|
BANKS COMMIT FRAUD IN EVERY MORTGAGE TRANSACTION |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Selected excerpts from: AFFIDAVIT OF WALKER F. TODD, 5-DEC-2003, at ¶ 11.
With the foregoing in mind, here is the reason for comprehending the information outlined below: “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, and 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.”
Carpenter v. Longan, 83
U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872) (SCOTUS). The importance of the findings of the Supreme Court of Kansas cannot be overemphasized. It is generally the law in all states that if the law of one state has not specifically addressed a specific legal issue, the court may look to the law of states which have, and use those decisions as “guideposts,” for making its own decision. The Kansas Supreme Court acknowledged that the case was one of "first impression in Kansas," which is why the Kansas Supreme Court looked to legal decisions from California, Idaho, New York, Missouri, and other states for guidance and to support its decision. Even if, during discovery, the bank invites you to one of their offices, and actually produces the original, wet-ink promissory note, bearing serial number xxxxxx, you can say with comprehension of ALL the facts that the signature purported to be your signature on said note, is NOT your signature. Here’s why — You did NOT “SIGN” said note with full knowledge of all the facts relevant to the transaction, because there are TWO (2) elements to a signature. (1) actual physical act of signing; (2) informed validation and attestation of the verity of all of the elements of the transaction. Signature. The act of putting one’s name at the end of an instrument to attest its validity. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Pg. 1381. (BLD6-1381). In commercial law, any name, word, or mark used with the intention to authenticate a writing constitutes a signature. UCC §§ 1-201(39),3-401(2). (BLD6-1382). [since publication of BLD6, UCC § 3-401(2) has been changed to UCC § 3-401(b)] *UCC § 1-201(39) . "Signed" includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing. **UCC § 3-401(b) . A signature may be made (i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and (ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.
Sign. To affix one’s name to a writing or instrument, for the purpose of authenticating or executing it, or to give it effect as one’s act. To attach a name or cause it to be attached to a writing by any of the known methods of impressing a name on paper. To affix a signature to; to ratify by hand or seal; to subscribe in one’s own handwriting. To make any mark, as upon a document, in token of knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation. See also Cross; Execution; Mark; Signature. (BLD6-1381). Signatory. In general, a person who signs a document personally or through his agent and who becomes a party thereto. (BLD6-1382). Signature. By signature is understood the act of putting down a man's name, at the end of an instrument, to attest its validity [valid]. The name thus written is also called a signature. Vide to Sign. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) The generally accepted legal definition of signature is very broad: “[t]he act of putting one’s name on the end of any instrument to attest its validity [valid]; the name thus written.” (BLD6-1381 (1990)).
See also Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1934)
Every effort imaginable is being made by those operating the Federal Reserve scam, to disconnect the individual from the notion that your “SIGNATURE” attests, without the knowledge of doing so, to the so-called validity of the transaction that piles a debt upon the signer, and unjustly enriches the bank. This part of the scam is most important to the perpetrators. The bank promotes the false representation that your signature ONLY represents YOU, and fails to disclose the most important aspect of the term “signature,” which the bank then uses for a purpose hidden from YOU because so much money is involved. The bank cannot create money without your signature. “Signature” also indicates that the signatory agrees that the matters discussed (on paper or other) are within his wishes. There are TWO (2) very important aspects or elements to the term “signature.” This is a VERY important point because if someone has, by false representations, orchestrated a situation wherein you enter into an agreement without full comprehension of all of the elements involved in the transaction, you are not liable to the provisions of the agreement. This is the reason for asking questions in discovery. “Signature” places in motion many unique and strange events: 1. It boldly states that the signatory has consented to the full terms of the agreement, and becomes a party to that agreement. By doing so, the full stipulations (if any) as to how matters of conflict and dispute are treated apply; these administrative or remedial solutions are not always handled through standard court proceedings. 2. Many credit applications have a stipulation or inclusion, that by applying your “Signature,” ALL of the information that you have given to be reviewed for “credit worthiness” (also via your credit-report) is true, complete, and certain. (or “The Truth, The whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”). In essence you are swearing that you have NOT lied, deceived, or entered into the agreement with any preconceived intent to commit any fraud or other nefarious means. (You did not conduct business with the intent to screw anyone.) Usually, there is really NOTHING in the agreement that holds the alleged creditor liable if THEY were to commit a fraud or other nefarious act. That is because you have the Free-will to EXIT the agreement if you can prove that the alleged creditor has not acted in good faith. Unfortunately, the creditor will never discuss options of the consumer for wrong doing on the part of the creditor: this of course is no accident. 3. In relation to a credit agreement, the signature is the origin and the beginning of the ‘promise-to-pay’ creation process. The Signature is the BAIT of the bait and switch scam. 4. With the application of your signature to a promissory NOTE, you have made it possible for the scammers to create money out of thin air. The NEW obligation created the PRINCIPAL, just not the interest money that you allegedly owe. A 'hand writing analysis’ can NOT bear evidence to the first hand knowledge of facts. Your “signature,” (particular scratching pattern, style, etc.), is NOT the important point of relevance — your FULLY INFORMED CONSENT is what is signified by your “signature,” and that issue has significant intrinsic value. Was “anything” about the disclosures made by the bank relevant to the NOTE, and the mortgage transaction, a false representation by the bank? Was there any false representations evident on the face of the promissory NOTE? (There are many relevant facts that the bank failed, by either refusal or neglect to reveal). Here’s a short list of undisclosed elements of the transaction: ● The actual source of the money; ● The transaction was at no cost to the bank; ● The “loan” was really not a loan; ● That the bank would be enriched by at least 10 times the face value amount of the NOTE; ● That the bank was going to sell the NOTE and pocket the proceeds; ● That even after the sale of the NOTE, the bank would continue requiring you to pay over installments equaling the face value amount of the NOTE plus interest plus fees; ● The first words of most NOTE’s goes something to the effect of: “For value received …,” if the “value received” by you actually had “no cost to the bank,” just exactly what value did the bank bring into the transaction? The following was stated in A PRIMER ON MONEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 88th Congress, 2d Session, AUGUST 5, 1964, CHAPTER VIII, HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE GIVES AWAY PUBLIC FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE BANKS [44-985 O-65-7, p89]
"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." In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer's promissory NOTE as if the property and the NOTE already belonged to the bank/broker/lender. So, if the bank used the promissory NOTE, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face value amount of the promissory NOTE, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promissory NOTE, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a Deceptive Practice, False Representation, and Fraud. You were required by the bank to “attest” and “validate” the transaction, evidenced by the existence of the NOTE and the mortgage agreement, with your signature affixed thereto, without full knowledge of what was going on. (Did you know about those elements of the transaction noted in the short list above?) Were all of the aspects of what the bank was doing revealed to you in such a way that you could comprehend the actual nature of the transaction you were about to VALIDATE with your signature? Do you think you might have been tricked into signing a promissory NOTE without knowing "every aspect" of ALL of the facts relevant to the nature of the transaction that you were offered and urged to validate by your signature? THE BAIT AND SWITCH: The bank actually performed the old “Bait & Switch” trick, as called by those in the “confidence” and grifter/grafter rackets. Unfortunately this is not some quaint story about some clever fella’ of yesteryear; this con-game is real, and it was used to “con” you. Getting familiar enough with the terms and overall con-job to the point where you have obtained comprehension of the scam is difficult at first, but you have a most vested interest in doing so. When an individual affixes his signature to a promissory note, they are normally required to state a variety of private information. It is quite common for the signer-in-waiting to volunteer their address, phone number, social insecurity number and other information. At the bottom of the agreement is a line where the individual applies their “Signature.” When the application/contract is accepted by the bank, it has become a signed document, right? Well, this document is also known as a negotiable instrument, a different kind of currency as recognized by the laws and codes of commerce. (Similar to a check, draft, certificate of deposit, etc.). A bank or lending institution has a license to do something that we are not authorized to do; the bank can “monetize” a negotiable instrument. The bank has NOT loaned anything of value; the bank has only received a negotiable instrument that has been used to create “money” because of the SIGNATURE affixed to such instrument. The “Switch” in the bait and switch scam comes from what occurs next. ADDITIONAL NOTE: Definition of the word “Money”:
● The bank has taken YOUR asset, claimed it to be theirs, and made the false representation that the bank loaned its own money to you at interest. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact? ● The bank probably sold the original wet-ink NOTE, which, even at a discount, was all profit. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact? ● The bank, pursuant to Federal Reserve policy, created 10 times the face value amount of the NOTE for its own enrichment. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact? ● The bank will be enriched by an amount equal to at least 10 times the face value amount of the NOTE, and upon any default, gets the pledged property for resale. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact? ● If the bank declares a default on a NOTE, the bank will take advantage of a write-off credit on their corporate taxes. Did the bank DISCLOSE this fact? The bottom line on signatures is this: The signature that you affixed onto any instrument is only valid until you discover that false representations of the facts relevant to all the elements of the transaction were deliberately orchestrated, and that you were wrongfully induced to sign because of those false representations.
|
|
|