Posts Tagged ‘banks’

Posted from:

Awaken Longford

http://awakenlongford.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/mortgageholders-the-ten-most-important-questions-you-need-to-ask-your-bank/

“If all the Nations of the World are in Debt! Where did all the Money go? ”

January 15, 2013 · by

THE TEN QUESTIONS ANYBODY WHO HAS A MORTGAGE SHOULD BE ASKING THEIR BANK!

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW!

1. Am I indebted to the bank right now? (Please answer yes or no).

2. Please confirm that the bank actually possessed the money they claim to have lent me, prior to my loan being granted. In other words, did the bank physically have the money they lent me, prior to the money appearing in my account?

3. Would the bank be prepared to amend the credit agreement as follows: “We, the bank, did in fact possess the money we loaned you, prior to the loan being approved.”

4. Was the loan funded by assets belonging to the bank at the time the loan was granted? Either way, please describe in detail the accounting process used to create my loan.

5. Did the bank record my promissory note / negotiable instrument as an asset on its books? If yes, how was my instrument used to create my loan, and where is my valuable promissory note / negotiable instrument now?

6. Does the bank participate in a securitisation scheme whereby debts / promissory notes are bundled and then sold-on to a third party/parties via special purpose vehicles, entities or alike processes?

7. With reference to point 6, has my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding its securitization.

8. Does the bank have a legal right to collect money it claims I owe it? If so, then were does this legal right come from, assuming the loan has been securitised?

9. Has my loan with the bank been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party?

10. Regarding the security given to the bank by me, has this security been sold on or given as security / surety to another party?

THE 10 QUESTIONS EXPLAINED

1. Am I indebted to the bank right now? (Please answer yes or no). Obvious question, right? Wrong. In fact, your bank may well refuse to answer it. Here’s why: If your loan has been securitised, then you are no longer indebted to your bank. If you are not indebted to your bank, then in our opinion, the bank cannot take judgement against you. A recent judgment in the US (one of many similar judgments since 2008) has ordered banks to pay out US$8.5billion to consumers because of banking fraud. This is almost identical to what you should be seeking. In the case of securitisation, your legal position with the bank has changed. Did your bank disclose securitisation to you? Do you even know what it means? Probably not. Therefore, you should therefore seek recourse and follow the success of other countries. Also, if the bank does answer “yes” to this question, and it turns out that your loan has been securitised, then it is our opinion that the bank has placed itself in a position of fraud and quite possibly perjury. This could lead to criminal action against the bank and possible recourse for you.

2. Please confirm that the bank actually possessed the money they claim to have lent me, prior to my loan being granted. In other words, did the bank physically have the money they lent me, prior to the money appearing in my account? It is unlikely that your bank will answer this question. However, they may try to disguise the answer by using clever language, so read their answer very carefully. If your loan was securitised, then the bank’s money was not used to fund the loan. Therefore, a legitimate loan between you and the bank may not exist. The bank could never admit this, because to do so would be to admit that there could not possibly be a loan agreement with you. Even if your loan was not securitised, then the bank still cannot answer this question. Why? Because the bank did not loan you their own lawful money. Something you need to know about banking: banks do not “loan” money in the ordinary sense of the word. This is a tricky concept, and works like this: Banks do not make loans. Instead, they “advance” or “extend” something called “credit.” This simply means that a magical facility is created that provides you with “money” that is made out of thin air. As hard as it is for you to accept this, the money loaned to you was simulated (ie virtual). To illustrate: A customer deposits €100 into their bank. The bank then quickly makes nine photocopies of that €100. They lend those photocopies to nine people, charging interest on each of those so-called loans. Then, if the loan is not paid back with interest, they take away the assets pledged as security. In reality banks do not use a photocopier, they use a computer. The loan amount is typed into the computer and, hey presto, “magical” money is created out of thin air. You think that this money is a loan, or debt so you feel obligated to pay it back. However, it was never actually lent to you in the first place.

3. Would the bank be prepared to amend the credit agreement as follows: “We, the bank, did in fact possess the money we loaned you, prior to the loan being approved.” If you are wrong, then the banks would have no problem complying with this request. However, see for yourself: they will not agree to amend the contract. If your loan has been securitised, your original agreement is no longer with the bank! A bank loses all right and title to the loan agreement once it has been sold into a securitisation scheme. One cannot amend an agreement when they are no longer legally entitled to it, nor do they have it in their possession. Furthermore, any indebtedness to the bank would have been settled as a result of the sale of the asset. Put simply, no matter what the situation, the bank did not possess the money it loaned you, and never did. They are fooling you and participating in a fraud of monumental proportions. The fraud is that they cannot take away your assets without disclosing the truth to both you and the Court.

4. Was the loan funded by assets belonging to the bank at the time the loan was granted? Either way, please describe in detail the accounting process used to create my loan.

If everything is legitimate and above board, then banks should have no problem explaining how your particular loan came into being. However, banks will not reveal this to you. When you ask your bank these questions, you will see for yourself. You need to know something else about banking: Banks do not deal with actual, physical “money.” Instead, they operate with promises to pay. For example: if a bank promises to pay you €10,000, that would equate to a €10,000 deposit into your account. This deposit is reflected on your statement as a promise of the bank, to you, for €10,000. In other words, it looks like you have €10,000 in your account, but actually this number merely represents €10,000 worth of promises made by a bank to you. The words “money” and “deposit” are therefore misleading. The banks redefined these words so they sound the same in everyday use, but mean something very different to the legal and banking system. Another word being misused is the word “transfer.” A transfer is not a transfer of money. It is simply a case of the bank shifting their promise to pay A to a promise to pay B. This is only an illusion of a transfer. Do you remember when you first took out a loan? You gave the bank a promise, in writing, to make payments every month, with interest. This written promise to pay money to the bank becomes the money they used to lend you! Therefore, you actually created your own loan. It takes some time to get your head around this, and we recommend you research the links below to help you understand the process.

5. Did the bank record my promissory note / negotiable instrument as an asset on its books? If yes, how was my instrument used to create my loan, and where is my valuable promissory note / negotiable instrument now?

This question is designed to trick the banks. You want confirmation from your bank that they deal in negotiable instruments (promises). Once admitted, it will confirm most of what you is saying. Remember, real money (gold and silver, or notes that represent gold and silver) no longer exist. The illusion of money (known as “credit” or “bank promises”) quietly replaced real money so that the banks could fund their own business empire by creating money out of nothing, then charging interest on it. Negotiable instruments (promissory notes and bills of exchange) serve, in effect, as money. So, when you give the bank a promissory note (a written promise to pay back a loan), they convert your promise into their promise. Their promise = so called “money.” So you gave them the money they loaned you.

6. Does the bank participate in a securitisation scheme whereby debts / promissory notes are bundled and then sold-on to a third party/parties via special purpose vehicles, entities or alike processes?

This question is plain and simple: we want the banks to admit the obvious. We know they engage in securitisation, but once they admit this to a customer, then the customer would naturally have the right to ask a crisp follow-up question: “well then, has my specific loan been securitised?” Remember, if your loan has been securitised, then the whole game changes. This is ultimately what we want the banks to tell us. There is a very good chance that your loan has been securitised. You need to know the truth, which is why you MUST persist in your demand for the answers.

7. With reference to point 6, has my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding its securitization.

It is your right to know about securitisation. If you don’t get answers, then work  obtain recourse.

8. Does the bank have a legal right to collect money it claims I owe it? If so, then were does this legal right come from, assuming the loan has been securitised? The bank only has one counter argument to this: there is a contract between you and the bank. However, if your loan has been securitised, the contract is sold! It’s gone. The bank no longer has the contract, nor does it have the right to that contract. What part of this do the banks not understand? If a bank alludes or pretends they have it, then we believe that they are committing fraud. The contract between you and the bank could conceivably say anything it wants to. The fact is that it has been sold and the bank has lost all rights to it. In our opinion, the bank cannot legally, ethically or morally claim back the debt from you because they have already been paid.

9. Has my loan with the bank been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party? This is going to shock you, so be warned. When a loan is securitised, your loan gets bundled with other loans and then sold to a third party. If you default (miss a few payments), then the third party (called an SPV – Special Purpose Vehicle) carries insurance. They get paid out if you default! This needs to be emphasised: If you get sick or lose your job, or you cannot meet your repayment obligations, then the secret third parties who trade in your loans get paid out. They are protected against your default. So then… where is your protection? Nowhere. You have no protection because to protect you would mean to inform you of the game and once you know the game, the game is over. And one more thing… if the SPV is insured so they get paid out if you default… and the bank was paid for your loan right up front when the loan was securitised. So then… how and why are they able to foreclose on your assets? And where does the money go from the sale on the Sheriff’s auction? This is precisely what we are fighting to expose.

10. Regarding the security given to the bank by me, has this security been sold on or given as security / surety to another party?

This is the final nail in the coffin. Put simply, we want the bank to admit that they no longer have your security. If they do not have your security, then they cannot foreclose. The banks will never admit this because it means admitting that billions of Euro’s in foreclosures of assets over the past two decades would have been illegal. This would lead to an avalanche of lawsuits.

January 2013 with very special thanks to my friends at NewERA South Africa

———————-

Posted from:

Greg Hunter YouTube Channel

Published on Jan 8, 2014

http://usawatchdog.com/dr-paul-craig-… – Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says, “The West is draining itself of physical bullion. . . If there is a currency collapses and you try to flee into gold, there won’t be any there. The Chinese will have it.” So, is this the year gold and silver stage a big turnaround? Roberts says, “It’s gone on longer than I thought it could go on. I didn’t realize all the deceptive and crooked methods they would use to rig the markets. The notion that a democratic capitalist country having its markets rigged by its own authorities–it blows the mind. This is not normal. What will they do next? I don’t know.” Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with economist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.

——————————————–

PoliticalVelCraft

Article Published January 2014

Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says, “The West is draining itself of physical bullion. . . If there is a currency collapses and you try to flee into gold, there won’t be any there.

The Chinese will have it.” So, is this the year gold and silver stage a big turnaround? Roberts says, “It’s gone on longer than I thought it could go on. I didn’t realize all the deceptive and crooked methods they would use to rig the markets.

The notion that a democratic capitalist country having its markets rigged by its own authorities–it blows the mind. This is not normal. What will they do next? I don’t know.” Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with economist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.

Read the entire article –
click on Political Craft graphic below:

PoliticalVelCraft
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2014/01/17/mandatory-2014-debt-forgiveness-rothschild-federal-reserve-abscondingtransferring-u-s-precious-metals-using-artificial-goldsilver-derivative-paper/

————————————————

C0-Creat-ion

Posted from:

Bankers Working with Eternal Essence room

==================
MY QUESTIONS FOR HEATHER…
But first, I am REPOSTING some EXCERPTS from above:

HeatherAnnTucciJarraf1816x475. .

WHY ME? / If not me, Who?
/ QUOTE /
I have been fascinated with this “movement” for a long time.  I have probably listened to well over 100 hours of podcasts, and done a great deal of reading about this story, and even read several UCC filings.  It has been obvious to me for sometime that something or someone was missing from the OP team.  I have been waiting for someone to step forward and ask the hard questions, and point out some of the half-truths as are commonly expressed here.

When I heard the recent OP podcast where BZ spoke about how she was going to approach banks, it was obvious to me (from my background in banking), that this approach was not going to work… Given the stakes, I decided to step forward, and ask the very questions that I was waiting for someone else to ask.
/ UNQUOTE – Henry /
. .
Heather has invited me to ask Questions
/ QUOTE /
Henry O’leary (your role/real name is not important)….thank you, Love.  I get that you do not want to play transparently…youl still get all the questions answered…by a co-ordinated co-operation that has been rolling out visibly, Love.
: Good night, Loves!
/ UNQUOTE – HeatherAnnTucciJarraf .
. .
To which, I responded:
/ QUOTE /
Hi Heather,
I think I have been as transparent as most here, apart from not being willing to reveal my name and details of past employment – for reasons I have given.  Are YOU willing to to take next step?
/ UNQUOTE /
. .
No Response has come from Heather (yet),
So I suppose I should be the one to Take the Next Step, regarding Questions.
. .
So that’s the Background, and Here they are …
QUESTIONS as Originally posted on the 5d-Chat
. .
HARD QUESTIONS : for The One People Forum on 5d
===========================================

+ VALUE : Why does the OP talk about $5 Billion per person when $300 Trillion Global Tangible wealth (on the planet) divided by 7 Billion people is less than $50,000 per person?

+ NON-NEGOTIABILITY : What do you expect the the first bank to do with a deposited COV, when no other banks have yet accepted them in exchange for cash?

+ WHY NO EXPERTS: If banking really worked the way we have heard about on OP podcasts, why does not one single banking expert talk that way, including the many critics of big banking and the Fed?

+ LENDING SLOWDOWN: … And why has bank lending ground to a halt in 2013, if making loans is such an easy and profitable business for banks?

+ EXCHANGES: Getting two people to agree on what is a fair “exchange for value” can be difficult and slow. Won’t our complex economy grind to a halt if the existing pricing mechanism is destroyed, and a new one has to be created and negotiated?

+ DIRTY JOBS: Many think that local currencies creating and using their own local currencies is the answer. But if you look at the history of Utopian communities, these usually fall apart because it is hard to find people willing to do the regular dirty jobs that someone needs to do – these can be removing garbage, or washing dishes.
How will OP’s vision tackle these jobs?

+ NO BANKS: In a world without banks, how will people come up with the value for expensive capital items, such as a house? If it represents 20 years of savings, then people will need a reliable and safe way to store savings while they are waiting. If not banks, what then?
===
> see: http://z13.invisionfree.com/HARD_Qs/index.php?showtopic=1
========================
[6:06:12 AM] HeatherAnnTucciJarraf .: + VALUE : Why does the OP talk about $5 Billion per person when $300 Trillion Global Tangible wealth (on the planet) divided by 7 Billion people is less than $50,000 per person?

HEATHER:  this is where your stated experience and levels in derivatives is so interesting, yes?…depends on whether you consider the totality of data, not one piece missing, vs.  data consciously selected from all data in order to support an econimic structure/agenda, yes?
1.  there is reportedly over 1.2 Quadrillion of derivatives (if one google’s derivatives you will find many references from finance journals, congressional hearings, etc. but here is one http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/09/risk-quadrillion-derivatives-market-gdp/ ) …and that is just what is “on book” without transparency of “off book” amounts…I AGREE WITH A STATEMENT THAT THERE IS MUCH MORE DATA THEN IS BEING FOCUSED ON…Henry, would you be willing to explain how derivatives market ALONE, not even considering any of the other markets, can be sooooo much larger than Global GDP…what value base are they using and what are the formulas to get to the numbers (on book at least) that they are selling?  (this opens the door to the Insurance scheme of multiple policies issued for greater than the asset “covered”, which is illegal by former laws…that appeared to bring AIG down yet was the greatest robbery in history….because their national/international data base was consciously designed to not catch the multiple policies issue upon entry of policy…only upon entry of CLAIM on policy…which led to the actual robbery operating under the guise of BAILOUT.)
2.  Re-read the filings…they actually state 5 billion in equity paid in “lawful money of The United States of America” (gold and silver pre1933)…if one goes to read ANY purported “promissary note” for a purported loan all contain a statement that the signatory admits to receiving a loan of [enter FRN amount] which they agree to repay in “lawful money of The United States of America” (gold and silver)…GOLD AND SILVER pre1933… (promissory forms were last created/revised by FANNY MAE in 1985, if memory serves correctly, for the whole banking industry….BIG BANK/FANNY MAE EXECS CREATED MERS AT THE SAME MOMENT, but tested it for approximately 10 years before its launch in 1995…Marie McDonald (forensics fraud mortgage examiner is an excellent resource to speak with…lovely being who was behind the Albinez supreme court Amicus Curie…I worked with her during her moment of transparently auditing Mass. County records…75%+ titles examined were fraud.)  As all local currencies are only able to issue based on the amount of FRN’s deposited in their central banks (EURODOLLAR = a dollar deposited in a European bank…. http://thelawdictionary.org/eurodollar/ )…which is why the purported BAILOUT MONEY FED RESERVE PAID OUT TO MANY BANKS, CORPORATIONS, ETC OVERSEAS …and which in issuing local currencies from central banks based on the amount of FRN’s is why they all subscribed under the “all debts are payable in lawful money of The United States of America” (gold and silver)…its all in the filings, Love.
3.  DO the calculation now of 5 Billion lawful money of The United States of America, pre1933 gold and silver per the filings ;)…what DO you SEE, Love?
4.  I love the fact that you state you were in high level derivatives…you should be able to shine absolute light on the inconsistencies and probably one of the greatest shadow department of banking….other than the “Loan and Original Issue Discount mechanisms”…then again the Federal Reserve did a great job at explaining everything in MODERN MONEY MECHANICS…I’ll post a copy after this post (heart)

+ NON-NEGOTIABILITY : What do you expect the the first bank to do with a deposited COV, when no other banks have yet accepted them in exchange for cash?

HEATHER:  This is where your stated experience as high level banker is so valuable, Love….you have the opportunity to show what your “world” does not want seen or focus on…what negotiable vs. non-negotiable means and how the “conversion” process actually works, yes?:
1.  APPLICATIONS for conversion (exchange for current funds) is done all the time…the conversion is cleverly templated (by Fannie/banks as stated above)the promissory note is a declaration of value, cleverly coupled with the “swap” of loan issuance (FRN’s) for “lawful money of The United States of America”, and the OID (Original Issue Discount is done and issued (IRS holds those records)…AGAIN, read MODERN MONEY MECHANICS or the many other resources of data that are issued by the system itself…NOTICE IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT…hence, the requirement of distraction so that the NOTICE is not….noticed (chuckle)(heart)
2.  In every application for a bank account, credit card, loan/deed of trust, etc., there is a clever Agent Clause/Accomodation Clause…making the bank a signatory agent for the purported “applicant” so that the bank can hide the entire conversion process from the one who actually holds the value…that is why the bank can accept the “Original Issue Discount” federal reserve notes that are exchanged for the original value and placed in an account in the bank under the applicants name, which the bank, per the Agent/Accomodation Clauses can then accept “on behalf of the client”/”as the client” and transfer to another account which is presented to the client as “loan account”…AGAIN …MODERN MONEY MECHANICS, and many other sources from within the system cover all this.
3.  “Negotiable” is required for the banks to leverage, derive, or to permit the “global” conversions, assignments, derivatives, leverages, etc.
4.  “Non-negotiable”…it is what it is and it ain’t no more than what it is stated to be…and only the issuer has the power…not any agent/accomodation maker…..the issuer would have to have all material facts in order for the instrument issued to have value…but that is not how the former system was.
5.  To accept “Non-Negotiable” instrument would mean all material facts have to be disclosed and all operations transparent with knowing, willing and intentional consent by issuer….very different than the former system, yes?
6.  The mission of the former systems was to successfully fail so that all could succeed, not one inbodyment left behind.  That mission is complete.

+ WHY NO EXPERTS: If banking really worked the way we have heard about on OP podcasts, why does not one single banking expert talk that way, including the many critics of big banking and the Fed?

HEATHER:  They have….multiple moments over….William Black ( (inlove) ), Congressman Bernard (Congressional Bernard hearings regarding S&L scandal…remember that?), Walker Todd, and many others….are you listening to what they actually are saying/have said, Love?

+ LENDING SLOWDOWN: … And why has bank lending ground to a halt in 2013, if making loans is such an easy and profitable business for banks?

HEATHER:  (chuckle) … because all the original value and depositories (the people) were duly secured and returned….what happens in contracts (this is where your ship financing and overall banking experience should benefit soooo many here ;)), inclusive of contracts for a purported loan when all material facts are not disclosed? (heart)
[6:06:30 AM] HeatherAnnTucciJarraf .: + EXCHANGES: Getting two people to agree on what is a fair “exchange for value” can be difficult and slow. Won’t our complex economy grind to a halt if the existing pricing mechanism is destroyed, and a new one has to be created and negotiated?

HEATHER:  when a pricing mechanism, and the funding mechanism it is based on, is not completely disclosed to begin with resulting in a fraud…was it “destroyed” at inception and implementation? …hence transparency only makes visible what all ways IS.

+ DIRTY JOBS: Many think that local currencies creating and using their own local currencies is the answer. But if you look at the history of Utopian communities, these usually fall apart because it is hard to find people willing to do the regular dirty jobs that someone needs to do – these can be removing garbage, or washing dishes.
How will OP’s vision tackle these jobs?

HEATHER:  hhhhmmm…interesting, yes?  The advanced technologies that have been buried in order to maintain people paying energy into distraction, like removing garbage, or washing dishes, etc…..the “invention” of the dishwashing machine/clothes washing machine was about as far as they were to release….that is why the cookers were buried too…old “new tech” 😉 (the tech that burns the garbage back to their base elements, like the total of all used rubber tires that can be cooked back to base elements and provide the same amount of oil that Venezuela was importing to the US back in 2009…and that doesn’t even address the value of the other base elements that come out of those “tires” that are worth more on the market than oil)

….I won’t even get into the advantage of human tech…which makes those “dirty jobs” you speak of irrelevant…yet. :*

+ NO BANKS: In a world without banks, how will people come up with the value for expensive capital items, such as a house? If it represents 20 years of savings, then people will need a reliable and safe way to store savings while they are waiting. If not banks, what then?

…..for all that Jimmy Carter has done, one of the DO’ings I love the most has been his Habitat for Humanity…and when HH leaves a community, are you conscious that many of the community continue to build homes using no money?…that’s until Green Peace and USAID put a stop to it (rofl)(heart)

….the real value the banks have produced is NOW visible….to make transparent the eternal value of all inbodyments of I….The banks have served their purpose and it is the moment for all inbodyments to repurpose….the banks operated by the energy of the inbodyments within them DO’ing…and they survived by the energy of the inbodyments that believed that banks actually produced the “value”…what DO you SEE NOW, Love?
[6:07:10 AM] HeatherAnnTucciJarraf .: Here is another great question Henry that I am curious about I keep hearing they TBTB are running out of money I would love to have more information on that and  have some way to veify this other then someone said so.[6:04 AM] HeatherAnnTucciJarraf .:

<<< Seriously, Love?  Really, Mark?  I love you! (heart)

————————————————–

Image

Your mortgage documents are fake!
Prepare to be outraged. Newly obtained filings from this Florida woman’s lawsuit uncover horrifying scheme (Update)

BY DAVID DAYEN
Posted from Salon
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/

Lynn Szymoniak (Credit: CBS News/60 MInutes

If you know about foreclosure fraud, the mass fabrication of mortgage documents in state courts by banks attempting to foreclose on homeowners, you may have one nagging question: Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme? Was it just cheaper to mock up the documents than to provide the real ones? Did banks figure they simply had enough power over regulators, politicians and the courts to get away with it? (They were probably right about that one.)
A newly unsealed lawsuit, which banks settled in 2012 for $95 million, actually offers a different reason, providing a key answer to one of the persistent riddles of the financial crisis and its aftermath. The lawsuit states that banks resorted to fake documents because they could not legally establish true ownership of the loans when trying to foreclose.

This reality, which banks did not contest but instead settled out of court, means that tens of millions of mortgages in America still lack a legitimate chain of ownership, with implications far into the future. And if Congress, supported by the Obama administration, goes back to the same housing finance system, with the same corrupt private entities who broke the nation’s private property system back in business packaging mortgages, then shame on all of us.

The 2011 lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in both North and South Carolina, by a white-collar fraud specialist named Lynn Szymoniak, on behalf of the federal government, 17 states and three cities. Twenty-eight banks, mortgage servicers and document processing companies are named in the lawsuit, including mega-banks like JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America.
Szymoniak, who fell into foreclosure herself in 2009, researched her own mortgage documents and found massive fraud (for example, one document claimed that Deutsche Bank, listed as the owner of her mortgage, acquired ownership in October 2008, four months after they first filed for foreclosure). She eventually examined tens of thousands of documents, enough to piece together the entire scheme.

A mortgage has two parts: the promissory note (the IOU from the borrower to the lender) and the mortgage, which creates the lien on the home in case of default. During the housing bubble, banks bought loans from originators, and then (in a process known as securitization) enacted a series of transactions that would eventually pool thousands of mortgages into bonds, sold all over the world to public pension funds, state and municipal governments and other investors. A trustee would pool the loans and sell the securities to investors, and the investors would get an annual percentage yield on their money.

In order for the securitization to work, banks purchasing the mortgages had to physically convey the promissory note and the mortgage into the trust. The note had to be endorsed (the way an individual would endorse a check), and handed over to a document custodian for the trust, with a “mortgage assignment” confirming the transfer of ownership. And this had to be done before a 90-day cutoff date, with no grace period beyond that.

Georgetown Law professor Adam Levitin spelled this out in testimony before Congress in 2010: “If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever.”
The lawsuit alleges that these notes, as well as the mortgage assignments, were “never delivered to the mortgage-backed securities trusts,” and that the trustees lied to the SEC and investors about this. As a result, the trusts could not establish ownership of the loan when they went to foreclose, forcing the production of a stream of false documents, signed by “robo-signers,” employees using a bevy of corporate titles for companies that never employed them, to sign documents about which they had little or no knowledge.

Many documents were forged (the suit provides evidence of the signature of one robo-signer, Linda Green, written eight different ways), some were signed by “officers” of companies that went bankrupt years earlier, and dozens of assignments listed as the owner of the loan “Bogus Assignee for Intervening Assignments,” clearly a template that was never changed. One defendant in the case, Lender Processing Services, created masses of false documents on behalf of the banks, often using fake corporate officer titles and forged signatures. This was all done to establish standing to foreclose in courts, which the banks otherwise could not.

Szymoniak stated in her lawsuit that, “Defendants used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents,” meaning that at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed securities. Because of the strict laws governing of these kinds of securitizations, there’s no way to make the assignments after the fact. Activists have a name for this: “securitization FAIL.”

One smoking gun piece of evidence in the lawsuit concerns a mortgage assignment dated Feb. 9, 2009, after the foreclosure of the mortgage in question was completed. According to the suit, “A typewritten note on the right hand side of the document states: ‘This Assignment of Mortgage was inadvertently not recorded prior to the Final Judgment of Foreclosure… but is now being recorded to clear title.’”
This admission confirms that the mortgage assignment was not made before the closing date of the trust, invalidating ownership. The suit further argued that “the act of fabricating the assignments is evidence that the MBS Trust did not own the notes and/or the mortgage liens for some assets claimed to be in the pool.”

The federal government, states and cities joined the lawsuit under 25 counts of the federal False Claims Act and state-based versions of the law. All of them bought mortgage-backed securities from banks that never conveyed the mortgages or notes to the trusts. The plaintiffs argued that, considering that trustees and servicers had to spend lots of money forging and fabricating documents to establish ownership, they were materially harmed by the subsequent impaired value of the securities. Also, these investors (which includes the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve) paid for the transfer of mortgages to the trusts, yet they were never actually transferred.

Finally, the lawsuit argues that the federal government was harmed by “payments made on mortgage guarantees to Defendants lacking valid notes and assignments of mortgages who were not entitled to demand or receive said payments.”

Despite Szymoniak seeking a trial by jury, the government intervened in the case, and settled part of it at the beginning of 2012, extracting $95 million from the five biggest banks in the suit (Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citi and GMAC/Ally Bank). Szymoniak herself was awarded $18 million. But the underlying evidence was never revealed until the case was unsealed last Thursday.

Now that it’s unsealed, Szymoniak, as the named plaintiff, can go forward and prove the case. Along with her legal team (which includes the law firm of Grant & Eisenhoffer, which has recovered more money under the False Claims Act than any firm in the country), Szymoniak can pursue discovery and go to trial against the rest of the named defendants, including HSBC, the Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank and US Bank.

The expenses of the case, previously borne by the government, now are borne by Szymoniak and her team, but the percentages of recovery funds are also higher. “I’m really glad I was part of collecting this money for the government, and I’m looking forward to going through discovery and collecting the rest of it,” Szymoniak told Salon.
It’s good that the case remains active, because the $95 million settlement was a pittance compared to the enormity of the crime. By the end of 2009, private mortgage-backed securities trusts held one-third of all residential mortgages in the U.S. That means that tens of millions of home mortgages worth trillions of dollars have no legitimate underlying owner that can establish the right to foreclose. This hasn’t stopped banks from foreclosing anyway with false documents, and they are often successful, a testament to the breakdown of law in the judicial system. But to this day, the resulting chaos in disentangling ownership harms homeowners trying to sell these properties, as well as those trying to purchase them. And it renders some properties impossible to sell.

To this day, banks foreclose on borrowers using fraudulent mortgage assignments, a legacy of failing to prosecute this conduct and instead letting banks pay a fine to settle it. This disappoints Szymoniak, who told Salon the owner of these loans is now essentially “whoever lies the most convincingly and whoever gets the benefit of doubt from the judge.”

Szymoniak used her share of the settlement to start the Housing Justice Foundation, a non-profit that attempts to raise awareness of the continuing corruption of the nation’s courts and land title system.

Most of official Washington, including President Obama, wants to wind down mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and return to a system where private lenders create securitization trusts, packaging pools of loans and selling them to investors. Government would provide a limited guarantee to investors against catastrophic losses, but the private banks would make the securities, to generate more capital for home loans and expand homeownership.

That’s despite the evidence we now have that, the last time banks tried this, they ignored the law, failed to convey the mortgages and notes to the trusts, and ripped off investors trying to cover their tracks, to say nothing of how they violated the due process rights of homeowners and stole their homes with fake documents.

The very same banks that created this criminal enterprise and legal quagmire would be in control again. Why should we view this in any way as a sound public policy, instead of a ticking time bomb that could once again throw the private property system, a bulwark of capitalism and indeed civilization itself, into utter disarray? As Lynn Szymoniak puts it, “The President’s calling for private equity to return. Why would we return to this?”

Update: This story previously suggested that banks settled this lawsuit with the federal government for $1 billion. That number is actually the total for a number of whistle-blower lawsuits that were folded into a larger National Mortgage Settlement. This specific lawsuit settled for $95 million. The post above has been changed to reflect this fact.
———-
Posted from Salon
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/

Posted from:

Imagehttp://removingtheshackles.blogspot.nl/2013/07/update-on-kiri-summary-of-all-info-and.html

Update on Kiri, summary of all info and links and Heathers briefing

This is a compendium of all the notes and links about Kiri’s Story, and an update with all the information that Heather has just sent to Kiri for her court case tomorrow.  I’ve added my own notes here and there in blue.

Kiri is one of the most confident and amazing women I’ve had the privilege to talk to.  If you’ve listened to the interview, you’ll understand.

From Heather this morning- a conversation on Skype (using my computer and account)

D.Breakingthesilence: (kindly) I notify all present that I do not consent to being here today and that I am here under duress and coercion against my will because you have threatened me with the use of force.  I do not know who you are.  (respectfully) I respectfully demand that you produce to me duly verified and sworn documentation of:

  • your identification
  • your standing
  • your authority
  • identification of the law you are using
  • and the original accommodation agreement with my knowing, willing, and intentional wet-ink signature that gives you authority to act, present, and represent on my behalf

(if I am threatened with purported contempt) “I respectfully waive the benefit of your contempt.  I demand, again, that you produce to me duly verified and sworn documentation of:

  • your identification
  • your standing
  • your authority
  • identification of the law you are using
  • and the original accommodation agreement with my knowing, willing, and intentional wet-ink signature that gives you authority to act, present, and represent on my behalf

if they refuse or try to distract me to move on without them producing that documentation I have questioned: “Is it your intent to force me into involuntary servitude?”

I know who I am.  Perhaps you do not know who you are, what your standing is, what authority you have, what law you are operating with or whether there is an accommodation agreement that I may have consciously signed.  HOWEVER….perhaps you do know all that…and you are committing deceptive acts and practices in order to not have to produce that documentation…

I ask again and please consider carefully before you respond because you are held personally and commercially responsible and liable for every word and statement you issue…ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO FORCE ME INTO INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE?”

[12:40:23 PM] D Breakingthesilence: sorry…that is heather using d’s computer/handle with heather’s full responsibility and liability :*.  Heather\

[12:43:03 PM] D Breakingthesilence: “I am here without my consent, against my will, under duress.  I do not and have never contracted with anyone in this room or any entity that may be represented in this room and I cancel any and all presumptions that I have contracted with anyone in this room or associated with any entity that may be represented in this room”

[12:44:12 PM] D Breakingthesilence: until you know who is on the “play ground” trying to insert there nose in your business, there is no requirement/need to go into anything regarding a contract between you and another.

[12:44:55 PM] D Breakingthesilence: think of that “nose inserter” as wallmart or mcdonalds….what the hell do they have to do with a contract between me and my contracting partner?  hhhhhmmmmm.

[12:45:22 PM] D Breakingthesilence: THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ABOUT PERCEPTION….AND POSSIBLY FROM THEIR POINT OF PERCEPTION….ABOUT DECEPTION

[12:48:52 PM] D Breakingthesilence: ANYTHING THEY SAY ORALLY IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING…WHATEVER THEY SAY….I RESPOND “that is great!  produce that to me in a duly verified sworn declaration that declares the foregoing is true and correct …under what ever law you chose to identify!”

[12:50:11 PM] D Breakingthesilence: anything they say is blah blah blah until they put it in writing in duly verified sworn declaration….that is legally and commercially binding…blah blah blah is not.

[12:54:21 PM] D Breakingthesilence: (smoking)

[12:54:25 PM] D Breakingthesilence: brb

[12:59:02 PM] D Breakingthesilence: I am heather ann tucci-jarraf, eternal essence inbodied July 30, 1972!

[12:59:40 PM] D Breakingthesilence: let’s play!

[1:00:05 PM] D Breakingthesilence: without prejudice

[1:00:41 PM] D Breakingthesilence: i now relinquish full operation of this skype handle back to D! ;)(chuckle)
[1:11:55 PM] D Breakingthesilence: i commandeered her handle for one more moment (heart)…actually D consents to my use of it

[1:18:16 PM] D Breakingthesilence: there are four things that I am conscious of when I walk into any place:
1.  I am conscious of who I am 
2.  that I operate with full responsibility and liability under common law
3.  I don’t know who they are
4.  there is a possibility that presumptions of contract may have been made without my conscious consent
I cancel any presumptions of contract…”I cancel any presumptions of contract or agreement that may exist”
“NOW…..WHO ARE YOU?”
[12:39:45 PM] D Breakingthesilence: (kindly) I notify all present that I do not consent to being here today and that I am here under duress and coercion against my will because you have threatened me with the use of force.  I do not know who you are.  (respectfully) I respectfully demand that you produce to me duly verified and sworn documentation of:

  • your identification
  • your standing
  • your authority
  • identification of the law you are using
  • and the original accommodation agreement with my knowing, willing, and intentional wet-ink signature that gives you authority to act, present, and represent on my behalf

(if I am threatened with purported contempt) “I respectfully waive the benefit of your contempt.  I demand, again, that you produce to me duly verified and sworn documentation of:

  • your identification
  • your standing
  • your authority
  • identification of the law you are using
  • and the original accommodation agreement with my knowing, willing, and intentional wet-ink signature that gives you authority to act, present, and represent on my behalf

if they refuse or try to distract me to move on without them producing that documentation I have questioned: “Is it your intent to force me into involuntary servitude?”
I know who I am.  Perhaps you do not know who you are, what your standing is, what authority you have, what law you are operating with or whether there is an accommodation agreement that I may have consciously signed.  HOWEVER….perhaps you do know all that…and you are committing deceptive acts and practices in order to not have to produce that documentation…(their incompetency vs. their actions to deceive….which is it?)
I ask again and please consider carefully before you respond because you are held personally and commercially responsible and liable for every word and statement you issue…ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO FORCE ME INTO INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE?”
[1:27:58 PM] D Breakingthesilence: “I have had to demand this documentation four times and four times you have refused to produce it.

I demand this fifth and final time that you produce to me duly verified and sworn documentation of:

  • your identification
  • your standing
  • your authority
  • identification of the law you are using
  • and the original accommodation agreement with my knowing, willing, and intentional wet-ink signature that gives you authority to act, present, and represent on my behalf”

(this is a vital point that the courts and judges will understand completely, and it will blow their socks off if YOU state this!- D)
[1:34:45 PM] D Breakingthesilence: NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS AT ANY MOMENT…IF MY SIGNATURE IS EVER REQUESTED/FORCED/ETC….”WITHOUT PREJUDICE HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF”
[1:43:43 PM] D Breakingthesilence: I once had a deputy sheriff called into a purported court room towards the end of the investigations…their attempt at a visible trigger to invoke an expected pattern of behavior…”fear and compliance”…I just remained respectful and calm…I went to sign the paperwork and signed it with my signature (as above for the most part) and as I was signing my signature he put one hand on his gun and with the other hand grabbed the document and “forcefully growled” that I was only to sign my name….
I stated that “I am signing this document with my signature…that my signature consists of any marking or writing that I intend to represent as me and be bound to as my signature representing me”.  The purported judge’s bailiff (whom I was friends with) took the document from the sheriff to quiet things down and touched the paper the whole time I was signing…my way.

The next purported court hearing she handed me the document, no sheriff in sight, and told me to sign my signature…whatever I choose to be my signature :)….I giggled and said “wow, someone must have talked to you all about what signatures are and can be”…she winked and smiled. (heart)

[1:46:33 PM] D Breakingthesilence: keri….I am always respectful and calm….i have fun…(D says that I am masochistic sometimes torturing them with fun (chuckle) …if that is possible)…I am conscious of who I BE and I am conscious when I DO…with full responsibility and liability…if I make a perceived mistake…then I review it and choose whether to clean it up!

[1:46:53 PM] D Breakingthesilence: heather signing off for now!  hugs and loves all ways.  H

[1:48:56 PM] Lisa M Harrison: (heart)

[2:18:44 PM] Kiri Campbell:  Respectful and calm (y)that.  After all, it’s just business right? 😀  We are gonna have so much fun with them tomorrow.  This could be the beginning of the repurposing here in NZ. 😉

[2:19:25 PM] American Kabuki: Go get em Kiri!  I am in awe of what you are doing! 🙂

[2:19:49 PM] Kiri Campbell: Much love to everyone, thank you AK. (heart)

[2:27:27 PM] HEATHER PEOPLES TRUST: (bow)(heart)  Kiri…I and many others are present with you tomorrow….even if you may not see us 😉

[2:30:12 PM] Kiri Campbell: Thank you Heather I (heart) and adore you so much.  Hehe… I know 😉

[2:31:24 PM] HEATHER PEOPLES TRUST: (hug):*
after tomorrow…there is more fun….for you and your contracting partner…the bank (chuckle)….one fun at a time!

[2:31:56 PM] Kiri Campbell: (chuckle) So excited.

********************************************************************
Message from Kiri:

Kiri Campbell
GOOD MORNING Family and Friends around the world, who know have their watchful eye on Little NZ. I am overwhelmed with the Love and support and kind gestures of each and every single one of you that has either sent me messages, offered to help financially, added me on Skype and facebook, sent CN our DOing and BEing is at an utmost high right NOW! To all the negative back lash, which is minor compared to the majority I thank you too for providing contrast and I return to you in LOVE. I have a few tasks at hand today 1). Invoices/CN need to be sent to Hawera Police station they can be faxed too (06) 278 0261 and addressed to Ivan Smith ( Who I have already sent a CN too), which his colleagues have breached. Sandy Shaw ( Good Cop bad cop), she can get a CN too Rebecca Dearling she can have one too, they have all breached the original CN I hand delivered and faxed. Lets send them 1 million invoices and CN’s that’s bound to get their attention. Also; Craig Vertongen the man acting as Court Security Officer who assaulted me, they day I was delivereing Foreclosure flyers. I served a CN on him also on the 11th of June which they are now in breach Hawera courthouse fax Fax: 06 278 2081

*************************************************************************

this was a BIG long post on the bank facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TSBBank

[6:01:04 PM] Carol MHVolk: Joe Bucks
Are you going to be the 1st Criminal Banksters that return to Lawful Banking?
http://briankellysblog.blogspot.ca/2013/07/kiris-deposits-15000000-of-value.html
Brian Kelly’s Blog: Kiri’s Deposits 15,000,000 of Value – Process Summary
briankellysblog.blogspot.com
Like · · Share · Friday at 7:58pm near Lethbridge, Alberta

    Top Comments
    Kim Beckett, Chaseface Binnie and 6 others like this.
    Write a comment…
    TSB Bank NZ Hi Joe, firstly apologies. Facebook had marked your post as spam. With regard to this situation, this is a matter for NZ’s legal system to determine.

    Kiri did provide us with a ‘Letter of intent’ for our CEO when the cheque was presented however in o…See More
    Like · Reply · 1 · Friday at 10:18pm · Edited
        Hide 8 Replies
        Teresa Myhre Correction…Kiri did ALL this in complete Transparency!
        Like · 3 · Friday at 11:03pm
        Thomas Maddox Beks….It seems as though “some new” person flagged a lot of people today. What’s up. Trying to hide something?
        Like · 2 · Friday at 11:31pm
        Thomas Maddox Beks…millions of people have seen the receipt…it did include the deposit and available funds. Please accept the fact that the world is watching.
        Like · 2 · Friday at 11:33pm
        Kim Beckett Beks it’s time that you take a better look at Kiri”s paper work and find out what this is all about. There are thousands of us out here looking forward to that happening.
        Like · 2 · Friday at 11:36pm
        Grant Murray BOOM!
        You ACCEPTED the deposit!
        And now that admission is public!
        (screenshot saved btw)
        Furthermore, you accepted the deposit in ‘good faith’ – first time I’ve heard of a bank taking a deposit in ‘good faith’ – usually you have protocols…..
        LOLOLOLOLOOOOL!
 Like · 3 · Saturday at 12:02am
        Joe Bucks WoW! A reply! Amazing!! Thank you!!! [even though you did not give your Titles]
        I will assume you are not a “VP or above on a need to know basis.” I will also assume you were taught to do and think in a certain way to operate within your capacity at the Bank. So Please let me tell you some truth.
        1st Letters of Intent are Private Law and a very powerful tool, did you rebut? If not it stands as Private Lawful Law between the Parties and can be turned into a collectible Commercial Bill

        2nd Since Kiri used a closed Bank account she was operating in or like I like to call it, her Private Lawful capacity to use the Private side of her closed on the Public side Bank account. You must understand there are two sides to these account. There is much Data out there concerning Private Banking nowadays, I invite you to listen to some Winston Shrout to know more or just demand to know this knowledge from your CEO so you can protect yourself.

        3rd This excellent Private deposit will clear or Kiri will have every Right to pursue her Private Lawful Remedies which are all in Commerce. This means 3 to 5 times the original amount for damages. [This is what Winston teaches and he gets a 3rd Party to collect for him. His favorite 3rd Party is the IRS Internal Revenue Service of the CORPORATION called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and as you may know they can collected anywhere in the World while the Agent collecting sips his morning coffee]
*side note by D:  Heather has stated to me several times in the past few days that Winston Shrout and Frank O’connel (not sure of the spelling of Franks name, sorry!), are absolutely correct with their work in this area.

        4th Kiri was Kidnapped NOT arrested in other words she was arrested Unlawfully and I can go into great detail about her Kidnapping and Authority and Consent to be governed and all of the other stuff I have learnt from the Law Movement as I call it; Thank GOD she had studied her Human Rights and Knows how not to contract with those alleged Police. I can go into great detail about this part of our human Rights too. I expect to hear about her Private Commercial Lien on those that Kidnapped her.
        She will not even see Court and if she does it will be just to collect her cheque for Damages.

        5th I’m thinking of the Best Person I know to teach you how Banking really works. This would be in my opinion Winston Shrout but he’s kind of long-winded so I refer you to the very smart Lady Mary Croft and her free ebook called “HOW I CLOBBERED EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN” A Grand Lady and a great book on her Lawful doings in Commerce

        6th I wish to thank you for your reply and to make sure you know the I never called you personally a “Criminal Bankster” unless of course, you know of the Fraud by these “Criminal Bankster” against all of Humankind which includes you and yours. Here’s Mary’s book
        http://www.thecrowhouse.com/Documents/mary-book.pdf

        7th I’m on the land usually called Canada but I operate in my full capacity under full Commercial and Criminal Liability Worldwide. So as soon as your Bosses realize the scam is up I’ll sign up for an account and will deposit 50 million in funds to your Corporate Bank, that’s 5 Million profit for your Bank! [I hope you get a cut or bonus for bringing me in!] I like NZ and the People Oh! Oh!! Oh!!! Bill Turner he’s from NZ and a great guy who’s been teaching Rights and our Remedies in Commerce.
        Here’s one of Bill’s lectures about who you are. I hope one day we can do some Business soon!
        Thanks again for replying, Enjoy!!!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyeU-mI9sL0
        Like · 3 · Saturday at 12:47am
        TSB Bank NZ Hi Thomas, nothing to hide as you’ll see with this post. Kim, Grant & Thomas, in NZ, the term ‘accepting’ a deposit has a different meaning to ‘clearing’ a deposit, and simply refers to the receipt of a deposit to go through the usual bank clearance processing. There is an initial keying of a transaction to the account so it can be verified, which is done in good faith that the funds can be deposited, however as you’ll see in the ATM slip the funds are not actual until they become available. In this case they are not available funds. ~B
        Like · Saturday at 12:50am
        Kiri Campbell Bill Turner rocks guys. And so does Mary Croft.
        Like · 4 · Saturday at 12:52am
        Kiri Campbell Your usual process got thrown out the door, when ALL banks chose to Foreclose upon themselves. Now you are also admitting publicly that you are aiding and abetting. Including HSBC.
        Like · 2 · Saturday at 1:21am
        Kiri Campbell Foreclosed Entity you have no Laws only rules/policies. In fact you no longer have your rules either nor your policies. They are all made up. Stop handing us roundabout lies. Your stalling for more time. But it’s too late what’s done has been done and this will go down in world history. Way to go TSB, step up to the plate and honour us and in return we shall honor you. Your bank will be the first to pave the way for many banks. The whole world is watching now.
        Unlike · 2 · Saturday at 1:26am
        Kiri Campbell ALL eyes are on you
        Like · 1 · Saturday at 1:27am
        Kiri Campbell NZ owned, yes we are proud that TSB is NZ owned. But by who in NZ? Cos I did my homework and I see u have directors (lining their pockets), then you have allocated all the shares to TSB Community Trust. But then if you have a look at all the trustees of that community trust, just looks like you are now hiding under being a community owned trust. That will dish out a flash building now and then to appear like you are serving the community.
        Like · 2 · Saturday at 1:33am
        Jane Dunn Thank you to everyone for your comments here explaining how things are and especially to Kiri for the first challenge.
        Like · Saturday at 6:31am
        Write a reply…
    AnokaShiva Fpa von Dreger Godzone’s own Kiri Campbell leading the way in and for
    THE ONE PEOPLE
    Like · Reply · 2 · Saturday at 1:25am

***************************************************************

Links to Articles and interviews about Kiri’s now legendary deposit of $15million of her personal VALUE into a bank account:

note: These are just the main articles that were put out- that contained the video interview with Kiri, Lisa Harrison, Bob Wright, and Brian Kelly, the Scribd documents that show the deposit slip and all letters and declarations, and original content…… there are about 200 cross links out there, in at least 12 different languages from multiple countries that have carried one or more of these articles…… in other words, to the banking executives at TSB, their now much smaller legal department, and the HSBC big wigs and all the rest of their ilk who are reading this (and we know you are, lol):  

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE NOW SEEN THE DEPOSIT SLIP, HAVE READ THE WORDS THAT YOU ADMIT THAT KIRI DEPOSITED HER VALUE IN YOUR BANKING INSTITUTION…..  ALL EYES ARE ON YOU MY FRIENDS.  YOU CAN EITHER STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND HONOR KIRI’S DEPOSIT OF HER VALUE INTO YOUR BANK AND REAP THE BENEFITS OF BEING THE FIRST BANK WORLD WIDE TO TAKE THAT STEP INTO THE NEW VALUE SYSTEM IN FULL TRANSPARENCY….

….OR YOU CAN GO DIRECTLY TO STRIKE 3 AND YOU’RE OUT OF THE GAME FOR THE REST OF THE SEASON FOR MISCONDUCT ….  ACTUALLY, YOU’RE OUT OF THE GAME PERMANENTLY AS NO FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE WHEN THEY’VE FULLY AND COMPLETELY ADMITTED THAT THEIR ENTIRE PROCESS IS BASED ON FRAUD.

…… CHOICE IS YOURS.  HAVE A NICE DAY.

http://www.5dmedianetwork.com/the-one-people-interview-with-kiri-from-nz-19th-juy-2013/

http://removingtheshackles.blogspot.com/2013/07/interview-with-lisa-harrison-and-kiri.html

http://briankellysblog.blogspot.nl/2013/07/kiris-deposits-15000000-of-value.html

http://sitsshow.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/kiris-deposits-15000000-of-value.html

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/154780181/Kiri-from-New-Zealand-Deposited-15-Million-Units-of-her-Value-Into-Her-Local-Bank

http://vimeo.com/70682070

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thecollectiveimagination/2013/07/23/the-one-people

———————————————

Image

Published on May 31, 2013

The IMF, Bank of England, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Dallas & Chicago publications show money is created when loans are made… not before loans are made…

Original Issue Discounts result from the depositing of YOUR Promissory Note..?

Banks, as an Accommodation Party, withdraw that currency from the central banks and “LOAN” it to you..?

See also http://www.freespeechaustralia.org and follow a case where such evidence has been asked of the bank.

scott bartle

———————————

Thanks Scott for this explanation of the fraud in the banking industry as it relates to loans and mortgages!

Below is a link to a related article that will shed some light on the process of modification which is the same fraudulent process of deception and illusion!

Foreclosure Settlement Fails To Force Mortgage Companies To Improve

SOL-Signature

Posted from:

Image
http://guardianlv.com/2013/02/jd-oppt-canadian-bankers-caught-with-hand-in-cookie-jar/

When is a the Sheriff not a Sheriff?
An OPPT point of consideration.
..

My colleague and former comrade-in-arms has been running an investigation. It began under the auspices of the Canadian Armed Forces and has now concluded independently. This seems fitting in a world in which we’re all just now waking up to our own sovereignty as individual beings or, in OPPT-ese, as ‘states of body’.

I was recruited for OPERATION MORNING STAR late last year. I had been following my own line of inquiry for several years, researching mortgage fraud after a major Canadian bank sold me a construction mortgage product that went awry the moment the deal was signed. I kept encountering bank irregularities and had clear evidence of ongoing loan manipulation and sharp practice. I brought the bank president’s office directly under scrutiny over this matter and its implications. These are the circumstances that obtained when I began work with MORNING STAR in early January. Operations require code names. I was assigned HISTORIAN; my colleague is BRASS.

What follows below is an aspect of the above investigation now concluded. It’s an important piece of a larger picture to consider, a rose from the desert. As always, I offer this material in the spirit of document analysis. Please go directly to the sources linked to the statements below and ascertain for yourself where the truth lies. As the Idaho Picker says, ‘logic before authority’.

• • •

BRASS’ role in MORNING STAR was much like the courageous role that Trustee Heather Tucci-Jarraf undertook for OPPT: she put her own house into foreclosure proceedings in order to trace the depth and breadth of corruption in the American banking and judicial systems. BRASS followed the same strategy on behalf of MORNING STAR in Canada, in parallel with OPPT’s investigation. The OPERATION MORNING STAR report and findings will be made publicly available, as it was a main goal of the investigation to disseminate absolute data. At this point, I trust that I’ve already provided the reader with enough contextual information to easily make sense of the material that follows.

There’s a script that banks run in the theater of home foreclosure, for those of you as yet uninitiated: when it comes right down to doing the court-ordered dirty deed, it’s the sheriff’s ‘notice to vacate’ that
matters. The sheriff is officially supposed to be the impartial hand of justice, sworn and bonded to duty on behalf of the people. It’s a big deal, frankly.

So picture this little vignette.

BRASS has in his hand a ‘notice to vacate’ his property (that is, the home in which he and his family live), issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, an order “being executed pursuant to the instructions of: The Bank of Nova Scotia.” The exact phrasing is, “I COMMAND YOU to vacate the premises… If you fail to VACATE the premises as directed by the above referenced order by the date shown, I will, without further notice to you, carry out the order as directed.” This notice is signed by a woman whose signature sits above the printed honorific, ‘Sheriff’. [1]

BRASS phones the sheriff’s office in order to request an appointment, so that he can deliver to her an OPPT Courtesy Notice. During the conversation, BRASS asks the woman to whom he is speaking whether she is in fact the sheriff, and she affirms that this is so.[2]

BRASS arrives at the sheriff’s office at the appointed time and guides her through the Courtesy Notice. Suddenly (and surprisingly, in light of her above-described signature), the sheriff indicates that she cannot
herself take receipt of the Courtesy Notice, because she is not in fact the sheriff. She just signs ‘things’ on behalf of the sheriff. She says that she must now go get her boss.

The non-sheriff then fetches another woman from an office; the two consult with one another and then return to BRASS. And here it all gets very Monty Python. Non-sheriff defers to the second woman as ‘Sheriff’. But the second woman tells BRASS that no, in fact she is not the sheriff either. Like her colleague, she just signs ‘things’ on behalf of the sheriff. Neither woman is willing to accept a Courtesy Notice, because, as they note in chorus, “we’re not the Sheriff.”

BRASS subsequently recalls a conversation he had with a retired Ontario sheriff some years ago, in which it was explained that when Ontario Premier Mike Harris was in office in the late 1990s, he closed down all the sheriff’s offices in the province and replaced these seasoned officers with desk clerks.

HISTORIAN does some research and confirms BRASS’ recollection. The desk clerks in question are now called ‘enforcement officers’. This is the “name formerly used for an officer of the court who is responsible for enforcing court orders.”[3] The sole duty of the ‘enforcement officer’ is to process the paperwork for property foreclosures. The Enforcement
and Finance Office (Civil) of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (which used to be called the Office of the Sheriff) reveals additional descriptive information:

Alternate Name: Sheriff, Regional Municipality of York ; York Region Sheriffs Department Former Name: York Region Sheriffs Department Description: Conducts seizures through Writs of Seizure and Sale and serves documents [4]

And so it emerges that the office of sheriff in the province of Ontario is a ghost office. There is no sheriff. The sheriff does not exist. There are no lawfully sworn and bonded sheriffs in Ontario, only regular government desk clerks who pose as sheriffs for purposes of evicting people from their homes. Premier Harris and subsequent premiers neglected to inform the people of Ontario that there were no more sheriffs. We’ve had to discover this for ourselves.

The awkward little difficulty here is that impersonating a peace officer is a felony under the Canadian Criminal Code. Oops.[5] Moreover, a non-sheriff signing documents as ‘Sheriff’ constitutes forgery, another
felony. Oops again.[6]

HISTORIAN then reads through the Ontario Ministry of Attorney General’s current recommendations concerning this Enforcement and Finance office that has silently replaced the Sheriff’s office. There’s a clear focus here on expediting judgments on behalf of banks:

“Confidence in the civil justice system will only exist if this process can produce the results that judgment creditors are entitled to—payment of their debt in a simple and efficient way. At present, that confidence is threatened… a new restructured Enforcement Office which would be responsible for the co-ordination and general operation of a new enforcement system. Both of the proposed regimes would rely on a new computerized province-wide Enforcement Registry. Once a Notice of Judgment has been registered in the Enforcement Registry, all of the debtor’s personal property would be bound.”

Perhaps these Ministry recommendations are a tad problematic in light of the fact that there are no sheriffs but instead only clerks fraudulently standing as their proxies. OPERATION MORNING STAR encourages anyone facing home foreclosure in the Ontario to bring this material to the attention of their local, um, ‘sheriff’. Stop into their office for a visit. Take an OPPT Courtesy Notice with you.

• • •

Jump to The Guardian Express to review the extensive Notes:

guardianlv.com/2013/02/jd-oppt-canadian-bankers-caught-with-hand-in-cookie-jar/

Image

The news has been broke, the world banks have been legally and officially  foreclosed on. Yes, reread what you have just read, the world banks have been legally foreclosed on. The Federal Reserve, The Hague, The World Bank,The United Nations, The IMF, the BIS ( Bank of International Settlements), and many others are included.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/01/in-the-money-federal-reserve-world-banks-foreclosed-on/

Expect to see more of these Public announcements in the immediate future. 

Angel Lucci
Image