BIAS IN THE COURTS: UCC and TILA REVIEW

Our legal history has many examples of enormous errors committed by the Courts that were obvious to some but justified by many. The result is usually mayhem. The cause is a bias toward some underlying fact that was untrue at the time. Some examples include
  1.  the infamous Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court ruled that a black man is not a person within the meaning of the constitution and therefore could not sue to protect his rights because he was not a citizen by virtue of the FACT that his ancestors had been brought to America as slaves. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that “negroes” were fundamentally subhuman. It took a civil war that took 500,000 casualties and a constitutional amendment to change the results of that decision. We are still dealing with lingering thoughts about whether the color of one’s skin is in any way related to our status as humans, persons and citizens.
  2. the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court upheld that decision on the basis of national security. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that people of Japanese descent would have loyalty to the Empire of Japan and not the United States. People of German descent were not interred, probably because they looked more like other Americans. As the war progressed and the military realized that people of Japanese descent were resources rather than enemies, the government came to realize that acknowledging these people as citizens with civil rights was more important than the perception of a nonexistent threat to national security. Americans of Japanese descent proved invaluable in the war effort against Japan.
  3. the Citizens United decision in which the Supreme Court gave the management of corporations a “Second vote” in the court of public opinion. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that entities created on paper were no less important than the rights of real people as citizens. The additional underlying bias was that corporations are better than people.
  4. the hundreds of thousands of decisions from thousands of courts that relied on the fictitious power of the court to rewrite legislation that Judge(s) didn’t like. A current perfect example was reading common law (inferior, legally speaking) precedent to override express statutory procedures for the exercise and effect of statutory rescission under the Federal Truth in Lending Act. Over many years and many courts at the trial and appellate level the Judges didn’t like TILA rescission so they changed the wording of the statute to mean that common law procedures and principles apply — thus requiring the homeowner to file suit in order to make rescission effective, and requiring the tender of money or property to even have standing to rescind. This was contrary to the express provisions of the TILA rescission statute. Approximately 8 million+ people were displaced from their homes because of those decisions and the property records of thousands of counties have been forever debauched, likely requiring some legislative action to clear title on some 80+ million transactions involving tens of trillions of dollars. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that the legislature could not have meant that individuals have as much power as big corporation and they should not have such power. Then the short Supreme Court decision from a unanimous court in Jesinoski v Countrywide made the correction, effectively overturning hundreds of thousands of incorrect decisions. A court may not interpret a statute that is clear on its face. A court may not MAKE the law.
  5. the millions of foreclosures that have been allowed on the premise that the “holder” of a note should get the same treatment as a “holder in due course.” More than 16 million people have been displaced from their homes as a result of an underlying bias that was and often remains axiomatically true: decisions in favor of homeowners would give them a free house and decisions that allow foreclosure protect legitimate creditors. Both “axioms” are as completely wrong as the decisions about TILA Rescission.
It is the last item that I address in this article. A holder in due course is allowed to both plead and prove only the elements of Article 3 of the UCC. Article 3 of the UCC states that a party who purchases negotiable paper in good faith without knowledge of the maker’s defenses and before the terms are breached is presumed to be entitled to relief upon making their prima facie case — which are the elements already listed here. Even if there were irregularities or even fraud at the time of the origination of the loan or at a later time but before the HDC purchased the paper, the HDC will get judgment for the relief demanded. A “holder” (on the other hand) comes in many flavors under Article 3 but they all have one thing in common: they are not holders in due course.
The fundamental error of the courts has been to treat the “holder” as a “holder in due course” at the time of trial. It is true that the holder may survive a motion to dismiss merely by alleging that it is a holder — but fundamental error is being committed at trial where the holder must prove its underlying prima facie case. It should be noted that the requirement of consideration is repeated in Article 9 where it states that a security instrument must be purchased by a successor not merely transferred. So regardless of whether one is proceeding under Article 3 or Article 9, no foreclosure can be allowed without paying real money to a party who actually owned the mortgage. The Courts universally have ignored these provisions under the bias that it is axiomatically true that the party seeking to enforce the paper is so sophisticated and trustworthy that their mere request for relief should result in the relief demanded. This bias is “supported” by an additional bias: that failure to enforce such documents would undermine the entire economy of the country — a policy decision that is not within the province of the courts. And deeper still the bias is that it is axiomatically true that the paper would not exist without the actual existence of monetary transactions for origination and transfer of the paper. These “axioms” are not true.
As a result, courts have regularly rubber-stamped the extreme equitable remedy of foreclosure in favor of a party who has no financial interest in the alleged paper, nor any risk of loss or actual loss. The foreclosures are part of a scheme to make money at the expense of the actual people who are losing money. If this was not true, there would have been thousands of instances in which the “holder” presented the money trail that supposedly was the foundation for the paper that was executed and delivered, destroyed or lost. They never do. If they did, the volume of litigated foreclosure cases would drop to a drizzle. And these parties fight successfully to avoid not only the burden of proof but even the ability of the homeowner to inquire (discovery) about the “transactions” about which the paper is referring — either at origination or in purported transfers. Backdating assignments and endorsements would be unnecessary. “Robo-signing” would also be unnecessary. And the constant flux of new servicer and new trustees would also be unnecessary. Many of these events consist of illegal acts that are routinely ignored by the courts for reasons of bias rather than judicial interpretation.
A holder in due course proves their prima facie case by
a) proffering a witness with personal knowledge
b) proffering testimony that allows the commercial paper to be admitted as evidence (the note). This evidence need only be to the effect that the witness, or his company, physically has possession of the original note and presents it in court.
c) proffering testimony and records showing that the paper (the note) was purchased for good and valuable consideration by the party seeking to enforce it. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
d) proffering testimony and records showing that the mortgage, which is not a negotiable instrument, was purchased withe the note.
e) proffering testimony and records that the transactions were real and in good faith
f) proffering testimony that the purchaser of the paper had no knowledge of the maker’s defenses
g) proffering testimony that no default existed at the time of purchase of the paper.
Because of bias, the Courts, just as they did with TILA rescission, have mostly committed fundamental error by allowing to alleged “holders” a lesser standard of proof than the party who is legitimately in a superior position of being a holder in due course. It starts with a correct decision denying the homeowner’s motion to dismiss but ends up in fundamental error when the court “forgets” that the enforcing party has a factual case to prove beyond mere possession of an instrument they say is the original note.
The holder, in contrast to the holder in due course, is not entitled to any such presumptions at trial, except that they hold with rights to enforce. They don’t hold with automatic rights to win the case however.
A holder proves its prima facie case by
a) proffering a witness with personal knowledge
b) proffering testimony and records that allow the commercial paper to be admitted as evidence (the note). This evidence need only be to the effect that the witness, or his company, physically has possession of the original note and presents it in court.
c) proffering testimony and evidence as to the chain of custody of the paper the party seeks to enforce.
d) proffering testimony and records together with proof of payment of the original transaction (a requirement generally ignored by the courts). This means proof that the original party in the “chain” relied upon by the party seeking to enforce actually funded the alleged “loan” with funds of its own or for which it is responsible (e.g., a real warehouse credit arrangements where the originator bears the risk of loss).
e) proffering testimony and records showing that the paper (note) was purchased for good and valuable consideration by the creditor on whose behalf the party is seeking to enforce it. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
f) proffering testimony and records showing that the mortgage was also purchased by the creditor for good and valuable consideration. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
g) proffering testimony and records that the transactions was real and in good faith
h) proffering testimony that no default existed at the time of purchase of the paper. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be commercial paper and the party seeking to enforce would need to allege and prove  its standing and its prima facie case without benefit of the note or mortgage.
It should be added here that the non-judicial foreclosure states essentially make it even easier for an unrelated party to force the sale of property. Those statutory procedures are wrongly applied leaving the burden of proof as to UCC rights to enforce squarely on the homeowner who in most cases is not even a “borrower” in the technical sense. Such states are allowing parties to obtain a forced sale of property in cases where they would not or should not prevail in a judicial foreclosure. The reason is simple: the procedure for realignment of the parties has been ignored. When a homeowner files an action against the “new trustee” (substituted by virtue of the self proclaimed and unverified status of a third party beneficiary under the note and mortgage), the homeowner is somehow seen as the party who must prove that the prima facie case is untrue (giving the holder the rights of a holder in due course); the homeowner is being required to defend a case that was never filed or alleged. Instead of immediately shifting the burden of proof to the only party that says it has the rights and paperwork to justify the forced sale. This is an unconstitutional aberration of the rights of due process. The analogy would be that a defendant accused of murder must prove he did not commit the crime before the State had any burden to accuse the defendant or put on evidence. Realignment of the parties would comply with the constitution without changing the non-judicial statutes. It would require the challenged party to prove it should be allowed to enforce the forced sale of the property. Any other interpretation requires the the homeowner to disprove a case not yet alleged, much less proven in a prima facie case.

179 Responses

  1. bob H to Johngault:

    “I appreciate your thinking the issue through. I understand your sentiment on behalf of the borrower.”

    jg: yes, it’s true. I do have sentiment for all borrowers who were messed over by predatory loans. But my real sentiment is for the proper application of the law, however the apples fall.

    “Everyone bears the onus of asserting and protecting his rights. The rescinding borrower must send the creditor a valid notice of rescission for an actual (not fictitious) TILA violation. The borrower must look for a response from the creditor (jg: not so much unless she wants to sue for damages within a year). If and when the creditor tenders, the borrower must tender.”

    jg: okay

    “If the creditor believes he did not breach TILA, the then creditor must refuse to tender and notify the borrower. ”

    jg: well, this is where we part company. The lender may not refuse to comply with rescission imo. What a lender MAY do is file an action seeking an adjudication that the rescission was improper from a court within 20 days.

    “The borrower must sue the lender to enforce the rescission and collect damages, within one year. The lender must respond to the lawsuit or lose.”

    jg: for now at least, I stand by what I said. the one year is to bring a separate claim for damages as a result of failure to rescind, but the loan is rescinded and imo, a lender acts at his own peril by not
    doing anything. The decision you posted clearly states there is a separate (and distinct – sic) violation of TILA for failing to rescind. To be clear, as in, say, Dwight’s case, once his notice of rescission is
    demonstrated to have been sent by Dwight, it must be found that the lender has not stated a cause of action when it’s based on foreclosure and the court has no jurisdiction to hear a f/c action. Imo, dwight’s only burden, if any, was to prove by the relevant bar that the Notice was sent. The lender is the party who didn’t protect its rights by timely taking issue with the borrower’s (claim of) excercising HER rights. TILA is clear what a lender must do if it doesn’t want to live with the borrower’s exercise of her rights – go before a tribunal and argue about the borrower didnt’ in fact have that right as there was no violation. A lender not going to court to do that is akin to a default
    judgment, but one on the merits, i.e., with prejudice.

    “u see? The unwinding imposes burdens on both borrower and creditor. THAT is what TILA and Reg Z require, and if one of the parties fails to do it’s part, the court, if a party invokes its authority, will compel or deny the rescission for cause.”

    jg: what I see is that 1) TILA creates a cause for rescission, 2) a lender must rescind or go to court.
    The borrower claims to have excercised a right. The lender must abide by that right in the form of rescinding and give back all of value.
    If the lender doesn’t want to do that, the onus is on the lender to argue about it – in a court within a time certain. The borrower’s obligation to tender doesn’t arise until the lender has rescinded. Then and only then must a borrower perform by tendering.
    Let’s say a borrower rescinds and a lender follows the law and rescinds and then the borrower doesn’t and can’t tender. The lender has a cause of action against the borrower. That’s how that cookie crumbles.
    Your own sentiment no doubt doesn’t like the possibility or at least you may think courts won’t like it that a lender has rescinded and is now out its security. But you know very well that he who causes the problem bears its brunt. At any rate, lenders are legislatively given the opportunity to ward off such a consequence by their own performance – go to court in 20 days and argue.

    “And yes, the borrower has one year ONLY, after the 20 days, to sue for damages jg: yes

    “and to force rescission”.
    jg: no, to seek damages for the separate violation of failing to rescind. If a borrower doesn’t act within that year,
    he may not claim damages. He would only be entitled to recovery of the value he gave the lender. Like if, for instance, the borrower suffers damage as a result of failure to rescind or if a borrower had gotten an over-priced loan (succinctly), he may not recover the damages if he doesn’t try to get it in one year, at least not under TILA. He may not recover any damages after one year as a result of the failure to rescind or damages incurred as a result of a lousy loan, say. He may only recover the value paid to the lender (payments, loan costs, and so on) after one year of rescission.

    “Just remember that the court will determine whether the facts (actual breach, timely notice, timely lawsuit, ability to tender) justify the rescission.”

    jg: yes, a court may make those decisions, but only pursuant to a timely filed (20 days) contest by the lender. In order for a court to make those determinations, it has to be pursuant to the lender’s
    excercise of its own (one and only) right: to ask the court to do so within 20 days. A lender who doesn’t excercise its right to protect its interest has lost it.

    If you wanted a critical industry to police itself, which was a goal of the TILA, would you just give them a $100 fine for non-compliance with a limited set of rules? Would you write it so that, like common law rules,
    the person violated would have to be the one to squawk? That clearly isn’t what the legislators had in mind when they wrote the Act. But they did (of course) give lenders who did police themselves a right to excercise against bad rescission or any rescission, really: squawk within 20 days.

  2. greg, on October 8, 2015 at 7:58 pm said:

    FOR G0D’S SAKE –

    THIS IS PROOF THAT EDUCATED PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS OR JUST SO ENTRENCHED IN THEIR BELIEFS THEY WOULD RATHER DIE FOR NEWTON THAN LEARN QUANTUM THEORY

    SCOTUS DETERMINED THAT THE PEOPLE – THROUGH CONGRESS ASSEMBLED – DETERMINED, FOR THEMSELVES; THE INTENT AND OUTCOME OF TILA MATTER AND MADE IT PLAIN ON ITS FACE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE

    SCOTUS NAILED DOWN THE FACT THAT ALL LOWER COURTS ARE FORECLOSED TO SPEAK OR RULE AGAINST IT ANYMORE

    SCOTUS TELLS ALL LOWER COURTS THAT THEY BETTER NOT WAR WITH CONGRESS AND BETTER CORRECT ALL PAST MISTAKES INCONSISTENT WITH THE PEOPLE’S PLAIN MEANING

    SCOTUS TELLS ALL LOWER COURTS TO USE TILA TO ACT IN DEFENSE OF THE PEOPLE’S VOICE AND NEEDS – NOT THE BANKS OR CORPORATIONS

    P E R I O D ! ! !
    P E R I O D ! ! !
    P E R I O D ! ! !

    ANYTHING ELSE IS A COUP DE TAT ! ! !
    ANYTHING ELSE IS TREASON ! ! !

    greg
    greg, on October 8, 2015 at 7:41 pm said:

    one can create legal proof, duties, obligations and judgments without (outside of) any court!!!

    – it is this ongoing craziness that every damn thing must go before “black-robed daddy” to settle claims that is destroying America…

    – that guy on the bench is NOT my daddy…

    – things can still be legally settled with teeth between parties without an arbitrator or administrator or court…

    – and if you bind them to a counter offer version of a contract after they make an initial offer, and tell them in writing to answer or counter, else accept – you can get them to the SAME enforceable place that credit card companies get you when you don’s send back a cut-up credit card after they send you notice of change of terms…

    – if you get them into a legal agreement separately that stipulates that all issues are final and settled, they are foreclosed to bring it before a judge without violating the contract – and if you were sharp enough to add stipulations for recourse upon such breach of contract, you can collect or lien them up to their eyebrows… and a judge (if they do sue) should rule in your favor)

    – everyone forgot that THEY (The People) ARE the U.S., and the corporations we ALLOW to exist are there to serve US and the U.S.!

    – we can also create adhesion contracts that bind them to a post to the same degree that they create adhesion contracts which bind us to a post…

    – think of it as “What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander Law”

    everyone is drunk on litigation!

    greg

  3. Sounds like Greg addressed the specific wording of TILA very well but Bob is in an endless loop.

  4. my corrections –
    in re… bobhurt, on October 8, 2015 at 1:55 am said: to: Johngault:

    “Everyone bears the onus of asserting and protecting his rights.”
    (absolutely TRUE – freedom ain’t free – and while government my be charged with helping secure your rights by doing nothing to impair them – other persons and corporations are not under that same constraint and have the ability to FORK with you if you are asleep at the wheel)

    “The rescinding borrower must send the creditor a valid notice of rescission for an actual (not fictitious) TILA violation.”
    (correction – that is an interpretation of something not stated that way in the actual statute – it simply says to transmit in some form of writing notice of rescission under TILA)

    “The borrower must look for a response from the creditor.”
    (correction – the borrow MAY look to a responsive answer in compliance with the statute – and if none is received w/i 20 days, MAY proceed with another action – or MAY do other things not prohibited by law – like record the rescission on the county record! – to secure the title for possible refinancing or other actions)

    “If and when the creditor tenders, the borrower must tender.”
    (correction – skipped a step – first the lender must provide the cancelled mortgage releasing the security interest and then present the now “unsecured” note for the swap…)

    “If the creditor believes he did not breach TILA, the then creditor must refuse to tender and notify the borrower.”
    (correction – the lender can’t believe anything because it is a non-living legal fiction – it can however, collectively, by way of the controlling people, hold a “position” on a topic… THEN if the lender is not going to simply acquiesce to the borrower’s rescission, it must sue w/i 20 days for a declaratory judgment, bringing facts and evidence to prove its case to nullify the underlying basis of the borrower’s claims or timing – else they tacitly accept and are barred!)

    “The borrower must sue the lender to enforce the rescission and collect damages, within one year.”
    (correction – the borrower MAY sue to enforce the rescission to claim their payments/damages due from the lender AFTER the 20 days and before 1 year and 20 days – the borrower may also “just let sleeping dogs lie” and let the statutory clock run out on the lender’s arrogance or incompetence – AND – the lender also has the same window in which it MAY sue – if no action is taken by either party within this window the borrower MAY just sue for quiet title after the foolish lender’s rights are extinguished and keep the house)

    “The lender must respond to the lawsuit or lose.”
    (correction – the lender must respond to the notice of rescission AND/OR borrower’s subsequent lawsuit OR file their own lawsuit – or lose!)

    “You see? The unwinding imposes burdens on both borrower and creditor.”
    (absolutely TRUE – with the above corrections)

    “THAT is what TILA and Reg Z require, and if one of the parties fails to do it’s part, the court, if a party invokes its authority, will compel or deny the rescission for cause.”
    (correction – the court only has a voice IF one of the parties brings an action into the court in regard to the rescission – the court cannot make a motion on its own to bring a plaintiff and defendant before it for a controversy – that must be done by one of the parties with a legal interest… MORAL TO THE STORY – DON’T FILE ANY LAWSUIT AFTER RESCISSION AND WAIT MORE THAN 1 YEAR AND 20 DAYS TO LET THEM DIE ON THE VINE)

    “And yes, the borrower has one year ONLY, after the 20 days, to sue for damages and to force rescission.”
    (correction – the borrower has ONLY one year, after the 20 days, to sue for damages and payments owed… the borrower NEVER NEEDS to file a lawsuit to confirm rescission [although it may be necessary to get a declaratory judgment to keep the ignorant hounds at bay [AFTER YOU HAVE WAITED THAT LONG] that the borrower DID execute rescission AND the lender IGNORED IT [broke the law] AND lender NEVER responded IN ANY WAY… AND lender has lost all recourse and right of claim – AND any foreclosure judgment or sale which occurred after that statutory period is null and void and unenforceable)

    “Just remember that the court will determine whether the facts (actual breach, timely notice, timely lawsuit, ability to tender) justify the rescission.”
    (correction – Just remember IF THE LENDER FILES A SUIT W/I 20 DAYS OR YOU OR THE LENDER FILE A LAWSUIT WITHIN THAT 1 YEAR AND 20 DAY PERIOD, YOU OR THEY WILL BE GRANTING THE COURT JURISDICTION TO ALLOW THAT COURT THE POWER TO determine whether the facts (actual breach, timely notice, timely lawsuit, ability to tender) justify the rescission.)

    greg

  5. Taylor, Bean,and Whitaker had motivation to lie. They held millions in unmarketable fha loans (think it was fha loans) and needed to get them off their warehouse lines re: warehouse lender demands and fees. The fha loans had to be refi’d into conventional loans. As I recall, fha wouldn’t insure the loans, maybe because TBW had lost its fha authority. At any rate, they had a gazillion loans with no homes.

    from the case bob h cited
    :
    “When a borrower exercises a valid right of rescission, the creditor must act within twenty days of receipt of the notice of rescission, returning the borrower’s money and terminating its security interest. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).

    jg: exactly (unless they go to court and seek a variance, abbreviated, within that 20 days)

    Failure to respond to the borrower’s request constitutes a separate TILA violation. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a). A one year statute of limitations for violations of rescission under § 1635(b) then runs from twenty days after a plaintiff provides notice of rescission. Id.; Frazile v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 382 Fed. App’x 833, 839 (11th Cir. 2010).”

    jg: It’s my opinion that it’s the separate tila violation for non-rescission by the lender which has the one year sol, that is, for damages caused by the failure by the lender to rescind. This doesn’t compel a borrower to file suit over the rescission within one year of her rescission, only to file suit in one year if she seeks damages over the failure to rescind, i.e., the separate tila violation. Apples and oranges.

    “It is facially evident from any construct of Jackson’s Amended Complaint that his rescission claim is barred by the TILA’s one-year statute of limitations. Jackson executed the mortgage loan documents on January 16, 2009 and purportedly provided the lender written notice that he was exercising his right to rescind within the three day statutory cooling off period on January 19, 2009. The lender had twenty days from January 19, 2009, or by February 8, 2009, in which to respond. Jackson thereafter was required to file suit within one year. Jackson did not file the foregoing lawsuit until May, 29, 2014, more than four years after the expiration of the statute of limitations.[1] Jackson has, accordingly, failed to state a viable claim for rescission.”

    jg: well, this certainly puts the onus on the borrower to act, which I don’t believe is what tila had in mind. This allows lenders to disregard rescission, if or no other reason than betting that the homeowner doesn’t have the wherewithall to do anything about it. It can be argued that legislation doesn’t intent a right to extend indefinitely, so a borrower should file within a year.
    But it can equally be argued that, as I’ve said and believe, the one year is a sol for damages and that a borrower gives up a claim for damages for failure to rescind, the SEPARATE violation, BUT NOT RESCISSION, after one year.

  6. Gangs have .orgs & tell everyone they’re thugs & no one in law enforcement cn gather enought evidence to criminally indict these hoods?

    That sure reeks of corruption every which way but Sunday.

    THE SATAN’S DISCIPLES: ALL HAVE ORIGINS FROM THE ORIGINAL DEVILS DISCIPLES. THEY EXIST BY CRIMINAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN

    http://www.ngcrc.com/ngcrc/sataprof.htm

  7. THE GANGSTER DISCIPLES ARE STRUCTURED LIKE A CORPORATE ENTERPRISE.

    Imagine that.

    BLACK DISCIPLES:

    http://chicagogangs.org/index.php?pr=BDN

  8. U.S.SENATE CANDIDATE DRANK GOATS BLOOD

    http://www.ooyuz.com/geturl?aid=8610063

  9. I don’t gamble, however, I would bet on this notion in regards to the link below, the SPY AGENCIES set these raw deals up for their GANG BANGER perps with their BANKING minions for AIG, their gambling house comrades.

    So we have DANGEROUS STREET GANGS like the GANGSTER DISCIPLES, enforcing their own fraud for the SPIES whose “DOGS ATE THEIR MORTGAGE FRAUD.”

    That’s why PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES is the biggest scam going because it’s FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT used for CORPORATE MONEY LAUNDERING of DRUG MONEY to TAX EVADE & hide their IDENTITIES & hide their ORIGINAL COUNTERFEITS.

  10. CORRECT ERROR on that link below. This is the link to this thread entitled: IF YOU’RE STILL SELLING DRUGS – YOU’RE STUPID – MORTGAGE FRAUD

    http://tippingpitchers.com/showthread.php?t=35380

  11. Could this get more evil?

    IF YOU’RE STILL SELLING DRUGS – YOU’RE STUPID – MORTGAGE FRAUD

    http://tippingpitchers.com/showthread.php?t=36380

  12. Bob nothing works in this rigged system. Except when they throw us a bone to keep up the scam. It’s not guru theory marriage is contract law at it’s most basic and the corruption of our mortgages and property records is tearing up our social fabric in same way that no legitimacy in marriage would. I’ve already won everything I did and believed has been validated. A house, property or some rigged court won’t define me.

  13. Their WHITE ON WHITE PAPERS cover up their crimes because they disclose nothing in regards to the main issue which is NON DISCLOSURE by them.

    Why do we need to read their mind control brainwashing jargon re SECURITIZATION when they don’t have the SECURITIES & never did because the DRUG CARTELS COUNTERFEITED everything to hide they’re IDENTITY THIEVES.

    It’s their WORSHIPFUL MASTER – WORSHIPFUL MERCER crap & none of it’s legal.

  14. Why don’t the heads of the big pharma companies like MERCK go to jail for promoting DRUGS with side effects that can cause death?

    But they ruin peoples lives by their own misdeeds?

    That’s the tenets of MIND CONTROL by the DRUG CARTELS because their DRUGS & BOOZE let the devil in.

    I was told you’re too smart by them. Well too bad for them, because my religious beliefs condemn their irreligious beliefs. That’s why I don’t believe the MEDICAL ESTABLISMENT in this country has no integrity whatsoever because they’re DRUG ADDICTS ran by DRUG ADDICTS & I hate DRUGS & BOOZE more than I can’t stand them using our money to push their own poison.

  15. HERE BOB,

    In Re Gilbert May 3, 2011 North Carolina Appeals Court Decision
    What is interesting is the logic of the decision, which blows a hole
    in one of the pet arguments of the American Securitization Forum, that
    possession of a note will suffice. We have argued that the contracts
    that govern the securitization, the pooling and servicing agreement,
    sets the requirements for conveyance as is contemplated in the Uniform
    Commercial Code (its Article 1 allows for parties to make their own
    arrangements as long as certain conditions are met). But if the
    parties to a case do not argue that the PSA trumps the UCC (and many
    do not), most judges will reason from the UCC, and securitization
    attorneys have blithely assumed this will get them out of trouble.
    This is the position asserted in the ASF’s white paper last fall:

  16. What more proof do we need that FRAUDCLOSURE is STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM?

    How could the STATE OF ILLINOIS seize the private property rights of its citizens when they don’t have the NOTES because our properties were FEDERALLY INSURED because our TITLES were backed by TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES we bought from the U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT?

    Moreover, GOLDMAN SACHS was the largest investor here & where did their money originate from that funded their sales?

    Not the STATE OF ILLINOIS that’s for sure & if it did that’s criminal on many levels because they can’t legally fund their own crime spree with our money. .

  17. again bob i ask you to tell all the answer to this. as of the signing of the mortgage and note. 8 nov 2005, who was owner of the note, and who should be recorded at registry of deeds office as holder of the mortgage and note. you say simple, ok i agree.

    SO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ALL OF US. WHO IS THE CREDITOR/LENDER OF THIS LOAN?
    WHO SHOULD BE AT THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE AS HOLDER OF THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE. AS OF 14 NOV 2005.
    THIS IS THE DATE IT WAS RECORDED.
    ALSO AM HOLDING A TRUE COPY OF MY NOTE, NOT SIGN OVER TO ANYONE, NO STAMP NOTHING,
    AM ALSO HOLDING A COPY OF THE NOTE FROM QWR FROM SERVICER , WITH NOTHING ON IT, 2 TIME QWR, HAVE A COPY OF THE NOTE WITH A STAMP ON IT IN BLANK, NOT SIGN AND NOT DATED.
    SO WHAT YOU THINK. WHO’S WHO,
    WHO WAS THE TRUE FUNDER/CREDITOR/LENDER OF THE LOAN.
    SO I WOULD SAY AM THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THAT IS WET INK SIGN,DATED,OVER TO A NON PARTY OF LOAN.

  18. I call the entire charade THE BOHEMIAN GROVE JOB.

    The legal system in this country does nothing but victimize the victims of the DRUG CARTELS who’s main objective is VICTIMIZATION OF THE INNOCENT.

  19. The proof FRAUDCLOSURE is one vast INSIDE JOB by DRUG CARTELS who manufacture everything to hide their own criminal culpability is where’s the CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS?

    I’ve been blowing the whistle for over 5 years now so clearly I have nothing to hide & no CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS come to my door to investigate none of it.

    We know they’re spying on every word we say because of the INSIDE JOB on 9/11 so where could the FEDERAL BANKING REGULATORS possibly be?

    That’s the real question in FRAUDCLOSURE.

    That’s the real reason why the REAL DRUG DEALER CRIMINALS who manufacture & distribute their own POISON DRUGS & BOOZE never go to prison, but their victims do.

  20. Oh dear

  21. Go behave? I’ve been the epitome of honesty my entire life & the model of the perfect U.S. CITIZEN too.

    I’ve been healthy in every way & I’ve had perfect, spotless records my entire life & I never used much credit. I never used drugs & I never drank except for the occasional wine spritzer when I went out to see my kids band play.

    I stood up to the most corrupt legal system in the country for 5 years defending my TITLES PRO SE in FRAUDCLOSURE, not by choice, but because of the WRONGDOINGS OF OTHERS & that’s when my troubles soon began.

    There is the proof of the INSIDE JOB like 9/11 by the DRUG CARTELS who the russian mob controls.

    Go to http://www.commieblaster.com & see the evil plot for yourself.

    It’s CORPORATE FRAUD on steroids & these SPY AGENCIES cover up for the CHURCH OF SATAN/CHURCH OF GESU (COS).

    Corps like PROCTOR & GAMBLE who donate big money to te COS should have their CREDIT LINES revoked for using our money to front run for the DRUG CARTEL devil.

    That’s really the bottom line is we’re funding our own demise & that’s what they’re hiding behind CORPORATE FRAUD AKA FRAUDULENT DRUID WICCAN INVESTMENT PRACTICES.

    THE LARGE Investment houses hide the identities of these wheeler dealer satanists who swap our identities unlawfully by TITLE FRAUD.

    That’s why I won’t ever sign, register or vote for these DRUG PUSHERS like OBAMA ever.

  22. The rotten truth SHADOWCAT-HOLICS is, the ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY has been trying to criminally EXTORT MY SIGNATURE for OBAMA for over two years now to hide their MASS CRIMINALITY behind these two FRAUDCLOSURES I’ve been defending for over 5 years myself PRO SE because they’re extremely jealous LAWYERS who hate CATHOLICS.

    They’re FORCED DRUGGING MURDERERS of CATHOLICS because we don’t do business with DRUG DEALERS.

    Therefore, I sure don’t need or want no one “worrying” in regards to me because my full faith & confidence is in God.

    I talk to God everyday & that’s my salvation from you demon worshipping crooks.

  23. Furthermore SHADOWCAT-HOLICS the EMPORER is not the CATHOLIC CHURCH or I would be dead.

    The EMPORER is the FASCIST ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY who works for that crook OBAMA & they belong in the HAGUE for WAR CRIMES.

    Moreover who gives the ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY the right to PRINT LIES on this blog LIKE FACT regarding PRIVATE CITIZENS in this LAWLESS COUNTRY?

    NO ONE DOES.

    We have that SODOMIST OBAMA calling us crazy criminals when he robbed the U.S. TREASURY of $60 + trilliom dollars in U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY since 2008 reported CNBC’S RICK SANTELLI.

    Therefore, you OBAMAITE crooks can go get screwed, every last one of you DRUGEE DRUG PUSHERS.

  24. Nothing was sold SHADOWCAT-HOLICS you criminal jerk off.

    The ARREST was completely FABRICATED by the ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY & was ATTEMPTED MURDER because you crooks set that whole INSIDE JOB up to cover your DRUG DEALERS & I can prove it & i’m going to sue every last one of you crooks for trying to kill me because I’m CATHOLIC.

  25. CORRECT TYPO: I never received nothing in writing from you’re CRIMINAL PIMP JUDGE friends.

    How do you look yourselves in the mirror everyday knowing you sell outs sell yourselves for DRUG DEALERS?

    Furthermore SHADOWCAT-HOLICS how do you propose you know MY BUSINESS when your wtong every time?

    I know you’re whoring for OBAMAS COMRADE, the ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY & they’re the MAIN CULPRITS here.

    Why? Because they failed to do their job in the first place & investigate these two wrongful FRAUDCLOSURE SUITS.

    So go whore for OBAMA somewhere else or I’m going to sue you pigs for SLANDER.

  26. I knew it!!!
    FYI. .. People were worried about you. Hard to Believe .I know.
    But your arrest and the sale were posted here publicly while you were being detained. I did not post them myself but with your consent …to prove my point of course…will post them.

    Now settle down and behave!

  27. Furthermore SHADOWCAT-HOLICS I would not be here if I lost. I’m living in my house you criminal maggot.

    I never received one thing in writing saying otherwise from your PIMP JUDGES friends either.

    The VICE SQUAD should pick you up for trying to run your own STATE FUNDED PROSTITUTION RING here for the ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY you vagrant pimp for OBAMA.

    I respect your opinion Hammertime but I believe DRUGS & BOOZE is the root cause of everything evil.

  28. Sorry SHADOWCAT-HOLICS but I never lost one thing to no one you LYING CROOK.

    Clearly you work for the CRIMINAL ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY & youre smoking OBAMA CRACK together.

    I hope you go to PRISON for lying & trying to spread OBAMAS COMMUNIST RESOCIALIST CRACK HEAD THEORIES to the public.

    You have no business saying nothing in regards to me on the internet. You’re one SEWER MOUTHED CROOK.

  29. An example of manipulation of law were talking about is as SC said I think with reconceyance. Last step is when refi and debt paid off PAID note must be returned by right. If not a transfer is in no way what we understood at closing. No meeting of minds. They say they record reconveyance and that’s all tgere is to it. They record a deed and say it’s perfected title and that’s all there is to it. But it’s wrong. The CA AG site is clear, perfected title goes back to origination.

  30. Lvent the thing is there is real evil here and it’s spread to every level and maybe especially those who claim religion and to be sober. My faith is that this level of deception and violence is contrary to God’s will and is a real battle and those that aren’t with us are against us and against our supposed universal beliefs.

  31. Moreover it’s OBAMA’S LUCIFERIAN BELIEF SYSTEM I can’t stand.

    His GAY RIGHTS AGENDA bs. We’re ONE NATION UNDER GOD not ONE NATION UNDER SODOMISTS.

    Furthermore his NANNY STATE THEORIES is MARXIST LENINISM & that should never be tolerated in this country because WE THE PEOPLE pay for everything upfront like ERIN BURNETT said on CNN.

    Therefore, OBAMAS QUI PRO QUO ANALOGIES that COMMUNIST RESOCIALISM is the proper legal remedy for FOREIGN INSURRECTION by our enemies is evil garbage & dangerous to our personal freedoms because its SATANIC INDOCTRINATION to force their FRAUD on us by denying we have legal rights like we’re their stupid pee-ons.

    These ATTORNEYS trying to normalize crime by DRUG CARTELS by telling us their FIX FOR FRAUD is wrongful because we’re paying them, not vice versa.

    These cops seem more like spies than law enforcement because they refuse to do their jobs.

  32. That’s where people go off track to “discover” the original creditor. May have had to before settlements, hbor, Jesinoski. The mindset needs to be who are these strangers to the transaction. Make them prove they have legitimate standing that’s the poetic justice of rescission and unlawful detainer in CA.

  33. I will probate lay regret this…..

    1. The Vatican is the Biggest Bank
    2. The Emporior is naked behind the Popes robe..

    3. Linda lost the business and house to the state because we didn’t follow directions .

    I am no big pharma fan…. But there is always exceptions.

  34. Of course these filthy dirty FRAUDCLOSURE COMPLAINTS is PORNO for the DRUG CARTELS who made this happen intentionally.

    They want to CONTROL THE POPULATION with their deadly PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS & their unlawful ones too.

    They want everyone crying in their beer.

    DRUGS & BOOZE let the devil in & if it weren’t true they wouldn’t have deadly side effects. They’re telling us they want us dead.

    That’s why i see this manufactured financial crisis is RELIGIOUS WAR on CATHOLICS because we were told to reject the devil & it’s evil works which is DRUGS & ALCOHOL first & foremost.

  35. Right Deb!!!
    But again … They would have to disclose the original creditors.
    And that would require the close of escrow 1st.

  36. Meanwhile the agents of keep giving their little spiel like the puppets that they are but they are all culpable and we will see the low hanging fruit fall first
    This is why I say ” if there were no bad men there would be no bad women” it’s a metaphor for how these ” agents” made their money and were unjustly enriched.

  37. If you’re inquisitive you start to want to know WHO IS THE PRINCIPAL bringing this fraudulent claim? When you start breaking down the PRINCIPAL, the AGENT gets revealed. That is quite complex because it is hard to pinpoint who the PRINCIPAL AGENT & AGENCY is hiding behind this charade.

    That’s what they never want us to know is they’re demon worshippers & you don’t have to believe me.

    One day out in the courtroom hallway of the DALEY CENTER the RECEIVER from my business property from STAR LLC, SUSAN TJARKSEN said to me she didnt even know who these people were. I told her they’re FIRST MIDWEST BANK. She looked surprised I said that.

    I know it doesn’t matter how many times they switch partied they stand in the same shoes of the initiate.

    You can see they’re trying to break our human spirit by the numerous wrongful denials with no written legal reason given for those. There is no other entity that would do that other than the devil itself.

    I believe the real devil here is DRUGS & BOOZE.

    Those 2 key elements CONTROL people.

    The song SOUL TO SQUEEZE by the RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS describes this phenomenon. I love their music because they really get it.

  38. And that’s why when you send the servicer your rescission they can’t file anything within 20 days SC

  39. Not asking is the same as waving your rights..
    Needed to establishing standing .

  40. be interesting how this plays out after the newly elected with shifts in the power players

  41. The lender was another strawman….
    Wrong question….language trickery

    Ask..Who was the Original Creditor?

  42. Almost all of the original so-called lenders went into bankruptcy. My question is: what happens to the loans/notes with a bankrupt entity? Supposedly, these note/loans were SOLD into a securitized trust which means that once sold, that is where they stay in the trust. If the entity declared bankruptcy, how do they sell the notes into the trust? Just thinking….

  43. What debt Deb?
    How much does KC owe?

  44. I could go on… but my point here is… Nothing follows nothing.
    You have to go back to before the closing.

  45. And if they want to talk about the debt I’m game

  46. Before you can file a reconveyance ..
    You must first file the conveyance ….
    Before you file the conveyance….
    You have to file the deed….
    Before you file the deed….
    You have to file the trustee agreement….
    Before you file the trustee agreement…..
    There has to be a satisfaction of the Mortgage…

  47. LOL Hammertine it’s first & foremost war on our spirituality & politics, the so called “PARTY OF ONE” plays the biggest role here.

    The reson is no one is supposed to know who they really work for.

    That DECEPTION is what makes this whole thing criminal.

    For example, one ATTORNEY from ARONBERG GOLGEHN & GARMISA called SECURITIES LAW LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO in open court to the judge.

  48. elexquisitor
    I did challenge in an ammended complaint which was denied and the rest is – still in court

  49. RECISSION IN CA – TILA rescission voids the note and DOT upon receipt by the creditor of a letter requesting such rescission. Period. THE NOTE AND DOT IS VOID AT THAT POINT. If creditor agrees to rescind, it has 20 days to perform certain acts. Once that occurs, the debtor has specific acts to perform as well if he also agrees to rescind without court intervention. After that point, a 1 year period allows either party to initiate suit to complete the rescission to unwind the obligation or challenge it.

    IANAL, and I have not been following rescission in the courts, so I have not seen results of the following strategy for the debtor. Once the 20 days have passed, the debtor may record a Satisfaction and Reconveyance with the county, using Cal Civ Code 1203 (“1203. Any person interested under an instrument entitled to be proved for record, may institute an action in the superior court against the proper parties to obtain a judgment proving such
    instrument.”), aka, the Glaski Blaster. The facts of the action are that a letter requesting rescission was received by creditor, the note and DOT are void as an operation of law, and the Satisfaction and Reconveyance are being submitted by borrower because creditor no longer has interest in the property or obligation. The judgment of the court is attached to the docs and recorded with the county. Timing of the action is a cause of concern worthy of consulting with an out-of-state attorney since the CA BAR can no longer be trusted as acting in the interests of CA citizens. Then file the puppy in Fed court due to diversity to avoid corrupt CA judiciary. The caveat is that if an instrument, such as a Trustee Sale and Conveyance is recorded first, there is only a 1-year limitation to challenge it before it becomes binding as an operation of law.

  50. That’s it Deb! For Who and under what Authority?
    Including but not limited to you.

    Now about that rescission rabbit hole, ……. Have you tried to sell?

    If you can not beat them .. Join them.

  51. I have no problem with rescission it’s a tool towards truth

  52. hT
    They can not satisfy the statute if frauds – the collectors are collecting for ?? That’s what needs to under the microscope the who the how the when the where and under what authority

  53. Here is where I have a problem with those throwing the rescission defense in play while making money…..

    You can get a satisfaction of mortgage and still not hold clear title for 30 years (thus MERS warranty BS).

    You can file QT but can not remove MERS.
    Anyone know of a case where a Judge has ?

  54. A recorded document has no effect without out the underlying capacity agreement ( trustee agreement).

    Any document that follows also has a null effect.
    The missing deeds sitting in open escrow.

    Bad Trustee

  55. Anything they claim is questionable. They will claim they only transferred rights if they are liable as owner/investor and vise versa. That is one of the biggest deceptions that a transfer is same as payoff and actual type of transfer as servicer with owner/investor transaction is same as servicing rights doesn’t matter.

  56. To take it further banks and Bob want us to accept annulment is not an option even though you’re married to Dick instead of Tom! So take the marriage whether u like it or not and fight a nasty divorce. That’s the danger of Bob ‘s approach you acknowledge party, debt that was fraud, clouded title before we signed anything .

  57. The only thing they were transferring were rights..
    You can not transfer or convey something you do not have….
    Nothing still equals Nothing.

  58. SHADOWCAT, SO AFTER GMAC MORTGAGE CORP SOLD THE MORTGAGES TO RESIDENTAUL MORTGAGE, GMAC MORTGAGE CAN NO LONGER HAVE ONE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE MORTGAGES THEY SOLD. NO ONE LINE. NOTHING, ZIPPO,

    SO MERS USEING THERE AUTHORITY IN 2012, FOR GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, IS FRAUD. JUST A PAIN AS BLACK AND WHITE.

  59. I get it….
    The Plaintiff
    As One half of the Estate

    The Plaintiffs Note ….

  60. THIS IS THE LIST FROM WELLS FARGOS TRUST SERVICES OF ALL THE G’S, IN GMACM DONT SEE MY TRUST.

    G ^
    CDO G-Square Finance 2006-1 Limited Series Reports
    CDO G-Square Finance 2006-2 Limited Series Reports
    CMBS GE Business Loan Trust Series Reports
    CMBS GE Capital Business Asset Funding Series Reports
    MBS GE Capital Mortgage Services Inc. Series Reports Shelf Documents
    MBS GE Capital Mortgage Services Inc. (GEM) Series Reports
    ABS GE Commercial Loan Trust Series Reports
    CMBS GE Commercial Mortgage Corp. Series Reports
    MBS GE Home Equity Series Reports Shelf Documents
    MBS Gemgarto Series Reports
    CMBS German Residential Asset Note Distributor plc Series Reports
    MBS GFT Mortgage Loan Trust Series Reports
    CDO GIA Investment Grade SCDO Ltd. Series Reports
    CMBS GKK Trading Warehouse I LLC Series Reports
    CDO Glacier Funding CDO V Ltd. Series Reports
    MBS Glendale Federal Savings Series Reports
    ABS GLS Auto Receivable Trust Series Reports
    ABS GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust Series Reports
    CMBS GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc Series Reports
    CMBS GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities of Canada Inc. Canada Series Reports
    MBS GMAC Mortgage Corporation Series Reports Shelf Documents
    ABS GMAC Overdrive Auto Loan Syndication Trust Series Reports
    MBS GMACM Home Mortgage Loan Trust Series Reports Shelf Documents
    ABS GMF Floorplan Owner Revolving Trust Series Reports
    ABS GO Financial Auto Securitization Trust Series Reports
    MBS Gold Creek Loan Management Services LLC Series Reports
    ABS Golden Eagle Funding Corp Series Reports
    ABS GOLF Auto Receivables Funding LLC Series Reports
    CDO Golub Capital BDC CLO 2014 LLC Series Reports
    ABS Golub Capital Loan Trust Series Reports
    CDO Golub Capital Partners CLO 18(M) LTD. Series Reports
    CDO Golub Capital Partners CLO 21(M) LTD Series Reports
    CDO GOLUB CAPITAL PARTNERS CLO 23(B) LTD Series Reports
    CDO GOLUB CAPITAL PARTNERS CLO 23(B) LTD – WH Series Reports
    CDO Golub Capital Partners CLO 24(M) LTD Series Reports
    CDO Golub Capital Partners CLO 25(M) LTD Series Reports
    CDO Golub International Loan Ltd. I Series Reports
    MBS Gonzalo Trust Series Reports
    MBS Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) Series Reports Shelf Documents
    CMBS GP Capital Funding Corp. Series Reports
    CDO Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2005-1 Ltd. Series Reports
    CDO Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2006-1 Ltd. Series Reports
    CDO Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2007-1 Ltd Series Reports
    CDO Grand Central Series Reports
    CMBS Grand Pacific Business Loan Trust Series Reports
    CDO Grand River Series Reports
    ABS GreatAmerica Leasing Receivables Funding LLC Series Reports
    MBS Green Tree 2014 Advance 1 Series Reports
    MBS Green Tree Advance Receivables Trust (GTAT) Series Reports
    CDO Greenland CDO Ltd. Series Reports
    MBS Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust (GMF) Series Reports Shelf Documents
    MBS Greenpoint MTA Series Reports Shelf Documents
    ABS Greentree Series Reports
    MBS Greenwich Capital Acceptance Inc. Series Reports
    MBS Greenwich Structured ARM Products (GSAP) Series Reports Shelf Documents
    CDO Greylock Synthetic CDO Series Reports
    MBS GRP/AG Real Estate Asset Trust Series Reports
    ABS GS Auto Loan Trust Series Reports
    MBS GS Mortgage Securities Corp. (GSAMP) Series Reports Shelf Documents
    MBS GS Mortgage Securities Corp. (GSMPS) Series Reports Shelf Documents
    CMBS GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II Series Reports
    MBS GSAA Series Reports Shelf Documents
    MBS GSMSC Resecuritization Trust Series Reports
    CDO GSO Blackstone Series Reports
    CDO GSO Domestic Capital Funding Series Reports
    MBS GSR Mortgage Loan Trust Series Reports Shelf Documents
    ABS Guardian National Acceptance Corp Series Reports
    CDO Gulf Stream-Atlantic CDO 2007-1 Ltd. Series Reports
    H

  61. Shadow those are just different wrinkles on the fraud. May be the main one w securitization as NG mostly covers. But id say in case if trusts they create them and don’t fund them like NGs explained. It’s lije the small timer they always nail for creating llc’s w none of their money, ponzi scheme part of this.

  62. SHADOWCAT,

    THIS IS ALSO A NON MEMBER OF MERS CORP,OR ANY ONE OF THEM, MERS CORP.MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REG SYSYTEMS,

    Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of February 27, 2006 by and between GMAC Mortgage Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, having an office at 100 Witmer Road, Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044 (the “Seller”) and Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and having an office at 8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 (the “Purchaser”).

    AND THIS IS ALSO GREAT, 2006 GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GONE, TURN INTO GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, BUT THEY WENT BY WAIST SIDE IN 2009, TURNED INTO ALLY BANK, ALSO GMAC MORTGAGE LLC,RESCAP, CHARGE OFF 22 BILLION IN MORTGAGES AT TIME OF TURNING INTO ALLY BANK,

    THEN ALLY PUTS ALL OF THEM INTO BK MAY 2012,

    FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF MY RECORDS, FROM GMAC MORTGAGE CORP INC, MERS ACTING AS ASSIGNEE FOR THEM, TO TRUST, AS OF AUGUST 2012. FUNNY RIGHT.

  63. That’s why there is no formula and u have to look at facts AND see the fraud and manipulation and play chess as Deborah says.

  64. Shadow MERS authority is a different issue when it comes to cases like mine and Dave ‘s looks like. Like the marriage tgey aren’t the proper party, strangers to transaction plain English the marriage license is Dick instead of Tom at the altar! It’s either really bad data on MERS or result of counterfeiting notes that in my case were PAID OFF, before tgey brainwashed us to think payoffs didn’t matter.

  65. It appears if the investors did not get the notes – the trusts do not exist.

    So what happens to the depositors assets? Were they abandoned?

    And what about the fact that unregistered PPMs assert there are two trusts?
    One for personal property and one for land?

  66. yes i would say that, BINGO, IT WOULD ALSO SAY, THAT ANYTHING PUT ON MY LAND RECORDS, SHOULD NOT HAVE GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, OR AFFILIATES. AFTER 8 NOV 2005. BUT IT DOES,

  67. Dand great breakdown of marriage analogy and how law is supposed to work

  68. shadowcat, what most people dont know, is that once a loan is illegality securitezed, like mine was. meaning.

    gmac mortgage corp, on 27 feb 2006 said it sold my mortgage to

    MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT

    This is a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of February 27, 2006 by and between GMAC Mortgage Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, having an office at 100 Witmer Road, Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044 (the “Seller”) and Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and having an office at 8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 (the “Purchaser”).

    The Seller agrees to sell to the Purchaser and the Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Seller certain mortgage loans on a servicing-retained basis as described herein (the “Mortgage Loans”). The following terms are defined as follows:

    ECTION 4. Record Title and Possession of Mortgage Files. The Seller hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and conveys to the Purchaser, without recourse, but subject to the terms of this Agreement and the Seller hereby acknowledges that the Purchaser, subject to the terms of this Agreement, shall have all the right, title and interest of the Seller in and to the Mortgage Loans. From the Closing Date, but as of the Cut-off Date, the ownership of each Mortgage Loan, including the Mortgage Note, the Mortgage, the contents of the related Mortgage File and all rights, benefits, proceeds and obligations arising therefrom or in connection therewith, has been vested in the Purchaser. All rights arising out of the Mortgage Loans including, but not limited to, all funds received on or in connection with the Mortgage Loans and all records or documents with respect to the Mortgage Loans prepared by or which come into the possession of the Seller shall be received and held by the Seller in trust for the exclusive benefit of the Purchaser as the owner of the Mortgage Loans. On and after the Closing Date, any portion of the related Mortgage Files or servicing files related to the Mortgage Loans (the “Servicing Files”) in Seller’s possession shall be held by Seller in a custodial capacity only for the benefit of the Purchaser. The Seller shall release its custody of any contents of the related Mortgage Files or Servicing Files only in accordance with written instructions of the Purchaser or the Purchaser’s designee.

    SECTION 5. Books and Records. The sale of each Mortgage Loan has been reflected on the Seller’s balance sheet and other financial statements as a sale of assets by the Seller. The Seller shall be responsible for maintaining, and shall maintain, a complete set of books and records for the Mortgage Loans which shall be appropriately identified in the Seller’s computer system to clearly reflect the ownership of the Mortgage Loans by the Purchaser.

    SECTION 6. Delivery of Mortgage Notes.
    ————————–

    (a) On or prior to the Closing Date, the Seller shall deliver to the Purchaser or the Custodian, as directed by the Purchaser, the original Mortgage Note, with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned, endorsed without recourse in blank, or in the name of the Trustee as trustee, and signed by an authorized officer (which endorsement shall contain either an original signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized officer of the Seller, and if in the form of an allonge, the allonge shall be stapled to the Mortgage Note), with all intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of title from the originator to the Seller. If the Mortgage Loan was acquired by the endorser in a merger, the endorsement must be by “____________, successor by merger to [name of predecessor]”. If the Mortgage Loan was acquired or originated by the endorser while doing business under another name, the endorsement must be by “____________ formerly known as [previous name].” The delivery of each Mortgage Note to the Purchaser or the Custodian is at the expense of the Seller.

    In lieu of delivering the Mortgage Note relating to any Mortgage Loan, the Seller may deliver or cause to be delivered a lost note affidavit from the Seller stating that the original Mortgage Note was lost, misplaced or destroyed, and, if available, a copy of each original Mortgage Note; provided, however, that in the case of Mortgage Loans which have been prepaid in full after the Cut-off Date and prior to the Closing Date, the Seller, in lieu of delivering the above documents, may deliver to the Purchaser a certification to such effect and shall deposit all amounts paid in respect of such Mortgage Loan in the Payment Account on the Closing Date.

    (b) If any Mortgage Note is not delivered to the Purchaser (or the Custodian as directed by the Purchaser) or the Purchaser discovers any defect with respect to a Mortgage Note which materially and adversely affects the interests of the Certificateholders in the related Mortgage Loan, the Purchaser shall give prompt written specification of such defect or omission to the Seller, and the Seller shall cure such defect or omission in all material respects or repurchase such Mortgage Loan or substitute a Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loan in the manner set forth in Section 7.03. It is understood and agreed that the obligation of the Seller to cure a material defect in, or substitute for, or purchase any Mortgage Loan as to which a material defect in, or omission of, a Mortgage Note exists, shall constitute the sole remedy respecting such material defect or omission available to the Purchaser, Certificateholders or the Trustee on behalf of Certificateholders.

    (c) All other documents contained in the Mortgage File and any original documents relating to the Mortgage Loans not contained in the Mortgage File or delivered to the Purchaser, are and shall be retained by the Servicer in trust as agent for the Purchaser.

    and then trust sell certificates. in 2007.

    Prospectus supplement dated October 25, 2007
    (To prospectus dated April 17, 2007)

    $6,807,530

    GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
    Seller, Servicer and Sponsor

    GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1
    Issuing Entity

    Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.
    Depositor

    GMACM Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-J1 Trust

    now i also have security and exchange docs, that i just got certifed from them, showing as of 2 feb 2006. my mortgage was paid in full , and that they, the trust sold my mortgage plus 1027 other mortgages for the appraisel price on property. as in my case was 500,000 dollars, twice the amount of mortgage. itself.

    oh and remember this. all collateral file was termeinated, as of 8 aug, 2015, and have email from wells fargo stating that means. paid off.

    i have also went through all wells fargo trust services, to see if there is any trusts. there is none. and i have all 1099s they are saying each month on this fraud trust is being paid. this is the trust name, they say my mortgage went into.

    SERIES:
    SERIES EIN:
    SERIES ADDRESS:
    CLASS:
    CUSIP:
    No
    GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust
    Series 2006-J1 REMIC
    54-2195437
    9062 Old Annapolis Road
    Columbia, MD 21045

    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEB4 Portable Document Format 12/30/2013 03/30/2014 05/04/2014 08:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEC2 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MED0 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEE8 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEF5 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEG3 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEH1 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEQ1 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MER9 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MES7 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEK4 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEM0 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEN8 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEP3 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
    1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEJ7 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History

  69. So what you are saying is … MERS has no rights to assign the mortgage?

    Because the investors did not get the notes?

  70. It takes two (and only two) consenting parties in the *same room* to “consumate” a marriage.

    The two necessary parties in a loan transaction are a borrower and a lender.

    If the lender was not present at a closing, but the borrower was present (or vice versa), a “problem” is presented ….Unless the terms of the contract between the parties’ original contract stipulate that a “proxy(s)” will be present to represent one or both parties’ intent to proceed with the “ceremony.”

    A “substitute” for either the borrower or the lender is not (or should not be,) a stand-in for the “consummation of the loan transaction’s legitimacy. Both should sign all documents.

    Like a marriage, the completion of the loan’s “closing ceremony” must be “proven” at a later date by presenting evidence of the completion of the contract.

    If the evidence presented, reveals that there is an uninvited “interloper”, or material misrepresentation(s) of the parties’ original intentions, the contract must either be voided, or the two parties (and only the two original parties”) must renegotiate, and decide if they still intend to “consumate their initial desire to establish a binding contract.

    (Doesn’t this understanding of the law constitute the doctrine of “equitable tolling” relative to the application of TILA *not common law* rescission?)

    The marriage ceremony does not “establish the marriage contract.” A later “intimate act” consumates the deal, else the marriage can be annulled.

    (Beyond that, some cultures require the presentation of the bloody bedsheets as proof of the purity of the bride.)

    It’s necessary that case law be litigated to define and confirm the financial “proof of consummation” that the legitimate, contractual parties were not only present, but have both approached the bench of the court with clean hands.

    It follows also that the court must adjudicate the issue with unquestionable integrity…. with no bias towards either party.

    Until this is done relative to the instant “mortgage securitization issues”, these matters will continue to frustrate the “social fabric” of our nation under the law.

  71. shadowcat,

    mers is on mortgage docs only. but dbta is a non member of mers corp. or mers, or mortgage electronic reg systems.inc.

    never was a member. even now.

  72. Reblogged this on Alina's Blog.

  73. David. . Is MERS named on the mortgage or DOT.

  74. BOB, THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING FOR US, ON THIS MATTER. HOW YOU WOULD SEE IT.

    IN 2013 I GOT FULL AND COMPLETE COPY OF CLOSING FILE FROM CLOSEING ATTORNEY , IN THIS FILE WAS A ORIGINAL SIGN WET INK OF MY NOTE, SIGN OVER AND DATED WITHOUT RECOURSE, TO DBTA;S ( DEUSCHURE BANK AND TRUST AMERICAS ) AS OF CLOSING, 8 NOV, 2005,

    ALSO IN CLOSING PGK, WAS A WIRE TRANSFER OF CREDIT, AND YES IT WAS FROM DBTA, FOR THE CLOSING ATTORNEY CHECK BOOK ACCOUNT, SO AM HOLDING A SIGN , ORIGINAL MORTGAGE NOTE,SIGN DATED TO THIS NON-PARTY TO MORTGAGE CONTRACT. AS THE MORTGAGE WAS A GMAC MORTGAGE CORP. AS LENDER.

    SO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ALL OF US. WHO IS THE CREDITOR/LENDER OF THIS LOAN?

    WHO SHOULD BE AT THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE AS HOLDER OF THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE. AS OF 14 NOV 2005.

    THIS IS THE DATE IT WAS RECORDED.

    ALSO AM HOLDING A TRUE COPY OF MY NOTE, NOT SIGN OVER TO ANYONE, NO STAMP NOTHING,

    AM ALSO HOLDING A COPY OF THE NOTE FROM QWR FROM SERVICER , WITH NOTHING ON IT, 2 TIME QWR, HAVE A COPY OF THE NOTE WITH A STAMP ON IT IN BLANK, NOT SIGN AND NOT DATED.

    SO WHAT YOU THINK. WHO’S WHO,

    WHO WAS THE TRUE FUNDER/CREDITOR/LENDER OF THE LOAN.

    SO I WOULD SAY AM THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THAT IS WET INK SIGN,DATED,OVER TO A NON PARTY OF LOAN.

    Because the holder has the right to enforce the note even if in wrongful possession of it. Furthermore, most notes got endorsed in blank, so anybody with such a note in hand can enforce it.

  75. Just to clarify, my timely rescission is solid as such but its not the be and ends all, it just one of the facts and must be considered but also there are other facts and other things that the court did not get right, im asserting my rights under the law.

  76. We each are where we are because we put ourselves there, its our reality, we chose. Moving on with ones life is not in fact hindered by this if you chose to fight it, its caused me an others like me a lot of pain, i ask myself so why do it, i did this to myself no matter where i am i put myself there by choices i made and im clear why i did it. Its easier if you go with how things unfold and yes like the word evolve, it doesn’t matter what happens in the end because its called evolving as i manifested it to, but with my eyes as wide open as i can possibly open them being aware of my filters/ bias and failings. I work on my perspective every single moment that takes belief in a highest power- trying to understand how it works and faith that ill get home, it takes time and i have all the time in the world.

  77. Greg… I have been saying for a very long time the loan was not consummated … A breach of contract.

    Bob… I am not on the note, I did sign a mortgage under the representation I was granting a lien on the property my husband bought.
    35 years I wear these rings and work ….. Nobody ..and I mean Nobody seises me of my estate irrevocably then refuses to accept my money for the release.

    Linda, we are all happy you are not another Cubed 2… And that you can still fog a mirror. But woman….you are need to chill out.

  78. Take out the religion, politics and Lvent makes alot of sense but then again who knows Bob is kinda scary lol!

  79. They will never finish the RECISSION “PROCESS” either because the CHURCH OF SATAN CORP OF CROOKS owes us 3 times the face value of every one of their COUNTERFEITS because they were FAULTY upon PRESENTMENT.

  80. Borrower’s lost because courts interpreted TILA to assure too big to fail. Greg others explained clearly the difference in tender requirements, you don’t get it Bob. It’s over for banksters if law is applied to protect our rights or if corruption of financial system, courts and country continues its over for rest of us.

  81. What if the CORPORATE RAIDERS steal your rings, drug you to steal lots of your persona possessions & intentionally trash out your house?

    Then the CORPORATE CROOKS set you up to FALSE IMPRISON you to cover up their mass criminality by FORCED COERCION because you outright refuse doing STUPID HUMAN TRICKS for BOSS HOG who engaged in INVESTMENT FRAUD to try & steal everything from you under numerous fake guises?

  82. Therefore these judges rulings being drawn from conclusions based upon nothing legally factual means TEAM OBAMA gets to pick who they deem to be the winners & the losers for WALL STREET.

    Those would be who they feel they’re owed big favors to. They get those FREE CELL PHONES & other corporate welfare handouts like cheap chicken Monday in the local Jewel, they’re stealing our property rights like they’re CHEAP CHICKEN.

    They’re the future DEBT FRAUD SERVICERS who wil be performing stupid human tricks upon those COUNTERFEITS & they’re not going to be smitten for long. Because DEBT FRAUD has no foundation therefore, it’s never satisfied.

  83. Exactly DW the last loan I had w a MERS # was like 3 loans back. And I have proof they back dated and its just the tip of the iceberg.

  84. hammertime
    If the deed has a min number its ” a mers loan” kinda wrong term but understood. MERS being a tracking system, doesnt loan doesnt own, has no employees on payroll aparently the tracking of loans going in and out of MERS and we cant find out who where when because its industry controlled as is the paperwork when they transfer the deeds and beny may change, they record retroactively via the robo crew, god knows what they did amongst themselves we can only go on what we can show the court as fact, or show a contradiction to what they enter in as fact – thAts the rope im talking about.

  85. Greg I agree, when bankster tried to change lawyers to the known fc mill in CA I sent a cease and desist letter and they wouldn’t take the case. Bob you still don’t get it my “loan” was NOT a MERS loan, the bank either forged a MERS record or ignored broken chain of title. You’re a few years behind or missing the points were raising.

  86. I’m ruling, I’m ruling said JUDGE ANNA LOFTUS in COOK COUNTY CHANCERY COURT on the 28th floor of the DALEY CENTER DOWNTOWN CHICAGO AKA CHASE BANKS SATELLITE STATION to MOSCOW.

    However, she conveniently left out what she was ruling on was FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT AKA SECURITIES FRAUD based upon fundametally flawed CORPORATE FRAUD.

  87. greg at 10.17
    Like the marriage contract parallel
    I knew a gal that sued her fiance for ” breach of promise” balsy id say

  88. Therefore, we can cite every law & ounce of case law & it doesn’t matter to the CORPORATE SEDITIONISTS because it’s not in their AGENDA 21 GLOBAL SEDITION MANUAL that intends to exterminate everyone but 500 million or so sceptics who keep their wheels greased.

  89. To BOB
    Im sorry i was mean because you can be such a party pooper. i redact, 2, & 3.
    Thing is book stops at SCOTUS those Cases that go against it must be brought to SCOTUS and remanded – accordingly. Its a long haul just to hold on to basics.

  90. Certainly if the U.S. SUPREME COURT sought discovery into OBAMAS CORPORATE HOLDINGS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO when deciding if his “SIGNATURE PIECE OF LEGISLATION” was CONSTITUTIONAL or not, they would have fingered FREDDIE & the entire CORPORATE MONARCHY ran by SEDITIOUS OLIGARCHS who use our money to run their own personal global CRIME SYNDICATE.

    SCALIA inferred the devil made him do it with the HEALTHCARE SCOFFLAW but It looks like quite the opposite when you consider there was no formal inquiries made into the MONEY TRAIL of the terrorist organizations who funded 9/11.

    Clearly we have terrorist organizations using people to do their dirty work & killing them on worldwide tv so they can never reveal who they really work for & what they really want.

  91. Take this – citing Neil

    .” When a homeowner files an action against the “new trustee” (substituted by virtue of the self proclaimed and unverified status of a third party beneficiary under the note and mortgage),”
    Rescission is your right if within 3 years of signing ( assumed consummation) to creditor – well the servicer actually because we cant contact this ” creditor” because we dont have the name address tel number, the servicer must tell the creditor, who has 20 days,
    So SCOTUS RULED.

  92. I do take offense to those who say that the OBAMA HEALTHCARE SCOFFLAW is the law of this land.

    No it’s not because the President does not have the legal right or power to LEGISLATE LAWS or pass them into law with the stroke of his ELECTRONIC PEN & ROBOSIGN COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES backed by SPECULATION everyones going to die because OBAMA PUSHES DRUGS for DRUG CARTELS the likes of BIG PHARMA & they’re no different than the EL RUKIN MEDELLIN DRUG CARTEL because they self promote the deadly side effects of their deadly drugs like GANG BANGER STREET THUGS on CRACK.

  93. and – you tender to the CREDITOR the one who was injured purportedly

  94. Look Jesinoski is going to EVOLVE
    Watch n see

  95. Hate to tell you BOB YOU ARE TO SAY THE LEAST 1. Not an attorney.2. Fooling yourself that you know #%it 3. Just WRONG generally becaus you make stuff up
    Sorry n all that

  96. tweak-clarification…

    in response to https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/bias-in-the-courts-ucc-and-tila-review/#comment-409873

    greg, on October 4, 2015 at 9:31 pm said:

    – the banking industry is so freaked out over not being able to prove dates of consummation to counter-attack TILA rescission claims that they are engaging in a world-wide retraining and documentation process for all new cases going forward in which the actual word “consummation” is now recorded in all the mortgage instruments….

    why do i know that?

    because my one of my kids, who used to work for the Illinois legislature and now works for a bank told me that this is their biggest procedural education program going on today…

    THEY ARE TOTALLY FREAKED OUT BY SCOTUS/JESINOSKI!

    Consummation – the time and place of the act of consuming that which one has a right to consume
    Consumer – one, who having attained the lawful the right to consume a particular specific thing, does consume said thing; with said right to consume being acquired by mutual consideration for a promise to provide said thing by Provider to Consumer in exchange for another specific consideration tendered by said Consumer to Provider – quid pro quo

    a man consumes his lawful wife; a wife consumes her lawful husband – they become one in contract and in g0d…

    if you use the OLDEST form of contract law on earth (marriage) as an example of defining consummation – there is little left to discuss…

    everything else is fraud…

    1) just ’cause you give a girl a ring, doesn’t mean the marriage is consummated…
    2) just ’cause you gave a girl a ring, and had sex and made a baby doesn’t mean you had a contract and have any legal obligations beyond what she can sue you for in equity – without an automatic lien…
    3) just ’cause you gave a girl a ring, and got married does not mean that when she substitutes her sister (in the dark) for you to get pregnant there is a consummation of the marriage contract

    further –

    4) if you give a girl a ring, and you conclude a marriage ceremony and it becomes known that she is not who she says she is, there is no contract or marriage- even if you get her pregnant – and if your claim of fraud is sustained – the alleged consummation and duty to the child is also void
    5) if you give a girl a ring, and you conclude a marriage ceremony and it becomes known that she is already married, the entire contract is void for failure to have standing to contract (marry) and any issue from that union is the duty of the girl and her existing husband
    6) just ’cause you give a girl a ring, if there is no performance and consideration of the anticipated promises BY the contracting party… there is no contract or marriage – AND EVEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL ANNUL prima fascia
    fraud (no matter how minor) vitiates (kills) all contracts!

  97. Hammer- the banking industry is so freaked out over not being able to prove dates of consummation hat they are engaging in a world-wide retraining and documentation processes for all cases going forward in which the actual word “consummation” is now recorded in all the mortgage instruments….

    why do i know that?

    because my one of my kids, who used to work for the Illinois Legislature and now works for a bank told me that this is their biggest procedural education program going on today…

    THEY ARE TOTALLY FREAKED OUT BY SCOTUS/JESINOSKI!

    1) just ’cause you give a girl a ring, doesn’t mean the marriage is consummated…
    2) just ’cause you gave a girl a ring, and had sex and made a baby doesn’t mean you had a contract and have any legal obligations beyond what she can sue you for in equity – without an automatic lien…
    3) just ’cause you gave a girl a ring, and got married does not mean that when she substitutes her sister (in the dark) for you to get pregnant there is a consummation of the marriage contract

    further –

    4) if you give a girl a ring, and you conclude a marriage ceremony and it becomes known that she is not who she says she is, there is no contract or marriage- even if you get her pregnant – and if your claim of fraud is sustained – the alleged consummation and duty to the child is also void
    5) if you give a girl a ring, and you conclude a marriage ceremony and it becomes known that she is already married, the entire contract is void for failure to have standing to contract (marry) and any issue from that union is the duty of the girl and her existing husband
    6) just ’cause you give a girl a ring, if there is no performance and consideration by the contracting party… there is no contract or marriage – AND EVEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL ANNUL prima fascia

    if you use the OLDEST form of contract law on earth (marriage) as an example of consummation – there is little left to discuss…

    everything else is fraud…

  98. OBAMA does not govern, he operates like some VEDIC VOODOO PRIEST fortune teller predicting the future with his crystal ball from behind the IRON CURTAIN.

    No one can tell people what they need or have to buy unless they can see into the future.

    If that were the case then what’s the winning lotto numbers OBAMA? Because clearly OBAMA & the GAY COMMUNITY think he’s God.

    http://www.commieblaster.com/obama/

  99. bob –

    FOR THE LAST TIME
    FOR THE LAST TIME
    FOR THE LAST TIME

    – i will not going engage with you anymore ….

    please stop addressing me directly – my time with you was wasted and unproductive and (without chiding you further) has cost me valuable resources contemplating whether or not i might be able to apply your “Newtonian Approach” to a “Quantum Mechanics Issue”…

    i respectfully declined

    i also respectfully have proffered a set of questions to the men and women comprising the body of this blog to consider – and not directly at you… regarding your suggestions to me…

    i already told you in front of everyone – that i find information that you are “a speaker of falsehoods” – in that you “hide” the reality of collecting funds from “mortgageattack.com” by way of agency – where you arrange for clients to pay another entity – apx. $5,000 – for a service which you arrange to be conducted by others [“Storm” et. al.] to provide said service to the client – and then receive compensation in some form akin to a commission or some such similar quid pro quo… for arranging the deal…

    so of course you are not “lying” when you say you are not “receiving” anything directly from the site or the client – but as Shakespeare says “…the lady doth protest too much…”

    swear to the people on this blog that what i say above is not true… swear that you receive zero commission or finder’s fees or so-called donations or compensation; of any kind; for arranging the services proffered on “mortgageattack.com” – bob – GO AHEAD – SWEAR TO IT – produce proof…

    please don’t call my claim as a bluff – i don’t want you to be harmed by your own public action

    just stick to what you are good at and leave everyone else alone and be honest…

    shut up or sue me!
    greg

    DONE AND DONE AND DONE

    go bother someone else…
    g

  100. Furthermore, OBAMA’S GAY AGENDA is ANTI-CHRISTIAN & is meant to chastise CATHOLICS unlawfully for their homosexual biased religious beliefs in regards to SODOMY .

    OBAMA has numerous skeltons like LARRY SINCLAIR in his closet just like HITLER did.

    Moreover, OBAMA’s ties to the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD is religious blasphemy of Christianity.

  101. David great summary. Thats where Bob’s case is deceptive as well. There’s a line I recall that consummation occurs at closing of the transaction. Banksters, Bob are twisting that to mean 3 yrs from signing closing documents. NG has refuted that while TILA code refers to consummation or sale which can take place much later.

  102. quoting from bellanger’s link with a bit more research…

    S Carolina
    http://matthewnapier.com/author/bob-massey/page/10/
    (706) 485-0162
    Bob Massey 706-749-9141

    So You Proved The Bank Lied About Your Loan. Now What?
    Comments Off

    Say you are fighting a foreclosure on a securitized loan that you took out during the housing boom. Using a fraud investigator you were able to prove that the foreclosing entity forged your signature on the note. You rest your case and wait for the judge to come back with a ruling in your favor. Ten minutes later the judge rules that the foreclosure can continue as scheduled. This is surely a miscarriage of justice, right?

    Not so fast. The judge made the right call, and you need a better attorney.

    Here’s an example. Let’s say a friend lends you $1,000 and you agree to pay him back in installments. After a few months of making payments on time, you default on the loan and your friend sues you. In court your friend produces a promissory note that lays out the terms of the loan with your signature. You acknowledge that you were lent the money by your friend and then defaulted on the loan, but you have never seen this promissory note before. Furthermore, you have evidence that your signature on the note was a forgery. Under the rules of evidence, your proof of forgery should be tossed out. The reason is simple. You have already admitted to owing your friend the $1,000 and that you defaulted on the debt.

    A note is merely documentation of the debt. If you have already acknowledged that you owed the money and then defaulted on the terms, the note itself, whether forged or legitimate, is irrelevant.

    Without the note, all the court is left with is your acknowledgement of the debt and your default. The path to victory against the banks lies not in merely proving they forged a few documents here and there, but in proving that the bank has never had any claim to the debt in the first place.

    The court is going to assume that the bank wouldn’t be there without a reason, so you must attack the debt itself. In our earlier example, what would happen if your friend sued you for defaulting on the loan and produces a promissory note with your forged signature, but you deny the debt or default ever existed? The burden of proof would fall onto your friend to prove that he actually gave you $1,000.

    But how can you legitimately claim to not know who funded your loan when you signed the note yourself? Simple. Over 95% of all loans originated during the housing boom were what are known as “table funded” loans. This means the loan was closed in the originators name regardless of whether or not they actually funded the loan. This means that in 95% of these mortgages, the borrower has no idea who actually lent them the money. Now it is up to the foreclosing entity to prove that they have the power to collect on the debt.

    Once you’ve established a broken or tainted chain of title, THEN you can nail the bank with the forgery as an example of their malfeasance.

    If you know of anyone with a defaulted note, you need to get in contact with my office immediately at (706)-485-0162. I have spent the last two years building up a team of experienced attorneys and fraud examiners/forensic auditors who specialize in exposing exactly this sort of fraud and negotiating the sale of notes.

    We have a huge opportunity to help homeowners and do some great deals with multiple exit strategies by exposing this unbelievable and blatant fraud. We finally have the leverage we need to get the banks negotiating on our terms. It doesn’t matter if the homeowner has already been foreclosed on, we might be able to help.

  103. DMcCrae never more true!

  104. Lol Bob u are literally sounding like the banksters lawyers. Their robosigning lawyer said the same thing that I had NO facts after 7 years of their games. Oh and that’s a violation of CFPB rules. My documentation is so good without spending a dime on an audit I have bankster TWICE admitting “mistake” claiming loan was a MERS loan when it WAS NOT. Now if I was a mindless homeowner like you say I would have gone down the MERS rabbit hole but stuck to the basic fact of their deception. But it’s the nonprofits, lawyers who like you WONT LISTEN to basic facts and automatically jump to it’s a MERS or produce the note case. So tell us where can we get the script? If the trustee and fraudulent servicer go forward with sale after failing to undo the rescission after 20 days everything they’re doing is ILLEGAL no matter what any backwater or corrupt judge or court says. That doesn’t mean an audit won’t be useful to itemize the damages and harm done but the government has tried to discourage us by same script that because of some bad apples all audits are useless or fraud. Id rather do it myself than have someone who judges us like the banks go anywhere near my case.

  105. The judges are bought and paid for. Get a Jury. Get a jury. Get a jury. Get a jury. Get a jury seated in every court in the United States!

  106. I don’t happen to think HITLER was funny, so I don’t think BOB HURT is funny for trying to infringe upon my FIRST AMENDMENT LEGAL RIGHTS by FORCED SUBJUGATION.

    Furthermore, INFRINGEMENT upon the legal rights of others by ATTACKING THE MESSENGER is what ANSKYITE NAZI WAR CRIMINALS do nowadays so clearly he works for the OBAMA REGIME.

  107. Furthermore, BOB HURT you’re clearly smoking OBAMA CRACK & DRUNK too by the way you feel the need to RELIGIOUS PERSECUTE me because i’m CATHOLIC & therefore I reject the devil & its evil works the likes of FREEMASONRY & it’s HITLERCARE NAZI AGENDA.

  108. OH BOB, STOP YOU MAKE ME LAUGH. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO BE SAID, AFTER SUPREME COURT , NOTHING, 12345678910 11 12 13 SO ON AND SO ON. THE SUPREME COURT TOLD ALL COURTS TO STOP. CHEATING HOMEOWNERS. FROM DUE PROSESS, SO PLEASE STOP IT. AND HERE WHAT THE OTHER SIDE LAYWERS ARE SAYING. WE ARE FUCK. NOW….

    Rescission Has the Banks Running Scared!
    Posted on August 1, 2015 by Bob Massey .
    Last month I wrote about how you could use the right of rescission as a silver bullet to stop a foreclosure in its tracks. Once you drop a notice of rescission in the mail, your loan has been nullified as a matter of law and the bank must either comply with the rescission or prove within 20 days that they have the right to enforce the note. Well, over the last few weeks I have been seeing more and more from the banks that the right of rescission has them on their heels. The banks are sending their lawyers around their offices explaining exactly how rescission leaves them vulnerable.

    The main point that the lawyers are making to the banks is that mailing in a notice of rescission is all it takes to cancel a borrower’s loan, note, and mortgage. The notice is effective from the moment it is dropped in the mail as an act of law. This was written specifically into the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) so that homeowners wouldn’t have to use an attorney to act on their behalf, thus restricting the remedies provided by TILA to borrowers who can afford an attorney. While the note is canceled immediately as soon as the notice is dropped in the mail, the bank has 20 days from the date of receipt to respond. This is a good reason to send the notice with return receipt requested. This provides you with proof of the exact date the notice of rescission was received.

    The only way for a bank to combat a notice of rescission is to file a lawsuit immediately (within the 20-day window). In their lawsuit, the bank must prove that it has absolute proof of the validity of the loan and that it met all of the TILA requirements at the time of origination and consummation. The burden of proof of standing to enforce the note and to vacate the rescission rests firmly on the bank. Not only that, but the bank must file suit within 20 days to contest all factual matters, including the statute of limitations. Once those 20 days are up, the bank loses all ability to contest the rescission, even if the rescission is sent in years after the statute of limitations has expired.

    When a loan is rescinded, all parties must return all money paid or received. In the past the banks used this to bully borrowers into backing down from a rescission. The banks would try to force the borrower to return all of the money they received at closing up front. The law has now been clarified to say that only after the bank has canceled the note and returned all money received must the homeowner tender. This clarification allows homeowners without large amounts of cash sitting around to get the full protection of TILA.

    After a successful rescission, the borrower has one year to file an enforcement action against the bank to get the canceled note and have all funds returned. After one year, the borrower can no longer get their money back from the bank. They can still file a quiet title to free the property for sale, though.

    As you can imagine, the Supreme Court has given homeowners and real estate investors an incredibly powerful tool. No more begging the banks to accept our short sale and REO offers only to have them demand ridiculously high prices. We can now get the banks to the table and demand that they prove they have the right to enforce a loan.

    This is a massive opportunity for real estate investors. If you know of anyone with a defaulted or underwater note, you need to get in contact with my office immediately at (706)-485-0162. I have spent the last two years building up a team of experienced attorneys and fraud examiners/forensic auditors who specialize in exposing fraud committed in the mortgage process and using that fraud as leverage to negotiate the sale of notes. This opportunity is not going to be available forever; we need to strike while the iron is hot!

    But mountains of pre-Jesinoski cases got it right in the other circuits (2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, and F or the Federal Circuit). For example, the 4th Circuit had sided with the 8th Circuit that the borrower must sue within 3 years, then changed its mind. In its February 5, 2013, decision in/Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Services/ , the Third Circuit rejected the lender’s argument that the borrowers’ lawsuit was untimely because it was not filed within three years of the loan closing date.

  109. I don’t believe in DRUGS legal or otherwise & I don’t drink booze BOB HURT.

    So don’t tell me what to do you CRIMINAL LOSER.

    You should go to jail just for DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER.

    Just because you hate the U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS doesnt give you the legal right to judge no one else.

  110. In order to win, they have to make everyone believe they won & we never can.

    That’s because they’re hoarders of our wealth & unauthorized hijackers of our independence because we never signed contracts with them.

    In other words, they’re sadomasochists who use INSURANCE FRAUD to butcher our TITLES to try & hide their identity is not who they say it is.

    If it weren’t true, they would have honored the TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES.

  111. the initial TILA rescission letter by a ‘alleged borrower” is a “rebuttable presumption”; guaranteed and protected by US Statue and if done without citing a date of consummation; in order to facilitate a rebuttal of the claim of rescission; the”alleged lender”; or their current representative; must rebut by way of a NEW LAWSUIT; within 20 days of receipt; not a motion or continuation in an ongoing foreclosure case… and absent that action, is foreclosed from further rebuttal of the initial claim of rescission…

  112. It’s INFRAGUARD, the boot boys for the 1%, GANG STALKING for the CHURCH OF SATAN, trying to make everyone believe what they do is legit & it’s not.

    Those who think they can meet their demands never will & that’s the real FRAUD hiding in FRAUDCLOSURE.

  113. I choose to take NORMAN GOLDMANS literal word for OBAMA & here’s why. OBAMA is trying to say we married something hidden in FRAUDCLOSURE they won’t disclose. Therefore I’m going to cite RE REMARRIAGE OF MACINO in my COUNTERCOMPLAINT, because I never married no TRANSVESTITE MORTGAGE, MORTGAGE BROKER or MORTGAGE BROKERING FIRM the likes of MONOPOLISTIC CONTROL FREAK POSERS called AIG.

    Because they GANG STALK their victims for our enemies by trying to enforce their own CRIMINAL FRAUD by using secret RELIGIOUS BIAS to PERSECUTE CATHOLICS unlawfully by FORCED SUBJECTION to their own RELIGIOUS INDIGNATION.

    They have no religion or religious beliefs because they have no respect for the cross.

    NIXON called it the GAYEST, FAGGIEST thing ever.

    I call it criminal.

  114. Thx, Greg. Definitely a roller coast but the truth and greater good gives us strength…and as quite from Isaiah here, hope!

  115. Hammer – my heart is with you too.. drudge on – and check out that book for inspiration…
    http://ryanholiday.net/welcome-to-the-obstacle-is-the-way-the-timeless-art-of-turning-trials-into-triumph/

  116. oh… tell bob the same 6 lawyers say that in cook county illinois – that includes “his” arguments for fraud or wrongdoing in the inception…

    they say the judges stick to one thing only… does the plaintiff have a copy of “A” note, alleged to be “THE” note (even if copied 20 times or created by a “lost document affidavit”)… and even if found on the floor in a men’s room at a tavern… and that is it!

    so don’t waste your $5,000 on bob’s process in cook county illinois… contact AG Lisa Madigan and Sheriff Tom Dart instead!

  117. Greg I’m experiencing same with lawyers here in LA. But it’s as Deborah says full of contradictions. Been too buried in my battle but we must continue and make it clear the judicial system is denying our rights by their bias which is the point if NG’s post.

  118. the 6 lawyers i have interviewed are not going to be of any help

    they tell me i/we are absolutely right in our summation of the fraud but that there is nothing they can do to help because they either can’t or won’t fight the illinois judiciary which they say has consistently demonstrated their closed mindedness to any of the affirmative defenses or claims of fraud and wrongdoings – and they say federal court is too expensive or i don’t have standing…

    they also said that because of my delays in prosecuting while i tried to figure things out and find a lawyer since the ‘so-called’ judgment, have apparently resulted in me to losing my ability to claim the things we proved to make them go away…

    one lawyer told me to go write a book of my life story to warn other people not to do what i did…

    someone anonymously sent me a book “The Obstacle Is The Way” by Ryan Holiday – it talks about going headlong into the most stubborn problems in one’s life and defeating them – that those are the places one needs to focus, not avoiding, turning and running from them…

    what next? hmmm?

  119. So since when is it the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE job description to police the U.S. STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE that they have no direct line?

    That’s what I was told when I called information for the U.S. STATES ATTORNEYS PHONE NUMBER. That not only reeks of one vast CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, it reeks of one vast CRIMINAL COVER UP by the CORPORATE CROOKS AKA the CORPORATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of J.P. MORGAN CHASE. CHASE BOD’s clearly CONTROLS THEIR OWN FRAUD by being CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS IN their own FEDERAL RESERVE BANK COUNTERFEIT MORTGAGE NOTE DEGENERATE BANKING SCAM AKA DERIVATIVES BANK FRAUD by CHASE CEO DEGENERATES.

  120. Deborah that’s exactly where I’m at. The contradiction extend to criminalizing me as distressed homeowner/landlord. Pass week I had to address inspector enabling bankster on their trespass. Really interested in ur case will also post contact.

  121. 99.9 f.m. in Chicago radio talk show host NORMAN GOLDMAN calls OBAMA, BARACK INSANE OBAMA & not because he thinks the crook & his legions is to be nits but because OBAMA thinks the entire U.S. CITIZENRY is for not liking his MARK OF THE BEAST OCCULT AGENDA very much.

    That’s when these SATANIC PARAMILITARY GROUPS start their harrassment campaign on your U.S. BIRTH CERTIFICATE & the natural born legal rights that legal document provides you for being born here.

    These so called RELIGIOUS MILITARY ORDERS the likes of the KNIGHTS OF MALTA hate independant thinkers & want everyone thinking for them & not for themselves. That is incredibly perilous to our own individual legal UNALIENABLE RIGHT to protect & defend our own FREE WILL from criminals like them who want to steal it by deceptions like FRAUDCLOSURE & the unlawful HEALTHCARE SCOFFLAW .

    NORMAN GOLDMAN calls JOHN BOEHNER JOHN BONER & he is beause he could have undone OBAMAS unlawful insurrection on our personal freedoms & instead pandered to his constituents in the U.S. SUPREME COURT SPY RING.

    Then we had ERIC HOLDER (our TITLES) like some hostage to their DRUG CARTEL WAR CRIMES.

    That is proven by the fact I was told in order to cal the U.S. STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE you have to call the U.S. DOJ?

    Nothing like the crooks policing their own crime scene by screening the U.S. TAXPAYERS PHONE CALLS.

  122. The most basic legal criterion to bring lawsuits in EQUITY in this LAND OF LAWS is the LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION – THE SECURITY must be LEGALLY VALID, & ATTACHED upon inception, but no later then by the commencement of PLAINTIFFS suit. That’s because there must be LEGALLY VERIFIABLE JUST CAUSE – WRITEN PROOF OF CLAIM – to bring the INFAMOUS SUIT in EQUITY.

    Because COUNTERFEITING (AKA COPIES OF NOTES) involves innumerable felonies, there could never be LEGAL JUST CAUSE for the RUSSIAN MOB to bring these FRAUDCLOSURE SUITS by their KGB AGENTS meaning they’re mob hits.

  123. FRAUDCLOSURE is the direct result of RUSSIAN MOB BROKERING of U.S.CITIZENS, in direct violation of the entire U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS by the KGB MOB ENFORCERS. It’s unlawful HUMAN TRAFFICKING under the guise of RENT TO OWN their own FRAUDULENT MORTGAGE SUBLEASING SERVICE CONTRACTS. They’re criminally soliciting the murder of CATHOLICS from behind the CORPORATE LOGOS in FRAUDCLOSURE.

  124. BOB YOU STILL AT IT, SHOW ME WERE, ANYWHERES IN THE STATUE OF TILA (FED ) NOT COMMON TILA THAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID TO ALL JUDGES TO STOP APPLING THAT , AND THAT ALL YOU JUDGES BETTER START FOLLOWING THE LAW , THAT THE STAUE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS. ALL THE BORROWER HAS TO DO IS TO SEND A LETTER, AND THAT LETTER GIVE THE BORROWER , JUST AS A LAWYER , WOULD SAY. I RESCIND THIS LOAN. THATS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

    AND ITS UP TO THE BANK/SERVICER TO PROVE THE BORROWER WRONG, AND THEY HAVE 20 DAYS TO FILE THAT , TO SAY WE DISAGREE AND HERE IS WHY. 20 DAYS..

    SHOW ME WERE. IN THE STAUE WERE IT SAYS THE HOMEOWNER MUST TENDER FIRST??????? I BELIEVE IT, GO’S THE OTHER WAY. THE BANK MUST COMPLY WITH THE STAUE FIRST.

    Exercising Rescission Rights, Ken Shim, Senior Examiner, Federal Reserve Bank of New York,

    Once the borrower exercises the right of rescission, any security interest the creditor obtained is void, regardless of its status and whether it was recorded or perfected.

    The borrower cannot be required to pay any amount to the lender or a third party in connection with the credit transaction. Any amounts already paid, including broker fees, application and commitment fees, or fees for a title search or an appraisal, must be refunded

    . Within 20 calendar days after receipt of the notice of rescission, the lender must take action to terminate the security interest and return any money in connection with the transaction.

    When the lender has complied with these requirements, the borrower must tender the money or property to the lender.8 If the lender fails to take possession of the money or property within 20 calendar days after the borrower’s tender, the borrower may keep it without further obligation. .

    Truth in Lending

    A Rule by the Federal Reserve System on 05/19/2009

    Final Rule; Official Staff Commentary.

    Summary

    On July 30, 2008, the Board published a final rule amending Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). The July 2008 final rule requires creditors to give consumers transaction-specific cost disclosures shortly after application for closed-end loans secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling. The disclosures must be provided before the consumer pays any fee, other than a fee for obtaining the consumer’s credit history. Also on July 30, 2008, the Congress enacted the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which included amendments to TILA, known as the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 (MDIA). On October 3, 2008, the Congress amended the MDIA in connection with its enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Stabilization Act). The Board is now revising Regulation Z to implement the provisions of the MDIA, as amended.

    Violations in the Truth in Lending Act

    Creditors AND Assignee are liable for violation of the disclosure requirements, regardless of whether the consumer was harmed by the nondisclosure, UNLESS:

    The creditor corrects the error within 60 days of discovery and prior to written suit or written notice from the consumer, or

    The error is the result of bona fide error. The creditor bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that:

    If the violation was unintentional, the error occurred notwithstanding compliance with procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error. (Error of legal judgment with respect to creditor’s TILA obligations not a bona fide error.)

    the problem here bob, is that the bank are not and will not file suit in the 20 days, REQUIRED BY LAW. so they wait until the homeowners file suit FIRST. BUT NOW THE SUPREME COURT HAS PUT THE LAW BACK ON TRACK.

    AND THE BANKS KNOW THEY CAN NOT PROVE THEY ARE OWDED ANYTHING. SO THEY KNOW THE JUDGE WOULD SAY SHOW ME WERE ALL THIS APPLY’S TO YOU , OWNING THIS LOAN. SHOW ME THE MONEY TRAIL. HOW YOU GOT IT. THEY CANT. AGAIN THEY CANT.

  125. I’ll keep you posted Hammertime
    The difficult thing is it’s hard to impress upon others on the site the whole story and the contradictions the banks present in court and it honestly makes no sense because they are so darn sure of themselves that they are not going to pay for their concealments ( I’m being charitable ) they don’t even make an effort to remember what they did
    This is where I hit them their weak spots I use what they presented and bring into evidence and I can use it to my advantage, keep good files it paid off for me to keep good records .

  126. Moreover, RECONSTITUTING FAKE CONTRACTS that never existed is SACRILEGIOUS ALCHEMY that is RELIGIOUS IRREVERANCE by RELIGIOS INDIFFERENCE by the FREEMASON DRUG CULT traitors from within who COINED their own COUNTERFEITS for the ILLICIT GLOBAL DRUG TRADE that includes HUMAN TRAFFICKING & other heinous & egregious crimes to fraudulently conceal they kill the innocent for RUSSIAN MOB BROKERS.

  127. You call yourself AN ATTORNEY & you don’t like FREEDOM OF SPEECH then you’re A DICTATOR NOT A LAWYER.

    Furthetmore, LEGAL RELATIVISM is UNAWFUL PRACTICE OF THE LAW AKA FREEMASONRY which bases it’s decisions on THEORIES, not LEGAL FACTS BASED IN LAW.

    Therefore, BOB HURT you should get off the drugs & off the booze & be DISBARRED for engaging in covering up your own crimes. Then you should go to prison with OBAMA for DRUG RACKETEERING under the guise of LEGAL RELATIVISM, nothing based in LAW OR FACT which is ATTEMPTED MURDER of your innocent victims.

  128. Bob, Deborah clearly and simply points out how you’re missing the point and just pushing the banksters script. You and the courts are doing mental gymnastics to contradict the plain letter of law that they have 20 days to undo rescission. Anything else regardless of how bad borrower’s or their lawyers case is is irrelevant. If the banksters have standing and verification of debt they’re not going to spend the $5000 to end it? That’s bullshit! You have mountain of cases pre Jesinoski probably that got it wrong. There are billions and trillions of dollars that verify how corrupt the banks and courts are. You can’t keep your blinders on or u need a pill for your denial and we need a massive pill for the greed and evil of Wall St.
    I’ll follow the letter of law and my conscience and I’ll move on whether they steal my property or not on my terms.

  129. I’m looking at the ” authorized parties ” and the individuals involved who carried out the court filings in both State and federal court – post my rescission
    There’s a lot to talk about here in my case and don’t know how it will work out because you never know what the court/ judge will do

  130. Jesinoski
    ” because that is all s borrower must do”
    Being put the notice in the mail,
    ” by operation of law”
    I followed up with cease and desist to the ” debt collector”
    They still sold the home at a ” public” auction to highest bidder for ” legal money” aka credit bid,and you know the rest

  131. I don’t believe in DRUGS or BOOZE BOB HURT because they let the DEVIL like you in, you CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS PERSECUTOR.

    Furthermore, prove the FREEMASON CONSPIRACY is not true, you can’t because it is.

    It’s my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to speak the truth the way I see it, becayse it’s the CAUSE of the FRAUDCLOSURES that’s the real problem IMHO. Soif you don’t like FREE SPEACH whether you don’t see it my way or not, It’s my LEGAL RIGHT to say it or you’re in on the FREEMASON CONSPIRACY to overthrow our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

  132. Correct typo, there is no _other_logical explanation

    The DRUG CARTELS ran by SATANISTS who intend to disrupt the NATURAL ORDER of SOCIETY in GENERAL by FORCED DRUGGING THE SHEEPLE for not wanting to be dictated to by DRUG DEALERS who TRADE WITH THE RUSSIAN ENEMY unconscionably by widely DECEPTIVE COMSUMER FRAUD & DECEPTICE PRACTICES AKA COUNTERFEITING U.S. BANK NOTES to COUNTERFEIT U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES to RELIGIOUS PERSECUTE CATHOLICS for the KGB ENEMY hiding from within our INFRASTRUCTURE.

  133. Correct typo: like with the MORTGAGE _FRAUD_though certainly FRAU would not be innappropriate because CNBC’s JIM KRAMER said the BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI caused this & he had busts of LENIN,STALIN & MAO on his set too.

    So elexquisior everyone BLOWING THE WHISTLE on these crooks is loony in your opinion which means your in on the COVER UP.

    Clearly there is no orher logical explanation why you’re here except you’re engaging in the GANG BANGER COVER UP for the DRUG CARTELS who COUNTERFEIT their own investments in their own COUNTERFEITS.

  134. Therefore elexquisior, just like regarding the MORTGAGE FRAU, everyone has their own opinion & everyone else thinks everyone elses opinion stinks because there’s FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT of our money supply by the name of BARACK OBAMA.

    Because PRINCE HALL FREEMASON OBAMA thinks he can print his own money for himself & his COMRADE BANKSTER CROOKS & intentionally create SOCIETAL CHAOS like the head of the MANSON FAMILY.

  135. It’s a no brainer of course you have to sue
    But the damages go up including collateral harm to others who are now living in the home devoid of right to possession.
    I am referring to my own knowledge of my situation as experienced not an attorney
    Do your research and consult professional experienced council in your state.

  136. Moreover, I can prove it because nothing these crooks have done has been legal, moral or ethical since KGB SHILL OBAMA took office.

    That’s when who one talk radio show host calls BARACK INSANE OBAMA, & said it’s the ROSICRUCIANS, turned U.S. COURTROOMS into his own unlawful FREEMASONC VENDETTA to kill CATHOLICS who don’t COMPLY, CONFORM or COOPERATE with WAR CRIMINALS the likes of him.

  137. Rescission is not to ” avoid” foreclosure
    I rescinded because of fraud in the contract not to avoid foreclosure
    Rescission is to put the parties BACK to the pre contract positions, had they complied with the statutes requirement I would not be still fighting this.

  138. Moreover, It’s well contrived RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION OF CATHOLICS by you & your DRUG CARTEL CULT LEADER PRINCE HALL FREEMASON KGB SHILL OBAMA & his DRUG PUSHING COMRADE SPY AGENT CLANSMEN.

    Those KGB SPY AGENT CLANSMEN do include the FORCED DRUGGING to kill CATHOLICS to hide the ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY, THE ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE, etc. mass criminality.

    They’re AKA the ENTITLEMENT PEOPLE like you exquisior covering up for their own SECURITIES FRAUD CRIMES for their KGB DRUG CARTEL CULT LEADER DRUG PUSHER, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSER PABLO ESCOBAR OBAMA.

  139. Yeah right elexquisior everyone speaking the truth regarding the vast MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT DRUG CARTEL ran by FREEMASONIC creeps gets harassed by you crooks with your fake labels that you crooks contrive.

  140. @bobhurt – thx for posting the fed rescission case. It supports my suspicions about the statutes in play. It did not address whether banksters have to file within a year to preserve defenses against a notice whose receipt invokes the effect by law that the note and deed of trust is void. It may be that the one year is available to collect money damages from the act of rescission by either party, and gives the banksters the opportunity to void the rescission. If the banksters don’t respond within a year, they may waive the right to pursue collection on a legally voided debt. If the ‘multiple quit-claim’ deeds of Plaintiff were made AFTER 20 days after the banksters received the notice, then that may be grounds for appeal, as the interest by banksters of the voided note and DOT expired with acknowledgment of the notice. For that fact of law the claims of wrongful foreclosure should be allowed by amendment.

    IANAL, but I offer this to counter the crap Ivent the Insane is posting here.

  141. Bob Hurt … That court got it wrong in the case you posted …and the error is evident in the courts own written decision. The misinterpretation of what happens after the Lender ignores the rescission is where the court erred. TILA says that IF a lender ignores the rescission, then that constitutes a SEPERATE VIOLATION…one which may be brought in a law suit for up to 1-year later.

    Do you see the error?

    The 1-year statute of limitations is in regards to a SEPERATE VIOLATION in which you may be able to sue for damages and recover money.

    But the 1-year SOL has zero to do with the initial rescission.

    That is why they use the word SEPERATE VIOLATION in the wording.

    Meaning, it is SEPERATE from the actual rescission that already took place and happened by operation of law ..with no need for a law suit.

    You don’t ever need to file a law suit to rescind.

    You only have to file a law suit if you want to sue them for violations and it is considered a SEPERATE act , outside of the rescission.

  142. FREEMASONRY is comprised of many different cults AKA CULTUS DIABOLICUS.

  143. Furthermore , the FREEMASON devil knows no bounds.

    To them, everyone is their satanic ritual sacrifice who is ripe for their SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE (SRA) picking, but especially us CATHOLICS.

    FRAUDCLOSURE is one example of SRA by the FREEMASON CULT of satanic inbreeders.

  144. Moreover they’re no heros to kids or no one for that matter.

    FREEMASONS cause the problems in the world.

    To those who think you can ever be on their side, you’re in for one big fat FORCED DRUGGING episode with them because the more you give them, the more they want.

  145. The KGB RUSSIAN MOB of FREEMASON VAMPIRES is the most SACRILEGOUS bunch of CATHOLIC PERSECUTING RELIGIOUS DEMONIZERS on the planet who kill CATHOLICS for fun.

  146. No Government should tell the citizenry they have to buy something then call it A TAX.

    Thats’s MALICIOUS MALINTENT by it’s own non-disclosure of pertinent details like no matter what policy you choose it’s OBAMACARE & AIG monopolizes the entire insurance industry under other names & they’re controlled by the FREEMASON russian mob.

  147. Furthermore, OBAMA & his PRINCE HALL FREEMASON COMRADES & the like should go to the HAGUE for WAR CRIMES namely the HEALTHCARE LAW/TAX that is FORCED COERCION & ATTEMPTED MURDER by the FASCISTS hiding witjin STATE GOVERNMENT by FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT of the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IS THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AKA THE FSB.

  148. Moreover, FREEMASONS FORCE DRUG CATHOLICS to death under FALSE PRETENSES by FORCED COERCION to hide their crimes & pose like everyone imaginable but work for the KGB.

    They’re FORCED DRUGGING control freak RAPIST DRUG DEALERS & MASS MURDERERS AKA THE BANKSTERS who invest in their own fraud.

  149. You should watch you’re name calling elexquisior because that’s
    DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. You have no reason to behave like you’re some grade school bully because I posted that link below on FREEMASONRY.

  150. Furthermore, I never took liberties with the CORRUPT CRIMINAL system ran by DRUG CARTELS. However, clearly by the vemon you spew elexquisior, you love people who do & therefore it’s people like you who caused it.

    Moreover, I don’t play russian spy games, so don’t talk to me.

  151. Your insults speak for yourself exquisior. You’re here to RELIGIOUS PERSECUTE CATHOLICS & clearly you’re in the enemy camp.

    I don’t make time for losers the likes of you.

  152. @Ivent – THE FREEMASONS?! You mean those guys who have major childrens hospitals in most states, where even loons like you can bring a child in medical need without charge? And with all the Shriner clowns running around, you would blend right in.

  153. Furthermore, declaring yourself TBTF does not mean that you’re not the problem.

    CATHOLIC BIBLE 101-THE FREEMASONS:

    http://www.catholicbible101.com/thefreemasons.htm

  154. “Poor me, poor me” is still going very strong here. And nobody still gets anywhere except ’round and ’round. Moving on. By choice this time…

  155. Ignorance of the law by the wrongdoers of course. They ignored ARTICLE 3 so they could COUNTERFEIT gazillions in fraud.

    I was told by one cop on the beat, whenever there’s lots of money being made there’s fraud.

    So what does that mean the cops ignore it?

    That was one unsuitable response IMHO. In fact it was rude because he told me by saying that, no one really cares if there’s fraud if there’s lots of money being made which is no excuse to not do your job.

  156. try this lawyer’s show on for size live at 6PM saturday evening
    http://www.1160hope.com/
    1160 AM Chicago

  157. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    Good blog post by Neil Garfield discussing the Uniform Commercial Code and the Truth in Lending Act as well as the bias in some Courts.

  158. El thx for posting that case. Seems lawyers discouraging us from taking action got it wrong on intent as well.Possibly template for unlawful foreclosure in my case within UD or cross complaint? But lawyer dropped ball on that one looks like.

  159. In CA another appellate case has surfaced, http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Bergman-v-Chase-E060148.pdf , which is an Unlawful Detainer case with Chase disputing the fees. Like Kalicki v Chase, it shows illegal actions taken by Chase and is therefore UNPUBLISHED.

  160. These facts and issues are currently on appeal before Fifth USCA 14-51224. In due time, we’ll appear before SCOTUS. http://www.phhmortgagemustbedestroyed.weebly.com

  161. How many ways can you say it? We were robbed. We are still being robbed. Based on the way this country is going, chances are good it is going to happen again, and more people will be robbed. The question is what the heck can we do about it? Apparently nothing because there are far and few between lawyers who understand it all and have the backbone to take the cases where they actually have to work for their retainer….IF….. the homeowner is fortunate enough to even HAVE the money for a retainer after the incompetence of our Government officials and their Wall Street cronies have bankrupted the middle class into a hopeless quivering fearful mass of slave labor living paycheck to paycheck and praying they can make the mortgage payment knowing full well they are paying thieves for the right to have a roof over their heads ….fagedabout the pursuit of happiness…..a roof and food on the table are the best we can hope for in this day and age of corruption from the halls of Congress to the scales of justice to the canyons of Wall Street….No gives a damn what the “duck” happens to the middle class. Every time I pay my “blood” money each month I feel like I am being robbed at gunpoint…or raped….I am helpless and hopeless. Lucky Californians who appear to have a handful of cowboys and cowgirls with white hats and white horses that are starting to ride to the rescue….not so in Nevada….Surely these Cali attys ….KNOW….attorneys in other states…? Can’t they put a bug in their associates ears in other states and tell them there is a WEALTH of people out there who want to fight….WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO FIGHT…. if they will just work with them? If I don’t have to make a mortgage payment because I’ve rescinded my fraudulent loan and the imposter creditors can’t prove standing or holder in due course defenses because I have an INFORMED AND EDUCATED ATTORNEY FIGHTING FOR ME….I would be ABLE to make payments to said attorney on monthly basis for WHATEVER he or she wanted to charge for their services or split any settlement I might be entitled to….heck….keep it ALL….just leave me in peace to stay in my home…..

  162. Understand that Neil refers to tila and UCC but to use his own words and i love this saying ” you cant pick up one end of the stick without the other.”

  163. And back to the ” power of sale” in the deed of tryst contract ( non judicial States) it must be adhered STrictly by its terms, and as they old fashioned woukd say ” guarded with jealousy” ( means not to be abused i guess) and my God, was it ever!

  164. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_apprehension_of_bias
    Also see 28 U.S.C s455 and 28 U.S.C 144 re recusal.
    And heres that case law i said i would find. citing Melendres v Arpaio, er al, 2009, ” the court is acutely aware that it owes an independent duty to upohold the integrity of the juducial system, see Lijeberg v Health Serv. Aquisition Corp; 486U.S 847, 860 (1998) ( recognising the purpose of s455(a) to promote public confidence in the integrity if the judicial process by avoiding even tne appearance of impropriety wherever possible)

    Not legal advice please do your research and consult with attorney in your State.

  165. I mean rights ( not men in tights that’s their business)

  166. Wow hammertime
    So a man can’t defend his life liberty or property or title or right to possession –
    We live in very sad times if those tights are being swept away

  167. it is all theater and has been for a long long time as well as your beloved prez and on down…Nothing is Real unless you believe it is. THEIR laws are for THEM to benefit….NOT YOU. If you got a house sell it, go pay cash for a place if you can. This charade is ongoing…it is their plan with the help of the courts and gov. Some real sick people with ill-gotten power, THEIR time will come. The “public” can’t mess with the judges pension/investments…r u sick yet? make some real changes will you can if you can…come out of her.

  168. All that is required is the ” appearance of bias”
    It’s s public confidence thing imho
    It’s difficult to prove a judge is in fact bias especially if they are in fact correct on law and application of law under the rules governing ( but that may not be the case ) every human has bias based on their experiences but as I said ” even the appearance of bias, there’s case law for my state, AZ I’ll post later when I find it.

  169. CEO,CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF WELLS FARGO BANK

    Call 866-249-3302. Ask to be transferred “to the office of Mr. Stumpf.” Once you reach the secretary or switchboard operator, say the following:

    MAKE CALLS , LETS DRIVE THEM CRAZY.

  170. Mr. Garfield we are in a strange place in CA , non judicial, where AG consortium notes a homeowner has better chance in unlawful detainer. Plaintiff must prove authority, perfected title. But the bias is clear. Lawyer told me only yesterday judges are tired of homeowner cases and bar is actively discouraging lawyers from taking cases.

  171. I have been looking at bias in the courts since 2008. No discovery ever granted which, INMHO, means that judge knows exactly what is going on and rules against the homeowner anyway.

  172. Neil –

    i just realized that your examples of the courts getting it wrong involves showing how the US Supreme Court has screwed up big time in the past…

    this does not help the argument that SCOTUS got it right on Jesinoski…

    rather, it would support that they got it wrong again…

    pick better examples…

  173. when a judge knowingly goes against the law of the land, especially after a matter is unanimously settled by SCOTUS, is that not something like misprision of felony and violation of his oath of office?

    if an more than one judge in a county or federal circuit agrees to do this together, is that not conspiracy?

    is that not grounds for immediate removal and arrest?

    should not their cases be void ab initio and reheard by a neutral magistrate?

  174. Again as Bill Black writes
    “The best way to rob a bank is to own one ”
    He States That the banks most valuable
    Oversight regulators are the ones they suborn

  175. it seems that the local court judges are going to make everyone file one-off cases to enforce the Supreme Court rulings

    doesn’t this sound a lot like the unlawful fight in the south during the 50’s-60’s regarding allowing all children regardless of color to attend any public school in their neighborhood?

    if you recall, the US had to send in the FBI, US Marshals, Army and Marines to enforce the constitution and Supreme Court decision and protect those kids from the local/state police and state controlled national guard so they could safely pass to, into, and throughout the schools.

    are we going to need the FBI, Army and Marines to enforce the constitution, the people’s will through their congress, and Supreme Court decision on Jesinoski and homeowner protection as well?

    will we have to have the US Marshals show up in court and arrest judges on-the-spot when they knowingly war against the constitution and deny people due process or their lawful claims?

    this is going to make Selma look like Disneyland!

    greg

  176. Sent from my MetroPCS 4G Android device

  177. Supreme Courts don’t even give a shit! Check this out from This American Life Blog: Listen to the original story on This American Life: The Secret Recordings of Carmen Segarra,

    From contributor Jake Bernstein:

    Last week, Carmen Segarra, the former bank examiner featured in our story The Secret Recordings of Carmen Segarra, lost her appeal in her case against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    Segarra had argued that the Fed fired her because she refused to soften her examination of Goldman Sachs. She asked for whistleblower status under a federal statute designed to protect bank examiners.
    WTF? (me)
    A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled she was not covered under the statute. In unusually blunt language it also wrote that naming her direct supervisors as defendants in the case in addition to the Fed was “meritless, and frankly quite silly.”

    “We respectfully disagree with the court and are considering our legal options,” said Linda Stengle, Segarra’s lawyer.

    The New York Fed, by dint of its location off Wall Street, regulates some of the largest and most complex financial institutions in the world. These are the banks that if they fail could sink the economy. In 2012, the New York Fed hired specialized examiners to improve its supervision of these so-called Too-Big-to-Fail banks. Segarra, a lawyer trained in helping banks comply with regulations, was among the new examiners hired. She lasted only seven months before being terminated.

    The New York Fed has stated that Segarra’s firing was unrelated to her examination of Goldman.

    Our story included secret recordings Segarra made while she was embedded at Goldman as a Fed employee. The recordings raised questions about whether the Fed was captured by the bank it supervised. The radio episode and accompanying report from ProPublica resulted in a Senate hearing on the subject last November, during which Democratic Senators excoriated William Dudley, the president of the New York Fed, for being too lenient on the powerful banks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: