Promissory Note Thread Derailed by the "Judge"

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

... The judge (or administrator or anyone for that matter) cannot compel you to abide by a contract that is unlawful.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. It has to be proven to be unlawful first, and then ruled and ordered so by the appropriate court, which in the case of any ruling against a mortgage servicer, will result in perpetual appeals until the borrower simply has no more resources to continue the fight.

BTW - judges routinely compel compliance with contracts during lawsuits, so don't assume you won't have to operate as required by the note during the course of your suit.


The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com

[weishaupt1776]

Welcome to the forum, judge Bean.

[dashboy]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Sorry, but that is simply not true. It has to be proven to be unlawful first, and then ruled and ordered so by the appropriate court, which in the case of any ruling against a mortgage servicer, will result in perpetual appeals until the borrower simply has no more resources to continue the fight.

BTW - judges routinely compel compliance with contracts during lawsuits, so don't assume you won't have to operate as required by the note during the course of your suit.


The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com

The Honorable Judge Roy Bean,
So when you say proven unlawful, what do you mean? Would showing that the lendor did something outside its authority such as loaning its credit, or loaning out its capital stock, or infact loaning other depositors money (assets) be considered unlawful. I have gotten at least ten letters from the lendor claiming I have reneged upon my CREDIT OBLIGATION. It even states right in the notes I was borrowing credit. I keep asking them whose credit did they lend me? Of course no answer..ever!! There is not a mention of their ability to loan credit in its articles of incorporation either!

So would not the note/agreement itself be considered ultra vires right on its face? I've got plenty of statutes, codes, and case law to show they can not do any of the above.

dashboy~

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by dashboy

The Honorable Judge Roy Bean,
So when you say proven unlawful, what do you mean? Would showing that the lendor did something outside its authority such as loaning its credit, or loaning out its capital stock, or infact loaning other depositors money (assets) be considered unlawful. I have gotten at least ten letters from the lendor claiming I have reneged upon my CREDIT OBLIGATION. It even states right in the notes I was borrowing credit. I keep asking them whose credit did they lend me? Of course no answer..ever!! There is not a mention of their ability to loan credit in its articles of incorporation either!

So would not the note/agreement itself be considered ultra vires right on its face? I've got plenty of statutes, codes, and case law to show they can not do any of the above.

dashboy~

Something is proven unlawful when it has been ruled on by a court with the appropriate jurisdiction.

Playing word games with them about your view of their "authority" will only dig you in deeper and you'll take others down with you when they try to mount specious defenses with these kinds of theories. And, they don't have to answer your rhetorical questions.

The lenders are already far too powerful and greedy and have to be dealt with through legitimate legal processes and public condemnation to effect change in the regulatory statutes, but recommending illegitimate defenses to people in trouble is only making more victims and extending their misery.

The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com

[Jerseee]

Welcome to the forum Judge Roy Bean!

Altering a document after its been signed is enough to get them on. Also, i'm not just referring to mortgage notes. Forgery is a serious offense that cannot and should not be glossed over with technicalities. A judge cannot force you to break the law--if so there is recourse against that.

I understand fully what you are saying and I'm not in disagreement with you but even the judge or administrator has to have a govenorning case to back their decision.

Good response.

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Sorry, but that is simply not true. It has to be proven to be unlawful first, and then ruled and ordered so by the appropriate court, which in the case of any ruling against a mortgage servicer, will result in perpetual appeals until the borrower simply has no more resources to continue the fight.

BTW - judges routinely compel compliance with contracts during lawsuits, so don't assume you won't have to operate as required by the note during the course of your suit.


The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com

[dashboy]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Something is proven unlawful when it has been ruled on by a court with the appropriate jurisdiction.

Playing word games with them about your view of their "authority" will only dig you in deeper and you'll take others down with you when they try to mount specious defenses with these kinds of theories. And, they don't have to answer your rhetorical questions.

The lenders are already far too powerful and greedy and have to be dealt with through legitimate legal processes and public condemnation to effect change in the regulatory statutes, but recommending illegitimate defenses to people in trouble is only making more victims and extending their misery.

The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com

Judge Roy Bean,
Below are a few case sites from courts with competent subject matter jurisdiction. Is this what you mean by proven unlawful since you did not specify what you meant? Is material alteration/forgery considered unlawful as Jerseee has pointed out? Us laymen are struggling for our very lives you Honor! Will you stand by and watch your fellow man die? Please specifiy what you mean as proven unlawful. But more importantly Judge Roy Bean, what about what Congress says concerning banks and banking?

"A national bank has no power to lend its credit." (Farmers & Miners Bank vs. Bluefield National Bank, 11 F2d 83, 271 US 669)

"Banking Associations from the very nature of their business are prohibited from lending credit." (St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557)

"National Banks may lend their money but not their credit." (Norton Grocery vs. Peoples National Bank, 144 S.E. 501, 151 Va. 195)

dashboy~

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by dashboy

Judge Roy Bean,
Below are a few case sites from courts with competent subject matter jurisdiction. Is this what you mean by proven unlawful since you did not specify what you meant? Is material alteration/forgery considered unlawful as Jerseee has pointed out? Us laymen are struggling for our very lives you Honor! Will you stand by and watch your fellow man die? Please specifiy what you mean as proven unlawful. But more importantly Judge Roy Bean, what about what Congress says concerning banks and banking?

"A national bank has no power to lend its credit." (Farmers & Miners Bank vs. Bluefield National Bank, 11 F2d 83, 271 US 669)

"Banking Associations from the very nature of their business are prohibited from lending credit." (St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557)

"National Banks may lend their money but not their credit." (Norton Grocery vs. Peoples National Bank, 144 S.E. 501, 151 Va. 195)

dashboy~

Oh, dear, I sense the "no money lent" scheme afoot.

See: Alcorn and Allen v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA., 2003 Tex. App. Lexis 5656 (Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District), to wit:

"Alcorn and Allen take the position that, when they executed and delivered the home equity note to Long Beach Mortgage Company, the note did not evidence a debt from them to the mortgage company, but instead 'created' money belonging to them that they do not owe to anyone. This is a legally erroneous concept."

The absurdity of the no-consideration argument (as if only credit was lent to the debtor via the promissory note) is obvious to the courts.

Federal law basically defines a loan or extension of credit as direct or indirect advances of funds made on the basis that the person is obligated to repay them. (I don't have the paragraphs at hand, but the case is Colorado Springs National Bank v. United States, 505 F2d which also cites another case, United States v. Philadelphia National Bank.)

You're throwing lead-lined life-jackets to non-swimming debtors with these diversions that will only end up creating more grief for them.

The Honorable Judge Roy Bean.
http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com

[Jerseee]

Judge Roy Bean,

That is all well and good--but how can any judge/administrator ignore forgery? Is there any case that supports them to do that? My questions are way past the money question. It is obvious, that the alleged borrower funds the loan. My question is about the indorsements behind their backs after one has signed any document.

Thanks

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Judge Roy Bean,

That is all well and good--but how can any judge/administrator ignore forgery? Is there any case that supports them to do that? My questions are way past the money question. It is obvious, that the alleged borrower funds the loan. My question is about the indorsements behind their backs after one has signed any document.

Thanks

Jerseee,

Judge Bean does not believe as we do on this forum. He is one that does not believe the borrower funded the loan. He is a regular on Quatloos, just in case you did not know. Most over there talk about the "vapor money" theory. They actually believe that there was actual "money" lent and do not hold to the fact that the "money" was created upon the signature of the borrower despite all the evidence to the contrary. Heidi Guedel, as you know, has done a good job of quoting what various economists have had to say about the creation of "Money out of thin air" and the federal reserve. Most on Quatloos think that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the promise made to pay back "money" lent. I say hogwash. How can you be required to pay back something that was never really lent out in the first place?

[dashboy]

"Neither, as to include in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank's business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was not careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics . . . Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of banking, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another." (American Express Co. vs. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429)

How simple can I make this? There was consideration given.... I never said there was not! The only question concerning the consideration is Who's dam consideration is given in a unilateral contract that specifies only the performance of the alleged debtor? What is it you are not understanding about my question?

What is it that you mean by proven unlawful?

There is no word games here my friend! Please tell us who have no clue as to what you mean by this and what you mean by legitimate defenses! Enlighten us in laymens terms so that we can be brought up to your level of expertise, because at this point, I find it extremely difficult to call Dr. David H. Friedman, writer of Money & Banking 5th Edition (Published by the American Bankers Association) and former Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York a liar! Unless of course you have undisputed evidential proof that he is one!

Dashboy~