Wednesday, December 01, 2010

The Chastisement of Love 10/27/2010

The root of sin runs clear through our being. It destroys our identity and purpose. We were designed to be in a loving relationship with our creator. Jesus came across a fig tree once in Mark 11:12-14 and when He discovered it was a liar not bearing fruit when it had leaves declaring it would, Jesus attacked the roots. He's done no less for us. Yet a chastisement of law is very harsh. All of us have felt the string of the law's righteous demands and our failure to meet it.

When I was a small child this root took on a humorous display. My little sister and I shared a room. We would giggle and be silly. Mom would open our door, chastise us with the law of silence and then tell us she didn't want to hear another "peep" out of us. Within 20 seconds of the door being shut we would start a chorus of ”peep, peep, peep" and then laughter, I later discovered sound traveled through the vents in a house. Our little hearts already wanted to be a law into themselves.

As I've grown older I'm discovering a truth God make clear. The law behind the law is to love God with all your might and your neighbors as yourself. Love has the effectual power to chastise where the law falls short. When love truly reaches you love reciprocates out of you. The law is not lost as to its demands here, it is just love performs it willingly, hoping to bless the other with true love. Loving God after receiving His love sets our being in proper order. The fruitless life of a bad root system and its lies dies and a new creation which was our original design has us being lovers. A righteous union of marriage, where the harsh law finds grace. The resilience to trust love will yield a power to perform it and the courage to refuse the counterfeit.

216 comments:

1 – 200 of 216   Newer›   Newest»
judge allslop said...

"It was a mortgage violation due to the fact that the trust was created for a specific purpose not favorable (or even neutral) to the bank. The party of the first part (the bank) would never have agreed to the Dorean trust in the first place. Just because the bank defrauded the borrower doesn't justify the borrower doing whatever they want with the property. Two wrongs don't make a right."
Your contradicting yourself, any fraud in the contract nullifies itself. We all know it, it takes a court of law to make it official.
Consider the Banks employment of a Deleware Corp named MERS. Not a single state legislature or appellate court had authorized MERS making changes in the real property recording.

judge allslop said...

The law is catching up to what Dorean knew all those years ago. More precedence laying the foundation.


Testimony by a Bank of America Corp. employee in a New Jersey personal bankruptcy case may give more ammunition to homeowners and investors in their legal battles over defaulted mortgages.
Linda DeMartini, a team leader in the company’s mortgage- litigation management division, said during a U.S. Bankruptcy Court hearing in Camden last year that it was routine for the lender to keep mortgage promissory notes even after loans were bundled by the thousands into bonds and sold to investors, according to a transcript. Contracts for such securitizations usually require the documents to be transferred to the trustee for mortgage bondholders. In the case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith H. Wizmur on Nov. 16 rejected a claim on the home of John T. Kemp, ruling his mortgage company, now owned by Bank of America, had failed to deliver the note to the trustee. That could leave the trustee with no standing to take the property, and raises the question of whether other foreclosures could similarly be blocked.

judge allslop said...

When the lawless don't like the law there is always plausable denial or find an attorney or judge who will lie for you.


B of A now says that a senior litigation manager — who had 10 years’ experience working at Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP — was out of her depth when she testified in a New Jersey courtroom about the unit’s document practices. The Charlotte company also says the local lawyer that represented it essentially fumbled the routine personal bankruptcy case. There is no doubt that Kemp vs. Countrywide Home Loans was a spectacularly bungled defense — and its implications have caused an uproar in the world of mortgage securitizations.
In a series of unforced admissions, the B of A manager, Linda DeMartini, and Harold Kaplan, the company’s outside attorney, described how Countrywide had failed to adhere to the most rudimentary of securitization procedures, such as transferring the original promissory note to the trusts that had purchased the loans, as required under the pooling and servicing agreement. Both DeMartini and Kaplan said it was standard practice for Countrywide to hold onto the original mortgage notes, which were stored in Simi Valley, Calif., despite securitization contracts that require the notes be physically transferred to sponsors, trustees or custodians. I mean, there’s no way I’m going to argue that there was a physical transfer,” Kaplan told Chief Judge Judith Wizmur of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey, in an August 2009 hearing. “They had the documents.”
Wizmur rejected Countrywide’s claim that it had standing to foreclose on the borrower, John T. Kemp, and in a Nov. 17 ruling excoriated Bank of America for its handling of the case. At the heart of B of A’s bungled courtroom performance is a critical issue plaguing mortgage servicers and bond investors: whether Countrywide may still be holding onto a massive trove of untransferred mortgages and if so, what that means for the trusts that never received them. For virtually everyone in the mortgage securitization business, the admissions in court (including DeMartini’s sworn testimony) have opened the door to further litigation by borrowers questioning every trust’s legal standing to foreclose.

fireinthehole said...

"Your contradicting yourself, any fraud in the contract nullifies itself."

I'm not contradicting myself. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you noticed the fraud, then sue them. Why waste your time with trusts? A trust isn't going to stop foreclosure. In fact, it made things a whole lot worse for the homeowner. JUST SUE THEM. WHY WAIT? ARE YOU SCARED?


"We all know it, it takes a court of law to make it official.
Consider the Banks employment of a Deleware Corp named MERS. Not a single state legislature or appellate court had authorized MERS making changes in the real property recording."


There are no courts of LAW. THAT, you can take to the bank.

judge allslop said...

You need to clarify the "wrong". Kurt has explained here the many reasons for the trust structure. Or take it up personally with him.

fireinthehole said...

"You need to clarify the 'wrong'."

Why would you put a trust around a fraudulent transaction? That's the wrong on the clients side. The wrong on the bank's side is the fraudulent contract.

sopsback said...

**********************
*******BREAKING******
*********************



Freddie Mac Suspends Evictions From December 20 to January 3, 2011

For Immediate Release

December 01, 2010

McLean, VA – Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC) today announced it has ordered all evictions involving foreclosed occupied single family and 2-4 unit properties that had Freddie Mac mortgages to be suspended from December 20, 2010 to January 3, 2011.

"If the property is occupied, our foreclosure attorneys will suspend the eviction to provide a greater measure of certainty to families during the holidays," said Anthony Renzi, Executive Vice President of Single Family Portfolio Management at Freddie Mac.

Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.

judge allslop said...

Respectfully,you don't get any of this do you?

fireinthehole said...

Ask yourself. All answers are within you. LoL.

sopsback said...

?????????????






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JtoMGtbxOs

Joseph said...

Commentary on the expert witness with BOA that testified that the notes were not transferred to the trusts:

http://www.bankinvestmentconsultant.com/news/bofa-mortgage-2670073-1.html

Again, I ask the same question, do you think most big banks operate this way, meaning they get paid for securitizing the mortgages, but don't transfer the notes properly or deliver them, and then an agent for the trust forecloses without standing when the payments stop?

What if the original lender securitized your loan, got paid for the obligation, but pretends to still have the note & forecloses on you when you stop making your payments? How often does that occur?

Joseph said...

"It was a mortgage violation due to the fact that the trust was created for a specific purpose not favorable (or even neutral) to the bank.

THE TRUST WAS CREATED SO THE WHOLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LENDER & BUYER COULD BE CHALLENGED AND EXAMINED THROUGH FULL DISCLOSURE. THE CREATION OF THE TRUST DOES NO HARM BY THE TRANSFER TO THE TRUST TO THE LENDER'S DETRIMENT. IT IS NOT UNTIL IT'S CLEAR THAT THE LENDER HAD NO CLAIM IN THE PROPERTY BY THEIR OWN FAULT & NEGLIGENCE TO ANSWER IS WHERE THE DETRIMENT COMES IN, & RIGHTFULLY & FAIRLY SO.

THE LENDER HARMED THEMSELVES BY CREATING THE FRAUD IN THE FIRST PLACE. THERE IS NO CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE LENDER REALLY HAS NO SAY IN THIS. YOU VOLUNTARILY TRANSFERRED YOUR HOME IN A MORTGAGE TRUST BY WAY OF A PLEDGE, NO CONTRACT THERE. THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION FOR THAT, SINCE NO LOAN WAS GIVEN, SO WHY CAN'T YOU ANNUL THAT TRANSACTION?

The party of the first part (the bank) would never have agreed to the Dorean trust in the first place.

I THINK THE POINT IS THAT THEY HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER. THERE ARE LAWFUL EXCEPTIONS TO A LEGAL TRANSFER. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. ONE DOES NOT NEED TO GET THEIR APPROVAL SO YOUR POINT IS MOOT.

Just because the bank defrauded the borrower doesn't justify the borrower doing whatever they want with the property. Two wrongs don't make a right."

THE DOREAN PROCESS IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO DOING WHATEVER YOU WANT. IT WAS A LEGAL CLAIM UNDER THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACT OF CHALLENGING THE LENDERS RIGHT TO THE PAYMENTS & TO THE PROPERTY. WAS THE TRANSFER CREATED TO RECEIVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER THE LENDER? NO! THE TRANSFER TO THE TRUST WAS CREATED TO EXPOSE THE LENDERS FRAUD & TO SHOW THE BORROWERS DISADVANTAGE WHERE THE BORROWER WOULDN'T HAVE AGREED TO CERTAIN THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THEY KNEW THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THE AGREEMENT. HEY IF I KNEW THAT THE NOTE PAID FOR THE PROPERTY, WHY WOULD I SIGN A DEED OF TRUST GIVING MY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS AWAY? IS THERE A WAY TO LEAVE THE CLOSING EARLY & STILL MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE HOME? IF YOU WALKED AWAY FROM CLOSING WITHOUT SIGNING A DEED OF TRUST OR MORTGAGE, YOU AT LEAST HAVE PROOF IN THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU ARE "FULLY SEIZED OF THE PROPERTY" & HENCE OWN IT. LET THEM SUE YOU & PROVE OTHERWISE. HAS ANYONE EVER TRIED IT? WITHOUT A SIGNED COPY, WHAT DOES THE LENDER HAVE?

fireinthehole said...

THE TRUST WAS CREATED SO THE WHOLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LENDER & BUYER COULD BE CHALLENGED AND EXAMINED THROUGH FULL DISCLOSURE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's not the purpose of a trust is for. If you think you have problems with the mortgage agreement, then get a lawyer, not a trust.

I THINK THE POINT IS THAT THEY HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER. THERE ARE LAWFUL EXCEPTIONS TO A LEGAL TRANSFER. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. ONE DOES NOT NEED TO GET THEIR APPROVAL SO YOUR POINT IS MOOT.

The purpose of the trust, as you say, was to challenge the mortgage agreement. That's not what a trust is for. The bank would not have agreed to the Dorean trust because the purpose of the Trust was not just to secure the assets, but to challenge the mortgage agreement. No idiot would agree to that.

fireinthehole said...

HEY IF I KNEW THAT THE NOTE PAID FOR THE PROPERTY, WHY WOULD I SIGN A DEED OF TRUST GIVING MY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS AWAY?


You don't give ownership rights away because you never really OWN the property. How could you own a piece of REAL property paid with a Promissory Note? I didn't know a promissory note was real money. In a real mortgage contract you would have to put up your own real property as collateral for the loan because you would be getting real money for the purchase of the new property.

So based on today's mortgage, since there is no money, you're not actually BUYING the house- you're RENTING to own a house.

Since there is no real money, you never BOUGHT house. Yes, the bank defrauded you, but that doesn't mean you get the house, because neither the bank nor you can prove you own the house (paid for it with real money). Even after the house is paid for, you don't really own it.

fireinthehole said...

The heart of the fraud is not the contract, but the money. Without real money, everyone is defrauded.

fireinthehole said...

The mortgage lending fraud should have ended with the Credit River case. But since the banks have license by the Government to defraud everyone with their monopoly money, until that ends, there is no end to the mortgage fraud. Judges cannot side with every house-renter or they will end up just like Justice Mahoney: murdered.

sopsback said...

thats it!!!

i'm getting a job as f**king TSA security screener doing the patdowns.


maybe andrina mishal will cum thru next and get to pat her down.

sopsback said...

link for the above:

http://www.dailymail.
co.uk/news/article-133
4937/Tammy-Banovac-
wheelchair-bound-woman-
wearing-lingerie-gets-hour-long-airport-search.html#ixzz16zITxI4o

sopsback said...

btw, if that chick is 52, i'll eat my mortgage dox or her teats!! LOL!!

no f'king way is she 52 maybe 35

sopsback said...

unless they silcon, dont wnat to eat taht metal poison

fireinthehole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fireinthehole said...

She looks her age. She keeps her body in shape and has a good plastic surgeon.

Joseph said...

This might be the best defense to your foreclosure:

"Now here's the real kicker: there's no reason to think that the Kemp note was a unique, one-off problem. All
evidence from actual foreclosure cases points to the lack of a chain of endorsements on the Kemp note being NOT THE EXCEPTION, BUT THE RULE, and not just for Countrywide, BUT INDUSTRY WIDE. Certainly on the non-delivery point
(separate from the non-endorsement problem), Countrywide admitted that non-delivery was "customary." If either of these issues, non-delivery or non-endorsement is widespread, then I think we've got a massive problem
in our financial system."

The banks aren't transferring the notes/mortgages to the trusts or are not doing the A-D assignments as New York Law instructs.

The full post is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/43688363/Professor-Levitan-Re-Securitization-and-Country-Wide-straight-talk-on-the-fraud-of-securitizations

Joseph said...

That's not the purpose of a trust is for. If you think you have problems with the mortgage agreement, then get a lawyer, not a trust.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE TRUST WAS, FOR WITHOUT PUTTING THE PROPERTY INTO THE TRUST, THE TRUSTEE, KURT & SCOTT COULD NOT HAVE REPRESENTED YOU IN THE CHALLENGE TO THE BANK, NOR COULD THEY HAVE DELIVERED ON DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE OF RECORD. I REALIZE THAT THE COURTS DIDN'T RECOGNIZE & AFFIRM THAT ATTORNEY IN FACT FUNCTION BY SCOTT, BUT THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. I DIDN'T SAY THAT'S THE ONLY PURPOSE OF A TRUST, BUT NONE OF THE CLIENTS WOULD HAVE TRANSFERED THE HOUSE ASSET INTO THE TRUST IF IT WASN'T NECESARY. DUH!!!!!!!!! THE TRUSTEE IS OBLIGATED TO LOOK AFTER THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST. NO DOREAN CLIENT COULD HAVE DONE THIS ON THEIR OWN, SO THE TRUST WAS NEEDED AND THE EXPERTISE OF THE TRUSTEES. JUST BECAUSE THE TRUSTEES ARE IN PRISON DOESN'T INVALIDATE THE PROCESS. YOU CAN'T CHEAT TO WIN OR LIE TO WIN & SAY THAT THE LAW WAS SATISFIED AND JUSTICE SERVED.

Joseph said...

If you think you have problems with the mortgage agreement, then get a lawyer, not a trust.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT AN AGREEMENT, IT'S A PLEDGE. 2 SIGNATURES ARE RERQUIRED & CONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT.

Joseph said...

You don't give ownership rights away because you never really OWN the property.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE SECURITY AGREEMENT OR DEED OF TRUST OR MORTGAGE SAYS. IT SAYS THAT "YOU ARE FULLY SEIZED OF THE PROPERTY & YOU WARRANT THE TITLE." Seized is tantamount to ownership. NOW HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? CERTAINLY THE LENDER DIDN'T PAY FOR THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE LOAN HASN'T CLOSED YET WHEN YOU SIGN THE MORTGAGE PLEDGE. IF THE MONEY DIDN'T COME FROM THE LENDER, IT HAD TO HAVE COME FROM THE BORROWER THROUGH THE VALUE OF HIS PROMISSORY NOTE. IF YOU THINK NOTES AREN'T VALUABLE IN OUR SOCIETY, YOU ARE NAIVE.

How could you own a piece of REAL property paid with a Promissory Note?

BECAUSE PROMISSORY NOTES ARE ASSETS & THE CURRENCY THAT IS USED TO CREATE CHECK BOOK MONEY. MONEY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A PARTICULAR SPECIE NOR DOES IT HAVE TO BE LEGAL TENDER LIKE GOLD OR SILVER. IT COULD BE CLAM SHELLS IF ACCEPTED IN COMMERCE. YOU COULD PAY FOR A HOME WITH CLAM SHELLS IF THAT WAS THE ACCEPTED MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE.

I didn't know a promissory note was real money.

I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS REAL MONEY. I SAID THE NOTE FACILIATED YOU BUYING THE HOME & GETTING IT FREE & CLEAR, ACCORDING TO THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT.

ON BANKS BOOKS, IT'S JUST ACCOUNTING ENTRIES OF NUMBERS. THEY ARE DIGITS, AND WE WORK FOR THESE DIGITS & CREDITS. IF OUR ACCOUNTS HAVE HIGH NUMBERS WE CAN BUY MANY THINGS.

In a real mortgage contract you would have to put up your own real property as collateral for the loan because you would be getting real money for the purchase of the new property.

YOUR POINT IS MOOT AS THAT ISN'T THE REAL WORLD NOR DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE LENDING PROCESS THAT IS DONE.

So based on today's mortgage, since there is no money, you're not actually BUYING the house- you're RENTING to own a house.
Since there is no real money, you never BOUGHT house.

THE MORTGAGE SAYS YOU ARE FULLY SEIZED OF THE PROPERTY & YOU WARRANT THAT THERE ARE NO LIENS ON IT WHEN YOU SIGN THE DOCUMENT. THAT'S OWNERSHIP AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED FOR MY OWN PURPOSES. YOU MEAN IF I BUY A HOUSE & RENT IT OUT, THE RENTER REALLY ISN'T RENTING IT, BECAUSE I'M RENTING IT EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT LIVING IN IT. GET REAL!!!

Yes, the bank defrauded you, but that doesn't mean you get the house, because neither the bank nor you can prove you own the house (paid for it with real money).

THE EVIDENCE IS IN THE BANKS ACCOUNTING & IN THE MORTGAGE PLEDGE. SORRY YOU NEVER KNEW THAT. THIS REAL MONEY ARGUMENT IS A STUPID ARGUMENT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU TRY IT IN COURT. IT WON'T FLY TO EVEN FIRST BASE. NO ONE CARES THAT ALL THE FIAT MONEY IS MONOPOLY MONEY. PEOPLE WORK FEVERISHLY FOR FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES.

Even after the house is paid for, you don't really own it.

I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE FACT OR DENYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS A SUPERIOR TITLE TO THE HOME SINCE THEY CAN TAX ME THROUGH REAL ESTATE TAXES OR OTHER LEVY'S & LIENS. THE GOVERNMENT MAY EVEN PLEDGE MY HOME TO CHINA FOR UNPAID GOVERNMENT DEBTS. I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT. NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. AT THE COUNTY RECORDS, IT SAYS I'M THE OWNER OR IT'S IN A TRUST. THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.

fireinthehole said...

BECAUSE PROMISSORY NOTES ARE ASSETS & THE CURRENCY THAT IS USED TO CREATE CHECK BOOK MONEY. MONEY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A PARTICULAR SPECIE NOR DOES IT HAVE TO BE LEGAL TENDER LIKE GOLD OR SILVER. IT COULD BE CLAM SHELLS IF ACCEPTED IN COMMERCE. YOU COULD PAY FOR A HOME WITH CLAM SHELLS IF THAT WAS THE ACCEPTED MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE.


We have CONSTITUTION which states that MONEY is COIN. GOLD OR SILVER is the SPECIE for the United States of America. MONEY is NOT whatever the banks or government want it to be. That is why promissory notes are NOT money.

Without legal/lawful money, you have NOTHING, Joseph.

fireinthehole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fireinthehole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fireinthehole said...

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE SECURITY AGREEMENT OR DEED OF TRUST OR MORTGAGE SAYS. IT SAYS THAT "YOU ARE FULLY SEIZED OF THE PROPERTY & YOU WARRANT THE TITLE."

So what? Do you always believe everything you read? Do you really believe this is real life?


"To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to ever be a child." Cicero, 43 BC

fireinthehole said...

"You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.

I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave,

Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more."

fireinthehole said...

AT THE COUNTY RECORDS, IT SAYS I'M THE OWNER OR IT'S IN A TRUST. THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.


Tell that to the judge. Tell him that the county records say that you're the owner. Let us know what he says, or if he agrees with you.

sopsback said...

She looks her age. She keeps her body in shape and has a good plastic surgeon.



dont know about that...

not many 52yo have a bod like that trim and slim

as far as a plastic strugeon goes, i guess that she couldnt pass trhu a metal dector if she had silicon boobs..as sillycon is a metal..

id sure like to find out for myself tho..


as she is parlized, if she need someone to feed her everyday and dress her, and give her a daily bath, she can call me anytimes

she can even sit on the edge of the bed while i knell down in front of her an 'put her socks on'


LOOLOLOLOL!!!!

fireinthehole said...

I'm sure she'd call you, sop. Keep dreamin sop.

LOL LOL LOL

sopsback said...

I'm sure she'd call you, sop. Keep dreamin sop.




ok, i settle for andrina missile then...she probably less likely to explode anyway like this other babe is...after all, andrina is not packing serious heavy duty "explosives" on her body like that chick is.


LOLOLO!!!!!!!

fireinthehole said...

THIS REAL MONEY ARGUMENT IS A STUPID ARGUMENT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU TRY IT IN COURT.

It's actually the opposite. Stupid arguments, like promissory notes are money, lead to stupid results.

fireinthehole said...

Sop, get yourself a RealDoll. They're more your speed.

sopsback said...

that airport chick is a reeldoll.

dont ya think shes a babe?

yum.....

sopsback said...

HALLELUJAH!!!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE

Joseph said...

The transfer of the home into the Dorean trust was a permitted exception and legal.

According to the Fannie May website, the following are exceptions to the due on sale clause:

We do not require the servicer to enforce the due-on-sale (or transfer) provision for certain types of transfers or related transactions. Generally, the servicer must process these exempt transactions without reviewing or approving the terms of the transfer:

A transfer of the property to the surviving party on the death of a joint tenant or a tenant by the entirety;
A transfer of the property to a junior lienholder as the result of a foreclosure or acceptance of a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure for the subordinate mortgage;
A transfer of the property (or, if the borrower is an inter vivos revocable trust, a transfer of a beneficial interest in the trust) to a relative of a deceased borrower (or, in the case of an inter vivos revocable trust borrower, to a relative of the individual who established the trust), as long as the transferee will occupy the property;
A transfer of the property (or, if the borrower is an inter vivos revocable trust, a transfer of a beneficial interest in the trust) to the spouse, child(ren), parent(s), brother(s) or sister(s), grandparent(s), or grandchild(ren) of the borrower (or, in the case of an inter vivos revocable trust borrower, of the individual who established the trust), as long as the transferee will occupy the property;
A transfer of the property (or, if the borrower is an inter vivos revocable trust, a transfer of a beneficial interest in the trust) to a spouse of the borrower (or, in the case of an inter vivos revocable trust borrower, of the individual who established the trust) under a divorce decree or legal separation agreement or from an incidental property settlement agreement, as long as the transferee will occupy the property;
A transfer of a property that is jointly owned by unrelated co-borrowers from one of the borrowers to the other, as long as the borrower who is gaining full ownership of the property will continue to occupy it and the transfer occurs after at least 12 months have elapsed since the mortgage was closed;
A transfer of the property (or, if the borrower is an inter vivos revocable trust, a transfer of a beneficial interest in the trust) into an inter vivos trust (or, if the borrower is an inter vivos revocable trust, into a new trust), so long as the borrower (or the individual who established the original inter vivos revocable trust) will be the beneficiary of the trust and the occupant of the property;
The granting of a leasehold interest that has a term of three or fewer years and does not provide an option to purchase the property. If the lease has a renewal option that would allow the term to extend beyond three years, this exemption does not apply;
The creation of a subordinate lien, as long as it does not relate to a transfer of occupancy rights; or
The creation of a purchase money security interest for household appliances.

Joseph said...

The Due On Sale Clause is subject to restrictions imposed by Federal Law 12 C.F.R. 591

So people that assume that what the Dorean Group was doing by accepting the house as an asset into a trust was inciting a default by the borrower of the mortgage agreement, haven't studied this law and are only guessing that they know what they are talking about.

sopsback said...

like yo said, ppl are just dum as f**king ROKS!!!

(or dummer, if possible)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk5aRIz17fk&
feature=related

sopsback said...

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/credit/bank-of-america-mortgage-document-errors-trouble-countrywide/19728402/

fireinthehole said...

"The transfer of the home into the Dorean trust was a permitted exception and legal."


Believe whatever you want to believe. You're not ready to be unplugged- I can tell.

So inured, so hopelessly brainwashed by the system.

sopsback said...

wonder whatver happen to that buxom blond bombshell airport chick?


did she find anyone to give her a bath yet??

but first you have to check and and if she is carrying any hidden 'explosives' on her body. man, you could hide mortar rounds on her....


LOLOLL!!

habakkuk said...

Psalm 7: 8-17
8 The LORD shall judge the peoples;
Judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness,
And according to my integrity within me.

9 Oh, let the wickedness of the wicked (SOB) come to an end,
But establish the just;
For the righteous God tests the hearts and minds.
10 My defense is of God,
Who saves the upright in heart.

11 God is a just judge,
And God is angry with the wicked (SOB)every day.
12 If he (SOB)does not turn back (repent), He (G-d)will sharpen His sword;
He bends His bow and makes it ready.
13 He also prepares for Himself instruments of death;
He makes His arrows into fiery shafts.

14 Behold, the wicked (SOB)brings forth iniquity;
Yes, he conceives trouble and brings forth falsehood.
15 He made a pit and dug it out,
And has fallen into the ditch which he made.
16 His trouble shall return upon his own head,
And his violent dealing shall come down on his own crown.

17 I will praise the LORD according to His righteousness,
And will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.
___________________________________

SOB = Sons of Belial

sopsback said...

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00 CST





As Americans continue to lose their homes in record numbers, the Federal Reserve is considering making it much harder for homeowners to stop foreclosures and escape predatory home loans with onerous terms.

The Fed's proposal to amend a 42-year-old provision of the federal Truth in Lending Act has angered labor, civil rights and consumer advocacy groups along with a slew of foreclosure defense attorneys.

They're not only asking the Fed to withdraw the proposal, they also want any future changes to the law to be handled by the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which begins its work next year.

In a letter to the Fed's Board of Governors, dozens of groups that oppose the measure, including the National Consumer Law Center, the NAACP and the Service Employees International Union, say the proposal is bad medicine at the wrong time.

"At the depths of the worst foreclosure crisis since the Great Depression, we are surprised that the Fed has proposed rules that would eviscerate the primary protection homeowners currently have to escape abusive loans and avoid foreclosure: the extended right of rescission."

Because the public comment period on the Fed's proposal is still open until Dec. 23, a spokesman declined comment on the matter.

But in a September passage in the Federal Register, the Fed said the proposal was designed to "ensure a clearer and more equitable process for resolving rescission claims raised in court proceedings" and reflects what most courts already require.

Since 1968, the Truth in Lending Act has given homeowners the right to cancel, or rescind illegal loans for up to three years after the transaction was completed if the buyer wasn't provided with proper disclosures at the time of closing.

Attorneys at AARP have used the rescission clause for decades to protect older homeowners stuck in predatory loans with costly terms. The provision is also helping struggling homeowners to fight a wave of foreclosure cases in which faulty and sometimes-fraudulent disclosures were used.

The violations must be of a material nature to invalidate a loan under the extended-rescission clause. To do so, homeowners - usually those facing financial problems or foreclosure - hire an attorney to scour their mortgage documents for possible violations regarding the actual cost of the loan or payment terms.

If problems are found, a notice of rescission is sent to the creditor, which can either admit to the alleged violation or contest it in court.

Creditors that end up rescinding a loan are then required to cancel their "security interest," or lien, on the property.

Once that occurs, the homeowner must then pay the outstanding loan balance back to the lender - minus the finance charges, fees and payments already made.

Dropping the lien provides homeowners with a defense against foreclosure and allows them to refinance to pay the outstanding loan amount.

Critics say the proposed change by the Fed would render the rescission clause useless. The Fed proposal would require homeowners who seek a loan rescission through the courts, to pay off the entire loan balance before the lender cancels the lien.

sopsback said...

hole atricle from above:


http://www.sott.net/articles/show/218903-Fed-wants-to-strip-key-protection-for-home-owners

sopsback said...

"and there will come an apostasy (falling away)..."



now my quwstion would be, does this 'falling away' come from??


is it because ppl turn away from the bible or is it because whoever wrote the bible (as christ himself did not write it) knew that someday the real truth would be revealed and that the bible fraud would become exposed??/

i wonder???



and yes, i no, i no, men wrote the bible inspired by the HS.

then aggain, of course this is what they would say even if it were a fraud.

christ was real.

waht he did was real.

all that the bible says i do not beleive is real but a corruption of the truth in many cases

sopsback said...

then again, it is said in many places that we are the coming christ, ie., the coming christ consciousness

as we get to 2012, we will become like him, whoever can survie till then


"you too shall do greater things than i"


such can only be done if ones assumes a christ consciousness


something to think about????????

sopsback said...

rapture in 2011?


REMBER:


"...master, tell us, when shall these things be?"


"ASSUREDLY, I SAY TO YOU, 'THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS UNTIL YOU SEE THESE THINGS'"


which generation shall not pass??

THE GENERATION THAT SEES "THESE THINGS"


which things?


THE RIPENING OF THE FIG TREE

what is the fig tree?

ISRAEL

when did the 'fig tree ripen'


WHEN ISRAEL BECAME A NATION AGAIN ON MAY 13, 1948

SO THE 'GENERATION' (BORN IN 1948 OR LATER), THAT SEES "THESE THINGS" (RIPENING OF THE FIG TREE) WILL NOT PASS (DIE)


ok now, lets do some math.


how long is a generation?

in the old testament, it is said that a mans life is 70 years (a generation) or 80 years if he is strong, so the part of the generation that only lives to be 70 would not necessarily be alive to "see these things"

so, lets take 70, as a full generation cannot be counted on to live to 80yo

therefore, taking

1948 + 70 = 2018

subtract 7 years for the tribulation =


2-0-1-1


begins the tribulation

sopsback said...

now according to carl johann calleman, the mayan calendar 'end date' is not 2012, but really 2011


oct. 28, 2011 to be exact.


www.calleman.com

fireinthehole said...

The only long term foreclosure solution is to stop the banks from loaning their credit. If people don't have collateral to exchange for a real money loan, then they don't get the loan. Today's real estate loans are nothing for nothing loans, which makes them void from the beginning. People think they have legal recourse for their nothing for nothing loan. There is recourse, but it is not legal recourse. Since they've got the guns, they win.

sopsback said...

THUS, THE GENERATION THAT WAS BORN TO WITNESS 'THESE THINGS' (ISRAEL BECOMING A NATION AGAIN IN 1948) IS IN FOR A SPECIAL EVENT, GOOD OR BAD, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IN THEIR LIFETIME



so, like said before, get you poopcorn ready. sumthins cumming....maybe that airport chick!

sopsback said...

btw, for those who want ot look it up, the preceding was the "olivet discourse" given where esle?

on the mount of olives.

but you really dont need to look it up or go to a bible, you should already know this second nature by now. if you dont, its way, way to late to learn it.

near the end said...

Just waiting for the market to crash oh wait it's going up.

Also waiting for those Nukes to go off oh wait things are getting better in Korea.

Sopsback your bad at predictions hope it's not how you make your money.

near the end said...

Just waiting for the market to crash oh wait it's going up.

Also waiting for those Nukes to go off oh wait things are getting better in Korea.

Sopsback your bad at predictions hope it's not how you make your money.

near the end said...

Just waiting for the market to crash oh wait it's going up.

Also waiting for those Nukes to go off oh wait things are getting better in Korea.

Sopsback your bad at predictions hope it's not how you make your money.

Joseph said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph said...

Does transfer of your home to a trust constitute fraud or an infraction of the mortgage agreement?

The courts have ruled that you can assign your interest to a "chose in action". That person can litigate your claim.

In essence that's what clients did. They allowed Kurt & Scott to be their "chose in action" to challenge the banks to make them prove that they gave a loan & that the bank gave consideration. As a matter of fact, that was one of the papers all clients signed.

Very few lenders challenged this. That shows that lender know it's legal to do.

Joseph said...

The scriptures say that when Jesus comes back in the clouds that many of the Saints (past & present) will meet him there in the sky at his coming. Now this scripture has taken on all sorts of meanings & has been given the term "rapture" to describe this event.

The problem I have with most religions that view this, is that they view the rapture as an "involuntary event". In other words, your body is taken over & you have no control over what you are doing at the moment, as if you disappear & reappear somewhere else. This is pure nonsense.

When Jesus comes back & if you aren't destroyed at his coming by fire, and if you are chosen, you will be able to meet him up in the clouds at his coming, but I believe it's a voluntary event, not just a moment, where you are given that power to fly so to speak & desire to meet him up in the clouds, due to your righteousness. You are in fact resurrected at that time, so you become immortal at that time. It's not something you have no control over like people are zapped momentarily all over the earth causing such things as cars being operated by no one and catastrophic events happening simply because people disappear with no choice, etc.

Joseph said...

Definitions set forth in 12 U.S.C. §1813(l), a promissory note accepted by a bank is a “deposit in cash”

Seems to me that this clause could be used to show that a foreclosure is invalid, as you have an equal claim against the lender that has not been paid back to you.

Joseph said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph said...

USC Title 12 Section 1813
(l) The term "deposit" means -
(1) the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received or
held by a bank or savings association in the usual course of
business and for which it has given or is obligated to give
credit, either conditionally or unconditionally, to a commercial,
checking, savings, time, or thrift account, or which is evidenced
by its certificate of deposit, thrift certificate, investment
certificate, certificate of indebtedness, or other similar name,
or a check or draft drawn against a deposit account and certified
by the bank or savings association, or a letter of credit or a
traveler's check on which the bank or savings association is
primarily liable: Provided, That, without limiting the generality
of the term "money or its equivalent", any such account or
instrument must be regarded as evidencing the receipt of the
equivalent of money when credited or issued in exchange for
checks or drafts OR FOR A PROMISSORY NOTE UPON WHICH THE PERSON OBTAINING ANY SUCH CREDIT OR INSTRUMENT IS PRIMARILY OR SECONDARILY LIABLE, or for a charge against a deposit account, or in settlement of checks, drafts, or other instruments forwarded to such bank or savings association for collection.

sopsback said...

The problem I have with most religions that view is....



that it totally disregards everything else in the bible.

you could argue whether or not the bible is true.

however, if you regard it as true,then what happens to the a/c?

what happens to the 7 year trib?

these events seem to be nonexistnet in your scenario.


in fact, the only sceanrio where all the parts fit is a rapture/ascension of some kind before the trib.

based only on what "makes sense" as you call it, every other scenario can be torn apart.

Joseph said...

Fire in the Hole & Judge Alslop said that it's a violation to transfer title or rights to a home to a trust since it isn't advantageous to the lender. Let's look at this fact:

"Banks love assigning their note and mortgage rights to trusts through pooling and servicing agreements and then getting servicers to litigate claims for foreclosure of the note."

So lenders have more rights than borrowers? Lenders can do this, but borrowers can't. Where is the equality under the law? LOL

Joseph said...

SOP said:

that it totally disregards everything else in the bible.

NO I'M NOT DISREGARDING ANYTHING.

you could argue whether or not the bible is true.

NOT ARGUING THAT.

however, if you regard it as true,then what happens to the a/c?

THE A/C IS DESTROYED AT JESUS'S COMING.

what happens to the 7 year trib?

EVERYONE GOES THROUGH THAT.



these events seem to be nonexistnet in your scenario.

NO, THEY AREN'T.


in fact, the only sceanrio where all the parts fit is a rapture/ascension of some kind before the trib.

NO THE RAPTURE AS YOU CALL IT, IT'S AFTER THE TRIBULATION.

based only on what "makes sense" as you call it, every other scenario can be torn apart.

WHY IS THAT? YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THAT THE TRIBULATION & A/C ON THE SCENE HAPPENS BEFORE JESUS COMES BACK.

Joseph said...

DO ASSIGNMENTS OF RIGHTS CONSTITUTE FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS?

Perhaps the most disturbing portions of the Motion to Dismiss and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order filed on behalf of Defendant U.S. Bank’s (hereinafter “Defendant”) are those which attack Plaintiff Lincoln’s standing and allege that Robert & Marsha Rivernider’s transfer of their rights to Lincoln by assignment constituted some sort of “fraud.” (See Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application for TRO, Part B, at pages 6-8 of Document filed September 14, 2009 and Part C of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed September 24, 2009, at page 7-10.)

To begin with, the Court should note that Defendant U.S. Bank utterly fails ever to define the term “Fraudulent Transfer” or to cite any statutory or case-law precedential authority for applying the term to Robert and Marsha Rivernider’s extremely open and above-board transfer of all of their rights, title, and interest in their property, but assignment and grant of power for attorney to Charles Edward Lincoln. And indeed, happily for the Plaintiffs in this case, Lincoln received not only a transfer of title by deed but also an assignment of rights and obligations from the Riverniders, and this assignment of rights and obligations was recorded along with the simple transfer of title by deed in the Palm Beach County records, along with a power of attorney (see Exhibits C and D).

Equally happy for Plaintiffs is a trio of cases decided in the past 16 months, three courts whose decisions are not only relevant and persuasive but binding here (namely the U.S. D.C. for the S.D. Florida, Florida Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme Court) have rendered decisions in three cases dealing with assignment of contractual and statutory rights (such as those at issue here) which affirm the right and power of parties to assign their rights and obligations obtained or incurred during the course of litigation.

Joseph said...

First and closest to this case in time and venue, in Goldberg v. Paris Hilton, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division) ruled that RIGHTS TO SUE under a contract could be assigned even where the right to assign the obligations arising from and pursuant to the contract itself might not be subject to assignment (as, for example, in the case of personal services contracts, which are normally non-assignable under general common law principles of contractual rights). Case Number 22261-CIV-MORENO, 2009 U.S. Lexis 41846, May 18, 2009). Defendant U.S. Bank nowhere asserts that the Riverniders’ rights and obligations were unassignable, either as a matter of general or specific contract law, or any specific contractual provisions. Rather, U.S. Bank makes a great deal of noise about Plaintiff Lincoln taking with knowledge of U.S. Bank’s claims and failure to pay more than nominal consideration for his rights, so as to deny Lincoln status as a “bona fide purchaser for value.” Of course, this is irrelevant since Lincoln never claimed status as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Defendant U.S. Bank simply ignores the question of the Riverniders’ assignment and power of attorney granted to Lincoln with regard to all factual claims, and since U.S. Bank does not contest the validity of the ASSIGNMENT to Lincoln, the Court should simply rule that the assignment is valid as a matter of law.

In support of the validity of the Riverniders’ assignment of claims or choses in action, Plaintiffs would cite two additional cases, one from the Florida Supreme Court and the other from the United States Supreme Court. The case of Wachovia Insurance v. Richard L. Toomey, etc., 994 So.2d 980, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 1644, 33 Fla. L. Weekly S 770 (Florida 2008) is parallel to the present matter in that a loser in underlying litigation assigned not only the judgment for liability against it, but all its rights to a third-party who was not originally a party to the litigation, namely its insurer. The Riverniders have assigned all of their rights and liabilities to Lincoln, and the fact that Lincoln did not pay a significant amount for the privilege of assuming all of their liability pursuant to a judgment is, at the very least, understandable

Joseph said...

On page 8 of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, U.S. Bank has asserted, “there is no contractual relationship between Plaintiff LINCOLN and Defendant U.S. Bank or its assignors in this matter and there is no benefit of the mortgage that can be transferred to LINCOLN as a third party.” This statement is quite remarkable for several reasons. First, U.S. Bank admits that its right to sue in this case derive from assignment (even though no assignments of right have ever been recorded from ANY party to U.S. Bank in the Palm Beach County records, unlike the Riverniders’ express and detailed assignment of rights to LINCOLN). Second, Defendant U.S.Bank is wrong that “there is no benefit of the mortgage that can be transferred to LINCOLN as a third party. This statement without citation or explanation is obviously false!

The “benefit of mortgage” that can be (and was in fact) transferred to LINCOLN not only includes the right to use and enjoy the property (as Lincoln is currently doing by renting it to the Riverniders) but also the right to collect and retrieve any amounts due and owing from fraudulent mismanagement of the note, including fraudulent collection of payments from the Riverniders, and ultimately includes also the right to retrieve the original note from U.S. Bank, National Association, on showing either that the note has been paid in full or that it was obtained and/or maintained by fraud. Let it never be forgotten that, according to the definitions set forth in 12 U.S.C. §1813(l), a promissory note accepted by a bank is a “deposit in cash” and LINCOLN has filed suit to collect from U.S. Bank all liquidated damages to which he might be entitled under this paragraph. Suits for Collection of Debt are always assignable!

As the United States Supreme Court ruled in the third and oldest of the triad of recent cases supporting Lincoln’s standing to sue in this case, there is no question that assignment of collection rights creates standing justiciable under Article III in the Federal Courts. Sprint Communs. Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., 128 S. Ct. 2531, 171 L.Ed.2d 424, 76 U.S.L.W. 4542, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 411 (June 23, 2008).

Joseph said...

The Supreme Court simply could not have been more emphatic about the power to assign rights and duties not merely under contracts but under judgments arising from contracts. Speaking historically, the Court commented, courts of equity would simply permit an assignee with a beneficial interest in a chose in action to sue in his own name. They might, however, require the assignee to bring in the assignor as a party to the action so as to bind him to whatever judgment was reached.” 128 S.Ct. 2536, 171 L.Ed.2d 432 (citations to 17th-18th Century English Law omitted)(“by the beginning of the 18th century, "it became settled that equity would recognize the validity of the assignment of both debts and of other things regarded by the common law as choses in action").

Even claims against the legitimacy of a state court judicial system is recognized by common law as a “chose in action!” Further, the Court held, “Courts of law, meanwhile, would permit the assignee with an equitable interest to bring suit, but nonetheless required the assignee to obtain a "power of attorney" from the holder of the legal title, namely, the assignor, and further required the assignee to bring suit in the name of that assignor. “ Id.

The Court should recognize how fastidiously the Riverniders and Lincoln have followed all the mandates of the United States Supreme Court in construing and applying the ancient common law of England to modern Article III Courts of the United States of America; the Riverniders have executed both grants of assignment and given power of attorney to Charles Edward Lincoln, satisfying the traditional common law procedural requirements for litigation of assigned claims, and so going far beyond the modern formalities of assignment held to be 100% necessary for assignments to be valid as construed under the Sprint Communications decision.

Charles E. Lincoln, III

sopsback said...

ok, lets start teraring it apart...easy to do



what happens to the 7 year trib?

EVERYONE GOES THROUGH THAT.



didnt answer the questjion. when does it begin?


what happens to the A/C?


is he here while christians are here too?

so now everyone must take the mark, big and small,bond and free?


so the christians take the mark declaring themselves non christians while waiting for christ to come back?


your scenario is so easy to discredit, that i am not even going to try other than the few questions ive given here.


at least make me work to tear something apart will ya.

fireinthehole said...

Another problem with transferring title or rights to a home to a trust is the assumption of ownership. How could the property be yours if the trustees are disputing the contract? What good is a trust if there are problems with ownership? Same thing applies to the bank. No trust is is valid if you've got ownership issues.

Joseph said...

Fire in the Hole:

Money is defined in Section 1-210 (24) as "a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations." The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender (such as only gold or silver,) paranthesis added, is rejected.
Expert Witness Todd F. Walker

Joseph said...

didnt answer the questjion. when does it begin
__________________________________

No one knows neither do you. It begins just before Christ comes back, 7 or more years before.

Joseph said...

How could the property be yours if the trustees are disputing the contract?

A BETTER QUESTION IS, HOW CAN THE PROPERTY BE THE LENDERS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OR REAL LOAN?

What good is a trust if there are problems with ownership?

YOU MISSED MY POINTS OBVIOUSLY. THE TRUST ALLOWS THE TRUSTEE TO LEGALLY TAKE ON A DISPUTE.

Same thing applies to the bank. No trust is valid if you've got ownership issues.

NOT TRUE. ILLOGICAL TOO. NO ONE OWNS A TRUST. IF AN ASSET IN QUESTION HAS A QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP, THIS DOES NOT NEGATE THE VALIDITY OR LEGAL NATURE OF A TRUST.

Joseph said...

What happens to the A/C, is he here with other Christians?

YES CHRISTIANS ARE HERE, THE ANTI-CHRIST IS ON THE SCENE TOO. THERE IS NOT MUCH TOLD ABOUT THE A/C. HE HAS A REIGN OF PEACE THAN TERROR, AND IS EVENTUALLY DETRONED & DESTROYED.

sopsback said...

didnt answer the questjion. when does it begin
__________________________________

No one knows neither do you. It begins just before Christ comes back, 7 or more years before.



wrong.


it begin when the a/c takes his seat in the temple


you gotta do some work before you try to debate this stuff.

youre easy pickins.

Joseph said...

SOP: Not all people will take "the mark" of the beast. If you don't take the mark of course you will be discriminated against, may find it difficult to buy and sell or trade, so what? Maybe Christians will revert to another system or barter?

Would all Christians take the mark today, given the choice? I don't think so. There would be dissenters, there always is.

I think if you are concluding that all take the mark, that's an invalid conclusion. Could be poorly worded in the translation, maybe the original translation said different.

I'm assuming that Christians today have not taken the mark already by their unconscious behaviour, may be an invalid assumption.

Maybe we take "the mark" every time we use the Federal Reserve System & use Dollars?

Without a credit card, try renting a car, or doing many things in commerce, it's difficult to impossible.

SOP, you haven't proven at all that Christians are taken away from the earth, prior to the tribulation, prior to the A/C, being on the scene.

Joseph said...

SOP: What begins when the A/C takes his seat in the temple? Certainly not the beginning of the millineum if that is what you are referring to. Show me scripture to verify your view!

Jesus ushers in the millinum, 1,000 years of peace after "Devil is stopped", A/C is off the earth, wickedness is destroyed, and AFTER CHRIST RETURNS IN THE CLOUDS.

The "meek shall inherit the new earth." The old earth is destroyed, and the earth is renewed back to the glory before the Fall.

Joseph said...

SOP: You can't show me scripture to validate your view, because it's a man-made opinion.

Joseph said...

you gotta do some work before you try to debate this stuff.

youre easy pickins.
_____________________________

I await your work. I've seen nothing to date.

Joseph said...

it begin when the a/c takes his seat in the temple
________________________________

WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THIS EXPLICITLY?

sopsback said...

SOP: Not all people will take "the mark" of the beast.


thats why i wont debate it further.

you make statements that simply arent there.


your (mis)interpretations of what it says.

the bible says "all"


rich and poor, bond and free, as if to empasize and then you say that "all" really does not mean all.


what can i say?


your right...to be rawng.

im done.

sopsback said...

SOP: You can't show me scripture to validate your view, because it's a man-made opinion.



you talk about where in scripture does it say this and then go right over where it says "everyone"


apparetnly everyone does not mean "all" but "some"


pleeeeeeeez


theres no sense to debate, you will simply make your own interpretations...and your right. you can interpret it anyway you like. it doesnt matter.

fireinthehole said...

Money is defined in Section 1-210 (24) as "a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations." The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender (such as only gold or silver,) paranthesis added, is rejected.
Expert Witness Todd F. Walker
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you believe the UCC, I've got a bridge to sell you. The UCC is unconstitutional. The definition implies that "money" is... anything that comes down the pike.

Money is limited to COIN not to legal tender COIN.

fireinthehole said...

A BETTER QUESTION IS, HOW CAN THE PROPERTY BE THE LENDERS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OR REAL LOAN?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obviously you've missed MY point. Don't you think your question should be answered BEFORE the property is transferred to a trust?

Joseph said...

Obviously you've missed MY point. Don't you think your question should be answered BEFORE the property is transferred to a trust?
_________________________________

I answered the question, which was the borrower paid for the property by his promissory note, so the lender had no right to force a pledge of lien against the property. Just because I know that, doesn't make it known to all parties, thus the need to challenge the lenders position, thus the need for a trust, thus the need for a trustee. I recognized your point & answered it.

If you want to insinuate that you do nothing because an adverse party doesn't agree with you, is a nonsense approach to take.

Joseph said...

Lawful money = money accepted (federal reserve notes)

Legal tender or legal money = gold & silver

I'm not arguing the constitution, I'm using what the courts accept. To accept a view the courts disallow is meaningless to your cause.

I understand your points, but it doesn't benefit you in the least to take a limited viewpoint.

You're not going to win in court because federal reserve notes are used in this system & it's not legal tender according to the constitution, so it's a fruitless argument.

Joseph said...

Sop: "aLL" could mean all of a certain group, "the unbelievers" only. All does not mean all mankind in a narrow interpretation.

What you aren't taken into consideration is the 144,000 that preach repentence to the earth. Do they take the mark of the beast? Obviously not, so you don't account for these people in your argument.

fireinthehole said...

Well, I'm sorry, but again, you've expanded the definition of what a Trust is. The definition of Trust does not include challenging the loan process, or challening the lender's position. It includes challening "legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another" but nothing about challenging the contract or loan process.

sopsback said...

my view does take the 144k into accoutn.


these are all joos who come to repentance. the real christians are gone. up. nooone here.

fireinthehole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph said...

“He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelation 13:16,17

SOP: All this scripture is saying is that a law is passed requiring ALL TO GET the mark of the beast. To conclude that all take the mark is fallacious reasoning, as another scripture PROVES EVERYONE DOESN'T TAKE THE MARK:

"Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, WHO HAD NOT WORSHIPPED THE BEAST OR HIS IMAGE, AND HAD NOT RECEIVED HIS MARK, on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." Revelation 20:4

Now, obviously these people weren't taken permanently to heaven in a rapture because they are living on the earth for a 1,000 years.

The one clause, "and had not received the mark" could also be another subset of people, other than those that are beheaded, for refusing to receive the mark. Just a thought. Come on, wny not? It can be interpreted both ways as being believable.

My last point is just because you don't take the mark, doesn't mean you can't eat, live, or survive. You just can't buy or sell. So you do things in a black market situation to survive, so what?

Don't be so cock sure of your perspective. You can't see all things nor have you ever noticed these exceptions before until I pointed them out to you.

Your viewpoint of the Bible is very depressing. You might as well believe evil overcomes good & that evil wins on this earth in the end. All Saints or good people have never all been taken away from this earth. Even in the Great Flood, God saved 8 souls from death. Even in the city of Sodom & Ghemorrah, God saved the family of Lot.

For evil to totally prevail, would mean instant destruction of all. God's justice demands this. That has never happened, nor do I believe it will ever happen as you suggest. A righteous remnant always lives on.

Joseph said...

my view does take the 144k into accoutn.


these are all joos who come to repentance. the real christians are gone. up. nooone here.
__________________________________
You've provided no scriptures for your viewpoint that I haven't shown another possible view.

A Jew that comes to repentance is by definition a Christian. The real Christians are gone? You can't repent unless you come to the knowledge of the truth, so when you come to the knowledge of the truth, you believe in Christ, hence you are a Christian. Again, you speak nonsense.

And by the way, I don't believe they are all Jews, the 144,000. They come from each Tribe, of the original 12 tribes, so they can't be all Jews. Remember Jacob had 12 sons? Each son, created one tribe of people throughout the earth. 12,000 from each tribe x 12 tribes = 144,000.

You kind of believe in an impartial or unfair God. Save one group of Christians (rapture) and allow the others (converted jews, other christians) to be on the earth to go through the tribulations? Nonsense if not extremely unfair.

Joseph said...

Can't be all Jews:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/604-who-are-the-144-000-of-revelation-7-and-14

fireinthehole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fireinthehole said...

Today's mortgage contracts are, as Spooner once said, "contracts to perform a manifest impossiblity." They are impossible because in todays economy, runned by the Federal Reserve, employment is not even guaranteed. That alone makes the contract impossible to fulfill.


Spooner: "A contract to perform a manifest impossibility, is an immoral and absurd contract; and a contract, that is either immoral or absurd, is void from the beginning. It has no legal obligation whatever. And if a party pay value, as a consideration for such a contract, he must lose it, unless the receiver voluntarily restore it. The law will neither restore it to him, nor compel the fulfilment of even the possible portion of the contract."

Joseph said...

Angela Stark posted a 2010 assignment fraud report done by an expert. It's about 100 pages long, well worth the read. Here are a few points that shows how widespread the problem is:

21. The key servicing challenge for servicers is that via the process of mortgage
securitization and the accounting, tax, and the remote bankruptcy protection
sought by those in the secondary mortgage market, promissory notes, and their
related assignments on hundreds of thousand and potentially many millions of
occasions were never properly, contractually, lawfully, or equitably transferred,
assigned, and/or indorsed.

22. In fact, lawyers for the industry have admitted in lawsuits, pleadings, testimony,
and hearing arguments that many times one cannot tell who owns the promissory
note upon foreclosure; the chain of title to the note; and that notes have often been
pledged to more than one or more different parties.

Joseph said...

Manifest impossibility. LOL

Excellent point.

fireinthehole said...

Tell that to the judge, not me. Only he can save you. LOL

sopsback said...

like i said, i wont debate it with you anymore.

you havent thought abut it, you just parrot what youve read.

everything that youve said is all nonsense.

Joseph said...

Others believe "the abomination" is the building of the Dome of the Rock, in 688 AD, on the desolate site of the Court of Gentiles on Mount Moriah as a tribute to Muhammad by Khalifah Omar.[18]

So if the abomination is the building of the Dome of the Rock where the Temple of Solomon once stood, and the idea that "God has no Son" thus being a monument of Anti-Jesus Christ philosophy, by the Moslems, is it unreasonable to say that the "abomination of desolation" is the Dome of the Rock being destroyed or being made desolate by the armies that encompass Jerusalem in the latter days just prior to the battle of Armageddon?

Apparently there is the sacrifice or burnt offering, and than 3.5 years later, you have this second event, or this "abomination of desolations".

SOP: I don't read anywhere that the AntiChrist proclaims himself to be God as the second event 3.5 years later after the burnt offering is taken away. I think it's nonsense to make interpretations based upon nothing. If you have something, show me or are you the one just "parroting"? You made that point as it's something I should know, & that's why my views are wrong, but you have nothing to say to back up your point. How am I suppose to study something when I can't find it?

Joseph said...

Now let’s look at some of the passages that support the post-Tribulation Rapture point of view: NOTICE IT USED THE WORD "all" All the tribes of the earth shall mourn. None taken yet! We all know how you take the word, "all" so literally to prove a point. LOL

Just prior to His “thief” analogy, Jesus told His disciples: “Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matthew 24:29-31).

Jesus placed His return after the Tribulation period—then His angels will gather His elect, all those who have received Him as their Savior, in the Rapture. He couldn’t have made that point clearer!

In addition, the apostle Paul explains that the Antichrist will already be in power and “sitting in the temple of God” when the Rapture happens, and we know from other passages that this happens after the Antichrist breaks the “holy covenant,” which triggers the Great Tribulation: “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day [Jesus’ return] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin [the Antichrist] is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

I did your homework for you right there.

Joseph said...

Paul also states that it will happen when the last trumpet sounds—the same trumpet Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:31: “The Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we [saved] who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

And finally, it is clear from the prophecies in the books of Daniel (c. 538 bc) and Revelation (c. 90 ad) that the saints—all those who have been born again—will be around in the Tribulation, because the Antichrist will war against them. In fact, several passages are even very specific about the length of this period.

“I was watching; and the [Antichrist] was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days [God] came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom. … He [the Antichrist] shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time [three and a half years]” (Daniel 7:21-22, 25).

Yes, the Great Tribulation is going to be a trying time, but God will turn it to our good and help us come through it victoriously. Concerning that time, Daniel writes: “The people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits. And those of the people who understand shall instruct many” (Daniel 11:32-33).

The Great Tribulation will also be a time when many people will turn to the Lord, as those who know their God and understand what’s happening will manifest great powers and win to God’s eternal kingdom many of those who are disaffected with the Antichrist and his regime. The Tribulation trumpets will signal judgments on the wicked—not the just, who will be under God’s seal of protection during this time.

“These [the great multitude standing before the throne of God and Jesus] are the ones who come out of the Great Tribulation” (Revelation 7:14). In other words, they were there during it. God will deliver His own out of trouble, not from it!

Joseph said...

SOP: "All" being subject to a law, doesn't mean all obey it.

Why you can't see that is amusing to me.

Joseph said...

To believe that all people living on the earth during these latter day tribulation times "receive the mark of the beast" is plain silly. No scripture validates this belief.

sopsback said...

SOP: "All" being subject to a law, doesn't mean all obey it.

Why you can't see that is amusing to me.




according to the bible if one doesnt take the mark then they cannot buy nor sell.


how are they goign to live?


simple.

you will not be able to.


how is it that you cant find this stuff??

what bible do you read, the martian one?


all is all. and those who dont obey will die period.

of course with your nonsense, all is still not all.

sopsback said...

like i said, i wont debate the other stuff becuase if you cant understandt the word "all" then your hopeless to understand anything else.

you will say to quote the bible but then you will make your own interpretations of simple words like "all"

hopeless.


stick to what your pastor tells you


all is not all but some.


i want to borrow some money and then not have to pay it "all" back, just some


and when they ask me why, i just send them to you and you tell them that all means some.


LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!

sopsback said...

oh and btw, you say that what i say is nonsense...

tell me, is it 'all' nonsense or just "some" nonsense???


inquiring mines wnat to no??

sopsback said...

btw, did christ pay for "all" of you sins or just "some" of you sins as to you, all means just some.

maybe yu shud ask god if he pay for all of your sins and if that mean 100% of them or maybe just 99.9%


maybe that stick of gum that you stoled from the convent store doesent count. that one is not forgiven.

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

near the end said...

sob why do u care that dr. fred has more money than you?

sopsback said...

near the but, i like yo better when yo sing in using yo "Joseph" user id

sopsback said...

....or habackache or mongrel or.....

sopsback said...

or even dr. fred hoover he is?

judge allslop said...

“a thief who steals a check payable to bearer becomes the holder of the check… but does not become the owner of it.”

sopsback said...

or even jugs allslop....


btw- is he really allslop, or is he really just "some"slop??

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

near the end said...

sob why do u care if dr. fred has more money than u?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 216   Newer› Newest»