general questions and re-conveyance question

Discussion of various forms of Advance Fee Fraud, including application fees for loans that never materialize, self-liquidating loan scams, as well as mortgage elimination scams and related debt elimination scams [Nigerian-type scams should go in the Nigerian 4-1-9 forum]
Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby Hyrion » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:54 am

dafinch wrote:I'm curious: what do you think of the "honesty" of the lenders whose virtue you are defending so vigorously?

I'm not defending their virtue. I'm simply stating a point with regards one specific point you made. I went to the effort to show that all the points that you claimed "were not met" were actually met.

All you have to do to counter that is make 1 single point where 1 of the elements were actually not met. For example, prove you didn't sign the original mortgage agreement. Just 1 is all you have to identify. I went through all four as well as provided an extra bonus of the contractual agreement you entered to receive the house that your mortgage loan was meant to purchase.
dafinch wrote:I could take the time and effort to argue the points above.

Sorry - the fact that you clearly avoid making 1 single point - and that's all you have to do - where any one of the elements actually failed is quite telling.

As to your links to what the banks are doing wrong: I prefer to live in a Civilized Society. Just because one party committed a crime does not make it acceptable for another party to comit a crime. In that same vein, just because one party committed an ethical/moral blunder which is legal does not make it right for another party to do the same.

Based on that: it is quite telling that you attempt to use the behavior of bad individuals/entities as some form of excuse to defend why you are doing what you are doing. Make no mistake, I see your pointing to those "bad banks" as an attempt to sidetrack the specific point of discussion I choose to enter.

rosvicl
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:29 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby rosvicl » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:03 am

dafinch:

As far as I can tell, you took out a mortgage from one bank, and it was then bought by another bank. You're now arguing that you don't owe the second bank anything, on the grounds that a contract should be construed favorably to the person who didn't write it. But the second bank, the one you're trying not to pay, didn't write that original contract. They had less input to it than you did (since you or your lawyer could have, and possibly did, negotiate the terms of the contract before you signed).

On a practical level: banks, especially large ones, have a lot of power in the world today. If there was this obvious a hole in standard mortgages, they would at minimum have changed the wording to fix the hole.

You aren't fighting a bank's attempt to foreclose on a home they never had a loan on, or on a home whose mortgage you actually paid off in full.

dafinch
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:43 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby dafinch » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:11 am

Pottapaug1938 wrote:Dafinch is the latest in a long line of people who come here "just asking" and then move the goalposts every time a question is answered. He has the answers to his original question; so from here on, the way I see it, this thread serves no useful purpose.


What "goal posts" are you referring to? I asked a general question-see the thread title-but made it clear that my primary concern was the re-conveyance clause. Nobody seems to be addressing that, just droning on about "obligation" and "duty," or making up laws not in evidence in the clause(and the notion that lenders in general, and Wells Fargo, in particular, have some kind of cornerstone on integrity and/or not screwing up is laughable. I don't have much use for the whole, involved, tax protester movement, or Accepted for Value, or the 100 billion dollar Treasury deal, just one, single little clause, and this elicits attack, not factual analysis or refutation.

dafinch
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:43 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby dafinch » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:27 am

rosvicl wrote:dafinch:

As far as I can tell, you took out a mortgage from one bank, and it was then bought by another bank. You're now arguing that you don't owe the second bank anything, on the grounds that a contract should be construed favorably to the person who didn't write it. But the second bank, the one you're trying not to pay, didn't write that original contract. They had less input to it than you did (since you or your lawyer could have, and possibly did, negotiate the terms of the contract before you signed).

On a practical level: banks, especially large ones, have a lot of power in the world today. If there was this obvious a hole in standard mortgages, they would at minimum have changed the wording to fix the hole.

You aren't fighting a bank's attempt to foreclose on a home they never had a loan on, or on a home whose mortgage you actually paid off in full.


