Watch the video broadcast at:
https://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/11/occupy_homes_new_coalition_links_homeowners
Occupy Homes: New Coalition Links Homeowners, Activists in Direct Action to Halt Foreclosures
A loose-knit coalition of activists known as "Occupy Homes" is working to stave off pending evictions by occupying homes at risk of foreclosure when tenants enlist its support. The movement has recently enjoyed a number of successes. We speak with Monique White, a Minneapolis resident who is facing foreclosure and recently requested the help of Occupy Minneapolis. Now two dozen of its members are occupying her home in order to stave off eviction. We are also joined by Nick Espinosa, an organizer with Occupy Minneapolis, and Max Rameau, a key organizer with Take Back the Land, who for the past five years has worked on direct actions that reclaim and occupy homes at risk of foreclosure. "The banks are actually occupying our homes," Rameau says. "This sets up for an incredible movement, where we have a one-two punch. On the one hand, we’re occupying them on their turf, and on the other, we’re liberating our own turf so that human beings can have access to housing, rather than them sitting vacant so that corporations can benefit from them sometime in the future."
This idea bothers me because I think this obscurs the fact that many home owners have better solutions available to them in court. Many banks can't even produce the original mortgage certificate and the homeowner could be walking away with their own home and never have to make another payment again. Even if the bank can produce the original paperwork, there is fraud involved as most people believe the bank is actually lending them money they already have, not just creating it with the mortgaee's signiture. I'm not sure, but I would think there are those in court who have fought on similar issues and won.
I fear that in the end, this squatter tactic will loose in court and a military/police action will be taken to kick these people out.
Yes, spell check has been there for a few months. I'm not sure, but I believe it was done because of my request. The guys who run the gathering spot are great!
there was a man who won a case, and his house back, by calling the owner of the bank to the stand, and, under oath, the banker admitted that the bank had never put up a dime to match the man's down payment. that case was many years ago however, and my gues is that that "loophole" was closed long ago. But, maybe only in that state. i urged my brother to try that one in Florida, but he has lost the will to start a case against the system, as he is looking forward to starting anew........
As I recall, in the interview on Democracy Now, they mention doing just that.... asking the bank to produce the mortgage note. I think the occupy strategy is mainly for people who have already lost their homes or have exhausted all other options.
It's certainly not a new tactic. Not long ago, a governor (can't remember which State she was from) was advocating that people stay in their homes, when being foreclosed, and to demand the bank produce the note.
P.S. Hey Wendy, looks like they've put a spell check program on G-spot!
(Update..... my mistake. When I turned off my Javascript, it enabled spellcheck, but it also wiped out my formatting.)
Tscout, without the mortgage note, the bank has no proof of the debt. By surrendering to the banks illegal repossession, your brother is not only hurting himself, he's feeding the corrupted system, which enables it to continue victimizing other homeowners.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but we as a society can no longer afford to comply with a parasitic system. It exists because we allow it to feed upon us. Everytime we look the other way or can't be bothered with changing it, the system grows larger, more controlling and unfair.
Is this the kind of world you want to live in? Is this the kind of world you want to leave for your children? It's time each of us takes responsibility for the mess we're in and realize that our personal decisions matter. What we do individually affects the whole.
Let's take back our power and stop complying with what we know in our hearts is wrong.
Not sure if I mentioned this before on here - but there is a new idea going around that one of the reasons that the bank has the ability to go through all of the conbtortions in the mortgage process is because ultimately, we the "buyers" never actually accept the deed from the seller - thus creating an abandoned property which the bank takes for themselves.
This is a VERY interesting concept - as the orignal deed from the seller conveys the property "free and clear of all encumbrances" to the buyer. So how could there be a mortgage (an encumbrance) associated with that deed? Technically - because we never accept it as such. So since it hasn't been acknowledged by the buyer (the grantee) the bank can over-ride it with a mortgage deed.
Once we re-record the original deed with an acknowledgment of acceptance by a living man (non strawperson) we get the property free and clear of all encumnrances just as the deed says! Also interestingly - the statutes support re-recording of the original for corrections with an addendum - with the statement that the deed need not be "acknowledged again." WOW - you mean it was supposed to be acknowledged the first time?? YES.
You can read more here:
http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com/study-resources/
Not sure if I mentioned this before on here - but there is a new idea going around that one of the reasons that the bank has the ability to go through all of the conbtortions in the mortgage process is because ultimately, we the "buyers" never actually accept the deed from the seller - thus creating an abandoned property which the bank takes for themselves.
This is a VERY interesting concept - as the orignal deed from the seller conveys the property "free and clear of all encumbrances" to the buyer. So how could there be a mortgage (an encumbrance) associated with that deed? Technically - because we never accept it as such. So since it hasn't been acknowledged by the buyer (the grantee) the bank can over-ride it with a mortgage deed.
Once we re-record the original deed with an acknowledgment of acceptance by a living man (non strawperson) we get the property free and clear of all encumnrances just as the deed says! Also interestingly - the statutes support re-recording of the original for corrections with an addendum - with the statement that the deed need not be "acknowledged again." WOW - you mean it was supposed to be acknowledged the first time?? YES.
You can read more here:
http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com/study-resources/
Know your rights and stake your claim...
http://divinecosmos.com/media/KEITH_SCOTT_GETTING_BACK_TO_BASICS.pdf
Banks do not actually lend money on secured debts, period. All banks are chartered as a third party debt collector for the Treasury/Central Banks. ALL MORTGAGE AND SECURED DEBT payments are technically payments on the Treasury Debt. What is looked at as a “loan” is simply a guarantee by the ‘buyer’ that they will personally assume X amount of the National debt. In fact, it should be a payment of the custodial use of the gold owing to International Collateral Combined Accounts. All of these “mortgages” are actually guarantees for these payments for the custodial debt for use of the gold. The banks are using this fraudulent scheme and withholding the payments for the custodial use by holding the real payments in the bank and not passing it along to the Treasury/Central Bank. The Banks are using the banking charter in a fraudulent manner, and are simply thieving the money paid by the citizens that is owed to the National Treasury for the use of the gold.
THEY ACTUALLY CREATE THE MONEY AGAINST THE SIGNATURE OF THE MORTGAGE NOTE MAKER. THEY DID NOT LEND ANYTHING. THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE MORTGAGE PAPERS IS THE MORTGAGE NOTE MAKER.
The scheme broadens when the note is not “registered”. The banks under their charter have a duty to perform per charter. How they avoid this is by keeping the note and mortgage contract on the private side by not registering those in the public. The registration creates the ‘exemption’ so that the debt/credit can actually go Treasury Direct. By holding the note and contract privately, the banks are in violation of the public charters …THEY ARE NOT PRIVATE BANKS…THEY ARE PUBLIC BANKS UNDER CHARTER AS THIRD PARTY DEBT COLLECTORS on behalf of their National Treasuries. (YES, the Treasuries belong to the Nation, not the country) They are supposed to be collecting the money from these loans and paying back to the Treasury. Failure to make these pass backs by moving transactions to the Private Side is fraud against the Treasury. Worse, the banks have already entered in their ledgers the liabilities of the transaction against the Treasury.
Apart from cheating the Treasury from wrongful use of a public charter, but in acting in the private for private gain, they are also cheating the people. Although the people are not aware, the banks, the courts, and all chartered companies/corporations are simply there as third party debt collectors for the debt of the State on the custodial use of the International Collateral Combined.
This is what has thrown the matter into the present problem. Since the note and mortgage contract are being held on the private side, the banks have conspired with the bonding agencies and gotten Triple A rating for this private paper, and then went and sold the paper publically. This is an act of ‘conspiracy’, almost certainly created by lack of due diligence on the part of the bonding companies. The individuals and even governments which have bought this so called “Triple A Paper” have legal recourse against the bonding companies … The entire process is no more than a pure conspiracy to defraud.
WHY IS THIS?
IT IS BECAUSE THE BANK HAS A LICENSE TO DO "CONVERSION". THAT IS, TO CONVERT THE SIGNATURE OF THE MORTGAGE NOTE MAKER INTO MONEY OF ACCOUNT. IN OTHER WORDS THE MORTGAGE NOTE IS NOT A LOAN FROM THE BANK, BUT A CONVERSION OF THE SIGNATURE OF THE NOTE MAKER TO VALUE.
Here again, we need to look at just what conversion is, how it should work. First, a bank cannot “convert” a debt. A note is evidence of a debt … a ‘promise’ to pay something in the future. There is actually nothing to convert.
Conversion has nothing to do with a debt. Conversion means to take a private asset (something real such as gold held in the International Collateral Combined Accounts) and use it for the creation of “credit”, not debt. The banks can extend credit, but the provider of the asset is the principal for the conversion of the asset into credit which is usable in commerce. The party which uses the credit is the debtor, etc., just standard commerce. This is why the banks also cheat the investors in selling the mortgage papers. There is no actual underwriting because the mortgages are not being registered correctly at the Treasury.
BUT …, let us take this further. The banks cannot ‘convert’ the promissory note of the home buyer into anything … impossible to do. So, it is not really conversion of the mortgage note that is going on here, BUT THE SIGNATURE ON THE NOTE!!!
WHEN THE BANK SAYS THEY LOANED THE MONEY, THIS IS FRAUD. THEY LOANED NOTHING.
Where a bank has implied or stated that they are lending their money, this is fraud against the government and fraud against the note maker. The bank converts the signature for value through Treasury Direct and ledgers the value. The bank does not lend money, it issues money against Treasury Direct.
If such a statement is made in the documents relating to the issue of the loan, this is fraud and the loan cancelled and all monies paid on that implied loan or against and all losses due to the fraud become recoupable by the note maker.
Just an update that I have successfully re-recorded my original deed with a private acknowledgment - and guess what? My property is no longer listed on the county tax role - no kidding... They just removed it completely.
I don't think any corporate fiction can claim a superior claim to that of a "private living man."
What does it mean, 1- "I just re-recorded my original deed..." 2- "...with a private acknowledgement." ?
Thanks,
John
See below for why people are turning to PRIVATE remedies. Here is the gist of a private acknowledgment:
Original seller grants the "deed" to the buyer. The seller of the deed is a public fiction (strawman name on the deed) and the buyer of the deed (usually through a fictional bank instrument) is also a public fiction on the deed. A private acknowledgment is by the LIVING MAN - and states such in the wording. This is the FIRST NON FICTION TO SHOW UP IN THE TRANSACTION - and will be the last one too! So a re-recording is of the originbal deed - not the mortgage deed. It is recorded again - with the acceptance page, and gets a new number from the clerk. Google Robb Ryders's blog for all of the details.
Federal Appeals Court Says Securitized Note Is Still Enforceable
10th Circuit Court rules MERS has the right to enforce deed of trust
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACTS:
Janis L. Smith
Phone: 703-738-0230
Email: [email protected]
Karmela Lejarde
Phone: 703-761-1274
Email: [email protected]
Reston, Virginia, Feb.10, 2012The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in Scarborough v. LaSalle Bank, MERS, et al. that securitizing a promissory note does not invalidate a borrowers debt, nor does it cancel the note holder and its agents authority from enforcing the deed of trust.
[T]he instant case is but the latest in a series of nearly identical cases filed by Scarboroughs attorney on behalf of various clients in Utah seeking mortgage relief on the theory that the securitization of a mortgage renders the holder of the underlying trust deed and its nominees unable to foreclose absent authorization from every investor holding an interest in the securitized mortgage, Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe wrote. This court recently affirmed the dismissal of three of those prior cases, and in doing so rejected not only their central theory, but also their accompanying causes of action, all of which were identical to those asserted by Scarborough in his complaint.
The idea that securitizing a loan cancels the borrowers obligation to pay his debt is erroneous, said Janis L. Smith, MERSCORPs Vice President of Corporate Communications. The 10th Circuit Courts ruling not only emphasizes this, but it also confirms that note holders and their representatives, which includes MERS, have the right to enforce the deed of trust.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over federal cases originating in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.
###
--