| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4 | federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 226992
11/15/2007 2:41 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
[link to www.6towns.com]
IN THE JUSTICE COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY
First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly,
Defendant
The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this.
Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry.
That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it.
Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.
Plaintiff's act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY dies 6 months later |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 226992
11/15/2007 2:42 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December 9, 1968. The issue there was simple - Nothing in the law gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit $2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank deposited two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System. The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouri set out in the decision should be studied very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the Crux of the whole issue. Jerome Daly. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 226992
11/15/2007 2:43 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
SPECIAL NOTATION. Justice Mahoney denied the use of Federal Reserve Notes, since they represent debt instruments, not true money, from being used to pay for the appeal process itself. In order to get this overturned, since the bank's appeal without the payment being recognized was out of time, it would have required that the Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota bring a Title 42, Section 1983 action against the judicial act of Justice Mahoney for a violation of the Constitution of the United States under color of law or authority, and if successful, have the case remanded back to him to either retry the case or allow the appeal to go through. But the corrupt individuals behind the bank(s) were unable to ever elicit such a decision from any federal court due to the fact that because of their vile hatred for him and what he had done to them and their little Queen's Scheme, had him murdered (same as them murdering him) just about 6 months later. And so, the case stands, just as it was. Amazingly, if they hadn't been so arrogant about the value of their federal reserve notes and paid the Justice just 2 measly silver dollars, or else 4 measly half dollars, or else 8 measly quarters, or else 20 measly dimes, or else 40 measly nickels, or else 200 measly pennies, they could have had their appeal and would not have had to get blood on their hands. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/15/2007 4:22 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
I'd check the fine print.
I think the fine print says that Freddy Mac or Fanny Mae owns the house and the foreclosure will start over again. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 326714
That might be. I think that was the gist of the CNBC report I heard (about making lenders by back bad loans). That said, I only have a quasi understanding of all of this. Grey seems to really know common law (I don't). What if the Macs are only on the hook for indemnifying the lenders, but are not the trustees? They woun't have claim to the property, then, would they?
Grey said:
SMOKE THAT.
SILVER LINING
When it comes to fiat money, which I understand the basics of, I have always thought there could be a silver lining to the very dark cloud of economic collapse.
Someone pointed out to me this hypothetical: If we elected Ron Paul and he abolished the Fed (down the road), then who would you pay your mortgage to? His contention was that there would be nobody to pay it to. I countered that one would, at leat, have to pay the principal (no interest) back, but he said, "To whom?". He pointed out that when you purchase your home, the seller is paid at closing, so your payments go to a lender. The lenders are all part of the fiat reality. Perhaps he had a point (???). |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/15/2007 4:32 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
...snip
Then the real battle begins to get the mortgage or lien itself taken off the title to the house legally. That means NO MORTGAGE AND THE HOUSE IS YOURS FREE AND CLEAR!
BIG STAKES AND A HUGE BOGGIE IF YOU WIN!
Regardless if a fraud has been committed or not, the Fed will not allow "homeowners" to get a free and clear home and forgive them of their mortgages. They'll pass new laws and make them retroactive 30 years if necessary. The taxpayers will bail out the banks, and nobody will go to jail for the massive fraud that has been committed. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 144626
United States Constitution:
Article 1 Section 8 (limits on Congress)
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Article 1 Section 10 (limits on States)
Section 10. No state shall... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts... pass ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 226992
11/15/2007 4:38 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
----------------- They loaned nothing------------
Pigpen from Charlie Brown looks as clean as a whistle compared to a FDIC bank.
The trick is the Gold seized in 1933 bankrolled the National Credit System. FDR also made all u.s.citizens the 'enemies' in the Trading w/ the Enemy act
He did this beacuse the people wanted their Gold back fro mthe banks.. so FDR declared they were Hoarding their own gold!!!
[link to www.presidency.ucsb.edu]
34 - Executive Order 6102 - Requiring Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates to Be Delivered to the Government
--------------------------------------------
Banks do not loan anyone anything ... there is no consideration...
the document once signed is a secuirty that they hold as credit.. the debt is the Federal Reserve Notes you receive...
The books are then even.... no one is owed anything...
PIRATES, however, press you into believing they actually loaned you something...
cause, most likely, you are a honest man and liek to pay debts you believe you owe.. just as any honest man.
------------------------
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
In the United States, a promissory note that meets certain conditions is a negotiable instrument governed by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Negotiable promissory notes are used extensively in combination with mortgages in the financing of real estate transactions. Other uses of promissory notes include the capitalization of corporate finances through the issuance and transfer of commercial paper.
At various times in history promissory notes have acted as a form of privately issued currency. In many jurisdictions today, bearer negotiable promissory notes are illegal precisely because they can act as an alternative currency.
Contrary to this popular belief being perpetuated by the banking community, House Joint Resolution 192 passed by US Congress in 1933, explicitly cites Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange, Drafts and the like as legal tender in addition to Federal Reserve Notes.
However, this right is limited only to those persons acting within the admiralty jurisdiction... ----------------------------
Its admiralty, because its not lawful government money but a Private Corporations money. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 226992
11/15/2007 4:44 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
----------------- They loaned nothing------------
House Joint Resolution 192 passed by US Congress in 1933, explicitly cites Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange, Drafts and the like as legal tender in addition to Federal Reserve Notes.
---------------------------- Quoting: Anonymous Coward 226992
[link to www.truthsetsusfree.com]
HJR-192
"..(a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is herby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law."
Its against Public Policy to pay your debts...
----------------
Even better, the Naitonal Debt can only be repaid in gold! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/15/2007 5:31 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
Where all the GLPers that speak bankster? I want to know more about this.
Lots of these sum prime loans were set-ups. Many people who qualified for prime loans were steered to sub primes because the brokers made more money (and the lenders).
Yes, brokers made money, but these were the only chance for people to buy a home because they could never get conventional financing.
No, that's not accurate. People who qualified for prime loans were steered into sub prime loans. There's some congressional investigation into this. Not saying ALL sub primes were that, but many were. Brokers mislead clients. They got higher commissions for the higher rate, no/low money down loans, especially if they had a clause for a penalty for early payoff. Some of those penalties are six months of interest!
Too true. I insisted on a fixed rate second mortgage and TWICE the bank came back with an agreement printed for an APR subprime insisting right back that I would save money and why don't I want to save money?
They came and set the paperwork to be signed in front of my husband and I without saying the loan was for subprime, knowing I wanted fixed rate, and it wasn't until I read the document that I saw what they were doing.
I always wondered why they were shoving their bogus loan down our throats. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 326808
I have a friend who had to re-fi because of a divorce. My friend DID have a credit problem (an IRS debt - grrr). He had a broker shop for a mortage for him. Not only is he paying 11.5%, but there is an early pay off clause, of 6 months interests if he pays off within the first 2 years. Now, I wonder if the broker benefited from that. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 276543
11/15/2007 5:47 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
Just last year my In-Laws were getting a 15yr fixed Re-Fi which he specifically asked for and was quoted 6.5% on and then the papers were drawn up. I went with them and at the table when they started signing the papers were for a 2/28 ARM . You wanna see a guy start blasting away at the bank person and the lawyer. He ended up just getting it done last month 15 yr 6.25%. Yes the banks do change the papers. My ex-wife who also qualified for a conventional loan was talked into the 2/28 as the best thing for her even though she had no intention of moving anywhere and did ask for a 30 yr fixed rate. She was sweet talked , just that simple. The people may not know all but the mortgage brokers and banks went well out of their way to get the ARMs. Hope they all fukkin lose their houses. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/15/2007 5:47 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/15/2007 9:09 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/15/2007 11:04 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
Damn, this thread should really stay at the top. It could save someone their home.
PLEASE KEEP THIS ONE GOING. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 163867
11/15/2007 11:49 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
The entity that originates the loan usually retains the "servicing rights and fees" or the right to sell the "servicing rights and fees"
They are also usually stuck with responsibility of collecting.
The legal question is "standing"
I can't win damages from you, if you beat a stranger, because it's none of my business.
However, I could win a suit if you beat up my dad (the family breadwinner), get it?
Only a person or corp. with "skin" in the game can win money or bring a suit.
You might want to break out that big PVC envelope they gave you at the closing and read what you signed.
It's all in 8th grade english. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/16/2007 12:52 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
"It's all in 8th grade english."
I doubt that. It's legalese. I agree, though, read the mortgage agreement. Someone else here said get a copy of the "note".
I don't fully understand the legal in and outs on this, but it's very fucking interesting. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 295785
11/16/2007 1:09 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 310566
11/16/2007 1:13 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/16/2007 1:23 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
Keep this thread alive |
| October
User ID: 312470
11/16/2007 1:24 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
An interesting thread at:
[link to www.tickerforum.org]
POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE BOMBSHELL! - MarketTicker Forums
Page 2:
"I looked up Assignment Laws on Google and it appears each state has its own statute, but it appears to me that these Lenders that sold off the mortgages and did not file the assignments are in for some big ass problems if the Borrowers who are in foreclosure wise up to this. I agree, the Lenders that purchased these loans from now defunct Lenders are going to have a rather large job in front of them. Geez, this opens up a whole new job catagory! I can say with such certainty that assignments just do not get recorded as a rule. It appears a very large ball was dropped by these Lenders and they are going to be punished severely for it. I FUCKING LOVE IT."
Boy howdy!!! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 316286
11/16/2007 1:34 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
jobs,
did you say jobs?
can this be done from India? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/16/2007 1:37 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
An interesting thread at:
[ link to www.tickerforum.org]
POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE BOMBSHELL! - MarketTicker Forums
Page 2:
"I looked up Assignment Laws on Google and it appears each state has its own statute, but it appears to me that these Lenders that sold off the mortgages and did not file the assignments are in for some big ass problems if the Borrowers who are in foreclosure wise up to this. I agree, the Lenders that purchased these loans from now defunct Lenders are going to have a rather large job in front of them. Geez, this opens up a whole new job catagory! I can say with such certainty that assignments just do not get recorded as a rule. It appears a very large ball was dropped by these Lenders and they are going to be punished severely for it. I FUCKING LOVE IT."
Boy howdy!!!
Hi, October! It is I, 11:11 :)
Funny, I was just telling a very smart friend, with experinece in the title biz, that she should start consulting to attorneys on this! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/16/2007 1:39 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
Everyone should post the link to this thread FAR AND WIDE! Let's help our fellow Americans BEAT THE FUCKING BEAST!!!!!! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 323596
11/16/2007 1:50 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
Just last year my In-Laws were getting a 15yr fixed Re-Fi which he specifically asked for and was quoted 6.5% on and then the papers were drawn up. I went with them and at the table when they started signing the papers were for a 2/28 ARM . You wanna see a guy start blasting away at the bank person and the lawyer. He ended up just getting it done last month 15 yr 6.25%. Yes the banks do change the papers. My ex-wife who also qualified for a conventional loan was talked into the 2/28 as the best thing for her even though she had no intention of moving anywhere and did ask for a 30 yr fixed rate. She was sweet talked , just that simple. The people may not know all but the mortgage brokers and banks went well out of their way to get the ARMs. Hope they all fukkin lose their houses. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276543
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Brokers can make the same amount of money on either a conventional or sub prime loan, or FHA for that matter. It serves bankers/brokers no purpose to fuck people over when they can make money either way. The problem is that most of these people can't qualify for any other loan. They don't have money for a down payment, they can't prove income, and they have shit credit. The shouldn't be getting a loan in the first place. And if they do, they should realize they are a high risk and will pay a higher interest rate for it.
States are more than welcome to pass no prepay laws which protect their residents.
Each and everyone of you have the freedom to research loans and understand the lending system, but you're too fucking lazy. Nobody makes you do anything. You sign the papers. It's fucking laziness. The same laziness that didn't get you a college education or research refinancing or purchasing a home. If you take out a 200K loan, you better know exactly what you're getting into.
The problem is people trying to be just like the rich people that they hate. They want to keep up with their neighbors and get in over their heads. Educating yourself actually is really a crazy idea isn't it.
There are certainly instances of fraud and theft, but they are few and far between. People who got stuck in 2/28 ARMS could not qualify for any other fucking loan. Plain and simple.
If you borrow 80% value of your home, have 660 credit score, have debt ratios under 50%, and no mortgage lates or BK's you would have no problem getting a 30 year fixed rate under 6.5%.
If you borrow 100% value of your home, have 540 credit, can't prove enough income to pay for your monthly debts on your credit report, and had 2 30 day mortgage lates in the last 12 months. Then what the fuck kind of loan do you expect. If you got your shit together in those 2 years, you would have no problem refinancing. The problem is that people continue to use credit cards and run up debt. Unfortunately you get stuck when your rate adjusts.
Terms of your loans are fully disclosed on the NOTE of your mortgage that you sign. If you can't read and understand your NOTE then you have no fucking business getting it in the first place.
Stop blaming everyone else. It's seriously pathetic |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 316286
11/16/2007 1:59 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
jheez, lighten up.
most people have no idea what they sign at a closing.
they pay an attorney to handle it.
so, should they sue the attorney if they get
in a bind with their rising notes? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 323596
11/16/2007 2:10 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
jheez, lighten up.
most people have no idea what they sign at a closing.
they pay an attorney to handle it.
so, should they sue the attorney if they get
in a bind with their rising notes? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 316286
All I'm saying is for people to educate themselves if they are making that big of an investment. I sell loans and I really despise shady brokers and Loan Officers that fuck over their borrowers. I always try educating my borrowers and provide them the best possible loan option. I pull people's credit everyday and if you could see the average credit card debt and credit scores, you'd understand what I'm saying.
Don't trust anyone and don't try being something that you're not. Educate yourself so you don't become a victim. The banking system sucks, but nobody is forcing you to finance a home. Save up the money and pay cash for it. That's the great the about America. You have the freedom to educate and learn. Use it as much as you can |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/16/2007 4:24 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 327179
11/16/2007 7:41 AM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
this is a bump for all the banks out there who have screwed every home owner |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 327312
11/16/2007 2:13 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
Hey is this bs or not? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 284299
11/16/2007 2:46 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
Hey is this bs or not? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 327312
No, it's not BS. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 226992
11/16/2007 2:55 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
jheez, lighten up.
most people have no idea what they sign at a closing.
they pay an attorney to handle it.
so, should they sue the attorney if they get
in a bind with their rising notes?
All I'm saying is for people to educate themselves if they are making that big of an investment. I sell loans and I really despise shady brokers and Loan Officers that fuck over their borrowers. I always try educating my borrowers and provide them the best possible loan option. I pull people's credit everyday and if you could see the average credit card debt and credit scores, you'd understand what I'm saying.
Don't trust anyone and don't try being something that you're not. Educate yourself so you don't become a victim. The banking system sucks, but nobody is forcing you to finance a home. Save up the money and pay cash for it. That's the great the about America. You have the freedom to educate and learn. Use it as much as you can Quoting: Anonymous Coward 323596
Exercising our rright to Public Money and not endorsing the Federal Reserve Private Credit could go a much longer way. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 226992
11/16/2007 2:56 PM | | Re: federal judge throws out foreclosures, bank sold mortgage, is not "owner" of mortgage | Quote |
I DISAGREE
Franklin Roosvelt Presumes everyone wants to be a industrial slave working for benefits (FDIC loans)
Its realizing the gold that was taken is merely placed in trust just like FDR said it was.
Cano you prove in any context the Banks loan anything !? |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4 | |
|
