7/8/9 talkshoe.

com’s AIB RADIO, Maria on mortgages, letter of marque and reprisal 1/4

00minutes 46 seconds Maria: We've just gotten some validation of information that everyone has a right to cancel their
mortgage even though there is a 3 year period to review disclosure requirements and documents because mortgage
companies have never disclosed the truth behind the promissory note and the initial transaction paying for the property and
that the deed of trust is a bogus void fraud on the people.
The issue here pertaining to the Truth in Lending Act 15 United States Code subsection 1601 except[?] and also listed under
12 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) part 226, allows the right to cancel and puts the stipulation of 3 years to review the
disclosure documents. But if the required disclosures are never made by the lender to the borrower under TILA and there's
nothing in writing that disclosure has been made then the right to cancel does not initiate until the lender or the
[blank blank] produced all of the required disclosures, which they never do. So when you get a notice of sale, at any time
you can still attack such notice of sale under fraud, and there's numerous supreme court cases that validate the fact that the
general doctrine, fraud vitiating everything including the most solemn contract and documents and the [garbled] judgments,
and that is the united states vs Throckmorton which is located at 98 US 61. Only after disclosures have been made does the
3 day right to cancel period begin. You can go in and take that into fraud. 3:52
Its 3 years to review the disclosure documents but the 3 day period only begins after the lender has produced and given to
the borrower all of the required disclosures. And that means to disclose the Title Page to the borrower that the deed of
trust is a fake and a fraud. And if the person knew that the deed of trust was not really [needed?] in a mortgage, because
the mortgage was all taken care of with the promissory note. If you knew the deed of trust was a fake and a fraud, would
you have signed it?
Harvey: It might have been a deal killer.
Maria: That's the issue. It couldn't kill the deal Harvey if you signed the promissory note and tendered that back at closing.
Its not supposed to be a deal killer. But it does establish the fact through the Title Page that the property is paid for the
minute the borrower, [who is] the settlor, cause you're not a borrower, the minute the settlor signs the promissory note,
everything is paid. All of the voluminous papers that you sign at closing are superfluous and void, with no disclosure cause
they're not really needed.
Caller: How do you enforce those documents in the very beginning at closing? How could you get the note from the title
closer and bring it to the recorder's office and get it recorded. Cause normally they don't let you walk away with those
documents.
Maria: You can get a copy of the documents that you signed. They have to give you a copy. Whether its a blank copy [or]
made out, you have to be smart enough to look at the document and tell them that you want a copy of everything you
signed. They give you a copy of what you signed, and they keep the original. That's fine. Just sign it as settlor, record it
and turn it back in to them. Turn it into the company that the first payment that you're supposed to pay, with a
1099A and say have a nice day. [notarize your autograph and send papers by registered mail return receipt requested].
Caller: Wow, that's incredible. I'm a mortgage broker by trade and I feel so guilty when I'm at the closing table and I see
what's going on there.
Maria: You can instruct your client that they have the right to request the foreclosing, 72 hours before closing, and this is
under Regulation Z, that they request to see the entire closing package and to take it to their counselor 72 hours before
closing. It is a violation and I believe a felony if they don't give it to you. 8:00 And that includes the promissory note. So
when they give you the promissory note, you simply sign it and take it back to them at closing.
Caller: Are you talking about the copy or the original they give you at the closing table?
Maria: Doesn't matter if they give you a copy. Its all made out, its blank, they have to give it to you 3 days before closing...
Sometimes they're labeled promissory note, sometimes adjustable rate note, sometimes just a note.
If you sign it as a settlor and record it, its a negotiable instrument that is actionable.
Harvey: because the bank can make it a negotiable instrument right?
Yes, that's their job.
11:17 You're recourse if you're in post foreclosure is to demand of the mortgage company the Title Page and/or to file suit
against the mortgage company based on the fact and to be your right to cancel based on the fact that the mortgage company
has never fulfilled their disclosure requirement. So the 3 days doesn't start until they give you those disclosures number one.
You have to look at what they give you. I haven't looked at a mortgage in 15-20 years.
14:44 What is the Title Page?
