Is Your Mortgage Illegal, Violate the Constitution, Doesn’t Really Exist and is Unenforceable? Hint: B.S.

For so long I’ve heard the arguments that some claim that a mortgage is not a real document and violates all sorts of laws and arguments and can’t be enforced.

People sell all sorts of crazy courses and make all sorts of claims to get money from people in order to show them how to “cancel” their mortgage. I’ve mentioned or reported on some of them in the past.

I just came across a court case filed by someone that seems to encapsulate all the claims made people as to why their mortgage is not enforceable. I’ll include it at the end of this article for you to see (Attached Complaint). Let me know what you think of it. Post your comments.

But the entire assertion that a mortgage is not real falls under the “Vapor Money Theory” and has been shot down repeatedly by the court. In fact, as recently as yesterday. In another similar complaint (source) yet another person has bought in to the conspiracy theory that a a mortgage is not valid. The judge had this to say about the claim.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff appears to argue that he does not owe the money due on his loan because it was not backed by actual money. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he, “turned over a bond [to an unspecified party] as an asset exchange,” and “this bond was then exchanged with other instruments from the United States Department of Treasury.” (Compl., P. 5). Plaintiff maintains CitiMortgage materially altered the bond, with the intent of defrauding Plaintiff. (Id.). Plaintiff further claims there was no consideration for the contract in the amount of $113,451, the original amount of the bond of collateral held by Plaintiff, and that “CITIMORTGAGE, INC. cannot, loan the capital stock of their directors, nor can they loan the money of their depositors, and they can only loan money.” (Id. at 6.)

With these vague allegations, Plaintiff may be attempting to allege the “vapor money” theory as a ground for recovery. In the typical vapor money claim, “Plaintiff alleges that the promissory note he executed is the equivalent of `money’ that he gave to the bank. He contends that [the lender] took his `money,’ i.e., the promissory note, deposited it into its own account without his permission, listed it as an `asset’ on its ledger entries, and then essentially lent his own money back to him….He further argues that because [the lender] was never at risk, and provided no consideration, the promissory note is void ab initio, and Defendants’ attempts to foreclose on the mortgage are therefore unlawful.” Demmler v. Bank One NA, No. 2:05-CV-322, 2006 WL 640499 at *3 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2006). While the vapor money theory has not been addressed by any court within the 8th Circuit, it and “similar arguments have been rejected by federal courts across the country.” McLehan v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys., No. 08-12565, 2009 WL 1542929 at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2009) (citations omitted). See, e.g., Thomas v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 2:09-CV-00082-RWS, 2010 WL 1328644 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2010); Andrews v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. RDB-09-2437, 2010 WL 1176667 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2010); Barber v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-40-GCM, 2010 WL 398915 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 2010); Kuder v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. CIV S-08-3087 LKK DAD PS, 2009 WL 2868730 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2009); Rodriguez v. Summit Lending Solutions, Inc., No. 09cv773 BTM(NLS), 2009 WL 1936795 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2009); Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 09-21246-CIV, 2009 WL 2575703 (S.D. Fla. July 1, 2009); Gentsch v. Ownit Mortgage Solutions Inc. No. CV F 09-0649 LJO GSA, 2009 WL 1390843 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2009). Thus, the vapor money theory is not a valid route to recovery, and Plaintiff’s claims based upon it must be dismissed.

Basically, those claims that a mortgage is not a valid document and can’t be enforced are bogus and you should save your money before you pay for any course or service that tries to tell you otherwise.


You are not alone. I'm here to help. There is no need to suffer in silence. We can get through this. Tomorrow can be better than today. Don't give up.

Do you have a question you'd like to ask me for free? Go ahead and click here.

Damon Day - Pro Debt Coach

Attached Complaint

This compulsory Counterclaim arises out of Claim of Countrywide Home Loans where act of lending CREDIT is unlawfully committed in violation Shaughriessyof Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which in part states : “No State (or State/national chartered Bank) shall … emit Bills of Credit;…” State ex rel. Birnamwood Oil Co . v., 243 Wis 346,10 NW 2d 292, 295

Comes now XXXX, Third Party Plaintiff, by special visitation and not appearing generally, before this honorable court seeking a remedy in Admiralty as is provided by “The Saving to the Suitors Clause” at USC 28-1333(1).


