This is 180 degrees from what the above ruling says…

” I guarantee they are circling the wagons and trying to come up with contingencies/excuses for this.”

Lets go back 3 years and recall the “LOST NOTE” BS. This was the excuse! This was the Head Fake given to the drooling, complacent, incompetent Judge’s that set up the Home run!

The notes & MTG’s were never lost! At all times, the Plantiff knew where the Mtg & Notes were. But even as the Original Notes trickle in under cover of the LOST NOTE, what you have to ask yourself is where did they come from? Who sent them? is the endorsement legitimate ( is it a real person ), a real person?

Never argue a UCC claim.

“Even if the notes were endorsed, without DELIVERY the negotiation of the instrument is not completed. Delivery of an endorsed copy, either paper or digital, doesn’t really cut it. Neither does a good intention of delivery. ”

How do you endorse something that does not belong to you??????????? Even in the event you can, how do you explain you had authority to transfer something that did not belong to you??

Most of the FAKE Banks know their busted! SO what they do to circumvent your argument is GET YOU into a UCC argument! WHY………..because the Incompetent Judges already bought this argument hook,line, and sinker for the last 48 months.

This means you loose, unless you smack them across the face with a PSA defense! OR unless you get a DEPO from a higher up that admits ” yea..we never transferred a damn thing ” WHY?? “Because we could, or because we screwed up “.

Get a BANK CLOWN under oath, and they sing like a bird!

(1) “Negotiation” means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.
(2) Except for negotiation by a remitter, if an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the holder. If an instrument is payable to bearer, it may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone.

Even if the notes were indorsed, without DELIVERY the negotiation of the instrument is not completed. Delivery of an indorsed copy, either paper or digital, doesn’t really cut it. Neither does a good intention of delivery.

As for the “constructive delivery” idea of Kessler I don’t think that holds water. For instance try getting money from a bank by saying “Well, there is this check made out to someone else, but indorsed to me. I’d like to cash it. I don’t actually have the check, mind you, but I do have this electronic copy of the check. They meant to send it to me but never did.”

Still, it remains to be seen how many originators engaged in this failure to deliver. I guarantee they are circling the wagons and trying to come up with contingencies/excuses for this.

2ndly, while the judge get the head fake on the LOST NOTE, Plaintiff sneaks in the endorsement in blank, and UCC defenses, and the the Original note/Mtg suddenly pop up! ITS THE PERFECT CRIME!!

FACT IS, its illegal to transfer STOLEN PROPERTY that should have been transferred years earlier to the designated Owner makes the NOW endorsement fatally defective.

How can a Burglar possible explain to the court ( the originating entity) WHY THEY HAVE BEEN SITTING ON NOTES & MTGS for the last 36 months after the TRUST is CLOSED??

3rdly, eve if the JUDGE does allow the transfer, the argument turns to AUTHORITY! if you look in ANY PSA, there is no provision for NOT TRANSFERRING the DOCS!! ( Unless they are Stolen ).

I think people are missing the point is notes are money not chattel property.