Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturboSecurity "INTEREST" (no note required)
My experience is, most people waste their time demanding to see the note among other losing issues. (The Strawman was created to be a debtor by definition. It can't argue jurisdiction or anything similar without confessing to incompetence. It's an incorporated trust, period.) But here's something to think about...
When a bank forecloses, it's ADMITTING that it possesses the note. Believe it or not, that's where we want them because it's an admission that THE BANK HAS THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM, not you. By trying to foreclose, it's telling you that it accepted a security, its RIGHTS OF RECOURSE ARE DISCHARGED under the UCC (3-311, 3-603 and 604), and therefore the bank owes YOU money, NOT the other way around.
Even more, its admitting that YOU hold the security interest in the note. If you think about that, you may see some remedies since security interests are what control all the world's property and Courts.
YOU hold the security INTEREST. THEY hold the security. YOU HOLD A PRE-EXISTING SECURITY INTEREST when you gave them the note and they failed to perform. By having failed to return the note or give you equal value such as a release of the mortgage, THEY COMMITTED SECURITIES AND TAX FRAUD, and you can prove it easily. The bank knows that their books will show that they NEVER PAID TAXES ON THE GAIN. We WANT the bank to be the holder. If you demand to see the note, you're handing the attorney an easy win because you're admitting you abandoned it.
I would think about how you might demand THEY PERFORM on the note or use their failure to perform against them. "Where is my value?" "Show me the tax forms that declared it at a taxable gain since you've construed that I abandoned the property." And so forth.
Whoever holds a security has the OBLIGATION OF PERFORMANCE. They are required to exchange it for equal value. That's the real message in HJR 192. How can you use subpoena, discovery, procedure, trusts and such to place them on the defensive? You might glance at Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC.
Unless you know how to reclaim your account and securities which is the only real winner. But neither the strawman, the living man or even the executor as most people have constructed it have the very specific status IRS requires to process your forms when you intend to foreclose on them. So unless you know how to reclaim the original trust, you've got to process their performance obligation inside the box. That's where the UCC comes in. UCC does not apply to the mortgage because it's a private trust. But IT SURE AS HECK applies to the note. I would keep it short and simple. See 8-102, 3-305, 3-306, and especially 3-105. "Excuse me, did you pay the taxes on the secondary issue when you issued the bank certificates against my note, or did you construe that it was a tax-exempt original issue because you presumed I had abandoned my security?"
Blessings to you,
My experience is, most people waste their time demanding to see the note among other losing issues. (The Strawman was created to be a debtor by definition. It can't argue jurisdiction or anything similar without confessing to incompetence. It's an incorporated trust, period.) But here's something to think about...
When a bank forecloses, it's ADMITTING that it possesses the note. Believe it or not, that's where we want them because it's an admission that THE BANK HAS THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM, not you. By trying to foreclose, it's telling you that it accepted a security, its RIGHTS OF RECOURSE ARE DISCHARGED under the UCC (3-311, 3-603 and 604), and therefore the bank owes YOU money, NOT the other way around.
Even more, its admitting that YOU hold the security interest in the note. If you think about that, you may see some remedies since security interests are what control all the world's property and Courts.
YOU hold the security INTEREST. THEY hold the security. YOU HOLD A PRE-EXISTING SECURITY INTEREST when you gave them the note and they failed to perform. By having failed to return the note or give you equal value such as a release of the mortgage, THEY COMMITTED SECURITIES AND TAX FRAUD, and you can prove it easily. The bank knows that their books will show that they NEVER PAID TAXES ON THE GAIN. We WANT the bank to be the holder. If you demand to see the note, you're handing the attorney an easy win because you're admitting you abandoned it.
I would think about how you might demand THEY PERFORM on the note or use their failure to perform against them. "Where is my value?" "Show me the tax forms that declared it at a taxable gain since you've construed that I abandoned the property." And so forth.
Whoever holds a security has the OBLIGATION OF PERFORMANCE. They are required to exchange it for equal value. That's the real message in HJR 192. How can you use subpoena, discovery, procedure, trusts and such to place them on the defensive? You might glance at Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC.
Unless you know how to reclaim your account and securities which is the only real winner. But neither the strawman, the living man or even the executor as most people have constructed it have the very specific status IRS requires to process your forms when you intend to foreclose on them. So unless you know how to reclaim the original trust, you've got to process their performance obligation inside the box. That's where the UCC comes in. UCC does not apply to the mortgage because it's a private trust. But IT SURE AS HECK applies to the note. I would keep it short and simple. See 8-102, 3-305, 3-306, and especially 3-105. "Excuse me, did you pay the taxes on the secondary issue when you issued the bank certificates against my note, or did you construe that it was a tax-exempt original issue because you presumed I had abandoned my security?"
Blessings to you,
