About Wrongful Foreclosure
[Doc is Printer Friendly]
Statutory Requirements for Establishing the Right to Enforce an Instrument
Some research that may be of value. Always validate new information. After validation and comprehension of the information revealed below, please pass along the information to others who may be in jeopardy of losing their property for non-payment of mortgage installments.
Discovery is where the questions are asked about production of the genuine original Promise to Pay Agreement (PTPA).
If the foreclosure claimant claims to produce the genuine original PTPA and that writing is not bound/attached to the genuine original mortgage writing, the two writings have been physically separated in violation of federal law which mandates the imperative that the note and mortgage are inseparable. (See Carpenter v. Longan, 21 L.Ed. 313, 16 Wall. 271, 83 U.S. 271, 274-275 (1872).
When the banksters wave around a security deed as some sort of triumphant badge of their right to take your property in foreclosure, and that security deed is not bound/attached to the essential PTPA they have just revealed (1) that the PTPA and the security deed have been SEPARATED, in violation of the imperative noted in the Carpenter decision; and (2) that with respect to law that particular security deed does not exist, and therefore, cannot be enforced. The mortgage can have no separate existence." Carpenter v. Longan, 21 L.Ed. 313, 16 Wall. 271, 83 U.S. 271, 275 (1872). (emphasis added).
The referenced Carpenter rules were written by the United States Supreme Court in conformance to the Constitutional authority of the United States Congress to regulate banking under the Commerce Clause and other such federal laws.
Present physical possession of the PTPA bound/attached to the mortgage must be established pursuant the fact that if the essential PTPA is still in existence, and a party not the holder and without a valid assignment traceable in an unbroken chain of valid assignments back to the original valid owner and holder of the evidence of debt, is awarded judgment against the mortgagor (you), at some time in the future the present holder of the original PTPA could appear and file another lawsuit to enforce the PTPA if it is actually bound/attached to the incidental mortgage writing..
Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. Even after judgment and execution.
If the facts indicate that the foreclosure was wrongful pursuant to the
court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court's judgment in favor of the
foreclosure claimant is voidable.
The following research is the supporting statutory law in support of the demand "Show me the NOTE!"
In light of the fact that virtually all promissory notes taken by banks, mortgage companies, etc., were sold at some time after the "closing" for the respective transactions --- without the right in discovery to physically inspect, and photocopy the original wet-ink instrument, (production of the original instrument), meaning that the bank, mortgage company, etc., retained physical possession of the NOTE, or can PROVE a valid assignment of the rights of the holder to enforce the instrument from the holder of the original wet-ink NOTE, standing in a court to enforce the instrument in foreclosure is impossible pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. (UCC).
Without possession of the genuine original PTPA that is attached/bound to the genuine original mortgage, (See Carpenter), no foreclosure action can be sustained when confronted with the imperatives stated in Carpenter.
Many assume that the bank/broker/lender that begins the process is actually providing the money for making a "loan," when in fact, the bank/broker/lender is only making an "exchange," of notes, at no cost, and then, coercing the issuer of the promissory note into the comprehension that he is receiving a "loan." 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]
"Primer on Money" PDF page 89 of 141]
In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer's promise as if the property and the PTPA already belonged to the bank/broker/lender.
So, if the bank used the promise, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face value amount of the promise, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promise, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a Deceptive Practice, False Representation, and Fraud of course the banksters have already acquired court determinations to the effect that such fraud does not afford the victim a valid cause of action.