Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Thoughts on foreclosure fight

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Madison Smith sobaybuild2000@yahoo.com posted this to the trustees_agents Yahoo Group and I thought it would prove useful if you are fighting a foreclosure: Oh
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 2, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      Madison Smith sobaybuild2000@... posted this to the trustees_agents Yahoo Group and I thought it would prove useful if you are fighting a foreclosure:

       

      Oh I have a lot experiences in the mortgage crap! as it were. I personal have used some it and have had friends use other crap! I have yet to see any evidence of anyone ever saving there homes or pay with a Bond or Promissory Note or even a Bonded Promissory Note. Not one of those clowns out there that promote any of that, have any proof of their claims at all!

       

      The only way of getting the banks is by going after them for fraud. You must go after the banks by taking them in to court and make them produce the Note and make them follow the rule of the court as well as the rule of evidence.

       

      In the foreclosure cases the bank must be the Holder in due Course having the right to foreclose. In most cases the bank doesn’t have the Note. In most cases when you look at the mortgage in the definitions of a Loan it may something like this “Loan is evidence by the Note and Mortgage”. So if a Loan is evidence by the Note and Mortgage, and the bank doesn’t have the Note then there is no evidence of a loan is there.

       

      The “and” part of the definition is very important it means, a part of, not one without the other.

       

      Read the attached pg from Black’s Law 4Ed 1957 (There was no attachment to his post.)

       

      So that that being said the Note and the Mortgage mean NOTHING without the other in the case of a Loan of credit on a titled property.

       

      Personally I witnessed an attorney state in open court. The Judge; “Do you have the Note”?

       

      The banks attorney; “No your honor, our client has followed standard industry practice pooled the Note with others and sold it to their investors”

       

      I was there as a witness along with two other Notaries.

       

      It is all about the contract and the terms within that contract; the Note and the Mortgage being the contract/Trust indenture.

       

      If there is one part missing then there is no contract and no controversy. If there is no controversy then the banks have no standing, and if the banks have no standing then the court has no jurisdiction.

       

      However if you bring it in under fraud against the banks then you must prove that the bank has no right to enforce a contract which can be done by discovery.

       

      If you have already done a Notary Protest to which you have recorded, then that can be brought in as evidence to move the court for further discovery. A Notary Protest is evidence under the Rules of evidence I believe 920 and 921. I would have to look it up again as well as 201.

       

      The banks well try and say you signed a mortgage agreement and enter a copy of that agreement. The judge well then ask you if you signed that agreement or ask is that your signature? Your reply is, no that is not my signature. So under the rules of evidence 1003 they must now produce the evidence that the signature on that document is yours. But still must have BOTH DOCUMENTS the Note and Mortgage to enforce so never loose sight of that.

       

      PHONE #s: 970-613-8866/720-203-5142 c. 

      For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2661 W. 46th St., Loveland, CO 80538

       

      BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

      www.irs-armory.com

      www.irslienthumper.com

      www.legalbears.com

      www.legalresearchvideo.com

      www.cantheydothat.com

      www.judgeonaleash.com

       

      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

    • vivus_spartacus
      ... The banks well try and say you signed a mortgage agreement and enter a copy of that agreement. The judge well then ask you if you signed that agreement or
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 2, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Legalbear" <bear@...> wrote:
        >
        > Madison Smith sobaybuild2000@... posted this to the trustees_agents
        > Yahoo Group and I thought it would prove useful if you are
        fighting a foreclosure:
        >
        "The banks well try and say you signed a mortgage agreement and
        enter a copy of that agreement. The judge well then ask you if you
        signed that agreement or ask is that your signature?"

        "Your reply is, no that is not my signature."


        THAT IS NOT the Proper Reply/Response "Madison Smith"!!!


        The PROPER Response is a Demurrer.


        Therefore the Correct Reply should be as:


        'I have No information, or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
        to the Authenticity of the signature presented by opposing party
        which is alleging same to be mine.'

        NOTE:
        Since the Proponent has the Burden to Establish the Facts and
        Evidence to support the allegation, There is NO obligation to either
        help establish such, or RISK looking like a LIAR in Open Court!


        He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools
        will be destroyed. Proverbs 13:20

        Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
        getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7


        "vivus spartacus"
        All Rights Reserved (In the 9th Amendment)
      • Michael Noonan
        ... Actually, yes and no. Going after a lender for fraud puts the onus on you (whoever is suing), and having to prove all the elements of fraud is not easy.
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 5, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > Madison Smith sobaybuild2000@... posted this
          > to the trustees_agents Yahoo Group

          > The only way of getting the banks is by going after
          > them for fraud.

          Actually, yes and no. Going after a lender for fraud
          puts the onus on "you" (whoever is suing), and having
          to prove all the elements of fraud is not easy.

          >You must go after the banks by taking them in to
          >court and make them produce the Note and make them
          >follow the rule of the court as well as the rule of
          >evidence.

          Usually, the lender goes after you first, and that is
          to your advantage. Now you are in a position to
          make the lender prove all its elements of foreclosure

          > In the foreclosure cases the bank must be the Holder
          > in due Course having the right to foreclose.

          The two most important elements the bank must prove,
          and failure on the first negates the latter, a point
          I am currently going after on appeal for my own
          situation.


          >In most cases the bank doesn't have the Note.

          In all cases would be more accurate.



          > In most cases when you look at the mortgage in the
          > definitions of a Loan it may
          > something like this "Loan is evidence by the Note
          > and Mortgage".

          In all cases, it really says something like, "...in
          return for A LOAN, you promise to pay $xxx,xxx, ...

          "a" is an indefinite article. Your loan was very
          specific. To what does "a loan" refer is a question
          no lender will answer, other than to dance around it
          and say, "the $xxx,xxx, silly."


          > Read the attached pg from Black's Law 4Ed 1957

          While you have your Black's Law out, look up "a."

          > So that that being said the Note and the Mortgage
          > mean NOTHING without the
          > other in the case of a Loan of credit on a titled
          > property.

          If you play your hand right, you will never get to
          that part.
          >
          > Personally I witnessed an attorney state in open
          > court. The Judge; "Do you have the Note"?
          >
          > The banks attorney; "No your honor, our client has
          > followed standard
          > industry practice pooled the Note with others and
          > sold it to their investors"

          And who was the fool that did not object for the open
          admission of fraud?!!!!

          "Oh really? And where precisely was that part of my
          terms of the Note? Your honor, (sorry FF, they did
          not disqualify you know who), is opposing counsel
          telling us that the lender went outside the terms of
          my Note without my knowledge, consent or approval?"

          If you understand that, you got'em.
          >
          > I was there as a witness along with two other
          > Notaries.

          Mute witnesses. Who needs them?


          >
          > If you have already done a Notary Protest to which
          > you have recorded, then
          > that can be brought in as evidence to move the court
          > for further discovery.
          > A Notary Protest is evidence under the Rules of
          > evidence I believe 920 and
          > 921. I would have to look it up again as well as
          > 201.

          A needless waste of time and off point.

          > The banks well try and say you signed a mortgage
          > agreement and enter a copy
          > of that agreement. The judge well then ask you if
          > you signed that agreement
          > or ask is that your signature? Your reply is, no
          > that is not my signature.
          > So under the rules of evidence 1003 they must now
          > produce the evidence that
          > the signature on that document is yours. But still
          > must have BOTH DOCUMENTS
          > the Note and Mortgage to enforce so never loose
          > sight of that.

          Again, having the lender produce the original Note,
          by denying that is your signature on a copy precludes
          the judge asking the question, which has you on the
          defensive instead of the other way around.

          Just a few thoughts in response.

          Cheers, all.

          mn


          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Be a better friend, newshound, and
          know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
        • Michael Noonan
          ... I am not dogging you here, v_s, but by requiring the lender to produce the original note from the outset, as I noted in another post to this theme,
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 5, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- vivus_spartacus <vivus_spartacus@...> wrote:

            > "The banks well try and say you signed a mortgage
            > agreement and
            > enter a copy of that agreement. The judge well then
            > ask you if you
            > signed that agreement or ask is that your
            > signature?"
            >
            >

            >
            >
            > Therefore the Correct Reply should be as:
            >
            >
            >
            > 'I have No information, or knowledge sufficient to
            > form a belief as
            > to the Authenticity of the signature presented by
            > opposing party
            > which is alleging same to be mine.'
            >
            >

            I am not dogging you here, v_s, but by requiring the
            lender to produce the original note from the outset,
            as I noted in another post to this theme, eliminates
            putting oneself into that position.

            I prefer to always make the lender sweat what is
            impossible for it to do.

            Cheers!

            mn



            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            Be a better friend, newshound, and
            know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
          • vivus_spartacus
            O.K. Since I was responding to the faulty scenario created /provided by Madison Smith , perhaps you would like to explain: Exactly which part of the Demurrer
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 6, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              O.K. Since I was responding to the faulty scenario created /provided
              by "Madison Smith",


              perhaps you would like to explain:

              Exactly which part of the Demurrer Process/Timing do you not
              understand?


              The Demurrer is filed in Response to the Original Complaint.


              The subsequent Discovery Process and Pre-Trial Motions Calender,


              whereby the Motion To Dismiss For Lack of Evidence is heard,
              does not require one to State in Open Court, the erroneous reply
              which "Madison Smith" presented as proper.



              Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
              getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

              Extra Cheers!


              "vivus spartacus"
              All Rights Reserved (In the 9th Amendment)




              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Michael Noonan
              <mn_chicago@...> wrote:
              >
              "I am not dogging you here, v_s, but by requiring the lender to
              produce the original note from the outset, as I noted in another
              post to this theme, eliminates putting oneself into that position."
              >
              "I prefer to always make the lender sweat what is impossible for it
              to do."
              >
              Cheers!
              >
              mn
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.