get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars,can i make money from amazon reviews,how to tell fake reviews on

Welcome to get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

forget “split-the-note” theory, it’s two-faced!

about "notice"

notice is the "legal cognizance of a fact."' the basis of the doctrine of notice in commercial law is the principle that a person should be accountable for his state of mind at the time he entered into a transaction. information that he possessed when contracting bears upon that state of mind and is frequently an important consideration in determining his rights and obligations not only vis-a-vis the other party to the transaction, but also in relation to third parties whose rights may have been affected by the transaction. - notice to holders in due course and other bonafide purchasers under the uniform commercial code - brian a. blum

contract law

a contract is a legally binding agreement between parties to do or not do something. businesses enter into contracts for  many reasons, including purchasing supplies, insuring employers or entering into buy/sell agreements. a businessperson should have a good understanding of contract law, therefore, to succeed in business. as an initial matter, there are several factors to consider to determine whether a contract has been made. once a contract has been created, it must be determined if there are any issues that call into question its validity. finally, if there has been a breach of the contract, there is a question of whether damages have occurred

contract rights have become property[1]

modern contract law grew out of the need to regulate the transfer of possession (i.e. a lease) or ownership (i.e., a deed) of land and later personal property. from that, contract law progressed to the point that a contract is now seen as creating a new form of property, i.e., a contract right. with the rise of secondary markets for home mortgages, car loans, and student loans, contractual rights and obligations have themselves become personal property, to be bought and sold in a world-wide market, as if they were commodities. the “commodification” of contract rights and obligations breaks the “relational and situational” ties between the original contracting parties, and moves contractual inquiries about the formation and interpretation of contracts away from a subjective assessment of the circumstances surrounding the original contracting and into the realm of what a reasonable third party would believe the words and actions of the contracting parties to mean. the protections that the law affords to assignees of contract rights and obligations thus become essential to the marketability of those rights and obligations, and the benefit of maintaining the marketability of contract rights and obligations introduces  policy considerations that may outweigh the policies that developed during a time when contract suits were designed to balance the interests of just the original contracting parties.

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars 2

texas is a common law jurisdiction. much of texas’ common law has its source in english common law. in particular, texas’ common law of contracts reaches far back into the english common law. so this study of texas contract law will look at the development of the common law of england. a study of the early common law of england is entirely a study of legal procedure


simple: not honest or sincere : saying different things to different people in order to get their approval instead of speaking and behaving honestly

1.      double-dealing, false

2.       having two faces

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

before things get out of hand, let us make this perfectly clear; if all the requirements according to law, regarding the homeowners mortgage loan, were accomplished before the mortgage loans were securitized, there would be not problems, nor would this debacle be criminal. but the rule of law was circumnavigated and the negotiations were not accomplished according to law.

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

this historic reoccurrence[2] provides for simple thinking in solving a mystery to many. as complex as the mers members system is, you may be a bit confused with the “mortgage” problem? it appears that way. and it’s ok. you just didn’t know. that is part of life’s great journey. if you gain confidence in yourself and fear not to go where you don’t understand, you only defeat yourself, nobody else.

it is simple to solve when you better understand a “real property mortgage loan” and the law(s) which govern such secured loan. secured is not your problem, but it does help you understand what is supposed to take place if the homeowner’s mortgage loan changes “lender”.

don’t’ confuse yourself, this type loan, a real estate mortgage loan, is not governed specifically by the uniform commercial code, aka ucc. only the note would be held to any requirements in article 3, should the note be sold, assigned, or transferred. the deed of trust is a lien. they call it a “mortgage”. the deed of trust is supposed to be a contract created upon the theory of basic contract law.  the actions related to the deed of trust must meet requirements of local jurisdiction in order to keep a successful chain of title, an incident of an alleged secured indebtedness it references within the “four corners”, thus naming the alleged secured creditor as the lender.

think simple. you do not need to go any further than the combined instruments. they are to be construed as one. what laws govern them? i’ll use texas, my home, as a place for this explain. the first law that comes to mind would be basic contract law, right? then on to laws that govern the contracts after the written agreement is finalized, like article 3 of the texas business and commerce code for note negotiations should such act take place; and chapter 192, section 007, texas local government code for actions related to the mortgage. if thinking correctly, one would realize how all the "other" applicable  laws fall into place for the rest of the crimes, like deceptive trade practices, fraud, tax evasion, so many worms are in the can. but begin with the basics; what is being referenced? the deed of trust? who is asking? the "creditor" for the account debtor?

let’s start with the deed of trust, aka mortgage, since this is what mers members rely upon. take texas for instance; in the texas property code, an grantee does not need to record the mortgage into public records where the property is located, but it does so anyway, for what ever reason, it does not matter. nevertheless, that act of recording is not final once the deed of trust is recorded. it may be final for the party who recorded the deed of trust, but not for anyone else making claim to it after the deed of trust was recorded. once the mortgage is recorded into public record in the county where the real property is located, that action of recordation invokes the local jurisdiction. in texas, this is portions of texas property code; and texas local government code, beginning around chapter 191. but chapter 192 contains the subsection 007 regarding any action related to the recorded deed of trust. of course the mers members have provided an illusion called “assignment of note and deed of trust”, which confuses even the county recorders.  in this explain, you will understand why.

don’t worry; be happy

it does not matter if it was “securitized”. why? because everything after the homeowner signed and closed the “mortgage loan”; and received their copies to the paperwork they signed; is in the twilight zone. lost somewhere in the “electronic zone”. the land of confusion. stay focused.

please stop helping the criminals

and this series of “explains” is also directed to the masses whom unknowingly and continually create case law for criminals of this financial crime, an economic disaster. they have suckered you into fight you won’t win the way you are attacking it. you may get close, but. they will beat your brow with paperwork. and hit you with summary judgments. and judges are lazy. they want to go play golf, drink, or whatever they do that appears to be more important than their bench.  the appellate court then upholds his/her laziness most of the time. not to sound like some pious person, but understand that you are never going to defeat this beast and its associates until you attack it with its own weapons, then use your own weapons to beat the beast down. keep the judge on the level.

don’t go there, violence is not the answer…..

if your thought sways you to believe in physical weapons, you could be partially correct, as the pen is a physical item; and so is the keyboard. nevertheless, the greatest weapons used in this war of words is your mind; a mind as great as the father promised; their contracts; and their “art of war” tactics that can become better utilized by your renewed understanding in your mind, and not in the ways of this world. have they worked? know their rules, procedures. know their tactics. you can find it all free on the internet. don’t be taken by zealots feeding their own gains taken from the poor and ignorant. understand what i say. i am with you.

the law

also remember that the “law” is the greatest weapon of all. it can be easy to see the fruits of men’s iniquity when it comes to the law. for now, though, we will speak of man’s law. if man does not follow man’s laws; why would man follow the law? the sheep are many. if the masses keep fighting the “standard” lawyer fighting boilerplate tactics, you will make this harder on yourself than you really need to. maybe you should read and understand the art of war? the criminals use it, but not as it was intended, as everything begins with a good thought well before the darkness creeps in. you do need to understand the difference between “intangible” and “real property”.

“personal property vs. real property”, the fight of the ages?

when will the world realize, an “account debtor” has caused an effect they  will never understand if they can’t open their mind and gain knowledge of how the crime affects the whole world. no one is immune. not even you. we were all deceived! think simple and understand how even e-sign does not help mers members. e-sign excludes articles 3 & 9 of the uniform commercial code.  go look and see 15 usc 7003.


e-sign paved the way for enforceable electronic contracts. and it paved the way for unnoticed criminal activity. e-sign is good in certain aspects yet it got bad in a certain other aspects. nevertheless, contracts are governed according to basic contract law, both paper and electronic. however, there is a difference between the paper contracts and electronic contracts even though they seemingly appear to be one and the same on their face when viewed in a paper aspect. after all, it is easy to hit the “print key” on a keyboard of a computer to provide a paper “copy” of the electronic record. people do it all the time to view an illusion created electronically.  this about it. there is no way you can prove you have an electronic record, unless you allow someone to visually view the electronic record reflected in the viewing device most call a monitor. and then you can't really prove it because it is 0's & 1's. only the software application provides the translations from binary to ascii. it is all imaginary. it would be called magic in scripture.

take for instance, in texas, and after defacing the texas property code, “mortgage servicers” can provide “copies” of alleged “mortgage” paperwork and affidavits to give a court the illusion such paperwork is true and correct, yet the court relies upon this illusion, and the relentless “trust” among the men of bar. they could be turning a blind eye? i’m not a judge. this illusion has continued for some time since the defaced texas property law was enacted 12 years ago, in 2004.

did you know that the original alleged reason for the uniform electronic transactions act, texas ueta, 
was for the purpose of insurance companies to utilize electronic contracts; and these electronic contracts
would be enforceable in a court of law? in essence to give the electronic contract “legal recognition”. 
with ueta, insurance companies could create, generate, send, communicate, receive, or store by 
electronic means, electronic records. 
these electronic records are governed differently, yet, similarly to basic contract law. with exceptions. 
the party to the electronic contract, the obligor [borrower], is required to electronically sign the electronic contract for 
the obligee [creditor] before the obligee [creditor] could enforce such agreed electronic contract. once signed, the electronic record 
is allegedly considered a transferable record governed by e-sign. 
once the parties to the transferable record satisfy the requirements of e-sign; texas ueta, the electronic 
contract become enforceable. to satisfy such electronic requirements, the obligor agreed to “contract” 
electronically, rather than the original ways of the “paper signing ritual”. this “electronic consent” fulfills 
15 usc 7021. all seemingly accomplished by an “i agree” type click of a mouse button, and not by physically 
signing the printed copy. 
there is a difference. images of signatures are not allowed. that is why the mers members introduced “evidence” 
should be considered suspicious. mers members or their alleged agents, like stephen c. porter have access to 
the mers system, otherwise they would not be producing the “assignment of note and deed of trust”, and recording them all around 
texas counties; an alleged "assignment" which is a product of mers eregistry governed by e-sign.  
"electronic signature" means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record
 and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record. 
this "electronic signature" definition does not allude to an image of a physical signature being allowed for use of 
enforcement as copies of tangible paperwork. copies in this instance allegedly means “derived from” the original tangible 
paperwork, different from electronic record. take the word “electronic record” and break it down;
"electronic" means relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic, wireless, optical, electromagnetic,
 or similar capabilities.
"record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other 
medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
hence, "electronic record" means a record created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means.
 and "electronic signature" means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record 
and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.
so, when the word “intangible” arises throughout this explanation, it is merely pointing to items governed by the uniform 
commercial code, a.k.a. ucc, because real estate contracts are not governed by the ucc, most intangibles are. however, 
confusion can arise simply because of the note signed by the obligor, basically known as the homeowner. the ucc will govern 
the negotiations of the note, should the original obligee [lender] choose sell, assign, or transfer the note; while the electronic 
signatures in global and national act will govern the electronic promissory note; and the electronic signatures for the enote; 
and should not to be confused with a note governed by the ucc. e-sign excludes article 3. in fact, e-sign excludes 
article 9 also. . see 15 usc 7003.

giving credit where credit is due; in other words; i have accomplished some research to help make the learning process a bit easier for you; and for your understanding;  which is provided by a cut & paste process for this portion, and for other support, and with links to the source(s).



i suppose that if you can understand the following “differences” in contracts, it may help better understand how the deed of trust is one-sided. have many not challenged the alleged “assignments” only to be rejected simply because you are not a party to the alleged “assignments” and you have no right to challenge the validity of such? that should be a “red flag”, but most do not comprehend, nor catch the admission?

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

an unconscionable contract is one that is so one-sided that it is unfair to one party and therefore unenforceable under law. it is a type of contract that leaves one party with no real, meaningful choice, usually due to major differences in bargaining power between the parties.

in a lawsuit, if the court finds a contract to be unconscionable, they will typically declare the contract to be void. no damages award or specific performance will be issued, but instead the parties will be released from their contract obligations.

see more at:


get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

an unconscionable contract is not the same as an illegal contract. an illegal contract is one that is against the law because the subject matter of the contract is illegal. an example of this is a contract that seeks to address illegal gambling matters. 

in comparison, an unconscionable contract may not be illegal in terms of subject matter, but instead is unenforceable due to the circumstances in which the contract was entered into by the parties. in other words, a perfectly legal contract might be considered unconscionable based on the way that one party obtained the other’s signature.

 see more at:

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

in days of old, the “beneficiary” was usually “one and the same”, the legal owner and holder of the note secured by a deed of trust, a lien, aka “collateral” used in case of default on a loan. the mortgage secures the note. the mortgage follows the note.

as pointed out by the court of civil appeals, the liens are incidents of and inseparable from the debt. west v. first baptist church of taft 123 tex. 388, 71 s.w.2d 1090 (1934); pope v. beauchamp, 110 tex. 271, 219 s.w. 447 (1920); ball v. hill, 48 tex. 634 (1878); mcalpin v. burnett, 19 tex. 497 (1857) - university savings & l. ass'n v. security lumber co., 423 sw 2d 287 - tex: supreme court 1967


tangible correctness;

an examination of the deed of trust in this case reveals that the "legal owner and holder" of the note secured is the "beneficiary." the deed of trust authorizes the beneficiary to appoint a substitute trustee, by designation in writing, who succeeds to all the rights and powers of the original trustee. lawson v. gibbs, 591 sw 2d 292 - tex: court of civil appeals 1979


intangible correctness; tangible error

as a matter of basic contract law, mers is a beneficiary. "texas courts have consistently held that the terms set out in a deed of trust must be strictly followed." univ. sav. ass'n v. springwoods shopping ctr., 644 s.w.2d 705, 706 (tex.1982); see also mathis v. dcr mortg. iii sub i, l.l.c., 389 s.w.3d 494, 507 ( ("the rules of interpretation that apply to contracts also apply to notes and deeds of trust."). - harris county, texas v. merscorp inc., 791 f. 3d 545 - court of appeals, 5th circuit 2015 :


get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

since the defacing of the texas property code, mers, a computer system, a bankruptcy remote, became a “beneficiary”. nevertheless, this ”beneficiary” is an illusion, and an avenue for the account debtor[3]. the deed of trust wording provides that the deed of trust can be stripped away from the tangible note, the one the homeowners signed physically, and attached to an electronic promissory note registered in the bankruptcy remote vehicle. and mers is the beneficiary for the enote owner, not matter what account debtor is the holder of the enote. yet, as ignorant as the courts appear, mers, a computer system governed by electronic law, replaced the “person” whom once was considered the “beneficiary”, and the courts appear too ignorant to realize there is an account debtor involved in this scheme. or do they turn a blind eye? maybe for a job offer later in life? imagine that, an atm machine for deed of trust transfers? will you learn something about the deed of trust you possibly missed?

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

the problem, or in other words, the best way for the homeowner to be a victim of this crime, is as everyone whom signed a note for a loan for real property acknowledges, “they have a debt”, because they did. why would they deny that? so, as long as the debt exists, whether it is admitted; or acknowledged, the criminals win without effort. even though the homeowner knows s/he has a debt, it is easy for the ignorant judge to side with the opposition claiming the homeowner’s debt with electronic illusions, instead of looking to the laws that govern. after all, they do need a job somewhere else when they leave the bench.  it is sad, but true.

the mortgage of the property is an incident of the debt; and as long as the debt exists, the security will follow the debt. lawson v. gibbs, 591 sw 2d 292 - tex: court of civil appeals 1979

the existence of a debt;

the existence of a debt is essential to the validity of a deed of trust or mortgage, the deed of trust or mortgage being incident to the note. west v. first baptist church, 71 s.w.2d 1090, 1098 (tex. 1934). additionally, to be effective, the deed of trust must be delivered. west, 71 s.w.2d at 1099.


in texas, negotiable instruments are governed by the uniform commercial code ("u.c.c.") as adopted by the texas legislature and codified in the texas business and commerce code. - amberboy v. societe de banque privee, 831 sw 2d 793 - tex: supreme court 1992

mers members make claim you have a debt, so why do you ask them to prove such before you admit? that is not lying. plead the fifth. don’t incriminate yourself. that would be unconstitutional if you were forced to incriminate yourself. so, what if they plead the fifth? are they not the ones making a claim?  hold them to the laws that govern and be specific of what you ask for when you want to discover what they are doing.


again, since the debacle of 2004, when a certain group of lawyers , the “new republic of texas”, defaced the texas property code, so-called “mortgage servicers” attempt to collect upon a non-existent debt. to collect upon the non-existent debt, all the “person” need do is convince the homeowner they are the homeowners “mortgage servicer” with never providing proof they hold a servicing contract for the homeowners mortgage loan. what is worse, the homeowner believes, or trusts such gibberish from the “mortgage servicer” propaganda. then they admit they have e debt to an unknown person who will incriminate the homeowner. and with the use of electronic copies of the non-existent debt registered in the mers system, it is easy for the “mortgage servicer” to succeed. the unfortunate homeowner is probably the only party that possibly holds a true and correct copy of their mortgage loan.

to collect on a promissory note, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of the note in question, (2) the defendant signed the note,  (3) the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note, and (4) a certain balance is due and owing on the note. see commercial serv. of perry, inc. v. wooldridge, 968 s.w.2d 560, 564 (tex. app.-fort worth 1998, no pet.). - cadle co. v. regency homes, inc., 21 sw 3d 670 - tex: court of appeals, 3rd dist. 2000

for grins and giggles; get paid for amazon reviews 5 starspartial interest"?

as the deed of trust does contain the wording “partial interest”, here is an explain from a texas court.  hopefully this will help understand the “intangible” verbiage within the deed of trust. this should help the reader arrive to the fact that the deed of trust contradicts itself, and the laws which govern the mortgage that secures the note, and the laws which govern the note. see ⧠3.203(d), tex. business and commerce code, or other ucc related laws.

a "partial interest" consists of a set number of payments under a note or contract for deed. - note investment group, inc. v. associates first capital corp., tex: court of appeals, 9th dist. 2015

the meat;

we must understand that we are talking contract law not matter what is alluded to. it is a “tandem” fight; meaning you are defending both the note and the deed of trust, because the deed of trust is an incident of the debt; and ucc 9 “intangible” are being referenced in courts of law, or equity, not article 3. should you pay close attention, you can understand the “intangible” word crafting within the deed of trust. this word crafting could not exist within the “four corners” of the note, so it was added into the deed of trust. and apparently nobody is paying attention, or it would be a hot topic. remember, keep is simple stupid?

deed of deceit[4]

the following excerpts are from form 3044, fannie mae [texas] deed of trust

the note represents funds advanced by lender at the special instance and request of borrower for the purpose of acquiring the entire fee simple title to the property

deed of trust


“security instrument” means this document

“loan” means the debt evidenced by the note, plus interest, any prepayment charges and late charges due under the note, and all sums due under this security instrument, plus interest

“applicable law” means all controlling applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, ordinances and administrative rules and orders (that have the effect of law) as well as all applicable final, non-appealable judicial opinions.

 â€œsuccessor in interest of borrower” means any party that has taken title to the property, whether or not that party has assumed borrower’s obligations under the note and/or this security instrument.

transfer of rights in the property

this security instrument secures to lender:  (i) the repayment of the loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the note; and (ii) the performance of borrower’s covenants and agreements under this security instrument and the note. 

borrower covenants that borrower is lawfully seised of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to grant and convey the property and that the property is unencumbered, except for encumbrances of record.  borrower warrants and will defend generally the title to the property against all claims and demands, subject to any encumbrances of record.

covenants; an unconscionable contract or not? and / or illegal?

 protection of lender’s interest in the property and rights under this security instrument.  if (a) borrower fails to perform the covenants and agreements contained in this security instrument,

 (c) borrower has abandoned the property, then lender may do and pay for whatever is reasonable or appropriate to protect lender’s interest in the property and rights under this security instrument,

 ; and (c) paying reasonable attorneys’ fees to protect its interest in the property and/or rights under this security instrument,

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars  when the homeowner becomes fearful from threatening letters sent by unknown debt collectors, the homeowners knows they owe a debt and believe they need to "vacate" the premises, and abandon their homes from fear. this is the easiest avenue for the fox guarding the henhouse to get in.

