THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE ​"ASSIGNMENT OF YOUR

MORTGAGE",
EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN USED ILLEGALLY 20 MILLION TIMES
IN 15 YEARS

LET'S ALL JUST TAKE THREE STEPS BACK FROM CRAZY!

THAT IS RULE #1-- WHEN FIGHTING MORTGAGE FRAUD:

 
(IN THE 26 STATES THAT USE NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE THE MORTGAGE IS CALLED A
DEED OF TRUST. THE WORD MORTGAGE IS RARELY SPOKEN IN THESE STATES)

Heirs of a cold war, that's what we've become

Inheriting troubles, I'm mentally numb
Crazy, I just cannot bear, That I'm living with something that just isn't fair
Mental wounds not healing.....Who and what's to blame
I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train, I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train
Ozzy Osborne

By Danny Hammond

Reposted because not enough people have read this important information

infoforeclosurefraud@gmail.com​; ​consumerfinanceprotection.org@gmail.com

Website: https://www.foreclosurefraudanswers.com
I have reviewed hundreds (possibly thousands) of home loan paperwork preceding a
fraudulent foreclosure. I have read about many more.

I have never seen any deal where the foreclosing party was not relying on an assignment of
the security instrument. In Judicial foreclosure states, the assignment of the security
instrument involves what is called a mortgage. A mortgage is not a home loan. It is merely
the rule book concerning the collateral you put up to ensure that the bank will be paid back.

A mortgage has no value and the assignment of a mortgage does NOT transfer your home
loan from one party to another. In the Non-Judicial States, the security instrument is called a
Deed of Trust which serves the same purpose as a mortgage. There is no such thing as "the
assignment of a mortgage or a deed of trust. The mortgage or deed of trust exist only as part
of the loan agreement and it is incidental. The security instrument which is known as the
incidental instrument (there are no laws that require collateral for a loan at all.)

Your house is the usual collateral involving a home loan because that is where the loan
money was spent. But, collateral could also consist of one thousand Schwinn bicycles in a
warehouse. It is my strong personal belief that all (ALL) of the foreclosures in the United
States from about the year 2000, or earlier, are based on the exact (EXACT) same lie. What is
that lie?

Each and every foreclosing party (none of them are lenders (LENDERS) in the true sense of
that word)), well anyway, each and every foreclosing party has claimed without providing
proof (((PROOF))) that they have a right to foreclose because they know where a copy of a
Promissory Note is that they got from somebody somewhere through the assignment of a
security instrument. Properly called a "mortgage" until the disastrous approval of the strange
non-judicial foreclosure in about half of the 50 states. In those states it is called a "deed of
trust", but in many older important court rulings, it is generally called a mortgage. Either
way, it is the security instrument and it is inferior to the Promissory Note in your home loan
documentation.

The definition of a security instrument is very straight up and simple, so let's clear that up
right here and right now.

For the case law that clearly states that the assignment of a mortgage (security instrument)
alone is not possible, for it is a nullity at law and that there is no provision in law for an
"assignment of mortgage". We must look at the United States Supreme Court decision in the
case of "Carpenter v Longan" from 1872. The decisions of the Supreme Court are law and all
courts of the land are bound to take them as such. This decision was the law at its conclusion
in 1872. The Supreme Court never found a cause or reason to revisit of edit this decision.
Therefore, it has remained the one and only law concerning the assignment of a mortgage or
Deed of Trust (in non-judicial states). Any other case law from any other court, if it is in
conflict with Carpenter v Longan, is also a nullity and therefore is not a citation for proof of
the validity of an assignment of mortgage. Because there can be no conflict with a United
States Supreme Court order or ruling.

I have not included the whole case, nor all of the paragraphs. I did this to make it easier for
inexperienced Borrowers considering Pro Se defense. You can find the whole case very easily
by "googling" "Longan v Carpenter. This will create no conflict with the paragraphs that I
have included below:

83 U.S. 271 (16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313)

CARPENTER v. LONGAN.

● opinion, SWAYNE

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Colorado Territory.

Messrs. J. M. Carlisle and J. D. McPherson, for the appellant; Messrs. Bartley and Casey
contra.

Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court

"The assignment of a negotiable note before its maturity raises the presumption of a want of
notice of any defense to it, and this presumption stands till it is overcome by sufficient proof.

The transfer of the note carries with it the security, without any formal assignment or
delivery, or even mention of the latter. If not assignable at law, it is clearly so in equity. When
the amount due on the note is ascertained in the foreclosure proceeding, equity recognizes it
as conclusive and decrees accordingly. Whether the title of the assignee is legal or equitable
is immaterial. The result follows irrespective of that question. The process is only a mode of
enforcing a lien.

All the authorities agree that the debt is the principal thing and the mortgage an accessory.
Equity puts the principal and accessory upon a footing of equality and gives to the assignee of
the evidence of the debt the same rights in regard to both.

There is no departure from any principle of law or equity in reaching this conclusion. There is
no analogy between this case and one where a chose in action standing alone is sought to be
enforced. The fallacy which lies in overlooking this distinction has misled many able minds
and is the source of all the confusion that exists.
The mortgage can have no separate existence. When the note is paid the mortgage expires. It
cannot survive for a moment the debt which the note represents. This dependent and
incidental relation is the controlling consideration and takes the case out of the rule applied
to choices in action, where no such relation of dependence exists. Accessorium non ducit,
sequitur principale.

The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An
assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is
a nullity.

We think the doctrine we have laid down is sustained by reason, principle, and the greater
weight of authority.

DECREE REVERSED, and the case remanded with directions to enter a decree.

IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION."