Tuesday, August 08, 2006

The movement of a note

The Promissory Note enters into the transaction as a financial asset of the maker. It is to be maintained and retained by the alleged creditor. Under the current practices though the so-called lender places the financial asset of the maker into a deposit account without any disclosure. This simple act changes the nature of the transaction from a normal creditor/debtor relationship to a principle/agent and beneficiary/trustee: a fiduciary relationship by the deposit and agent by the taking of the maker's asset into the commercial paper arena. The deposit account is liquidated without consent, a breach of fiduciary, and becomes the funding source for the wire or cashier's check used in the real-estate transaction. The alleged lender now takes the asset separate from the deposit and securitizes it by endorsement into the commercial markets. This happens on the back of the instrument/note or on an alonge attached. It is a sale of the asset of the maker without knowledge or disclosure, a breach of agency. There is a presumption of purchaser that the agent owns this asset. Agent has also become a servicer in most instances creating a conflict in that he now has two masters with opposing interest. The maker as principal should have been represented as to his assets, compensated, and informed. Now as servicer the same agent has an allegiance to a party/purchaser that is contrary to the interest of maker/principal. These would be crimes if the government were not the sanction of this huge conspiracy of fraud. Fannie Mae being the clearing house, guarantor of last resort, and purchaser now enters into the world of securities fraud in that the assets obtained through false representations do not come with any rights, title, or interest, and cannot be used as assets of their own to justify equity for their stocks and bonds.



This is all regulated by the uniform commercial code sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9. A clear presentation of the movements via this code shows rights, title, interest, and conflicts; substantiating the current practice of fraud because the presumptions are factually false.



The note being the maker's property is exchanged for a security interest is the current misunderstandings in public perception that believes a loan occurred. If this were true the note property should be returned when satisfied either by payment or foreclosure. Where is your original? This is the hide and seek question the fraud perpetrators refuse to answer.

71 comments:

neodemes said...

Eat this:

If there was intent to transfer a promissory note when an assignment of mortgage was executed, the plaintiff/ lender should prevail. See UCC sec. 3-110(a) ("The person to whom an instrument is initially payable is determined by the intent of the person, whether or not authorized, signing as, or in the name or behalf of, the issuer of the instrument"). Revised Article 9 and Article 3 of the UCC (Negotiable Instruments) allow enforcement when the note has been lost, before or after the transfer to an assignee, or is simply unavailable.

Excerpted from:
http://www.firstam.com/faf/html/cust/jm-sales.html

climax said...

you forgot this part, Neo:

However, under Sec. 3-309(b) the person seeking enforcement, if not the holder of the note, must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforcement, and also must provide "adequate protection" (by "any reasonable means") to the debtor/borrower to prevent the debtor/borrower from paying the same debt twice. If there was no intent to transfer, and the assignee of the mortgage was simply a "servicer"/ agent for the holder of the note (which is common in connection with securitized loan transactions), general agency law may still protect the lender. See also UCC sec. 3-110(c)(2)(ii) (providing that if an instrument is payable to "a person described as agent or similar representative of a named or identified person, the instrument is payable to the represented person, the representative, or a successor of the representative").

neodemes said...

That ain't gonna help you.

Stillwaiting said...

interesting! We actually got info on notes and UCC and not on religion. How about that. I am impressed.

dgwondering said...

All of which is meaningless in terms of the criminal case against the Dorean promoters. It's a bunch of old rehashed crap scammers keep trying to sell that never got anyout out of paying for something they owed.

habakkuk said...

" It's a bunch of old rehashed crap scammers keep trying to sell that never got anyout out of paying for something they owed. "

Its funny, you are a perfect example of the type of person the bankers, etc want.....Someone who is totally indifferent to the truth. You could care less. You call right wrong and wrong right....even though the Word of G-d clearly, CLEARLY defines whats right. You cant even tell the difference any more because your compass is broke.

habakkuk said...

"It's a bunch of old rehashed crap scammers keep trying to sell that never got anyout out of paying for something they owed. "

I mean honestly, after all this time are you still trying to argue that point? Really??? The evidence is so clear a blind man doesnt need brail to read it and your still stuck on that???? Foreal???

habakkuk said...

I've heard it all folks

Stillwaiting said...

dgwondering.....Not ture. I have a friend who went a different route and he just told me that several people in his group no longer pay and no longer are hassled by the lenders or their lawyers. His should be completed some time in the next month or two. I have known him for almost twenty years and I have listened in on the process more times than I can remember.
It is not an interpertation of the statutes as it is getting around the lawyers fight that takes the time. Remember they (lenders) have much deeper pockets than we do.

Gforce said...

Stillwaiting--what is the website of the people processing your friends mortgage?

Yetter said...

Eat This? The more the madness of might makes right, wether in the mortgage industry, the market place and in war continues, the greater the disaster will be.

Yetter said...

A situation that little is being said about is the disputed election in mexico.Mexicans are no where near good sports as US citizens when it comes to election stealing.They get quite fiesty and make a lot of noise. Even if they fail to succeed, it causes significant problems within a country. They should learn from the U.S. and simply not care.

mogel said...

Nemo: In the beginning, before any transfers, the real lender is the borrower, because the bank brought nothing to the transaction, so you're right, the "lender should prevail". The problem is that most people assume the bank is the lender. The key word is "intent". It was intended that the bank would take a financial risk and give a real loan. They didn't do that. Your starting with false assumptions, so if you come to a false conclusion, it's your own fault.

neodemes said...

