Fannie Mae Fraud
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Julie
Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 2:15 PM
Subject: DEMAND - Cease & Desist - 2305 Elisha Avenue, Zion, Illinois
To: Carol Reinwald <[email protected]>
DEMAND - Cease & Desist - 2305 Elisha Avenue, Zion, Illinois
Re: 2305 Elisha Avenue, Zion, Illinois
Date: June 4, 2022
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
Ms. Carol Reinwald,
I noticed that you or someone else at your real estate agency, Goldtree Realty, must have lied to Zillow.com by misrepresenting the facts about the ownership of my residential structures.
I see that you removed my property description with a warning to potential buyers regarding the pitfalls of buying my home.
It has also come to my attention that you have been listing my property for sale via auction on multiple foreclosure auction websites. And a cash-only auction is being conducted now on Xome.com with bids being taken starting today.
Here is the URL: https://www.xome.com/auctions/2305-Elisha-Ave-Zion-IL-60099-367127154
You do know that FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FNMA) has NO statutory authority to contract with an individual, and only has federal authorization to contract with a State, correct?
Which means selling property allegedly “owned” by Fannie Mae to the general public is against federal law.
If you need verification of these facts, I suggest you take a look at what the U.S. Supreme Court had to say on the matter.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is referring to a previous SCOTUS ruling in the following case.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/289818/united-states-v-stadium-apartments-inc/
United States v. Stadium Apartments, Inc., 425 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1970)
32
… a mortgage under the National Housing Act, foreclosed by an agency "which issues separate forms for each State but does not negotiate with individual applicants." United States v. View Crest Garden Apts., Inc., supra, is also cited in Yazell, 382 U.S. at 348 n. 15, 86 S.Ct. with apparent approval.
Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created under the abolished Reconstruction Finance Corporation, as of 1954 when the charter for the RFC was repealed, their forms have henceforth been issued under the authority of the National Housing Act of 1934.
Now what you want to look at is the provision for “mortgage insurance” listed in 12 U.S.C. 1738(a);
12 U.S. Code § 1738 - Insurance of mortgages
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/1738
...Provided further, That “no” mortgage shall be insured under this section after “April 30, 1948“, except
(A) pursuant to a commitment to insure issued on or before April 30, 1948, or
(B) a mortgage given to refinance an existing mortgage insured under this section and which does not exceed the “original principal” amount and unexpired term of such existing mortgage..
Aside from the fact that the definition of the term “mortgage’ listed in 12 U.S.C. 1736, is lifted straight from the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933 (HOLA), meaning “an advance” to a “member bank,” there are two other provisions you need to look at;
1. “no” mortgage shall be insured under this “section after” “April 30, 1948.”
So Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were put out of business for any further “presumed” loan insurance after 1948.
2. which does not exceed the “original principal” amount of such mortgage.
Now let’s find the “principle amount.”
The principal obligation of such mortgage shall in no event, however, exceed--
(A)$5,400 if such dwelling is designed for a single-family residence, or
(B)$7,500 if such dwelling is designed for a two-family residence, or
(C)$9,500 if such dwelling is designed for a three-family residence, or
(D)$12,000 if such dwelling is designed for a four-family residence:
(d)Conclusiveness of insurance contract as to eligibility
Any contract of insurance heretofore or hereafter executed by the Secretary under this subchapter shall be conclusive evidence of the eligibility of the mortgage for insurance, and the “validity” of any contract of insurance so executed shall be incontestable in the hands of an approved mortgagee from the date of the execution of such contract, “except” for “fraud” or “misrepresentation” on the part of such approved “mortgagee.”
Who wouldn't buy a “single-family residence” for $5,400?
Additionally, in any court filings regarding transactions purported-to-be insured or guaranteed by a Government-Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) for any type of “foreclosure”, the contract would have to have been executed before April 30, 1948, restricted to “veterans of W.W. II housing”, and could never exceed $5,400.
Any court filing to the contrary is fraud on the court, unjust enrichment, attempted grand theft of real property, extortion, racketeering, and mail fraud.
Do note that 12 U.S.C. 1709 was the codification of section 203 of the National Housing Act of 1934. 20 years later, Section 1709 was repealed by the Housing Act of 1954 (PL 83-560), which means that there has been no actual provision on the books for a “mortgage” or “extension of credit” to be insured by Fannie, Freddie or any other entity operating under the authority of the NHA of 1934 for the last 68 years. (PL 83-560, Sec. 108 & 109)
It also means that Fannie Mae and its agents & attorneys have no authority to “Demand Possession” of private residential real property, seize said property, or sell it to another individual or statutory person that is not a State.
Any “eviction” other than for failure to pay “rent” or “drug dealing” MUST have the approval of the U.S. Dept of Housing & Urban Development. The “eviction” notice has to be sent to HUD, and HUD is the only authority for the mandatory relocation provisions.
Fannie Mae has no lease or rental agreement associated with my property.
Since Fannie Mae can’t legally sell my home, if they’re dumb enough to continue pursuing the illegal seizure of my property, they are required by HUD regulations to compensate me for the full value of my home and pay for my moving expenses pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646).
I hereby DEMAND that you Cease & Desist your criminal efforts to sell my home and remove all sale & auction listings of my property IMMEDIATELY!
Failure to do so will be quite costly.
If you choose to disregard this demand, and move forward with your federally-forbidden felonious activity, be sure to notify bidders that they WILL need documentation of HUD approval before an eviction can be lawfully executed.
I’m sure you’re well aware that HUD has NOT, as of yet, conducted an eviction hearing regarding my property.
Anyone pursuing eviction action without the statutorily required HUD documentation of approval to evict leaves said person or entity open to huge damage claims for violation of my constitutionally-protected property rights.
I can’t imagine that anyone with half a brain cell would willingly buy MY property knowing what a legal mess they’d be getting into, not to mention the nightmare it would be to remove me from my home.
Who in their right mind would buy a home fraudulently “acquired/stolen” by Fannie Mae if they knew that FNMA was forbidden from entering into contracts with individuals?
Any purported contract entered into by Fannie Mae after 1954 regarding my home would have been void ab initio before the ink dried.
This also means people now buying their first home directly from FNMA at a cash-only sale or procuring financing that is supposedly “backed” by a GSE (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae), or any other federal ‘insurance’ program for that matter, are getting swindled too.
As the local self-proclaimed “Foreclosure Broker” for FNMA, you are in some serious HOT WATER, i.e. a legally indefensible position for trying to offload Fannie Mae’s fraudulently-acquired “problem property” onto an unsuspecting buyer.
If you want to avoid racking up even more damage charges than you already have coming, you need to remove ALL sale & auction listings of my home IMMEDIATELY!
A damage claim for the harm you’ve caused me will be forthcoming.
I expect your full cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/ By:Julie-Kay:Elliott, A.R. ©
Without Prejudice, Without Recourse
All Rights Claimed & Retained.
UCC 1-308 / 3-415
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Julie
Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 2:15 PM
Subject: DEMAND - Cease & Desist - 2305 Elisha Avenue, Zion, Illinois
To: Carol Reinwald <[email protected]>
DEMAND - Cease & Desist - 2305 Elisha Avenue, Zion, Illinois
Re: 2305 Elisha Avenue, Zion, Illinois
Date: June 4, 2022
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
Ms. Carol Reinwald,
I noticed that you or someone else at your real estate agency, Goldtree Realty, must have lied to Zillow.com by misrepresenting the facts about the ownership of my residential structures.
I see that you removed my property description with a warning to potential buyers regarding the pitfalls of buying my home.
It has also come to my attention that you have been listing my property for sale via auction on multiple foreclosure auction websites. And a cash-only auction is being conducted now on Xome.com with bids being taken starting today.
Here is the URL: https://www.xome.com/auctions/2305-Elisha-Ave-Zion-IL-60099-367127154
You do know that FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FNMA) has NO statutory authority to contract with an individual, and only has federal authorization to contract with a State, correct?
Which means selling property allegedly “owned” by Fannie Mae to the general public is against federal law.
If you need verification of these facts, I suggest you take a look at what the U.S. Supreme Court had to say on the matter.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is referring to a previous SCOTUS ruling in the following case.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/289818/united-states-v-stadium-apartments-inc/
United States v. Stadium Apartments, Inc., 425 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1970)
32
… a mortgage under the National Housing Act, foreclosed by an agency "which issues separate forms for each State but does not negotiate with individual applicants." United States v. View Crest Garden Apts., Inc., supra, is also cited in Yazell, 382 U.S. at 348 n. 15, 86 S.Ct. with apparent approval.
Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created under the abolished Reconstruction Finance Corporation, as of 1954 when the charter for the RFC was repealed, their forms have henceforth been issued under the authority of the National Housing Act of 1934.
Now what you want to look at is the provision for “mortgage insurance” listed in 12 U.S.C. 1738(a);
12 U.S. Code § 1738 - Insurance of mortgages
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/1738
...Provided further, That “no” mortgage shall be insured under this section after “April 30, 1948“, except
(A) pursuant to a commitment to insure issued on or before April 30, 1948, or
(B) a mortgage given to refinance an existing mortgage insured under this section and which does not exceed the “original principal” amount and unexpired term of such existing mortgage..
Aside from the fact that the definition of the term “mortgage’ listed in 12 U.S.C. 1736, is lifted straight from the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933 (HOLA), meaning “an advance” to a “member bank,” there are two other provisions you need to look at;
1. “no” mortgage shall be insured under this “section after” “April 30, 1948.”
So Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were put out of business for any further “presumed” loan insurance after 1948.
2. which does not exceed the “original principal” amount of such mortgage.
Now let’s find the “principle amount.”
The principal obligation of such mortgage shall in no event, however, exceed--
(A)$5,400 if such dwelling is designed for a single-family residence, or
(B)$7,500 if such dwelling is designed for a two-family residence, or
(C)$9,500 if such dwelling is designed for a three-family residence, or
(D)$12,000 if such dwelling is designed for a four-family residence:
(d)Conclusiveness of insurance contract as to eligibility
Any contract of insurance heretofore or hereafter executed by the Secretary under this subchapter shall be conclusive evidence of the eligibility of the mortgage for insurance, and the “validity” of any contract of insurance so executed shall be incontestable in the hands of an approved mortgagee from the date of the execution of such contract, “except” for “fraud” or “misrepresentation” on the part of such approved “mortgagee.”
Who wouldn't buy a “single-family residence” for $5,400?
Additionally, in any court filings regarding transactions purported-to-be insured or guaranteed by a Government-Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) for any type of “foreclosure”, the contract would have to have been executed before April 30, 1948, restricted to “veterans of W.W. II housing”, and could never exceed $5,400.
Any court filing to the contrary is fraud on the court, unjust enrichment, attempted grand theft of real property, extortion, racketeering, and mail fraud.
Do note that 12 U.S.C. 1709 was the codification of section 203 of the National Housing Act of 1934. 20 years later, Section 1709 was repealed by the Housing Act of 1954 (PL 83-560), which means that there has been no actual provision on the books for a “mortgage” or “extension of credit” to be insured by Fannie, Freddie or any other entity operating under the authority of the NHA of 1934 for the last 68 years. (PL 83-560, Sec. 108 & 109)
It also means that Fannie Mae and its agents & attorneys have no authority to “Demand Possession” of private residential real property, seize said property, or sell it to another individual or statutory person that is not a State.
Any “eviction” other than for failure to pay “rent” or “drug dealing” MUST have the approval of the U.S. Dept of Housing & Urban Development. The “eviction” notice has to be sent to HUD, and HUD is the only authority for the mandatory relocation provisions.
Fannie Mae has no lease or rental agreement associated with my property.
Since Fannie Mae can’t legally sell my home, if they’re dumb enough to continue pursuing the illegal seizure of my property, they are required by HUD regulations to compensate me for the full value of my home and pay for my moving expenses pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646).
I hereby DEMAND that you Cease & Desist your criminal efforts to sell my home and remove all sale & auction listings of my property IMMEDIATELY!
Failure to do so will be quite costly.
If you choose to disregard this demand, and move forward with your federally-forbidden felonious activity, be sure to notify bidders that they WILL need documentation of HUD approval before an eviction can be lawfully executed.
I’m sure you’re well aware that HUD has NOT, as of yet, conducted an eviction hearing regarding my property.
Anyone pursuing eviction action without the statutorily required HUD documentation of approval to evict leaves said person or entity open to huge damage claims for violation of my constitutionally-protected property rights.
I can’t imagine that anyone with half a brain cell would willingly buy MY property knowing what a legal mess they’d be getting into, not to mention the nightmare it would be to remove me from my home.
Who in their right mind would buy a home fraudulently “acquired/stolen” by Fannie Mae if they knew that FNMA was forbidden from entering into contracts with individuals?
Any purported contract entered into by Fannie Mae after 1954 regarding my home would have been void ab initio before the ink dried.
This also means people now buying their first home directly from FNMA at a cash-only sale or procuring financing that is supposedly “backed” by a GSE (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae), or any other federal ‘insurance’ program for that matter, are getting swindled too.
As the local self-proclaimed “Foreclosure Broker” for FNMA, you are in some serious HOT WATER, i.e. a legally indefensible position for trying to offload Fannie Mae’s fraudulently-acquired “problem property” onto an unsuspecting buyer.
If you want to avoid racking up even more damage charges than you already have coming, you need to remove ALL sale & auction listings of my home IMMEDIATELY!
A damage claim for the harm you’ve caused me will be forthcoming.
I expect your full cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/ By:Julie-Kay:Elliott, A.R. ©
Without Prejudice, Without Recourse
All Rights Claimed & Retained.
UCC 1-308 / 3-415
