We reserve the right to edit, classify or refuse to publish any material submitted by a comment and/or information provider. While we take every precautionary measure to prevent inappropriate, inflammatory material we cannot rule-out such stray incidents. We request all the users to maintain proper decorum and let us continue and excel in providing this interaction service to our community.
We are a consortium of legal professionals, paralegals and journalists. We are not all attorneys. We do not play one on TV. Nothing in this entire blog should be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice you should consult an attorney.
PAID ENDORSEMENT DISCLOSURE: In order for us to support the blogging activities, we may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
DeadlyClear advocates for transparency and accountability in an effort to preserve the rights guaranteed to the press under the First Amendment and strengthen the public’s right to know.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate and HarvestRight™ Affiliate we earn from qualifying purchases. If you purchase a product or service with the links we provide, we may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you for those associate links and your support helps us to provide free content on our websites.
DeadlyClear® is a product of Project Maui, Inc., a Hawaii corporation. Copyright 2012-2025. All rights reserved.
Deadly Clear 
JUST SOMETING I SENT TO MY LAWYER,
ARE WE SET FOR FRIDAY MEETING? AND WHAT TIME? AND I HOPE YOU ARE READY AND OPEN TO common sense THINKING.
if you open your eyes to the facts, and LAWS, AND not what is being presented by the banks/trust/servicers/ as real facts. then you will see through all the fraud THAT THE BANKS ARE PRESENTING, AND JUDGES ARE PRESUMING TO BE TRUE FACTS. THE ACCOUNTING WILL TELL US THE ONLY TRUE FACTS,
AS TO WHO WAS THE REAL PARTY AT CLOSING TABLE THAT LENT MR MARSHALL/BELANGER ANY MONEY. we know it was not GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/INC. THERE IS NOTING IN THE CLOSING FILE THAT SHOWS THAT A CHECK OR ANY FUNDS CAME FROM GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/INC. but we do know that GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/INC TOOK MR MARSHALL/BELANGERS NOTE , AND SIGN IT OVER TO DBTCA TO BORROWE MONEY FROM DBTCA, SO HOW MUCH DID GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/INC
GET FOR SIGNING OVER THE NOTE TO THEM. ???? WAS IT 350,000, WAS IT 3 MILLION, WAS IT 35 MILLION,. WELL LETS OPEN THE BOOKS FROM ALL PARTYS AND FIND OUT SHELL WE.
but we do know that GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/INC TOOK STOLE, MR MARSHALL/BELANGERS MORTGAGE /AND NOTE , AT CLOSING, AND SIGN IT OVER TO DBTCA TO Borrow MONEY FROM DBTCA, SO GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/INC WAS THE Borrower ,
SO WITH GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/INC NOT GIVING ANY CONSIDTERATION AT THE CLOSING, BUT STEALING/ CONCEALING/ DEFRAUDING/MR MARSHALL/BELANGER TO THINK / BELEIVE / THAT THEY WERE GETTING THE MONEY FROM THE CLOSING FROM GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/INC. WAS ALL FRAUD.LIES.DECEIT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, ETC.ETC
HOW MUCH DID GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/INC
GET FOR SIGNING OVER THE NOTE TO THEM. ???? WAS IT 350,000, WAS IT 3 MILLION, WAS IT 35 MILLION,. WELL LETS OPEN THE BOOKS FROM ALL PARTYS AND FIND OUT SHELL WE.
CONTRACT LAW, 101.
The homeowner can ONLY be a “borrower” if they executed a loan contract and the contract became enforceable because there was offer, acceptance and consideration flowing both ways. ( hence- the funds came DIRECTLY from the person , i.e. ( GMAC MORTGAGE CORP.INC ) Without all four legs of the stool it collapses.
As WE KNOW THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN! As the WIRE TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THE CLOSING ATTORNEY CAME FROM DBTCA, and no where in any CLOSING DOC
DOES IT SAY THE MR MARSHALL WOULD BE RECEIVING THE FUNDS- FROM DBTCA TO COMPLETE THE FRAUD COMSUMATION.
SO UNDER CONTRACT LAW, THERE WOULD BE NO COMSUMATION OF CONTRACT, BY MR MARSHALL, AND GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,OR INC, BECAUSE
GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, OR INC, DID NOT GIVE ANY consideration AT THE CLOSING TABLE.
GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, OR INC. CAN NOT PROVE THAT THEY LEND A DIME AT THE CLOSING TABLE. PERIOD. NO MEETING OF THE MINDS, FROM BOTH ENDS.
SO UNTIL THAT CAN BE PROVEN, I.E. THAT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,OR INC. GAVE THE CONSIDERATION AT THE CLOSING TABLE FROM THERE OWN
ACCOUNTS, THEN THE CONTRACT I.E. MORTGAGE AND NOTE IS NAUL AND VOID. AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, AND ETC,ETC. WAS PREPERTRATED
AGAINST ON MR MARSHALL AND BELANGER.
SO WE MUST START AT BEGINING TO SEE IF , WE CAN GET TO THE FINNISH . AND THAT WILL TAKE A COMPLETE ACCOUNTING OF BOOKS FROM ALL PARTYS
TO THIS FRAUD CONTACT. I.E. MORTGAGE AND NOTE.