Vehicle Title

[jaylon]

I was reading some of the older post regarding auto loan titles and I have a question regarding something I read.
The alleged lender has an alleged lien on the vehicle, however if one was to apply for title the lien on the title is not lawful because it does not have a judge's signature.
What is the process to getting this unlaw/alleged lien removed from the title?

Another question, if the title is issued without the alleged lien; could an idividual at that point mail a copy of the new title free and clear to the CRA's to have the alleged lender's info removed?

Originally Posted by jaylon

I was reading some of the older post regarding auto loan titles and I have a question regarding something I read.
The alleged lender has an alleged lien on the vehicle, however if one was to apply for title the lien on the title is not lawful because it does not have a judge's signature.
What is the process to getting this unlaw/alleged lien removed from the title?

Another question, if the title is issued without the alleged lien; could an idividual at that point mail a copy of the new title free and clear to the CRA's to have the alleged lender's info removed?

I DON'T KNOW WHAT STATE YOU LIVE IN BUT IN TEXAS ALL THEY (THE FINANCING COMPANY) NEEDS TO DO IS TYPE THEIR NAME ON THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE UNDER 1ST LIEN HOLDER AND A LIEN IS MAGICALLY CREATED. NO NEED FOR ANY JUDGE TO SIGN ANYTHING.

THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE FINANCING CO. TO FILE ANYWHERE ELSE. THEY DON'T FILE WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OR THE SEC. OF STATE. WHEN THE TAKE YOU COURT IF YOU DON'T GIVE UP THE CAR THEY FILE FOR A WRIT OF SEQUESTRATION OR POSSESSION. ARGUMENTS FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT AND THE TITLE WILL NOT BE HEARD AT THE LOWER COURTS, ALL THE JUDGE HAS TO SEE IS COPIES OF EVERYTHING YOU SIGNED AT CLOSING AND BINGO, YOU HAVE YOURSELF A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU.

[Bill Smith]

The UCC doesn't require that the lien have a judge's lien to make it valid.

Basically, you have two choices: (1) file a lawsuit for declaratory judgment, and try to get the lien removed for whatever valid reasons you have; or (2) pay it off.

[dashboy]

Great post PJT04!!

But also understand at the lower courts if you offer to pay their unsubstantiated claim, upon them turning over those original documents you want back, then what controversey is there to be heard by the lower court judge? Tell them in writing what you want in return for payment, enter it into the court record, and wait for them to perform!
You want all the originals in their original unaltered state right? Will they give them to you? If not call it what it is.........Larceny!

But more importantly just ask the Judge if the bank used their own capital to fund the alleged loan to you!

YOU: Your Honor, is their complaint stating that they (the bank) used their own capital to fund this loan to me and that is why I am obligated to pay it back??

JUDGE: Well, Mr. Bank attorney did your client use its own capital......

What the hell is he going to say?? Yes or No, His answer either way is a knife in his own clients back!!

dashboy~

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by dashboy

Great post PJT04!!

But also understand at the lower courts if you offer to pay their unsubstantiated claim, upon them turning over those original documents you want back, then what controversey is there to be heard by the lower court judge? Tell them in writing what you want in return for payment, enter it into the court record, and wait for them to perform!
You want all the originals in their original unaltered state right? Will they give them to you? If not call it what it is.........Larceny!

But more importantly just ask the Judge if the bank used their own capital to fund the alleged loan to you!

YOU: Your Honor, is their complaint stating that they (the bank) used their own capital to fund this loan to me and that is why I am obligated to pay it back??

JUDGE: Well, Mr. Bank attorney did your client use its own capital......

What the hell is he going to say?? Yes or No, His answer either way is a knife in his own clients back!!

dashboy~

What is he going to say? Well, like most of the judges who see this drivel say: Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

[Bill Smith]

What the hell is he going to say

"Judgment for plaintiff."

While these theories sound good on an internet BBS, they sound as silly as they are in court, and not only will you lose but also the clerk, bailiff and interested spectators will all be smirking at the stupidity of the argument.

[PANICPASS]

YOU: Your Honor, is their complaint stating that they (the bank) used their own capital to fund this loan to me and that is why I am obligated to pay it back??

JUDGE: Well, Mr. Bank attorney did your client use its own capital......


The judge is not a party to the action, therefore you cannot put him "on the stand". He cannot interpret the complaint for you either-- two clues that tell the judge, and the bank's attorney, that you don't know what you are doing.

[masterduke]

Whether you pay off or not, the car/bike/jet ski, you do not get the orginal manufacturs title. That is placed in a trust within the state at the time of sale
to help keep the federal reserve "money out thin air" bubble floating.
All transactions involving commerce; weights/measure standards are the property of one trust or another, autos, credit cards, houses, they are all treated as "recievables" to the trust and are transfered to the trust almost Immediately upon the transaction. So banks, auto loans, unsecured debt, etc.
are just the "servicer" of that trust, what ever it may be, and who may "own" the Trust (mbna's trust for example is "owned" by something called U.S. national bank and all the dough that comes in is divied up as a sale to the trust and then paid out to investment groups; morgan stanley, lemehn brothers, etc. and as such they may be "exempt" in "owing tax" on the recievables) and as this "country" has nothing of value except the "debt" of every man, woman,
and child as collateral (currently about $4,500.00 per person) they have a very tight scheme going that is hard to defeat. whether the black robed wonder or the other "bar members" even have a clue. Gee it seems there was some "wonderful humanatarian" (also financed by the same bunch of "city of london" bank agents, I.E. jp morgan etc) named "Lenin" that called us....
USEFULL IDIOTS???? They get richer, we get poorer. You need to go to the Securties and Exchange Gov. website using "edgar" search and find out who has the trust and usually about a third to half way thru it you will find out what is really going on, and who is making the money, and how there is none of their money in any of these bank loans, etc. they are just a servicer bringing it in so it can be sucked right back out, to the trust of course.
I am still trying to get a handle on this. This is where the source of their presumed power comes from. That Auto Loan is part of some trust and was
"sold" as soon as it was filed. It is against the "law" for a bank to loan out any of its own assets. So whats going on here? The account is empty already.
They create a loan at the "discount window" of the fed in your name and then charge you interest on your own money. And record your account as a recievable to the trust. It's some mighty fancy bookkeeping!

[dashboy]

Originally Posted by Bill Smith

"Judgment for plaintiff."

While these theories sound good on an internet BBS, they sound as silly as they are in court, and not only will you lose but also the clerk, bailiff and interested spectators will all be smirking at the stupidity of the argument.

Haha! You and judge roy are so funny! My point is not to put any judge on the spot. It is to invovle him in the proceedings and show the scam the bank attorney has brought on the court. Natuarlly he will defer the question to the bank attorney to answer! It is a question he must answer!!

What is important is can the bank use its own capital to fund a loan to me??

YES OR NO?? JUDGE ROY OR BILL since you two seem to be so smart!!
YES OR NO??

Simple question WARRANTS A SIMPLE ANSWER! yes or no??

Hmmmmm...... I wonder how stupid it would really look as the court room spectators wait for the bank attorneys answer!

It is obvious neither of you two have any knowledge of banking law!
Hmm....... I wonder what Congress would say to that question??
Oh by dam I think they did answer that question!!!! Hmmmm... Statutes at Large maybe?? OH dam! it is even codified in Title 12 (Banks and Banking)

What a bunch of CON ARTIST YOU TWO ARE!
ANSWERS TALK BULLCRAP WALKS!

SEC. 37. And be it further enacted, That no association shall, either directly or indirectly, pledge or hypothecate any of its notes of circulation, for the purpose of procuring money to be paid in on its capital stock, or to be used in its banking operations, or otherwise; nor shall any association use its circulating notes, or any part thereof, in any manner or form, to create or increase its capital stock.

Sec. 38. And be it further enacted, That no association, or any member thereof, shall, during the time it shall continue its banking operations, withdraw, or permit to be withdrawn, either in form of dividends or otherwise, any portion of its capital. And if losses shall at any time have been sustained by any such association equal to or exceeding its undivided profits then on hand, no dividend shall be made; and no dividend shall ever be made by any association, while it shall continue its banking operations, to an amount greater than its net profits then on band, deducting therefrom its losses and bad debts.

dashboy~

[Jerseee]

Dashboy,

i've been down this road before with the good Judge and when I gave those statutes--he did not rebut them. In fact, he asked for a case that won. Hard to get a case that won when they run to settle instead of getting a judgement.

So don't expect an answer, especially after you provided proof to back your position. They will only run to another topic or avoid answering altogether (or just pick out a word in your post to scrutinize).

Good job!