with the true lender. The homeowner could simply offer another setoff by LoC or simply Refuse the summons for Cause and attach proof the LoC was tendered to the facade lender.

Originally Posted by gldskr

The bank still retains the risk until the note is sold. The risk the third party obtains relates to their transaction with the bank only.

That is why I showed the note. When the note is sold, then whoever bought the note is holding the borrower's credit - the risk.

Originally Posted by gldskr

Contrast this process where one applies for FRN's and that of unsecured revolving credit where one applies for credit. In case of a breach, in the former the bank repossess the collateral; in the latter their only remedy is to terminate the credit. The object of the contract is different, so must be the remedy.

gldskr

Fancy sophistry is still just sophistry.

In the former, the homeowner tendered a letter of credit for the setoff. And in the latter, same instance, the true lender began a foreclosure process. The suitor simply R4C'd the summons and attached proof he had already tendered the LoC to the facade bank.


Regards,

David Merrill.