They loaned you Their MONEY? Their FRN's?

[dashboy]

Here some stupidity to use against them::confused:

18 USC Sec. 334 TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY Sec. 334. Issuance of Federal Reserve or national bank notes Whoever, being a Federal Reserve Agent, or an agent or employee of such Federal Reserve Agent, or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, issues or puts in circulation any Federal Reserve notes, without complying with or in violation of the provisions of law regulating the issuance and circulation of such Federal Reserve notes (see R.S. Sec. 5187, 5209); or Whoever, being an officer acting under the provisions of chapter 2 of Title 12, countersigns or delivers to any national banking association, or to any other company or person, any circulating notes contemplated by that chapter except in strict accordance with its provisions - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 700; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(K), 108 Stat. 2147.) HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on sections 581 and 592 of title 12, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Banks and Banking (R.S. Sec. 5187, 5209); Sept. 26, 1918, ch. 177, Sec. 7, 40 Stat. 972; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, Sec. 316, 49 Stat. 712). This section consolidates section 581 and part of section 592 of title 12, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Banks and Banking. The punishment provision was drawn from said section 592 as being the latest expression of congressional intent, in preference to the provision of said section 581 which authorized a fine "not more than double the amount so countersigned and delivered and imprisonment not more than 15 years". The words "shall be guilty of a misdemeanor" were omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of misdemeanor in section 1 of this title. Likewise the words "upon conviction in any district court of the United States" were omitted as unnecessary since punishment can follow only after conviction. (See reviser's note under section 656 of this title for statement of reasons for dividing said section 592 into three revised sections, with consequent changes in phraseology, style, and arrangement.) AMENDMENTS 1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $5,000". SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in title 12 section 324.

Now if you look closely, I highlighted something in red then I underlined it. It is the provisions which the code is talking about! R.S. Sec. 5187, 5209.
HEHE! That R.S = Revised Statutes at Large sections 5187 and 5209. Betcha don't know what they say!

Hmmm...........
Maybe I'll just post R.S. 5187 and 5209 so Judge Roy can make his comments on it! NOT!! haha!

Oh what the hell!
Title 62 of the Revised Statutes Chapter 2 § 5187 and 5209 BOTH OF THESE WRITTEN IN 1864

SEC. 5187. No officer acting under the provisions of this Title shall countersign or deliver to any association, or to any other company or person, any circulating notes contemplated by this Title, except in accordance with the true intent and meaning of its provisions. Every officer who violates this section shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not more than double the amount so countersigned and delivered, and imprisoned not less than one year and not more than fifteen years.


SEC. 5209. Every president, director, cashier, teller, clerk, or agent of any association, who embezzles, abstracts, or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds, or credits of the association; or who, without authority from the directors, issues or puts in circulation any of the notes of the association; or who, without such authority, issues or puts forth any certificate of deposit, draws any order or bill of exchange, makes any acceptance, assigns any note, bond, draft, bill of exchange, mortgage, judgment, or decree; or who makes any false entry in any book, report, or statement of the association, with intent, in either case, to injure or defraud the association or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of the association, or any agent appointed to examine the affairs of any such association; and every person who with like intent aids or abets any officer, clerk, or agent in any violation of this section, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall he imprisoned not less than five years nor more than ten.

Hey Judge Roy? The bank used its own money to loan to me for my house, car, and credit card purchases? Hahaha! NOT!!!

dashboy~

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by dashboy

Here some stupidity to use against them::confused: .....

Hey Judge Roy? The bank used its own money to loan to me for my house, car, and credit card purchases? Hahaha! NOT!!!

dashboy~

They don't loan their own money. They borrow it temporarily until the loan is pooled, goes into the conduit for securitization and on into the bond market. Lather, rinse, repeat. You're not paying the bank back; they just originated the loan and someone else now "owns" it and the rights to service it.

Do a Google search on "mortgage securitization."

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

They don't loan their own money. They borrow it temporarily until the loan is pooled, goes into the conduit for securitization and on into the bond market. Lather, rinse, repeat. You're not paying the bank back; they just originated the loan and someone else now "owns" it and the rights to service it.

Do a Google search on "mortgage securitization."

Why don't you do a Google search on "lawyer incompetence?"

While your at it, define "it" as used above.

You don't know how this process works, do you?

If someone else owns the rights to service it, why is the bank "servicing it" [if by "it" you are referring to the loan in that instance.]

(Kinda makes one feel corrupt for saying "service it.")

Henry Franklin

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

Why don't you do a Google search on "lawyer incompetence?"

While your at it, define "it" as used above.

You don't know how this process works, do you?

If someone else owns the rights to service it, why is the bank "servicing it" [if by "it" you are referring to the loan in that instance.]

(Kinda makes one feel corrupt for saying "service it.")

Henry Franklin

GOOD POST HENRY. ON TOP OF THE BOGUS BANK LOAN ISSUE WE ALSO HAVE TO DEAL WITH MORTGAGE SERVICING FRAUD.
http://www.msfraud.org/index.html

Originally Posted by dashboy

[size=3]

Hey Judge Roy? The bank used its own money to loan to me for my house, car, and credit card purchases? Hahaha! NOT!!!

dashboy~

MY EXPERIENCE IS THEY (THE PLAINTIFFS,BANKS,SERVICERS,ETC)ONLY MENTION THEY PROVIDE THE FINANCING FOR THE "LOAN". THE QUESTION IS HOW CAN THEY SUE IN COURT TO RECOVER THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THIS SO CALLED FINANCING THAT'S TEMPORARILY "BORROWED" FROM THE FED.RESERVE?

[2tim215]

Originally Posted by PJT04

MY EXPERIENCE IS THEY (THE PLAINTIFFS,BANKS,SERVICERS,ETC)ONLY MENTION THEY PROVIDE THE FINANCING FOR THE "LOAN". THE QUESTION IS HOW CAN THEY SUE IN COURT TO RECOVER THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THIS SO CALLED FINANCING THAT'S TEMPORARILY "BORROWED" FROM THE FED.RESERVE?

Excellent point!

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by PJT04

MY EXPERIENCE IS THEY (THE PLAINTIFFS,BANKS,SERVICERS,ETC)ONLY MENTION THEY PROVIDE THE FINANCING FOR THE "LOAN". THE QUESTION IS HOW CAN THEY SUE IN COURT TO RECOVER THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THIS SO CALLED FINANCING THAT'S TEMPORARILY "BORROWED" FROM THE FED.RESERVE?

Mortgage lenders don't borrow from the Fed. They borrow from wholesalers (aka warehouse lenders) who have credit facilities they can draw against to fund loans. When they sell off those loans, the holder in due course becomes the party who will attempt to recover in the case of a default.

[dashboy]

Hey Judge?

Ever heard of Standing? If someone else has bought the alleged loan then what standing does the bank have to sue me? So I take it they are just servicing the loan? Loan servicers have no standing! You should know that or do I need to toss out a myriad of case law to show you that too? Besides Don't make me pull out the statute that says they can not hypothecate or pledge them either! You know I will! With supporting case law too!
Haha!

In addition, the bank misrepresented itself because in my case they were even foolish enough to to declare by affidavit that they used their own capital to loan directly to me! Haha! Someone is going to JAIL!

dashboy~

[Jerseee]

This is a very good thread!!! Very good indeed!!!

May I mention that during this back and forth of buying and selling alleged debt, that somewhere in the paperwork, maybe they keep assigning different trustees.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't it the trustees that come after the alleged debtor?

IMHO, I believe the bank (whoever that is) is the beneficiary.

Just a thought.

[dashboy]

Judge, I love when you respond with such B.S. as they (the banks) borrow from wherehouse lenders like that really makes a difference! What are they borrowing? Credit! Right? Judge what are bank notes? Are they not promissory notes issued by banks? Meaning IOU's known as credit? Doesn't their bank notes circulate as money? Who do you think the warehouse lenders are Judge? Are they not other banks and financial instutitions?

1. National Bank Act at 13 Stat 99 Sec 39. “That no association shall at any time pay out on loans or discounts, or in purchasing drafts or bills of exchange, or in payment of deposits, or in any other mode pay or put in circulation the notes of any bank or banking association which shall not, at any such time, be receivable, at par, on deposit and in payment of debts by the association so paying out or circulating such notes; nor shall it knowingly pay out or put in circulation any notes issued by any bank or banking association which at the time of such paying out or putting in circulation is not redeeming its circulating notes in lawful money of the United States.

So some bank is still breaking the LAW! Who the hell are all these people in my business and when did I agree to let them into my contract with the bank? When did I agree to have my property (notes) entered into a trust?
a. Trust
b. Trustor
c. Grantor
d. Trustee
e. Beneficiary
f. Administrator
g. Servicer (including any and all subservicer(s) and master servicers)
h. Issuer
i. Confirmer
j. Drawer
k. Drawee
l. Beneficiary
m. Customer
n. Presenter
o. Nominated person
p. Successor of a beneficiary

For God sake Judge, I did not know all of this crap because they never told me not put it in the contract! I thought I was going down to the bank to borrow its money and that is why I was supposedly obligated to pay it back! Is this not what they led the people to believe? All this other crap is flat out MISREPRESENTATION, and FRAUD IN THE FACTUM leading directly to BREACH OF CONTRACT Judge!

dashboy~