Keep an eye on the Jerusalem skies Aug. 22

:-o

Pauligirl said...

I'm afraid, mogel, the false conclusions are yours. The borrower is not the lender. Never was, never will be. If that were true, why would you even need a bank? Your position is absurd, at least in the real world. The bank does a financial risk, by lending the money. You can quote all you want from those mortgage elimination sites, but it doesn't matter. They are wrong and you are wrong.

Kurt said "The Promissory Note enters into the transaction as a financial asset of the maker"

No. It is not an asset of the maker. It is a promise to pay. Neither is it the funding source for the wire or cashier's check used in the real-estate transaction. The collateral pledged is what allows one to borrow. Generally that's why you can't borrow more that what the property appraises for.

Here, take a look:

JAMES ALCORN AND TODD ALLEN, Appellants v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A., Appellee
These are the facts giving rise to the litigation: Alcorn and Allen decided to take out a home equity loan to obtain money for certain expenditures, including some repairs on their house. They negotiated the loan with Long Beach Mortgage Company. They executed a Texas Home Equity Note n1 which provides that they borrowed $ 80,000.00 from Long Beach Mortgage Company and promised to repay the loan in certain installments with interest. On the same day, both Alcorn and [*2] Allen signed a security agreement granting Long Beach Mortgage Company a security interest in their house to secure the note for the $ 80,000.00 loan. Alcorn and Allen received the amount of the loan, less certain loan expenses, in the form of a check. They cashed the check and received the proceeds.

Alcorn and Allen paid the note installments for some time, but eventually stopped making the payments because they came to believe that, legally, the home equity note did not represent a loan from Long Beach Mortgage Company to them, but instead represented money that was "created" for their own account by their signatures, so the money represented by the note was theirs from the beginning and Long Beach Mortgage [*3] Company owed the money to them instead of their owing it to the mortgage company.

When Alcorn and Allen stopped paying the note installments, the bank, which had acquired the note and security interest, accelerated the note payments and took steps to foreclose its lien on the house. Alcorn and Allen then brought suit against the bank, contending that the bank owed them the $ 80,000.00 plus interest rather than their owing the bank, as the note and security agreement provide. The bank counterclaimed, seeking to recover the amount due on the note and to foreclose its lien on the house.

Alcorn and Allen filed a motion for summary judgment. The bank responded, and then filed its own motion for summary judgment, supported by affidavits, copies of material documents, and excerpts from deposition testimony by Alcorn and Allen. Alcorn and Allen responded to the bank's motion for summary judgment. They had attached some affidavits to their own motion for summary judgment, and they refiled them with their response to the bank's motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the trial court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment and denied Alcorn and Allen's motion for summary judgment. The [*4] judgment granted the bank a recovery on the note and a foreclosure of its security interest in the home.

Alcorn and Allen have appealed. They raise several points in their brief, which we have grouped for discussion because they raise generally only two contentions: (1) the bank failed to respond to certain discovery requests and a subpoena duces tecum, thus effectively preventing Alcorn and Allen from going to trial before a jury, and (2) although they do not specifically raise this contention in their points, we deem, in the interest of justice, that they contend the trial court erred in granting the bank's motion for summary judgment. We overrule all these contentions and affirm the judgment.

The items that Alcorn and Allen allege were not produced in discovery are completely irrelevant to any material issue in this case, because all of those items are relevant only to Alcorn and Allen's patently unmeritorious legal theory that fails to state any claim to relief under the facts of this case. Alcorn and Allen take the position that, when they executed and delivered the home equity note to Long Beach Mortgage Company, the note did not evidence a debt from them to the mortgage company, [*5] but instead "created" money belonging to them that they do not owe to anyone. This is a legally erroneous concept that is apparently based on Alcorn and Allen's misinterpretation of some information they discovered in a publication issued by the Federal Reserve System.

HN1When a person executes a promissory note, the note constitutes a written promise by the maker to pay the amount specified in the note to the payee named in the note. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 3.104(a), (b) (Vernon 2002); Wexel v. Cameron, Grier & Co., 31 Tex. 614, 617 (1869); Texmarc Conveyor Co. v. Arts, 857 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied); Mauricio v. Mendez, 723 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1987, no writ); see also TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 26.02(a)(2) (Vernon 2002). Indeed, Alcorn and Allen specifically acknowledged in writing in the note they executed that, "This is an extension of credit . . . . In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U.S. $ 80,000.00 . . . to the order of the Lender." Furthermore, they acknowledged in the security agreement they executed that, "Borrower owes Lender the [*6] principal sum of EIGHTY THOUSAND and NO/100-Dollars ($ 80,000.00). This debt is an extension of credit . . . and is evidenced by Borrower's note dated the same date as this Security Instrument . . . ."

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to require the bank to produce the alleged missing discovery items identified by Alcorn and Allen because the bank provided its complete loan file to Alcorn and Allen containing all the documents that were relevant to this case. The requested "missing" items were irrelevant because they relate only to a completely spurious and legally incorrect claim.

Alcorn and Allen contend that the trial court erroneously refused to compel the bank to produce a "credible witness" for deposition and enforce a subpoena duces tecum for certain discovery items. We point out that the bank produced the witness requested, who gave a deposition. HN2The determination of whether a witness is credible is for the fact-finder, not the party taking or opposing the deposition. Moreover, as noted above, the items allegedly missing from the subpoena duces tecum were completely irrelevant to the disposition of this case.

