This is another guest post by Jesse Scott of US Mortgage Auditors.
He did this very short information article so people understand where a defense works and where it does not. Many attorneys are asking for the "Wet Signature Note" and the banksters attorneys are loving it. They win on that fraudclosure argument.
He is trying to get the information out for attorneys to use Article 9 and Article 3 of the mortgage contract against a Fraudclosure.
Message From Jesse:
This relates to Article 3 and Article 9
This other side ( The Bank ) will always sue on the bases of Article 3 . WHY? .Under Article 3 The only requirement is to show up and say, here is the Note and you lost your case. Sounds familiar?? Ladies and Gentlemen and Lawyers please understand. STOP ASKING FOR THE WET SIGNATURE NOTE. YOU WILL GET NO WHERE. This is how they confused the issue. And to my wonderful attorneys out there struggling with this. This is how you fight them Article 9 . "Research it " I am not going to give you all the answers.
Article 9 is based on negotiable verses non-negotiable instruments. Prove the other side ( The Bank ) had or has a proper chain of title as it relates to the trust that the mortgage was securitized in. And PROVE that it is BROKEN. If the MORTGAGE and NOTE separates , that means, The instrument becomes (NON-NEGOTIABLE ) ie: the mortgage or Deed of Trust.
Ok Ok i know what your thinking my great and fearless lawyers. Now STOP IT. Your probably thinking well they still owe the money that they borrowed! Kudos to you, YOU ARE RIGHT . However if the mortgage has been separated. The best the other side could do is sue on the NOTE. Yes it becomes an unsecured debt. They can not enforce a non negotiable instrument on the property. So while your negotiating with the banks please stop asking for the Wet Signature Note. They are laughing at you all the way to the .......BANK.
Keep up the Fight
Jesse S Lesuer
Senior Mortgage Fraud Investigator
Securitization Auditor
1-866-358-2738
As I put on the side bar about Jesse and he did my mortgage audit for me.
Total nonsense!
ReplyDeleteJohnson v. Homecomings Financial, 2011 WL 4373975, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Sep.20, 2011) (refusing to recognize the “discredited theory” that a deed of trust “ ‘split’ from the note through securitization, render[s] the note unenforceable”)
It's not that the note is unenforceable, it is indeed enforceable, but it is now no longer securitized by the property, which means it is a unsecured debt, which means they may be able to force you to pay but can't take the house for payment. If you know anything about bills of exchange and legal tender then you know that once they bill you for that debt you can write a bond which is legal tender and use public law ch 48, 48-113 as the underwriter. Your exemption underwrites the bond and if they don't accept that form of payment then ucc 3-603(b) says there is discharge. There is always a remedy for the creditor if you know that you are really the creditor and live like it. All money created comes from you, your signature, thus you are the creditor and they are the debtor. We need to learn how to utilize commercial instruments and stay in honor.
DeleteThe problem is the banksters own the courts too!!!
ReplyDeleteThey didn't borrow anything. That loan is created out of thin air based on the BORROWER'S signature. They could NOT monetize that note without the borrower's signature, because it is the borrower's signature that really has all the value. Then, they turn around and use 90% of that non-existent "monopoly money" as the basis for more loans, and on top of that, they sell the note at least once, and usually numerous times. And, they put up nothing what-so-ever, as consideration, because the "money" they loan didn't exist until the borrower signed the note. So they get paid back at least 9 times, before the borrower's first payment is even due. The whole fractional reserve banking system is a scam and a fraud.
ReplyDelete