Saturday, March 20, 2010

The Naked Truth, 11/29/09

The apparel of blessing adorns me
though I am willing to be naked before you
All I possess is a gift of your grace
yet all I desire is to see your face.

Stripped down now without a regret
I only oppose for one single reason
Men must know that you are changeless and true
that whatever you speak you will do.

This prison can't hold me though I willingly stay
I could enjoy my life living this way
Only your promise bids me to leave
and its fulfillment just cause to believe.

For your glory, honor and praise I'm only content
when the way you prophesied it is the way it went.


mogel007 said...

NO STANDING TO FORECLOSE. The party asserting a right to foreclose must have an original contract showing all terms of the contract with full disclosure. There is no contract. No loan can be foreclosed upon without a contract to back it up: and no contract exists in your case. The banker fears that you will claim that the original contract was altered, WHICH IT WAS IN YOUR CASE, and stolen, WHICH IT WAS IN YOUR CASE, and that there was an addition to the agreement, WHICH IT WAS IN YOUR CASE, and will be proven by the banks answers to the following items:

1) The intent of the agreement is that the original party who funded the alleged loan per the bookkeeping entries is to be repaid the money.
2) The bank or financial institution involved in the alleged loan will follow GAAP.
3) The lender of financial institution involved in the alleged loan will purchase the promissory note from the borrower.
4) The borrower does not provide any money, money equivalent, credit, funds or capital or thing of value that a bank or financial institution will use to give value to a check or similar instrument.
5) The borrower is to repay the loan in the SAME SPECIE OF MONEY OR CREDIT that the bank or financial institution used to fund the loan per GAAP, thus ending all interest and liens, and
6) The written agreement gives full disclosure of all material facts.

Do you see the bankers fear? If the banker claims item number 1 is false, than it is a swindler. If item 2 is false, than it is illegal. If item 3 and 4 is false, the bank invested nothing, it was stolen or paid nothing for the note, and you funded the loan. If number 5 is false, than the bank admits it is only a moneychanger and charged as if there was a loan. If number 6 is false, than they agree that they concealed material facts.

How can the bank claim that these items are not part of the agreement?

The banker knows that if this is claimed, the banker must show the original note. If the banker claims that he only has a copy, the borrower could claim that the additional part of the agreement is missing with items 1-6.

Imagine the bankers fear if the borrower sent a promissory note to repay the loan claiming that the agreement allows it? The banker might say that the contract demands that you pay in federal reserve notes (Dollars). That response proves he is nothing but a moneychanger and how did Jesus deal with moneychangers?

Bankers fear that they will have to explain the agreement, GAAP, and who funded the loan. They do not want you to claim breach of agreement and claim items 1 to 6 are not part of the agreement. Bankers understand that if you refuse to show the original agreement the borrower may claim that the copy is forged because it leaves out items 1 to 6. Bankers fear that borrowers may say “FRAUD IN THE FACTUM”, claiming that the items 1 to 6 are concealed or there is a forged document leaving the items out.

Who cares who funded the loan? You care, because it changes the cost and risk of the loan. If there is nothing wrong with stealing and counterfeiting, then why do we send those kinds of people to jail?

mogel007 said...

Excellent article. FDIC pays bank to foreclose:

Do the lenders lose money on foreclosures so they really fairly need to sue the borrower for the deficiency?

Think again & listen to video. If this isn't fraud going on, what it?
Are you mad yet?

mogel007 said...

If you're not mad yet, maybe this will get you angry to understand who is behind all of this:

sopsback said...

"Once briefing is final, then they will probably go to oral arguments in another 60 days. A ruling generally comes down within 4-6 months but could take longer if complicated. Best case scenario looks like a ruling about October or November.

1) i still dont understand waht all this court b/s has to do with the admintrative remedy??

2) perhaps then it has to do with the 2011-12 phenomena thats cumming

because by nov. 2011 there will certainly be a planet different from what we know it today

in any case, the settlemints should cum in time to buy a nice 14" telescope to get a nice view of Halleys comit when it cum around again in 2056 LOL!!!!

judge allslop said...

"The schedule for the appeal court continues to push further into the future."
Sorry I can't show you my "suprise" face. As you predicted TIME was and is their primary weapon,It certainly wasn't and never could be the law and or justice. The lawless tapestry that is the financial and its whore the mortgage industrys continues to unravel before our eyes in the bright sunlight of day in complete exposure. Only the fools and the lawless see other wise. It is unfortunate as a nation we are only becoming slightly aware of the crime syndicate damage to this country that will be permanante to this nation and its inhabitants. It will be a very different country in the next couple of years. We are all in some kind of prison wether spritualy, physical or financial. We will stay as brothers to what ever end. I salute you Kurt and Scott for your courage and may God be with all of us.

sopsback said...

"TIME was and is their primary weapon,.......

yessssssssss.....your future g/g/g/g/g/g/g/g/g/g/g/g/g/g/g/g g/children will be very,very,very,very,verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry rich!!!!!!!!!!!

mogel007 said...

SOP said: 1) i still dont understand waht all this court b/s has to do with the admintrative remedy??

It has alot to do with it through appearances. By putting the Principals away in prison & getting indictments to stick in court, this is the enemy's justification to show that the Dorean Process or administrative process was a scam and had no legal merit whatsoever ever. It's all about appearances. If it appears to be true, than most people will accept the outcome as truth and other Judges will follow with this judgment and outlook. Now you have the deterrant and justification where most anyone won't try to do the same things again that Kurt & Scott tried.

Now if the charges are overturned, than the Dorean Process wasn't a scam, but now have huge damages against all actors and players. If criminal charges can't stick, than our administrative judgments appear to have merit. If they appear to have merit, since no criminal acts were done in their process, than getting our financial damages is not an unreasonable expectation and belief.

sopsback said...

i guss dat i mus be dum...because....i say it again sam....but....

"i still dont understand waht all this court b/s has to do with the admintrative remedy??

the way i understnad it is that the AR has nothing to do with the court system

thats why its called an AR

if it had to do with the courts, it wuld be called an "equity system" as all courts are courts of equity.

sorry mogs, i know youve been on this blog since day one, but now i dont buy your answer and further can go back in time on this blog when what i said you used to say exactly.

have you sold out too?

an AR is administrative and one an be in prison or on mars and it doesnt matter. the courts have nothing to do with it.

it is handled by the dept. of treasury as you well know.

further it is then handled by the BIS in swaziland.

so what gives now with your answer?

are you changing from your origianl statements that ARs have nothing to do with the court system?

now dont put any 'spin' on it.

sopsback said...

further then it may not matter anyway.

as next week the presentments are scheduled to be made to all 50 govnahs to either vacate their "corporate" office and become a dejure govnah of the republic or their surety bonds will all be arrested and they will be OOB, out of bizness.

these will also be presented to all 50 AGs of the republics, same deal.

the presentments will also include the demand to immediately release any/all political prisoners in all 50 republics immediately.

its all still on track to be completed bby mar. 31

mogel007 said...

SOP said: the way i understand it is that the AR has nothing to do with the court system

thats why its called an AR

What does reality, fairness, equity, have to do with the court system in the Dorean case?

The court system is based upon fictions.

Is the living man the Strawman?

Is the administrative process using the principles of the UCC a scam and the basis of a conspiracy? No again, but the Court allowed this to be the result as per their rulings.

That's why Kurt & Scott are innocent because the Courts made their AR process their business and the Court took jurisdiction when they had no business to do so on a settled matter.

It is an allusion that the Principals were guilty of felonies.

However, the courts, US Attorneys, Judge & Jury basically have shown by their actions that the AR has something to do with the Courts, haven't they? That isn't an illusion, the fact that people were indicted & people went to jail. Or is this proof that the Courts had no jurisdiction ever & had no right to get involved, but did anyway?

If you are correct, that should be damages enough & proof enough that we are in the right & the Courts have erred in a bad way.

mogel007 said...

SOP said: "i still dont understand waht all this court b/s has to do with the admintrative remedy??

As you also know, the Dorean Group filed about 10 Civil Cases in Court, despite their administrative remedy, trying to get the Court to back up their AR and hopefully set a Court precedence?

Did the Dorean Group sell out in the very beginning according to your allegation too?

mogel007 said...

SOP said: "an AR is administrative and one an be in prison or on mars and it doesnt matter. the courts have nothing to do with it.

it is handled by the dept. of treasury as you well know.

further it is then handled by the BIS in swaziland."

And maybe that's how Phase 1 of the settlements will go through & bring financial restitution to clients is through the Dept. of Treasury or IRS.

The Courts are there to protect the creditors. Unfortunately the creditors were assumed to be the banks, not the clients who already had an AR claim against the banks prior to the criminal trial.

mogel007 said...

Speaking of always putting yourself in the position of "the creditor" and being treated so, in any court proceeding in order to win, I came across this below. What if all Dorean clients registered their note as a UCC 3 to establish a claim & use the AR process that the Dorean process has already provided, and file a counterclaim for recoupment of monies that were never paid the borrower for conversion of the promissory note & sue as a creditor? By doing this we go into court as the creditor, automatically increases are chances of winning & might be able to get our mortgages dissolved by decree of the court? Or file a "quiet title" action in order to get our mortgages dissolved. I know of at least two court cases where Judges have actually dissolved the mortgages of borrowers due to the "bad behaviour of the banks" recently as a punitive measure. You would be hard pressed to find cases like this 5 years ago before the financial crisis meltown & bailout programs.

After all, the lender kept the note, & we have already discharged the debt again by payment of the Dorean bond, & yet the banks are still acting in bad faith by expecting our mortgage payments & threatening to foreclose if they don't receive payments timely. The banks never did give us a receipt for the promissory note which they were obligated to do. The banks have filed paperwork showing us as the creditor. We just need to produce that & tender it to the Court & prove our claim. There's enough information here to justify bank fraud on the part of the lender & assemble the evidence for the Court:

"If we don’t bring a claim, we lose. If we discharge the debt, and they keep the note, we have a claim as a creditor. The note cannot be introduced as evidence of the claim. If they kept the note without giving a receipt, your record is the UCC registration of the note. Don’t put the invoice AR4V on the UCC. It is a liability not an asset. The BOE becomes a registered security under UCC article 8, which are superior to other UCC articles. The court will not look at any security that is not registered in the public.

You should register your bank mortgage note on your UCC 3, to establish a claim. The mortgage note is a security and it is never registered. The finance system is dealing in unregistered securities. They cannot take an unregistered mortgage note into a court for foreclosure. They never produce a note in a foreclosure because it is evidence of their liability and not cognizable in court. We are the creditor on the mortgage note, so we should register it. As soon as we register the mortgage note, we become the creditor in the foreclosure case with the highest interest.
If we tendered a BOE to settle and close a criminal case, it should be registered. The clerk never gave us an accounting for credit. So they will ignore it because we didn’t make a rule 13 counterclaim. We must register the BOE on a UCC3 and bring a UCC11 in as a counterclaim. All other arguments do not matter because all law is an allusion. They converted everything to a commercial transaction at the beginning of the case.
People have filed UCC liens listing the bank as the debtor. The debtor should be the prepaid account at the Secretary of Treasury of Puerto Rico. The strawman should be a third party creditor because he is a bailee on another filing. The living man does not appear in their system, so the strawman has to be the creditor. All parties on a UCC filing have to be a fiction, not living. The SSN is the account number. The living man is responsible for all transactions."

mogel007 said...

"In the In Re: Maxwell case, the owner repeatedly asked for disclosure. We used this case as a foundation for our case on the ground that the mortgage transaction was an unconscionable act. Whenever there is a lack of disclosure, one has an offset available. Regulation Z shows the form in which the bank is required to give notice of rescission. They never give you notice in that form. They awarded the owner, $475,000 in punitive and actual damages from the bank. Plus, they rescinded the contract. They said the contract was unconscionable under UCC 2-302.
I’ve got the S3 registration statement. That is the form the bank filed that they sold the note that is a transfer. The bank we are dealing with is JP Morgan and Chase. They sold it right after they got our loan they sold it. They are doing a HELOC. Most banks do warehouse lending. As soon as they get the note, they borrow the money from a warehouse lender. They bank does not give you the money or credit. They get it from a warehouse lender. Then they pay off the warehouse lender with the note that they sell to them. Then they make derivatives out of this note by a bookkeeping entry.
The balance sheet, a 2046, 2049, and 2099, have OMB numbers on them that are subject to disclosure under the privacy act, Title 5 USC 552(b)(4). They have to give it to you if you ask for it. At closing and settlement, the reason they actually call it closing is because they pay off the loan in its entirety. The debt is actually extinguished.
A HELOC is different than warehouse lending. I got this from their mortgage department. They take the proceeds from the promissory note and pay off the warehouse lender. So the debt on the real estate is extinguished from the books (is that why they call it closing). They are required to file an FR 2046. This is a balance sheet. Under 12 USC 248 and 347 they are required to file a balance sheet. They are required on a quarterly or weekly basis. They file these balance sheets with the Federal Reserve Board. I talked to the head of the FRB. They file a balance sheet with the board. The balance sheet shows the assets and liabilities that they use in the accounting. The liabilities would be your promissory note. It is a liability because it is an asset to you.

If you give a bank a promissory note, they are required to give you a cash receipt. They owe you that money under a recoupment or asset. If you take the receipt back, they should give you some money. They call it an offset in accounting, but in the UCC it is called a recoupment. Unless you do ask or do a defense in recoupment under UCC 3-305, and a claim under 3-306, you have a possessory and property claim against the cash proceeds under the liability side of the ledger. UCC 3-306, there cannot be a holder in due course on a promissory note after they deposit it. They do an off balance sheet entry. This means they take your note after they sell it, instead of showing it on their balance sheet, they move over to some other entities balance sheet. It is no longer on the banks books. This is called off balance sheet bookkeeping. The head of
the FASB said that I was correct. They are not showing the liability side of the ledger or the accounts payable because it has been moved over to someone else’s balance sheet.
The government is trying to expand the definition of wetlands and flood plains. This is related to securitization in which they transform negotiable instruments into securities. They move them from UCC article 3 to article 8. Ohio code section 1707.01(b) a promissory note is defined as a security. So one can use rescission on it also. Under Ohio code 1707-261 one has the right to restitution and rescission when they sell an unregistered security. As soon as the bank gets your mortgage note, they sell it. Banks register mortgage deeds, not mortgage notes."

mogel007 said...

The lender in a foreclosure case will never produce the original note, although more & more Court cases & Judges have said THEY MUST DO THIS or the foreclosure action will be dismissed. If you don't demand this, than it isn't an issue with the Court.

The promissory note is an unregistered security, WHICH IS ILLEGAL, and the Court & lawyers know this, so even if they had it, they still can't produce it. And if they produce it, it is shown that you, the borrower are the holder in due course & the creditor since the instrument is a forgery & illegally indorsed by someone else other than you & without any financial consideration to you.

In the past, and in most cases, lenders for the banks have said that the note is lost or stolen, so they get the Judge to agree that they can produce a copy or reconstruct the original note, due to the note being "lost, misplaced, or stolen", however, they can only file for this exception ACCORDING TO THE LAW, if THERE WAS NOT A TRANSFER or sale OF THE NOTE. Well in all cases, the note is sold & transferred, so in the past lawyers for the banks were committing lies on the court record, knowing that the notes aren't lost, but in fact were sold FOR VALUE. They can still be held accountable for this.

驚訝 said...

君子如水,隨方就圓,無處不自在。 ..................................................

judge allslop said...

Bottom line may be this scenario.Challenge and verify.

Florida Judge Vacates Summary Judgement Wrongfully Obtained by Law Office Of David J. Stern for Deutsche Bank as Trustee for Securitized Mortgage Loan Trust

The Complaint, filed by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., alleged that the Plaintiff was the holder and owner of the note and mortgage by an assignment “to be filed”. No such assignment was ever filed, and thus Plaintiff Deutsche Bank fraudulently represented to the Court that it had proper legal standing to foreclose when in reality it did not. FDN litigates foreclosure cases throughout the State of Florida as well as in 27 other states, assisted by local counsel. The consistent pattern which is emerging, as to Deutsche Bank, is a misrepresentation of ownership of the Note and Mortgage (or “Deed of Trust” as it is called in non-judicial states other than Georgia, which terms the instrument a “Security Deed”); lack of valid ownership interest in these instruments and the rights attendant thereto; and a failure to produce competent evidence of any ownership (meaning that meritless MERS assignments are not “competent”). This pattern is present in numerous states with different law Firms. Deutsche Bank thus continues to be an entity whose representations must be carefully examined in any foreclosure attempt, because there is a high probability that one or more of its representations are false.

sopsback said...

are you aware of the presentments to be made to all 50 republics to restore the republic or the corp officials will have their surety bonds arreested?

to be made next week.

Future said...

I am in a battle like so many people. I'm trying to research so I can fight JP Chase to. I have done a foia request to get thes FR 2049 ect.. sec 3 reg form and not sucess. how do u get them? I've googled just about everything to see if i can find out how to get them..

has there been any sucess stories of this type of battle. this ultra virus factum cases. i would really appreciate the help.

thanks for this forum... i read your story... they don't pay but they put the price on the citizen... always the cae

Future said...

were is the law or code that states once note is deposited it is no more enforceable.... i have a copy of my note that says for deposit only from the original "lender".... it has not been assigned to anyone else ....