Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sick Of Paying Your Mortgage? You May Not Have To Pay!

page: 13
67
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Here is an update since I sent out the request in the original post.

Yesterday and today, I finally heard from my mortgage company (Wells Fargo). Yesterday was a beg and plea session for my financial information because they are certain they can get me into a loan modification. My only reply was, send me a copy of the note.

The calls are recorded, so I did not fall to the leading trap of fessing up to responsibility to the loan. Yesterday, the caller was carefully trying to get me to state that I did in fact have a loan with the company. For instance,

caller: "We're showing a balance of $XXX,XXX.XX on your account, are you aware of this balance?"
My reply, "No, send me the note I asked for to confirm."
caller: "No problem, we will get that sent right out to you, but in the mean time, I'd like to go over this balance with you."
My reply "What balance, send me the note."
caller "The passed due balance is $XXX,XXX.XXX and we would like to see what we can do to get your loan modified to cover this balance, would you be interested?"
My reply "What balance, send the note."
caller: "ok then, do you intend to keep the property?"
My reply "your damn right, have a nice day"

Today

Pretty much the same conversation as above. They called twice, the second time, they were a bit more crafty.

caller: "We're showing a balance of $XXX,XXX.XX on your account, and we have a sale date of March 21st, are you aware of this balance?"
My reply, "No, send me the note I asked for to confirm."
caller: "You requested a copy of the original mortgage note?"
My reply "Yes, I did"
caller: "ok let me see if I can find it real quick" a few minutes of hold time... "Ah I have it right here, it was made out on such and such a day on such and suach a year".
My reply: "Wonderful, send me a copy."
caller: "you want a copy?"
My reply: "Yes, I want a copy"
caller: "ok, I will have to transfer you to another department."
my reply "ok, before you transfer me, was that sale date March 21st a hard date?"
caller: "No, actually there is no date at this time. We are not projecting any foreclosures in your area until well after 2012."
My reply: "WHAT? The world is gonna be over by then, why are you bugging me about this now?"
caller: "Uh, well uh, what I mean is the date could come at any time, we just aren't projecting any until after things are, uh, well you just never know."

LOL

My reply: "Ok, no problem, so the date you specifically mentioned, March 21st, is that the day my property will be sold?"
caller: "No."
My reply: "Is there a date that you can tell me when my property will be sold?"
caller: "No"
My reply: "Ok, transfer me then"

I was transferred to the customer service department where my call was dropped while they were looking up my mortgage note. About 15 minutes after my call was disconnected, I gotta return call from a different area code. The gentleman apologised and assured me he would put the copy in the mail.

These calls are coming in from area codes all over the country. Each one was able to pull up a copy and read the material. Thus, what they are sending me is an electronic copy, not a copy from the original. I believe this is an attempt at appeasement. Be careful, they are recording these calls as always, are attempting to get phone confirmation that you own the debt.

There is no sale date on my home, but the loan was screwed from the beginning in my case. The wrote it with my ex-wife on it, and she never signed it. They let it fly anyway. She is on the title because we were married when we originally bought it, but were divorced when I refinanced.

Good luck out there!

With Love,

Your Brother

edit on 26-10-2010 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by Chinesis

Originally posted by queenofsheba
This is new and good information to me. I'm slowly getting it. Give me time. Seeing things as they are can be a little much at times. Nothing comes from nothing in this world it seems.


Right on QOS!

Unfortunately what I have learned is through the UCC you are a "Trustee."
A Trustee can be penalised, fined and/or imprisoned.

BUT, the office of the Executor/Executrix CANNOT.
The state, the judge ALL assume you aren't in the capacity
so they administer for this account, YOUR account.

Remember the highest law in existence is:
Trust Law, there is nothing higher.



Actually, you are a "beneficiary of the trust". When you file your UCC-1 you take control of the "strawman" away from the State and federal government. You then become the beneficiary and file a 1041 NOT a 1040. Your fiduciary fees are the return for the maintenance of the strawman. What it costs you to survive for the year. You get that "money" back as the loss is the beneficiaries loss.

Getting back to the thread, I filed a property tax exemption and haven't paid my mortgage in over a year. Went through all the foreclosure BS and rejected every offer to contract.

The highest law is the "golden rule", if you are refering to the highest law in court today, that would be equity law.

Again, the government must prove up it's claim or cease and desist, they are a corporation and you do not want to contract with them. I think we should compile a complete list of all the good threads here and post the information again so more people can educate themselves.

And remember, there IS no money.




The Promissory Note To Pay Our Debts

HJR-192 of June 5, 1933 is the promissory note (the promise of Abraham) the government issued to balance the exchange to credit the people. The Promissory note is on the debit side of the United States Governments ledger, which was a debited from their credit, created by the Executive Order of April 5, 1933 when they took the gold out of circulation. Public Policy is rooted in HJR-192 and is Grace that creates our exemption. This is your temporal saving grace. Under grace, the law falls away to create a more perfect contract. Public Policy removed the people's liability to make all payments by making a contract null if it required the payment to be in substance, because the people didn't have any money to pay with. All that must be done now is to discharge the liability. Pay and discharge are similar words but the principles are as different as Old and New Testaments. The word "pay" is equated with gold and silver, or something of substance like a first-born lamb, which requires tangible work to be invested in it to remove the liability because an execution must occur. The word "Discharge" is equated with paper, or even more basic, simple credits and debits, that exist on paper only, like the slate held by the agents/angels of heaven that get swiped clean. You cannot pay a bill with a bill and you cannot pay a debt with a debt.

What HJR-192 did was, remove the liability of an obligor (someone obligated to pay a debt) by making it against Public Policy to pay debts. All that needs to be done now is discharge the debit with an appropriate credit "dollar for dollar." Debt must be discharged dollar for dollar in the same sense, as sin was discharged on the Cross. The moment a debt exists, it must be written off. The catch is, we can't write off the debt because we are not in possession of the account in deficit; our fiduciary agent is in possession of the account so we must provide him with the tax return (by the return of the original offer) so the fiduciary can discharge the liability through their internal revenue service (the bookkeeper). Most feel that when the money was taken out of society, the people became the slaves, this is not true, the people were freed from every obligation that society could create thus freeing the people from any obligation which they may incur simply because we cannot pay a debt. Ask yourself the question, What are you charging me with? And how do you expect Me to pay? Simply said, there is no money, plain and simple for me to make the payment with and on top of that, if I were to pay, who is paying Me to pay that guy and who's paying that guy and so on... Public Policy is the supercedious bond because it limits our liability to pay. It is the more perfect contract because it operates on grace to pay our debts after we have done all that we can. We go as far as we can to fulfill the obligation (acceptance and tax return) and after we have done all we can, mercy and grace kick in being our exemption to make the payment. Grace creates our exemption in the industrial society so long as we accept the charge.



I disagree with what you just wrote...
A Trustee can be penalised, fined and imprisoned.

The office of the executor doesn't because he/she is immune from any prosecution.
You can NEVER do away with your all caps name and it is forever tied to the estate.

The UCC-1 is a dead end and isn't the remedy people make it out to be.
Zero evidence suggest this.

If you do have evidence to suggest the contrary -or- have a road
map for soverigns in training to take in and heed I am all ears as is the rest
of the forum members in this thread. Would you be willing to provide this?

(I highly doubt it) and I say this with a curious sincerity.

We all know driving is a privilege, but traveling in our private carriage is a right.
We all know the federal income tax is voluntary, however they imply you have a debt based on income.
We all know we have the right to bear arms, however the gov't creates a privilege out of this
via a PERmit (a la permission)

So...what I'd like to know is how does someone (stateside) not in Canada seek
bonafide, resolute and conclusive, definitive remedy??

See, filing your NOI, and UCC, and all that makes you a constituant.
It makes you a trustee and NOT the executor/executrix.

A natural human being of flesh and blood needs not any of these documents to assert
who she/he is. It is a dead end.

The highest law is:
Trust Law, not Common Law, remember that.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by phishfriar47
 



My first issue with most of the replies has to do with the fact of posters replying and saying you should take reponsibility for your morgtage. I dont understand how anyone could even possibly begin to have any respect for ANY financial institution in this country.


Because anyone with a mortgage VOLUNTARILY walked into a bank...ASKED them for some money...and AGREED to their terms. Now I don't agree with a lot of bank practices...but buyer beware.

Its simple...take responsibility for your own actions.


As far as the escrow account...the OP was edited and that was slid in there after a full page of discussion. He didn't even give the member who stated that credit in the OP. If you can get a court to order an escrow account like that...more power too you...but good luck with that. The OP's original advice was, write a letter, if they don't produce the note, stop paying your mortgage...which is what I and other disagreed with.


Outkast Searcher you talk like a person that is still employed. How about those that are unemployed with no prospects of being rehired. You ask us to take responsibility for our actions then turn around and support the banks which have shown no responsibility. Actually, the banks have not only shown a lack of responsibility, but have stolen trillions from us and given absolutely nothing back except debt.

You're on the wrong side of this argument. You'll see the tidal wave of lawsuits and challenges to the banks start in 2011, and witness many states declare a moritorium on foreclosures in spite of what the federal govt. does. The banks got wealthy by scamming the consumer and the consumer will awaken and start to take action in greater numbers that will overwhelm the banks.

You said there is no free lunch, and that is where we agree. But, the situation it turns out was gamed by the banks. The banks not only got a free govt bailout lunch but also your hard worked for lunch, all your future lunches and your families future lunches, and even given themselves bonus lunches, and the list goes on. Not to mention the fraud of fractional banking and getting people's property when they furnished no real money in payment transaction to the seller.

Wake up. No one is asking for anything free, but to have a fair system. The banks only want to outlaw your rights. They got the FREE LUNCH 10x over any of us trying to save our homes. The banks are the welfare parasites you should be rallying against, not the consumer who has been scammed.
edit on 27-10-2010 by thepixelpusher because: typo



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 

Are you aware of, and have you read the Redemption Manual?

I am curious, I have been reading it, and gathering the supporting docs.

loveforlife.com.au...

(The pdf is down the page a ways, easy to miss. The article is basically the "foreward")

It is presented as the "cure"...



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


This is excellent. Way to take back your power. There is NO harm in asking for the support you need. One has to wonder, if the note is not an issue, and everything is above board and according to both the terms of the loan and the law, then why the run around? The answer should be, simply: Sure, it is on it's way. Anything other than this makes no sense.

They will send you a printed electronic copy to be sure. Maybe asking for a photographic copy of both sides might help. Or seeing it in person so you can then copy it yourself. Demanding whatever they send to be notarized could be a deal breaker for them.

I knew someone who worked in the collections for a smaller bank: lying, deceit, breaking the law were the norm. This person quite because of it. Seems when dealing with the bank, making deals; end of the month, end of the quarter, end of the year is best. Why? Commissions of course.

As for the UCC argument, my friend did this back the in late eighties. Downside, none. Upside, no jurisdiction.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by thepixelpusher
 



OutKast searcher FAILS to understand what

FULL DISCLOSURE means, and what was NOT fully disclosed when
people sign contracts. (hint)



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Chinesis
 

Are you aware of, and have you read the Redemption Manual?

I am curious, I have been reading it, and gathering the supporting docs.

loveforlife.com.au...

(The pdf is down the page a ways, easy to miss. The article is basically the "foreward")

It is presented as the "cure"...


Yes, I'm aware of the redemption manual.
It is a very solid read for certain.

I've actually read every single bit of free man attainment written works
my brain is on overload!

However...The Uniform Commercial Code isn't the highest form of law.
Even though the writer purports to say it is the only law in use today or something
to that effect...Nope, it's not even close.


The implied virtue of a "Soverign" or freeman is that they need no declaration
to reaffirm what they have been given: their birthright.

See, the constitution doesn't give anyone *rights* nor does it reaffirm them! (really?) Yes.
Our rights come from our creator, not the constitution.
The constitution merely states what it is known as fact or self evident.

Obviously most people do not know this truth, so they cannot
follow through with all it means/entails.


See, if a judge, a bank, or any other body sees you as a:
-person
-citizen
-constituant...this also means you are a corporation, and subject to the state:

a slave.

The UCC-1 does nothing for the sovereign nor is there concrete
proof that it does. I've seen people post what they feel is proof but in reality is it?

Silence is acquiescence, but the bank still sees you as a trustee.
A beneficiary of a trustee is a trustee nonetheless.

Once you invoke the office of the executor/executrix they cannot proceed
against you because now you're actually higher/above prosecution.

Have you routinely used the redemption manual/method
and if so what tips can you site for us?