The historical progression of what occurred in the transaction and it will show that the property is paid for before
you sign the deed of trust. So our object in education is to educate people in [garbled] so that when they come
across the deed of trust they simply do not sign it. They set it aside and say I will do that later. And you
finish whatever else you gotta do and when you get back to that deed of trust to finish the closing you
can eyeball that closing agent or that escrow agent and say I want to see the title page now before I
sign this. And I'm not sure what their reaction would be in a closing other than if they refuse to give it to you it can cost
7-8-9 2/4

the escrow company their license I believe. And when you make your request to the mortgage company if you're going to do
a credit disclosure to the mortgage company to [inspect them?] you make sure that when you request the note you also at the
same time request the title page. 16:22
The courts have been denying the companies from producing those records because most people are admitting that they're
secured transactions or the judges are corrupt. But I do not believe the judge could deny the title page. And that was one of
the big things we had from last week from Bob, that people are asking for the wrong thing. 16:52
You can require and request an audit of the mortgage documents which will always reveal disclosure violations. You also
have, according to UCC 1-201 subsections 32 and 34 a right and remedy to invoke the right of rescission. These are things,
in the banking books, that the banks don't want you to know. When notice has been given to lender, the lender is required by
federal law to cancel the lien and cancel any security interest within 20 days. Otherwise they become liable for that. So its
not only under state law, its under federal law. Until the lender complies with that. The borrower may retain the proceeds of
the transaction. So what you come across, when they don't do it, is gross discrepancies, fraud and other wrongful acts that
are discovered therefore your offer is its reasonable value if you're post foreclosure. You go back to the mortgage company
and say Okay folks you can give me reasonable value for what you did under fraud and other wrongful acts or we can on
into the criminal court and see how fast you understand, you stand under, the fact that you could go away for a long time.
19:24 The title page is like a court docket and it tells everything that occurred.
The law really says that the lender has to comply and that the borrower can regain or acquire all right to the clear title and
reconveyance under federal law and provisions of TILA. Its all written in the law already. Its the lenders that are not doing
what they're supposed to do. So they're are a lot of seminar people going around and saying; Okay, if you've got a lender
that you know didn't give you full disclosure, but you know the TILA law, federal and state law to support your position but
you have a right to regain or retain all rights to the property because the lender has not complied a lot of seminar people are
now starting to educate people in the fact that they can turn around and file suit against that bank and anytime for their
failure to disclose, their failure to give you the title page or docket page. Their failure to clear the account when it was
actually paid for and their fraud contained in the deed of trust. 21:29 The banks are being told that the lenders will support
them and that they have a hold harmless agreement with the lender but its being proven now that when the lenders are being
sued, the uhm banks are being sued by the people that they're not being supported and IRS in their endeavors is not going to
come in and bail them out. And when you turn in a 3949A which is a criminal investigation based on the fact that 22:27
and you can demonstrate that you've sent notice to the bank of your right of rescission, sent notice that you've canceled or
revoked powers of attorney and fiduciary powers under the contract that's void. And you've done all this and you've got the
historical administrative record that you can show, now when the bank does not comply within 20 days now you have your
summary judgment set up to go into court against the bank. 23:05
What type of summary judgment do you prepare to bring into the court against the bank within that 20 day period?
You can prepare for treble damages for their lack of disclosure. Remember fraud vitiates everything it touches. Even
judgments. So you walk right into the court with the case united states vs Throckmorton and say look here guys, here's my
administrative record I sent by certified mail or registered return receipt or by fax. Make sure that you get a second service
on everybody. When you walk into court with that evidence, against the bank, against the CEO for their errors of TILA and
for their errors of GAAP, the General Accepted Accounting Principles, that they have to give you their disclosures.
Can that be put in the form of negative averment?
Yes, it can. And Tim Turner is a real good person who's been teaching about the negative averment.
Is it possible to turn that into a commercial lien?
I believe it is if they do not respond. You can record it on a UCC1and submit that through a maritime lien to the Department
of Transportation or to the Coast Guard. And that's what I'm doing with my assemblys, when I teach people about
assemblys, is gathering people together to make a group. When you have a group of people who are going to support each
other locally now you can disseminate a information to the prosecuting attorney, signed off by everybody in a grand jury
and further signed off by everybody in an assembly. And then have every one of those people, every day call that
prosecuting attorney asking why isn't their an indictment trial? You can do lots of things to the prosecuting attorney, you can
put notice in the paper that this has been submitted and the prosecuting attorney has either been bought off or whatever, that
it can be assumed because no charges are ever being filed and so many people have signed off on this, have agreed that an
indictment is necessary, agreed that their needs to be an investigation by the assembly, you know I think we'll get a really
good response.
A national bank can only file suit in the county in which its home office is located. Rad Wonhower [?] vs Touchwas [?] and
company. Cultevert [?] vs Anderson 28:39. There's several cases come down from the supreme court that state just that. That
they can only be sued in the county that the banks are located in. Ninety nine and nine tenths of all mortgages out there are
under pooling and servicing agreements number one. They're Delaware corporations, well what business does Delaware
have with California or any other state when we have validation from John Conyers office to that fact in writing that each
7-8-9 3/4

state if a summons is developed, is done in one state has no bearing in another state so therefore it solidifies the foreign
agent status and Rod will be talking about that at length on Friday. 29:40
In addition we have the Nosec case which says if you're operating under a pooling and service agreement as trustee, you are
an assignee and you have no standing to initiate an action against anybody and that case was decided May 26TH (2009)
[hear June 17, 2009 conference call and/or contact me for transcript].
So those are the tools that are starting to come out now and the judges were all told get the [blank] right and clean up this
mess or the citizens were going to take the issue to the Hague. 30:41 And what we're teaching on AIB RADIO, Radio Free
America and many others, we want to teach you people about the Castle Doctrine. Look it up. If you have somebody
coming on your property and you feel in imminent danger, the Castle Doctrine, it says if you fear for your life, you're in
imminent danger, you can shoot first and ask questions second. Go look it up. And those people that need a Marque and
Reprisal in the name of the people from 2008, get a hold of Rod and me and we'll make sure that you get it because with the
Marque and Reprisal was made out in the name of the people of the several states. Which also says that if you see anybody
warring with the Constitution, trying to overthrow the Republic form of government that you can shoot first, on the spot,
and never suffer a remedy. Anybody is more than welcome to take this Marque and Reprisal, send a copy to the FBI,
Homeland Security, CIA, and say I hold this in my hand, I comprehend and know that your agency and no other agent out
there can touch me when I hold the Marque and Reprisal. 32:49 Please state so in writing. If I use the Marque and Reprisal
what will happen to me? They probably will look at it. You can draw their attention to the Congressional Seal and they will
tell you what they told Rod to his face; “We can't touch you”. If every person in this land had a copy of that Marque and
Reprisal, a copy of the Castle Doctrine and a notice of intent, to post on the doors, post on your gate post, post on a tree, that
I am fully prepared to initiate the Castle Doctrine supported by the Marque and Reprisal for all illegal, fraudulent options by
any agent, agency, sub-agent, etc. I know that the public[?] and the so-called government which is democratic, which is
overthrowing the republican form of government is deathly afraid of the strength of the people. All that you have to do is
band together to form your own strength in your local community. 34:40 The more people you have in your community the
stronger you become. When called into action to support somebody who's being kicked off their land, if 100 people shows
up against 1 cop, do you think the cop is going to leave or do you think you can have the authority to set the cop down
handcuff him to a tree and tell him to shut up. And when he figures out the truth he can then be lead away from the tree,
depending on how many days it takes him to learn the truth. You have no business being on this property. You have no
authority being on this property and you're going to sit right there until you admit it and sign a statement under penalty of
perjury in front of 100 witnesses before you get to go home. 35:33
The documents are posted on AIB RADIO. Anybody that comes to my assemblys grand juries will have the availability of
getting a copy of it.
Go into your local police department and ask, are you guys police men or police officers?
A police officer serves the State, serves the statutes. A police man serves common law.
Police officers enforce policy, not the law. So when they come and say I am a police officer I would be inclined to say
excuse me, but you have nothing to do with me in your policy unless you can put my finger on the law that says your
policy has anything to do with me. And it does not. 39:57 If you have John Conyers letter that substantiates the fact that
from one State to another carries no weight, so where is the main headquarters of every police officer in this land? Would it
not be D.C. or Delaware probably?
41:30 Who can define “legalese” for me?
I do not 'understand' anything except nature and nature's God. Learn to change the word understand [ means to stand under]
to comprehend.
A court is a corporation for profit. That includes when they identify you by the use of a sir name which is a corporate
charter, by the use of Mr., Misses, Ms. All of those terms are only referring to the legal personality. The legal status of the
person has nothing to do with you when you're a child of God. 43:41
The banks, only in the county that they're located, can they sue. That would be under National Bank vs Associates of
Obstetrics 1976, 425 US 460 and 461.
Rad Danower vs Touche, Raw [?] and company 1976 426 US 148-152.
When the bank has a gross negligence, they have not given you full disclosure, they've not given you the title page. They
never afforded you the opportunity to have the documents reviewed 72 hours before closing creating a felony. 47:07
Therefore the codes, rules and regulations apply to them and their mis-dealings, fraud, which vitiates everything even up to
a judgment. So these are some of the things you can bring in. One of the questions you can ask these public servants is;
Am I obliged and where is the authority which lies [?] is it, that you act under? That you direct [?]. To these public servants;
put my finger on the law, not the policy, the law that says you have control over me. Remember, Tresavant vs City of
Tampa, which was a tremanding [tremendous or demanding, you pick] case. The issue SOP, standard operating procedure,
or policy as we now know, can never override due process. If you're ever in a court room on anything, unlawful detainer, on
any action, put my finger on the law that says I am obliged to you. 48:43 Put my finger on the law that says you're
qualified immunity judge so and so only kicks in if you're going to operate as an administrative judge and can [blank] the
7-8-9 4/4

case making you a plaintiff and yo yo [prosecutor] over here the defendant, or maybe you might choose article 3 capacity to
which you gotta bring in the true party, Rule 17A, injured party in interest. Once you start saying statements like that to the
judge you can bet he's going to be flying off that bench or threatening you with contempt to get you to shut up. And always
when they threaten you with contempt [say] I do not mean to be contemptuous but let the record reflect that I am stating the
law and you are threatening me, I fear for my life, I fear for bodily harm, so let this record state. And watch the judge come
back just as sweet as he can cause if that record goes up to the next level, to the next court and that is on the record that he
has threatened you, he is out of a job. 50:38 And I can tell you from personal experience the judge will become your next
best friend as soon as you let the record reflect that you have been threatened, that you fear for your life and that you are
afraid of the bodily harm that is about to be inflicted on you by the boy scout standing behind you with the weapons on
his..belt 51:10.
51:47 Get out of my court room I never want to see you again, which is usually the answer you're going to get. Let the
record reflect he didn't put my finger on the law that I'm obliged therefore I presume and assume I am not obliged to
anything including the fraudulent order that has been trying to be disseminated upon me, in fear of my life. 52:19
The people need to band together in the court room setting. If you know the law, if you know the truth with conviction, not
fear, you will be able to make them understand you, which equates to stand under you. The people were always the
sovereigns. If the judge threatens you with contempt your answer should be for the record I am here trying to differentiate
between the statute policy and the law. And I have asked this judge to put my finger on the law and he has refused because
there is no law that says that I am obliged to this court or anybody else. In the furthering of gross negligence and the
perpetration of all kinds of predator acts establishing racketeering and [garbled] corrupt organization activities by judge john
joe smith and yo yo attorney what's his name over here and that it applies to whomever tries to enforce the statutes 54:35
Caller: When you tie that Henslow vs Duane Administrator and of 1795 [before 1938!] and Wade vs Roe basically they're
telling you they have no power and authority over you..they never had it over us in our mother's wombs or the day we were
born. When and how did they ever get it?
They claim to get it through the birth certificate. They claimed to get it when mother informed them of the birth. But they
can't put your finger on the law. All they can put your finger on is the policy.
Caller: There can't be such a law, its like there's no such thing as an unlawful alien because your right to move on this planet
is an un-a-lien-able right.
One of our listeners, Earthica, is giving a statement here; a lot of the banks like to back date stuff and help the bank with
their fraud against me, she beats them to the punch every time to make sure that they're gonna learn. She said they filed a
motion to lift my stay in bankruptcy and then withdrew it. Two judges, and a law firm and a broker have all stepped down
and they're still trying to fraud me.
What is the case for Tampa? The Tresavant case dealt with due process. When a gentleman got a ticket and he walked in the
door in the police station to pay the ticket and because he walked through the wrong door they booked him, fingerprinted
him and detained him for 20 minutes. He filed suit against them saying that his due process rights were violated and it went
all the way to the supreme court and they said standard operating procedure, SOP, will never overrule due process. And the
judgment was $25,000.00 for 23 minutes which is about one thousand eighty six dollars and ninety six cents per minute.
And what we've learned now, in the commercial realm of contracts when you're out on the street or in a contract the way
that the police officers, enforcement officers gain their jurisdiction over you is to get your name and your address. I think
now if I were to be stopped I would probably say; I claim the 5TH [amendment] 58:30 call your supervisor. I would just sit
still and claim the 5TH. I don't know who I am. Do you know who I am? Excuse me but will you use that information to
gain jurisdiction to establish your revenue getting activity? Therefore, I claim the 5TH. I am not required to testify against
myself when I know its gonna be used against me. Put my finger on the law that says I have to tell you who I am and that I
cannot claim the 5TH.
Harvey: You must be hiding something.
I'm not hiding anything. Go call your supervisor. And let me remind you that this entire conversation is being recorded by
that thing on your shoulder and by my tape recorder, in addition to my cell phone with 15 other people listening to it. I'm
just giving you fair warning. You bring harm on me and there will be more than 15 people that have heard and will hear
what you are doing. I am asking you to put my finger on the law that says I do not have the right to claim the 5TH
amendment. Please get your supervisor. And you might want to bring out the presiding judge because I'm going to make a
counter claim against you right here and now. Are you really sure you want to commit an Article 3...[interference]60:31
A listener has written; Will you be using any info I give you to commit securities fraud? I will not involve myself in your
illegal activities.
Miranda vs Arizona, the right secured by the constitution involves, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them. 62:32
Harvey: have you seen Earthicastar's youtube videos?