Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl

[determindator]

Does it state anywhere in these agreements the original lender reserves the right to sell on your loan to another company as a business transaction to profit from selling on your loan to a company who will then increase the interest rate to profit again from that transaction. It would be an unfair agreement if you are not made aware of this.

That's probably a simplistic view to the mess that has really occurred causing the contagion to spread and how the problem was hidden for so long until it imploded.

Edited January 14, 2012 by determindator

[seanamarts]

yup, mp3 link removed, it ends here.

 

Please read Forum Rules

[bustthematrix]

I sat through this 2 + hours this morning. My first reaction was that Tellinger obviously had 'wired himself up' to record all this. I wonder if the Judge or the court were aware of this or even if it is allowed?

Does it matter? That he managed to get this far and this info out at all, is an achievement, in my view.

 

I have a particular interest in this securitisation issue and the complexities are way over my head, but there were a number of things which caught my ear.

 

I think there is a general acceptance that securitisation practices are the cause for the banking melt-down but that the banks and many governments are in denial this is the case for obvious reasons.

Securitisation was only part of it. At the root of it all was greed and the gross failures of regulators, accountants & auditors, senior management and the responsible members of government. For example, to your knowledge, how many senior bankers/financiers have faced prosecution in relation to the sub-prime debacle, in ANY country?

 

The bankers earn their bonuses from this shifting of numbers across the globe, they don't make anything, just shift numbers about into bonds and people with more money than sense buy into the rewards on offer from investing in dodgy loans and mortgages. If the bond is AAA, the return is average, when it goes further up the risk table then the rewards are huge.

 

What Tellinger did was try to tell the court that HIS SIGNATURE, was the key to banks making huge profits and putting leverage on peoples security in their homes and he wanted some of the returns they earn from his signature. Contrary to what busthematrix said about money, Tellinger is saying there's no such thing as money, it's all just pieces of paper and the average man or woman on the street have no idea what will happen once their signature is on that piece of paper.

I keep hearing this "my signature is money" thing banded about but that's not quite complete.

It's WHAT your signature is APPENDED TO that creates value i.e. it is YOUR PROMISE TO PAY a particular sum in a particular way to a particular person(s) at a particular time. It is that which 'creates' the value or the "money". And there is no reason why that 'contractual promise to pay' cannot and should not be legally tradeable. What's wrong is when it happens without the borrower's (=promisor) knowledge and consent and the NOTE itself, is used to FUND the "loan" to the promisor! How absurd is that? And of course...the promisor knows nothing about this.

 

There can't be too many of us who don't agree with that can there? Just look at what happened to Northern rock in detail and you'll know why the banks went into melt-down.

 

I have followed over the years the various debates over the securitisation following the Lehmans collapse and whilst Superslueth and Suetonious battled it was obvious there are differences of opinion as to the effect of securitisation in the UK by comparison with the USA with the LOP 1925 Act and I have no idea what the law is in South Africa so it maybe not so all encompassing as it seems Tellinger makes out across the world.

I think Tellinger's main points go way way beyond Securitisation hence the comments by Furian and others about global impact. The mainstay of his argument was about bank fraud against a borrower's promissory note (signed contractual promise to pay) and that this 'promissory note' is what is used by the lender to fund the loan they claim to be giving to him. Listen to it again and you will see this is the case - incredulous as it sounds! I suspect he brought in securitisation just to cover his bases in case the 'promissory note' part of his defence was thrown out.

The Securitisation argument is a much more conventional argument (or defence against repossession) which is working in the US because of their property & title laws but doesn't work here (yet).

Btw, Tellinger is certainly not the first I've heard of arguing the 'promissory note' line and you won't hear much about it in mainstream channels because lenders are extremely sensitive and secretive about it. Which in itself says a lot.

 

BUT, I do believe he has a point,many actually, even if the establishment throws up smoke screens due to the financial crisis that would follow his being proved correct or, might I say, the people on here who so vehmenantly believe in the same argument. I do know one thing though, it is the splitting of hairs that we uninitiated people do so well often out of ignorance that eventually prove that KEEPING IT SIMPLE finds the very heart of the issue and deals appropriately with it's quarry.

 

Keep digging my friends, Mr Tellinger and all you folk who are being accused of being wrong because one day your day will hit the nerve that disables the rot.

Agreed, the 'truth' will out, one way or another.

A1

[andrew1]

I sat through this 2 + hours this morning. My first reaction was that Tellinger obviously had 'wired himself up' to record all this. I wonder if the Judge or the court were aware of this or even if it is allowed?

 

Does it matter?

 

Actually , yes I think it does matter because if this judge found out and he's in for another hearing shortly surely that might find him in all kinds of trouble which would jeapordise his whole claim? I'm not sure of the rules on taping a court hearing, or wiring yourself up then putting it on Youtube, but I thought a judge was required to approve the release of transcripts. No point shooting yourself in the foot is there no matter what the cause?

 

 

That he managed to get this far and this info out at all, is an achievement, in my view.

 

I'd agree with that, but a bit foolhardy in his method. If he gets slammed for it, hopefully someone else will take up where he left off and be a bit more robust in the execution of winning a case, then publishing it through Baiili in case law..

[bustthematrix]

Does it matter?

Actually , yes I think it does matter because if this judge found out and he's in for another hearing shortly surely that might find him in all kinds of trouble which would jeapordise his whole claim? I'm not sure of the rules on taping a court hearing, or wiring yourself up then putting it on Youtube, but I thought a judge was required to approve the release of transcripts. No point shooting yourself in the foot is there no matter what the cause?

That he managed to get this far and this info out at all, is an achievement, in my view.

I'd agree with that, but a bit foolhardy in his method. If he gets slammed for it, hopefully someone else will take up where he left off and be a bit more robust in the execution of winning a case, then publishing it through Baiili in case law..

Hi Andrew1, I totally agree with you though I've a few caveats to add:-

 

I think it's best not to jump the gun. We don't know whether he got permission or not or what the rules are in SA on this sort of thing?

I agree that if he's breached certain rules by recording & sharing this publicly, it's not going to do his case any good.

 

On the other hand, whoever makes the particular allegation that he did the recording AND shared it, illegally, will have to prove that it was Tellinger that did it! I recall from the tape that Tellinger had a few 'friends' in that courtroom...??? Or maybe it was one of his enemies or even the bank that publicised this in the hope of making it look like Tellinger did it???

 

Lastly, on this point, it MAY be that having publicised the hearing in this way, the profile of the whole trial has now been raised manifold. This could be good or bad. Good if it compels the judge to 'toe the line' & offer a chance at proper justice by allowing a fuller trial with complete disclosure, expert witnesses etc. I note that Tellinger had issued at least THREE unrebutted notarised affidavits to the plaintiff!!!

 

It would be bad if the judge, on realising the much higher profile of the case and the potentially damning national & possibly global implications of a ruling against the bank (and thereby lenders in general) on the basis of such a defence, decides to steer the case down the 'this argument is garbage & has no merit' route thereby not allowing it to go to full trial where the facts can be more fully tested and explored.

[bustthematrix]

But I suspect this is now getting a bit off this thread's focus. It's also why I suggested the MODs should have moved the related posts elsewhere where we can continue to debate & evaluate not only this particulat trial, but other related arguments and cases around the world?

[Sappho54]

Acenden's default tools and its use of information sources to predict probabilities of default means that there must be wodges of data over and above what they need to manage the account, which as we know they are bewilderingly incompetent at doing. This info must be subject to the Data Protection Act, which means that it can be requested. I know a lot of victims have done a SAR, but this kind of intelligence gathering I suspect wouldn't turn up as a result of a request unless it was precisely worded.

[m.m.eflt]

Hi just to let you know i lost the fight in county court on the 19th Jan 2012 with the Acenden. They now take controll of my home on 01 Feb 2012. so as of that day i will be home less. i have signed up with the local council houseing they say they will pay up to £450.00 a month on rent for me if i go private rent. so i sat there amaized and said to the assistant, if you will pay £450.00 rent for me then why can't you pay £420.00 on my mortgage which is Interest only so as to keep me in my own home. untill i find some work.she said sorry its just how it is. So im chaseing this up at the moment ive got 10 days to try and save me home from Acenden. Any help or info is welcome thank you.

[caro]

Hi just to let you know i lost the fight in county court on the 19th Jan 2012 with the Acenden. They now take controll of my home on 01 Feb 2012. so as of that day i will be home less. i have signed up with the local council houseing they say they will pay up to £450.00 a month on rent for me if i go private rent. so i sat there amaized and said to the assistant, if you will pay £450.00 rent for me then why can't you pay £420.00 on my mortgage which is Interest only so as to keep me in my own home. untill i find some work.she said sorry its just how it is. So im chaseing this up at the moment ive got 10 days to try and save me home from Acenden. Any help or info is welcome thank you.

 

Sorry to hear this. I can never understand why people who try and support themselves by buying their own property don't get help when the chips are down. Crazy that they'll only pay for people in rented property.

 

I'm copying your post above to your own thread in the repo forum and hope to get some advice for you.

[determindator]

If we know the full story people can comment on an appeal being made.

[caro]

m.m.efit's thread is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?331379-Acenden-southern-pacific-Reapo

[bustthematrix]

Hi just to let you know i lost the fight in county court on the 19th Jan 2012 with the Acenden. They now take controll of my home on 01 Feb 2012. so as of that day i will be home less. i have signed up with the local council houseing they say they will pay up to £450.00 a month on rent for me if i go private rent. so i sat there amaized and said to the assistant, if you will pay £450.00 rent for me then why can't you pay £420.00 on my mortgage which is Interest only so as to keep me in my own home. untill i find some work.she said sorry its just how it is. So im chaseing this up at the moment ive got 10 days to try and save me home from Acenden. Any help or info is welcome thank you.

Sorry to hear this mate. It is utterly baffling....

It's the same kind of nonsense that goes on with other benefits...The system, rather than incentivise those who are on benefits to get into work asap, and stay there, seems skewed to penalise those who do that! It's no wonder so many areas of the country, generations deep, are in the benefits trap.It's TOTALLY wrong and completely unacceptable not to mention entirely unaffordable in the long term. Our leaders are failing us in this regard. Sadly, few people seem to care enough to do anything about changing it until they are personally affected.

[applecart]

Originally Posted by 42man

I think it was removed as it was South African Law Think? Should you not know why?, and as Applecart said

 

The defendants extensive knowledge and submissions of the workings of the banking system and securitisation will not be enough to stave off possession.

Perhaps, but who's to know for sure? It may not stop repossession per se but who's to know what we can or cannot learn from that case and it's outcomes going forward? My own reading of the facts is that Tellinger actually has the funds to settle the arrears on that mortgage. He stopped 'paying' when his 'research' led him down the path he was now taking hence the lenders taking him to court. The property in question appears to be an investment not his 'home' should he 'lose' this case, I suspect it will be an acceptable loss, or he could just pay the arrears + costs to stop the repossession anyway as he claims to have the money.

 

This is all well and good, but... put it this way.... if you make a statement and the response comes back as 'so what'?..... then, the statement is a waste of time.... what I mean is this...... Let's say the defendant says 'they sold my mortgage' the Judge says 'so what?' ..... if you can't reply with... 'well the Such and Such Law under the Such and Such Act of the year blah blah blah.. says that they are not allowed to'...... then, I'm afraid (imo) all that we are hearing/heard in the case was all statements of fact with no legal backing...

Everyone should know by now that money is manufactured, it doesn't make it a viable defence unless there is a law that says, money must not be manufactured - if there is such a law, then it should be used as party to the defence.

 

At no point did I hear him rely on any aspect of the Law

Really? I did!

 

Sorry, I must have missed it..... but then, I got a general feel for where the defence was going long before I heard it...