I appreciate your discussing the clause instead of merely attacking me or my "motives," but, that's not what I said. ""To discourage the drafting of deliberate ambiguous language, any ambiguous terms in a contract is interpreted in a way that penalizes the party that drafts the contract." Lenders could have inserted two little words in the clause which would've made things crystal clear: "by the borrower(as in, if the loan is paid off by...),"but they choose not to do so, for reasons that I think are clear: securitization, which is a topic in and of itself(google "securitization mortgages illegal" and see what comes up, including an actual case, instead of vague "laws"). Loans are invariably sold "without recourse" and as far as Wells Fargo barging into a contract, between two other parties, oh, well, ya play the game and ya takes yer chances. I'd be the first to admit banks are powerful, but, as the link I previously posted shows, they sure do screw up and get fined a lot, too, don't they(and I could post literally 4 or 5 pages of court cases where they didn't win, but something tells me that wouldn't fly here)? And, finally, I would respectfully disagree with BOTH parts of your last sentence, they don't have a mortgage on the house, the DOT says so, and it WAS paid off, just not by me, which, according to the contract, is NOT a requirement to release the lien-only that it BE paid off.
Last edited by dafinch on Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby Hyrion » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:31 am

dafinch wrote:I asked a simple question about a 2 sentence clause

dafinch wrote:If you have an actual answer as why the clause doesn't mean what I think it does, I'm all ears.

Sometimes I'm a sucker so I'll make 1 attempt at that. Scenario as you presented:

    You entered a mortgage agreement with Entity A to buy a house, you agreed to pay the debt in full including interest. Said debt includes a clause that says (paraphrased) "when debt is paid, lien on property will be removed and borrower will have full ownership and title of property"
Note: Legal eagles, feel free to correct any aspect of my layman understanding.

    You then used said money from loan, paid the previous owner of the property and took possession of the property. This leaves you with the property and a debt in the form of an unpaid mortgage.
What you are missing - deliberately or inadvertently only you know:

    Entity A gets into trouble... they are going bankrupt, they don't wish to be responsible for the debt anymore, whatever the reason - doesn't matter.
    Entity A sells their interest* in the mortgage to Entity B. You have no legal say** what Entity A does with their side of the mortgage agreement, their value of the loan.
    Entity A informs you they have no more interest in the mortgage so you can stop paying them.
    Entity B informs you they purchased Entity A's value of the mortgage and you now owe them instead.
End result:

    You still have your legal obligations of the loan, but you owe them to Entity B.
    Entity B now has Entity A's obligations of the loan. This means, as just one example, Entity B has to accept the interest rate agreement for the period defined by the loan. They can't suddenly raise the interest rate on you from 3% to 8%.
Let's put the concept outlined above in an example.

    Person A owns a property.
    You enter a 5 year rental agreement with Person A to pay $300 a month.
    The rental agreement says that if you pay the full amount $300*60 you don't owe anything else for the rest of the time period even if it's your first day into rent. In short, you "get possession guaranteed for the 5 year period".
    Two months into the agreement Person A decides to retire and move to the bahamas. So they sell the property to person B who buys the propert for $500,000 - which is a lot more then what you owe for the full period $18,000.
    Person B now owns the property, and is required by Law to uphold the rental agreement for the rest of the 5 years.
    You now own Person B the $300 per month rent - to a total of $18,000 minus what you paid Person A.

Reality: You don't suddenly get to stop paying the rent for the rest of the 5 years simply because Person B paid $500,000 for the property. But that is basically what you are saying about the mortgage. That the agreement of Bank B to buy some assets (which include your oustanding mortgage) from Bank A amount to Bank B paying off your obligation. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

*To be absolutely clear: Interest in this context means - in the context of an example: I have an interest in the health of my horse.

**Unless you thought to have a clause added, something like: if Entity A ever relinquishes the debt, any outstanding principal + interest is considered paid in full and the debt wiped clear. I can't say if that'd be a legally enforceable clause but I seriously doubt any lender would ever agree to such a clause being in a loan agreement.

dafinch
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:43 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby dafinch » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:40 am

Hyrion wrote:
dafinch wrote:I'm curious: what do you think of the "honesty" of the lenders whose virtue you are defending so vigorously?

I'm not defending their virtue. I'm simply stating a point with regards one specific point you made. I went to the effort to show that all the points that you claimed "were not met" were actually met.

All you have to do to counter that is make 1 single point where 1 of the elements were actually not met. For example, prove you didn't sign the original mortgage agreement. Just 1 is all you have to identify. I went through all four as well as provided an extra bonus of the contractual agreement you entered to receive the house that your mortgage loan was meant to purchase.
dafinch wrote:I could take the time and effort to argue the points above.

Sorry - the fact that you clearly avoid making 1 single point - and that's all you have to do - where any one of the elements actually failed is quite telling.

As to your links to what the banks are doing wrong: I prefer to live in a Civilized Society. Just because one party committed a crime does not make it acceptable for another party to comit a crime. In that same vein, just because one party committed an ethical/moral blunder which is legal does not make it right for another party to do the same.

Based on that: it is quite telling that you attempt to use the behavior of bad individuals/entities as some form of excuse to defend why you are doing what you are doing. Make no mistake, I see your pointing to those "bad banks" as an attempt to sidetrack the specific point of discussion I choose to enter.


I have several refutations, I'll take the opinions-and credentials-of Todd Walker and a judge over yours(see below), but I'm sure you'll come up with some bogus reason to discredit them. Again, my primary interest is in the re-conveyance clause, which, I notice, you carefully avoid discussing. And I haven't the slightest interest in what you consider to be an "ethical/moral blunder," which I tried to politely indicate earlier.


http://freedom-school.com/affidavit_of_ ... -20-04.pdf

http://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/c ... 0river.pdf

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4929
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:48 am

Think of the process this way: in Massachusetts, a mortgagor conveys legal title to a piece of real property to the lender in return for the loan, and retains equitable title to the extent of the money put down on the property. As the mortgage is paid off, the amount of "equity" increased to the point where, when the mortgage is paid off, the holder of the mortgage is required to reconvey legal title to the mortgagor.

Oh -- I mentioned the "holder". When I bought my house, let's say that I got the mortgage loan from the First Bank of Dana. However, the FBD didn't want money trickling in over the term of the loan, they want money which can be lent out again, so they sold the mortgage note to another entity which DID want that trickle of money. The ability to do so was written into the4 the terms of the mortgage. I didn't care who held my mortgage note; all I wanted was to be left alone in possession of my house as long as I kept my part of the bargain and made payments on the mortgage. Once I finished doing so, the bank kept its part of the bargain by marking the mortgage note as "paid in full" and discharging my mortgage.

In short, I didn't play word games. I sent the payments to the entity entitled to receive them, and they left me in peaceable possession of my house. I now have full legal title to my house.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

dafinch
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:43 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby dafinch » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:12 am

Hyrion wrote:
dafinch wrote:I asked a simple question about a 2 sentence clause

dafinch wrote:If you have an actual answer as why the clause doesn't mean what I think it does, I'm all ears.

Sometimes I'm a sucker so I'll make 1 attempt at that. Scenario as you presented:

    You entered a mortgage agreement with Entity A to buy a house, you agreed to pay the debt in full including interest. Said debt includes a clause that says (paraphrased) "when debt is paid, lien on property will be removed and borrower will have full ownership and title of property"
Note: Legal eagles, feel free to correct any aspect of my layman understanding.

    You then used said money from loan, paid the previous owner of the property and took possession of the property. This leaves you with the property and a debt in the form of an unpaid mortgage.
What you are missing - deliberately or inadvertently only you know:

    Entity A gets into trouble... they are going bankrupt, they don't wish to be responsible for the debt anymore, whatever the reason - doesn't matter.
    Entity A sells their interest* in the mortgage to Entity B. You have no legal say** what Entity A does with their side of the mortgage agreement, their value of the loan.
    Entity A informs you they have no more interest in the mortgage so you can stop paying them.
    Entity B informs you they purchased Entity A's value of the mortgage and you now owe them instead.
End result:

    You still have your legal obligations of the loan, but you owe them to Entity B.
    Entity B now has Entity A's obligations of the loan. This means, as just one example, Entity B has to accept the interest rate agreement for the period defined by the loan. They can't suddenly raise the interest rate on you from 3% to 8%.
Let's put the concept outlined above in an example.

    Person A owns a property.
    You enter a 5 year rental agreement with Person A to pay $300 a month.
    The rental agreement says that if you pay the full amount $300*60 you don't owe anything else for the rest of the time period even if it's your first day into rent. In short, you "get possession guaranteed for the 5 year period".
    Two months into the agreement Person A decides to retire and move to the bahamas. So they sell the property to person B who buys the propert for $500,000 - which is a lot more then what you owe for the full period $18,000.
    Person B now owns the property, and is required by Law to uphold the rental agreement for the rest of the 5 years.
    You now own Person B the $300 per month rent - to a total of $18,000 minus what you paid Person A.

