Cites - Possession of Promissory Note Required

[Jerseee]

Codee,

A note is a note--as long as its negotiable. $$$$$ these are backed by faith. The notes I use are backed by law and their own code.

So if you use a sheet of $$$$$ just make sure your not infringing on their copyrighted material--this is not honorable.

But creating your own note backed by law and supported by their own code is a one of a kind thing--and its honorable.

Now if they refuse the note--then there is no "debt". No one can demand payment in a particular form of currency other than gold or silver (maybe even palladium).

use the laws that are here and support your actions with the very same codes that they use.

have fun

[mrg]

I have a "judgment."

Amount of judgment certified in public record in verbatim is:
1588.00

Pursuant to (Court Order No.)

Pay to XXXXXXXXXXX

1588.00

One thousand eighty eight and zero one hundredths.


by Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx for XXXXXX XXXXXXX

All rights reserved, without prejudice

No Liability Assumed - No Value Assured - Without Recourse

Jurat (or not)

Exactly what they stated is exactly what they charged yes?

Is this not what I am exactly presenting to discharge?

The signature is the promise, yes?

[mnchicago]

Monday 30 October 2006

A few thoughts from reading this thread:

Promissory Notes, with respect to a mortgage, and it is
similar for credit cards, are securities once signed by the
"borrower."

The bank then sells the Note, usually for a gov't bond,
and records the gov't bond proceeds as cash on their
books. Gov't bonds permit the bank to create what is
called "checkbook money," and put this into a "transaction
account" from which the bank issues a check to pay the
seller of the property.

The "borrower" provided his/her signature that gave value
to the Note. The bank paid the seller with "checkbook
money," which is not the same as money.

When you check your coat somewhere and receive a
"coat check," it represents your coat, but it is NOT your
coat.

The same with "checkbook money." It represents the
deposit of the value the "borrower" provided. Without
the Note, the bank cannot "create" the "checkbook money."

A check is NOT money. A check represents money.

The value of the borrower's signature represents future
labor/earnings. That is the borrower's consideration.
The "borrower" provides his/her signature in expectation
of receiving a loan of money.

He/she never receives a loan of money. He/she receives
a check representing imaginary money. The bank has
breached the contract.

The original Note is important to show that it was altered
after the "borrower" signed it, without the "borrower's"
knowledge, authorization, or permission.

Further, because the bank sold the Note to raise the
asset to back the creation of "checkbook money" PRIOR
to making an alleged loan, the bank stole the Note.

No bank can own a Note unless it gives value as
consideration. Without actually owning the Note, the
bank is not legally able to sell it.

Check the Note. Nowhere in the Note terms does it give the
bank permission to do what it immediately does after obtaining
one's signature.

Without that signature, without that Note, the bank cannot
lend a dime. In fact, the bank never does lend a dime, or
even a single penney. It lends checkbook money.

Check the Note. The "borrower" signed on for a loan of
MONEY.

Check the Note: "In return for a loan that I have
received, I promise to pay US$xxx,xxx.xx....

"a" loan?

"a" is an indefinite article, unspecific. Why not the loan,
for US$xxx,xxx.xx that "I" am agreeing to repay.

Makes me wonder, what is "a" loan? It must not be "THE"
loan "I" thought "I" was getting according to the terms of the
agreement.

Turns out, that is true. It wasn't.



Best not to allege fraud. Fraud is much harder to prove,
and the burden of proof shifts back to you. As was already
pointed out, Breach of Contract is the way to go.

No judge, no bank, and no bank attorney will just roll over
and not put up a fight. Most people do not fully understand
the process and procedures for holding the bank's feet
to the fire.

Who provided the asset that funded the loan? Surely,
not the bank.

All mortgages, and all credit cards are based upon this form
of breach of contract, constructive fraud.

The bank sells the Note for a gov't bond, let's use $100,000.00
as an example. Now the bank has a $100,000.00 asset on its books.

Using that, it "creates" ANOTHER $100,000.00 in a
"transaction account," from which it issues a "check" of
imaginary money to pay the seller and demand repayment
from you.

Eventually, you repay $100,000.00, plus another $200,000.00,
in interest over the life of the loan.

The bank got all the $100,000.00 of "checkbook money"
it loaned. But wait! Wait about the original $100,000.00
the bank received when it "sold" your Note?

Icing on the cake, wouldn't you say?

The bank loaned zero money and got back about $200,000.00, plus all that interest.

What was the stated rate of interest on the "loan?"
Seems like infinity to me, regardless of what is stated.

"Uh, Mr Banker, from whose account was that check issued
to pay the seller? I don't have any account with you."

So many questions.

I started a thread, "Follow The Money" about the Fed
stealing this country blind. The above is a perfect example
of how it is done.

I haven't seen too many people upset enough to do anything
about it.

But that is just my POV.

[mrg]

Excellent post.

People are upset, most do not have any idea what they are upset about.

Just a splinter in the mind.

And a gaping whole in the wallet, if not their soul.

It seems very difficult to get a group of lawyers to let a non lawyer pin them into a position where they must admit to the truth.

One of the lawyers will want to be called "your honor."

The most salient questions will likely not be allowed to be asked in the midst of these lawyers.

Breach of contract, if you want to go at them, and good luck with that too.

Get the CPA who has done the bank audit on the witness stand under oath, to do some "splain'in."

That's the one to go after.

Good luck with that too.

These are some really slick, sick, con men; there is a whole world of interest at stake and people are willing to kill for it; millions if need be.

Has been done, is being done.

I forget the song but one of the lines is:

"there' s a hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes..."

Who's "daddy?"

Whose "daddy?"

[mrg]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

§ 25-3-309.

How does one prove when there is no evidence?

Impossible.

By calling in the guys n gals with the guns and calling that "evidence" if you say the word impossible too insistently?

[Levi Philos]

Originally Posted by MN von Chicago

I haven't seen too many people upset enough to do anything about it.

What you are writing about in post#93 is what I call the "theft of the seigniorage" and for some depth of understanding, I recommend reading what Prof. Auiti of Italy wrote about the induction of value into money symbols. (FYI, Auriti died this past summer)

Your post #93 to this thread is 100% correct, but in reply to people upset about the situation enough to do something, I supply the following links:

Gold is Money dot info forum has a thread called "Community Currencies" which now has 63 posts and nearly 2,000 views: http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/t...urrencies.html where you will find many many links to efforts toward bypassing centralized money models.

Also check this next resource rich website:

Online Database of Complementary Currencies Worldwide

Summary of all Reports: http://www.complementarycurrency.org...ort&specId=218


General Catalog: http://www.complementarycurrency.org...ort&specId=167


Library - Sorted by Author - 20 items per page - 9 pages => about 180 authors:
http://www.complementarycurrency.org...ort&specId=227


World Map of Complementary Currencies: http://www.complementarycurrency.org...s/worldmap.php


Image Gallery: http://www.complementarycurrency.org/gallery.php

[mnchicago]

Friday 3 November 2006

Henry:

How does one prove there is no evidence?

Good question.

In a court of equity, the judge can do anything. Stick
to denial of the bank being holder in due course.

The one remaining "bullet" is breach of contract. The
mortgagee failed to give value in their consideration.
The mortgagee gave checkbook money, not cash money.
Huge difference.

It has nothing to do with seinorage, as suggested. In
fact, you should not even be arguing money at all. The
judge will shut you down.

Stick to what the mortgagee cannot provide: answers
to questions that will prove their fraud in the factum.

It ain't easy, and no bank will just lie down. Banks have
sharp lawyers, but truth, even in a den of in-equity, can
and will prevail if the proper ground-work is developed.

Regards,

mn

[courttroubles]

Hello,

I joined Suijuris within the last few weeks. I feel there's alot of good people giving good answers for the most part on this. And I've responded with DM via private message.

However, I'm still stupid and biased to all of this knowing that alot of this is true and some of it seems to be questionable. So I haven't filed a RFC yet as David has suggested doing.

I initially bought my home in June 97. Then refinanced in Aug o4. The refi people wrote my note up as a pur money note instead of refi. Where I got hit with a arm instead of a fixed rate and I went 100% ltv.

However, I've also lost my means of income due to my former employer never having it in their contracts to sell notes for Chase. Another story all together but kinda interlinks the current troubles my family is having as here in STL. MO there's not alot of jobs for a 3rd party bill collector on mortgages. Unless I relocate to an area like NY,CA, FL, NC. So I fell behind on my 2nd mortgage in Oct. 05

I tried to reinstate in Feb 06 so I wouldn't have a impending foreclosure. All I wanted was the reinstatement figure and to make a pymt via phn. However, I never received it up until they almost foreclosed in June 06.

Right before foreclosure sale I found out they don't know who owns my mortgage note. So they stopped the foreclosure sale.

In doing my DD--I realized finally when they tried to foreclose that originating bank Argent-Mortgage did a substitute trustee thing where they put a foreclsoure initiation company as grantee. Which means they would be the buyer. But also in same do***ent it shows Wells Fargo as being note owner somehow with all this.

Well this has put a hindrance on me relocating for better employment/and hubby doesn't want to move. So I've been left in a terrible situation to where if I leave and things aren't working out he could file for divorce 1st and obtain custody of my children. As I've been trying to educate myself before just jumping gun.

So with set of circm***stances being the way they are we ended up filing for a chp 13 last yr in Oct. We told our attorney about the whole mess. And like everyone else trying to work on a quality relationship.

Attorney wanted matter proven in court. Then judge gave Plantiff like two months to present evidence. And all they could show was their copy and a blank assignment do***ent from servicer. So whose receiving our money after payment has been our gripe. That if we pay them who actually owns the debt.

After the do***entation was submitted earlier this yr. judge denied them payment of my 2nd mortgage saying their not owed pymts from trustee or what my reg paymnt would be outside of the chp 13 to servicer.

Which is good. However, my hubby just got better employmnt as a union diesel mechanic so it'll help bring us up financially to where I may not be left with the only choice to relocate since his salary will help compensate more to where we could possibly catch things up...However, we've fallen behind on mrtge pymts to 1st and our trustee pymts.

And about two weeks ago my attorney told me he won't be filing adversary against 2nd lender as promised months prior because he's not being paid from trustee.But even when he was getting paid he never filed it.

So 1st has received the lift of stay to foreclose on my home. However, MO Statutes require they notify any subsequent lienholders on property. Which if they try to do they'll be notifying people who haven been proven to not know who owns my debt. As Argent/Amerqst say they sold to Homeq serv released...And anyone Homeq has told me that owns note hasn't taken ownership over this.

So now with my attorney quitting and me not being an attorney I'm trying the best to put together a letter to the judge that will have final word on the dismissal of my chp 13. Which I don't want. But feel I should stay within to protect myself from the wolves. As I do have four chldrn 9 and under and have a good case I feel. But I'm not sure what to do next. I tried to find out about the PSA from either of my lienholders to see if that would lead us to the rightful owner.

The county doesn't won't remove what's in records without a special do***ent. Which I would assume to be a satisfaction of mortgage since I proved they don't know who owns since their assignmnt do***ent the name of who owns is left out but is notarized.

I'm stumped in what to file with bar for a discplinary action of my inadequate attorney. And to get my lien rectified. In that I'm notified if they try to foreclose that they can't even being that the 2nd lienhldr shown can't be notified because its been proven they don't own. And maybe any good trial lawyers here in MO. But so far NO one in over a year has wanted to take the case.

So GO GOVERNMENT? WHO CAN BE SUED? What is the process besides the UCC thing since I've seen it doesn't always work that people still lose their homes? I'm not iliterate but know I've been reading as much as I can about various things and cases but still don't see a clear path to make sure they pay us for their injustice to us and our credit.

Thanks A bunch!

Kathy

[Levi Philos]

http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/arti..._Boyko/01.html

Deutsche Bank Foreclosures Tossed Out of Ohio Federal Court - "They Own Nothing!"
2007-11-12

by Moe Bedard and Aaron Krowne

Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Eastern Ohio United States District Court, on October 31, 2007 dismissed 14 Deutsche Bank-filed foreclosures in a ruling based on lack of standing for not owning/holding the mortgage loan at the time the lawsuits were filed.

Judge Boyko issued an order requiring the Plaintiffs in a number of pending foreclosure cases to file a copy of the executed Assignment demonstrating Plaintiff (Deutsche Bank) was the holder and owner of the Note and Mortgage as of the date the Complaint was filed, or the court would enter a dismissal.

The Court's amended General Order No. 2006-16 requires Plaintiff (Deutsche Bank) to submit an affidavit along with the complaint, which identifies Plaintiff as the original mortgage holder, or as an assignee, trustee or successor-interest.

Apparently Deutsche bank submitted several affidavits that claim that Deutsche was in fact the owner of the mortgage note, but none of these affidavits mention assignment or trust or successor interest.

Thus, the Judge ruled that in every instance, these submissions create a "conflict" and they "do not satisfy" the burden of demonstrating at the time of filing the complaint, that Deutsche Bank was in fact the "legal" note holder.

While the decision is great for homeowners in distress (due to providing a new escape hatch out of foreclosure), it is a big blow to the cause of sorting out the high-finance side of the mortgage mess.

Jacksonville Area Legal Aid Attorney, April Charney, broke this news to us via email and made these comments in regards to the Ohio Federal Court ruling (emphasis ours):

This court order is what I have been saying in my cases. This is rampant fraud on every court in America or nonjudicial foreclosure fraud where the securitized trusts are filing foreclosures when they never own/hold the mortgage loan at the commencement of the foreclosure.

That means that the loans are clearly in default at the time of any eventual transfer of the ownership of the mortgage loans to the trusts. This means that the loans are being held by the originating lenders after the alleged "sale" to the trust despite what it says per the pooling and servicing agreements and despite what the securities laws require.

This also means that many securitized trusts don't really, legally own these bad loans.

In my cases, many of the trusts try to argue equitable assignment that predates the filing of the foreclosure, but a securitized trust cannot take an equitable assignment of a mortgage loan. It also means that the securitized trusts own nothing.

So with this decision, it appears confirmed that investors in the mortgage debacle may in fact own nothing---not even the bad loans they funded! It seems their right to the cash flow from the underlying properties does not extend to ownership of the properties themselves; thus clouding the recovery picture considerably.

Charney further remarked to us:

This opinion, once circulated and adopted by state and Federal courts across the country, will stop the progress of foreclosures, at first in judicial foreclosure states, across America, dead in their tracks.

We agree with additional remarks Charney made pointing out that this decision has major adverse implications for the prospects of an amicable financial workout for the various investor contingents in mortgage-backed securities (MBSes). Doubt is cast on where the full write-downs will eventually land, and this uncertainty can only be expected to further harm the market value of MBS and MBS-based synthetic securities, already in shambles purely due to rising underlying delinquencies. Investors in these securities might have assumed---wrongly, it turns out---that they actually owned some "real estate" in these deals.

To paraphrase Jim Cramer, "They own nothing!"

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by Levi Philos

http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/arti..._Boyko/01.html

Deutsche Bank Foreclosures Tossed Out of Ohio Federal Court - "They Own Nothing!"
2007-11-12

by Moe Bedard and Aaron Krowne

Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Eastern Ohio United States District Court, on October 31, 2007

There only appears to be a Northern Ohio and Southern Ohio USDC.

No Eastern.


Still, I am looking for an order.

BOYKO Does Business as a Judge in the Northern District of Ohio, and he claims, as such, to be "honorable."