stopped paying the alleged mortgage

We decided it was time to take a stand and put our money (or lack of it) where our mouth is.  This was around the beginning of March 2013.  We received the first contact from the bank via text message notifying us that our account was overdrawn on the 1 March 2013. 

The bank soon started calling asking when we would make payments etc, and we pretty quickly simply stopped answering the calls.  I ended up taking a call over this period and my partner also fielded one.  We both in some capacity (heart pounding, caught off guard…) explained the situation of the foreclosures and that there is no debt to pay and that therefore we would not be making any payments.  It was about 3 weeks after this before we received any thing in writing in order to send a CN.

This we did, on the 21 March 2013 to the "Head of Credit Solutions".  Around the beginning of April I received a call from someone else in the 'team' saying they had received our CN, but that we were still required to pay as per our loan agreement.  Again I explained the situation, and thanked her for accepting my terms and conditions and followed up with an invoice to her and to the original respondent along with a covering letter. These were sent on the 4th April 2013.

Next we received a "formal demand notice" dated 10 April.  Again we respond with an invoice and covering letter.

Now, we entered in to this with a bit of a back up plan, although I was confident at the time that the OPPT actions would be all we needed to back us up as we "became the change we wanted to see in the world".  We have a family member who has been shall I say a "freedom worker" for several years doing her best to use the system against it's self and trialling various ideas in trying to free people from their enslaving alleged mortgage debts.  So in the letter we added in to the mix that we have sold our property to her trust for $20 by private treaty (standard sale and purchase agreement).  We also included in this letter that we have no mortgage document signed by us.  You probably never signed a mortgage either.   The significance of this is that the law states (in effect) that a mortgage must be signed by the party giving the mortgage (you) in order for it to be enforceable.  

We also requested proof of the loan, specifically;
1. Produce full documentation of prior title, ownership and rights to the money that was purportedly loaned.
2. Produce documentation of the history and origin of funds.  Evidence that ASB Bank purportedly had prior title, ownership and rights to the funds that were purportedly loaned. 
3. Produce documentation of the actual transaction and transfer of said funds (prior title, ownership, and rights) from the loaner to the borrower (including but not limited to invoicing and/or receipts), 
4. Produce the original wet-ink signature contract where we agreed, under full and complete knowledge, to enter into this alleged contract with the ASB bank corporation. 

Another letter from the bank followed stating they would up grade our case to 'credit control' if we didn't pay after a certain period… This also stated that they had received the invoices, but made no mention of the points I had raised in the letter.  I didn't invoice for this.
Next we received a letter from 'credit control' stating they would be handing it on to their lawyers.  Very soon after this we received a letter from the lawyers, hand delivered on 28 May 2013, ( the section 119 default notice ).
So a number of people received invoices at this time, along with reminder notices and a final notice to previously invoices parties. Again I included a covering letter with reference to the previous correspondence requesting proof of a loan etc.  I also returned the section 119 notices to the banks lawyers stating that these were meaningless given the foreclosure of the worlds banks and government corporations.
We received a letter back stating that our previous correspondence appeared to be based on "pseudolaw" and that therefore they would not respond.  They reiterated the date for remedy and suggested we seek proper legal advice.
I hadn't heard of pseudolaw, but after a quick google, I can see where they are coming from. Psuedolaw seems to group many of the OPPT 'methods' along with ideas along the lines of the freeman of the land movement, and conveniently write it all off giving no regard to the underlying principal of our (god given) right to freedom.
I must admit at this point I wavered somewhat.  It would seem the lawyers have written off the OPPT movement before they have even done any research, as it appears on the surface to have been tried before and proven (albeit by their own system) not to be effective or hold any ground in 'real' law.  I have long questioned the basis of 'real' law, as has the OPPT filings, and conclude the same.  In fact it is incredible to me now that the OPPT filings seem to have reflected my beliefs in the foundation of law back to me. I was not party to the creation of these, I certainly do not agree with them, and I do not consent.  I am responsible for myself and will treat all others with the respect I expect towards myself.  It is pretty obvious really.  What is not obvious is the reaction of the system towards these ideas.
I digress.  I have written the follow up letter reiterating the validity of the OPPT filings, and restating the request for proof of loan and the other points I have previously made in the letter to the bank as I can not be sure that the banks lawyers have even read this. 
I will point out here that New Zealand doesn't have a foreclosure process as such.  There is no court hearing for which we might halt the process with CN's etc.  It is simply a process here by which the bank holds the right to sell your house after the issuing of a 'section 119 default notice' giving a period for which to remedy the default and pay the associated legal fees.  It is my understanding that after this period they will send another letter stating they will be marketing the house.  At this point you might expect real estate agents to start arriving for that purpose.  They will encourage you to leave, but it is very unlikely any one will arrive to try to forcibly remove you before the house is actually 'sold'.  They can not legally forcibly remove you, as of course it is still your property.  After it is sold they will try to gain possession and things could get messy.
So one thing is very clear.  The banking system simply follows a process no matter what you throw at it although I am sure the points I made raised some eyebrows and the energetic effect has been worth while.
I guess I am going to be waiting to see what the banks lawyers come back with if anything.  I am still trusting it will work out, but I really welcome any advice at this point, particularly in line with the OPPT process and what was intended for us to do next.  How do we get across to lawyers who are simply writing it all off?  I also would like to know what to do next with regard to the enforcement of the unpaid invoices.

With love and light...

Hi Muthaship, again sorry for the slow response.

Thanks for your comments and quotes (posted https://opptcourtcases.forumotion.com/t143-humanity-and-alleged-kiwibank#1045 ) that were a very good reminder to not leave the "battle field"

I think you are asking is there a mortgage signed by you held by someone else, and I believe the answer is no. You will have signed an authority to register the mortgage, but not the actual mortgage document as required by law in order for the mortgage to be enforceable.

Your loan document references a mortgage, and the copy you have is signed by persons unknown to you and prior to the time of your mortgage but not signed by yourself at the time of giving the mortgage.

I believe this is a big and potentially very embarrassing mistake by lawyers that they will probably try to sweep under the carpet. I think it happened when the process became digital and skipping the signatures by referencing a previously (signed by the banks representatives) document was done to save time. But it does not change what is written in law (albeit part of a foreclosed system). Imagine if it comes out that no mortgages are valid that were created in the last 10(?) years or so. The banks are going to be a little bit pissed at their lawyers!

The sale of the property means that the property should be protected. It is no longer owned by us and there is no agreement between the bank and the new owner. Therefore the bank would have to seek the money from us personally through a (foreclosed, commercial) court process at which time we would be presenting all of the evidence demonstrating that no loan has been made and we expect that the bank and lawyers would consider this action very carefully before proceeding down this track.

The title remains un-transferred, with the charge from the bank listed on it, but the title is only paper and not the possession of the property. This has been tested in court before although in situations further down the track where the validly of the sale and purchase agreement has been challenged. One case was well in to receivership, and the other was lost due to incorrect vendors on the sale and purchase agreement! But in the case summaries the judge has indicated that a sale and purchase agreement made before any default, and made correctly would be valid.

This also gets in to ideas of legal vs equitable titles that I am not so clear on, but it might be of interest to note that the trading of titles would seem to be part of the illusion and in fact the agreements for occupation of the actual property are quite separate.

I'll post an update seperately.

We quickly received a response along with the section 119 notices returned. (We sent them back again with the last letter). We had included a request for the priority amount for the mortgage for which they provided a response, and they stated that our solicitors hold the signed authority to register the mortgage, but did not address the proof of loan requirements at all.

We have sent another letter today including returning the section 119 notices, the contents of which is below:

----------
Thank you once again for your quick reply to portions of our previous correspondence, however your omissions are glaringly obvious.

An authority to register the mortgage is not the mortgage document that is required to be signed by law in order for the mortgage to be enforceable.

We know that you cannot provide evidence of a loan as previously requested, as a loan was never made. We know that the loan document with our signatures is fraudulently monetised and securitised and that in fact we are the creditors and that our value has been stolen. However we state once again the requirements in order to substantiate that a loan was made and that a debt exists.

1. Produce full documentation of prior title, ownership and rights to the money that was purportedly loaned.

2. Produce documentation of the history and origin of funds. Evidence that ASB Bank purportedly had prior title, ownership and rights to the funds that were purportedly loaned.

3. Produce documentation of the actual transaction and transfer of said funds (prior title, ownership, and rights) from the loaner to the borrower (including but not limited to invoicing and/or receipts).

4. Produce the original wet-ink signature contract where we agreed, under full and complete knowledge, to enter into this alleged contract with the ASB bank corporation.

We give you 14 calender days to provide this evidence after which time we accept failure to provide such documentation as acknowlegement that no loan was made and therefore expect no further dealings with you, your associates, or the former ASB Bank.

Any contract we made with the ASB Bank is clearly null and void.

The claims against us are for an unsubstantiated debt, and as such are extortion. I suggest you consider your actions very carefully if you are going to be party to this crime.

Any powers outlined in the enclosed notices are not enforcable as there is no signed mortagage document, and, as there is no evidence that a loan has been made, the ASB Bank has breached the terms of the contract.

We suggest that you review your understanding of the situation and seek competent legal advice, and would appreciate that you address every point raised in this and previous correspondance including but not limited to the foreclosures of the government corporations and all banks even if it would ‘appear’ to be pseudolaw as this is not the case.

As we have already outlined, each and every attempt by any person to enforce a fraudulent contract will be invoiced as scheduled in our terms and conditions.

---end of letter---

I guess we wait to see what we get back...

Dear my One People family,

We are overdue an update, so here is where events have come to.

After several letters continuing to request proof of loan etc, and replies ignoring the questions completely, the bank (ASB Bank) has started to market 'our' house for sale. We have continued to point out that it is sold, and contacted the real estate company (Barfoot & Thompson) directly to ensure they are operating with transparency of the situation, hoping they might take a professional approach and consider discontinuing marketing until the issue can be resolved with the bank. The company has shown its colours and continued on its course, potentially wasting the time of mislead purchasers. They have been issued with CN's and are due to be invoiced for actions against us. (We have told 3 parties who entered the property that it is sold, and will be invoicing for these breaches of our privacy)

We haven't kept up the invoicing process with the bank and their lawyers, thinking it best to keep the questions and requests for information clear with out confusing it with what they have written off as 'pseudolaw'. We though it best that we get a response to our questions rather than them disregarding the whole letter. Given the continuing action we are considering catching up on the invoicing process, and adding the banks lawyers to the list. I must say dealing with these people is a bit like beating your head against a brick wall, they are clearly robotic and acting out a process, ignoring information that doesn't compute.

We have registered a security interest in the loan document on the PPSR, and suggested this is used to discharge the mortgage. We have given a mortgage to the purchaser that is in the process of being registered on the title with LINZ, and we have also lodged for transfer of the title to the new owner. We believe there is nothing they can do to prevent this happening and don't believe they will be able to reverse this under any circumstances. We have also just lodged a complaint with the banking ombudsman.

I have glazed over the goings on, but will try to organise up loading our letters and the banks letters so that you can get a better idea of the details and various things we have called them out on.

Now we get to where we are at, and this is where it is getting really fun.

The family member whose trust has purchased the property has, as expected, been called to court to defend the caveats she has placed on the title. She will be in court on Wednesday to confirm that she will be defending her actions at which time a hearing date will be set. We thought that perhaps knowing what they do of previous cases on this matter of removing caveats that they would think twice about this course of action. We have a case summary that I have pointed out to their lawyers in support of our right to sell the house, that clearly states if the sale and purchase agreement is correctly executed it would remain a binding document and protect the right to place the caveats on the property. The bank would have to seek alternative avenues to recover the debt as the property is clearly now owned by a third party with no relationship with the bank.

But they seem to have ignored this, and put a case together regardless.

Now here is the brilliant part, we are party to the banks case documents; the outline of what they are asking, affidavits etc stating their case. And to our surprise this includes all of our letters to the bank and their lawyers, mention of the OPPT including screen shots from the I-UV web site, our CN's, foreclosure flyers, invoices etc. Everything. All of it we would have used against their case if ever we got the chance but we didn't think we would get that chance because it is not particularly relevant to this case. We thought we would have to wait until they came after us directly for the alleged debt having not found remedy in removing the caveats and completing a mortgagee sale and transfer of the title. Now, because they have presented this as evidence for their case, we get to use it against their case. This means that we now get a chance in court to force them to invalidate the OPPT actions, foreclosures, validity of UCC law in our country, and everything else we have presented against them. This includes most importantly our continued request to substantiate the debt and requirement for the original contract.

They have tried to put the spin on it that we are all involved in the OPPT which is similar to the Freeman of the Land movement, and therefore clearly we can't be taken seriously. I think the thing is they haven't taken it seriously, and they haven't realised the opportunity they have given us.

We now get to build a defence that will "on the record" show what OPPT has done. I believe they are going to have to prove that UCC doesn't apply and that the foreclosures haven't happened. We have evidence that UCC does apply, and of course a whole lot of OPPT documents supporting our case. I might be getting over excited, but if we can clearly demonstrate that the legal process of the OPPT is factual, we will more than just save our house.

Now this is just one angle we have, but this seems the most relevant here, so I will save the rest till another time, perhaps after we have started building the case and I have a more clear idea of where we are heading.

We ask for assistance in building the case for the OPPT / UCC etc, as this is not necessarily the main focus of this case, albeit the most important, and while I 'get' the whole thing, it is more of a tacit understanding rather than an ability to understand and present the facts.