WOW: Judge & jury rule MORTGAGE is illegal contract and thus foreclosure thrown out!

[Falseflagop]

WOW this is huge and is a great argument ! Pass it along:


http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-it-Possible-All-Mortgage-Contracts-Are-Void-and-Foreclosures-are-Invalid?&id=1069976

[John of Des Moines]

If I remember right the judge was found dead six months later.

[mrwiizrd]

WOW this is huge and is a great argument ! Pass it along:


http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-it-Possible-All-Mortgage-Contracts-Are-Void-and-Foreclosures-are-Invalid?&id=1069976


this is not valid, read your mortgage contract, this guy just got lucky with a sympathetic jury.

[EndTheFed]

this is not valid, read your mortgage contract, this guy just got lucky with a sympathetic jury.

I have read my mortgage contract...??

Where was he wrong?

[QueenB4Liberty]

lol stop paying your mortgage. see what happens! ;)

[dannno]

this is not valid, read your mortgage contract, this guy just got lucky with a sympathetic jury.

If I counterfeited $10,000, and then loaned it to you to buy a car, and then you bought the car, and then I said if you don't pay me back I get the car, and then you paid me back a bunch of money, then stopped paying and I took the car, then you found out that the money I gave you was counterfeit, would I get to take your car? No, I counterfeited the money. I deserve nothing but possible jail time. Should the previous owner get the car? No, they sold it fair and square, and that money was used in the market place (even though it was counterfeit, the bank still accepted it and they got the funds). The only person who gave anything up was you, who made payments on the car.

[dannno]

lol stop paying your mortgage. see what happens! ;)

It sounds like you would end up in court and need to make the argument that was outlined above, at a risk of course.

[EndTheFed]

lol stop paying your mortgage. see what happens! ;)

I did.. Not intentionally very bad time after 9/11.

This is how I got involved with the End The Fed stuff and yes I lost my house...

BUT...

I did not have a lawyer because of money. I challenged on similar issues to these.

Long story short.. We were in the house 3.5 years without paying a payment.

The foreclosure has not showed up on my credit (4 years later)

My last contact with their lawyer I asked why they had not responded to my letters (did not have the money to go to court).

She did not say ANY of my arguments were wrong, invalid not true.

The only reason they did not respond to my letters wit ALL the information I asked for was that I did not bring them up in the right forum (court).

I see this as a win (at least as much a win as a person not being a lawyer could hoe for).

[EndTheFed]

And since then I have found that they NEVER forclosed...

There was some weird stuff that went on with it.

[EndTheFed]

We also lost a van around the same time...

same letters and arguments...

Nothing on credit report 5 years later..

[mrwiizrd]

I have read my mortgage contract...??

Where was he wrong?

Under current US law federal reserve notes are considered a valid form of consideration.

Legal definition of consideration:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

[mrwiizrd]

I did.. Not intentionally very bad time after 9/11.

This is how I got involved with the End The Fed stuff and yes I lost my house...

BUT...

I did not have a lawyer because of money. I challenged on similar issues to these.

Long story short.. We were in the house 3.5 years without paying a payment.

The foreclosure has not showed up on my credit (4 years later)

My last contact with their lawyer I asked why they had not responded to my letters (did not have the money to go to court).

She did not say ANY of my arguments were wrong, invalid not true.

The only reason they did not respond to my letters wit ALL the information I asked for was that I did not bring them up in the right forum (court).

I see this as a win (at least as much a win as a person not being a lawyer could hoe for).

I've read quite a few instances like this, especially now with all the foreclosures, my guess is that it is more of a case of backlog than legal issues.

[dannno]

Under current US law federal reserve notes are considered a valid form of consideration.

Legal definition of consideration:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

Maybe you can "consider" the context of the situation outside of the little legal bubble you're in. That seems to be what the judge and jury did.

[literatim]

Under current US law federal reserve notes are considered a valid form of consideration.

Legal definition of consideration:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

Credit in the system is not a federal reserve note nor is it backed by federal reserve notes.

[mrwiizrd]

Credit in the system is not a federal reserve note.

Where does that credit go? To the seller of the house, just because you didn't get stacks of bills and hand them over to the seller doesn't make it fictional.

[mrwiizrd]

Maybe you can "consider" the context of the situation outside of the little bubble you're in. That seems to be what the judge and jury did.

Are you just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative?

Listen bud, my intent in posting in this thread was to keep someone without any finance or legal knowledge from trying to pull this off and then losing their house.

If you are so sure it's a valid argument, then why isn't this happening all over the country? And why don't you give it a try and see what happens to you?

[dannno]

If you are so sure it's a valid argument, then why isn't this happening all over the country? And why don't you give it a try and see what happens to you?

If you are so sure about what I am actually saying, then maybe you should read my posts first.

[dannno]

Where does that credit go? To the seller of the house, just because you didn't get stacks of bills and hand them over to the seller doesn't make it fictional.

The point is that the seller received the money THAT THEY EARNED, the buyer put shitloads of money THAT THEY EARNED into the house, and the bank counterfeited a bunch of money THAT THEY DID NOT EARN and now they want the house.

Step away from the situation and look at it in context rather than fumbling around with a bunch of legal jargon.

[mrwiizrd]

If you are so sure about what I am actually saying, then maybe you should read my posts first.

ridiculous, enjoy your 3600 posts.

OK KIDS:

Danno says we don't have to pay our mortgage's anymore! Let's all hold hands and dance around the flagpole! Yay!

[powerofreason]

ridiculous, enjoy your 3600 posts.

OK KIDS:

Danno says we don't have to pay our mortgage's anymore! Let's all hold hands and dance around the flagpole! Yay!

Wewt!

[rich34]

ridiculous, enjoy your 3600 posts.

OK KIDS:

Danno says we don't have to pay our mortgage's anymore! Let's all hold hands and dance around the flagpole! Yay!

Is it that hard to understand what he's saying?

I also understand what you're saying as well. It would just be up to the jury as to the outcome and to whether they understand, unlike you.

[dannno]

ridiculous, enjoy your 3600 posts.

OK KIDS:

Danno says we don't have to pay our mortgage's anymore! Let's all hold hands and dance around the flagpole! Yay!

The funniest part is that i never said that.

You come in here sounding like a lawyer and then all of a sudden you start twisting words around making things up......ohhhhhhhhhhh.....shit.... you really are a lawyer :eek:

[newbitech]

ridiculous, enjoy your 3600 posts.

OK KIDS:

Danno says we don't have to pay our mortgage's anymore! Let's all hold hands and dance around the flagpole! Yay!

mr wiz...

the problem here is fractional reserve banking and all the cottages built up around it, mortgage lending being one of them. See the bank never actually had the money to begin with. On top of that, the bank gave the seller more cash then the house was really worth. So not only did the bank invent the money that it paid out, it invented too much of it (illegitimate appraisal). Oh and lets not forget the rake from the institute, broker, both agents, inspector, and of course our favorite uncle which all go on top of the "value" of the home.

If the would be owner "defaults", what is left is the collateral (house) which when liquidated cannot produce enough value to balance the bank's ledger.

Multiply this by 10's of 1000's and we quickly realize the fraud that has been committed. There is no possible way the banks had enough reserves (much less actual money) during their loan creating hey day to form a legal contract. This makes the liquid value of the collateral the only form of consideration in the contract. For the contract to be legally binding (from my understanding) both parties must prove consideration.

At the time of default, the value of the home is worth less than the value of the banks promise to pay the seller, broker, wages to loan processors, title agent, uncle Sam, real estate agents, etc.

Therefor the banks should pay a repossession premium greater than or equal to the value of the consideration that the defaulter has produced. That is, depending on the age of the contract, the bank should refund the consideration less the depreciated value of the collateral.

IN short, until the contract has lived its full life cycle, the bank is on the hook for the real value of the collateral PLUS the premiums paid out beyond the unappreciated value of the collateral. If the bank wishes to exercise its contractual right to repossess the collateral, the bank SHOULD be required to prove its ability to finance the deal in the first place. Otherwise, you get what we have here sooner or later.

All these people getting foreclosed were basically involved in an elaborate rental scheme and should be treated like renters. Credit ratings don't mean squat, never have, never will.

[EndTheFed]

Are you just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative?

Listen bud, my intent in posting in this thread was to keep someone without any finance or legal knowledge from trying to pull this off and then losing their house.

If you are so sure it's a valid argument, then why isn't this happening all over the country? And why don't you give it a try and see what happens to you?

Well Knowing what I know now... If you were not in my situation, You could still fight based on these arguments, while still paying your mortgage under protest, and not lose your house...

[EndTheFed]

The funniest part is that i never said that.

You come in here sounding like a lawyer and then all of a sudden you start twisting words around making things up......ohhhhhhhhhhh.....shit.... you really are a lawyer :eek:

No... I don't think he is a lawyer.... he MUST be a banker.... :D

[Danke]

I have followed "debt elimination" for years.

I know of cases where people got out of their mortgages because the mortgage was sold as a MBS (securitization) on market to another party. This happens a lot, but sometimes, the original note gets lost (or not transferred) in the shuffle. I think with so many recent wins, the banks have gotten more careful with new loans and documentation.


There is also another avenue I'm following where the Treasury actually pays off your mortgage. It is a bit complicated, but I have a friend that claims to actually have done the process. Watching closely.

If anyone doesn't think there is something fishy going on with our so-called "legal tender" and rules that bankers have been taking advantage of for a long time through our ignorance, just read what the Federal Reserve had to say about debt (money) creation. The Chicago Fed branch published the mechanics called "The Two Faces of Debt."

[jabrownie]

Not giving any legal advice or anything, but someone earlier suggested that a simple demand should be made to produce the original note to verify that the bank is even the right party to sue and/or receive payments. If they cannot produce it, then they do not have standing to foreclose and you can then file a motion to dismiss. This might not make the problem go away, but if nothing else it'll buy you a few months.

Confirmed/discussed here in the ABA journal:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/homing_in_on_foreclosure/

[CzargwaR]

Something here is confusing or doesn't add up. Why is he arguing the bank created the money out of thin air?

Bank has let's say 1,000,000 worth of deposits. If reserve requirement ratio equals 10%, then the bank is able to lend out 900,000 and must keep the 100,000 as reserves. So the money it lend out is not something they made out of thin air but money already in circulaiton.

Only Fed creates money out of thin air, the process of fractional reserve banking cannot be called creation of money out of thin air because it depends on amount of deposits at the bank.

Short version: bank lend out its clients deposits, those deposits already existed so that's not creation of money out of thin air.

[literatim]

Something here is confusing or doesn't add up. Why is he arguing the bank created the money out of thin air?

Bank has let's say 1,000,000 worth of deposits. If reserve requirement ratio equals 10%, then the bank is able to lend out 900,000 and must keep the 100,000 as reserves. So the money it lend out is not something they made out of thin air but money already in circulaiton.

Only Fed creates money out of thin air, the process of fractional reserve banking cannot be called creation of money out of thin air because it depends on amount of deposits at the bank.

Short version: bank lend out its clients deposits, those deposits already existed so that's not creation of money out of thin air.

A bank is allowed to create new credit at a 9:1 of their current reserves. Well, that is how it used to be, since the bail out bill they can create new credit without any reserves.

It's called fractional reserve banking, look it up.

[ghengis86]

Something here is confusing or doesn't add up. Why is he arguing the bank created the money out of thin air?

Bank has let's say 1,000,000 worth of deposits. If reserve requirement ratio equals 10%, then the bank is able to lend out 900,000 and must keep the 100,000 as reserves. So the money it lend out is not something they made out of thin air but money already in circulaiton.

Only Fed creates money out of thin air, the process of fractional reserve banking cannot be called creation of money out of thin air because it depends on amount of deposits at the bank.

Short version: bank lend out its clients deposits, those deposits already existed so that's not creation of money out of thin air.

hmm...i think you need to look into fractional reserve lending in more depth. if a bank has 1,000,000 worth of deposits and the reserve requirement is 10%, the bank can lend out 9,000,000 million dollars which is to say they can make 9,000,000 in loans on paper. that's where the 'money out of thin air' comment comes in. For every dollar on deposit that the bank holds, it can lend out 90 cents; it doesn't work like your example purports.

[pauletteNV]

We have an interesting situation. The US Government and the local native Indians are suing us for our water...and that of this whole valley which is the most ag productive valley in Nevada. It is called the Walker River Watershed and it involves a couple million acres. This suit has been going on for a long time, but we were not made aware of it when we bought here. Oh yeah, the Title Insurance company has gone belly-up. Seems like everything that is bailed out is going belly up. Anyway....we were sued by mail, both my husband and I each getting a huge package of documents. We did not acknowledge it. Then we got served by some man who drove down the driveway. My husband asked if it was "service" and he replied no, but that we should act on it.
We haven't. The documents seem to imply we have "stolen" water and by acting on it, it almost seems like an admission of guilt. We bought property with a well...which was certified to be working, what did we steal?

The documents list hundreds of defendants, but our own mortgage holder is not named. Since we don't have anywhere near as large an interest in the property as the lender does (due to the type of loan it is, it is probably owned by the US Government), and with the lowering of property values...why in the world would we respond? They want even the well water. If it happened they could actually take it, then without water land in this valley would be worthless. See the picutre? If indeed our loan was turned over to the Freddie or Fannie, then it is almost like the goverment and the native people are suing the government. I hate to spend any more money on attorneys and there is a part of me that is so fed up with the government anyway.... Why should I pay taxes to a government which is suing me? Why should I pay a premium mortgage payent for a property which is potentially worthless to possibly the same people who are suing us? Any thoughts? There are some wealthy landowners/ranchers in the area who are fighting the lawsuit...my inclinations is to hang tight and see what transpires.

[rockandrollsouls]

this is not valid, read your mortgage contract, this guy just got lucky with a sympathetic jury.

Basic part of contract law is a contract is void if it is illegal. Counterfeited money is illegal.

[Mesogen]

WOW!!!

This should be huge news, but it's not. The alternative radio people need to blow this up. Interview this guy and make him an example.

Then maybe (not likely) the story can go mainstream and can create a meme. That would be ideal.

[CzargwaR]

you guys are delusional,

Please understand fractional reserve banking before you criticize it.

Banks are required to hold 10% as reserves, that is 10% of total deposits. My example is correct.

If a bank holds a total of 1,000,000 of deposits (1million) then the bank can lend out 900,000 (0.9 million) 100,000 stays as reserves or the bank is breaking the law. The bank wants to minimize the amount of reserves it has because reserves don't pay interest, and there are expenses running a bank. So when a bank makes that loan, it I can't give any more loans.

Where fractional multiplying of money takes place is when the money that was just lend out gets deposited back at the bank. If there is only one bank then 900,000 is lend out - the guy that borrowed buys lets say a house and gives that 900,000 to some dude. Then that dude deposits the 900,000 to his bank. Since we only have 1 bank in town - that money ends up as deposits with the bank that lend out the money.

So now the bank has 1,000,000 original deposits + 900,000 from the dude. that's 1,900,000. Now that deposits increased It can lend out money again, but remember it has to keep 10% as reserves and 10 % = 190,000. Which means the bank can lend out 810,000 money now (that's the total amount of cash it has, 900,000 is just 1 loan it made). And the process continues but reaches a limit of 1/RR 1/10% = 10x. so it would have 10,000,000 of deposits, and 1,000,000 of reserves.

BUT there is never only 1 bank and at any given moment,and if someone withdraws some money (which happens daily) it would have reserves below the required amount and break the law.

So no the bank can't make money out of thin air - only FED can. It can only loan money that it has on hand.

[dannno]

Where fractional multiplying of money takes place is when the money that was just lend out gets deposited back at the bank.


Um, that was the part that you didn't mention that others were pointing out ;)

[newbitech]

you guys are delusional,

Please understand fractional reserve banking before you criticize it.

Banks are required to hold 10% as reserves, that is 10% of total deposits. My example is correct.

If a bank holds a total of 1,000,000 of deposits (1million) then the bank can lend out 900,000 (0.9 million) 100,000 stays as reserves or the bank is breaking the law. The bank wants to minimize the amount of reserves it has because reserves don't pay interest, and there are expenses running a bank. So when a bank makes that loan, it I can't give any more loans.

Where fractional multiplying of money takes place is when the money that was just lend out gets deposited back at the bank. If there is only one bank then 900,000 is lend out - the guy that borrowed buys lets say a house and gives that 900,000 to some dude. Then that dude deposits the 900,000 to his bank. Since we only have 1 bank in town - that money ends up as deposits with the bank that lend out the money.

So now the bank has 1,000,000 original deposits + 900,000 from the dude. that's 1,900,000. Now that deposits increased It can lend out money again, but remember it has to keep 10% as reserves and 10 % = 190,000. Which means the bank can lend out 810,000 money now (that's the total amount of cash it has, 900,000 is just 1 loan it made). And the process continues but reaches a limit of 1/RR 1/10% = 10x. so it would have 10,000,000 of deposits, and 1,000,000 of reserves.

BUT there is never only 1 bank and at any given moment,and if someone withdraws some money (which happens daily) it would have reserves below the required amount and break the law.

So no the bank can't make money out of thin air - only FED can. It can only loan money that it has on hand.

But the reality is, the bank doesn't really have 10 million in deposits and all of its so called reserves are lent out. The federal reserve IS the bank.

[CzargwaR]

for simplicity, reserves = hard cash, the bank must have 10% of it's deposits in reserves which literally means money they are sitting on, either in their vault, or as a digital entry with the FED.

If something is called reserves, then it's not lend out, it is the money that's not lend out.

[newbitech]

for simplicity, reserves = hard cash, the bank must have 10% of it's deposits in reserves which literally means money they are sitting on, either in their vault, or as a digital entry with the FED.

If something is called reserves, then it's not lend out, it is the money that's not lend out.

Right, so the 10 million that is lent out came from where? If the bank has 1 million in original deposits and 1 million in reserves, where did the money the bank lend out come from?

Answer, its debt.

In our system, debt is money. The system is flawed simply because there is more debt created than value that can be repaid. This means bankruptcy is built in. Its a system designed to steal homes, cars, labor, culture, and our inalienable rights as a free people.

Ultimately, the victories like the OP must extend beyond the bankruptcy/foreclosure court and into the halls of congress. Otherwise,
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." T.J.

[IPSecure]

WOW: Judge & jury rule MORTGAGE is illegal contract and thus foreclosure thrown out!

I wonder...

WOW: Judge & jury rule Income Tax is an illegal contract and thus...