FW: Assignment Fraud… Felony?‏
From:

Tony Webster (twebster321@hotmail.com)

Sent: Thu 12/31/09 1:15 PM
To: Scott Ellis (scott.ellis@brevardclerk.us)
Cc: pete.griffin@brevardclerk.us; frank.sakuma@brevardclerk.us; howard.tipton@brevardcounty.us

Mr. Ellis,

MERS has no Agency status as a nominee (therefore cannot
foreclose or assign notes/mortgages) because it has no pecuniary
interest in the Note and therefore, because the Mortgage is an incident
to the Note (debt) any Assignment of the mortgage without said Note is a
nullity.

There are tons of case precedents to cite. The separation of the Note and Mortgage is Black
letter law older than the MERS scam.

TW


From: twebster321@hotmail.com
To: scott.ellis@brevardclerk.us
CC: pete.griffin@brevardclerk.us; frank.sakuma@brevardclerk.us; howard.tipton@brevardcounty.us
Subject: RE: Assignment Fraud… Felony?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:34:45 -0500

Mr. Ellis,

The money came from the investors who
purchased certificates in the trust. Supposedly these notes were
registered in the trust (unless they were pledged, similar to the naked
short sale in which delivery never occurred). This is why an
evidentiary hearing is necessary.

The loan servicer (via
fraudulent assignment of mortgages) take the property out of the trust
without knowledge or consent of the investor.

I don’t make the
laws, but they are on the books. People asked for a loan… not for
fraud. Fraud negates these instruments. The laws state if there is
fraud involved – they are not entitled to benefit.

So who are
the real parties involved? What happens when they come back to claim
their property. There are a lot of people out there who simply want to
know who really owns the note to avoid paying off the wrong party.

UCC 3-501 requires a lender to “exhibit the note” when the lender
makes demand for payment, and the borrower demands to see the note.
Technically a demand for payment occurs every month, and it also occurs
when a bank begins foreclosure proceedings.

UCC 3-501 also requires a servicer to show authority to make a
demand for payment, if it does not own the note, but is merely
servicing it. In the event a noteholder or servicer or will not exhibit
the note or perform other legal requirements when requested to do so by
the borrower, this UCC section allows the borrower to discontinue
payments WITHOUT DISHONOR
until such time as the noteholder or servicer
complies with all laws or contract provisions.

Your thoughts?

Respectfully,

Tony Webster


Subject: RE: Assignment Fraud… Felony?
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:56:56 -0500
From: Scott.Ellis@brevardclerk.us
To: twebster321@hotmail.com
CC: Pete.Griffin@brevardclerk.us; Frank.Sakuma@brevardclerk.us; howard.tipton@brevardcounty.us

I’m not really sure what the point
is, Mr. Webster.  If you are saying a lender is foreclosing on a property where
the owner is current on his payments then I clearly see a problem.


THE
SERVICER IS NOT THE LENDER… THEY LENT NO MONEY AND ARE NOT AT RISK.
SOMEWHERE AN INVESTOR IS BEING ROBBED AND THEY MAY VERY WELL COME BACK
TO CLAIM THEIR PROPERTY AFTER IS HAS BEEN SOLD.

 

If the borrower knows he borrowed the
money, is sitting in the house (or renting it out), and knows he has not made
the payments, are you saying the present owner is entitled to keep the property
without making payment on money he willingly borrowed?


THE
BORROWER HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO IS THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF THEIR
LOAN AND HOW MUCH MONEY WAS COLLECTED BY THE INTERMEDIARIES WHO EACH
HAD AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY ALONG THE SECURITIZATION CHAIN. THE
FULL SET OF ACCOUNTING (TARP, AIG, AMBAC PAYOUTS) NEEDS TO BE
DISCLOSED.

 

I have dealt with a pitiful mortgage company
before who purchased my original mortgage, but while they were horrible, I knew
I owed the money. 

 

IF
THE SERVICER COLLECTS DEFAULT INSURANCE OF IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000,000
ON A $200,000 LOAN (FROM AIG AKA US TAXPAYERS) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
WHAT IS LISTED ON THE TRUTH IN LENDING STATEMENT AND WHAT WAS RECEIVED
BELONGS TO THE BORROWER ACCORDING TO MANY LEGAL SCHOLARS.


Are you saying the note on what was
borrowed and the title to the property should both be voided?  If so is this
simply to be able to quit claim the property to a lender of some name (as best
can be determined)?  The powerpoint goes over chains of title and assignment,
but I never saw where anyone claims the money was not borrowed.

 

YES, ACCORDING TO LENDING LAW, CONTRACT LAW & BUSINESS LAW, IF THERE IS FRAUD INVOLVED THE LOAN BECOMES INVALID. 


Advertisements