The Federal Reserve Has Set You Up: Set Them Up – Right Back — UCC Explained in detail

The Federal Reserve Has Set You Up: Set Them Up – Right Back

by Anonymous

With the economy in its present Federal-Reserve-orchestrated-condition, your eventual default on the promissory note and mortgage against your property is assured.

Prepare now, for that inevitable day. The following is one possible course of action against the criminal banks:

References to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) are to the Federal UCC. Each state in the union, except Louisiana, has adopted the Federal UCC into its own law. The Federal UCC can easily be cross referenced to your local jurisdiction. When using the UCC in your jurisdiction, reference the version of the UCC adopted in that particular jurisdiction.

i.e.: UCC § 3-301 has been adopted in the Alabama Code at — Ala.Code 1975, § 7-3-301.

The Cornell UCC state locator can be found here:
LII: UCC – Locator

When in the position of being unable to make the next installment payment, or future scheduled installment payments, prepare for the inevitable claim from the banksters to have the right to foreclosure and enforcement of the NOTE-Mortgage.

1. On the day after the date of the day you are served with the foreclosure lawsuit summons, a critical time clock starts counting down. By the last calendar day of the time-period noted on the summons as the time within which you are to ANSWER the foreclosure complaint, have prepared (1) for mailing via certified mail and (2) filing, in the case noted on the summons in the court docket, a Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.

1.1 Start counting days on the day after you are served with the summons to court in response to the bank’s foreclosure lawsuit, (all calendar days must be counted). On the last day of the specified time period file your Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. (See Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6)). (Check the rules in the jurisdiction where the foreclosed property is located; if the court has local rules be sure to observe those rules also).

1.2 There is no advantage in filing the motion early. Filing the Rule 12(b)(6) motion suspends the time for filing an ANSWER.

About the Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted:

2. The foreclosure claimant (bankster) is required to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case by evidence proving a valid cause of action. That proof must be established pursuant to the requirements of meeting the criterion for qualification as “the real party in interest,” and UCC § 3-301, and if applicable UCC § 3-309, and should be affirmatively set forth in the foreclosure complaint.
The lawyers for the foreclosure claimant will fail to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case in the initial complaint, secure in the presumption that you will not question the bank’s standing to file the foreclosure action.
The lawyers that do this type of sloppy work are incompetent BAR-flys, relying upon the collusion of the BAR-fly judge who will “overlook” this defect in the complaint.
Your ability to zero in on the issue of the bankster’s standing to make a claim in foreclosure from the beginning, will immediately panic the foreclosure complainant. The lawyers who wrote and filed the complaint for the banksters are also subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for filing a case where their client cannot establish themselves as “the real party in interest,” and having the right to enforce the instrument. No valid cause of action. Such complaint, without valid cause of action is frivolous. Ask for sanctions against the BAR-fly lawyers and their law firm.
The BAR-flys have given themselves a 21-day “safe harbor” provision when filing a Rule 11 (Federal, may be different in state courts) request for sanctions, giving those bastards time to correct their frivolous incompetence. So, check the rules and case law in your jurisdiction. “They” made the rule. Throw those rules back at them like a javelin.
The Motion To Dismiss must also contain words making it obviously apparent that the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this particular case is being challenged. Once subject matter jurisdiction has been challenged it must be addressed and affirmatively established by the court. It is an abuse of discretion for a court to fail, by either refusal or neglect, to address a subject matter jurisdiction-over-the-case challenge.

NOTE: there is a distinction between the term “subject matter jurisdiction” and “subject matter jurisdiction over the case.”
“subject matter jurisdiction” is a broad and general term referring to the court’s general subject matter jurisdiction over a class of case types. Without this jurisdiction, judgments of a court are VOID.
“subject matter jurisdiction over the case” is a sub classification within the general subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a particular case makes the judgment in that case VOIDABLE.
See the following case for an explanation of the difference: Edwin A. Hisle and Olive Sue Hisle Cook v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Appeal From Fayette Circuit Court, Action No. 65-CI-17431, Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals, No. 2006-CA-001733-MR.
Alternate link: [http://162.114.92.72/COA/2006-CA-001733.pdf]

For the bank to establish a valid cause of action, the right to enforce the instrument must be proved with evidence entered into the court record pursuant the following requirements of law:

3. Prove status of holder of the instrument. (UCC § 3-301(i)); or

“Holder” means: (UCC § 1-201(21) )
(A) the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession; or
(B) the person in possession of a document of title if the goods are deliverable either to bearer or to the order of the person in possession.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-201

If the bank is the holder in possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage, (original wet-ink NOTE-Mortgage), evidence of possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage must be produced to establish standing to invoke the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Authenticum: In the civil law, an original instrument or writing; the original of a will or other instrument, as distinguished from a copy. (BLD6-133)

4. Prove status of non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder. (UCC § 3-301(ii)); or

If the bank is not the holder, but has actual and present possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage, the bank must produce clear evidence to establish that the rights of the holder have been assigned to the non-holder to enforce the instrument.

5. Prove status of being entitled to enforce the instrument as a person not in possession of the instrument pursuant to UCC § 3-309 or UCC § 3-418(d). (NOTE is lost, stolen, destroyed).

If the bank is not in possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage, the bank must produce clear evidence to establish the right to enforce the instrument pursuant to the requirements of UCC § 3-309.

UCC § 3-309, requirements.

6. Prove possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred. (UCC § 3-309(a)(1)).

7. Prove non-possession of the NOTE is NOT the result of a transfer. (UCC § 3-309(a)(2)).

8. Prove that the person seeking enforcement cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (UCC § 3-309(a)(3)).

9. A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-309(b)).

UCC § 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.
“Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means
(i) the holder of the instrument,
(ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or
(iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

UCC § 3-309 ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED, OR STOLEN INSTRUMENT.
(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if
(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument
(A) was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or
(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;
(2) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and
(3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-203(a)).

If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee.(UCC 3-203(d))

UCC § 3-201. NEGOTIATION
(a) “Negotiation” means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.

“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, and the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”
Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872) (SCOTUS). (Access Carpenter here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/271/case.html

Carpenter recently cited in – Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)). Access Landmark here: [Landmark Decision]

10. All of the above references to the UCC takes a back-seat when it is realized that the banksters have transformed the Signed Wet-Ink Original Promissory Note (SWIOPN) and the Signed Wet-Ink Original Mortgage Agreement (SWIOMA) into SECURITIES so they may be used for exploitation in the stock market.

11. A SECURITY cannot be enforced or “cashed” if it does not exist.

12. A COPY OF A SECURITY cannot be enforced or “cashed.”

13. A COPY OF A SECURITY cannot be misrepresented as having any value, this is called COUNTERFEITING.

14. The banksters “bundled,” “pooled,” and sold the SWIOPN and SWIOMA to Wall Street manipulators. Those “evidences of debt” are GONE. They cannot be produced. Nobody knows where they may be located. If anyone DOES know where those writings are located, and the identity of the holders of the writings, they are keeping it a secret.

15. A few interesting references to the serious nature of counterfeit securities:

15 USC § 77b. Definitions; promotion of efficiency, competition, and capital formation
(a) Definitions
(a) Definitions
When used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires —
(1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing.

Promissory Notes and Mortgage Deeds are characterized as “Securities” by definition.

See: 12 CFR § 1.2(m)(3)
“A residential mortgage-related security that is offered and sold pursuant to section 4(5) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77d(5), that is rated investment grade or is the credit equivalent thereof, or a residential mortgage-related security as described in section 3(a)(41) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(41)), that is rated investment grade in one of the two highest investment grade rating categories, and that does not otherwise qualify as a Type I security.”

Securities are regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Very strict statutes and regulations govern what can and cannot be done with “Securities.”

Reference requirements applicable to reproduction or “copying” of “Securities:”

18 USC § 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined
The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

18 USC § 471. Obligations or securities of United States
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ … -000-.html
Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 USC § 472. Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities
Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 USC § 473. Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities
Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 USC § 493. Bonds and obligations of certain lending agencies
Whoever falsely makes, forges, counterfeits or alters any note, bond, debenture, coupon, obligation, instrument, or writing in imitation or purporting to be in imitation of, a note, bond, debenture, coupon, obligation, instrument or writing, issued by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, Farm Credit Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, or any land bank, intermediate credit bank, insured credit union, bank for cooperatives or any lending, mortgage, insurance, credit or savings and loan corporation or association authorized or acting under the laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Whoever passes, utters, or publishes, or attempts to pass, utter or publish any note, bond, debenture, coupon, obligation, instrument or document knowing the same to have been falsely made, forged, counterfeited or altered, contrary to the provisions of this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

18 USC § 513. Securities of the States and private entities
(a) Whoever makes, utters or possesses a counterfeited security of a State or a political subdivision thereof or of an organization, or whoever makes, utters or possesses a forged security of a State or political subdivision thereof or of an organization, with intent to deceive another person, organization, or government shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Whoever makes, receives, possesses, sells or otherwise transfers an implement designed for or particularly suited for making a counterfeit or forged security with the intent that it be so used shall be punished by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.
(c) For purposes of this section—

(1) the term “counterfeited” means a document that purports to be genuine but is not, because it has been falsely made or manufactured in its entirety;
(2) the term “forged” means a document that purports to be genuine but is not because it has been falsely altered, com*pleted, signed, or endorsed, or contains a false addition thereto or insertion therein, or is a combination of parts of two or more genuine documents;
(3) the term “security” means—
(A) a note, stock certificate, treasury stock certificate, bond, treasury bond, debenture, certificate of deposit, interest coupon, bill, check, draft, warrant, debit instrument as defined in section 916(c) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, money order, traveler’s check, letter of credit, warehouse receipt, negotiable bill of lading, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest in or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, pre-reorganization certificate of subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting trust certificate, or certificate of interest in tangible or intangible property;
(B) an instrument evidencing ownership of goods, wares, or merchandise;
(C) any other written instrument commonly known as a security;
(D) a certificate of interest in, certificate of participation in, certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or option or other right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; or
(E) a blank form of any of the foregoing;
(4) the term “organization” means a legal entity, other than a government, established or organized for any purpose, and includes a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, foundation, institution, society, union, or any other association of persons which operates in or the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; and
(5) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

31 CFR § 411.1 The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency, provided:
– The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
– The illustration is one-sided
All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.
Other obligations and Securities
– Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non-fraudulent purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less than three-quarters or greater than one-and-one-half times the size, in linear dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced. Negatives and plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the purpose for which they were made.

