GLOBAL SUB-PRIME CRISIS

BANKILEAKS

Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook
 

facebook3           facebook2 

BFCSA
MORTGAGE
DISTRESS SOS

What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.

Visitors

Articles View Hits
670356

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Lee Doyle

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Prove I owe you the money!

Posted by on in From My Window
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2328
  • 6 Comments
  • Print

 I have been asking myself this simple question recently - surely the bank has to prove you owe them the money! I mean if someone came up to you in the street and said you owe me $50000, pay up or I am taking your house in 30 days you would ask for proof. Even though you believe you owe someone money,  if push comes to shove, they have to proove it.

Have we been so hoodwinked that we now blindly agree to pay a debt without asking to see the proof? I read this article which is quite interesting. It's from a US site but still worth a read:

Kathy Lovelace lost her job and was about to lose her house, too. But then she made a seemingly simple request of the bank: Show me the original mortgage paperwork.

And just like that, the foreclosure proceedings came to a standstill.

Lovelace and other homeowners around the country are managing to stave off foreclosure by employing a strategy that goes to the heart of the whole nationwide mess.

During the real estate frenzy of the past decade, mortgages were sold and resold, bundled into securities and peddled to investors. In many cases, the original note signed by the homeowner was lost, stored away in a distant warehouse or destroyed.

Persuading a judge to compel production of hard-to-find or nonexistent documents can, at the very least, delay foreclosure, buying the homeowner some time and turning up the pressure on the lender to renegotiate the mortgage.

"I'm going to hang on for dear life until they can prove to me it belongs to them," said Lovelace, a 50-year-old divorced mother who owns a $200,000 home in Zephyrhills, near Tampa. "I'll try everything I can because it's all I have left."

You can read more here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29242063/ns/business-real_estate/t/new-forec

 

losure-defense-prove-i-owe-you/

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:

Comments

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 19 November 2012

    This is all USA stuff which really is not the same here. We have to use Australian Laws not u.s.

    U.S law has non recourse as well. We dont.
    The thing is you want to know the Australian Play book the banks use.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 19 November 2012

    An IOU, or Promissory Note. It is not a Debt Instrument to the one who created it; it is actually an ASETT.

    Our learned US friend of 36yrs--Law/Acct states; "THEY should have given you the cash for your "Note" at 'Closing'; and 'Closed the Whole Transaction', without continuing payments. .The house ('YOUR HOUSE') was paid for at 'Closing' with 'YOUR' negotiable instrument. .on ONE(1) set of books

    "An IOU, or Promissory Note; It is not a Debt Instrument to the one who created it; it is actually an ASETT.

    "So we are the 'Originator' of the money, so 'WE' are the 'Creditors'. . but they make 'YOU' believe 'YOU are the debtor as if 'THEY" are the 'CREATOR of the MONEY'. The only way 'YOU' have the accounting of the 'Instrument' is in the 'Book-keeping'. and 'THEY are keeping the 'Account' on the 'Off Balance Sheet Ledger'. as in 2sets of books like the Mafia do.

    In South Africa "NewERA" are testing these very waters currently...here it's a Royal Commission to determine the legalities of this monstrously contrived RMBS "structure".

    Posted by Andy on Wednesday, 05 September 2012 in Banks Behaving Badly

    "S0 the Corporate Government has to rely on the DECEPTION of PEOPLE to create money. So the way money is created is to have the people sign an IOU, or Promissory Note. It is not a Debt Instrument to the one who created it; it is actually an ASETT.

    "So we are the 'Originator' of the money, so 'WE' are the 'Creditors'. . but they make 'YOU' believe 'YOU are the debtor as if 'THEY" are the 'CREATOR of the MONEY'. The only way 'YOU' have the accounting of the 'Instrument' is in the 'Book-keeping'. and 'THEY are keeping the 'Account' on the 'Off Balance Sheet Ledger'. as in 2sets of books like the Mafia do.

    The CREATOR can pass it on for someone else to use. . .It is negotiable unless it includes Terms & Conditions as part of a Contract. . The PROPERTY belongs to the CREATOR(YOU), and the holder (bank) is merely using it and any proceeds that come from it should be restored to the CREATOR ('YOU').

    "WE ARE LOOKING FO RECOUPMENT. ONCE 'WE' THE CREATOR OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE HAVE SIGNED IT & OTHERS (BANKS > DEEM TO ASSIGN IT) ARE USING IT (READ 2ND MARKET), RECOUPMENT MEANS WE WANT OUR PROPERTY BACK OR HAVE THE 'our' ACCOUNT SETOFF (READ = OFFSET FROM THE 'CASH PROCEEDS' RECEIVED BY THE BANK FROM SELLING 'OUR ASSET' ONTO THE SECONDARY MARKET).

    (RMBS) "Securitisation is illegal", the moment the parent bank ~ originator assigns 'OUR ASSEY' or in Aus' case, "Deems to Assign" as it's learnt from it's American model & assignment is not actually "effected", lest a "Title Perfection Event" is created consequentially collapsing "the Trust" (or "SPV"). . or Promissory Note" into the Secondary Market via Special Purpose Vehicle's.

    Bottom line: "Securitiztion is the process of transferring all the )banks) liabilities off their balance sheet. .They can do this because you never ask for them. . They have everybody conned into believing we are Debtors instead of Creditors & do not know to ask for our ASSETS.. They are not showing the liabilities side of the ledger or the accounts payable because IT HAS BEEN MOVED over to someone else's balance sheet.. . There is immunity for people who understand the procedure. . Only the unlearned are fooled into entering into fraudulent contracts. . It DOES NOT WORK if you get frustrated and angry at the fraudulent results of your own ignorance. . The American & English litigation system is adversarial. They(banks) only have to the evidence that supports THEIR CLAIM.

    The banks post 'Securitisation' continue to maintain. ". .'THEY' are in the capacity of a Creditor and making 'YOU' appear in capacity of 'Debtor'. .'YOU' are the ULTIMATE CREDITOR if "YOU" raise that claim against the liability side of the accounts. . 'THEY have already sold 'YOUR Note', at CLOSING (SETTLEMENT)',they take the money (read = from RMBS 2nd market) and then closes out the account on one side. . (but) the Bank forgot to tell you, that 'YOU DON'T HAVE A LIABILITY ON THE RECEIVABLE SIDE ANYMORE.(how polite of 'them')

    The bank morphs into the 'Servicer (of YOUR account). .'YOUR' payment/s are then deemed profits to the holder of the NOTE ('YOUR' Note). . They are in effect, using the NOTE ('YOUR NOTE') to EXPAND THE MONEY SUPPLY.

    Under U.S.A Civil Rule (or Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, in AUS) you fail to bring a MANDATORY COUNTER-CLAIM which is based on the same transaction. Under the Rules (UCPR) 'YOU' have waived it because 'YOU' were ignorant of the Rules of Procedure. .Auditors keep tract of where the ASSETS went. .These are Special Auditors. .In America (note: assignment effected), they attorney's for the banks have come out with an affidavit of a lost note or destroyed instrument (actually same knowingly false assertion that our CEO of Aussie Home Loans submitted i a separate litigation unrelated in 2005 to obstruct complete discovery later in 2009 confirmed to be an utter lie, when 60 more boxes of discoverable documents found the 'light of day'). . in US it was otherwise confirmed that the "instrument" was not in fact lost but in-fact "assigned" as shown to be the case thru relevant records. Thats why in AUS they "deem to assign"(the Note) to avoid quite deliberately 'effecting transfer', hence generating a 'Title Perfection Event'.

    Then they make 'derivatives' out of this note by a 'BOOK-KEEPING ENTRY'.. . They have to give it to 'YOU' if you ask for it. .At Closing and Settlement, the reason they call it actually 'Closing' is because they pay off the loan 'in it's entirety'. . The DEBT is actually 'EXTINGUISHED'. . But if 'YOU' don't ask to see the books, it is 'YOUR' problem (great system ha ha). .That is what they are doing in the Court Room.. The Clerk has the 'Receivable Side' for the Corporation(banks)and the Judge has the 'Payables'. . The judge DOES NOT have to do the 'SET-OFF'(off-set)unless 'YOU' raise the issue (or Defence). .'YOU have the right to 'WAIVE IT'. .so the Judge is the "Priest" receiving the "Sacrifice"('YOU') for the "Corporation". . 'Commerce is adversarial, so THEY are NOT REQUIRED to tell 'YOU' the 'WHOLE TRUTH'. . (nice legal system ha ha!). .and "failure to do a specific negative avertment of the facts alleged constitutes an acceptance of this fact as far as the Courts are concerned.. .The finance industry is dealing in 'UNREGISTERED SECURITIES'. .'THEY' converted everything to a (AUS = deemed) 'Commercial Transaction' at the beginning of the case. ."

    "After he had seen 'Both sides of the Books' he would be operating in 'FRAUD'. . The 'ENRON executives that got in trouble were the one's that 'SAW BOTH SIDES OF THE BOOKS'. .SECURITISATION IS FRAUD. . (read = once 'NOTICE' is given. . The debt collector can't resell the instrument now, because 'HE HAS HAD NOTICE'. .the 'SALE' would not have been 'in goodfaith'. .We have not given them a ' REGISTERED SCURITY'. .there is 'NO EVIDENCE' in the Public Record. .'THEY should have given 'YOU' the cash for'YOUR' Note at 'Closing'. .and 'Closed the Whole Transaction', without continuing payments. .The house ('YOUR HOUSE') was paid for at 'Closing' with 'YOUR' negotiable instrument. .on ONE(1) set of books (neat trick, 'shell and pea game', ha ha!).. 'THEY' didn't give 'YOU' the credit for the note because 'YOU' didn't 'YOU' didn't register the note and show a claim. .if 'YOU don't register the note, they will not give 'YOU' the property back. .'THEY' can't give 'YOU' the note back because they sold it. .so they should give all 'YOUR' payments back. . All homes are legally 'abandoned' because no one has made 'THEIr' claim' for the money that was 'OWED' to them(= us). .One should have claimed the note at 'Closing' because the note paid for it. .The bank has 'NO CLAIM'. .There is a third party (mum& dad investors + now AUS. Gov.) that bought the note from the bank and holds an interest in the note (only). (. as transfer of mortgage was never 'effected', just deemed to have been 'effected' to aviod a 'Title Perfection Event' > as I see it).

    "They can carry the 'illusion' that 'YOUR' instrument is 'WORTHLESS', forever!!!

    Now understand: Why indeed, GE Finance just abandoned ownership of it's 'Pepper RMBS Packs', admittedly for a nice fee of AUS $4.9b to escape the 'Day of reckoning' in Australia approaching > but probably not the real price & no- one will really ever know this number, save GE Finance - attorneys/accountants, of course bound by "client Privilege". .nice work(timing) GE Finance. . ha ha!!)

    If 'YOU' stop making payments, no one has been damaged (except mums/dads investors). . The only reason the banks continue to collect for 30 years is because 'YOU' are a fool. .We are responsible for agreeing to this (read = 'fraud') contract. . We don't have a claim for fraud. (Yes we do = falsified LAF's + contrived fraudulent 'Chain of Command to effect the 'FRAUD' in AUS).

    'WE' act as though we are experts at negotiable instruments. . that is how 'THEY' get around the 'Defence of Fraud' in the (act) of 'INDUCEMENT'. (however, in AUS the Asset Holder was never informed of the instruments 'intended purpose' as a 'derivative instrument')

    "To prove fraud in the 'inducement', one has to prove he didn't know what 'THEY' were doing and didn't have sufficient time to find out (how many years has Denise been searching for proof???),but in order to prove that, 'YOU' have to learn how to do it right (lawfully) first."

    They (banks) do the accounting appropriately, but 'THEY'(banks) create 'TWO(2) SETS of BOOKS'. .So they are following the Law. . but they are keeping the records in two(2) different sets of books 'LIKE THE MAFIA".

    . . don't you love their "creativity" or they call it "Innovative Financial Products")read = 'Creative Accounting'). ."

    Denise if your reading refer to FOS improper/unlawful transfer of borrowers' tax off-set benefits I discovered last week, effectively stealing ATO 'due tax adjustment proceeds', deducing correct FOS directed compensation in 'Maladministration in Lending' matters.. .referring to banks seeking 7 obtaining any tax benefits generated thru the unlawful loan. .(Geoff like that one). .and Aus Gov "Subsidising RMBS Packs by $100millions of tax payer money P.A. by effectively not paying 'Mark to Market' over Libor Rates when buying into these fraudulent instruments on 2nd market.

    "US Case". .We used this case as a foundation of our case on the ground that the mortgage transaction was an unconscionable act. .'WHENEVER THERE IS LACK OD DISCLOSURE, ONE HAS AN OFF-SET AVAILABLE. .This is dangerous to the entire mortgage industry, however, a few cases is not going to cause a big problem. If most people want to be ignorant, and be SLAVES to the banking system, they have the right to do that. No attorney will take this type of claim because it jeopardises the system that he works for. Nor was the attorney told what to do by the client. .

    To conclude our friend who wrote the paper states:

    "I have teaching & studying commercial banking law and intermediate & advanced accounting. I have a degree in Commercial Banking law, four years in under-graduate study at USC & 4 years at Hastings School of Law at San Francisco!"

    "God has given us a Prepaid account so we never have to go into debt, if we are honourable. We should pay everything in promissory note. "

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 19 November 2012

    It is so frustrating to read so much helpful information on the net only to realise that our laws are different.
    Everything i seem to read is relevant to USA. Where is all the info applicable to us??

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 19 November 2012

    While we may bring up the Original Contract (wet ink) question that is not enough as I understand it to bring it all to a halt in Australia/FOS.
    The Australian information, Ali, is on this site. I haven't found anywhere else on the net that has so much up to date detail on our legal situation wrt mortgages.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 19 November 2012

    I'm interested to know if a bank actually has to produce the original docs to prove you owe them the money.The little guy never thinks to challenge the bank in this way because of intimidation but surely this underpins the whole borrower/lender relationship - if you can't produce the IOU then on what grounds do have to make a claim?

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 20 November 2012

    While I concur with the thought, from first hand experience, I saw otherwise.

    I discovered our lawyers, SLaG & that useless barrister they engaged, were not even remotely interested in asking about the most foundational basic piece of paperwork. Their 'learned' way was reach a conclusion without worrying about facts. Incompetent is too kind a description.
    The BFSO were just as much a waste of time. MFAA, ASIC, APRA, IPA couldn't get me off the phone fast enough - just not interested in doing any work & they could not care less.
    Who knows what BankWest or Gadens put forward to the judge as we never saw it - only the outcome & somehow I doubt I am even allowed to ask the Judge/Court for a copy of what was submitted. A fair go? As if!
    For some reason here in Australia, proof is not a priority which I personally find to be most unAustralian.
    We can only hope that a question such as this gets put forward for investigation in a Royal Commission.

Leave your comment

Guest Sunday, 26 January 2020