Ignorance of the Courts and Bliss for Banks

A recent Ohio Court decision makes it clear how courts are clueless and biased. They still asume, despite so much evidence to the contrary that the “Chain” asserted by the banks exists.

Hat tip Bill Paatalo

“The obligation under the note has not disappeared simply because Fannie Mae is not the party entitled to enforce it.  Where the foreclosing party cannot prove its entitlement to enforce the note and mortgage, and hence is forbidden the possibility of foreclosure, the party’s only remedy is to pass assignments back to the entity from which the obligation was purchased, and so on, until it reaches the party who is entitled to enforce it.“

In nearly all cases the originator (a) never existed, (b) has ceased to exist or (c) now disclaims any interest in the debt, note or mortgage. All of that is possible only because the loan origination or purchase was funded directly from investor money — separate and apart from the alleged “trust.”

Such entities either never owned the debt or forcefully disclaim any interest or claim on the debt. Hence the debt really has been severed from the note which means that the debt is severed from the mortgage. That is the whole point of the fake securitization scheme of the banks. That is how they were able to intervene between investors advancing money and homeowners taking money.

The mortgage was written to secure the note, not the debt. Read them carefully. The presumption of ownership of the debt by virtue of “ownership” of the note is root strategy of the banks. It is the main cause of presumptions of facts that are not true.

The problem for homeowners is that courts erroneously presume that somewhere in that haze of smoke and mirrors there is a real creditor who owns the debt via judicial norms that have existed for centuries. The courts don’t ever pretend to know the identity of that creditor.

The banks knew that the courts would make that assumption and hence proceeded to perpetrate a series of fraudulent acts on American investors, government, taxpayers and homeowners and foreign investors who bought derivatives or synthetic derivatives based upon ownership of the debt, collateral for repayment and clear repayment terms. None of those ever existed. The terms of the repayment recited on the note were NEVER the terms of payment to the investors, or the fictitious trust.

And so you get pronouncements like the one quoted above in which the court presumed that there would be someone who (a) was entitled to receive the possession and thus presume the right to enforce the note and therefore presume the right to foreclose the mortgage or deed of trust and (b) who was willing to receive it and enforce it.

Both assumptions are actually false.

It never occurred to this court and maybe not even the lawyers involved that the misrepresentation of the ownership was intentionally false and distracted the court into confirming yet another ruling in which banks get the benefit to the detriment of both investors and the borrowers. In none of these cases are the investors nor the named REMIC Trusts or Trustees ever getting the proceeds of foreclosure.

Posted in Uncategorized |