The man has a couple of acres a few miles west of Mustang, Oklahoma. As Frank has said, unsecured debt is much easier to defeat than is secured debt. J.H. has sent the debt collector a demand for validation long ago and they have not responded so he has a leg up on them already or at least he does until they come up with a full and complete accounting of the debt and that isn't going to be easy for them to do. Frank says he would have no problem going after that little jewel and I'm more than confident that he wouldn't.
I'll also fully support the rest of what he says about there not being any free lunches. I know a great deal more about Frank then he probably realizes and one thing I can tell you for sure is that Frank Mumma is nobody's fool. He knows what he is talking about.
fmumma@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> Creditwrench wrote;
>
> "I have seen one case where a man got his mortgage released and thought he had gotten his home for free only to find out later that they were coming after him for the deficiency balance on the note. All they did was[ turn the note into an "unsecured" instrument ]and proceed to collect on that"
>
> I agree with what creditwrench said, but I wish to make a comment on what he said above.
>
> It is my experience it's much easier dealing with the issue as an unsecured loan than secured. I would have no problem going after that little jewel, considering the SOP of the banking community as it relates to unsecured debt instruments, or the evidence thereof. I would say however, that there is no free lunch. Anyone attempting to go down the path, attempting to get a free and clear home in a foreclosure action, must be prepared to spend both time and money for the next couple to few years researching, legal writing, litigating and working late hours, all without the guarantee of a victory. And this all is assuming you are already familiar with court procedure and rules. However, that does not mean it can't be done because obviously it has, if only a few times. If there is an easier less expensive way to "skin the same cat' then I obviously don't know it...yet.
>
> My personal preference is, why wait to be in foreclosure before you "take it to the banks"? It seems to me, it would be more appropriate to be the plaintiff rather than the defendant. Either way, you're going to use discovery as your main tool to uncover the truth of the particulars of "your alleged loan". This is a easy statement to make unless one understands the complexities and gravity of such a statement. But, then again, you will need to be thoroughly cogent with the rules of court, trial practice, motion practice & procedure, rules of professional conduct, judicial cannons, appellate procedure just to name a few skills. Next, to be a formidable challenge to a bank attorney or law firm, one had better understand how to properly and effectively orally argue what they go before a judge, who in most cases is already biased because he doesn't understand why you should get a free and clear house, when he has to pay on his "loan" or so he thinks! I know this sounds simple, but it isn't.
>
> Therefore, anyone embarking on this issue will indeed "sacrifice" something, it is just a matter of how much for how long, and for what in return. But I will also say, it is NEVER over until YOU say it is over!
>
> May the Father of all creation, in the name of Jesus Christ, give you wisdom and understanding of this subject to be a blessing to others.
>
>
> Frank
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "creditwrench"
> To: MYRLANDsMETHODs@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:20:27 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [MYRLANDsMETHODs] Please Help Fighting Foreclosure Fraud-Past Present and Future,
>
>
>
> Patty is correct in saying that the deed of trust and the note are never kept together. But in most situations there is a mortgage and a note and no deed of trust.
> Although they are treated as going together hand in hand, the note and the mortgage are two separate things. The note is the obligatory instrument and the mortgage is the security for the note.
> The two can be separated leaving the note to stand on it's own as an unsecured note. It has been claimed that once the note is sold on the securities and exchange markets the note and the mortgage become essentially separated and the note then stands alone as an unsecured note. I'm not going to argue that one way or the other but it does seem to make sense because in those cases where the note has been sold it simply becomes part of a large pool of notes and the pool is split up into tranches or pieces of the pie ostensibly worth $25,000 per tranch. So once the note is merged with dozens of other notes of similar quality then how can it stand as a separate document ever again?
>
> Treason? Act of war? fraud? I think you would have to prove each and every such allegation and that is going to be impossible to do in any court of law. First of all no private citizen has the power or authority to bring such charges as treason or declare anything to be an act of war. Although several of our presidents have declared war without the authorizaton of congress to do so, the legal theory is that only congress can declare war. So if you wish to use such terms you might as well throw in rape and a few other charges that would be equally silly in strictly legal terms. Rape, in fact just might be a more fitting name for what is done to us in the process. Most people would understand that concept much easier than they would treason or act of way.(LOL).
>
> The only problem with calling what happens "rape" is that you cannot rape a willing soul and at the time the borrower entered into the agreement s/he was a willing soul.
>
> I'll also agree that all of the information anyone needs to defend against a foreclosure is easily available on the internet for free. It is also easily available for free in any university law school library.
