Borrowers are missing this because judges of courts involving disputes in foreclosure cases are
not making the Foreclosing Parties detail the straight line in which the Foreclosing Party came to
have an interest in ownership of the debt that was created when a Borrower received a loan from
an alleged lender to purchase a house. These judges have constitutional directives to start a case
by reading what the Foreclosing Party details about the transactions it was involved in to legally
loan the money or to purchase the loan.
But, I have never seen a judge do that. I have never seen a Foreclosing Party detail all of
the transactions involved in the loan by producing all of the concrete and particularized evidence
that leads up to this party having the right to collect money from the alleged Borrower. Without
the right to collect money from the Borrower there can be no right to declare the default, and
with no ability to declare default, there is no way to have the right to foreclose. That is a straight
line.
In a Chain of Title The Foreclosing Party (called an Imposter or Fictitious Payee in the UCC
laws) often uses their claim of becoming the party in interest with an assignment. Both Borrowers
and Judges bite on this non-transaction. The assignments are universally made up of
transactions involving assigning the collateral security agreement mostly called a mortgage or
deed of trust.
This sends Borrowers off researching what to do with these assignments that are taken as
legitimate by the courts and therefore the Borrowers. But, the mortgage or deed of trust has little
to do with the loan. It is merely the agreement that the Borrower and the alleged lender
have concerning what the Borrower will put up to make sure that the Lender will get his money
back if the Borrower becomes unable to pay. It has a one time one useful purpose. When the
debt is paid back the Promissory Note becomes void or ceases to exist, which voids the mortgage
or deed of trust because the collateral agreement no longer has any purpose.
So, in order to purchase the debt from a lender and to become the party in interest no one would
buy a Deed of Trust Or Mortgage. These are security instruments and they follow the Promissory
Note always. In a straight line. The money borrowed is the debt, but the Promissory Note is
the contract for borrowing the money. It is essential to the deal. There is no reason to assign
the security instrument because if you own the Note representing the debt, you already own
the collateral agreement which is incidental. There is no law requiring you to put up the house
that you bought with the borrowed money for security. It is an agreement between the parties.
MERS was invented to confuse the matter. It is seen differently by every judge and every party in
the country. In the final effect of the straight line, it does not matter if you have not paid your
loan payments if the alleged Foreclosing Party is lying about its right to collect. Which in today's
world it is lying. You have no obligation to pay someone you do not owe. Your only obligation is to
pay the party that has claimed that you have injured it and that this can be proven with concrete
and particularized evidence. The judge took an oath to protect your constitutional rights. This can
only be done if the judge sees the proof of the Imposters and Fictitious Payees at the beginning of
the case. The declaration of default.
Any side issues you bring in to prove you are being defrauded should be stopped by the judge
because the Borrower has no obligation to prove that the Foreclosing Party did not have Standing
to even bring a case before the court. It is the Foreclosing Party who must prove, not claim, but
prove, it has the right to collect. I said that right. The judge has the duty to protect you from
false claims of the right to foreclose against you and not to facilitate them.
Everyone. Stop trying to prove so many things to a judge. You must find a way to make him
recognize that his liability to danger is equal to yours. It is a straight line.
