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 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!
* * [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).
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
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.
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?
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?
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:
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.
Cause I've heard it all before.
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.
Here's the Bowen and Needles case: openjurist.org... Lending credit is not the same as making a loan.
If you sold your house and the buyer got a bank loan, how would you get paid?