26. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot.

Let’s examine how it is MONEY created by “credit-lenders”.

Your signature is an asset in our economy. You create the value for your mortgage with your signature on the Promissory Note.

You do not borrow the bank’s money.

Take a look at the definition of “Bank” in the 4th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary:

If a promissory note is designed to circulate as money, like money it can be deposited into a checking account. Though this is the case it was never disclosed in the bank loan agreement.

Since the promissory note is a negotiable instrument, per the Uniform Commercial Code, at what point did the bank “own” the promissory note?

The “lending” techniques that banks have used for centuries appear to be lending money, but in actuality have the value supplied by the person seeking the loan.

The bank does not disclose to you that your Promissory Note is actually an asset to the bank. Instead they focus your attention on the second document you sign, the Mortgage Agreement. The intent of this misdirection is to perpetuate a public perception that you are receiving something from the bank that you are obligated to repay.

The bank does not let you know that a promissory note is actually a “negotiable instrument” under the Uniform Commercial Code, and that it will be deposited to fund your loan. Nor does the bank tell you that they have a liability to you of approximately the amount of the loan.

(The bank owes you by their own bookkeeping entries).

When you apply for a $100,000 bank loan, you sign a $100,000 promissory note, which funds the $100,000 bank loan check that you receive at closing.

What is the actual cash value of the promissory note? It is $100,000, because the bank exchanges your promissory note for $100,000 in government bonds, which has value equal to cash.

The lender merely exchanged actual cash value for actual cash value, and you were charged as if there was a loan. As per the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco publication Monetary Policy in the United States (p. 13) states that, “bank loans is/are funded…by banks creating new deposits.”

They claim there was a loan. The truth is , it was an exchange and they called the exchange a loan. The proof is in the bookkeeping entries.

No actual cash value was loaned as consideration for obtaining the promissory note, and the proof is that the note is what funded the check that you received.

If you gave the bank $100.00 cash as collateral for a bank loan, and the bank deposited the $100.00 cash and used it to fund a bank loan check which was delivered to you, and the bank refused to return the $100.00 cash collateral, does that make business sense to you?

Does that sound like a fair and equitable transaction?

That is exactly what the bank does on every loan it makes. When you hand the lender a promissory note, it has equal value to the loan check.

Where is the money that paid for the promissory note?

When a bank grants a $100,000 loan, all they are doing is taking $100,000 of actual cash value from you (the promissory note) and transferring it to them, for free. The bank did not loan one cent of their depositor’s money for the $100,000 promissory note.

They did it by recording the promissory note as a loan from you to the bank, on the banks books by journal entry. The bank then used the $100,000 they obtained from you to create the $100,000 of new money called checkbook money. Checkbook money has equal value to legal tender because the promissory note can be sold for legal tender.

Then the bank uses the newly created checkbook money to give you back the $100,000 as a bank loan.

How Does A Bank Loan Actually Work:

1. You want a loan for your home

2. The bank advertises that they loan money

3. You apply for a loan

4. You jump through all their hoops and are approved for a loan

5. They have you sign a promissory note

6. Your promissory note is exchanged for currency of equal face value

7. The bank deposits the currency into an account

8. The bank cuts you a check from the deposit you never knew

about (or transfers the money to those who should be receiving it).

9. And you think you owe money back on a loan, when in fact

all that took place was an “exchange”.

Did they give you money? NO

What other business in the world allows you to create money based

on the value that someone else GIVES YOU, then charge that person

again plus interest!?

So the real question becomes, “If the promissory note is an asset,

what funded the bank’s ownership of the note?”

Answer: They still don’t really own it. They made and exchange -

Your promissory note (asset to the bank) was exchanged for approximately

the amount of the loan. You gave the bank an asset worth $100,000 and

the bank returned $100,000 to you. Where was the loan? There was not one.

As an honest ethical person who believes that all loans should be repaid,

do you agree that the bank should repay your loan to them? After all, they

deposited your promissory note. Your promissory note is an asset that

they exchanged for a check.

Where’s the loan? Factually, there is not one. And since all lenders

should be repaid, shouldn’t the bank repay your loan to them?

To add insult to injury, the banks can “fractionalize” your note through

the Federal Reserve System, expanding its value up to nine times the

note’s face value ($100,000 becomes $900,000), tax-free money they

can spend and invest as they please. Bearing in mind, your are

“currently obligated” to repay the loan with interest that works out

to 2 1/2 times the principal over a 30 year period.

THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AMONG SEVERAL OTHER FLAWS ARE

PART OF THE BASIS UPON WHICH WE PROCEED TO HAVE MORTGAGES

SETTLED IN FULL, BECAUSE THE ARE IF PAID IN FULL.

Posted in lindsey howell, wells fargo, foreclosure help, Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »

24. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot.

The Supreme Court of Kansas recently referenced a Bankruptcy Court from Massachusetts that said:

“When the role of a servicing agent [MERS] acting on behalf of a mortgagee is thrown into the mix, it is no wonder that it is often difficult for unsophisticated borrowers to be certain of the identity of their lenders and mortgagees.” In re Schwartz, 366 B.R. 265, 266 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007).

Then cited the Supreme Court of New York (Kings County) that said:

“[T]he practices of the various MERS members, including both [the original lender] and [the mortgage purchaser], in obscuring from the public the actual ownership of a mortgage, thereby creating the opportunity for substantial abuses and prejudice to mortgagors . . . , should not be permitted to insulate [the mortgage purchaser] from the consequences of its actions in accepting a mortgage from [the original lender] that was already the subject of litigation in which [the original lender] erroneously represented that it had authority to act as mortgagee.” Johnson, 2008 WL 4182397, at *4, 873 N.Y.S.2d 234 (2008).

When a court references these slams you know that the House of Cards that is MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) is gonna take a hit.

TECHNICAL STUFF: Seems that when a first lienholder was foreclosing it sent notice to the originator of the second lien even though MERS was shown to be mortgagee on the second lien (as nominee of the lender).  Of course, the second lien originator had previously transferred its interest to a new lender, and the new lender did not get notice of the foreclosure and was wiped out by the foreclosure by the first lienholder.  The question was whether MERS was entitled to notice of the foreclosure.  The answer was no. (See another description of the case here.)

The relationship that MERS has to (to holder of a loan) is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer. A mortgagee and a lender have intertwined rights that defy a clear separation of interests, especially when such a purported separation relies on ambiguous contractual language. The law generally understands that a mortgagee is not distinct from a lender: a mortgagee is “[o]ne to whom property is mortgaged: the mortgage creditor, or lender.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1034 (8th ed. 2004). By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. K.S.A. 58-2323. Although MERS asserts that, under some situations, the mortgage document purports to give it the same rights as the lender, the document consistently refers only to rights of the lender, including rights to receive notice of litigation, to collect payments, and to enforce the debt obligation. The document consistently limits MERS to acting “solely” as the nominee of the lender.

Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009), here.

The Kansas Court went on:

What stake in the outcome of an independent action for foreclosure could MERS have? It did not lend the money to Kesler or to anyone else involved in this case. Neither Kesler nor anyone else involved in the case was required by statute or contract to pay money to MERS on the mortgage. [citation omitted](”MERS is not an economic ‘beneficiary’ under the Deed of Trust. It is owed and will collect no money from Debtors under the Note, nor will it realize the value of the Property through foreclosure of the Deed of Trust in the event the Note is not paid.”). If MERS is only the mortgagee, without ownership of the mortgage instrument, it does not have an enforceable right.

Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009), here.

Note that the Kansas Supreme Court feels the same way about MERS as the Arkansas Supreme Court in March 2009:

MERS holds no authority to act as an agent and holds no property interest in the mortgaged land. … MERS has no interest to protect. It simply was not a  necessary party. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 19(a). MERS’s role in this transaction casts no light on the contractual issues on appeal in this case. See, e.g., Wilmans v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 355 Ark. 668, 144 S.W.3d 245 (2004).

Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Southwest Homes of Ark., 2009 Ark. 152, 7-8 (Ark. 2009)

MERS is a straw man to the Kansas high court.  MERS does not own anything, and therefore does not have an enforceable right.  It is not entitled to notice says the court.

Posted in Kansas, MERS, foreclosure, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

22. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot 2012.

There is much that can be done to save your property.  It doesn’t really matter whether it is land or a home as the process is pretty much the same.  The first thing that needs to be filed into Court is a Complaint for Quite Title and a Motion for Relief from Sale of Property.  You are in a Non-Judicial state so they are proceeding pretty much as if all is well and YOU are in the wrong.

I would suggest, just after filing the Complaint, that you have an audit done on your loan to find all of the Federal and State regulations that they violated (and trust me…you’ll find several).  The ugly truth is that they must be able to produce the original note along with all of the evidence to support that they actually own the thing and with your Complaint they are going to have to PROVE that they followed all of the regulations.  The BIG ugly truth is that the necessary paperwork to prove they followed the regulations where not kept (they figured we’d never figure out how to fight them so they didn’t think they’d ever actually NEED them) properly so litigation is a very PAINFUL experience for them.

Most places that you go to get an audit charge from $1,500 to $2,000.  Since we do so many of them our provider charges us only $500 so if you go through The National Foreclosure Protection Center for the audit it will only cost $500.  The challenge for you is that litigation, even pro se (representing yourself) can be a little costly but far from what it would cost to hire an attorney. 

Posted in national foreclosure protection center, foreclosure education, the hudson group, stop foreclosures now, foreclosure help, mortgage | Print | 1 Comment »

22. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot 2012.

Every day more and more information about how we have been preyed on and used is surfacing.  The Bank of England is now asking for their money back on bad investments they were misled on, buying bad mortgages from US banks.  You can read the Story on Living Lies by Neil Garfield.  If you would like to learn more about how to save your home and even ask for compensation and damages please call or write us today.  See our contact page on the top right.

Posted in national foreclosure protection center, bank of america, lindsey howell, robert ponte, banking, foreclosure help, foreclosure | Print | No Comments »

19. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot 2012.

Think the bank is going to help you get a loan modification?  You probably have been trying for months to get a loan mod with little or no results.  Even for those of you who do get an offer, it is even worst than the existing loan.  Probably they are stringing you out for 40 years, tacked on all the penalties, fees and missed payments to the bottom line.  And they do not even suggest or consider a principal reduction.  Then you may have tried to get an attorney to help.  Most of them do not even know the laws in the foreclosure arena and mostly suggest one remedy, bankruptcy.  There is great information on the internet like Living Lies by Neil Garfield, but even then it is hard to discern what actions to take and who if anyone can help.   Well, you can help your self and it is way easier than you might think.  It does take some time and money, but you can with some effort take the bank servicing company to court and win.  The National Foreclosure Protection Center is the one place we have found that can help you, help yourself.  There are recorded calls and videos to learn from.  There are real people not attorneys who are learning to share their experiences with you.  Step by step courses that lead you though the process of getting a mortgage audit done.  All the steps and education you need in one place.  Keep checking our blog in the coming weeks and months to learn more.

Posted in national foreclosure protection center, attorney, foreclosure education, lindsey howell, robert ponte, foreclosure help, wells fargo, the hudson group, General | Print | No Comments »

7. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot.

What do cell phones and foreclosure have in common? Both are pretty much forced on us. Foreclosure happens after you try with all your heart to get a loan modification, which never happens. Then they start foreclosure on your home. But what do we always keep even while one of the worst events in our lives is happening. We keep our cell phone, no matter what the cost. It is kind of our home away from home. I never thought 3 years ago I would be in foreclosure and having a hard time paying for my cell phone, but I am. So what have I learned? Well I am working with Lindsey Howell putting together a course to teach people how to defend their homes. Especially since the banks, government and attorneys will not. One must as they say take the bull by the horns. Next we have to cut expenses, but can’t lose the cell phone. So my next step now is learning again how to tell the millions of foreclosure victims and cell phone users how to get their service for free, with Wow Mobile. Wow on the road again now. Defending my home and will win. Reduced my cell phone bill to zero and helping others to do the same.

Posted in robert ponte, cell phones, wow mobile, the hudson group, foreclosure, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

5. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot 2012.

Locked into a long term contract again?  Want to be free of the monthly bill of $100 to $500 a month for the average cell phone bill?  Now with Wow Mobile it is all possible.  No contract, no credit checks and no other fees for unlimited voice, text, email and data.  For years we have been stuck with contracts that help pay  the big four cell providers advertising budgets.  Wow Mobile has changed all that.  Now the consumer gets the benefits and residual income from every single person they refer to the Wow.  Refer three and get your free is the next evolution of the cell phone business.  Customers get all the benefits with out  all the hassles and no more contracts.  Wow Mobile is also ready with the next generation of Android cell phones, like the Samsung I7500 Galaxy.

Posted in connecticut, cell phones, robert ponte, the hudson group, General | Print | No Comments »