Counter-terrorism

Opinionated?

Before you get idea about me and claim as some have, that I am giving an opinion here, or on this website, and decide that I am not qualified to do such? Well duh? Is this not my website? 1st Amendment? May I remind you, the Lord provided us all with an ability of understanding, and a mind to do it with. If you research this yourself, you may have an opinion in the same fashion, or possibly similar to mine, or even better. It is about understanding, not opinion. As it is said; "Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one". Including judges. Oh, and I need to warn you, this website can be offensive to closed minds. Keep in mind, I am only a voice in the wildreness shouting at the gospel of man's iniquities even though I am shouting through the clouds.

Judicial things to Ponder

Even though "Right to Trial by Jury" is in the Bill of Rights, it makes one wonder how a judge upholds his oath "to God" to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution?

IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS,
I,____________ , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.

With that in mind, why does the judge violate his/her oath and ignore Article 5, section 10, part of which the judge swore to "preserve, protect, and defend"?

Article 5, section 10, Texas Constitution

Sec. 10. TRIAL BY JURY. In the trial of all causes in the District Courts, the plaintiff or defendant shall, upon application made in open court, have the right of trial by jury; but no jury shall be empaneled in any civil case unless demanded by a party to the case, and a jury fee be paid by the party demanding a jury, for such sum, and with such exceptions as may be prescribed by the Legislature.

Would this denial of trial by jury by a judge violate the constiution twice? One count in Bill of Rights, one count in Aricle 5, section 10? Would it violate the U.S. Constitution? So many things to ponder when looking into the hearts of men?

It is all about rights......... If you ignore the Constitution, you are violating the rights of many. If you ignore the Constitution to commit crimes, you are now holding prisoners against their will as you cannot commit crimes while punishing others for crime comitted like yours, and you hold a "free pass"? The Law may allow, but your consequences are unknown.

Things to Ponder too...

I've stated it before, and I'll state it again. The private registry parties are similar to "account debtors" and "creditors" defined in the Uniform Commercial Code. If you feel this to be in error, look at Texas UETA, chapter 322, section 016, subsection (e), of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. 322.016(e) states;

(e) Except as otherwise agreed, an obligor under a transferable record has the same rights and defenses as an equivalent obligor under equivalent records or writings under the Uniform Commercial Code.

Do you think Texas UETA is defining an obligor to a real property mortgage loan? The UCC does not apply to real property transactions. Oh, and you will find this certain wording within 15 USC 7021(e)

Oh, and why does E-SIGN not provide idenity to who the "issuer" is for an Authoritative Copy? 

NEW - Was the "Note" even "negotiable"

New - "Rights"

New - "Man's Law"

New - "Snake-Oil Salesman" - Tommy Bastian at it again.......

Texas Difficulties

Why is it so difficult to obtain justice through the court system against a private registry that Mutilated Every Recordation Statute in Texas? Here is why. Texas courts purportedly follow the enacted laws of the Texas Legislature. So who keeps the Texas Legislature, and its enactments in check with the rights guaranteed by the Texas Constitution? The Texas Constitution shows the way; Look at Article 3, section 43(b)

Sec. 43. REVISION OF LAWS. (a) The Legislature shall provide for revising, digesting and publishing the laws, civil and criminal; provided, that in the adoption of and giving effect to any such digest or revision, the Legislature shall not be limited by sections 35 and 36 of this Article.

(b) In this section, "revision" includes a revision of the statutes on a particular subject and any enactment having the purpose, declared in the enactment, of codifying without substantive change statutes that individually relate to different subjects.

(Subsec. (a) amended and (b) added Nov. 4, 1986.)

Did the Texas Legislature overlook section 35(b)?

Sec. 35. SUBJECTS AND TITLES OF BILLS. (a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.

(b) The rules of procedure of each house shall require that the subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the rule.

(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title.

(Subsec. (a) amended and (b) and (c) added Nov. 4, 1986.)

As the future [now] has revealed the past [then], the "subject" was not really about whom could initiate foreclosure, the subject of chapter 51 is about a private registry used for private transactions between an account debtor and a creditor, conducting transactions electronically. An alleged "holder of a security instrument", and not an alleged holder of a debt as the statute once provided prior to the amendment in 2004, yet still "holder of the debt" is evident in certain parts of chapter 51 purportedly enacted prior to 2004 and cited as such; "Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1020, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1995"

EMERGENCY 911

Even during an emergency, the Bill of Rights, in the Constitution of Texas rules as so stated in section 62. Why was it so constructively impaired prior to any emergency?

Provided, however, that Article I of the Constitution of Texas, known as the "Bill of Rights" shall not be in any manner affected, amended, impaired, suspended, repealed or suspended hereby.

Many subsections of Article 3, Section 56 come into question with the currently enacted chapter 51 of Texas Property Code.

In Texas long, long ago....

As far back as 1840, Texas has continued a recordation system statute for each local government and there was no need to replace the current Texas recordation statutes with a private registry defined as a "national book entry system", in 2004.

On September 1, 2004 elected officials allowed grave errors to be placed into chapter 51 of the Texas Property code, that would become superior to long established recordation statutes within the Texas Local Government Code.

The current foreign entity being alluded to as a "book entry system" cannot prove it meets the definition within state or federal definitions of "national book entry system". To do so, state law would preempt federal law, which would usurp federal law, which would usurp securities law. Texas has no statutory definition of "national book entry system" in itself.

Chapter 51 provides for a definition of "book entry system" which allows a non-defined private registry to use the Texas Property code for the benefit of a non-defined private registry, or its members. The private registry cannot be defined as a "national book entry system", that definition is held for securities transactions regulated by the Federal Reserve, Securities & Exchange Commission, or other federally related securities agency regulations.

Chapter 51 allows an open opportunity for the private registry to record instruments of an unknown chain of title to many deed of trust in Texas, and such purported "known chain of title", is only known by the private registry, and not through the recordation statutes.  This avenue is offered for the private registry, and can be observed in 51.0001(4)(C).

Chapter 51 allows a private registry to bypass recordation fees which are an integral part of revenue for such county clerk’s duties in Texas. This certain chapter 51 also allows the private registry to bypass filing fees to the secretary of state.

Chapter 51 does not allow the requirements of chapter 192.007(a) of the Texas Local Government code to be fulfilled according to long established local statutory law. Allowing such private registry to replace the Texas recordation statutes denies equality of law for the people of the state of Texas. 

Chapter 51 allows for unknown parties of a private registry to enforce a deed of trust without the need of the promissory note the deed of trust was supposed to be attached to achieve the secured creditor status of the indebtedness as once noticed constructively in public records at origination of its recordation. This can be observed within section 51.0001, subsections (1) through (8).

Chapter 51 allows for a private registry to be called a “beneficiary”, “nominee”, “mortgagee” in a deed of trust, while Texas defines the private registry as a “book entry system” causing a confusion as to what the private registry is, a private registry. If this were as simple as a title, why was “beneficiary”, “nominee”, “mortgagee”, “holder of the security instrument”, not defined, or disclosed, that the private registry was such book entry system in the deed of trust? Silence hum's from the private registry?

Still Don't think anything is wrong?

If this has not helped you understand electronic promissory notes in a private registry are not supported by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, maybe you should read this letter addressing Article 3 among other articles, to be changed to allow for electronic negotiable instruments. Read it, you may see some strong selling on the electronic negotiable instrument part, even if it did fail in results? It started like this;

"Dear Gentlemen:
The undersigned financial institution organizations are writing to you to urge that electronic negotiable instruments be included within the scope of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) current effort to revise UCC Articles3 and 4. We believe this UCC Article3 and 4 revision project represents a unique and critical opportunity for NCCUSL to provide leadership to the states and the financial institution community on the timely and important issue of electronic negotiable instruments.

We were quite surprised by the announcement this spring that it had been preliminarily decided not to include electronic negotiable instruments within the scope of the UCC Articles3 and 4 revision project.

Blah, blah, blah

Electronic Negotiable Instruments never made it to Article 3, and reference to Article 3 in 15 USC 7021(a)(1)(A) was never taken out. Neither was it taken out of the Texas UETA. In fact, Article 7, Documents of Title was added to Texas UETA? That goes beyond E-SIGN boundaries.

Ponder this statement; and replace "usage", except one use, with MERS; "It seems then, that the issue here is not just related to time but it is mainly related to usage. The frequent practice of a usage turns it into a custom. Some usages [of  MERS] may require a long time to become a custom, whilst others may take a much shorter time. As such, the custom of operating transactions through electronic documents is likely to be upheld by courts in common law systems as well as by tribunals in civil law systems." How true as seen 17 years later. That statement was written back in 1999. The paper was about negotiable of documents of title. Yes, it is from another country, the laws would be different, but how similar would the laws be in the U.S.?  What is MERS doing?

Read it yourself

UNIFORM ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT (1999)

Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS

and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES

at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-EIGHTH YEAR IN DENVER, COLORADO JULY 23 – 30, 1999  WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS

See Legislative Note below – Following Comments.

Comment [Emphasis added]

1. The scope of this Act is inherently limited by the fact that it only applies to transactions related to business, commercial (including consumer) and governmental matters. Consequently, transactions with no relation to business, commercial or governmental transactions would not be subject to this Act. Unilaterally generated electronic records and signatures which are not part of a transaction also are not covered by this Act. See Section 2, Comment 12.

2. This Act affects the medium in which information, records and signatures may be presented and retained under current legal requirements. While this Act covers all electronic records and signatures which are used in a business, commercial (including consumer) or governmental transaction, the operative provisions of the Act relate to requirements for writings and signatures under other laws. Accordingly, the exclusions in subsection (b) focus on those legal rules imposing certain writing and signature requirements which will not be affected by this Act.

3. The exclusions listed in subsection (b) provide clarity and certainty regarding the laws which are and are not affected by this Act. This section provides that transactions subject to specific laws are unaffected by this Act and leaves the balance subject to this Act.

4. Paragraph (1) excludes wills, codicils and testamentary trusts. This exclusion is largely salutary given the unilateral context in which such records are generally created and the unlikely use of such records in a transaction as defined in this Act (i.e., actions taken by two or more persons in the context of business, commercial or governmental affairs). Paragraph (2) excludes all of the Uniform Commercial Code other than UCC Sections 1-107 and 1-206, and Articles 2 and 2A. This Act does not apply to the excluded UCC articles, whether in “current” or “revised” form. The Act does apply to UCC Articles 2 and 2A and to UCC Sections 1-107 and 1-206.

5. Articles 3, 4 and 4A of the UCC impact payment systems and have specifically been removed from the coverage of this Act. The check collection and electronic fund transfer systems governed by Articles 3, 4 and 4A involve systems and relationships involving numerous parties beyond the parties to the underlying contract. The impact of validating electronic media in such systems involves considerations beyond the scope of this Act. Articles 5, 8 and 9 have been excluded because the revision process relating to those Articles included significant consideration of electronic practices. Paragraph 4 provides for exclusion from this Act of the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) because the drafting process of that Act also included significant consideration of electronic contracting provisions.

6. The very limited application of this Act to Transferable Records in Section 16 does not affect payment systems, and the section is designed to apply to a transaction only through express agreement of the parties. The exclusion of Articles 3 and 4 will not affect the Act’s coverage of Transferable Records. Section 16 is designed to allow for the development of systems which will provide “control” as defined in Section 16. Such control is necessary as a substitute for the idea of possession which undergirds negotiable instrument law. The technology has yet to be developed which will allow for the possession of a unique electronic token embodying the rights associated with a negotiable promissory note. Section 16’s concept of control is intended as a substitute for possession. The provisions in Section 16 operate as free standing rules, establishing the rights of parties using Transferable Records under this Act. The references in Section 16 to UCC Sections 3-302, 7-501, and 9-308 (R9-330(d)) are designed to incorporate the substance of those provisions into this Act for the limited purposes noted in Section 16(c). Accordingly, an electronic record which is also a Transferable Record, would not be used for purposes of a transaction governed by Articles 3, 4, or 9, but would be an electronic record used for purposes of a transaction governed by Section 16. However, it is important to remember that those UCC Articles will still apply to the transferable record in their own right. Accordingly any other substantive requirements, e.g., method and manner of perfection under Article 9, must be complied with under those other laws. See Comments to Section 16.

7. This Act does apply, in toto, to transactions under unrevised Articles 2 and 2A. There is every reason to validate electronic contracting in these situations.

Ponder this? [emphasis added]

"This litigation concerns the MERS system, an electronic mortgage registration system and clearinghouse that tracks beneficial ownership interests in, and servicing rights to, mortgage loans."- See IN RE MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGIST. SYSTEMS (MERS), 659 F. Supp. 2d 1368 - Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

So, where is the definiion of "clearinghouse"? You can find it in 4a, Texas Business and Commerce Code; § 4.104(4)

(4) "Clearing house" means an association of banks or other payors regularly clearing items.

Re-iterate

5. Articles 3, 4 and 4A of the UCC impact payment systems and have specifically been removed from the coverage of this Act. The check collection and electronic fund transfer systems governed by Articles 3, 4 and 4A involve systems and relationships involving numerous parties beyond the parties to the underlying contract.  See UNIFORM ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT (1999)

Do you see the "rabid cow" yet?

Non Related actions

The private registry conducting transactions non-related to real property must be removed from Texas, before its too late to fix the problem.

Sign the petition to change chapter 51, Texas Property Code

 Onward through the fog

[ Click image above to move on to next page]

Oh, has anyone ever wondered if MERS actually had an agency relationship of any kind with the "lender"  when the potential homeowner signed the deed of trust, or was this just assumed by everybody? You do know what ass/u/me does? Don't feel bad, even judges assume. Else would they not ask MERS questions that matter?

2015 was not a good time for Wells Fargo when it settled with the U.S. Trustee Program, and it makes one ponder the thought of how many Texas were caught up in the crime? But, it was not just in Texas. The settlement addresses the bank’s errors affecting nearly 68,000 accounts of Homeowners in Bankruptcy. These failures violated federal bankruptcy rules that took effect in December 2011 and imposed more detailed disclosure requirements to ensure proper accounting of fees and charges on homeowners in bankruptcy.

Check 21 Act

Is it  "Goldstein's Curse" all over again, all because of eNotes this time?

If you begin to understand the private registry, what it is used for, and who uses it, you just might to come to understand the homeowners real property mortgage loan was converted to an electronic note like when you write a check and hand it to the cashier. The cashier then runs the check through a little scanning device, then most likely hands you back the check, then asks you to sign the paper printed from the scanning device. This is called truncation. Is it legal?  Didn't the homeowner sign the paper check before it was scanned?  So, when did the law of negotiable instruments change to allow for electronic negotiable instruments? That is up to you to research and understand.

"Truncation" was a thought back in the 1990's? A patent to reflect?

"Check imaging, another electronic transaction procedure, involves the scanning of a paper check by a scanner, which digitizes the image of the check pixel by pixel and stores the image electronically in a memory. The image may then be transferred electronically to substitute for or precede the physical delivery of the check, e.g., to truncate the clearing process. The image of the check may be recreated on a computer monitor or on paper for verification by the appropriate banking institutions."

In re: BRANDON MICHAEL BURRIER and DENON ARAE BURRIER - a Wells Fargo case in Colorado recognizing "truncation".

That is, Wells Fargo's demanded proof of payment, which was "only valid, accurate, and true copies of the front side and back side of all negotiable instruments

Could that statement be the same in dealing with homeowner notes? Hmmmm.

All about Rights

Maybe you will come to understand the difference between the "abstract rights" of a private registry versus "paper rights" of the homeowner "borrower" , or commercial "borrower"?

Bandits of Old?

Wells Fargo is a big player in the "rulebreaking" arena, apparently across the United States?

I's not just Wells Fargo that is doing Service Members wrong

And, do service members know about this Wells Fargo settlement for violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ?

Or conducting wrongful foreclosure against Service Members?

Something New?

Have you ever read the U.S. BK case about the private registry in the District of Nevada? It is well worh reading. In re JOSHUA & STEPHANIE MITCHELL Case No. BK-S-07-16226-LBR. If that was not enough, the private regisry appeal to federal district court in Nevada challenging the BK opinion. I didn't help the registry. In re Mitchell, 423 BR 914 - Dist. Court, D. Nevada 2009

When will the world realize we've been fooled by the private registry members in the United States?

Off the wall?

Let's say the Texas Legislaure was thinking about NMLS when it vaguely described a "book entry system"? Does the NLMS look or work like the clearinghouse? Oh, and is the clearinghouse recognized as being licensed to participate in NLMS? Do your own search?

NMLS is the system of record for non-depository, financial services licensing or registration in participating state agencies, including the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.  In these jurisdictions, NMLS is the official system for companies and individuals seeking to apply for, amend, renew and surrender license authorities managed through NMLS by 61 state or territorial governmental agencies. NMLS itself does not grant or deny license authority

[more to come...]

Namaste,