Mortgages and Notes

Basically agreed, Texican.

The system is designed by the highest form of evil with intent to make all complicit in the most extraordinary self-depravating/self-destroying/self-consuming feeding orgy of all times.
One-sided, unjust weights and measures trading takes place in all directions and everyone loses in the end.
Quite hand-in-hand with politics, you can't be in the same muddy vicinity and begin to stay clean.

That is why, rather than "fight" the beast with weapons that he has designed in such a manner as to only give him further power when "employed" against him.... I chose withdrawal.

One chink that I have seen in Palani's armor is that he appears not to have stuck his neck out too far before making his claims. He appears to preach battle from the sidelines, so to speak. I hope I am mistaken.

Conversely, I have run the gauntlet, intentionally, on many fronts, and live to tell the tale. There are no guarantees, either way.

__________________
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater.
III

If I pay for my groceries, take them home and eat/use them, I'll be content in thinking that I own them.

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

The longest journey starts with a single step.

Many people believe accounting principles are above reproach. Double entry bookkeeping. An asset balances a debit and so forth.

Most people believe they are honor bound to keep their word while others do not.

Well, the original note balances the books with any paper currency removed from the vault. No one here has rebutted that simple little principle. Nor can they.

Now the signer of the note (a pledge) has a duty to perform but that duty is premised upon receiving the original back when performance is complete. If he cannot receive the original back then exactly WHY is he performing? Simple question. Again, no rebuttals.

Also called "entitlements" or "privileges".




Many true statements here. Property tax is not a tax on the property so much as the VALUE of the property. The LAND is not taxed. The ownership is taxed.

These rules are made up as time goes by. Government is not randomly making these things up for if they were they would decide in favor of common law OCCASIONALLY. Instead everything done is to take you further into the rabbits burrow.

Entirely 100% of what is occurring in society with respect to law, money, government and ownership is done with the complete consent of those who SHOULD be screaming TRESPASS!

One of Bacon's maxims goes: All actions without remedy are valid. If you have no clue that there is a trespass then the action is valid. This appears to be the main rule used by government to gain consent.

If I feed a stock cow a bale of hay then I have no expectation that her offspring shall be her property.

And "they" can come take back what's left when I'm done with 'em!

Does that include the part that becomes a portion of your substance?

Actually, I believe it could come to that, if things don't change direction. That's precisely why we have a 2nd Amendment.

Will they redistribute me... like Soylent Green? Not such a bad way to go, but don't want to be on the receiving end.

LOL.

A homeowner is not making their house payment. Someone comes along and tells them they need to get out, because they are being foreclosed on. They "fight back" by telling the lien holder, they can't foreclose because of paperwork snafus?

The new gumption in America? With the same paperwork problems, wonder how many times this happens , when mortgage payments are current?

This is nearly as vile, those who make any purchase, are happy or mostly happy with the purchase, by still complain loudly to the seller, about some dissatisfaction, demanding a large partial refund or other credit, just to "hustle" some of their money back.

I doubt things will go in that direction. There are several problems though. First would be that dependence upon money means less independence or self-dependence. As soon as you start relying upon money then you have to some way to access it. Papers start getting signed where you are willing to make statements that are not completely truthful. To work you need a SSN. To drive you need a state issued license. To get the state issued license you must state you are a federal citizen. You might state your race as Caucasian while neither you nor your family have even visited the Caucus region. Each step, while not reversible, is not entirely true.

Then since you have made all of these statements you might plan on adding perjury to your crimes as you sign all those 1040 forms.

In property possession can be separated from ownership. In ownership of things "use" is not the same as "usufruct".

So you might have the "use" of those groceries but you better not be enjoying them.

Well stated. In fact there is a lady in Florida who paid on her mortgage for 15 years or so, original value $160K and she had paid in $170k. She came to a realization that the entire affair was a scam and stopped making payments. She was just foreclosed on 4-5 months ago but no note or mortgage has ever been entered into evidence [because there are no originals that can be produced]. She has every expectation of either getting the house back or her payments refunded.

Several points. First, the money did not exist before this lady created it by signing a note. SHE was the one who created the money by agreeing to the payment. That is how money is created now-a-days. By signing something. Second, receiving the ORIGINAL documents back after all the payments have been made is part of the deal. It is not optional. It is a requirement.

Finally, in these notes the bank frequently includes a clause called a cognovit. This is a confession of judgment clause that denies due process to the one signing the note or mortgage. Cognovits are illegal in 45 states and closely controlled in the other five. These phrases are limited to dealings with corporations rather than real men or women. If this phrase is in YOUR note then you have engaged in an illegal contract. GOT THAT? It is not legal. Same as trying to purchase heroin or marijuana. Illegal contracts are void from inception. They don't exist.

I wondered off course with this second statement. I was referring to purchases in general, not necessarily homes. Sorry

I agree that buyers remorse exists and there are also people who complain more than they should. Always a joy to be around. There is always a 72 hour period after a purchase to keep these people from suffering too much from their "impulse purchases". With homes not so much. Too formal.

I probably shouldn't get sucked into this, but ... what good are the original documents? They show that you have (or had) a mortgage on the property. So what? What's important is the deed, and whether there are any secured parties, liens or other encumbrances on it.

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

I am not trying to suck anyone into anything but asking questions is not a bad thing.

The ONLY way to get foreclosed is if a court somewhere issues a document telling the sheriff to move you out. If the only original document the court has ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE is a note then the only order they can stand behind is a lien on the property in the amount remaining on the note. This doesn't get you evicted. It just says you have to pay that amount before you can sell the house. In theory you can only be evicted if both note and mortgages (originals) are entered into evidence.

You only signed one original of each document. Copies are not originals. You did not sign a copy. Because these banks sell these documents, because they are sloppy businessmen and might not have access to the original and because the judges bend rules to accommodate banks, because the government has bailed out the banks and not the people, why would anyone feel any obligation to give them anything they do not deserve. Make them prove everything.

At argument hearings a judge will hold up a copy and ask the (default) home buyer if that is his signature. As likely as not he will agree that he did sign it. A better answer is "I am willing to comment on this document when it has been entered into evidence". He is the only signer. He is the only one who can verify it. Why would he do so if it is a copy? Even if it is an original if it is modified in ANY way then it is not the same document that he might have signed. This attempt by the judge to get a document validated places them in the pocket of the banker. They know better.

Umm, because he's an honest man?

Look, if you made a deal and agreed to pay, you should live up to your obligation, not attempt to weasel out of it!

It's because of people like you that most won't do business on a handshake anymore. For shame!

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

On the nosy!!!! Willow Girl summed it up nicely.

Following your line - if the bank no longer holds the originals, thus making the contract/pledge null and void - would that not also make the fact that you "own" the property null and void ?

If the contract/pledge no longer exists, then neither does your ownership?

Granted, you have been making payments in good faith that you owed the money to them based on the original documents. Those documents no longer exist, but you have made the payments to the entity. Now they must refund the money - with interest? or sign the property over to you?



I agree in honesty you agree to make the payments to purchase the property (although in honesty, they also agreed to return the original document upon completion and now can no longer uphold their end of the deal), but I do find these types of things to be interesting - sounds a bit like B la c k' s L aw book to me.

__________________
Saffron

No. Because he is a weasel and can get away with it because of the ignorance of most honest people.

The deal is good as long as an original can be produced.

Look ... this is not about the land or house. It is about PAPER. Obligations exist on both sides.

The PAPER is only a monument. The words spoken are what control the agreement.

Are you a judge? You seem pretty quick to condemn when you are deficient in facts and knowledge.

And the handshake is more binding than the paper is.

Listen to me carefully. You never have and never will own the property. You only have an equitable right to use it and that can be canceled by the state at any time.


You have chosen to live in a communist world and that is what it is like. There is no ownership. You don't own a car. You don't own a bicycle. You don't own a lawnmower. The beneficent state provides everything for your equitable use. Law was abolished when gold and silver left society.

Don't shoot me. I am just the messenger. You might be the one living the American "dream/nightmare".

The bank or the state might place a lien on the property. Chances are the mortgage not being vented will also act to prevent you from selling it. Certainly if you stop making property tax payments the state is going to sell it on the steps of the courthouse at the first opportunity.

If you can establish that a cognovit exits then the contract is illegal. If you can sue on this basis and win then the contract did not exist from inception. You turn the keys over to the note/mortgage holder and in turn should receive all payments made back.



Mainly I wanted to bring up that there is no money except what you create by signing these documents. The bank doesn't have any in their vaults. It is all paper transactions and fractional banking.

You might be aware of the logical game ROCK, PAPER, SCISSOR.

The ten commandments were written on ROCK, a pretty solid substance that does not float nearly as well as PAPER does. So PAPER beats ROCK but only in a maritime law environment. Now along comes SCISSORS which won't dent ROCK but cuts PAPER pretty well. Gold and silver are pretty solid substances too. SCISSORS won't touch them so I would place them in the same category as ROCK.

If you find your life ruled by PAPER and maritime law then bring along a pair of SCISSORS and you might stand a chance finding DRY LAND again.

Nope, I think my understanding of your integrity is quite sufficient and I'm glad I haven't had the misfortune of doing business with you. Good day!

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.