This website is administered by the People’s Property Rights Association.
Banks and Servicers have slowed down in the last couple of months in issuing Notices of Defaults as of August, September and October of 2011. Unfortunately, this has provided many with a false sense of uneasy security. What these institutions have been doing is gathering themselves in preparing their documents in order to proceed further with a new onset of Notices against Homeowners. We, People’s Property Rights Central Association beleive that the majority of the Foreclosure proceedings are illegal and a fraudulent attempt to violate the property rights of people by stealing their homes away from them.
Some have expressed disagreement to the stance that the Banks, Servicers and Trustees are involved in illegal activities and are merely performing the duties within the established agreements. We disagree and state to all of you that are reading this post that the Banks have already been paid and are not disclosing this to you. We are convinced and unyielding that a grand theft is occuring throughout these United States with foreclosures. And all of the people that are concerned about retirement, equity and fallig home values should become aware of the entailed facts about securitization and know the terms and obligations of the agreements that you created.
It is the intention of the People’s Property Rights Association to educate people beginning with this website. Most of us do not realize that the majority of foreclosure actions in the United States are an unauthorized action that not only border on fraud, but actually crosses that line once the property is foreclosed upon. I realize that this can seem like a very inflammatory remark. But it is true and we may able to show you how;
Some time ago around 1872 the United State Supreme Court handed down a decision concerning the case entitled Carpenter v. Longan that was a matter of controversy concerning a promissory note in connection with the mortgage agreement. Here is a excerpt from that case at page 83 U.S. 275
“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity. “
Furthermore, every State and the District of Columbia have adopted and codified into State (jurisdictional) statute Uniform Commercial Code 3-302 & 309.
3-302 HOLDER IN DUE COURSE – (a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if:
- (1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and
- (2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).
3-309 ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED, OR STOLEN INSTRUMENT
- (a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (iii) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
- (b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) Rule 17f-1 — Requirements for Reporting and Inquiry with Respect to Missing, Lost, Counterfeit or Stolen Securities.
I strongly suggest that you look up that S.E.C. rule and remember it the next time a bank, servicer, assignee, transferee, etc. states that they lost the note.
Even better, when homeowners start reading their contracts they will become aware of several things. Some of those things are as follows;
A deed of trust(DoT)/Mortgage Agreement(MA) is ineffective when separated from the promissory note. Why is that you might ask: Well, the promissory note IS the debt, NOT the Deed of Trust/Mortgage Agreement. The Mortgage Agreement/Deed of Trust is the instrument that holds the holders remedy, also known as the power of sale clause. The Mortgage Agreement/Deed of Trust is the instrument that you use to put the house up as collateral to secure the debt. Without the Deed or Mortgage agreement the lender does not have the authority to take your house. They CAN get a judgment against you if they are the holder of the note but a judgment is not a foreclosure.
Picture a gun. All guns have a barrel, trigger housing and chamber where the bullet is loaded and ready to fire. Well, now picture the Deed of Trust as the trigger and the Promissory Note as the rest of the gun. Can you fire without the trigger? No you cannot. Now, the gun can still be used as a weapon, but not for firing bullets.
When the Deed of Trust/Mortgage Agreement are separated, then the DoT/MA is void and of no effect. Therefore, once separated there exist no authority to foreclose. Now, when can you think that the Note and Deed were separated? At the COMMENCEMENT of the ‘loan’ transaction. Look at your Deed of Trust: Is MERS nominated as the beneficiary? When checking the chain of title, did you notice that the Note was allegedly transferred from the Lender while the Deed was transferred from MERS? If they in fact were together, then why were they not transferred to the new entity by the same entity?
This is evidence of the bifurcation. Ask the lender this question: What is the name and address of the holder/owner of the promissory note? Has the Promissory Note been separated from the MA/DoT? If so, is the Deed not null and void? If they were never separated, then were they EVER together? If they were not ever together then you are definitely dealing with two separate transactions; 1) a sale of the Promissory Note to the lender and then, 2) an agreement for a transaction that has not yet been executed. There is no other explanation.
The issue that homeowners are having in court is that they are not overcoming the presumptions of the Court that; 1) Banks are telling the truth (this is why the courts are not requiring them to submit affidavits under penalty of perjury) and, 2) Attorneys are always honest and truthful – though we must realize that attorneys may be able to submit filings for their clients but attorneys CANNOT testify. Only witnesses can testify as to what they have witnessed first hand, or to what they have first hand knowledge. Attorneys are not qualified Bankers. All of their filings could be argued as hearsay or otherwise inadmissible and stricken from the case file.
The People’s Property Rights Association was formed for the purpose to help homeowners deal with these unauthorized actions by banks and to assist in establishing land patents. We help our members correspond with the bank in order to determine if you are in a valid agreement with the bank/lender or servicer. The Elder Council of the People’s Property Rights Association has committed thousands of hours of research or law, finance and reviewed cases across the nation in order to learn how we can help not only homeowners across the nation but inspire those around the world that are facing, or will face, the same issues with banks invading their homes.
Before we close out the information on this page we share this: In order for anyone to initiate and sustain a civil action they must possess standing. One of the elements of standing is “injury”. If the promissory note has been securitized then has the “lender” been tendered payment. Our contention is yes it (lender) has and you have not been informed of this. Is this failure to disclose this element of your ‘transaction’ not a violation of TILA? Has mail fraud been committed? And there is much much more.
See the Authorities page for more cases and law to support the homeowners’ stance.
