Who is in possesion of the original mortgage note?
From: Jack Harper
Sent: Sun 3/02/08 6:01 AM
To: me and others
To whom it may concern;
Anyone who has a mortgage in arrears and staring foreclosure in the face, would be well advised to check the federal courts ruling (this applies in any common law jurisdiction on the globe) in Ohio on November 1 2007 where someone, amongst the 14 being foreclosed on, submitted the proper documents to the court prior to the court appearance, demanding the judge ask the bank to produce the original note that created that mortgage in question.
Where upon, the bank failed to produce the original note.
All 14 walked out of court with no one to make their payments to.
Below is an exchange between Bob Ivory of Bloomburgs and I concerning this subject.
Bob Ivry of Bloomburgs in New York wrote;
“Lents's attorney, Jane Raskin of Raskin & Raskin in Miami, said she has no idea who owns Lents's mortgage note.”
``Something is wrong if you start from what I think is the reasonable assumption that these banks are not losing all of these notes,'' Raskin said. ``As an officer of the court, I find it troubling that they've been going in and saying we lost the note, and because nobody is challenging it, the foreclosures are pushed through the system.''
Bob,
Isn’t it amazing how stupid lawyers are at times?
What’s even more amazing is how stupid some banks officer’s are.
Given the nature of mortgage loans, the original, blue ink signed legal instrument known as the “note” is sitting in the federal treasury department where it has to stay.
If, the bank actually was in possession of the note then, you, having satisfied your obligation to the bank would naturally demand the note be returned.
Right?
I mean, WHOEVER, is in possession of the note, is the holder in due course to the legal title to the property.
Anyone, including you, while holding a mere copy is deemed, nothing more than a tenant holding equity title.
The reason for this is simple; “The bank never loaned you any money” and therefore, can not legally lay claim to the property even though you may be in default, unless of course, you don’t know any better.
Upon application for the mortgage loan that you signed on the dotted line, the bank in turn, upon submitting the original note to the treasury department was authorized to release the funds to the seller of the property.
The only interest the bank retains is the collection of another’s debt.
And that makes them a third party to an action.
All along the banks have pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes and now it’s all coming home to roost.
You may wish to refer to the federal court case in Cincinnati Ohio on November 1 / 2007, where 14 mortgage holders (some were in default, some were not) walked out of court with no one to make their payments to.
In turn, the Deutshe Bank fired their lawyers and went home with empty pockets.
Regards,
Jack Harper
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "BOB IVRY, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:" <bivry@bloomberg.net>
To: <happyharper@SHAW.CA>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Who is in possession of the original mortgage note?
> So who is entitled to get the house if the mortgage isn't being paid?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jack Harper <happyharper@shaw.ca>
> At: 2/26 23:53:32
The one holding the original note, that’s who.
Mind you, the chances of them laying claim to the property are next to nil.
It all comes down to this: "If you produce the note and I satisfy the note, then the holder must turn it over to the homeowner."
And if that happens, no one can place a lien on the property or tax it.
The original note IS THE GOLD.
So, it would appear the person who is in possession of the home is entitled to the home unless, the original note is produced.
They are not guilty of anything, the bank is.
Besides, the bank has no interest in the home except as a debt collector for another party (the federal treasury)
Therefore, because the bank is now a third party to the action, they can not produce the note.
I hope this clears this up.
Jack
>Bob,
Something else that I picked up on, as the rest is already known to me, was
the lies below. It is illegal for banks to lend depositers money, or even
their own money! This is a complete lie! Then the last part is beyond
ridiculous! Almost seems like bank propaganda.
`”When banks originally made the loans they used people's money from pension
funds and savings accounts and they should be allowed to foreclose the loan
as quickly as possible before the property depreciates in value any more,''
Saft said. ``The mortgage industry has been painted as the enemy when all
they did was make loans to enable people to buy homes. Now there's less
money available for new borrowers to buy homes and that's what's causing the
value of homes to go down.''
Jack
