Want proof bank has my original note

[Flex69]

The guy who brings up Irish law is telling others to "get educated"?

Q4P.

Yes that would be me, I made a mistake and man enough t say I did. I Also CORRECTED it with the Texas Attorney Generals link. Is that all you have to do is pick out one little piddle of a mistake Hmm I'll even educate folks further about this ridiculous jurisdiction the courts THINK they have over us.


“BAR” stands for “British Accreditation Research”. Thought we were in America under "common Law& oh wait we ARE. The courts play actors and actresses under Meritime and Admiralty Law. We're not in Britain and were not in the middle of the waters. BTW Supreme Court Trumps State Courts which I know you know NOW others will know too. Yup , I'm probably more educated than you. Strike that comment. I KNOW I am.


DEBTORS AND CREDITORS
Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute, permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans is an equity court. Equity court administers commercial law having a debtor/creditor law as the controlling law. All the courts of this once great land have been
Changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in
Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

 

[justalayman]

the guy who brings up irish law is telling others to "get educated"?

Q4p.

i want my like button back!!!!!!

 

[justalayman]

Yes that would be me, I made a mistake and man enough t say I did. I Also CORRECTED it with the Texas Attorney Generals link. Is that all you have to do is pick out one little piddle of a mistake Hmm I'll even educate folks further about this ridiculous jurisdiction the courts THINK they have over us.


“BAR” stands for “British Accreditation Research”. Thought we were in America under "common Law& oh wait we ARE. The courts play actors and actresses under Meritime and Admiralty Law. We're not in Britain and were not in the middle of the waters. BTW Supreme Court Trumps State Courts which I know you know NOW others will know too. Yup , I'm probably more educated than you. Strike that comment. I KNOW I am.


DEBTORS AND CREDITORS
Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute, permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans is an equity court. Equity court administers commercial law having a debtor/creditor law as the controlling law. All the courts of this once great land have been
Changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in
Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. You're one of those sovereign citizen idiots.

What is Meritime law?



As to your explanation of bar;

"Bar" is not an acronym. In courtrooms there is a physical barrier, a "bar," between the portion of the courtroom in which the public is permitted and the portion of the courtroom limited to lawyers and their clients. A lawyer who has been "admitted to the bar" can go on the other side of the bar, into the restricted section of the courtroom.

Referring to old English courts, that is why their attorneys that are allowed to work beyond the bar are called barristers.



As to being more educated than I? You're welcome to start showing it. Otherwise we'll all believe you aren't.

 

[CTU]

He's also talking to a Brit ... this is one of the funniest threads I've read in ages

 

[cbg]

And even the corrected link he posted doesn't say what he claims it says. In fact, it doesn't say anything even remotely close to what he claims it says.

 

[adjusterjack]

And even the corrected link he posted doesn't say what he claims it says. In fact, it doesn't say anything even remotely close to what he claims it says.

That's how it always goes with these "fringe" people.

 

[LdiJ]

The proof is not in my possession. No flames here but Excuse me, I have the RIGHTS to ask. That is MY right. I want to make sure the bank did what they were suppose to do and honestly did not commit fraud. This forum will either help me or I'll continue to dig.

When the banks bought my / your Promissory Note, they did not actually give me / you money. When the banks bought my / your Promissory Note from me / you, they stamped it, “paid to the order of (the third party name) without recourse” and turned it into a check. They took that check and cashed it. They bought the house and I / you got the house. It is just the same as if I / you got the money.

Here is the alleged fraud: they bought everything in their name. I / You sold them the Promissory Note, yes, they paid me / you. They paid the builders, the builder gave me / you the house. The thing is, they bought everything in their name. That is illegal. That is a criminal act in and of itself.

If they upheld the law and did things not as a criminal enterprise –
I / you sold them the Promissory Note, they took the money, they paid for the builder in my / your name, you were given the house in my / your name – this would not have generated the fraud. They were not supposed to purchase anything with that money using their name. They got the Promissory Note. They should have just given me / you the money, but they did all these little tricks to confuse everyone. They did everything in their name to make it look like they were doing the purchase, but they were using my / your money. They were really just an agent for me / you.

The money that they were supposed to give me / you

This being said, I want to see the transactions that took place with and without my consent . Again, I KNOW WE / I Have RIGHTS. Again, no flames just stating facts

Why can't we know? That's a rhetorical question. Because they don't want us to know its all just a big Ponzi scheme. If I get banned for asking these questions, being banned is proof enough that even this forum does not want to give out this procedure. What's the difference if the bank takes me to court or I take them? I asked specific questions only to throw in my face " what makes you think I'm entitled". I didn't ask who was entitled. Why can't you just answer the questions?

You already have everything that proves that everything you just said is absolutely not true. You have your closing packet which has a copy of every document you signed related to the purchase of the house, and those documents clearly shown that the house was purchased by YOU, with a loan from them.

No transactions took place without your consent, because as part of the documents you signed at closing, you gave them permission to sell the note to another bank.

 

[FlyingRon]

Yo I'm just ME expressing my God given rights

As Thomas Jefferson put it, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and production of loan contracts on deamdn.

and refuse to play the "game" and he a piece of commercial property.

You signed on to the "game" when you took out the loan. You agreed to pay it back and you agreed to permit it to be assigned. What you are is a greedy, self-centered, fool who thinks they can get out of what they promissed to do at the detriment of those he was "playing hte game" with and society in general.

 

[FlyingRon]

"Bar" is not an acronym. In courtrooms there is a physical barrier, a "bar," between the portion of the courtroom in which the public is permitted and the portion of the courtroom limited to lawyers and their clients.

Close. It separated the accused (and everybody else) from the judge (or other officiant). The bar was the point to which the accused were called (but not beyond) and the "barristers" were those with the privilege to advocate there. This is why the idiom is alawys "to the bar" or "at the bar" rather than "in front of" or "through."

 

[Stephen1]

You're mistaken. You don't have any such right.

What "right" you have was to be notified by the current holder of your note when they assigned the contract. There are a few other rights you get on the assignment but none include having them produce any proof to you on your demand.

If you think that for some reason a bank that claims to be the proper servicing organization for your loan isn't, you can check it out through MERS:
https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/

The rest of the hyperbole in your post is without legal substance.

FlyingRon, I slightly disagree. As I know of no law that restricts OP's right to ask, then he may have a right to ASK. What he doesn't have is a right that requires the bank/financial institution to answer. I know, it ends up the same place that you went but I just wanted to clarify that OP may ask all he wants. If all he gets is crickets then that is the bank's right.

 

[FlyingRon]

FlyingRon, I slightly disagree. As I know of no law that restricts OP's right to ask, then he may have a right to ASK. What he doesn't have is a right that requires the bank/financial institution to answer. I know, it ends up the same place that you went but I just wanted to clarify that OP may ask all he wants. If all he gets is crickets then that is the bank's right.

I don't know what you're disagreeing with. I never said he didn't have the right to ask. Why don't you read the entire thread?