Foreclosure Defense (Use the UCC)

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Svarstaad, Dec 5, 2009.

  1. Svarstaad
    Offline

    Svarstaad Energy in the Air

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +9
    . . .

    In light of the fact that virtually all promissory notes taken by banks, mortgage companies, etc., were sold at some time after the "closing" for the respective transactions --- without the right in discovery to physically inspect, and photocopy the original wet-ink instrument, (production of the original instrument), meaning that the bank, mortgage company, etc., retained physical possession of the NOTE, standing in court to enforce the instrument in foreclosure is impossible pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. (UCC).

    This is the law behind -- "Show Me the Note!"

    Statutory Requirements For Establishing The Riight To Enforce An Instrument

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

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

    3. 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).


    UCC § 3-309, requirements.

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

    i. If illegality or fraud were involved in the original transaction, it cannot be proved that the person is entitled to enforce the instrument.(See UCC § 3-305. DEFENSES)

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

    NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).

    c. 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)).

    NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).

    d. 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 § 3-309 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)).

    ****************

    If the bank, mortgage company, etc., sold the NOTE, they have no right to enforce the NOTE, through foreclosure or court proceeding pursuant to the fact that the UCC bars such claimant from invoking the court's subject matter jurisdiction of the case.

    ****************

    Even if the claimant produces the original wet-ink NOTE, there is a defense to the action pursuant to UCC 3-305.

    Illegality and false representation (fraud) perpetrated in the transaction.

    Did the bank disclose the SOURCE of the money for the transaction?

    Did the bank inform the NOTE issuer that the money for the transaction was provided at no cost to the bank?

    Did the bank disclose that the NOTE would be sold at the earliest possible convenience, and that such sale and receipt of money from a third party would actually pay off the NOTE? (Satisfaction of Mortgage).​

    Many discovery questions to be asked when a claimant initiates foreclosure proceedings.

    ***********

    Many assume that the bank/broker/lender that begins the process is actually providing the money for making a “loan,” when in fact, the bank/broker/lender is only making an “exchange,“ of notes, at no cost, and then, coercing the issuer of the promissory note into the comprehension that he is receiving a “loan.” The following was stated in A PRIMER ON MONEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 88th Congress, 2d Session, AUGUST 5, 1964, CHAPTER VIII, HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE GIVES AWAY PUBLIC FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE BANKS [44-985 O-65-7, p89]

    "In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds."​

    In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer's promissory note as if the property and the Note already belonged to the bank/broker/lender.

    So, if the bank used the promissory NOTE, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face amount of the promissory NOTE, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promissory NOTE, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a DECEPTIVE PRACTICE, FRAUD.


    . . .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2009
  2. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    OH that is GOOOD!!! Wow.. Excellent post!!! I'm impressed!
     
  3. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Yeah. Let's make mortgage lending a thing of the past. From now, cash on the barrel head.
     
  4. Svarstaad
    Offline

    Svarstaad Energy in the Air

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +9
    . . .

    Are you a teacher? "Rabbi?"

    It is perceived that your comment promotes the continuation of mortgage "loan" fraud.

    Making a "loan" is something entirely different from the scam operating at present.

    It is apparent from the present economic collapse that allowing bankers to first create the mess, and then, employ bankers to fix the mess, will just lead to another banker created mess.

    Are you a banker?

    A good source for comprehension of the right way to build an economy can be found at the references below.

    The Natural Economic Order, Silvio Gesell
    Get the book here: geokey (dot) de (Fslash) literatur (Fslash) doc (Fslash) neo (dot) pdf

    Fslash = "forward slash"

    ** Forum Rules deny me the right to provide hyperlinks until after 15 posts.**

    Search string: "Story of Worgl" (pronounced Vergle)
    (Use quotation marks as shown)

    Worgl was an experiment that proved what can happen when honesty is an element in the money system used in a community.

    The experiment was terminated at the barrel of a gun by threatened military force. The termination of the Worgl story of honest money was orchestrated by bankers.

    ***********

    The comment about "cash on the barrel head" is what comes after the people regain rightful ownership of their property from those who used fraud and deception to cheat them.

    . . .
     
  5. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Are you a flat-earther? An idiot? An ignoramus?
    Perhaps all three.
    And you're going on iggy....
     
  6. Svarstaad
    Offline

    Svarstaad Energy in the Air

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +9
    . . .

    Well, it didn't take long to for you to expose yourself, now, did it?

    Mark of a shill. Go straight to vitriol and ridicule.

    You're not very cerebral, are you?

    Your last post was not on point.

    Would you like to have a discussion about the money scam?

    If your answer is "no," go "play" somewhere else.

    . . .
     
  7. Svarstaad
    Offline

    Svarstaad Energy in the Air

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +9
    . . .

    After digesting the statutory requirements (**) for enforcement of a promissory NOTE, and it is determined that the foreclosure claimant had failed to establish standing pursuant to the statutory requirements of UCC § 3-301 and UCC § 3-309, it would be logical to conclude that the foreclosure was wrongful pursuant to the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case, therefore, the court's judgment in favor of the foreclosure claimant is voidable.

    ** See message at: US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Law and Justice System >Foreclosure Defense (Use the UCC) > message 1. ​

    An action to void a judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case can be brought up at any time, even after judgment, appeal, and subsequent execution of the judgment. See Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b), (void judgment - lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

    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.​

    If the demand to "Show me the NOTE!" and that means the original wet-ink NOTE, was unfulfilled, it is more than likely that the foreclosure claimant had no right to enforce the NOTE.

    In light of the fact that virtually all promissory notes taken by banks, mortgage companies, etc., were sold at some time after the "closing" for the respective transactions --- without the right in discovery to physically inspect, and photocopy the original wet-ink instrument, (production of the original instrument), meaning that the bank, mortgage company, etc., retained physical possession of the NOTE, or that the foreclosure claimant can PROVE a valid assignment of the rights of the holder to enforce the instrument in an unbroken chain of valid assignments from the present holder of the original wet-ink NOTE to the foreclosure claimant, standing in a court to enforce the instrument in foreclosure is impossible pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. (UCC). Therefore, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

    Without possession of the original wet-ink NOTE, or proof of authentic and valid assignment of the rights of the present holder of the original wet-ink NOTE, no foreclosure action can be sustained when confronted with the Statutory Requirements for Establishing the Right to Enforce an Instrument

    If the bank is suing to enforce a NOTE and foreclose on property, and it can be shown through discovery that the bank sold (transferred) the NOTE, the bank lost the right to enforce the NOTE. See UCC § 3-309(a)(2).

    . . .
     
  8. Svarstaad
    Offline

    Svarstaad Energy in the Air

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +9
    . . .

    Authoritative foundational basis for the determination of the right to enforce an instrument in a foreclosure proceeding: The foreclosure claimant must predicate the claim upon proof and evidence of physical possession or valid assignment of BOTH the NOTE and the Mortgage Agreement.

    "The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, 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." [Fn3 Jackson v. Blodget, 5 Cowan 205; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johnson 43.] Quotation and Footnote from: Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872). (emphasis added)
    (Access Carpenter here: supreme (dot) justia (dot) com (Fslash) us (Fslash) 83 (Fslash) 271 (Fslash) case (dot) html)

    The above referenced current and binding opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, was recently utilized as basic law in Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kessler, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access Landmark here: [www (dot) kscourts (dot) org (Fslash) Cases-and-Opinions (Fslash) opinions (Fslash) supct (Fslash) 2009 (Fslash) 20090828 (Fslash) 98489 (dot) htm]

    . . .
     
  9. Svarstaad
    Offline

    Svarstaad Energy in the Air

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +9
    Selected excerpts from: AFFIDAVIT OF WALKER F. TODD, 5-DEC-2003, at ¶ 11.

    Access the affidavit here: nrgnair (dot) com (Fslash) MPT (Fslash) zdi_tech (Fslash) ucc (Fslash) Walker.Todd.Affidavit.signed.w.Decision (dot) pdf

    Attested Qualifications: (¶ 2)

    My qualifications as an expert witness in monetary and banking instruments are as follows. For 20 years, I worked as an attorney and legal officer for the legal departments of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland. Among other things, I was assigned responsibility for questions involving both novel and routine notes, bonds, bankers’ acceptances, securities, and other financial instruments in connection with my work for the Reserve Banks’ discount windows and parts of the open market trading desk function in New York. In addition, for nine years, I worked as an economic research officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. I became one of the Federal Reserve System’s recognized experts on the legal history of central banking and the pledging of notes, bonds, and other financial instruments at the discount window to enable the Federal Reserve to make advances of credit that became or could become money. I also have read extensively treatises on the legal and financial history of money and banking and have published several articles covering all of the subjects just mentioned. I have served as an expert witness in several trials involving banking practices and monetary instruments. A summary biographical sketch and resume including further details of my work experience, readings, publications, and education will be tendered . . . upon request. (emphasis added)


    Quote: (¶ 11)

    When a commercial bank makes a business loan, it accepts as an asset the borrower’s debt obligation (the promise to repay) and creates a liability on its books in the form of a demand deposit in the amount of the loan.” (Consumer loans are funded similarly.) Therefore, the bank’s original bookkeeping entry should show an increase in the amount of the asset credited on the asset side of its books and a corresponding increase equal to the value of the asset on the liability side of its books. This would show that the bank received the customer’s signed promise to repay as an asset, thus monetizing the customer’s signature and creating on its books a liability in the form of a demand deposit or other demand liability of the bank. The bank then usually would hold this demand deposit in a transaction account on behalf of the customer. Instead of the bank lending its money or other assets to the customer, as the customer reasonably might believe from the face of the Note, the bank created funds for the customer’s transaction account without the customer’s permission, authorization, or knowledge and delivered the credit on its own books representing those funds to the customer, meanwhile alleging that the bank lent the customer money. (Emphasis added).


    Quote: (¶ 11)

    If [a bank’s] response to this line of argument is to the effect that it acknowledges that it lent credit or issued credit instead of money, one might refer to Thomas P. Fitch, BARRON’S BUSINESS GUIDE DICTIONARY OF BANKING TERMS, “Credit banking,” 3. “Bookkeeping entry representing a deposit of funds into an account.” But [the bank’s] loan agreement apparently avoids claiming that the bank actually lent [any] money. They apparently state in the agreement that the [“borrower” is ] obligated to repay [the bank] principal and interest for the “Valuable consideration (money) the bank gave the customer (borrower).” The loan agreement and Note apparently still delete any reference to the bank’s receipt of actual cash value from the [“borrower”] and exchange of that receipt for actual cash value that the [ ] banker returned. (Emphasis added). [inserted by ed.]


    *******END QUOTES BY WALKER F. TODD*******
     
  10. Svarstaad
    Offline

    Svarstaad Energy in the Air

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +9
    With the foregoing in mind, here is the reason for comprehending the information outlined below:

    “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).
    (Cited in – Landmark National Bank v. Kessler, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)).

    The importance of the findings of the Supreme Court of Kansas cannot be overemphasized. It is generally the law in all states that if the law of one state has not specifically addressed a specific legal issue, the court may look to the law of states which have, and use those decisions as “guideposts,” for making its own decision. The Kansas Supreme Court acknowledged that the case was one of "first impression in Kansas," which is why the Kansas Supreme Court looked to legal decisions from California, Idaho, New York, Missouri, and other states for guidance and to support its decision.

    Even if, during discovery, the bank invites you to one of their offices, and actually produces the original, wet-ink promissory note, bearing serial number xxxxxx, you can say with comprehension of ALL the facts that the signature purported to be your signature on said note, is NOT your signature.

    Here’s why —

    You did NOT “SIGN” said note with full knowledge of all the facts relevant to the transaction, because there are TWO (2) elements to a signature.

    (1) actual physical act of signing;

    (2) informed validation and attestation of the verity of all of the elements of the transaction.​

    Signature.
    The act of putting one’s name at the end of an instrument to attest its validity. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Pg. 1381. (BLD6-1381).

    In commercial law, any name, word, or mark used with the intention to authenticate a writing constitutes a signature. UCC §§ 1-201(39),3-401(2). (BLD6-1382). [since publication of BLD6, UCC § 3-401(2) has been changed to UCC § 3-401(b)]

    *UCC § 1-201(39). "Signed" includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.

    **UCC § 3-401(b). A signature may be made (i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and (ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.​

    Did the bank, mortgage company, etc., disclose to you all of the elements of the transaction?

    Did the bank, mortgage company, etc., disclose to you that your signature would give the impression that you had intentionally attested to the verity, truthfulness and validity of all of the elements of such transaction?

    Sign.
    To affix one’s name to a writing or instrument, for the purpose of authenticating or executing it, or to give it effect as one’s act. To attach a name or cause it to be attached to a writing by any of the known methods of impressing a name on paper. To affix a signature to; to ratify by hand or seal; to subscribe in one’s own handwriting. To make any mark, as upon a document, in token of knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation. See also Cross; Execution; Mark; Signature. (BLD6-1381).​

    Signatory.
    In general, a person who signs a document personally or through his agent and who becomes a party thereto. (BLD6-1382).​

    Signature.
    By signature is understood the act of putting down a man's name, at the end of an instrument, to attest its validity [valid]. The name thus written is also called a signature. Vide to Sign. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)​

    The generally accepted legal definition of signature is very broad:

    “[t]he act of putting one’s name on the end of any instrument to attest its validity [valid]; the name thus written.” (BLD6-1381 (1990)).​

    See also Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1934)
    defining signature as “the name of any person, written with his own hand to signify that the writing which precedes accords with his wishes or intentions..

    Attestation:
    The act of attesting; testimony; witness; a solemn or official declaration, verbal or written, in support of a fact; evidence. The truth appears from the attestation of witnesses, or of the proper officer. The subscription of a name to a writing as a witness, is an attestation. [1913 Webster]​

    Authentic:
    Genuine; true; real; pure; reliable; trustworthy; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested. Competent, credible, and reliable as evidence.
    (BLD6-132)​

    Authenticum:
    In the civil law, an original instrument or writing; the original of a will or other instrument, as distinguished from a copy.​

    Authentication:
    The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed.Evid.Rule 901. (BLD6-132)​

    Valid:
    Founded on truth of fact; capable of being justified; supported, or defended; not weak or defective. (BLD6-1550)​

    Verification:
    1. Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. (BLD6-1561)​
    2. (Law) (a) Confirmation by evidence. (b) A formal phrase used in concluding a plea. [1913 Webster]​

    Verity:
    Truth; truthfulness; conformity to fact. The records of a court “import uncontrollable verity.” (BLD6-1550)​

    Every effort imaginable is being made by those operating the Federal Reserve scam, to disconnect the individual from the notion that your “SIGNATURE” attests, without the knowledge of doing so, to the so-called validity of the transaction that piles a debt upon the signer, and unjustly enriches the bank. This part of the scam is most important to the perpetrators.

    The bank promotes the false representation that your signature ONLY represents YOU, and fails to disclose the most important aspect of the term “signature,” which the bank then uses for a purpose hidden from YOU because so much money is involved.

    “Signature” also indicates that the signatory agrees that the matters discussed (on paper or other) are within his wishes.

    There are TWO (2) very important aspects or elements to the term “signature.”

    This is a VERY important point because if someone has, by false representations, orchestrated a situation wherein you enter into an agreement without full comprehension of all of the elements involved in the transaction, you are not liable to the provisions of the agreement. This is the reason for asking questions in discovery.

    “Signature” places in motion many unique and strange events:

    1. It boldly states that the signatory has consented to the full terms of the agreement, and becomes a party to that agreement. By doing so, the full stipulations (if any) as to how matters of conflict and dispute are treated apply; these administrative or remedial solutions are not always handled through standard court proceedings.​

    2. Many credit applications have a stipulation or inclusion, that by applying your “Signature,” ALL of the information that you have given to be reviewed for “credit worthiness” (also via your credit-report) is true, complete, and certain. (or “The Truth, The whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”). In essence you are swearing that you have NOT lied, deceived, or entered into the agreement with any preconceived intent to commit any fraud or other nefarious means. (You did not conduct business with the intent to screw anyone.)​

    Usually, there is really NOTHING in the agreement that holds the alleged creditor liable if THEY were to commit a fraud or other nefarious act. That is because you have the Free-will to EXIT the agreement if you can prove that the alleged creditor has not acted in good faith.

    Unfortunately, the creditor will never discuss options of the consumer for wrong doing on the part of the creditor: this of course is no accident.​

    3. In relation to a credit agreement, the signature is the origin and the beginning of the ‘promise-to-pay’ creation process. The Signature is the BAIT of the bait and switch scam.

    4. With the application of your signature to a promissory NOTE, you have made it possible for the scammers to create money out of thin air. The NEW obligation created the PRINCIPAL, just not the interest money that you allegedly owe.​

    A 'hand writing analysis’ can NOT bear evidence to the first hand knowledge of facts.

    Your “signature,” (particular scratching pattern, style, etc.), is NOT the important point of relevance — your FULLY INFORMED CONSENT — is what is signified by your “signature,” and that issue has significant intrinsic value.

    Was “anything” about the disclosures and non-disclosures made by the bank relevant to the NOTE, and the mortgage transaction, a false representation by the bank? Was there any false representations evident on the face of the promissory NOTE? (There are many relevant facts that the bank failed, by either refusal or neglect to reveal).

    Here’s a short list of undisclosed elements of the transaction:

    ● The actual source of the money;

    ● The transaction was at no cost to the bank;

    ● The “loan” was really not a loan;

    ● That the bank would be enriched by at least 10 times the face value amount of the NOTE;

    ● That the bank was going to sell the NOTE and pocket the proceeds;

    ● That even after the sale of the NOTE, the bank would continue requiring you to pay over installments equaling the face value amount of the NOTE plus interest plus fees;

    ● The first words of most NOTE’s goes something to the effect of: “For value received …,” if the “value received” by you actually had “no cost to the bank,” just exactly what value did the bank bring into the transaction?​

    The following was stated in A PRIMER ON MONEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 88th Congress, 2d Session, AUGUST 5, 1964, CHAPTER VIII, HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE GIVES AWAY PUBLIC FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE BANKS [44-985 O-65-7, p89]

    "In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds."
    [www (dot) scribd (dot) com (Fslash) document_downloads (Fslash) 18077819?extension=pdf]

    In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer's promissory NOTE as if the property and the NOTE already belonged to the bank/broker/lender.

    So, if the bank used the promissory NOTE, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face value amount of the promissory NOTE, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promissory NOTE, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a Deceptive Practice, False Representation, and Fraud.

    You were required by the bank to “attest” and “validate” the transaction, evidenced by the existence of the NOTE and the mortgage agreement, with your signature affixed thereto, without full knowledge of what was going on. (Did you know about those elements of the transaction noted in the short list above?)

    Were all of the aspects of what the bank was doing revealed to you in such a way that you could comprehend the actual nature of the transaction you were about to VALIDATE with your signature?

    Do you think you might have been tricked into signing a promissory NOTE without knowing "every aspect" of ALL of the facts relevant to the nature of the transaction that you were offered and urged to validate by your signature?

    THE BAIT AND SWITCH:

    The bank actually performed the old “Bait & Switch” trick, as called by those in the “confidence” and grifter/grafter rackets.

    Unfortunately this is not some quaint story about some clever fella’ of yesteryear; this con-game is real, and it was used to “con” you. Getting familiar enough with the terms and overall con-job to the point where you have obtained comprehension of the scam is difficult at first, but you have a most vested interest in doing so.

    When an individual affixes his signature to a promissory note, they are normally required to state a variety of private information. It is quite common for the signer-in-waiting to volunteer their address, phone number, social insecurity number and other information. At the bottom of the agreement is a line where the individual applies their “Signature.”

    When the application/contract is accepted by the bank, it has become a signed document, right? Well, this document is also known as a negotiable instrument, a different kind of currency as recognized by the laws and codes of commerce. (Similar to a check, draft, certificate of deposit, etc.).

    A bank or lending institution has a license to do something that we are not authorized to do; the bank can “monetize” a negotiable instrument. The bank has NOT loaned anything of value; the bank has only received a negotiable instrument that has been used to create “money” because of the SIGNATURE affixed to such instrument.

    The “Switch” in the bait and switch scam comes from what occurs next.

    ADDITIONAL NOTE: Definition of the word “Money”:

    1. The medium of exchange (emphasis added) authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency . UCC § 1-201(24)*

    2. Assets that can be easily converted to cash .

    3. Capital that is invested or traded as a commodity.
    (Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition)​

    *UCC § 1-201(24) "Money" means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries.​

    Fiat money. Paper currency NOT backed by gold or silver.

    Lawful money. Money that is legal tender for the payment of debts.

    Real money.
    1. Money that has metallic or other intrinsic value, as distinguished from paper currency, checks, and drafts.​

    2. Current cash, as opposed to money on account.​

    Money demand.
    A claim for a fixed, liquidated sum, as opposed to a damage claim that must be assessed by a jury.​

    SWITCH: Now that the alleged creditor has received your signed promise to pay (monetized YOUR negotiable instrument) they take the newly created asset and post it to THEIR ledger books as THEIR asset. With this NEW asset on the books, they magically create “money” that can be spent into the economy.

    This new asset they CLAIM to be THEIRS is what they are allegedly LOANING back to you with high rates of interest attached.

    ALL AT NO COST TO THE BANK.

    ● The bank has taken YOUR asset, claimed it to be theirs, and made the false representation that the bank loaned its own money to you at interest. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?

    ● The bank probably sold the original wet-ink NOTE, which, even at a discount, was all profit. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?

    ● The bank, pursuant to Federal Reserve policy, created 10 times the face value amount of the NOTE for its own enrichment. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?

    ● The bank will be enriched by an amount equal to at least 10 times the face value amount of the NOTE, and upon any default, gets the pledged property for resale. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?

    ● If the bank declares a default on a NOTE, the bank will take advantage of a write-off credit on their corporate taxes. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact?​

    The bottom line on signatures is this:

    The signature that you affixed to any instrument is only valid until you discover that false representations of the facts relevant to all the elements of the transaction were deliberately orchestrated, and that you were wrongfully induced to sign because of those false representations and non-disclosures.

    . . .
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
authorized signatory ucc black law
,

ct ucc 3-309 wet ink promissory note

,

file a Complaint in federal court against mortgage servicer12 usc 1701j-3

,
handwriting analysis foreclosure owner finance receipts
,

how to invoke ucc foreclosure law

,
illegality ucc defense
,

KANSAS CIVIL SUPREME COURT RULING OF 1872 NOTE & MORTGAGE SEPARATED IS NULL & VOID

,
present copy of wet ink note
,
ucc and possession of the note
,
ucc foreclosure defense
,

ucc used in foreclosure defense

,
wet ink original ucc