The trial court correctly granted summary [*7] judgment to the bank because the undisputed summary judgment evidence established the following facts:

1. Alcorn and Allen borrowed $ 80,000.00 as a home equity loan from Long Beach Mortgage Company and executed and delivered a home equity promissory note evidencing the loan and a security agreement granting Long Beach Mortgage Company a security interest in the real estate described in the security agreement.

2. At the time of suit, Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., was the owner and holder of the aforesaid note and security interest.

3. The loan that is the subject of this suit was closed at Lakewood Land Titles, Inc., by Ms. Patricia Fox, closing agent for Lakewood Land Titles, Inc.

4. Alcorn and Allen received loan proceeds in the sum of $ 72,151.58, by check # 003489, from Lakewood Land Titles Bank, representing the $ 80,000.00 loan, less loan costs. Long Beach Mortgage Company furnished the funds for check # 003489 by wire transfer to Lakewood Land Titles Bank.

5. Alcorn and Allen cashed check # 003489 and received and appropriated to their own use the funds represented by said check.

6. The loan described above was in default. Alcorn and Allen received notice of the default [*8] and failed to cure the default.

7. The note payments were accelerated, and at the time of judgment there was due the principal sum of $ 79,824.45 plus interest and accrued charges of $ 6,916.03, with additional interest accruing from April 5, 2002, at $ 24.03 per day.

8. The bank has expended $ 17,962.55 in attorney's fees which were reasonable and necessary.

Because TEX. CONST. art. XVI, § 50(a)(6)(C) and the home equity note involved here provide that the makers of the note shall have no personal liability on the note, but it shall be enforced against the security only, we modify the summary judgment rendered by the trial court to substitute the following paragraph 2 for that included in the original summary judgment:

"2. The amount outstanding and owing to Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., on the promissory note in question is in the principal amount of $ 79,824.45 plus accrued interest of $ 6,916.03 through May 3, 2002, together with per diem interest thereafter at the rate of $ 24.03 per day until paid; provided that James Alcorn and Todd Allen have no personal liability as to the amounts specified in this paragraph 2 and paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of this judgment, but as to which [*9] the Bank's lien on the real property hereafter described is valid, existing, and enforceable."

As noted earlier, Alcorn and Allen filed a response to the bank's motion for summary judgment, but supported their response by only conclusory allegations of erroneous legal theories rather than material fact issues.

The trial court's denial of Alcorn and Allen's motion for summary judgment was correct for the same reasons that Alcorn and Allen's response to the bank's motion for summary judgment was ineffectual-the allegations supporting their motion did not present material facts, but only conclusory statements and allegations of various erroneous legal theories of recovery.

The bank asks us to assess damages against Alcorn and Allen for filing a frivolous appeal. Although we have HN3the authority to do so under TEX. R. APP. P. 45, we elect not to do so in this case.

For all these reasons, as modified, we affirm the summary judgment.

William J. Cornelius
Justice

at one time, the case was available here: http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/home.asp
it now appears that you have to be a member of the Texas Bar. I shortened it up a bit, but if anybody wants to read it, I can post the whole thing. It's also available on Westlaw and has been cited in CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., Plaintiff, v. JANI L. JESSOP, Defendant.
"[*23] The "no money lent" argument has been rejected as a legitimate debtor defense. Alcorn and Allen v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5656, (Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District). The court found that debtors Alcorn and Allen relied on a "legally erroneous concept" when they asserted [**12] that the home equity note they signed created money and therefore did not represent a debt to the mortgage company. Id."

As to the possession of the note:
."The revised code as to notes:§ 3-309. ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED, OR STOLEN INSTRUMENT.(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if: (1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument(A) was entitled to enforce it the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred; (2) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and(3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/searc...le3.htm#s3-309 To summarize, under the UCC possession is not an indication of ownership of the note. Recording of collateral assignments is not required under Revised Article 9. Enforcement of the debt without the note is allowable under Article 3. Equitable arguments are available to prevent a borrower from benefitting from the industry's inability to keep track of its documents. http://www.firstam.com/faf/html/cust/jm-sales.html

I send payoffs to mortgage companies just about everyday. I get the original Deed of Trust and note back about 90% of the time. So that argument doesn't hold either.

And then we have this: "The alleged lender now takes the asset separate from the deposit and securitizes it by endorsement into the commercial markets. This happens on the back of the instrument/note or on an alonge attached. It is a sale of the asset of the maker without knowledge or disclosure, a breach of agency."

Once again, no.. The lender reserves the right to sell or transfer the note and in all the loan packages I deal with, the borrower signs documents acknowledging that loan will be transferred or sold. The note being transferred or sold does not change the terms the borrower agreed to in the first place.

Now, I am not saying that there are not predatory lenders out there. There are. But the arguments of the Dorean Group do not hold up in court. While some folks here would like to think that's because there is a conspiracy between the banks and the courts, that's simply not true. It's because Dorean is just wrong on their legal theory.

If you think you have been wronged by a predatory lender, then sue them yourself. If you can show that the lender acted wrong and you were damaged, you have a good chance of winning. It has happened before.

However, it appears the no money lent argument doesn't work. It's already been deemed "erroneous legal theories." If anyone knows of a case where someone won using that argument, please, post it. I'd love to see it.

P

climax said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
climax said...

"That isn't going to help you"


Why not?

If the person is not the holder of the note then the person seeking enforcement of the note must prove he has a right to enforcement AND "provide adequate protection" (by "any reasonable means") to the debtor/borrower to prevent the debtor/borrower from paying the same debt twice.

If you have power to enfore the note you must have Power of Attorney from the bank or lender to enforce the note. Good luck finding any attorney with POA from any lender.

whyudothat said...

Pauligirl said...The collateral pledged is what allows one to borrow.

o really PG?
I just received a 36,000 line of 'CREDIT' from my capital one credit card account, please do tell me what physical collateral it is backed up by. would ya?

it is backed by nothing, came from nowhere, but they are ready to receive hard earned work from me for a alleged repayment.

i await your answer of the collateral.

whyudothat said...

$36,000 unsecured line of credit

mogel said...

Pauligirl said: "I get the original Deed of Trust and note back about 90% of the time."
_________________________________

Why should such an important document ever be lost? Do 10% of lenders lose the rest of the paperwork and accounting on a loan too & 10% of the time, a borrower ends up not having to pay due to the ineptness of the financial institution? Borrowers should be so lucky. Makes no sense to me that the percentages should even be 10%.

SO 10% OF THE TIME, THE BORROWER IS PAYING THE WRONG LENDER/SERVICER & may have a lender/servicer come back saying they weren't paid and the borrower will have to pay again & sue the previous so called lender/servicer who shouldn't have been paid?

I've heard estimates as high that 60% of notes are lost or can't be produced by lenders claiming to be servicing the loan.

If you think a promissory note isn't an asset, then, maybe a bank president needs to be put under oath & forced to testify how these notes are indorsed & made into deposits at the bank & maybe these so called borrowers accounts opened up behind the back of the borrower, should be exposed & asked what these accounts are used for? One of these days, all of the evidence is going to come to light so a person who sues a lender isn't walked all over by the Courts & the banks's attorneys. The Courts in the past have ruled only on part of the evidence presented. It's a shame that Courts suppress discovery & then say it's irrelevant like in the case you cited. That shows to be there is a conspiracy between the courts & the banks.

Maybe a private investigator or an insider with a bank needs to obtain the evidence to show that you aren't giving all of the facts of what really happens. One of these days, that's going to happen, & then they'll be a Court case that can be cited showing the "no money lent theory" is no longer a theory, but is a fact. At that point, I suppose the Court would suppress the case file & cause it to be not viewed by the public or label it a case of government secrecy, or find a legal loophole to overturn the case.

No one wants to explain what the Federal Reserve publications really means. If it's a theory, explain what the publication means, don't just tell me it's a theory. EXPLAIN IT. What does it mean when a loan is created, " the money supply is increased". How can that be? THESE SO CALLED THEORIES AREN'T JUST MADE UP OUT OF NOTHING BY WOULD BE SCAM ARTISTS. THERE'S A BASIS, BUT THE COURTS & LENDERS TALK AROUND ALL OF THIS.

Well, what's your answer? Another irrelevant question? Just as I thought.

mogel said...

Pauligirl: Did I say "we need banks" to give loans ----as they do? No that was your assumption, not mine.
I think I'm an advocate of changing the System. I'm against the fractional reserve banking system where you can have $1.00 on deposit and loan $10.00. That's not real lending.

I'm against the banks not having to prove that they lend their own assets. I'm against the banks "creating money" out of thin air. We don't need that. We need to reform the System. We don't need owners of banks getting an enrichment benefit, simply because they have a license to steal, and having a government protecting & encouraging their theft.

mogel said...

PG said: "It is NOT an asset of the maker. It is a promise to pay.
____________________________

A check is a promise to pay also. Are you going to say a check is not an asset too? I deposit checks all of the time in my bank. It's most assuredly an asset because my bank balance increases each time I deposit a check. The last time I checked a bank balance was considered an asset on a financial statement.

Course, I have to indorse the check over to myself before I can deposit it & make it an asset in order to deposit it in the bank in order to get more credits at my bank.

Come to think of it, that's exactly what the lender does when I give them a check (promissory note), except they indorse it over to themselves for unjust enrichment & do so under false pretenses since I'm signing the promissory note on the condition that I'm getting a loan FIRST. That doesn't happen. The so called Lender FIRST gets an asset (PROMISSORY NOTE) for nothing. Now that they got a free asset, they can in turn give me back a check & call it a loan, however, they want to get paid AGAIN OR ENRICHED AGAIN by putting a mortgage on my house. The lender can sell or hypothecate the promissory note & enrich themselves and also enrich themselves again by foreclosing & selling the house. The lender gets two assets. How is that fair? Oh I forget, they have a license to steal & we need them to practice this theft that causes inflation in our economy, that in turn steals from everyone else.

If you don't see that, then you have the problem, not me. You can hide or disguise the theft all you want & cite all the court cases you want to justify the lenders behaviour. It doesn't change the magic trick. It's still a trick that goes undetected by most.

Course, your income is derived from this theft & this theft butters your pocket & enhances your bank account income, so it's no wonder you protect this theft & stand on the side that you do. In your own words, After all, you "work in a department that receives payoffs on mortgage loans every day."

mogel said...

What Did You mean said: "Mogel,
I would like to contact you. Is there a way to do so away from the blog?
__________________________________
Sure, post your email & I'll send you a note & we'll talk away from this blog.

Pauligirl said...

whyudothat
I'm talking about secured loans, not unsecured lines of credit. Didn't you see the word "property" in there?
If you don't use the card, you don't make payment. If you use it, expect to pay for what you bought.

Mogel
SO 10% OF THE TIME, THE BORROWER IS PAYING THE WRONG LENDER/SERVICER & may have a lender/servicer come back saying they weren't paid and the borrower will have to pay again & sue the previous so called lender/servicer who shouldn't have been paid?

No. It's never happened in the 18 years I've been doing it. Besides, they send a release to cancel if they don't have both the note and Deed of Trust. I don't know why you think it's such a big deal. It's not. The loan gets cancelled either way.

Mogel "If you think a promissory note isn't an asset"
I said it wasn't an asset to the maker, not the holder.

Mogel " In your own words, After all, you "work in a department that receives payoffs on mortgage loans every day."

Not what I said. I said "I send payoffs to mortgage companies just about everyday. I don't work for one.

I work for an attorney's office and deal with people getting loans. People that have enough sense to know how they work.


Mogel "Course, your income is derived from this theft & this theft butters your pocket & enhances your bank account income, so it's no wonder you protect this theft & stand on the side that you do"

No, that would be you.

P

whyudothat said...

Pauligirl said...
whyudothat
I'm talking about secured loans, not unsecured lines of credit. Didn't you see the word "property" in there?



ahhhhh, so how does a credit card company differ? then it becomes ok? cat got your tongue then! lol

my other CHASE manhattan credit card is the SAME BANK as the mortgage company. how can it be ok for property and not ok for unsecured, you just painted yourself in a corner.

there is no collateral, unsecured debt doesnt make it ok for the banks to steal from you either.

whyudothat said...

please answer PG, PROPERTY OR NO PROPERTY, SECURED OR UNSECURED,

what is the 36,000 backed up with, I still await a logical answer.

neodemes said...

whatdidyoumean,

mogel007 awaits you at http://www.plentyoffish.com/member2050165.htm

neodemes said...

OR

http://www.singlesaints.com/view-lds-single/mogel007

Pauligirl said...

Most credit cards are unsecured. the collateral is your promise to pay. If your credit is good enough, you probably could buy a house with it. But that's not we are talking about here. We are talking about a secured loan with a note and deed of trust. If you use a credit card to obtain goods, why would you bitch about paying it back? If you don't pay, then you are the one stealing. If you don't like the rates, don't use the card.

Here ya go...all your credit card questions answered

http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Credit_card#The_merchant.
27s_side

whyudothat said...

thank you for the answer PG, you said it yourself , the collateral is your promise to pay.

what a great system, i can issue pauligirl 36,000 of CREDIT by cashing her promissory note and not put up any consideration OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, NOR LOAN ANY OF MY ASSETS, THEREFORE AT NO RISK OF ANY KIND, 'but' I the banker get to collect PG's hard earned cash as she goes to work everyday.

hmmm, consider that

whyudothat said...

so PG if I open a bank and do that to the ppl of this country, you think thats OK?

Peanut Gallery said...

Back in the mid 1980's I was a general contractor and did work for a family in Spokane Wa that had numerous commercial properties there. At that time one of the sons(who was an attorney) wanted to start a mortgage lending co. All he needed was $250,000 in cash, which according to him would allow his company to "loan" 2.5 million. That may not sound like much today, but considering the average mortgage in the area at the time was 60k, he could move a lot of paper. Once he was set up he was able to issue stock, so for each dollar in hard money assets he could"lend" 10 dollars. Sounds like fractional reserve banking to me. The comany (Pacific Securities) is one of the larger loan co's in Wa state.
I guess that answers the question as to how to start a loan company, at least that was how you did it 20 years ago. Just my 2 cents worth, or is that 20 cents worth.

neodemes said...

whyudothat,

Don't be a chump, cut up those credit cards.

whyudothat said...

neodemes said... Don't be a chump, cut up those credit cards.


that doesnt make the banks actions any less perverted.

Pauligirl said...

whyudothat
You don't get to collect my cash unless I use your card. Just giving me line of credit means nothing.
When you buy a house, you get all of the loan upfront to pay the seller.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
It's late. Later
P

whyudothat said...

PG you didnt answer the question,

do you consider it OK for me to open a bank and issue CREDIT from your prom note and collect hard earn money from ppl like you?is that a decent, honorable thing that you agree with?

yes or no question?

Pauligirl said...

whyudothat said...
PG you didnt answer the question,

do you consider it OK for me to open a bank and issue CREDIT from your prom note and collect hard earn money from ppl like you?is that a decent, honorable thing that you agree with?

yes or no question?

Sorry, but that's not a yes or no question. How is it going to hurt me? How is it going to benefit others?

Anything else will have to wait.
Later
P

whyudothat said...

i dont know what you do with your CREDIT or others do with it, or how you will benefit or others, thats up to you.

But is it OK with you if I open a bank and do this to ppl for me to be successful?


yes or no?

neodemes said...

Dude,

Most people don't care whether the banks risk anything or not. They are happy to get the money to buy a home and understand the terms of the loan and how much it will cost them.

Get over it already.

Yetter said...

The truth cares.wording in the truth and lending cares wether or not you or nobody else cares.

Yetter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yetter said...

"Where is your original?This is the hide and seek question the fraud perpetrators refuse to answer." Banks don't really make it's money lending out to people so they could build houses,the bank trades for a living.This where your promissory note becomes a vehicle.A derivative is a financial contract whose value depends on a risk factor.
1.the price of a bond,commodity,currency,share etc. 2.A yield or rate of interest.
3.An index of prices or yields.
Derivatives are financial instruments that HAVE NO INTRINSIC VALUE,such as silver and gold, they get it from an external value. They hedge(gamble)the risk of owning things subject to price fluctuations,currencies and bonds.There are two main types of derivitives.
1.Futures. contracts for future delivery at a specified price.
2.Options.The opportunity to buy and sell at prearranged price.Derivitives transaction stay off the books and out of the prying eyes of investors and analysts. Enron is the micro example of what happens when it all goes wrong. Who really got hurt, Joe and Jane lunch box.Banks with the help of a privately held Federal Reserve at the controls have turned into giant casinos by running a casino economy that is splintering into vast piles of insolvent firewood.U.S.stock markets are being manipulated to show overall value gains and profits in order to keep the banks "paper" solvent. In reality the public is being conned into thinking that the banks are still solvent because they show gains in their stock paper value. If the U.S. markets were not manipulated the banks would collapse overnight along with the economy.To all the wonderful people who work and thrive in the industry you are argueing form over substance.The lie cannot magicaly turn into the truth. To survive it must continue to lie at even greater levels. The Federal judges are the gate keepers to that ensure the lie survives.This is what Kurt and Scott are facing. Judge Alsup has been found wanting.

WillToFight said...

Well Said Yetter

Good to see some since on this Blog!

WillToFight said...

Yetter

Many Americans as is shown here will not understand until this country has completed its Fascist (police state) takeover, and they themselves are under total corporate control, and no ability for redress!

tcob247 said...

Mogel

you are beautiful
did you find anybody yet?


Mogel007No photo yet available.
Age: 38
Height: 5 10
Body type: Average
Education: Some College
State: Utah
Country: United States


Varied interests. Looking for attractive, mature, intelligent, lady 28-40 yrs. of age. I have been self employed all of my life. I am currently involved in helping people legally cancel their mortgage obligation. My background is in real estate & finance.

whatdoyoumean said...

It's amazing to me that whatever a man in a black dress says makes something true. The same argument over and over again. The facts are that the banks are making huge profits at the expense of everyone. Its unfair, and unethical. But if a judge says it's ok then we should all just accept it.

Like abortion. It's MURDER cut and dried. But because a dress wearing man says you can do it, there's no punishment. It's still wrong, and there is a higher law that will not be silent forever. Keep on justifying wrong based upon a man's opinion.

whatdoyoumean said...

NEO said...

Dude,

Most people don't care whether the banks risk anything or not. They are happy to get the money to buy a home and understand the terms of the loan and how much it will cost them.

Get over it already.

Ummm, that's because most people don't know jack about money, or how it works. Why does the education system spend 9 months a year for 13 or more years and never teach you anything about money? They cram garbage you will never need to know into your head in the name of being "well rounded" and never teach what EVERYONE needs to know. It's intentional. Keep people stupid so that we can continue to have a system where only 1% of the population of the world are ridiculously rich, and 30% are below poverty. Manmade. Not God made. Stop defending corruption.

I have heard enough of your comments about what people should really do. Take your own advice. Go get 2 jobs and work yourself rich while giving 30%off the top to uncle sam. Send your wife off to work and watch your home fall apart. Quit lying to people and doing something different than you are spouting off. Cut up credit cards, get 2 jobs, live skimpily. Don't invest in real estate until you save up enough cash. Try that living in California, average home prices being $400k.

Or just shut up and stop lying to us. We already know what the truth is, stay at your own site and say whatever you want. You have tried to benefit from this situation to many times.

PEOPLE SICK AND TIRED OF NEO UNITE!!!!!!!

Now I could set up some website that noone will go to and keep trying to promote it.

papa_dont_preach said...

whatdoyoumean, thanks, that had to be said. Nemo's the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen. He and polly wanna crackhead think they are saving the world with their spin on how the system's setup to benefit the good ol boys. Their jobs are at stake cause Kurt pulled back the onion peel and found out just how bad they stunk.

WillToFight said...

Whatdoyoumean

I am with you!

Neo is a Fascist and doesnt even know it or he attempts to fool someone here?!?!

Chances are he is an ignorant dumb SOB!

KYHOOYA said...

So I find it all NOT SO funny that when trying to edge there side to all of this that people like NEO & TIN CUP have to post items of someones personal ID to try and get them to go away.

then there is always the TEACHING & Spelling/geammer thing that they use.

Why is that?

Do you have so little to back up your side of this story?

It sure looks that way with all the personal info and belittleing you try and post about people here.

If people on the internet wanted there iD to be printed for the public they would'nt have screen names to keep it out of the generel main stream.


Why don't you try keeping with the topic and leave personal items out.

I know if it were me and you pulled that crap I would find away to locate you and share my personl info and such in person.

anyone that has to resort to that crap has nothing of anything worth hearing about it's all BULLSHIT that comes out of there mouth and that the fact's

Why don't you go try that play ground bully shit somewhere else PUNK'S

AND PUNK'S YOU ARE,AND WE ALL KNOW HOW THEY END UP DON'T WE


HOW SAD FOR YOU TO HAVE TO TRY AND BELITTLE TO MAKE YOR POINT. HOW SAD FOR YOU INDEED. NEO,TCOB,AND ANYONE WHO WOULD JOIN THAT WAY OF DEBATING

IF YOU CAN'T CONVINCE SOMEONE THAT YOUR RIGHT WITH THE MERRITS OF YOUR FACT'S THAN WHY IS IT THAT YOU THINK ANYONE'S PERSONAL LIFE WOULD BE THE ITEM NEEDED TO USE.