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 

I am merely preparing my case(s), not yet ready to go to trial. So, no I have not applied the manual.
I am simply too entangled or "vulnerable" at the moment, bringing any kind of attention to myself from a hostile party, legitimate or otherwise would not be in my favor if you know what I mean.
I am trying to sort between the tried/substantiated and the theoretical/should work.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Chinesis
 

I am merely preparing my case(s), not yet ready to go to trial. So, no I have not applied the manual.
I am simply too entangled or "vulnerable" at the moment, bringing any kind of attention to myself from a hostile party, legitimate or otherwise would not be in my favor if you know what I mean.
I am trying to sort between the tried/substantiated and the theoretical/should work.


Did you check out the link I posted (it's an audio recording of s skype conversation) ?

I doubt you bring attention to yourself from a hostile party.
There are laws out there to protect you from hostility.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 


Are you trying to tell me that since you aren't driving them now...that somehow gets
you off of the hook for paying the dues that come with registration? Meaning you WILL have
to pay those fees sooner or later, later meaning with added fees...If you ever try to sell these
cars guess what happens?

Nope! As a matter of fact, just last week I had to retitle my car (after sitting for over a year) for my soon-to-be sixteen year old son who will be driving said car. Had to take it in for a couple repairs and I explained to him the process I went through to get it legal for him to drive on the road. He went with me to get the tabs and watched me pay for that, I told him how much I had to pay to add insurance back on it. I thought it would be good for him to be aware of the costs involved in being a licensed, legal driver. He knows the car is paid for but I told him it isn't free to drive it. I haven't added him yet to the insurance policy, not until if/when he gets his license. That will cost an arm and a leg no doubt (big sigh). As far as my mortgage goes, that's current and so far so good. I've tried to discuss with my hubby about some of the things I have read and learned here but he's all "whatever." Our original mortgage was sold once and I have GMAC Mortgage still, 10 years left to pay on it. I know we'll never get back all the money we put into it, if we can sell it for anything. That's what makes me the angriest...the times we refinanced when land prices/real estate went way up, hubby wanted to do it; he likes his toys. Can't go back, just gotta be smarter. It's a little disconcerting to realize that pretty much yes, we are slaves to consumerism. I dislike it. I go to thrift stores for clothes and anything I can use that I need. I don't go shopping for shopping's sake, because I'm bored, etc. Yuck! It's amazing how attitudes can change when we see things for the way they really are. Will it ever get better? I feel like the future has become scary and I worry for how hard it will be for my kids. Is college really worth it? That's sooo expensive now. Well, that's a whole 'nother topic.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenofsheba
reply to post by Chinesis
 


Are you trying to tell me that since you aren't driving them now...that somehow gets
you off of the hook for paying the dues that come with registration? Meaning you WILL have
to pay those fees sooner or later, later meaning with added fees...If you ever try to sell these
cars guess what happens?

Nope! As a matter of fact, just last week I had to retitle my car (after sitting for over a year) for my soon-to-be sixteen year old son who will be driving said car. Had to take it in for a couple repairs and I explained to him the process I went through to get it legal for him to drive on the road. He went with me to get the tabs and watched me pay for that, I told him how much I had to pay to add insurance back on it. I thought it would be good for him to be aware of the costs involved in being a licensed, legal driver. He knows the car is paid for but I told him it isn't free to drive it. I haven't added him yet to the insurance policy, not until if/when he gets his license. That will cost an arm and a leg no doubt (big sigh). As far as my mortgage goes, that's current and so far so good. I've tried to discuss with my hubby about some of the things I have read and learned here but he's all "whatever." Our original mortgage was sold once and I have GMAC Mortgage still, 10 years left to pay on it. I know we'll never get back all the money we put into it, if we can sell it for anything. That's what makes me the angriest...the times we refinanced when land prices/real estate went way up, hubby wanted to do it; he likes his toys. Can't go back, just gotta be smarter. It's a little disconcerting to realize that pretty much yes, we are slaves to consumerism. I dislike it. I go to thrift stores for clothes and anything I can use that I need. I don't go shopping for shopping's sake, because I'm bored, etc. Yuck! It's amazing how attitudes can change when we see things for the way they really are. Will it ever get better? I feel like the future has become scary and I worry for how hard it will be for my kids. Is college really worth it? That's sooo expensive now. Well, that's a whole 'nother topic.



I just want you to know something...

Driving is a privilege...
TRAVELING IS A RIGHT (not shouting, just emphasis)


Unless he's a trucker with commercial ties to a business he isn't a driver.
The DMV says you are a driver with privileges.

I feel (parenting notwithstanding) you make a grave mistake teaching your son
how to "legally" pay out the rear for fees he shouldn't have to pay...

I know you don't take anyone's word for it (with good cause) so here:
Merry Christmas....

driving.justincredible.me...

UN-debunk-able
Undeniable Factual truth.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 


Wow! How come no one ever taught me any of this growing up??? I feel like a two year old or something.

I read some from your link...great stuff. Will finish it later this evening. The funny thing is that my son is so smart and would love to read it, too. He loves to talk politics, economics, etc. He explains things to me! I'm really lucky. In all honesty, I don't want him out on the roads driving but what do you do? See, I thought I was being responsible in teaching him how to pay to be "legal" but wow...kind of sick, huh? You must obey=pay, or else! Freakin' scary if you ask me. I don't have the guts to not comply, I would need to see other people do it first before I'd jump on the bandwagon. And that is how most of us are, aren't we?



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 

Link?

How far back?
I saw one link, but I am not sure how to navigate to subject.
edit on 27-10-2010 by Stewie because: clarification



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
*UPDATE*

I have received a return email from the original site wishing me to enter in information on whether the mortgage company had answered my email. The answer is no they have not and apparently are in violation of the law by not doing so. I have written a letter to the attorney general of my state and I am also going to seek legal advice tomorrow first thing. I will update again as I find out more information.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Chinesis
 

Link?

How far back?
I saw one link, but I am not sure how to navigate to subject.
edit on 27-10-2010 by Stewie because: clarification


What do you need help with?
I can link you to anything you'd like


Try this for starters to find out the truth...

Detaxcanada.org



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
hey guys....the robo-signers aren't just confined to the mortgage industry....
it appears that the debt collection agencies make use of them also...

www.cjr.org...

ya know how you are always hearing of ads .....
"get out of debt in 90 days or less"...
could this be the secret they have been selling?



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
hey guys....the robo-signers aren't just confined to the mortgage industry....
it appears that the debt collection agencies make use of them also...

www.cjr.org...

ya know how you are always hearing of ads .....
"get out of debt in 90 days or less"...
could this be the secret they have been selling?



Dawnstar..think about this for one second, k?

You default on a debt (say its Macy's)
Macy's gets tired of your failure to pay.
GUESS WHAT THEY DO?

(1) They discharge the debt (meaning its off their books)
(2) They sell your debt to a 3rd party.

This means Macy's is still the creditor, and the 3rd party (Collection Agency) is the debtor now.
The collection agency bought your debt for pennies on the dollar, adds inflated interest
and NOW expects YOU to pay them back for them paying off your debt to being with...????


Preferably you should just thank them!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Bump.

This thread has been quiet for months, hoping that those that have been involved in the discussion can give us updates on their situations.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I'm bumping this too. We need updates as some of us are smack in the middle of dealing with this stuff.

Let us know what's going on.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TXTriker
 

haven't looked into it in awhile, so not sure....
well try to look around the web today and find out....
frankly, I've kind of got disgusted with the whole thing.
we live in virginia, so well, we don't even get the advantage of a court hearing if the bank decided they want our home, unless we want to countersue after the fact...at least that's how I've interpreted things......and I don't like giving large sums of money to doctors even when I'm sick, let alone lawyers....

I'm just figuring that is we are doing the best we can here, and things get to be too imposible, well, they can have the house back and we'll call it even. it they want to come at us afterwards wanting more money, well, then we will got to the lawyer, make sure a title search is done, and well, if we find that the crap that was being done with the mortgages through mers has tainted the title, we'll countersue on that....they will have devalued the home by tainting the title, and, well, we will call it even, they can pay our court costs!!!

I am seeing some really, I mean reallly nice houses up for rent....for $2,000, sometimes $3,000 dollars in my area though.... I got a feeling that they are having trouble selling the forclosed homes!!! and it wasn't just the poor lowly subprimers that are having problems!!!!





new topics




 
67
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join