Judge Boyko was writing only about a foreclosure case which was before him, as he is required to do, but what he says is basic contract law, and even if the plaintiffs were able to present the original note, it would not have shown in writing that the victim owes the financial enterprise holding the note anything at all, since it doesn't show the two parties to the note in writing, as Judge Boyko says is required. This invalidates the note.
What this amounts to is that when you get a mortgage from a bankster and sign a note that says you owe that bankster the money the note says you do, when the bankster sells the note, as is, to another bankster, the note has been paid off by the second bankster and the second bankster has nothing that shows you owe him any money at all.
So, when a second bankster, or anyone else that you've never heard of, says to you that you owe them money, you say to them, "Show me the legal document, signed and notarized by you and me that says I owe you money. I know that there is no such note because I've never signed one and I've never acknowledged that I owe you anything, verbally or in writing. Judge Boyko has ruled on this, saying that any legal contract must be in writing, and you don't have one. I no longer owe the original note holder anything because you've paid off my original note, thank you very much. I now owe nobody anything. You've been sold a pig in a poke and I now own my house free and clear.
"The reasons you paid off my note are immaterial and of no interest to me. I don't care why, but I'm glad that you did. Again, thank you very much."
You don't even have to be in foreclosure to do this. This is the position you take anytime your original bankster sells your note to another bankster and he tries to collect, even if it"s only one month since you made the original note. No matter what state your mortgage is in, no matter how long you've had it, get a contract lawyer and sue the original bankster for the return of your paid off note and the title to your house. You've got a good case because your note has been paid off and there's nobody anywhere who can prove you owe them anything.
The reason for this is that the banksters got arrogant and sloppy and screwed up, badly, according to Judge Boyko. And you get a free house out of it.
That's contract law at work.
What this amounts to is that when you get a mortgage from a bankster and sign a note that says you owe that bankster the money the note says you do, when the bankster sells the note, as is, to another bankster, the note has been paid off by the second bankster and the second bankster has nothing that shows you owe him any money at all.
So, when a second bankster, or anyone else that you've never heard of, says to you that you owe them money, you say to them, "Show me the legal document, signed and notarized by you and me that says I owe you money. I know that there is no such note because I've never signed one and I've never acknowledged that I owe you anything, verbally or in writing. Judge Boyko has ruled on this, saying that any legal contract must be in writing, and you don't have one. I no longer owe the original note holder anything because you've paid off my original note, thank you very much. I now owe nobody anything. You've been sold a pig in a poke and I now own my house free and clear.
"The reasons you paid off my note are immaterial and of no interest to me. I don't care why, but I'm glad that you did. Again, thank you very much."
The reason for this is that the banksters got arrogant and sloppy and screwed up, badly, according to Judge Boyko. And you get a free house out of it.
That's contract law at work.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
