"…For the People…"

Think judges are on the bench with unbiased, non-political and unprejudiced opinions who serve we the people? Think again! Some are just as slimey and rotten as most politicians are, and here is a case in point.

Article by By Jennifer Haberkorn. Read the rest of it here on Politico.

So far, four district court judges have ruled on the merits of the health reform law. Underscoring the political subtext of the legal debate, the judges have ruled along partisan lines.

Two judges, both appointed by Republican presidents, have struck down the law or its main provision. Two other judges appointed by Democrats have upheld the legislation as constitutional.

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the entire health care overhaul is unconstitutional, the most striking blow yet to President Obama’s signature domestic legislation.

But Judge Roger Vinson stopped short of ordering the federal government to stop enacting the law.

Vinson ruled that the law’s requirement that nearly all Americans purchase health insurance coverage is not within the legal bounds of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. (Read Judge Roger Vinson’s Healthcare Ruling [PDF])

Because the provision is instrumental to the rest of the law, he declared the entire law unconstitutional. The law also doesn’t have a severability clause, a common legal phrase that prevents courts from striking down a whole law because one piece has been found to be illegal.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void,” he wrote in his 78-page ruling. “This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.”

So now, my question to Maine AG William Schneider is this:
If it’s unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause for Congress to make us buy health insurance, why isn’t it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause for Maine’s congress to make us buy car insurance, hmmmmmm????

DISCLAIMER: This is not, by far, an exhaustive compilation of information and it also is NOT legal advice. For that, contact a lawyer. All this is is a simple list of points and information that is readily available online.

(See my previous post for points 7-9)

10. UCC Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 1002 and 1003 state that the original document should be produced in court when its terms are material to the argument and that a duplicate is NOT admissible if there is a genuine question raised as to the authenticity of the original or in circumstances that would be unfair to accept the duplicate in place of the original. So far, using the previous 9 points, you have given enough proof to not only question the fairness of accepting the duplicate filed in the case of your mortgage note, but also have given enough doubt as to whether the original even exists anymore.

11. Under Carpenter v. Longan, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument MUST follow the promissory note. But if the promissory note points to one party and the deed to a separate party, then the chain of title is broken. Bifurcation has occurred. Since you have shown that your loan was securitized, thus the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument being separated from the note, it is proof that the chain of title has been broken. And since every Deed of Trust/Security Instrument states specifically that it is subject to be applicable to state and federal laws, the assignment of the promissory note WITHOUT the corresponding Deed of Trust/Security Instrument, violates state law. Sec. 109(b) of Revised Article 9 of UCC which was enacted into law in every state provides in Comment 7, “… [O]ne cannot obtain a security interest in a lien, such as a mortgage on real property, that is not also coupled with an equally effective security interest in the secured obligation.” This is a serious breach of the terms of the Deed of Trust/Mortgage. When a party to a contract breaches that contract it makes the contract (promissory note) voidable. If the terms of the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is shown to be in violation of state law, then it too is defective. If it is defective, then it cannot be used to give the lender the “due on sale” clause. The terms of the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument must be respected in whole and one cannot pick and choose which part to respect and which part to ignore.

12. When a loan is changed into stock through the REMIC Trust, the shareholders of that trust became the true holder in due course. This could be THOUSANDS of them. With that amount of parties and with these parties changing hands literally daily, it would be impossible to track them at the County Record. So, the bankers got together and created MERS (Mortgage Electronics Registration Systems). In creating MERS, the banks could now circumvent county registration fees and not pay taxes. The banks feel that they will be insulated from this fraud because the mortgages were sold into the SPV/REMIC trust fund as a method of controlling their liability. The problem was that because they never actually transferred the note (and if they did, why didn’t they pay taxes, hmmm?) (as might be in your case if the transfer took place months after the closing date of the trust fund your note was sold into), so the whole creation of the SPV/REMIC trust fund was fraudulent. Banks are now looking at the choice of either tanking the entire portfolio back onto their books at MASSIVE losses (it would break the bank) or explaining to the states and IRS why trillions of dollars of taxes were not paid, which is Tax Fraud. MERS functions as a registry much like the County Recorder. But what is unique about MERS is that they are either named as beneficiary or a nominee on the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument. This causes several problems. The first being that to be a beneficiary, one has to put up the money to fund the loan. MERS never fronted even a dime for the loan. The second problem is MERS recordation is NOT official. The only legally recognized recordation on public record is with the County. The third problem is that MERS is NEVER a true “holder in due course” as the promissory note was never assigned to them. Thus, they do not have standing to assign it to anyone else. A recorder is just that, a recorder. They do not have the authority to appoint anyone or assign anything to anybody. MERS is NOT a real or beneficial party of interest and this has been validated in many Federal court decisions to include MERS themselves in an appeal they filed in Nebraska. Also, by MERS own words in a foreclosure handbook they made. In this handbook, they even describe how to get around the fact that they don’t hold the promissory note (they admit that the servicer holds it as well as being the record mortgage holder) by having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS so there can be an “in house” transfer of possession of the note so that MERS would be considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosure! (See footnotes on page 46 of the MERS Foreclosure Handbook). And the fact that mortgage lenders, banks and lawyers went along with this is just mindboggling and makes them as much of integral part of committing this fraud as MERS. In fact, MERS admits such in their appeal case and handbook and name some of the major banks. Look at your loan. It states that the LENDER from time to time may appoint a substitution of trustee. Nowhere does it state the NOMINEE may appoint one. If MERS can not assign it to anyone else, then they couldn’t assign it to the bank suing you. Thus, the bank is NOT the true “holder in due course” and does NOT have standing to foreclose, as the law and many court cases say that they must have to file suit. When we have a situation where state law is being violated through improper assignment, the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is made invalid. When the trustee is being appointed by some party, in this case MERS, that is not given the proper authority to do so, this also casts issue to make the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument defective. In filing an assignment in the County Record where clearly MERS has no right to assign anything and when the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is invalid or defective, this is considered Felony Land Record Fraud.

To Be Continued…..

DISCLAIMER: This is not, by far, an exhaustive compilation of information and it also is NOT legal advice. For that, contact a lawyer. All this is is a simple list of points and information that is readily available online.
(See my previous post for points 1-6)

7. Under the Uniform Commercial Code which governs negotiable instruments, the right for a bank to enforce the instrument and to foreclose, is subject to being a “real party of interest” or “holder in due course”. If the loan has been sold, as is the case of a secured trust, then the bank can no longer claim that they are a party of interest or the holder. They got paid for the loan twice already; the securitization of the trust and sold as stock and then paid by the appreciation of that stock. So, in trying to collect again without being a real party in interest or the holder and KNOWING they aren’t is a fraud. In filing this claim knowing that they are not a real party in interest, they have committed a fraud upon the court.

8. Once a loan has been converted into stock, it no longer is a loan. A negotiable instrument can only be in ONE of two states when it undergoes securitization, but NOT BOTH at the same time. It can be either a loan and treated and governed as such, or as stock and treated and governed as such. But once converted to stock, it is forever stock. When a promissory note gets converted into stock, that promissory note no longer exists. Because a Deed of Trust/Security Instrument, SECURITIZES a promissory note and if that promissory note is destroyed or no longer exists (as it is when converted into stock), then that trust is invalid. The trust secures nothing. “Mortgage is not a “debt”, but merely a security for payment of debt”- Maine vs Clack 33 P.2d 283, 43 Ariz. 492 (1934). And since the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is what gives the bank the right to foreclose and that Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is invalid, then the bank loses their right to foreclose. In order to enforce a debt obligation secured by a mortgage and note, a party must be in possession of the note. See Premier Capital, Inc. v. Doucette, 2002 ME 83, ¶ 7, 797 A.2d 32, 34 (describing a note associated with a mortgage as a negotiable instrument). Once a REMIC is formed, its assets (your loan pooled with many others) are declared a permanent fixture to the REMIC. This is registered with the SEC. You can not register one thing with the SEC and stock market, and then after the money is transferred, switch out the asset. This is called “switch and bait”. In other words, once an asset is registered and traded as part of the security, you can’t just switch it out because it has become a permanent fixture of the traded asset. This is a permanent conversion. And this is also why it is so very important for the ORIGINAL “wet ink” mortgage loan note to be produced. If it got destroyed, by being converted into stock, then the loan has been paid for. It also breaks the chain of title. Because ONLY the original promissory note has the legally binding chain of title. When a loan goes into default, the REMIC writes it off. Once that happens, the REMIC gets tax credits from the IRS. This means it is settled. The note is gone and paid for. The only way the bank can now try to foreclose on a property is to buy it back from the open market just like any other debt collector does. And since the debt has been written off and is no more, the bank buys it for pennies on a dollar. They then try to reattach the converted loan to the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument and try to say that they are the real party of interest. In trying to foreclose on your property knowing this (or should know as it is basic banking and trading practices), the bank and their lawyer have committed fraud by submitting false documentation claiming that the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is valid thus being the real party in interest and holder in due course. By reattaching the loan to the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument they have deceived the court and you by adhesion, (which you must object to) and both the bank AND their lawyer should be sanctioned for fraud by adhesion. Because your loan was securitized, it destroyed the note, so anything brought into the court as evidence by the bank and their lawyer is prima facie evidence of counterfeit fraud. They also are attempting to steal your home through these fraudulent means which is attempted theft. They also have committed securities fraud. Because if the loan and the stock exists at the same time it is known as double dipping. And double dipping is a form of securities fraud. All of this is clearly deceptive trade practices. “Fraud vitiates the most solemn Contracts, documents and even judgments” [U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, at pg. 65].

9. Look in the papers that the bank/lawyer filed in the court and see if there is something like a Notice of Important Rights. It is usually at the end of their points/reasons for their claim and what they want the court to do. It might look something like THIS. Notice in the very first line is the same exact line that all debt collectors use when contacting you. If you have ever gotten a phone call, this is usually the very first thing you hear. And it also states “the name of the original creditor is…”. A company may sell the asset (your loan) to a debt collector who will do everything in their power to collect on the debt. A debt collector is someone who (is not the original creditor) buys an offsetted debt and tries to collect on it. Debt collectors use deception to convince people (in this case, the court, the County Record of Deeds and you) that they were assigned the debt. (As proof by the assignments they are using as evidence in your case). Once a debt has been written off for tax purposes, it is discharged. It cannot be collected again. The individual shareholders of the REMIC are the real and beneficial interest holders of your promissory note. Since the many shareholders cannot individually endorse and assign their portion of the loss, they have to write it off as a bad debt. The trustee of the REMIC cannot do it either, because s/he is not the real and beneficial holder of the promissory note. The only way the bank can try to foreclose now is to rely upon the same deceptive practices used by all debt collectors. THEY ARE ONLY A DEBT COLLECTOR NOW. This is why they need to put a notice that they are attempting to collect a debt on their correspondence (the original creditor doesn’t have to do this), just as the bank did in their complaint. So this is FURTHER proof that both the bank AND their lawyer are well aware and KNOWINGLY committing frauds upon the court and you.

To Be Continued…..

Well, seems to me like our government REALLY enjoys screwing us! Think Obama is STILL working for the commn working man and cares about OUR families? Watch this video and then rethink that idea!

Since there has been quite a hub-bub about this email that went around and caused quite a stir about Chinese towns being slated for each state (see my article Maine to Be Home for Communist Towns) and people asking me for proof beyond just the email and 2 links provided, I decided to do some research.

Yes, the map included does show that there are 257 FTZ’s. What it doesn’t show is for what it is slated for or to whom they will be assigned to. So, I went to the source of the email that was sent to me. It was distributed by a group named the Second Amendment Committee which was founded by Bernadine Smith. I called Ms. Smith and asked her a few questions to clarify and verify this information (her phone number is on the page at the Second Amendment Committe site). What she told me was that in Idaho, a website publication called the Idaho Statesman ran an article on Dec. 31, 2010, “Chinese Company Eyes Boise”. The synopsis is this: “Build a 10,000 to 30,000 acre “TECHNOLOGY ZONE” south of the Boise airport with homes and retail centers to be leased to the COMMUNIST CHINESE with full landing rights to the airport.” Well this quickly caused concern and a campaign for everyone around the US to write their federal senators and reps with calls objecting to allowing the Chinese communists to have territory within the United States (Idaho) for the purpose of setting up communist-owned businesses with full landing rights in our airports.
Some research was done and it was found that apparently 2 FTZ’s in Idaho were slated for assignment to the Chinese government to implement this plan. So, Ms. Smith looked and saw that there are 257 other FTZ’s all over the US and was concerned about what THOSE were going to be used for and by whom? So thus, the email that has gone far & wide. She never said that ALL 257 were slated for the Chinese government (that somehow got lost in the transfer of information), but did say, “if 2 FTZ’s in Idaho are being slated for them (Chinese government), then how many more might be? This is a question that everyone should be asking their federal government  legislators and also telling them your concerns about the plan of the Idaho FTZ’s being slated for them right now”.
So now, for much more information about the Idaho situation please go read here:

Second Amendment Committee Blog

The Idaho Statesman

I agree with Ms. Smith that in light of what is transpiring in Idaho that each patriot must be diligent and call their federal senators and reps and find out what is planned for the FTZ’s in their state and also tell them that it won’t be acceptable for ANY American  FTZ to be assigned to the Chinese government, PERIOD! Because even ONE assigned to the communist Chinese government is one TOO many!

If our  federal governmental legislators are so concerned in saving our money (they say that this will help save money in trading with them) then here’s a plan for a good start: Why don’t they put a freeze on their own pay raise hikes for the next 5 years and cut in half what they make now (most of them don’t even earn THAT half either IMHO) and then take THAT money savings and pay the import/export fees and taxes in stead of bringing communism onto our land? I won’t trade what is left of my sovereignty just to save a few bucks, TYVM! And neither should any other red blooded American patriot!

(Note: I’m not advocating a Constitutional Convention. The object is to show that the Congress is ignoring we the people. Even if the end results is a good thing, the fact is, they are ignoring us. And the vast majority of the time, it’s to our detriment.That is the point of this post.)

Friends Of the Article V Convention (FOAVC) writes:

Congress Defies Article V of the U.S. Constitution by Ignoring Hundreds of Article V Applications From All 50 states:

When it comes to amending the U.S. Constitution, Congress has shown respectful behavior to one type of action by states: state decisions on ratification of amendments proposed by Congress. But when it comes to states invoking Article V’s option for a convention of state delegates to propose amendments, Congress has, for the entire history of the nation, blatantly and illegally ignored those state applications.

As part of FOAVC’s project to make available all such Article V Convention applications for public scrutiny, it has made an important observation. Congress has failed miserably (most likely by design) at its duty to track and keep a count of all Article V Convention applications (so that they will know when two thirds of the states have met the prerequisite number for a peremptory Article V Convention). Similar to ratification actions, Congress has categorized these as “memorials” from the states. Congress has referred these “memorials” to the House and Senate judiciary committees where they die, and are filed away in a multitude of volumes of printed Congressional Records (which we have painstakingly collected below), making it very difficult to keep an accurate count.

Also, please see the following Congressional Record which clearly demonstrates that the requisite number of states (i.e. two thirds or more) have already requested an Article V Convention, and Congress on has ignored their peremptory duty to call an Article V Convention:
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE STATES REQUESTS.

Ok. Here is some more foreclosure information I’ve found in my research. Some (or most) you probably already know. But, maybe having them all in one place instead of having to hunt them down just may be of some help in cutting down on the hunting for you.

DISCLAIMER: This is not, by far, an exhaustive compilation of information and it also is NOT legal advice. For that, contact a lawyer. All this is is a simple list of points and information that is readily available online.

1. As we ALL know by now ask for the original “wet ink” promissory note. But, did you know that you also add to that…. and the original Deed of Trust/Security Instrument? That’s right. Ask for BOTH original documents you signed at the closing. This is very important as both must stay together! If they haven’t, bifurcation has occured and the chain of title has been broken. Under Carpenter v. Longan, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument MUST follow the promissory note.
2. Look at your Deed of Trust/Security Instrument. It’ll be a copy. But, it should be a copy of the original by the bank that is foreclosing on you. In other words, if your original lender was Countrywide, but US Bank is foreclosing, then the copy submitted should NOT have an attest that it is a true copy by a Countrywide officer! If US Bank has the original, all they have to do is copy it and attest that it’s a true copy THEMSELVES. And the original of course won’t have an attest of true copy stamp on it! This is a sure sign that the bank foreclosing doesn’t have the original.
3. If your promissory note was securitized, meaning your lender sold it to a REMIC Trust Fund, this action needs to be recordered in your county record as an assignment. Alot of times, since most lenders used MERS, this wasn’t done. Look up your trust fund information online (just put the name of the trust into google and up it’ll pop) and check out the dates. Most trust funds have the creation date as it’s name. For example… SAIL 2006-3. This means that it was created in 2006-March. In this document you’ll also find the closing date. If your assignment that the bank is using has a date AFTER that closing date, then it is fraudulant. Because once it’s in the trust fund, it has been de-securitized and sold as stock. Once it’s stock, FOREVER stock. It can NOT be re-converted to a promissory note. The note is destroyed once turned into stock. And since the bank is now using a copy of that destroyed note by assigment in the county records, it is securities fraud because a promissory note is a security note. It is also counterfiet fraud because it’s a COPY.
4. Whenever an assignment is recordered, you, as the owner must be notified by the entity recording that assignment. Check your state laws on this issue. In most cases, since it was done much later than the creation of the trust fund that your note was sold to, you never were notified.
5. FAS (Financial Accounting Standards) 140 governs the sale and securitization of a negotiable instrument. It states that once an asset is sold, the seller forever loses the ability to control the asset. So, they sold their right to enforce, control, or otherwise foreclose on your property. They are no longer the real party in interest because now it is the shareholders of the REMIC Trust who own the note. They (the bank) are now just a servicer. They can not have their cake (the money from the sale of your note as stock at 1.5% face value of your note plus 10% appreciation) and eat it too (getting money from you for the promissory note that they sold). They have been PAID IN FULL for the loan. So, since the shareholders are the ones who own the note (now coverted to stock), the bank bringing the foreclosure suit are NOT the real party in interest and does NOT have standing to sue!
6. At the signing of the promissory note and Deed of Trust/Security Instrument something very interesting happens. Unbeknown to the borrow (but well known to the lender, thus having “superior knowledge”) that promissory note becomes a negotiable note in the amount of what the borrower believes the lender is loaning to them. The lender then deposits this negotiable note (just like you would a check) into their account which creates a positive deposit in that amount. They then take that amount of money and pay the seller. They then take the promissory note and either sell it to another bank or through a SPV to a REMIC Trust Fund where the note gets converted into stock and they get 1.5% of the face value of the note plus 10% appreciation of the stock. NOWHERE has the lender ever fronted ANYTHING of value towards this contract. But yet, they have made money, thus being unjustly enriched. In a contract there is supposed to be “I give something of value, and in return you give something of value”. Where is the “something of value” from the lender? What has the lender given? NOTHING! They created money based upon the borrower’s signature. It is the borrower whose credit has created the money of which the lender deposited into their account and paid the seller with. The lender hasn’t put a dime towards this “loan”, thus hasn’t loan anything. In stating in the promissory note that they have loaned you $amount when they haven’t loaned a dime, is a lie. For a contract to be valid, full and fair disclosure (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act [RESPA]) and a meeting of the minds or consensus ad idem MUST be in existence (Basic Contract Law). And since they misrepresented the loaning of money, this is a misrepresentation of a material fact and is Fraud in Factum. And since they didn’t disclose this to you because they knew you probably wouldn’t sign the contact if you knew, it is Fraud of Inducement also a misrepresentation of a material fact. .”Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes ‘fraud,’ and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817.
To Be Continued…..

Here is Maine’s Code of Judicial Conduct. So, if you think the judge in your case did not fulfill his/her judicial responsibilities correctly by the canons of law, you do have redress. Judicial Disciplinary decisions are issued by the Judicial Branch Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. Information about the Judicial Branch Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics is available on the Judicial Branch Cimmittees webpage at this link: www.courts.state.me.us/maine_courts/education/committees.shtml.

Also, here’s a link on Maine Court Rules that might be of help as well!