Archive for January 26, 2011

Clarification of the 257 FTZ’s Chinese Towns

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!

Congress Ignores States Request for Article V Convention

(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:

Seismic activity around the world

More Foreclosure Information

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…..

Maine’s Code of Judicial Conduct

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:

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