At no point did I hear him quote any Law (i.e legal grounds) that deny the Lender a right to possession despite having securitised the mortgage loan/note.

True. But that was NOT the basis of his defence. His objective, as he repeatedly stated, was to create enough doubt that the judge could not rule against him as is but that the matter would go to trial. Personally, I found the fact that the lender NEVER accepted or DENIED the very specific allegations he was making about fraud, monetisations of promissory note, bills of exchange acts, endorsement, double-entry book keeping etc VERY telling!!! If that stuff's not true, denying it should be first order of business!

What is the point of 'creating doubt'? "Doubt" would have been created the instant that he replied with a written defence to the claim..... the idea once he was in front of the Judge is to 'justify' and 'back up' the doubt that he created - all he is/was doing (imo) was going round in circles (no offence).....the doubt would not cause the judge to find in his favour without reliance on the Law.

In such a situation I can't think why any lender should rise to accusations of 'fraud' - I don't think it is 'VERY telling' at all - it simply says - if you are making such allegations you have to show proof, - it's like I heard the Judge say 'are you telling me that if I deposit £50 in my account tomorrow - I cannot go back the day after and take it back'? (or words to that effect) - come on, let's be honest ..... is the case reallllly going to go anywhere??

Taking the matter to 'Trail' would need a lot more than statements of fact (as we all know they do sell mortgages) but without substance as based on the legal provisions of the substantiating Law, I simply fail to see how the case will go any further - just my opinion

but, like everyone else, it is nice to see that there is someone out there in a position to fight the cause of borrowers and it is comforting to know that the defendant is in a position to do so and still be able to catch up on his mortgage payments in the event he loses (or sell the house without detriment to his family or himself) : )

Apple

[applecart]

Hi just to let you know i lost the fight in county court on the 19th Jan 2012 with the Acenden. They now take controll of my home on 01 Feb 2012. so as of that day i will be home less. i have signed up with the local council houseing they say they will pay up to £450.00 a month on rent for me if i go private rent. so i sat there amaized and said to the assistant, if you will pay £450.00 rent for me then why can't you pay £420.00 on my mortgage which is Interest only so as to keep me in my own home. untill i find some work.she said sorry its just how it is. So im chaseing this up at the moment ive got 10 days to try and save me home from Acenden. Any help or info is welcome thank you.

 

Do you know, I've never considered this before, I suppose it's because rent amounts can be controlled to a larger extent than what mortgage payments can be...

 

Don't forget interest rates are low right now.... and the figures quoted do appear more than in line with rent amounts right now.... but what about when interest rates start going up again..... ?? interest rates can double the liability overnight, so very little incentive for government to step in I suppose in the way we would like (given they may have no choice but to push up interest rates again at some point) : (

 

I posted on your thread to do with your exact situation.

 

Apple

[applecart]

I sat through this 2 + hours this morning. My first reaction was that Tellinger obviously had 'wired himself up' to record all this. I wonder if the Judge or the court were aware of this or even if it is allowed?

 

Given the embargo on the topic - it surprises me NOT that he may have felt compelled to go to such lengths... who knows... it could be that years down the line, when heads HAVE to start to roll.... such covert evidence will act to distinguish those who knew and did nothing from those who did not know, but were told and still did nothing : )

 

I have a particular interest in this securitisation issue and the complexities are way over my head, but there were a number of things which caught my ear.

 

I too have an interest in this topic.... but I do not see securitisation as complex as it is made out to be, I find it intrigingly simple to unravel, I admit at first I thought it was complex, because that's what the 'proproganda' leads us to believe - but when you look at it for what it is - it is remarkably clear as day....

 

I think there is a general acceptance that securitisation practices are the cause for the banking melt-down but that the banks and many governments are in denial this is the case for obvious reasons.

