Must The “Original” Note be Tendered Back To Borrower’s After Foreclosure?

Must The “Original” Note be Tendered Back To Borrower’s After Foreclosure?

Posted by BPIA on Mar 19, 2013

This came across my desk and I feel it’s worth posting. I don’t have the name of the author, but I believe it comes from a foreclosure defense attorney. If the “original” note must be tendered after a foreclosure sale, then by all means make the demand! If the so-called beneficiary or servicer sends you a bogus note marked “paid in full,” or something of that nature, and the note is deemed inauthentic, it’s probably safe to say they foreclosed without holding / owning the “original” note. Grounds to overturn or void the sale? Hmmmmm…

“I have been going through some complaints/motions/decisions and the like lately to evaluate my original theories on how the foreclosure scam/hoax is perpetuated through the courts and find that my theories are correct; but perhaps I have not emphasized these points sufficiently because so few people – even attorneys specializing in foreclosures – seem to use the concept in any way.

First: Always obtain the judge’s financial disclosure statement to see if he and/or his spouse is invested in any way with the bank you are fighting. This is inclusive of his ‘mutual funds’ ‘pension account’  ‘retirement account’ ‘mortgage’ etc. In almost every case you will discover that the judge deciding your case has a financial relationship in some way with your adversary.

Second: Notice how the bank repeatedly claims “the Borrower is in default.” Although this claim may be true it is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the ‘purported loan’ is in default.  In almost all cases the ‘loan’ is not in default and has been paid in full by some entity (bailout money, TARP, insurance, etc.). The bank guides the case towards a discussion concerning Borrower’s  failure to pay when in fact the real question is whether or not the Note has been paid – in law it does not matter who paid the note, just whether or not its been paid. Even in the judge’s decisions and orders the judge often notes the Borrower’s failure to pay yet NEVER discusses whether or not the Note  has been paid. This is a trick initiated by the banks and perpetrated by the judges.Do not fall for this trick. If you must, add comments in your motion stating such; make sure you stay focused on whether or not the Note has been paid, not whether or not you paid.

Take some time and go through decisions the favor the bank and you will find exactly what I have found – judge’s rule for the bank based on the false premise that the Loan is in default because the Borrower is in  default, when in fact every judge knows that one has nothing to do with the other.

It simply does not matter how the Note was paid, nor does it matter if the Borrower is delinquent – the ONLY thing that matters is whether or not the NOTE was paid for, and the Note is ALWAYS paid for by some entity. I have tried for years to make both of these points perfectly clear to everyone yet almost no one ever seems to let these points sink in well enough to make them priorities in their cases; which I think is a  primary contributing factor to why so many people lose before court and wind up with ‘summary judgments’ and/or dismissals.

You must understand it is the judge’s best interest to take you to an  arena where you can’t win; and arguing about whether or not you are in default is not winnable in any situation.

But; an argument about whether or not the Note is in default is not an argument the banks can win. For the Note to be in default would require a complete absence of: i) any payment from the numerous bailouts; and ii) any payment from insurances; and iii) the standard language in the PSA; and iv) violations of S.E.C. requirements. Plus, the banks and insurance companies IRS filings would then be fraudulent. You must then get the banks to go on the record claiming the Note was not paid in full and/or in part by ANY entity and force them to supply the corresponding IRS and S.E.C. records establishing such.

Third: What proves I am right, other than the fact so far I always have been? Simple, the law is very clear concerning what must happen with a  Note in the case of a foreclosure – the Note must be returned to the  Borrower and/or canceled by the court. But this NEVER happens, why? 2 reasons: 1 because the Note was destroyed shortly after it was signed, and 2 because those that paid off the ‘digital version’ of the Note are  not going to release it since they paid for it. The really disgusting part about all of this is the judges know  everything above is 100% correct, true and factual. That should scare everyone.

Yes, the judges are in on it, the AGs are in on it, the politicians are in on it.


In law and in commerce: no foreclosure is “PERFECTED” until the Note is returned to the Borrower and/or cancelled by the court. Which proves incontrovertibly: no foreclosure in this country was legally sufficient and/or even actually occurred in law. The whole damn thing is a hoax.”


July 2017
« »
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
25 26 27 28 29 30 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 1 2 3 4 5

Anti Foreclosure Network

Powered by GroupSpaces · Terms · Privacy Policy · Cookie Use · Create Your Own Group