Is there any wonder why they suddenly would like to get out of the mortgage market? They no doubt see the writing on the wall with all the fraud now being stood up to by the people and judges in the country.
Judges just a year ago, continued to let the fraud go on in most cases throughout the country. They refused to acknowledge the fraud of the paperwork and continued to give the rights to foreclose to the banks. There were a few judges who stood by the law and refused to accept the fraud of the banks, though the banks would argue in court "Judge this is the way it has always been done, you can't rule against it". (Seriously, that was really some arguments of the banks in courtrooms!)
The judges that ruled by the law, created the wave of media attention, it took many to do so, as the Supreme Court of Kansas was the first to really rule against MERS almost 2 years ago. The wave of MERS fraud only just came out to full public knowledge a couple of months ago. Yet, it is still not full public knowledge as the public has not really been informed about what the "paperwork irregularities and robo signing notaries" are really about.
The government is now trying to get out of the mortgages as fast as possible. They know it is all blowing up. They want out of the mortgage market due to all the fraud of the banks. Of course they are not saying so directly. There is no stopping the judges now having to rule by the law, even those who had not done so previously. There are enough Supreme Courts of various states who have been ruling against the banks, so there is no ignoring the law for judges anymore. A lawyer can simply say "But, Judge here is how this Supreme Court ruled, because of this". Lawyers always use other cases and rulings to defend clients.
I have to give it to those lawyers who first began the defense of people being foreclosed on. They had a very hard job in front of them, proving how the banks committed fraud. They have paved the way for other lawyers to put together their defense of foreclosure. So I would like to Thank all those lawyers and people who stood up to the fraud from the beginning, I know the road has not been easy.
Back to the original premise of this post. The Wall Street journal says the government wants out of mortgages, though they don't say the real reason why. All you have to do, is read between the lines to see the government is looking for a way out of mortgages and though they say it will take years, I would bet they are working behind the scenes for it to take a lot less time. Is that part of what all that printing of money is about?
Portions of article:
More than two years after the government seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Obama administration will recommend phasing out the housing-finance giants and gradually reducing the government's footprint in the mortgage market, according to people familiar with the matter
The administration's proposal to Congress is likely to assess the merits and drawbacks of each of the three options. The most conservative would propose no government role in the mortgage market beyond existing federal agencies, such as the Federal Housing Administration.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told PBS's Charlie Rose earlier this month that the housing-finance business was a "mess" and that the administration's plan would "crowd private capital" back in. That, he said, would curb the government role and leave "a system that will not be vulnerable to the really tragic colossal failures" of the past.
Fannie and Freddie - I would love for them to assume all the RISK! Of'course that would mean collaspe of the dollar. Great blogging thanks
ReplyDelete. . .
ReplyDeleteMight the following be a reason for the US distancing itself from the bankster scam?
The Promissory Note (PN) and Deed of Trust (DoT) (mortgage agreement) are two separate deals.
TWO SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS THAT MUST BE KEPT TOGETHER
TWO SEPARATE WRITINGS THAT CAN BE MONETIZED AND SOLD FOR PROFIT WITHOUT DISCLOSURE TO YOU
1. YOUR Promissory Note is exchanged for Property
YOUR "note" is accepted as "tender" by bankster in exchange for the property.
Just like Federal Reserve Notes are accepted "as tender" for purchases.
Once the "exchange" is complete, the "deal" is DONE.
a) This transaction was a “Currency Exchange”
b) See Money transmitter law
2. DoT [mortgage agreement] is a simple LOAN contract
a) The DoT references the PN as “evidence” of debt. The PN is EVIDENCE.
b) PN and DoT must be kept together for either to remain enforceable.
c) You never received the “LOAN” referenced in the DoT
But, you have been making payments on the "loan."
Your payments are EVIDENCE that you were deceived into thinking that you had actually received a "loan" that you were required to repay.
d) Bank failed to Specifically Perform
i) Bank can’t invoke “power of sale” clause from contract that is a NULLITY.
From the moment that bankster sold the PN in a transaction that separated the PN from the DoT, the DoT became a NULLITY. NULL and VOID.
"The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity." (emphasis added).
Quotation from: Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872). (Access Carpenter here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/271/case.html).
Due process of law. [in part] Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs. ... Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 733, 24 L.Ed. 565. (BLD6-500).
Null and void. Naught; of no validity or effect. Usually coupled with the word "void;" as "null and void." The words "null and void," when used in a contract or statute are often construed as meaning "voidable." Burns Mortg. Co. v. Schwartz, C.C.A.N.J., 72 F.2d 991, 992. "Null and void" means that which binds no one or is incapable of giving rise to any rights or obligations under any circumstances, or that which is of no effect. Zogby v. State, 53 Misc.2d 740, 279 N.Y.S.2d 665, 668. See also Void; Voidable. (BLD6-1067).
Nullity. Nothing; no proceeding; an act or proceeding in a cause which the opposite party may treat as though it had not taken place, or which has absolutely no legal force or effect. (BLD6-1067).
Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria. No one can obtain an advantage by his own wrong. De Zotell v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 60 S.D. 532, 245 N.W. 58, 59. (BLD6-1068).
Nul prendra advantage de son tort demesne. No one shall take advantage of his own wrong. (BLD6-1068).
AFTER the bankster endorses and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction, ANY recording, filing, etc., in a public office of ANY paperwork related to the DoT is a "presentment of false or forged" documents in a public office, A FELONY.
. . .