> There is absolutely no need to pay anyone $500 or any other amount of money to tell you exactly what you gotta do to start living in your house with no more payments based on the fraud in that contract either. That information is also freely available on the internet. All you have to do is find it and learn how to use it in a matter of about 30 days or less. That is usually about the amount of time the courts allow the defendant to prepare their response and file it with the court or be deemed in default. Most people either never look for that information or if they do they spend about 20 some odd days wringing their hands and wondering what to do and then expect to find that information or someone who has the knowledge to teach them what they need to do. They also often spend 20 or more of their allotted number of days trying in vain to find someone to refinance the home or in filing bankruptcy in a useless attempt to save the home then when that fails they want someone to pull their fat out of the fire and get fleeced as a result of their panic. Getting fleeced does not necessarily mean that they pay someone a high price and get useless junk for information. Needlessly losing the home is also getting fleeced. But one of the surest signs that one is about to get fleeced is some idiot trying to tell them they can get their home free and clear without making any more payments for only $500 or for any other sum of money or even for free. That simply isn't likely to happen under any circumstances. In most cases the very best they can hope for is keep the home, possibly get a lowered interest rate, lowered monthly payments and maybe foregiveness of some of the outrageous fees that have been tacked on to them.
>
> Get the home for free? I've heard claims of that having happened but in dealing with several hundred foreclosure cases I have yet to see it actually happen. I have seen one case where a man got his mortgage released and thought he had gotten his home for free only to find out later that they were coming after him for the deficiency balance on the note. All they did was turn the note into an unsecured instrument and proceed to collect on that. The final chapter on that story is not in yet but in the event they were to be successful they would simply put a lien on the property and he would be right back where he started. The chances that they can get the judgment against him are about 99% in their favor because he has no defense against a demand for judgment on the note which he did not pay.
>
> Can he end up winning against the future plaintiff even though he loses in local court and gets a judgment and lien on the property? Yes, it is possible but in order to do that he will have to end up taking them to federal court and winning there.
>
> If you want to win for free then the time to start learning how to do it is the next day after the closing on the property, not the next day after you get your invitation to the next session of court.
>
>
> Patty,
>
> You are absolutely right! The problem is that there are those on these groups who make their living by shearing the sheeple and spewing this info in hopes of keeping their clippers going. At the cost of $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $6,000 per shearing just to have someone present a contract to save a few dollars on the monthly payment and add the past due payments back on to the principle and then the bottom feeders have a legitimate contract to take in to the court and prevail legitimately in the next attempt to repossess the home. There are places to get this information for free. There are other people who charge $500 to analyze your contract and tell you exactly what you gotta do to start living in your house with no more payments based on the fraud in that contract. It's hard for knowledgeable people such as yourself to get the word out when there are so many disinfo specialists slamming you every time you attempt to help someone. It is my hope that people will pay attention to what we say and do little bit of research and save themselves thousands of dollars and most likely will start them on the path to more research that will lead them to the truth of the fraud that is committed against us every day by the government. (Banksters)
>
> DeLoyd
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/15/10, Patricia Johnson
>
>
> From: Patricia Johnson
> Subject: Re: [MYRLANDsMETHODs] Please Help Fighting Foreclosure Fraud-Past Present and Future,
> To: MYRLANDsMETHODs@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 10:52 AM
>
>
>
> beating lenders out of their money? Look, the deed of trust and the promissory note are never kept together, as has been proven on numerous occasions. They are two separate and distinct items in the transaction. The bank takes your pn and does a currency exchange, which paid for the house. Now, the doc's you sign generally state somewhere in the beginning, "For a loan I have received", don't they? If the currency exchange took care of the purchase, where's the loan? Can the bank show you any loan they made? Then, to make matters even more complicated, they file false documents with the counties claiming they have a securitized loan interest in your property. If they can't prove that a loan was ever made, then these false filings are acts of terrorism and possibly treason when they try to steal your house without having a verified claim of interest. furthermore, if there is a foreign bank entity making the claim then under the Patriot Act they've just committed not only a terrorist act but a technical act of war. Prove me wrong if you can.
>
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM, creditwrench
>
One mad hatter scheme to defraud creditors never varies much from the other. The only major difference is in the cost of the scam. Any time someone assures you that you do not owe the lender and they can show you why you don't owe the money the end result is that you are being taken for a sucker.
>
I have won so many foreclosure cases that I long ago lost count but only one has ever gotten their home for free and even then they didn't really get it for free. The banker simply got tired of fighting and gave the man his mortgage free and clear then turned around and is now trying to collect for the full amount owed on the unsecured note. So how have my students won? They got to stay in their homes, got their mortgage refinanced at a lower interest rate and better terms that they could afford to pay and maybe other small concessions but not one of them ever got anything for free. Some of them got substantial reductions in the total amount owed as well but they still didn't get their homes for free. Winning against a foreclosure action does not normally mean that you get to beat the lender out of all of his money.
> The allegation that John Stuart corrected Mr. Tran is of no consequence whatever if Stuart does so for the purpose of convincing people that his method of beating lenders out of their money is somehow better than Tran's.
>
> When someone comes to me for help the first thing I tell them is that they are not going to get their homes for free no matter what they do. It is the same with credit card cases and auto reposession cases as well although the chances of of total win are much greater. I always tell people who come to me for help in those kinds of cases that they are going to lose in local court almost no matter what they do. I currently have a student who was sued here in Oklahoma and a judgment was rendered against them and now a garnishment has been placed against their wages. I can probably teach them how to put a stop to the garnishments and get the judgment overturned but the only reason that might be possible is because the creditor filed in the wrong county and the court had no geographical jurisdiction to issue the judgment or order the garnishment therefore we might get it vacated. Even if we do get it vacated that will not stop the creditor from refiling the case in the proper court but we can deal with that when the time comes. They are also in foreclosure and maybe we can get the foreclosure stopped and keep them in their home.
>
> There are no magic bullets out there that have not been thought of long, long ago. If a debtor can win it is only because somebody else did something wrong in the case and the defendant or whoever is helping them can spot the mistakes the other party makes and use that to the greatest extent possible. Coming up with a new scam or an new twist on an old scam is what ruins credibility. Exposing that scam for what it is does not detract from one's credibility except in the eyes of the gullible who will jump at every opportunity to snatch the incredible and impossible dream and the incredible always becomes more credible if religion can somehow be brought into the mix. We have one or more religious nuts on this and most other such forums. The problem with that is that the Lord said he wanted religious fruit, not religious nuts. If someone chooses to believe every nutcase theory that comes along there isn't much anybody can do about it except to attempt to shine some light on the dunghill.
>
Legisman's comments are totally without merit or proof. Check the material for yourselves, then decide. Creditwrench, you seem to confuse John Stuart and George Tran as somehow being related to similar material and information. Mr Stuart corrected Mr Tran on the errors in the "Tran" process quite firmly. Obviously you paid no attention to that fact. Tran's process was a la the late Jerry Kane, which Stuart objected to in the same way he objected to the Tappert materials and process. You both need to get your facts and people straight, you're credibility hinges on what people read and understand from what you "think" you know.
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:00 PM, creditwrench
> What you say about Legisman may or may not be true. The statement that John Stuart has more knowledge in his left big toe than Legisman has in that decimated little pea he calls a brain may or may not also be true Left big toes often smart quite a lot after they have been stubbed against the hard furniture of true knowledge. John Stuart's toes should be smarting a great deal after this latest round of Bull crap.
> It is obvious that neither John Stuart, or George Tran have any idea of how loans are made. Mock trials that ostensibly work out exactly the way their authors intend them to work out are the stuff of which legal buffoonery is made but have absolutely no validity in real life trials. How money is created has nothing to do with whether or not the defendant has defaulted on his contractual agreement with the lender which is the only question before the court when the plaintiff brings suit for non payment of an alleged debt.
As can be readily seen by anyone having big left toes and half a brain and using it to check the quality and content of the material presented by the awesome John Stuart or the awesome George Tran will quickly see that the whole thing is nothing but a scam, free or not. The obvious facts are that the bank does not loan it's own money nor that of their depositors and they furthermore do not loan their credit.
What they loan is money obtained from investors under false pretenses. The money the government used in the bailout was also obtained from investors under false pretenses, most of which has already been paid back to the government by the banks with money also obtained from investors under false pretenses.
If I can convince a few loan brokers and realtors that I have money to loan for home mortgages and I can convince a few investors to invest their money with me with the hope of making good money on their investments I don't need any money of my own. I can use the money the investors loaned me to buy the mortgages from the realtors and have the loan brokers send me their customers to get financed I don't need to invest a crying dime of my own money. All I got to do is play the old shell game with the money and pocket a percentage for my time and trouble and the whole process will grow like melons on a vine and that is exactly what happened.
>
> It don't even make any difference whether a few people default on their mortgages or not because I can switch in performing notes for the ones that defaulted, foreclose on the defaulters and resell the homes to the next sucker that comes along. All it takes is a constant stream of people willing to step up to the plate and buy the homes. There won't be any problems so long as people want homes and a very small percentage of them default. The problems came when massive numbers of people started to default because the economy went south and the economy went south with NAFTA and GATT. When enough people lost their jobs because the jobs went to Mexico, South America, China and elsewhere then the problems started to become so great that the scheme could no longer be supported.
>
Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies; information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of email transmission.
