Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure
This may be shocking, but demanding to see the note is the exact opposite of what we want. When a bank forecloses, it's ADMITTING that it possesses the note. That's where we want them because it's an admission that THE BANK HAS THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM, not you. By trying to foreclose, it's telling you that it accepted a security, its RIGHTS OF RECOURSE ARE DISCHARGED under the UCC (3-311, 3-603 and 604), and therefore the bank owes YOU money, NOT the other way around.
Something else is even more important. Its admitting that YOU hold the security interest in the note. If you think about that, you may see some remedies since security interests control all the world's property.
And here's something even more important. YOU HOLD THE SECURITY INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGE TOO. Yes I know it says you give them the interest. But under public policy, the words don't matter. Think of a promissory note. Before 1933, it signified your debt to the bank. Now, the bank enters it as a debit to their assets - meaning an increase in assets. IT'S THE PAPER THAT COUNTS. It's a security. Read the definition under 15 USC 77ccc. YOU signed the mortgage. It's YOUR security. THEY have the obligation to perform on the security by exchanging it for equal value (just like giving a check to the bank in return for currency), namely the release of the mortgage. OR YOU CAN DECLARE YOUR CLAIM OR RETURN OF YOUR SECURITIES. You would have to know how to collapse the trusts.
So YOU hold TWO security INTERESTS. THEY hold the securities. Who is supposed to perform???? By having failed to return the securities or give you equal value such as a release of the mortgage, THEY COMMITTED SECURITIES AND TAX FRAUD, and you can prove it easily. The bank knows that their books will show that they NEVER PAID TAXES ON THE GAIN. We WANT the bank to be the holder. If you demand to see the note, you're handing the attorney an easy win because you're admitting you abandoned it.
You might begin thinking about how you might demand THEY PERFORM on the note or use their failure to perform against them. "Where is my value?" "Show me the tax forms that declared it at a taxable gain since you've construed that I abandoned the property." And so forth.
Whoever holds a security has the OBLIGATION OF PERFORMANCE. They are required to exchange it for equal value. That's the real message in HJR 192. If you don't know how to collapse the trusts, how can you use subpoena, discovery, procedure, trusts and such to place them on the defensive? You might glance at Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC.
Unless you know how to reclaim your account and securities which is the only real winner. That can't be done by the strawman, the living man or even the executor as most people have constructed it. You have to have the very specific status IRS requires to process your forms when you foreclose on them. So unless you know how to reclaim the original trust, you've got to process their performance obligation inside the box.
That's where the UCC comes in. UCC does not apply to the mortgage because as a private trust, but IT SURE AS HECK applies to the note and the mortgage as a security future. I would keep it short and simple. See 8-102, 3-305, 3-306, and especially 3-105. "Excuse me, did you pay the taxes on the secondary issue when you issued the bank certificates against my note, or did you construe that it was a tax-exempt original issue because you presumed I had abandoned my security?"
Blessings to you,
yahoo group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Reclaim_Your_Securities/
Prommis Holdings LLC files for Bankruptcy Protection
Posted By Niel Garfield
I have not followed Prommis Holdings closely but I can recall that some people have sent in reports that Prommis was the named creditor in some foreclosure proceedings. The reason I am posting this is because the bankruptcy filings including the statement of affairs will probably give some important clues to the real money story on those mortgages where Prommis was involved. I'm sure you will not find…
Article Published by Fox Rothschild, LLP Attorneys at Law
PLAINTIFF IN FORECLOSURE CASE CANNOT SUBSEQUENTLY CURE LACK OF STANDING ON DAY COMPLAINT IS FILED
POSTED BY ROBERT ROHRBERGER ON AUGUST 16, 2011
In Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mitchell, the Appellate Division ruled
that, when a plaintiff files a mortgage foreclosure action, it must have either an assignment or possession of the Note on the day that the complaint is filed, and the a lack of standing…
NO JUDICIAL POWERS
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT NOTICE,
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION,
And DEMAND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARING AGAINST PLAINTIFF
NOTICE and AFFIDAVIT
All “judicial power” of the “inferior courts” comes from the Judiciary Act of 1789, as did the Attorney General position. “Judicial power” comes from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment removed all “judicial power” in…