Third Party “Plaintiff may elect to bring suit either as admiralty action in federal court or as state common-law action in state court…” T.N.T. Marine Service, Inc. v.Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc (1983 CA 5 Tex) 702 F2nd 585, 36 Fit Serv 2d 293, cent den (US) 78 F Ed 2d 141, X04 S Ct1S1″ . Emphasis added.

In 1938 (September 16) in Schlaefer v. Schlaefer,71 App DC 350,112 F2d 177, the United States Government (US Govt) supplanted the Equity Rules of Practice with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and in Erie v.Tompkins. 304 US 643,58 S Ct 817, 82 L Ed 1188 overruled Swift v. Tyson 41 US 13, 16 Pet 1, 10L Ed 865, which held that there was a body of federal general common law to be applied. As a result, the corporate United States Government (19 CJS § 884), and its franchised states and local goverrunents, now adjudicates cases in Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction. I believe that the U.S. Govt merged law and equity in federal courts providing for only one remaining action, which embraces all actions formerly STYLED suits in equity and actions at law. This admiralty maritime jurisdiction in a State-Republic court proceeds in a common law jurisdiction as provided for in T.N.T. Marine Service. Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks. Inc., supra.

I am standing in my unlimited commercial liability as a Secured Party Creditor and request that the Third Party Defendants do the same, and waive all of their immunities in accordance with principal of parity (all are equal under the Law) . I respectfully request the indulgence of this court as I am not schooled in law. This is provided by the precedent set by Haines v. Kerner at 404 US 519.


“State court may not deprive party with Maritime claim of federally created rights by applying limiting principles of state law to claim.” Casey v. Palmer Johnson.Inc. (1981, BD Wis) 506 F Supp 1361.

“Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is conferred on courts of United States by Art. 3 § 2 of Constitution and cannot be enlarged or restricted by [STATE] legislation;… The J.E .Rumbell (1893) 148US 1, 37 L Ed 345,13 S Ct 4982′

In that Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction embraces all actions (i .e. Civil and Criminal), I am reserving all our U.S. and Georgia-Republic Rights, specifically Rights set forth in Paragraph M of Georgia’s Bill of Rights .

“M. Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation ofjurors. (a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either pity. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.” Emphasis added,

AS TO COUNT 1: I, XXXX the Third Party Plaintiff, Secured Party Creditor, a Natural Man, created by God (Genesis 2:7), Demand that the CountrywideHome Loans, Jimmy Munoz, Sheila Zuckerman and Adrian Ely produce their Proof of Claim. I demand to inspect the “Original Mortgage Note”, with wet ink signatures, along with the Title Page that shows whether or not the mortgage has been satisfied. I believe that the COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS has sold the original note and failed to give credit to my account per Fed. Res. Bank of Chicago’s 1992 publication Modem Money Mechanics page 6, which in part states:

“What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept Promissory [e.g. mortgage] notes in exchange for credits to borrowers’ transaction accounts [of XXXX].” Emphasis added.

This note was created on my credit and signature (12 USC 1815(L)(1), and was not an asset of Countrywide Home Loans until I gave it to the Countrywide.

Title 12 USCS § 1813(L)(1) is FDIC reguladons referencing the term “deposit”. In part, the term “deposit” means “the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received or held by a bank in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obligated to give credit, …” When Countrywide Home Loans accepted my mortgage “Note in exchange for credits to [my] borrowees transaction account”, it became obligated to me, the Third Party Plaintiff. Section (L)(1) goes on to state, “… That, without limiting the generality of the term ” money or its equivalent [e.g. a Mortgage Note]”, any such account or [mortgage note] instrument must be regarded as evidencing the receipt of the equivalent of money when credited or issued in exchange for cheeks or drafts or for a promissory [mortgage] note.”

I believe that Countrywide Home Loans having sold my mortgage note has not been damaged and has no legal right to a claim. As you well know, Proof of Claim must be established by law (FDCPA 15USC § 1692). Only the Original Mortgage Note will be accepted as proof of claim. If the Third Party Defendants have the original mortgage note, let them bring it forth and offer their Proof of Claim for my inspection. I believe the Third Party Defendants DO NOT have lawful Proof of Claim, and there is no evidence to the contrary. This is Dishonor in commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and Racketeering.

