manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
thank you for the two links....i read both links....would you mind pointing out which paragraph cites the ucc and the reason under the ucc the forclosure judgment was overturned....thanks again
Foreclosure Defense (Use the UCC)
- Thread starter Svarstaad
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #42
. . .
GHook93,
Send a letter to the bank, mortgage company, etc., to whom you are currently making installment payments for real estate property.
Have your letter notarized and mail it via certified mail for proof of mailing and tracking.
Ask the bank, mortgage company, etc, to schedule a meeting where you can be afforded the opportunity to view the original wet-ink NOTE and original wet-ink mortgage agreement, with witnesses for validation of possession of the instrument.
Send the letter. See what kind of response you get.
We've all been snookered by the banking cartel.
Its time to end the thievery.
. . .
GHook93,
Send a letter to the bank, mortgage company, etc., to whom you are currently making installment payments for real estate property.
Have your letter notarized and mail it via certified mail for proof of mailing and tracking.
Ask the bank, mortgage company, etc, to schedule a meeting where you can be afforded the opportunity to view the original wet-ink NOTE and original wet-ink mortgage agreement, with witnesses for validation of possession of the instrument.
Send the letter. See what kind of response you get.
We've all been snookered by the banking cartel.
Its time to end the thievery.
. . .
- Thread starter
- #43
. . .
MANU1959,
Take a deep breath, you must comprehend that the case was about MERS wishing to enforce an instrument in foreclosure.
The whole case was about STANDING, in words used by the court, upholding the requirements of UCC 3-301 PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.
Access the law here: Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3
Do you think that there is no correlation between the judgment in Kesler and the UCC?
When STANDING is challenged, you refer to statutes for the grounds of the challenge, and published judicial decisions upholding the challenge assertion.
Presently I'll provide you with another case that is a bit more explicit for you. The US Federal District Court certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court about application of the Alabama adopted and codified UCC to a particular case.
Looking it up now.
. . .
MANU1959,
Take a deep breath, you must comprehend that the case was about MERS wishing to enforce an instrument in foreclosure.
The whole case was about STANDING, in words used by the court, upholding the requirements of UCC 3-301 PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.
Access the law here: Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3
Do you think that there is no correlation between the judgment in Kesler and the UCC?
When STANDING is challenged, you refer to statutes for the grounds of the challenge, and published judicial decisions upholding the challenge assertion.
Presently I'll provide you with another case that is a bit more explicit for you. The US Federal District Court certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court about application of the Alabama adopted and codified UCC to a particular case.
Looking it up now.
. . .
jillian
Princess
you really need to stop pretending to play lawyer. your "legal advice" would be dangerous to anyone.
anyone who has a foreclosure issue should see an attorney in their own jurisdiction.
and debts can always be assigned unless otherwise agreed to.
Not close to foreclosure, could use a little off on my killer property taxes.
- Thread starter
- #46
. . .
Atlantic National Trust v. Jack McNamee
GoTo: http://www.alabamaappellatewatch.com/1060423.PDF
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has certified the following question to this Court, pursuant to Rule 18, Ala. R. App. P.:
"Whether an assignee of a promissory note who was not in possession of the note at the time it was misplaced, lost, or destroyed may enforce the note, or whether a party who is entitled to enforce a lost instrument may assign its rights to enforce the instrument, in light of the provisions of Ala. Code § 7-3-309(a)?"
This case is one case in many demonstrating the application of the UCC.
Good question about the UCC.
. . .
Atlantic National Trust v. Jack McNamee
GoTo: http://www.alabamaappellatewatch.com/1060423.PDF
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has certified the following question to this Court, pursuant to Rule 18, Ala. R. App. P.:
"Whether an assignee of a promissory note who was not in possession of the note at the time it was misplaced, lost, or destroyed may enforce the note, or whether a party who is entitled to enforce a lost instrument may assign its rights to enforce the instrument, in light of the provisions of Ala. Code § 7-3-309(a)?"
This case is one case in many demonstrating the application of the UCC.
Good question about the UCC.
. . .
- Thread starter
- #47
. . .
Must be on target.
The shill lawyers seem to have the "high priest" mindset.
Fraud is in their words. Hawking the "services" of lawyers.
Do your own research. Stop believing those that have vested interests in the banking scam.
Ask the questions. Don't be afraid. Can you write a letter asking for the opportunity to view, photocopy, and certify the NOTE and mortgage agreement?
. . .
Must be on target.
The shill lawyers seem to have the "high priest" mindset.
Fraud is in their words. Hawking the "services" of lawyers.
Do your own research. Stop believing those that have vested interests in the banking scam.
Ask the questions. Don't be afraid. Can you write a letter asking for the opportunity to view, photocopy, and certify the NOTE and mortgage agreement?
. . .
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #48
. . .
This is an interesting read:
WHEREÂ’S THE NOTE, WHOÂ’S THE HOLDER: ENFORCEMENT OF PROMISSORY
NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATE
by:
HON. SAMUEL L. BUFFORD
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
(FORMERLY HON.) R. GLEN AYERS
LANGLEY & BANACK
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
GoTo: http://www.msfraud.org/Articles/WHE...OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATE.pdf
. . .
This is an interesting read:
WHEREÂ’S THE NOTE, WHOÂ’S THE HOLDER: ENFORCEMENT OF PROMISSORY
NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATE
by:
HON. SAMUEL L. BUFFORD
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
(FORMERLY HON.) R. GLEN AYERS
LANGLEY & BANACK
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
GoTo: http://www.msfraud.org/Articles/WHE...OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATE.pdf
. . .
- Thread starter
- #49
. . .
Are all but lawyers too stupid to comprehend the following from:
Where's The Note, WhoÂ’s The Holder: Enforcement Of Promissory Note Secured By Real Estate
by; Bufford & Ayers
SUMMARY [page 8 of 8]
The cases cited illustrate enormous problems in the loan servicing industry. These problems arise in the context of securitization and illustrate the difficulty of determining the name of the holder, the assignee of the mortgage, and the parties with both the legal right under Article 3 and the standing under the Constitution to enforce notes, whether in state court or federal court.
Interestingly, with the exception of Judge Bufford and a few other judges, there has been less than adequate focus upon the UCC title issues. The next round of cases may and should focus upon the title to debt instrument. The person seeking to enforce the note must show that: (emphasis added)
Then, and only then, do the issues of evidence of debt and default and assignment of mortgage rights become relevant.
. . .
Are all but lawyers too stupid to comprehend the following from:
Where's The Note, WhoÂ’s The Holder: Enforcement Of Promissory Note Secured By Real Estate
by; Bufford & Ayers
SUMMARY [page 8 of 8]
The cases cited illustrate enormous problems in the loan servicing industry. These problems arise in the context of securitization and illustrate the difficulty of determining the name of the holder, the assignee of the mortgage, and the parties with both the legal right under Article 3 and the standing under the Constitution to enforce notes, whether in state court or federal court.
Interestingly, with the exception of Judge Bufford and a few other judges, there has been less than adequate focus upon the UCC title issues. The next round of cases may and should focus upon the title to debt instrument. The person seeking to enforce the note must show that: (emphasis added)
(1) It is the holder of this note original by transfer, with all necessary rounds;
(2) It had possession of the note before it was lost;
(3) If it can show that title to the note runs to it, but the original is lost or destroyed, the holder must be prepared to post a bond;
(4) If the person seeking to enforce is an agent, it must show its agency status and that its principal is the holder of the note (and meets the above requirements).
(2) It had possession of the note before it was lost;
(3) If it can show that title to the note runs to it, but the original is lost or destroyed, the holder must be prepared to post a bond;
(4) If the person seeking to enforce is an agent, it must show its agency status and that its principal is the holder of the note (and meets the above requirements).
Then, and only then, do the issues of evidence of debt and default and assignment of mortgage rights become relevant.
. . .
- Thread starter
- #50
. . .
I reviewed an interesting series of video presentations by Neil Garfield.
The facts he revealed were very helpful in the comprehension of the fraud being committed against the working man.
See – Asset Securitization Comptroller’s Handbook November 1997. Garfield seems to have a pretty good “handle” on the information published in the handbook.
What Garfield said goes something like this:
Fact: “Pooled" mortgages and NOTEs are insured 30 times on their face value amount.
Fact: the instruments “pooled” in the real estate “pools” are split-apart NOTEs and Mortgages.
Fact: i.e., a $100k Note-Mortgage, will be split-apart, as separate accounting entities, and deposited separately into separate “pools.”
Fact: the $100k NOTE will be deposited into “pool A”
Fact: the $100k Mortgage will be deposited into “pool B”
The bank now has $200k in deposit accounts which it can "deposit multiply" by 10 times. Federal Reserve scam. (See Modern Money Mechanics by Chicago Federal Reserve Bank).
The bank now has $2Million. Would you call that unjust enrichment? The money was generated without disclosure to Joe Six-pack, the issuer of the NOTE.
The two $100k pooled asset deposits are insured 30 times on the face value amount of each.
Fact: the originating so-called “lender” had already contracted to sell the instruments from the transaction with Joe Six-pack to a so-called “loan aggregator,” “investment banker” or other entity in a Special Purpose Vehicle pool (SPV) and the bank was paid for the full “loan” amount plus typically a 2.5% return on the “loan” originated for each of the instruments split-apart into separate “loan pools.”
Planned default occurs.
Bankers collects $6M on insured pooled asset deposits. WOW!
The bank, or someone, or many criminals, will have been enriched by as much as $8M on a $100k note-mortgage transaction after default. Joe Six-pack does not have a clue.
Joe Six-pack is made feel as though he is a scoundrel for his default and should be punished after surrendering the property and being escorted into the street at the barrel of a gun.
The bank’s successful foreclosure, having not been challenged to prove the right to enforce the instrument in foreclosure, was NOT forced to prove STANDING pursuant to the local jurisdiction’s version of UCC § 3-301, and UCC § 3-309, then entitles the bank to sell the property again, and the bank does this all over again, and again, and again.
This is the reason banks would RATHER Joe Six-pack default on the loan. The scam was prefaced upon keeping the money engine running because of defaults.
What a racket!
What a FRAUD!
Make the foreclosure claimant PROVE STANDING.
Challenge the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
Just do it.
See first posts in this thread, page one, about the UCC requirements to prove standing to initiate a foreclosure action.
Goto webpage here: Wrongful Foreclosure
About Wrongful Foreclosure (UCC references are hyperlinked).
Access the Garfield videos:
Foreclosure Defense: What You Need To Know (1/ 2)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9L4eRaIxLQ&feature=related[/ame]
Foreclosure Defense: What You Need To Know (2/ 2)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ6lPaiKmwg[/ame]
Part 1: The Assignment & Assumption Agreement
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3GN433J2c&NR=1[/ame]
Part 2: The Assignment & Assumption Agreement
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKIGz0WgQSA&NR=1[/ame]
Neil Garfield, Esq, MBA, JD
LivingliesÂ’s Weblog
. . .
I reviewed an interesting series of video presentations by Neil Garfield.
The facts he revealed were very helpful in the comprehension of the fraud being committed against the working man.
See – Asset Securitization Comptroller’s Handbook November 1997. Garfield seems to have a pretty good “handle” on the information published in the handbook.
What Garfield said goes something like this:
Fact: “Pooled" mortgages and NOTEs are insured 30 times on their face value amount.
Fact: the instruments “pooled” in the real estate “pools” are split-apart NOTEs and Mortgages.
Fact: i.e., a $100k Note-Mortgage, will be split-apart, as separate accounting entities, and deposited separately into separate “pools.”
Fact: the $100k NOTE will be deposited into “pool A”
Fact: the $100k Mortgage will be deposited into “pool B”
The bank now has $200k in deposit accounts which it can "deposit multiply" by 10 times. Federal Reserve scam. (See Modern Money Mechanics by Chicago Federal Reserve Bank).
The bank now has $2Million. Would you call that unjust enrichment? The money was generated without disclosure to Joe Six-pack, the issuer of the NOTE.
The two $100k pooled asset deposits are insured 30 times on the face value amount of each.
Fact: the originating so-called “lender” had already contracted to sell the instruments from the transaction with Joe Six-pack to a so-called “loan aggregator,” “investment banker” or other entity in a Special Purpose Vehicle pool (SPV) and the bank was paid for the full “loan” amount plus typically a 2.5% return on the “loan” originated for each of the instruments split-apart into separate “loan pools.”
Planned default occurs.
Bankers collects $6M on insured pooled asset deposits. WOW!
The bank, or someone, or many criminals, will have been enriched by as much as $8M on a $100k note-mortgage transaction after default. Joe Six-pack does not have a clue.
Joe Six-pack is made feel as though he is a scoundrel for his default and should be punished after surrendering the property and being escorted into the street at the barrel of a gun.
The bank’s successful foreclosure, having not been challenged to prove the right to enforce the instrument in foreclosure, was NOT forced to prove STANDING pursuant to the local jurisdiction’s version of UCC § 3-301, and UCC § 3-309, then entitles the bank to sell the property again, and the bank does this all over again, and again, and again.
This is the reason banks would RATHER Joe Six-pack default on the loan. The scam was prefaced upon keeping the money engine running because of defaults.
What a racket!
What a FRAUD!
Make the foreclosure claimant PROVE STANDING.
Challenge the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
Just do it.
See first posts in this thread, page one, about the UCC requirements to prove standing to initiate a foreclosure action.
Goto webpage here: Wrongful Foreclosure
About Wrongful Foreclosure (UCC references are hyperlinked).
Access the Garfield videos:
Foreclosure Defense: What You Need To Know (1/ 2)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9L4eRaIxLQ&feature=related[/ame]
Foreclosure Defense: What You Need To Know (2/ 2)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ6lPaiKmwg[/ame]
Part 1: The Assignment & Assumption Agreement
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3GN433J2c&NR=1[/ame]
Part 2: The Assignment & Assumption Agreement
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKIGz0WgQSA&NR=1[/ame]
Neil Garfield, Esq, MBA, JD
LivingliesÂ’s Weblog
. . .
- Thread starter
- #51
. . .
The Federal Reserve Has Set You Up: Set Them Up – Right Back
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, do the research, you are capable of defeating "them" with their own laws:
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 bank 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.
About the Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted:
2. The foreclosure claimant (bank) 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 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 courtÂ’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case in the initial complaint, secure in the presumption that you will not question the bankÂ’s standing to file the foreclosure action.
The lawyers that do this type of sloppy work are incompetent and probably in collusion with the judge who will “overlook” this defect in the complaint.
Your ability to zero in on the issue of the bankÂ’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 bank are also subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for filing a case where their client cannot establish the right to enforce the instrument. No valid cause of action. Such complaint, without valid cause of action is frivolous. Ask for Rule 11 sanctions against the lawyers and their law firm.
The lawyers have given themselves a 21-day “safe harbor” provision when filing a Rule 11 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 courtÂ’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 challenge.
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
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 courtÂ’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
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)).
***************************
10. Immediately after being served with the summons, mail the bank’s incompetent attorney a discovery request for production of documents; Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34 – Production of Documents.
11. Production of Documents for the opportunity to inspect, photo copy, certify, and validate
11.1 The authenticum original wet-ink NOTE-Mortgage.
11.2 All documents relating to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.3 All balance sheets relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.4 All insurance records relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.5 All records pertaining to any Credit Default Swap certificates relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.6 All records pertaining to guarantors relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.7 All records pertaining to any investors relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.8 All records pertaining to any money paid relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.9 All records pertaining to any assignment(s) relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.10 All records pertaining to any “aggregator” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.11 All records pertaining to any “pool” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.12 All records pertaining to any “Special Purpose Vehicle” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.13 All records pertaining to any “Special Investment Vehicle” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.14 All records pertaining to any “Collateralized Debt Obligation” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.15 All records pertaining to any “Collateralized Mortgage Obligation” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.16 All records pertaining to the present holder relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.17 All records pertaining to any entity ever having physical possession of the relevant NOTE-Mortgage.
12. The bank 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 bank to comply with your discovery request. Ask the court for Rule 11 sanctions against the bankÂ’s lawyers.
13. If the bank fails to establish a valid cause of action pursuant to the requirements of 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.
14. Once the case is dismissed, file a Quiet Title Action pursuant to the fact that the NOTE-Mortgage has been satisfied, that there is no holder in evidence, that the NOTE-Mortgage were acquired by the bank by false representation and fraud.
. . .
The Federal Reserve Has Set You Up: Set Them Up – Right Back
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, do the research, you are capable of defeating "them" with their own laws:
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
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 bank 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 bankÂ’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.
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 (bank) 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 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 courtÂ’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case in the initial complaint, secure in the presumption that you will not question the bankÂ’s standing to file the foreclosure action.
The lawyers that do this type of sloppy work are incompetent and probably in collusion with the judge who will “overlook” this defect in the complaint.
Your ability to zero in on the issue of the bankÂ’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 bank are also subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for filing a case where their client cannot establish the right to enforce the instrument. No valid cause of action. Such complaint, without valid cause of action is frivolous. Ask for Rule 11 sanctions against the lawyers and their law firm.
The lawyers have given themselves a 21-day “safe harbor” provision when filing a Rule 11 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 courtÂ’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 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. [http://162.114.92.72/COA/2006-CA-001733.pdf ]
“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. [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[/COLOR]][URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-201"]Uniform Commercial Code - Article 1[/url]
(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[/COLOR]][URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-201"]Uniform Commercial Code - Article 1[/url]
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 courtÂ’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.
"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.
(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 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.
(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: CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Carpenter recently cited in – Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)). Access Landmark here: [Landmark Decision]
Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872) (SCOTUS). (Access Carpenter here: CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Carpenter recently cited in – Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)). Access Landmark here: [Landmark Decision]
10. Immediately after being served with the summons, mail the bank’s incompetent attorney a discovery request for production of documents; Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34 – Production of Documents.
11. Production of Documents for the opportunity to inspect, photo copy, certify, and validate
11.1 The authenticum original wet-ink NOTE-Mortgage.
11.2 All documents relating to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.3 All balance sheets relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.4 All insurance records relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.5 All records pertaining to any Credit Default Swap certificates relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.6 All records pertaining to guarantors relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.7 All records pertaining to any investors relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.8 All records pertaining to any money paid relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.9 All records pertaining to any assignment(s) relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.10 All records pertaining to any “aggregator” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.11 All records pertaining to any “pool” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.12 All records pertaining to any “Special Purpose Vehicle” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.13 All records pertaining to any “Special Investment Vehicle” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.14 All records pertaining to any “Collateralized Debt Obligation” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.15 All records pertaining to any “Collateralized Mortgage Obligation” relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.16 All records pertaining to the present holder relevant to the NOTE-Mortgage.
11.17 All records pertaining to any entity ever having physical possession of the relevant NOTE-Mortgage.
12. The bank 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 bank to comply with your discovery request. Ask the court for Rule 11 sanctions against the bankÂ’s lawyers.
13. If the bank fails to establish a valid cause of action pursuant to the requirements of 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.
14. Once the case is dismissed, file a Quiet Title Action pursuant to the fact that the NOTE-Mortgage has been satisfied, that there is no holder in evidence, that the NOTE-Mortgage were acquired by the bank by false representation and fraud.
. . .
- Thread starter
- #52
. . .
If some scum-sucking debt collector tells you that his right to collect a credit card debt from you or foreclose on your property is under authority of UCC Article 9 tell him:
UCC Article 9 does not apply to:
(1) home loan promissory notes and mortgages;
(2) collection of credit card “accounts.”
UCC § 9-109, Scope, states [cross reference to your jurisdiction]
(d) this "article does not apply to:
UCC § 9-102(a)(65) "Promissory note" means an instrument that evidences a promise to pay a monetary obligation, does not evidence an order to pay, and does not contain an acknowledgment by a bank that the bank has received for deposit a sum of money or funds;
"The note and mortgage [account] are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage [account] 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.] (emphasis added)
Quotation and Footnote from: Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872).(Access Carpenter here: CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez)
The above referenced current and binding opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, was recently utilized as basic law in Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access Landmark here: [Landmark Decision]
(98489 -- Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler -- Rosen -- Kansas Supreme Court)
The banks are engaged in fraud when, on the basis of a negotiable instrument, the credit card promissory note and the subsequent “account” created by the existence of such promissory note, the “account” is split apart from the promissory note and sold to the scum-sucking debt collector.
There is no right to enforcement of an “account” pursuant to Article 3, the section of the UCC governing negotiable instruments (promissory notes).
Under Article 3 the scum-sucking debt collector must establish the existence of a valid assignment of the note and the “account” from the original holder to have standing to enforce the instrument.
"SHOW ME THE NOTE" The original wet-ink note.
Because the criminal banks have sold the promissory notes to investors in the stock market who are betting on default with insurance in the form of “credit default swaps,” insurance on the notes/accounts, there is no possible way the scum-suckers can enforce the instrument behind the “account” if you properly object to the proceeding, which is founded in fraud. "Show me the note!"
Did you know that you would be used in the manner in which you have been used?
Did the scum-sucking bank disclose to you all of the facts with respect to the transaction they were enticing you to become a part of?
Do you know how much the scum-sucking bank has been unjustly enriched by using your signature obtained by fraud?
Forget refinancing. Check out Joe Lents in Boca Raton, Florida. No note, no foreclosure. No payments since 2002. $1.5M property.
. . .
If some scum-sucking debt collector tells you that his right to collect a credit card debt from you or foreclose on your property is under authority of UCC Article 9 tell him:
UCC Article 9 does not apply to:
(1) home loan promissory notes and mortgages;
(2) collection of credit card “accounts.”
UCC § 9-109, Scope, states [cross reference to your jurisdiction]
(d) this "article does not apply to:
(5) [a]n assignment of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or
promissory notes [instruments]
which is for the purpose of collection only;” (outlining & emphasis added)
which is for the purpose of collection only;” (outlining & emphasis added)
UCC § 9-102(a)(65) "Promissory note" means an instrument that evidences a promise to pay a monetary obligation, does not evidence an order to pay, and does not contain an acknowledgment by a bank that the bank has received for deposit a sum of money or funds;
"The note and mortgage [account] are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage [account] 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.] (emphasis added)
Quotation and Footnote from: Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872).(Access Carpenter here: CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez)
The above referenced current and binding opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, was recently utilized as basic law in Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access Landmark here: [Landmark Decision]
(98489 -- Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler -- Rosen -- Kansas Supreme Court)
The banks are engaged in fraud when, on the basis of a negotiable instrument, the credit card promissory note and the subsequent “account” created by the existence of such promissory note, the “account” is split apart from the promissory note and sold to the scum-sucking debt collector.
There is no right to enforcement of an “account” pursuant to Article 3, the section of the UCC governing negotiable instruments (promissory notes).
Under Article 3 the scum-sucking debt collector must establish the existence of a valid assignment of the note and the “account” from the original holder to have standing to enforce the instrument.
"SHOW ME THE NOTE" The original wet-ink note.
Because the criminal banks have sold the promissory notes to investors in the stock market who are betting on default with insurance in the form of “credit default swaps,” insurance on the notes/accounts, there is no possible way the scum-suckers can enforce the instrument behind the “account” if you properly object to the proceeding, which is founded in fraud. "Show me the note!"
Did you know that you would be used in the manner in which you have been used?
Did the scum-sucking bank disclose to you all of the facts with respect to the transaction they were enticing you to become a part of?
Do you know how much the scum-sucking bank has been unjustly enriched by using your signature obtained by fraud?
Forget refinancing. Check out Joe Lents in Boca Raton, Florida. No note, no foreclosure. No payments since 2002. $1.5M property.
. . .
Last edited:
Zander
Platinum Member
Welcome Svarstaad! You are our newest troll and cut-n-paste conspiracy theorist! Good to have you aboard!
My "Ignore" list has plenty of room for you!
My "Ignore" list has plenty of room for you!
Zander
Platinum Member
PS -We just love jailhouse lawyers here!!
RodISHI
Platinum Member
- Nov 29, 2008
- 25,786
- 11,301
- 940
I think it is all great information to know. Thank you, I will be reading through it all again. The few attorneys we had that tried to help in our case do not understand contract law. Since mortgages are actually contracts and written from contract law then wouldn't contract law be superior?
On my corporate business loan Wells Fargo used an altered UCC filing. A poorly orchestrated cut and paste job for the attachment "A", tossed the original that they had gave me and this was admitted in court that it was altered but the banker claimed he did not know who in WF did that. The original attachment "A" I signed had on it what was given as collateral. It was never legally added to or changed. The bank chose instead to claim any and all equipment on the mine site plus the land which I nor my husband did not own and anything and everything they could get their grubby hands on at our shop and home, plus anything they could get that was stored elsewhere or in repair and the machine that had been designed to fail from the factory that was in the hands of the experts. They had no list of equipment at all and so they made up a list of equipment that they knew my husband and I owned or had control of then took it all and everything else that the sheriff could get (His have gun will travel cards were passed out along the way). They used this method under the state Replevin laws even though the original judge told them in chambers, "do not take anything you do not have make, model and serial number for" (that made no difference when they sent the sheriff out. Even stuff that was not listed in the motion for Replevin was taken. It was an absolute raid. From heavy equipment Rod used to make a small living with to tools he had since 1981, fishing poles, Christmas lights and the meat in the freezer, including our Thanksgiving turkey.)
It makes me sick to know what has been done and is still being done to people who actually believed in the American dream.
On my corporate business loan Wells Fargo used an altered UCC filing. A poorly orchestrated cut and paste job for the attachment "A", tossed the original that they had gave me and this was admitted in court that it was altered but the banker claimed he did not know who in WF did that. The original attachment "A" I signed had on it what was given as collateral. It was never legally added to or changed. The bank chose instead to claim any and all equipment on the mine site plus the land which I nor my husband did not own and anything and everything they could get their grubby hands on at our shop and home, plus anything they could get that was stored elsewhere or in repair and the machine that had been designed to fail from the factory that was in the hands of the experts. They had no list of equipment at all and so they made up a list of equipment that they knew my husband and I owned or had control of then took it all and everything else that the sheriff could get (His have gun will travel cards were passed out along the way). They used this method under the state Replevin laws even though the original judge told them in chambers, "do not take anything you do not have make, model and serial number for" (that made no difference when they sent the sheriff out. Even stuff that was not listed in the motion for Replevin was taken. It was an absolute raid. From heavy equipment Rod used to make a small living with to tools he had since 1981, fishing poles, Christmas lights and the meat in the freezer, including our Thanksgiving turkey.)
It makes me sick to know what has been done and is still being done to people who actually believed in the American dream.
RodISHI
Platinum Member
- Nov 29, 2008
- 25,786
- 11,301
- 940
Snide comments really are not necessary. Maybe you have no clue as to the people who some of these raiders have taken advantage of but I have met some of them personally. Even had them ask for my help and I'm not a lawyer but they could not find anyone to help them take on a bank that committed fraud and stole their house after they had spent years and all their money fixing it. Just because some people are not as educated as others it does not mean they are scum or lazy or any other crap word some may want to call them. I saw the papers of a couple who were trampled on by unethical sales people and an unethical mortgage lending company. They alter documents and lied their asses off to make these poor people believe that borrowing the money to have a chance at owning a home was possible and then they cheated them after they had fixed up their dream home. Two months these people were behind on their payments. The mortgage company told them they would give them two months after they had installed a new septic system at the house, after the city threaten them and a year of trying to figure out why the plumbing backed up. The realtor lied, the mortgage rep lied and altered documents and made up documents and the abstractor hid from them these documents. The mortgage company looked at the value and determined that the value of the house was much more than what was owed on it and they went after it. Surprise, surprise for all the people that they did that too now that market has drop and those same houses are on the books losing money.
I was hired back in 1981 to assess houses for a company when the home owners were supposedly late on payments. Much to my surprise I learned shortly after being hired what that company was really doing. It was not because all these homeowners were behind on their house payments that these houses were being reassessed.
- Thread starter
- #57
. . .
Here is a correspondence I would immediately send to a scum-sucking debt collector (ssdc) after receiving the FIRST letter from such ssdc.
To: ssdc
Introduction
SWORN DENIAL
With respect to the debt you reference in the attached copy of your letter of <date>:
I hereby deny that such alleged debt is my debt.
I hereby deny that such alleged debt is a valid debt.
I hereby deny that such alleged debt is a valid and authentic amount.
_____________________
<signature>
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _____ day of ______________, 20___.
__________________
Notary Public
______________________________________________
My commission expires: (SEAL)
[correspondence cont'd]
QUESTIONS
YOUR RESPONSE REQUIRED BY THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) AND THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT (GLBA)
1. You have indicated that you are collecting a debt on an “account,” please provide the following required information:
__________________________
<signature>
____________________________
<date>
. . .
Here is a correspondence I would immediately send to a scum-sucking debt collector (ssdc) after receiving the FIRST letter from such ssdc.
To: ssdc
Introduction
SWORN DENIAL
With respect to the debt you reference in the attached copy of your letter of <date>:
I hereby deny that such alleged debt is my debt.
I hereby deny that such alleged debt is a valid debt.
I hereby deny that such alleged debt is a valid and authentic amount.
_____________________
<signature>
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _____ day of ______________, 20___.
__________________
Notary Public
______________________________________________
My commission expires: (SEAL)
[correspondence cont'd]
QUESTIONS
YOUR RESPONSE REQUIRED BY THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) AND THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT (GLBA)
1. You have indicated that you are collecting a debt on an “account,” please provide the following required information:
1.1 Identify the entity from whom you purchased the referenced “account;”
1.2 Produce and deliver an authenticated copy of any judgment (if applicable);
1.3 Produce authenticated documentation that you and your agency are licensed to collect debts in (insert name of state);
1.4 Produce an authenticated copy of the valid assignment, or chain of valid assignments, from the original holder of the original wet-ink promissory note, which is the foundational basis of the “account” in question, which confers upon you or your agency the right to enforce the instrument and the “account”;
1.5 Indicate whether or not you or your agency have made inquiry to any credit reporting agency or any of their affiliates for the purpose of acquisition of nonpublic personal information with respect to the undersigned;
1.6 If you or your agency have made contact with any credit reporting agency or an affiliate of such credit reporting agency, your action comes within the ambit of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (GLBA) Public Law 106-102, 15 U.S.C. § 6801, et seq., enacted November 12, 1999, and specifically, 15 USC § 1681b.
Pursuant to the authority of the GLBA;
1.7 Specify the grounds you rely upon as your authority to make contact with any credit reporting agency or affiliate of same, for the purpose of acquisition of nonpublic personal information with respect to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681b(a)) and
1.8 Pursuant to the prohibitions of 15 USC § 1681b(f),
Certain use or obtaining of information prohibited
1.9 Pursuant to 15 USC § 1681e. Compliance procedures
1.2 Produce and deliver an authenticated copy of any judgment (if applicable);
1.3 Produce authenticated documentation that you and your agency are licensed to collect debts in (insert name of state);
1.4 Produce an authenticated copy of the valid assignment, or chain of valid assignments, from the original holder of the original wet-ink promissory note, which is the foundational basis of the “account” in question, which confers upon you or your agency the right to enforce the instrument and the “account”;
1.4.1 See UCC § 3-301; <reference your jurisdiction’s version of UCC § 3-301>
1.5 Indicate whether or not you or your agency have made inquiry to any credit reporting agency or any of their affiliates for the purpose of acquisition of nonpublic personal information with respect to the undersigned;
1.6 If you or your agency have made contact with any credit reporting agency or an affiliate of such credit reporting agency, your action comes within the ambit of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (GLBA) Public Law 106-102, 15 U.S.C. § 6801, et seq., enacted November 12, 1999, and specifically, 15 USC § 1681b.
Pursuant to the authority of the GLBA;
1.7 Specify the grounds you rely upon as your authority to make contact with any credit reporting agency or affiliate of same, for the purpose of acquisition of nonpublic personal information with respect to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681b(a)) and
1.8 Pursuant to the prohibitions of 15 USC § 1681b(f),
Certain use or obtaining of information prohibited
1.8.1 Provide certification of your authority to obtain a consumer report from a credit reporting agency or any affiliate of such agency, with respect to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681b(f)(1)) and
1.8.2 Provide an authenticated copy of the general or specific certification of the purpose for access to nonpublic personal information of the undersigned that you submitted to any credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681b(f)(2)) and
1.8.2 Provide an authenticated copy of the general or specific certification of the purpose for access to nonpublic personal information of the undersigned that you submitted to any credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681b(f)(2)) and
1.9 Pursuant to 15 USC § 1681e. Compliance procedures
1.9.1 Identity and purposes of credit users
1.9.1.1 Produce an authenticated copy of any documentation proving that you provided proper identification to any credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681e(a)) and
1.9.1.2 Produce an authenticated copy of your certification of the purposes for which you sought the information from any credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned; (15 USC § 1681e(a)) and
1.9.1.3 Produce an authenticated copy of the document that you provided to certify to the credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned, that such revealed information would be used for no other purpose than that for which you certified. (15 USC § 1681e(a)).
1.9.1.3 Produce an authenticated copy of the document that you provided to certify to the credit reporting agency or affiliate you contacted in inquiry about nonpublic personal information pertaining to the undersigned, that such revealed information would be used for no other purpose than that for which you certified. (15 USC § 1681e(a)).
__________________________
<signature>
____________________________
<date>
. . .
- Thread starter
- #58
I made a typo in:
above.
Should be:
1.6 If you or your agency have made contact with any credit reporting agency or an affiliate of such credit reporting agency, your action comes within the ambit of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (GLBA) Public Law 106-102, 15 U.S.C. § 6801, et seq., enacted November 12, 1999, and specifically, 15 USC § 1681b.
above.
Should be:
1.6 If you or your agency have made contact with any credit reporting agency or an affiliate of such credit reporting agency, your action comes within the ambit of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (GLBA) Public Law 106-102, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., enacted November 12, 1999, and specifically, 15 USC § 1681b.
- Thread starter
- #59
. . .
Some information about the law-breakers violating your privacy. There is a remedy with some "teeth." Do your own further research.
1. If a scum-sucking debt collector (ssdc) who is unable to provide an authenticated copy of a valid assignment of the right to enforce the underlying promissory note which is the basis for any such “account” in question, which is the reason for a “debt collection inquiry,” it is highly probable that the ssdc unlawfully obtained access to your financial information, (Nonpublic Personal Information (NPI)) contained in a database(s) owned and maintained by credit reporting agencies, such as Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion credit bureaus and their contractual affiliates. (See previous posts about the right to enforce an instrument UCC § 3-301; cross referenced to the version of the UCC codified in the laws of your particular jurisdiction).
2. Contact the credit reporting agencies, each of them, and request a report identifying each and every instance where a third party, not affiliated with the credit reporting agency, gained access to your nonpublished personal information maintained in their database or the database of any of their affiliate(s).
3. The credit reporting agencies are required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) to exercise due diligence and require certification from entities requesting access to nonpublished personal information maintained in their databases.
4. 15 USC § 1681e. Compliance procedures
5. The credit reporting agency(ies), violate the GLBA if they grant access to an ssdc that cannot validate the right to enforce an instrument (promissory note), which is the basis for creation of their so-called “account” which they are trying to “collect.”
6. An “account” is a nullity without the underlying foundational basis for such “account,” in cases such as yours, where the promissory note, a negotiable instrument, is the actual basis for the creation of an “account.”
7. The above referenced current and binding opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, was recently utilized as basic law in Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access Landmark here: < 98489 -- Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler -- Rosen -- Kansas Supreme Court >
8. The ssdc commits fraud and invasion of privacy, and seriously violates the GLBA, which imposes criminal liabilities and makes those who do not comply liable to consumer remedy for the injury.
9. The GLBA allows victims of violations of the GLBA to file a claim in Federal court without regard to the amount in controversy. (Which is usually $75,000.00) The ssdc’s access and acquisition to your credit report without permissible purpose violates 15 USC § 1681b. Permissible purposes of consumer reports. (Which is apparently common practice for the ssdcs.)
10. 15 USC § 1681n. Civil liability for willful noncompliance
11. The ssdc’s willful failure to “Comply with the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,” by obtaining your nonpublished personal information under false pretenses makes the ssdc criminally liable, pursuant to 15 USC § 1681q.:
12. All of the ssdc’s debt collection activities clearly are subject to the GLBA, as most of the ssdcs regularly engage in activity that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking. Section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. § 1843(k)). (See § 4(k)(4)(F); and 12 C.F.R. § 225.28]. Including not only collection agencies, but credit bureaus.
13. You have a cognizable and legitimate interest in pursuing further investigation in these areas, which are likely to lead to admissible evidence, such as copies of the notices required under the GLBA (16 C.F.R. § 313, et seq.), exactly how the ssdc obtained your nonpublished personal information, and under what or who’s agreement or authority was the consumer report information obtained and disclosed. (See 16 C.F.R. § 313, 65 Fed. Reg. 33646 (May 24, 2000)).
. . .
Some information about the law-breakers violating your privacy. There is a remedy with some "teeth." Do your own further research.
1. If a scum-sucking debt collector (ssdc) who is unable to provide an authenticated copy of a valid assignment of the right to enforce the underlying promissory note which is the basis for any such “account” in question, which is the reason for a “debt collection inquiry,” it is highly probable that the ssdc unlawfully obtained access to your financial information, (Nonpublic Personal Information (NPI)) contained in a database(s) owned and maintained by credit reporting agencies, such as Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion credit bureaus and their contractual affiliates. (See previous posts about the right to enforce an instrument UCC § 3-301; cross referenced to the version of the UCC codified in the laws of your particular jurisdiction).
2. Contact the credit reporting agencies, each of them, and request a report identifying each and every instance where a third party, not affiliated with the credit reporting agency, gained access to your nonpublished personal information maintained in their database or the database of any of their affiliate(s).
3. The credit reporting agencies are required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) to exercise due diligence and require certification from entities requesting access to nonpublished personal information maintained in their databases.
4. 15 USC § 1681e. Compliance procedures
4.1 (a) Identity and purposes of credit users
4.2 Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information
4.2 Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information
4.2.1 identify themselves,
4.2.2 certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and
4.2.3 certify that the information will be used for no other purpose.
4.2.4 Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and
4.2.5 the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report.
4.2.6 No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title. (Outlining added).
4.2.2 certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and
4.2.3 certify that the information will be used for no other purpose.
4.2.4 Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and
4.2.5 the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report.
4.2.6 No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title. (Outlining added).
5. The credit reporting agency(ies), violate the GLBA if they grant access to an ssdc that cannot validate the right to enforce an instrument (promissory note), which is the basis for creation of their so-called “account” which they are trying to “collect.”
6. An “account” is a nullity without the underlying foundational basis for such “account,” in cases such as yours, where the promissory note, a negotiable instrument, is the actual basis for the creation of an “account.”
"The note and mortgage [account] are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage [account] with it, while an assignment of the latter [mortgage/account] alone is a NULLITY." (emphasis added) Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872). (Access the Carpenter case online: < CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez >).
7. The above referenced current and binding opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, was recently utilized as basic law in Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access Landmark here: < 98489 -- Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler -- Rosen -- Kansas Supreme Court >
8. The ssdc commits fraud and invasion of privacy, and seriously violates the GLBA, which imposes criminal liabilities and makes those who do not comply liable to consumer remedy for the injury.
9. The GLBA allows victims of violations of the GLBA to file a claim in Federal court without regard to the amount in controversy. (Which is usually $75,000.00) The ssdc’s access and acquisition to your credit report without permissible purpose violates 15 USC § 1681b. Permissible purposes of consumer reports. (Which is apparently common practice for the ssdcs.)
10. 15 USC § 1681n. Civil liability for willful noncompliance
10.1 (a) In general
10.2 Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of—
10.3 (1)
10.2 Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of—
10.3 (1)
10.3.1 (A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or
10.3.2 (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;
10.3.2 (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;
10.4 (2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and
10.5 (3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneyÂ’s fees as determined by the court.
10.6 (b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance
10.5 (3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneyÂ’s fees as determined by the court.
10.6 (b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance
10.6.1 Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater. (Outlining added)
11. The ssdc’s willful failure to “Comply with the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,” by obtaining your nonpublished personal information under false pretenses makes the ssdc criminally liable, pursuant to 15 USC § 1681q.:
“[a]ny person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under Title 18, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.” (Emphasis Added)
12. All of the ssdc’s debt collection activities clearly are subject to the GLBA, as most of the ssdcs regularly engage in activity that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking. Section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. § 1843(k)). (See § 4(k)(4)(F); and 12 C.F.R. § 225.28]. Including not only collection agencies, but credit bureaus.
13. You have a cognizable and legitimate interest in pursuing further investigation in these areas, which are likely to lead to admissible evidence, such as copies of the notices required under the GLBA (16 C.F.R. § 313, et seq.), exactly how the ssdc obtained your nonpublished personal information, and under what or who’s agreement or authority was the consumer report information obtained and disclosed. (See 16 C.F.R. § 313, 65 Fed. Reg. 33646 (May 24, 2000)).
. . .
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #60
. . .
CLARIFICATION
The "Fair Credit Reporting Act" [15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], is the short title for
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 15, CHAPTER 41, SUBCHAPTER III — CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES, 15 USC 1681 et seq.
********
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(Public Law 106-102)
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 15, CHAPTER 94, SUBCHAPTER I, § 6801-6809.
Protection of nonpublic personal information
**********
Both Acts (FCRA & GLBA) are extremely useful for going after ssdc's. The provisions of the statutes noted in the previous posts are from the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Additional questions for ssdc's formulated from the provisions of the GLBA are forthcoming.
***********
Also, in a Kentucky case about credit card debt collection, in state court, the inept and incompetent lawyer debt-collector, has, by his frivolous and frantic efforts to "get the money," caused the focus on forensic examination of the "always present" affidavit that accompanies the ssdc's motion for summary judgment. It has been discerned that the "affidavits" that are being supplied to the courts are most notably, always PERJURED. Along with fabricated evidence, which is "fraud upon the court."
Another reason for going after the scum-bags.
**************
Apologies for the mix-up with the names of the consumer protection Acts.
If you are doing your own research, as suggested, you already caught my goof.
. . .
CLARIFICATION
The "Fair Credit Reporting Act" [15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], is the short title for
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 15, CHAPTER 41, SUBCHAPTER III — CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES, 15 USC 1681 et seq.
********
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(Public Law 106-102)
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 15, CHAPTER 94, SUBCHAPTER I, § 6801-6809.
Protection of nonpublic personal information
privacy provisions relating to consumers' financial information. Under these provisions, financial institutions have restrictions on when they may disclose a consumer's personal financial information to nonaffiliated third parties. Financial institutions are required to provide notices to their customers about their information-collection and information-sharing practices.
**********
Both Acts (FCRA & GLBA) are extremely useful for going after ssdc's. The provisions of the statutes noted in the previous posts are from the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Additional questions for ssdc's formulated from the provisions of the GLBA are forthcoming.
***********
Also, in a Kentucky case about credit card debt collection, in state court, the inept and incompetent lawyer debt-collector, has, by his frivolous and frantic efforts to "get the money," caused the focus on forensic examination of the "always present" affidavit that accompanies the ssdc's motion for summary judgment. It has been discerned that the "affidavits" that are being supplied to the courts are most notably, always PERJURED. Along with fabricated evidence, which is "fraud upon the court."
Another reason for going after the scum-bags.
**************
Apologies for the mix-up with the names of the consumer protection Acts.
If you are doing your own research, as suggested, you already caught my goof.
. . .
Similar threads