IF THAT BE THE CASE NEO HAV'NT YOU SAID YOUR SELF THAT YOU WENT BANKRUPT AND THAT YOU DON'T EVEN OWN A HOUSE, OH SLAYER OF THE REALASTATE MARKET.

i THINK WHAT YOU DO BY POST PERSONAL INFO IS THE LOWEST OF THE LOW AND YOUR AN ASSHOLE FOR DOING IT THAT HAS LOST ALL FACE AND CREDIBILITY AND YOUR WORD MEANS SHIT! NOT ONE THING YOU SAY FROM NOW ON IS WORTH DICK HOW LOW DO YOU GUY'S HAVE TO STOOP TO TRY AND WIN PEOPLE TO YOUR SIDE OF THINKING CAN'T DO IT WITH THE FACT, IT SURE SHOW'S WHO YOU ARE WHITOUT SOMEONE HAVE TO POST YOU id'S


i'LL END WIYH A GOOD OLD HARDY FUCK OFF SHIT FOR BRAIN'S TWIN TWITT'S NEO TIN CUP, AND ANYONE WHO CARES TO JOIN THEM AND GO THAT ROUTE OF POSTING PERSONAL INFO ABOUT ANYONE THATS NOT POSTING IT THEM SELFS IT YOU LACK OF REAL FACTS AND YOUR LUST TO WIN THAT CAUSE YOU TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND SHOW'S YOUR JUST LIKE IT LOOKS WRONG ABOUT WHAT THEBANKS ARE DOING AND IF THAT WAS'NT THE CASE THEN YOU WOULD'NT HAVE GONE THAT ROUTE TO TRY AND GET SOMEONE TO LEAVE HERE AND WOULD JUST POST ON THE TOPIC AND THE MERRITS OF YOUR ARGUMENTS


FUCK OFF! SNAKES ALL SNAKE

JUST MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT.

kaz4541 said...

Hi Mr. Johnson, Thank you for all your hard work.
When will this be over??
Can I still expect this to be over in this month??

Seen it in Utah said...

Pauligirl: It just goes to show that you can put wisdom in the face of Doreanite, but you cannot make them smart. You are absolutely right in your analysis--the Note is a promise to pay--it is NOT an asset of the maker--it is an obligation, a debt. Not an Asset. But these guys are determined that their way of thinking is right--despite the very obviously clear case law you have cited.

Not only that-I have asked many times for anyone to point to a single success. A single property utilizing the Dorean crap that successfully eliminated a mortgage from a property-in which the lender acknowledged that the lender did not have a valid lien against the property. Never did see a single success. As you know, we never will.

These guys do not really care what the law is, what the security instruments and notes really are. They are Kurt's kool-aid drinkers. They would follow him the end, regardless of how erroneous the path is.

I will bet even after the criminal trial is complete, the guilty verdicts are in and the Dorean Mighty Heroes and Felons aresentenced to hard time for fraud--these sheep will continue to moan and gripe about the coppted government and courts. There really is no intelligent way to address them that sinks in. Some of them have already lost their homes, and yet they bleat on, urging their leader to continue to stir them more kool-aid. It boggles the mind.

tcob247 said...

UTAH....

Maybe Kahooya can answer your question

He has ALL the answers

tcob247 said...

kaz4541 said...
Hi Mr. Johnson, Thank you for all your hard work.
When will this be over??
Can I still expect this to be over in this month?? ........

Just two more weeks buddy

Peanut Gallery said...

utah,

Those who profit from the criminal behavior of others, will defend those criminals to the end , regardless of fact

Peanut Gallery said...

BTW utah,

I was talking about YOU, not Dorean supporters.
So, what flavor is the koolaid you drink?

Seen it in Utah said...

No koolade for me. I won't drink any of the crap that Kurt ladles out. I find it quite amusing that you had to post a second posting to clarify your first statement. After all, seems that the parties behind bars are YOUR heroes.

son of a prophet said...

ok.

lets settle this pro and anti stuff once and for all.

how does this work??

how aoubt saying that the neos of the world and the mogels of the world ARE BOTH RIGHT!?!?!

HOW!?

well, see it goes like this....

it is what you belive it to be, just like the HS in giving wisdom...

there is no right and wrong...well, almost.

if neo is on the jury, he votes against the mogel argument of vapor money, etc.

if mogel is the jury, he votes against the banks argument.

so i guess that it really comes down to wht you believe, if it came to a jury trial and you are a juror.

there seems to be, just like a lot of thngs, no right and wrong.

just 2 things:

WHAT YOU BELIEVE and/or, if you are not in a posittion to enforce what you believe, then.....


WHO HAS THE POWER (banks, judges, prosectors, etc.)


i would vote with mogel, but my vote still does get me a cup of coffee without and addtoinal $3.29

Peanut Gallery said...

No, you drink the koolaid of the establishment bankers that are causing the eventual collaps of the monetary system of this country. Enjoy the the rotten fruits of your title scams while you can, because the ride is swiftly coming to an end.
Do you sleep well at night knowing what you are a part of? Or has your conscience evaded you?

Seen it in Utah said...

I sleep very well, thank you. I pay my mortgage payment each month, just as I promised to do. I don't worry about being foreclosed, about scamming others, or going to jail. Life is good when you keep your promises. Too bad the Doreanites decided that their silly backwards thinking would result inthem getting something for nothing. Well, I gess they do get something--their credit shot, their credibility reduced to zero, and their heroes/saviors spending significant time in the graybar hotel.

Peanut Gallery said...

utah,

you missed the point as always. How do you sleep knowing you are in the scam title insurance business, legalized protection money?

Tony Tuba said...

In the land of dreams.......reality is King.

Tony Tuba said...

"Making Lunacy Fashionable"

Sayeth The Swami

Tony Tuba said...

Rumor has it that Ms. Cleo is carrying Bruce Macomber's baby! Bruce you little devil you!

Tony Tuba said...

"Keep It Real Ms. Cleo...Keep It Real"

"Call Me NOW"


Sayeth Ms. Cleo

Tony Tuba said...

Bruce Macomber's Baby = Money Shot? You stll got it Bruce! Although I though Climax was The Money Shot!

neodemes said...

oooh.

Such anger is not healthy. And such vulgarity. Shame on you.

For the record, I didn't post the personal information in question, moogie did. You have a beef? Take it up with Google.

Mogel007

And, yes, I have filed BK in the past. Did I not tell you that, myself?

But, get your facts straight. I own a house. No money down. No conventional bank financing.

Learn how at REI RESOURCE

All you need is love.

TTFN

neodemes said...

Spelling/geammer

roflmao :-) :-) :-)

KYHOOYA

mogel said...

Utah said: "After all, seems that the parties behind bars are YOUR heroes."
_________________________________
So when is a person's circumstances or where someone lives relevant? Are you assuming all guilty people are in jail? Do you judge by appearances too? Or do you judge by someone's heart and intent? The intent of the dorean process was never to defraud. Why do you make it so? Where are the damages that the banks have due to the Dorean process? Just answer me that!!!!!

You don't know Kurt & Scott's heart, so why are you so quick to judge?

KYHOOYA said...

neodemes said...
oooh.

Such anger is not healthy. And such vulgarity. Shame on you.

For the record, I didn't post the personal information in question, moogie did. You have a beef? Take it up with Google.

Mogel007

And, yes, I have filed BK in the past. Did I not tell you that, myself?

But, get your facts straight. I own a house. No money down. No conventional bank financing.

Learn how at REI RESOURCE

All you need is love.

TTFN

8:25 PM



Hey Neo piss off with your better than thou crap.
Your right about the anger part in your statement about me. the facts are right on the point about what I said if you read it you'll se that I did say that it was you that posted the BK news about yourself.

That being said let me ask you something that you like to ask otherrs all the time.

If you went BK why is it that you think it is o.k to run out on all your debt as you say if you buy with your credit did you not get something so should'nt you pay for it after all it's people like you that have myself and others that do paying high interest because of you skipping out on your debts by filing BK the poor bank's are losing all that moneypoor poor banks

the hole point of my anger is the fact that you and others seem to have to back up your story or defend it when you don't have a good answer to it by pulling in someones personal info and the case may be that he peosted the infi but you felt a need to bring it here like tin cup as some form of putting him down instead of working on the merrit of side of this and when you can't give an answer to a question just leave it at that why all the low blow off topic crap you bring here what is it that it is intended for is it part of the fact's?

I don't think so, it's just LOW SNAKE LIKE DEALINGS that's it nothing more

and you were the one that posted the name of the person that speaks under Mogels title so that is a fact for you also pal.

So as i said and you so very well proved with the spelling hit on me as I new you or tin cup would bit on you show that I'm right about the bullshit you need to some how try and make youre self feel bigger and right. It show's throught so brite indeed your true self and what is needed to at any cost to make what you say into light but not true by any means not true at all.

The facts are clear that the people that want to hold onto the idea that Dorean was out to scam are going to do that at what ever cost tehy won't see the big picture as it is and think by doing it the way there told it will all be .k. but the facts win or lose the money sys. of this country is in for a big change like it or not.

Hey don't look at the fact that the not is altered after the point of signing it (along with the rest of the doc. )
no that would be to much to the edge of truth about the lies that are acted out with regard to this hole trans ation.

maybe tin cup can answer that one as to why it is that the bank take you doc signed for in front of a notory public to wittness and they change itto what they intended to have as in the first place. Why not just do tha from the start so it can be seen up front why take the chance of someone finding out a making a big deal and saying that they (the banks) were stealing,lieing ,and hide facts and shit why's that? anyone

why don't the banks just tell what there going to do in plan everyday wording and discloser with out the tricks to civer it up ??

anyone

I was allways told if acts like a rat & looks like ect. it must be a rat. that is a fact for you to so hey tin cup how come you can't ghive a good answer to any of the questions put to you ??

I say it's because you don't have a good answer to give and then there is allways your best one to say "I'm not answering any ?? from you and I don't have to" go right a head it just show how there os no good answer to it and you like to put other crap out there about people instead od just staying on toipic what a joke you are

laughing lots said...

After reading and following this for sometime now, this has gotten to be the most comical and ridiculous thing i have ever seen. Words can't describe how silly you sound talking about God and judgement day and blah blah blah. It is judgement day and guess what? God is taking care of you right now, putting you behind bars. He will continue to do so, i would say, for at least a few more years. Unfortunately, when the day comes and you do get out there will be more sappy people who actually fall for your scams. It is pathetic that you have nothing to do in jail except print fake checks(what an idiot)and mingle with other scam artists about your next fraudulent venture that allows you to take advantage of the weak minded and ruin their lives. The really sad part is that there are actually people who believe that diarrhea that comes out of your mouth and all of that scripture dribble that is so ridiculous. Why don't you just shut up and face the fact that God will not help you now and he's got you right where you belong. Jail is where he wants you to be, and he isn't finished with you yet. In my opinion, anyone who represents themslves in court has a fool for a lawyer!