January 28, 2018

Fiat currency is NOT MONEY, it is a MONEY SUBSTITUTE.  

​

A primary downfall of A FIAT MONEY nation is a fundamental lack of awareness that the “Fiat Currency” is not money. Try to explain that to the social community, and receive a blank stare. EXAMPLE: The USD is declared by fiat as valid legal tender, nothing more. That means it is legitimate legal medium of exchange to settle debts public and private, to pay bills, to settle accounts, to buy things. However, it is not money.

For 42 years since the Gold Standard was broken, the nation has used unsound money, phony money. Such is not taught in college economics classes. Since it is actually (by default) denominated debt, the painful process of debt write down will act like a wrecking ball to the wealth of the nation. Bank accounts, stock accounts, pension funds, and all types of wealth will suffer a debt write down since the unit of supposed wealth is a debt unit.

November 29, 2017

THIS IS THE HISTORY-STORY (11 of 105 pages) ON AN ATTEMPTED "THEFT" OF REAL PROPERTY IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, with the continued deliberate use of "false documents" and "misdirection".  The "person" being attacked is an 83 year old recently widowed (2014) female with dementia.

NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABIT…No one gives what he does not have; no one transfers (a right) that he does not possess. “The notion that MERS could not assign an ownership interest greater than that which it held rests on age-old principles of property law, not on any recent development in our foreclosure jurisprudence”

Working on both sides of the Title Equation.  What rises to the top is what’s different, what makes us question our preconceptions and ourselves. Look inward, not outward. If it feels good to you, do it.  If it seems phony or just done for eyeballs, don’t.

Today, we live in a Balkanized world where nobody knows the truth and despite all our online connections we feel socially isolated, that’s why everybody’s posting their activities online, they want to be known, accepted, move up the food chain.  (unknown)

November 28, 2017

On the 28th day of November 2017 ADM Group, informed the business people of the city of San Diego about a large financial opportunity.

​

Here is the "powerpoint" presentation.

November 29, 2017

We must remember that...relying on legal presumptions as a substitute for proof is not viable for the homeowner.

• the TRUST DEED is evidence of a security interest, and it follows the properly “negotiated” promissory note WITHOUT having to have a recorded assignment (California);

• the PROMISSORY NOTE is only evidence of the obligation, the terms therein and the implied "underlying transaction (aka consideration)”; 

• Hence the legal question is whether the note is valid as a claim upon the alleged borrower; and the analysis must then go to whether the risk of loss shifts to the "holder or possessor of the note"; unless

​

• • (a) the holder can show payment for the note and mortgage —holder in due course under article 3 UCC or

​

• • (b) the holder actually represents the real owner of the underlying debt (who in turn must show payment). 

  • • Possession is not established by self serving “documents.” I can’t sign a bill of sale for your car and then claim that the recipient of the bill of sale now owns your car.

• an ASSIGNMENT is evidence of an alleged conveyance of rights and interests with a corresponding presumption of an "underlying transaction" (consideration)…Yvanova - Cal Supreme Court 2016.

November 29, 2017

The right of rescission provided by the Truth in Lending Act is well-known to participants in the residential mortgage market: TILA provides that a borrower has a right to rescind a loan “until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the [TILA disclosures], whichever is later.” (15 U.S.C. § 1635(a)). Thus, within the rst three days following consummation of a covered loan, a borrower’s right of rescission is unconditional. After that, a borrower’s right to rescind is conditioned upon a failure of the lender to provide the required disclosures.

​

As the Supreme Court noted, however, “this conditional right to rescind does not last forever” and, quoting § 1635(f), “[e]ven if a lender never makes the required disclosures, the ‘right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever comes first.’”

​

At issue in Jesinoski was the question of what, exactly, a borrower must do within that three-year period to exercise the right to rescind provided by TILA. The Jesinoski's argued that mere notice to its lender within the three-year period was suf- cient to exercise its right of rescission. Countrywide argued that the statute required a borrower to le suit.

​

Despite a hefty dose of questions at oral argument that seemed to indicate the automatic rescission interpretation was balderdash, Justice Scalia decided otherwise — and was joined by a unanimous court: “The language [of TILA] leaves no doubt that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind.”

​

​

November 29, 2017

DEFINITIVE DOCUMENTS - THE ONLY QUESTION IS STANDING -  "Whether any claimant “possesses a qualifying lawful interest in the trust deed or note that would allow them to initiate foreclosure under the foreclosure statutes of the State?” 

• Mortgagor should then therefore require (POC’s) claimants to “judicially establish their interests and authority” to foreclose through “definitive documentation.” (Branrup - 9th CCOA);

• Brandrup requires BOA to establish with“definitive documentation” that it is the true beneficiary under plaintiffs’ deed of trust. Id.;

• see also Niday v. GMAC Mortg., 302 P.3d 444, 454 & n.8 (Or. 2013) suggesting that the relevant inquiry may be whether the foreclosing party is the “person entitled to enforce the note”.

​

[ADM group has an "easyread" version of this case.]

​

Although GMAC claimed to “hold” the note as servicer, GMAC did not claim to be the owner or to be acting on its own behalf in the foreclosure proceeding. Of equal importance, there was “no evidence in the record as to whether or how the note had been transferred” to GMAC.

• To establish that the foreclosing party is the person entitled to enforce the note and trust deed requires something more than merely producing the note or a MERS Milestone Report. 

ACCORDING TO THE COURT, the foreclosing party needs to come forward with ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE demonstrating who presently possesses the note, who owns the note, and how those interests were acquired from the original lender.

November 28, 2017

False Documents Are NOT EVIDENCE of OWNERSHIP!

​

“Given the current environment where robo-signing became institutionalized as a practice even though it is the equivalent of forgery and where fabrication of documents by law offices and “document processors” were prepared according to a published menu of prices, why would anyone, least of all a court of law, apply general principles surrounding presumptions when established fact makes it more likely than not that the presumptions lead to the wrong conclusions? Where is the prejudice to anyone in abandoning these presumptions in light of all the information in the public domain?”

January 01, 2018

False Documents Are NOT EVIDENCE of OWNERSHIP!

​

“Given the current environment where robo-signing became institutionalized as a practice even though it is the equivalent of forgery and where fabrication of documents by law offices and “document processors” were prepared according to a published menu of prices, why would anyone, least of all a court of law, apply general principles surrounding presumptions when established fact makes it more likely than not that the presumptions lead to the wrong conclusions? Where is the prejudice to anyone in abandoning these presumptions in light of all the information in the public domain?”

​

​

November 29, 2017

Like many other cases, current trial court decisions are getting reversed because the courts are waking up to the reality of the rule of law. What they have been following is an off the books rule of “anything but a free house.” A recent Yale Law Review Article eviscerates the assumptions of a free house for the homeowners and destroys the myth that somehow that policy has saved the nation.

The Trial Judges are making the assumption that there is an underlying debt and an underlying liability of the homeowner to make a payment to the parties in litigation even if the paperwork was found to be defective. Or worse, they are disregarding the rule of law altogether and ruling for the banks and servicers because of policy reasoning (a province exclusively reserved to the legislative branch of government and excluded from the judicial branch).