16.  governing law; severability; rules of construction.  this security instrument shall be governed by federal law and the law of the jurisdiction in which the property is located.  all rights and obligations contained in this security instrument are subject to any requirements and limitations of applicable law.  applicable law might explicitly or implicitly allow the parties to agree by contract or it might be silent, but such silence shall not be construed as a prohibition against agreement by contract.  in the event that any provision or clause of this security instrument or the note conflicts with applicable law, such conflict shall not affect other provisions of this security instrument or the note which can be given effect without the conflicting provision.

if all or any part of the property or any interest in the property is sold or transferred (or if borrower is not a natural person and a beneficial interest in borrower is sold or transferred) without lender’s prior written consent, lender may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this security instrument.  however, this option shall not be exercised by lender if such exercise is prohibited by applicable law.

20.     sale of note; change of loan servicer; notice of grievance.  the note or a partial interest in the note (together with this security instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to borrower.

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars take it or leave it, it's ok.

so, they hold the homeowner to the deed of trust, and turn a blind eye to the party attempting to claim it? as for the security instrument; covenant 16 states; “all rights and obligations contained in the security instrument are subject to any requirements and limitations of applicable law governed by federal law and the law of the jurisdiction in which the property is located.  and in the event that any provision or clause of the security instrument or the note conflicts with applicable law, such conflict shall not affect other provisions of the security instrument or the note which can be given effect without the conflicting provision.”

covenant 16 states that all applicable federal law and law of the jurisdiction governs the security instrument and note.

in texas, and turning to the deed of trust requirements, the texas local government code states in chapter 192, section 007, that;

sec. 192.007.  records of releases and other actions.  (a)  to release, transfer, assign, or take another action relating to an instrument that is filed, registered, or recorded in the office of the county clerk, a person must file, register, or record another instrument relating to the action in the same manner as the original instrument was required to be filed, registered, or recorded.

(b)  an entry, including a marginal entry, may not be made on a previously made record or index to indicate the new action.

added by acts 1989, 71st leg., ch. 1248, sec. 53, eff. sept. 1, 1989.

that is a local law created a long time before mers, mortgage electronic registration systems, inc. was borne. barrett daffin … must have overlooked this local code? transactions related to mers products are not required to be recorded according to e-sign, so why are these electronic records being recorded? why does stephen c. porter, tommy bastian, david seybold, etc. have so many purported “assignments” recorded across texas? mers products are “intangible” assets which would be filed with the secretary of state, if anywhere, not the county recorder. it would be the “successor” of a tangible deed of trust attached to a certain note whom would record its action with the county public records to continue a perfected chain of title for the purported secured debt.

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

in essence, covenant 20 circumnavigates covenant 15; and applicable state and federal law. covenant 20 contains certain verbiage that “the note, or a “partial interest” in the note “together with this security instrument” can be sold one or more or more times without prior notice to borrower”.  how do you split up a deed of trust? tear it into pieces?

according to texas case law[5]; “negotiable instruments are governed by the uniform commercial code ("u.c.c.")”. this would mean the “partial interest” wording in the deed of trust about the note is governed by article3, uniform commercial code. so, with the wording “note, or a “partial interest” in the note “together with this security instrument” can be sold…” common sense would suggest it is alluding to a transfer of some sort, or selling “parts” of the note from party a to party b, or c, or d, or e, etc.  the governing law for the transfer of the note; the ucc points to â§3.203, of article 3; however there appears to be an issue with that “partial interest” wording and subsection (d).

sec. 3.203.  transfer of instrument;  rights acquired by transfer.  (a)  an instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.

(b)  transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course.  the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.

(c)  unless otherwise agreed, if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of indorsement by the transferor, the transferee has a specifically enforceable right to the unqualified indorsement of the transferor, but negotiation of the instrument does not occur until the indorsement is made.

(d)  if a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur.  the transferee obtains no rights under this chapter and has only the rights of a partial assignee.

amended by acts 1995, 74th leg., ch. 921, sec. 1, eff. jan. 1, 1996.

if you read subsection “d”, this certain portion of “governing law” becomes a conflict with the word crafting in covenant 20 of the deed of trust by the wording evidenced as; “the note, or a “partial interest” in the note… can be sold one or more times.”

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

if a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur.  the transferee obtains no rights under this chapter and has only the rights of a partial assignee.

a texas court has defined that; “a "partial interest" consists of a set number of payments under a note or contract for deed”.  this nugget should lead you the understanding of the “intangible”? it really should.

in essence, and possibly due to greed, the scheme was to “create” the mortgage loan, register it in a stock market vehicle, and allegedly sell “bits & pieces” of each alleged mortgage loan, along with “bits and pieces” of other alleged mortgage loans in “tranches” to unsuspecting investors. as far as investor is concerned, the question should arise as to how the trances could hold toxic mortgages constantly be alleged as in “default”. some day the investor will catch on?

i suppose this may be a certifiable question; are the basic rules of interpretation which apply to contracts with physical signatures the exact same as contracts created electronically? how would these apparent different contracts be utilized with the same law? in the physical world, these paper contracts are “written”. in the electronic world, these electronic contracts are “electronically” signed with symbols and such, and not physically signed. please do not argue with the “same effect” or you will miss the mark.

why was mers created? what laws govern mers? what laws govern the  note? what law governs secured transactions? do any of those applicable law govern the real estate mortgage? not according to texas courts.

"a mortgage is governed by the same rules of interpretation which apply to contracts." sonny arnold, inc. v. sentry savs. ass'n, 633 s.w.2d 811, 815 352*352 (tex.1982). thus, the same rules of interpretation that apply to contracts also apply to a deed of trust. alkas v. united savs. ass'n, 672 s.w.2d 852, 858 (—corpus christi 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). further, "[t]he note and deed of trust on ... property should be construed together and effectively regarded as one instrument." chapa v. herbster, 653 s.w.2d 594, 600 (— tyler 1983, no writ). issues of contract interpretation are determinable as a matter of law. fisk elec. co. v. constructors & assocs., 888 s.w.2d 813, 814 (tex.1994).  - lawson v. gibbs, 591 sw 2d 292 - tex: court of civil appeals 1979


"repossession" of real estate cannot be compared to repossession of personal property. repossession of personal property is governed by chapter 9 of the texas uniform commercial code. tex.bus. & com. code ann. ⧠9.101 et seq. (tex.ucc) (vernon 1991). chapter 9 specifically creates the right to self-help repossession. tex.bus. & com.code ann. ⧠9.503 (tex.ucc) (vernon 1991). real estate is specifically excluded from the scope of that chapter. tex.bus. & com.code ann. ⧠9.104(10) (tex. ucc) (vernon 1991). thus, chapter 9 does not give creditors a right to repossess real estate in the same way they repossess personal property. lighthouse church of cloverleaf v. texas bank, 889 sw 2d 595 - tex: court of appeals 1994

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

there is a document on the texas supreme court website, it is a transcript of a certain “task force” which clearly admits they “documents are just made up”. what’s worse, a few judges were sitting in, or by phone, associated with that certain meeting. i do have a copy of this meeting and it is located here.

so, when the banks, or it imposters allude to ucc 9, you should know them by their fruits. ucc 9 is a red flag. i’ve written, we’ve written, in the past, of this issue. there are many articles, charts and explanations on or go read, learn and understand. the world is being ripped off.

in essence, the “originating lender” became an account debtor, who pledged “partial interests” as collateral for this crime. this being the instance, party “a” gets to claim so many payments” as the “partial interest”, then party “b” gets to claim so many payments from the note, and so goes the story. these “partial interest” parties are seemingly alluded to as “investors” in the secondary ‘intangible” market.

so, the homeowners mortgage and note governed by contract law, somehow became a ucc 9 contract. how is this accomplished? the account debtor pledged the homeowner collateral in case the account debtor defaulted upon the ucc 9 governed mortgage, a personal property mortgage, only related to the real estate mortgage by reference. then the intangible obligor pursues the innocent homeowner. and mers just made it easier to confuse the masses.

think “old school” real estate, not electronic personal property mortgages mers members allude to. they are actually attempting to use ucc 7 & 8 for their crime unknowingly to the courts, but if you knew that, they could not accomplish their crime.

so, how did the alleged transfer of the note pass the requirements of 3.203(d) of article 3?

this can open pandora’s box and when the can tips, you will know how many worms were in the can. it is a crime, to say the least.

so, is the deed of trust unconscionable?  is it illegal?

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

if texas is a non-judicial foreclosure state; and the only “known” lender is named upon the face of the two contracts allegedly referenced as recorded into public records, rescission should be as easy as sending the rescission letter to the originating lender, no? read the supreme court opinion on that process; jesinoski v. countrywide home loans, inc., 135 s. ct. 790 - supreme court 2015

the courts clearly state the note and deed of trust cannot be bifurcated. why does the deed of trust make the grantor agree to such activity? see covenant 20 in the deed of trust.


if you are thinking of using court documents from other cases as summary judgment proof, pay attention;

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

a party cannot simply attach a court document from another case as summary judgment proof. see soefje, 270 s.w.3d at 626 (emphasizing that one cannot dispense with proper foundational requirements). rather, the evidence must be submitted in a form acceptable for summary judgment proceedings; in other words, the summary judgment evidence must be either sworn to or certified. soefje, 270 s.w.3d at 626; souder, 235 s.w.3d at 848; mowbray v. avery, 76 s.w.3d 663, 689 (tex. app.-corpus christi 2002, pet. denied). - sanders v. american home mortgage servicing, inc., tex: court of appeals, 4th dist. 2016,44&as_ylo=2015

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

as for those whom have attempted to discover the recorded assignments to determine the trail of the chain of title, would it not be more advantageous to request both unrecorded; and recorded assignments? it really would make for one spectacular audit if one has the power to conduct such subpoena request, right? adhere to the discovery rules? you can do it.

after all, there are many government agencies who provided funding to many, many real estate mortgage loans. ginnie mae are you listening? veterans administration are you listening?

speaking of governmental agencies; do you know about â§51.008, texas property code?

get paid for amazon reviews 5 starsget paid for amazon reviews 5 starsget paid for amazon reviews 5 stars  (a)  a lien on real property created under this code or another law of this state in favor of a governmental entity must be recorded as provided by chapters 11 and 12 in the real property records of the county in which the property or a portion of the property is located unless:

(1)  the lien is imposed as a result of failure to pay:

(a)  ad valorem taxes;  or

(b)  a penalty or interest owed in connection with those taxes;  or

(2)  the law establishing the lien expressly states that recording the lien is not required.

(b)  any notice of the lien required by law must contain a legal description of the property.

(c)  this section does not apply to:

(1)  a lien created under section 89.083, natural resources code;

(2)  a state tax lien under chapter 113, tax code;  or

(3)  a lien established under chapter 61 or 213, labor code.

added by acts 2001, 77th leg., ch. 827, sec. 1, eff. sept. 1, 2001.


get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

intangible "assets" were allegedly registered in the mers system. mers became the "beneficiary" of each min, aka, mortgage identification number. for to give the appearance of "legal", certain wording was added into a deed of trust used for many years prior to such certain wording. this allowed the "lender" to register the deed of trust into the mers eregistry. the image of the deed of trust was then attached to an electronic promissory note. the image original note was transferred; whether in whole, or in partial interests. where the actual original, paper note is, could very well be a mystery. but as far as the enote, it is an electronic agreement between the parties; mers members. the enote is not a replacement for the paper note. see 15 usc 7003.

let's say the value of the paper note was transferred to the electronic promissory note. this could fit the requirements in section 203, of article 3. however, if the value were transferred in partial interest in enotes, does this meet the requirement of 3.203(d), of article 3. a mystery? nevertheless, and for sake of argument, let's say the whole value of the paper note was transferred to the electronic promissory note, which is the deed of trust min. and all the requirements were met for 3.203. then the electronic promissory note was sold, purchased, assigned, transferred, etc., how is the electronic promissory note negotiated? what value does the electronic promissory note have? the electronic promissory note did not have to meet any requirements of negotiability, simply because article 3 is excluded from e-sign, the law that governs electronic signatures and electronic transfers of transferable records, aka enotes registered in the mers eregistry.


of course, if you have read the fannie mae, or other gse guidelines, you would notice that the electronic promissory note can be printed out. this gives an illusion to its validity? simply printing out the electronic promissory note does not give value, nor does it provide a legal avenue to pursue the real estate mortgage homeowner. it only proves electronic records residing as computer information, in a computer system, was printed onto tangible medium, paper. think of this. the ability to sell, purchase, transfer, assign a "negotiable instrument", resides within the uniform commercial code. as long as you believe the electronic promissory note is governed by the ucc, you will get very tired fighting this beast. in fact you will note win. you might get close, but you have not shown the crime. even e-sign does not provide a way to transfer the "value" of the electronic promissory note to paper. again, see 15 usc 7003.

here, read

⧠7003. specific exceptions
(a) excepted requirements
the provisions of section 7001 of this title shall not apply to a contract or other record to the extent it is governed by—

(1) a statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts;
(2) a state statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing adoption, divorce, or other matters of family law; or
(3) the uniform commercial code, as in effect in any state, other than sections 1–107 and 1–206 and articles 2 and 2a


get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

do you get it? the only things referenced for the ucc is sales, leases and other captions. mers system is utilized for the sales of intangible assets. not real estate mortgages, but personal property mortgages. there is no avenue to produce evidence of a real estate mortgage or note other than providing printed copies of an authoritative copy which has no value; nor law to support its value, except for e-sign which the real estate mortgage loan was only referenced. of course, all that is needed in texas is evidence of the debt. so, does the evidence from the mers eregistry provide true & correct copies of the note or deed of trust? you betcha! it was initially place into digital images and registered into a bankruptcy remote as an investment vehicle for investors. does that mean it can be used as evidence? i suppose it could between the "creditor" and "borrower" of the electronic contract, but how can it be used as legal evidence between a "mortgage servicer" and a real estate mortgage loan borrower? e-sign only applies to those whom chose to electronically contract, it has nothing to do with the two contracts which were physically signed. article 3 was never changed in order to support e-sign for electronic negotiable instruments. e-sign does not apply to contracts governed by article 9, or article 3, should that be the case. in other words, mers members have no right to challenge a real estate mortgage loan, nor foreclose, because they are not parties to the original contracts. the world is deceived.


it is said that the mortgage follows the note; but if you catch what stephen c. porter, and a few other lawyers have stated; "the note follows the mortgage" maybe you will understand their admission that because of the min, which is the deed of trust, being registered into the mers system as an enote; the image of the paper note follows the min around through the buying and selling of mins.

enotes contain all the "homeowner" information in image format, the note, the deed of trust, the financial records, insurance papers, all the "mortgage documents". but to register the enote, some of the so-called vital information would be by input from a keyboard or some type.


get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

every time an enote holder changes; so possibly changes the "mortgage servicer". that is the purpose of "mortgage servicer" contracts, or as they call "mortgage servicing rights" aka msr's, whether they be "beneficial", or "servicing". but that servicer is for an electronic promissory note. question is; is the "mortgage servicer" how conducts the foreclosure sale the real estate "mortgage servicer", or the personal property "mortgage servicer"? there is a difference in contracts, even if they were crafted on a computer before being printed out. wouldn't that seemingly mean there should be some type of agency relationship? what kind of agency relationship? personal property, or real property?

the move to "electronics" was a smooth move for the criminals. why? because everyone uses a computer, prints things out, make copies to show, so it was easy for them to confuse you about what they are accomplishing. a crime to the world.

do you understand why mers members claim they do not need to record? ok, ask for both recorded and unrecorded "assignments". not a hard question to ask, is it?

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

now, can you imagine what admissions the mers members have made over the years if previous court records were reviewed? they have twisted their lies around so many times, they forget what they say. i wonder if there is a way for this to happen? audit the court records? all you need is a team of dedicated people to research. i would imagine the federal government would take over the banks for the amount of monies stolen from it, and u.s. taxpayers if it were to audit the "assignments", both recorded and unrecorded? the gse's are a private corporations conducting criminal activity? that should be another avenue to replenish what was stolen from the federal government and tax payers. what about the investors? they take a very large hit. they bought a pig in a poke.  this is not to mention how crowded the prisons will be with these men and women of iniquity.

always know, "with the father, everything is possible".

ending note; for now.....

keep in mind that although the note may be a "bearer" note, it would only be like a check in which the holder of the check could claim it. however, if the note were introduced as an instrument without an endorsement, it makes the claimant appear to hold only a note which is not a "secured" indebtedness, but only an non-secured note. this would reveal a "red flag" situation as the claimant would be reflecting an unknown party to a secured indebtedness?  for "security" the claimant would be required to reflect the clear chain of title; which would prove the note was a "secured indebtedness", rather than a non-secured indebtedness, held by an known party, the claimant. nevertheless, with the deed of trust being a "one-sided", a "two faced" contract, what does the claimant have to offer as proof?

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

“the constitution of texas is the fundamental law of the state; ‘the supreme law of the law.’” byers v. patterson, 219 s.w.3d 514, 521 (tex. app.—tyler 2007, no pet.) (quoting oakley v. state, 830 s.w.2d 107, 109 (tex. crim. app. 1992)). we must presume the constitutionality of an act of the legislature. texas pub. bldg. auth. v. mattox, 686 s.w.2d 924, 927 (tex. 1985); salomon v. lesay, 369 s.w.3d 540, 556–57 (tex. app.—houston [1st dist.] 2012, no pet.). however, when the proposed application of a state statute would abridge the texas constitution, the statute must yield. see weiner v. wasson, 900 s.w.2d 316, 318–19 (tex.1995); salomon, 369 s.w.3d at 556–57  


“in enacting a statute, it is presumed that compliance with the constitutions of this state and the united states is intended.”’t code ⧠311.021(1) (west 2013).  


the code construction act also requires that we consider the public interest over any private interest.  see tex. gov’t code ⧠311.021(5) (“in enacting a statute, it is presumed that . . . public interest is favored over any private interest.”).

my question(s) to you;

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars is mers[1] a public interest, or a private interest? (2) is texas property code, chapter 51, section; 51.0001(1), constitutionally correct? is this subsection created for private interest, or public interest?

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars are texas property code, chapter 51, sections; 51.0001(3), (4), constitutionally correct? are these subsections created for private interest, or public interest?


[1] mortgage electronic registration systems, inc. [mers]

get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars    how can a mortgage "book entry" registration system impair the obligation of contracts?

sec. 16.  bills of attainder; ex post facto or retroactive laws; impairing obligation of contracts.  no bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.

when the world figures this out, it is going to be interesting to see the children of men and how they react to their anger?

law contrary to the bill of rights shall be void


thoughts will come, and thoughts will go. this is a living page.


get paid for amazon reviews 5 stars

[1],2 richard r. orsinger; 170 years of texas contract law


[2] it means i have written about this matter many times before. that’s all.

[3] (3)  "account debtor" means a person obligated on an account, chattel paper, or general intangible.  
the term does not include persons obligated to pay a negotiable instrument, even if the instrument 
constitutes part of chattel paper.


[5] amberboy v. societe de banque privee, 831 sw 2d 793 - tex: supreme court 1992