Reality: You don't suddenly get to stop paying the rent for the rest of the 5 years simply because Person B paid $500,000 for the property. But that is basically what you are saying about the mortgage. That the agreement of Bank B to buy some assets (which include your oustanding mortgage) from Bank A amount to Bank B paying off your obligation. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

*To be absolutely clear: Interest in this context means - in the context of an example: I have an interest in the health of my horse.

**Unless you thought to have a clause added, something like: if Entity A ever relinquishes the debt, any outstanding principal + interest is considered paid in full and the debt wiped clear. I can't say if that'd be a legally enforceable clause but I seriously doubt any lender would ever agree to such a clause being in a loan agreement.


What in the world does a rental contract have to do with a mortgage agreement? That doesn't make a lick of sense. And, I'm speaking about a clause in a specific contract, so, let me put this to you:

Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender shall instruct Trustee to release this Security Instrument and surrender all notes evidencing debt secured by this Security Instrument to Trustee. Trustee shall release this security instrument.”

What does "PAYMENT OF ALL SUMS" mean? Where does it say that said payment must be made by the borrower? It has to be paid, alright, doesn't specify that I have to pay it. If you got my credit card bill by mistake in the mail, and, whilst paying all your bills just paid it without noticing it was somebody else's, you couldn't force me to pay it once you discovered your error, could you? Why? BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT WITH ME-and neither does Wells Fargo. Now, you can, indeed, assign the contract, but there's this pesky little requirement about actually recording any such assignment in the county where the property is actually located-and, lo and behold, they didn't do it. They tried to use MERS. Take a look a the following and then tell me about the rights of a lender who uses a "nominee" with nine, count' em, NINE violations, but you're telling me that the clause doesn't mean what is says? Are you REALLY gonna sit there and say that I have a contract with Wells Fargo(and, as I've shown, they have such a spotless reputation in these matters and are always right, lol)?


Wednesday, July 09, 2014

Between myself and my attorneys Robert Hager, Treva Hearne, Mark Mausert and Rick Lawsuit we have spent 8 years of research and finally proved in the Phoenix Arizona United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Case No. 11–17615 Decided: June 12, 2014, that MERSCORP does not have any standing to act as a Nominee. Beneficiary, owner of notes and is not licensed to negotiate mortgage loans. ( http://cloudedtitlesblog.com/2014/06/16 ... s-circuit/ ) ( See below )

Furthermore the federal and state laws have no previsions for creating digitized documents. The law was written around the authenticity or original embossed documents with original signatures with signed names of real people of authority. Further Investigation brought us to the question why did MERSCORP have to resort to fabrication the documents what were they really hiding.

Banks Created and funded Mortgage Electronic Systems to handle electronic filing and to track the investors as monies transferred from the pool and were to be distributed into investor trenches. Most loans banks are only a servicer and service for the given trenches and monies came from the investors around the world never having to fund the loans.

Once banks created a loan banks and MERSCORP dropped the ball never tracking the investors and failed to complete the IRS 976 form and complete the transfer to the REMIC pooling Trenches within the 90 day allotted time. With tax evasion and severed notes banks lost all authority to claim a secured debt as they no longer had a § 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE INSTRUMENT. So creating Mortgage Electronic Systems to hide the fraud and to fabricate documents with fake people signing and or had no authority to sign was the only way out to collect as a secured instrument and foreclose on homes.

As homeowners become wiser it is becoming harder and harder for servicers to foreclose eventually Servicers will simply be forced to walk away from foreclosures. The current Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is the third generation of companies with the same name established as of 1/1/1999. The original "MERS" first became the acronym, an abbreviation for the first Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., in 1995. This corporation was registered in Delaware on October 16, 1995.

In 1997 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. registered "MERS" as the service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) for its mortgage loan eRegistry system. This original Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Corporation has merged with other entities created by its executives and board of directors to and changes its name replacing it over the past 18 years.

Although the 1995 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (version #1) created the MERS service mark and system - it no longer existed after the name change to MERSCORP, Inc. as of 1/1/1999 and then again to MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. on 2/27/2012 which is the owner and operator of the eRegistry but it is not disclosed in the mortgages. Homeowners did not contract with the eRegistry Corporation. It has to be clarified in a court room the exact name MERSCORP now uses, and also has to be noted in the state of California MERSCORP, MERs, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems does not have a registered agent that is current and is not licensed in the State as having a business license. Only being licensed in Delaware for merely transferring and recording documents.

MERSCORP has no authority to discuss loans including loan creation and or modifications such as large banks retain the proper licenses to do so. MERSCORP and the banks have devised a system to fool the state and federal courts and the IRS being the largest master fraud scheme in history. In addition once a note is bifurcated and claimed severed into the investment pools it can never be brought back to a whole which adds to more document fabrication.

List of MERSCORP violations

1.) Assignments were made by “officers” of MERS using delegations of authority of no longer existing MERS predecessor corporations.
2.) The MERS Assignment is deficient because it omits an assertion that the assignor is the holder under the MERS registry for the MIN number of the mortgage being assigned and the transfer is being recorded on the MERS registry.
3.) An interest in a mortgage cannot be conveyed by an endorsement of the mortgage note in blank.
4.) The Officers of MERS who are allegedly authorized to sign documents on behalf of MERS are not “officers” of the corporation as the term officer of a corporation is legally defined.
5.) Because MERS is a mere custodian with no legal or beneficial interest in the mortgage note, MERS cannot assign a mortgage note to an assignee.
6.) Because MERS is a mere custodian with no legal or beneficial interest in the mortgage note, the mortgage has been divided from the note rendering the mortgage unenforceable.
7.) MERS holding of the note endorsed in blank as nominee of a mortgage sold to a mortgage backed securities trust is a violation of REMIC requirements.
8.) MERS holding of the note endorsed in blank as nominee of a mortgage sold to a mortgage backed securities trust is a violation of warranties and representation contained in the master pooling and servicing agreement and prospectus.
9.) MERS was created to perform a service with an illegal purpose, namely to circumvent the recordation of assignments and payment of recording fees. The issuance of assignments in furtherance of such an illegal purpose is unenforceable.

An assignment of the mortgage note from MERS to the servicer of a note is of either of no legal effector an illegal conversion of the note. Violating the peoples constitutional rights Fabricating documents Banks violate homeowner’s constitutionalrights under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution and committed certain violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Intentional planned fraud to fabricate to steal homeowner’s is a violation to the 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS and The Sovereignty rest with the People.

Allowing banks and MERSCORP to carry on fabricating and stealing homes has become the norm for banks. This has to stop and be stopped now. People Corporation could not function.

I hope my affidavit is considered in court because if not the economy as a whole is in a severe stance in relation to war as investors are not paid in this intent of banking fraud.
Last edited by dafinch on Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3529
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:39 am

dafinch wrote:...

I hope my affidavit is considered in court because if not the economy as a whole is in a severe stance in relation to war as investors are not paid in this intent of banking fraud.


You're a few years and a whole bunch of brain cells late.

The issues you're touting have long been decided in case law.

This is all old "news" to those of us who have been in the trenches on these issues for over a decade.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

rosvicl
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:29 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby rosvicl » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:44 am

If you were already sure of the answer, why did you even start this thread?

Quatloos is not a court of law; whether or not you convince people here will make no difference to whether you wind up having to pay the bank or what a court decides about ownership of the property.

Quatloos is not part of the legislative branch; convincing us will not change federal law or the law of whatever state you live in.

Quatloos is not even a very influential website or news outlet. If you're that sure of the truth and strength of your arguments, you'd do better talking to CNN, sfgate.com, or the Huffington Post.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby Jeffrey » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:50 am

I'll just add that both of the pdfs you linked from Freedom School and constitutional concepts are not court decisions but rather stuff people who own those websites wrote themselves. They have no validity.

dafinch
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:43 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby dafinch » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:59 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
dafinch wrote:...

I hope my affidavit is considered in court because if not the economy as a whole is in a severe stance in relation to war as investors are not paid in this intent of banking fraud.


You're a few years and a whole bunch of brain cells late.

The issues you're touting have long been decided in case law.

This is all old "news" to those of us who have been in the trenches on these issues for over a decade.