16. Immediately after being served with the summons mail the bankster’s incompetent attorney a discovery request for production of documents; Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34 – Production of Documents.

17. Production of Documents for the opportunity to inspect, photo copy, certify, and validate

17.1 All documents relied upon to establish the validity of the claim.
17.2 All relevant ledger records.
17.4 All relevant insurance records.
17.5 All records pertaining to any relevant Credit Default Swap certificates.
17.6 All records relevant to any guarantors.
17.7 All records relevant to any investors in any aspect of the original transaction.
17.8 All records relevant to any money transactions with respect to the original transaction.
17.9 All records relevant to any assignment(s) with respect to the original transaction.
17.10 All records relevant to any “aggregator” with respect to the original transaction.
17.11 All records relevant to any “pool” with respect to the original transaction.
17.12 All records relevant to any “Special Purpose Vehicle” with respect to the original transaction.
17.14 All records relevant to any “Collateralized Debt Obligation” with respect to the original transaction.
17.15 All records relevant to the present holder of the original writings with respect to the original transaction.
17.16 All records relevant to any entity ever having physical possession of the original writings with respect to the original transaction.

18. The bankster will have 30 days from the day they receive service of the request for production of documents to send you a response. If the bank fails to respond with valid answers within 30 days after receipt of your request for production of documents, file a motion to compel the banksters to comply with your discovery request. Ask the court for Rule 11 sanctions against the bankster’s BAR-flys.

19. If the banksters fails to establish a valid cause of action pursuant to the requirements of proving that they are the “real party in interest,” and that they have actual physical possession of the original writings relevant to the original transatcion, (see UCC § 3-301, and if applicable UCC § 3-309), the court will be forced to dismiss the case. If the case is dismissed, the discovery requests are then moot.

20. Once the case is dismissed, file a Quiet Title Action pursuant to the fact that the NOTE-Mortgage has been satisfied, and that there is no holder in evidence, that the NOTE-Mortgage were acquired by the banksters by false representation and fraud.

139 Responses

  1. […] The Federal Reserve Has Set You Up: Set Them Up – Right Back — UCC Explained in detail […]

  2. What they are really covering up is the fact that the FED is in Default in our names to the U.S. Treasury Department. The FED and WALL STREET DISHONORED US EXPONENTIALLY….That is why there are no legal assignments. These crooks print as much money as they want and they don’t need our money they just steal and hand us their fraudulently induced bills to fraudulently control the people. It’s a mind game. They keep the Original Direct Deposit from the Treasury they stole in our names on their books as an asset and they use that as a control mechanism even though they lent no money. It is all an illusion.

  3. hman imo you might successfully make the case that even where the homeowner brings the action to a court (aka is plaintiff therein) that the bankster is the true plaintiff, having instigated foreclosure. The bankster is the plaintiff by having alleged that one is in default of a contract by its Notice of Default, say, and now you would like the court to settle the issue judicially. That last sentence, the explanation, is my own, but ‘ve seen at least one court acknowledge that the lender who instigated foreclosure is the plaintiff (even tho it were non-judicially). If I find that case or cases in my tomes, I’ll link.

  4. ukg – thanks for the info about Quality. Those non profit organizations (for the homeowner of course) sure can spit out some good stuff. One such organization was instrumental in a case I recall where they got three things done: 1) go the case remanded back to state court 2) got a ruling that a homeowner has a cause of action under HAMP and 3)
    made the banksters in the case all hae to have separate counsel, citing conflict of interest. As to what Quality claimed about its treatment of homeowners, I’ll believe that when pigs fly. Maybe.

  5. Someones quote on FOX BUSINESS…if you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert in time there would be a shortage of sand……

    The truth is….the commie bank owners, both foreign and domestic, have hijacked both Government’s … our freedom, liberty and independence, our Constitutional Republic hangs in the balance.

  6. Another big lie, investment is ownership…..Investment is not ownership because banks don’t lend….they steal.

  7. This is all the direct result of the BANK OWNERS and the biggest brainwashing campaign to sell the biggest lie ever told to mankind…that the banks lend money or anything of value….the banks lend nothing of value….the banks rob us for the bank owners and hand us their bills.

  8. $60.4 trillion of our wealth has been stolen by the bank owners since 2008 and not just that but, the bank owners handed ALL OF US THEIR BILL FOR THEIR ROBBERY OF US….. That is why the DOW is at 1433 and some change….an all time high. Thank the TBTF POLITICIANS …

  9. TBTFs motto….send us your poor, your weak and your uneducated so we can enslave them….

  10. The National Mortgage Settlement is a sham and a fraud, a Communist /Socialist HOAX….

  11. That will be the day those pee-ons would take on the mightiest military in the world….LMAO…

  12. The latest threat by these psychos is North Korea warns of a pre-emptive Nuclear attack on the U.S….YEAH RIGHT!

  13. We are all pawns in the games played by the bank owners. Their debt is all created by committing crimes against us and everything they tell us is fraud & fiction. That is how they control. They have a wide array of actors and actresses who carry on their charades to keep the games going. They are all mentally ill.

  14. The poor economic conditioned and all of the threats by TBTF are manufactured lies.

  15. The only date that really matters is the date on the trust agreements and those never existed because banks don’t lend…they steal.

  16. We know the unindorsed notes are a fraud and the bank owners are covering up THE FACT they print as much money as they want and INVEST IN & OVERISSUE INVESTMENTS in our stolen autographs by Counterfeiting and Forgery. That is what they are covering up, that their currency is MONOPOLY MONEY…and our stolen autographs are a tool of mind game control because these crooks don’t lend their MONOPOLY MONEY……they use their MONOPOLY MONEY and our stolen autographs as instruments of CONTROL…Their debt is complete manufactured bullshit.

    The bank owners have the CONTROL…..they have the money printing machine, their currency is backed by ZERO…..therefore, they can print as much monopoly money as they want and pay their own debts.
    However the bank owners are debt creators who invest in the fraudulently induced debt they create…..that is how they CONTROL US…

  17. Abby,

    I opened that link but the doc is huge (124 pages) and of very poor quality. Have you seen it elsewhere, in a better format?

  18. FEB 2013 REPORT ON THE NATIONAL MORTGAGE SETTLEMENT
    19 BILLION ON SHORT SALES!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/129114667/National-Mortgage-Settlement-Feb-2013-Report-Ongoing-implementation-ALSO-KNOWN-AS-THE-50-STATE-AG-SETTLEMENT

  19. In the article UKG posted on the media like “FOX” news making their audiences believe lies about who did these crimes. This is true, I remember that jerk huckster Huckabee and his crotchety old audience, parroting every lie he told. He would say moronic things like…. if your neighbor is not paying the mortgage, they are destroying your property values and are immoral and are ruining the economy for everyone. His audience of closed minded old codgers would nod their bobble heads and clap like programmed robots. Then the FOX program the Five and their commie host, Greg Gutfeld, and their panel of communists calling people who can’t afford the mortgage, deadbeats who belong out in the street. Then of course Glenn Beck and his moaning about the Federal Reserve Bank on one side of his face and on the other side of his face saying, the banks did nothing wrong.

    They all work for the hidden hand, the one Largesse banking family of bank owners, the Bronwens, and their 4 large institutional investment firms….STATE STREET, FIDELITY, BLACKROCK & VANGUARD..they want people to believe lies such as, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and visa versa. It is all B.S…from B.S.ers……they are all in the sack together and they are all brainwashed with the commie ideologies of these control freaks.

    The God these commies worship is their false idol of Corporate monopoly money, their big fat paychecks from their “investments” in these criminal Corps who control the Gold, Oil and Drug trades and rob everyone else of their wealth, property and labor. They call themselves Too Big To Fail and try and hide behind veils of secrecy like Corporate Logos, Political Parties and they hide inside the Governments, the media and the educational system. EVERYONE wasxrobbed by TBTF but, are all compromised by their affiliations with TBTF and their so called entitlements that are not by law, entitled to anyone, they are the enemies of our Constitutional Republic. Corporate pension funds and investments are guaranteed to no one in our Constitutional Republic. Only the Citizenry’s Legal Right to Defend our Life, Liberty and Property are guaranteed in our Constitutional Republic
    The FED financial system of issuing their own fiat currency, backed by our hijacked wealth, property and labor, as a replacement for our own currency was done secretly, as a weapon to create Totalitarianism. These communists knew they needed to steal our wealth, property and Labor and fraudulently induce payments for their valueless credit that would be collected by them, for them, in the form of usury and by their investment mind game ponzi scheme of Securitization, they would be investing in their own fraud crimes, and stealing our wealth while brainwashing the masses that investment is ownership, they would use investment in everything WE THE PEOPLE PAY & LABOR for to hijack our Constitutional Republic.

    Everything the bank owners do is by many proxy’s and everything they do is Unconstitutional and Illegal in the U.S.A.

  20. UKG,

    “Under Wisconsin law, an endorsement can be undated.” I read that and everything suddenly went black all around me. For a minute there, I started hyperventilating!

    WTF? And people take that? People really accept that? I’m still besides myself! What is it going to take for people to wake up? Half the country under the bridges?

    Just for the hell of it, has anyone actually verified that statement? Is this really what Wisconsin law states? Think about the implication…

  21. Some folks go into BK, pay the debt down as an unsecured debt under CH 11 or 13 and the balance is wiped out when the BK is finalized. Then they file QT. It may work for some folks … but they gonna kiss my grits before we file bk on one debt. Buttwipes!

  22. UKG… when decisions started coming down in some states that MERS could not fc in its name… if it was not the party with the right to enforce the note, So they started fcs in court and filed LPs on title in the servicers names (without assigning the mortgage) or endorsing the notes. It became an issue thou for borowers who re-enstated because they now have a Smudge on their title. When homeowners went to market their homes ….. they found themselves with Title Issues, From what I hear most BK judges find it irrealvent if the debtor is insolvent and unable to re-affirm the obligation,…. there is no harm to the debtor. There can only be harm of title issues to the debtor/homeowner whom re-enstates the debt either inside or outside of BK court.

  23. 3 assignments of mortgage are okay, too. Eastern District Wisconsin. Up here their using a case EDWARDS V DEUTSCHE which is a horrible decision that went uncontested because of a settlement, and now they use it against all comers.This case hinged on negotiability per Article 3 UCC and said borrowers had no standing to challenge assignments, citing the doctrine of “equitable assignment”. Borrowers settled and decision left on the books.

    So this judge says in her written opinion…
    “Paragraph 96(a)2 alleges that the defendants violated RICO by filing a copy of the endorsed Note in the bankruptcy case after filing a copy without the endorsement in the state foreclosure case. In the context of this adversary proceeding, the argument is nonsensical. Under Wisconsin law, an endorsement can be undated. Since the dating of the endorsement is not required, it does not matter for purposes of this bk case when Wells Fargo endorsed the Note. (Huh?) And it apparently did not matter for purposes of the state court foreclosure, because that court entered a judgment against the Debtors, and refused to modify that judgment, even after the Debtors claimed that the Wells Defendants used fraudulent affidavits.”
    “”In paragraph 96(b) the Debtors allege that the Wells Defendants used forged and fabricated mortgage assignments ‘to make it appear as though the mortgage had been assigned to HSBC’.The Debtors’ claims are groundless. (note: the “second assignment of mtg was filed 3 weeks after our bk filing) As the holder of the Note, HSBC could enforce the Mortgage. Moreover, all three assignments assign the Mortgage from Wells Fargo to HSBC. There is nothing fabricated or fraudulent about them.”
    “The Debtors claim that the attorneys who signed pleadings on behalf of HSBC violated RICO because the Note was not endorsed and the Mortgage assignment was not recorded.”

    another huh??
    If they weren’t “fabricated”, why would there be three of them?

    Counselor Jan, would appreciate an off site chat, please. usedkarguy@yahoo.com.

  24. At the foundation of this massive foreclosure fraud the Banks lent their CREDIT prohibited by the United States Constitution

  25. Is everyone catching on why BAC was desperate enough to commit round two of fruad? They were trying to get the fc deeds that CW had filed LPs on to complete the transaction .. per say. Buttwipes!!!!

  26. I don’t agree with anything that has the prefix RE attached to it in regards to bank debt. It really means Cover-up and it creates impoverishment… Re-socialism of unsustainable debt creates totalitarianism. The FEDs QEs is an example of how banks re-purchasing soured debt….buybacks, are bad for the economy. It gives criminal institutions another way to rob the U.S. TAXPAYER’S and as the Wall Street rally proves, rewards criminal behavior in a big way. Banks repurchasing their own soured debt is fraud and it is criminal. These bank buyback crimes against us, these bank repo’s of their own criminal fraud have cost U.S. TAXPAYER’S $60.4 TRILLION DOLLARS since 2008….The reason the bank owners are being allowed to do this, they want to create a nation of renters. It is deceptive and it is criminal. These politicians are all traitor’s.

  27. Think about it ….. a key aspect of repos is that they are legally recognised as a single transaction (important in the event of counterparty insolvency) and not as a disposal and a repurchase for tax purposes. ………. Now ask yourself, Did the party who filed LP hold the lien at the time the LP was filed on title? Is that counterparty insolvent? Can they recognise as a single transaction? Was your loan devalued low to zero? Mers puppets did more than shoot themselves in the foot, they sank the ship! Embrace Them! 🙂

  28. Time to study up on repo and reverse repo’s …. Here is a good link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repurchase_agreement
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    A repo is economically similar to a secured loan, with the buyer (effectively the lender or investor) receiving securities as collateral to protect him against default by the seller. The party who initially sells the securities is effectively the borrower. Almost any security may be employed in a repo, though highly liquid securities are preferred as they are more easily disposed of in the event of a default and, more importantly, they can be easily obtained in the open market where the buyer has created a short position in the repo security by a reverse repo and market sale; by the same token, non liquid securities are discouraged. Treasury or Government bills, corporate and Treasury/Government bonds, and stocks may all be used as “collateral” in a repo transaction. Unlike a secured loan, however, legal title to the securities passes from the seller to the buyer. Coupons (interest payable to the owner of the securities) falling due while the repo buyer owns the securities are, in fact, usually passed directly onto the repo seller. This might seem counterintuitive, as the legal ownership of the collateral rests with the buyer during the repo agreement. The agreement might instead provide that the buyer receives the coupon, with the cash payable on repurchase being adjusted to compensate, though this is more typical of sell/buybacks.

    Although the transaction is similar to a loan, and its economic effect is similar to a loan, the terminology differs from that applying to loans: the seller legally repurchases the securities from the buyer at the end of the loan term. However, a key aspect of repos is that they are legally recognised as a single transaction (important in the event of counterparty insolvency) and not as a disposal and a repurchase for tax purposes.

  29. Sorry Jan, my mistake. I like Jan, he is a Smart Guy! 🙂 I would love to run them all the way up the flagpole in NY. Trust Me!

  30. This notebook went haywire again…correct typo…Sheila Baird…

  31. Probably one of the more honest articles, however, this had nothing to do with people getting mortgages they could not afford. It was all in the structuring of the deals and they were all meant to fail as Sheiks Baird publicly stated. They were ALL liar’s loans. Max Keiser reported long ago the number of people who were unqualified was a small percentage and considered a healthy amount of risk. Not nearly enough risk to collapse the “world economy.” Those people were scape goats and used to label everyone forced into fraudclosure by these crooks, deadbeats. CNBC reported 2 years ago Insider Trading crashed the stock market in 2008. Not one of those crooks were prosecuted. No one said WHO the Insider Traders were. WHO had the most to gain from Insider Trading…? Those who were insured on their created risks. The documentary Inside Job exposed it was the sellers of the frauds and the investors in the frauds who were both insured on their created risks.

  32. So this article leads one to believe that no matter WHO you voted for the last 20 years, they were all on the same team. And I used to call myself a Republican. Certainly more Libertarian than liberal, but what the FFFF?

    A good read, to be sure….and I don’t care what color you are!!

    http://www.businessinsider.com/republican-explanation-of-2008-crash-is-false-2013-2

  33. Charles, there are way too many conflicts of interest ..

  34. There was a bank case against the U.S. GOVT today in court and the judge said the case had to go to another courtroom because he (the judge) is an employee of the City. Interesting….

  35. stripes I agree with you these banker clown are crooks and I would love to see there books. It does not make since for Fannie and Freddie to be $190 billion in debt to the taxpayers and not have participated in HAMP but they were the regulator of HAMP in disputes.

    How with the loans that are alleged to be owned by the Federal Government yet these loan were not given modification in that scam, when in fact it very easy to show a non ownership just by presenting the Notes and a cancel check were the banks purchase these loans or the GSEs.

    I would not doubt the $60 trillion figure as this crime is everywhere and at every level!

  36. IMHO…Bankruptcy is a big fat cop out and does nothing but label us deadbeats and failures when these crooks caused that failure and it was intentional.

    The truth of the matter is, these are all unsecured debts….these crooks already got paid exponentially and owe us gazillions…..there is a quadrillion dollars in criminal fraud committed by these Wall Street banks and if every American filed bankruptcy and every property was fraudclosed their fraud debt is still massive & unsustainable.

    This is simply outright robbery of the American people by the bank owners who have committed a false flag operation …their manufactured stock market crash in 2008 was a crime…they insider traded themselves into a crash to collect the insurance money, fraudclose, and repurchase their own fraud to create a nation of renters and they never paid for anything……paying to invest is not ownership because the originator, the bank owners, defaulted on their original contract…..this was all deceptive and criminal and this was done to rob the American people of everything.

    Charles…Neil Cavuto said last night the National Debt is $60+ trillion….remember what CNBC said a few weeks ago….these maniacs, the bank owners, have stolen $60.4 trillion dollars from us since 2008…..looks like again, they handed us their bill for their robbery of us…and NO ONE is stopping them…

  37. Thanks carie…..the kindle has a mind of its own sometimes….

    Had court again this morning and they are still kicking the can. Amending their original complaint over and over doesn’t give them standing no matter how many times they “switch” the plaintiff. They are using foreclosure as a way to create a chain of title that never existed. It is meant to be deceptive but is apparent on its face and therefore it is criminal.

  38. to “Guest:” Sorry, I’m a “guy,” not a “gal.” Don’t let those immigrant names fool you. Also, remember that each case is going to be different, as each case is fact-specific, and the biggest factor out there is the quality of the Judge you end up before. Sad to say, but some have preconceived ideas that no amount of logical argument is going to budge.

    Your best bet, if you can swing it, is to get out from underneath the small-town judges (including those in the federal judiciary that are appointed by conservatives) and go sue the legacy banker in New York, where there is a considerable well of skepticism about bankers, and a sobering view that the Wall Street crowd is venal and has no compunction about fraud and lying in court. There are some great Decisions coming out of the NY courts.

  39. that was meant for @stripes…

  40. “vica oversaw”…?

    …”visa-versa”…;)

  41. Charles Reed,

    If i recall, after the bailout and given the dismal results (inclusive of the obscene bonuses given bankers while people were being kicked out of their home left and right with the Feds’ blessing) Gretchen Morgenson had come up with the best idea, later on echoed by Catherine Austin Fitts:

    Take all that money back from the banks and give it to the underwater/about-to-be-foreclosed upon homeowners. They pay off their loan, they don’t have debts anymore and they can go out and actually restart the economy by starting business and investing in the one they have. I guess it made too much sense. And you know, women! What the hell do they know…?

  42. I would like to mention this also works before a FC is filed. No need to wait ……………… I like this approach the best!!……………………Another approach, either prior to or after the “sale,” is to sue the Trustee alleging breach of fiduciary duties. You would have a mixed tort and contract set of claims, asserting the Trustee has breached his implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, additional to acting in concert with the “bank” to deprive the homeowner Trustor of his equitable rights. Nothing like a giant lawsuit to throw cold water over a Substituted Trustee slimeball outfit seeking to run off with your house. If the damages claims dwarf the value of the house, it takes the fun out of it for those bums

  43. Done some thinking late night and I do realize I don’t write well, but I think great and out the box. So why did the Fed instead of printing $16 trillion and giving it to the banks at zero to .5% loan and purchasing over $1 trillion to buy Mortgage Backed Securities, instead give 10 million homeowners $100,000 loan at 2% in 30yrs terms mortgages, and this crisis is over.

    The headline put a lot of attention on higher price California price properties instead of the average loan balances in the heartland, as the average loan balance of a FHA loan is $125,000 and for a VA loan its $100,000 loan balance.

    So as these properties were foreclosing and the Fed was flooding these bank with the $16 trillion in cheat money, why not cut out the middle man and go to the problem and fix it? The reason you don’t fix it is because the banks are getting $16 trillion in zero to .5% rates for a $1 trillion problem making them rich while destroying 10 million poor marked citizens that don’t have a clue and million of their neighbor who could care less if their children’s ex-playmate ended up sleep in some park somewhere.

    We been fighting whether or not the banks should have made loans, a car maker makes cars, not it’s customers and when it goes wrong there are recalls and the customer is not blamed for the faulty gas peddle. We got bank that created loans that when bad and caused wrecks all over the mortgage highway where the faulty loan cause the entire highway to become filled with mortgage default oil and the other loan also started to crash. Who at fault when the unsafe product was out in the market.

    Are we going to continue to use there math of 1 + 1 = 3 or $1 trillion paying 2% oppose to zero to .5% is 400% more in a return, but it not releasing the additional $15 trillion, that the Fed and its bank shareholders of the Fed and the bank that make up the Fed!

  44. I like Jan! 🙂 Smart Gal!

  45. Responsive to “Hman”:

    Dealing with a Trustee Notice of Sale in a non-judicial State is a giant problem. My personal advice is to not purchase property using a “Deed of Trust,” although that is probably not practical. For folks living West of the Mississippi, Where Trust Deeds are the usual case, you do have to file suit to impede the actual sale of your property. The alternative is to seek the protection of the Bankruptcy Courts and under a personal Chapter 11 start litigation against the claimants (again, not practical for many folks, due to the cumbersome nature of the proceedings. You also have to fight off a stay-relief Motion, which will come soon enough).

    In many cases the “sale” takes place anyway and you are shorn of your property rights, except a right of possession. The next step is a magistrate’s court suit for eviction, and (sometimes) that becomes a forum to challenge the actual sale (in some States) as being done on behalf of a party that is not a true creditor. My approach at that point would be to sue for “theft by conversion,” a civil tort claim arguing that the property has been “converted” to inure to the benefit of entities that had no claim of right in the first place. In a conversion case, you demand double or treble damages, dependent on your State, and that is the gross value of the house with no deduction for any debt on the house. Now the case gets rather more interesting. Nothing like being exposed to a huge Judgment to take the fun out of house thieving.

    Another approach, either prior to or after the “sale,” is to sue the Trustee alleging breach of fiduciary duties. You would have a mixed tort and contract set of claims, asserting the Trustee has breached his implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, additional to acting in concert with the “bank” to deprive the homeowner Trustor of his equitable rights. Nothing like a giant lawsuit to throw cold water over a Substituted Trustee slimeball outfit seeking to run off with your house. If the damages claims dwarf the value of the house, it takes the fun out of it for those bums.

  46. David….It’s a lot of info right …..? IMHO it is all relevant. Everyone should know what these crooks have done. Maybe the media should have done their job, then I wouldn’t have to do it for them.

  47. God Stripes…get a grip.You are going off the Fox News deep end chasing after those red herrings.Come back to the big boat boy before you capsize us all.

  48. Correct typo…..an attorney told me they will tell you the mortgage follows the note instead of vica versa …… this is true…..first it was not the mortgage they were fraudclosing on…..it was the debt….then it was the mortgage via the fee simple deed and now it’s a negotiable instrument …..! Yeah right…! it’s really outright theft plain & simple and I blame the traitor politicians for all of it.

    I told one of the attorney’s I heard this was another Hitler plan and he told me….if Barney Franks plane goes down you will know it was…huh? The guy who attached his name to that big fat piece of criminal crap TBTF legislation Dodd-Frank…?

  49. I am really sick of hearing “get an attorney” b.s…….there are no attorney’s willing to stand up for what is right in this State. Too many conflicts of interest and it was intentional. Besides, that would be way too easy if there were attorney’s willing to fight this properly, the third party parasites would have died a long time ago. I see what happens to attorney’s who fight for us, they get little if any cooperation from the courts.

    This is all about the outright theft of our property by our communist enemies both foreign and domestic…..the attorney’s know it.

    An attorney told me early on, they want to steal everything from us…they want Complete Communism. He told me they want Anarchy and he doesn’t want to be around to see it.

    Another attorney told me you have as much of a chance of winning with or without an attorney because these people we are dealing with are crooks.

    Another attorney told me I couldn’t pay him enough to get involved in this mess.

    Another attorney told me don’t even bother going to court…

    Another attorney told me they will change the laws to cover up their crimes….for instance, the mortgage follows the note instead of vica oversaw…
    So….
    I don’t want to hear get an attorney.

  50. I am not an attorney, I do not give legal advise. I have an attorney for that. Is that another flushing sound I hear?

  51. We couldnt even overpay them and get the account out of default. I just coulnt figure it out …. we paid everything they wanted and some extra to boot. I gotta boot for them alright! They Should have been Honest with Me! Buttwipes!!

  52. Pretend is all they do while they steal.

  53. Re-enstatement our second time around with BAC was more than 20% of the loan balance. Then in July 2010 the loan is sold(apparently) to BOAna and defaulted again. Nope! Never paid BOAna a Dime! Buttwipes!!! Not ony were they sending fraud NOD on the wrong amount due but they were doing the same thing with the re-enstatement figures. THEY WERE HELL BENT IN GETTING THE FC DEEDS! I have NO USE FOR BUTTWIPES!

  54. A family member of mine was grilled by one of those so called “free attorneys” he called for help…..He had his phone on speaker so i heard the entire conversation….It was like he was speaking to a Roman/Spanish inquisitor…he talked to him like he was a criminal and screwed him over big time after they hung up the phone. These “free attorney’s” are incredibly dangerous mafia types. These are the horrible things that are going on in the trenches where I live.

  55. As part of the close-out procedures for Maiden Lane II LLC, on August 22, 2012, the New York Fed sold eight residual securities that had been factored to zero and consequently dropped from the portfolio holdings report published by the New York Fed. There was no active notional balance associated with these positions as the securities were fully written down prior to the last ML II sale on February 28, 2012; thus, the subsequent sale of these zero-factor securities had no material impact on the net gain reported for the ML II portfolio.

  56. No we are not in Rome but, that is their game…they are of the mindset of Roman dictators and Spanish monarchs……and unfortunately, they don’t do unto others…..so anything they fling at us can be flung right back at them.

  57. 81…THEY PROMOTE FORCE, DEGRADATION & CONTROL, …
    What we shall be…VICTORIOUS…

  58. Out of curiosity, i sent a very similar set of requests to them and received no response and I know they received it. I never pursued it after the warning letter…..attention ladies & gentleman pursuant to FRCP…you have 14 days to respond to my requests….. through the court because my issue with them is at the onset.

    Ignore us is all they do.

  59. @ Stripes…We are not in ROME so NO, turnabout is frowned upon in my eyes. Do onto others ya know?

  60. THX JG… This is just some crazy ass manipulation by WALL St., BONY, CW & BOA, Etal to just use Maiden Lane as a scapegoat right? What evidence is there? Glad I looked…

    “The formation of the Maiden Lane LLCs in 2008 occurred during a time of severe economic distress in the United States…

    http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/maidenlane.html

    I repeat…Circa ROMA anyone?

  61. TY..aces…. when in Rome…turnabout is fair play.

  62. Still reading the info from anon. But one thing comes to mind and maybe an attorney will weigh in. All affirmative defenses are waived as a matter of law if not made in the first responsive pleading to a complaint, and as far as I know, that includes a mtn to dismiss. It’s there that you must use them or lose them and this to me is no slight matter. One may ask for alternative relief or base defenses whatnot on different isms, so even if you file a mtn to dismiss you may still list aff defenses as an alternative – ask a lawyer. really.
    Making comments as I read.
    Anon said:
    “If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee.(UCC 3-203(d)20”

    There are issues here (many actually) about which I admittedly remain in the dark and this is one of them. Didn’t I just read that someone, depositor, issuer, someone retains 20% interest? Does that mean that entity retains 20% interest in the securities and so in their alleged collateral, the notes and dots/mtgs?
    The only thing Carpenter is good for imo is that an assgt of the collateral instrument alone is a nullity.(I recently learned that the MERS mtg (mtg, not dot) conveys title to the property to Mers. I can’t even express how stunned I was. But that’s a tome for later, but for now, it’s an outrage: A mortgage never, ever contemplated a transfer of title. It was purely a L I E N. Call me whatever, but I just don’t know how they’ve gotten away with this. “They wound my ears to speak”. Doubt it about a mortgage? Take a little trip down to the recorder’s and look at mortgages pre-MERS.
    Anon, you’re probably monitoring comments, so I’d like to say I agree wholeheartedly with No. 10.
    As to No. 14: if the notes were digitilized with ‘controllers’ and ‘keys’ and ‘authoritative copies’ , as we from time to time suspect (at least I) (and the UCC does now address enotes btw, altho these aren’t technically enotes, having been converted to digital form and not created that way – I think), I haven’t yet learned what is to be done with the hard copy original notes when they are converted, if that’s legally possibly, to digital. Seems like they would need to be destroyed as a hard copy would undermine the digital authoritative copy. Btw, I didn’t pull those words out of the air. I read about it in publications by people who should know. I also don’t know how an authoritative copy would be presented to a homeowner or a court, tho I and anyone can guess, starting with it must be acknowledged to be a copy of the authoritative copy.
    The problem with No. 17 that I see is that the banksters won’t supply anything and even in the face of a mtn to compel will simply allege they are entitled to stand on alleged possession of a bearer note and a MERS’ assignment, i.e., they have met their burden to support their claim. If the court buys that, it will likely not order compliance with discovery requests / demands. Maybe that one rule – i forget 26? – would be more useful because it says what one must fork over withOUT a discovery request and banksters, speaking of simply, simply are not doing so (but remember that’s applicable to both parties)

    I see some of this as “show me the note”. If one wants to stand on show me the note, and I’m in favor of this one tho it isn’t exactly new, imo the support for production is to be found in the federal rules of evidence (start at 1002) and those rules governing best evidence in state courts. The best evidence rule provides that an original must be produced when the contents of a writing are at issue. An endorsement, for instance and as always my lay opinion, is part of the contents of a writing, and as to a(n) allegedly negotiable instrument is wholley relevant. How could it be said otherwise?
    Also because the homeowner has a right to the cancelled note and to know he won’t be subjected to other claims, there are other arguments for production of the original along those lines. imo.

    Most of us don’t get to discovery, but for those who do: the answers (to interrogatories) are to be signed by the party making them (the bankster) and the objections signed by the attorney. We should always ask for the chain of custody for the note including dates of custody by those peoples. Further, the bankster if confronted with the discovery as indicated in the post, I promise, is going to say the requests are overbroad. So get more specific or be ready to defend the requests. That’s not all bad if you want some time. When asked where “stuff” is, anything, the answers must list – I think – the name, address, and contact info of its custodian. Or if you say if I want to talk to someone about insurance payments on this loan, who would that be – name, rank, and serial no.? This is from a lay person’s poor memory so look it up and or ask an attorney (or 10).
    I do appreciate anon’s work as it’s obvious she’s put a lot of effort into it.

  63. JG, they sold them on the secondary market without docs? Hmmm? Pennies on the dollar? How much do you want to bet … oh wait! I dont gamble… hahaha ….. I’m suggesting those unsecured debts ended up in the hands of the party Liable for the Criminal Slander to Title. Sheesh … we got 08 CW and in late 2011 BOA. You know that funny business AIG and ML discussed (in the article you posted below) about those complaints about BOA in late 2011..

  64. @stripes…1st, I got my link from your 4:18 post below. Your link wasn’t blocked, it was pasted wrong…
    Here are YOUR WORDS…
    “Notice they blocked the link I posted at 4:18…..Why would they do that….?”

    THEY Didn’t.

    2nd… I would never tell you or anyone else WHAT to do. Follow your instincts is my opinion.

    Lastly, I don’t disagree that the info you present is relevant, IT IS INDEED RELEVANT…& TY

    CIRCA ROMA Anyone?

  65. The petroleum beast is dead. May take a while to clean up its ravage but the beast is dead. Over 16 countries have accepted Keshe technology (US included). Needless to say, since Iran was the first country to not only accept the patents but also implement the antigravity technology, there cannot be any attack against it: the US military no longer has the necessary edge. Any noise by the media about war against Iran is only that: pure noise without any truth to it. Fear mongering at its best. By hook or by crook, the world is becoming increasingly forced to cooperate (versus fight).

  66. Good for you, Zur.

  67. @aceshigh123…..Pardon me…..but, don’t tell me what to do and, the truth is, my link was posted properly. The link was blocked. It does not matter how old the info is….it is very relevant to this discussion…What have you done for me lately….? I never asked you to do anything for me and I never would.

  68. @ Stripes,
    Settle down, your link just wasn’t posted correctly…
    http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/tag/motion-for-summary-judgment/
    Although the link is nearly a year old…. WHAT have you done for me lately?

    @ Charles Reed, PLEASE PROOF READ B4 POSTING. TY

  69. Because of mass corruption, we can’t trust anyone. Therefore it has become our job to learn the laws of this land and how these courtrooms are supposed to be run. We got a rude wake up call. While we were all busy, criminals hijacked our Constitutional Republic. As a result, EVERY AMERICAN has a lot of work to do.

  70. These settlements are a joke.. pocket change to these dirty crooks. They have stolen $60.4 trillion dollars from us since 2008 and 20 million or more properties. These politicians are the scum of the earth.

  71. Tresspass Unwanted….I am sure the judge read what you entered and you did a great job. The judges are in most cases, trying their damnedest to ignore us and all of the FRCP and laws of this land.

    A judge told the courtroom when I was in court a couple of months ago, they were told by the Supreme Court to accept _ANYTHING_ from the bank owner crooks. He said the Supreme Court is the FINAL WORD….I guess the FINAL WORD is LAWLESSNESS …

    They obviously did not count on any of us knowing much because we did not go to law school for like 20 years to learn all of the different types of law involved here……that was what they counted on, our ignorance. I may not have a fancy law degree but I am not ignorant and I know these are serious crimes…..multiple felonies and these are ACTS OF RICO.

    I for one, am not giving up until justice is served. These crooks aren’t getting away with labeling me and my family with their crimes against us.

  72. Weidner just ran a short piece on the settlement between Maiden Lane and CW and b of A over the securities ML purchased as a bailout from AIG in December of 2008. The agreement, entitled a Settlement and General Release, was effective in July of last year. I struggled thru it best I could. I’m pretty certain if we could understand what is being said between the lines of (3)(b)(i thru iii), we would have some very valuable, dispositive information. I’m not able and my speculation would be just that. Here is the link for anyone willing and able himself or willing and able to get it to someone who is. That may sound dramatic, but that’s how important I think it is.
    NG? .

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/Exh.pdf

  73. Nice Neil,
    The judge in the case that helped steal my home looked at me like I was crazy and said, “You don’t expect me to read all of this do you?”
    I said no, because I thought it was read before the trial, what’s the use of providing an answer if no one is going to read it?
    In their complaint they said the court had jurisdiction to hear the case and in my answer I gave lots of reasons including UCC, and FDCPA (For their third party tactics) and said the court had no jurisdiction, cause they were suing the wrong party.

    I will never expect nor want to know court rules. It’s not in my life plan to be pulled into court to play ‘monopoly games’. If I had to know court rules, it should have been part of my closing documents because I did everything according to the agreement and I was robbed by someone who was not a party to the agreement, no assignment, no paperwork, no note, no thing.

    No one I have never done business will, can make any agreement t me for me.
    I know my rights, even when they are trespassed upon.

    What will this latest settlement do to the balance sheets of the over leveraged, derivative overloaded (stolen) assets.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, Life, Free and Independent State of Conscience, Creator, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino.

  74. Now THIS is why we come to Living Lies! Will read this more closely later. Christine posted about REDC/BoA’s “Mortgage Release.” I got that letter and wrote them back, essentially telling them to FUCK OFF. Oh snap, shit’s gettin’ real up in here!

  75. There needs to be more rambos & less wimps .. these bank crooks screwed us therefore, this is a job for the citizenry.

  76. More from the guy who dislikes “Rambo-Style Litigators”

    http://www.housingwire.com/rewired/2013/03/05/dealing-homeowners-who-want-more-time

  77. Cavuto on Fox says we are more than $60 trillion in debt……LIAR…! These bank crooks have stolen $60.4 trillion from U.S. TAXPAYERS since 2008 reported CNBC….

  78. Ron Paul says the sequester is a joke, there are NO budget cuts.

  79. For the latest on this vast criminal conspiracy against our Constitutional Republic by this TBTF Corp….who are our enemies both foreign & domestic……
    http://www.fourwinds10.net/

  80. State High Court Rules Big Foreclosure Trustee Broke Consumer Law

    On February 28th, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled against a major player in the foreclosure industry, Quality Loan Service, saying it could not act merely as an agent for lenders.

    Trustees are required to be evenhanded to both sides & strictly follow the law.
    PRLog (Press Release) – Mar. 4, 2013 – The state Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that one of the West Coast’s major players in the foreclosure industry violated the state consumer-protection law by falsely notarizing legal documents and not considering requests to delay the auction of a Whidbey Island home.

    The court, overturning an appeals court’s decision, instructed a King County Superior Court judge to issue an injunction against foreclosure trustee Quality Loan Service.

    Quality “has demonstrated little understanding or regard for Washington law,” wrote Justice Tom Chambers.

    Foreclosure trustees are not simply agents for the lender, the court wrote.

    “The power to sell another person’s property, often the family home itself, is a tremendous power to vest in anyone’s hands,” Chambers wrote. The law “requires that trustee to be evenhanded to both sides and to strictly follow the law.”

    In 2008, the nonprofit group Puget Sound Guardians sued Washington Mutual and Quality Loan for allegedly violating the consumer-protection law after the trustee sold Dorothy Halstien’s home at a foreclosure auction for a dollar more than the $83,087 the disabled senior owed, stripping her of more than $150,000 in equity.

    The property’s new owners quickly flipped it, selling the property for $235,000.

    Halstien owed WaMu about $75,000 at the time she developed dementia and had a guardian appointed.

    The cost of her medical care ate up funds to pay the mortgage. She died in late 2008 at 76.

    Quality falsely notarized the date on the notice of trustee sale, the court said, and apparently trained its notaries to do this regularly from 2004 to 2007. Had the notice of sale been correctly dated, the foreclosure auction would have been delayed at least a week, the court said.

    “A signed notarization is the ultimate assurance upon which the whole world is entitled to rely that the proper person signed a document on the stated day and place,” Justice Chambers wrote.

    Dianne Klem, executive director of Puget Sound Guardians, said her agency made repeated requests to WaMu and Quality to delay the sale. But Quality had a written agreement with WaMu that forbade it from postponing a sale without the bank’s approval.

    An appeals court in 2011, rejecting a jury’s verdict against Quality, had ruled there wasn’t sufficient evidence to show Quality had violated the consumer-protection law — and as a result, was not liable for attorneys fees.

    In a statement Thursday, Quality said it “has dedicated significant resources to ensure non-judicial foreclosures are processed to the highest standards of legal compliance while respecting and focusing on compassionate treatment of all borrowers during their difficult time.”

    Fred Corbit, the senior attorney at the Northwest Justice Project who represented Puget Sound Guardians, said the court’s ruling sent a strong message to all foreclosure trustees:

    “They have to treat both banks and borrowers in good faith, and if they don’t treat them in good faith then they’re going to be held liable for damages,” he said.

    Original Content by Sanjay Bhatt for The Seattle Times

    Photo:
    http://www.prlog.org/12091619/1

  81. Sen Goodlatte is an expert on illegal immigration and says the sequester is being used to unleash criminals on us. ICE DOCUMENTS SHOW PLANS TO RELEASE THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS …..Don’t give up your guns America…!

  82. The real reason for the sequester…..Fox Business reporting the Dept of “Homelain” (in)security plans to release 5000 illegal alien criminals on the American public due to the “sequester”….What a bunch of deceptive crooks…!

  83. As if there is any difference between UBS & CHASE….. Same slobs, different name. Dimon is just getting pissy because he couldn’t make the profit. He is a hog.

  84. It is a wonderful country….it’s the TBTF Corp that has to go…

    Jamie Dimon gets paid well by the bank shareholders & investors to be an arrogant slob. He is a representative of the arrogant slobs that he works for.

  85. I’m still trying to absorb all this – the post and JVE’s comments. In the meantime, I note that Christine said

    “I know for a fact that courts do not appreciate that kind of strategy (i.e., waiting for the last minute to answer a complaint with a motion to dismiss.”

    That may be a court’s position with a homeowner as defendant for all I know, but without fail, literally, every single case I have seen where the homeowner is the plaintiff and the bankster gets either a stip or mtn granted for extended time to respond (which they more often do than not imo), that response is a motion to dismiss. When I first started seeing these, I thought, oh, this homeowner must have some good allegations. I later came to believe that wasn’t the reason at all. It’s just the banksters’ own reasons to jack around, probably having to do with posturing and whose floating the legal bill (even after f/c actions have begun). The part about who’s floating the bill isn’t entirely speculative since I’ve actually seen it come up in a pleading as an excuse for non-performance by a law firm (and that might even have been in regard to a default judgment). Regardless of the story, or no story at all conveyed to a court, I have yet to see a court frown on this delay when it comes from a bankster. I’m just saying….

  86. Correct typo…I meant to say many Americans are waking up…but it is true… these politicians are a bunch of ho’s….

  87. Christine once the Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) government loans that where not involved in the Sep 25, 2008 seizing of the “fail bank”, it will be these 1.3 million loans that crack this thing wide open.

    You see the loan were not involved in JPMorgan cheat purchasing of WaMu other loans and assets, because Ginnie Mae already had possession of the blank Notes which is suppose to be the underlying collateral for the Mortgage Backed Securities.

    MERS has step in on all these loans, WaMu has either originated or that they purchase and placed into the Ginnie Mae pools, so when WaMu collapsed the reason they were involved in the sale because the first day they were in the pool the blank Note were in the possession of Ginnie Mae through UCC 3.

    However once WaMu relinquished the blank Note there is no ONE that has a financial interest in the ex-Note, as a Note is only a Note when it has a debt that is to be paid back to the “holder in due course” which is a fact of life that Ginnie Mae can never act in this position.

    So MERS plays the cleaner, and act as if they are wanting as the beneficial for the lender members of MERS but Ginnie Mae is not a home mortgage lender but MERS know the trickery because of the phony Transfer Beneficial Rights – Option 1 which is suppose to transfer the title inside of MERS to Ginnie Mae. This process is order by Ginnie Mae through GinnieNET which contacts the lenders to enter into the MERS system the Option 1 process.

    However the local land recorders are not informed of this alleged transfer of Beneficial Rights. MERS go back to the courts and acts as if it has the authority to assign the title to Wells Fargo, who is not in possession of a valid Note that is no longer a Note because nobody purchase the debt. The assignment are as phony as a three dollar bill!

  88. Fox Business, Lou Dobbs reporting Obama is losing credibility with the American people over the sequester cuts. Many Americans are now waking ho and blaming Obama, Congress & the Senate. It’s about time…!

  89. What a wonderful country!

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/03/is-wall-street-killing-america-don%E2%80%99t-ask-jamie-dimon-he-just-wants-to-talk-about-his-wealth/

    Is Wall Street Killing America? Don’t Ask Jamie Dimon; He Just Wants to Talk About His Wealth

    By Pam Martens: March 4, 2013

    Last November, one of Europe’s largest publications, the German news magazine Der Spiegel, splashed a terminally ill Uncle Sam on its front cover. Inside we are told that “Many developing countries are now looking to China instead of the US as a role model on how to structure a country. They are no longer seeking the light of the American beacon on the horizon.”

    One of the reasons cited by the article for America’s decline is that our best and brightest no longer focus their talents and energies on enriching America’s future, but rush to Wall Street to line their own pockets: “About a third of the students in every graduating class at Harvard University accepts jobs in investment banking and consulting, or with hedge funds — that is, industries that produce one thing above all: fast money…” reads the article.

    Last week, Wall Street’s insufferable fixation on fast money without regard to the dimming American beacon came into focus when the Chairman and CEO of our country’s largest bank, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, actually bragged in public of his outsized wealth by putting down a lower salaried Wall Street employee at the company’s own investor conference.

    The question was a hypothetical one, posed by banking analyst Mike Mayo, regarding whether higher capital at rival bank UBS might create a competitive advantage against JPMorgan. Dimon responded:

    Dimon: “You would go to UBS and not JPMorgan?”

    Mayo: “I didn’t say that; that’s their argument.”

    Dimon: “That’s why I’m richer than you.”

  90. Not having the money has nothing to do with the fact there are very few attorney’s fighting for homeowners. It has everything to do with the fact many of the attorney’s and judges are in fact, investors or work for the investors.

  91. That’s right neidermeyer…..notice they blocked the link I posted at 4:18…..Why would they do that….? Because there is a massive cover up of the truth going on here by these investor trolls.

  92. These foreclosures are frauds at the onset and therefore fraudulent throughout and are not legal, Constitutional, moral or ethical in any way, shape or form.

  93. HMMMM ,

    Methinks this must be an important discussion topic as we have all the usual suspects bickering and namecalling and trying to drive people away…

  94. Ahhh! The games they play with intimidation. Too bad it is really starting to backfire big time.

    ML-Implode Author Files Devastating “anti-SLAPP” Against Hedge Fraudster Gilabert
    March 5th, 2013 • Related • Filed Under
    feature photo

    After about a year’s hiatus, Implode readers are privileged to be entertained by further drama in the saga of Keith Gilabert vs. Implode. (The impatient may grab the anti-SLAPP motion filed against Gilabert and skip the remainder of this post).

    Regulars may remember that towards the end of 2011, Gilabert awoke from his “slumber” (that is, 5 years in federal prison for hedge fund Ponzi fraud) and went ballistic when he noticed a “squib” about his case on HF-Implode.com. He threatened Implode founder Aaron Krowne by email, demanding the piece be taken down, despite it consisting of nothing more than a basic description of his case from the federal filings and press releases (Gilabert was punished not only by the Department of Justice but the SEC as well). (This sort of frivolous libel threat is called a “SLAPP“.)

    Not having the financial resources for a fight after four previous frivolous SLAPP suits from various mortgage industry offenders and neer-do-wells (see here, here, and here), Krowne did take down the post, but in its place, put a copy of Gilabert’s outlandish take-down letter and an explanation so readers would know why the piece was gone (and maybe learn a little bit about the lack of practical free speech available to small-time publishers in our country). Logue re-posted the “squib” on her site, and Krowne linked to that instead.
    http://blog.ml-implode.com/2013/03/ml-implode-author-files-devastating-anti-slapp-against-hedge-fraudster-gilabert/

  95. I agree with Stopa however, there are not enough attorneys like him and people are not taking this theft of their Life, Liberty and Property seriously enough.

  96. Yes foreigner imbecile Christine….prove standing at the onset is the rule of law and is a requisite to bring a fc in the U.S. This is not merely debt collection as they want it to appear to be, this is real property and there are strict laws regarding the taking of real property in the U.S….These are in fact third party debt collectors who are not before the court and are not amenable to service of process…They are foreign Imposters; ficitious payees committing numerous felonies.

  97. These are factual disputes that the defendants should raise if the Note attached to the complaint lacked an endorsement, and that there was no assignment of mortgage before the suit was filed. The homeowner has proven the bank lacked requisite standing when it filed its dispute as required by both State and Federal Law.

  98. Not “at the onset”, imbecile. It still has to be raised and argued as a defense. It is NOT automatic and it is not a judge’s job to raise and argue the point for you.

    How thick can one be!

  99. “You Can’t Handle The Truth

    Posted on March 1st, 2013 by Mark Stopa

    Never before in the history of mankind have a people so blindly and without resistance surrendered to an invasion and seizure of their lands. Never before have an entire nation of people sat by so passive, so immobile, so mute while they and their children and grandchildren have been invaded, attacked and sold into bondage. Oh sure, Holland and France surrendered in mere days to Hitler’s invading army, but there were at least pockets of resistance, a few brave men and women had the courage to fight. Not so in Amerika 2013. We all just sit on the sidelines and watch as our nation is invaded, invaded by the marauding criminal enterprises, those joint operations…partnerships between entirely corrupt state and federal governments, the Wall Street money changers and the world wide banking cabals. They’re all operating with ruthless efficiency to quite easily seize more and more of the very dirt and land upon which this nation is built. Quietly and surgically throwing more and more of our people off their land and into the streets, and they’re doing it with no resistance at all. A bloodless revolution fueled by financial crimes and executed by a judicial system acting in concert with the criminal vast criminal enterprises that rule the globe.”

    God Help Us All.
    Mark Stopa
    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  100. @ Carrie F B
    exactly
    im finding this and the opperative words are “the controlling authority”

  101. Read about it here McClean -v- J.P. MORGAN CHASE, N.A.: http;//www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/tag/motion-for-summary-judgment/

  102. That’s right Christine……prove status of holder or rights of a holder …..STANDING at the onset…….J.P. MORGAN CHASE -v- McClean…..

  103. All I can say is don’t give up. They want to wear us down or force us to hire attorney’s to control the truth being exposed about all of their crimes against us.

    This is war on our Constitutional Republic and this foreclosure battle on our legal right to defend our Life, Liberty & Property is against our enemies, both foreign and domestic, and is one we cannot afford to lose.

  104. Moron

    “…lack of standing which by law, must be proven at the onset…”

    Where did you go to law school? I’d be asking for a full refund if I were you. No wonder so many lose in court!

  105. Moron,

    You are well within your rights to do anything you want. Including committing suicide and following stupid advice. Now, if you truly believe it is a viable strategy, please go right ahead and demonstrate it for all of us by applying it.

  106. Great article, but the judges’ don’t care. The law is only good if it’s enforced, and that ain’t happening — on so many levels I’ve certainly lost count. I wish it wasn’t so, but this is the Truth. I’m not saying not fight, because we are. I’ll I’m saying is hope for the best and prepare for the worst so you don’t lose everything in the process during the classic “fake left, go right” strategies that the banks are using — the classic MOU for Pickpockets worldwide for centuries.

  107. Hman…….how did they convert Securities Frauds into Negotiable Instruments …..? That is criminal.

  108. Upon discovery of the fraud christine, you are well within your legal rights to attack the crooks lack of standing which by law, must be proven at the onset.

    The truth is …. as the economy worsens, BEWARE their “fixes” for this massive derivatives fraud…like a World Tax….the TBTF shareholders and investors want a lifelong revenue flow from everything …… like a property tax and OBAMACARE….it is fraudulently induced slavery to these TBTF CORPORATE SHAREHOLDER & INVESTOR CROOKS WHO DON’T PAY FOR ANYTHING AND INVEST IN EVERYTHING WE PAY & WORK FOR.

  109. Have a question with this approach. Just playing devils advocate here. The banks only file foreclosure lawsuits in judicial states. So how would you apply this in Non judicial States? You have to file the lawsuit in a non-judicial states and doesn’t that shift the burden of proof on you and not the bankster?

    Also, in AZ case law has stated that UCC does not apply to Deed of Trusts. (However, it may apply to notes) See Contreras v US Bank , No.CV09-0137-OGX-NVW 2009. It has also been determined by our beautiful judges that the DOT is what is utilized to foreclose in AZ, not the note. (I know we all know that it is supposed to secure the note but AZ sees it different). Check out Hogan V Washington Mutal.

    “the Court explained that Chase was not suing on the note but instead was conducting a sale pursuant to the deed of trust. A “negotiable instrument” under the UCC is an “unconditional promise or order” to pay money. A deed of trust, in contrast, conveys property to a trustee “to secure the performance of a contract.” A.R.S. § 33-801(8). The UCC therefore does not govern a deed of trust because the deed is not an “unconditional promise” or an “order” to pay money. ”

    Furthermore, presentment is not necessary in AZ for a trustee to foreclose. So I’m not sure how this strategy would apply. Am I misssing something. I see it as a possible strategy in judicial states but I’m not sure about AZ or other non-judicial states.

    Any thoughts?

  110. Pardon me, this advice is from Cornell Law Edu…..I have shared this link and others regarding these laws with readers many times. Charles….they can’t by law pool anything without the Legal Agreement. That is a lot of felonies…

  111. Thanks Jane.

    I know for a fact that courts do not appreciate that kind of strategy (i.e., waiting for the last minute to answer a complaint with a motion to dismiss) and they may very well fine the defendant for using it. I wouldn’t dissuade people from trying it but it has to be a seriously well calculated risk, as in “I really don’t give a damn about the outcome and I have nothing to lose”. Otherwise, it’s a hell of a stupid chance to take if completely unprepared and it may set the stage for many, many unpleasant repercussions. Such as a few days in the slammer for contempt.

    I don’t blame people for being resourceful but there’s a difference between taking chances and committing suicide. The kamikaze approach can only work if you’re taking something/somebody else down with you. If the only one you’re taking down is you, it’s pure waste.

  112. Jan van Eck this is both civil & criminal acts, and in reference to Ginnie Mae we got MERS claiming a non financially invested party being assigned title in a state court while using a federal rule to try and claim ownership.

    So Ginnie Mae, MERS and banks/lenders cannot not have this matter not be taken up in state court, if it is they reason for ownership is that they are in possession of a blank Note under UCC 3.

    The reason why these phony assignment are done is so that they don’t have to provide a judge with the proof they own the debt that is suppose to be contained in the Note. Mr Blank cannot come to court and claim something because the Note is forever blank and there is no way on earth for that Note to be reunited with the debt, because Ginnie Mae does not and cannot hold the debt!

  113. Guest what it sound like what you have that was different from most FHA loans, is that it was not placed into a Ginnie Mae pool so, if the loan never had a blank endorsed Note and was always with the original lender or that lender sold the loan to Countrywide or was a lender owned by Countrywide and when CW sold the loan to BOA but its is endorsed properly along the way, you got a harder battle because you will have to find out if the loan should have been in a Trust and was not.

    Now every single loan is going to be done wrong, as some are going to have setbacks in life, and unfortunate things happen. What I have been talking about is who actually owned the note and how, while myself knowing the answer to the question I am asking, because there are $1.1 trillion dollars in Ginnie Mae loans that are all done the exact same way, where your loan is different here the rest.

    You challenge unlike what I am talking about is to find out why you should not have paid the payment. If you cannot find that out were you illegal action is then if they are offering a modification you need to concern that option to save your home.

  114. I waived off the blog, last week, but ANONYMOUS is correct. We have the UCC stuff and the CFR, USC…oh yes, it is relevant and spot on, pleading is the hard part. last post. Thanks, anonymous…

  115. BTW Jan…..this advice is not from Anonymous …..it is from Cornell edu….

  116. Jan Van Eck……these foreclosures are in fact CRIMINAL MATTERS ……the subject matter they are invoking is the Courts Civil Criminal Jurisdiction by not attaching a legal assignment at the onset as the law requires…..they are in fact, upon Presentnent of these copies of notes & mortgages with no legal assignments, presenting Counterfeits & Forgeries…it is illegal to not state a claim of loss that is concrete or particularized and fairly traceable to the Plaintiff.. the law requires that at the onset…..they never perfected the legal lien….the Origination Fraud…..

  117. Guest….if I wanted a loan mod or a short sale I could have easily hired an attorney. However, I want justice and no one is going to hand that to you. You have to earn it. I consider it a badge of honor to stand up for what is right. No attorney is willing to do that for us, at least not in this State. I have no choice but to fight for justice for myself and my family. We did nothing wrong. We are not deadbeats and i will not allow these crooks to label US… No attorney’s or law enforcement agencies are willing to fight what they call “this complicated mess”…..

  118. Posters here should note carefully that the “advice” is not from Neil, rather from “Anonymous.” The suggestions set forth are not a good way to go. the playbook seems to be cobbled from Federal rules of Civil Procedure, yet the vast majority of suits in foreclosure are brought in a trial-level State Court. There is no Rule 12(b)(6) in the State Court system. There is no 21-day avoidance of sanctions window. If you challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction the Court will not be amused. The State Court inherently has subject-matter jurisdiction because it is a real property matter within that State (and County).

    Anonymous fails to appreciate that in a Court all the Plaintiff needs to file the complain are “allegations.” It is not at the proving-up stage, that comes at trial. In a Motion to Dismiss, the Court must take the allegations as true. the tactic suggested will likely backfire.

    If there are fatal defects in the Complaint, then the better tactic is to say nothing as to the defects. For example, I have seen Complaints where the Plaintiff fails to state that the Plaintiff is owed the money claimed. Now, that is rather basic. In State Court, you cannot recover what you have not pled, although if the case goes to trial then typically the Plaintiff can Amend the Complaint both during and after trail to conform to the evidence presented at trial. But, if the Defendant waits patiently until the “Pleadings” are formally closed, and before trial, then as a dispositive Motion files for Summary Judgment of dismissal on the basis that the Complaint has these fatal defects that preclude recovery – because the debt is not pled as currently owned by the plaintiff, or whatever – then the trial court tosses the case at that stage and there is no ability for the Plaintiff to re-plead, at least not within that case.

    Challenging the case in the very beginning, unless you can demonstrate that the Court has no Jurisdiction for elements quite outside the Pleadings, merely is “training the raccoons to do a better job of breaking into the garbage pail.” Do you want to be training the raccoons? Then they get better at it the next time around.

  119. Wall Street crook on Neil Cavuto saying Ben Bernake is the most powerful person in the country now……LIAR…! The most powerful entity in this country right now are the shareholders and investors in the FOREIGN CONTROLLED TOO BIG TO FAIL CORP & ALL OF THEIR CRIMINAL FRAUD.

  120. I’m following you Charles, I refered alot of Vets to seek legal councel. I did not go into that rabbit hole myself thou with G.M. . Not once I realized my husbands loan was not registered with Ginnie or the SEC. But I am sure there is Truth in what you are saying.

  121. I get that stripes, that is why after not being able to settle the matter myself, I hired an attorney. They went to law school, I didnt.

  122. guest the securities violation is that the Mortgage Backed Securities don’t have any underlying collateral and they are worthless, so you got a Ponzi.

    The reason Ginnie Mae also got the problem in with these pool is they don’t purchase insurance but provides it, but does not have a budget to pay one claim off.

    Ginnie Mae offer up a securities that the no legal way for Ginnie Mae to attach a lien against a single property!

  123. Most would have given up long ago if they were in my shoes. That is the problem in this country …too many are giving up and not fighting. Excuses, excuses,,,

  124. They set us up to fail and they brought the fraud suit so they should have to pay for the hell they put us through.. You are right,,they do deserve me because I am a fighter..

  125. guest, When most people are thrown into this mess, they do not know how to fight. It is a long and arduos learning process. If you put this information in front of most Americans who are facing fraudclosure, they would not get it and, would not know what to do with it. These judges are denying our motions to dismiss for no valid reasons…
    It is all trial and error. Good Luck finding an attorney willing to sue these crooks on your behalf. ..

  126. […] The Federal Reserve Has Set You Up: Set Them Up – Right Back — UCC Explained in detail […]

  127. neidermeyer, on March 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm said:

    This strategy looks to be applicable to junk debt collector suits as well…. comments?
    YES YES YES

  128. Oh Stripes… they can claim relief on property taxes. Whatcha going to do about that? Tic Tock .. Go Give Them Hell! They deserve you!!! 🙂

  129. This strategy looks to be applicable to junk debt collector suits as well…. comments?

  130. They have to create the Security by paying back what they borrow before they conduct business with these instruments. Otherwise it is Securities Fraud. There is no law in equity for the overissuance of investments in Securities Frauds. Our unauthorized signatures are not securities in regards to Securities Frauds..

  131. Thats It!~ “Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted:”! And if the bankster barfly does anyway … its the next best thing to casteration of a bankster ….. 🙂 I guess that is what happens when a bankster barfly is put on notice …. Imagine all the lawsuits that could be avoided if ya just nipped it in the butt before it started.

  132. Go Bless America….!

  133. Whoever has put in words and backed it up what I been saying, and posted here is very welcome. Once its fully understood how Ginnie Mae requires without a purchase the Notes in order to participate in the pooling process. Obtaining the blank Notes were no one after these transactions, will ever again be able to claim a debt associated with those blank Notes simply because there was never an exchange of funds.

    There is absolutely no money trail Ginnie Mae can provide that they purchase something they could not purchase under the law of the US Congress. Ginnie Mae forever is in possession of the ONCE Note, but remember what makes a Note? A Note can only be a Note if a debt is owed and there is not a debt own under these blank Notes freely handed over to Ginnie Mae endorsed in blank!

    800,000 loan admitted by the OCC & Fed in Sep 2012 that these loan should have been modified, but were not (google it) and foreclosed instead is harm to the homeowners and the insurances that paid out the claims submitted by servicers. This is why it was found out as a result of the FHA independent audit that the FHA had a $70 billion loan loses!

    It was impossible legally for FHA to take these losses!

  134. Here’s a link to the above with pertinent active links….

  135. Wall Street bragging they are at an all time high so this post could not have come at a more appropriate time. Time to force these unauthorized TBTF crooks to give back what they have stolen and hijacked from US.

  136. Neil ,,,

    BRAVO … this is why I started coming here … This is what we need … I will repost this at a news site I visit ,, just have to put on the asbestos suit first … lots of people there that still have their head in the sand..

    THANKS!

  137. Awesome job Neil…!

  138. Reblogged this on Integrity Finance and commented:
    I am very appreciative of Neil for posting this valuable financial information. I am happy to repost this and share it with as many people as possible. Ed

  139. My Banksters Barfly dont want sanctioned. He was not nice the first time .. he does not play nice and I will no longer play with him. Phoooey! Great Article!!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: