Custom Search

Thoughts on Voting

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election; the people who COUNT the votes do." -- Joseph Stalin

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Bernanke Fights Federal Reserve Audit



As a pertinent follow-up to our series of articles exposing the Great American Mortgage Scam, the head of the US central bank said Saturday he was "concerned" by some congressional proposals aimed at regulating the US financial system that infringe upon the powers of the Federal Reserve. SURPRISE! SURPRISE!

"I am concerned, however, that a number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke wrote in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post.

He said some proposals considered by the US Senate as part of attempts to strengthen US government regulation of the financial sector would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers.

He also noted that a House committee had recently voted to repeal a 1978 provision that was intended to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), who has sought to audit the nation's largest bank for nearly 27 years, does not believe Bernanke's fears are substantiated.

"
There is no reason why the world can't know, eventually, what the Fed is doing," he said recently.

His legislation, House Resolution 1207, cleared a key congressional panel on Nov. 19 by a vote of 43 to 26.

"
[It] would require the Government Accountability Office to audit the central bank's interest rate policy, agreements with foreign governments, foreign central banks and the International Monetary Fund," according to MarketWatch. "It also would permit audits of a roughly $800 billion Fed mortgage-backed securities purchase program, which could grow to $1.25 trillion, Paul said."













Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Why I moderate comments:

SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.

Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'.

Friday, November 27, 2009

How You Have Been Conned on Your Mortgage



The articles by The Candid Blogger about The Great American Mortgage Scam and the Follow-up to the Great American Mortgage Scam have brought a huge amount of traffic to this site and, judging from many of the responses, has generated some confusion among our visitors. We are taking this opportunity to provide a simple explanation.


How Mortgages are SUPPOSED to work – this is what SHOULD happen:

You sign a promissory note and the bank gives you the “money”.
You then use that “money” to buy the house.
The bank still fractionalizes the promissory note and turns the $100,000 into $900,000.
The bank then pays the taxes on the $900,000.

That is the understanding that is common to the American public about the real estate purchase process. One minor problem:

WRONG!


Pay attention, Mr. and Mrs. America. You are about to receive a lesson in how the banks con America. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION!


How a mortgage REALLY works

When a mortgage is created, your signature on the promissory note creates the funds. They did not exist before then.

The lender does not transfer “money” – they simply make bookkeeping entries.

The promissory note creates an Accounts Receivable with your name on it and that’s what you pay month after month after month.

The promissory note also creates an Accounts Payable with your name on it. But you never see that account. It’s the account that owes you money.

Did the lender give you the money when you signed the promissory note? Of course not. They “withheld” it from you.

The bank then fractionalizes the promissory note.
Example: A promissory note for $100,000 becomes $1,000,000 when the bank fractionalizes it.

The bank also sells the promissory note. This repays the Accounts Receivable.

The Accounts Payable is not abandoned funds. The bank is suppose to send the borrower an IRS 1099A, Notice of Abandonment, but they don’t.

When you make a monthly payment to the bank, you are actually paying the TAX the bank owes the IRS for the money YOU created, PLUS interest.


Here is one more bit of information of which you were probably not aware:

Foreclosures DO NOT hurt banks in any way. They never risked anything for the creation of the “money” and they never lend any “money”. The “money” is created from your signature.

When you sign a mortgage note it comes under UCC Article 3. After securitization, it comes under Article 8. Under US law securitization is illegal because it is fraudulent. Instruments such as loans, credit cards and receivables, are securitized. Enron was involved in securitization and someone brought charges against them. But almost all large corporations are doing it as usual business, including the banking system and the government.

Under the constitution, the government was not given authority to create money. It is a power reserved by the people. Article I, section 10 restricted the states from making gold coins. So the corporate government has to rely on the deception of people to create money. So the way money is created is to have people sign an IOU, or promissory note. It is not a debt instrument to the one who created it; it is actually an asset. The creator can pass it on for someone else to use. It is negotiable unless it includes terms and conditions as part of a contract. The property belongs to the creator, and the holder is merely using it and any proceeds that come from it should be restored to the creator.

