Hello, does this work in Arizona? How does one start working on finding out? Is there a real org that can help out on this? I do not have much time. Please help me. I do not want to lose my home. I have put so much into this house. I am desperate.
There is no contract with only one signature. No one at the bank ever signs the so called loan nor can they, a corporation can not sign anything. They never give anything of value.
@cchessmaster Correct. But the "contract" is a promissory note, and only one signature is necessary because it is "made" by the one that "makes" the promise.
FYI an issuer of a promissory note is called a "maker," and one giving a check or draft is called the "drawer."
@3089280288 Deed, and mortgage states. Doesn't matter, because the obligation being enforced is not the homeowner v. "lender"; it's the "lender" v. "the investors who loaned to the investor.
Look up the legal definition of issuer (see UCC sec. 8-201; Cal UCC sec. 8201) and you'll see who the TRUE debtor is.
@SpecialForceOperator Rules of Court, Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Evidence, and controlling case law. check out: jurisdictionary(dot)com/index(dot)asp?refercode=TA0003
Bank scams on modifications. Loan modification only serve the banks that committed fraud! Demand for an accounting under the federal law. RESPA watch them default, once they default you have them under breach of contract and can force them to reduce the prinicipal balance. Free empowering information at ww w. StopForeclosure. LA or 888 *** 255 ***9999
foreclosurefree... if this is the case then the security has been separated from the promissory note, which should mean that they NO LONGER have a right to that promissory note. Corrrect?
@LadyStarmer Not entirely, the note isn't separated from the security. It's the securitization transaction itself that's problematic. There are many problems with it, too much to go into here. But in short, the investors only bought rights to "payments from the trust pool," not any right to any single individual mortgage; second, the "lender" (sic) sold all of its rights title and interests at the creation of the trust. So where's the obligation?
That is a fantastic idea where you can catch the bank from the beginning with mutual assent. But is it possible to prove the banks intent to sell it on??
@jackbetal Yes, it's possible to prove the banks intent to sell by reading the pooling and service agreement and the 424b5 Prospectus public offering.
@jackbetal Yes, it's possible to prove the banks intent to sell by reading the pooling and service agreement and the 424b5 Prospectus public offering.
EXCELLENT info bruh...This info will assist me in a quiet title suit I'm currently working on. Continue to be a beacon of light for those that oblivious to the treacherous "Seas of Commerce"! Most people don't know what they don't know because they don't know that they don't know it. Continued Blessings!
hello would real like to talk with you about a matter,a friend of mine (polishedbrother) has been in contact with you and said you would really be helpful,about this property matter, I can be reached at k_b820@yahoo.com,any assistance is appreciated
@ADULTEDUCATION4U@ADULTEDUCATION4U your comment is a bit misleading (although UN-intentional I suppose). The parties that "securitized" in a securitization transaction is not the security holder. Also, it's not the house being securitized, it's the purported debt and security agreement.
Equitable interest (in this context) is a claim of right and fairness.
(cont'd) @ADULTEDUCATION4U . . . What most don't realize in a securitization transaction, there are actually TWO loans.
1. From the borrower to the purported lender; and
2. From the investment securities purchasers of the purported lenders to the purported lender.
The "lender" negotiates loan terms that are imposed on the borrower. The lender negotiates it's loan using the borrower's promissory note as it's own and get's funding by selling the note and the returns the proceeds as if a loan.
(cont'd) @ADULTEDUCATION4U . . . A bank has no power to negotiate a loan on anyone's behalf. So the "loan" transaction is actually what's called "ultra vires," meaning "without power."
It is also deceit (a form of fraud), in which the "lender" sells the note and security agreement PRIOR to funding. Then obtains the funds from the sale and returns it to the "borrower" in the FORM (not substance) of a loan. Looks like a duck, quacks, like a duck, but it aint a duck. It's a hybrid cloned duck.
Hello, does this work in Arizona? How does one start working on finding out? Is there a real org that can help out on this? I do not have much time. Please help me. I do not want to lose my home. I have put so much into this house. I am desperate.
MsTeachful 1 month ago
There is no contract with only one signature. No one at the bank ever signs the so called loan nor can they, a corporation can not sign anything. They never give anything of value.
cchessmaster 2 months ago
@cchessmaster Correct. But the "contract" is a promissory note, and only one signature is necessary because it is "made" by the one that "makes" the promise.
FYI an issuer of a promissory note is called a "maker," and one giving a check or draft is called the "drawer."
LoonyVision 2 months ago
You are talking about trust deed states? We don't have those in the east.
3089280288 2 months ago
@3089280288 Deed, and mortgage states. Doesn't matter, because the obligation being enforced is not the homeowner v. "lender"; it's the "lender" v. "the investors who loaned to the investor.
Look up the legal definition of issuer (see UCC sec. 8-201; Cal UCC sec. 8201) and you'll see who the TRUE debtor is.
LoonyVision 2 months ago
YOU JUST SAVED MY HOME! MY 5 YRO, 8 YRO THANKS YOU.
ONTHEMOVE95 2 months ago
@ONTHEMOVE95 congratulations. I'm glad the information helped.
LoonyVision 2 months ago
how do you do it. I want my house back from these thieves
SpecialForceOperator 3 months ago
@SpecialForceOperator Rules of Court, Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Evidence, and controlling case law. check out: jurisdictionary(dot)com/index(dot)asp?refercode=TA0003
LoonyVision 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bank scams on modifications. Loan modification only serve the banks that committed fraud! Demand for an accounting under the federal law. RESPA watch them default, once they default you have them under breach of contract and can force them to reduce the prinicipal balance. Free empowering information at ww w. StopForeclosure. LA or 888 *** 255 ***9999
ForeclosureMD 3 months ago
foreclosurefree... if this is the case then the security has been separated from the promissory note, which should mean that they NO LONGER have a right to that promissory note. Corrrect?
LadyStarmer 3 months ago
@LadyStarmer Not entirely, the note isn't separated from the security. It's the securitization transaction itself that's problematic. There are many problems with it, too much to go into here. But in short, the investors only bought rights to "payments from the trust pool," not any right to any single individual mortgage; second, the "lender" (sic) sold all of its rights title and interests at the creation of the trust. So where's the obligation?
LoonyVision 3 months ago
That is a fantastic idea where you can catch the bank from the beginning with mutual assent. But is it possible to prove the banks intent to sell it on??
jackbetal 5 months ago
@jackbetal Yes, it's possible to prove the banks intent to sell by reading the pooling and service agreement and the 424b5 Prospectus public offering.
LoonyVision 5 months ago
@jackbetal Yes, it's possible to prove the banks intent to sell by reading the pooling and service agreement and the 424b5 Prospectus public offering.
LoonyVision 5 months ago
These goddamn paper pushers... they are ruining America!
sickasso72 6 months ago
Has anyone tried Quiet Title in Texas?
Impex7 6 months ago
EXCELLENT info bruh...This info will assist me in a quiet title suit I'm currently working on. Continue to be a beacon of light for those that oblivious to the treacherous "Seas of Commerce"! Most people don't know what they don't know because they don't know that they don't know it. Continued Blessings!
EarthToneMusik 6 months ago
hello would real like to talk with you about a matter,a friend of mine (polishedbrother) has been in contact with you and said you would really be helpful,about this property matter, I can be reached at k_b820@yahoo.com,any assistance is appreciated
general5051 6 months ago
equitable interest would be a security holder like the person who securitized the house..
ADULTEDUCATION4U 8 months ago
Comment removed
LoonyVision 8 months ago
Comment removed
LoonyVision 8 months ago
Comment removed
LoonyVision 8 months ago
Comment removed
LoonyVision 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ADULTEDUCATION4U @ADULTEDUCATION4U your comment is a bit misleading (although UN-intentional I suppose). The parties that "securitized" in a securitization transaction is not the security holder. Also, it's not the house being securitized, it's the purported debt and security agreement.
Equitable interest (in this context) is a claim of right and fairness.
LoonyVision 8 months ago
Comment removed
LoonyVision 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont'd) @ADULTEDUCATION4U . . . What most don't realize in a securitization transaction, there are actually TWO loans.
1. From the borrower to the purported lender; and
2. From the investment securities purchasers of the purported lenders to the purported lender.
The "lender" negotiates loan terms that are imposed on the borrower. The lender negotiates it's loan using the borrower's promissory note as it's own and get's funding by selling the note and the returns the proceeds as if a loan.
LoonyVision 8 months ago
(cont'd) @ADULTEDUCATION4U . . . A bank has no power to negotiate a loan on anyone's behalf. So the "loan" transaction is actually what's called "ultra vires," meaning "without power."
It is also deceit (a form of fraud), in which the "lender" sells the note and security agreement PRIOR to funding. Then obtains the funds from the sale and returns it to the "borrower" in the FORM (not substance) of a loan. Looks like a duck, quacks, like a duck, but it aint a duck. It's a hybrid cloned duck.
LoonyVision 8 months ago
Great info brother. People need to know that the banks are stealing their homes right under their nose.
MyCashAddictionGifts 11 months ago
keep sharing knowledge and information
the light must shine on all these dark secrets and hidden securities.
ronmamita 1 year ago
Thanks
bulletinman 1 year ago
Great!
SportsTVNetwork 1 year ago