forclosures fraudulent and coming to an end in california

reply to post by Pauligirl


it does if the ownership changes hands ie they transfer the tittle in the mers system who cant leagally demand payment or foreclose

reply to post by thov420


About that Credit River Decision?
How did it turn out?
Not too good.
Daly lost the property and he got disbarred.
Higher court said "Mahoney was undertaking to act in a matter with respect to which he had no jurisdiction"

If you read all the links here:
www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us...
You'll find that
It was supposed to be a hearing for an unlawful detainer action, not a jury trial. The property has already been foreclosed and Daly refused to vacate.
That the jury was made up of friends, employees and clients of Daly.
Daly wrote the judgment and decree and Mahoney signed it.
Mahoney refused to allow an appeal because the fee was paid in cash which he said was not legal tender. Bad argument.
Once the bank filed the appeal, Daly filed several affidavits of prejudice against the judges-a delay tactic
Daly and Mahoney both refused to produce the transcript of the proceedings and since Daly wrote the judgment, there’s nothing to show that the banker made the statements that Daly attributes to him.
After being disbarred and brought up on contempt charges, Daly gives up and the action is dismissed. He had already lost the property.
Here's an overview:
www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us...
This is what happens is someone tries to use the case (from the link above)

These cases were recently cited in Sneed v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46536, 2007 WL 1851674 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2007). The court noted the frivolous nature of the plaintiff's argument relying on these cases and went on to say: Furthermore, the Minnesota cases cited by Plaintiff are not only unreported, but they have been vacated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in reported decisions. See In re Daly, 284 Minn. 567, 171 N.W.2d 818; Zurn v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 600, 284 Minn. 573 (Minn. 1969); Daly v. Savage State Bank, 171 N.W.2d 218, 218, 285 Minn. 503, 503 (Minn. 1969). Plaintiff is hereby admonished she must not cite any decision under which Justice Martin Mahoney purported to question the validity of federal currency or the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act, nor may she cite any opinion or decision as authoritative which no longer has authoritative status.

One of the things I noticed, Daly had this newsletter he put out that sold for two dollars. Wonder how he got paid for it since cash is not legal tender? For that matter, i wonder how his clients paid him?

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

it does if the ownership changes hands ie they transfer the tittle in the mers system who cant leagally demand payment or foreclose

Nope, that's an entirely different thing. What MERS does is assign the lien, ie the mortgage or deed of trust, not the deed/title. The deed does not change unless the owner does something with it or it's foreclosed. You do not get a new deed every time you refinance.

Tinky, You Must have a DEED to your property or the Bank would not loan you money. At the time of the closing on your purchase Someone executed a Deed into your Name, and you then executed a Mortgage (Deed of Trust) to the Bank/Lender. All these Documents are filed with your County Recorder.
What state are you in? What County.? Does your County have its Records on Line?

As to treating everyone like idiots…well, sorry about that, but since I was in the Title Insurance Business for 50 years It does irk me to see amateurs discussing something they know nothing about and coming across with a lot of erroneous information.

For Most American people their home is their biggest investment. Anyone with bigger investments usually is well versed in the financial end and does not make such statements as some of these posters have made. He knows what kind of documents he has for each investment.

Exploder, it is unfortunate that the AVERAGE Person just does not know the law, and the courts are not set up in his favor. Once upon a time they were, but those days are long gone and the legal sharks have taken over. There are more lawyers per person than there are Doctors. Lawyers run the government constantly making more laws as “Make Work” projects for their profession.

As you know, foreclosures happen when the bank isn’t receiving the promised payments. Regardless of the procedure of creating the money the bank gave you, you did receive something of value for that money, most of which went to the builder or person from whom you bought the property. At the closing you signed a Mortgage (Deed of Trust) to the bank. This document says that it will belong to the bank unless you make payments as provided in the terms of the Promissory Note which you also signed.

When you stop making payments the bank starts foreclosure proceedings, all of which follow due process.
The big controversy of late is that when these Mortgages are assigned in bulk to another entity, the Notes are frequently left behind or otherwise Lost. This is the Legal Loophole for the Debtor to literally get away with robbery. He owes. He knows that he Owes. Sorry thing is he cannot pay.

You can bet that there will be new laws on the matter, and possibly new Mortgage (Deed of Trust) forms to incorporate the Note in the Mortgage.

reply to post by OhZone


im glad someone with a backround in all this has commented on all this

in my opinion the average person is at the mercy of the banks and the courts and both would deceive the borrower

ucc law states that a demand for payment requires a note to be pre4sented upon request to the borrower

the banks have cheated millions of people without producing proof

now the average person has a loophole that is legal

is it moral? will it save the real estate market and some peoples largest investment maby

would the banks exploit a loop hole to take your house?

bet your house they would with no mercy

thank you for your clarifycation on the deed issiue

xploder

reply to post by OhZone



I think you and I would agree on two things: A. For a contract to be valid, proper consideration must be made. So if I was going to sell you a car for 1000 dollars, I need to have a car and you need to have the 1000 dollars and we agree to swap. That's a valid contract. B. In order for the contract to be valid it must not be based on fraud. So if we agree on the 1000 dollars for a car that runs, I can't swap out one that doesn't and sell it instead. I think we can agree that a contract without consideration and or with fraud at its core, is not valid and becomes void upon discovering either or both. I don't think that is up to dispute. This has been the law in one form or another since day one.

So, can you explain, after 50 years experience, how this equation works: A "bank" has 1 million dollars in cash from depositors and nothing more (that money must be available to the depositors should they demand it). Said bank is able to loan out 50 million dollars for houses, and collect 150 million dollars back on said loans. Clearly the bank loaned money it does not have as 1 does not equal 50 and in return the bank is getting, via compound interest (paying depositors only simple interest) a windfall far beyond the money it is loaning out.

So if 1 cannot equal 50, and the bank clearly does not have 50 million dollars or anything close, what is the bank loaning?

If the bank is not loaning money for someone to buy a house with, where is the consideration?

If the bank knows it is not loaning money, as it does not have it to loan, how is this not fraud?

Why will people accept this transaction as valid, but if i were buy a car from you with money I did not have - telling you pixie dust for example is cash, I'd be arrested for fraud, as this transaction is not acceptable?

You say people know that they owe, owe what? No money was loaned, as there was none to loan, but they owe REAL money in return for the pixie dust money they borrowed. This isn't fraud?

reply to post by crankyoldman


your post is a masterpeice thank you if people knew the fact that the banks litterly gambled nothing to get full payment plus interest then they would ask where is the risk?

and if there was virtually no risk how could you charge massive interest?

in ucc you have to show loss and ownership
this shows no loss

the mers decition shows no standing to enforce the morgage contract
without ownership and presentation of the note
this shows no right to claim loss or start court procedings

i thank you for putting it in a way that is easy to understand

XPLodER

Originally posted by crankyoldman

You say people know that they owe, owe what? No money was loaned, as there was none to loan, but they owe REAL money in return for the pixie dust money they borrowed. This isn't fraud?

Is the house you bought with money you borrowed made from pixie dust too? If you bought a house, why would you think you don't have to pay for it?

reply to post by Pauligirl


i think your missing the point in fractional reserve banking the money they loan you came into exestance when you signed your morgage documents they dont fork over equity for your house you create it by agreeing to pay it

it then gets added to the ledger in the form of a promice to pay for it
lol its so absurd most people have a hard time getting their head around it

Someone here should do some reading of this new bill that being talked about in DC. The mortgage bail out bill. It would seem that the bankers have been talking to their paid lackeys in DC about the possibility of loosing all income from the mortgage fraud referred to here in this thread. It might give the bankers an out by allowing a one time 'RECREATION OF PAPERWORK' through which they can attain ownership and head off this very real problem, they themselves, have created by this paperwork snafu.
Enough people have been working against the bankers and mortgage companies that TPTB will give them an out with this new law!

Zindo




[edit on 8/10/2010 by ZindoDoone]

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

i think your missing the point in fractional reserve banking the money they loan you came into exestance when you signed your morgage documents they dont fork over equity for your house you create it by agreeing to pay it

it then gets added to the ledger in the form of a promice to pay for it
lol its so absurd most people have a hard time getting their head around it

I'm well aware of the argument. I know that it has been referred to in court cases as "fundamentally absurd and obviously frivolous" plaintiff's claim that the lender unlawfully "created money" through its ledger entries."
www.lexisone.com... LOW

reply to post by Pauligirl


do you work for a bank lol no harm intended
in my country we have three types of law
civil or contract law UCC sometimes called maritime law (judge is law)
criminal or jury by peer where the (jury holds the power to convict)
law of the land (common law or gods law)

now when you enter each court there is a legal language used that confuses the average person

in a jury trial if the jury thinks you should win regarless of the crime and the evidence you win (the power of the court is held by the jury)

in a civil court the power of the court is held by a judge or adudicator who represents the state or country (how can the person deciding a case be part of it (maritime law) the court is considered a ship and the judge a captain who can decree out come (usually for the court or large interests)

common law when you are invited (summons) to court (a ship) they are asking if your contract negotiations (common law rights) be waived to be replaced with ucc law (maritime law) that gives the ultimate say to a judge(ships captain)

the following video explains how the bar association has created a language to trick people into thinking the wrong thing when words are said

external linky
www.tpuc.org...

you are being deceived and not by me

please enjoy the video as it will open the eyes to the swindle

this is not intended as legal advice only educational purposes for veiwing and debate please seek legal advice from a lawer
(i hate having to say that)
it is up to you to learn the swindle of the system that unfairly favours the ships captain (judge/state) not the person

XPLodER

reply to post by XPLodER


Actually, I work for an attorney doing real estate. I've seen some of these arguments used at one time or another. They don't work because they are not legitimate legal arguments. In fact, they are pretty stupid.

The Kenny case cited in the case linked above was caused by some fellas using that "vapor money" argument. I believe they are still in the Federal pen in California.

I'm not an attorney, but I will give you a bit of legal advice. Don't try this stuff in court. It will not help you. Now, if you think you have been a victim of predatory lending practices, hire an attorney and sue the hell out of the bank. If you have a legitimate case, you could win.

reply to post by Pauligirl


You asked the wrong question. Is loaning something you don't have fraud or not?

What creates the cognitive dissonance is this: Me doing it is a crime, banks doing it is good for the economy. Humans commit fraud, banks cannot.

Where people have gotten hung up is the "printing" issue. So I'll explain. There is only one bank housed in a building with lots of smaller "outlets" we call banks too, but they are only offices in the one bank building. When we go to office A and "take a loan" for a house, office "A" agrees to create the money and "pass it on" to office "B" - A takes a debit, while B takes a credit - nothing actually happens. So the money never left the building, in fact nothing was ever done at all, except the borrower agreed to pay back roughly three times the amount agreed upon, but he actually received nothing, only a heads up from office A to B. "But I saw check go to the bank, in my name..." No, what you saw was an agreed upon "promise to pay" which is all a check is, based on your agreement to pay.

The fact that you did not know that the bank had nothing to lend you, hid it from you, is fraud. All things must be disclosed, but since it is not disclosed, it is fraud. The problem with the court's response is the court is the bank, it is part of the bank, it is the "house dick" of the bank and not a referee. Again, you have been mislead, the judge is not an impartial observer and cannot be. Here is why: Judge is paid for by the state, the state owns the courts, the state is owned by THE BANK, because the entire country has been in bankruptcy fro the last 75 years. Since the judge is paid by the bank, through the state, he cannot be impartial and he isn't.

The judge rules for the bank, because he is employed by the bank. Office A and office B are in the building on floors 3 and 7, of the first floor is the judge, he works for the bank too, so he must rule for the bank - the bank set up the bylaws of those who enter. There are lots of other offices housing "institutions" you think are separate but the are simply offices housing parts of the same company - the bank.

So, given you weren't told there is only one bank, given you weren't told that there is no money to loan, given you weren't told that the remedy you seek will be given by another member of the firm/bank, how can this not be fraud since you didn't know this? If you knew all of this, then it is not fraud. Why don't they tell you this? It is a fact, so why not reveal it?

If you bought a car that you were told was new, but turned out to be used and in a wreck = fraud as you were lied to about the transaction. You would not be expected to pay for the car, but a house, well that seems to be different for some reason - why? Simply ignorance based on really effective programming of the mind.

Even sicker, the reason the banks are demonizing those who borrowed money and can't pay is because the banks bet all that future money on wrecking other economies and lost on the bets, so they are demonizing the fools that bought into the fraud in the first place and demanding more money to play with.

I wonder why no one taught us in school how 1=50 in banking but in life 1=1?

reply to post by Pauligirl


i do not advocate anyone using these arguments and am not an atterney and this dosent constitute legal advice please consult a lawer prior to making a legal decitions

this thread is to raise awareness that the laws as they are enforced are incorrect incoherant and a liability for fraud

i assert the process is so bad that the whole system is fraudulent from inception and any law to modify a system that is flawed is also fraud

i would not personally try to use some of these defences but if one small decition about standing is upheld and one small decition to do with were is the banks risk? is asked

the whole fraud callaspses
thats why they are talking about a renegotation of contract
to re ensnair the people with stuff they could forclose on

Crankyoldman, Banks are only required to have a certain percentage of the deposited money available to their depositors. They invest the rest of it variously. Part of that is in loans. They do pay some of the collected interest to the depositors. Interest on CD’s is compounded quarterly. My opinion is that people who take out loans and then pay on them for the full 20 or 30 years are not too smart. My idea is to make sacrifices elsewhere and pay the thing off as soon as possible. I did read somewhere that most mortgages were paid off in about 5 to 6 years.

What represents money in our system has value because it is the general consensus that it has value.
If we all decided that Pixie Dust had value then I would take your Pixie Dust in trade for the car. I would then deposit the Pixie Dust in the bank and they would give me a receipt for the deposit. Or I could take the Pixie Dust to the grocery store and buy food with it. It is real money becuase we believe it is. This is how the Federal Reserve System was set up. Banks make loans beyond their deposits with permission from the Federal Reserve. They are actually borrowing from them and paying interest too. The Fed then rolls the presses and prints more money.

BTW, The Federal Reserve is a For Profit Corporation. The IRS is a For Profit Corporation. The CIA is a For Profit Corporation.

Cranky, your House vs. Car is not a valid argument.

reply to post by OhZone


PLEASE WATCH
external linky


XPLOdER

reply to post by Pauligirl


here is a case where fraud by the bank cost the bank court costs and a house

external linky to case file
www.scribd.com...

forclosure is most likley fraud in most cases

information is for debate use only and not for legal advice

XPLOdeR

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

here is a case where fraud by the bank cost the bank court costs and a house

external linky to case file
www.scribd.com...

forclosure is most likley fraud in most cases

information is for debate use only and not for legal advice

XPLOdeR

I don't think it's done yet. Dismissal Without Prejudice to Refile means when a case is dismissed but the plaintiff is allowed to bring a new suit on the same claim. This is not a judgment against the bank.

"THEREFORE,the Court, pursuant to Somma, is without jurisdiction to
proceed in the matter until such time as the Plaintiff has remitted the full amount of Documentary Stamp Taxes that are owed under the alleged promissory note and mortgage. "

What I get from that (I don't know about the Florida doc stamps on notes) is that once the full amount is paid, Plaintiff can file suit again.

Doesn't say anything about fraud by the bank. I will say that I would never take those loan terms, but we don't know what the defendant has in mind when he took that loan. Do you have a link to the full case? I'd like to read the complaint.

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