‘SUBPRIME’ ‘SLIDE’ THAT MASKS FRAUDULENT FINANCE - ‘THE MONEY YOU MAKE BY ILLEGALLY USING MY MONEY, IS MY MONEY’ *LINK*

Subject: 
‘SUBPRIME’ ‘SLIDE’ THAT MASKS FRAUDULENT FINANCE - ‘THE MONEY YOU MAKE BY ILLEGALLY USING MY MONEY, IS MY MONEY’ *LINK*
Posted By: 
TNT MadDog
Date: 
Thursday, December 27, 2007 (All day)

[ OLD LINK REMOVED ]

- SHORT SNIP -

‘SUBPRIME’ ‘SLIDE’ THAT MASKS FRAUDULENT FINANCE
‘THE MONEY YOU MAKE BY ILLEGALLY USING MY MONEY, IS MY MONEY’
Wednesday 26 December 2007 21:31

A PRELIMINARY DECONSTRUCTION OF THE CORRUPTION THAT UNDERLIES THE ‘SUBPRIME CRISIS’ AND THE ‘CREDIT CRUNCH’: THE EXTREME GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS EXPLAINED

BECAUSE OF 'FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT', NO VALID CONTRACT UNDERLAY THE PACKAGED MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS, SO THE DEALS ARE NULL AND VOID, THE PAPER WORTHLESS

By Christopher Story FRSA, Editor and Publisher, International Currency Review, World Reports Limited, London and New York: [ OLD LINK REMOVED ]. Press NEWS and the ARCHIVE Button on the [ OLD LINK REMOVED ] Home Page for 'Wantagate' reports since April 2006. [Note: A new panel giving details of our latest publications as they are made available, has been added].

• Please Make a Donation to help finance Christopher Story's ongoing financial global corruption investigations. Your assistance will be very sincerely appreciated and will make a real difference, hastening the necessary resolution of the worst financial corruption and global financial crisis in history. This website has been calling the shots, because of the hijacking of Wanta's Settlement.

THE “SUBPRIME CRISIS’ ‘SLIDE’ THAT COVERS UP THE INGENIOUS FINANCIAL FRAUDS
The sudden widespread use of the catchphrase ‘subprime’ mortgages since July 2007 has served the same purpose as your typical CIA ‘slide’ – that is to say, a prepackaged, ‘politically correct’ obfuscatory ‘take’ on a given set of circumstances that is formulated in such a way as to preclude further thought and investigation. While of course the existence of ‘subprime’ mortgages is very real, the universal acceptance by the media of this phrase as a comprehensive ‘explanation’ for all the financial sector horrors that have ensued – from the credit crunch to mounting bankruptcies and systemic problems at money center banks – has served the same function as a ‘slide’, which is a cynical term developed by US criminalised intelligence to describe and justify a given Psy-Ops ‘product’ fed to the Goyim or the masses, who have no clue that what they are being told is either false or else ‘economical with the truth’.

It is true, however, that the value of US ‘subprime’ mortgages is estimated at $1.3 trillion, with over 7.5 million of such mortgages currently outstanding.

More than 320,000 foreclosures were initiated during each of the first two quarters of 2007, most of which were related to subprime property loans, compared with the typical annual foreclosure level of 225,000 over the past six years. Approximately 16% of ‘subprime’ loans having adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) were 90 days into default or in foreclosure proceedings, as of October 2007, which was triple the rate observed in 2005.

OUTLINE OF A TYPICAL TRANSACTION
It is likely (and should by now be becoming cystal clear) that tens of thousands of FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT complaints will be filed by US borrowers against lenders and mortgage brokers who have energetically sold adjustable mortgage arrangements without income verification and other checks, because the lenders and mortgage brokers possessed information on their prospective borrowers that the intended contracted mortgage loan would be unserviceable by the prospective borrower, on the basis of the lenders’ and brokers’ own financial due diligence that they did not share with the borrower. In such instances, if ruled, then a meeting of minds did not take place and accordingly, no contract ever existed.

This is exactly the line that some Judges are now taking: see Appendix A to this report.
Appendix B discusses the Law of Voids in the United States.

In such instances, the borrower will have to vacate the premises, which were never theirs anyway, but will not be responsible for making any payments on the property to anyone. The borrower should also be awarded repayment of any and all mortgage payments they may have made on the property, inclusive of all origination fees, property taxes, recording fees, mandatory insurance premia, plus multiple damages from both the lender and the mortgage broker. There would also need to be NO negative impact upon the borrower’s credit file and rating.

DECONSTRUCTION SPOTLIGHTS THE SEETHING MASS OF FRAUD
When these transactions are deconstructed, a horrific nexus of fraud becomes apparent. Once upon a time, the borrower sat down at the closing table at the escrow company. He did NOT own the property when he sat down at the table.

Yet, all of a sudden, he miraculously owns the property, free and clear of all encumbrances: otherwise, how could he mortgage it? The borrower has signed an agreement stating inter alia that ‘for good and valuable consideration, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED’, and being fully seized in the property (which means fully owning it without any encumbrance) ‘I, the borrower, do hereby enter into this agreement to mortgage said property as fullY described in this document by virtue of my appointment as trustor, and do appoint as trustee irrevocably for this purpose’ (the name of the trustee who works for the title company handling the transaction).

Let us pause here. A document has been written which clearly states that the buyer admits to having received ‘consideration’ of some type PRIOR to this point in time – in exchange for WHAT? He admits that he owns the property free of all debt, otherwise he could not mortgage it. The escrow company agrees with him that the property at this point is free and clear of debt, or else they could not serve as the intermediary fiduciary party certifying these assertions as facts.

But this begs the very obvious question: if the borrower already owns the property, why does he need the mortgage, unless he is borrowing money to be used for some other private purpose of his? If he uses the property as collateral for the loan, when does he receive the money? Has the borrower, or has any party involved, EVER received the money from the mortgagee?

• The answer is NO!

THE ESSENCE OF THE FRAUD
What has actually happened is that the borrower’s promissory note was immediately monetised by stamping ‘Pay to the order of’ on the reverse of the promissory note, which was then deposited as cash into a deposit account at a bank. The borrower was never told that this occurred.

• This ‘stamping’ procedure amounts to an ACT OF CONVERSION.

Furthermore, the very ACT OF ALTERING A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT after the signature of the payer or original issuer, VOIDS THE INSTRUMENT.

The next thing that happens, again without the knowledge of the buyer, is that the bank opens a transaction account based on the cash deposit of the buyer, and from this transaction account, using the bank’s name on a bank check, the check is issued to the seller in the agreed amount according to the sale figures.

• The numbers are of course all just bookkeeping entries, which simply debit the depositor’s account by the amount of the bank check.

The seller leaves the escrow office with check in hand, which he then proceeds to deposit in his checking account, whereupon his bank balance increases via bookkeeping entry, while the issuing bank’s transaction account is debited via a bookkeeping entry.

- END SNIP -

READ ARTICLE AT LINK BELOW: