Cites - Possession of Promissory Note Required

[truth4all]

I am really new to all of this so please bear with me.
How does one use a court officer to RE-demand verification?

Originally Posted by dashboy

Sui Juris,

I have been studying under the School of Debt Freedom taught by Grand Master Jerseee. I am in the process of using his method to wOOp some bankster arse and escape their serfdom!!! I have gone over the cites you provided concerning possession of Promissory note by the creditor/ lender. Excellent Ammunition to cause major bloodshed!! One question though….Are they stupid or is just me? Why would they not have the original promissory note on hand? What happens to that note after it leaves my presence with my signature upon it? I understand that it becomes an asset and a liability and is used in the “transaction Concept” of Money to unjustly enrich them by use of my signature, but where does it go? Do they send it to the Federal Reserve for Credit or something? I did read that The Depository Trust for the Fed Reserve, The DTC aka Cede & Co. holds like 20 trillion in assets in the form of certificates, titles, notes, deeds, ect…

See http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_...010-000923.htm

Maybe this is where it went? Three months ago I asked the bank who furnished my auto loan for a copy of the original Promissory note and payment history just to check a discrepancy my wife saw in what they say we owed on the vehicle. They wrote back saying there would be a fee of $2.00 per page and it would take 14 business days. I told them I would pay it. I have spoken to them two more times since asking what is taking so long, to which I get the reply it should be sent out any day. I smell a RAT!!! I am certain they payment history is no problem for them to print up so I am suspecting there is a problem with the promissory note. It is almost like they sent someone on foot to the Bank of England to go get it!! Any thoughts here??



dashboy aka Andre’

dashboy,
I am in VA. I asked a bank to present me with the promissory note on my vechicle and got blasted with a 4 page refusal to provide any promissory note by the CEO himself. He did provide a copy of the loan papers though. According to him he covered under state and federal laws that say he does not have to show me a promissory note. I have no idea what laws he is refering to. Anyone have any ideas as to what he maybe talking about? I suspect he is blowing smoke, 4 pages of it.
1Sissygirl

sissygirl,

Check your Private Messages

[dashboy]

Ok people, I think we may be losing sight of some major issues here. How the hell can it be claimed you never signed a note in your affidavit then turn around and counter claim upon breach of contract. Your claim of breach on their part, implies you went to them for a loan and placed your signature on a note. So don't claim you did not sign the note. You claim the signature did not authenticate or validate what the bank has done through its ommissions of terms and conditions afterwards. You satisfied your part of the agreement by giving them the note, and now you are still awaiting their performance. Your Note is the funds that supplied you with the purchased property (automobile), not theirs!

That Note is your property, not theirs!! You are the issuer, maker, drawer of that note Dammit!! NOT THEM!!!Start reading the UCC for you state. Depending on what that bank does with your note after you sign it and they take it from you determines everything. What the bank does with that note determines what role the bank will play.

UCC 8-501 says:
8501. (a) "Securities account" means an account to which a
financial asset is or may be credited in accordance with an agreement
under which the person maintaining the account undertakes to treat
the person for whom the account is maintained as entitled to exercise
the rights that comprise the financial asset.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (d) and (e), a
person acquires a security entitlement if a securities intermediary
does any of the following:
(1) Indicates by book entry that a financial asset has been
credited to the person's securities account.
(2) Receives a financial asset from the person or acquires a
financial asset for the person and, in either case, accepts it for
credit to the person's securities account.
(3) Becomes obligated under other law, regulation, or rule to
credit a financial asset to the person's securities account.
(c) If a condition of subdivision (b) has been met, a person has a
security entitlement even though the securities intermediary does
not itself hold the financial asset.
(d) If a securities intermediary holds a financial asset for
another person, and the financial asset is registered in the name of,
payable to the order of, or specially endorsed to the other person,
and has not been endorsed to the securities intermediary or in blank,
the other person is treated as holding the financial asset directly
rather than as having a security entitlement with respect to the
financial asset.
(e) Issuance of a security is not establishment of a security
entitlement.

So what did the bank do with your note? When did your obligation to repay becomes an asset? When did it become a security? Did they put it into a transaction account? Did they credit your transaction account with that note? Did they tell you your note was a financial asset or a security after they took it from you? Did they tell you they were going to use it for their own gain? Did they tell you they were going to use your credit from that account to send a check or similar to the merchant you made the purchase from? Why are they using the credit from your note and not their own shares or capital stock to send to the merchant? I thought you went into the bank to get a loan form them, in which you borrower their money, not your own credit back to you? The Note is your credit people not theirs!! The Breach of contract is in the fact that they said they were going to loan you their money not your note monetized into another form back to you!!! They left all of that out of the agreement didnt they? They did it puposefully so they could steal from you!! I looks like they acted in bad faith to me. It looks like they acted as a servicer/ broker (A middleman between you and the merchant) rather than a lender!

Is your bank registered at the SEC as a broker/ dealer? Does your bank wear several hats such as broker, servicer, transfer agent, safekeeper, dealer, or trustee all at the same time to suit the situation for their gain? Can your Bank lend you their property (money)??
If it is federally insured, it sure the hell can not!! (See 12 USC 1 et seq., 24 seventh, and see 12 USC Chp 2 subchp 4 sec. 83, and see 12 CFR Part 37.) These thieves lie!!

The breach is due to the banks diliberate fraud! To make you think you got a loan! The fraud is intertwined into the very agreement itself. It is also intertwined into banking law! There own banking laws counterdicts itself so they must say one law supercedes another!! Their banking laws tell us negotiable instruments are not money in regards to fund transfers or investment securities, yet at the very same time that is what they use them for!! Since ther is no more real money of exchange in circulation for the payment of debts (ie Gold or Silver) they are using our IOU's/obligations as money!!

READ TITLE 12 and 12 CFR people! Read the Monetary control ACT of 1980. Read the the Federal reserve act of 1933. Read the Federal Credit Union Act. Read UCC articles 9,8,4, and 3 in that order! Article 9 supercedes the rest of them and each lower article does the same! Read the definintions in these articles also!
Pin them down on what they did with your notes! Typically in an auto loan you sign two notes! One at the car dealership and another at the bank. The note at the dealership is transfered to the bank and placed into a transaction account in your name. A check is cut and forwarded back to the auto dealership for the price of the car. So basically they float a check to the car dealership. That note can then go several ways! it can be monetized for up to nine times the amount and placed into the banks excess reserves (used for their own account), or it can be immediately sold (bundled with other securities) on the open market. You then come into the bank to sign your loan papers for what you think is a loan, but little do you know that all is a done deal except for the swindle over your eyes as the grand finale! The make you sign a second note with an attached security agreement giving them rights to use you car as collateral should you not repay the fantom loan! You know the rest of the story!!

Originally Posted by dashboy

How the hell can it be claimed you never signed a note in your affidavit then turn around and counter claim upon breach of contract. Your claim of breach on their part, implies you went to them for a loan and placed your signature on a note.

The Deed of trust is the contract that they breached as well.

The DOT says that the Note, (read: not a copy) evidences the debt.

If they try to foreclose with a copy, that is a breach of agreement re the Deed of trust that they presented.

Mortgage companies register the Deed, so a certified copy of the deed is allowable, but they never register the note, thus the original has to be produced when demanded.

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

The Deed of trust is the contract that they breached as well.

The DOT says that the Note, (read: not a copy) evidences the debt.

If they try to foreclose with a copy, that is a breach of agreement re the Deed of trust that they presented.

Mortgage companies register the Deed, so a certified copy of the deed is allowable, but they never register the note, thus the original has to be produced when demanded.

Are you aware that the UCC code was revised in 2001? All the court cases cited in this thread are prior to that, with the exception of the Goodrich case (2004) which states in part: "Central to these contentions is the mistaken notion that a judgment of foreclosure could not be entered because Chase failed to produce the original of the promissory note. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.961 contemplates that judgment on a note may be entered without production of the original note if the court so orders."

The revised code as to notes:§ 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 it 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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/searc...le3.htm#s3-309


To summarize, under the UCC possession is not an indication of ownership of the note. Recording of collateral assignments is not required under Revised Article 9. Enforcement of the debt without the note is allowable under Article 3. Equitable arguments are available to prevent a borrower from benefiting from the industry's inability to keep track of its documents.
http://www.firstam.com/faf/html/cust/jm-sales.html

[Freedomless]

There is no inability to keep track of its documents. The attorney told me that they destroy the document. Why is this purposefuly done? So that there is no trace of the document. Are these laws being amended for the banks? Hummmm!

[ 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.]

[color=RoyalBlue]How would the court get around this part???

[FrankBonin]

Hello to all like minded who would like to be free. Looks like it is time to ask for help from all who have been through the theft of their property by gov't crooks-namely the IRS and the mortgage co. Sent a bond to get rid of IRS crooks and BOE to Mtg co. and of course both have ignored these as expected. I have looked over much of the material here for sometime from time to time and cannot get a real hadle on what to do and where to go. I understand your reluctance to put boiler plate like docs here, but when one does not know all the in and outs of what to do, and someone has already been through this stuff, it seems to me that everyone benefits when someone wins. This way those who win can help those in need of help, etc. My present sitution is I am to be served soon with the foreclosure papers, and I know with all the find help here someone knows where to look, where to go, someone to contact to give me or anyone else a hand in the right direction. How about folks, isn't it time to kick butt for a change? can anyone lead me in the right direction? Please remember time is against me, so the quickest way to know what to do would be of great help to me and others. thanks, Frank

ATTENTION!!!

It is VERY important to plead the statute of frauds as a defense. (72 Am Jur 2d §1, et seq.) and in your UCC for your state (For NC, it's 25-2-201)

This is very important, as it FORCES them to reveal the original.

If you plead the statute of frauds, admission does NOT trump evidence, they still have to produce the original.

Check out the cites above...