That is the power we have if we realize we have the authority to do this. The intent is to understand the regulations and to see how they are trying to deceive us to believe we are the debtor and the slave and they are the creditor at all times. This is not legally true.



In these recent articles, we have informed you of:

1. how banks create money out of thin air on your signature alone;

2. how they make 10X that amount from just your signature;

3. how they fail to pay you money to which you are legally entitled;

4. how they obtain title to your property illegally by failing to follow through on the Reconveyance required by your Deed of Trust;

5. and how they con you into paying THEIR taxes owed to the IRS in this transaction.


What you do with this information is up to you.


This presentation explores how money is created and issued. Money used to be backed by Gold and Silver but today's money is backed by debt - your promise to pay back a loan and the government's promise to back up the currency.















Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Follow-up on The Great American Mortgage Scam




After yesterday's article on The Great American Mortgage Scam, the Candid Blogger received the following question:

Who would pay your lender 3.24 million (10X) for a 324,000 Note? Nobody would do that.

$342,000 mortgage @ 6% interest for 30 years: Payment = $1,942.54 monthly or $1,942.54 X 12 = $23,310 annually.

30 X $23,310 = $699,300 total payment to holder of the note over 30 years.

You actually believe that someone would give the lender 3.24 million and only get back $700,000 over 30 years?

They would get face value of the note plus some fraction of the $375,000 in interest to be gained over 30 years.

Anyone heard of Common Sense?

Answer:

The Fed has two roles - one to be the issuer of Fed reserve notes, and the other to serve as a cartel organization for the 20 member banks. Federal reserve notes stand for nothing in particular, and to vary their number, the Fed buys or sells bonds to and from the member banks.

Suppose the Fed buys bonds from Chase in the amount of $1000, and Chase previously had the minimum reserve on hand - say it's 10% just for easy numbers. Now Chase can make additional loans from the $1000 cash that has now been added to their reserves. How much can they loan out? $900.

But whoever borrows that money will now deposit it in an account somewhere. For simplicity, say they deposit it at B of A. Now B of A has another $900 on hand, and they loan out $810, which is deposited in B of A, which then loans out $720... This is how we get the 10 times multiplier. That is, the 10 times includes all that the commercial banks create. At the end of this process, $10,000 is created from an original deposit of $1000. It doesn't matter which bank since they are all members of a cartel -- family. Pretty clever, huh?

(By the way, exactly the same thing happens if the original $1000 is in the form of a deposit from my back pocket rather than in the form of the Fed creating reserves, except that now the structure is less stable. The same thing does not happen if it is a deposit from earnings, since then it has to be matched by a withdrawal from the employer's account.)

Now do you see also why the Fed contributes only a small amount to the money creation, mathematically speaking? For every $1000 they create, the banks can then create $10,000.

So, let's go over it again. On a $100K note, they lend out $90K, which is deposited in a bank who can then lend out $81K, which is deposited and then $72K is lent, etc., until 10x the face amount of the original note has been created.

And they can do it all from just your signature on a Note. Now you can see why lenders were so anxious to give loans to any creature that could walk upright and sign their name.











Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

The Great American Mortgage Scam

Protect Your Home

As foreclosures reach record numbers and the poor are blamed for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, the real culprit, the mortgage companies and banks escape. Thousands of Americans have been scammed on their mortgages by a very clever securitization technique employed by lenders. Have you been scammed? Here's an easy way to find out:

The easiest way to determine if your "note" was converted to a negotiable instrument by your Lender and sold or traded is to examine your Note and your Deed of Trust. First, your note will have a date approximately at least one week BEFORE you actually sign it.

In the old days, your Note would say, "For value received..."

If you have a Note that the Lender wanted to convert to a negotiable instrument and make 10X the amount of the Note for themselves, your note will start out:

"In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay ..."

Of course you have not received an electronic transfer to your account, nor a cashier's check, nor any form of payment at all. The LENDER has completed step one of the fraud. They got you to say you already have a loan when you do not.

Step 2 is to get you to say that you own the home free and clear and can deed it to anyone you want. Of course you don't (or do you?)

Check out Page 3 of your Deed of Trust. Under Borrowers Covenants, if it says:
"The borrower covenants that he/she/they are "lawfully seized of the estate."

There it is. You have told the Lender:

1) That you have already received a loan, and
2) That you own your home free and clear of encumbrances.

Based on that, the Lender slaps an allonge on the back and deposits it in their own bank, which considers it just like a cashiers check or pay order and this fractional banking technique will allow the Lender to create 10X the amount of your note. In a common scam transaction, a 1st mortgage of $324K, once sold or traded, earned the Lender $3.24 million, less $400K to pay the seller and commission. Nice payday!

The Lender has been PAID IN FULL for just your signature on the Note.

Of course they ignore the RELEASE section of the Deed of Trust which says that once PAID IN FULL they must then reconvey the property to the Borrower and release the lien. Instead it is "reconveyed" to the Lender who has already been paid in full (10X). He then sits back and gets paid again over 30 years by YOU, the generous fool that gave him the property in the first place.

NICE SCAM.










Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Friday, November 20, 2009

No More Waiting

How stupid it is to wait:












Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

A Simple Solution for Fixing the Economy





This is from an article in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper on Sunday.

The Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would You Fix the Economy?"

I think this guy nailed it! Please find below my suggestion for fixing America's economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

The Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings.
Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars ordered.
Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage.
Housing Crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress and their constituents pay their taxes...

While you're at it, make congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!











Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

A Second Look at the Federal Reserve





Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

G Edward Griffin explains the FEDERAL RESERVE - a total money scam.




This 42-minute video is the beginning of your education. Click below to learn how to put this information to good use in eliminating your mortgage LEGALLY.













Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

House Passes Healthcare Reform Bill




PARTY OF NO SUFFERS CRUSHING DEFEAT


The House floor erupted in one of the loudest cheers the chamber has heard in years when Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), an hour before midnight, cast the 218th and deciding vote on landmark health care reform.

There were still six minutes and fifty-two seconds on the clock and the chair made a move to gavel the vote closed.
Democrats waived their opposition, keeping the vote open.

Almost every eye in the chamber darted to the far end of the GOP side, where the last possibility for a bipartisan bill sat wedged between Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), both of whom were leaning on him, both literally and figuratively.

The White House, two sources told HuffPost, had been working hard to win the vote of Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), a freshman in a strongly Democratic district. The pro-life Cao's vote came into play when an amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) passed overwhelmingly, greatly restricting reproductive rights.

After several minutes, Cao cast a yes vote from his seat, making the bill bipartisan. Reps. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Mike Honda (D-Calif.) waded into the Republican side of the aisle to get to Cao, rub his shoulders and slap him on the back.
Cantor stormed out as the Democrats applauded their defector.


Read more at: HUFFINGTON POST














Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

The Party of NO Really Means It




Republicans have made it a crusade to block any healthcare reform put forth by the Democrats in order to make President Obama fail. They have said it and acted in this manner over and over again. Now, the Party of "NO", led by Emperor of Evil, John "Bonehead" Boehner have put forth their own healthcare reform package. Problem is it doesn't reform much of anything. There is no provision to deal with "pre-existing" conditions, and it has now been revealed that the Republican plan fails to cover 95% of the uninsured. 95%!

The Republican bill, which has no chance of passage, would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 2019, and would leave about 52 million people uninsured, the budget office said, meaning the proportion of non-elderly Americans with coverage would remain about the same as now, at roughly 83%.

The budget office has said that the Democrats’ health care proposal would extend coverage to 36 million people, meaning that 96% of legal residents would have health benefits. The Democrats’ bill would cost $1.1 trillion, with the costs more than covered by revenues from new taxes or cuts in government spending, particularly on Medicare.










Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Click to Report Broken Links or Non-Working Videos