Tag Archives: County Recorders

Filing a UCC1 With the Treasury Department and Redeeming Strawman Account

Learn about Strawman accounts and how to file a UCC1 with the Treasure Department

Source: Filing a UCC1 With the Treasury Department and Redeeming Strawman Account – hubpages.com 

United States Strawman UCC/Redemption Process (A Study)

UCC/Redemption Process

There are numerous views and theories held by supporters and deniers of the process known as “UCC/Redemption.” This study will look at some of the main subjects that are discussed about the redemption process. There are various contingents involved, as well as facts that have been disclosed by different sources concerning the information.

  • What is a birth certificate. Is it a negotiable instrument?
  • Is it a promissory note?
  • Does it have commercial value? Is it a transactional instrument? if so what was our value at birth?
  • Is the birth certificate that is kept on record at your local County and/or State a contract?
  • Does your birth certificate give the state, and tragically in the end, the federal government control over all past, present, and future transactions which the individual named on a birth certificate enters?

What Is the UCC Redemption Process?

Will the filing of an uniform commercial code (UCC) financing statement, addendum and/or change statement/amendment include all transactions, civil matters, as well as any criminal activity?

If a person follows the UCC redemption process steps will they gain any actual value through the federal government? Will there have to be some value given in return?

Or is the entire UCC redemption process a deceptive maneuver, or trick, that will only bring about greater retaliation by the government agencies upon individuals associated with the process.

The majority of lawyers view the entire UCC process only in terms of litigation, and adjudication. The truth is that UCC is legislated by administrative law that systematizes the rules for all commercial transactions between nations, states, and even between individuals.

The courts do acknowledge that they do not possess either the authority or jurisdiction to alter or nullify any of the articles of the UCC. The courts will only consider those gray areas as to “Who holds the superior position”?

The party that filed the UCC first, or the one who consummated it first? The courts have addressed, and determined in specific situations, what can be thought of as a fixture as it is relative to real property under the “Uniform Commercial Code.”

The UCC Financing Statement

Once a person files a UCC form, and it is registered by a state’s UCC office, the filing of that document becomes a legal document. It becomes part of the public record. The person that filed the document is the secured party when it comes to the UCC filing.

This is a fact of legal procedures.

The UCC department employees of each state become the curators and are compelled to follow very specific procedures and rules. If the UCC filing complies with all the stipulations of those rules and procedures, then by law the document needs to be recorded.

There are minor diversities in the subsections of the UCC from one state to another, and even between counties. For the most part, the majority of the commercial rules and procedures will be the same globally. They will be uniform. Hence the title of Uniform Commercial Code.

Every state within the United States has UCC filing offices. There are offices in every U.S. territory and protectorates of the U.S. There are even UCC filing offices established in foreign nations. It is an administrative action when an UCC form is filed, accepted, and recorded by the UCC office. It will be stamped with a file number, date, hour, and the exact minute of filing.

The UCC financing statement (UCC-1) commissions a secured party’s status in a commercial transaction allowed by the articles of the UCC, as well as assorted sections of the United States Code that deal primarily with property.

After a secured party files a UCC form, it becomes part of the public record, that a secured and vested interest is holding a superior claim over any and all other parties who have an interest, but all who file after the secured party must acknowledge the preexisting position.

The secured party may make changes to the UCC financing statement (UCC-1), if they file an Amendment (UCC-3) which makes reference to the original UCC that was filed. Do not mistake the facts. The UCC deals only with secured or vested interest.

However, the facts are clear. The UCC deals with secured, vested interest, and/or the possession of the property. It does not deal with the title at all. The title is a different discussion.

Birth Certificates

The first question to discuss is the question of the birth certificate.

  • Is it an instrument of commerce?
  • Is it a promissory note?
  • Does it have any actual commercial value?

The answer to each of these questions is NO, or at least it should be!

When a child is born, a document is prepared which is an authorization to produce a Certificate of Live Birth. The parents and/or the doctor are given an application which is ultimately a commercial contract. They will endorse as to their witnessing the creation of both the child, and a commercial document.

The document created at birth is an application for a Federal Certificate of Live Birth. It is evidence that there has been a commercial contract set up. This contract establishes the freeborn child to a status of “ward of the state.”

In a few weeks, the actual Certificate of Live Birth, which was based on the application, is handed over to and filed in Washington D.C. The Certificate of Live Birth is a bonded instrument. On the reverse of the certificate is a single letter (A-N) followed by eight numbers. In recent times the same serial number of the bond is stamped on the back of a Social Security Card.

The second thing to discuss is the original birth certificate itself, which is prepared in the county of your birth, at the time of birth.

Is it a contract, giving the state control over everything associated with the individual named on the certificate?

No.

The document prepared at birth is not a contract. It has no commercial value. This birth record is evidence that a live birth has transpired. This information is then disseminated throughout the various federal, state, and county district levels. It is irrefutable evidence that a living, breathing, person was born, and its existence would be registered.

Even those born on foreign soil are registered with either a certificate of naturalization, citizenship, or some other type of document which gives them authorization to remain in residence in the country. It is public agencies that specify the name on the document to be an actual person, not just a commercial entity.

How Does a Birth Certificate Have Value?

It is not the birth certificate that has value. It is the bond on a commercial entity. At the time of registration, the Corporation of the United States, through its Treasury Department, creates a bond. This bond is also known by the human’s name in capital letters. It is a strawman that is created to be used in all legal and financial matters. More on this later.

The bond number itself can be found on the actual Certificate of Live Birth, on the back of the document. Once the county birth record is received by the federal government, the bond is created. Once both of these actions occur, the federal government releases the Certificate of Live Birth announcing the creation of a new revenue source. The value of the bond is based on the power of the state to tax the future wealth, and property, of the human being named on the document.

There have been some prints of Individual Master Files (IMF) that show the bond placed on the newborn having a value of around $650.000 dollars. There is a catch, however. Any profit which is created by the investment during the life, right up to the death of the individual, of every living, breathing, male or female, remains the property of the state. All property is considered to be owned by the Corporation of the United States. This is easily seen by the seizures without due process which occur daily.

Federal Reserve Act of 1913

One of the most crucial years in the history of the United States, both for the government and American citizens was the year of 1933. It was only a mere twenty years after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 by Congress for the Corporation of the United States. The nation was buried in debt and had a serious lack of financial resources.

The foreign bankers served notice of this fact to the government of the United States. The Roosevelt administration reacted between January and July of 1933. Since 1933, every birth or naturalization record for every citizen of The United States is filed in the official records in Washington D.C. This also turns all property and every asset belonging to every living, breathing United States citizen into collateral for the national debt.

There has been information supposedly received from several government agencies which state that the filed Certificate of Live Birth documents have actual instructions on the reverse of the certificate stating who, and in what time frame the document should be created and delivered.

The first to receive the document is the County Health Commissioner. Next in line would be the Secretary of State. The final copy is received by the Department of Commerce even though the documents themselves are not kept in their offices.

The time frame for each Certificate of Live Birth to be filed in D.C. is seventeen days. There is even evidence of a Federal Children Department which was established by the passage of the Shepherd/Townsend Act of 1922 under the Department of Commerce that is somehow affiliated with this process.

There have been IMF’s that track commercial activity in the billions attached to individuals earning around fifty thousand dollars a year. The government is utilizing both their name and assets to trade in drugs, crude oil and various other commodities. This just proves that all property, both real and private property of every living, breathing American, is entrusted by Congress to provide collateral for the national debt.

During the year 1933, the Congress handed over control of all the post offices to the Secretary of the Treasury. Why would they do this? That is why the revenue is delivered to the government on April fifteenth.

If you research the Congressional Records of 1933 you will understand how the office of the Secretary of the Treasury is actually in control of the financial office of the Corporation of the United States. This office is in control of all revenue to the United States to make sure that the creditors (bankers) who actually own the federal reserve will be repaid all monies owed.

The Secured Party Applicant Has to be Filed in the State or Region of Their Birth

The government states that well over twenty-five million UCC financing statements have already been filed with UCC offices throughout the United States. Related commercial documents have been forwarded to the Secretary of the Treasury.

These facts have been gathered through information acquired through the CID of the IRS, FBI, Secret Service, Justice Department, the Department of the Treasury and the Secretary of State. They have all confessed that not one single properly filed UCC Form has been turned down or prosecuted under any criminal laws.

There have been revisions to the UCC Articles, especially IX, that states that the UCC financing statement of the secured party applicant has to be filed in the region or state of their birth. When the file is recorded with the Secretary of the Treasury, it must include a Charge-Back Instruction Notice, a 1040 ES form combined with a birth certificate.

The Secretary of the Treasury is the other party that holds an Interest. The Secured Party also needs to file a UCC financing statement and addendum with the UCC office in the state that the person resides in, in order to protect any property there.

People at the Treasury Department Analysis and Control Division of the IRS where they keep the files claim that the birth certificate does not have commercial value. They do however admit that the Certificates of Live Births are real and are kept on file.

Others have declared that the Application for the Birth Certificate actually does have commercial value, which is determined by the ability of the government to tax any future earnings of the individual named on the documents. The applications are not kept on file in D.C. itself. Some claim they are filed in Puerto Rico, and others claim it is Switzerland.

National UCC Administration

There is a National UCC Administration which the states, the Protectorates and the District of Columbia have formed. The United States has been partitioned into six UCC regions. If one of the UCC offices in a particular region does not accept a properly prepared UCC, another office within that region will. A person can have a regional filing recorded within a region or state and have it maintain the same thing as filing within their state of birth.

A person born outside of the United States, but who is still allowed to reside here and receive a social security card, can still file a UCC form in whatever state or region in which they were living when they received permission to live and remain here. It appears that the UCC as well as other paperwork that is required to be filed with the birth state or region are all logged in the mail room at 1500 Pennsylvania NW, Washington, D.C.

This is the address of the Analysis and Control Division of the IRS. The documents are examined by the Secret Service, the FBI and Justice Department. The documents are known at the analysis and control division as “UCC contract trusts.”

UCC Contract Trusts and Direct Treasury Accounts

There is a significant difference between the UCC contract trusts and direct treasury accounts which are used primarily for the trading of treasury bonds, which are managed by the bureau of public debt. There are many UCC and bill of exchange documents that arrive at 1500 Pennsylvania Ave NW that are mistakenly sent to the BPD.

The mistake that many people who file UCC forms make is a reference to the Treasury Direct or Direct Treasury account within their paperwork. Within the Analysis and Control Division inside the IRS Building in DC, UCC Contract Trusts are processed and then the documents are forwarded to one of the two IRS centers.

If you file east of the Mississippi, the documents are sent to Cincinnati, Ohio. If you file west of the Mississippi, they forward them to Fresno, California. Your UCC files and documents are going to be scrutinized by the Secret Service, the Justice Department, FBI, then sent to the CID. It is also sent to the IRS Technical Support Division (TSD) within the state in which the Secured Party started the discharge.

IRS Technical Support Division (TSD)

Here are some important points to know concerning the administration and purpose of the TSD!

  1. Almost every single Financial Institution which is connected to the Federal Reserve System has registered or contracted access to an account with the IRS called a Treasury Tax and Loan account (TTL).
  2. This TTL account in every Financial Institution is managed through the TSD office which can be found within most of the IRS State Offices. Because of this, IRS reconstruction the Technical Support Manager (TSM) in every State Divisional Office of the IRS has been given the same authority once held by the District Director.
  3. When a Notice of Levy/Lien is delivered to a Financial Institution by the IRS, the Financial Institution simply responds by making an entry in their computer. This simple action transfers the asset from the person who made the Deposit into an IRS TTL account. This means that the Asset never actually physically leaves their office. There are some Financial Institutions that do not maintain a TTL account. They simply hold the funds for twenty one days before transferring the amount directly to the Internal Revenue Service.
  4. When a Financial Institution receives a “Release of Levy/Lien” from the IRS the Financial Institution makes a simple computer entry and the funds are transferred from the TTL account into the account of the depositor if it is applicable. If a UCC form is prepared properly and filed with the Bank can be an Administrative Obstruction Action in which a Secured Party can use to show a prior and superior claim to those assets on deposit.
  5. There are certain Banks that will not will accept UCC Documents. Do not use one of these banks but find one that will accept the form and deposit your funds there.

Correct Way to Have Claims Discharged

The way to correctly have claims discharged with the IRS as well as in the public sector using the UCC contract trust is to present by the secured party a bonded registered Bill of Exchange, and this needs to be sent straight to the Secretary of the Treasury.

When a claim is made either by the IRS, a federal or state taxing agency, the claim can then have a stamp imprinted upon it stating “Accepted For Value”. This needs to be done by the secured party and it must be sent through Certified (or Registered) mail directly to the Secretary of the Treasury to be discharged.

This is documented and authorized through public policy:

HJR-192, Title IV, Sec. 401 of the Federal Reserve Act, the Supreme Court’s confirmation in Guaranty Trust of New York vs. Henwood, et al (1939) and Public Law 73-10. Such action is further confirmed in USC Title XII, Title XXVIII, Sec. 1641, 3002 and the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.

Getting back to the supposed value of the birth certificate this is the facts as I ascertained them.

The number of birth certificates that are referenced in UCC financing statements that have been stamped and filed in the state UCC filing offices is in the hundreds of thousands. Under the revised version of Article (Chapter) IX of the UCC (July 1, 2001) such filers had until June 30, 2002 to refile the UCC-1 within their state of birth.

If they reference their original filing, they could maintain the original date of filing which would then be filed with the Secretary of the Treasury. If this is not done by July 1, 2002, it would result in the loss of their original filing date and also their status as the secured party by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Department of Treasury Admits That Millions of UCC Financing Statements Have Been Filed

The Department of the Treasury admits that there are millions of UCC filings by secured parties which have been diverted to the Analysis and Control Division of the IRS in Washington D.C.

Nobody that I am aware of has ever had criminal charges brought against them that resulted in a prosecution. There are many that do not get processed because they were not complete or filed properly.

This shows that those people who have followed the correct procedures in filing their UCC documents using the redemption process have not committed any crime. This goes for prosecution by the Department of the Treasury, the Secret Service, the Department of Justice or the IRS.

Will Filing UCC Financing Statements and Change/Amendments Cover All Commercial Activity, Civil Cases, and Also Criminal Actions?

Government sources claim that all commercial activity in the United States and other countries fall under the legislated (Administrative) Law which is also called the Uniform Commercial Code. Once processed through the Federal Reserve System and/or the Department of the Treasury, these transactions are bonded.

Although the Court System claims to have Jurisdiction over Commercial Transactions that seem to break criminal laws, in reality the UCC Articles on their own are Administrative Law and do not fall under any jurisdiction of the courts or to litigation.

The Bond Number On Your Certificate Of Live Birth Is Also Stamped On Federal Reserve Notes

When an application and Certificate of Live Birth is delivered to the Department of the Treasury in Washington, D.C., that certificate becomes bonded. There is an account produced which we know as the Social Security Number. This means there are funds borrowed against these accounts.

The credit approved on paper is then invested in stocks and bonds. The Bureau of Engraving states that even the Federal Reserve uses the bond number which is stamped on the Certificate of Live Birth as it is also stamped on the Federal Reserve notes themselves. The bond number has one letter from (A-N) which is followed by eight numbers. You will notice recently printed social security cards are now also printed with the bond number on the back in red ink.

It is a fact that every single living, breathing human being in the United States is bonded and used in commercial activities by the Corporation of the United States which has received them.

People who have properly and correctly filed within their birth state or UCC region will create a completely separate entity or a Secured Party completely separate from their government created debtor. This is the strawman.

When the filing and the instruction order (the Chargeback) the IRS 1040 ES form, the AFV stamped birth certificate lets the Secretary of the Treasury know that the secured party has been created with a prior and superior claim to all the assets and liabilities of the debtor.

These liabilities should be forwarded to the Secretary to be processed and discharged through the UCC Contract Trust.

There Are More and More States That Are Now Accepting the UCC Financing Statement and Addendum

There are more and more states that are now accepting the UCC financing statement and addendum. I have not heard of one state that has sought prosecution for any filing as being illegal, civil or criminal.

There are a few states that are still trying to figure out what to do with the revised UCC Code (July 1, 2001). There are several counties that have no provisions for the perfecting of the UCC filing under Article 9-333(a) as a Possessory Lien. When 9-333(a) was included it was the first time an UCC had a form of lien by name included in the filing.

Is the Redemption Process an Attempt to Gain Something for Nothing from the Treasury Department?

After June of 1933 the international financiers who are the actual owners of the Federal Reserve system took ownership and control over all private and real property. This was done with the permission of Congress, and an executive order signed by the President.

By instituting your person to the status of the secured party for the government created entity listed on the Certificate of Live Birth is not the same thing as getting “something for nothing.”

These procedures set up by the government were put in place so that the secured party could reclaim a part of what is rightfully theirs under the U.S. Constitution. Congress made provision beginning in the early 1900s for every minor to reinstate their status as an American under the U.S. Constitution when they became of age. You were a minor when the original contract (Application) was entered into by your parents. These provisions were scattered throughout various legislative acts, joint resolutions and executive orders, many in 1933, as well as in the Congressional Record based on Public Policy HJR-192, codified in Public Law 73-10 and confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. See Guarantee Trust of New York v. Henwood, et al.

By these placement actions the government has kept the details so vague and hard to reference that no person could remedy himself without persistent research. There was not until recently very many people who even knew that these procedures existed.

The most important part of the redemption of your strawman is filing your UCC with the birth state or UCC regional office, the Secretary of the Treasury. Filing in the state of residence is required to the redemption process.

The International Monetary Fund using the Secretary of the Treasury as its representative, and using the Federal Reserve and the ability of the IRS to collect revenue has virtual control over every single citizens assets.

Once the secured party uses the UCC/Redemption they will create the right to reverse this control over the government created Debtor (Strawman). What the secured party accomplishes with this is to put themselves on the same level as the Secretary of the Treasury and this will lead to taking back the control over their own assets.

Is This Just a “Get Rich Quick Scheme?”

A properly prepared and correctly filed UCC filing will ensure in the future to protect the property and assets of the secured party. These filings will make it clear that there is a legal and vested interest control of the secured party. You will not have to deal in Court jurisdictions and stay out of the area of controversy.

But does the redemption process entail a simple “Get Rich Quick Scheme” that will only end up with the filer coming under closer scrutiny by the government against those who participate in a UCC filing?

Under the UCC/Redemption Process, the secured party does not obtain the actual application for a Certificate of Live Birth. This means that the process is only to be used for an “Accepted For Value” answer to any commercial claim.

If a written and contracted claim is received by the debtor (Strawman), it can be accepted for value by the secured party. The claim can then be discharged when the proper documents are forwarded through the Secretary of the Treasury to the UCC contract trust which remains filed with the Analysis and Control Division of the IRS.

There are many people who have tried to sidestep or manipulate this fact just to find that law enforcement as well as the courts will be more than happy to enforce and adjudicate. IRS-CID and FBI are very quickly able to use threats and intimidation to unlawfully dissuade what only the courts of law should decide upon.

The Internal Revenue Service Has Increased Its Use of Illegal Threats and Intimidation

The Department of the Treasury employees make it quite clear that they will not accept or perform any actions to faxed orders, telephoned or wired instructions. It must be hard-copies that are original in both signature and any forms or documents. These documents must be delivered by certified (or registered) mail and must be filed with both the state of residence as well as the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Internal Revenue Service has increased its use of illegal threats and intimidation. They use the FBI to aid them in their attempts to admonish and stop the presentments of any Bill of Exchange documents delivered by the secured party to the secretary.

This does not mean that properly presented and prepared negotiable instruments from a legitimate Secured Party should and can be legally processed under law through local financial institutions by the person making the claim. This is done through the Secretary of the Treasury and recorded by the financial institution through the Treasury tax and loan (TTL) account.

There are some employees at the Department of the Treasury who continue to misdirect many of the documents that is presented by a secured party to the Secretary of the Treasury by mislabeling them as Treasury Securities (they are not Treasury Securities). Then they are forwarded to the Bureau of Public Debt rather then sending them to the Analysis and Control Division of the IRS and the UCC Contract Trust.

“We the People” Are Continuing to Gain Knowledge and Information

From what I have been able to learn, the discharge of claims in the public sector whether federal or state claims, issued by the Internal Revenue Service are easily discharged with a simple computer entry and transfer of credit and debt through the computer using the IRS Technical Support Division.

There is verification that this process has come from the Special Procedure Handling Offices of the IRS. When a secured party utilizes the Uniform Commercial Code correctly, the field is leveled as it pertains to the degree of commercial transactions.

Despite the blockage of information as well as being told false information “We The People” are continuing to gain knowledge and information regardless of being the target of threats and blackmail.

“You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

All that is required to allow evil to flourish is that too many good men do nothing.

— Edmund Burke

It seems that over twenty five million Americans have successfully redeemed their strawman and achieved access to their strawman trust account before 26 May 2003. It is rumored that many of these twenty five million were political insiders like politicians, judges, lawyers, corporate executives, senior military, secret service and security services personnel and their families and others who are implicated in the establishment and the maintaining in this fictional and fraudulent system, a system that has been used to abuse the mass population of the United States for over seventy years prior to 2003.

That averages out to over three hundred and fifty seven thousand people who found a way around this ruse every year. Surely the number of people filing UCC financing statements have risen dramatically since 2003. Since the true knowledge of this process is making its way out to the United States population, the number of people filing has incrementally increased.

It seems that if twenty five million Americans knew that this was a scam for well over seventy years, yet not one broke their silence to make the rest of us aware of the charade. Then it is safe to assume that these people were part of the conspiracy about the fraud perpetrated against the American people.

The amount of people who took part in this process while remaining silent explains why this web of lies has been held in in place for so many years. Enormous numbers of people on the inside who had knowledge of the truth and received benefits from it explains the slight possibility that they might divulge some of the details about the scam by releasing anonymous details without putting themselves in great danger if they were careful about remaining anonymous while they did so.

There is an old saying by Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797):

‘All that is required to allow evil to flourish is that too many good men do nothing.’

I believe that most people will do nothing to redeem themselves simply because they believe they are better off being property of the state and that being held responsible for a government-created strawman is just fine with them.

That is the reason that this deception has endured for so long. Millions of Americans have consciously done nothing to disrupt the status quo even though they knew about the scheme and even benefited from the fraudulent system. Even though they knew the system was enslaving the American people as well as probably enslaving the rest of the world as well.

If This Is Done This Whole Charade of Control and Ownership Will End!

It would probably be safe to assume that the same fraud is being committed against people in the UK, Canada, Australia and other nations in which this system of enslavement was established. This is to say that there were millions of people in other countries outside the United States who have also become part of the conspiracy.

There has been a long time plan by global bankers to create a New World Order. This order would allow those in the order to own the world and everyone and every single thing in it. This conspiracy has been perpetrated by enormous numbers of lemmings and sycophants who thought that in the end they would benefit from the process. If they understood the entire plot or just there small part in it is hard to determine.

It does not seem that many average people who were not part of the conspiracy of this devious system will discover and take advantage of the redemption process The number of average people learning the processes of the redemption process will grow rapidly now that the information is making its way to them via the Internet and other sources.

Once you become aware of this situation, you should do everything in your power to fully understand the process, and pass on your knowledge to others.

If this is done this whole charade of control and ownership will end!

This will end the global financiers plot to create a New World Order that will turn the world’s people into nothing more then slaves serving their global masters.

Beware!

There are many Strawman/redemption scams out there. Do not be fooled by these. Do not pay someone to teach you the process or to file for you.

Do your own research and make sure all the documentation has followed the correct procedures. Also make sure the documents are filled out and filed correctly.

You are responsible for this. This is not a simple process and you will have to educate yourself as to the correct procedures.

If you feel someone is trying to scam you or place liens on your property, my best advice would be to contact your local FBI Office.

Disclaimer

The materials available on this article are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. All are copyrighted properties of the author and may not be used without permission of the author.

Source: Filing a UCC1 With the Treasury Department and Redeeming Strawman Account – hubpages.com

Recommended Links For Remedies

The links on this page will provide you with invaluable study material, templates and guides. If you are needing a remedy for your particular situation, you may find the help you need in the vast amount of information that will be uncovered in the links below.

Here are some excellent links from Yusef El’s site, HighFrequencyRadioNetwork.com. Bookmark these pages for future reference!

PDF files for study: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/pdf-files/

Templates and guides: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/templates/

Case law: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/case-law/

Interesting links: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/links/

Here are some excellent links from the Hindsight Radio Family!

Here are the website links

Keith Bey: http://www.keithbey.com/

Dwight Bey: http://www.corporatefreedomgroup.com/

Khalifa: http://www.templeofcommerce.com/

You can order a consultation by visiting any of the websites listed above. You may want to listen to shows from each one at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hindsight2020 to determine who you want to consult with.

Acceptance of Deed Creator

Create an Acceptance of Deed document FREE!

Create Your Document HERE!

This form will create an Acceptance Of Deed template for your records.

I am NOT a lawyer and THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at Contact Me Here..

After you complete the form and click update, your document template will be produced below the form. You can copy-and-paste the template into your document editing program of choice and work on it from there.

Return to FightTheFraud.com

Resources For Remedies

The links on this page will provide you with invaluable study material, templates and guides. If you are needing a remedy for your particular situation, you may find the help you need in the vast amount of information that will be uncovered in the links below.

 

Here are some excellent links from Yusef El’s site, HighFrequencyRadioNetwork.com. Bookmark these pages for future reference!

PDF files for study: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/pdf-files/

Templates and guides: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/templates/

Case law: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/case-law/

Interesting links: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/links/

 

Here are more excellent links!

Here are the website links

Keith Bey: http://www.keithbey.com/

Dwight Bey: http://www.corporatefreedomgroup.com/

Khalifa: http://www.templeofcommerce.com/

 

 

 

Return to FightTheFraud.com

Questions for Discovery, Disclosure, and Remedies

Questions for Discovery, Disclosure, and Remedies:     

.
1. What are some the Instruments, Documents or Articles of Evidence lawfully needed and necessary for the Banks, the Loan Officers, the Debt Collectors, or for the sponsoring Corporate City of Philadelphia, to enter into ‘Evidence’ before competent judicial Court(s) ‘Moved’ to sanction the ‘Writs of Execution’ or any other Actions used to seize or to claim confiscation – ownership of the Homeowner(s) private properties? Are you aware of the existence of such requisite Instruments? Were you given certified copies of any of these Instruments before the Action(s) were commenced? Did you, the Homeowner(s) or Borrower(s) publicize a claim for your undisclosed Estate(s) or (Trusts) or were you given the opportunity to Discharge the alleged Debts? Did proper sanctioning Courts and the Sheriff rightly examine and investigate the following (for the Record) as required by due process?

a.) Submission of Original Promissory Note(s) (front and back). _____.

b.) Submission of every Allonge (front and back). _____.

c.) Shown to the Court(s) evidentiary proof of the true Holder(s) and filed Documented proof of Authority for someone to ‘Represent’ or to ‘Act’ for the lawfully – verified and reachable Holder(s). _____.

Yes _____.   No _____. I Don’t Know _____.      

.
2. The word, Mortgage means, ‘Dead Pledge’! Affirm for the record what is ‘dead’ about a Mortgage and ‘who’ is the Pledge?
I Knew The Meaning of A Mortgage.________.  
I Did Not Know. _____.
The _________________ is ‘Dead’.    _____________________is the ‘Pledge’.
I Do Not Know Who The Pledge Is. ____.     
.
3. Name the Person or Party that issued the MORTGAGE, and is that Party lawfully documented and identified as the present HOLDER(s) of the alleged LOAN or PROMISSORY NOTE?
The Verified Holder is:___________________________.
I Don’t Know _____.                
.
4. Did the Bank Representative, Loan Officer or PARTY issuing the LOAN, sell the MORTGAGE / LOAN to another PARTY? If so, how soon after, were the MORTGAGE / LOAN sold after their initial issue? Were you, the Borrower, informed of a sale?
Yes _____.  No _____.  
.
5. How much MONEY (Specie) did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) place in the hand of the alleged Borrower? Did a physical transaction of any MONEY (specie) from the Lender to the Borrower ever take place during the commencement or execution of the MORTGAGE agreement contract?
Yes _____.  No _____.
How Much Money (Specie) Was Given? ________________________.              
.
6. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) give the alleged Borrower any tangible thing at all, other than to give to the alleged borrower a copy of the Promissory Note Contract?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
7. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) sign the MORTGAGE CONTRACT (with a wet-ink signature) at the time of the execution of the Loan Contract, to seal the deal with the alleged Borrower?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
8. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) inform the Borrower that he or she (the Lender) was planning to, or that he or she (the Lender) was authorized by the Borrower(s), to open up or to establish a TRUST ACCOUNT in the Borrower’s name(s)?
Yes _____.  No _____.                
.
9. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) give you (the Borrower), the original or a certified copy of the DEED OF TRUST?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
10. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) (at any time during the construction of the Mortgage or Agreement) say that you, the Borrower, bequeaths or donates your home or property as a GIFT (de donis) to the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s)? Was the subject of the home or property (as a gift to them) ever discussed?
Yes _____.  No _____.                
.
11. Did you, the alleged Borrower(s), receive any MONEY (specie) derived from any benefits generated by the ‘DEED OF TRUST’ or by any other Agreement(s) from the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s)?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
12. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) receive any MONEY or BENEFITS from, or have access to money derived from, the DEEDS OF TRUST and informing the Borrower(s), of such transactions?
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.     
.
13. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) inform you, the Homeowner(s), about the type of TRUST that was created in your name(s)? Is it a Cestui Que Trust?
Yes ____.  No ____. I Don’t Know ____.
Is it a Cestui Que Use Trust?         Yes ____.  No ____. I Don’t Know ____.
Is it a Cestui Que Vie Trust?       Yes ____.  No ____. I Don’t Know____. 
.
14. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) at any time, make any verbal or written TRUST REPORTS to you, the alleged Borrower(s)? Did the Trustee(s) mention ‘Reconveyance’ to you?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
15. Are the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) the proven and legitimate HOLDERS of the MORTGAGES, or are they acting with deceit and Arbitrary when, in fact, they are not the true HOLDERS? Are they seeking to opportunistically Claim private properties under some undisclosed ‘Rules of ABANDONMENT’ of the Deeds of Trust, of which the Borrowers were not informed?
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.                
.
16. Did verified, competent Courts and the Sheriff examine and investigate the Instruments entered into the PUBLIC RECORD by the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) before initiating or moving to grant FORECLOSURE Orders and WRITS OF EXECUTION? Were the Homeowners informed by the Trustee(s) or Feoffer(s) prior to the Foreclosure Actions, or about the Trustee’s plan to sell the Deeds of Trust?Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.                
.
17. Are there any other unidentified Assigns, Parties, Trustees, Feoffers, Trusts, or associated Instruments, about whom or which the Homeowner(s) or property owner(s) should be informed by Disclosure?
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.                 
.
18. Do the Homeowners, whose names were placed on undisclosed TRUSTS by the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s), have access to, or have Beneficiary Rights of Emoluments or Possession to, the profits generated by the Deeds of Trust?
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.      
.
19. Do you, or did you, the Homeowner or property owner, plan or intend to ABANDON your Home or Private Property or to sell the Deed of Trust?
Yes _____.  No _____.      
.
20. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) threaten, coerce, pressure, or by some other manner or influence, tell, or encourage you, (the Homeowner) to ABANDON your Home, Private Property, or Deed of Trust?
Yes _____.  No _____.     
.
21. Was the Sheriff paid or compensated in any undisclosed form by the Banks or Loan Officers to enforce the WRITS OF EXECUTION against Homeowners or property owners?           
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.     
.
22. Have the Homeowners or any other Representative(s) acting on their behalf, assured that these primal matters are in proper order, and that the same have been ‘Disclosed’ to the Homeowners and property owners? Have all due processes of law been affirmatively followed by the Courts and the Sheriff, and posted for the ‘Public Record’ before any Foreclosure Actions were sanctioned?
Yes _____. No _____. I Don’t Know _____. 
.
b ____________________________________________ a   
.
    Additional Notices:  If the Foregoing Questions are not certifiably and affirmatively understood, answered and documented ‘For the Record’, then the Homeowners, property owners, and the ‘Coalition’ participants have much more active studies, demands, and Discovery – demand work to do! Get busy before any other ill-informed ralliers or RALLIES are held in vain; or before any other untenable FORECLOSURE, OR SHERIFF’S SALES take place!!! The threatened sales of natural peoples’ private properties were, are, and have been posted in the public newspapers and public records! When any government official or Public Servant uses authority to rule against, or to make judgements or decrees against the natural people or citizens, which terminate in the injury, loss of property, loss of liberties, or the interruption, confiscation, or restriction of any substantive right, such Public Servant(s) must also post in those same publications and instances, the verifiable and documented “Delegation of Authority Order” (D.O.A.O.) of the Officer(s) exercising such powers.       
.
     A Sheriff is the Chief Executive and Administrative Officer of a county; holding this seat of Office by virtue of being chosen by popular ELECTION. The Sheriff’s principal duties are to aid the Criminal Courts and Civil Courts of Record. They are assigned to such acts as, serving process; summoning juries; executing judgements; holding judicial sales; and other associated law and legal matters. The Sheriff is also the chief conservator of the peace within his or her territorial jurisdiction. This delegated authority also includes the Deputy Sheriff.

MERS v. Robinson… Big Win For Robinson in California Quite Title Case

MERS Gets It’s ASS Handed To It!

BIG Win Over MERS Download Court Order Here

 On January 11, 2012, Defendants filed a civil action in the

Los Angeles County Superior Court to quiet title to the Property

and expunge the Deed of Trust.

I. Background

On January 11,2012, Defendants filed a civil action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court to quiet title to the Property and expunge the Deed of Trust. See Compl. 130. Defendants named United Pacific Mortgage – the original Lender under the Deed of Trust, as a defendant in the quiet title action; however, Defendants did not name MERS – the nominee of United Pacific Mortgage, as a party or provide any notice of the lawsuit to MERS. Id. ,33. Because United Pacific Mortgage did not appear in the action, Defendants secured a default judgment, thereby expunging the Deed of Trust on the Property. Id. , 35, Ex. 4. On April 25, 2013, Defendants recorded the judgment expunging the Deed of Trust on the Property in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County as instrument number 20130621913. Id.
. . .

A. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 762.010

The gravamen of the parties’ dispute raises a single, all-important question: Were Plaintiffs entitled to notice of Defendants , quiet title action before Defendants brought that action in Califomia state court? Defendants unsurprisingly answer this question in the negative, reasoning that Plaintiffs were not entitled to notice of the quiet title action because Plaintiffs are merely the nominee or agent of the Lender under the Deed of Trust and therefore have no
independent interest in the Property. See Mot. 14:19-26; see also Mot. 18:19-12 (“Plaintiffs’ claim of ownership, and of the rights of a beneficiary with status as a party in interest, is strictly a fiction. “). Plaintiffs, on the other hand, answer in the affirmative, declaring that as the identified “beneficiary of record” under the Deed of Trust, they have an interest in the Property sufficient to entitle them to notice of Defendants’ quiet title action. See Opp. 2:14-16 (“As the plainly identified beneficiary of record under a deed of trust, MERS claimed an interest that entitled it to so notice.”). For the reasons explained infra, the Court must side with Defendants. Plaintiffs were not entitled to notice of the quiet title action.

[MERS et al Lost on ALL Counts]

The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ section 762.010 claim to set aside the judgment in the quiet title action WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
. . .
The Court thus DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ slander of title claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
. . .
Because Plaintiffs here present no other viable state law claims for relief, they necessarily fail to assert a claim for cancellation of instruments as well. See Reade, 2013 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 160681, at *26. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
. . .
The Court thus DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

IV. Conclusion

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. If Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint, they must do so by March 3, 2014. Failure to file an amended complaint by this date will result in the dismissal with prejudice of the action.

Download Court Order Here

Download MERS Complaint Here

Case Regarding Banks Standing

CASE

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Herbert N. Elesh (Illinois 2013)

Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2005 HE-3, has filed this suit to foreclose defendant’s mortgage. Defendant contends that plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this suit and asks the Court to dismiss it. Because defendant attacks the factual basis of plaintiff’s standing, rather than the sufficiency of its jurisdictional allegations, the Court can consider matters outside of the pleadings in deciding this motion. See Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440, 444 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff, which has the burden of proof on this issue, has constitutional standing to pursue this suit only if it suffered a “concrete and particularized” injury that is traceable to defendant’s conduct and is likely to be redressed by a decision in its favor in this case. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

With respect to that issue, plaintiff alleges that it owns the promissory note defendant gave to his lender, Decision One Mortgage Co., and thus has been injured by defendant’s failure to make the payments due under it. As proof of this contention, plaintiff attached to its complaint what it claims is a true copy of the promissory note bearing an indorsement in blank. However, the note attached to the complaint bears no indorsement whatsoever as the purported indorsement language is not signed by the original owner or anyone else. In response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff submitted what it represents is a better copy of the original note. However, the “better Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Elesh Doc. 65 Dockets.Justia.com

The only evidence plaintiff offered at the hearing was the testimony of one witness from the servicer of the note, Ocwen Loan Servicing. The witness had no personal knowledge of whether, when or by whom the contested note was indorsed or any other aspect of the transactions underlying this suit. Moreover, her testimony that Ocwen has a practice of seeking indorsements for notes without them is vitiated by her belief that an indorsement is a rubber stamp of the phrase “pay to the order of” rather than a signature by the obligee of the note.

For these reasons and those stated in open court, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish that: (1) the purported original promissory note is authentic; (2) the note was properly indorsed by an agent of the obligee; or (3) that, when plaintiff filed this suit, it possessed or owned the original promissory note. Because plaintiff has failed to establish that it was injured by defendant’s default on the note, it does not have standing to pursue this suit. Accordingly, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss [40] and dismisses this suit for lack of subject matte jurisdiction. The Court strikes as moot defendant’s motion to strike [45] and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, to appoint a special commissioner and to reassign [51, 54 & 60]. SO ORDERED ENTER: May 21, 2013

HERBERT ELESH vs. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC  REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC…..

This leaves Count 5, in which Elesh challenges the assignment of the mortgage to Deutsche Bank. Defendants argue that Elesh is not a party to the assignment and thus lacks standing to challenge it. Only one of the cases upon which defendants rely, however, is an Illinois case, and that case makes it clear that this supposed “rule” has exceptions. See Bank of America Nat’l Ass’n v. Bassman FBT, LLC, No. 2-11-0729, 2012 IL App (2d) 110729, 981 N.E.2d 1, 6-11 (2012). The basic requirements of standing are that the plaintiff suffered an injury to a legally cognizable interest and is asserting his own legal rights rather than those of a third party. See id. at 6. Elesh unquestionably meets the first requirement; the recorded assignment constitutes a cloud on his title, and Deutsche Bank recently relied on the assignment to prosecute a foreclosure action against him. Elesh also has a viable argument that in challenging the validity of the assignment, he is asserting his own rights and not someone else’s rights. For example, given Deutsche Bank’s apparent lack of possession of the original note, Elesh is put at risk of multiple liability as long as Deutsche Bank claims to hold the mortgage. See id. at 7-8 (citing cases indicating that an obligor has an interest in  ensuring that he will not have to pay the same claim twice). In any event, Illinois law, to  the extent there is much of it on this point, appears to recognize an obligor’s right to  attack an assignment as void or invalid under certain circumstances. See id.   The Court is also inclined to believe that the right to bring a quiet title action – a right that Elesh, as title holder to the property, clearly enjoys – implies the ability to challenge the validity of instruments that constitute clouds on title.

An action to quiet title in property is an equitable proceeding in which a party seeks to remove a cloud on his title to the property. A cloud on title is the semblance of title, either legal or equitable, appearing in some legal form but which is, in fact, unfounded or which it would be inequitable to enforce. Various forms of documents which appeared valid on their face have been held to constitute clouds on title [including subsequent deeds, recorded mortgages, and forged deeds].

Gambino v. Boulevard Mortg. Corp., 398 Ill. App. 3d 21, 52, 922 N.E.2d 380, 410 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Deutsche Bank’s assignment, which it has recorded, arguably constitutes a cloud on Elesh’s title, thus enabling him to challenge it or at least seek its removal via a quiet title action.   For these reasons, the Court declines to dismiss Count 5.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST  v. JAMES L. GILBERT (IL 2nd Appellate 2012)

The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, filed a foreclosure suit against the defendant, James L. Gilbert. Gilbert raised the affirmative defense that Deutsche Bank lacked standing at the time it filed the suit. Gilbert also filed a counterclaim alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C. § 1601 (2006)) and seeking damages. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court initially found in favor of Gilbert on the issue of standing and dismissed the foreclosure. However, following Deutsche Bank’s filing of a motion for reconsideration, the trial court reversed itself and granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank on all claims. Gilbert appeals, arguing that the trial court’s initial decision was correct, and that he is also entitled to summary judgment in his favor on the counterclaim. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of foreclosure and dismiss the cause, and affirm the dismissal of the counterclaim…

On March 10, 2008, Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure action against Gilbert. In its complaint, it alleged that it was the current holder of the indebtedness. Copies of the note and the mortgage were attached to the complaint as exhibits.

On August 25, 2008, MERS (as nominee for WMC Mortgage) executed a document titled “Assignment of Mortgage” (Assignment). The Assignment stated that MERS, for certain consideration “the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,” “assigned and transferred” to Deutsche Bank, “as Trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2005, GSAMP Trust 2005-WMC2,” all interests in Gilbert’s mortgage. On September 12, 2008, Deutsche Bank filed an amended complaint, attaching the Assignment as an exhibit. Gilbert filed an answer, raising the affirmative defense of lack of standing on the ground that the Assignment showed that Deutsche Bank did not own the indebtedness when it originally filed the foreclosure. Gilbert also filed a counterclaim…

…Deutsche Bank contended that it did have standing at the time it filed suit, because the Assignment simply memorialized an earlier transfer of interest. In support, it submitted an affidavit from William F. Loch, an employee of a company that serviced loans for Deutsche Bank, in which Loch averred that, based on his review of “the documents contained in the Gilbert loan file,” MERS assigned its interest to Deutsche Bank on November 1, 2005. Loch did not state how he knew that this was when the assignment occurred, and he did not attach any documentary evidence that the assignment had occurred on this date…

…As to the standing issue, it granted Gilbert’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the foreclosure, finding that Deutsche Bank was not the holder of the indebtedness at the time it filed the suit. The trial court noted Loch’s averment that Deutsche Bank was the holder on the date of filing, but found it “to be a legal conclusion and just because he says it does not make it so.” The trial court further noted that there was no document showing when the assignment took place….

Deutsche Bank filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Assignment “clearly stated” that MERS assigned its interest to Deutsche Bank on November 1, 2005.

Standing to Bring the Foreclosure

The validity of Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action against Gilbert rests on one issue: whether Deutsche Bank had standing—that is, whether it owned the mortgage—on the date that it filed the foreclosure action. There are no disputes about the relevant facts, and the issue is thus a purely legal one that was appropriate for disposition by summary judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2008). We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co., 232 Ill. 2d 196, 201 (2008).

“The doctrine of standing is designed to preclude persons who have no interest in a controversy from bringing suit.” Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248, 262 (2004). A party’s standing to sue must be determined as of the time the suit is filed. Village of Kildeer v. Village of Lake Zurich, 167 Ill. App. 3d 783, 786 (1988). “[A] party either has standing at the time the suit is brought or it does not.” Id. An action to foreclose upon a mortgage may be filed by a mortgagee, i.e., the holder of an indebtedness secured by a mortgage, or by an agent or successor of a mortgagee. See Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnes, 406 Ill. App. 3d 1, 7 (2010); see also 735 ILCS 5/15-1208, 15-1504(a)(3)(N) (West 2008). Lack of standing to bring an action is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving the defense is on the party asserting it. Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252 (2010).

Here, Gilbert raised the affirmative defense of lack of standing both in his answer and in his motion for summary judgment. To support his argument that on the date the foreclosure action was filed Deutsche Bank had no standing to sue him, Gilbert pointed to the note and the mortgage attached to the complaint, both of which identify the mortgagee as MERS—not Deutsche Bank.  Moreover, the Assignment attached to the amended complaint was dated August 25, 2008, and Gilbert argued that this showed that MERS did not assign its interest in the mortgage until several months after the foreclosure action was filed. We find that this evidence met Gilbert’s burden to show that Deutsche Bank lacked standing when the suit was filed, because the note and the mortgage identified the lender as WMC Mortgage and the holder of the mortgage as MERS. Deutsche Bank’s name does not appear on either of these documents. Thus, so far as the documents attached to the complaint establish, Gilbert was correct that Deutsche Bank did not own the indebtedness. As he made out a prima facie showing that Deutsche Bank lacked standing, the burden shifted to Deutsche Bank to refute this evidence or demonstrate a question of fact. Triple R Development, LLC v. Golfview Apartments I, L.P., 2012 IL App (4th) 100956, ¶ 12.

Deutsche Bank attempted to rebut this apparent lack of standing by pointing to the Assignment and the Loch affidavit. However, these items lack evidentiary value. Before the trial court, Deutsche Bank argued that the language of the Assignment established that the transfer of the mortgage had occurred years earlier, on November 1, 2005. On appeal, however, Deutsche Bank wisely abandons that argument (which finds no support in the actual language of the Assignment), and now concedes that the Assignment “does not establish anything about when Plaintiff [Deutsche Bank] obtained its interest in the subject loan.” We agree with this statement. Although the Assignment contains two dates—the date of the trust for which Deutsche Bank is a trustee, and the date on which the Assignment was executed and notarized—it does not explicitly state when the mortgage was assigned to Deutsche Bank. All that can be known about when the assignment took place is that it was no later than the date on which the Assignment was executed.

18 Instead, Deutsche Bank now relies solely on the Loch affidavit to refute the lack of standing shown by the note and the mortgage. Deutsche Bank points to Loch’s statement that the assignment occurred on November 1, 2005, and contends that his statement must be taken as true in the absence of contrary evidence. This legal principle applies only to admissible evidence, however. Complete Conference Coordinators, Inc. v. Kumon North America, Inc., 394 Ill. App. 3d 105, 108 (2009) (only admissible evidence may be considered in support of or opposition to summary judgment). Loch’s statement about the date of the assignment was not admissible, because it was unsupported by any foundation.

The use of affidavits on motions for summary judgment is governed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191(a) (eff. July 1, 2002). Under that rule, affidavits must set out the facts on which the affiant’s claims are based, and attach all documents upon which the affiant relies. Loch, however, did not state how he knew that the assignment took place on November 1, 2005, and he failed to attach any documents supporting his assertion. (As we noted, the Assignment itself provides no support for Loch’s assertion.) Accordingly, Loch’s statement about the date of the assignment does not comply with Rule 191(a) and may be disregarded. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 132 (1992) (unsupported conclusions and opinions were insufficient to raise an issue of fact); Madden v. Paschen/S.N. Nielson, Inc., 395 Ill. App. 3d 362, 388 (2009) (legal conclusions and unsupported statements were properly stricken). Disregarding Loch’s unsupported statement, the sole evidence that Deutsche Bank ever became the holder of the indebtedness was the Assignment and, as Deutsche Bank concedes, that document does not establish when Deutsche Bank became the holder.

Deutsche Bank argues that, because lack of standing is an affirmative defense, Gilbert bears the burden of proving that it did not own the loan on the date that Deutsche Bank filed the foreclosure. This, of course, is true. U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Sauer, 392 Ill. App. 3d 942, 946 (2009). However, Gilbert’s documentary evidence that Deutsche Bank did not own the loan (the mortgage and the note, and an assignment executed after the date of filing) constituted prima facie evidence of lack of standing. “ ‘A “prima facie” defense is sufficient at law unless and until rebutted by other evidence.’ ” Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Construction Systems, Inc., 382 Ill. App. 3d 334, 366 (2008) (quoting Darling & Co. v. Pollution Control Board, 28 Ill. App. 3d 258, 264 (1975)).  Deutsche Bank also argues that its standing to bring the action was established by its complaint, which alleged that it was the holder of the indebtedness and attached copies of the note and the mortgage. See Barnes, 406 Ill. App. 3d at 6 (a plaintiff sufficiently pleads a cause of action for foreclosure if it alleges that it holds the mortgage and attaches a copy of the note and the mortgage).  However, the attached note and mortgage did not show that Deutsche Bank owned the loan, and thus they contradicted Deutsche Bank’s allegation that it did own the loan when it filed the suit. Burton v. Airborne Express, Inc., 367 Ill. App. 3d 1026, 1034 (2006) (“Exhibits are a part of the complaint to which they are attached,” and facts contained within an exhibit serve to negate inconsistent allegations contained within the body of the complaint). Moreover, it is well established that a party may not rely on the allegations of its pleadings to contradict evidence produced by the movant that would entitle it to judgment. Triple R Development, 2012 IL App (4th) 100956, ¶ 12. As Deutsche Bank produced no competent evidence rebutting Gilbert’s prima facie showing that the bank lacked standing at the time of filing, Gilbert was entitled to summary judgment in his favor on this issue.

In a last-ditch effort to avoid this result, Deutsche Bank argues that section 2-407 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2008)), which allows the joinder of necessary parties after the commencement of a suit, protects against the dismissal of its complaint for lack of standing. Deutsche Bank argues that its amendment of the complaint, which attached the recently executed Assignment, acted as a “joinder” of itself in a new capacity—as the now-undisputed owner of the loan. Not surprisingly, Deutsche Bank is unable to point to any case law supporting such a novel application of section 2-407 to cure a plaintiff’s lack of standing. To the contrary, standing must exist when the suit is filed. Village of Kildeer, 167 Ill. App. 3d at 786. As Deutsche Bank lacked standing at the time of filing, the foreclosure action was defective ab initio and Deutsche Bank could not cure this defect by “joining” the suit as a proper party at a later date.

In summary, Gilbert was entitled to judgment in his favor on the foreclosure, because Deutsche Bank lacked standing to bring that foreclosure. Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Nelson, 382 Ill. App. 2d 1184, 1186 (2008). We note that, although there is little case law on this specific issue in Illinois, our sister courts in New York have held repeatedly that, unless an assignment of a mortgage is executed prior to the date on which the foreclosure action is filed, the assignee lacks standing to bring the foreclosure and the action should be dismissed, even where the assignment was executed only a few months after the complaint was filed. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Marchione, 887 N.Y.S.2d 615, 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009); LaSalle Bank National Ass’n v. Ahearn, 875 N.Y.S.2d 595, 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Other states have taken a similar approach. “It is a fundamental precept of the law to expect a foreclosing party to actually be in possession of its claimed interest in the note, and to have the proper supporting documentation on hand when filing suit, *** so that the defendant is duly apprised of the rights of the plaintiff.” U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Baber, 2012 OK 55, ¶ 6, 280 P.2d 956; see also Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Rouleau, 2012 VT 19, ¶ 16, 46 A.3d 905; Davenport v. HSBC Bank USA, 739 N.W.2d 383, 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (foreclosure must be vacated where bank “did not yet own the indebtedness that it sought to foreclose”). We see no flaws in this reasoning. Accordingly, the order granting Deutsche Bank’s motion for reconsideration and entering judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank must be reversed, the judgment of foreclosure and the order confirming the sale must be vacated, and the foreclosure must be dismissed.

NOTE: Affidavits of corporate officers do not hold the same authority as those of private parties. An affidavit of a corporate officer must be supported with supporting documents. At the time of their filing, they must be in possession of all pertinent documents or they do not have standing. Assignment = legal process in which beneficial interest is transferred from one party to another

Pushing for judicial foreclosure

State Rep. Andy Schor introduces legislation that would put some foreclosures in court when banks have behaved badly

by Sam Inglot

Thursday, June 6 — State Rep. Andy Schor, D-Lansing, introduced legislation today that would allow people who are facing mortgage foreclosure to take their case before a judge if their lender has been shady with its practices.

 “This is exactly the direction we need to go in,” said Ingham County Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel Jr., who has been actively fighting mortgage foreclosure fraud over the past two years. “Holding the banks responsible for their illegal actions is a good thing and due process for citizens facing foreclosure is a good thing. I look forward to working with him to get bills passed.”

 Michigan is a foreclosure by advertisement state, which means banks and lenders don’t need to take homeowners to court to evict them if they are behind on their mortgage payments; the bank/lender simply has to post a notice on the homeowner’s door. Because of this, Hertel said there is no due process for people facing foreclosure,unless they decide to sue.

 House Bill 4800 would amend the Revised Judicature Act to allow for judicial foreclosure hearings before a judge if the lender purposely fails to record mortgages or assignments on mortgages, advises borrowers to not make payments on mortgages or places false signatures on mortgage foreclosure documents.

 “If a lender is engaging in these practices, a person can take a judicial action and get the court to intervene in, delay or stop the foreclosure,” Schor said. “And we’ve seen plenty of cases like these before.”

 There are situations where lenders will advise borrowers to go into default so they can qualify for a mortgage modification, Hertel said. But when the borrower goes into default, the lender could then refuse to negotiate, putting the borrower in a precarious position.

 There is legislation awaiting a vote in the Senate that would shorten the foreclosure redemption period — when people can challenge the legality of a foreclosure, negotiate with their bank, or sell their home in a short sale — from six months to 60 days. The legislation comes as federal regulations starting next year will extend the negotiation period between banks and property owners before foreclosure from 90 to 120 days.

 Banks support the legislation, saying that the longer redemption period leads to abandoned properties, which contribute to blight, and that new federal regulations would help people avoid foreclosure. But Hertel, who has proved foreclosure fraud in court, says the shortened redemption period gives citizens less of a chance to keep their home. Schor said he introduced the legislation because of other foreclosure bills floating around the Capitol.

 “For me, as we’re talking about foreclosure and how long the process should be, I wanted to get this into the conversation,” Schor said. “This will take care of bad actors without affecting the good ones.”

Oregon Supreme Court rules on MERS, will affect foreclosure process

Written by Peter Wong Statesman Journal

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today in a pair of cases that will affect out-of-court foreclosures.

The court decided that a mortgage-industry database cannot stand in for the actual lenders on real estate deeds under Oregon law.

Justice David Brewer, writing for the court, said that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. cannot be considered a “beneficiary” under a 1959 law governing real estate deeds in Oregon.

The national database was launched in 1997 to track home mortgage loans – about two-thirds of the nation’s loans are covered by it – but it does not lend or collect money itself. The system was created to track loans when it became common to bundle and sell such loans as big packages to investors, a practice known as “securitizing” mortgages.

“A ‘beneficiary’ for the purposes of the Oregon Trust Deeds Act is the person to whom the obligation that the trust deed secures is owed. At the time of origination, that person is the lender,” Brewer wrote.

Despite deed language that appears to give MERS authority to act, he wrote, “the inclusion of that provision does not alter the trust deed’s designation of the lender as the ‘beneficiary’ or make MERS eligible to serve in that capacity.”

Justice Rives Kistler, joined by Chief Justice Thomas Balmer, wrote a separate opinion that agreed in part but also disagreed on a key point.

“In my view, nothing in state law precludes the parties to a trust deed from designating MERS as a beneficiary as long as MERS is serving as the agent for the lender and its successors,” Kistler wrote.

The court opinions were issued in a pair of cases.

One case actually consolidates four cases pending in U.S. District Court in Oregon by foreclosed homeowners against Recontrust Co., Bank of America, the Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., and MERS. The federal court asked the Oregon Supreme Court to provide its interpretation of the 1959 state law.

The other case involved a suit by Rebecca Niday against GMAC Mortgage and MERS. The justices upheld the Oregon Court of Appeals, which ruled last year that individual lenders – not the national system – must file deed assignations with counties before they can begin out-of-court foreclosures. The decision compels lenders to file each change of ownership of a loan.

Coupled with state legislation in 2012, it put a halt to most out-of-court foreclosures, compelling the use of more expensive court proceedings.

The Court of Appeals decision reversed a judgment against Niday in Clacakmas County Circuit Court, where the case will return for further proceedings after today’s Supreme Court ruling.

pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745 or twitter.com/capitolwong

Federal court ruling against MERS foreclosure in Oregon comes (again) as Republican lawmakers try to validate it

By Brent Hunsberger, The Oregonian

A federal judge has yet again issued a ruling that effectively questions the validity of scores of foreclosures in Oregon, a crisis the Legislature could resolve in the mortgage industry’s favor this week if bank lobbyists and House Republican leaders have their way.

Simon sided with two other federal judges in Oregon in ruling that lenders have violated state recording law. They’ve done this, they say, by logging sales within its nationwide Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. and declaring MERS a “beneficiary” of the loan.

The mortgage industry created MERS to reduce the need for recording loan sales, or assignments. That enabled mortgages to be quickly bundled and sold to investors. MERS does not loan money, collect loan payments or invest in mortgages. It is, however, named in certain loan documents as the mortgagee or beneficiary of record.

Simon ruled that under state law, lenders must file a notice in county records each time they sell or transfer a note, or a promise from a borrower to pay. 

MERS, he ruled, can file those notices on the lenders’ behalf, if a lender has authorized it to do so. MERS cannot, however, simply log those notices within its own database without also recording it publicly, he found. In millions of loans nationwide, it has.

In acting as he did, Simon overruled lower Magistrate Janice Stewart’s previous findings and recommendations in the case. His ruling also conflicts with opinions in other cases issued by his equals in Oregon — Judge Michael Mosman and Judge Marco A. Hernandez.

But it aligns with rulings in other cases by Judge Owen Panner and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Frank Alley. Panner’s ruling, which also came last year as lawmakers debated the MERS issue, is on appeal to the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals.

A spokesman for MERS declined to say whether it would appeal the ruling. “We believe that at the end of the day MERS’ role as beneficiary will be validated as it was in two other Oregon Federal District Court cases this week,” Jason Lobo said.

The differences of opinion in these courts underscore how crucial an Oregon Supreme Court ruling will be, unless the legislature changes state law entirely this week. A ruling by the state’s highest court is still likely months away.

In the case before Simon, Douglas and Eileen James borrowed from Northwest Mortgage Group in 2007 to buy their Clackamas County home. They got behind on their payments in 2010, and Bank of America and MERS foreclosed. The James’ sued the bank’s foreclosure and servicing arms, MERS and Northwest Mortgage to stop the sale.

In the meantime, Northwest Mortgage sold the note to Countrywide Mortgage, which Bank of America took over, the James say. Bank of America then sold the note to an investment trust but held on to it to collect payments. The bank sent the trust deed to some intermediaries, which eventually sent it to the investment trust. None of these transfers was recorded in Clackamas County records.

By way of background, a note is a promise to pay. A trust deed secures that promise, in this case, with a lien on land and home. With MERS, the mortgage industry separates the note and the trust deed. MERS does not keep the note, but MERS is named as a beneficiary on trust deeds.

Simon, however, ruled that “the beneficiary of the trust deed is the noteholder.” The party the borrower owes money to is the noteholder, not MERS, he said.

Simon said Oregon courts “reaching back more than a century” have found that the note and its security instrument may not be passed on to separate parties. In these cases, the security instrument is the trust deed.

Simon wrote that Bank of America and MERS wanted him to interpret Oregon law in a way that makes Oregon deed of trust law “virtually meaningless.” If he did, lenders could designate anyone to act in their interests, “no matter how remote, disinterested or obscure,” he wrote. “The Oregon Supreme Court would be unlikely to endorse such a broad interpretation.” 

Such an interpretation, he said, could open borrowers to unauthorized foreclosure and wrongful sale of their property.

Simon also declined to adopt the reasoning Judge Mossman used in a separate case. Last year, Mosman found that MERS has the authority to accept loan payments and, therefore, could act as a beneficiary under Oregon law. 

However, MERS by its own admission it has no right to take loan payments or to own the note, Simon noted. He found Mossman’s ruling “inconsistent with what MERS itself concedes.” He questioned the chaos that would ensue if borrowers started sending their payments to MERS instead of to their debtor, or if MERS started accepting them instead of the lender or investor.

Simon’s ruling only applies in Oregon. Recording and real estate laws differ in other states. And he rejected the James’ claim that they’d been victims of “robosigning.”

He also noted that lenders in Oregon had another way to foreclose on borrowers – by filing a lawsuit in court. 

But the current controversy arises because the Oregon Legislature in the 1950s allowed lenders to foreclose more quickly outside of court. As a tradeoff for that expediency, lawmakers also gave borrowers certain protections from wrongful foreclosure. They required lenders to give proper notice of the sale and a clear public record of who’s owed the debt, Simon found.

Banks, credit unions and House Republicans are pushing in the final days of the session for such a change. State Rep. Gene Whisnant, R-Sunriver, and Rep. Matt Wand, R-Troutdale, have championed an amendment that, among other things, would retroactively give lenders and MERS the authority to foreclose without recording every loan sale in local public records. 

No public hearing on the amendment has been held. House Democrat leaders oppose it, and the dispute is partly holding up other homeowner protections approved by the Senate.

Kelly Harpster, a Lake Oswego attorney who represents homeowners, called Simon’s ruling “the most thorough and thoughtful analysis of the MERS issue that has yet been published … However, the opinion is not binding on any judge in state or federal court. They are free to adopt Judge Simon’s reasoning or reject it.”

If the stalemate in Salem holds, Oregon’s High Court will have to resolve this disagreement. In the meantime, foreclosures in the state will likely take longer, slowing any recovery in the housing market.