What's with the constant need for insults? The article I quoted was written by somebody else who runs another site, and I neglected to mention his name. Furthermore, it discusses yet another defeat for MERS just last summer, so I have no idea what you're referring to with "...a few years..." and "...over a decade." Plus, you made the strange observation that, because a security investment(notice I didn't say "note") is in a pool, that gets rid of that pesky re-conveyance clause-without providing a shred of proof, I might add. I, on the other hand, provided some links which argue that securitiztion is illegal in and of itself. I can't figure out if you think that MERS-which is involved with about 60% of the mortgages in this country and is one of the biggest scams ever-is a viable entity, but your bringing them up in the first place and subsequent stony silence over the truckload of violations and defeats they've received lately is puzzling, to say the least.

dafinch
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:43 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby dafinch » Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:03 am

Jeffrey wrote:I'll just add that both of the pdfs you linked from Freedom School and constitutional concepts are not court decisions but rather stuff people who own those websites wrote themselves. They have no validity.


You are incorrect, they both were court cases.

dafinch
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:43 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby dafinch » Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:05 am

rosvicl wrote:If you were already sure of the answer, why did you even start this thread?

Quatloos is not a court of law; whether or not you convince people here will make no difference to whether you wind up having to pay the bank or what a court decides about ownership of the property.

Quatloos is not part of the legislative branch; convincing us will not change federal law or the law of whatever state you live in.

Quatloos is not even a very influential website or news outlet. If you're that sure of the truth and strength of your arguments, you'd do better talking to CNN, sfgate.com, or the Huffington Post.


Where in the world did I say that I was sure of the answer? In fact, my final 2 sentences in my initial post were:
"This also looks like a case of 3rd party interference by them. Anyway, I'd appreciate constructive feedback, thanks in advance."

I am open to the possibility that Tran may have overlooked something. Instead it feels like a Stepford Wives of lender apologists.

davids
Farting Cow Emeritus
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:03 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby davids » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:02 am

Pottapaug1938 wrote: I didn't care who held my mortgage note; all I wanted was to be left alone in possession of my house as long as I kept my part of the bargain and made payments on the mortgage. Once I finished doing so, the bank kept its part of the bargain by marking the mortgage note as "paid in full" and discharging my mortgage.


You must be a zionist illuminatist and at least 33rd degree stormtrooper of the freemasons!

Pottapaug1938 wrote:In short, I didn't play word games. I sent the payments to the entity entitled to receive them, and they left me in peaceable possession of my house. I now have full legal title to my house.
I rest my case!

davids
Farting Cow Emeritus
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:03 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby davids » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:05 am

dafinch wrote:
What "truth" are you referring to? I asked a simple question about a 2 sentence clause, and not one, single person has given an explanation as to why must re-convey MEANS must re-convey(other than saying it doesn't pertain to the sale of pools of notes, which, as previously mentioned, doesn't wash). I'm also baffled at the number of people who talk about the "duty" to pay the loan, while blithely ignoring the massive corruption by the lenders and MERS. If you have an actual answer as why the clause doesn't mean what I think it does, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it sounds like, "I don't know WHY you're wrong, I just know that you're wrong."



Ok. I'll put it in terms you might understand. Bankers are terrible awful scum. Now hire a lawyer, explain your case to him or her, provide them with documents, pay them, and see what the lawyer says.

davids
Farting Cow Emeritus
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:03 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby davids » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:14 am

dafinch wrote:I have several refutations, I'll take the opinions-and credentials-of Todd Walker and a judge over yours(see below), but I'm sure you'll come up with some bogus reason to discredit them. Again, my primary interest is in the re-conveyance clause, which, I notice, you carefully avoid discussing. And I haven't the slightest interest in what you consider to be an "ethical/moral blunder," which I tried to politely indicate earlier.


http://freedom-school.com/affidavit_of_ ... -20-04.pdf

http://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/c ... 0river.pdf


Ohhh check out the big brain on Brad! :sarcasmon: :roll: :haha:

So you attach a couple of expert declarations from some guy. What happened in those cases? did the court consider him an expert? Did the party he provided these for win? This is just the same game that sovruns who claim to be able to drive with no license, with full blessing of the law, play with people. (YOU wouldn't happen to be one of THOSE now would you?) Show a little tidbit here and there, never enough to prove anything, but then you can fool some people with it still.

So you found a guy who attacks the "fractional banking system." Great, so a single expert witness, in a foreclosure case of some kind, is going to write a declaration, and then some podunk court (or not podunk court) is going to change the whole way banking is done in the western world, because he doesn't like it. Or something along those lines. I know enough people who dabbled in sovrun counter-reality to know nonsense when I see it.

Ad the Minnesota case, a sovrun dabbler friend of mine ambushed me with that nonsense to "show me up" after church about three years ago. I continue to see it brought up. But what you don't ever see is someone talk about the ultimate outcome. When I told my friend about what I thought would happen if a court ever made such a ruling, he said "you're right, it was overturned on appeal." As I recall, the judge and the attorney making the argument were kind of in cahoots, the judge lost his license, and it wasn't a pretty result long term. I am not even going to check and see if it is the same case, it probably is, but I know enough law to know a bad decision when I see it.

Edit: Yep, same case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nati ... ry_v._Daly

You guys are just too easy :mrgreen:
Last edited by davids on Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

davids
Farting Cow Emeritus
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:03 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby davids » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:24 am

dafinch wrote:
Judge Roy Bean wrote:
dafinch wrote:...

I hope my affidavit is considered in court because if not the economy as a whole is in a severe stance in relation to war as investors are not paid in this intent of banking fraud.


You're a few years and a whole bunch of brain cells late.

The issues you're touting have long been decided in case law.

This is all old "news" to those of us who have been in the trenches on these issues for over a decade.


What's with the constant need for insults? The article I quoted was written by somebody else who runs another site, and I neglected to mention his name. Furthermore, it discusses yet another defeat for MERS just last summer, so I have no idea what you're referring to with "...a few years..." and "...over a decade." Plus, you made the strange observation that, because a security investment(notice I didn't say "note") is in a pool, that gets rid of that pesky re-conveyance clause-without providing a shred of proof, I might add. I, on the other hand, provided some links which argue that securitiztion is illegal in and of itself. I can't figure out if you think that MERS-which is involved with about 60% of the mortgages in this country and is one of the biggest scams ever-is a viable entity, but your bringing them up in the first place and subsequent stony silence over the truckload of violations and defeats they've received lately is puzzling, to say the least.


They aren't insults, they are accurate appraisals of the conjob you are trying to pull here at this website. We aren't your average marks here. You're not here in good faith. You're not really asking us what we think. You're here to "show" us, and probably some halfwit followers out there in internet land, that you - Yes YOU! Have all the answers. There is no "stony silence" about bank fraud - you just haven't explained how it has anything to do with your factually mundane foreclosure and your self-serving poorly reasoned legal argument. And, I am sure you have some "schooling" that you think you can do, but in reality can't do, on that point too.

Go sell your snake oil

dafinch
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:43 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby dafinch » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:27 am

Bovine, Flatulating: wrote:
dafinch wrote:
What "truth" are you referring to? I asked a simple question about a 2 sentence clause, and not one, single person has given an explanation as to why must re-convey MEANS must re-convey(other than saying it doesn't pertain to the sale of pools of notes, which, as previously mentioned, doesn't wash). I'm also baffled at the number of people who talk about the "duty" to pay the loan, while blithely ignoring the massive corruption by the lenders and MERS. If you have an actual answer as why the clause doesn't mean what I think it does, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it sounds like, "I don't know WHY you're wrong, I just know that you're wrong."



Ok. I'll put it in terms you might understand. Bankers are terrible awful scum. Now hire a lawyer, explain your case to him or her, provide them with documents, pay them, and see what the lawyer says.


Instead of exhibiting a smug, pontificating attitude, you might try reading what I actually wrote: I've already showed this to a lawyer, which I clearly said earlier.

davids
Farting Cow Emeritus
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:03 am

Re: general questions and re-conveyance question

Postby davids » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:32 am

dafinch wrote:
Instead of exhibiting a smug, pontificating attitude, you might try reading what I actually wrote: I've already showed this to a lawyer, which I clearly said earlier.


Ok, but when I said lawyer, I meant one who knows foreclosure law. Anyway, you're not approaching the attorney-client relationship in good faith if you cook up your own (crackpot) theories and then go to the attorney seeking that person's approval. That isn't the way it works. Let me guess, you just showed up under the guise of wanting to hire the attorney, and didn't but just blew a few facts by them in the free initial interview, and when he didn't tell you what you want to hear, off you go to sovrun la la land. Amiright?


Return to “Advance Fee Fraud and Mortgage & Debt Elimination”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest