[VIDEO] Christopher L. Peterson: Foreclosure Fiasco? Lost Promissory Notes and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)

[VIDEO] Christopher L. Peterson: Foreclosure Fiasco? Lost Promissory Notes and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)

[VIDEO] Christopher L. Peterson: Foreclosure Fiasco? Lost Promissory Notes and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)

This is one video you MUST NOT MISS!

Courtesy of ULAWTV

This presentation will discuss the state of the foreclosure crisis and analyze the legal issues and concerns behind the banks efforts to foreclose.




© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



This post was written by:

- who has written 9281 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

7 Responses to “[VIDEO] Christopher L. Peterson: Foreclosure Fiasco? Lost Promissory Notes and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)”

  1. GuyFawkesLives says:

    Everyone needs to send this to any Realtor friends they know. Please ask their Realtor friends to address their Realtor Associations and request that they protect their clients property rights. Realtors take an ethical oath to protect their clients’ properties interests. Let’s make them stand for their ethical duty.

  2. GuyFawkesLives says:

    On that last question, Christopher Peterson should have given a nod to the WA Supreme Court which ruled MERS is an unlawful beneficiary.



    1. SUMMARILY, Plaintiff PATRICK FARRELL a Democrat, states defendant [SOF] STATE OF FLORIDA REPUBLICANS falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted him [case 94-2430CF] for 3 felonies, to “make money” by a fraudulent PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT, made by the Lee Co. Sheriff, who procured an Arrest Warrant, which caused the 20th Circuit STATE ATTORNEY to fabricate a criminal charge, stealing $20,000 from Plaintiff, under color of law.
    2. S.O.F. took bribes and statements from ISKCON child molesters, who had IRS 501C3 status.
    3. SECONDLY, Plaintiff filed case 07-CA-14942, a case of Mortgage Fraud into the [R] 20th Circuit, against [R] parties of the MBS; IMPAC SECURED ASSETS-2005-2, who also had bogus IRS tax exempt status, only to have the Republican judges refuse to grant Plaintiff relief of any kind, despite Federal Court Orders to do so, and allow WELLS FARGO to file case 07-CA-16767, based upon a false AFFIDAVIT, and sustain said case, based entirely on false pretenses.
    4. All [R] lawyers and judges are merely Corporate Franchise Court, Revenue Collection Agents, working for the REPUBLICAN C.E.O.’s JOHN STUMPF-WFB; THOMAS MARANO-GMACM BRIAN MOYNIHAN- B.O.A., who are agencies of the private FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.
    5. In both and all cases, [R] lawyers and judges violate the UCC, Constitution and statutes to facilitate the taking of equity, property, credit and money by bias, prejudice and phony AFFIDAVITS.

  4. papergate says:

    You have to listen to this video over and over again – TAKE NOTES – record the conversations and pay attention especially around 29:00-40:00 – and listen to the other professor as well – each time you listen to this you will ‘digest’ more and more knowledge and understanding of what the hey is going on – Pf. Peterson is a remarkable scholar – listen and learn – and write out what they say – thanks D – and you are right to keep it as the first read at all times till everyone listens . . .! Thanks!<3

  5. DolleyMadison says:

    Like rock and roll and a good wine…thsi video never gets old. You are a patriot and a gentleman Mr. Peterson. God Bless you!

  6. Colin Derek says:

    Though there may be very useful and pertinent information in this video, I must reveal the clear misgivings of the speaker and as such the conformation of the “nexus” of the scam.
    I refer to the assertion that a “Note” in this case what is referred to as the “Promissory Note” which it never calls itself nor is it titled as such!
    The “Note” Is not a “negotiable instrument” in intent, nor in its entirety! Nor do they purport to fulfill the requirements under the UCC and to my knowledge none of or very few people are signing as an agent of a corporation or other entity engaged in commerce. Thus not a subject of nor subject to “Commercial Code” uniform or otherwise.
    Second, if it were a “negotiable instrument” then it would be a “general deposit” instrument and would not require as it specifically states “…anyone who takes this Note by transfer and is entitled to payments under this Note…” indicating clearly that one must take this Note by Transfer not by “assignment” or other convoluted manner and must be entitled to payments. Who is “entitled to payments under the Note”? Only the one who has actually given, transferred, or “Loaned” the money or other actual substance and value in Exchange or actually prior to the creation of the Note “In return for a loan I have received, I promise to pay”.
    A “Negotiable Instrument” does not require any previous action, obligation or other condition! It is a “Negotiable Instrument” meaning it is complete and requires nothing else to make it whole except possession and perhaps an endorsement. In fact to drill it home a bit more, Under UCC 3, one need not even be in lawful possession of the instrument (if a thief steals your fifty dollars he/she can cash it or exchange it for value at any store and absent notice that it is stolen the vender must honor its full face value). Thus technically all “Negotiable Instruments” are in fact “Obligations of the United States”… another piece of the puzzle to the Ponzi Scheme.
    You see “only the obligor may obligate him/her self to an obligation. Thus the only thing granted by the obligor is that they promise to pay under the conditions set forth and agreed to by both parties. This is called an agreement a contract and can not be altered or exchanged without a proper “transfer” whereby the receiver or transferee obligates themselves to the obligations of the original obligor (Lender) after fulfilling the preliminary obligation of a “Loan” which then “entitles” them to payments under the Note.
    So now that it is clear, we can see that the party of the first part (Lender, not Lender and/or assigns) has failed to provide a Loan nor evidence of such Loan prior to the delivery of this Note and as such the Note is VOID ab initio, and can not be transferred or assigned!
    The trick that is done is unlawful conversion or the prelude to unlawful conversion. What was given was a “Specific Performance Instrument” in exchange for “a Loan I have received” and various other requirements and obligations within the instrument itself “Contract”. So, you gave them a “Promise to pay” or Note in which are certain parameters,obligations and so forth and they then deposited it into an account and treated it as a “negotiable instrument” and by so doing “altered” it without consent and thus “VOIDED” the already “VOID” instrument. Also, since they (in most instances) accepted it as “payment” and are an “Instrumentality of the United States thus requiring “Pay to the Order of the United States Treasury, without recourse” to be clearly stamped or written as it is sent to the Treasury for discharge against the National debt owed to “we the people” who provide the “faith and credit” to the United States. This is why the source of the funds is the Treasury NOT the bank or “Lender” and only upon deposit of the instrument to the Treasury which then provides the “funds” to be dispersed to all the liars, cheaters and con men and finally to the seller. So what part of “without recourse” do they not understand? How can they bring a copy of a VOID and VOIDED and Discharged fully funded, canceled instrument to court and “pass or utter” it as a “negotiable instrument”???????
    By the Way, the Deed of Trust does NOT Secure the “debt” the “debt instrument”, the “security Instrument”, The “Note” or any other BS they write!!! Read it.. it clearly says it “secures the debt evidenced by the Note”. So again without the actual Note and the evidence of a debt therein, which means the fulfilling of all obligations of the “Lender” and all “Transferees” without alteration or other VOIDING thereof and after the proper delivery, Notices, negotiations, accelerations by the Lender (not someone else because it does NOT say “and or assigns”) then and only then may the “Lender” tell the real Trustee (NOT a “Substitute Trustee) to sell the property as directed by the DOT!!!! The Trustee was never granted power to do a foreclosure and there is no provision for a “Substitute Trustee”, so all the BS is fabricated to mislead and commit fraud, securities fraud, creation of fictitious obligations, counterfeiting,corrupting the public record and on and on criminal with Statutes for each and every one!! Oh and for you it is a “breach of Trust” which means you can collect the Bond!!! along with damages etc. So let’s get busy now that we know the Nexus of the fraud with intent to deceive, embezzlement of the Judges, clerks, recorders and so forth. A lot of house cleaning but the law and Statutes are there for us to use one at a time as each are a separate and complete action in law. Blessings = my your desires be fulfilled.

  7. GuyFawkesLives says:

    Every single legislator needs to watch this and write an oral report that they must recite to their constituents…with a SOLUTION to fix this. MANDATORY.


Leave a Reply

Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com


Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments