Notes are not debts. They are merely paper vehicles to enforce a debt.

without contesting the legal presumptions arising from the law of negotiable instruments, the presumption becomes fact for the case.

We don’t need to eliminate the trust altogether although it probably doesn’t exist. All the homeowner needs to show is that neither the trustee nor the trust owns any obligation from the homeowner that is owed to the trustee or trust.

*

The problem here is as much with the homeowner as with anyone else. The homeowner is so insistent that his transaction was a loan that he/she cannot imagine how it could be otherwise and where his/her debt may have gone. And then if the homeowner gets an inkling, he/she is told that it is too steep a hill to climb in court. It isn’t steep but here is a hill. It starts with the questions/interrogatories as follows:

1. Is it your contention that Defendants/homeowners owe a financial obligation (hereinafter the Obligation) payable in U.S dollars to the named Plaintiff (Defendants in nonjudicial states) in this court action?
2. Is it your contention that the Obligation is currently established or entered as a category or label under accounts receivable (hereinafter the Account) on accounting ledgers that reflect financial transactions in which Plaintiff has been a party?
3. Is it your contention that the Account is maintained in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles?
4. Is it your contention that the Account was created as a result of Plaintiff paying money or other value?
5. Is it your contention that the Account was created as a result of a legal conveyance of the Obligation from a settlor or trustor?

*

In processing evidence that means that when you ask for evidence (to rebut the legal presumptions) they won’t be able to establish the existence of an account receivable and therefore won’t be able to establish ownership and therefore cannot complain of any loss resulting from any action by the homeowner. In plain language, they don’t have a case or issue in a controversy that can be recognized by the court. In legal words, it is a lack of jurisdiction.

*

Much is made of the myth of moral dilemma, letting a homeowner go free from debt and keeping the home at the cost to and expense of investors. Those are all also assumptions, based upon pure myth.  Nobody loses money on the “loan” when a scheduled homeowner payment is not paid. In all the cases I have won or been instrumental in the homeowner winning against “all odds” we simply kept undercutting the presumption of the existence, ownership and authority over the debt. In each case, the judge phrased it as insufficiency of evidence but in some cases, the judge went further saying that there was no possible way the trustee or the trust ever acquired any obligation owed by the homeowners.

*

Homeowners are not getting away “scot-free.” They are injured victims of a rapacious ruse. They were paid to play a concealed game and then after they played, they were tricked and tortured into paying back the incentive they had received. Adding insult to injury they weren’t paid enough to absorb the concealed risk, and the net consideration is below zero if you factor in the lie that enabled the labels “interest” and “fees” to be used. In plain language, homeowners were screwed in all of these deals.

*

The fact that many have not yet seen the losses that were hidden by the scheme does not remove the presence of concealed risks and the homeowner’s entitlement to be paid for being duped into a scheme wherein the homeowner received less than nothing and the so-called “securitization” group kept all the revenues and profits.

*

Posted in Uncategorized |