Wednesday, August 3, 2011

OLD POST, BUT GOLD ALWAYS EXISTS IN NEIL GARFIELD'S WRITINGS

BASIC PROPERTY LAW TRUMPS ESOTERIC PRETENDER LENDER ARGUMENTS

Posted on by Neil Garfield
FROM THE COMMENT SECTION THANK YOU ANDREW): I THINK HE’S GOT IT! There is no getting away from the fact that the lender is the investor and that anyone else whose name was inserted in the documentation did so not only without authority but as an intentional misrepresentation as part of a fraudulent scheme to sell financial products at huge profits to homeowners and investors based upon false representations as to both quality and value.
As it looks from the outside, as the lenders never registered the properties in the “trusts” that were created for the purpose of holding the real estate, the real estate will be in most instances still registered in the Grantor/homeowner name at the land records.
Therefore the supposed note, deed of trust and or alleged mortgage that was to be registered against the real estate in the trust [ that is vacant] has no security. “Does this make any sense to anyone?”
Now here is the other opinion continuing from above, if this was not a loan, since banks don’t lend money unless they have “Investments / CD’s in the bank as Matching Finance to loan against, this must have been an INVESTMENT in the homeowner, since the lenders issued securities against an “Note” that was to be an investment, and this is a form of a Bankers Acceptance [ BA] endorseable note, except that the creator of the note was not privy to the makings of other transactions. Not so!
All companies proposing to sell the investment, market a prospectus or in any way be involved in securities have to be registered at thehttp://www.SEC.gov/index.htm website.
Anyone seeking to find a company registered to transact securities HAS to be registered here.
Oh! yes this is the link to MERS, INC/VA for the official registration of the company and all the addresses and officers.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/03/9999999997-03-033079
[paper entry :-http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1079796/999999999703033079/9999999997-03-033079.txt ].
If you are seeking the pictures of the officers behind the names in the legal application this site http://www.mersinc.org/about/exec.aspx
The SEC has their hands full litigating complaints, take a look at this link.http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases.shtml
“JUST ONE LAST THING, IF YOU READ THE FORMATION DOCUMENT YOU WILL SEE THAT FREDDIE MAC, FANNIE MAE, AND MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ARE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMPANY MERS, INC/VA”
Didn’t the public of America just invest heavily in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
http://freddiemac.com/avoidforeclosure/
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/03/9999999997-03-033079
Filed under: bubble, CDO, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, MortgageTagged: | , , , , , , , , , , , 
«   »
Be the first to like this post.

6 Responses

  1. KimThomas, on August 4, 2010 at 8:14 am said:
    WE CAN HELP! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!
  2. Tyson F. Gautreaux, on February 23, 2010 at 8:51 am said:
    Great comment about raising private money
  4. DyingTruth, on October 8, 2009 at 1:10 am said:
    Martin you know what’s odd is that the case you are refering to happend 1 year after the truth in lending act was born and then 2 years later the FED got thier claws into it and was able to reshape it to thier will
  5. Andrew, on October 6, 2009 at 12:36 pm said:
    Have uncovered another fact about some documents that are puzzling to say the least.
    Homeowner has a Deed of Trust that specifies on it that a certain company MERS is the assignee for the Lender and in the next sentance is the Beneficiary under the Security Instrument.
    More puzzling is that a Michael A Bosco Jr is the Trustee on this DOT, now if you refer to the link find that Mr Bosco is also a Director of the America’s Mortgage Banking Attorney’s and a membership of Mortgage Bankers Association of America.
    http://www.martindale.com/Michael-A-Bosco-Jr/47153-lawyer.htm
    One who lies in the same bed as the company it represents, almost looks like it was planned to maximize the impact of failure of these mortgages.
    Heard from homeowners that these notes were put into some sort of Credit Default Swap a way to capitalize on the loss multiple times for bottom-line balance sheet profits.
    Does the above set of circumstances not smack of a “Conflict of Interest?”
    From Andrew above
    BASIC PROPERTY LAW TRUMPS ESOTERIC PRETENDER LENDER ARGUMENTS
    Posted on October 5, 2009 by livinglies
    If you are seeking the pictures of the officers behind the names in the legal application this site http://www.mersinc.org/about/exec.aspx
    “JUST ONE LAST THING, IF YOU READ THE FORMATION DOCUMENT YOU WILL SEE THAT FREDDIE MAC, FANNIE MAE, AND MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ARE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMPANY MERS, INC/VA”
    Didn’t the public of America just invest heavily in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
    http://freddiemac.com/avoidforeclosure/
    http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/03/9999999997-03-033079
  6. Martin, on October 5, 2009 at 1:33 pm said:
    Am i off base by citing from Daly vs. First National Bank of Montgomery, MN cir. 1969.
    Judge dismissed case on grounds of Unlawful Consideration.
    The Fed Bank admittedly created the money through checkbook entry, therefore No Lawful Consideration in exchange for Daly’s Note ever took place.
    Fast forward today, any Table Funded Loan using an undisclosed financial conduit in an illegal securities scheme, is NOT LAWFUL Consideration in exchange for a Promissory Note. AS the money came into existence by similar checkbook entry.
    Thoughts?
    Read below:
    A LANDMARK DECISION
    Reprinted in part from The Daily Eagle, Issue of Feb. 7, 1969
    The fate of companies and individuals — and governments is entirely at the mercy of banks. Their power is stupendous, both in creating and granting of loans, but in their arbitrary recall, with or without notice. This Court decision in the United States may well be the beginning of the end of some of their powers.
    A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and void; Holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and void; Declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the Sheriff’s Sale to be void. This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State Banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself, his country, and to the people of the world, for that matter, to study this decision very carefully and to understand it. For upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.
    On May 8, 1964 the writer Mr. Jerome Daly executed a Note and Mortgage to the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota, which is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Both Banks are private owned and are a part of the Federal Reserve Banking System.
    In the Spring of 1967 Mr. Daly was in arrears $476.00 in the payments on this Note and Mortgage. The Note was secured by a Mortgage on real property in Spring Lake Township in Scott County, Minnesota. The Bank foreclosed by advertisement and bought the property at a Sheriff’s Sale held on June 26, 1967. Mr. Daly made no further payments after June 26, 1967 and did not redeem within the 12 month period of time allotted by law after the Sheriff’s Sale.
    The Bank brought an action to recover the possession to the property in the Justice of the Peace Court at Savage, Minnesota. The first 2 Justices were disqualified by Affidavit of Prejudice. The first by Mr. Daly and the second by the bank. A third one refused to handle the case. It was then sent, pursuant to law, to Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of Peace, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, who presided at a Jury trial on December 7, 1968. The Jury found the Note and Mortgage to be void for failure of a lawful consideration and refused to give any validity to the Sheriff’s Sale. Verdict was for Mr. Daly with costs in the amount of $75.00.
    EVIL PRACTICE
    The president of the Bank admitted that the Bank created the money and credit upon its books by which it acquired or gave as consideration for the Note; that this was standard banking practice, that the credit first came into existence when they created it; that he knew of no United States Statutes which gave them the right to do this. This is the universal practice of these banks.
    Mr. Morgan appeared at the trial on December 7, 1968 and appeared as a witness to be candid, open, direct, experienced and truthful. He testified to 20 years of experience with the Bank of America in Los Angeles, the Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis and the Plaintiff in this case. He seemed to be familiar with the operations of the Federal Reserve System.
    He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the Money or credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964. The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books. Further he freely admitted that no United States law gave the bank the authority to do this. There was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink.
    NOTE: It has never been doubted that a Note given in a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private corporations, for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful.
    No complaint was made by the bank that the bank did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan, the path of duty was made direct and clear for the jury. Their verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, comfortable to the laws in this Court on December 7, 1968.
    The Justice who heard the case handed down the opinion attached and included herein. Its reasoning is sound. It will withstand the test of time. This is the first time the question has been passed upon in the United States. I predict that this decision will go into the history books as one of the great documents of American history. It is a huge cornerstone wrenched from the temple of Imperialism and planted as one of the solid foundation stones of Liberty.
    COURT MEMORANDUM
    The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute on the facts for the jury to resolve.
    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 and 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 or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)