How Inflation Plus Taxation Equals a Housing Bust

 By Anna Von Reitz

A hundred and fifty years ago people didn’t use credit to buy things.  Transactions were “cash on the barrelhead”.  So, if you had a house, you worked for it, earned it, and then lived in it.  If you had children you fell in love, got married, and supported the children that resulted.  If you had food, you or someone quite close to you, raised it and brought it to market. 

There was a simplicity and logic to everything.

You didn’t use someone else’s money to buy your house and then pay them back with interest, which is a practice that developed after the civil war when “credit markets” opened up to “individuals”— that is, franchises of the government corporations. 

Under our Forefathers’ simple cash-based system, the banks and merchants were curtailed as to what they could sell you, because your own means limited the size and number of sales they could expect.  From the perspective of the banks and merchants,  “lack of credit” was seen as an obstacle standing between them and profit that they could otherwise make from selling stuff to you “on ticket”.  

Credit at that time was something that governments and banks dealt in and as a result, average people had very little contact with or understanding of credit and the commercial paper underwriting it, but if you read any version of Constitution, you will notice that the Federal Government contractors are obligated to function on credit, while the States of the Union are obligated to pay in silver or gold. 

Their preoccupation with credit arises from their inability to function on anything else. 

This original arrangement threw a sop to the banks and merchants, and stimulated the economy via government purchases on credit, but at the same time, this system presumed that the members of our Congress would be acting as Fiduciary Deputies bound by The Prudent Man Standard, which would naturally keep government spending in check and make the members of Congress accountable. 

In the system our Forefathers created, the government had the ability to borrow money and “exercise the nation’s credit” when needed, but the people held the purse-strings and decided what the money was spent on and how much was “extended” as credit for future repayment. As you can see, the government was placed in the permanent role of a debtor, because it could only operate on credit — and the government’s creditors were always the people underwriting it.   

Please also note that the government raises funds from you via taxation, service fees, and tariffs.  It sells you services, and to a limited degree sells you products (paper money and postage stamps and licenses, for example) and so, was in the same position as the other merchants and the banks.  Your lack of credit and your pesky members of Congress acting as Fiduciary Deputies limited their sales to you— and that limited their profits and spending, too.   

By the mid-1800’s the then-Queen and her advisors hit upon a scheme of “enfranchisement” which would vastly enrich the Queen and the amount of collateral she had access to borrow against, and all without Parliamentary oversight. All she had to do was create a corporation and encourage the British people to buy into it as franchisees— that is, get them to enfranchise themselves (and their property) voluntarily, and voila, she could borrow all she wanted based on their assets — their homes, their businesses, and their labor. 

In exchange, she would give them a vote as shareholders — but their vote wouldn’t count for much.  They could elect the members of Parliament, as usual, but the Parliament would only control the budgeted portion of the corporation receipts. The rest, the entire wealth of the nation and the commonwealth, would be the Queen’s to invest or not invest, in whatever opportunities appealed to her. 

Queen Victoria used this “new arrangement” to fund the conquest and subjugation of India.  And the British Public, including quite a few members of Parliament, were none the wiser.  

What, you may ask, does this have to do with a housing bust 150 years later?  

While the Queen and her Finance Ministers were busy purloining private assets to pay for their public debts and to finance a virulent new era of “public investment” using private assets as collateral for credit extended to the government — mostly bypassing Parliament —  the banks were busy introducing the victims of this con game to the concept of buying on credit.  

Even though the victims of this scheme had unwittingly lost the ownership of their land, bodies, homes, businesses, minds, and souls— they still had a portion of their labor and creativity that could be used as excess earnings pledged to pay off additional debts for consumer goods.   Soon the banks were offering a dizzying array of “consumer loans” and there were pawn shops, rent-to-own establishments, credit unions, insurance agents, real estate agents, and debt collection agencies in every small town. 

Stop a moment and think: less than a hundred years ago, these things didn’t exist in America, because consumer credit didn’t exist. 

As you can see, the government had transformed itself into a commercial corporation and begun operations as such using the people’s assets as collateral and all they gave the people in “equitable exchange” for their “investment” was a vote that the people were already owed.  All the privately owned assets of millions of people were quietly transferred to the Queen, including the value of the people’s lives, labor, and the products of their unions — ownership of their children.  

This modern day enslavement racket netted vast capital gains for the Queen at the expense of her Subjects, and she invested this wealth in war and expansion of the British Empire. When things got rocky and the banks began to balk at extending the Government still more money based on the same old assets,  all she had to do was come up with more new Subjects to voluntarily “invest” — that is, enfranchise themselves as voters —  and provide her with more new collateral. 

Britain’s enslavement funded India’s enslavement which funded the enslavement of America which funded the enslavement of the Middle East, the  Commonwealth, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines,  and finally, thanks to the investments in war, the entire bulk of western Europe. This was all based on collateral secretly purloined from people in Breach of Trust and enforced via hypothecation of debt. 

Soon, all the governments in all the occupied and subjugated countries were using the same mechanisms of “privatization” to enslave their people, too.  

At a certain point, circa 2005, the banks that glutted themselves by providing all this credit, got nervous and began feeling that they were over-extended. They placed false claims of “abandonment” on the remaining private money resources on deposit in their banks, and began an active program of self-reinvestment in the stock markets and currency markets to shore up the tottering mountain of so-called “public debt”. 

That is, they began buying their own stocks to make their stocks look valuable.

There’s just one little problem.  There is no public debt by definition.  The people of this world continued to pay for everything they received, as they received it. They simply weren’t credited for their equal contributions.  As slaves they weren’t owed credit for their labor and goods, but as slavery is both unlawful and illegal, some accommodation had to be made to paper-over this gross criminality. 

So “foreign estate accounts” were set up in our names in the form of generation skipping trusts, but we conveniently never receive any of the money or credit generated by these accounts.  The receipts pass on to our grandchildren, and in the meantime, form gigantic investment trusts used as Slush Funds and Sinking Funds by the rats and for the rats responsible for all this. 

Sound familiar?  Is there any difference between Queen Victoria investing in the conquest of India and Nancy Pelosi investing in the conquest of Ukraine?  

It’s your money, your assets, and your life being put at risk, but you aren’t getting anything out of it but the risks and taxes —- never the returns. 

Lately the banks are getting very restive.  Like the General Public, they are milling around like cattle in a feedlot.  The feeble efforts of the Federal Reserve to forestall inflation by hiking interest rates is doing nothing but further stalling the world economy and as the market for credit collapses, so does everything else. 

Next, in a further effort to control inflation, Joe Biden hires 87,000 new IRS Agents to collect new draconian income and asset taxes from the Municipal citizenry— and everyone else they can “mistake” as  Municipal citizens of the United States.  These vultures will be at your doors, collecting for the Creditors of the US CORPORATION, and you won’t even realize that you are the Preferential Creditors of the US CORPORATION.  

All the tax money they collect will be written off the books — withdrawn from circulation — and that will help curb inflation by reducing the amount of currency available in the marketplace, but don’t forget, in various places around the world, Mr. Obama’s printing presses are running night and day, counterfeiting “dollars” in your name.  It’s like trying to mop up a flooding river. 

You will also notice that it’s Good Ole Joe Q. Public paying the ticket for all this “adjustment” — whether via taxation or inflation, both things amount to a form of taxation that you are being forced to pay.  And in the end, what predictably results?  A housing bust. 

As the desperate government debtors and the banks supporting them grasp at straws, they will try to take refuge in their favorite investment —- war.  If that doesn’t work, or doesn’t work fast enough to kill off enough creditors, they will start evicting millions more people from their homes and businesses to collect on debts that the victims owe to themselves. 

Unfortunately for the victims of this fraud, their homes tend to be their largest lifetime investment, and with millions more homes repossessed by the banks to pay off government debt, the housing market will go bust at the same time that millions of people are left homeless, and at the same time that inflation and taxation and economic stagnation are combining to impoverish everyone worldwide, leaving factories idle, and hundreds of millions of people unemployed. 

All this insanity has been brought to you by Queen Victoria of England— a perfect storm fueled by odious debt and a grossly illegal British Enslavement Racket. 

There is a simple answer: end the British Territorial U.S. Military (Raj) occupation that has been used as the excuse to enforce Admiralty Law on dry land throughout the world, write off the actual debt against the actual credit, and discharge the Odious debts as they deserve. 

—————————-

See this article and over 3700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

If you don’t know procedure you don’t know how to win.

Posted on January 18, 2022 by Neil Garfield

The claim of securitization is present in virtually every case of a loan account receivable. It is a false claim. All  subsquent claims to administer, collect or enforce the alleged loaon account receivable are therefore also false.

But the false claim becomes the law of the case unless the consumer — with no help from government agencies that are tasked with protecting consumers — contests every single piece of correspondence, exhibit, document, notice or pleading starting with “Greetings we are your new servicer.”

One of my favorite contributors asked a question about how to find the fact that there is no loan account. This question comes from uncertainty about whether there is a loan account after all or not. It also raises the wrong question because it addresses substance rather than procedure. Procedure is what wins and loses cases.

*

The specific question is whether the recitation of “valuable consideration” or $1, $10, etc. is enough to show that the loan account receivable was not actually sold in a commercial transaction. the precise answer is no it isn’t enough on its own.

*

You don’t need to find the loan account or to get an admission that it doesn’t exist. In fact, the fewer the answers to the actual legal demands the better for you if you know how to enforce them.

*

If you want to accomplish anything you need to assume that the loan account receivable does not exist. And you must challenge every claim of any right, title or interest in the administration, collection or enforcement of any alleged unpaid debt.

*

You have to realize that you are never going to get the answer you were looking for. And you have to accept the fact that the only effective way of pushing back is by legally contesting every piece of correspondence, notice, recording, pleading, or exhibit.

* The answer to your question would be that the party simply wanted to keep the details of the transaction confidential. That isn’t true, but that is what they will say. And that is why you need to pierce through the arguments and allegations and demand actual copies of the account receivable and evidence of payment for the underlying obligation.

* Failure to do that leaves the judge in the position of hearing you say “isn’t this suspicious?” and hearing the other side say “No, it isn’t suspicious, we simply use that form to comply with statutes and to keep the details of our transaction confidential.” The key is the word,” transaction.”

* No document is anything more than a legal nullity if it is not a memorialization of something that actually happened, is happening, or is intended to happen. The argument that a transaction exists is not evidence — but it becomes evidence when the homeowner fails to challenge it in a manner that requires a compulsory response. THAT is procedure.

* Like most things, law is about perception. If you wait to first raise these meritorious issues until the opposition actually starts with enforcement, the perception is that your defenses are suspicious —- not that the claims are suspicious.

Source: https://livinglies.me/2022/01/18/if-you-dont-know-procedure-you-dont-know-how-to-win/

SAJurA Comment: If you are facing foreclosures then Neil’s website is a good source of info for self-defence against the banksters.

JAIL THE BANKSTERS? Is True Justice Seeking Retribution? Really?…

We are beginning to see a time when some bankers will get thrown under the bus, so to speak, by their very own brothers-in-arms, the banking fraternity; while some may cheer, it is in fact a sad state of affairs;

Now, we know that there is honour, even among thieves; and, scapegoats and fall guys will be chosen from within their ranks to fall on their swords so as to appease the pitchfork-wielding people; the ‘retributionists’ as we call them: the eye-for-an-eye folks; while the real masterminds will get away…. Yet, again while the people squabble between themselves on how the banksters should be punished; here are some recent reports:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-07/ex-barclays-traders-jailed-more-than-6-years-over-libor-rigging

https://sentinelblog.com/2016/07/30/first-senior-bankers-on-the-planet-responsible-for-2008-economic-collapse-finally-jailed/

BAR: Maybe 3 years ago we would have cheered, but not today; not after comprehending what natural law and natural justice is; what the law truly is; and, how we are still blindly following a retributive colonial slave bar legal system; the same legal system that has its occult roots in the papacy: http://one-evil.org/content/texts_papal_bull.html

By now, we have all lost an eye [or two] in this retributive system; and, in the world of the blind the one-eyed is king, they say; and, it was Gandhi who is attributed with saying:

After a number of years of research on the true nature and concepts of law; and, what the law really means; and is; we can tell you this:

It’s all about subject-matter-jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction; the BAR system is a foreign jurisdiction operating under law-of-the-sea jurisdiction; it is a LIMITED jurisdiction; inferior to and in a lower jurisdiction to the law-of-the-land; law-of-the-sea ONLY has jurisdictions over legal fictions written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS such as your ‘PERSON’, COPORATIONS, HUMAN BEINGS, CITIZENS, INDUVIDUALS; these are only IMAGINARY AND HAVE NO PARITY WITH THE TANGIBLE; law-of-the-sea is merely for commercial transactions between legal fictions; in this system the ‘STATE’ [a legal fiction] is ‘sovereign;

SUPREME COURT RULING – NO CORPORATE JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURAL MAN: Supreme Court of the United States 1795,

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54)

Government is  merely a legal fiction which was created solely to protect peoples’ antecedent rights, property and natural resources; and, to provide the people with services, not to lord over them. A piece of paper cannot rule over a people. It has no jurisdiction over the tangible as affirmed by the above ruling.

A ‘sovereign state’ is a cabalistic term and is contrary and opposed to ‘people sovereignty’:

“The words “sovereign state” are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when applied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property.” Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501.

The real problem is the legal system, the banking system and political system; in order to be truly free we, the people must create new and alternative models of law, banking and without politics; 

Law of the Land: The law-of-the-land is your Bill of Rights, your tangible property and natural resources; people are equal before the law and have the right to a fair trial by jury, in a TRC or public hearing or forum; and, sovereign states and peoples honour the “law of nations”; in this system the people are sovereign;

Law of Nations: Now, as no people or community will ever acknowledge the superiority of one people over another, the only law that binds us is the “law of nations” which depends entirely on the rules of natural law and to which each people is equally subject; on this subject Sir William Blackstone wrote the following:

“However, as it is impossible for the whole race of mankind to be united in one great society, they must necessarily divide into many, and form separate states, commonwealths, and nations, entirely independent of each other, and yet liable to a mutual intercourse. Hence arises a third kind of law to regulate this mutual intercourse, called “the law of nations,” which, as none of these states will acknowledge a superiority in the other, cannot be dictated by any, but depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements between these several communities: in the construction also of which compacts we have no other rule to resort to, but the law of nature; being the only one to which all the communities are equally subject; and therefore the civil law(c) very justly observes, that quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium.” [Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England in Four Books, Vol. 1[1753] INTRODUCTION: OF THE STUDY OF NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, SECTION 1: ON THE STUDY OF THE LAW] [extract]

QUOD NATURALIS RATIO INTER OMNES HOMINES CONSTITUIT, VOCATUR JUS GENTIUM. That which natural reason has established among all men is called the “law of nations.” 1 Bl.Comm. 43; Dig. 1, 1, 9; Inst. 1, 2, 1.

The bar system uses semantic deceit [in a language called “legalese” which sounds like English, but is deceptively different]; and, used to garner semblances of consent under the colour of law; what passes for law is not law; these are rules that only apply to government employees and members of bar associations and law societies; admirals, esquires, bachelors, privateers, pirates etc. are all ranking knights of a secret Temple society collaborating with monarchies and oligarchies under foreign and secret jurisdictions; hidden behind smoke and mirrors… switch and bait… divide, conquer and rule…

The 1893 Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, and general literature / The R. S. Peale 9th Encyclopaedia Britannica defines the word “LEGAL” as: “THE UNDOING OF GOD’S LAW.”

In a more fair and just system wherein people are sovereign; and, the law-of-the-land prevails; and, the protection of people freedoms [such as the right to not go to jail] people rights, peoples property is paramount; and, wherein governments provide equitable services as public servants and ONLY concern themselves with these behaviours; and, wherein people can be lifted out from behind the corporate veil and be held accountable before the people as peers; and wherein the people are the judges such as trial by jury;

And, wherein every people [even a banker] has the right to a fair trial by the law-of-the-land; wherein the people hear facts; and, after diligent deliberation, judge with equity; and, ought to make unanimous rulings according to principles of natural law and natural justice and restorative justice; and, ought to be reconciliatory;

Bankers are people too and NOT ‘persons’; they have the right not to incriminate themselves; they have the right to the presumption of liberty; they have the right not to give up their natural right to liberty, too; if you want those rights you need to give them to banksters too; be aware to not become the tyrants that we are opposing in the first place;

What passes for justice in the fraudulent bar legal system is not justice; it’s a system of barratry and piracy and racketeering;

Are you telling us that you would have acted honourably if you were a banker? That you would NOT have put your hand in the cookie jar? Codswollop, we say;

Bastiat stated in his writings The Law that: “The STATE is that great legal fiction where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else”;

The fraudulent system thrived because we were all clamouring to engage in usury against each other; to compete in a winner-takes-all system instead of co-operation and equity and sharing, equally; the system only existed because we remained party to the fraud; we are all guilty; not even one people will be found to be honourable and pure enough to open the seals…

Judge not harshly, lest ye be judged harshly, we say; punishment and imprisonment is archaic and cabalistic, people; it does not rehabilitate; it breaks down and burdens society; come on!!! Let’s not blindly copy the very same obsolete system that we are building new models for so as to make this one obsolete; let’s truly build new models based on principles of restorative justice; if, you wish to know more feel free to read our Restorative Justice page;

Sadly, our focus is on jailing the bankers; instead, it should be to hold Truth & Reconciliation Commissions to ensure that the harm ceases on the victims; who are the victims? The people! And, to ensure that the rights of the victims namely we, the people are addressed; to place moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures and repossessions; so that the harm ceases; to give the bankers the opportunity to repent in TRCs AND THEN TO FORGIVE THEM!!! THAT IS THE GOLDEN RULE! LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR [even bankers!!!] AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF;

DO YOU WANT TO SIT IN A JAIL? NO!!! NO-ONE WANTS TO SIT IN A JAIL!!!

Let’s forgive, but NOT forget; so that this never happens again; In the words of the ONLY Great Dictator: “We all want to help one another. Human beings [people] are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness-not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men’s souls-has barricaded the world with hate-has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities life will be violent and all will be lost. . . .”

Yet, let’s rather focus our energy on the remedies; such as DEBT JUBILEEs; the set-off and settlement of ALL fraudulent debts!!! Fraud vitiates everything; fraud nullifies contracts; restitution to those who were de-frauded; equity and true equality before real law and real people courts wherein the people are the judges; yet, judge according to principles of restorative justice;

Let’s rather build new models of banking; of people community courts wherein true justice is seeking reconciliation and not retribution; and, wherein people are truly sovereign and recognise that life is sacred; and, we are embodiment of the sacred and that the divine dwells within us all, equally; and, where your rights end, mine begins;

And, finally, let’s all remember what that Great Soul Mahatma said:

Sincerely, without prejudice, under onerous title, in peace, brother-thomas

 

South Africa – Bank busted over securitisation lies

Jack Darier of Parkhurst in Joburg asked his bank whether his loan had been securitised. No way, said the bank. It was the answer Darier was expecting. Meantime he had the proof that the opposite was true. It was a truth test, he says, and the bank failed.

Source: http://news.acts.co.za/blog/2015/11/busted-joburg-man-catches-standard-bank-out-over-securitisation-denial

Sometimes the banks just can’t get it right. Here’s a case where Standard Bank’s legal department flatly denied a customer’s mortgage loan had been securitised, while another department in the same bank sent proof that the loan had in fact been sold to an entirely different legal entity.

Busted. That’s what happens when the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

What makes this case even more interesting is that the customer, Jack Darier of Parkhurst in Johannesburg, does not have a judgment against his name, nor is his house under threat of being repossessed. He just wanted to know if his home loan had been securitised – in other words, on-sold by the bank to a new owner. That means the bank no longer has legal standing to bring action against the customer in the event of default. You can see below how the banks get around this – it’s a simple cession, they argue successfully in our brain dead courts.

So let’s ignore the blather of the R50,000-a-day silks who show up daily in our courts as they repossess upwards of 10,000 homes each year (and for which the SA Communist Party is now calling for an official investigation), and go straight to the law books: Regulation 35 of the Banks Act covers the sale of a loan to a third party by way of securitisation. A debt on-sold to a “Special Purpose Vehicle” is considered a sale (not a cession) under which the full entitlement, rights and obligations are conveyed to the purchaser. Regulation 35 furthermore blocks the public from gaining access to securitisation transactions, which are deemed to be “off balance sheet”.

The reason banks securitise is to move assets off balance sheet and so free up capital for further lending. The provisioning requirements of the Basel accords, which govern banking internationally, means banks have to set aside capital according to the type and risk of loans it makes. So if it can move these off balance sheet by way of securitisation, it’s a case of rinse and repeat – issue a bunch of new mortgage loans, bundle them together, and sell them off to investors. Great business if you can get it. If the mortgage lender defaults, there are various insurance policies and credit default swaps (CDSs) that make up the shortfall. A zero-sum game for the banks. But not if you are the home owner. If the home owner defaults, the bank will get judgment, sell the house at auction for a fraction of its value, and then pursue the hapless defaulter for the shortfall.

In law, that’s called undue enrichment. Or selling the same asset twice.

A securitisation is therefore not a cession, but a shift in ownership of the underlying asset. The problem is no defaulting home owner can afford the R50,000-a-day silk to argue this convincingly in court. So the charade goes on. Section 72 read with Section 1 of the Banks Act precludes a bank from participating in any business wherein it may unduly influence and/or place at risk its providential requirements or burden its liquidity requirements. So an SPV cannot be a division or associated entity of the bank. The SPV must be an independent juristic entity.

But let’s get back to Darier’s to-and-fro discussion with Standard Bank. When he found out his mortgage loan had been securitised – despite the bank’s bare denial – he went along to visit the commercial crimes unit in Johannesburg. There he laid a charge of fraud against the bank.

Despite having presented evidence of the securitisation along with his correspondence and affidavit and receiving a case number, no further action was taken by the police investigation unit.
Darier’s interest in the matter all started when his father ran into difficulty with the bank some years ago. He fired off a bunch of questions to Standard Bank asking whether his mortgage bond had been securitised.

No it had not, said the bank (you can see the correspondence below). But then another division from the same bank sent him a Certificate of Balance showing the mortgage loan was now owned by Blue Granite. This is a securitisation vehicle used by Standard Bank into which it has placed thousands of its loans.

Bear this in mind when reading what followed.

In mid-July this year Darier sent off a standard set of questions that New Economic Rights Alliance (New Era) advises clients to put to their banks.

Here’s the response from Joop Dekker, executive in charge of complaints resolution at Standard Bank, sent on 24 July 2015:

Good day Mr Darier,

We refer to your note below and would like to reply as follows:

Regarding the questions you have posed below we are of the view that your questions are inappropriate.

The bank does engage in the process of securitization and there is nothing untoward or illegal about this.

It seems that you are being misled by New Era and we note that your question is identical to those that New Era have been inviting people to ask.

The bank has been involved in litigation with this entity and we attach hereto a copy of the latest judgement herein. We draw your attention to paragraphs 24 and 25 where the honourable Judge Baqwa described the NEW Era’s action as vexatious. You will also note that legal cost had been awarded against the New Era directors in person.

Lastly we confirm that any failure on the bank’s side to specifically reply to your question below cannot be construed as an admission to the correctness thereof.

We therefore trust that the above clarifies the matter from the bank’s side.

Regards

Joop Dekker

To which Darier replied on 25 July 2015:

Hi Joop. I have seen by your position at the bank that you are merely doing your job in deflecting any negative PR. As such I harbour no ill feelings or intentions towards you.

However, my response is as follows:

1.       I am not surprised the bank finds these question “inappropriate” because they do not want their customers and the public to have an insight into their dubious banking practices. Just because they deem it inappropriate does not infer that there are inappropriate questions to ask.

2.       It seems to me that your bank and most likely all the banks underestimate the intelligence of the public and they are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Your executives are a bastion of CA’s and financial professionals who seem to think they are far more intelligent than everyone else and no-one will be the wiser. This may the case in other instances but I can assure you this is not the case now.

3.       With regards to the legality of securitisation: you are 100% correct. The process of securitisation (ie. selling promissory notes/loan agreements to third parties for purposes of using as investment vehicles to invest in stocks) is legal. However, there is no mention of the fact that after ceding the loan agreement to a party without notification to the debtor the banks’ rights to repossess houses are null and void. The bank is thus merely acting as the agent for the third party in retrieving monies owed. I see on the website there is but 2 or 3 lines (mentioning) securitisation but there has been a convenient omission of any information which would allude the fact that the bank has no more rights for repossession.

4.       I have been influenced by New Era, however I do not deem them as misleading me. The fact you have not been willing to answer my questions is testament to the fact that the bank does not want to draw attention to the matter or reveal the shady practices. If the bank wasn’t doing anything wrong they wouldn’t find the questions “inappropriate”. New Era indicated that the bank would not divulge any details on this matter.

5.       Securitisation has been banned in the US for the reasons that is shady and it has resulted in a plethora of illegal foreclosures (No. There have been calls for the outlawing of securitisation in the US, but it is not banned – Ed).

6.       I assume that because the manner in which securitisation works, it can be utilised in any form of loan/credit agreement (home loans, car finance, credit cards, etc). It would fantastic if the banks and third parties undertook profit shares with the debtor as they are using money which has not been paid to them yet to create profits. They are essentially utilising the hard work and income of their customers to generate massive profits for themselves

7.       I am well aware of what vexatious litigation and proceeding are. I examined the document and it was considered vexatious due to the manner in which the litigation was undertaken. It actually has nothing to do with the legitimacy of accusations or the matter on hand and the legality of the bank repossessing houses when it has no right to.

8.       New Era have successfully won cases against the bank and you and I both know this (They certainly educated the public, and in doing so frustrated the banks in their attempts to repossess homes, but New ERA does not fight cases for individuals – Ed).

The response does not clarify the matter at all. That being said we can drop the matter on the premise that I assume that my home loan has been securitised and that I am aware the bank has no right to repossess it.

I will be engaging with New Era and volunteering my time and services for free.

Jack Darier

On 28 July, Joop Dekker of Standard Bank provided the following reply:

Good day Jack

We confirm that Home loan account number 364814497 has, according to the bank’s records, not been securitized.

Furthermore we will have to agree to disagree on our respective views regarding New ERA’s position, which entity has taken on the banking industry (including the SA Reserve Bank) during the past few years via the Courts, and has had no success whatsoever.

Hypothetically if your homeloan had been securitized, and due to arrears on the account the bank foreclosed on the loan, the homeloan would merely be ceded back to the bank (by the special purpose vehicle) and the bank’s normal legal and collections process would subsequently been followed.

Regards

Joop Dekker

So what we have here is a serious dispute of fact: Dekker’s denial of securitisation, and Darier’s inadvertent receipt of proof suggesting otherwise. Based on standards of evidence, it looks like Darier has made his point. The bank’s position is that even if the loan is securitised, it can simply re-cede it back from the SPV and continue with the normal collections process. In theory this is fine, except that per our reading of the law as per the above, you cannot reverse an outright sale with a simple cession.

But Darier was just getting started. He then fired off a letter to the Northern Provinces Law Society, asking what it was doing to investigate lawyers implicated in drafting dodgy securitisation agreements.

Good day. I would like to request a meeting with senior counsel at the Northern Law Society in order to discuss multiple instances of banking fraud committed by local banks and their legal teams which are acting on their behalf. Their attorneys and debt collectors are raising judgments in court and making demands for monies owed on credit agreements for which the bank has no locus standi as they ceded the credit agreements through securitisation structures. (And thus ceded the underlying assets as the whole credit agreements along with assets are sold off their books).

Proof of many instances  of this shady practice are available AND local attorneys and law societies can no longer claim they do not know what securitisation is and overlook the matter.

The attorneys have presented papers to the court which are untruthful and indicate the bank still has locus standi on properties lodged as surety when in fact they don’t. These attorneys are well aware of this and are essentially lying to judges and are actively committing fraud and being complicit to the fraudulent practice.

I would like to discuss this with the law society to understand their views and positions on this as I am sure the securitisation matter has arisen before and the fact that attorneys are still being given free reign to present fraudulent papers to the courts is tantamount to one of the following 2 scenarios: a) either the law society is completely oblivious to this matter and more study and education of the subject in-house is required,  or b) the law society has knowledge of this unlawful practice but is allowing it to continue as it represents a great value of business for the local legal system and practitioners (ie. You are complicit to the fraud and deception in court)

I am not working with New Era and I think it would be in the best interests of the law society to meet with me to discuss further as there may be calls for disbarring of many lawyers who are implicated in this scheme.

Also, another matter I am going to be addressing is how certain firms are structuring the securitisation contracts and legal framework on the JSE in a manner which they are aware is not legal as they knowingly create shell investment schemes. They are structuring in a manner which directly contravenes numerous banking and credit act subsections/clauses and they are structuring in a manner such that properties are not transferred at the deeds office to the entity to whom credit agreements and the physical assets have been ceded to. The sole purpose being so that if a customer defaults the bank can approach the courts and pretend to be legal creditor. They are knowingly advising banks to create shell investment schemes.

Surely the local law societies are aware of this practice or they need to start introducing formal education and study into these matters.

Jack Darier

The Law Society has requested a meeting with Darier over the matter. We’ll keep you posted.

ABSA BANK SOUTH AFRICA is RUNNINNGGG…………

The people of Southern Africa are beginning to smell the fear…

Of the BANKSTERs!

They are officially on the run and we will corner them before an International Tribunal; Thankfully, we do not have the level of psychopaths running around the northern hemisphere;

As we say in Afrikaans, here we give them a “SNOT KLAP” literally translated as “SNOT SLAP” meaning: “I will slap you until the mucous orbits around your head” or “I will stick my finger in your eye and dial your face to zero… my china”;

For further explanations you will have to come visit us and experience our lingo for yourself; we are course like salt;

All this is figurative of course, and a BANK is ONLY a legal fiction: it does not exist…

as they say using their larney words: “Corpus Delict”; no body: If anyone has ANY complaints about the herein logos, the first question we will be asking is:
“Please produce the body?”… 

Here is a heads up from our FB friends regarding another ABSA “snot klap”:

from facebook: John to ‎Banking – SECURITIZATION – 2012

Cautiously Optimistic

(shame : “cautiously optimistic” even though they have already won… the fear, the trauma, the atrocities… we ALL are gonna need counselling after this…)

Sanlam Home Loans (Pty) Ltd Maybe some more good news – There was a successful defense against a summons for summary judgement for an alleged mortgage default – THE BANK – our friends ABSA (of libor and Docufile “fire” fame) – WITHDREW – TWICE – and it is quite possible they cannot rise from the ashes this time. The Plaintiffs were: ABSA HOME LOANS 101 (PTY) LTD First Plaintiff ABSA HOME LOANS GUARANTEE COMPANY (PTY) LTD Second Plaintiff Formerly: Sanlam Home Loans (Pty) Ltd Anybody destitute with a SANLAM MORTRGAGE BOND now ABSA – THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE for possible / alleged mortgage default defense!!! Mark: Please steer me to these defence docs. Marie: Thankfully, this may be it. To help us all. Marie: Haha, may I have the info to keep fighting these jackasses. Lol. Jan: epic, ABSA HOME LOANS GUARANTEE COMPANY (PTY) LTD and ABSA HOME LOANS 101 (PTY) LTD, i had no idea that ABSA had pulled off a similar stunt like Standard Bank & SA Home Loans (Sanlam Home Loans, SA Home Loans, mmmh), using the very same structure, i.e. numerous trustees (101, 102, 103, etc) like the ever Changing Tides (Pty) ltd and the ominous SA Home Loans Guarantee Trust; at least they got more open and simply merged the 2 (on paper, since SHL has always been nothing but ABSA/Barkleys…), what brought me to this: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACT/2010/22.html

which is absolutely remarkable just reading the first few lines, when the courts & ‘judges’ didn’t even know how to spell securitization, when most of us had no idea what is in 2012, here the competition tribunal seems to be all knowing : The primary acquiring firm is ABSA Bank Limited (“Absa”), a company duly registered in terms of the company laws of South Africa. Absa is a subsidiary of Absa Group Limited (“Absa Group”), a public company listed on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange. Absa Group is ultimately controlled by Barclays Plc, a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the New York Stock Exchange. The primary target firm is Sanlam Home Loans (Pty) Ltd (“SHL”), a company registered in terms of the company laws of South Africa. Pre-merger SHL is jointly controlled by Absa (with a 50% shareholding) and Sanlam Life Insurance Limited (“Sanlam”) (with a 50% shareholding). Absa Group and Sanlam each controls in excess of 40 subsidiaries. The SHL business model involves the securitisation of home loans originated through the business as a means to secure medium- to long term funding and minimise the cost of funding. The merging parties submitted that as part of a securitisation structure, SHL owns 100% of the issued preference shares in Sanlam Home Loans 101 (Pty) Ltd (“SHL 101”) and Sanlam Home Loans 103 (“SHL 103”). The ordinary share capital of these two entities is held by two trusts, which operate for the benefit of two separate special purpose vehicles. This structure ensures that SHL 101 and SHL 103 are bankruptcy/insolvency remote. The merging parties further submitted that the financials of SHL 101 and SHL 103 are consolidated with those of SHL for accounting purposes since SHL is deemed to control SHL 101 and SHL 103. p.s.; i did ask john for the files

We have now set down 2 of the major banksters on the land of Southern Africa;

The others are busy getting their notices;

Sincerely, ex causa onerosa, all rights reserved

administrator – uza

I Want to Know More?

https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/faqs/

A Case that Beat the RSA Banks:

https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/a-case-that-beat-the-rsa-banksters/

All templates to the case are at: https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/legal-defence/

On 11 July 2013, Pope Francis issued a Motu Proprio on criminal law matters in the Vatican

It is now 2years since the Official Vatican Network announced Pope Francis’ motu proprio, the most powerful legal instrument issued by a Pontificate of the Roman Catholic Church; this particular document will go down in history as one of THE documents that initiated the re-shaping of the world, giving Transnational Criminal Organizations 3 years to clean up their act, which includes the Holy See;

This does not mean that We, the People will absolve Pax Romana, in fact, it gives us the power to institute proceedings against pirates and imposters; the clock is ticking … 365 days … and counting [pictures with subtext added]

What is an obelisk, 4 pointed star of baal, 8 pointed star of ishstar doing in St. Peter’s square?

Pope Francis issues Motu Proprio on criminal law matters in Vatican

2013-07-11 Vatican Radio

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has issued a Motu Proprio on criminal law matters and administrative sanctions within Vatican City State and the Holy See. In a statement by the Holy See’s Press Office, it was announced that on this same date, the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State has adopted the following laws:

Law No. VIII containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters; Law No. IX containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;Law No. X containing General Provisions on Administrative Sanctions.

The note from the Holy See Press Office goes on to clarify the following points:

The Motu proprio makes the criminal laws adopted by the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State applicable also within the Holy See.

The criminal laws adopted today are a continuation of the efforts to update Vatican City State’s legal system, building upon the measures adopted since 2010 during the pontificate of Benedict XVI.

These laws, however, have a broader scope, since they incorporate into the Vatican legal system the provisions of numerous international conventions including: the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, on the conduct of war and war crimes; the 1965 Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; the 1984 Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the 1989 Convention on the rights of the child and its optional protocols of 2000.

 

Chemtrail on 1985 100 lire coin?

Of particular note in this context is the introduction of the crime of torture and a broader definition of the category of crimes against minors (including: the sale of children, child prostitution, the recruitment of children, sexual violence and sexual acts with children, and the production and possession of child pornography).

A section of the legislation introduces a list of crimes against humanity, in particular, the crimes of genocide and apartheid, following broadly the definitions adopted in the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court. The section of the Criminal Code regarding offences committed in the exercise of public administration has also been revised in light of the 2003 United Nations Convention against corruption. With regard to penalties, that of life imprisonment has been abolished and it has been replaced with a maximum penalty of 30 to 35 years of imprisonment.

 

In line with the most recent developments at the international level, the new legislation also introduces a system of penalties for juridical persons who profit from the criminal activities of their constituent bodies or personnel, establishing their direct liability and providing as penalties a set of interdictions and pecuniary sanctions.

In the area of criminal procedure, the general principles of presumption of innocence and due process within a reasonable time have been recognized explicitly, while the power of the judicial authorities to adopt precautionary measures has been increased by bringing up to date the provisions for confiscation and the freezing of assets.

Also of importance is the modernization of the rather dated norms governing international judicial cooperation, with the adoption of measures in line with the standards of the most recent international conventions.

The law on administrative sanctions is of a general nature so as to serve as a common framework that provides for the possibility of sanctions in different areas intended to promote respect for the norms, to render them effective and to protect the public interests.

As a whole, these normative efforts form part of broader process aimed at modernizing further the Vatican legal system with a view to enhancing its consistency and effectiveness.

The following is an English translation of Pope Francis’ Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio on the jurisdiction of Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State in criminal matters (Full Text)

In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism. It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters. In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace. With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that: 1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over: a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;b) crimes referred to: – in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;- in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code; when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;c) any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited. 2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws. 3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed “public officials”: a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See. c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority. 4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws. 5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply. 6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force. This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding. I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013. Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate.

Our comment: Without prejudice, we will be bringing a complaint before the International Tribunal for Natural Justice (www.itnj.org) regarding the lawfulness of Roman Dutch Law on the land of Southern Africa when it violates natural law and natural rights and has NO jurisdiction on the land; in addition, we also have questions to ask Pope Francis regarding the role of the Holy Roman Empire in historical and current crimes against We, the People such as breach of contract, trust, barratry, poverty and violations of non-derogable living rights;

All rights reserved, in peace, bt

PS: Interestingly, 11^th of July was the day a bankrupt strawman was created in a NAME resembling the author’s when his mother berthed him and surrendered him as ward of the state; he wishes to thank Francesco for his co-operation in our freedom;

Ostrich farmer from Eastern Cape shows court his mortgage loan is now in Taiwan

 Posted21 June 2015 Written by Ciaran Ryan

Category Securitisation

http://news.acts.co.za/blog/2015/06/ostrich-farmer-from-eastern-cape-shows-court-his-mortgage-loan-is-now-in-Taiwan

---

An ostrich farmer from Grahamstown has thrown the local court into a spin by apparently proving that his mortgage loan with Standard Bank has been on-sold to an investor in Taiwan. This is the first time a securitisation audit has been presented in a SA court. On the basis of the evidence presented, the farmer says Standard Bank has no right to be in court.

Ash Davenport, a 63 year-old ostrich farmer from outside Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape, may be about to make history in his effort to stave off attempts by Standard Bank to take possession of his 3,260ha farm over a R3 million loan he took out seven years ago.

Last week he threw the Grahamstown High Court into a spin when his attorney, Bev Carruthers of Port Elizabeth, plonked a securitisation audit in front of the judge. The securitisation audit suggests that his mortgage loan has been on-sold to a Taiwanese bank and is no longer owned by Standard Bank. That being the case, Standard Bank has no right to be in court. More than that, the audit suggests the bank has securitised (or on-sold) his bond for R5 million, not the R3 million he supposedly signed for.

The court reserved judgment as to whether to allow the audit to be presented as new evidence in a case that has been dragging on for close to seven years.

“I intend to fight this all the way,” says Davenport. “These banks have been getting away with this nonsense for too long. I had to pay R17,000 for the audit but it was worth it, since it provides proof that the bank has in fact been securitising mortgage loans and then coming after property owners when they have no right to.”

Securitisation audits are a new development in South Africa, but are common in the US. They effectively carry the same weight as a financial opinion by a company’s auditor, though the banks are trying to dismiss them as hearsay.

Standard Bank attempted to discredit the audit by Michael Carrigan, a certified mortgage securitisation auditor in the US, who managed to track the chain of title for Davenport’s mortgage bond all the way to Taiwan. The bank referred to Carrigan’s evidence as “speculative at best” and claimed he did not have a grasp of South African law. It then reiterated that his loan had not been securitised.

Carrigan also provided a second audit for another Grahamstown resident, Jay Brown (not his real name), apparently proving that his Standard Bank mortgage loan had ended up with a bank in Thailand. Brown is also defending his property against repossession by the bank.

Bear in mind that the bank in both cases has denied – as all the major banks have done in thousands of other similar cases – that it had not securitised these mortgage bonds. Brown went one step further, by settling his debt to the bank by way of a promissory note of his own – similar to a cheque or bank note – which he claimed is legally permissible in terms of the Bills of Exchange Act.

This is a rather interesting defence first developed in SA by the late John Joubert, who insisted that individuals should issue their own promissory notes in settlement of debts, just as the banks concoct money out of thin air on their computer terminals. Standard Bank has refused to accept Brown’s promissory note.

Davenport has taken a more traditional route, arguing his case based on whatever evidence he can get his hands on. He asked Standard Bank to produce a “wet ink” copy of his mortgage bond and what was produced looked a little strange. The lines, the type face and the signatures did not line up with another copy he had. To all intents and purposes, it looked as if the documents were manufactured after the event, according to Davenport. Like someone had literally cut and pasted sections from one document, pasted them onto another, and then made a photocopy. This made him even more suspicious, even more certain that his mortgage bond had been securitised and the bank was hiding something.

So how did Davenport end up in this position?

The first thing to understand is that he is an eastern Cape farmer with a sharp tongue who doesn’t take kindly to bankers in suits coming to take away a farm that he and his family have been working since 1956. At one time he was the Eastern Cape’s most prominent ostrich farmer. He was exporting his ostrich meat to Europe and making a decent living. In 2004, the Avian flu scare hit SA. A government vet (Davenport calls him a “prick”) was sent down from Pretoria to inspect his birds, and with a wave of his pencil decided they should all be slaughtered.

“What these pricks don’t understand is that the ostriches develop antibodies to the Avian flu virus. Once they have had Avian flu and survived, they are immune against the disease. They will never get it again. So what the vet was picking up was the antibodies, and on this basis he decided my entire flock should be slaughtered.”

Davenport’s trouble all started when a government vet ordered his entire flock of ostriches to be slaughtered, even though the birds were healthy and had no signs of Avian flu. His business destroyed, he was forced to approach the bank for a loan

Overnight, Davenport’s business was destroyed. He was forced to approach Standard Bank and ask for a R3 million overdraft facility. The bank agreed, provided he put up the farm as security.  But this R3 million was getting him nowhere. He swallowed his pride and approached the bank a second time asking for additional credit facilities that would allow him to rebuild his business.

This is when the bank started to get alarmed. When Davenport drew down his facility to R2,6 million to pay his monthly wages and running costs, the bank suddenly froze all his accounts.
Then came the summons for repayment of the loan. Davenport knew nothing about the law, so he sent the summons on to a lawyer friend who did nothing with it. Then the bank got a default judgment against him.

Trouble arrives in the form of a summons

Now he was in trouble. The bank was about to put his farm up on auction for R4 million, when Davenport reckons it is worth R60 million. His mechanic put him in touch with a DIY lawyer who somehow managed to stop the sale at auction.

The bank came back with a second summons. This time he decided he should probably get a proper lawyer, which was when he met Bev Carruthers in Port Elizabeth, who had two days to prepare for his case in the Grahamstown High Court. Carruthers stood before the judge saying she had only just been briefed, and asked for a postponement – which she got.

At the time she knew nothing about securitisation, but Davenport had been reading the material on the New Economic Rights Alliance website and was convinced that his mortgage bond – which the bank alleges had been pledged as security against his R3 million overdraft – had been securitised. The problem with this defence is that the banks, supported by the courts, demand that the borrower provide proof of this. Of course this is impossible. This is analogous to a thief who has made off with your wallet. You catch him after he has disposed of the wallet and he then demands that you provide proof of the whereabouts of the wallet to prove his guilt. Insane, sure, but the courts are buying this.

Then Davenport and Carruthers were introduced to Virtual Velocity, a company that had just started offering securitisation audits in SA. This involves interrogating multiple databases in SA and overseas to track the movement of mortgage loans and the associated mortgage “notes”.

The US-based auditor, Carrigan, is considered a world expert in securitisation, and has testified in close to 3,000 cases in US courts. In both the Davenport and Brown audits, he presented screen shots from the Bloomberg database showing where the “notes” got divorced from the “loans” and where they both ended up.

In his affidavit for Davenport, he testified that the loan ended up with a Special Purpose Vehicle known as Standard Bank of South Africa/ Taipei CBO, Series 2006-1. This is an entirely different legal entity to Standard Bank itself.

The audit shows that Davenport’s mortgage loan has probably ended up in Taiwan

The audit report shows how the securities certificates were divorced from the mortgage loan and ended up in the hands of the investors. The mortgage documents remained with Standard Bank, the securities certificates ended up with the investors and the “borrower funds” ended up with the Land Bank of Taiwan. Carrigan claims in his affidavit, once the Mortgage loan and “note” are divorced from each other, the purported creditor loses all legal right to approach the borrower, and is in fact committing fraud.

The audit – as is the case with any audit, financial or otherwise – is not definitive, but it casts sufficient doubt on Standard Bank’s assertions that the mortgage has not been securitised.

Should Davenport win this round, his matter will go to trial and then the bank will be asked to explain why his loan appears on the Bloomberg database as being owned by a bank in Taiwan. And why Brown’s mortgage loan appears in Thailand.

This, alongside the recent discovery by Adv Douglas Shaw that banks are able to hide their securitisation activities by not reflecting the new owner’s name at the Deeds office, makes for a very interesting battle looming for the banks.

It only takes one case to win, like Davenport’s, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Then come the class action suits.

What Carrigan’s affidavit says

This is a bit technical, but worth repeating here for those following the securitisation argument. Notice how the courts in the US do not recognise any creditor who cannot produce the note alongside the mortgage. And how banks doing this are actually “double dipping” – taking payment twice – which is a fraud. Judges in SA need to start paying attention to this and haul bank executives into court to get to the bottom of this securitisation hall of mirrors.

Carrigan’s affidavit for Ash Davenport says: “The written agreement that created the Standard Bank of South Africa/ Taipei CBO, Series 2006-1 is a ‘Pooling and Servicing Agreement’ (PSA), and is a matter of public record, available on the website of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The Trust is also described in a ‘Prospectus Supplement,’ also available on the SEC website. The Trust by its terms set a “closing date” of on or about TBD (To Be Decided). The promissory note in this case became trust property in compliance with the requirement set forth in the PSA. The Trust agreement is filed under oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The acquisition of the assets of the subject Trust and the PSA are governed under the law.

“In view of the foregoing, any Assignment of Mortgage executed after the Trust’s Closing Date would be a void act for the reason that it violated the express terms of the Trust instrument.

“In Carpenter v. Longan 16 Wall. 271,83 U.S. 271, 274, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872), the U.S. Supreme Court stated ‘The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.’”

“By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the Mortgage, with the Mortgage lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the Mortgage from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the Mortgage is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the Mortgage.”

“Generally, if the Mortgage and the Note are not together with the same entity, there can be no legal enforcement of the Note. The Mortgage enforces the Note and provides the capability for the lender to foreclose on the property. Thus, if the Mortgage and the Note are separated, foreclosure legally cannot occur. The Note cannot be enforced by the Mortgage if each contains a different mortgagee/beneficiary; and, if the Mortgage is not itself a legally enforceable instrument, there can be no valid foreclosure on the homeowners’ property.”

“No Entity can be a creditor if they do not hold/own the asset in question (i.e. the NOTE and/or the property); a Mortgage Pass Through Trust (i.e. R.E.M.I.C., as defined in Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter M, Part II §§ 850-862) cannot hold assets, for if they do, their tax exempt status is violated and the Trust itself is void ab initio. This is an indication that either the Trust has either voided its intended Tax Free Status, or the asset is not in fact owned by it.

“In the event that the loan was sold, pooled and turned into a security, such event would indicate that the alleged holder can no longer claim that it is a real party of interest, as the original lender has been paid in full.

“Further said, once the Note was converted into a stock, or stock equivalent, that event would indicate that the Note is no longer a Note. If both the Note and the stock, or stock equivalent, exist at the same time, that is known as double dipping. Double dipping is a form of securities fraud.

“Once a loan has been securitized, which the aforementioned loan may have been done many times, that event would indicate that the loan forever loses its security component (i.e., the Mortgage), and the right to foreclose through the Mortgage is forever lost.”

 

Stunning South Carolina Ruling Supports Foreclosed Homeowners

South Carolina Court Upholds Ruling That Foreclosure Law of U.S. Supreme Court Trumps Everything: Foreclosing Party Must Own Both The Note and The Mortgage to Foreclose.

“The Court determined that “Plaintiff failed to show that it owned the Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed”, and also noted that the Mortgage shows MERS to be the mortgagee but that “MERS is never mentioned in the Note.”

 

In a stunning ruling from the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas of Charleston, South Carolina, a Judge has issued a detailed, 4-page written opinion dismissing a foreclosure action filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as the claimed trustee of an IndyMac securitization, holding that DB failed to show that it was the owner and holder of the original Note and Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed. FDN South Carolina network counsel Bill Sloan, Esq. represents the homeowner and prepared and argued the homeowner’s Motion to Dismiss.

Counsel for DB made the familiar argument that it had possession of the original Note endorsed in blank, that the Note was a negotiable instrument under the UCC, that the Mortgage follows the Note, and that thus DB had established its right to foreclose. The Court disagreed, citing precedent from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872) which the Court found “clearly supports the notion that the Plaintiff must own the Note and the Mortgage to foreclose on the property (emphasis in the opinion).” The Court determined that “Plaintiff failed to show that it owned the Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed”, and also noted that the Mortgage shows MERS to be the mortgagee but that “MERS is never mentioned in the Note.”

The Court stated: “It is clear that to have standing in this foreclosure case, Plaintiff must not only be the holder and owner of the original Note, but also the Mortgage as well. Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case fails to meet this criteria. Plaintiff lacks standing to initiate and prosecute the foreclosure, and dismissal pursuant to Rule 17(a) and Rule 12(b)(6) SCRCP is appropriate.”

This ruling is based on foreclosure law from the United States Supreme Court, which trumps any contrary state law which does not require the foreclosing Plaintiff to own both the Note and the Mortgage at the time that the foreclosure Complaint is filed. This ruling demonstrates the essential fallacy in the “UCC, I have the Note, mortgage follows the Note” theory espoused by every attorney for the banks and servicers. What remains to be seen is whether the judiciary handling foreclosure cases will follow the law of the U.S. Supreme Court or not.

A copy of the Order is available upon e-mail request.

http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

Published by Jeff Barnes, Esq., September 20, 2013

http://i-uv.com/portfolio/stunning-south-carolina-ruling-supports-foreclosed-homeowners/