Case in point. You have two million dollars. I have a dollar. Using the statistical average, I would be classed as a millionaire, while I actually only have a dollar.
Another. We hear regularly about financial enterprises that are "Too big to fail." "Too big" is just that and nothing more. It doesn't need a prepositional qualifier but if it did the more accurate phrase would be "Too big to succeed," as we've sadly come to know.
How did these financial enterprises, hereinafter referred to as banksters, get too big? Fraud. Fraud is the basic premise of their operating procedures. This fraud is in two stages. First the bankster offers to hold a mortgage based on a mortgage note of indebtedness to a homebuyer, hereinafter referred to as the victim. Then, the bankster offers these notes to another bankster who wants to profit from the potential income from the interest that it is presumed the victim will pay. The banksters call these notes to be paid "securities" and sell them in bunches like bananas. Then the second bankster sells them to another bankster and on and on, each taking some vig out of each sale. This is where the billions and billions of dollars are generated by the big banksters that allows them to pay themselves the hundreds of billions in bonuses, not counting unconscionable salaries.
Another way of looking at it is to construct a vertical chain, with the victim at the bottom and the first bankster holding the mortgage note next up. Now, draw a great big horizontal line right there, above the first bankster. The most important thing to know about the mortgage industry is that: THERE IS NO MONEY ABOVE THAT LINE. None whatsoever. And yet, above that line where there is no money is where the banksters get their billions.
How do they do that? That's where the second fraud comes in. The mortgage note is a legal contract between the bankster and the victim stating the terms and conditions of the obligations of the bankster and the victim to fulfill the contract. It is a two party contract between the financial enterprise and the victim. All of the rules of contract law apply to the contract.
As a part of these notes is wording to the effect that the victim must pay another named financial enterprise "as the holder of the note may designate from time to time."
The first bankster is saying to the victim that he can sell the note to another bankster at his discretion and without the victim's knowledge or approval. Now, the second, third or fourth bankster is supposedly a party to the note, according to the first bankster. In exchange for paying off the note to the first bankster, the second bankster is handed the note that still shows the first bankster's financial enterprise as the legal recipient of the payments. The victim knows nothing of any of this.
The first bankster will make the argument that the victim signed the note with the sell provision in it and thus agreed to it. But the victim signed the note with the full expectation that the "designation" would be in compliance with contract law and a new note would be required stating the new provisions in writing. And, even if the argument is made that the victim knowingly signed the note with the sell provision in it, there is a principle of law that you can't sign away your rights to the protection of the law. The victim is not bound by illegal agreements.
The fraud here comes under the description of violations of various requirements of contract law. "Entire contract" is a contract that must be performed in its entirety; its parts are not severable from on another. "Unauthorised material alteration" If after a written contract has been executed a promisee intentionally alters it in a material respect without the consent of the promisor, the promisor is discharged. The rule applies to all contracts in writing and written instruments.
In other words, the original note between the first bankster and the victim is the valid contract. By passing the note to a second bankster, the first bankster has made a material alteration to the original note, in that the other party to the note, the victim is completely unaware that this change has been made. To be valid, the second edition of the note must be changed to show the new bankster and negotiated with the victim as to terms and conditions of payment, signed and notarized by both parties. This is not done.
This, according to contract law, renders the note invalid, unenforceable and uncollectible.
There is legal precedent for this in relation to attempted foreclosures. Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Federal District Court in Cleveland dismissed 14 foreclosure cases brought on behalf of mortgage investors, ruling that they had failed to prove that they owned the properties they were trying to seize.
Judge Boyko wrote: "The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate. Moreover, this court is obligated to carefully scrutinize all filings and pleadings in foreclosure actions, since the unique nature of real property requires contracts and transaction concerning real property to be in writing."