10-8-9\ !!arguingsecondarymortgage.doc

Re: [RedemptionByMethod] foreclosure -- if the mortgage agreement says that the lender cal sellMonday, October 12, 2009 5:08 PMFrom: "Ralph Fisher" <fisherre2000@gmail.com> Read the definition at this link: http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Holder_in_ due_course

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jean Timlin <j_timlin@yahoo. com> wrote:Holder in due course just exactly what does that mean, i know, but would like to read the definition.

--- On Mon, 10/12/09, Ralph Fisher <fisherre2000@ gmail.com> wrote:

Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 12:37 PM

another attached good source of information

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Lemuel Joyner <lemjoyner@gmail. com> wrote:

Yes. The letter is sent was called "Right to Cancel" which I could send based on the fact I was fully disclosed on most of the significant actions they took on my behalf. Then I sent a ROPOA.

On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Jean Timlin <j_timlin@yahoo. com> wrote:

so now I send a letter to first franklin, rescinding my signature, and Revocking power of attorney?

--- On Mon, 10/12/09, Lemuel Joyner <lemjoyner@gmail. com> wrote: I believe their argument will be that they bought the "mortgage", not the trust or the house. Therefore, they think they're within their rights to ask for payment, and I guess they are (to most people). But, I will contend that this agreement is unilateral meaning they never signed; and I am in complete control over this unilateral contract. And, I choose to remove power of attorney of everybody (except me) and stop making payments. Then, we go back and call out the fraud, close the account that was created for us, by us, recoup those payments, and finally, see if we can get damages awarded for the fraudulent agreement that they persisted in continuing and pressing us to stay in.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Jean Timlin <j_timlin@yahoo. com> wrote:

yes and now who ever is collecting money from us is committing fraud.

From: Lemuel Joyner <lemjoyner@gmail. com> Subject: Re: [RedemptionByMethod ] foreclosure -- if the mortgage agreement says that the lender cal sell To: RedemptionByMethod@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 10:25 AM

I am in the same position with Pathway LLC and CitiMortgage. Here's something interesting that I have not been able to verify yet; it's been stated on the forum that once the note is\was sold, this action "dissolves" the trust created by the signing of the promissory note. [Chris Summers at AIB RADIO has said so many times]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Jean Timlin <j_timlin@yahoo. com> wrote:

good news, Home loan services responded to my notice to rescind my sig, and they wrote that they did not originate the loan and gave me an address for First Franklin out in Smi valley ca. However I am told that Frist Franklin nolonger exists? and Home loan services has been cashing the mortgage payments.

--- On Sat, 10/10/09, GREG CONTOS <gcontos@sbcglobal. net> wrote:

Subject: Re: [RedemptionByMethod ] foreclosure -- if the mortgage agreement says that the lender cal sell

If they really didn't deposit the note and securize it, where did they get the funds to fund it? They cannot loan credit, depositors funds or directors of the bank's funds. On the loan documents they said they loaned you the money and at least didn't disclose who did.

--- On Sat, 10/10/09, Ralph Fisher <fisherre2000@ gmail.com> wrote:

If they really hold the note and contract, then you argue the different things that were not disclosed at closing, i.e., the Attorneys fees, the appraisal fee, the percentage rate, misc other fees and costs that they didn't tell you about. It's all covered and described in 12 USC 226.23.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Kathleen Melincavage <creditmom1@yahoo. com> wrote:

What do you argue if the loan has never been sold and has been serviced by the original holder of the mortgage note and security From: RedemptionByMethod@ yahoogroups. com On Behalf Of Ralph Fisher

Which part? It's all based on non-disclosure, the rules are pretty much laid out in TILA/FDCPA. As far as the holder in due course issue goes, just ask them to certify they either are holder or are a certifiable authorized agent for the holder.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Cheryl Gonzalez <creditor@cherylgonz alez.com> wrote:

> Ralph Fisher wrote:> They have however sold their claim to the note itself in almost every case we see, which is grounds for rescinding the signature from the contract, thereby collapsing the trust, and then using the right to cancel letter for reasons of constructivefraud and non-disclosure. Chances are extremely good that they are not the holder in due course of the note, are probably not even the certified agent for whoever that might be, so in effect they are not the real party in interest (holder in due course) and any attempt to bring a foreclosure suit or foreclose by Trustee is fraud and literally theft.. HOW do we PROVE that, Ralph?