EDITOR’S NOTE:   FACTUAL CONSTIPATION is our current state of reality. It is the universal strategy across the board from Wall Street, the pretender lenders, servicers, and all other intermediaries in the gross illusion known as “securitization” of debt. We can’t get the information in court from Judges who can’t or won’t allow the inquiry, we can’t get the information using federal statutes (TILA, RESPA, UDCPA) that were specifically written with teeth to allow us to find out the identity of the creditor and to get a full accounting of all debits and credits related to our obligation, and we can’t examine the skeletons in the closets of Wall Street investment banking firms, the rating agencies, the counterparties in credit enhancements, or the insurers.

We are left with naked “assurances” from the same sources that created awesome illusions of wealth in the minds of the people they were robbing. No proof required. And if the “creditors” found a way to get paid AND take the house, that’s OK too. And if the actual creditors did not get paid, but their agents collected insurance and other proceeds amounting to multiples of what the investors actually received — that is a matter for the creditors to work out. Obligation extinguished? No problem, enforce it anyway!! Receivables from obligation assigned to multiple sources of cash WITHOUT the mortgage? No problem, foreclose anyway in the name of some party who never had a dime in the deal.

You say you’re a trust but you have no trust documents or any evidence of your existence? No problem! You say the loan was securitized into a pool where the documents show co-obligors added to the obligation. No Problem! Forget those insurance policies whose premiums were paid from proceeds of the investor lending money to the borrower. Why should that count for anything? So what if it is in the note that the borrower signed! So what if it isn’t in the bond that the investor received! So what if all the documents you have were freshly printed  fabricated and forged the morning of the hearing in court? This is big business. The little guy doesn’t get to win, no matter what the law says and no matter what was done to him. And if that undermines our country’s strength and national security, so much the better for those who would take over lock, stock and barrel.

Just how close do we have to get to the legal nightmare of unmarketable title for most residential and commercial property in the United States before we start addressing reality? The Judicial branch of government, the last bastion of protection of the constitution and our whole body of laws has failed miserably in the basic requirements of law, procedure, fairness and equity. A handful of Judges have clearly stated that upon closer scrutiny of the documents submitted to support foreclosure, they don’t hold up to even basic elements of proof or evidence. Some State Supreme Courts have issued opinions on the same thing. Sanctions have been issued against major names like Wells Fargo and Bank of America for misrepresenting themselves as the creditor. Settlements for hundreds of millions of dollars are being paid to investors who advanced the funds for the loans to borrowers. Where is the allocation of that money to reduce the obligation? If they received the money, why is it still owed?


The fact remains that our government not only regulates these entities and has huge powers of subpoena and other investigation tools, but is now a significant shareholder, if not the major shareholder of most of these entities. The current plans to disengage the US government from ownership in these entities under the guise of giving back to the taxpayers their money, merely enlists the government as a co-conspirator in withholding essential information from both claimants and policy makers.

AIG and the rating agencies lie at the root of the mortgage bond and mortgage security ripoff that brought down the economy of the nation, the states, the cities, counties and even neighborhoods. And it was the fraud and nondisclosure at the top that enabled and encouraged the fraud and nondisclosure at the bottom––where unsuspecting borrowers who were totally ignorant of the complexities of Wall Street “innovations” signed documents that in most cases did not represent the deal that was offered to them, nor even a transaction that could ever have been completed. The misinformation leading to the ridiculous valuations of mortgage-backed securities was identical to and part of the plan of misinformation and ridiculous valuations of the underlying property values.

Unless and until the reality of the situation is fully disclosed and we are relieved of the mental and factual constipation that is being perpetuated by the courts and by government policy, we cannot effectuate a remedy to an economic nightmare that continues everyday. Our economy can be fixed, but not by  participating in a cover-up plan. Here is the truth: all the money is sitting on Wall Street, which continues to report high profits, Grant high bonuses, and incredibly comes up with hundreds of billions of dollars to “repay” the American taxpayers out of money stolen from those same taxpayers.

Here is the remedy: restore the American taxpayer and the American homeowner to the positions they were in before the fraud. This means a transfer of wealth back to those who have been reduced to poverty or simply untenable financial condition. It means reducing the clout of Wall Street from being 40% of our GDP back to 16% of our GDP where it belongs. The other 24% was mere illusion covering up the fact that we were in fact producing no goods or services of value.

This restoration is not a gift anymore than returning the purse to a woman from a thief that snatched it. Anything less, will leave us with a perpetual state of unemployment, under employment, lack of innovation and lack of prospects. Anything less will leave us falling further and further behind the other countries of the world and further behind the American dream. The question is whether we allow a twisted ideology and bad politics to award the thief with the purse or decide that we a nation of laws where we punish the thief and return the purse.

August 6, 2010
A.I.G. in Talks to Pay U.S. Debt, Chief Says


The American International Group has begun talks with the federal government over how to finish repaying its $130 billion taxpayer-financed bailout, its chief executive said on Friday.

Separately, he said, the company was making progress toward a potential sale of its consumer finance unit, one of several divisions it planned to shed as part of its turnaround.

“We’ll make sure taxpayers get paid back in full, and they will,” the executive, Robert H. Benmosche, said in an interview on Friday, as the company reported financial results that seemed to signal progress toward the repayment goal. “They’ll get paid back at a profit.”

The company reported a $2.7 billion loss for its second quarter, but the loss stemmed from a $3.3 billion charge related to the sale of a major international unit to MetLife. Excluding the charge, A.I.G. reported $1.3 billion in profit and $2.2 billion in operating income. Both figures showed improvement over the same time last year.

