The Inhabitant's view of George Tran's successes.

Trumpeting George Tran’s invalid usage of the County Records as a “success” is akin to announcing that Thomas E. Dewey won the Presidential election in 1948. 

Now where in George’s Commentary did ne notice the Holder in due Course of his actions?  Failure to provide legal notice to the current holder in due course by George  Tran denies said holder their substantive right, even if the holder in due course holds an obligation that falls within the Law of the Fraudulent transaction.

All George Tran has filed in the Davis County Office is nothing more than a fictitious claim of Reconveyance, which when challenged will enable the challenger to circumnavigate the statutory limitation for the collection of debt due directly to what appears to be civil fraud.  Generally the State’s statutory limitation for the collections of debt tolls six years from the last transaction date.  One should check their State’s statutory laws to validate that fact, for some state’s toll longer and a few even toll a shorter statutory period.

George Tran’s “Deed of Reconveyance” is a civil fraud at its best, and its worst, well, look up the Utah Statutory laws as it relates to filing fictitious documents for claiming rights to real property.  In the wild days of the Frontier, such claim jumping was considered a terminal offense when the perpetrator was discovered hiding under its rock of deceit.

George Tran’s conclusions, and actions are based upon his miscomprehension to the due process of State statutory law, and his singular failure to comprehend this State’s statutory administrative resolution to overcome the financial services contract, most know as a mortgage.

If George sitting up Eugene Oregon desired to secure rights to property in Utah, where his ownership stands, he will need to move under Utah administrative law  challenging the party accepting the payments, as to their ability to default the payment obligation.  All George has acknowledged to date, is that he wrote two letters requesting validation of debt, and when the financial institutions did not respond to his liking, he chose to file his Deed of Reconveyance.

George states that his standing is substantiated by the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, well there is a problem with that Statement, as rights to property are perfected under State law.  George should have moved under the financial regulatory authorities in Utah, wherein he had standing to challenge the recipient of his Payments standing to foreclose upon his rights to property.

George’s claim that he secured a rescission when the financial institutions accepting his payments failed to respond to his validation of debt questions to his liking, is another of his many inappropriate statements and actions.  

The financial services contract, most know as a mortgage is a bifurcated financial contract wherein the first part is deposited into a demand deposit transaction account, from where the “bank” draws funds to pay to the “seller”.  This financial transaction is clearly described in Modern Money Mechanics  publication of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank originally written by Dorothy M. Nichols in May of 1961.  This deposit of “funds” is statutorily dependent upon the signature of the purchaser appended to the promissory note for the contractual value of the purchase price.

The second part of this bifurcated financial contract is the obligation, which is statutorily defined as “debt”.  The obligation’s value is directly derived from the amortization period.  It is this amortization period that is sold by the originator in the secondary market, by discounting the years sold so that a  purchaser may reap a twenty year payment stream on a thirty year obligation.  The obligations are generally bundled, such as the failed Indy Mac Federal Savings Bank did with every obligation it controlled, which is then marketed in what is popularly known as the derivatives market.

Now George Tran alleges the Troubled Asset Relief Program paid the “banks” for the bundled obligations.  Well that is a statutory misstatement of fact by George Tran.

Secondly, the originator never loaned the purchaser funds.  The financial services institution, who processed the “mortgage”  documents deposited the promise to pay the contractual purchase amount into a demand deposit transaction account from where the “bank” then drew the check (non interesting bearing promise to pay) to hand over to the “seller”.

Then the financial services institution took the obligation bundled with others in its portfolio and sold said bundled securities as a discounted instrument into the derivatives market.  The financial services institution generally retains the servicing rights, not the value of the amortization period.  The value of the amortized obligation is now owned by the “owners” of the derivative bundle.  The financial service institution that sold its bundled securities generally receives the discounted price of the amortized end value.  It is this discounted price from where the originator secures its fees, and other costs, inclusive of a net profit which is put in a demand deposit transaction account, or in other capital ventures, such as in equities exchanged on the “financial markets”.

The Federal Legislature’s Troubled Asset Relief Program provided liquidity to financial institutions whose servicing rights cash flow was terminated when the obligor would no longer make their monthly contribution to the servicing institutions.  Indy Mac Federal Savings Bank, and Washington Mutual Federal Savings Bank were two of the largest collapses in this services market.  If one turns to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations web page, there is a list of Material Lost Investigation reports of collapsed  “banks” that totals in the hundreds. The Troubled Asset Relief Program is a 750 billion dollar federal tax program that was imposed upon all banks by the then current Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, under a direct suggestion that those who refused to  participate  would discover the true meaning of suffering the insufferable.  If George Tran’s premise that this program “paid” the banks for the obligations why has the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seized hundreds of these institution over the past twenty four months.  According to George’s statement this would not occur, for the banks were “paid”.  Well contrary to George’s miscomprehension of the Federal Troubled Asset Relief Program 750 Billion dollars was first funneled to domestically chartered banks in America, and the later to Deutsche Bank of Germany, through American Insurance General, then finally to Chrysler Motors, and General Motors Automotive Division.  General Electric’s GE Capital Division also secured its “fair share” of funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The financial institutions collapsed due directly to the obligors failures to make the monthly contribution on the obligation, inclusive of poor corporate management.  The financial institutions that retained the servicing rights generally reap two percent of the payment stream, and are not necessarily the holder in due course.  Where in George’s narrative does he stipulate he legally voided the holder’s in due course standing under state law?  Where is the administrative order from the State’s Financial regulatory authority that empowered George to secure an Equitable Order from the “State Court” that perfects Georges issuance of a Deed of Reconveyance?

By the way George claims he had the authority to dismiss the current trustee and appoint his own successor.  Why would George need to appoint a trustee if he owned the real property free and clear?  If George’s action were lawful, the current Trustee would have legally signed off its position which would clear the lien on the property.  George Tran’s claim that he may substitute a trustee has no merit, as only the holder in due course may substitute a trustee.  The trustee George Tran Claims he substituted holds bare legal title on behalf of the holder in due course.  Unless the holder in due course authorized the Deed of Reconveyance George   appears to have constructed a fraudulent conveyance which when challenged in foreclosure action will more than likely be exposed at its best as a civil fraud.

George appears to believe that he may substitute a trustee without the authority of the holder in due course, where said substitute trustee then issues a Deed of Reconveyance, which is an action that will come back to haunt him, when the financial institution finally pursues its foreclosure process on his property in Utah. 

Oh the substitute for trustee that agreed to George’s action, may consider looking up the word “conspiracy” and “fraudulent conveyance”.

George’s “Free and Clear in 90 Days” is a falsity which will lead those who participate down the slippery road of statutory fraud, which is not a lawful way to overcome the legal fictions originated by the Financial Institution that issued the bifurcated financial services agreement, known to most as a mortgage.