16548Re: When GMAC goes Bankrupt
- Jan 11, 2009
> Unfortunately, there are NO silver bullets.True. What must be done is to drive a wooden
> Unfortunately, there are NO silver bullets.
stake into individual efforts to defeat the
entrenched status quo.
Sunday 11 January 2006
One can see the dilemma between the thinking
of a falconcrest, who represents what most
people think and believe, vs the reality as
has been revealed in the last several posts.
The final nail in the coffin of the US Republic
came in the the Fed Reserve Act of 1913,
passed on 23 December, a time when the
legislators opposing the Act were home on vacation,
a time when no legislation was passed as an
unspoken rule, to enable legislators time off to
go home and be with their families.
Corruption never takes a vacation.
The Act was modeled after that of the bank of
the Third Reich, and the first head of the Fed
was a German citizen, Warburg, brought over
to this country to put the take-over plan into
One has to understand the insidious nature of
the Fed and its Rothschild-like intent to take
over the currency and corrupt the country.
That is why the US went bankruot in 1933, under
the direction of socialist Roosevelt, a boob
held as a hero.
Back to mortgage fraud. Read your note. It
says, "In return for a loan I have received,
I promise to pay xxx,xxx US dollars..."
The article, "a" is non-specific, see Black's
Law, versus the article "the," which is
The promise to pay x amount of dollars is NOT
for "the loan" received, it is for "a loan"
issued. The fraud is in that little, unspecified
What is "a" loan? Why does it not read, "In
return for THE loan i have received, I promise
"a loan" consists of a computer entry, aka no
consideration. "a loan" requires the repayment
of US dollars, [that in itself another issue].
The note is securitized and sold in order to
raise the money used to fund the loan. In effect,
the signature is the borrower's consideration
used to "loan" to the borrower, in effect, his
own money. Individuals cannot securitize their
own signature by selling it to investors. Only
banks can do that, aka stealing.
Where in the note agreement does it say that the
lender can endorse your note on the back, "pay
to the bearer,"? [the only kind of endorsement
allowed by UCC to make the instrument negotiable.]
That was not a part of the bargain.
When confronted with forclosure, one must DEMAND
of the plaintiff, [not always the holder in due
course, aka the only one that is authorized to sue]
DEMAND that the original note be produced in order
to determine if that is the borrower's original
The defendant in foreclosure is entitled to see
the original note, front AND back, to make sure
it has not been altered, as it was shortly after
the "signing" ceremony. This demand can only be
made within the 30 days tiem in which one has to
respond to the complaint to foreclose, or a default
is granted, and everything in the complaint is
tken to be true, true or not.
You got lucky with these answers, falconcrest.
Turn your judgmental ignorance into some good
with this information.
In general, what can be done? Help enlighten others
by spreading information and knowledge acquired.
Tell anyone facing foreclosure, for instance, share
the information contained in these last several
That opening line, "For 'a loan' that I have received,
etc," is a key indicator of fraud. The securitization
of the note is the first step in the process.
Within the next week, I plan to post on how to fight
in court, with teeth, depending upon one's state.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>