Mr. Benmosche, approaching his first anniversary as A.I.G.’s chief, has embarked on an aggressive campaign to sell off businesses, making the company much smaller than it was at the height of the financial crisis, when it faced possible collapse.

Along the way, Mr. Benmosche has clashed with some of the company’s overseers, including Harvey Golub, who stepped down as A.I.G.’s chairman last month. The company replaced Mr. Golub with Robert S. Miller, a turnaround expert with whom Mr. Benmosche said he worked well.

A.I.G. has begun holding talks with the Federal Reserve about ways to pay down its credit line, which had $20.5 billion outstanding as of June 30, plus an additional $6 billion in accrued interest and fees.

Already, the company is moving forward with the sale of two units: the American Life Insurance Company, an overseas insurance business, and Nan Shan, a Taiwanese life insurance company. It is also on track to sell American International Assurance, its Asia life insurance business, in an initial public stock offering.

A.I.G. is also accepting bids for its consumer lending unit, American General Financial Services, and hopes to announce a sale sometime this month, Mr. Benmosche said.

The stakes of the turnaround strategy are high: only after shedding its reputation as a ward of the state can A.I.G. again flourish as a company, Mr. Benmosche said. So long as questions remain about its dependence on government borrowings, the insurer could be hard-pressed to tap the stock and credit markets for fresh capital, he said.

Once the debt is paid off, Mr. Benmosche said, the company can hold serious negotiations with the Treasury Department about the government’s shedding of its nearly 80 percent stake in A.I.G. One option is to convert the government’s preferred shares into common stock that can be sold off over time, as is happening with Citigroup. Mr. Benmosche did not give a timeline for any possible sale.

“What’s important is that we have to get it right,” he said. “We have to make sure that we’re not leaving a lot on the table.”

Meanwhile, A.I.G. has made big strides in the businesses it is keeping, Mr. Benmosche said. Investment income in both its general and domestic life insurance operations is up, and while revenue from premiums written has fallen, that was in part because A.I.G. refused to cut its prices too far.

“A year ago, analysts were talking about a potentially enormous erosion of our business,” he said. “We have in fact been very successful in retaining business.”

Mr. Benmosche said that earlier this year, he visited 50 of A.I.G.’s biggest customers, and described the feedback as positive. So long as the company continued to make progress in paying back the government, customers indicated that they would most likely stay put, he said.

Another major A.I.G. business, the aircraft leasing company International Lease Finance Corporation, plans to raise up to $4 billion from the debt markets to help pay off a lifeline extended by the Fed. It also recently named a new management team led by Henri Courpron, a former Airbus executive.

The company is continuing to wind down A.I.G. Financial Products, the unit whose deteriorating credit-default swap business was at the center of the 2008 financial crisis. A.I.G. said on Friday that the unit had reduced the notional amount of its supersenior credit-default swap portfolio by 51 percent from Dec. 31, 2009 to June 30, to $89.5 billion.

43 Responses

  1. Wednesday 11 August 2010


    Instead of having the judge confirm the sale of my property back in February, yesterday, the alleged plaintiff withdrew their motion for confirmation. I have been contesting the confirmation and challenging standing, with teeth in the pleading, this time, and their withdrawal meant that my reponse to void the entire judgement could not be heard. Plus, for the second time, the judge did not get the courtesy copies of my pleadings dropped off to her, even though the last time, she directed me where to drop one off. She could offer no explanation as to why, when pressed. I have to file a new motion for that, now.

    Quiet title seems intriguing, and I have put myself on the list for Krieger’s book. You have some experience,
    and I have a few questions. If you are amenable, my initials are mn, preceding the @ sign, followed by my sign-on “name,” then dot com.

    I do all my own research/pleadings.


  2. Stupendous man:
    I don’t practice law anymore–so I am doing this myself for myself and therefore don’t give “legaladvice”. I presume you aer in state court as opposed to federal court. Good luck–seems like you have done your homework and/or your lawyer has. If you have a lawyer ask him about changing judges if it goes back to the state ct and whether that is possible. Helping your lawyer with background info is always helpful–I did employment law–wrongful discharge, whistleblowing, discrimination. My best clients were always men because they did their homework. Good luck

  3. Gwen, Thus far I’ve only read your post, the first on this thread.

    In my case I lost on summary in June of 2008 while I had discovery outstanding.

    In October of 2009 I filed a motion to vacate a void judgment. In response plaintiff produced an allonge, and this 22 months after filing suit AND 18 months after plaintiffs counsel “certified” the mere copies of the note and mortgage attached to the complaint in December of 2007 were “true and accurate copies of the original.” Of course there were no endorsements on the note and there was no allonge.

    I made a motions to take a depositions, and also for other limited discovery, all in relation to this brand new piece of alleged evidence being submitted at such late stage. The court denied all of those motions.

    It really seemed like the court didn’t care to allow me an opportunity to impeach or question anything – almost as if it didn’t care about facts.

    I’ve since seen my judge in other hearings and I’m convinced the judge doesn’t want to be bothered with anything like facts. The judge will just accept whatever is put in front of the court by banks in general and will rule based on whatever that may be.

    I have appealed and my prospects at the appellate level look quite good.

  4. RB, I’ve recently read accounts of this. The reason put out by the MSM is that banks wish to keep from flooding the real estate markets with too many REO’s. I think this is a bait and switch. The real reason is that these same banks are duty bound by law to buy back any non-performing loans from Freddie and Fannie, and the longer they can keep up the charade, the better.

    The banks are insolvent. They may be making some incredible quarterly profits right now, but they’re buildings are all placed on sandy foundations. Unfortunately for all, when they come crashing down, they will take all of so-called civilized life with them, but oh well, that’s what happens when greed and government collide to the extent that we’ve experienced over the last few decades.

    I have no doubt that after the meltdown, things will be better, until the same folks who don’t know how to work for a living and actually produce something of value get back to the business of bilking the rest of us. That’s the way capitalism works, until it doesn’t.

    Been happening for eons.

  5. Here is an odd one for you all….

    My “pretender lender” foreclosed on me in Jan in a nonjudicial state with no notice of default or notice of sale so I was unable to file a counter suit until the fact. I’ve since filed a Federal lawsuit (April) and I’m appealing the lower court and about to file a State lawsuit as well.

    In any event, I sent a DV to the Pretender and then fwd the bogus info to all 3 CB’s disputing the debt because they named the trustee, Wells Fargo, as the “investor” and Pretender, as the “agent”. They never revealed the true creditor even after I requested the beneficiary of the trust and also let me know that since the foreclosure “I am no longer a party of interest”.

    As of today, Aug 9, all 3 CB’s have me as “current” when just 2 months ago and since Jan I was rated as “foreclosure” in all 3 CB reports. I pay for monthly credit monitoring. I also called one of the CB’s today to question this situation and she even replied with, “yes, this is very odd.”

    Has anyone encountered this? Any suggestions what to do with this information as it pertains to my current Fed lawsuit and or Appeal.

    You guys are awesome – I read every day but this is my first post. Thanks!





  7. Here is how Requests for Adm, Inter and Prod of Docs work together:
    Req for Adm:
    1. Admit or Deny that BOA does not own my note.
    1. If you Deny Req for Ad. No. 1, please state all facts supporting your denial.
    A. Identify all Docs supporting your response
    B. Identify each person having knowledge of each facct.
    Req. for Prod.
    1. Please produce the ORIGINAL of all docs identified in response to Inter. Nol 1.
    Deposition Notice
    Please produce each person Identified in response to Interrogatory no. 1 for their dep at _____.

    Remember the opposing parrty has only 30 days to respond to a Req for Adm and if they don’t, it is deemed admitted. Therefore, it is important to frame it in such a way that if they fail to respond timely, it gets you a fact that you need for your lawsuit.
    By the way, you have a right to view ORIGINALS, and if they do not appear as originals then you complain to the court. The four means of discovery thereby dovetail one in another. Keep also in mind that most courts limit generally “interrogatories” and Requests for Admissions but generally not Requets for Production. The first 25 Interr and Requests for Adm are key, BUT this applies to EACH defendant. Keep it stupid simple and the Court will always be on your side. In 30 years of practicing I rarely if ever had my discovery requests denied by a court–and the def rarely won obj. They need to be limited in time, and scope (no adjecctives or adverbs). Keep to the key elements that are denied in “answer” to the issues raised in your legal pleadings. Don’t forget to look at the key “affirmative defenses” raised by defendants.
    If you get to trial, the opposing party cannot put anything into ev not specifically revealed in response to Inter.
    I’ve sued everyone from GM, Sprint, Fed Express, Yellow Freight, Catholic Church, every metropolitan area within 100 miles of KCMO, every fed agency and military branch over 30 years these work every time.

  8. Monday 9 August 2010

    Gwen Caranchini touches on a most important aspect, re discovery and that everyone should be demanding it. At the same time, one needs to be challenging the evidence the other side presents…
    challenging EVERYTHING. Neil Gartman has a video on evidence to give an idea of its importance. One should also get more information on how to challenge it knowledgeably to get respect from the judge AND the other side.

    Back to demanding discovery. Gwen is absolutely right that one has to go about this not only with purpose, but more importantly, in line with the rules.
    One HAS to know his/her state’s Civil Rules of Procedure, for that is how the other side most always wins.

    For example, in Illinois, there are Supreme Court Rule
    213, 214, 216, and 218 that pertain to how to go about discovery by the rules laid down by the state Supreme

    Referencing SCR 213 – Written Interrogatories To Parties puts the demand [I make demands in court, never a request] in a better light, and one with which the judge is familiar.

    SCR 214 – Discovery of Documents, Objects and Tangible Things – Inspection of Real Estate

    SCR 216 – Admissions of Fact or Genuineness of Documents…

    I learned about this one while doing research and found an article published in a law periodical by an attorney who stated how this can be an important tool.

    If one’s request for admissions, [which must be asked to elicit a “yes” or “no” answer] has been ignored by the respondant, the requesting party, [you], should move the court, [motion], for a pre-trial order finding that the matters requested have been admitted,
    [because they were ignored, they were not denied].

    Further, responding attorneys frequently err in the form of denial response by signing the response themselves as if it were an unverified answer to a complaint. Also, uninformed attorneys sometimes sign the response to a request to admit and then sign the affidavit in support. Not only does this make the attorney testifying for the client, but by failing to follow procedures set forth in 216, the attorney has admitted all matters requested.

    There is more, but this gives an example of what can be done to strengthen one’s fight in pleadings.

    SCR 218 – Pretrial Procedure
    The court shall hold a case management conference within 35 days after the parties are at issue, and in no event more than 182 days following. You see how one has time to pursue one’s agenda.

    Of course, this also illustrates how one does have to do the necessary homework just to know HOW to proceed.

    Let the judge deny discovery under these circumstances, for now one can object to being denied due process according to SCR #, and that will carry weight in appeals as error.

    Due process is the right to be heard, [administrative hearing, court room, etc,] and in a meaningful manner.
    One will find that the court is very tight when it comes to affording a “meaningful manner,” and hardly ever in one’s favor. This is why, at least to me, it is imporatnt to frame demands so that if something is denied, an objection can be immediately made to include a denial to be heard in a meaningful manner by excluding something important to defendant’s cause.

    For your information, there are specific rules about making objections, so get to know them. If objections
    are not made immediately, the opportunity to object is waived, for forever. If an objection is not made according to rule, it can and will be ignored as if never made, and ignored by the appellate court, too.

    My point is to back up Gwen on the importance of what she posted, and to show that there are specific rules one can use. Look up the equivalent for your own state’s Supreme Court Rules from the Illinois rules provided, and you will see how you can be given direction on how to proceed.

    As to sui juris, Black’s Law, 4th Ed, p 1602:

    Of his own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship.

    P 1364, Pro se: For himself; in his own behalf; in person.

    [Realize that a corporation is also a person, and when
    you “appear” [a word of art] in court as a person, [note
    your name is spelled in all capitalized letters,
    designating corporate status – there is no known
    spelling of a proper name in all capitalized letters in
    the English language…but it is done in court], the court
    acknowledges you as a corporate entity, even though
    you may be unaware…but that is another topic.

    As sui juris, you are making a claim of your rights, or you waive them for forever. Note the definition states one is not under any legal disability or the power of another, aka an attorney. Any time anyone is represented by an attorney, the one represented, you the client, is considered a “ward” of the court, unable to defend him/herself.

    When a judge asks, “Are you representing yourself?”
    Most everyone answers, “Yes.”

    Wrong! How can you represent yourself? You ARE yourself. Someone else can “represent” [another word of art used in court] you. The better answer is to say, “No. I am here to defend myself.” Which is true.

    Here is an actual example of how I start all my Notice and Demands, [ I never make motions, asking for the court’s permission. I present my Notice and make Demands, because I fight for myself…]

    “Comes now defendant, Edgetraderplus, sui juris, not pro se, a man living on the land in Cook County, reserving and demanding all of his unalienable rights, waiving none, in a Notice and Demand To Challenge A Void Judgment For Want Of Jurisdiction With Affidavit In Support and states the following:”

    Always include an affidavit, but that is yet another topic.


  9. Excellant post with great responses. Hopefully some one with honor will read, receive, and execute in the home owners who were fleeced.

  10. I think we are dealing with different personalities.
    I’m of the type that is honorable, but I want an honorable contract.
    When I saw what that law firm could do for that bank, and what that judge did for that law firm after what they did, I knew my Deed was built on something dishonorable, or that I was in a contract/trust that was unconscionable. I’d rather drop the hot potato than fight to hold it.

    I want the financial system to collapse. I believe it’s broken, and it is ‘not business’, it’s personal. You can call me a ‘person’ to make me be a ‘corporation in Black’s Law’, so it’s one corporation taking from another, but I am a persona, not a person…and as a persona, there is real harm. It’s not just business…it’s personal!

    When I sign contracts from now on, you will know I’m a ‘persona’. You will never be able to call me a ‘person’ ever again.

    I learned your words…so I know how to use them, and if I can close a contract and re-open it. like a drivers license or whatever, I will be correcting those so you will always know who you are dealing with.

    If my contract is with a ‘persona’, the court will NEVER have jurisdiction. My deed called me a ‘single person’…stripped me of my rights as a flesh and blood man or woman.

    Never Again…when The A Man would say that, I wondered why he ended every thread with it.

    The more I’ve taken a walk in his shoes…it makes sense.
    I will not steal his phrase, but I want him to know, it is totally on point now that I know there is something different to do.

    We are getting closer to the real answer because we are all thinking of the problem and seeking a solution.

    I think it’s called FOCUSED INTENT, and thoughts are ‘creative energy’ (focused creative energy). We are collectively disliking what we’ve been fed, so we are collectively seeking another solution.

    People concerned about 401Ks. By the time you get to touch and spend it, it will be worth a fourth of what you thought, because prices will be so high when you spend it, your $100,000 will feel like $25,000.

    Let it collapse. We are smart and we share, no one will fail or die. We will all survive better without them. Their world is divisive and creates negative energy. ‘In the beginning’ it was not like this…we need to go back to ‘the beginning’.

    Light and Love
    Trespass Unwanted, sui juris in propria persona

  11. Everyday we get a few steps closer with each new story and case’s being won. It still seems to me that the vast majority of people do not even look for alternatives and or ask the right questions. I have a small group getting the word out to as many potential victims as possible. If you like contact me for more ways and means to help ourselves. Robert Ponte 860-599-5557





  13. I read this and immediately sent it to the defense attorneys on my case–also involving BAC and the Kozeny as Trustee. It is important as a practice point (believe me I have 30 years of trial practice) to let the defendants know we have a circle of people we call upon and are aware of with cases similar to ours. It freaks them out that we actually have this info. So send it on to the otherside.

    On another note–how did she use the securitization docs to get the TRO? I am curious

  14. Quiet Title and FDCPA Violations to be heard at Injunction Hearing


  15. The Homeowner’s TRO attorney in St. Louis was well armed
    with a Title and Securitization Report as well as strong procedural skills.

    Today, August 09, 2010, 3 hours ago | Foreclosureblues


    I just got a call from an attorney leaving the St. Charles County courthouse after having been granted a TRO against BAC and the Trustee from a Foreclosure Sale scheduled for tomorrow. She questioned document discrepancies and in a nutshell the Judge was quoted as saying, ‘But isn’t this the way they always do it?’ ‘Yes, Judge, unless the homeowner questions that right.’
    Permanent Injunction hearing to follow…..

  17. Agree – Willow is right. But, there are some things that can be done for the foreclosure victims – such as genuine modifications with real principal reductions. This would go a long way to halt foreclosures – and would not affect the financial system in a dramatic way. “Moral Hazard” is why they have not done this up to now. If Politicians go along with something the banks do not want – that politician’s career is over – no more support from the bigwigs. Politics, as usual, plays a big part..

    See http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2010/July2010_Quarterly_Report_to_Congress.pdf

    Pages 175 and 176 – “moral hazard” as to principal reductions does not cut it with the Inspector General.

  18. Of course Willow is right. But I for one would rather see the entire system come crashing down and be methodically rebuilt into one that works for all, not just the uber elite. Like Stiglitz said, do you want to live in total austerity for the next 20 or so years because of the crimes committed by these coniving thieves? I don’t. I’d rather have at it right here and now. Let them feel the angst of the masses. It’s past time for tyranny in my book. Screw them all!

  19. Willow I agree with something you said–once the Obama admin realized what was REALLY going on, they realized they could not fix this problem without the whole system collapsing. I agree–the whole system would collapse if MERS comes down and all these notes of which tehre must be 20-40 million would essentially be worthless. The system will get worse before it gets better–but I don’t think it is the judges necessarily. I think everyone who understands the situation is scared S_ _ _less about the ramifications. I think that is why the major liberal press are not picking up on this because they are in bed with the obama admin and the obama admin knows that as bad as it is now–we ain’t seen nothing yet if the banks totally and completely collapse along with wall street which is a real possibility if all this came to light. These cases are really under the radar for all intents and purposes now–they will remain so because the lawyers doing them don’t make big money on them, the issues are very complex so 95 percent of lawyers could not possibly do these lawsuits, and although there will be victories, most of them will get settled when the borrower gets close enough to the truth that the defenants realize they can’t let that happen–that is always when cases get settled–you can’t have the “real truth” come out in any big time lawsuit because then there is a waterfall effect. I am betting that settlements include very very tight confidentiality clauses including not giving out info on blogs and even keeping the lawyers from pursung more cases. That makes sense why we are not seeing more stuff of “success” on the blogs–the defendants are buying people off and lawyers have to do what their clients want–they can’t have a conflict in settlement and the borrowers want their houses free and clear and I don’t blame them. But defendants are buying out the lawyers too–sad but we have no option when our clients want settlement. I saw that happen frequently when I had large defendants I was suing and there were settlements. So, keep that in mind. Willow is right but the alternative is total and complete financial collapse in this country and Obama is bright enough to know what will lead to chaos and shooting in the street. And although some people seem to advocate that in this blog–and the Supreme Ct gave us the right to carry guns and do that–unfortunately–we can’t be reduced to chaos. The republicans are too stupid to understand this–they just think if we cut taxes this will fix it. It won’t.

  20. Well said Willow. You hit the nail on the head.

  21. The truth of the matter is that the entire financial system is built on fraud. That fraud runs deep and wide; they know it and there’s virtually nothing they can or are willing to do about it because if someone actually did DO SOMETHING about it, the whole economy would collapse.

    If anyone really put the hot poker to all the major banks, the stock market, the bond market and any and all…well, the markets would tank. Not one bank can pass scrutiny. If the stock markets tanked, everyone’s pension, 401k, investments would be completely wiped out; every state pension, teachers pension, federal workers…everyone. Can you imagine the uproar?

    Look, they tried this “free market” thing with Lehman Brothers. They let it fail and the whole market seized up. The investors ran for cover and the money and credit just stopped. Just. Like. That. And that’s why they opted to bail out the banks with your tax money. If they didn’t there simply wouldn’t BE any money or credit…not that there’s much now anyway.

    It all a huge lie. The biggest Ponzi scheme ever and they have to keep it going. So, if you are wondering why that judge is blowing you off it’s not because they “don’t get it” it is because they DO ‘get it” in a much bigger way and they are scared to death. No one wants to be the one who brought the house of cards down and destroyed the economy. The truth is just what it is. Everyone in the financial system is running a confidence game. When there’s no more confidence in the system, the game is over. So the government’s job is to keep up confidence in the financial system. Perhaps all this “quanitative easing”, whatever that is, is a way to slowly undo the rampant fraud. Well, good luck to all that. It’s like untying the Gordian Knot.

    In one article I read, this guy said that fraud is so epidemic in the economy that’s it is now woven in America’s DNA and it can’t be undone without killing the host. The article was written by Mark Ames, entitled: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist. You might be able to find it with a Google search. I found it in a throw away paper. It was an eye-opener.

    I say this not to dash your hopes but to give you a dose of realism; to know what you are up against and to understand why that judge isn’t listening to you or following the law. You do the best you can within the confines of the larger circumstances. Some of you will prevail and some will not; some will get a judge who is willing to help and follow the law and some won’t. But, at least if you know why, you won’t feel that it is your fault or that you didn’t try hard enough or that your lawyer was a complete loser. The cards are stacked against you through no fault of your own but because the whole system is a lie.

    I know it’s easier to point out problems than to find and apply solutions. Revolution is not one of those solutions that will bode well for anyone. Perhaps the best solution or at least one of many (and I am no expert by any means) is for the States to seriously consider and create state owned banks like those in North Dakota. I do not profess to know much about it but, on the surface, it may make better sense. We’ll have to see how this plays out.

  22. Mortgage investors scale back


  23. Foreclosures jump among prime US borrowers


  24. thank you trespass unwanted. I quoted wikipedia but i am not the lawyer.

    The judicial system is only one avenue. The reality is if we learn from the Enron saga and the city of bell case study

    they let Enron get away with everything until if affected the politicians in California. Once the Rates went up 3 fold and the people of california collectively recalled Governor Gray Davis and put Shwarzeneger none of the lawmakers cared.

    But once they saw that they could be recalled Enron was lynched. Finished capoot. Even though the Republicans were in power and the head of enron was Bush friend and contributer.





  25. avirani0203,

    Glad to hear of your success!! Agree about courts – but depends on the federal court – could be worse. Nothing is consistent. Certainly would be helpful if some of these cases got to Supreme Court – but that never happens – because the good ones are settled. These people know what they are doing.

  26. I agree with the others, that was a hell of a statement Neil. Sums up the leaching of our nation. Thank you.

  27. Gwen,

    Done my homework. I never yelled that “i’m discriminated against'”or that “they stole from me.” As a matter of fact, I researched case law, statutes, documents filed with the SEC, etc for over a year. I discovered numerous violations in the origination of the loan and rescinded the loan 6 months b4 they filed for foreclosure.

    btw, I filed in federal court and successfully won two rounds of 12(b) motions filed by the trustee, servicer and MERS. IMHO, federal court is a better battleground than state courts. same arguments – different results. In my case, the federal court was much more receptive to my arguments than the state court.

    I wish you success. We need as many victories as possible.

  28. It appears they commit the fraud, they know the courts, they know the rules, judicial and non-judicial and create a layer away from the fraud and send that to court.

    The judge, thinking they are all knowing, “NOT” but being all powerful they pull you in their jurisdiction because we don’t know how to stay out; and the judge makes their decision based on the last step.

    Our education led us to believe we knew things we didn’t.
    I lost my home to theft. It was stolen because even if certain rights I thought I had weren’t afforded to me, the law firm did such unconscionable acts, and violated process and procedure, and did things out of order that in a normal world a judge would have thrown out their case and said for the acts committed I can keep my home.

    Who ever pays anyone without proof of a debt, when they had a 10yr business relationship with one entity and a new one pops up and your old one disappears without warning of what they had done? No one. But the new entity abused a right, and knew how to pay ‘money’ for a firm to give them the powers they needed. And the county clerk will allow a law firm to file junk but look at a homeowner like crazy when we want to file something to protect ourselves.

    When I realized that ‘deed’ was the core document that a judge couldn’t understand but made decisions based on it anyway, I realized there has to be another way to purchase a home without a ‘deed’, because this is ridiculous.

    If a contract, ‘trust agreement’ is that bad, then it needs to be replaced with something better.

    I don’t mind getting out of a bad contract. Ever!
    I don’t want to be under the jurisdiction of a court, ever!

    There are protections I will have in place the next time I purchase a home.

    I will NOT be called a “person” on my next contract…You can guarantee that!

    I asked someone what’s the difference between sui juris and pro se and they copied a wikipedia link.

    I found that interesting because wikipedia is not a ‘real’ education source. The knowledge base is slanted toward ignorance, and I mean that in a legal definition sense.

    “sui juris” “pro se” “pro per” there are many legal terms that are protective, and “sui juris” is a more powerful position than a “pro se” but you can’t just be sui juris and not know how to use the power.

    Even a “sui juris” can be sui juris on paper and be removed from that right in “person”. So without seeing you, you have power, and when they see you, if you aren’t careful, you are powerless.

    We need a new education. Not an education in their system or how to defeat them in their system; and education that keeps us out, in every contract they create, so if they run to the courts, the courts will look at them and say “AND?” “You want me to do what?” “I can’t do a thing!”

    That’s what I’m working on.

    Like A MAN said, NEVER AGAIN!

    Never an enemy, but smarter than I was before you trespassed.

    Sometimes a catalyst is all one needs to know who one is, and the power that one has.

    So for that, thank you, because if you hadn’t squeezed so many of us, I would have never awakened.

    Power is an illusion. You power is on paper.
    I see you!

    Invest in a legal dictionary, change how you speak to using the words of that dictionary. When approached, it’s always from a legal sense. Think of it, you sign a credit card agreement, legal mumbo jumbo is in it. You rent an apartment, legal mumbo jumbo, you purchase software, legal mumbo jumbo, you buy an appliance, legal mumbo jumbo, you watch a documentary, legal mumbo jumbo about the content of the film, or the station has legaleze about how it’s not liable for the content of the program.

    Then we walk around speaking alien in the public when they have their own language. Then we enter into agreements we don’t understand.

    My Note and Deed were bifurcated the day I signed.
    I never used the bifurcated argument. I believe the things they let us learn are the things they want us to learn, to throw us off from the truth. You let a few slip through based on a decision.

    Judges can make bad decisions, too! If it’s a bad decision, will other judges follow? Probably not!

    I signed the Note and the lender’s worker walked away with it, “to make copies” she said, and I signed that Deed when that Note was not in the room.

    I doubt if they both ever got together again, because even when I refinanced, I never got the original deed, and I have to check to see if that was the original wet ink signature note that was closed on the first loan.

    Also, the first note had things about successors and assigns on it. I had no idea what I was agreeing to. The first loan is a ‘purchase money loan(?)’ or something. Your homestead rights are protected with that loan, but not when you refinance.

    Never look a gift horse in the mouth?
    Refinance, back then, was as bad as modification, today.
    It removed some protections we had from our original loan.

    Never again, refinance, never again call me a person, never again separate the Note and Deed at the time of a home purchase talking about making copies. Now way.

    Never again.

    Light and Love,
    “trespass unwanted”, sui juris in propria persona

  29. The time has come to either take up arms, or take it up the ass.


  30. Im sorry folks, my own experience is that if you ask right and not try to throw it up against the wall, you can fget what you want even from recalcitrant judges and Mo is not exactly liberal haven. We don’t have “foreclosure courts”. My case will either be before Judge Kay in Federal Court, a reg district court judge with discovery before a magistrate–all of whom I have been before in the past and all of whom are relatively reasonable–or a state Court Judge Mesle who is also reasonable. I have figured out my case with lots of work –over 300 hrs of work–and am not just seeking a free lunch–I asked for my payments to be put in an escrow account and the defendants opposed that–you just have to know what you are talking about and not spout some wall street conspiracy. I’m sorry–my exp in court may be different and I may be surprised when I do this after the remand issue is decided but I think a lot of the problem is people suing don’t understand the issues or are just yelling and screaming without any direction. That NEVER works. Hard work defining your case and definite related discovery requests wins cases and not just saying “im discriminated against” or they “stole from me” or whatever. So, if I win my discovery requests, I will be happy to post. If they object, I will share my motion to compel and the results but I guess I am surprised that there is not more discovery out there that has been won–you also have to link one party to the next in the chain of title and Dave Krieger and I have worked months on my chain of title to figure it out–and we know what we are doing! The pieces are small pieces and you have to do your homework–its tedious but has to be done. We just figured out for example by looking again at the Def BOA’s answer to the lawsuit that Countrywide is involved–its not in the chain of title but we figured it out based upon a slip by the defendants’ in their answer or perhaps they thought they were covering their a___l However, lights went off. We connected the dots and it makes a lot of what is happening understandable. Again, it took months to get to that point, with lots of talking back and forth. DO YOUR HOMEWORK

  31. avirani0203

    Much of what you say is true. However, the discovery problem encountered in courts is not limited to foreclosures. In most cases, any action against a financial institution will likely face a discovery block. And, if you happen to get limited discovery – you get nothing back from interrogatories/production of documents – except “we object.” The problem is much more widespread than foreclosures, which leads me to believe – not just an issue of relevance.

  32. Gwen,

    The central issue to why motions to compel fail is that most judges view the discovery requests as irrelevant and not leading to the discovery of admissible evidence. The bottom line here is that the judicial system views these cases as simply foreclosures and as angelo stated all the plaintiff needs to prove in many states, Florida included, is evidence of the note, ownership and proof of default.

    These are items that can be challenged and should e challenged, however, the reality is that when a foreclosing entity walks into a court of law with a document they purport is the original note, the judge, in most instances, will not look further.

    Additionally, the affidavits of amounts due are usually accepted as true and even if challenged, the judges generally are unwilling to get past the “homeowner defaulted on their mortgage payments” and the “bank has lost money” mentality.

    For there to be effective challenges by homeowners, the stigma of being in default must be erased. These cases, IMHO, belong in a complex business litigation court because there are many interwoven pieces at play. I particularly like Neil’s single transaction theory.

    If homeowners are successful at getting the cases out of “foreclosure court” and into a real court of law, you will see changes in existing case law. I am extremely tired of calling the clerk’s office only to be told that this is “simply a foreclosure” and therefore, the rules of civil proceudre are different.

  33. ok i filed suit before foreclosure was started as I am in a non judicial state-mo. however, i sued for quiet title, fraud on numerous grounds, breach of lender responsibilities, violation of the hamp provisions and injunctive relief. interesting enough boa gave the court a letter saying they would not foreclose. my note is allegedly in mlmi2006-he 5. there is a clear broken chain of title on my filings in court house. i am positive that the note ended up with countrywide as boa was not involved –wilshire was who was the servicer for mlmi –then it went to boahl after boa bought countrywide. I think discovery is necessary on monies paid on the note by insurance, fanie and freddie, and anyone else. i also think some discovery is needed on the breached chain of title and certainly discovery on hamp and some fraud issues. but I have also narrowly pled this in state court although they are trying to remove which i have objected to on various grounds. my exp with judges is you have to know your case and tailor discovery to the issues before the court–you can’t just throw something up against the wall. i just find it difficult to believe with all the posts that judges are denying discovery–that tells me we don’t have good pleading of causes of action and good argumetns being made in motions to compel–if you plead right your motions to compel should not be denied.

  34. Agree with PJ – send as editorial to every newspaper in America.

    Also, contact Senator Dodd – who is opposing nomination of Elizabeth Warren to Consumer Protection Agency.

    Contact Pres. Obama for nomination of Elizabeth Warren – again email at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

    Then contact any Republican senators – who can block a filibuster if Warren is nominated. Potential Senators who could cross party line are
    Senator Chuck Grassley [R-IA] , Senator Olympia Snowe [R-ME], Sentor Scott Brown [R-MA] and Senator Susan Collins [R-ME]




  36. Gwen
    I know here in NY, most motion to compel are denied because in a foreclosure proceeding, most plaintiffs move for summary judgement, and all you need is evidence of the note, ownership and proof of default. So most judges wont grant the motion as the look at it as a delay tatic or a fishing trip.
    If in your motion, your argument is viewed a “fishing trip” just looking for possible problems, not looking to get solid evidence of a known problem, then the judge will shot you down.
    Im not sure of federal judges in NY because most FC stay in state court.

  37. Neil & Team God Bless you for articulating so very well what so many know but find hard to put together and articulate!

    This should be sent as an editorial to every newspaper across America. In fact if permitted be used by every American to submit to their elected officials on the local, state and nation level.

    We have come full circle in this charade and it is time for everyone to demand answers to their questions and solutions to amend the fraud you so clearly outline!

    Thank You!!!!

  38. This post was great because it was so heartfelt and touched the issues with such targettted hard hitting questions that even a caveman could understand the situation. THANKS I am posting this on my new page of my blog!

  39. To Gwen… sometimes people get their discovery sometimes not.. there are a lot of judges out there that are not granting evidence to be presented, are not allowing full discovery. there are some that are. I hope you are successful… having lots of experience shoudl help you more than us average people. 🙂 Maybe you are right and it is the way it is done – if so I would think more lawyers would have success. I saw one where only 1/2 the evidence was allowed to be testified to by an expert because of timelines. there was not an effort to reach truth (sadly) .

  40. Neil

    Excellent post – no one else can say it better. You tell it exactly as it is.

    If I may add just one thing about the borrowers. Borrowers believed the (home) asset was worth what they were told. Many who took adjustable rate loans believed they would be able to refinance to a fixed rate. Many believed that if they were labeled “subprime” they could restore their credit and eventually get a better fixed rate on their mortgage. And, if all failed – they could always sell their home.

    But, the market shut down so fast – none of these options were any longer available to homeowners. Homeowners had no say to correct the situation. Their only available choice – determined by the US Treasury/Federal Reserve, Congress, the President, and bank lobbyists – was foreclosure.
    And, then came the cover-up.

  41. Gwen-the banksters are stonewalling us every single way they can. They just will not produce. People do file Motions to Compel etc.

    The reason they resist so much is that if they produce what we ask for …their house of cards will fall.



    Goldman Sachs Group Inc. told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that 25% to 35% of its revenue comes from derivatives-based businesses, according to a person familiar with the situation.

    The figures are part of Goldman’s response to a request by the panel to disclose information about its derivatives holdings and operations. Derivatives have been blamed for exacerbating the credit crisis, and Goldman has faced scrutiny from the FCIC for its derivative contracts with American International Group Inc., the insurer bailed out by the U.S. government.

    A memo sent to the panel Thursday night by the New York company included an analysis of derivatives-based revenue at Goldman from 2006 through 2009, said the person familiar with the matter. Based on the percentages provided by Goldman, such businesses generated $11.3 billion to $15.9 billion of the company’s $45.17 billion in net revenue for 2009.

    An FCIC spokesman wouldn’t immediately confirm that the panel has received the information from Goldman or any other firm. “We’ve asked for the same information from several banks,” the spokesman said. “They have all indicated they are working hard to provide that information to us. If we need additional information, we will ask for it.” The 10-person commission is required by Dec. 15 to issue a report on the causes of the financial crisis.

    Goldman’s analysis reflects all derivatives products, ranging from credit to equity to interest rates, traded on and off exchanges, said the person familiar with the situation.

    Goldman said it doesn’t conduct its businesses in a way that delineates revenue from derivatives transactions or other types of trading, this person said.

    For example, Goldman cited credit-trading desks that are separated by industry group, adding that traders are indifferent to whether they are selling clients a bond or a credit derivative. As a result, separating the revenue among the two product lines is useless, Goldman told the FCIC. The firm also said its technology systems firm-wide don’t single out derivatives transactions.

    The analysis was based on a “best guess” of the main type of trading on each Goldman trading desk at the firm, said the person familiar with the matter. The numbers vary widely, with the company’s fixed-income unit getting much more of its revenue from derivatives than investment banking, where no revenue is tied to derivatives.

    Write to Liz Rappaport at liz.rappaport@wsj.com

  43. what I don’t understand here when you say you ae not getting discovery on these issues is WHY? I practiced in the federal courts for some 30 years in the Western District of Mo and in the state courts in Jackson County Mo. I rarely lost a motion to compel but I am being told by you guys that I am not going to win such motions. WHY? If you show the relevance you should get the docs–I am very careful about alleging facts to et the discovery I need and I am in the process of preparing a 2nd amd petition/complaint after the fed ct determines whether remand is approp to get the docs I need from a magistrate or a state court judge–tell me what walls you are up against that you are not getting these docs so I can work around them–I don’t get why you are not getting your docs PLEASE POST THE PROBLEMS YOU AER HAVING IN DISCOVERY SO THAT I CAN PREPARE TO GET THOSE PROBLEMS TURNED AROUND–IM PRO SE ON MY OWN HOUSE AT THIS TIME LET ME HEAR YOUR PROBLEMS SO I DON’T HAVE THE SAME ONES AND IF I WIN ON DISCOVERY I WILL SHARE WITH YOU GUYS WHY

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: