New Zealander Stops Paying His Alleged Mortgage

Here's a recent story from a New Zealand guy as found on the "OPPT Court Cases" forum. This story has been made public here with the permission of the author.

http://opptcourtcases.forumotion.com/t262-stopped-paying-the-alleged-mortgage

Article:  stopped paying the alleged mortgage 

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:00 pm

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 [in other guises such as 'Freeman', 'Strawman' and other 'Sovereignty' vehicles] and proven (albeit by their own system) not to be effective or hold any ground in 'real' law...

... 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...  

Image source:  http://www.petscancometoo.co.nz/webapps/i/74775/141258/248715
Note: this is not the property but is merely representative of the property.
This is just a Tribute.


Article:  update.

Posted Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:34 am

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 calendar days to provide this evidence after which time we accept failure to provide such documentation as acknowledgement 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.

Sincerely - 

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

From:  http://opptcourtcases.forumotion.com/t262-stopped-paying-the-alleged-mortgage

Bronny NZ:  This is the job !!  It just needs a July 2013 date on it, that's all   : )   

Image:  http://www.slaglefamily.com/documents.html#location1