Foreclosure Defense (Use the UCC)

[Svarstaad]

. . .

And again, nothing of substance from the vacuum-headed numb-skulls who won't read the Carpenter v. Longan decision.

The mortgage agreement DOES have value, dip-shit; the Note is worthless without it.

Where are all those ORIGINAL mortgages? Bundled?, pooled?, tranched?

You are really showing your "stupid" now, cat-shit.

. . .

 

[Svarstaad]

. . .

BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
ONCE THE TRUTH IS KNOWN

YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN!

1. The bankster did NOT “loan” any money to you:

2. At no cost to the bankster money was acquired:

3. The bankster transacted an “EXCHANGE” of YOUR Promissory Note, a form of money, for Federal Reserve Notes, and then deliberately, willfully, and with full knowledge of the false representation, told you that such an “EXCHANGE” of different forms of currency, was a “loan”:

4. The bankster converted your promissory note, a form of money, into Federal Reserve Notes, a form of money, this transaction is NOT A LOAN:

5. The bankster then used YOUR money (your note) converted into Federal Reserve Notes, to buy property in the bankster’s name;

a. Bankster indorsed YOUR Promissory Note “WITHOUT RECOURSE” and DEPOSITED YOUR Promissory Note in a bank transaction account the existence of which the bankster failed to disclose to YOU:​

6. ONLY money can be deposited into a bank account:

7. The bankster lied to you --

a. by telling you that the bankster was providing a “loan,” which, to your mind was thought to embody the classical meaning of the term “loan.”

b. By the Bankster’s deliberate manipulation of YOUR non-comprehension and YOUR lack of knowledge of the actual process;

c. By the bankster’s false representation that YOU were receiving the bankster’s own money as a borrower of the bankster’s own money, a circumstance of “fraud in the factum,” among other non-disclosed facts that evidence the proof that YOU did not receive a “loan”:

d. The bankster accepted and received YOUR promissory note;

e. The bankster then made QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT of YOUR Promissory note, adding the phrase “WITHOUT RECOURSE” in the endorsement;

f. The bankster’s QUALIFIED INDORSEMENT had the effect of removing all bankster obligation with respect to the two-party promissory note;

Definition:
Without recourse. Words that may be used by a drawer in signing a draft or check so as to eliminate completely the drawer's secondary liability. This phrase, used in making a qualified endorsement of a negotiable instrument, signifies that the indorser means to save himself from liability to subsequent holders, and is a notification that, if payment is refused by the parties primarily liable, recourse cannot be had to him. See U.C.C. § 3-414(1).
An indorser "without recourse" specially declines to assume any responsibility for payment. He assumes no contractual liability by virtue of the indorsement itself, and becomes a mere assignor of the title to the paper, but such an indorsement does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of defects, or that he does not take on credit of the other parties to the note. See also Nonrecourse; Nonrecourse loan; With recourse. (BLD6-1603). [emphasis added]​

g. The bankster’s non-disclosure of this fact made such QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT an UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION “in any respect” of the bankster’s obligation on the promissory note (secondary liability), (see UCC 3-407);

h. The bankster negotiated YOUR promissory note in a DEPOSIT transaction, a requirement of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the undisclosed process;

i. The bankster acquired the face value amount of YOUR promissory note, plus a commission, in Federal Reserve Notes, at no cost to the bank, by unknown machinations (See A Primer on Money, Congressional Report);

j. The bankster, without cost to the bankster, lied to YOU by making the knowing, intentional, and willful false representation that the bankster was “giving YOU a “loan”;​

8. The bankster NEVER “loaned” you anything:

9. You were deceived into thinking that you had received a “loan”:

10. The deception that you actually or constructively received a “loan” is a false representation, fraud.

11. Proof that you were deceived by the bankster’s false representations is found in the fact that you actually made PAYMENTS on a NONEXISTENT “loan,” such payments representing certain portions of YOUR LIFE which were “EXCHANGED” for (converted into) Federal Reserve Notes, which YOU then, delivered to the bankster as payments on a NON-EXISTENT “LOAN”:

12. When the bankster indorsed YOUR note “WITHOUT RECOURSE,” as part of the deception, the bankster’s obligation was fraudulently modified which DISCHARGED your obligation on the note. The bankster’s “alteration fraudulently made” discharged the note because YOUR obligation was affected by such fraudulent alteration. (See UCC § 3-407(a) & (b)).

UCC § 3-117. OTHER AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT.
Subject to applicable law regarding exclusion of proof of contemporaneous or previous agreements, the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. To the extent an obligation is modified, supplemented, or nullified by an agreement under this section, the agreement is a defense to the obligation. (Pooling and Servicing Agreement [PSA]).​

13. YOU have actually tendered a significant amount of YOUR LIFE, converted into Federal Reserve Notes, in payment for the property by deception:

14. The bankster has made no such investment or payment. (See US Congress report, A PRIMER ON MONEY).

15. YOU have PAID for the property:

16. If the bankster has collected vast amounts of profits, at no cost, pursuant to YOUR note, the bankster’s taking of YOUR property is “unjust enrichment” for the bankster:

17. YOU have PAID; the bankster has not risked or paid any value into the property:

18. YOUR keeping the property is NOT unjust enrichment:

19. YOU are not getting a “free house” by defeating the bankster with the LAW.

"But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. 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. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers' salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge." (emphasis added). [See 2nd paragraph, "Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141]. Link: Patman.Primer.on.Money

AND, not only that:

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the bankster’s contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction; recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the “evidence of debt,” (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of “false or forged” documents in a public office, which is A FELONY. [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]​

. . .

 

[Gadawg73]

. . .

Vanquish said:
Wall of Text hits you! (Crit hit!) 3000 points damage!
Besides the fact that the OP is off into weird territory now... why post all these walls of text? There seems to be something deep-rooted behind shoving this theory up on the net.
My money's with Goldcatt.

++++++++++++++++++++++

The on-point posts by Svarstaad about the mortgage scam being operated by those manipulating the government and most of the population, are founded in factual basis with references to valid, and currently applicable case law decisions made over the years.

For those that are interested in the valid truth about the inability of the banksters and bankster-whores to conduct a valid foreclosure action review this Memorandum of Law which was actually filed in Ohio, resulting in the bankster-whores failure to respond, because they cannot, and their immediate capitulation and plea for a deal with the victim of the foreclosure suit.

GoTo PDF: Memorandum of Law w/Introduction

After readomg the Svarstaad posts, the inescapable conclusion must be made that your comment can be identified as to its exact nature . . . bullshit (or, in your case, probably cat-shit).

One choosing to join ranks with scum like goldcatt and gadawg, can only be making the self identification that they are a clone of such self-professed scum and criminals.

Rave on vanquish, with your vacuous and empty words.

You pieces of cat-shit have come up with nothing of substance to refute Svarstaad's posts about the mortgage scam.

Your best is couched in posturing and intimidation.

Svarstaad's substantive research, and the case law precedents thereof, have already yielded positive results against the banksters and the bankster-whores in foreclosure cases in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.

One judgment in favor of foreclosure was just recently vacated pursuant to the facts about the total lack of standing and the inability of the banksters and the bankster-whores to make a valid case for foreclosure.

As more such cases are publicized and made known to the victims of the banksters and the bankster-whores, and the truth introduced into the sham foreclosure proceedings, feeble attempts at intimidation, like your little display of affection and support for pieces of cat-shit like gadawg and goldcatt, will mark you as being of the same ilk as those two reprobates and self-professed criminals.

You can always tell a lot about people by where they spend their money.

. . .

And by if they honor THEIR WORD.

 

[KissMy]

Uniform Electronic Transactions Act

Section 7 gives legal recognition to electronic signatures, records and contracts
(a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
(b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
(c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.
(d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.

 

[Svarstaad]

. . .

The electronic signature act Section 5(a) states that transactions are not required to be in electronic form and 5(b) states
(b) This [Act] applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties' conduct.​

The first allegation I would make is that the paper, whatever it is, does not contain my valid signature, so, it is COUNTERFEIT, FORGED, PHOTO-SHOPPED, and FRAUDULENT.

The best and simplest way to prove the allegation unfounded is sight verification of the genuine original instrument compared to the electronic edition. Then, why would you need an electronic edition? ONLY FOR FRAUD!

Also, when it comes to money, and other securities, no one in their right mind would cash a copy of a note or a security purporting to have the same value as actual money or an actual security.

But, knowing how silly you two common-taters are, I would hazard a guess that either or both of you would actually cash a photocopy of a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note.

You guys are hilarious.

. . .

 

[Svarstaad]

. . .

BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
ONCE THE TRUTH IS KNOWN

YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN!

1. The bankster did NOT “loan” any money to you:

2. At no cost to the bankster money was acquired:

3. The bankster transacted an “EXCHANGE” of YOUR Promissory Note, a form of money, for Federal Reserve Notes, and then deliberately, willfully, and with full knowledge of the false representation, told you that such an “EXCHANGE” of different forms of currency, was a “loan”:

4. The bankster converted your promissory note, a form of money, into Federal Reserve Notes, a form of money, this transaction is NOT A LOAN:

5. The bankster then used YOUR money (your note) converted into Federal Reserve Notes, to buy property in the bankster’s name;

a. Bankster indorsed YOUR Promissory Note “WITHOUT RECOURSE” and DEPOSITED YOUR Promissory Note in a bank transaction account the existence of which the bankster failed to disclose to YOU:​

6. ONLY money can be deposited into a bank account:

7. The bankster lied to you --

a. by telling you that the bankster was providing a “loan,” which, to your mind was thought to embody the classical meaning of the term “loan.”

b. By the Bankster’s deliberate manipulation of YOUR non-comprehension and YOUR lack of knowledge of the actual process;

c. By the bankster’s false representation that YOU were receiving the bankster’s own money as a borrower of the bankster’s own money, a circumstance of “fraud in the factum,” among other non-disclosed facts that evidence the proof that YOU did not receive a “loan”:

d. The bankster accepted and received YOUR promissory note;

e. The bankster then made QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT of YOUR Promissory note, adding the phrase “WITHOUT RECOURSE” in the endorsement;

f. The bankster’s QUALIFIED INDORSEMENT had the effect of removing all bankster obligation with respect to the two-party promissory note;

Definition:
Without recourse. Words that may be used by a drawer in signing a draft or check so as to eliminate completely the drawer's secondary liability. This phrase, used in making a qualified endorsement of a negotiable instrument, signifies that the indorser means to save himself from liability to subsequent holders, and is a notification that, if payment is refused by the parties primarily liable, recourse cannot be had to him. See U.C.C. § 3-414(1).
An indorser "without recourse" specially declines to assume any responsibility for payment. He assumes no contractual liability by virtue of the indorsement itself, and becomes a mere assignor of the title to the paper, but such an indorsement does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of defects, or that he does not take on credit of the other parties to the note. See also Nonrecourse; Nonrecourse loan; With recourse. (BLD6-1603). [emphasis added]​

g. The bankster’s non-disclosure of this fact made such QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT an UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION “in any respect” of the bankster’s obligation on the promissory note (secondary liability), (see UCC 3-407);

h. The bankster negotiated YOUR promissory note in a DEPOSIT transaction, a requirement of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the undisclosed process;

i. The bankster acquired the face value amount of YOUR promissory note, plus a commission, in Federal Reserve Notes, at no cost to the bank, by unknown machinations (See A Primer on Money, Congressional Report);

j. The bankster, without cost to the bankster, lied to YOU by making the knowing, intentional, and willful false representation that the bankster was “giving YOU a “loan”;​

8. The bankster NEVER “loaned” you anything:

9. You were deceived into thinking that you had received a “loan”:

10. The deception that you actually or constructively received a “loan” is a false representation, fraud.

11. Proof that you were deceived by the bankster’s false representations is found in the fact that you actually made PAYMENTS on a NONEXISTENT “loan,” such payments representing certain portions of YOUR LIFE which were “EXCHANGED” for (converted into) Federal Reserve Notes, which YOU then, delivered to the bankster as payments on a NON-EXISTENT “LOAN”:

12. When the bankster indorsed YOUR note “WITHOUT RECOURSE,” as part of the deception, the bankster’s obligation was fraudulently modified which DISCHARGED your obligation on the note. The bankster’s “alteration fraudulently made” discharged the note because YOUR obligation was affected by such fraudulent alteration. (See UCC § 3-407(a) & (b)).

UCC § 3-117. OTHER AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT.
Subject to applicable law regarding exclusion of proof of contemporaneous or previous agreements, the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. To the extent an obligation is modified, supplemented, or nullified by an agreement under this section, the agreement is a defense to the obligation. (Pooling and Servicing Agreement [PSA]).​

13. YOU have actually tendered a significant amount of YOUR LIFE, converted into Federal Reserve Notes, in payment for the property by deception:

14. The bankster has made no such investment or payment. (See US Congress report, A PRIMER ON MONEY).

15. YOU have PAID for the property:

16. If the bankster has collected vast amounts of profits, at no cost, pursuant to YOUR note, the bankster’s taking of YOUR property is “unjust enrichment” for the bankster:

17. YOU have PAID; the bankster has not risked or paid any value into the property:

18. YOUR keeping the property is NOT unjust enrichment:

19. YOU are not getting a “free house” by defeating the bankster with the LAW.

"But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. 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. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers' salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge." (emphasis added). [See 2nd paragraph, "Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141]. Link: Patman.Primer.on.Money

AND, not only that:

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the bankster’s contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction; recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the “evidence of debt,” (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of “false or forged” documents in a public office, which is A FELONY. [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]​

. . .

 

[editec]

Now now, lads....this is a highly interesting debate that truly does not need ad hominen attacks.

Stick to debating the issues and leave the insulting activities to people too dumb make and defend their POVs.

It is quite obvious that both of you are capable of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

 

[Gadawg73]

. . .

BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
ONCE THE TRUTH IS KNOWN

YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN!

1. The bankster did NOT “loan” any money to you:

2. At no cost to the bankster money was acquired:

3. The bankster transacted an “EXCHANGE” of YOUR Promissory Note, a form of money, for Federal Reserve Notes, and then deliberately, willfully, and with full knowledge of the false representation, told you that such an “EXCHANGE” of different forms of currency, was a “loan”:

4. The bankster converted your promissory note, a form of money, into Federal Reserve Notes, a form of money, this transaction is NOT A LOAN:

5. The bankster then used YOUR money (your note) converted into Federal Reserve Notes, to buy property in the bankster’s name;

a. Bankster indorsed YOUR Promissory Note “WITHOUT RECOURSE” and DEPOSITED YOUR Promissory Note in a bank transaction account the existence of which the bankster failed to disclose to YOU:​

6. ONLY money can be deposited into a bank account:

7. The bankster lied to you --

a. by telling you that the bankster was providing a “loan,” which, to your mind was thought to embody the classical meaning of the term “loan.”

b. By the Bankster’s deliberate manipulation of YOUR non-comprehension and YOUR lack of knowledge of the actual process;

c. By the bankster’s false representation that YOU were receiving the bankster’s own money as a borrower of the bankster’s own money, a circumstance of “fraud in the factum,” among other non-disclosed facts that evidence the proof that YOU did not receive a “loan”:

d. The bankster accepted and received YOUR promissory note;

e. The bankster then made QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT of YOUR Promissory note, adding the phrase “WITHOUT RECOURSE” in the endorsement;

f. The bankster’s QUALIFIED INDORSEMENT had the effect of removing all bankster obligation with respect to the two-party promissory note;

Definition:
Without recourse. Words that may be used by a drawer in signing a draft or check so as to eliminate completely the drawer's secondary liability. This phrase, used in making a qualified endorsement of a negotiable instrument, signifies that the indorser means to save himself from liability to subsequent holders, and is a notification that, if payment is refused by the parties primarily liable, recourse cannot be had to him. See U.C.C. § 3-414(1).
An indorser "without recourse" specially declines to assume any responsibility for payment. He assumes no contractual liability by virtue of the indorsement itself, and becomes a mere assignor of the title to the paper, but such an indorsement does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of defects, or that he does not take on credit of the other parties to the note. See also Nonrecourse; Nonrecourse loan; With recourse. (BLD6-1603). [emphasis added]​

g. The bankster’s non-disclosure of this fact made such QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT an UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION “in any respect” of the bankster’s obligation on the promissory note (secondary liability), (see UCC 3-407);

h. The bankster negotiated YOUR promissory note in a DEPOSIT transaction, a requirement of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the undisclosed process;

i. The bankster acquired the face value amount of YOUR promissory note, plus a commission, in Federal Reserve Notes, at no cost to the bank, by unknown machinations (See A Primer on Money, Congressional Report);

j. The bankster, without cost to the bankster, lied to YOU by making the knowing, intentional, and willful false representation that the bankster was “giving YOU a “loan”;​

8. The bankster NEVER “loaned” you anything:

9. You were deceived into thinking that you had received a “loan”:

10. The deception that you actually or constructively received a “loan” is a false representation, fraud.

11. Proof that you were deceived by the bankster’s false representations is found in the fact that you actually made PAYMENTS on a NONEXISTENT “loan,” such payments representing certain portions of YOUR LIFE which were “EXCHANGED” for (converted into) Federal Reserve Notes, which YOU then, delivered to the bankster as payments on a NON-EXISTENT “LOAN”:

12. When the bankster indorsed YOUR note “WITHOUT RECOURSE,” as part of the deception, the bankster’s obligation was fraudulently modified which DISCHARGED your obligation on the note. The bankster’s “alteration fraudulently made” discharged the note because YOUR obligation was affected by such fraudulent alteration. (See UCC § 3-407(a) & (b)).

UCC § 3-117. OTHER AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT.
Subject to applicable law regarding exclusion of proof of contemporaneous or previous agreements, the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. To the extent an obligation is modified, supplemented, or nullified by an agreement under this section, the agreement is a defense to the obligation. (Pooling and Servicing Agreement [PSA]).​

13. YOU have actually tendered a significant amount of YOUR LIFE, converted into Federal Reserve Notes, in payment for the property by deception:

14. The bankster has made no such investment or payment. (See US Congress report, A PRIMER ON MONEY).

15. YOU have PAID for the property:

16. If the bankster has collected vast amounts of profits, at no cost, pursuant to YOUR note, the bankster’s taking of YOUR property is “unjust enrichment” for the bankster:

17. YOU have PAID; the bankster has not risked or paid any value into the property:

18. YOUR keeping the property is NOT unjust enrichment:

19. YOU are not getting a “free house” by defeating the bankster with the LAW.

"But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. 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. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers' salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge." (emphasis added). [See 2nd paragraph, "Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141]. Link: Patman.Primer.on.Money

AND, not only that:

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the bankster’s contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction; recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the “evidence of debt,” (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of “false or forged” documents in a public office, which is A FELONY. [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]​

. . .

So you are claiming that the bank never gave you any $$$?
How did you pay for your home???

 

[Gadawg73]

. . .

The electronic signature act Section 5(a) states that transactions are not required to be in electronic form and 5(b) states
(b) This [Act] applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties' conduct.​

The first allegation I would make is that the paper, whatever it is, does not contain my valid signature, so, it is COUNTERFEIT, FORGED, PHOTO-SHOPPED, and FRAUDULENT.

The best and simplest way to prove the allegation unfounded is sight verification of the genuine original instrument compared to the electronic edition. Then, why would you need an electronic edition? ONLY FOR FRAUD!

Also, when it comes to money, and other securities, no one in their right mind would cash a copy of a note or a security purporting to have the same value as actual money or an actual security.

But, knowing how silly you two common-taters are, I would hazard a guess that either or both of you would actually cash a photocopy of a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note.

You guys are hilarious.

. . .

People that honor their word and pay their bills funny?

 

[Svarstaad]

. . .

[F]raud, under the UCC § 3-407, has been defined as

"requir[ing] a dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than one was entitled to under the note as signed by the makers rather than only a misguided purpose." Thomas v. Osborn, 13 Wash.App. 371, 536 P.2d 8, 13 (1975). Accord Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar v. Taylor, 368 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1985); Bluffestone v. Abrahams, 125 Ariz. 42, 607 P.2d 25 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1979). The general rule requires a party seeking discharge to show that the holder altered the instrument with a deceitful purpose. Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar, supra at 917.​

Bankster non-disclosure of all the facts about the banking system's exploitation of the makers promissory note, evidences a dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than the bankster was entitled to under the provisions of the promissory note and mortgage. The conspiratorial and secret plan of the banksters was carefully, intentionally, willfully, and deceitfully, withheld from the knowledge, and informed consent of the makers of the promissory note.

Consider the following:

Fraud 1. Bankster made the false representation that bankster is a "lender" and that bankster was going to "loan" money;

a. Lend. To give or put out for hire or compensation. To part with a thing of value to another for a time fixed or indefinite, yet to have some time in ending, to be used or enjoyed by that other; the thing itself or the equivalent of it to be given back at the time fixed, or when lawfully asked for, with or without compensation for the use as may be agreed upon. Term "lend" when used in a will means to "give" or "devise." To provide money to another for a period of time, usually with interest charge to be incurred by borrower. See also Loan. (BLD6-901).​

b. Loan. A lending. Delivery by one party to and receipt by another party of sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest. Boerner v. Colwell Co., 21 Cal.3d 37, 145 Cal.Rptr. 380, 384, 577 P.2d 200. Anything furnished for temporary use to a person at his request, on condition that it shall be returned, or its equivalent in kind, with or without compensation for its use. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 58 Misc.2d 443, 295 N.Y. S.2d 983, 986. (BLD6-936).​

The bankster did NOT "provide" any money. Banks are prohibited by the National Banking Act from lending the bank's credit, or the bank's depositor's money. Just exactly where did the money come from? Stock holders in the bank would eviscerate a bankster for loaning bank profits that would otherwise be paid to the stock holders as dividends.

The bankster failed to disclose to the maker of the promissory note (YOU), that the money did not come from a pre-existing store of value which was the property of the bank. In fact, the bankster made false representations that implanted into the mind of the so-called "borrower," (YOU), that the money came from an actual store of value which was the bank's pre-existing property; the exact opposite of the truth of the matter. Such a false representation is "fraud in the factum."

c. Fraud in the factum. Misrepresentation as to the nature of a writing that a person signs with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to obtain knowledge of its character or essential terms. See U.C.C. 9 3-305(2Xc) [now 3-305(a)(1)(iii)]. (BLD6-661).​

Fraud 2. Bankster made the false representation that YOU are in actuality a "borrower."

a. Borrower. He to whom a thing or money is lent at his request. "Borrower," within automobile liability policy covering borrower of vehicle during loading and unloading, may be defined as someone who has, with permission of owner, temporary possession and use of property of another for his own purposes. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Emp. Ins. Co., Tex., 556 S.W.2d 242, 244. (BLD6-185).​

b. Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any, person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. (In part) (emphasis added) (BLD6-1216).​

Did the bankster have actual possession of the money prior to the existence of YOUR promissory note? NO! Then, the money WAS NOT the property of the bankster, as such bankster caused you to believe. The false representation that the bankster was a "lender" and that YOU were "borrowing" the bankster's property (money) is FRAUD in the factum.

Why would anyone in their right mind honor a FRAUD?!

Only a scum-sucking, bankster-whore, or debt collector whore, would ever mouth such false and fraudulent "religion," under the circumstances, as

"People that honor their word and pay their bills funny?"​

when the one making such a statement is actively promoting and committing fraud on a daily basis; such scum attempting to make the VICTIMS of the FRAUD feel "guilty" for refusing to acquiesce and accommodate the fraud of the banksters.

(more to come)

. . .

 

[Gadawg73]

. . .

[F]raud, under the UCC § 3-407, has been defined as

"requir[ing] a dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than one was entitled to under the note as signed by the makers rather than only a misguided purpose." Thomas v. Osborn, 13 Wash.App. 371, 536 P.2d 8, 13 (1975). Accord Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar v. Taylor, 368 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1985); Bluffestone v. Abrahams, 125 Ariz. 42, 607 P.2d 25 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1979). The general rule requires a party seeking discharge to show that the holder altered the instrument with a deceitful purpose. Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar, supra at 917.​

Bankster non-disclosure of all the facts about the banking system's exploitation of the makers promissory note, evidences a dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than the bankster was entitled to under the provisions of the promissory note and mortgage. The conspiratorial and secret plan of the banksters was carefully, intentionally, willfully, and deceitfully, withheld from the knowledge, and informed consent of the makers of the promissory note.

Consider the following:

Fraud 1. Bankster made the false representation that bankster is a "lender" and that bankster was going to "loan" money;

a. Lend. To give or put out for hire or compensation. To part with a thing of value to another for a time fixed or indefinite, yet to have some time in ending, to be used or enjoyed by that other; the thing itself or the equivalent of it to be given back at the time fixed, or when lawfully asked for, with or without compensation for the use as may be agreed upon. Term "lend" when used in a will means to "give" or "devise." To provide money to another for a period of time, usually with interest charge to be incurred by borrower. See also Loan. (BLD6-901).​

b. Loan. A lending. Delivery by one party to and receipt by another party of sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest. Boerner v. Colwell Co., 21 Cal.3d 37, 145 Cal.Rptr. 380, 384, 577 P.2d 200. Anything furnished for temporary use to a person at his request, on condition that it shall be returned, or its equivalent in kind, with or without compensation for its use. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 58 Misc.2d 443, 295 N.Y. S.2d 983, 986. (BLD6-936).​

The bankster did NOT "provide" any money. Banks are prohibited by the National Banking Act from lending the bank's credit, or the bank's depositor's money. Just exactly where did the money come from? Stock holders in the bank would eviscerate a bankster for loaning bank profits that would otherwise be paid to the stock holders as dividends.

The bankster failed to disclose to the maker of the promissory note (YOU), that the money did not come from a pre-existing store of value which was the property of the bank. In fact, the bankster made false representations that implanted into the mind of the so-called "borrower," (YOU), that the money came from an actual store of value which was the bank's pre-existing property; the exact opposite of the truth of the matter. Such a false representation is "fraud in the factum."

c. Fraud in the factum. Misrepresentation as to the nature of a writing that a person signs with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to obtain knowledge of its character or essential terms. See U.C.C. 9 3-305(2Xc) [now 3-305(a)(1)(iii)]. (BLD6-661).​

Fraud 2. Bankster made the false representation that YOU are in actuality a "borrower."

a. Borrower. He to whom a thing or money is lent at his request. "Borrower," within automobile liability policy covering borrower of vehicle during loading and unloading, may be defined as someone who has, with permission of owner, temporary possession and use of property of another for his own purposes. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Emp. Ins. Co., Tex., 556 S.W.2d 242, 244. (BLD6-185).​

b. Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any, person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. (In part) (emphasis added) (BLD6-1216).​

Did the bankster have actual possession of the money prior to the existence of YOUR promissory note? NO! Then, the money WAS NOT the property of the bankster, as such bankster caused you to believe. The false representation that the bankster was a "lender" and that YOU were "borrowing" the bankster's property (money) is FRAUD in the factum.

Why would anyone in their right mind honor a FRAUD?!

Only a scum-sucking, bankster-whore, or debt collector whore, would ever mouth such false and fraudulent "religion," under the circumstances, as

"People that honor their word and pay their bills funny?"​

when the one making such a statement is actively promoting and committing fraud on a daily basis; such scum attempting to make the VICTIMS of the FRAUD feel "guilty" for refusing to acquiesce and accommodate the fraud of the banksters.

(more to come)

. . .

If YOU knew it was a fraud at the closing table why did YOU take the $$$$$?
YOU are the fraud.

 

[Svarstaad]

. . .

The VICTIMS of the FRAUD were totally WITHOUT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the criminality of you bankster whores, and debt collector whores.

Your retort provides you with absolutely no place to hide, you piece of cat-sh_t.

YOU are the FELON, having, no doubt, filed false either/or forged mortgage instruments in public offices in Georgia.

O.C.G.A. § 44-2-43 (2011) . Fraud, forgery, and theft in connection with registration of title to land; penalty

Any person who:

(1) fraudulently obtains or attempts to obtain a decree of registration of title to any land or interest therein;
(2) knowingly offers in evidence any forged or fraudulent document in the course of any proceedings with regard to registered lands or any interest therein;
(3) makes or utters any forged instrument of transfer or instrument of mortgage or any other paper, writing, or document used in connection with any of the proceedings required for the registration of lands or the notation of entries upon the register of titles;
(4) steals or fraudulently conceals any owner's certificate, creditor's certificate, or other certificate of title provided for under this article;
(5) fraudulently alters, changes, or mutilates any writing, instrument, document, record, registration, or register provided for under this article;
(6) makes any false oath or affidavit with respect to any matter or thing provided for in this article; or
(7) makes or knowingly uses any counterfeit of any certificate provided for by this article
shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.​

+++++++++++++++

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the bankster’s contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction; recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the “evidence of debt,” (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of “false or forged” documents in a public office, which is A FELONY. [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]​

. . .

 

[Svarstaad]

. . .

[F]raud, under the UCC § 3-407, has been defined as

"requir[ing] a dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than one was entitled to under the note as signed by the makers rather than only a misguided purpose." Thomas v. Osborn, 13 Wash.App. 371, 536 P.2d 8, 13 (1975). Accord Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar v. Taylor, 368 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1985); Bluffestone v. Abrahams, 125 Ariz. 42, 607 P.2d 25 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1979). The general rule requires a party seeking discharge to show that the holder altered the instrument with a deceitful purpose. Citizen's Nat. Bank of Willmar, supra at 917.​

Bankster non-disclosure of all the facts about the banking system's exploitation of the makers promissory note, evidences a dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than the bankster was entitled to under the provisions of the promissory note and mortgage. The conspiratorial and secret plan of the banksters was carefully, intentionally, willfully, and deceitfully, withheld from the knowledge, and informed consent of the makers of the promissory note.

Consider the following:

Fraud 1. Bankster made the false representation that bankster is a "lender" and that bankster was going to "loan" money;

a. Lend. To give or put out for hire or compensation. To part with a thing of value to another for a time fixed or indefinite, yet to have some time in ending, to be used or enjoyed by that other; the thing itself or the equivalent of it to be given back at the time fixed, or when lawfully asked for, with or without compensation for the use as may be agreed upon. Term "lend" when used in a will means to "give" or "devise." To provide money to another for a period of time, usually with interest charge to be incurred by borrower. See also Loan. (BLD6-901).​

b. Loan. A lending. Delivery by one party to and receipt by another party of sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest. Boerner v. Colwell Co., 21 Cal.3d 37, 145 Cal.Rptr. 380, 384, 577 P.2d 200. Anything furnished for temporary use to a person at his request, on condition that it shall be returned, or its equivalent in kind, with or without compensation for its use. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 58 Misc.2d 443, 295 N.Y. S.2d 983, 986. (BLD6-936).​

The bankster did NOT "provide" any money. Banks are prohibited by the National Banking Act from lending the bank's credit, or the bank's depositor's money. Just exactly where did the money come from? Stock holders in the bank would eviscerate a bankster for loaning bank profits that would otherwise be paid to the stock holders as dividends.

The bankster failed to disclose to the maker of the promissory note (YOU), that the money did not come from a pre-existing store of value which was the property of the bank. In fact, the bankster made false representations that implanted into the mind of the so-called "borrower," (YOU), that the money came from an actual store of value which was the bank's pre-existing property; the exact opposite of the truth of the matter. Such a false representation is "fraud in the factum."

c. Fraud in the factum. Misrepresentation as to the nature of a writing that a person signs with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to obtain knowledge of its character or essential terms. See U.C.C. § 3-305(2)(c) [now 3-305(a)(1)(iii)]. (BLD6-661).​

Fraud 2. Bankster made the false representation that YOU are in actuality a "borrower."

a. Borrower. He to whom a thing or money is lent at his request. "Borrower," within automobile liability policy covering borrower of vehicle during loading and unloading, may be defined as someone who has, with permission of owner, temporary possession and use of property of another for his own purposes. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Emp. Ins. Co., Tex., 556 S.W.2d 242, 244. (BLD6-185).​

b. Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any, person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. (In part) (emphasis added) (BLD6-1216).​

Did the bankster have actual possession of the money prior to the existence of YOUR promissory note? NO! Then, the money WAS NOT the property of the bankster, as such bankster caused you to believe. The false representation that the bankster was a "lender" and that YOU were "borrowing" the bankster's property (money) is FRAUD in the factum.

Why would anyone in their right mind honor a FRAUD?!

Only a scum-sucking, bankster-whore, or debt collector whore, would ever mouth such false and fraudulent "religion," under the circumstances, as

"People that honor their word and pay their bills funny?"​

when the one making such a statement is actively promoting and committing fraud on a daily basis; such scum attempting to make the VICTIMS of the FRAUD feel "guilty" for refusing to acquiesce and accommodate the fraud of the banksters.

(more to come)

. . .

 

[Svarstaad]

. . .

BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
ONCE THE TRUTH IS KNOWN

YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN!

1. The bankster did NOT “loan” any money to you:

2. At no cost to the bankster money was acquired:

3. The bankster transacted an “EXCHANGE” of YOUR Promissory Note, a form of money, for Federal Reserve Notes, and then deliberately, willfully, and with full knowledge of the false representation, told you that such an “EXCHANGE” of different forms of currency, was a “loan”:

4. The bankster converted your promissory note, a form of money, into Federal Reserve Notes, a form of money, this transaction is NOT A LOAN:

5. The bankster then used YOUR money (your note) converted into Federal Reserve Notes, to buy property in the bankster’s name;

a. Bankster indorsed YOUR Promissory Note “WITHOUT RECOURSE” and DEPOSITED YOUR Promissory Note in a bank transaction account the existence of which the bankster failed to disclose to YOU:​

6. ONLY money can be deposited into a bank account:

7. The bankster lied to you --

a. by telling you that the bankster was providing a “loan,” which, to your mind was thought to embody the classical meaning of the term “loan.”

b. By the Bankster’s deliberate manipulation of YOUR non-comprehension and YOUR lack of knowledge of the actual process;

c. By the bankster’s false representation that YOU were receiving the bankster’s own money as a borrower of the bankster’s own money, a circumstance of “fraud in the factum,” among other non-disclosed facts that evidence the proof that YOU did not receive a “loan”:

d. The bankster accepted and received YOUR promissory note;

e. The bankster then made QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT of YOUR Promissory note, adding the phrase “WITHOUT RECOURSE” in the endorsement;

f. The bankster’s QUALIFIED INDORSEMENT had the effect of removing all bankster obligation with respect to the two-party promissory note;

Definition:
Without recourse. Words that may be used by a drawer in signing a draft or check so as to eliminate completely the drawer's secondary liability. This phrase, used in making a qualified endorsement of a negotiable instrument, signifies that the indorser means to save himself from liability to subsequent holders, and is a notification that, if payment is refused by the parties primarily liable, recourse cannot be had to him. See U.C.C. § 3-414(1).
An indorser "without recourse" specially declines to assume any responsibility for payment. He assumes no contractual liability by virtue of the indorsement itself, and becomes a mere assignor of the title to the paper, but such an indorsement does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of defects, or that he does not take on credit of the other parties to the note. See also Nonrecourse; Nonrecourse loan; With recourse. (BLD6-1603). [emphasis added]​

g. The bankster’s non-disclosure of this fact made such QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT an UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION “in any respect” of the bankster’s obligation on the promissory note (secondary liability), (see UCC 3-407);

h. The bankster negotiated YOUR promissory note in a DEPOSIT transaction, a requirement of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the undisclosed process;

i. The bankster acquired the face value amount of YOUR promissory note, plus a commission, in Federal Reserve Notes, at no cost to the bank, by unknown machinations (See A Primer on Money, Congressional Report);

j. The bankster, without cost to the bankster, lied to YOU by making the knowing, intentional, and willful false representation that the bankster was “giving YOU a “loan”;​

8. The bankster NEVER “loaned” you anything:

9. You were deceived into thinking that you had received a “loan”:

10. The deception that you actually or constructively received a “loan” is a false representation, fraud.

11. Proof that you were deceived by the bankster’s false representations is found in the fact that you actually made PAYMENTS on a NONEXISTENT “loan,” such payments representing certain portions of YOUR LIFE which were “EXCHANGED” for (converted into) Federal Reserve Notes, which YOU then, delivered to the bankster as payments on a NON-EXISTENT “LOAN”:

12. When the bankster indorsed YOUR note “WITHOUT RECOURSE,” as part of the deception, the bankster’s obligation was fraudulently modified which DISCHARGED your obligation on the note. The bankster’s “alteration fraudulently made” discharged the note because YOUR obligation was affected by such fraudulent alteration. (See UCC § 3-407(a) & (b)).

UCC § 3-117. OTHER AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT.
Subject to applicable law regarding exclusion of proof of contemporaneous or previous agreements, the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. To the extent an obligation is modified, supplemented, or nullified by an agreement under this section, the agreement is a defense to the obligation. (Pooling and Servicing Agreement [PSA]).​

13. YOU have actually tendered a significant amount of YOUR LIFE, converted into Federal Reserve Notes, in payment for the property by deception:

14. The bankster has made no such investment or payment. (See US Congress report, A PRIMER ON MONEY).

15. YOU have PAID for the property:

16. If the bankster has collected vast amounts of profits, at no cost, pursuant to YOUR note, the bankster’s taking of YOUR property is “unjust enrichment” for the bankster:

17. YOU have PAID; the bankster has not risked or paid any value into the property:

18. YOUR keeping the property is NOT unjust enrichment:

19. YOU are not getting a “free house” by defeating the bankster with the LAW.

"But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. 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. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers' salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge." (emphasis added). [See 2nd paragraph, "Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141]. Link: Patman.Primer.on.Money

AND, not only that:

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the bankster’s contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction; recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the “evidence of debt,” (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of “false or forged” documents in a public office, which is A FELONY. [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]​

. . .

 

[Gadawg73]

. . .

The VICTIMS of the FRAUD were totally WITHOUT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the criminality of you bankster whores, and debt collector whores.

Your retort provides you with absolutely no place to hide, you piece of cat-sh_t.

YOU are the FELON, having, no doubt, filed false either/or forged mortgage instruments in public offices in Georgia.

O.C.G.A. § 44-2-43 (2011) . Fraud, forgery, and theft in connection with registration of title to land; penalty

Any person who:

(1) fraudulently obtains or attempts to obtain a decree of registration of title to any land or interest therein;
(2) knowingly offers in evidence any forged or fraudulent document in the course of any proceedings with regard to registered lands or any interest therein;
(3) makes or utters any forged instrument of transfer or instrument of mortgage or any other paper, writing, or document used in connection with any of the proceedings required for the registration of lands or the notation of entries upon the register of titles;
(4) steals or fraudulently conceals any owner's certificate, creditor's certificate, or other certificate of title provided for under this article;
(5) fraudulently alters, changes, or mutilates any writing, instrument, document, record, registration, or register provided for under this article;
(6) makes any false oath or affidavit with respect to any matter or thing provided for in this article; or
(7) makes or knowingly uses any counterfeit of any certificate provided for by this article
shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.​

+++++++++++++++

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the bankster’s contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction; recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the “evidence of debt,” (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of “false or forged” documents in a public office, which is A FELONY. [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]​

. . .

There is no law against and you can not fix STUPID.

 

[Gadawg73]

. . .

BANKING SCAM IS OUTED
NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE BANKS TO "SAVE" THEIR SCAM
ONCE THE TRUTH IS KNOWN

YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN!

1. The bankster did NOT “loan” any money to you:

2. At no cost to the bankster money was acquired:

3. The bankster transacted an “EXCHANGE” of YOUR Promissory Note, a form of money, for Federal Reserve Notes, and then deliberately, willfully, and with full knowledge of the false representation, told you that such an “EXCHANGE” of different forms of currency, was a “loan”:

4. The bankster converted your promissory note, a form of money, into Federal Reserve Notes, a form of money, this transaction is NOT A LOAN:

5. The bankster then used YOUR money (your note) converted into Federal Reserve Notes, to buy property in the bankster’s name;

a. Bankster indorsed YOUR Promissory Note “WITHOUT RECOURSE” and DEPOSITED YOUR Promissory Note in a bank transaction account the existence of which the bankster failed to disclose to YOU:​

6. ONLY money can be deposited into a bank account:

7. The bankster lied to you --

a. by telling you that the bankster was providing a “loan,” which, to your mind was thought to embody the classical meaning of the term “loan.”

b. By the Bankster’s deliberate manipulation of YOUR non-comprehension and YOUR lack of knowledge of the actual process;

c. By the bankster’s false representation that YOU were receiving the bankster’s own money as a borrower of the bankster’s own money, a circumstance of “fraud in the factum,” among other non-disclosed facts that evidence the proof that YOU did not receive a “loan”:

d. The bankster accepted and received YOUR promissory note;

e. The bankster then made QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT of YOUR Promissory note, adding the phrase “WITHOUT RECOURSE” in the endorsement;

f. The bankster’s QUALIFIED INDORSEMENT had the effect of removing all bankster obligation with respect to the two-party promissory note;

Definition:
Without recourse. Words that may be used by a drawer in signing a draft or check so as to eliminate completely the drawer's secondary liability. This phrase, used in making a qualified endorsement of a negotiable instrument, signifies that the indorser means to save himself from liability to subsequent holders, and is a notification that, if payment is refused by the parties primarily liable, recourse cannot be had to him. See U.C.C. § 3-414(1).
An indorser "without recourse" specially declines to assume any responsibility for payment. He assumes no contractual liability by virtue of the indorsement itself, and becomes a mere assignor of the title to the paper, but such an indorsement does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of defects, or that he does not take on credit of the other parties to the note. See also Nonrecourse; Nonrecourse loan; With recourse. (BLD6-1603). [emphasis added]​

g. The bankster’s non-disclosure of this fact made such QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT an UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION “in any respect” of the bankster’s obligation on the promissory note (secondary liability), (see UCC 3-407);

h. The bankster negotiated YOUR promissory note in a DEPOSIT transaction, a requirement of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the undisclosed process;

i. The bankster acquired the face value amount of YOUR promissory note, plus a commission, in Federal Reserve Notes, at no cost to the bank, by unknown machinations (See A Primer on Money, Congressional Report);

j. The bankster, without cost to the bankster, lied to YOU by making the knowing, intentional, and willful false representation that the bankster was “giving YOU a “loan”;​

8. The bankster NEVER “loaned” you anything:

9. You were deceived into thinking that you had received a “loan”:

10. The deception that you actually or constructively received a “loan” is a false representation, fraud.

11. Proof that you were deceived by the bankster’s false representations is found in the fact that you actually made PAYMENTS on a NONEXISTENT “loan,” such payments representing certain portions of YOUR LIFE which were “EXCHANGED” for (converted into) Federal Reserve Notes, which YOU then, delivered to the bankster as payments on a NON-EXISTENT “LOAN”:

12. When the bankster indorsed YOUR note “WITHOUT RECOURSE,” as part of the deception, the bankster’s obligation was fraudulently modified which DISCHARGED your obligation on the note. The bankster’s “alteration fraudulently made” discharged the note because YOUR obligation was affected by such fraudulent alteration. (See UCC § 3-407(a) & (b)).

UCC § 3-117. OTHER AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT.
Subject to applicable law regarding exclusion of proof of contemporaneous or previous agreements, the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. To the extent an obligation is modified, supplemented, or nullified by an agreement under this section, the agreement is a defense to the obligation. (Pooling and Servicing Agreement [PSA]).​

13. YOU have actually tendered a significant amount of YOUR LIFE, converted into Federal Reserve Notes, in payment for the property by deception:

14. The bankster has made no such investment or payment. (See US Congress report, A PRIMER ON MONEY).

15. YOU have PAID for the property:

16. If the bankster has collected vast amounts of profits, at no cost, pursuant to YOUR note, the bankster’s taking of YOUR property is “unjust enrichment” for the bankster:

17. YOU have PAID; the bankster has not risked or paid any value into the property:

18. YOUR keeping the property is NOT unjust enrichment:

19. YOU are not getting a “free house” by defeating the bankster with the LAW.

"But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. 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. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers' salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge." (emphasis added). [See 2nd paragraph, "Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141]. Link: Patman.Primer.on.Money

AND, not only that:

Filing False either/or Forged Documents in a Public Office

AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the bankster’s contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction; recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the “evidence of debt,” (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of “false or forged” documents in a public office, which is A FELONY. [Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY, (See Carpenter)]​

. . .

Where do I show up and the bankster whorres give away free $$$.
Chicks for free also?