"THE ESSENCE OF A TRUST IS NOT THE TRUST DOCUMENT. THE ESSENCE IS THE EXISTENCE OF TRUST PROPERTY. Like legal standing, there must be some THING that is involved or the court has no jurisdiction. If you look up any source on the definition or elements of a legal trust, there is no “Trust” if no THING (property) has been conveyed to the intended Trustee to hold in “Trust.” Without a THING, property in the Trust instrument is both nonexistent and irrelevant and does not create a legal “person” in any court in any state. Trusts of all types do not exist unless and until property is entrusted to the Trustee."

Full article HERE

Micky Mouse may hand off a document to Donald Duck, and the web-footed creature comes quacking in claiming rights based on the paper he waves around. OK, prove it! Where is the proof of purchase-for-value transaction Donald D? Surely you are quacking mad that a LOT of money is owed you or you'll have to repossess the collateral securing that debt; sooooo.... surely you've got proof of wire transfer and/or wiring instructions, a cashier's check, electronic check, escrow instructions, paper check, PROOF OF PURCHASE-FOR-VALUE TRANSACTION of some kind from X to Y?

And lets see that paper Mr. Duck, sir ... how exactly did Micky Mouse become the owner such that a PROVEN claim of YOUR purchase actually stems from the alleged debt in dispute here?

Neil says it plainly: "We now know both directly and indirectly that the REMIC Trusts never received the proceeds of sale of certificates allegedly issued by the “Trust.” So nothing was transferred to the Trustee to hold in Trust. We also now know that no purchase or transfer of assets or loans ever occurred thereafter. Hence the disclaimers in the Trust Instrument reducing the Trustee’s obligations to zero. With no property entrusted to the named Trustee, the most basic element of the formation of a trust is missing. The legal “person” does not exist."

There is one point in the article with which I disagree or find incomplete at least: "Try to force a hearing in which the lawyers for the foreclosing party are required to show a transaction in which money or property was ever transferred to the alleged REMIC Trust. Even a motion to dismiss might flush them out." This blogger calls in NOT merely lawyers claiming to represent a "foreclosing party" but rather the COMPANY named as Trustee for the REMIC; that company's managing level employee with first hand knowledge of the purchase transaction and/or the in-house counsel employee of that company with first hand knowledge testifying under oath and penalty of perjury ALONG WITH THE PROOF OF PURCHASE-FOR-VALUE transaction. Attorneys can not be a fact witness and it would be hearsay. But of course Neil and a whole lot of us know that you can't call NOTHING into court so the attorneys wave around papers and spout pre-rehearsed lines absent the appearance of the purported injured party itself.

Donald Duck has long left the room, chagrined that he was holding bad paper; and Micky Mouse has skipped town.