Yes they are part of a scheme in which if the facts were known, would be illegal and possibly criminal. The one thing you need to be careful about is challenging the system instead of the claim. If you want to win you need to challenge the claim. Systemic challenges are generally regarded as fringe conspiracy theories.
*
On the other hand, you cannot conduct a successful challenge to a foreclosure claim without at least knowing that the system is based upon an illegal or extra-legal doctrine that allows anyone with knowledge of a virtual debt (created only by claims) to seek enforcement and to exercise virtual administration, actual collection and actual enforcement of a virtual claim that does not exist in the real world.
*
If you are looking for an analogy, the best one I can think of is slavery before the amendments to the constitution and the Jim Crow era that followed.
*
When Dred Scott sought protection from people who claimed to own him, the Supreme Court said he was not eligible for protection because he was not a legal person. He was virtual property declared by statutory law and contract.
*
This is identical to the current wave of virtual property appearing as virtual ownership of a virtual debt. Like slavery, it is antithetical to many centuries worth of laws of contract, loans, and enforcement. The property interest in both is actually intangible because the property itself is virtual rather than real. In fact, the intangible property interests is also illusory because it conflicts with our legal definition of debt.
*
A debt cannot exist unless there was consideration paid. It also cannot exist without a lender or creditor. And it cannot be enforced unless it still exists at the time of enforcement is claimed.
*
In the case of foreclosures, both common law and statutory law agree that only a party who paid value for the underlying obligation may receive the benefit of the foreclosure remedy.
*
The idea that Dred Scott could not possibly be property and that as a human being, born on U.S. soil, he was a legal person entitled to the rights and protections of the constitution was cast aside as a frightening attack on an entire economic system in which most wealth (in the South) was counted as slave ownership. Later after the constitutional amendments, and for the last 150 years, we are still dealing with attempts to put people “back in their place” and anger over the loss of wealth resulting from ending slavery as an institution.
*
The idea that consumers could not be forced to make payments on a nonexistent debt to a nonexistent creditor is similarly forced aside because of erroneous replies to questions like “You got the loan, didn’t you?”
*
We can expect that even after the scheme is revealed, the same thing will apply. Financial institutions will continue to press for enforcement and judges and lawyers will be slow to recognize the difference between the virtual world and the real world.
*
It may seem like a stretch to compare the current economic environment to slavery but to me the parallels are obvious.
*
A substantial amount of wealth in this country is now derived, directly or indirectly from the concept of a virtual debt that has never been allowed or even defined by any statute or common law doctrine. There is no such thing as a virtual debt anywhere in jurisprudence. And yet, it is treated as real and like people who were named or designated as slaves, it is a rare bird that a homeowner escapes illegal claims to force the sale of their homestead. In addition, the aggressive use of “virtual debt” has produced anomalies in the marketplace that has already cratered the world economy once, so far.
*
Virtual debt is merely a cover story for hiding unconscionable profits on a transaction that is intentionally misrepresented as a loan instead of paying for services rendered. It is only by withholding the information that consumers or homeowners are providing a service, that enables Wall Street securities brokerage firms to pretend that they have entered the lending marketplace. It is a cover story for withholding legally required disclosures of parties, profits, and consequences from a homeowner until long after they have accepted the false contract.
*
Those firms that originate such transactions have no stake in the outcome of the virtual loan contract. It makes no difference whether the homeowner pays or does not pay. There is no loss if he doesn’t pay and in fact, there is a gain because the Wall Street firms will take the proceeds of forced sale without ever recognizing it as income.
*
Virtual debt is a cover story for hiding the fact that nearly every loan in America has been subject to a tidal shift that goes against the grain of anything we have ever believed, asserted, and enforced. There is no place in jurisprudence where a transaction is allowed to create an obligation where the counterparty has no stake in the outcome of the obligation.
*
By the time the homeowner is confronted with foreclosure claims, the Big Lie has been told so many times that it is accepted as being axiomatically true by nearly everyone. The existence of an unpaid obligation due from the consumer is a foregone conclusion. The similarity with slavery is striking. Both rely on the fact that it has operated so long it MUST be right.
*
So it is impossible to attack — especially by homeowners who refuse to believe that the attack is well-founded. The new sub silencio doctrine is that the only thing that matters is that the consumer promised to make a payment and NOT whether he or she would have made that promise if the facts were known and NOT whether it is indeed representative of any underlying obligation. There is no interest in proof of loss or the existence of an injured party. It is all “presumed” because there is no reality to the claim except as a virtual claim.
*
The entire landscape of finance has shifted to virtual interests that are increasingly exotic in nature. Judges and lawyers are only interested in whether the consumer stopped making payments — with virtually no thought about whether the payments were still due or were ever due — much less whether the named claimant exists or has any right, title, or interest in any property or promise of the homeowner.
*
But attacks on the institution of virtual debt are repelled as existential attacks just like the era in which slavery or virtual slavery was enforced. It is all based upon a false premise.
*
And despite centuries of common law and statutes, any attempts to force the financial system to follow the rule of law is viewed as a frightening attack on a system that has only the history of having done it for a long time “and therefore it must be true.” The result has been burgeoning debt flooding the marketplace instead of wages that keep pace with inflation and provided opportunities for savings.
*
The bottom line is this: for most people they are subsisting on government assistance or debt. And because the only way they can “maintain” or service the debt is with more liberal debt, they will never be out from under the burden of debt. But the reality is that if they were truly informed, consumers would be able to participate in the explosion of revenue and profits arising from their signature on a debt instrument. And if the debt (risk of loss) was real, it would be less plentiful, thus forcing wages higher.
*
The upheaval arises from the recognition that there is no debt to pay or that it requires payment or consideration far in excess of the temporary payment at “closing.” But contrary to threats emanating from Wall Street, this revelation does not destroy the entire financial system. It merely reduces the profit from cheating homeowners and investors who erroneously believe that they own a piece of debt issued by homeowners.
*
The abolition of slavery forced several states to enter the real world of economics in which mutual consideration was required for any contract. The abolition or reformation of virtual debt contracts will merely force Wall Street into the real world of economics in which all required disclosures are made and people enter into contracts with eyes wide open and informed consent.
*
The bottom line is that real debts need to be paid. Virtual debts require no payment. If the lawyers representing the alleged creditor cannot supply you with a copy of the unpaid loan account receivable as it exists on the books and records of the alleged creditor, then it does not exist. Do NOT accept the alleged “Payment History” as a substitute for an accounting record of ownership and loss on an unpaid loan account receivable.
Filed under: foreclosure |
I recently change my approach to the foreclosure Wells Fargo Bank did with a non-judicial foreclosure and I am challenging the Assignment of Deed of Trust that they say MERS assigned for them in which it said that Wells paid value for my Washington Mutual Bank VA loan, which did not and could not take place as the loan was in the WAMU Ginnie Mae MBS. Funny is after the fact of the foreclosure Wells has admitted that they were working for Ginnie who they say was the owner investor to my mortgage loan, but Ginnie response that they are not an investor and don’t buy or sell mortgage loans, but they said that Wells did buy the loan and my loan was released 11 days after the foreclosure. What happening is that these pooled Ginnie loans has attached to them in a post separate loan made between the lender/issuer of the MBS, take out this loan (not mortgage loan) that Ginnie insures the loan at 100% of initial principle investment and it this loan that must be repurchased in order to release the mortgage loan. This repurchase must be done before the mortgage loan can be release and foreclosure take place, but because WAMU no longer existed and with the mortgage loan it was not a Wells obligation as it did not originate or purchase the loan, the foreclosure took place first illegally in order to pay Ginnie its monies for the insurance claim. So I am asking the Dept of VA to show proof the Wells was owned a debt by me to them in order to non-judicially foreclose, as this claim should have been handled in accordance with UCC9 and gone through the court and simple proof of ownership to the judge. But in the State of Nebraska, MERS is not authorized to use the state court system because they not been granted a certificate of authorization, so this transfer title between MERS members cannot work with Washington Mutual in the mix after Sept 25, 2008, when the 1.3 million WAMU Ginnie pooled loan that could not and did not get sold to JPMorgan because Ginnie owns the blank endorsed Mortgage Note that are the underlying security for the MBS.