LINKING SECURITIZATION AND TILA

NOTE: Working on one of my expert declarations I figured I would share my computations with the readers. In order to protect privacy I am deleting any identifying information.

In this case there was a $1 billion offering of non-certificated mortgage backed securities, which is a fancy way of saying there was no certificate, just a book entry. The Master Servicer is the one with all the power to write-down the value of the pool to what the Master Servicer deems to be fair market value. You might call that a license to steal. The use of proceeds does not list any specific uses. It merely says that the money is going for general operational purposes.That is contrary to the usual standards of an offering prospectus which gives at least some specifics on use of proceeds. Thus it didn’t take much effort to see $1 billion worth of non-certificated mortgage backed securities and only use 75% of it to invest in mortgages.

So it is easy as in this case to take $747,000 from an investor, lend out $377,000, pocket the rest. Then when the guaranteed to fail loans start failing, the Master Servicer announces that the pool is no longer viable and the Master Servicer buys it at a small percentage of the nominal value of the mortgages.

Then because the pool is deemed a failure, say by Goldman Sachs (who bought credit default swaps against the pool), the Master Servicer collects on the insurance and other credit enhancements. Since the investors no longer own anything they don’t have a claim, or so the scheme says.

So even if  a particular loan does NOT fail on schedule, they can still declare the pool as failed, and still collect the third party payments that were originally promised to the investors. But none of this takes away from the fact that all these institutions were part of a single securitization chain which is to say a single transaction in which the investor was the lender and the homeowner was the borrower. If they collected money and didn’t give to the investor it still doesn’t mean that the profit should not be allocated to the debtor’s loan account.

And if, as in this case, they collected a yield spread premium (Yield spread premium #2 in prior posts) created as a result of cheating the investor, well, whether the investor wants to press that claim or not, it is a yield spread premium, it is a single loan transaction, and TILA says you must disclose it — or give it back. Since the originating “lender” is the face they put on the transaction and since the originating “lender” is the only party of record in the title records, the yield spread premium must be applied to the benefit of the borrower. In this case, the YSP is almost the same as the loan amount, and with interest, vastly exceeds it. And then there is the issue of treble damages.

What many lawyers are missing because they are intimidated by the complexity of this thing, is that there are a lot of damages that can be collected from deep pockets and there is also a recovery of attorney fees.

Let’s see what happened in this case:

$1 billion (approximate) in securities offering. No showing of actual proceeds or any limitations on issuer. Second yield spread premium may exist in this unknown spread or in the spread between the offering amount and the unknown actual amount funded.

Extrapolating from yields disclosed in the prospectus the actual yield promised to investors was approximately 7%, with the right to reduce same under a variety of circumstances wholly in control of the underwriters. The nominal yield weighted average is stated in several different ways in order to confuse the reader and make computation more challenging. Based upon computations made directly from the prospectus and comparing it with similar prospectuses involving most of the same parties, the nominal actual average interest was sold to the SPV at approximately 9.6%. Thus, rounding down, the yield spread premium was 2.5%. 2.5% is 26% of the nominal 9.6% rate. Applying 26% to the declared proceeds, the dollar yield spread, undisclosed to either the investors or the borrowers, was approximately $250,000,000. The nominal principal of the debtor’s note is approximately $377,000.

The non-weighted yield spread premium at this level of the lending chain should therefore be expressed as either $94,250 or $82,500 (25%, non-weighted, or dollar weighted without regard to actual rates and data from this particular case). Applying an average between the two methods, the estimated non-weighted yield spread premium on this loan is approximately $88,000 without weighting for the actual rate spread. Applying the customary weighting using the actual nominal rate sold on this debtor’s loan (14.1%), the estimated yield spread premium earned by participants in this lending chain from this level of the lending chain was in fact approximately $369,460 (almost equal to the loan itself). Adding customary interest ($232,759.80) and treble damages ($1,108,380) under the Federal Truth and Lending Act the net actual dollar liability for yield spread premium at said level due from the lending chain on debtor’s loan would therefore be expressed as $ $1,341,139.80 due to borrower. This amount is subject of course to a determination of all other claims and defenses each or any of the parties may have.

28 Responses

  1. Friday 25 June 2010

    Reference is made to LaSalle Bank v Lamy case as a ruling applied against MERS. Note that the Alabama Appellate court dismisses that case as “inapposite, or irrelevant.

    Always check any case references you may use for their validity.

  2. JUDGE DISMISSES FORECLOSURE FILED BY AURORA IN FIVE PAGE WRITTEN OPINION CITING ANTI-MERS CASES FROM ACROSS UNITED STATES

    June 15, 2010

    Editor’s Note….This decision is directly on point and this strategy has the potential to sway the entire foreclosure pendulum in favor of the homeowner, in order to obtain the leverage needed to force a truly viable financial solution. by http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com

    A Florida Circuit Court Judge has issued a 5-page written opinion dismissing a foreclosure filed by Aurora Loan Services, LLC finding that the Plaintiff (Aurora) lacked standing at the inception of the case and that the MERS assignment was invalid.

    The court cited several Florida cases and the Bellistri v. Ocwen case from Missouri as to the necessity of standing being established and that it cannot be waived. Aurora claimed to have standing by an alleged “equitable transfer” of the note, possession of the original note, and the MERS assignment. The court stated very bluntly “These arguments are without merit”.

    As to the “equitable transfer” argument, the court found that there was no indication in the assignment that the note and mortgage were physically transferred to Aurora, and could not have been in view of the second count of the Complaint to “enforce a lost note”. The “physical possession” argument was vitiated by the fact that the exhibits attached to the Complaint, including the Note and Mortgage, were executed in favor of an entity other than Aurora (which we all know is nothing more than a servicer which was the servicer for the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers), and that when there is a conflict between what the Complaint alleges and what the exhibits show, the exhibits control. The court also found that none of the documents attached to the Complaint identified Aurora as the “holder”.

    The Court went on to show why the MERS assignment was a legal nullity, citing the LaSalle Bank v. Lamy case from New York, the MERS v. Nebraska Department of Finance case, the Arkansas and Kansas Supreme Court cases on the lack of authority of MERS, the Saxon v. Hillery case from California, and the In Re Vargas case from the California Bankruptcy Court to demonstrate that MERS’ capacity is limited and that MERS had no authority to execute the assignment. The Court held the assignment to be invalid.

    The Court finally noted that the lack of standing at the inception of the case is not a defect that may be cured by the acquisition of standing after the case is filed, citing a Florida appeals case from the same appellate court which issued the BAC Funding case on standing (which we previously discussed on this website).

    The Court dismissed the foreclosure and reserved jurisdiction to address the borrower’s request for attorneys’ fees.

    The importance of this April 28, 2010 opinion is severalfold: first, it shows that trial court Judges are willing to accept the law on MERS from other jurisdictions. Second, it shows that trial court Judges are going to hold foreclosing parties to their legal obligations of proving standing by competent evidence. Third, it shows that courts will dismiss legally infirm foreclosure cases and entertain borrower requests for attorneys’ fees in having to defend a legally infirm foreclosure.

    Thanks to one of our devoted readers for providing us with this opinion today.

    Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

  3. trespass unwanted

    please contact me ; freak 4 u at comcastdotnet
    thanks!

  4. angry & NOT TAKING IT!,
    I can’t reveal that information to the public.
    With much Love I must say, I have learned not to enter into any trust agreements, expressed or implied.
    Unfortunately, I know these sites are trolled by mortgage, bank, and other ‘official’ employees, to stay abreast of our awakening.

    I think you are a great person and I like reading your posts.
    I respect you very much
    Light and Love

  5. trespass unwanted
    what “state” are you in… i’m in that state of “welfare” cal.
    ” Staying in the language of Love.” is another important & powerful concept easily overlooked, especially in the stress foreclosure causes.
    our’s IS a holographic universe & zero point-field .

  6. No wonder the fraudsters don’t want the investors and borrowers comparing note.

  7. I know nothing, only my opinion, nothing more. If I think I know something, I know nothing.

    Cities are going bankrupt. There are people in many cities who have moved from the FRN habit in one way or another. I bet their cities aren’t going bankrupt. If your city and state can’t protect you because they are bankrupt, and loses their land to someone, where does the people on that land have to go? Do they get to stay there, or are they displaced like the Indians were in our history?
    Isn’t it worth a shot to do something different, or run with the herd and have the same experience and outcome as the herd.
    No fighting, stay in the language of Love, the energy is different from the energy of fear, and more powerful. The energy of the people is what matters. The Matrix (movie) alluded to the people being harnessed for their energy, but we think our emotions are our own, but as a collective, our individual emotions matter to the entire group. Why do you think you are surveyed about ‘how you feel about something’? Yep, it matters. Pay attention, even the weatherman can’t be positive about the weather, not matter what day it is. you can be in a drought and the weather will sound like the worst thing as soon as it’s going to rain. Notice the world around you and do something different from what you’ve been ‘trained/taught’ to do, and do it “in the language of Love”.

  8. send them for free, means not pay postage.
    I didn’t mean to imply anyone would get free $1 coins from the ming.

  9. edgetraderplus
    I know nothing, these are my opinions, and we all know opinions are like exit points from the rear, everyone has one. If I think I know something, I know nothing.

    I don’t know that they don’t have to accept FRNs, it’s written on the paper and appears to be endorsed by “””their “”US govt. (People still wait for “”their”” government to help ‘us’, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people would look like one. If it looks like a duck…etc…I don’t know why we are waiting to see something different, when what we see tells them it’s not “”our”” government, it belongs to someone else. I mean, that gov’t can tell you six people are about to do something to harm the entire nation and get us all ‘scared’ (an energy of fear is what they need), and they don’t know what a bunch of businesses are doing as they monitor the internet over all the foreclosurers, job, losses, and theft of real property? Puleeze..-not meant for anyone, just a general observation/opinion/nothing since I know nothing)
    $1 coins have been strongly circulated in Austin and Round Rock and there were a few times on the local news and one internet blog it was mentioned as having an increase in sales tax receipts while the rest of the nation suffers.
    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/06/texas-sales-tax-collections-stagnating.html
    “Austin and Round Rock are both about 5 percent ahead of last year in sales tax allocations from the state,”

    I can’t say what I and a few people are doing is what’s making the difference, but I want to believe it.
    I give $1 coins to the indigent on the street corners. I know they aren’t saving them or setting them aside, they are spending them.
    The US mint used to only ‘sell’ them and now if you order large quantities because you will circulate them, they’ll send them for free. I don’t save a single one. I’ve spent every one I get, no matter how I get it. I’ll take FRNs back to the bank and ask for $1 coins. The bank restricted how many rolls i can ask for without placing an advanced request. Probably because of how I turned in the FRNs for $1 coins.

    A challenge would be, as one person put it, and I’m badly paraphrasing, Einstein saying insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    FRNs got us into this mess as Legal Tender, and
    Lawful Money is a different path, any path is better than the one that got us into this mess.

    All I’m saying is Lawful Money is ‘anything’ that comes from the United States Treasury and not just their coins. No the measures aren’t the same, but there is something ‘differen’t about using them.

    I’ve had conversations with a businessman and he got a memo asking him to ‘not’ replace the $1 coins with paper, that if he gets them in the course of his business he is to turn them in. He told me, I usually pull them out, I like to collect them.

    Then at a store, they restricted the register to no more than $10 of the $1 coins at a time. I told them I would not be treated differently for spending them, and then one day, I spent 6 rolls of $1 coins, and they called for assistance. The clerk took the rolls, weighed them in the back and returned with FRNs for me to complete my transaction.

    I’ve noticed people who frowned, saying they mistake them for quarters, welcome me more.

    I don’t know the receipt side of the business when they have coins instead of just paper, receipts, and credit card transactions, but there is a positive aspect to changing how I do things to change the world, at least in my part of it.

  10. trespass unwanted
    great idea re; modifying docs to prevent the built in obfuscation this crap has written all over it.
    spot on …we will never be redeemed while in the grasp of this banker bulshit. These are their “chains of servitude”

  11. Saturday 19 June 2010

    Cheers Tresspass:

    The “coins” to which you refer are not the same coins authorized in the Coinage Act of 1792, never overturned to this day. It is about the only place where anyone will learn what the lawful definition of a dollar is. Most think a dollar is a noun, but it is not. It is a measure, and a measure cannot be what it measures.

    To be pointedly clear, [to others], a FRN is NOT a “dollar,” and the Federal Reserve admits this. Yet, it continues to print the word “dollar(s)” on each fiat note of debt. People in this country are too lazy to care or be concerned, and the Fed wants it that way, as does the Federal coprpoate UNITED STATES government.

    The “coins” minted today fail to meet the lawful requirements of Congress, that same body that has abdicated its Constitutional mandate about coining the currency in the United States of America, the organic country people mistakenly believe they live in, versus the Federal Zone, the corporate UNITED STATES, the overlay of which you speak and where most all lead their lives, unwittingly.

    The “coins” are no more legal currency than the fiat FRNs. Even though each FRN says it is legal tender for debts, a “tender,” legal or otherwise, does not have to be accepted. The FRNs being “legal tender” were stripped of that status around 1978, although the government does nothing to disspell the notion that the fiat paper is “legal tender.”

    Business’ do NOT HAVE TO accept FRNs, by law, but none are aware of that because the lie lives large. Also, nothing can be “paid” when using FRNs. A debt can only be “discharged,” passed on to the next person using FRNs.

    Only when one uses silver or gold to settle a debt is the debt considered “paid.”

    Then too, FRNs make up a dwindling portion of what is passed as “money” in this credit-driven society.

    Pointing you further down your path,

    edgetraderplus

  12. THE A MAN
    I know nothing, and if I think I know something, I know nothing. I’m not an attorney and I don’t act like one.

    It’s called a Deed of Trust (for a reason). Believe it or not, whenever any business (let’s just say anyone who’s not your family) asks for you signature, they have gotten you to ‘agree’ to something and the implied agreement is a “trust”.
    Courts underliningly and without full disclosuer know that a ‘trust’ was created between the two parties.
    That’s why there is an interest in you hiring an attorney to go to court because your contract with your attorney is a trust, and he can be in the court dealing with their attorney in a trust, and depending on what they decide for you, you are stuck with it or trying to appeal it based on some error.

    In the future, unless all of us want to keep getting into these ‘trust’ agreements without full disclosure
    [and a trust can be created without full disclosure, by the nature of what it is]
    then you need to be prepared to sign all documents indicating you are dealing with them ‘without trust’ because you don’t know the underlining scheme of the situation and how it may later affect you.
    Before you sign you write what you need to on that document, and a signature is like placing a seal on a document and closing the deal. Before you sign, you write your statement that protects you from the ‘unknown things people can do to you as if you trust them, because you signed their document’.

    You write

    at arm’s length – above your signature
    then you can sign it, below that.

    If this document ends up in court, the judge will see that you dealt from a distance protecting all your rights.
    That’s anything, a ticket, anything a court hands you to sign, applications for anything. I know we have the ‘In God we Trust’ to teach us to trust, but the people we deal with are not trustworthy until proven to be and so far, family is a close as you can get to a trusting relationship in this world.
    This definition is in ‘Black’s Law 5th and before’ but has been removed from some of the later Black’s Law dictionaries. ‘arm’s length’ definition is still in that later ones, but why remove ‘at arm’s length’? I believe it has more power than we ever knew.
    Also, edgetraderplus, in his posts, knows to look at the legal definition of the words. Regular dictionaries aren’t explaining what you are saying or doing when you are in a court. Remember these people know the legal definition for the words you use and choose. So don’t be afraid.
    When someone hands you a paper to sign, you can put your terms on it to, and your terms are that you don’t trust them. If this is a good deal, then great, no love lost, but if it’s a bad deal, you didn’t give up any of your rights to redeem what was taken because you dealt with them ‘at arm’s length’ and sealed the deal.

    Staying in the language of Love.

  13. edgetraderplus,
    Interesting post. In response to your comment:
    “Article 1, section 10: No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

    I know nothing and if I think I know something I know nothing and I’m not an attorney and don’t act like one.

    Considering none of the $50 states aren’t actually coining any money, and the Federal Zone is virtual and on top of the 50 states and identified by the various Zip code regions, then i’ts safe to say there are two types of currency in circulation today. One being the FRNs, and the other being coins. The good old America never lost the ability to make coins, but people walk away from it for the convenience of the paper. When Gold and Silver was availabe, people didn’t want to carry it so they traded receipts. Now that coins are available, watch any person go into a bank and be happy to walk out with the paper.

    If you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the problem.
    We complain about FRNs being worthless and are addicted to their ‘convenience’.

    I read somewhere, coins are kept in a vault, but I’ve seen FRNs retrieved from an automated machine.

    I read an article, this is hearsay because I can’t provide a reference or source, but it said that a person could buy a loaf of bread for $100 bill, but the store would also sell it for a dime. (back then times were made of silver), so even thine they knew the value of real currency.

    There is legal tender and lawful money.
    Legal Tender (FRNs) “”HAVE”” to be accepted by businesses, for the payment of debt, if it’s rejected the debt is considered paid.

    Lawful Money is what is bringing back some towns and cities. People have moved to spending coins and their towns and cities have posted gains in the economy and they aren’t suffering the losses of those where their citizens love the convenience of paper currency.

    Banks watch closely their coins, because they have to have so many (in a vault) for reserve for all the paper they have in circulation. You can literally cash your payroll check in $1 coins if you request that the order them for you.

    Just my two cents. We may never go back to gold and silver, but we can make a difference by not helping these banks harm us further by using their paper instruments.

    A business cannot prefer coin over paper to do business, but in the long run, if you watch, you’ll see it made a difference.

    Again I know nothing and if I think I know something, I know nothing.

  14. thanx for clarifying edgetraderplus.

  15. NG Livinglies said: If they collected money and didn’t give to the investor it still doesn’t mean that the profit should not be allocated to the debtor’s loan account. And if, as in this case, they collected a yield spread premium (Yield spread premium.

    COMMENTS………………………….Your referencing what is called an unlawful business combination and must be disclosed on HUD 1. The Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), Title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., was enacted to promote the informed use of consumer credit by requiring disclosures to consumers about its terms and costs
    There are hidden statutory exemptions here that again are ACCOUNTING BASED!

    Your analysis of the structure and type of relationship and this one is truly evaluated as direct or indirect. It does affect pricing but will be a stretch for a judge. I know firsthand knowledge or was called to testify by the Grand Jury on a couple of these cases.

    The question before jumping in is —Can a borrower compare the cost of cash versus credit transaction and to discover the difference in the cost of credit among different lenders?

    I was involved first hand in the following cases so use them as a reference and call me if you like. See AARP Vs First Alliance / FTC Vs Lehman Bros and Attorney General and SEC action and conviction against the officers of Pinn Fund USA Vs First Alliance.

    In 2001 I was also audited by the Ca DRE and twice and beat them on this issue of “hidden charges”. In fact I recall bringing to question the matter before CitiFinancial Groups top guys in New York. It caused them to pull and rewrite their understanding of a CBA”. They in fact pulled their entire rate matrix nationally upon pointing out their vulnerability.

    Generally, TILA applies to each individual or business that offers or extends credit when:
    (1) The credit is offered or extended to consumers;
    (2) The credit is subject to a finance charge or is payable by a written agreement in more than four instalments;
    (3) The credit is primarily for personal, family or household purposes;
    (4) The loan balance equals or exceeds $25,000.00 or is secured by an interest in real property or a dwelling.

    This is why the lender will not transfer servicing till one month back to the true source of the origination. Distance in appearance causes Green point to funds loans and then GMAC takes over. It’s called a payment default and establishes the acquisition of a whole loan asset versus table funding violation.

    The way you beat them here is “concentration” (of production) for a broker using a warehouse line which is really just a piggyback method of controlling the production.

    TILA also establishes disclosure standards for advertisements that refer to certain credit terms. In addition to financial disclosure,

    TILA provides borrowers with substantive rights in connection with certain types of credit transactions to which it relates, including a right of rescission in certain real estate lending transactions.

    So why seek to rescind under a statue of limitations for an obvious tort and deceptive business practice. TILA and RESPA is a joke considering No one can tender if awarded the decision. Beware the Courts are hung up on mutual culpability; “lender is not a fiduciary”, “caviet emptor”, and the borrower allowed the lender to put it to themselves.

    Neil, I would say I would say in all honesty save this one for another day. ….nothing there to cause a borrower to seek a claim in a default ….maybe for borrowers who are current.

    As my mentor and a great man John Anderson (named for the UCLA Anderson Graduate School of mangement )would say.
    “If you r err on the compliance requirments …youll be removed from your collateral.”

    But I say in this enviroment …Nothing there.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  16. The treble damages come from violations of the Consumer Protection Act. But, what are the violations specifically? Is it the non-disclosure?

  17. A Man

    Try and stand outside of how you see things. You would not be saying you did not sign a note. The question is, is that your signature on a COPY of a note?

    If you want to make it easy for the other side, then by all means, do not make any such challenge. If your concern is how you may “appear” before a judge, do not let pertinent defenses stand in your way. For your information, it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove that you signed a note, but again, you are under no obligation to relieve them of that duty.

  18. BUT I DID SIGN ON THE NOTE. I CANT DENY IT. WHAT I CAN SAY AND PROVE IS THAT I SIGNED A NOTE THAT SET IN MOTION THE CRIME PERPETRATED BY THE PRETENDER LENDER (WITHOUT MY KNOWLEGE).

    IF I TELL THE JUDGE THAT I DID NOT SIGN ON THE NOTE THEN I WILL LOOK LIKE A SMART A—–S.

    CO MINGLING OF FUNDS IS OUR WHOLE CASE AND BY DEFINITION SECURITIZED BACK ASSETS (WHICH WE ARE PROVING WITH THE HELP OF NEIL GARFIELD AND CO.) IS COMINGLING OF FUNDS.

    I DO NOT WANT TO BE A PART OF A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. I DO NOT SUPPORT KNOWINGLY CRIMINALS. I DID NOT KNOWINGLY SIGN ON A NOTE THAT WITH OUT MY SIGNATURE COULD NOT BE SET IN MOTION.

    JUST LIKE FIXING THE DICE. JUST LIKE FIXING THE CARDS IN POKER OR BLACK JACK. OR JUST LIKE WATERING DOWN THE GAS IN A GAS STATION (I RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT TO CHECK THE GAS IN A GAS STATION) SUPERMARKETS AND GOODS THAT ARE SOLD THAT MEET THE GOVERNMENT STANDARDS. ETC………..

    AND THE ATTORNEYS SHOULD KNOW HOW TO SKIN THE CAT, IN A VERY SIMPLE WAY SO THE JUDGE CAN UNDERSTAND.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  19. Saturday 19 June 2010

    Court Room Basics 101, re judge saying you signed a note.

    Anytime a “copy” of “the” “Note” is presented, it should immediately be objected to on the basis that a copy is hearsay evidence. The objection should be raised in response to the Complaint, and raised in court, for the record.

    “I deny that is my signature on the “copy” of the hearsay note presented. I demand to see the original”

    This shifts the burden of proof back to plaintiff to produce the original.

    [For those unfamiliar with this defense, there is no way anyone could admit to their “signature” on a “copy.” You need to see your original signeture to be able to make a determination and be able to verify IF it is yours. Anyone can cut and paste your signature onto a “copy.”]

    Re the “money” issue.

    This is something the plaintiff and the courts skirt around everytime. Reference is usually made to “an amount due and owing…”

    “Objection! I do not understand this statement. It is vague. [Always object to set up your record for appeals, for if their are no objections on the record, the appeallate court has nothing to review.] An amount of what, specifically? Once that determination has been made, to whom is it owed?”

    Mortgage loans are always credit entries, blips on a computer. No actual money is ever loaned. However, when you read your “Note,” it invariably says, “In return for ‘a’ loan I have received, I promise to pay US $xxx,xxx.xx…”

    A few things about the opening of that sentence. Consult any legal dictionary, and you will discover that the article “a” is non-specific, as opposed to the article “the” which is specific.

    “In return for ‘a’ loan…” Why is it not in return for “the” loan you are supposed to have received? It is for a reason. A legal issue can be made of this.

    So, in return for “a” loan, unspecified, you “promise to pay US$xxx,xxx.xx…” Did you receive US$? Absolutely not!!!

    This is now going to the advanced stage by demanding a definition of what is a “US$?” Hint: there are NO US$ in circulation. Only fiat-issued Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation.

    A Federal Reserve Note is NOT Federal, there are NO reserves, and it does not meet the legal requirement of what constitutes a Note. As long as people accept them, the government ain’t going to ever dissuade this deceptive fraud.

    A Federal Reserve Note, [FRN], is a commercial debt instrument. They are Notes advanced to the Federal US governemt as evidence of security for bonds.

    If you were aware of the constitution, it states, Article 1, section 10: No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;…”

    Debt, which is what a FRN is, is the opposite of money. When one understands the “money issue,” this is a powerful argument to make that few, if any, lawyers know how to handle. [Not even the judges]

    There are many ways to skin a cat, and many arguments to be made in one’s defense.

    Cheers!

  20. I want to point to something that at first I thought was probably just a typo (’emphasis’). “right of rescission because plaintiffs failed to tender the ‘money loaned them’ ” Palmer v. Wilson, 502 F. 2d 860, at *861 (9th Cir. 1974) but then I saw the same thing the district court proceeding. “along with the notice plaintiffs ought to have tendered the ‘money loaned them’ “Palmer v. Wilson, 359 F. Supp. 1099, at * 1102 (N.D. Cal. 1973). Notice it doesn’t specify whether it was lent by them or to them because all a ‘lender’ actually does is extends credit (I think maybe credit based on our SSNs) and never loans any of its actual capital (if it has any). Think about it what if most of the ‘investors’ were actually phantoms we already know Wall Street and GS is not afraid to create phantom CDOs and where exactly is credit extended from? Most likely the FED which won’t reveal what it pledges as collateral (most likely us as property.. gulp)

  21. THE JUDGE WILL SO WHAT IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. YOU SIGNED A NOTE AND YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION.

    SO YOU SAY WHAT NEIL GARFIELD AND CO. HAVE BEEN SAYING.

    WITHOUT MY SIGNATURE THEY COULD NOT PERPETRATE THIS SCHEME AND IF I KNEW ABOUT IT. I WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED IT. OR AT LEAST I WOULD ASK FOR A BIGGER PIECE OF THE PIE.

    WHEN YOU CHANGE THE RULES ON AN HONEST PERSON IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. BY DEFINITION THAT IS FRAUD.

    THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE JUMBO LOANS BEING AFFECTED IS THAT NOW THEY ARE PISSING OFF THE PEOPLE WITH MONEY AND HOPEFULLY CAN MAKE A CHANGE.

    MOST CRIMES ARE TAKEN PLACE IN POOR NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THE ROBBERS KNOW THE POOR PEOPLE CAN NOT DEFEND THEMSELVES. SAD BUT TRUE.

    THAT IS WHY NEIL GARFIELD AND THE REST OF THE GANG ARE TRUE HEROES.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  22. and this explains outright what is happening and why.

    The parties foreclosing are ‘owning’ the proceeds of the sale

    @ either zero cost basis or at a fraction of (pennies on the

    dollar) the stated obligation that they are ‘legally’ holding the

    borrower to. What we are seeing across the board makes

    this truth obvious.

  23. Saturday 19 June 2010

    Is there a way to find out if one’s loan has already undergone an insurance payout, but the foreclosure porcess still continues because no one knows about the defaulted mortgage was paid by insurance?

  24. Niel, what if the certificate was not registered in the state of Delaware or New York Banking commission according to what the 10k report states as the state of registration?

  25. I re-read this post …

    How can you be sure the courts won’t throw this out because of the tolling of the staute?

    That would be one defense on the part of the lender, they use it all the time. We see the fraud you are trying to expose. It’s just that a lot of judges are still not allowing evidentiary hearings to get this stuff in front of them.

    Unless you’re Meena Sasser and own a bunch of BOA stock for which you are in the hot seat for (Florida), the accumen of a judge in this regard would be limited at best. It took me three times of re-reading this to get it and you only have one shot on the stand conveying this to the bench.

    Respectfully submitted …

  26. Neil,

    I just got an interesting question from Mark Mausert that I thought I’d throw at you …

    How about tying MERS to TILA using 15 USC 1641(g)?

    MERS claims is a “beneficiary” … how about throwing a little responsiblity for the frauds their way? Why doesn’t MERS notify the borrowers (as of May 30, 2009) about transactions involving their loans?

    I think this statute would be a great way to file a class action suit against MERS in federal court on behalf of all 60,000,000 home DOT’s that are tainted with MERS as beneficiary … your thoughts?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: