It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Pauligirl
the fraud consists of thousands or millions of improperly filed filed stamped and signed documents and untill all iregularities are in order the owner canot be harrased for payment
ie your not in defult untill all paper work is 100% they cant even ask for monthly payments legally untill the papers are refiled with the courts
this is only the interpretation of a layman
4closurefraud.org...
No, this doesn't get the guy a free house. It does, however, force the plaintiffs to pay the unpaid doc stamps, pay the homeowner's attorney fees, and re-file once they've done so.
This is a potential stake in the heart of those banks that have negative-amortized loans on their books and try to foreclose - without paying the tax stamps, they lack standing.
More importantly if each transfer required payment then it gets worse, as each assignment may have to be proved and those fees paid too.
Originally posted by XPLodER
just studying ucc law code interesting is this
UCC 3-501 requires a lender to “exhibit the note” when the lender makes demand for payment, and the borrower demands to see the note. Technically a demand for payment occurs every month, and it also occurs when a bank begins foreclosure proceedings.
UCC 3-501 also requires a servicer to show authority to make a demand for payment, if it does not own the note, but is merely servicing it. In the event a noteholder or servicer or will not exhibit the note or perform other legal requirements when requested to do so by the borrower, this UCC section allows the borrower to discontinue payments WITHOUT DISHONOR until such time as the noteholder or servicer complies with all laws or contract provisions.
external link
loanworkout.org...
this means anyone as part of being asked for monthly payment you the borrower can ask the bank to see the note you are paying against and if they cannot produce it you can go to court and suspend payments without default (can a lawer confirm or deny this)?
this is not intended as legal advice or financial advice please seek profecional advice by bonded bar accoiciated lawers no responcability is accepted for using this material for anything other than educatioal purpoes to stir bebate
the mers process is corrupt and does not follow UCC code and allows fifty million plus morgages to be questioned for fraud
XPLOder
Plaintiff’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.
Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.
Originally posted by XPLodER
this one gets his house free hold no lein with tittle
xp
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 4-561 / 02-1889
Filed September 9, 2004
CHASE MANHATTEN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LYNN E. GOODRICH and LEANA M. GOODRICH,
Defendants-Appellants,
HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and GENERAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC.,
Defendants.
III. Discussion.
Several of the separate contentions articulated by the Goodriches posit that the summary judgment record was insufficient to support the summary judgment and decree of foreclosure. 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 district court did by order authorize the foreclosure despite Chase's failure to produce the original note. Thus, we conclude the summary judgment record was not insufficient to support the judgment of foreclosure despite Chase's failure to produce the original of the note. Our resolution of this issue is strongly influenced by the fact that the Goodriches make no contention that either Chase's Lost Note Affidavit or the foreclosure decree misstated any term of the promissory note.
Several of the separate contentions articulated by the Goodriches posit that the summary judgment record was insufficient to support the summary judgment and decree of foreclosure. 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 district court did by order authorize the foreclosure despite Chase's failure to produce the original note. Thus, we conclude the summary judgment record was not insufficient to support the judgment of foreclosure despite Chase's failure to produce the original of the note. Our resolution of this issue is strongly influenced by the fact that the Goodriches make no contention that either Chase's Lost Note Affidavit or the foreclosure decree misstated any term of the promissory note.
After MERS, . . . the servicing rights were transferred after the origination of the loan to an entity so large that communication with the servicer became difficult if not impossible. . . . The servicer was interested in only one thing – making a profit from the foreclosure of the borrower’s residence – so that the entire predatory cycle of fraudulent origination, resale, and securitization of yet another predatory loan could occur again. This is the legacy of MERS, and the entire scheme was predicated upon the fraudulent designation of MERS as the ‘beneficiary’ under millions of deeds of trust in Nevada and other states.”
MERS now holds over 62 million mortgages in its name, including over half of all new U.S. residential mortgage loans. But courts are increasingly ruling that MERS is merely a nominee, without standing to foreclose on the collateral that makes up a major portion of the portfolios of
some very large banks. It seems the banks claiming to be the real parties in interest may have short-circuited themselves out of the chain of title entitling them to the collateral.
Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Pauligirl
do you understand = do you stand under the authority of the maritime laws and be held accountable by decitions made on this ship