e-Notes, and the World that fell for it...
"In strength shall My House be established"
You really should →READ THIS←
eNotes are legal, in a sense, but not the way certain private registry members use them.
Why do citizens continuously elect officials whom ignore the deprivation of foreclosure victims? It is time to contact your representatives and tell them how you feel about the deprivation of citizens rights by private mortgage industry. The only way they move is when you move them. They work for you!
Does newly discovered documents seemingly prove Wells Fargo committed fraud upon the court, in Texas?
Bits & Bytes
If MERS members wanted to sell bits and pieces of its interest in, the MERS member did not need MERS to accomplish that. MERS is the distraction. And the world fell for it........
E-SIGN is legal for electronic signatures, and transferable records. E-SIGN is an integral part to the transfer of electronic records governed by that law. E-SIGN is for electronic signatures. Yes, E-SIGN is legal, but E-SIGN is not legal if it is used beyond its means.
Enotes are not the easiest thing to explain because most can't seem to understand Enotes are legal electronic promissory notes allegedly under the governance of E-SIGN; and is not governed by Article 3. But eNotes appear to be legal Notes in the invisible world. There is a difference. You see, if the electronic Note were in "writing" it would be an Article 3 Note, but its not. It's electronic Note and governed by E-SIGN. So, you have the law of contract for e-Signatures, bits & bytes; and then you have contract law for physical signatures, "wet ink". Duh?
"purpose of recording laws is to notify subsequent purchasers ... and not to give protection to perpetrators of fraud") Ojeda de Toca v. Wise, 748 SW 2d 449 - Tex: Supreme Court 1988
Because I'm a "trusted source" in the markets, if I could get you to believe that I can sell you a partial interest in the payment stream of a real estate mortgage loan, and include a deed of trust with it, I bet because of your greed you would jump on the opportunity to make some money and invest in it? Of course, I would give you a copy of both the "instruments", to help you feel secure. I have them in digital format. You may hear them called by a different name; electronic records. Copies are easy, the print key is easily accessible. And the law I use say my electronic records are just like paper records. And I can use them as a legal effect to do what I do. That seem to make it easy for my scheme.
Now, I can offer the same type offer to another sucker, of course, they are my friend, I'll fill them with dreams of money and they too will jump on the boat. I am a "trusted source". And since I'm the only one with the "originals" to show the suckers as my evidence of a debt, I can continue my scheme whether it is taking real estate from homeowners or skimming off investors money, until I get caught, or flee the country. Which ever comes first. Its that simple folks. And I have enough money to help others turn their head to what I am doing.
I even convinced judges and legislature, among others, that the "registry" as a "beneficiary", or "nominee" was no different than it was back in the days of the paper real estate mortgage, and they fell for it hook-line-and-sinker. It was that easy. Why? Because I am a "trusted source".
This scam took some time to put into place. It took many years to engineer this illusion. It took many laws to change. It took many rules & procedures to change. I had the money and the power to make this happen. I am a "trusted source". After those certain changes had taken place, I began to promote my "corporation", a registry for electronic promissory notes, the new "negotiable" instrument. I even offered membership to my "corporation". I used Delaware law to convince everyone that my corporation was a physical type corporation. I had to create an "agent" illusion to help me with my deception, while mixing around the "brand name" to keep people confused with what I am accomplishing with my "corporation". This agent had to be "electronic" in order for me do business in the world of electronic law, so as long as everyone assumed that my corporation was physical, my plan is working. I know people believe me because I am a "trusted source".
I've convinced them that my "corporate resolution" gives the "agent" who appears in physical form, its ability to produce electronic documents while disclosing my intent before the eyes of everyone, yet they do not recognize it. Not even the courts. I've even convinced lawyers to accomplish this for my "corporation", because they love money. I even convinced everyone that my electronic promissory note was equivalent to a negotiable instrument. That was easy to do.
I convinced these members to conduct its real estate transactions on "behalf" of my system. I convinced these members that the electronic copy of the scanned note and deed of trust were valid, like mine, even after they've lost them. I knew, and they knew that it was not easy for someone to make them produce the original note, even in a court of law. They knew how to use summary judgment as the best tool to evade the jury. When arguments change, I change up my arguments. If I need to, I change the appearance of paperwork. That simple. I am a "trusted source". I've even gone as far as placing a waiver in the mortgage so the homeowner cannot demand a trial by jury. If they file suit, we file a motion to strike the "Jury Demand". That simple. We even have court opinions to support this jury trial thing. I am a "trusted source". Our membership has convinced almost everyone, that our "system" is a lawful means of reflecting changes to be recorded into public land records. It is that easy. It didn't matter who had what. We've convinced the courts that the homeowner can't challenge the assignments in our "system", and the counties can't challenge our recordation's. The Secretary of State doesn't even have a clue to how much I've kept from them by not filing financial statements. And investors have yet realized the illusion I've placed before them, and the "goods" they purchased. We get rich!
Now, until someone catches me, the greedy investor(s) will probably believe that I followed all applicable law because I am a "trusted source"; and the contract contains that "all applicable law" clause also. I convinced the courts to believe the homeowner is a "deadbeat" so, all I need to do is "take the money and run" because nobody caught on to what I was doing. Not even the lawyers.
And I tell you, it really made a mess of LIBOR, and as smart as people seem to think they are, I have enjoyed taking their monies from abroad, all the while, committing the largest crime in the history of the U.S. without being caught, and I am a "trusted source". I will go down in history!
Confession never given;
How could I possibly do this? How could I accomplish this "deed of trust" feat without being caught up front? Ignorance of the people, that's how. They know nothing about the electronic note I use and from what I have led them to believe has worked for me up to this day. And that covered everyone; the investor, the homeowner, the county recorders, the courts, the world, you name it, they all fell for it. This made it very easy to commit the crime without getting caught. They all believed me because I am a "trusted source".
I helped change the laws to insure these nuggets of gold. I "insured" these things because I knew I could make a profit. And I made tons of money off of the insurance claims. Write-offs to the IRS were a breeze. I even taught my iniquities to the rest of the world to keep this pyramid scheme afloat.
I have deceived the whole world! They trusted me! I am a "trusted source".
And I will deny all of this because I refuse to incriminate myself. I am protected by the Constitution. I am a corporation. I am a "person". I am a "trusted source"
This is what has taken place to millions of real estate mortgages in the U.S. It has been explained in so many different ways in our articles on this website. Bottom line; All one needs to do is review the certain covenant called "Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance" which reads; "The note, or a partial interest in the note [together with this security instrument] can be sold one or more times...." See a certain covenant in a FNMA form deed of trust. The covenant is in most GSE deed of trust. It is usually located around #20. You may believe this to be ok?
Also within the dirty deed, a certain covenant usually called "Governing Law; Severability; Rules of Construction" which reveals that "all applicable law" will govern the security instrument. If the law was bypassed, how did a "mortgagee" retain a valid contract? By adhesion? By "electronic records"? Even the "electronic records" contain the adhesion contract. That's the "security" sold to suckers.
You do know what an adhesion contract is, right? It's a "my way, or the highway" contract. The courts do not uphold an adhesion contract [unconscionable] according to past opinions. But, if the court does not know it is an adhesion contract, how does the court know it is unconscionable? It is evident.
Unconscionable contracts, however — whether relating to arbitration or not — are unenforceable under Texas law. A contract is unenforceable if, "given the parties' general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clause involved is so one-sided that it is unconscionable under the circumstances existing when the parties made the contract."
"Unconscionability is to be determined in light of a variety of factors, which aim to prevent oppression and unfair surprise; in general, a contract will be found unconscionable if it is grossly one-sided. See DAN B. DOBBS, 2 LAW OF REMEDIES 703, 706 (2d ed.1993); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 208, cmt. a (1979) ("The determination that a contract or term is or is not unconscionable is made in the light of its setting, purpose, and effect."
In re Poly-America, LP, 262 SW 3d 337 - Tex: Supreme Court 2008
In re Poly-America, LP, 262 SW 3d 337 - Tex: Supreme Court 2008
The Texas Case was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court Opinion
At&t Mobility llC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 - Supreme Court
The Texas Case was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court Opinion At&t Mobility llC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 - Supreme Court 2011
OK, so you think the contract is not "unconscionable"?
How do you consummate a contract of adhesion?
The deed of trust usually contains the definition; "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. "; and the covenant; "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."
So, if "applicable law" was not adhered to, does that mean this would be a breach of contract from the get-go? And does 15 USC 1635 come into play? Just asking..... And how can you contract "estoppel by silence"? Are you thinking about "statute of limitations", or "statute of repose"?
And if you think this kind of scheme is new to the courts, you'd be incorrect. Here is how the court provided the scenario in a scheme similar to the MERS scenario back in 1968; except the MERS scheme didn't last only a couple of years, it began "pre-ESIGN", and has continued to this day.
The confidence racket which was employed in 1963
and in 1965 involves a "stir man," a genuine federal reserve note, an
altered federal reserve note, and of course a "sucker." The "stir man"
contacts a "sucker" and shows him a "counterfeit" reserve note which is
an exact duplicate of a genuine note and which even experts would claim
to be genuine. He guarantees that a revolutionary duplication process
can be put in motion for quite a reasonable investment. To the
"sucker's" dismay, after contributing his share of the investment, he
learns that both reserve notes were genuine and that the only process
performed had been the altering of serial numbers and other markings on
one note to correspond with the other. Two facets of this confidence
racket concern us on appeal: (1) The "stir man" never intends to make
counterfeit notes or even to pass the altered note. He uses the note
only to get the "sucker's" investment. (2) The racket can succeed only
if the "sucker" is willing to participate in an illegal counterfeiting
Two facets of this confidence racket concern us on appeal: (1) The "stir man" never intends to make counterfeit notes or even to pass the altered note. He uses the note only to get the "sucker's" investment. (2) The racket can succeed only if the "sucker" is willing to participate in an illegal counterfeiting scheme.
And later on in the opinion, the court stated;
The government does not establish services for the benefit of thieves. It does not wish to be an unwitting accessory in crime. Therefore, it has a valid interest in guarding against fraudulent misuse of its services, even if the fraud may never injure the government itself.
Moreover, because attacks upon the physical integrity of currency in particular may endanger society by depleting the public trust in its economic standard, the government must establish sanctions to discourage such attacks. See United States v. Raynor, 1938, 302 U.S. 540, 58 S.Ct. 353, 82 L.Ed. 413.
That was in Barbee v. United States, 392 F. 2d 532 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1968
Yep, alter the paper note into an electronic image and fool even the "experts" into believing it to be "genuine".
JP's are dangerous to the economy
Have you ever read First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly  ? Although the judge held to his constitutional oath, the case was eventually eventually overturned. I suppose it was not favorable to have a justice of the peace opine in favor of a homeowner?
Even today, a justice of the peace carries a huge injustice to homeowners, and most of these "justice" people are not even lawyers, and know very little about the law, except "their" law. They only look at their "status". I've witnessed one such as this in Taylor, Texas. They give thieves other peoples property, talk down to the homeowner, like they are "deadbeats". JP's are dangerous. That's where the FED starts. once the JP has ignorantly ruled, appealing to a higher court is the burden of attempting to overturn the JP's ignorant decision. Most know where that gets them?
Banks are big, and banks are secret. When banks are in the corner, discredit is the best way to harm a person, even judges. They've lots of money to throw around to get what they want. Many men are greedy. It appears that case was a warning to both lawyers and judges? The lawyer lost his BAR card, the judge died? For what? Lack of consideration? Nonetheless, an "industry standard" that works well beyond the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution, and many fear the repercussions of challenging such "lack of consideration" used for both paper, or electronic promissory notes.
Whom do you fear the most? Man, or the Most High?
While I am at it, have you ever read Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244 - Supreme Court 1901. If nothing else, you get a good lesson on U.S. history. But, if you pay attention, you may be asking questions about "Puerto Rico" and its "association" with the corporate united states, and the Constitutional issues that come with it? I have nothing against of the people of Puerto Rico, but maybe what we should all understand is that we have all been deceived. Nobody is immune.
PARALEGAL CHECKLIST [Source]
Contract Enforceability Under Article 2
1. Most enforceability issues are left to the common law with the exception of unconscionability and Statute of Frauds.
The unconscionability issue may be raised by either party or by the judge and, if raised, the court must hold a hearing on that issue. UCC § 2-302.
a. Is the contract or a clause
unconscionable under the definition “ absence of meaningful choice on
the part of one party with the other party taking advantage of this
absence by imposing unreasonably favorable terms”? The definition of
unconscionability is common law.
b. If unconscionable, the remedies are limited by the Code. UCC § 2-302(1).
3. Statute of Frauds
a. If the contract is for the
sale of goods and the price is $500 or more, the contract must be in
writing. UCC § 2-201(1).
b. Does the writing meet the following three requirements?
1) Does the writing indicate a
contract for sale has been made?
2) Does the writing include a quantity?
3) Has the writing been signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought? UCC § 2-201(1).
c. If a writing is required and either does not exist or does not meet all three requirements, check the exceptions.
1) Has a written confirmation
been received? UCC § 2-201(2).
2) Are the goods specially manufactured? UCC § 2-201(3)(a).
3) Has the party against whom enforcement is sought made an admission of contract in court or in court documents? UCC § 2-201(3)(b).
4) Have the goods been delivered and accepted or has payment been made and accepted? UCC § 2-201(3)(c).
5) If none of the above applies, does your state permit reliance to circumvent the Statute of Frauds?
What "Chain of Title"
If a pig had wings it could fly - If the real estate mortgage "securitization" process were lawfully accomplished according to law, and the contract agreements, between the parties to the intangible, this website would be useless. There would be nothing to write about in order to maintain this site. So, the pig's wings were an illusion as to how the pig would fly, just like the securitization process is an illusion before your eyes. In other words; This website is made possible by the criminal actions of others. There are too many to name, some may realize the crimes they've committed, for other's, their crimes may be unbeknownst to their blind eyes. Nevertheless, they would be considered guilty by association. Acts of treason are a serious matter. And all that was needed to make the securitization process work legally, was to abide by the laws that governed the underlying collateral which was, and is, being represented to the investors, IRS, and the Securities & Exchange Commission to name just a few. Was the petroleum jelly was ever passed around to the parties?
WORD CRAFTING - Word crafting is a skill. Word crafting is an art. Many lawyers use it. Those of iniquity, use it to deceive! Those who believe the deception become the victim. Those whom understand their deception; will overcome! Those who knowingly, or unknowingly, committed these crimes must make amends before the Lord. The Law of cause and effect cannot be overlooked. “Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect.”
THE PROBLEM - Individuals associated with the mortgage banking industry, alone, or in whole, have crossed the line from honesty to deception. In truth, everything [movement of mortgage loan] after the "originating lender", does not matter to a homeowner. But it does to the Account debtor. Treason could more likely be a word that comes to mind when this debacle is understood? However, this debacle is not just about the mortgage banking industry, it could be political people from the lowest to the highest offices of the agencies of both the "several states"; and the United States government, lawyers, judges, agents, or representatives, only time will tell. In the meantime, picture this;
WHETHER THEY KNEW, OR NOT - Whether they knew they were involved or not, the issue of truth, and justice, resides between them and the Creator.
ANOTHER PROBLEM - Most of the world seems to have confused the difference between a physically written signature; and an electronic signature. There is a difference. Images are not signatures. Is it because the world was gradually herded toward ignorance? Most individuals were born prior to, or during the "new world", so most do not even realize there is a problem with how certain individuals have led them to "buy and sell" of worthless goods to intangible investors. If you were to ponder the concept of Mortgage Electronic Registration System, it was to help speed up the mortgage process, and it did, in the intangible secondary market. The problem with what MERS members failed to do was to preserve the security for the underlying collateral. And relying upon the worlds ignorance, words were crafted, so they could speak parallel to the meanings of what the world assumed the word meant. They present a scanned image on a piece of paper in front of you and you believe it is the real thing? You see, people have been making "copies" of originals for a long time, and that is ok. But, to have a "copy" and make a claim to something like an Article 3 Note, the original is the evidence, not the copy. There are no exceptions. Someone has to have it or how can they claim an alleged debt owed? Centuries old laws. Zombie "debt collectors" attempt it all the time. They rely on your ignorance. Nevertheless, it is a bit more to explain and many articles and charts created by James McGuire will help you better understand. If you can't, I've tried my best to help you understand his knowledge of who, what, when, where, and how both the tangible and the intangible was used to mislead the world. Read, learn, understand, it could save you.
THE SHAMEFUL PROBLEM - For years now, I have witnessed the judgment of ignorant men and women who have departed from the Royal law. Shame on you. Whether you, the reader, or someone you know, lost their "home" to foreclosure, whether you, or them, tried to fight over it in court, or not, you, or they, have heard the vial words coming out of other peoples mouths that make you feel guilty, like you are some type of person who can't manage their money. Shame on them. They are hypocrites! They sin yet they cast stones.
IT IS WRITTEN - why do you observe a chip in the eye of your brother, but you do not see the plank that is in your eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'My brother, let me cast the chip out from your eye, when behold, the plank that is in your own eye is not visible to you? Hypocrite! First cast out the plank from your own eye, and then sight will be given to you to pull out the chip from your brother's eye.
A Plea to the hearts of men
Brothers and sisters, forgive them because they don't really know what they are doing. In truth, they were led like a horse with a carrot in front of it, to ignorantly judge you to be a failure. Who gave them Authority to judge you? Man? They do not see the art of war playing out before their eyes. Divide and conquer.
who judge, you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you really believe you
have that authority? Your authority is given to you from a higher power.
Your authority was not given to you to act outside of the written Law.
It is certain that your cause will have an effect.
To those who wear robes, where in your law does it provide your authority to act outside your law? Are you the Authority? Whence did you receive that authority?
It is also written; You shall not judge, lest you be judged. For with the judgment that you judge, you will be judged, and with the measure that you measure, it will be measured to you.
A Badge of Honor
To those whom wear the badge of
enforcement, where in your law does it provide you with the authority to
act outside your law? Where in your law does it authorize you to ignore
the law, and fear a man in a robe, threatening your career, if you do
not follow his orders? Did you not remember you gave an oath, something
you should have never done, yet, you did. What was that oath?
To all of you,
Whom gave you the authority to treat the image of God, as you do? Why do your words have no honor?
WHERE ARE THE HEADLINES? - People today have seemingly not understood what was accomplished by this simple act of deception. If it were known, it would be headlines by now. If it is known, it is being hidden from you. If it were known, there would be unrest, there would be war. Was Enoch correct?
IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE - There is an unseen "intangible" debt, the largest the world has ever seen. It is the invisible god of babylon, a mystery. Many have read the articles, and reviewed the charts provided on this website. As I've witnessed, many seem to be looking for some type of "silver" bullet to help them defend themselves from the tactics of the certain banks attacks attempting alleged repossession, a.k.a. foreclosure. A simple solution to the whole problem exists, yet, few seem to look for it.
DECEIVED - Is it possible the certain banks are unaware of these actions against an innocent homeowner? Are United States lawmakers turning a blind eye to this debacle? Is it possible that individuals in courts of law are that ignorant? The truth will be revealed, and only they will provide it.
We've challenged the world for years now to prove us wrong? Care to take up the challenge, like the rest? Many have, and many are educated.
Crying Out - Oh Lord, my God, wake your children from the slumber of this intoxicated world, for the sake of the widow's son.
"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." Samuel Adams, 1772
Peace be with you