Wells Fargo to Repurchase $1.4 Billion of Securities: WHAT THAT MEANS TO YOU


You can use this information by establishing “probable cause” in the mind of the Judge or jury right off the bat — we know they lied to investors, are we now supposed to believe they told the truth to the homeowners?

This is the kind of news article buried deep into a newspaper or far down on the list of on-line articles that leaves everyone — homeowners, attorneys, judges, legislators and regulators — in the dark. Wells Fargo is settling one of many claims that it lied to investors about the mortgage backed securities they bought which funded your loan and which filled the pockets of Wall Street “innovators” for years. It doesn’t actually tell us what they lied about — you’ll need to look up the complaint (which I hope someone will do and send to me in pdf format) but it does say that those investors are now paid off in full and that Wells Fargo is buying back what they sold.

Now Wells Fargo will attempt to use that purchase as proof that it is the “INVESTOR” ignoring the ill-gotten gains that preceded it, and attempting to establish itself as the holder in due course, long after the securities were in default, long after the underlying asset mortgages were in default, and long after Wells Fargo received payoffs in credit default swaps that easily cover what they paid the investors and then some.

The point here is that the shell game continues. The regulators are not sophisticated or motivated enough to actually express this for what it is. Even the media gets totally confused. Instead of saying that many loans were paid off or sold back to Wells Fargo for $1.4 billion, it says something about “auction rate securities” which means nothing to practically everyone. What this REALLY means is that you have a defendant (actually several of them — see below) who has actually and demonstrably committed fraud as part of the securitization scheme that funded the financial loan products sold to homeowners — except that so far everyone is concentrating on the fraud on investors. Why is that? The little guy who was lied to, abused and shaken by this ordeal doesn’t matter. It’s just the people with the money that count. You can use this information by establishing “probable cause” in the mind of the Judge or jury right off the bat — we know they lied to investors, are we now supposed to believe they told the truth to the homeowners?

Wells Fargo to Repurchase $1.4 Billion of Securities


Wells Fargo & Company said on Wednesday that it had agreed to buy back $1.4 billion in auction-rate securities it sold to investors before the market for those securities dried up last year.

The decision settles a lawsuit brought against the firm by California’s attorney general, which accused it of violating the state’s securities laws. Wells Fargo, which is based in San Francisco, also agreed to pay the state’s expenses related to the lawsuit.

The brokerage arm of the bank marketed the securities, which resemble corporate debt and whose interest rates were regularly reset by auctions, as an alternative to cash for years, even after analysts warned that the market could freeze up. In February 2008, banks stopped participating in the auctions and effectively locked up investors’ cash.

The suit, brought by the California attorney general, Jerry Brown, contended that Wells Fargo had routinely misrepresented, marketed and sold auction-rate securities as safe, liquid and cashlike investments, omitting material facts.

“Wells Fargo convinced thousands of investors to purchase auction-rate securities with promises of robust returns and liquidity, but when the market collapsed, investors were left out in the cold,” Mr. Brown said in a statement. “Based on misleading advice, investors bought these risky securities. Now, retail investors and small businesses are finally getting their money back.”

Under the terms of the settlement, Wells Fargo agreed to buy back at par value by April 2010 all auction-rate securities bought through its brokerage unit by investors before the market froze up.

About half of the auction-rate securities sold by Wells, which is based in San Francisco, were bought by California residents.

Mr. Brown and Wells reached a settlement agreement Tuesday night, people briefed on the matter said.

The settlement arises in part from an investigation led by Washington State’s Department of Financial Institutions, according to a statement by the North American Securities Administrators Association. Washington State filed an administrative action against Wells before California filed its own case. That matter has also been settled.

State regulators have secured settlements in which banks have agreed to repurchase more than $61 billion in auction-rate securities from investors. Among the firms that have settled these lawsuits are UBS, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Credit Suisse.

34 Responses

  1. […] Wells Fargo to Repurchase $1.4 Billion of Securities: WHAT THAT MEANS TO YOU […]

  2. my “lender” has done this more that once or twice. this what I have been trying to tell people they include on their SEC reports on those giant sell outs at bargain prices, with statements NO fraud in these loans, but if so they will buy them back. Guess what. The other thing is, they make agreements to one another to sell to a certain lender certain loans, and then 5 weeks or 8 weeks or ever 4 months, they buy it back. Isn’t that money laundering. Some did of Tax Dodging is my guess.

    To Dan above, this is Juli, leap4juls, I still want to send you some things, you could use for reference. I am trying to put a little blog up because there are so many times I want to say something, but I dont know if the Blog owner would approve, or want my sometimes cynical attitude. The crazy thing is, my “mortgage” has such a large variety of tricks as I like to call them, fraud is what it actually is. So when I total up 6 payments to this mortgage, they have really done this, It is like a false front. It really is such a shame that I did not have an attorney. This case could have been a hit.

  3. Hi,

    I have been trying to do a short sale with Chase for about a month and now am at a standstill as Chase is waiting to hear back from Wells Fargo on a release letter from them so that I will not be obligated for any further unpaid dept on the original loan. Do you know anything about how Wamu or Chase is handling these situations. I heard many say that Chase allows short sales then comes after you for the unpaid balance.

    Chase keeps saying that they are waiting on Wells and I’m beginning to wonder if that is true or not?


  4. Heather,
    That is a very good question. I would think this would be the party or parties entitled to foreclose. It is my understanding that if you ask this question to the party foreclosing that they will say it is proprietary or confidential information! I just learned about this question fairly recently and have not had the chance to ask it yet.

    Dan Edstrom

  5. Dan,

    Who CAN provide me with the Satisfaction of Mortgage?????

    Heather H.

  6. Usedkarguy,

    The only document that is notarized that I see is the Deed of Trust. All others are just signed.


    You brought up an interesting point. I was thinking that the separation of all of the entities was to defer liability but it is an interesting concept that one party get the investor money, one party gets the insurance, one gets the house and the deficiency judgement and if no one ties them together with a judicial proceeding there would never be a question raised at all.

    They are not really worried about the liability of their actions as to the mortgage loans because they can blame it on their peers and say it was industry practice. They can however shelter themselves from tax liabilities and gain the ability to move things around enough to get paid more than 3 times or 30.

    What I just can’t seem to understand is why the IRS isn’t on to this scam. If they can chase all of the Swiss bank account holders, why wouldn’t they want to recapture anything from this continual evasion tactic.

    Has anyone delved into the structure of the REMICs?. In my PSA they transfer the ownership of the pools in exchange for the money and the REMIC pool ownership, then exchange the REMIC pool ownership for the Certificates.

    My question is does the bank take the pools that they know will fail in an effort to get an exemption for the loss? They could claim the loss certificates on the books to offset the gain on sale of the pools then collect the insurance in a separate entity to keep the scam alive. If they wrote down the certificates for the loss then they could sell the discounted junk as auction rate securities and make more money before they hit the bottom.

    I haven’t really focused on this as the prospectus is just overwhelming enough trying to find some of what I need but it would make sense for them to retain something for the tax advantage. They seem similar to buying Tax Credits for affordable housing in that you can buy the credit for less than face to offset a gain in a particular year. I would think they had some way of showing the life of the credit and then using it all in the beginning to offset as much as possible.

    Anyway, thought it was an interesting concept and wondered if anyone has explore this in detail.

  7. Are you talking about being notarized at closing or notarized by the foreclosing party? I don’t think I have seen either.

    Dan Edstrom

  8. Heather,
    Yes it is the note and the mortgage (or Deed of Trust).

    I believe they are to give you back your original but I have never seen that done. I heard they actually used to do it.

    This is another reason why you need to ask who can provide a satisfaction of mortgage.

    Dan Edstrom

  9. When you look at your copies of the notes supplied with the foreclosure action, are your signatures notarized? Mine are not. Dan? Got your copy? Tell me if your signature page on the note, the rider, the addendum, are any of those pages notarized? Thanks, Roger

  10. Dan,

    Sorry about the spelling errors!

    One more thing….we sold the house in 2007 and paid the mortgage in full, (this nightmare started in 2004 and literaly from my first mortgage payment being stolen, fighting battles with these companies, countless phone calls) are the ORIGINALS sent to us for retention as well?

    Thanks again!!

  11. Thank you Dan for your response.

    I have no doubt my question probably didn’t really make sense. I’m much better verbal than written. My apologies!

    Is the “ORIGINAL CONTRACT” to mean the mortgage loan/notes?

    If the consumer resecinded the loan, would the Original/Cancelled loan documents be mailed to the borrower/homeowner for retention?

    Thank you,
    Heather H.

  12. Heather,
    I don’t know how the homeowner could be considered the Trustee and/or the custodian in securitization. The only other way I can see that it would be possible is through tacit procuration. Although I don’t know how you would be in possession of the actual real copies – unless multiple copies were executed and you received one of the originals. I am not sure what that would actually mean. I would think that if you were in possession of the ONLY original copy that exists, you might be able to record a reconveyance?

    On the other hand, the contracts are only evidence of the obligation (as explained by Neil). They give no indication of who the obligation is currently owed to (or if in fact the obligation still exists at all). This is probably why “show me the note” is not really the answer either. It should be called “show me the note along with all assignments and provide affidavit’s from witnesses who have first hand knowledge of each” …

    In most cases with securitization, they sponser and/or seller and/or master servicer probably creates a financing statement (I believe this is a UCC filing). So regardless of who is or is not shown as the owner of record, they are the actual owners. But, this gets more complicated because, as Neil has indicated, the securitizers are not interested in foreclosing or enforcing their rights. Why? Because they have insurance in place for maybe 30 times the value of the house. If they don’t get involved and the servicer forecloses, it’s a win-win for them both.

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. These are crazy issues that have to be researched and worked out with the help of an attorney.

    Dan Edstrom

  13. Hi Dan,

    My question is in regards to your comment about ORIGINAL CONTRACTS. Can the TRUSTEE and/or the CUSTODIAN be borrowers/homeowners? If the answer is yes, then is it possible that the borrower is in possession of the ORIGINAL contracts? Or….what if a borrower/homeowner is in possession of the ORIGINAL contract and copies of documents and instruments related to each contract and the security interest in the manufactured home securing each contract. The depositor, the master servicer or the servicer will cause a FINANCING STATEMENT to be executed by the depositor identifying the trustee as the secured party and identifying all contracts as collateral, what would you recommend IF this was in fact the case?

    Thanks for your help and hopefully you can make sense of the above!

    Heather H.

  14. Angry,
    That’s going to take some time to get through. I glanced at some of it and it looks like good information.

    Dan Edstrom

  15. Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.

  16. Here is the link to the Complaint against Wells Fargo filed by the California Attorney General.


  17. if the judges in ca do not want to acknowledge the laws as pertaining the same way to both sides of these cases.. involving borrowers & banks…
    Pro se Litigant sues 764 judges, Federal and State, in their personal capacity for Racketeering

  18. dan what do you know about…??

    Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. RICO allows average citizens (private attorneys general) to sue thoseorganizations that commit mail and wire fraud as part of their criminal enterprise.

    To date, there are over 60federal statutes that encourage private enforcement by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to collect attorney’s fees.Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award ActThe U.S. Congress codified the private attorney general principle into law with the enactment of Civil RightsAttorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Senate Report on this statute stated that TheSenate Committee on the Judiciary wanted to level the playing field so that private citizens, who might havelittle or no money, could still serve as “private attorneys general” and afford to bring actions, even against stateor local bodies, to enforce the civil rights laws. The Committee acknowledged that, “[i]f private citizens are tobe able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation’s fundamental laws are not to proceedwith impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rightsin court.” Where a plaintiff wins his or her lawsuit and is considered the “prevailing party,” § 1988 acts to shiftfees, including expert witness fees [at least in certain types of civil rights actions, under the Civil Rights Act of1991, even if not in § 1983 actions], and to make those who acted as private attorneys general whole again,thus encouraging the enforcement of the civil rights laws. The Senate reported that it intended fee awards to be”adequate to attract competent counsel” to represent client with civil rights grievances. S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p.6 (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the act to provide for the payment of a “reasonableattorney’s fee” based on the fair market value of the legal services.Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_attorney_general”Categories: Civil procedureTITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights(a) Applicability of statutory and common lawThe jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24,and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and fortheir vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far assuch laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, orare deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, thecommon law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court havingjurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitutionand laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of thecause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.(b) Attorney’s feesIn any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of thistitle, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993[42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C.2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of thistitle, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonableattorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act oromission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, includingattorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.(c) Expert feesIn awarding an attorney’s fee under subsection (b) of this section in any action or proceeding to enforce aprovision of section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion, may include expert fees as part ofthe attorney’s fee.TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 2000a–3. Civil actions for injunctive relief(a) Persons aggrieved; intervention by Attorney General; legal representation; commencement of actionwithout payment of fees, costs, or security
    Page 3
    -3-Private Attorney General12345678910111213141516171819202122232425 Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about toengage in any act or practice prohibited by section 2000a–2 of this title, a civil action for preventive relief,including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may beinstituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit theAttorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance.Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court mayappoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without thepayment of fees, costs, or security.(b) Attorney’s fees; liability of United States for costsIn any action commenced pursuant to this subchapter, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailingparty, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, and the United States shallbe liable for costs the same as a private person.(c) State or local enforcement proceedings; notification of State or local authority; stay of Federal proceedingsIn the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this subchapter which occurs in a State, or politicalsubdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing orauthorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminalproceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought undersubsection (a) of this section before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act orpractice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided thatthe court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcementproceedings.(d) References to Community Relations Service to obtain voluntary compliance; duration of reference;extension of periodIn the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this subchapter which occurs in a State, or politicalsubdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may bebrought under subsection (a) of this section: Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the CommunityRelations Service established by subchapter VIII of this chapter for as long as the court believes there is areasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further,That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, notto exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonablepossibility of securing voluntary compliance.Private Attorney General ActThe California Legislature has enacted a law which allows private citizens to sue for civil fines and penaltiesfor violations of certain California Labor Code provisions. Previously, this could only be done by a Stateagency such as the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General. Under the Private Attorney General Act of2004, private citizens can sue for these violations. If they are successful, the fines imposed under the law aresplit with 75% of the amount going to the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and25% going to the injured employees. This 25% is in addition to any other monies owed the employees such asunpaid overtime, unpaid meal premiums, bounced check fees, etc. Since this is going to be split with Plaintiff at the rate of 75% to him and the Private Attorney General in and forthis case, namely one PJ Stewart, will receive 25% of the equity from this case as provided by law.
    Page 4
    -4-Private Attorney General12345678910111213141516171819202122232425COURT COSTS 1) NO ATTAINDERS, NO EMOLUMENTS & NOTWITHSTANDING.1. NO ATTAINDERS, Our public officials can not enact bills of attainders, such as tickets, inspectionfees, state taxes, gas taxes, child support, fees for licenses, demand you pay for any service renderedby a public servant, their salary is only to be paid out of the United States Treasury.2. NO EMOLUMENTS & Emolument clause refers to a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8,that forbids the United States from granting titles of nobility and restricts members of the governmentfrom receiving gifts from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress.3. NOTWITHSTANDING. All state laws, all state codes, all federal code, and federal rules of civilprocedure which conflict with the constitution are contrary and void. Thing in the Constitution orLaws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. All laws which violate the constitution,enumerate our rights are likewise void, NOTWITHSTANDING. SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. – RULES Part VII. Practice and ProcedureRule 39. Proceedings In Forma PauperisThe courts provide in propria persona parties wide latitude when construing their pleadings and papers. Wheninterpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to determine what relief the party desires.Defendant has the right to submit in propria persona briefs on appeal, even though they may be inartfullydrawn but the court can reasonably read and understand them. See, Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.1998).Acting Private Attorney General: PJ Stewart, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–3, 33 U.S.C. 1365, 18 USC § 3283, 42U.S.C § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, The term private attorney general refers private citizens who in any civil orcriminal court proceeding, is acting on behalf of that person’s rights and equal protection under the law. Theprivate attorney general is entitled to recover attorney’s fees if he or she prevails. All documents have been made public http://www.stoptyranny.net

  19. Richard Davet,
    Excellent post and excellent conversation with Ken Lewis.

    Here is my take:

    They just don’t care. They will NOT repurchase and will not even consider it unless they are faced with a credible threat of jail time. They don’t mind talking about it, denying it and attacking your (or others) crediblity (knowlingly and intentionally giving you the “you must be crazy” routine).

    I would look into adding the arguments from the SEC vs Madoff case and the State of CA vs Wells Fargo case (and countless others) – especially where they accused every officer of the company of knowing, aiding and abetting every other officer of the company in the fraud.

    They will just not listen to reason. They have backed themselves into a corner and all they can do is continue to put a front and deny. To do otherwise would be an admission of EVERYTHING. And that would not be a good thing (for them).

    Dan Edstrom

  20. They bought back the cecurities because it was part of the contractual agreement with the investor ( Fannie Mae Guideline requirements which are the standard for the industry). All “players” are bound by these agreements. Wells violated the Guides and the investor held them accountable.

    See my exchange with Ken Lewis at BAC:

    there’s a broader scenario (ph).
    RICHARD DAVIT, STOCKHOLDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Richard Davit (ph), shareholder and stakeholder. As you’re aware, investors worldwide cannot help but pickup the frightening news on a daily basis about the gross irregularities at Fannie Mae. As recently as April 6, 2005, Mr. Armando Falcon, Director of the Office of Federal Housing Oversight or OFHO, testified before Congress before a House Financial Service subcommittee citing numerous violations by Fannie Mae of the generally accepted accounting practices or GAAP.
    These GAAP violations undermine the confidence in the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae activity. As you know, Bank of America is a loan servicer for Fannie Mae and Fannie Mae, therefore, could require Bank of America to repurchase its portion of the $1.5 trillion in notes that their portion serviced by Bank of America. If Bank of America fails to follow the very strict guidelines proffered by Fannie Mae as part of its charter bestowing Fannie Mae with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury. Consequently, Bank of America stockholders face a huge liability if Bank of America is found not to be in full compliance with Fannie Mae guidelines.
    Recent reports indicate many problems with the loan servicing industry with predatory lending legislation sweeping the country. Consumers are demanding that mortgage servicers be stripped of any exemptions previously enjoyed by banks making them subject to all debt collection statutes, which they claim is the essence of the business.
    Predating Enron, I’ve been in contact with the management of Bank of America, as well as Mr. Guinn, the Chair of the Audit Committee and its members calling to their attention the numerous violations by Bank of America to Fannie Mae Guidelines. For years, when possible, I’ve attended these annual meetings to attest to these violations. To date, Mr. Guinn and the other members of the Audit Committee have been derelict in their duty to respond pursuant to their fiduciary responsibility to all shareholders and stakeholders.
    I have basically three interrelated questions. One, so that Bank of America stockholders around the world can gauge their potential liability, how can Bank of America assure its stockholders that Bank of America is in full compliance with all of the Fannie Mae guidelines with respect to the millions in loans Bank of America services for Fannie Mae? What specific policies and procedures followed on a daily basis are in place to ensure full compliance? And what methods are in place to audit for that compliance? And how can shareholders acquire a report of that audit of compliance?
    Two, in light of Sarbanes-Oxley, can Bank of America Audit Committee, management and legal counsel and members of the accounting firm be personally and criminally liable for the failure to comply with the Fannie Mae guidelines?
    And three, will it be necessary for me to again raise these issues at the next year’s stockholder meetings or should I go elsewhere to take action?
    KEN LEWIS: Elsewhere would be fine. I don’t recall the issues that you’ve had before being issues. It seemed to be more about your mortgage, I thought, than what you’re talking about now.
    RICHARD DAVIT: The mortgage activity gave me a window of opportunity to look into this situation. And if you have consulted with your Audit Committee, it’s clear that I’ve brought these issues to their attention.
    KEN LEWIS: And the Audit Committee has looked into every single issue and have looked at them in depth and have said that we feel that we are complying with all of the issues that would arise around Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and we’re in compliance. And we have looked very – in great detail and we do have audits of our procedures. And we think that you’re incorrect with your assessments.
    RICHARD DAVIT: So, you say that you are in compliance with all the Fannie Mae guidelines?
    KEN LEWIS: Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
    RICHARD DAVIT: Your Audit Committee has evidence to the contrary, sir. Thank you.

  21. Neil,

    Could you give me your opinion as to how this would affect Wells as holder of the mortgages being able to foreclose or bring any action with clean hands?

    Obviously they avoided a judgement in this one but it doesn’t take much to look through it and find just one mistake per file to prove otherwise.

    I thought it would be a good topic to explore.

    Hope you’re feeling better!

  22. Here are links to two pdfs for Class actions suits against WAMU for their securities fraud.

    My loan is actually in this mess. and the other newer one is only one series off.

    I included the main link as you can do a search and find most of the securities lawsuits.

    WAMU has about three class actions ongoing for securities fraud right now.

    The beautiful part about this is I actually have proof of the fraud and misrepresentations to the investors while they were in possession of the review appraisals. They were only representing the value at $1.6M more than the reviews and still are to this day.

    Anyway, Here are the links:




    You know I think the fact that they had the retirement plans of their own employees so deep with their own junk they should be hung.

    Happy reading!



  24. oh yea…that check ,,, thats paid in full …also!!! yup.
    i think the idea that these notes never left the originator is highly likely , so they could leverage of them..claimed as assets still on their books, while they reported it as a true sale for the trust&tax purposes,” oh yea , it seems we pledged these notes,they just got mixed up & never transfered them physically , this just a technicality youroner…now get off her or get offer!
    this leverage shit let these dirtbags remain in biz while on the brink of insolvency .

  25. angry,
    Yes I saw that. I am just showing everyone another thing to “discover” at trial if this applies. The financing statement might only apply to manufactured homes. Some of this text is also similar to what it says for homes. The Trustee and/or their custodian (etc) will receive the ORIGINAL … If you are in court and the other side doesn’t have the original, the last known location of it would be the Trustee (and/or custodian, etc). What happened to it? Where did it go? Are they all gone? I would seek discovery of everything they did and their procedures for maintaining records. They are a bank. They handle records for a living. What kind of a bank cannot manage critical records THAT ARE MONEY and also cannot tell the government how they “used” the government bailouts? This is blatent fraud and/or negligence and they should all be shutdown and put into receivership. You aren’t the only one that’s ANGRY.

    Oh I forgot to tell you. I sent them payment in full about 7 months ago. But I lost my cashiers check receipt and I forgot which bank I purchased it from. Darn it.

    Dan Edstrom

  26. dan your in ca…yes?
    manufactured home … if i recall in that context is just that [my interpretation ] .
    a mobile home is a [manufactured home ]and was mention separately , but i dont know if your referring to ca statute in your post.

  27. I don’t seem to remember this being disclosed to me at or before closing:

    The depositor, the SERVICER, the mortgage collateral seller, the master servicer or any of their affiliates, or ANY OTHER ENTITY specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement MAY RETAIN or BE PAID A PORTION OF INTEREST DUE with respect to the related mortgage collateral. The payment of any Spread will be DISCLOSED in the accompanying prospectus supplement. This payment MAY BE IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PAYMENT, including a servicing fee, that the specified entity is otherwise entitled to receive with respect to the mortgage collateral. Any payment OF THIS SORT on an item of mortgage collateral will represent a specified portion of the interest payable thereon and will not be part of the related trust. The interest portion of a Realized Loss and any partial recovery of interest on an item of mortgage collateral will be allocated between the owners of any Spread and the certificateholders entitled to payments of interest as provided in the applicable pooling and servicing agreement.


    Again, I just can’t find the paperwork where this was disclosed to me at closing …

    Dan Edstrom

  28. More crazy discovery:

    In addition, the depositor, the servicer or the master servicer, as to EACH CONTRACT, will DELIVER to the TRUSTEE, or to the CUSTODIAN, the ORIGINAL contract and copies of documents and instruments related to each contract and the security interest in the manufactured home securing each contract. The depositor, the master servicer or the servicer will cause a FINANCING STATEMENT to be executed by the depositor identifying the trustee as the secured party and identifying all contracts as collateral. However, unless otherwise specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, the contracts will not be stamped or otherwise marked to reflect their assignment from the depositor to the trust and no recordings or filings will be made in the jurisdictions in which the manufactured homes are located. See “Certain Legal Aspects of Mortgage Loans and Contracts—The Contracts.’’

    Dan Edstrom

  29. Yerronnner! If this plaintiff is buying back all the crap it sold to investors, including my loan, don’t you think that there might be just a little bit of truth in the allegations set forth in my pleading????

  30. excellent point Dan “Allegations of securities fraud” maybe be we are blind to the forest here.. sue where they have the most to loose!?

  31. Everyone should read the following cases – especially if you are an attorney or pro se:

    SEC vs Madoff
    State of CA vs Wells Fargo

    Why do you think Wells caved? They didn’t offer a small settlement, they didn’t take it to trial. They offered to RETURN EVERYONES MONEY.

    Allegations of securities fraud is “kind of a big deal” …

    Especially when it includes allegations against every officer of the company.

    Dan Edstrom

  32. this is the state street bank suit

  33. The PDF is attached to this web page:

    www ag ca gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1719

    Dan Edstrom

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: