December 10, 2016

 

You decide. It is against equity to deprive freemen of the free disposal of their own property. Wells Fargo controls the state and federal courts. Should one be allowed to pay off his mortgage and be allowed to sell his property? The following is a transcript of a USMD hearing. The attorneys used the WF “secret” Manual to deceive the courts, doing so perfectly. The property is 285 East Broad Street in Ozark, AL.

 

CASE #: 1:14-CV-00013-WHA-CSS

Mizell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al (MAC+) Assigned to: Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III Referred to: Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody Case in other court: Circuit Court of Dale County, Alabama, CV-13-000006 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 01/03/2014 DateTerminated:05/30/2014 JuryDemand: Plaintiff Plaintiff NatureofSuit:440Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

After weeks of delay the audio CD of the hearing was purchased. Sony Audio software converted the audio to a wave file. Dragon Naturally speaking transcribed the audio into text. Even the extremely low volume was brought forth.

 

Plaintiff

Haywood Jackson Mizell

Defendant:

Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.                                 represented by Stephen K. Pudner

Hearing proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Motion Hearing held on 2/28/2014 RE; Docket #8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Wells Fargo Bank:, N.A.

In Gallery: James B. Graham

Began 10 AM lasted 16 minutes

 

Judge Charles S. Coody:

We are here for argument on the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in Mizell versus Wells Fargo Bank 14 civil 13.

Mr. Mizell. Good morning.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

Good Morning, Sir.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

I’ve read all of your materials.

And you raise a number of arguments all of which are soundly rejected by the Alabama courts. So why shouldn’t the motion to dismiss be granted?

You can pull the microphone down a little bit to you so you can speak into it. I understand you need to sit and I understand and that’s fine.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

The first thing I think, is that the removal from the state to the federal court is in question, from my perspective. First of all, I don’t think that the federal courts have any jurisdiction over property in Alabama.

There were three items involved; one of them was distance, and of course Wells Fargo qualifies there. They are in Iowa and we Alabama for diversity of location, but the other one was that the property has value. From my perspective and from everybody who knows anything about real estate since it is without title that the property value is zero. So they can’t possibly qualify under that because they destroyed the method of getting any title. So since it doesn’t qualify, my question would be, why are we in this court?

Next, they have a list of procedures that they have to go by. I’m supposed to make a motion for it to be remanded back to the state court. Part is appealable and part is not. So until those issues are resolved, whichever way you rule one way or the other, your remanding to state courts, they will appeal and try their best to prolong over a long period time and since they have deep pockets, they want to spend me into submission.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

What is it that you want any court to do?

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

The court to do. If you look at the original petition, I simply didn’t ask for any money. I just wanted them to bring forward their standing or whether they are the holder-in-due-course. Because they went ahead and said, on the first legal notice, that I was in default. When I was not in default.

I wanted to pay it off. I had money to pay it off, even had it in silver but they wouldn’t give me any indication that they were in possession. Federal law requires, at least most courts require, a lien be perfected by possession. As long as there is somebody out who might have some claim in equity against the legal title to the property, then there is a “cloud” over the title.

Now the city of Ozark bought the property knowing they did not have title. They have the same motive that I had originally, and that is to preserve this very, let’s say, “Mona Lisa painting”, if you will as from some’s perspective about the property.

So that basically what I’m asking the court that if they have something to present, it is very simple. The city of Ozark paid for the debt. There is no question about the debt being satisfied. The law says they must surrender the instrument when full payment is made. It has been over a whole year. So now we have this question before us. We have to know that they have separated the note from the mortgage.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Mr. Mizell, I’ve read that argument. I don’t know why you think that argument has any validity, but it doesn’t have any validity. So don’t waste the court’s time. It is invalid.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

The question is this, they have the note, and just let me have it, that’s all.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well it’s not your note. It’s Faye Mizell’s. You did not sign the note. Alice Mizell signed the note.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

Okay. Something of what I conceded that I don’t know why it was, but the next thing was I signed the security instrument.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

True

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

In the Security Instrument says that the Borrower Covenants. So my job is to defend the title. That is what I’m trying to do, unless I am misguided. Tell me how I am misguided.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

For what purpose are you trying to do that? Look you had a mortgage. You didn’t pay it. They foreclosed on you. Are you telling me that you don’t have to pay a debt you owe?

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

The question is that I was more than happy to pay the debt.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

The fact is, you didn’t pay the debt as you were supposed to. That’s a big difference. Let me ask counsel for the defendant something. Mr. Mizell, for the first time, admittedly does raise an interesting question about jurisdiction of diversity. The original complaint in this case was filed, then there was an amended complaint filed, it was at that point that you moved the case, but didn’t diversity exists at the time of the original complaint.

Defense Counsel Stephen K. Pudner:

Service was never perfected in the state court. The state court had shown Wells Fargo as being served, but was stricken later. They had served on foreclosure counsel, the secretary of the former foreclosure counsel office and the court had shown that as a Wells Fargo service.

Even today Wells Fargo has never been actually served. In the state court we became aware and timely removed as soon as we became aware of the state court lawsuit, but it was not because of the amended complaint being filed.

As soon as we got notice of the lawsuit, we did remove timely. And as far as is there diversity? There is diversity of the properly served parties. And Mizell asked $1.3 million in damages.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Yeah.

All right.

Mr. Mizell, one of the claims that you appear to make, is something that you characterizes as a due process claim. Tell me about that.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I filed this Petition for Injunctive Relief. I had filed a Misprision of Felony and because, even though I didn’t sign the promissory note, I did sign the security instrument. Later I had an exchange with Wells Fargo and they couldn’t talk to me unless I signed that I would be speaking in behalf of my wife, Alice Faye, which I did. And they began talking to me.

Well I left. I didn’t know what it will do that day that was designated to be foreclosed but I had a guy who said he was there. There were a bunch of Sheriff Deputies and a bunch of City Policemen and of Clerk of the Court, I think. I don’t remember exactly, but he reduced that to an affidavit and said he would give it to me. Well, I didn’t know until I actually came up here to the Supreme Court library and found out that this basically is a deprivation of due process rights. Because in all called self-help repossession, all non-judicial, it has to be 100% consent. I had filed in the paper, when they had a legal notice that there was default, that there was no default.

I was prepared to pay and all they had to do was to bring the note and my wife would pay.

I got the affidavit from the sources of the funds. It was Mr. Graham.

Well, we began years ago and he gave me a job which enable me to go to college. So I have very affectionate feelings toward him.

He was been having some serious health problems. Now he is well. In fact I think we should feel honored that he’s in our present now. He is in the courtroom, Mr. James B. Graham. So he said that he reduce his to an affidavit that he was prepared to lend me the money.

I called Wells Fargo and said he was up visiting his father-in-law in Iowa. Our thinking was, if you have the note here Wednesday, we will have the cash there, which is already on deposit in the Birmingham bank in silver. If you will have it here, we will make the exchange.

The Wells Fargo lady says, “We don’t disperse original documents”.

I said, “Well mame, the law says that I must pay. And I got a covenant that sees to it that it’s paid. I will pay it. That is my covenant. If we continue to pay it to the end, then can I get the note?

She said, “No”.

I said, “Mame, you understand the law says you must surrender the note “.

She said, to the exact affect, what she said was that that is the Uniform Commercial Code 3 and we’re not governed by that, we don’t have to abide by that, and I said, will you put that in writing, and also tell me why you think you don’t have to give it. So she sent me a letter that said, we don’t disperse original documents. And we are not required to do so because we never filed it in public office. She stated that it was in at 2107. So that was it, sorry.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Who are you claiming deprived of due property? Who is it that you claim deprived you of due process?

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I don’t know them individually. All I know is they were law enforcement and they were there present.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well, they are not named as defendants in this lawsuit.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I don’t know who they are. I think they are named inside of the affidavit of those who were there present. I think one of them is the city, County Clerk I think his name is David Glen or something like that. I don’t know because I was not there. I cannot speak firsthand.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well if you’re going to make claim about somebody you got to be able to identify them, and we don’t have, we don’t have.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I submit to the people that were there and their testimony to identify them in the affidavit.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well, anything else?

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

Well, I think for a longtime I didn’t understand why they were trying to be so evasive. I did find the law that you know about process service and then they were told to file Title 12. And then Failure to state a claim that relief could be granted. Now I am supposed to move to the state court. I found that it in May one of the Circuit Judges in Dale County ruled on an identical claim. He ruled that the foreclosure deed be null and void, everything reversed. He identified the couple who were the owners of the property, and then said they were subject to the mortgage that was on file at the courthouse.

They came back a little later and try to foreclose again on him. He filed another public notice that he had paid and must have the original document to prove it. On the original document would be the absolute proof that it was “without recourse”, that it had been paid. They didn’t so have. I think it was Citicorp. The judge says that the other side bring forth the mortgage, bring forth the complaint into the Judicial Court and prove the case that states that the couple would have to yield to what they already agreed to pay. At least it would have to be something they had agreed to.

I may not be speaking that in legalese, but I do have a copy of that here if you would like to see that particular ruling.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well that ruling is not applicable here. I don’t think it is the same set of circumstances.

Anything else? Counsel I have read all your submissions.

Defense Counsel Stephen K. Pudner:

Just a quick. I would like to point out that Wells Fargo feels bad for Mr. Mizell’s situation. It appears that he came under the sway of this James Graham who is in the courtroom. He filed similar lawsuit against Wells Fargo in state court 2011 900069 in Dale County. His claims were rejected. He was enjoined from taking any further actions against. He appealed it. His appeal was dismissed. He then filed a lawsuit in this court CV 12-1034. His claim was again rejected and he appealed and the 11^th Circuit rejected his claims. Apparently, he is here to do proxy for Mr. Mizell.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I didn’t hear him. Did he say someone filed a suit?

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well, I heard him Mr. Mizell. I understand.

Gentlemen, I’ll take the motion to dismiss under submission. Mr. Mizell, I have read all of your papers and will consider all the arguments that you have made in writing and this morning. We will be adjourned.

   Long, but perfect example why the swamp must be drained.

November 24, 2016

 

CONFLICT OF INTENTIONS

A married couple, the “borrowers”, wish to make a mortgage loan so that they would be able to purchase a homestead that would be made their home. The mortgage closing date is set with the lender for the completion of the transaction called the “closing”. What is hidden from the couple is the intentions of the lender that will make them peons paying monthly for property they will never own making them renters only. How is that done right before your eyes with the help of law enforcement and the judicial system even though peonage and slavery is prohibited in America?

MORTGAGE STANDARD WITH NOTE EVIDENCING THE DEBT

A “lender” who makes a mortgage loan must have the promissory note that evidences the debt placed in a secure locked, fireproof container. (See EXHIBIT CFR-R 34 CFR 674.19(4)-Fiscal procedures and records)

The original promissory note secured by mortgage must have the mortgage of the real property placed on file at the recorder of deeds and mortgages at the courthouse in the county where the real property is located. (See Ala. Code § 35-4-51.)

The promissory note and mortgage must remain one unit and cannot be separated; therefore, once filed the mortgage is returned by the recorder to the lender. ALABAMA UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT page 46 Paragraph 11(a) evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage must be sold as a unit.

Once paid in full the mortgage loan promissory note instrument must be returned to the borrower stamped paid in full. (See Ala. Code 7-3-501(b) (2) and 7 CFR 1951).

The lender that is the “loan originator” can sell the note and mortgage unit to another lender. The assignment from the “loan originator” to the buyer must be an assignment recorded into public record so that the holder of the mortgage can be always known.

 

The holder in due course of the note and mortgage can delegate the collection of the monthly payments to a company that is the designated servicer. All changes to the service must be identified in writing to the borrower.

 

Should the “lender” elect to sell the promissory note, the assignment must be duly executed and the assignment placed on file in the same courthouse. Each and every assignment must be recorded. The chain of title must remain unbroken. (See Ala. Uniform Securities Act Page 46, Paragraph 11(a)) The purpose of the recording is to give notice to the world of the ownership of the property and who might have interest in the property, the holder-in-due-course of a debt instrument.

Only the holder-in-due-course with the properly assigned note duly recorded can liquidate the mortgage identified as the real property to be used to satisfy the note which is the evidence of debt. (See §7-3-305 Defenses and Claims in Recoupment). In every mortgage loan when the note which evidences the debt is paid in full, then the note must be stamped paid in full and returned promptly to the borrower. (See §7-3-501(b)(2)). When the borrower holds the note then it is clear that the note has been satisfied and taken out of circulation.

In a mortgage loan when a borrower default occurs, consent is given in the mortgage itself and that consent is called “power of sale” in that the property may be liquidated to satisfy the note which is the evidence of debt.

Prepayment of the mortgage loan note satisfies the loan taking the loan out of circulation by stamping the note “paid in full” and returning the note to the signers of the instrument note. The mortgage is thereby extinguished. Should the “lender” improperly refuse prepayment in full, (See American Jurisprudence §618) then the lender has defaulted and must pay treble damages as an operation of law, if a wrongful foreclosure has been conducted.

(See § 55-59.6. Foreclosure; civil penalty for fraud; civil action

C. The owner of the property subject to foreclosure has a civil cause action against a person who has violated this section, and shall be entitled to recover from such person compensatory damages in the amount of three times the damages incurred by the owner as a result of the violation in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs.)

 

It is important to note that in a mortgage foreclosure based on a borrower’s default in payment, legal notice of the time and date of the foreclosure auction conducted with “power of sale” must be published in a local newspaper for three consecutive weeks (four successive weeks where there is no “power of sale”) or the sale is not valid.

When a creditor defaults by improperly refusing prepayment in full, the re-conveyance requires no legal notice publication. See American Jurisprudence § 618.  

CONFLICT: UNSECURED CHECK WHEN SEPARATED FROM

THE MORTGAGE

The borrower couple’s “lender” wished to purchase a promissory note for resale, but wished to mislead the borrowers into thinking that they have received a mortgage loan with the real property to be purchased to become security for the mortgage loan in the event that the borrower defaults.

The “lender”, before the assignment transfer to a buyer investor, the actual lender, wishes to keep its dealings with the promissory note a secret, the usual legal term is fraudulent concealment. Why? Once the promissory note and mortgage is executed and delivered to “loan originator” it can be made into an electronic file after it has been scanned and then, to avoid duplication, the original can be shredded. The promissory note in electronic form can be delivered to buyer after buyer who actually came forward with funds to purchase the promissory note.

Freddie Mac’s procedural manual required physical delivery of the note and mortgage complete with the original signor signatures.  The promissory note sold to Freddie Mac is stamped “WITHOUT RECOURSE PAY TO THE ORDER OF________________” and signed by a corporate official. The promissory note has been changed into a check separated from the mortgage and distributed into commercial trade. No mortgage loan has ever been made, which establishes that false instruments were filed. The “loan originator” is no longer the holder in due course and cannot foreclose with just a check.

Please note that to collect on a check which has no attached “power of sale” for specific property must publish four successive weeks of legal notice in a local newspaper. See Ala. Code § 35-10-3. What bank was the check drawn?

Again, when the “lender” defaults by refusing prepayment in full, re-conveyance is made without publishing notice. The lender cannot refuse payment in full.

Since the borrowers were made to believe that they were making a mortgage loan, they were not asked for consent that the promissory note be transformed into a check for distribution into commercial trade. Therefore, the check is circulated without consent. A false instrument is a “document”, a photocopy bearing no original negotiable instrument signature granting consent.

How the determination is made as to the “lender's” treatment of the promissory note is simple. Once sold a promissory note is not required to be returned to the borrower after the promissory note has been made into a check and put into commercial trade. A promissory note secured by a mortgage must be returned to the borrower if full payment is made. The return of the promissory note defines its being a check or a mortgage.

Central to the understanding of this conflict of intentions between the “borrower” and the “lender” is knowing that the signature on a piece of paper is the property of the signer and is of great value. The signature on a piece of paper constituting a promissory note, the instrument, which becomes tangible property and cannot be destroyed by anyone other than the signer. The signer can destroy the note once it has been paid in full.

The “loan Originator” destroyed the note after it was scanned and transferred to a silent buyer, identified as the investor, and before the false instrument paraded as a mortgage was filed in the courthouse records. No subsequent assignments are on record as checks require no recordation. Having been separated from the mortgage with no recorded assignment, the note is null and void making the mortgage unenforceable.

§ 7-3-305c implies that an investor having bought a check that is separated from the mortgage (a mortgage must be assigned and recorded), is without rights of a holder-in-due-course that is connected with a mortgage. Separation of the note and mortgage renders the note and mortgage null and void. Only the one entitled to the money secured is entitled to foreclose or the ownership of the debt. The holder in due course by assignment or the holder or bearer of the note at the time of foreclosure can foreclose. Ownership of the mortgage does not pass though indorsed in blank. Property cannot be transferred when the foreclosure deed is invalid because of lack of authority to foreclose.  The assignment by an agent to a mortgage cannot be valid other than by possession from delivery of the instrument which consents to “power of sale”.

The couple first learns that something is amiss when a refinance to lower the interest rate is denied. A refinance notes and mortgage made to satisfy the first note and mortgage, would require that the first mortgage, when paid, be returned to the borrower. This cannot be done because the original has been shredded after made into electronic file. An electronic file cannot be stamped paid in full. The separated mortgage on file at the courthouse is a false instrument.

 

Should the couple elect to sell the homestead, no title can be conveyed because the electronic file and the false instrument recorded at the courthouse places a “cloud” over the title. Any potential purchaser requires clear title to the property purchased.

When the borrower wishes to make a prepayment that would result in the surrender of the instrument by the lender if full payment is made. The lender can only refuse to accept prepayment because there is no legitimate evidence of debt.

 

Once the payment in full is refused, a simulated foreclosure allows the lender to cover his fraud by taking possession of the homestead. When the couple refuses to abandon the property to the lender, the lender then seeks a judge’s order for eviction carried out by the sheriff.

 

Now the lender has shown himself to be above the law and secured law enforcement to beckon to his command. An IRS 1099A form is filed that identifies the true lender who then places the electronic file as an asset in an off the books accounting to be used in the Wall Street casino.

In summary, the “loan originator” lender sold its interest to several investors, but had failed to record the assignment of the transfer on public record. The “loan originator” lender used the separated mortgage on file with the County Probate Office as authority to foreclose claiming the check as a valid loan and lien. Publication was made for three consecutive weeks wanting all to believe that the false instruments were a mortgage loan, not a check.

No mention is ever made of the “loan originator’s” improper refusal of prepayment. After all, the financial industry states that they only foreclosed on those who do not deserve to remain in their homes.

Law enforcement presence at a non-judicial foreclosure auction is a state action eliminating a non-judicial foreclosure.

A judge is needed to deny trial by jury and to keep secret the determination of the true lender, the true holder-in-due-course, and the determination of the validity after the separation of the note from the mortgage, or if the mortgage is dead. These are but a few of the issues at controversy-- creditor default by improperly refusing payment, Slander of Title, and Default Judgment.

It is time for the voter to speak. Jesus cast out all of the money changers.   The peons may do the same. Can you feel the anger?

October 17, 2016

 

RECOUPMENT § 7-3-305. Defenses and Claims in Recoupment.

§7-3-305c An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.

15 U.S. Code § 1635 - Right of rescission as to certain transactions

(3) Right of recoupment under State law

Nothing in this subsection affects a consumer’s right of rescission in recoupment under State law.

§ 7-3-501(b)(2). PRESENTMENT.

       Surrender the instrument if full payment is made.

In contract law, rescission has been defined as the unmaking of a contract between parties. Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract (the status quo ante).

BY OPERATION OF LAW means that the only way it can be avoided is by getting a due process court order.

Recoupment: To recover a loss by a subsequent gain. In Pleading, to set forth a claim against the plaintiff when an action is brought against one as a defendant. Keeping back of something that is due, because there is an equitable reason to withhold it. A right of the defendant to have a deduction from the amount of the plaintiff's damages, for the reason that the plaintiff has not complied with the cross-obligations or independent covenants arising under the same contract.

GAAP. On bank’s financial statement all loans are considered assets. The customers promissory note is a liability which it must surrender if full payment is made.  

             On private customer of the bank books, the loan is a liability that must be paid to the bank, the promissory note given the bank is an asset that the bank must return. (Paid-in-Full).            

Recoupment is the return to each his classified asset. The loan is returned to the bank, promissory note returned to borrower.

American Jurisprudence 2d  § 618. Liability for wrongful repossession

It has been said that where the creditor improperly refuses to accept payment of the debt, the creditor is estopped from repossessing the collateral on the basis that the debtor is in default, a conversion action is especially appropriate where wrongful repossession is at issue. (See Chesterton State Bank v Coffey (Ind App) 454 NE2d 1233.)

Above are laws ignored by Circuit Judge Kimberly Clark who ruled after the agreement had been canceled for rescission. With the ignored laws, the borrower was prohibited from selling the Holman House property even when earnest money was paid by the purchaser who then backed out because there was a “cloud” over the title since there was a mortgage with a “Criminal Enterprise”, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Full payment was refused by Wells Fargo even though there were more than adequate deposits on hand in their Bank. Why? Because the “Criminal Enterprise” could produce no authenticated evidence of debt. Wells Fargo just pretended to having made the loan. The IRS was told recently that Freddie Mac was, in fact, the lender. Only the holder in due course can foreclose. Quiet title!

October 16, 2016

 

Hindsight 20/20

THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT

By Bruce Wiseman Thursday, March 19, 2009

Greenspan had been the Fed Chairman for seven years when, in 1994, a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was rewritten by Congress. The new version had the purpose of providing loans to help deserving minorities afford homes. Nice thought, but the new legislation opened the door to loans that set aside certain lending criteria: little things like a down payment, enough income to service the mortgage and a good credit record.

With CRA’s facelift, we have in place two of the five elements of the perfect financial storm: Alan (Easy Money) Greenspan at the helm of the Fed and a piece of legislation that turned mortgage lenders into a division of the Salvation Army.

Perhaps you can see the pot beginning to boil here. But the real fuel to the fire was yet to come.

GLASS-STEAGALL

To understand the third element of the storm, we travel back in time to the Great Depression and the 1933 passage of a federal law called the Glass-Steagall Act. As excess speculation by banks was one of the key factors of the banking collapse of 1929, this law forbade commercial banks from underwriting (promoting and selling) stocks and bonds.

That activity was left to the purview of “Investment Banks” (names of major investment banks you might recognize include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the recently deceased Lehman Brothers).

Commercial banks could take deposits and make loans to people.

Investment banks underwrote (facilitated the issuing of) stocks and bonds.

To repeat, this law was put in place to prevent the banking speculation that caused the Great Depression. Among other regulations, Glass-Steagall kept commercial banks out of the securities.

Greenspan’s role in our not-so-little drama is made clear in one of his first speeches before Congress in 1987 in which he calls for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. In other words, he’s trying to get rid of the legislation that kept a lid on banks speculating in financial markets with securities.

He continued to push for the repeal until 1999 when New York banks successfully lobbied Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Easy-Money Alan hailed the repeal as a revolution in finance.

Yeah, Baby!

A revolution was coming.

With Glass-Steagall gone, and the permissible mergers of commercial banks with investment banks, there was nothing to prevent these combined financial institutions from packaging up the subprime CRA mortgages with normal prime loans and selling them off as mortgage-backed securities through a different arm of the same financial institution. No external due diligence required.

You now have three of the five Horsemen of the Fiscal Apocalypse: Greenspan, CRA mortgages and repeal of Glass-Steagall.

That was a short time ago.

What now?

Ship American jobs overseas.

Encourage more debt and larger homes and unlimited credit card use. In three years when the jobs are lost, foreclose on real property bought with worthless printing press “bail-out money” so that the elite dictators can eat out the substance of the people.

Attire the apathetic in designer clothing. Take IN GOD WE TRUST off the paper money and in the pledge of allegiance.

There can now be no “wrath of god”. Tornado, hurricanes, volcanos, natural disasters and mass murder are all normal behavior, not manufactured crisis for enslavement. We ascended from animals. Situation ethics is to be worshiped. Who cares?

A slave culture will be complete when there arises a champion liar, Marxist leaning leader.

October 15, 2016

 

They came as slaves: human cargo transported on British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. Some were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But are we talking about African slavery? King James VI and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbour.

The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.

By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.

Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.

Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (£50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than £5 Sterling). If a planter whipped, branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which

increased the size of the master’s free workforce.

Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish mothers, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their children and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls (many as young as 12) with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more, in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is also little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.

In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded this chapter of Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong. Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.

But, why is it so seldom discussed? Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims not merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?

Or is their story to be the one that their English masters intended: To completely disappear as if it never happened.

None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.

June 29, 2016

 

It can fairly be said that the chain of catastrophic bets made over the past decade

by a few hundred bankers may well turn out to be the greatest non-violent crime

against humanity in history” Mr. Potter, Vanity Fair Magazine

Can it be said that the current crop of financial thieves are bankers themselves who gamble with “abandoned” deposits now claimed by the bankers as theirs for use in investment casinos on Wall Street? Are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren correct?

The current victim is the homeowner who when his final payment is paid on the mortgage, the deposit (promissory note) is not returned and is therefore stolen by the banker who now uses it in his practice as an investment banker. The Glass-Steagall prevented such secret behavior. Bill Clinton repealed the act in 1999. In less than a decade a meltdown occurred. Many have said another is imminent.

 What they did was predicted in 1850. “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

Federic Bastiat “The Law” 1850

 SCOTUS ruled unanimously in 2015 that The Truth in Lending Act was the law of the land and that the Mortgage Companies and their subsidiaries cannot retain the note (deposited promissory note). Many state courts at every level, defy this SCOTUS ruling. No one, except Judge Roy Moore, is held accountable for defying a 5/4 ruling much less the unanimous ruling  

At first, only the five big banks that were considered too big to fail, practiced such chicanery. Now it is so wide spread even in small banks that the FBI says that it is just the way things are done.

Now nobody gets a check returned, only a copy is returned. The checks are used, when necessary, in the investment crap game. Ask JP Morgan and Wells Fargo. Accounting control fraud is what it is called by the FBI who say it is wrong, but they believe the brainwashing so extensive that a conviction is unlikely.

Again, the church ceremonies conducted in the retirement of a note by burning is now impossible. What is worse, judges don’t know any better. Law Enforcement follow orders. The end result is the transfer of wealth from the many to the few. One percent today own nearly fifty percent of all the national wealth up from nine percent in 1999.

Diversion is the rule in hopes of assigning the revolution cause to the “times”. Never has man be able to convince the righteous that theft is acceptable.

When a loan is made the Bank is the creditor. Debts must be paid, forced if necessary.

When a loan is paid in full, the bank becomes a debtor, the deposit (promissory note) must be surrendered. Banks want you to forget them as debtors. Keeping the satisfied note is a crime worthy of punishment equal to the punishment for “Baby Face Nelson.” Bankers want you to believe that entry into their presence is like going to a church esteemed for honesty. Some are honest. So is the unanimous SCOTUS decision. The old saying should apply, “What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.” Bankers and the members of Congress don’t seem to understand familiar proverbs.

June 09, 2016

 

STANDARD PRACTICE

Turn your personal check over and read the words printed over and over on the rear. “ORIGINAL DOCUMENT”.

   Banks require “ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS” before cashing a check. Your wet-ink signature makes the check an original.

     The same “ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS” bank will try to take your property through foreclosure without a

“GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE”

Who do they think they are?

       Maybe the bank thinks that the judicial system is dumb in that it will overlook the original document requirement and order a sheriff to make an unlawful eviction. Rules of Civil Procedure require the “GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE” to be filed with the clerk of the court days before any hearing. A judgment replaces the note taking it out of circulation. Without the note there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the court. Case dismissed.

     Not So. The same law is clear in every state. Uniform Commercial Code requires a surrendering of the “GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE” when full payment is made (See UCC § 3-501(b)(2) Surrender the instrument if full payment is made. A judge confesses to fraud on the court if he says a non original is alright.

Why pay a note to anyone who is not the holder in due course?

You don’t have to. There is no moral hazard in refusing a thief. Don’t be a law breaker

(See UCC 3-305c) “An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.”

       The law requires a bank to offer a loan modification before foreclosure. A thief who has no original cannot offer a true loan modification because a loan modification satisfies the original promissory note forcing the surrender of the original note filed as satisfied. The loan modification documents become the new originals.

         If the bank, or the institution that services cannot “Produce the Note”, they are not the holder in due course. Foreclose is without subject matter jurisdiction. All action stops until the issue is settled. The judge is then a trespasser of the law without excuse.

Should the judge not have subject-matter jurisdiction, then the law states that the judge has not only violated the law, but is also a trespasser of the law. --Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson , 57 Ill. 109 (1870)

"If the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers." --Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.

When a Judge rules that a copy (not original) be paid, the Judge is liable and creates devastation.

May 21, 2016

 

You can take what I say and demonize me or you can you take what I say and learn from it. Do your homework. But what we hope you will do is come on board and stand with the American people. On the other hand, if you're so evil and corrupt that you cannot see the truth, it is the rejection of truth that destroys. It is simple. I encourage you to repent. Do your research and find out what is right. Your very existence may depend on it. Your family’s wellbeing might depend on it as well. If we as Americans fail now, then there is hell to be unleashed upon this earth that will affect you and your family as well. If we repent and take a steadfast and unmovable stand and surrender to do the will of God, then God will empower His instruments to execute His will and to destroy the evil that is descending upon this nation and then afterwards use us as channels of blessing for His beloved.

The present American government is a Corporation, a board of directors. It is not a lawful government. When the American people become incensed and want change, true change can come.

You are either an American or a UNITED STATES Citizen. You are here today to learn who you are if you don't know. Are you an American, or are you a UNITED STATES CITIZEN. There are people who want you dead. I’m not exaggerating. They want you dead. They do not want you on this planet. They don't want anything but worker bees and slaves who don't think for themselves. They want only those programmed to do exactly what they're told to do and to do it whenever they are told to do it. They don't want anyone who thinks for themselves. Every one of you in this room has a problem because you think for yourself. If that were not true you would not be here. Who are you? Do you know who you are?

This was the introductory statement of the seminar presenter, Tim Turner, at the Freedom Seminar held in Las Vegas in the Alexis Park All Suites Resort conference room April 23 and 24th 2010.

Why did Billy Foust drive all the way from page Arizona and pay a $300 admission fee just to attend the two-day seminar? For some time Billy had understood things were not exactly right. He couldn't put his finger on exactly what was wrong, but he knew something was wrong. The seminar maybe could help identify what was bugging him.

Today, Tim Turner is in Federal Prison for 18 years. As predicted, in 2011 Bill Foust was assassinated, with impunity, by a paid policer officer. Do you honestly think Donald Trump will not be killed?