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.

 

Huge Foreclosure Decision- Banks Can't Foreclose if They Don't Own The Loan

page: 3
34
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

So you didn't listen to the whole thing and you didn't get your deed out and find the language in it he speaks of... Sigh And then proceed to condemn him anyway...


I may be wasting my breath on you but for anyone else who might have listened... You can't re convey something you don't already own. And you signed the note for "Monies received" when did you receive money? You didn't! The note is the money that is why they deposit it into an account as an asset and then sell it. See technically there is no money period even the so called money in your pocket is a NOTE expressing a debt. promissory notes signed for loans are the main source of money and dollars are just the petty cash. The bank cannot prove they had money in an account they loaned you. It was created on the spot BY YOU signing the note. They know it and they know you don't know. YOU FUNDED your own loan and made the bank millions and what did you get for you trouble? 30 years of servitude!

This is how they blew up such a big bubble. The book the OP gave is well and good but is not the whole story. They create money out of thin air with these promissory notes with you as the surety. This is the major way they create money and they don't even need a printing press. This is how the largest bubble in history was created and now we are in what will prove to be the worst depression in history. It's the biggest fraud in the history of the world!


I didn't need to listen to it all. It’s the “Vapor” money argument. I've heard it before, different forms and different forums, but the same message and I don't care who says it, it's still wrong.
Here’s how it plays out in court:

* * [T]he Court concludes that the complaint is utterly frivolous and lacks any legal foundation whatsoever. * * * Suffice it to say that all of Plaintiff's claims * * * stem from the same basic premise. Plaintiff alleges that the promissory note he executed is the equivalent of "money" that he gave to the bank. He contends that Bank One took his "money," i. [*9] e., the promissory note, deposited it into its own account without his permission, listed it as an "asset" on its ledger entries, and then essentially lent his own money back to him. He contends that Bank One did not actually have the funds available to lend to him, but instead "created" the money through its bookkeeping procedures. He further argues that because Bank One was never at risk, and provided no consideration, the promissory note is void ab initio, and Defendants' attempts to foreclose on the mortgage are therefore unlawful.

Plaintiff offers no authority for this patently ludicrous argument. Similar arguments have been rejected by federal courts across the country. See Frances Kenny Family Trust v. World Savings Bank, No. C04-03724 WHA, 2005 WL 106792 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 19, 2005) (sanctioning plaintiffs and rejecting their "vapor money" theory); Carrington v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, No. 05-cv-73429-DT, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31605, 2005 WL 3216226, at 3 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 29, 2005) (finding "fundamentally absurd and obviously frivolous" plaintiff's claim that the lender unlawfully "created money" through its ledger entries); United States v. Schiefen, 926 F. Supp. 877, 880-81 (D.S.D.1995) [*10] (rejecting arguments that there was insufficient consideration to secure the promissory note, and that lender had "created money" by means of a bookkeeping entry); * * * Rene v. Citibank, 32 F. Supp. 2d 539, 544-45 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (rejecting claims that because lender did not have sufficient funds in its vault to make the loan, and merely "transferred some book entries," the lender had created illegal tender).

www.lexisone.com... LOW

You may want to read the entire case.
You might want to read this one too. It has multiple bogus arguments.
groups.google.com...

The fellas promoting this argument in the Kenny and Carrington suits are now sitting in jail. Look up “Dorean Group.”

As to the deed of trust..I've read them, lots of them. It's what I do for a living. The note is not money, it's a promise to pay and it's only as good as your promise. We get the money from the lender to either pay the seller and/or pay off the previous loan.

Now...what makes you think you should get a house for free?




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostviking
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


It is illegal for a deed of trust to be both a deed of trust and a security. You can't have it both ways, and the banks were hoping they could and that no one would notice. You have either one or the other. The securitization of the deed of trust created a security. Once made a security, the deed can no longer be a deed again. There is no putting the cat back in the bag.
edit on 8-1-2011 by lostviking because: grammar


I'm not sure what you're saying here. A deed and a deed of trust are not the same thing.
For my state defined by the Brunswick County Register of Deeds:

A Deed Of Trust is a three-party instrument in which, in a "title theory state" such as North Carolina, conveys title to a Trustee. It is a written conveyance of real property that represents the security for the payment of a debt or the performance of some duty or obligation, all of which shall become void on the payment of the debt or obligation.


Can you show me the illegal part?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Ignorance is bliss. the language in the deed spells it out. Which of course you refuse to listen to...





We get the money from the lender to either pay the seller and/or pay off the previous loan.


Prove it! You can't and no so called lender can. Just because some court ignores all the facts and rail roads some folks does not change the facts.

Banking law states lenders cannot loan thier credit:

A bank may not lend its credit to another, even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505, 151 Va. 195.

A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation…” Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925, 36 CCA 553, CERTIORARI DENIED IN 29 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.

It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires…” Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759 (1926).

A bank can lend its money, but not its credit.” First Nat’ I Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe, 135 Ga 615, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.

“…checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes ARE NOT LAWFUL MONEY of the United States…” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.

And there are many more where those came from. THERE IS NO MONEY!



Now...what makes you think you should get a house for free?


I don't I paid the seller with my note just like everything in this country is paid for because there is no money, it was stolen from us when they confiscated the gold and silver. The bank brought nothing to the table but fraud. No money ever changed hands. My credit funded the loan no money ever came from any where else my note created the the funds that paid for the house not the banks or anyone else's. And no bank has ever proven they loaned money or even had money to loan ever period.

I know it's hard for people to overcome thier brain washing here and wrap thier minds around the fact that there is no money especially those who make a living selling this fraud to people. But the facts are the facts.


edit on 9-1-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

As to the deed of trust..I've read them, lots of them. It's what I do for a living. The note is not money, it's a promise to pay and it's only as good as your promise. We get the money from the lender to either pay the seller and/or pay off the previous loan.

Now...what makes you think you should get a house for free?


I don't think this case is about getting a house for free. It's about who can file the foreclosure documents.

Someone earlier said it really doesn't to the buyer who owns the loan (which means who can foreclose).
Sure it does. Right now the banks are handling the decision when, if and how to foreclose. But they already sold the loan - so their decisions on how to handle foreclosures may not be in the best interest of the actual owners.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
]Originally posted by hawkiye


Ignorance is bliss. the language in the deed spells it out. Which of course you refuse to listen to...

Cause I've heard it all before.



We get the money from the lender to either pay the seller and/or pay off the previous loan.



Prove it! You can't and no so called lender can. Just because some court ignores all the facts and rail roads some folks does not change the facts.


We get funds in from the bank. We write checks back out or wire. It's really that simple and it's worked for years. Acceptable practice to all parties. If you sold your house and the buyer got a bank loan, how would you get paid?


Banking law states lenders cannot loan thier credit:


That's exactly right. They cannot loan their credit. See what the Howard & Foster case says:"cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another." They cannot guarantee payment by another party. Here's the Bowen and Needles case: openjurist.org... Lending credit is not the same as making a loan.

State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168, I can't find this case. Since you are citing it, can you please provide the full text so the excerpt can be read in context. If you can't that's fine. I know most of these cases are used on freedom from debt sites and all they give is a small quote and the name of case.

I know I won't change your mind, and you haven't shown me anything that changes mine, so unless you find the text of that case, I'm done. This is too much like being at work.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2

Originally posted by Pauligirl

As to the deed of trust..I've read them, lots of them. It's what I do for a living. The note is not money, it's a promise to pay and it's only as good as your promise. We get the money from the lender to either pay the seller and/or pay off the previous loan.

Now...what makes you think you should get a house for free?


I don't think this case is about getting a house for free. It's about who can file the foreclosure documents.



I know what you are saying, but hawkiye and I were discussing another facet of lending.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 



Cause I've heard it all before.


Impossible if you refuse to listen as you admit you do


We get funds in from the bank. We write checks back out or wire. It's really that simple and it's worked for years. Acceptable practice to all parties.


Like I said prove it! Just becuase something is acceptable practice does not make it not a fraud. The truth is you have a belief you know where the funds come from because that is what you have been told and as you said everyone seems to accept the same belief. But you really have no idea where they come from because you have never bothered to critically examine procedure or make the banks prove how they fund the loans.


Here's the Bowen and Needles case: openjurist.org... Lending credit is not the same as making a loan.


That's exactly right and the bank never made a loan they have nothing to loan. A loan consists of money. All they have is credit or debt notes. They never made a loan to you they used your credit because they can't use thier own and that is what funded the loan. They trick you into the thinking you are getting a loan it is a fruad.

You still haven't answered the question. If the bank is loaning you money to buy the house why do they need you to sign a document conveying the house to the bank? The 3rd party conveyed the house to you and then the bank tricked you into conveying the house to them for monies recieved and paying them for 30 years. But you never recieved any monies from the bank the only funds in the entire deal was the promissory note. This is why they claim they have to wait for the loan to fund. That gives them time to deposit the note and sell it and record the deed. So again answer the question how can I re-convey something I don't own and supposedly need a loan from the bank to buy? Should not the house be conveyed by its owner to the bank and the bank simply retains ownership? But that is not what the mortgage paper work says does it. It is a simple slight of hand and you unwittingly do it every time you close a supposed loan.


If you sold your house and the buyer got a bank loan, how would you get paid?


The same way everyone in America gets paid every day. By promissory note. The promissory note is the medium of exchange today in America and most of the world whether it is a federal reserve note or a house note they are the same. This is the big secret they don't want you to know.

"Those who constitute an association nationwide of private,
unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking to issue
notes against these obligations of the United States due them;
whose private property is at risk to collateralize the government’s
debt and currency, by legal definitions, a "national banking
association"; such notes, issued against these obligations of the
United States to that part of the public debt due its Principals
and Sureties are required by law to be accepted as "legal tender"
of payment for all debts public and private, and are defined in law
as "obligations of the United States", on the same par and category
with Federal reserve notes and other currency and legal tender
obligations." UCC 4-105, 12 CFR §§229.2, 210.2, 12 USC 1813

I'll look the other case up when I have some more time. I have it saved somewhere but I have years of stuff saved.

In the mean time here is a few more I have put together in a memorandum of law to challenge my own mortgage:

“A bank can lend its money, but not its credit.” First Nat’ I Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe, 135 Ga 615, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.

“…the bank is allowed to lend money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit.” Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No. 12, 643, 1039.
The following case cites also support this Memorandum on credit loans and void contracts:4. “In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.” Framers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat’l Bank, 11 F2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.

5. “A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation…” Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925, 36 CCA 553, CERTIORARI DENIED IN 29 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.

6. “Mr. Justice Marshall said: The doctrine of ultra vires (beyond the power) is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often… Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229.” American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.

7. “A bank may not lend its credit to another, even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505, 151 Va. 195.

8. “It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires…” Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759 (1926).

9. “…checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States…” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.

10. “Neither, as included 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 careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a 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 a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. 1 Morse, Banks and Banking, 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec. 248.” American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429.

11. “It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done.” Federal Intermediation Credit Bank v. L’ Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929). 

12. “There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser.” National Ban of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 F. 471.

13. “A bank can lend its money, but not its credit.” First Nat’ I Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe, 135 Ga 615, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.

14. “…the bank is allowed to lend money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit.” Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No. 12, 643, 1039.

15. “A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied to repay the sum with or without interest.” Parsons v. Fox, 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644.  Also see Kirkland v. Bailey, 55 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.

“The word ‘money’ in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange…” Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky 319, 133 SW 2d 75.

I do like the approach of the OP of challenging on the basis who the actual holder in due course or party of interest is. That may be easier to win because it does not directly confront the generational brainwashing that the fraud I point out is somehow acceptable practice.





edit on 9-1-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 





I didn’t listen to all of it because as I said, I’ve heard/read it all before. It was junk then and it’s still junk now.
How would you like for me to prove we get funds from banks? A copy of the check or the wire acknowledgment? Funds have to be in our trust account before we can proceed.

If you truly conveyed the house to the bank they wouldn’t have to foreclose, they would already own it and just do an eviction instead. North Carolina is a deed of trust state. As to waiting to fund, ours is done the same day. Bank send us money before they ever get the note.
Here’s the way it works here:
Seller signed the deed.
Buyer signs the deed of trust, note and other loan docs.
Bank sends money.
We record the deed and deed of trust.
We write check to seller and pay off any outstanding loans on the property.

Lots of luck with your case.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Sounds like the only reason you are here is to try and desperately convince people, because you are one of the people involved in the scam to me.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Like I said ignorance is bliss. Do you have a personal mortgage? If so I can prove to you that you signed a document conveying that house to the lender at the closing. I'd even be willing to bet you a thousand dollars on it. But you know it all and refuse to even look at the truth in black and white on your own documents...


The bank had no funds till you signed the promissory note. That is why it always takes a few days "for the loan to fund". Writing a check does not prove where the funds came from. Try asking the bank to see the book entry in the so called trust account of when the funds were deposited into said account that where then allegedly loaned and watch the run around you get. They won't do it and the will hire an army of lawyers to obfuscate it if you drag them into court. And the trouble is most judges have the same belief as you and will not even look into the facts and force the bank to prove how they funded the loan. Either that or they are in collision with the lender.

Besides it is against the law for the bank to loan thier "funds" they can only loan money which they have none of.


edit on 9-1-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
am i right in saying that if a mortgage, loan, credit card agreement is securitized then it is in breach of the contract? Novation in contract law states a change of party in a contract has to have the consent of all parties? If the banks sold the debt on without our agreement then it's void?



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I am new to this site and haven't quite figured out how to navigate it yet. So, I cannot access the video being discussed here. But I have done a great deal of research on this subject, and one of you is "right on the money" while the other is completely mistaken on every count. I'm sorry, I cannot be sure which of you is actually making which comments, so I can't actually name which is correct and which of you is mistaken.

So, I will just say this. How these cases play out in court, is not evidence of the truth, because many of the judges and attorney's are bought off. It is highly possible that the borrowers who lost the case, referred to in this thread, lost because they made the mistake of learning this new information and running with it, without doing enough investigation or obtaining enough evidence specific to their own case. The evidence can be found with a thorough enough, and properly documented audit.

From my research, I am learning that this kind of audit is best done by a CPA who is well versed in Bank law, as well as contract law, UCC codes, GAAP and GAAS, applicable US Code, and so forth.

The way "money" and "loans" are created by banks, is well documented in intricate detail, by the Federal Reserve's OWN publications. Ther are quite a few of these, including "Modern Money Mechanics". Also, the bookkeeping entries which are substance--as opposed to form, clearly show from where or whom, the alleged loans are funded. That is assuming that the auditor is able to access BOTH sets of the alleged lender's books. There are other documents which must be obtained as well. Such as any 1099 OID, and 1099A forms filed with the IRS, and the balance sheet forms that the banks are periodically required to submit to the Federal Reserve.

The commenter in this thread, who believes and supports the bank's position, is either insufficiently informed or has a vested interest in maintaining the bank's version of how loans are funded, etc. We all have a choice of which side we want to support, the elite's side or the people's side. And, we are all responsible for the consequences of whatever choices we make. The information is easy to access these days--thanks to the internet, so ignorance is a choice which has consequences according to natural law.

When you ask someone why they should get a house for free, and you fail to ask why should the bank get a house for free, or be unjustly compensated when it can literally be proven--with enough research---that they literally loan NOTHING..then you either suffer from cognitive dissonance--or you have sold out, and are on the wrong side. Anyone who discounts information like this, without even doing any in-depth research for themselves, and refuses to look at any evidence which supports the information--is morally bankrupt.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join