TROY ON MORTGAGES PART 1 OF 5

TROY ON MORTGAGES PART 1 OF 5



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=movuLdSq4Q0

Good to listen to, I do always get concerned when I think of people challenged with the mortgage fraud, don't stop paying your mortgage if you are in a position to continue, but challenge it while paying, or offer them a reduced payment until the matter is resolved, but thats just my opinion voiced to try and help those doing this stay out of trouble.

I found it a motivational video, and thoughts from Davirons post about acquiring the Bankers Books, these would show that the currency they lent was actually a customer deposit, thats also support by the work of Professor Richard Werner. Its always very worth while looking into the securitisation process too, you might just find that they owe you money.

After seeing Michael Tellinger vids on ytube NOT that I advise anyone but is it worth a shot using prom notes?

Thanks for sharing Ceylon, Troy and friends .

Waffle wrote:Good to listen to, I do always get concerned when I think of people challenged with the mortgage fraud, don't stop paying your mortgage if you are in a position to continue, but challenge it while paying, or offer them a reduced payment until the matter is resolved, but thats just my opinion voiced to try and help those doing this stay out of trouble.

I found it a motivational video, and thoughts from Davirons post about acquiring the Bankers Books, these would show that the currency they lent was actually a customer deposit, thats also support by the work of Professor Richard Werner. Its always very worth while looking into the securitisation process too, you might just find that they owe you money.

Hey waffle,

Would you mind elaborating a bit on the bit without a strike line through it. I am particularly interested in the part about monies lent was actually a customer deposit part and where that conclusion has been drawn from. If it is easier or better for context to point me at a bank published document or video from Mr Werner discussing the topic then that is fine. It peaks my curiosity as it appears (on the face of it) to be something I have possibly read about before, it is possible that I missed some details or drilled down the information from a different angle so would be interesting to approach it with fresh eyes from another's viewpoint.

I agree with your pragmatic approach to poking at a mortgage, that said though I personally would not offer any reduced payment to keep the waters calm unless this is intentionally being used as a tactic (such as getting some financial breathing space but possibly don't have enough structured information to push the account into a 'valid' dispute) to keep them at bay until you get an increase in income to then meet continuing payments without the account heading straight towards default and potential court action. A close friend of mine had their mortgage in this type of status for about 5 years until the bank were going in to take the house but, they had managed to stretch the banks 'understanding' long enough where my friend received a lump sum from one of their pensions and essentially cleared the outstanding amounts placing the bank back in a neutral position.

As far as I am aware, and presuming the 'rules' have not changed then, if we are asking for information or answers to specific questions that we are entitled to then placing the mortgage in dispute is possibly a safer approach then offering reduced payments until they may produce some information we are entitled to, my understanding of the dispute process is that it is a means to provide a clear black and white resolution and not leave anyone in a ambiguous grey area of semi payment, that said though I do see the potential to use an offer of reduced payment as a tactic not sure how understanding or flexible they would be though if on the one hand we are asking for understanding but on the other hand trying to actively undo the agreement in some way. Depending on how they dealt with this offer it may, under some situations and depending on how they respond, provide evidence to escalate the matter and provide an avenue to create a valid dispute based on a plethora of other reasons. My friend that I referred to above, whilst having a great deal of this information available they never challenged the legitimacy of the agreement, it was always from an appeal to fairness and understanding approach and the information was being saved for those last few strategically placed cannon balls of information to delay and/or fight any final judgements being made.

Whilst in dispute they 'should' (sometimes they need a reminder) stop taking payments until any 'valid' dispute is resolved including any escalation to the ombudsmen etc. Personally I would still pay any payments that would have been made into a separate account as if/when any dispute is resolved in theirs or your favour then they will be wanting those monies in full or reduced pretty swiftly after resolution (if a dispute approach is taken it may be worth, depending on how any interest is calculated, considering checking if they have calculated any interest, charges or other on any remainder balance which may have been thousands higher than under normal circumstances should a dispute not have been in progress, which can be for months and depending on the complexity of the dispute, even a year or more), to be treated fairly, whilst a dispute is in progress the account should be treated as operating under normal conditions apart from the dispute so no punitive measures should be brought against the 'debtor' in any way.

I have been toying with some potential, risk averse approaches to a post you shared in another thread about the SAR that you submitted and pretty much got stonewalled about information sent too or kept by the SPV about you. This, in part, is to be expected (and one of the reasons why any hypothetical SAR questions I have murmured try to purposely avoid this path of questioning the SPV itself as I don't feel we even need that information 'yet' as we can potentially prove the transfer of the liability without this, and the bank potentially gets a free knockback of a SAR and may well take note of this as frivolous questions, claims and allegations which they will happily hold up in court to attempt to character assassinate us before we can develop any common ground or understanding with the judge. I think we have all seen examples of this approach and where it often ends, usually around the point when the judge is presented with an argument about 'prom notes' or similar that can potentially be viewed when not in full context as the individual is possibly trying to gain unfair enrichment through an obscure 'but potentially innocent' banking process to which the judge, with their knowledge of the law and not banking processes will want to close the case down and remove it from their court swiftly and outwardly in a 'reasonable' fair, just and balanced way (for example, a reasonable amount and, additional court time was afforded to the respondent, without the court demonstrating prejudice towards the claimant. The respondent, who has chosen to represent themselves in a legal capacity before the court. However the respondent, despite being afforded fair and reasonable additional time to account for their lack of legal training, the respondent has not demonstrated to the court any legal argument that can be presented before this courts jurisdiction as a contention to the claimants legally based claim seeking repossession).

I personally would argue that it is the bank that has already gained the unfair enrichment many times over but the bank takes the (sit back and let the sophist respondent argue themselves up their own rear. Whilst directing their emotional attachment to, essentially moral aspect of the argument, lack of understanding of the judicial process and potentially lack of outwardly projection that they even understand the argument they are trying to bring into a court themselves. To me this just projects confusion towards the judge (who is not there to facilitate potentially non judicial complaints, nor are they there to provide support in legal advice or building a legal case. They will though, if presented with a legal argument that may fall within their jurisdiction offer an adjournment for the respondent to develop remove the fluff and present a legal argument along those lines and for the claimant to additionally contest any legal argument presented by the respondent that is also shared (at least 5 copies of every document that is going to be used in court is good practice and ) prior to the next hearing normally around 14 days before the hearing date but, can be even longer depending on how much information needs to be reviewed), one suspects they (bank rep and legal representation) literally sit there looking at the clock wondering how long the judge will last before closing the respondent down and bouncing them out the door for what may be perceived to the unlearned judges eye in relation to bank processes and potentially is viewed as a frivolous, legally baseless argument/personal gripe), an approach of not providing information that may provoke a more detailed analysis of the argument and processes taking place on the banks side) as any data used/sent in the creation of a SPV has a separate entity who's role is to ensure that all of the information/assets etc bundled to be securitized through the SPV (which, when created, is its own legal entity) is encrypted else we would have hedge fund managers, bond holders, investors etc privy to confidential assets outside of the purview of the SPV itself.

From their (investors) end of the deal they essentially see a single product offered out for investment in various forms by the SPV that gives a potential, risk free investment with guaranteed returns as, it is reasoned out that the underlying collateral (house etc) is always there to pull in should any part of their scheme fail and, if that fails then the public purse bailout (or 'bail in' as it was sometimes referred to, which meant to a degree the assets backing those SPV securities could not materialise in any fiscal form as many of the 'debtors' were given mortgages, regardless of their ability to pay, as is said you cant get money out of someone who has no money or assets, you can spend a great deal of money trying to though. Essentially though the alleged debtor will just default all the way down and come back up with any alleged debts written off), as was demonstrated with all those 'to big to fail' banks in the not too distant past due to 'toxic assets' (which were intentionally cherry picked, before they forced trading in securities to stop of a certain bank just before they sat it squarely on the public purse). From the information I have viewed I would personally argue that the whole 'bail in' was to provide the backing collateral to the SPV and security to pay the entities that had purchased shares, bonds etc in the SPV that would have quite spectacularly puked all over itself and, all over a lot of extremely wealthy and influential entities around the world.

I will keep mulling through the possible approaches mentioned above and update that thread once I can satisfy myself that it can be presented in a way that is not going to be read out of context, as with yourself I am always cautious of how one line answers to the subject matter can sound so right initially but, end up being so wrong and, with a mortgage this can have long lasting and sometimes life changing consequences.

Hi ALAB

To get better clarification on Werners work and my statement you would have to watch some of his seminars on yt. There is one in England he is a little cagey in as the room is full. Let's not forget he is chief of banking at Southampton uni, the info he is revealing could be devistating for him too. On of his Russian seminars he states it's our signature that creates the credit and in another wher he explains accountancy practices in detail he says banks NEVER use an accounts payable liability EVERYTHING is a customer deposit. I have also put up a thread in the debt forum I think with one of his papers on economics.

Yes with mortgages they are pooled together as bulks and sold to investors as a compound, however, who owns the charge? The investors are the owners of equitable charges and usually most have to be data controllers because they are processing our personal data. S126 of the LoP 1925 basically makes an investor a secret person, the bank have power of attorney and are foreclosing on us as trustees on behalf of the investors without anyone having to know an investor exists. It's the s126 power of attorney clause that investors want to see so the remain "secret" holders of the equitable charge over our property.

I'll try and respond to the rest a little later....

Hey Waffle,

Thanks for the pointer, I have watched some of his videos and I have not seen him refer to customer deposits in the way mentioned. I will dig out the paper you are referring too and see if it is reference in there.

I am not sure the question I would be asking is 'who owns the charge?' that appears to me, to be asking questions of the SPV and its investors again, and this is pointless at this stage and, designed in a way that you will not get that information.

My line of thought would be along the lines of not, who owns the charge but, who doesn't own my charge? (with the presumption being this is the original bank) who does have to provide this information. Then, if it is not the bank that the original agreement was set up with, and the mortgage were to go into default and said original bank starts repossession proceedings then, as they don't hold the charge the courts have no jurisdiction to view the claim, and they have no legal standing to make a claim, this is briefly why that case was struck out, as the original bank raised repossession proceedings but, had no legal standing to raise a claim as they were not the holders of the charge.

If the secret santa investor wants too raise a claim for repossession then let them, as I would love to see how they would get that through a court 'Anonymous investors V respondent'. This is where it starts getting very complicated (and costly) for them as the investors in SPV's don't own a specific charge, it is a collective security under the SPV and they (original bank) cant just pluck 1 mortgage out of it on a whim as there are multiple investors in the SPV and multiple potential implications that arise from this such as fraud, transparency of original investments, ratings of the securities invested in, new value of securities etc etc etc.

These investors have the wealth and resources to create a lot of waves over their investments being tinkered with after the contracts are signed. Again, going back a few years before certain banks started receiving huge amounts of public money, rumbles were starting to be heard in the media (high wealth investor influence) about how these securitisations were being packaged an sold as triple A securities when in fact they were doomed to fail from the start. Nothing more than high wealth investors with influence and resources to shout about how they have been done wrong, these rumbles went away as soon as the publics money was put forward to secure those high wealth investors.

Listen to this one, in reality there is no deposit its us loaning money to the bank, they record the deposit as a customer deposit, they buy the security off us, they are misrepresenting the accounts liability as a customer deposit. its from 10 mins in, he says it in a few vids, maybe not always in the same way. i would start from the beginning tho, pay attention ALAB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MechH0ebs_c

Thanks Waffle,

I was considering this may be a generalisation of terminology and, it appears it is as Mr Werner appears to be just quoting from the banking documents I have read before.

From your original comment I wasn't sure if you was talking in general 'customer' 'deposits/credits' being lent to 'other' customers, which is not the case.