AS TO COUNT 2: The “Agreement” (UCC 1-201(3)) upon which Couriirywide is relying does not meet “Course of Performance” required by UCC 1-303. The “Agreement” did not provide the Plaintiff with knowledge of the nature of the transaction. It concealed the fact that Countrywide exchanged our Note [which was my Asset] for a credit to the borrowers transaction Account i.e. the account of XXXX. In light of this concealment, I filed a UCC Financing Statement, claiming my original Note #IS2348874 of $147,613 .00 and a Tenant-Life Estate of $77,000.00. I Third Party Plaintiff believe that the Third Party Defendants cannot provide proof of claim to rebut the lawful nature of my Counterclaim as set forth in Count 2 . Exhibit 1.

AS TO COUNT 3 : I, XXXX, tendered a lawful offer to Countrywide Home Loans to settle their [“alleged”) claim. Countrywide Home Loans has chosen to dishonor my lawful offer and has refused to zero the account. This is a Dishonor in Commerce, Fraud, Theft of Public Funds,
Racketeering, and Conspiracy, and I believe there is no evidence to the contrary. I also believe that once tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender. UCC 3 – 603.

I believe that the Third Party Defendants cannot provide proof of Claim to substantiate that my tender of offer and their refusal to accept the offer does not constitute a discharge of the alleged debt.

AS TO COUNT 4 : Third Party Plaintiff believe that COUNTRYWIDE HAS NOT satisfactorily complied with RESPA 12 USA §2605;(1) Duty of loan servicer to respond to borrower inquiries; to 12USCS § 2605; (2) relating to Action with respect to inquiry nor to (3) Protection of credit rating. I have sent documentation dated dune 20, 2008, August 14, 2008, November [18, 19, 24 and 25 2008 and January 6, 2009, and COUNTRYWIDE has failed to address the issues in the documentation, which acquiescence is an estoppel. Winslow v. Bums, 47 NM 29,132 P2d 1048, 1050. I have exhausted administrative procedures required to invoke the judicial power of this Court. I believe that the Third Party Defendants cannot provide proof of claim to rebut Count 4 .

AS TO COUNT 5: I Third Party Plaintiff believe that constitutional law prohibits the emission of bills of credit (U.S.Constitution Article I Section 10). I believe that the Third Party Defendants can produce no proof of claim that they loaned anything but credit and that their “alleged loan” was not an ultra vires act outside Countrywide’s government granted corporate charter.

“The doctrine of ultra vires, by which a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers is unlawful and void and will not support an action, rests, as this court has often recognized and affirmed, upon three distinct grounds: The obligation of any one contracting with a corporation to take notice of the legal limits of its powers; and interest of the stockholders not to be subject to risks which they have never undertaken; and, above all, the interest of the public that the corporation shall not transcend the powers conferred upon it by law.” QUOTING: De La Vergue Co.v.German Savings Institution 175 US 40, 58o, 20 S Ct 20, 25, 44 LEd 65. First National Bank v. Monroe 69 SE Rep 1123,1124,11.25,1126 (1911).


“A contract of a corporation, which is ULTRA VIBES, in the proper sense — that is to say, outside the object of its creation as defined in the law of its organization, and therefore beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Legislature – is not voidable only, but wholly void, and of no less effect”

“But, when the contact is beyond the powers conferred upon it by existing laws, neither the corporation, nor the other party to the contract, CAN BE ESTOPPED, by assenting to it, or by acting upon it, to show that it was prohibited by those laws.”

“When the contract if once declared ultra vires, the fact that it is executed does not validate it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it the basis of suit or action, nor does the doctrine ofestoppel apply.” QUOTING – F & PR Co.v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac and Richmond & Petersburg Railroad Connection, 145 Va 266, 133 SE 188. Emphasis added.

I believe that the Third Party Defendants cannot substantiate proof of claim that Countrywide Home Loan’s Agreement/Contract is not wholly void.

“The provisions referred to do not give power to a national bank to guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for their benefit, nor is such power incidental to the transaction of bating. A bank can lend its money, but not its credit.” QUOTING- First National Bank v.Monroe,135Ga.614,69SE 1123, 32 LRA (NS) 550. Emphasis added.

I, the Third Party Plairitit~ believe that the Third Party Defendants cannot provide probative evidence to establish proof of Claim that Countrywide Home
Loans in servicing a loan can guarantee payment. I also believe that the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the governing law for
contracts/agreements, in Section 1-310 Subordinated Obligations, in part, states:

“Subordination does not create a security interest as against either the common debtor or a subordinated creditor.”

AS TO COUNT 6: I Third Party Plaintiff believe that Ihave the Right to require that Countrywide admit into evidence document S3 registration statement that Countywide filed when it sold my Note. No.152348874. I believe that Countrywide is subject to FRCP Rule 36. I also believe that I have a Right to a compulsory Counterclaim and under FRCP Rude 13a (to which Countrywide is subject) a ” .. ,claim [to] relief exceeding in amount … that sought …[by Countrywide]. I believe that the Third Party Defendants cannot provide proof of claim to rebut Count 6.


The Third party Defendants have 21 calendar days to cure their Dishonor by the Following:

1. Dismiss any and all claims against the Third Party Plaintiff with prejudice, Notice Banks County that the mortgage Note has been satisfied, remove security deed from County records, clear my credit with all credit agencies, and provide me with the payment of$147,613.00 Countrywide received when it sold my Note and did not give me the credit it exchanged for my Note, OR

2. Pay all damages as indicated by the counterclaim contained herein with Real Money, Surrender any and all Public Hazard Bonds, other Bonds, Insurance Policies, 801K, CAFR Funds, etc. as needed to satisfy counterclaim herein, ..OR,

3.Prove your claims against me by providing me with lawfully documented evidence that is certified true and correct, by (Officers of the Court), in their unlimited commercial liability, while Under Oath, On and For the Official Record, under penalties of the law including Perjury. This evidence must prove your case by a preponderance or the greater weight of evidence and must answer each and every averment, Point by Point individually. If any and all points are not answered fully and accompanied by lawfully documented evidence, as provided herein, that will be Default on the part of the Third Party Defendants (estoppel by Acquiescence Sherlock v, Greaves, 106 Mont 206, 76 P 2d 87, 91). Non Response according to the conditions herein will be default . Incomplete answers and/or lack of documented evidence as outlined herein will be Default. If the Third Party Defendants fail to respond as outlined herein, within 21 calendar days, this will be Default Silence is consent. Non Response Will be a Self Executing Confession of Judgment by all Third Party Defendants, and will be complete agreement with all the statements, teems, and conditions of this contract. This is a contract in Admiralty. Any officer of the court that interferes or involves him/herself with this claim will be added to this claim and become a Third Party Defendant. All Third Party Defendants are individually and severally liable for this claim. – Source

Follow Me
Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.
Steve Rhode
Follow Me

16 thoughts on “Is Your Mortgage Illegal, Violate the Constitution, Doesn’t Really Exist and is Unenforceable? Hint: B.S.”

  1. This is click bait because this man has obviously not conducted any REAL research into the topic of mortgages. You can read the “AFFIDAVIT OF WALKER TODD,” who was an attorney for the Federal Reserve and find out the truth.

    You can start here:

    15 U.S. Code § 1635.Right of rescission as to certain transactions

  2. What if a video rental store was allowed to practice Fractional Reserve Lending?

    The Local Government purchases a Movie DVD and for a small interest fee loans it to Video store “A”. Video Store “A” makes a copy of the DVD and loans it to Video Store “B” for a small interest fee. Video Store “B” makes a copy and loans it to Video Store “C” for a small interest fee. And Video Store “C” makes a
    copy and loans it to Video Store “D” for a small interest fee. This lending and copying continues until the particular movie has reached a threshold and no Video Store has any interest in “borrowing” the movie.

    If the Government wants its DVD returned Video Store “A” can fully comply because it has the original DVD in its possession. And similarly if Video Store “B” needs to return the copy to Video Store “A” it can because it never loan the original copy. So it too can comply. Even when the Video Stores rent out the DVD to a patron, it can still comply if given enough time for its return.

    The Federal Courts claim that there is no real Movie copying in this system, because each of the Video Stores always kept the original, or the original copy. The video Store were able to “balance” their books (inventory) so to speak. The Video Store Owners Loves this system because it allows them to get an inexpensive inventory and they can pass the savings on to their customers. The customers also like this system because they are able to get inexpensive rentals.

    As far as Hollywood is concern, well they are not so bright to figure out that they could sell more Movie DVDs than just to governments. In real Fractional Reserve Lending, this really is the reason why it is allowed. If it ever dawns on people what is happening to the money that they labor for everyday, there would be a stampede to change the laws. But right now the people are more interested in watching Lady Gaga, or Basketball Wives, or Jersey Shore, etc. The Federal Court system is compromised and they will do what ever it takes to support the powerful financial interest that can counterfeit money with impunity.

  3. how can a judge claim that the Vapor money theory is non-existent? Vapor money, AKA fractional reserve banking is exponentially inflationary. how else do we get the M3 money supply? Where does the money come from. I took a close look at these cases and they are not supported by any economist. This is a judicial matter that should be argued by economist not judge-turn-economist who simply make blanket statements with no historical or financial support

  4. Do not do anything with Audit and stop. You will supposedly be discharged anf file a deed with other documents. However, you will never get a clear title and lender might just come after you like with me.

  5. Thanks for your article. I am a homeowner severely underwater in my mortgage and looking at doing a forensic mortgage analysis through auditandstop.com I’m wondering what your thoughts are on this process and/or company? It seems legit to me and I’ve had a friend who had their mortgage discharged after the servicer was unable to produce the original promissory note, answer the respa and tila questions, which (as they say) violates the contract.

    • Do not do anything with Audit and stop. You will supposedly be discharged anf file a deed with other documents. However, you will never get a clear title and lender might just come after you like with me.

    • Well, that seemed to stop you… By The Way, why are there so few comments (activity) on this site? Update: Talked to Secret Service the other day and after getting past three more-offs who are equally brainwashed as you seem to be, I read 18 USC 472 to him three times and then said the following to tie it all together. “Now is it not true that the attorneys present to the court a copy of an instrument and the judge then issues an order to sell property in exchange for “obligations of the United States” (cash) and those obligations of the United States are then given in exchange for a copy of an instrument?” “Well yes” he said,” Is that not the very definition of counterfeiting?” I asked “Yes, but I can’t believe the judges are not catching it. Actually it is passing or uttering of counterfeit instruments, but I can’t believe the judges aren’t catching it” he said. “Because the Judges are profiting from it which makes them accessories to it right?” .. “Welll…. yes but that means it is nation wide”…. “Yes it is actually world wide” I said… “Well that is just too big for us to handle”…. “How do you eat an elephant?” I asked…… “One bite at a time” I said. “Ok, go ahead and send me the documents and I’ll see what can be done” Was his answer…
      Are you getting the picture yet there “Steve”…. your silence is wellll “silence is acquiescence” …
      Up Date: A Judge in Fla. Gets it… he said the following “In the case of original mortgages and promissory notes, they are not merely exhibits but instruments which must be surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgement. The judgement takes the place of the promissory note. Surrendering the note is essential so that it cannot thereafter be negotiated.” See Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp. 888 So.2d 725, 726 (fla. 5th DCA 2004)

      BINGO!!!!! Got it now? Or is this judge full of it too??

      Prior to this a Judge in New York said “I see no evidence of physical delivery” … he avoided the actual necessity but did a good first step. There are some honorable men among these Communist thieves!

      I fully intend to sue the Court for my Note… yes, it is my Note and I am the only “holder in due course”. More Later??

      P.S. What do ya gotta say now?? Its OK Steve we were all de-educated in the public indoctrination system… Repent (turn away from and make restitution) and you are forgiven…. Blessings all=may your desires be fulfilled

  6. Steve is an agent. Steve, you cant keep worshiping US corporation because it works for you. The Cock suckers stole their wealth thru escheat, property really belongs to the Indians anyway!! Evil in this nation, your apart of it

    • Yup and Yup… the colonialists where the cast offs being used as an investment to steal the alleged Gold so that England could get out of debt to the banksters….. when there was no gold they were abandoned. Some Indians saw the writing on the wall and slaughtered them… others were kind and gave aid….. and coexisted,for a time but when the banksters (moneychangers) saw “revenues” they sent their minions to destroy, pillage and rape….. Most are innocent morons but for a few evil greedy selfish banksers (money changers, the same that Jesus turned over the tables and whipped…. the only time he used violence in his ministry…. go figure).. My apologies to all indigenous… I’m first generation here and doing all I can to “alter or abolish” this Government and make restitution’s…. but I R is only one man…. Teach the children… that is how we must manifest the future. Give them a choice at least… Thanks all And Blessings=may your desires be fulfilled Colin

  7. The counterclaim you posted is not Vapor Money Theory – it is a counterclaim that the people believe the note was sold – therefore the lender has been paid and has no claim – this is a very different approach than vapor money theory – and can be proven upon securitization audit and discovery. People shouldn’t have to pay attorneys or post bonds in order to ask that these things be in proper order upon someone trying to foreclose – judges should enforce that these things were properly accounted for in order for the banks to have standing to foreclose. It is, after all, THE LAW. Thanks for posting this excellent example. I hope you study more on this.

    • Cheryl,

      The claim that an obligation never existed or can be extinguished with UCC B.S. and straw man theory is all under the vapor money theory for me. The idea that a debt or obligation has been eliminated, even though the person still holds the house is bogus.


      • Let me ask you this Steve….If a bank is allowed to ignore basic Constitutional Law (Article 1 sec. 10) and even Public Law 73-10, and “pretend” to “loan” you anything of value (which is really credit or what you call VAPOR MONEY) in exchange for “valuable consideration” (FRN’s you’ve accepted for sweat labors)… How exactly is there equal consideration…???Is this really about an “obligation” being ELIMINATED…??? If they were given the FRN’s instead… did THAT “eliminate” the OBLIGATION…??? What happens then…???The obligation is indeed VALID… no arguement there!!! But where is the LAW that RESTRICTS the methods of DISCHARGE of said obligation…???I’ve seen some contracts(mortgages) that state plainly (in small text of course)… that YOU WILL AGREE not to mark any payments “Paid in Full”… why would THAT even be an issue…??? Does this “rule” also apply to your FINAL PAYMENT…???HERE’S SOMETHING TO MAYBE CONSIDER FOLKS…..The fact that these Judges, bankers, Lawyers, etc…. do not wish to honor actual LAW as it is written… does not make said laws INVALID!!!Maybe if the courts themselves are not going to honor your LAWFUL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY…. then perhaps you should express your claims in another venue!!!  -thinkaboudid-

      •  Steve, though a lot of stuff is hogwash and a lot sounds like crazy talk, but the fact is that if you use mirrors properly you can deceive everyone except those who use diamonds to cut the glass. This crazyness you refer to is actually not so crazy when you do deep research and read the law and case law. But what gets me is the straight forward easy to understand that a kindigarden kid gets. You borrow some lollypops from a friend and give him an IOU for four lollipops (you only borrowed three). Now he then goes to his moms office and makes copies of that IOU and sells them for three lollipops. So a kid walks up to you and says that your friend sold your IOU to him and you gotta pay up. You of course being a really brilliant rocket scientist, and graduating from college in business and contractt law, ask for the IOU. Upon looking at it you can tell it is a copy by the black lines and the paper is different too. You reply, nope that is not the instrument of debt (IOU)  he gets mad and calls his biker buddyes to beat you up and take your scateboard. You go to your father Steve who tells you your an idiot cause anyone knows that a copy of an instrument is as good adn enforcable as the original, suck it up and tough shit. hmmmmm reall nice “Steve the weave”.
          Why the fuke do you think that the UCC (uniform commercial code) requires a bond to secure the maker when requesting a new Note because they lost the original? Dough, so that if one day someone shows up with the original he is covered. By the way when did anyone doing a home loan believe they were conducting  Commerce? If they were conducting Commerce then it must be a commercial transaction and follow all the commercial rules!!! One of which is to show the use thereof. Now the above is only one of many common sense straight forward wake up calls. If it were not a negitiable instrument of full face value (been in court and bankers, attorneys, etc not once out of 9 times ever refuted the statement), then how is it that it can be sold? You don’t sell something that has no value! Second, when they wrote “pay to the order of ________ without recourse” They altered the instrument .. converted it to bearer paper. Even though that voids the instrument let continue for all those that think they can take a fifty dollar bill and convert it into a 500 dollar bill with no problem…. So now it is “bearer Paper”, now come on all you kindergarteners, what does the word bear mean?  It means that when ya go to the cash window you have to have the instrument or else they wont cash it. Other wise lets just go home and make lots of copies of 50 notes and demand to get paid. So, how on earth can they come to the cashier (judge) and cash at your expense a copy of the instrument?  Hmmm sound like when three bankers all showed up to court at the same time to cash their copy… but in Steve’s world that idiot who made the original should have to pay all three copies cause he is crazy to think he didn’t get something from each.
           Look the thin air thing is this…. If you have a corporation and it is going under and you come to my family to borrow/secure/give credit (full faith and credit) to your company and over the years my family estate is owed millions of dollars by your company and every year you use more credit from my family’s estate to the point where your corporate assets are half what you owe. Now, lets say one of the businesses you own for (which my family estate actually owns, lock stock and barrow and two more time as well) is a hardware store and I go in having the family name and crest and seal to get some supplies. At the cashiers I take the receipt and write something to the effect, “dis-charge against estate debt, sign it and show ID, use the seal or what ever. Are you telling me that as the manager you are going to refuse to let me leave without “paying” for the material? If so then I would foreclose on your company the next morning and go take all the material I want!
            Just so you know I own a hardware store and the guy who sold it to me had just that arrangement except he got it at my cost ta boot.. but it was a good deal so I could stay in business. There are may other customers who had “Credit” at my store and all they did was sign the receipt and at the end of the day I would subtract it from the books of which I owed him!! What a great day it was when he came in and had to pay full price because I finally had discharged my debt to him by him discharging Little amounts over a few years and did not borrow any more money or credit from him!!  Please don;t tell me your such a dim wit as to not understand this simple thing.
            So now, the American People US are the E-State that are the creditors of the whole damn thing and many trillinons of dollars as well… so who the puck do you think can “discharge” for anything they need from the corporation?  The general “value” of one of the people is around 2.8 billion dollars… most have used very little of it and actually most have contributed more because they are being lied to!! Trained to believe we are the debtors/sinners etc while they steal our estate.
           Now Steve I have a copy of your Note.. actually I’m making a few more copies right now so I can go to court, give one to the Judge and another to the attorney and another to the State so that I will get them to whip your ass and take your skateboard…. :-}   truthmonger…
        PS The creator created all this for us and everything created by man is to serve man and never ever harm, injure man or diminish mans happiness. That is the reality of it but pirates have hijacked the ship “estate” and raping and pilliging the land and the people. they now have created Steve World in which a toaster can sue you for not feeding it bread and a keyboard can make a claim against you for hitting the keys too hard (two years min) you bad keyboard assaltits/terrorist…..  That is what is called de facto, by force not Law. worshiping a golden image. or golden statute thing, toaster keyboard, computer, corporation etc.. read Hale vs Hinlkle….Wake up Steve and come alive, stand up for your living breathing brothers and sisters. It all has been paid for a long time ago by our great grand poops and the estate is being run by carpet bangers and thieves. What the Mortgage stuff does is reveal the stuff they have been hiding for so long. BTW, if your an “American” when was the last time you read the Owners manual (declaration of Independence) and again I ask are you an American?  When was the last time you read the operators manual.. it is your Corporation after all!!. we just need to step up and learn to be the Captains of the ship again and whip the crew (pirates) back into shape… lets get busy people!! Indict them for counterfeiting!!.. that is what it is..period and a whole lot more fraud, fraud upon the court, etc etc.
        Blessings=may all your desires be fulfilled


Leave a Comment