We, the people have the inalienable right to freedom, life, property and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, governments of almost every nation and their courts ignore the widespread abuse by international banks and financial services providers and the resulting eviction and foreclosure mills across every country; and, not protecting their people from corporate and economic tyranny;
The truth is that foreclosures are fraudulent and unlawful for many reasons as one will discover on these pages; and, that in truth the people are the victims and not the banks;
Evictions, foreclosures and repossessions are an infringement on basic, unalienable people rights; and, neither banks, nor courts of any country are curbing their own behaviour; none, bar a very few are doing anything about the pandemic; while the endless lists of evicted and foreclosed people continues to grow to crisis levels; without relief or remedy on the horizon unless we, the people ourselves take action.
First, let’s take at a landmark case that was then swept under the carpet…
Credit River Decision
Almost 50 years ago, in 1968, in Credit River Township, Minnesota, the finding commonly referred to as The “Credit River Decision” of the landmark court case, First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota, vs. Jerome Daly, held the Federal Reserve Act to be unconstitutional and void. This decision, which is legally sound, declared in effect, that all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by Federal Reserve National and State Banks to be null and void.
This amounts to the emancipation of all Americans from personal, national and state debt, purportedly owed to the Federal Reserve Bank. Every American owes it to himself, his country, and to the people of the world, to study and understand this decision, for upon this decision hangs the question of freedom or slavery for the world.
The bank brought an action to recover possession of the property to the Justice of the Peace Court at Savage, Minnesota. The first 2 Justices were disqualified by Affidavit of Prejudice; the first by Mr. Daly, the second by the bank, and a third judge refused to handle the case. It was then sent, pursuant to law, to Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of the peace, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, who presided at a Jury trial on December 7, 1968.
The Jury found the Note and Mortgage to be void for failure to give any validity to the Sheriff’s Sale.
The banker testified about the mortgage loan given to Mr. Jerome Daly, and then Mr. Jerome Daly cross exemined the banker about the creating of money “out of thin air”.
…He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the Money or Credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964. The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books by ledger entry. Further, he freely admitted that no United States Law gave the bank the authority to do this. There was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except paper and a bit of ink.
Justice Martin V. Mahoney then said, “IT SOUNDS LIKE FRAUD TO ME” and everbody in the court room nodded their heads indicating that they agreed with Jusice Martin V. Mahney.
…No complaint was made by the banker that the bank did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions nade by Mr. Lawrence V. Morgan, the path of duty was clearly made and very direct and clear for the jury. Their verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely, and without denial, promptly, and without delay, freely, and without purchase, comfortable to the laws in this Court on December 7, 1968.
This was the first time the question has been passed upon in the United States. This decision is one of the great documents of American history. It is a huge cornerstone wrenched from the temple of Imperialism — one of the solid foundation stones of Liberty.
To quote from the Credit River Decision case: ‘When the Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks acquire United States Bonds and Securities, State Bonds and Securities, State Subdivision Bonds and Securities, mortgages on private Real property and mortgages on private personal property, the said banks create the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entry. The first time that the money comes into existence is when they create it on their bank books by bookkeeping entry. The banks create it out of nothing. No substantial fund of gold or silver is back of it, or any fund at all.’
Banks create money out of thin air. That was the verdict.
Download ruling: CREDIT RIVER DECISION original
Jerome Daly, Judge Mahony & the Credit River Decision
The “Credit River” decision (was) where a jury in a Justice of the Peace court trial
found that Federal Reserve Notes were not Moneys of Account of the United States
and the court in his opinion found them to be ‘FRAUDS’.
This case was on Dec. 7, 1968 before Justice Martin V. Mahoney of Credit
River Minn. and the case was about “Failure of Consideration” by a bank in a mortgage foreclosure.
Justice Mahoney declared that only “Gold and Silver Coins” were moneys of
account of the United States, and that the Constitution is still the LAW
today. “No state shall make any “THING” but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in
payment of debts…”
And of course since the Federal Government had been given only 18 to 20
powers under the Constitution it was a “Limited Government”, and according to
the 9th and 10th amendments the states and the people were Sovereign, and
retained for themselves all of the other rights not specifically given to the
When news of the jury’s decision was picked up by Vern Myers and written
about in his newsletter, “Myers Finance and Commerce” and sent world wide the
whole world was afraid to accept FRAUDS and it got so big that they had
Justice Mahoney killed within 6 months and Jerome Daly and Bill Brexler had a couple of close calls too.
During the trial, on cross examination the President of the “Bank of Montgomery”
testified that the banks regularly “create money out of thin air.”
The jury went out and returned a verdict in favor of Jerome Daly on the basis
that the Federal Reserve Notes were not legal and valid consideration for a
mortgage note contract.
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
Five years ago at this time, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) presented the President and Congress with its final report on what caused the 2008 financial meltdown that devastated our economy and millions of American families. The report concluded that the financial crisis was avoidable and was caused by widespread failures of regulation, reckless risk taking on Wall Street, and a systematic breakdown in ethics and accountability.
The FCIC’s report included evidence of industry wide fraud and corruption in the mortgage markets, from loan origination to Wall Street’s bundling and sale of mortgage securities to investors. One study obtained by the Commission placed the losses resulting from fraud on mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007 alone at $112 billion.
How a sports agent uncovered the greatest financial fraud in American history
By David Dayen , June 29, 2016
New Republic contributor David Dayen’s book Chain of Title focuses on three individuals in South Florida—cancer nurse Lisa Epstein, car dealership worker Michael Redman, and Lynn Szymoniak, a lawyer specializing in insurance fraud— who stumbled upon the biggest consumer fraud in American history. They did so after they fell into foreclosure, and realized that all the documents they were sent by their mortgage companies—the evidence being used to kick them out of their homes—were fake. It turned out that the industry broke the chain of title—the chain of ownership, really—on millions of securitized mortgages, and were using false documents to cover it up.
By Neil Garfield
Every Bubble Bursts. The banks are now struggling to find people who will “find” nonexistent documents without expressly telling their superiors at the bank that the “found” documents were fabricated. The evidence is all over the internet as banks troll for prospective employees who will get their hands dirty and be prepared to get thrown under the bus should the malfeasance be discovered.
The documents are not merely missing. They do not exist. And without the critical documents required in every foreclosure, there can be no foreclosure. The documents must be fabricated because they don’t exist. The documents don’t exist because they were actually intentionally destroyed and because the banks have no interest in the property, the alleged loan, the “original” note (“missing” in most cases), the mortgage or the debt itself. Many documents existed but were destroyed by the banks.
If pushed to open their books we would find a complete absence of any financial transaction in which the banks or their pet trusts were involved. Up until recently the banks were able to get their employees to execute documents that were fabricated for the purposes of presentation in court. But the number of people who are willing to do that is diminishing. Bank employees sense the impending disaster for the banks and they don’t want to take the blame even if it costs them their job.
The entire bank scheme, as I previously reported, is based upon the ability to use legal presumptions. These presumptions create an opportunity for epic fraud and theft. If a document is facially valid, the burden shifts to the homeowner to rebut the presumption that it is indeed a valid, authentic document. But now homeowners are hiring forensic document examiners who are showing that the document presented is not the original even if it looks that way. More and more homeowners, when presented with a “blue ink” document will say they don’t know if that particular signature is their own signature because they know that the documents and signatures are being fabricated. The bank’s witness in court is treading the fine line between ignorance and perjury when they say that the note is the original. The same holds true to bogus assignments, indorsements (“endorsements”), powers of attorney and other documents the banks use to avoid being required to prove their case without the presumptions.
So the banks, without using their own names, are posting job openings for what 4closurefraud.com calls “time travelers.” People get hired for their willingness to create documents that appear to have been prepared and executed years ago. This is required because if there was no transaction years ago, then the sham is exposed — the “loan contract” between the homeowner and the originator never existed. And so when the originator endorses or assigns the note or mortgage to an undisclosed third party, the assignment is completely and irrevocably void as coming from an entity that never owned the loan but was merely named as the Payee or Mortgagee.
BUT if the original loan documents look valid, and the alleged transfers of the loan look valid, then the burden shifts to the homeowner to rebut the presumption that a real transaction took place between the homeowner and the originator and between the originator and the next party in the false chain of possession and ownership of the loan. This is why I have been relentless in insisting that discovery take place and be pursued aggressively. I have already seen many cases in which an order was entered requiring the banks to respond to discovery requests; in virtually all cases someone steps forward and settles with the homeowner. The only exceptions are where it is clear that the judge is going to rule for the banks anyway and will deny subsequent motions to compel the discovery that was previously ordered.
Of course the problem with the settlement is that the homeowner is being coerced into accepting a settlement that acknowledges some bank, servicer or trustee as actually having rights to collect or enforce the loan; since these parties are merely intermediaries who issue self-serving paper designating themselves as real parties in interest, such settlements could result in the homeowner being presented with claims later from the real source of funding in their loan. This is unlikely, but nonetheless possible. The only reason it is unlikely is that the real parties in interest are investors whose money was commingled with thousands of other investors in hundreds of trusts that never received any proceeds from their offering of mortgage backed securities that were neither mortgage backed or securities. The investors need a way to trace their money into the loans or, if they elect not to do so, to settle with the bank that cheated them in the first place with bogus mortgage bonds. There have been many such settlements, most of them unreported.
The fact remains that the “lender” is never part of any documented transaction. Hence the “lender” (the investors) enjoy none of the protections of a holder of a note nor the security of a mortgage. Fabricating documents and forging them is the only way of breathing life into the false loan contract that was documented, even if it never happened. And borrowers and their attorneys should take note that the entire loan infrastructure is an illusion that has been awarded judgments that pretend the illusion is real. we are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Our Constitution makes us a nation of laws. This is our challenge. Do we allow bankers and politicians to turn back time on paper and treat them as though they are doing something right because NOW it is right because they declared it right, or do we reject that and apply rules of law that have existed for centuries for this very reason.
So for the people who are unemployed due to a recession that won’t really quit until the money stolen from the system is somehow replaced or clawed back, you have a job waiting for you if you can sleep at night knowing that if your activities are exposed, the bank will disavow your “irresponsible” actions, leaving you exposed to jail or prison.
Possession of a Note is required
Posted on June 28, 2016 by Neil Garfield
Extracts: The Golden Rule of Mortgage Foreclosure: the Uniform Commercial Code forbids foreclosure of the mortgage unless the creditor possesses the properly-negotiated original promissory note. If this can’t be done the foreclosure must stop. — Douglas Whaley, Professor Emeritus, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
“By saying yes, the homeowner admits that the paper is original which it is not, he admits that it is his signature, which it is not, and he admits that the possession of the original note is unquestionable which is completely wrong because the actual original was “lost” many years earlier.” — Neil F Garfield
The problem with the great tidal wave of foreclosures has been that everyone (lawyers, judges and homeowners) have made great leaps of faith in accepting nonexistent facts. And the other problem is that all foreclosures are governed by the UCC which has been adopted in all 50 states as State Law. It is the source of all governing law as to the ability to negotiate the note, enforce the note and to enforce the foreclosure provisions contained in the mortgage.
Those who created the current infrastructure of what is erroneously referred to as securitization understood that nearly all lawyers — on or off the bench — retained practically nothing about the Uniform Commercial Code. They correctly predicted that the Judge would accept whatever the lawyer for the Bank said was in the UCC. The result was a startling array of decisions twisting and undulating in confusion about exactly who should be paid by the “borrower”, who could modify the obligation, who could enforce the note and who could foreclose.
…So the best minds in the judicial world came together and created a uniform code that everyone everywhere in the country would follow. It was originally a “National Code.” Like all new endeavors there were defects in the structure of laws in the first national code which was based upon centuries of common law decisions from trial and appellate courts. So the next generation of brilliant legal minds came together to fix the defects and create certainty in the marketplace for negotiable instruments and ancillary instruments like mortgages.
As a general rule one must physically possess the note in order to negotiate it or enforce it. Possession was determined by thousands of judges and lawyers to be essential to enforcement and thus also negotiation of any note; this was so because if a party claimed rights to enforce a note but admitted that the note did not exist, was in the possession of someone else or even lost, the maker might be liable multiple times. So POSSESSION became the gold standard. As a brief example of how this applies to the many issues we have discussed on this blog, let’s begin with the “closing.”
The “borrower” is required to sign the note before the loan is funded. Hence the loan contract is not commenced or consummated until funding. BUT the signing of the note created a negotiable instrument. After signing the note, the customary practice is for the closing agent to take delivery of the note. The closing agent thus becomes the first possessor, but without any right to enforce the note.
* Back when I stared law practice a representative of the lender was frequently present at closing. Once all the papers had been properly signed and money was received by the closing agent to fund the loan, the closing agent would physically deliver the note to the representative of the lender or transmit this valuable document (“cash equivalent”) to the lender or its authorized representative. If the lender was the funding source, the loan contract was complete and the the lender was the possessor of the note with direct rights to enforce — i.e., the lender was named on the note as payee just as one would write out a check.
* If the lender sold the loan into the secondary market, the lender would receive a sum of money the amount of which was determined by agreement between the buyer and the lender as seller. The buyer would receive physical possession of the note with an “indorsement” frequently spelled as “endorsement.” The endorsement would generally be made payable to the name of the buyer but it could be endorsed in blank, which would make the loan negotiable or enforceable by anyone who came into possession — even a thief, who could sue but not win once the facts of the theft came out.
* The above description is what most people have in mind when they think about loans today. But their thoughts are antiquated.
* Today, the “loan closing” starts in the usual way — the “borrower” is required to sign the note thus creating a negotiable instrument before any funding takes place. The party named as lender is never present and thus cannot take possession of the note. The closing agent is the first possessor with no rights to enforce. But theoretically the closing agent, if he or she was dishonest, could bring suit to enforce the note. Like the thief, the closing agent can sue but he cannot win. But I digress.
* What happens next depends upon whether the lender is an actual lender who might still be sending a representative to the “closing,” or is an originator who merely sells the loan product to the borrower. 96% of all “loan closings” over the past 15 years were “originator” loans.
* In the case of an originator the physical note, best case scenario, is sent to the party who was instructing the funding source, as a conduit. The originator is not generally allowed to touch, much less possess the note nor does it have any right of enforcement — because the originator has already signed an “Assignment and Assumption” Agreement before the borrower even applied for a loan. Hence the originator lacks both possession and any authority to negotiate the note.
* If the originator is still in business (check the Implodometer.com), at some time in the future a representative of the originator is called upon to execute an indorsement of the note. Lacking both physical possession of the note and the right to enforce it such an endorsement is void. Someone else possesses it and as it turns out, a party other than the possessor supposedly has (or claims) the right to enforce the note.
* The party with possession could theoretically acquire the right to enforce from the party who claims to have the right to enforce — and in today’s market that is exactly what happens. If the originator is not in business the signature nevertheless appears like magic as an officer of an institution that does not exist — but lacking the date on which it was executed. Or, as is usually the case we learned from the robo-signing, robo-witness, robo-officer scandals, we see some signature of a person who either didn’t exist or was not employed by any of the parties in the false paper trail. Neither the lawyer for the homeowner nor the homeowner is able to prove this because the information is in the hands of third parties who are not even parties to the foreclosure litigation.
* The problem with that scenario is that the party who claims the right to enforce it does not have those rights, does not have possession, does not have any receipt or proof that it paid for the note, and is essentially a stranger to the entire transaction — but now nonetheless accepted in court by itself or through an agent or power of attorney as the party in possession with rights to enforce. Such representations are untrue and a fraud upon the borrower, the court and anyone else having an interest in the actual events that transpired at the “loan closing.”
* Further eviscerating the position of the eventual party who has conducted foreclosure proceedings is the documented fact (see Study by Catherine Ann Porter) that most and perhaps nearly all of the original notes were immediately and intentionally destroyed. Fabrications of the note were created each time the loan was sold. Such sales were often virtually simultaneous so that the party claiming the right to enforce the note and the right to foreclose received multiple payments on the same loan while at the same time retaining the “servicing rights” so that they could foreclose and report to the unhappy buyers that their investment was worthless.
* Hapless homeowners with clueless lawyers were asked at trial if the document before them was the original. The homeowner had no idea that the signature he or she was looking at was forged by high tech mechanical means which today actually employs a ball point pen and created variations in the signature as to pressure, lines and swirls. By saying yes, the homeowner admits that the paper is original which it is not, he admits that it is his signature, which it is not, and he admits that the possession of the original note is unquestionable which is completely wrong because the actual original was “lost” many years earlier.
Powell v. Wells Fargo: The Party seeking foreclosure must demonstrate that it has standing to foreclose
In this case the Bank was required to prove a chain of transfers starting with the indorsee, GreenPoint Mortgage to the current servicer. The Bank failed to prove the series of transactions through which it purportedly acquired the note from the indorsee and the judge ordered an involuntary dismissal. However, because this is Florida and statute of limitations are not upheld, it is likely that Wells Fargo will have time to regroup, create a new strategy, and file to foreclose again on the tortured homeowners.
In the present case, and because neither party disputes the validity of the special indorsement appearing on the allonge filed with the original complaint, the Bank was required to prove a chain of transfers starting with the indorsee, GreenPoint Mortgage. Aside from the witness’s testimony that EMC Mortgage purchased and acquired Borrowers’ loan from “someone,” the only evidence admitted at trial purporting to transfer the note was the PSA. The PSA, in turn, did not reference GreenPoint Mortgage or Borrowers’ note. Moreover, absolutely no testimony was adduced at trial which explained how the Depositor, Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., acquired mortgage loans to convey in the first place. At most, the evidence at trial established that EMC Mortgage acquired Borrowers’ loan in 2006 and placed the loan in the trust, and that the Bank became the trustee. There was nothing, however, connecting the indorsee of the note, GreenPoint Mortgage, to EMC Mortgage or the Bank. In other words, the Bank failed to prove the series of transactions through which it purportedly acquired the note from the indorsee.
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand for entry of an order of involuntary dismissal of the foreclosure action.
Reversed and remanded.
MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Houk v. PennyMAC CORP. | FL 2DCA – PennyMac failed to meet its burden of showing the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding its entitlement to enforce the lost note.
Posted on February 17, 2017 by Neil Garfield
Hat tip to StopForeclosureFraud.com
Read more at: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2017/02/16/houk-v-pennymac-corp-fl-2dca-pennymac-failed-to-meet-its-burden-of-showing-the-nonexistence-of-a-genuine-issue-of-material-fact-regarding-its-entitlement-to-enforce-the-lost-note/
Extract – Posted on July 8, 2016 by Neil Garfield
On Appeal, the servicers did not argue and failed to cite any authority that the assignment was sufficient to support the judgment when standing is contested during trial (see: Beaumont v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 81 So. 3d 553, 555 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)- a copy of an assignment of a note in the court file was not competent evidence where it was never authenticated and offered into evidence). The final judgment was reversed and the case remanded back to the trial court with directions to enter an order of involuntary dismissal. With Florida’s lack of a statute of limitations on foreclosures, the servicer will likely have ample time to “correct” their deficiencies and errors and attempt to foreclose again ad nauseum.
Congratulations to attorney Nicole R. Moskowitz of Neustein Law Group, Aventura representing Appellant Robert Stoltz.
MERRILL LYNCH COMMITTED BLATANT FRAUD.
Like other Consent Orders, this one reveals the banks as pursuing an on-going pattern of fraud, deception and theft. The problem is that people still can’t quite believe the entire scheme is fraudulent and that the base transactions don’t exist. The banks get away with this because the complexity is so great that nobody but a select few at trading desks understands the true nature of these transactions.
The financial markets are said to be based upon “trust.” The truth is that the only thing anyone on Wall Street trusts is that everyone else will pursue any business model that makes them money, blurring the lines of legality with a cover-up built entirely on creating meaningless complexity.
Bill Paatalo wrote me an email (see below) that is actually an article. If you ever thought that the banks were in any way playing by the rules, maybe this article will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The bottom line is don’t admit or even believe that ANYTHING the banks say is true. Starting with the first “transaction” (the origination) right up through the foreclosure and sale, the entire scheme is devoted to defrauding as many people as possible.
We should stop treating the hundreds, even thousands, of known examples of bank fraud by the banks as “one-off” isolated instances in an otherwise legal world. We need to recognize that our economy was severely damaged by these banks and that we continue to be under siege by them.
In Defence of Free Houses
Neil Garfield is a U.S. property rights attorney. Here are some articles regarding the fraudulent nature of foreclosures:
Posted on March 28, 2016 by Neil Garfield
MEGAN WACHSPRESS, JESSIE AGATSTEIN & CHRISTIAN MOTT published an article that takes dead aim at the “free house” controversy. In the Yale Law Review they come to the conclusion that (1) the house isn’t free to any homeowner even if they escape the mortgage and (2) the projected social cost of market values are wrong. But probably the most stinging criticism of the judicial system is that judges are abandoning the rule of law for ad hoc rulings whose only purpose is to avoid a result the judge doesn’t like.
Unfortunately, the article does not fully address the issue of why the banks are failing to prove what is ordinarily a slam dunk case. The authors seem to assume that the debt is legitimate and that it is mainly a paperwork problem. I would add my usual comment: if the banks simply had continued with the standard procedures they would not have had any paperwork problems no matter how many times the loan was sold. The greater evil that is not addressed in case decisions and law review articles is that this was all part of fraudulent scheme and THAT is why the banks had to resort to more fraud (in documentation).
We should remember that banks basically drafted the statutes and are the source of all paperwork on consumer loans, especially mortgage loans. For hundreds of years they knew how to do it, knew how to keep it and rarely misplaced anything. It strains belief to think that suddenly the banks forgot what took hundreds of years to develop. The more insidious reason is what is feared to be the nuclear option — that the mortgages, notes and loan contracts were all an illusion, even if the money was real.
In the end, for reasons other than those expressed on these pages, the authors come to the same conclusion that I did — the “free house” is going to the banks every time a foreclosure is granted.
Here are some quotes from their article that I think are self-explanatory.
When addressing faulty foreclosures, courts are afraid to bar future attempts to foreclose—that is, afraid of giving borrowers “free houses.” While courts rarely explain the reasoning behind this aversion, it seems to arise from a reflexive belief that such an outcome would be unjust. Courts are therefore quick to sidestep well-established principles of res judicata in favor of ad hoc measures meant to protect banks against the specter of “free houses.” [e.s.]
This Comment argues that this approach is misguided; courts should issue final judgments in favor of homeowners in cases where banks fail to prove the elements required for foreclosure. Furthermore, these judgments should have res judicata effect—thus giving homeowners “free houses.” This approach has several benefits: it is consistent with longstanding res judicata principles in other forms of civil litigation, it provides a necessary market-correcting incentive to promote greater responsibility among foreclosure litigators, and it alleviates the tremendous costs of successive foreclosure proceedings.
In a foreclosure suit, the bank must generally prove the following:
(1) the homeowner has signed both the note (the underlying loan) and the mortgage assigning the house as collateral for that note;
(2) the bank owns the note and mortgage;
(3) the homeowner still owes a debt to the bank;
(4) the homeowner is behind on that debt; and
(5) the bank has accelerated that remaining debt in accordance with the terms of the note itself.
When a bank fails to prove these elements, a judge is legally required to rule in favor of the homeowner.
Recently, courts have been inundated with suits where homeowners question the bank’s ability to prove the second element. Litigation over “proof- of-ownership” issues in foreclosures is a growing nationwide problem; sampling suggests a ten-fold increase between the periods immediately preceding and following the 2007 collapse of the housing market.
To demonstrate ownership without expending more resources than pooling and servicing agreements allotted, bank employees signed hundreds of thousands of affidavits asserting that they had seen and could attest to the contents of original documents demonstrating ownership of the underlying mortgage. Although such affidavits were a legally acceptable means of demonstrating such ownership, a significant number of them were actually fraudulent.
…ethical transgressions have affected hundreds of thousands of foreclosures.
Judge Schack, a trial judge sitting in the New York Supreme Court for Kings County, has repeatedly sanctioned law firms for bringing improper foreclosure suits when he has independently discovered the inadequacy of the plaintiffs’ evidence as to defendants’ indebtedness or plaintiffs’ ownership of the note. See, e.g., Argent Mortg. Co. v. Maitland, 958 N.Y.S.2d 306 (Sup. Ct. 2010); Wells Fargo Bank v. Hunte, 910 N.Y.S.2d 409 (Sup. Ct. 2010); NetBank v. Vaughn, 841 N.Y.S.2d 827 (Sup. Ct. 2007).
By focusing on the immediate consequence of a ruling for homeowners, the courts ignore perverse incentives created by allowing banks to continue to externalize the costs of their mistakes.
…one approach—that taken by the Florida and Maine Supreme Courts—is to bend the rules of res judicata to avoid a windfall for homeowners. This approach creates few benefits and significant economic problems. In this Part, we argue that further subsidizing banks’ poor litigation practices results in deadweight loss by contributing to negative public-health outcomes and by disincentivizing banks from improving their servicing and litigation techniques. We also explain how granting winning homeowners “free houses” will not negatively affect the mortgage market.
…broader social subsidization of irresponsible [bank] behavior.
…prolonged foreclosure proceedings create negative social externalities, depressing surrounding homes’ resale value, reducing local governments’ tax revenues, and increasing criminal activity. Foreclosures also appear to have significant effects on community members’ physical and mental health, and correlate with increased rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, cardiovascular disease, and emergency-care treatment.
…although judges have expressed concern about homeowner windfalls, the alternative creates a windfall for banks that cut corners in managing and prosecuting foreclosures. The risk and costs of losing foreclosures should already be internalized in the price of current mortgages. Empirical studies suggest that greater protection for mortgagors historically corresponds to slightly higher mortgage rates among lenders. These studies indicate that lenders adjust the price of mortgages based on what they anticipate the cost, and not just the likelihood, of foreclosures will be.
Gieseke-The “Creditor” consists of the Investors not Servicer
Posted on May 26, 2016 by Neil Garfield
Gieseke Remand Order 5 20 16 from 9th Circuit (3)
“As it stands, the “creditor” consists of all investors in all trusts created by each investment bank. But nobody is acting as if that is true.”
And for those who thought they could get away with lying and cheating forever, let me say this: anyone can get away with almost anything — at first. But eventually if you keep doing it you are going to pay the price. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal) has made it clear that it will routinely reverse any decision that involves the trial court accepting void assignments or in which the court rules that the borrower has no standing to raise the issue of ownership and standing based upon a void assignment on the grounds that the borrower was not a party to the transaction.
Just to be clear, that whole line of reasoning was flawed from the start. If you witness a murder, will your testimony be blocked because you were neither the murderer nor the victim? The very notion of due process means that all parties have an opportunity to pursue the truth and not be stuck with some legal presumption that is based upon a false statement of fact.
The importance of the Geiseke decision is that several states are involved and it likely to have strong persuasive impact on courts across the country. However, don’t think the party is over for the banks. They will continue to raise the standing issue (i.e., the borrower was not part of the assignment transaction) and judges will continue to say to borrowers until they absolutely cannot, that borrowers have no standing the raise the issue as to whether any of the implied transactions actually exist.
Read more at: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/35105/
View original post 709 more words
Below is a link to a video where GlobalCollateral’s Chief Commercial Officer Ted Leveroni discusses collateral settlement failures and he basically states that the securitization failed. Collateral fail and securitization fail are exactly the same thing. In this case, the evidence is indisputable that most transactions are not in fact settled but that they are held “in street name” which means the brokers own it as “nominee.” And that enables the banks as brokers to assert ownership over what is not theirs to own. Account holders are getting statements and payments from a slush fund. This is partial corroboration of my conjecture that there literally was no actual loan in most cases involving a refinance.
The Officer states USB doesn’t know who the investors are and says you’ll have to go to DTC to likely find out.
Look at this short video from DTC –
This case shows that hearsay evidence is admitted as long as it is a bank claiming an exemption. The witness, devoid of any actual knowledge, is allowed to testify about facts, events and circumstances about which he or she knows nothing. The Judge did enter judgment for the borrowers. But the 4th DCA reversed and ordered foreclosure. At some point the courts are going to roll back these pronouncements when and if the foreclosure crisis comes to an end. The precedent for other cases is against any written or unwritten prior doctrine. But in the meanwhile millions of people will still lose their homes to strangers without any financial interest in the loan.
This case might lead to the conclusion that borrowers should make payments through their own “servicers” who can then testify about the inconsistent, false assertions, and data maintenance standards of the other servicer.
The moral of this story…
View original post 2,017 more words
“Prejudice” Element of Wrongful Foreclosure
By Kevin Brodehl
If a property owner loses their property through a foreclosure sale initiated by someone who did not validly own the debt, has the property owner automatically suffered enough “prejudice” to pursue a claim for wrongful foreclosure? Or does the property owner also need to show that it would have been able to avoid foreclosure by paying the debt to the true lender?
The California Supreme Court’s recent Yvanova decision (reviewed on Money and Dirt here: California Supreme Court: Borrowers Have Standing to Allege Wrongful Foreclosure Based on Void Assignment of Note) only partially addressed the “prejudice” issue. In Yvanova, the Supreme Court discussed prejudice, but only “in the sense of an injury sufficiently concrete and personal to provide standing,” not “as a possible element of the wrongful foreclosure tort.” The Court held that the plaintiff in that case demonstrated sufficient prejudice — lost ownership of property in an allegedly illegal foreclosure sale — to confer standing to pursue a wrongful foreclosure claim.
A recent opinion by the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division One, in San Diego) — Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank National Association — picks up the “prejudice” analysis where Yvanova left off, and addresses prejudice as an element of a wrongful foreclosure claim.
The facts: a twisted tale of note assignments
In 2005, the property owner obtained a $620,000 loan secured by real property in Riverside County. The note and deed of trust identified the lender as Washington Mutual (WaMu).
In April 2009, JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase), as successor in interest to WaMu, assigned the note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank. The trustee promptly recorded a Notice of Default, followed by a Notice of Sale.
In November 2009, Chase recorded a document assigning the note and deed of trust to Bank of America (even thought just months earlier, Chase had already assigned the note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank — oops!). On the same date as the assignment, Bank of America recorded a Trustee’s Deed, reflecting that Bank of America had acquired the property at a trustee’s sale in exchange for a credit bid.
In December 2009, Chase recorded a “corrective” assignment of the note and deed of trust, suggesting that the April 2009 assignment to Deutsche Bank was a mistake, and was really intended to be an assignment to Bank of America.
The property owner sued the banks and the trustee for wrongful foreclosure.
The trial court’s ruling: no prejudice; case dismissed
The banks filed a demurrer, arguing that the property owner could not allege “prejudice,” which is an essential element of a wrongful foreclosure claim.
The trial court sustained the banks’ demurrer and dismissed the case.
The property owner appealed.
The court of appeal’s opinion
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a property owner who loses property to a foreclosure sale initiated by someone purporting to exercise rights under a void assignment suffers enough prejudice to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure.
The court first relied on the Supreme Court’s holding in Yvanova that “only the entity currently entitled to enforce a debt may foreclose on the mortgage or deed of trust securing that debt.” In this case, based on the clear paper trail of assignments, the entity entitled to enforce the debt was Deutsche Bank, but the entity that foreclosed was Bank of America.
Based on the complaint’s allegations, the court noted, the assignment was not merely voidable but void. The court observed, “Chase, having assigned ‘all beneficial interest’ in [the property owner’s] notes and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank in April 2009, could not assign again the same interests to Bank of America in November 2009.”
The court concluded that a property owner “who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so — by those facts alone — sustains prejudice or harm sufficient to constitute a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.” The court added:
The critical issue is not the plaintiff’s ability to pay, but rather whether defendant’s conduct resulted in the plaintiff’s harm; i.e., a foreclosure that was wrongful because it was initiated by a person or entity having no legal right to do so; i.e. holding void title.
The court also offered policy grounds supporting its decision. The court’s ruling would encourage “lending institutions to employ due diligence to properly document assignments and confirm who currently holds a loan.” A contrary ruling, on the other hand, would subject property owners to unfairly losing their property in foreclosure to someone who does not even own the underlying debt, with no court oversight.
The Sciarratta decision will make it easier for property owners to assert wrongful foreclosure claims…….
To read more please visit:
This is an invitation for the Bar associations to take as close a look at foreclosure mills as they do to the low hanging fruit of solo foreclosure defense lawyers who get charged with “foreclosure rescue schemes.”
The biggest mistake we lawyers make is jumping into the middle of a fact pattern instead of starting at the beginning. Most foreclosures involve trusts at some point in the chain. And most trusts do not exist as “legal persons”. Without a legal person there can be no “jural act.” Hence the Court lacks jurisdiction to perform any act other than the ministerial act of dismissing the foreclosure action in judicial states or striking the substitution of trustee, the notice of default and the notice of sale in non-judicial states.
Any recorded document involving a nonexistent legal person should also be removed from the county records.
Read more at:
It’s nice to see Gretchen Morgenson back on the beat of financial fraud. We need more exposure to what everyone who has battling foreclosures already knows — that virtually all of the documents relied upon by would-be foreclosers are false, fraudulent, fabricated and forged. These revelations appear to be the only way judges will stop allowing presumptions of false facts to dominate their rulings.
It is safe to assume that if the documents, business records or even correspondence is from Wells Fargo there is a high likelihood that it contains false information. This is most likely true for the other mega banks too.
Posted on May 25, 2017 by Neil Garfield
If a lawyer goes into court claiming he represents X when in fact he never had any contact with X, was never retained by X and is not being paid by X, he is misrepresenting his status and that of X. The fundamental problem is that the lawyer has shown up without a client and X is not present. In judicial states this is simply a matter of jurisdiction or lack thereof. With X not there as Plaintiff there is no case to be decided.
When a lawyer files a notice of appearance but does not appear, it has its own consequences on the lawyer (Sometimes) and certainly on the party designated as the Plaintiff (A designation that is in most cases FALSE.)
Finally! Kentucky Law Journal Article Cites Accountability for Lawyers Who Wrote Securitization Documents
Back at the beginning of creating the false pyramid of “Securitization” 9 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area resigned rather than contribute to drafting securitization documents. They all agreed that what was being requested of them was the drafting of documents to cover up a criminal enterprise. This article spells out part of the problem.
“Although mortgage-backed securities (‘MBS’) and other financial products that nearly caused the collapse of the global financial system could not have been issued without attorneys, the legal profession’s role in the financial crisis has received relatively little scrutiny. This Article focuses on lawyers’ preparation of MBS offering documents that misrepresented the lending practices of mortgage loan originators. While attorneys may not have known that many MBS would become toxic, they lacked incentives to inquire into the shoddy lending practices of prominent originators, such as Washington Mutual Bank (‘WaMu”), when they and their clients were reaping considerable profits from MBS offerings. The subprime era illustrates that attorneys are unreliable gatekeepers of the financial markets because they will not necessarily acquire sufficient information to assess the legality of the transactions they are facilitating.”
Who Do the Foreclosure Mills Represent?
by Mark Stopa
I received a motion in today’s mail that appears inocuous but is an eye-opener on many levels. Butler & Hoesch, P.A., moved to withdraw as counsel and sought a charging lien on the Plaintiff’s recovery in a pending foreclosure case. The Plaintiff in the case is a securitized trust; Wilmington Trust Company is Trustee. In its Motion to Withdraw, though, the foreclosure mill makes no mention of Wilmington. Rather, the mill says it used to represent the servicer, Litton Loan Servicing, Inc. but that Litton has been sold to Ocwen Financial Corporation and that it has no attorney-client relationship with Ocwen.
Are you confused yet? Read the motion so you see what I mean. This foreclosure mill has been litigating a foreclosure lawsuit on behalf of Wilmington, but as far as I can tell, has never represented Wilmington. Moreover, although the mill talks about its relationships (or lack thereof) with Litton and Ocwen, neither Litton nor Ocwen is a party in the case.
So who, exactly, is the mill trying to withdraw from representing? Presumbly Wilmington, the Plaintiff, as that’s the only plaintiff in this case. But the mill’s own motion makes it clear it has no attorney-client relationship with Wilmington anyway.
Call me crazy, but shouldn’t the mill have an attorney-client relationship with the party who is prosecuting the lawsuit?
The unseemly nature of this aside, I see a few significant issues which merit discussion:
First, the Florida Supreme Court requires via Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b) that the Plaintiff verify its Complaint in all residential foreclosure cases. Given the relationship between the foreclosure mills, the servicers, and the trustees, it seems clear the required verifications aren’t being done by the plaintiffs, but by the servicers. Many learned judges in Florida before whom I appear have made it clear that verification by a servicer is insufficient – the complaints are supposed to be verified by the “plaintiff.” Remember, the Rule doesn’t permit verification by a third party, but by “the plaintiff.” In fact, Shapiro & Fishman moved for rehearing of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on this precise issue, and the Court rejected its motion.
This prompts a significant question – if verification is required by the plaintiff, and the attorneys representing the plaintiff have no relationship with the plaintiff, how on earth can they get the required verification? Undoubtedly, this is why the mills ask for 90 days or 120 days to get the requisite verification (when complaints are dismissed with leave to amend), as they often don’t even represent the plaintiff prosecuting the foreclosure case! Literally, the mills are in the position of calling up an entity who they don’t represent and saying “You don’t know me, but I’m representing you in this foreclosure case, and I need you to verify under penalty of perjury that the allegations we’ve raised are correct.”
A bit awkward, eh? Yet that’s the position in which the mills have put themselves (in a large percentage of foreclosure cases in Florida).
Second, though I’m hesitant to call out others on ethical issues where the answer is not black-and-white, I struggle to see how the mills can prosecute lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs without the plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent in a manner consistent with The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. I’ve spoken with the Bar on this, and given our conversation, I’m not prepared to say it’s impossible, but I will say this. Personally, I couldn’t imagine appearing as counsel for a party in any lawsuit without that party’s knowledge or consent, much less doing so on a widespread, systematic basis.
Think about it this way. An attorney is able to act on behalf of a client because the attorney’s actions bind the client. Stipulations, representations, court filings, etc. … we as attorneys are, quite literally, agents for our clients. If a client is going to be bound in this manner, the attorney’s authority to represent/bind the client must be clearly established. This is why, for example, there are strict rules about how an attorney may appear as counsel, failing which the attorney’s actions don’t bind the client. See Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Props., Inc., 693 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
If these foreclosure attorneys don’t have an attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff, it seems to me they cannot represent the plaintiff at all and should be disqualified from doing so. After all, how can an attorney bind the plaintiff when the attorney has no relationship with the plaintiff? Why should any court accept the representations or stipulations of a plaintiff’s attorney when that attorney has no relationship with the plaintiff?
There must be a better answer than “there are lots of foreclosure cases in Florida, and this is just how it’s done.”
Third, on the issue of a charging lien, Florida law plainly requires that a charging lien be signed, in writing, by the party against whom the lien is sought. How does any foreclosure mill expect a court to award a lien in its favor on the recovery of a securitized trust (in this case, Wilmington), when the attorney has no relationship with Wilmington and no signed fee agreement? Should Wilmington really have to pay some of its recovery to a law firm with whom it has no relationship? And no signed fee agreement?
Fourth, you want to know why the Florida Supreme Court’s mediation program failed? Take another look at this motion. http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Motion-to-Withdraw.pdf How can anyone expect to get a binding agreement with Wilmington Trust Company when the attorneys prosecuting this foreclosure case don’t even represent Wilmington? This is a good illustration why loan modifications and reasonable settlements are so hard to get – the appropriate parties aren’t even at the bargaining table.
Fifth, when the plaintiff alleges in the complaint that it is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage, what exactly does that mean? Taking plaintiff’s allegations literally, the plaintiff is the owner/holder. But in all of these cases where the entity driving the suit is actually the servicer, it seems that the servicer is the “holder” of the Note, not the Plaintiff. Remember, to be the holder, the “plaintiff” must be in “possession” of the Note. See Fla. Stat. 671.201(21). Are these plaintiffs really in possession when they don’t even know a case has been filed? I suppose it’s possible, but when the Note is subsequently put into the court file, how did it get there? If it’s from the servicer, as I’d think it must since the servicer is the only one who knows about the case, then doesn’t that show the servicer was in possession, not the Plaintiff? And that the servicer was the “holder,” not the Plaintiff? Actually, no – where the Note is specifically indorsed to the plaintiff, the servicer isn’t the holder, either. In that situation, the servicer has possession, but the plaintiff has the indorsement, so neither one is the “holder.”
So what’s the solution to all of this madness? It’s two-fold:
(1) Require verifications by the plaintiff (not the servicer, the plaintiff) and dismiss all cases without it; and
(2) Require the foreclosure mills to have attorney-client relationships with the plaintiff (not the servicer, the plaintiff prosecuting the case) and disqualify all attorneys who lack such a relationship. That sounds harsh, but it’s ridiculous to inundate our courts with garbage pleadings that languish for years without a resolution when the parties prosecuting them don’t even know they’ve been filed.
Mark Stopa Esq.
The Emergence of Post-Traumatic Foreclosure Disorder
Posted on April 6, 2016 by Neil Garfield, By William Hudson
The daily calls haunt Neil Garfield and his staff. Homeowners facing foreclosure vacillate through a predictable cycle of fear, helplessness, betrayal, confusion, powerlessness and sometimes the desire for retribution. Some callers display a pressured, almost manic-like urgency to correct their situation while some are so beaten down they are complacent. There are also the calls from homeowners who learn that they waited too long- and there is nothing else that can be done. The feeling of hopelessness and despair are palpable. Many homeowners will prevail against their loan servicers and many will lose, but all will come away from the experience emotionally altered.
New Economic Rights Alliance brings heat to the banks
Posted 05 May 2013 Written by Arlene Levy; http://www.newera.org.za/
The New Economic Rights Alliance (NewEra) has lodged a complaint with the National Credit Regulator (NCR) calling on it to force the major banks to disclose details of their securitisation transactions, which are reckoned to exceed R20 billion a month.
NewEra, which is a non-profit organisation with 135,000 members, has made several failed attempts to bring legal action against the major banks on the grounds that the banks are foreclosing on defaulting borrowers, forcing them out of their houses and repossessing their cars, when in fact they have no legal standing to do so. The banks managed to throttle the High Court actions on technical legal points.
Cundill says he nearly choked on his cappuccino when one senior counsel claimed before the judge the Reserve Bank was a public interest group, just like NewEra. The entire case was a circus, he says, with people in black robes bowing, scraping and pleading before the judge.
Banks do a roaring business in the sparsely regulated securitisation trade by selling financial instruments that have long and predictable income streams, such as a 20 year mortgage bond. They get paid up-front on the sale (securitisation) of these instruments, often as much as 2,5 or 3 times the face value of the loan. This will probably get your blood boiling if your house or car has been repossessed, and perhaps explains NewEra’s surging membership.
So what is NewEra’s argument?
Essentially, it says a bank no longer has legal title to a loan that has been securitised. Based on statistics published by the Reserve Bank, it appears most mortgage, credit card and other retail loans issued by the banks in SA have been securitised.
The securitised loan has a new owner, and the bank’s legal position has changed to one of collection agent for the new owner, a fact that the bank does not disclose to the borrower.
Interview with Scott Cundill – Chairman of the New Economic Rights Alliance.
Scott explains the unlawful, unconstitutional and fraudulent activities of the banks in South Africa and the legal action that NewERA brought against the four major banks and the Reserve Bank of SA. Click on this link to view: Scott Cundill Interview
Scott Cundil Interview on Radio Today – Regarding Banking Activity and Corruption
Click Here to listen to the interview with Scott Cundill
Securitisation and debt markets: an industry of lies and deception
Acts Online News; Posted 02 March 2016 Written by Jack Darier
In the first of this two-part article, Jack Darier delves into the murky world of securitisation, and how banks are able to side-step the law in grabbing the homes of upwards of 10,000 South Africans each year. It’s all accomplished with legal trickery and the blessing of the courts.
The economic underworld of bankruptcy for profit – Part 1
Posted 24 April 2016 Written by Acts Online
Professor William Black, an expert on banking and economics from the US, testified in 2015 before the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis in Ireland. In his testimony, he pointed out that the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 is certain to repeat because none of of the criminal bankers that bankrupted the country had been sent to jail – unlike the “Savings and Loans” crisis nearly two decades earlier in the US, which resulted in more than 1,000 convictions. One of the indicators that tell us banks are making “liar loans” is the speed at which lending is growing. If Prof Black is right, modern banking will sink us all. It is predicated on a business model of bankruptcy for profit. This is a long read, but well worth it for the deep insight Professor Black provides into the crisis and the criminal mentality of the bankers who were bailed out by taxpayers.
The economic underworld of bankruptcy for profit – Part 2
Posted 26 April 2016 Written by Acts Online
In the second part of this series, William Black gives testimony before the Inquiry into the banking crisis in Ireland. He talks from a US perspective, but explains how to tell when banks are behaving recklessly (when their loan books are growing faster than the economy), how bankers have lobbied politicians to get rid of pesky legislation that inhibits their gambling instincts and how they have managed to avoid going to jail. This is fascinating testimony into the dark heart of modern banking.
A big thanks to Ciaran from Acts-Online! He helped us nail it down. Sterling work!
RSA – more on Securitization
Explanation on securitization:
Affidavits from a South African expert on finance and a statistician:
The final proof! Thanks to Ciaryn from acts.online.co.za and to Ash Davenport:
Another RSA Court Ruling for precedent:
UBUNTU Party Explains Home Loans at 0% Interest
By Stephen Goodson: ex director and shareholder of the SA Reserve Bank and Ubuntu Candidate. Friday, 2 May 2014
Under the existing paradigm if a buyer of a house wishes to finance it, he/she applies for a loan from a bank and then is required to repay it over a 20 year period plus an annual interest charge of 10% per annum as well as other sundry expenses. Most people are under the impression that the bank loans this capital sum by utilising the savings of a depositor and the difference of 4% in interest rates (10% for the borrower and 6% for the saver) represents the bank’s profit margin.
This is NOT the case.
Provided that the bank has lodged sufficient reserves with the SA Reserve Bank such as cash and Treasury bills, it can lend up to 14 times that amount for home loans. What the bank then does is to credit the home loan account of the borrower with say R500,000, which is then represented as an asset on its balance sheet and at the same time creates a fictitious deposit of R500,000 as a liability in order to balance its books. The bank then charges 10% interest on the loan – money which has been created out of nothing or thin air. This method of finance is not only immoral, it is fraudulent. As a result of this deceitful practice it comes as no surprise that homeowners spend more than 50% of their after tax income on repaying capital and interest (as opposed to the accepted norm of 25%) and that almost everyone is struggling to survive in a sea of debt. The UBUNTU Party proposes to solve this problem with immediate effect, by establishing a People’s or State Mortgage Bank. This bank will issue loans at 0% plus a small handling charge, which is necessary in order to run the system. What do local experts think? In an article in the SA Real Estate Investor of May 2011, Introducing the Sovereign Man Breaking Free from Financial Checkmate, Robert Vivian, Professor of Finance and Insurance at the School of Economic and Business Sciences at the University of Witwatersrand questions the morality of banks not lending their own money, but creating it out of nothing and then charging interest on it. He states that “A management fee payable to the bank managing the system seems more appropriate.” New Zealand provides a good example of a state financed mortgage system that has worked successfully in the past. In 1935 New Zealand’s agricultural exports of meat, wool and dairy products were badly affected by the artificially created Great Depression, and were down by 40% compared to five years earlier. There was much poverty and the unemployment rate rose to 27%. Many home owners lost their properties as they were unable to service their mortgages, and were forced to live in squatter camps. There was rioting as a result of food shortages. In November 1935 the Labour Party came to power and in January 1936 amended the Finance Act, which enabled the establishment of a State Housing Project. The first £10 million was provided at an interest rate of 1% per annum, while further advances in excess of that amount were charged at 1 ½% per annum. Within three years everyone was properly housed. The Act also included a public works programme, which enabled the building of hospitals, schools, airports, dams etc. The unemployment rate declined by 75% to less than 7%. Under the UBUNTU Party’s proposal for 0% home loans it will be possible to house the entire population in proper housing (not RDP or NDP matchbox houses) within a period of five years. Not only will this policy create a boom in the housing industry, it will have a positive impact on many related industries, as well as manufacturers of furniture and other household goods. Millions of new and permanent jobs will be created and all other sectors of industry can follow this simple process, creating financial stability for every South African. This is the short-term UBUNTU plan of action and we have no doubt whatsoever that this will be the outcome, based on sound empirical evidence.
Finance and Banking
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
The entire banking system and the industry that supports it is based on an unlawful, exploitative and corrupt foundation. It is the greatest act of deception launched against humanity. The banks break the law thousands of times every day with impunity or or any kind of legal backlash, and destroy the lives of millions of trusting South Africans without an end in sight.
This is the sector of society that has caused the greatest amount of damage to the honest and trusting citizens who believe that the government is their servant and is doing the best it can for our greatest benefit. This is a blatant lie and misperception. Please see the numerous video clips and articles on our research page to learn severe this situation is and how many legal actions there are against banks, governments and ministers around the world.
Together with the legal/justice sector, the financial sector needs a complete overhaul so that it truly serves the people and not the shareholders of the banks or the multinational corporations that are using it as a tool of control over its people.
The misery and hardship caused by the financial industry is almost unimaginable. So much so, that every year many people commit suicide as a result of the unlawful activity of banks. This makes their actions utterly unacceptable in a moral society that upholds human rights above all. Unfortunately the rights of corporations are valued above those of human rights in South Africa. Our personal experience in the Constitutional Court is the living proof of such a statement.
Many have tried to stop the action of the banks in the various courts of South Africa, including the Constitutional Court, only to find that the Justice System is not ‘just’, and not impartial in any way, because even in the face of irrefutable legal argument and evidence against the unlawful activity of the banks, all judgements regarding action against the banks, in the last several decades, have been in favour of the banks.
Read full article of facts on banking and Ubuntu proposals at: http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/2012/08/finance-and-banking.html
The Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party
A Short History of Income Tax, its Effects and its Remedies
The Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party holds that Income Tax is a Marxist invention (point number two of the Communist Manifesto) and should be done away with in a reconstructed South Africa functioning under a new economic system. The system is called Zero Income Tax or Z.I.T.
Income Tax is a system of economic enslavement which is relatively new to this country, only coming into use in 1914 in the greater South Africa. We are convinced that it is a disincentive to economic growth, creating individual misfortune and creating a social climate of dishonesty. The system today is in chaos – many people fall outside “the net” while many others side-step it through “legal” avoidance because they are in a position to pay for the services of so-called tax experts. In a reconstructed South Africa the experts – bookkeepers, tax accountants, and such – will still have work, however, and plenty of it.
Download Manifesto: AITUP MANIFESTO
The author has made an in depth investigation and here is the latest findings:
From Southern Africa
What an independent researcher says:
During 2014, an extraordinary series of “legislation” was “enacted”.
If seen in context of the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent, it seems, adoption of “common law” – best evidence and the law of “obligations” the only conclusion can be that these “laws” were introduced in an attempt to sweep the derivative fraud of the period 2004 to 2014 under the carpet and hope nobody would notice.
- The first attempt is the amended NCA of 2014 – it is obvious that June 2014
Amendment of section 1 of Act 34 of 2005 http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/37665_gon389.pdf
(d) by the substitution for the definition of ‘‘mortgage’’ of the following definition: ‘‘ ‘mortgage’ by the registrar of deeds over immovable property that serves as continuing covering security for a mortgage agreement;’’; (e) by the substitution for the definition of ‘‘mortgage agreement’’ of the following definition: ‘‘ ‘mortgage agreement’ means a credit agreement that is secured by [a pledge of immovable property] the registration of a mortgage bond by the registrar of deeds over immovable property;’’;
In my uninformed opinion, this is an attempt to give weight to the Mortgage Bond and convert it into a “credit agreement” – this is not possible when read with the Deeds Registries Act of 1937
This fraud is to justify summary and effect judgment where the bank is unable to produce the original agreements they sold in a true sale.
The Judges know – they have been told that there will be a systemic collapse of the financial system if they do not comply.
An unprecedented effort, witnessed by Nedbank’s new add “money is only paper and ink” is made to persuade the sheep that this is ok – and it will succeed!
- Registrar of deeds CRC’s (Chief Registrar’s Circular)
In short, when the securitization theft was at an all time high, the CR issued this CRC, enabling the banks to securitize mortgage bonds and then NEVER complete the paperwork. The “note” (Mortgage Loan Agreement) was sold in a true sale to the investors and the proceeds were stolen in off balance sheet transactions to offshore tax havens – out of the SA economy
Subsequently the CRC 11 of 2014 was issued – the only possible reason for this might be to try to hide the CRC 12 of 2007 as is it never existed.
4 months later this CRC appeared, canceling the cession process – by now the NCA was amended to facilitate the “legalization” of a mortgage bond as a “credit agreement”
Judgers are applying the new NCA definition of a bond defined as a credit agreement RETROSPECTIVELY to give judgment against the defendant – this is done on purpose to hide the fraud.
One could argue that “you borrowed the money, you got the house, you must pay” NOT SO these bastards stole so much that the “economy” was artificially collapsed in the biggest theft of wealth in the history of modern life – causing untold hardship and loss of income for the man in the street.
15 August 2014
You can draw your own conclusion on this one – it is a laughable effort to bypass the rules of banking and legalize theft.
It must be noted that these laws, and I am sure there are many more, were all introduced at the same time in a planned effort to move into the age of the “obligation” with no recourse for the consumer – the banks cannot believe their “luck” that they are not all in jail.
The government of South Africa has, as far as I can determine, remover the Government and Municipal debt bonds from the usual suspect, one such is JP Morgan, and is now depositing it into the Development Bank of Southern Africa – this consists of 70 – 80 % of ALL bonds traded on the JSE / STRATE.
I cannot say is this is a good thing, but it has the potential to keep the money in the local economy instead of siphoning it off shore.
There is also a new Stock Exchange in South Africa – https://www.zarx.co.za/company-list all attempts to contact has so far been futile and what we know is what is on the web page.
It does seem to address the agricultural industry in particular.
My opinion is that this is all a move towards BRICS – or what is left of BRICS – South Africa and China.
Please comment, as I think these developments are of great importance and concern – the theft continues unabated!
Taking Action Southern Africa
Does our government acknowledge the abuse and correct the wrongs? NO! Iceland held the banks accountable and grew their economy. Our government leaders took money from the big banks and therefore turned their backs on the people. In the U.S., Wall Street created the scam and was bailed out and banks merely get fines for scams and abuse.
Millions of homeowners are scammed with fraudulent notes, mortgages, fake ‘trustees’ and servicing company abuse. There is NO STANDING and UNCLEAN hands. There is no legal reason for any home to be taken, yet many judges will rule in favour of and stand by the corporate crooks.
We need a full investigation into the banking and BAR legal system in a Truth & Reconciliation Commission with our participation and oversight;
Moratorium on all evictions, foreclosures, forfeiture and repossessions;
To do this lawfully, we need everyone to unite in one action; and we need you to take action; otherwise our hands are tied; so, please support the following;
Together we stand or fall apart
Further Resource material
RSA Foreclosure Defence document examples
For further educational templates also see: https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/notices/
As further reading to this Foreclosures page on Giftoftruth is the Banksters page with some important articles, events, history an speeches providing sufficient logical reason that a private banking cartel took control of the financial system and money markets:
That banking itself is contrary to public perception and that we are in fact operating under revolving, foreclosure bankruptcy laws wherein everything is the opposite to what the people believe; such as that money is merely an IOU;
And, the lines have been blurred between ‘money of account’ and ‘money of exchange’; see: https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/bills-of-exchange/
Sufficient logical reason that predatory capitalism is in fact destroying our environment, health, lands, resources, sovereignty and water, amongst others: https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/capitalism/
More and more experts in fields such as accounting, banking, commerce, economics, environment, finance, investigative journalism, judicial, etc. are speaking out: https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/whistleblowers/