forclosures fraudulent and coming to an end in california

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

I have the feeling that he is still obligated to make the payments. They just can't foreclose on the higher amount until the extra doc stamps are paid. This is not a standard loan. I don't know how many states have the "doc stamps on the mortgage" rule. It doesn't exist in NC. We have a state revenue tax that is paid by the seller based on the purchase price.

I found this comment on another web site talking about the same case:

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.

I'm not sure what he means by each transfer requiring payment. The laws can be so different state to state.

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

self quote to save time

reply to post by Pauligirl


this one gets his house free hold no lein with tittle

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.

external linky
______beforeitsnews/story/136/680/Foreclosure:_The_constitutional_reality_is_that_you_do_not_have_to_leave_your_home_without_a_fight._Here_is_the _legal_precedent:_Only_God_can_create_something_of_value_out_of_nothing._Compiled_by_Tom_Dennen.html

xp

Originally posted by XPLodER

this one gets his house free hold no lein with tittle

xp

That's the Credit River decision
already covered here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Daly lost the property and got disbarred.

As to making the bank produce the note, there are already foreclosure cases where the court ruled that the original note did not have to be produced.
The link to case no longer works, so

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.

Now, can that change? Yes, it can, but it may be state by state.

reply to post by Pauligirl

It cut off the quote for some reason

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.

reply to post by Pauligirl


i have a link to a video that shows the legal system is a fraud from conception to outcome and that the real reason for court and law is to make you pay money and has very little to do with justice

all i can say is please watch all the vid before making any judgement on the legallity of any court

legalize (legal language)
court room = a ship on the high sea subject to maritime law
summons= an invitation onto a ship
ship = no common law where the captain is all powerful and you have no rights (well very little)
do you understand = do you stand under the authority of the maritime laws and be held accountable by decitions made on this ship

there is so much info in the vid please watch

reply to post by Pauligirl


more evidence the larger websites are starting to pick up the story

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.

linky
www.globalresearch.ca...

this is confirmation of the op in a respected website

this is huge

62 million holmes could be saved in total

xploder

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

Actually I looked up the word Understand in my old copy of Blck's law dictionary and Understand=Agreement to understand means to agree to.

We have been brainwashed through the schools into thinking that term 'understand' means 'comprehend'.