 

My findings are that the government introduced securitisation as a means of getting the mortgage market moving after the recession in the 90's, sure they had looked at it before, but were not too keen lets say to get involved, and when they did, they did not bank (excuse the pun - as non is intended) on financial institutions taking the perverbial - which is what they have done.... now the 'mess' is so 'grave' - I truly believe, they have no idea what to do - it's a timebomb - just waiting to explode - embargoes are the order of the day right now - and they seem to be working...... or are they????

 

The bankers earn their bonuses from this shifting of numbers across the globe, they don't make anything, just shift numbers about into bonds and people with more money than sense buy into the rewards on offer from investing in dodgy loans and mortgages. If the bond is AAA, the return is average, when it goes further up the risk table then the rewards are huge.

 

Those 'rewards' are the time bomb - surely, those that are drinking champagne and lording it at high society events - must be feeling a little hot under the collar??? Tellinger is on the case (albeit from the wrong angle IMO - but non the less he is on the case .... it is only a matter of time before matters that are of public interest must be addressed - mortgages that have been securitised are in the public interest - the Office of Fair Trading has a duty to take such matters on board and investigate and bring those that impact on the interests of the public at large to task

 

What Tellinger did was try to tell the court that HIS SIGNATURE, was the key to banks making huge profits and putting leverage on peoples security in their homes and he wanted some of the returns they earn from his signature. Contrary to what busthematrix said about money, Tellinger is saying there's no such thing as money, it's all just pieces of paper and the average man or woman on the street have no idea what will happen once their signature is on that piece of paper.

 

What Tellinger should have said if he were operating under UK Law is this: When he signed the mortgage deed, he created an additional freehold and a separate estate - the lender owns the freehold and estate so created - the lender is free to do with it as he pleases.

 

Tellinger should have argued that it is what the lender did with his freehold and estate as secured against his property that is of public interest...!!

 

There are 2 freeholds and 2 estates once the mortgage deed is signed by Tellinger - The lender's rights do not extend to the freehold and estate that belong to Tellinger in the event that the lender sells his freehold and estate!!

 

For better understanding of this fact - See LPA 1925 s.94 - It advises that a lender can enter into possession as soon as the 'ink is dry' - but, doing so, does not impact on Tellinger's legal right in retention of his legal estate and freehold - he remains the 'absolute proprietor' regardless of what the lender does with the separate freehold and estate that Tellinger granted his lender).

 

To argue that the Lender has taken his signature to create money after exercising his right to possession as soon as the ink is dry by virtue of s.94 is no contention as a stand alone defence - the reply will always be 'so what?'

 

But if Tellinger said: "LPA 1925 s.88 states that when the lender sells his freehold - the lenders right to my freehold and estate is extinguished" ....... then that's an all together different defence and is based on Law, NOT opinion, NOT theory, NOT supposition.... but, THE LAW

 

There can't be too many of us who don't agree with that can there? Just look at what happened to Northern rock in detail and you'll know why the banks went into melt-down.

 

You have to disagree, when you know the facts and the Law that applies.... Northern Rock did the same thing, they entered into possession in order to sell the mortgages - Lenders have to rely on s.94 in order to do this legally before they can exercise the right to sell their freehold and estate.... notably, they do not sell Tellingers freehold or estate - to do that - they would have to take Tellinger to court - which as we can see, they did do - but that's an all together different ball game again.......

 

I have followed over the years the various debates over the securitisation following the Lehmans collapse and whilst Superslueth and Suetonious battled it was obvious there are differences of opinion as to the effect of securitisation in the UK by comparison with the USA with the LOP 1925 Act and I have no idea what the law is in South Africa so it maybe not so all encompassing as it seems Tellinger makes out across the world.

 

That's what this debate is all about - in the UK we have the LPA 1925, consumers in the UK need to familiarise themselves with it - it helps us to understand the Lenders rights as separate from the consumers rights when a mortgage has been securitised.

 

BUT, I do believe he has a point,many actually, even if the establishment throws up smoke screens due to the financial crisis that would follow his being proved correct or, might I say, the people on here who so vehmenantly believe in the same argument. I do know one thing though, it is the splitting of hairs that we uninitiated people do so well often out of ignorance that eventually prove that KEEPING IT SIMPLE finds the very heart of the issue and deals appropriately with it's quarry.

 

Exactly!!! It is sooooo simple that we as consumers can't beleive it... we complicate it un-necessarily. The consequence being that oooo's are losing their rights to retain possession of their homes - in hindsight, I beleive previous contentions did nothing to assist consumers rights.... hopefully with Tellinger being posted, we can now start to get to the real LEGAL protections for consumers....

 

Keep digging my friends, Mr Tellinger and all you folk who are being accused of being wrong because one day your day will hit the nerve that disables the rot.

 

Tellinger is an apt name don't you think? We are constantly being 'told' what we should think, 'told' how to react - but, like you say we are being accused and embargoed at every turn - total insult to ones intelligence if you ask me - just because one is a LiP, doesn't mean you are devoid of being able to interpret the LAW!!!!

 

LiP's are human beings too and have rights - why are we constantly being made to ignore those rights for the interest of a few??? The OFT is one place we should be able to rely to protect our interest, but they do not deal with individual cases - all consumers must send emails to the OFT to make ourselves heard - there is legislation to protect our interests and yet these lenders are getting licences from the OFT and ripping us off!!!!! it's not right and something must be done - enough is enough!!!

 

[email protected] All consumers who have had a mortgage securitised need to send them detail of your concerns on the ground that the lender is seeking to take your home when they have no right to do so!!!

 

 

Apple : )

[applecart]

what do you mean by 'embargo'?

 

 

R6

 

Hi Rainbow 6, welcome to the debate : )

 

'embargo'?

 

Wellllll.............. where do I start...???

 

There has been much debate on the topic known as 'securitisation' - and whenever I or others post detail of the way forward for consumers to protect their homes from possession by sub-prime lenders in the main (notwithstanding that 'high st' lenders are also culprits too) the posts are deleted, removed and whole threads on the topic simply disappear......

 

That's what I mean when I say 'embargo'

 

This means that savvy consumers who would be able to 'pick a net curtain with a fine needle' are denied the opportunity to defend against such lenders appropriately in a court of Law.

 

Back in the day before the securitisation era - consumers would trott into court, defend using case law from 'Norgren' alongside detail of their income and show their ability to pay off arrears - blah.blah. blah..

 

Now, consumers need to wake up to the fact that the defence needs to be an all together different approach....

 

Lenders who securitise mortgages are to be defended against differently.... and unless we are 'allowed' to get the info in front of consumers to show them how to get to grips with the 'new order' - then consumers will continue to run around like lambs just waiting to be slaughtered : (

 

Where you are forbidden from sharing the information in open democratic debate, then you are 'embargoed' and this is not consistent with a society that is supposed to be 'free'!!

 

Apple

[applecart]

CORRECTION ALERT.....CORRECTION ALERT!!!!!!

 

At post '328' I have quoted LPA 1925 s.94 - This is to be corrected to read LPA 1925 s.95 (4)

 

Apple : )

[determindator]

http://www.yieldcurve.com/Mktresearch/files/Teasdale_SecuritisationJan03.pdf

 

Page 5 explains well

[bustthematrix]

Why the change in tone, Apple? In post #326 you were of the view that Tellinger had little or no merit to stop repossessions etc?

 

Btw, I heard recently that he 'lost' this particular case against the bank and is now appealing on the basis that the judge almost completely swept aside his arguments without really examining them. It is my opinion thtat this has always been the issue with the main thrust of his line of argument. The allegations go beyond civil breaches and become criminal. As long as that's the case, the 'balance of probabilities' test used in civil cases no longer applies and it becomes the higher standard of proof required. Without that 'proof' of criminal conduct in the particular case of one's own mortgage, the case can be fairly easily shot down & that's probably what's happened to Tellinger.

[applecart]

Why the change in tone, Apple? In post #326 you were of the view that Tellinger had little or no merit to stop repossessions etc?

 

Apologies BTM.... What 'change of tone'? - in post 326, I have made it more than clear what my view is..... my posts since then, carry the same tone....I still remain of the opinion that his argument had no legal basis... the only change was that I applaud him for trying....

 

Btw, I heard recently that he 'lost' this particular case against the bank and is now appealing on the basis that the judge almost completely swept aside his arguments without really examining them.

Is that right? well wonders will never cease - re-look at my post at 326 and compare it with what you have said above.....

 

It is my opinion thtat this has always been the issue with the main thrust of his line of argument.

 

Tellinger points asserted that it was 'criminal' in some way to create money - perhaps he is unaware that the Bank of England (by way of example only) have just created x amount of billions to prop up the economy......???? Is this what he seeks to assert and assume is 'criminal' behaviour???

Given the above, what contention would he bring with regard to the Bank of England then???

Come on BTM.... such a contention is no more than a 'play' on the balance of probability...... Tellinger cannot take on the state without any Legal basis/authority - and expect a Judge to find in his favour on the basis of 'probability' alone - surely if that was the case, we would all jockey into court with arguments based on probabilty with the expectation of winning............ Like I said before..... without Legal grounding the approach will be 'so what' - or putting it another way..... Tellinger will 'feel' that his argument was 'completely swept aside' but this will not be the case - the fact is his argument has no LEGAL standing....

The allegations go beyond civil breaches and become criminal. As long as that's the case, the 'balance of probabilities' test used in civil cases no longer applies and it becomes the higher standard of proof required. Without that 'proof' of criminal conduct in the particular case of one's own mortgage, the case can be fairly easily shot down & that's probably what's happened to Tellinger.

If 'criminal' activity is at play at all - it will be that Lenders continue to seek court intervention to take possession of the property AFTER such time as they have already gone into possession and exercised the 'power of sale' to sell the mortgage....... and then jockey into court under the mis-guided belief that they still have a substantiating legal right to possessjon of the property.......

If Fraud is criminal..... then surely, Tellinger needs to focus his contention from there with proof - and the proof is best served up cold and hard as found within the sections of the Law....

An appeal based on 'the Judge completely swept aside my argument' is not good enough....

Applecart

[applecart]

http://www.yieldcurve.com/Mktresearch/files/Teasdale_SecuritisationJan03.pdf

 

Page 5 explains well

 

Hi Determindator

This is a great find and is one of a few I have seen that are more than available in the public domain............ the issue is...... no one has taken time out to advise borrowers of the effect securitisation has on the underlying mortgage loan that the originator had with the underlying borrower.....

 

We have been told that ... all is well.... borrowers should continue as normal... keep paying..... it's all equitable.... nothing to do with any loss of legal rights..... REALLLLYYY????

 

And..... as we all know.... 3 years of discussion and debate around the subject of securiisation, has had no effect on the repossession of borrowers homes.... time for the OFT/FSA to get to work and start looking after consumers rights - that is afterall, what they are paid for......................and have worked dilligently in the past to do just that ..... PROTECT CONSUMERS RIGHTS : )

 

 

Applecart

[Sappho54]

Mmmm, definately calls the transfer to the SPV a "true sale" so how can the originator retain legal title and keep suing borrowers?

[bustthematrix]

[/color]

[/color]

If 'criminal' activity is at play at all - it will be that Lenders continue to seek court intervention to take possession of the property AFTER such time as they have already gone into possession and exercised the 'power of sale' to sell the mortgage....... and then jockey into court under the mis-guided belief that they still have a substantiating legal right to possessjon of the property.......

 

If Fraud is criminal..... then surely, Tellinger needs to focus his contention from there with proof - and the proof is best served up cold and hard as found within the sections of the Law....

 

An appeal based on 'the Judge completely swept aside my argument' is not good enough....

 

Applecart

Hi Apple

I agree with much of what you've said. But I'm not sure you've fully grasped the issue at hand nor what Tellinger's trying to achieve. I think you're right in that his defence was lacking LEGAL content i.e. the application of Statute Law. However the real issue goes far beyond the Bank of England (or any other Central Bank) 'creating' money by adding zeros into special entries on a computer somewhere. I agree that all of that is LEGAL (if not lawful???) so long as a country's legislature has enacted the laws to allow it to be done.

 

What Tellinger is saying pertains to the activities of individual commercial banks. It's not really their ability to 'create money' that's at issue. It's the basis on which it is done. It is also the fact that a borrower's promissory note is first monetised AND THEN used to lend to that very borrower! In other words the lender never had the money to lend in the first place! All of this is done without the knowledge or consent of the borrower (promisor) and is of course, particularly to the detriment of that very borrower/promisor, who has to pay back with real money and real interest what the lender has simply monetised (the borrower's promissory note) in order to generate and 'lend' to the borrower/promisor. It's always been very curious to me, as I've observed the odd one or two of these types of cases over the past 3-4 years that the lenders never deny or admit! Doesn't that say so much in itself?? The case never goes to trial, further discovery never takes place and there is never opportunity for the cross-examination of key witnesses and knowledgeable experts in the matter. It's always knocked on the head as absurd and meritless from the get-go and usually goes no further.

 

The main problem with this argument is that while there's much generic evidence in the form of statements from ex-senior commercial and central bankers, getting the evidence to prove it, in your own particular case, for your own particular mortgage or loan will be nigh unto impossible...unless you have the resources of the likes of Mossad etc.

[bustthematrix]

while there's much generic evidence in the form of statements from ex-senior commercial and central bankers,...

This may seem easily said but if you Google the phrase 'promissory note' and look up concepts such as 'money as debt' and 'banking fraud' you'll see what I mean.

This is one of those scenarios where the truth is certainly stranger than fiction.

[applecart]

Hi Apple

I agree with much of what you've said. But I'm not sure you've fully grasped the issue at hand nor what Tellinger's trying to achieve. I think you're right in that his defence was lacking LEGAL content i.e. the application of Statute Law. However the real issue goes far beyond the Bank of England (or any other Central Bank) 'creating' money by adding zeros into special entries on a computer somewhere. I agree that all of that is LEGAL (if not lawful???) so long as a country's legislature has enacted the laws to allow it to be done.

 

What Tellinger is saying pertains to the activities of individual commercial banks. It's not really their ability to 'create money' that's at issue. It's the basis on which it is done. It is also the fact that a borrower's promissory note is first monetised AND THEN used to lend to that very borrower! In other words the lender never had the money to lend in the first place! All of this is done without the knowledge or consent of the borrower (promisor) and is of course, particularly to the detriment of that very borrower/promisor, who has to pay back with real money and real interest what the lender has simply monetised (the borrower's promissory note) in order to generate and 'lend' to the borrower/promisor. It's always been very curious to me, as I've observed the odd one or two of these types of cases over the past 3-4 years that the lenders never deny or admit! Doesn't that say so much in itself?? The case never goes to trial, further discovery never takes place and there is never opportunity for the cross-examination of key witnesses and knowledgeable experts in the matter. It's always knocked on the head as absurd and meritless from the get-go and usually goes no further.

 

The main problem with this argument is that while there's much generic evidence in the form of statements from ex-senior commercial and central bankers, getting the evidence to prove it, in your own particular case, for your own particular mortgage or loan will be nigh unto impossible...unless you have the resources of the likes of Mossad etc.

 

Tellinger fails to understand that monetising/securitising loans is a commercially acceptable means of banks generating funds - Promissory notes are the very tool necessary to assist the monitisation - it is commercially acceptable... if it is commercially acceptable, there is no contention. As you say without any legal substance - the contention is flawed...

No consumer needs to prove what Tellinger is looking to prove in order to protect their homes from predatory lenders (media called them this, I'm simply lending the term)

A consumers contention is completely different - Tellingers defence does not help them at all - unless he wins his case that is.....

Consumers only need to prove that their loan was 'sold' - proving that your loan was monitised/securitised in a 'true sale' is not the same thing.....

Applecart