READ MORE "CRUX OF THE MATTER"
No one can transfer the ownership of the remainder of your debt by assigning the "agreement of what the collateral of the loan is".
A Borrower sent me what is a gift from the gods for you. 1st, what she had received in her case is an affidavit from an expert who had no had no idea about security instruments and in my estimation little working knowledge about loan documents at all.
He is testifying that her mortgage is lost and he would like the court to overlook it and act like it wasn't lost, so they can proceed with her foreclosure using the assignment of her mortgage.
I cannot explain why this affidavit was used. The Promissory Note can be sold and "endorsed" like a check, but that hasn't happened or they wouldn't be making "stuff" like this up to take a house with "alternative documents not meant for this purpose..
We know from this attempt to conjour things up a foreclosure using magic. That they have never paid consideration to purchase the balance of balance of the debt.
So, in your predicament, you don't know who loaned you money. The foreclosing party doesn't know who loaned you money, the judge appears to not know anything about anything. The judge is the culprit, but that I will explain in a different fairy tale.
Don't you ever tell anyone you know who loaned you money.
First of all, you don't know. Secondly you have no burden to tell anyone who did. Someone must prove to the court that they did loan you money. Just always say, "I was never in default with any party in this case." That will always be true. Say that, then your burden in the case has been fulfilled. If somehow someone tries to make you think you have to say more, say I can't say more than I know.
Your mortgage is about to be used to transfer your debt to a "stranger to your contract". He is saying that the foreclosure and sale of your home is being held up because the Foreclosing party has lost your mortgage. This brings up two important points.
1. You can't lose a mortgage.
2. A mortgage can't be used to foreclose (I know they attorneys say that they are foreclosing under the mortgage) but you have to first prove you own the debt (which is represented by the Promissory Note.)
There was no mention of the Promissory Note being transferred first. None of this describes a legal sale of anything at all especially your debt.
I think we should now talk about:
Carpenter v Longan (US Supreme Court 1872 from the Colorado territories)
This is the controlling law. It has never been revisited by the Supreme Court.
When did she get this notice? This is the very basis of each and every fraudulent foreclosure. This is exactly how it was done 30 million times in broad daylight.
An assignment of a security instrument is a nullity. It simply can’t be done. It makes no sense. Even if you paid (consideration) for a mortgage you bought nothing of value.
The Promissory Note can be endorsed if money was paid for it. That would transfer the ownership of your debt (the remaining balance that you owe after the payments you have made).
The mortgage goes with the note. But it must follow the Note. It is actually a part of the Note. It is always (every single time) magically sent with the Note legally because it is part of the deal but it is not a stand alone instrument that can be bought and sold. The Note represents the debt. The mortgage (or deed of trust in 26 states) is the desciption of the collateral that will be used to help pay off the debt and the deal made between the Lender and Borrower to give the bank a way to collect money if you become unable to make the payment. It is correctly called the Security Instrument in all 50 states.
“The Note is essential. It represents the debt. The mortgage (or deed of trust) is incidental. It is merely just the description of whatever is agreed upon by the Borrower and the Lender as the Collateral for the security of the loan.”
Any claim that the assignment of the "Security Instrument", is not only an attempt to circumvent settled law to convince you and some court that the the assigning of your mortgage transferred the ownership of your debt.
The very brave idiot who signed the "affidavit" stating that a mortgage is missing (which changes nothing) is lying and is obviously a newby "racketeer", because this is a lie that he typed up and signed and it is a fraudlent act in a court.
Which is why this letter bothers me so, because it doesn't matter. You can't lose a a mortgage. We hear the phrase often today. Not so much before 2004. Obstruction of justice" and someone is lying to the court about where it was lost, whoever owned it when it was lost, which is foolish because he is lying and hiding something and that is perjury. Why do I say you can't lose a
mortgage? Read on.
When you didn't challenge it, but you probably didn't know that a security instrument, in your case a mortgage is recorded at your County recorder's office and it is meant to be a notice to the world that you signed a loan on that date.
Meanwhile if you fall for this lie the Bad Guys will continue trying to wrongly and impossibly foreclose on your home and sell it illegally using using a “lost” mortgage. This can't even be done because a mortgage cannot be lost anyone can go to the recorder's office and pay something like $25 to get a copy marked "CERTIFIED" and it is just as good as the lost one. Remember this, a mortgage is incidental to the deal it not essential.
Losing a Promissory Note, which is essential to the contract, is a problem, but it is not unsolvable.
If you lose a Promissory Note that you legally own, you have to go to court and prove that at the time it was lost you were the true owner. You owned the balance of the debt. A true owner of the Note hasn't lost his money if he loses his Note, he just has to prove it was his legally when it was lost. Which is what this whole website is all about.
Proving that the party that has come after you to foreclose has never tried to prove to the court that they had paid for the balance of your debt and because they bought it fair and square, and you haven't paid and they have the right to collect the money owed to them from you.
This affidavit we are talking about is not necessary and even more incredibly it is perjurous. The guy made it up. It is a story by racketeers who are in over their head. They don't know the law, they just know some gobbledygook that they heard some some big kids say on time.
The collateral for your home could have been 600 head of cattle. It could have been a collection of historical hubcaps. 2,00 Schwin bycycles in a warehouse. It could have been nothing. There is no law that a lender must have collateral. None at all.
This bizarre assignment of the mortgage or the deed of trust is the SCAM. It is the heart of the entire foreclosure fraud crisis. 30 million families out on the street creating the largest refugee crisis in history which wiped out the middle class by creating the 1%.
But, you can make it worse, just like the rest of us who had to represent ourselves as Pro Se. You must object in writing and file your objection into your case. That is the mistake all of us have made. If you don’t object to a great big lie the court must take that lie as the truth. That is the law too.
That is why the word “uncontroverted” is used by the attorneys for the foreclosing “party” so often.
Because you didn't know you had to controvert. Controvert means "to Object" to the lie (you had to say, huh uh I’m callling bullshit). If the bad guy attorney tells a lie on behalf of the Foreclosing party and you don't object, by law, what the attorney said has to be taken for the truth. The judge has to take the lie as the truth. One part said it, Them, and the other party didn't disagree, You.
You had to say that it wasn't true and explain why it wasn't true. This is part of the Proceedure of the court. On television they object by voice. Someone breaks the rules or tells a known lie and an attorney jumps up and shouts "Objection your honor." The judge then agrees ("Sustained") or disagrees ("Overrueled").
What we miss is that the show lasts about an hour. Much of a court case can go on a long time especially if you are a Borrower. So, you have to know that if the Foreclosing Part lies in a Motion which is paper. You have to Object by filing your objection on paper into the court docket. Nothing is decided there all of the time, but it will come up later when the bad guy attorney is trying to show you can't win. He will then go back to the lie you did not object to and tell the court, in person but more likely on paper filed in the court, Your lie was uncontroverted therefore it is true.
That is true. If you don't object to a lie, the judge really does have to take that lie as the truth.
Or our more common language would be, Hey the Borrower didn't object so now he can't say it was a lie. See it is procedure that tanks most of us. Uncontroverted means that by not challenging the lie, it is now the truth. Judges aren't making that one up. It is the law. You have to answer everthing they file even if it doesn't look dangerous.
At the beginning none of us knew that you have to object to everything the liars say and tell the court why.
Don’t wait for an in person hearing. File your objection immediately after you read anything that is as phony as that affidavit was. But, you didn't know that it was phony and you didn't know you had to object to it because it was not true.
If you don’t it is uncontroverted and therefore true. Another way to say it, you heard a lie, but you didn't complain.
Like at the beginning of the case (29 years ago, or whatever) you had to state in a filing that “I have never owed any money to these very strange, "strangers to the contract" parties who are attempting to “injure” me with their confidence (con man) scheme and therefore I could never have been in default with any of these guys at any time.
The foreclosing party has not claimed that they have suffered an “injury in fact”, nor have they
attempted to prove the existence of any such claimed injury with “concrete and particularized”
evidence that they have been injured or that this injury can be fairly traced to you.
The foreclosing party therefore has no standing and this court has no subject matter jurisdiction and it is not a court at all, which is a deprivation of your civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America.
[A little while later I realized it was nightime, but I just had make sure all of you know this.] DLH
