File a Quiet Title - Get your Property FREE AND CLEAR From MERS Banks.flv

[SunnyDaysRFun]

Greg is the man you speak about in Draper, UT. On April 6, 2011 Judge Anthony B. Quinn of case #100913427 signed an order vacating his quite title action, so he did not get his property free and clear. He lost. Call the Salt Lake County Recorders office and ask for file number 11054915 which is the order giving him his property and #11164494 which is the order vacating his quite title order. UT Judges ignore the law so they can manage the case, if you are in default u loose no matter what.

[MrFyreflye]

@SunnyDaysRFun sometimes these things have to get appealed. its not easy fighting a court battle; and battle it is.

[SunnyDaysRFun]

@MrFyreflye In Utah the Judges ignore the law and so does the appeals court. If you were in MA that would be different. Again, in Utah if you are in default you will loose all the way to the Utah State Supreme Court. They support the banks, they worship them and they believe the banksters are the law. 

[1allstarman]

if you watch the series " money as debt" it explains to whole fractional reserve system.

[ChaseClassAction2010]

From what I understand there needs to be a 'loan' to create money. Then the short version is they can increase their money supply 30x the amount of the 'loan' and sell it to another bank who then can increase their money supply 30x, and so on add infinitum. There is an out of print book called "Modern Money Mechanics' that may be available by advanced google pdf search that covers the rules and I am sure it has been modified. Suspect there are more than one set of books.

[tomjunk1965]

Question: Where do the Lenders get the 'money' that they 'Loan' out to Borrowers? ...at interest, of course.

I thought they simply type the 'Loan' into existence since FRNs aren't actually considered 'money'? No?

[1allstarman]

@tomjunk1965 the short story on our fractional reserve system. the bank only needs to show about 9% of assets to cover loans so... a person deposits $10,000.00 in the bank, the bank is allowed to write almost $90,000.00 in loans against the original deposit of $10,000.00

[SunnyDaysRFun]

@1allstarman To add to what you said banks are counterfeiting, only congress has the power to create money.

[1allstarman]

@SunnyDaysRFun Yes I know much more now.the banks never loan you anything except your own credit, which they also sell.the definition of "money" in their contracts is ambigous. their "money" is a money created at the stroke of a pen,a ledger entry , yet they force you to repay the same " money " with federal reserve notes! not lawfull! My loan agreement ( contract) was never signed by anyone except myself ! is that an enforcable contract?

[MrFyreflye]

@1allstarman yes it is enforceable, and to your benefit. federal reserve notes are ledger entries too. yes it is lawful, see USC title 31 "Banking" where system issues are legal tender.

To your benefit because indeed it is a contract, they monetized the value and got paid in the act. so every so-called "loan" is self-canceled. like a pre-paid credit card. now the note has vanished, replaced by money, so they can never show it again in court. no note, no foreclosure. see the mortgage contract.

[MrFyreflye]

@tomjunk1965 yes thats it. see the Federal reserve Bank publication from 1961, "Modern Money mechanics", among others. its tauight in any basic undergrad econ 101 class. money is issued into existence by accepting promissory notes as deposits for value. and, it goes in reverse too- "paying" debts actually extinguishes money altogether.

[tomjunk1965]

Question: In a typical Home Loan contract, isn't the Lender supposed to be 'risking' the 'Loan' of high value thus requiring the Borrower's assets as collateral in case of non-payment of said 'Loan'?

[MrFyreflye]

@tomjunk1965 no risk. the system cannot default, its just an accounting of +'s & -'s. a book-keeping operation. all debts are monetized into credits; look at the paper money "this Note is legal tender". so its a note, meaning debt, but its also payment. both debt and credit at the same time. all bank-debts are secured by the system itself so all lawsuits and collection activity is fraud. we can easily win in court against attempt that accounts bank debt as actionable.

[SunnyDaysRFun]

@MrFyreflye You cannot easily win in court based upon your allegations, though they be true. Judges do not follow the law, they instead manage the case and if it looks like to them your 'getting away' with anything you loose. Judges are just as corrupt as the banksters, it's why the banksters have been able to flourish. If the banksters are still alive it's because the courts are corrupt.

[MrFyreflye]

@SunnyDaysRFun i retract- it may not be easy but at least its a good defense! you are right they're all corrupt. i will say, not sure too many people ever make the right arguments though. what i meant was, every "complaint in mortgage foreclosure" will plead some fiction called "past due mortgage payments"; call them out on this one. no payments are ever due on any mortgage. thats like saying "mailing address payments"; they just take one detail out of context to hoodwink the unwary.

[MrFyreflye]

the main thing is DO NOT DEFAULT TO THE COURT CASE! meaning, ANSWER timely, on the record, as required, and make a trial and federal case out of it. Just DENY everything, point for point. this preserves your right to trial which they hate. most everyone just takes it as a foregone conclusion- big mistake!!

[Impex7]

Problem for me is, Quiet Title doesn't necessarily work in Texas! Any suggestions? Crooked Judges (mostly Republican) and Politicians!

[Impex7]

Problem for me is, Quiet Title doesn't necessarily work in Texas! Any suggestions?

[ChaseClassAction2010]

@Impex7 Texas has the strongest homestead exemptions but that is all I know on the state.

[ChaseClassAction2010]

@Impex7 Check out my channel ChaseClassAction2010

[ElvisandtheColonel]

we have been very successful in quieting title for our customers.

[buzzclick500]

You wanted a house. You couldn't afford the house. You put a fraction of the purchase price down, with the stated intention(in writing)of meeting the required consideration for eventual ownership of the house. Now you don't want to fulfill your end of the agreement, on the grounds that the LENDER is evil and deceived you. Now, go see if you can look into your own eyes in the mirror. Then watch Larry Winget.

[MrFyreflye]

@buzzclick500 are you that stupid?

[buzzclick500]

@MrFyreflye : Yes. Years of practice. ;])

[troysage]

@thebeatsmith. Since the homeowner for the most part signed a note then all this does isn pisses off the lender how does a QT stop foreclosure? It doesn't. All that is being done here is slow down the foreclosure process and it screws with the market. Most sellers trying this QT process owe money to the lender but are refusing to pay. If a homeowner borrowed money to purchase then they owe the money back. A QT is not a get out of your mortgage free card.

[MrFyreflye]

@troysage wrong. just because you are confused about law doesnt mean there isnt law. your first mistake was assuming any "lender" is moving to foreclose. this never happens. instead it s a random bill collector with no standing in the court. then, the note you mentioned is never made part of the case; they just plead "mortgage", which doesn't have any rights to foreclose without the "lender". in fact there is no lender since all money is ISSUED- where'd you think the original money comes from?

[troysage]

@MrFyreflye What are you talking about!!!!!!!

[MrFyreflye]

@troysage can you be more specific? im talking about "produce the note"; this has won cases up to the level of the Kansas State Supreme Court, the Superior Courts of New York, Ohio, Florida, California, Arkansas and surely others; and in Bankruptcy Courts in CA to my knowledge, plus the famous ruling of Federal Judge Christopher Boyko in 2007 stopping DEUTSCHEBANK from foreclosing on 14 properties all at once.

[youarecretorcreating]

It does not remove the Note but does remove the ability to foreclose so that you can stay in your house as you learn and sue for all sorts of fraud, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentations, fraud upon the court, Violations of RESPA ,TILA, and a dozen other including unlawful conversion because when they sign the Note "Pay to the Order of"  they unlawfully converted it and they also did the same thing with the Deed of Trust when they put it into an investment vehicle without your consent

[MrFyreflye]

@youarecretorcreating i agree but it is entirelawful to convert the Note; in fact the Mortgage Contract will say that "the Note, being evidence of the Debt, may be assigned from time to time, to 3rd parties, without Notice". the real question is why are they trying to foreclose when in fact the Note is held by investors who are happily paid just by holding what amounts to legal tender.

[troysage]

How does quiet title recording remove the borrowers obligation to pay their mortgage?

[ClintfromNYtoVA]

@troysage please review quiettitleaction (dot) com for more info and post any additional you find on my comments section main page of the ChaseClassAction2010. I hope this helps and thank you for your comments.

[TheBeatSmith]

@troysage - it doesn't if the borrower signed a note..... A QT merely puts a wedge between the borrower and the lender and henders the banks ability to foreclose......this really pisses off the sleeping giants...i.e. BOA,Wells, Chase

[troysage]

@TheBeatSmith My point exactly. So let me ask this. Did the homeowner borrow money to purchase a home, and if they did are they paying the money back? If they're not paying it back they are in default? It is my humble opinion that when you borrow money you pay it back. By placing a wedge between the borrower and the lender all we are doing is allowing people to avoid their debt. Not a good thing.

[MrFyreflye]

@TheBeatSmith doesnt matter, these so-called "gints" dont own the note nor can they produce it. all debts have been monetized. the note is in your pockets if youve got any money. think, 10's 20's & 100's.

[MrFyreflye]

@troysage there is no such thing as an obligation to pay a mortgage. a mortgage is a real estate guarantee. can you pay your mailing address?? the term is a fraud invented by the collection industry. The note has an obligation to pay but it gets paid in the act of issue. there is actually a zero balance from the beginning everyone got paid. its called "modern money mechanics"

[troysage]

@MrFyreflye I think you're just looking for a debate. The question is "did the homeowner borrow money to purchase a property?" Was the property used as collateral? If you loaned money to a person and used an instrument as collateral, and the person didn't pay you back, would you collect the collateral?

[MrFyreflye]

@troysage wrong. that is not the question; otherwise anyone in the world could sue to foreclose on any property (which is pretty much what happens). the Plaintiff mujst be the "real party to the action"; they must OWN THE RIGHT. iits not an abstract speculative childish "wonderings" from 6th grade social studies class, which is where you got processed into so many assumptions. just because you are confused doesnt mean the law is confused. Borrow the money from WHO?? you? me? random?

[MrFyreflye]

@MrFyreflye anyway the answer is: "no one borrowed any money". Money is ISSUED, not LENT. this on the authority of the Federal Reserve Bank itslef, and any undergrad elective course on economics. the money is not there, and then it is, so where does it originate? by ISSUE as LEGAL TENDER as per U.S.C. title 31 "Banking".

[MrFyreflye]

@MrFyreflye "if I" is irrelevant. this is not mrs buttwinkles social studies class, time to grow up and talk like an adult. "If i" have the collateral then i have the payment. it is collected in the act. A lien or mortgage on property is valuable in itself. there is no tension in your statement.

[troysage]

@MrFyreflye This will be my last post to a person that simply has nothing to do but continue to accuse me of being processed and confused. Simply if you @MrFyreflye loaned a person money, and secured your loan with collateral, and you did not receive payment for your loan, then I bet you MrFyreflye would keep the collateral. By doing a QT a person is simply placing Title in another name. The QT doesn't erase the obligation to repay a debt. nuf said

[MrFyreflye]

@troysage Do a QT where the Mortgage holder cannot or fails to prove their position and that lien is vanquished. yes i keep the collateral, which is the security against the property. i am paid. you keep the house, i keep the valuable lien. if the lien is worthless then foreclosure is barred anyway by law. if it is worthwhile then im already good. the only valid reason in law to foreclose is to prevent waste; waste is exactly what happens in most foreclosures. banks often lose money overall.

[bulletinman]

We are working on it.