Consider More Foreclosure Arguments

  1. In MBS securities offering the objective is to capitalize on the value of the bond held to maturity.  A mortgage with a face value of $1,000 per loan amount that is amortized over 30 years is valued at zero. If you shortened the amortization over 10 years and were to reverse the order of principal pay down, from zero to $1,000, you would have formed a 10 year bond. This effort mirrors the interst accrual held in the promissory note that matches or joins the two instruments over an average 10 year mark.  What transpires subsequent to settlement is the creation of two notes of which one is held to borrower servicing rights and the other is held to the reverse order of the notes amortization.
  2. This new age form of securitization electronically tenders the deed and causes the lender to become the grantee for purposes of bond and becoming the obligor. Changing the instrument that was recorded in county records to digital form while changing the substance of the document , does IN FACT change the legal interpretation of the electronic record The states have developed their own interpretations of deeds, and it is presumed that those interpretations carry over to electronic instruments in the next cycle of conveyance.  How woefully incorrect is this assessment.
  3. It would be foolish to throw out the years of interpretation of deeds simply because the document has been changed from paper to a digital electronic form, which is denominated an electronic record. The member bank and no bank affiliates have no less done something foolish that links each party in compliance to a criminal inquiry whereby they have avoided the US Congress and Senate It would be foolish to throw out the years of interpretation of deeds simply because the document has been changed from paper to a digital electronic form, which is denominated an electronicrecord 13
  4. The obligor is then held to the warehouse line which is converted to a bond. Therefore the obligor, lender is indebted to a second obligor who is the FDIC member bank who is obligated by pledge to the bond holder who is a foreign national bank. Hence the law is longstanding where the mortgagor has conveyed the title to another, and this in turn to a second party, each party in turn assuming the subject matter debt. The supreme court of Illinois [1]said that each subsequent purchaser became an original promisor for the payment of the mortgage debt and the original mortgagor became a surety for its payment to the creditor who here is the bond holder.
  5. The purpose of MersCorp is therefore to conceal the Butler transactions in its entirety in order to restore a conventional mortgage understanding for the court at time of foreclosure. This in the very least destroys the non judicial framework, under a false and implied seizure of title under the uniform commercial instrument that robs the state of its sovereignty over a power of sale.    After such transfers have taken place the mortgagee in some states is bound to recognize the relations of the principal and surety, and if he extends time of payment to the principal here the transferee, the mortgagor is thereby released from his liability.
Write us at
ID_Accountant @yahoo.com


[1] The supreme court of Illinois Flagg v. Geltmacher , 98 Ill 293

Advertisements

One thought on “Consider More Foreclosure Arguments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s