0 votes

REALLY Need Help: My home Foreclosure hearing is tomorrow. *UPDATED* 4-26-2010!!!

Can any one here give me some advice on how to make the lender produce the note (in a legal manner). Countrywide was the original lender (they no longer exist). Bank of America now supposedly holds the note. How would I go about challenging them without hiring an attorney? Any advice would be much appreciated!

Ok, so I woke up this morning not knowing what I was going to do, logged on to the DP, and after reading some of your guys posts from after I went to bed I got up the confidence to go down to the courthouse to see what I could do.

When the magistrate asked me if I had anything to say I said yes your honor, I would like BofA, formerly Countrywide Home Loans, to produce the genuine original promissory note for this amount, also, I want to be sure B of A has standing to collect on this alleged debt. (thank you esp to jules and wolfe, jules for giving me something to go with, and wolfe with letting me know non lawyers get more leeway)

Anyway, the magistrate says very good; have you filed and answer with the court? No your honor, I have not. Mag: Technically you should have done that already, but I will grant you till 11/27/2009 to file an answer with the court and mail to all concerning parties.

UPDATE* 11/24/2009

After much research I have finished my answer to the complaint. Im going to take it to a lawyer friend now to review it and hopefully file it today. I really think I nailed it. The burden of Proof is now on the bank. I want to thank the whole Daily Paul family so much for all your advice, info, encouragement, and support! Wish me luck!

UPDATE* 11/25/2009

Answer to complaint filed with the clerk of courts today. Copy mailed to Plaintiff via certified mail. My lawyer friend says i probably wont hear from anyone for a while now.

UPDATE* 2/18/2010 !!!!!!!!!!!

Out of curiosity yesterday i was checking the Clerk of Courts website to see if anything new had been filed and sure enough Bank of America has filed a motion for Summary Judgment. They didnt even notify me though it says they did in their affidavit. i got it today at the courthouse. They have two affidavits in support of the motion. I think i've got em but i need help.

In the affidavit a man named Greg Hige*** labeled as Assistant Vice President of BAC Home Loans states:

1.
In such job position affiant has the custody of the accounts of said company, including the account of Mr. _____ , defendant herein. Affiant states that the records of the accounts of said company are compiled at or near the time of occurence of each event by persons with knowledge of said events, that said records are kept in the course of its regularly conducted business activity, and that it is the regular practice to keep such records related to the business activity.

2. Plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage which are the subject of the within foreclosure action. TRUE AND ACCURATE REPRODUCTIONS of the originals as they exist in Plaintiff's files are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B".

3. Affiant states that there has been a default in payment under the terms of the aforesaid note and mortgage. The account is due for the August 1, 2008 payment and all subsequent payments. Plaintiff has therefore elected to accelerate the entire balance due.

4. Affiant states that there is due on said account a principal balance of 59,704.21, together with interest thereon from July 1, 2008 at 6.125 percent annum and as may be subsequently adjusted if provided for by the terms of the note, and advances for taxes insurance or otherwise expended to protect the property.

They didnt produce the genuine original note! All they did was submit another copy! Where do I go from here. My Answer specifically demanded they produce the Genuine original promissory note.

UPDATE!! 2-28-2010

Ive discovered that a lady who signed for the ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE listed as the Assistant Vice President for Countrywide has also in the last three years been listed as Assistant VP of MERS, VP of Countrywide, and Assistant VP of Bank of New York, constantly flipping back and forth signing these ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE. Also, I just discovered tonight via Fannie Mae's web site that they currently own the loan for my house. They are not listed anywhere in any of BOA's filings. I'm diggin!!!

UPDATE!! 3-17-2010

Back on March 5th I filed my Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment challenging BOA's standing as the real party in interest after I discovered that my mortgage loan was sold to Fannie Mae, and to this day are still claiming ownership. As well as the fact that the lady they had sign the assignment of mortgage as Countrywide's Assistant Vice President also signed on the very same day on six different occasions as the Assistant Vice President of MERS that i could find on file with the the County Recorder here in my county. Well, checked the docket online today and BOA has filed a Motion for Extension of Time to reply to Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment.

I really dont know what to expect now.

UPDATE!! 4-02-2010

From the docket today:

"PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF MAY FILE ITS REPLY ON OR BEFORE APRIL 23, 2010"

UPDATE 4-26-2010

The bank filed a reply in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. I'm so confused and overwhelmed right now. I really dont know if i have a chance now. They are now stating that they are the servicer for fannie mae among other things. not sure where to go with this now.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

i'm

i'm now heading up to my ron paul supporter owned corner bar and blowing some FRN's. might be back on loaded up in a few hours. its f'in 85 degrees in cleveland right now. need a cold one.

HJR 192 WAS REPEALED, AND WAS

HJR 192 WAS REPEALED, AND WAS ONLY A RESOLUTION, NOT A LAW. I dont have the citing off the top of my head, but its public law 73-10, or something like that.

Tom Schauff's books are great, he has a few. The federal reserve books are good. You have to understand accounting, GAAP, FASB, UCC....and the IRS title 12.
Im currently working on a number of projects and seeing what happens. What bothers me, is when people come on and say "discharge it in 90 days, no courts no judges" Show me where you have personally done this, i know the amount of time it takes to learn the web of deceit, its a life commitment, but one individual committed can make a major change. If your sick of the banking system, this is an area you can really hit them, all by yourself, no meetings, no rally's, no voting. Just you and God.

i'm digging into this den

I've read that it was repealed, but I haven't gotten to the meat of what exactly was repealed and by whom.

As far is it only being a resolution, wouldn't the Public Law # (73-10) mean that it in fact is(was) law?

Again, I'm just starting down this rabbit hole.

Thanks.
E.

Here is another great site....

I have been listening to their stuff and they have some great ideas....here is a small blurb from their site:

http://www.yourremedyisinthelaw.com/?ref=SWC

Your Remedy is in The Law. The Law is Perfect. You exercise your Remedy via Code Pleadings. Why be Defensive when it's more fun and effective to be Offensive? We will show you how.

Did you know nearly all judgments in all of our courts today are faulty because of some defect, and are therefore void?

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1754 defines a Void Judgment as: "One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally ... Judgment is a 'void judgment' if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process."

Maybe you can conflict out the attorney or judge even.

These guys seem to be VERY knowledgeable and they are seeing all kinds of success apparantly...might be worth a viewing.

Are you aware Countrywide has 3300 pending lawsuits against them?

MERS is also in big trouble....get a default process on the weak dog who cannot afford to answer...then attack both with the facts that Countrywide will admit were true by not rebutting your claim, therefore putting them in default.

Even if you lose the house there are potentially ways to reverse it.

Hope this helps

Good Luck!

(for entertainment purposes only of course!)

Thanks...

I will (hopefully) check this out tonight.

Thanks to all who dug this book out

It is killer stuff.

Maybe some of you heard RP recently speak about the "Remnant" of Christains that is referred to in the Bible. If you will look at the free PDF that Jon posted, on page 5, it explains that the Remnant are the people like RP who are trying to expose the wickedness of the bankers.

For all who scoff at the bible, it's hard to refute the relevance of some that was written over 2,000 years ago that predicts what is going on today. This is killer stuff!

wolfe's picture

It didn't predict anything...

The exact same problems were happening at the time, and before that time. Who do you think the money changers were?

There is documentation of people using interest to own and enslave others from times long before the bible was written.

It's like me saying that someday the people will rise up and fight the power elite... And then when the cycle comes back around in 2000 years, some guy on a board posts "wow, how did he know!"... Ummm, duh... Is all I can really say to that... lol

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

It's a little more complicated than your simplisctic

understanding. I would usually take the time to educate someone I thought would be interested in being enlightened, but in your case (and because of your obvious arrogance) I will make an exception!

It still holds true - Ignorance is bliss and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

wolfe's picture

or more likely.

you know that you have no argument. as far as my understanding is concerned, I have read the bible cover to cover more times than you have probably picked it up. I wasn't always an atheist. but mist Christians who actually take the time to read it, become either atheist it agnostic.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Your arrogance again leads you to draw many erroneous

conclusions! I once was an atheist until I encountered a scholar who studied THE BIBLE for 60 years from the original manuscripts. The Bible is not easy to understand for a number of reasons:

1. It was written by numerous authors from different time periods.

2. It was written in different languages, (mostly Hebrew for the OT, and Greek in the NT).

3. Not everyone is given "ears to hear".

The following are a few video lectures from a man who MANY atheist have tried to refute. Of the ones I have corresponded with, instead of refuting the man, the became a life long student.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.viewVideos...

BTW - Have you ever heard of this guy Ron Paul, he is also a student and believer in the wisdom of the Bible. His recent reference to the "remnant" is what promoted me to post on this thread. He may not be in your caliber of intelligence, but he's a pretty smart guy.

I posted a free link a couple

I posted a free link a couple posts down.

Subpeona dueces tecum, the

Subpeona dueces tecum, the state will probably have a form. Subpeona the original note and mortgage b424, s3, s1. Sec filings.

Godspeed in your efforts

However, had you discharged it you would own the house free and clear within 90 days. No court dates; no fuss; no muss..

Hope your Bill of Particulars works.

Gene

Could you please provide some in depth information regarding the discharge that you are talking about?

It seems your posts are too vague for me to get my mind wrapped around what you are trying to convey.

I'm not astute to the machinations of much of this - but this thread, and gavination's fight, have gotten my interest piqued to the point of becoming a student of this realm of attempting to unshackle ones-self from the bonds of indebtedness.

House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933

On June 5, 1933, Congress passed House Joint Resolution (HJR 192). HJR 192 was passed to suspend the gold standard and abrogate the gold clause in the national constitution. Since then no one in America has been able to lawfully pay a debt. This resolution declared:
"To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the Unites States,
Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and
Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts,
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of t Representative of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that
(a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is herby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law.
(b) As used in this resolution, the term 'obligation' means any obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term 'coin or currency' means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations.
Sec. 2 The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled 'An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and of other purposes;, approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows:
"All coins and currencies of the United Stated (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight.'
Approved, June 5, 1933, 4:40 p.m. 31 U.S.C.A. 462, 463
House Joint Resolution 192, 73d Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 48, June 5, 1933 (Public Law No. 10 )
Note: "payment of debt" is now against Congressional and "public policy" and henceforth, "Every obligation . . . Shall be discharged."
As a result of HJR 192, and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one in this nation has been able to lawfully pay a debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do, is tender in transfer of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our common law to operate on, and created a void as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a "PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM" where debt is "LEGAL TENDER" money.
HJR 192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution, the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause.
192 states that one cannot demand a certain form of currency that they want to receive if it is dollar for dollar. If you review the Modern Money Mechanics article you will discover that all currency is your credit! The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt." The problem with the above-said case is that the gentleman is not pointing out to the court that you cannot "pay" a debt with a debt. You can only discharge it as guaranteed by the public policy of congress. I have had 100% success with over thirty homes using this method.

Now I just wait for the slander of the trolls in a vain attempt to prove Title 31 section 5112 was repealed or overturned.

They did, however, create a remedy, which still exists...

...although they go to great lengths to keep it hidden: Acceptance for Value - discharge through your treasury account that you're not supposed to know exists.

thanks

thanks everyone for all your support and information. you have no idea how grateful i am of everyone here, especially michael for all your efforts keeping this site going. and thanks troy for the tip, i'm going to study going that route.

The foreclosing attorney's

The foreclosing attorney's dropped the case after the defendant subpoenaing the docs. There has to be a action, then you ask them to provide the docs which allow them to bring the action, when they cant, it would be an unverified compliant not in the real party in interest, move for dismissal.

Just think if more people did this, sued the bank that there not the holder in due coarse of the note, then subpoenaed the docs I mentioned earlier....a very simple action and would rake havoc on the banks.

Another good read, google Walker Todd, and Tom Schults has excellent books on banking, he was a CPA and a teacher, he lays it out so its easy to follow how this all works. One book he has is called the secret bankers manual.
I wish i would have had this information a few years ago.

Hey

Great News!

Keep fighting and thanks for continually keeping us informed.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" MLK

What a mess

good luck to you. You never know what you will discover
thanks, for updating us.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

one last thing, in order to

one last thing, in order to file this you must have a pending case or action.

i didnt read this to much but

i didnt read this to much but heres an example

http://www.courts.state.va.us/forms/district/dc498.pdf

Just had a friend i study

Just had a friend i study with had the attorneys quit the case when he went to the court and got a subpoena form and subpoena the original wet ink signature, original mortgage 424b5 s1 and s3 filings. google this term or look it up in blacks, call the court house ask if they have this form, or a subpoena form and follow the template.

Subpoena duces tecum

Which attorneys quit the case?

His or the plaintiff's?

thank you

some of these links could really help. thanks for the heads up.

ARTICLE: Lenders Are

ARTICLE: Lenders Are Deceiving Us, Should An "Even Exchange of Value"
Be Considered A Loan? ...and what you can do about it.

http://livingfreeeandclear.com

...and what you can do about it.

The Mortgage Loan Process
Let's examine how it is MONEY created by "credit-lenders".
Your signature is an asset in our economy. You create the value for your
mortgage with your signature on the Promissory Note.
You do not borrow the bank's money.

Take a look at the definition of "Bank" in the 4th Edition of Black's Law Dictionary:
If a promissory note is designed to circulate as money, like money it can be
deposited into a checking account. Though this is the case it was never
disclosed in the bank loan agreement.

Since the promissory note is a negotiable instrument, per the Uniform
Commercial Code, at what point did the bank "own" the promissory note?
The "lending" techniques that banks have used for centuries appear to
be lending money, but in actuality have the value supplied by the person seeking the loan.

The bank does not disclose to you that your Promissory Note is actually
an asset to the bank. Instead they focus your attention on the second
document you sign, the Mortgage Agreement. The intent of this misdirection
is to perpetuate a public perception that you are receiving something from
the bank that you are obligated to repay.

The bank does not let you know that a promissory note is actually a
"negotiable instrument" under the Uniform Commercial Code, and that
it will be deposited to fund your loan. Nor does the bank tell you that
they have a liability to you of approximately the amount of the loan.
(The bank owes you by their own bookkeeping entries).

When you apply for a $100,000 bank loan, you sign a $100,000 promissory
note, which funds the $100,000 bank loan check that you receive at closing.
What is the actual cash value of the promissory note? It is $100,000,
because the bank exchanges your promissory note for $100,000 in
government bonds, which has value equal to cash.

The lender merely exchanged actual cash value for actual cash value, and
you were charged as if there was a loan. As per the Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco publication Monetary Policy in the United States (p. 13)
states that, "bank loans is/are funded...by banks creating new deposits."
They claim there was a loan. The truth is , it was an exchange and they
called the exchange a loan. The proof is in the bookkeeping entries.
No actual cash value was loaned as consideration for obtaining the
promissory note, and the proof is that the note is what funded the
check that you received.

If you gave the bank $100.00 cash as collateral for a bank loan, and the
bank deposited the $100.00 cash and used it to fund a bank loan check
which was delivered to you, and the bank refused to return the $100.00
cash collateral, does that make business sense to you?
Does that sound like a fair and equitable transaction?

That is exactly what the bank does on every loan it makes. When you
hand the lender a promissory note, it has equal value to the loan check.
Where is the money that paid for the promissory note?

When a bank grants a $100,000 loan, all they are doing is taking
$100,000 of actual cash value from you (the promissory note) and
transferring it to them, for free. The bank did not loan one cent of their
depositor's money for the $100,000 promissory note.

They did it by recording the promissory note as a loan from you to the
bank, on the banks books by journal entry. The bank then used the
$100,000 they obtained from you to create the $100,000 of new money
called checkbook money. Checkbook money has equal value to legal
tender because the promissory note can be sold for legal tender.

Then the bank uses the newly created checkbook money to
give you back the $100,000 as a bank loan.

How Does A Bank Loan Actually Work:
1. You want a loan for your home
2. The bank advertises that they loan money
3. You apply for a loan
4. You jump through all their hoops and are approved for a loan
5. They have you sign a promissory note
6. Your promissory note is exchanged for currency of equal face value
7. The bank deposits the currency into an account
8. The bank cuts you a check from the deposit you never knew
about (or transfers the money to those who should be receiving it).
9. And you think you owe money back on a loan, when in fact
all that took place was an "exchange".

Did they give you money? NO

What other business in the world allows you to create money based
on the value that someone else GIVES YOU, then charge that person
again plus interest!?

So the real question becomes, "If the promissory note is an asset,
what funded the bank's ownership of the note?"

Answer: They still don't really own it. They made and exchange -
Your promissory note (asset to the bank) was exchanged for approximately
the amount of the loan. You gave the bank an asset worth $100,000 and
the bank returned $100,000 to you. Where was the loan? There was not one.

As an honest ethical person who believes that all loans should be repaid,
do you agree that the bank should repay your loan to them? After all, they
deposited your promissory note. Your promissory note is an asset that
they exchanged for a check.

Where's the loan? Factually, there is not one. And since all lenders
should be repaid, shouldn't the bank repay your loan to them?

To add insult to injury, the banks can "fractionalize" your note through
the Federal Reserve System, expanding its value up to nine times the
note's face value ($100,000 becomes $900,000), tax-free money they
can spend and invest as they please. Bearing in mind, your are
"currently obligated" to repay the loan with interest that works out
to 2 1/2 times the principal over a 30 year period.

THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AMONG SEVERAL OTHER FLAWS ARE
PART OF THE BASIS UPON WHICH WE PROCEED TO HAVE MORTGAGES
SETTLED IN FULL, BECAUSE THE ARE IF PAID IN FULL.

LEARN MORE AT WWW.LIVINGFREEANDCLEAR.COM

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

Bump .. thanks so much for sharing

and keeping us updated. Good luck!