The mortgage indsutry is a huge scam

The Dirty Mortgage Secret: The Borrower’s Right to Their Promissory NOTE and the CASH VALUE

The journey of a mortgage promissory note from a simple contractual agreement to a complex financial instrument is shrouded in layers of banking procedures rarely disclosed to the average borrower. This article aims to demystify how mortgage companies securitize promissory notes and the little-known fact that all mortgage borrowers have an inherent claim to these notes which have CASH VALUE of your total loan amount and often even more—a claim often lost in the fog of inadequate disclosure and double ledger banking practices.

 

The Securitization Process:

Securitization—the act of transforming loans into securities—begins with a borrower signing a promissory note, which represents a promise to pay back the borrowed amount with interest. This note is a powerful financial tool that, unbeknownst to many signers, becomes a cog in the wheel of a larger economic machine.

Jean Keating How the mortgage industry is fraudulent and borrowers are Double Paying

The Unseen Value of Promissory Notes:

Upon signing, these promissory notes are recorded as an asset on the lender’s books. What borrowers are not typically told is that this asset entry is mirrored by a cash value entry, effectively creating a financial balance that is not directly acknowledged on the lender’s publicly disclosed financial statements.

 

Behind the Banking Veil:

In the labyrinth of commercial banking, the creation of a loan simultaneously generates an equal and opposite ledger entry. This practice, often obscured from the borrower, means that the bank considers the loan to be ‘paid’ from an accounting standpoint the moment the promissory note is signed and valued.

 

The Hidden Claim:

Every borrower, by virtue of their signed promissory note, holds aN ownership and claim to it. Yet, due to the opaque nature of financial disclosures and the complexities of commercial banking, most never exercise this right. The promissory note, once signed, is frequently sold to a trust or Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), which then issues securities backed by these notes. The capital generated from selling these securities to investors is rarely, if ever, credited back to the borrower.

This is because borrowers never actually make claim, due to lack of disclosure.

a Promissory Note is actually a assets with cash value given cash is just actually DEBT. THER IS NO MONEY

A Case for Transparency and Action:

The lack of transparency in disclosing these financial maneuvers to borrowers raises serious ethical concerns. A borrower should be aware that their signed note has been commodified and that they hold a potential claim over it. In an illustrative letter obtained from a credible source, an informed borrower confronted their lender, demanding a cash receipt for the promissory note and the discharge of the remaining balance. This action was grounded in the assertion of their right to claim ownership of the note under equitable principles.

Mortgage Promissory NOTES are Assets How to Request Return of Your Promissory NOTE Asset 1

 

Mortgages are the biggest scams and this is a HUGE PUBLIC matter. How is the entire Mortgage Industry a Fraud with improper disclosure and double ledger banking, and double dipping ? You finance your own loans (not the banks), YOUR promissory NOTE has cash value, and if the mortgage isn’t paid, the insurance company pays it.

The mortgage industry is one of the biggest scams of EVERYONE’S lifetime.

 

 

 

Conclusion:
The borrower’s right to claim their promissory note is an overlooked aspect of the mortgage securitization process. While the system is legally sound, the ethical implications of non-disclosure stand in stark contrast to principles of fairness and transparency. It’s crucial for borrowers to be fully informed about their rights and for regulatory bodies to enforce clearer communication from financial institutions. As this understanding permeates the consciousness of mortgage borrowers, it may lead to a significant shift in how lenders operate and interact with their clients.

Many borrowers have the right to recoupment and/or rescission. Understanding how to reclaim their promissory notes and understanding the difference between being a credit and debtor is essential.

Leave your vote

More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

In a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Kevin: Realworldfare and Corey: Walker expose Riverside Court Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner’s unlawful railroading under color of law and total absence of jurisdiction. Despite a pending Quiet Title Action and perfected federal removal, Wagner issued void orders to dispossess the Walker Estate—yet the Estate remains lawfully and firmly in possession. Now under Article III jurisdiction, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato presides over the live case, which alleges constitutional violations, commercial fraud, and abuse of process. This is a high-stakes confrontation between equity and overreach—where immunity fails and facts prevail.

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges are not immune when they operate outside lawful jurisdiction, conspire under color of law, or engage in commercial enforcement without consent. Under the Clearfield Doctrine, they become corporate actors subject to liability like any private party. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 enables civil rights lawsuits against them individually, while 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 provides for criminal penalties for conspiracy and deprivation of rights. Through tort law, UCC, and case law like Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), and Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), judges can face personal and injunctive accountability.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!