3. The bankster transacted an “EXCHANGE” of YOUR Promissory Note, a form of money, for Federal Reserve Notes, and then deliberately, willfully, and with full knowledge of the false representation, told you that such an “EXCHANGE” of different forms of currency, was a “loan”:

4. The bankster converted your promissory note, a form of money, into Federal Reserve Notes, a form of money, this transaction is NOT A LOAN:

5. The bankster then used YOUR money (your note) converted into Federal Reserve Notes, to buy property in the bankster’s name;

  a. Bankster indorsed YOUR Promissory Note “WITHOUT RECOURSE” and DEPOSITED YOUR Promissory Note in a bank transaction account the existence of which the bankster failed to disclose to YOU:

6. ONLY money can be deposited into a bank account:

7. The bankster lied to you --  

  a. by telling you that the bankster was providing a “loan,” which, to your mind was thought to embody the classical meaning of the term “loan.”

  b. By the Bankster’s deliberate manipulation of YOUR non-comprehension and YOUR lack of knowledge of the actual process;

  c. By the bankster’s false representation that YOU were receiving the bankster’s own money as a borrower of the bankster’s own money, a circumstance of “fraud in the factum,” among other non-disclosed facts that evidence the proof that YOU did not receive a “loan”:

  d. The bankster accepted and received YOUR promissory note;

  e. The bankster then made a QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT of YOUR Promissory note, adding the phrase “WITHOUT RECOURSE” in the endorsement;

  f. The bankster’s QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT had the effect of removing all bankster obligation with respect to the two-party promissory note;

  g. The bankster’s non-disclosure of this fact made such SPECIAL INDORSEMENT an UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION “in any respect” of the bankster’s obligation on the promissory note (secondary liability), (see UCC 3-407);

  h. The bankster negotiated YOUR promissory note in a DEPOSIT transaction, a requirement of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the undisclosed process;

  i. The bankster acquired the face value amount of YOUR promissory note, plus a commission, in Federal Reserve Notes, at no cost to the bank, by unknown machinations (See A Primer on Money, Congressional Report);

  j. The bankster, without cost to the bankster, lied to YOU by making the knowing, intentional, and willful false representation that the bankster was “giving YOU a “loan”;

8. The bankster NEVER “loaned” you anything:

9. You were deceived into thinking that you had received a “loan”:

10.  The deception that you actually or constructively received a “loan” is a false representation, fraud.

11.  Proof that you were deceived by the bankster’s false representations is found in the fact that you actually made PAYMENTS on a NONEXISTENT “loan,” such payments representing certain portions of YOUR LIFE which were “EXCHANGED” for (converted into) Federal Reserve Notes, which YOU then, delivered to the bankster as payments on a NON-EXISTENT “LOAN”:

12.  When the bankster indorsed YOUR note “WITHOUT RECOURSE,” as part of the deception, the bankster’s obligation was fraudulently modified which DISCHARGED your obligation on the note. The bankster’s “alteration fraudulently made” discharged the note because YOUR obligation was affected by such fraudulent alteration. (See UCC § 3-407(a) & (b)).

13.  YOU have actually tendered a significant amount of YOUR LIFE, converted into Federal Reserve Notes, in payment for the property by deception:

14.  The bankster has made no such investment or payment. (See US Congress report, A PRIMER ON MONEY).

15.  YOU have PAID for the property:

16.  If the bankster has collected vast amounts of profits, at no cost, pursuant to YOUR note, the bankster’s taking of YOUR property is “unjust enrichment” for the bankster:

17.  YOU have PAID; the bankster has not risked or paid any value into the property:

18.  YOUR keeping the property is NOT unjust enrichment:

19.  YOU are not getting a “free house” by defeating the bankster with the LAW.

  "But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers' salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge." (emphasis added). [See 2nd paragraph, "Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141].  Link: Patman.Primer.on.Money

The Promissory Note (PN) and Deed of Trust (DoT) (mortgage agreement) are two separate deals.

TWO SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS THAT MUST BE KEPT TOGETHER

TWO SEPARATE WRITINGS THAT CAN BE MONETIZED AND SOLD FOR PROFIT WITHOUT DISCLOSURE TO YOU

1. YOUR Promissory Note is exchanged for Property

YOUR "note" is accepted as "tender" by bankster in exchange for the property.

Just like Federal Reserve Notes are accepted "as tender" for purchases.

     Once the "exchange" is complete, the "deal" is DONE.

a) This transaction was a “Currency Exchange” NOT A LOAN!

b) See Money transmitter law

2. DoT [mortgage agreement] is a simple LOAN contract

a) The DoT references the PN as “evidence” of debt. The PN is EVIDENCE.

b) PN and DoT must be kept together for either to remain enforceable.

c) You never received the “LOAN” referenced in the DoT

But, you have been making payments on the "loan."

Your payments are EVIDENCE that you were deceived into thinking that you had actually received a "loan" that you were required to repay.

d) Bank failed to Specifically Perform

     i)  Bank can’t invoke “power of sale” clause from contract that is a NULLITY.

If payment is demanded by bankster, and then, foreclosure follows upon declaration of default, on the basis of enforcement of the DoT, which is a so-called contract for payment of a debt EVIDENCED by the PN, you, upon DEMAND, are authorized by law, UCC § 3-501(b)(2) and (b)(2)(i), to require the bankster EXHIBIT the Genuine ORIGINAL PN:

UCC § 3-501. PRESENTMENT.  [Fed UCC Index]

    (a) "Presentment" means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument . . .

    (b) The following rules are subject to Article 4, agreement of the parties, and clearing-house rules and the like:

       (2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must

         (i) exhibit the instrument, (PRODUCE THE NOTE). (Emphasis added).

From the moment that the bankster sold the PN in a transaction that separated the PN from the DoT, the DoT became a NULLITY. NULL and VOID.

"The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity." (emphasis added).

Quotation from: Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1872).

EXHIBITION of the Genuine Original PN will disclose that the PN was ALTERED by the bankster in the endorsement when the PN was SOLD. The bankster endorsed the PN with words such as:

Definition:

 Without recourse. Words that may be used by a drawer in signing a draft or check so as to eliminate completely the drawer's secondary liability. This phrase, used in making a qualified indorsement of a negotiable instrument, signifies that the indorser means to save himself from liability to subsequent holders, and is a notification that, if payment is refused by the parties primarily liable, recourse cannot be had to him. See U.C.C. § 3-414(1).
An indorser "without recourse" specially declines to assume any responsibility for payment. He assumes no contractual liability by virtue of the indorsement itself, and becomes a mere assignor of the title to the paper, but such an indorsement does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of defects, or that he does not take on credit of the other parties to the note. See also Nonrecourse; Nonrecourse loan; With recourse. (BLD6-1603). [emphasis added – bold text & underlining] [return]

Additional to the fact that the bankster separated the PN from the DoT, the PN is ALTERED and thereby discharges the obligor of liability for the so-called debt.

UCC § 3-407. ALTERATION.  [Fed UCC Index]

    (a)    "Alteration" means

       (i) an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party, or

       (ii)an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party.

    (b)    Except as provided in subsection (c), an alteration fraudulently made discharges a party whose obligation is affected by the alteration unless that party assents or is precluded from asserting the alteration. No other alteration discharges a party, and the instrument may be enforced according to its original terms.

    (C)    A payor bank or drawee paying a fraudulently altered instrument or a person taking it for value, in good faith and without notice of the alteration, may enforce rights with respect to the instrument

       (i) according to its original terms, or

       (ii)in the case of an incomplete instrument altered by unauthorized completion, according to its terms as completed. (emphasis added).

Two issues:

(1) Alteration of the PN

       (a) bankster modified their obligation by the addition of the words “WITHOUT RECOURSE” to the PN

       (b) obligor, YOU, are then DISCHARGED of any liability on the debt

(2) Separation of the PN from the DoT

PN is no longer enforceable

NULLIFIES the DoT (no longer valid; no longer enforceable).  (Carpenter v. Longan)

Null and void. Naught; of no validity or effect. Usually coupled with the word "void;" as "null and void." The words "null and void," when used in a contract or statute are often construed as meaning "voidable." Burns Mortg. Co. v. Schwartz, C.C.A.N.J., 72 F.2d 991, 992. "Null and void" means that which binds no one or is incapable of giving rise to any rights or obligations under any circumstances, or that which is of no effect. Zogby v. State, 53 Misc.2d 740, 279 N.Y.S.2d 665, 668. See also Void; Voidable. (BLD6-1067).

Nullity. Nothing; no proceeding; an act or proceeding in a cause which the opposite party may treat as though it had not taken place, or which has absolutely no legal force or effect. (BLD6-1067).

Due process of law. [in part] Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs. ... Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 733, 24 L.Ed. 565. (BLD6-500).

Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria. No one can obtain an advantage by his own wrong. De Zotell v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 60 S.D. 532, 245 N.W. 58, 59. (BLD6-1068).

Nul prendra advantage de son tort demesne. No one shall take advantage of his own wrong. (BLD6-1068).

AND, not only that:

    AFTER the bankster endorses the promissory note (PN), (without recourse), which alters the bankster’s contractual obligation on the PN, and negotiates the PN in a SALE transaction; recording-filing, in a public office, of ANY paperwork related to the PN, (Deed of Trust (DoT), Warranty Deed), the PN being referenced in the DoT as the evidence of debt, (see language in the DoT), makes such filed documents take on the character of presentment and filing of "false or forged" documents in a public office, which is A FELONY.
[Discharge of the PN makes the DoT a NULLITY,(See Carpenter)].