FAQ  |  Search  |  Memberlist  |  Usergroups   |  Register  |  Profile  |  Log in to check your private messages  |  Log in 

 Show Me The Loan With The Mort (Death) Gage View next topic
View previous topic

Post new topicReply to topic
Author Message

Show Me The Loan With The Mort (Death) Gage
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:02 am Reply with quoteBack to top

A legal doctrine developed by: John Chester; of the family Stuart

Plaintiff sold a Promissory Note to Defendants. Defendants then altered the Promissory Note by stamping said Promissory Note:
“PAY TO THE ORDER OF ***“third party name”******* WITHOUT RECOURSE.”
Defendants’ knowingly, intelligently and willful act of altering the Promissory Note caused said Promissory Note to become a “check.”
See: Black’s Law Sixth Edition:
The Federal Reserve Board defines a check as "a draft or order upon a bank or banking house purporting to be drawn upon a deposit of funds for the payment at all events of a certain sum of money to a certain person therein named or to him or his order or to bearer and payable instantly on demand."
It must contain the phrase "pay to the order of." (Emphasis added)

Defendants then sold the Promissory Note for “cash” and yet failed to give the proceeds from said sale to Plaintiff. Instead, Defendants unlawfully used the money Defendants’ received from Defendants’ sale of Plaintiff’s check/Promissory Note to fraudulently encumber Plaintiff’s real Property by claiming said money paid to the third party(s) was Defendants’ money.
Thus, Defendants’ encumbrances on Plaintiff’s real Property are prima facie evidence of Defendants’ fraud as it is a functional impossibility for the sole “sum certain” of the check/Promissory Note to be used twice against Plaintiff.
More simply stated:
a. Plaintiff sold a Promissory Note to Defendants.
b. Defendants then re-sold said Promissory Note yet still failed to pay Plaintiff.
c. Defendants unlawfully used the money Defendants should have paid Plaintiff to purchase specific debts.
d. Defendants’ purchased said debts in Defendants name instead of Plaintiff’s name.
e. Defendants used said purchase to transfer the lien rights on Plaintiff’s real Property from the third party to Defendants.
i) Defendants used Plaintiff’s money to buy the lien under Defendants name so as to put the lien in Defendants name instead of removing said lien.
ii) Such criminal act is known in law as fraudulent conversion.

f. Defendant then unlawfully claimed encumbrances on Plaintiff’s real Property for the debts paid off in Defendants’ name with Plaintiff’s money.
g. Defendants’ then used ‘legalese’ to trick Plaintiff into believing that Defendants’ had given Plaintiff a “LOAN.”
h. Plaintiff made monthly payments on said “LOAN” until such a time as Plaintiff discovered material facts evidencing Defendants fraudulent and criminal acts.
i. Plaintiff discovered that Defendants used the money from the sale of the Promissory Note; and NOT the money from any “LOAN;” to pay off the aforementioned debts.
j. It is a functional impossibility for the “LOAN” to have occurred as such would require the same exact money to be spent twice, once for the purchase of the liens and once to be given to Plaintiff as a “LOAN.”
i) The purchase of the lien(s) did occur; therefore the “LOAN” could not have occurred.
ii) For the “LOAN” to occur, then the lien purchase by Defendants could have not occurred.
k. To date, Plaintiff has still NOT received the “LOAN” promised by Defendants.
l. Plaintiff has been financially devastated by Defendants’ failure to supply the “LOAN” Plaintiff has paid several months on, and is still waiting to receive.
m. Defendants knowingly, intelligently and willfully created the previous scenario to defraud Plaintiff and millions of other Americans in a far reaching conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States and unlawfully steal land from Americans in the single largest act of conspiratory terrorism in the history of the world as evidenced by the man that created the concept almost one hundred years ago:
– J.P. Morgan circa 1913: “Capital must protect itself in every way... Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.”
Display posts from previous:      
Post new topicReply to topic

 Jump to:   

Merge topics 

View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB 2.0.22-2 (Debian) © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group :: FI Theme :: All times are GMT