41 Responses

  1. Just remember, when you go to court in any of these cases, in any state, impress on the judges that there is a *real question* as to whether your payments are going to the right person.

    It may make sense to file a quiet title action as part of absolutely any case, because this is the only way to make it clear to the judges that you are genuinely worried that some *other* bank will come after you later claiming that *they* were really the ones who were owed the money.

    Every one of the other pieces of law listed on any of these websites is tied into this fundamental principle of equity: you have the right to know whether your payments were actually going to the person you owed money to.

  2. in Virginia, the banksters and their criminal element foreclosure mills, have made the securitization issues irrelevant, if you are in default, if there was fraud in your case, if you have been wronged by the predacious servicers do not matter.

    I wonder if we still have a country, is the rule of law is just an utopic concept.

    I am looking for a way to get these lawyers to work together.
    would there be a possibility that your next seminar is in this pro lender state?

    i do not have the financial strength to pay for the whole thing but i truly believe we need it bad. besides we are so close to dc that it would be worth the effort.

  3. the situation in virginia is so bad with the judges that most attorneys working on behalf of the victims (borrowers) are being sanctioned and fined for allegedly filing frivolous claims and vexatious behavior whatever that means.

    I believe that actions to quiet tigleaming will do the trick, in virginia, TILA DOES NOT EXIST, common law does not exits, the US Constitution is meaningless. our rights are subordinate to those of the foreclosure mill lawyers. they can freely forge, fabricate, make unfunded credit sales, they have the judges on the payroll

  4. Mr.Raneri… did you dicuss this in DC on Tuesday with Geithner and the other talking heads?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704720004575377022447064474.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

  5. It seems that the answer might be ‘no, we do not seek to enforce the PSA, we just want to determine if it was enforced with respect to our loan.’

    From April Charney…..

    Please…April! What does it matter if the loan was sold to Bozos big top. The controlling aspects of the PSA void the sale of the asset under FAS 140 and cause recognition and serious loss of prior tax defered status under IRS code . Your misreading the opportunity here.Like many other attorneys and even Boyco…your arguments read “BRING IT BACK AND DO IT RIGHT!

    WRONG LONG TERM APPROACH FOR HOME OWNERS SEEKING TO PREVAIL AND STAY IN HOME!

    MSoliman
    (?) Remember me

  6. Neil

    Im going to call you out here and ask you to address some of my conflicting arguments that contradict your therories.

    After my 25 years of participation in the sector I think your viewers have a lot to gain here from a web cast teleconference.

    Its your call.

    MSoliman
    213 880 6288

  7. i do know that neil and dan’s service will get u one. (PSA)

  8. i have obtained the PSA from the SEC website on numerous
    MBS, but i had to dig deep and sometimes it was by accident. Also it seems sometimes to be listed in a very obscure link. It appears to be intentionally obscured.
    A friend in Pheonix got me one with a google search.
    I accidentally found one under the prospectus link.
    So far there seems to be no single direct pathway.

  9. I need help locating our loan with the SEC,
    Can’t seem to figure out what I”m to be looking for !
    Anybody, help ,please…..
    e-mail me @ stythomas@yajoo.com………….

  10. Tuesday 17 August 2010

    Foreclosureblues:

    Thank you for the Charney article. I did a search on the SEC website for a Pooling And Servicing Agreement without a positive result. Do you know how to obtain one, or how to get it from what source, the Trustee or servicer?

    Thank you…

  11. and Bob

    Im not April, that was from her article.

  12. Bob

    they dont have the original note….they have a copy.

  13. O’boy… more dragging of the feet in DC… November can not come soon enough… all they care about is protecting Fannie & Freddie… what about Jane & John Doe Mr.Geithner?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435230576457548.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

  14. April,

    Thanks for the response. I agree that educating judges is the key. In this case, the judge sent signals that because the plaintiff allegedly had possession of the original note endorsed in blank, how they got it is irrelevant.

    I am learning as faast as I can.

  15. Bob

    It seems that the answer might be ‘no, we do not seek to enforce the PSA, we just want to determine if it was enforced with respect to our loan.’

    From April Charney…..

    http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/psa-are-you-psa-literate-april-charney/

    “You have to get the PSA and the mortgage loan purchase agreement and the hearsay bogus electronic list of loans before the court. You have to educate your judge about the lack of credibility or effect of the lifeless list of loans as the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act specifically exempts Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities from its application. Also, you have to get your judge to understand that the plaintiff has given up the power to accept the transfer of a note in default and under the conditions presented to the court (out of time, no delivery receipts, etc). Without the PSA you cannot do this.

    Additionally the PSA becomes rich when you look at § 1-302 (b) which says that the obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness and care prescribed by the code may not be disclaimed by agreement, but may be enhanced or modified by an agreement which determine the standards by which the performance of the obligations of good faith, diligence reasonableness and care are to be measured. These agreed to standards of good faith, etc. are enforceable under the UCC if the standards are “not manifestly unreasonable.”

    The PSA also has impact on when or what acts have to occur under the UCC because § 1-302 (c) allows parties to vary the “effect of other provisions” of the UCC by agreement.

    Through the PSA, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot take an interest of any kind in the loan by way of an “A to D” assignment of a mortgage and certainly cannot take an interest in the note in this fashion.

    Without the PSA and the limitations set up in it “by agreement of the parties”, there is no avoiding the mortgage following the note and where the UCC gives over the power to enforce the note, so goes the power to foreclose on the mortgage.

    So, arguing that the Trustee could only sue on the note and not foreclose is not correct analysis without the PSA.
Likewise, you will not defeat the equitable interest “effective as of” assignment arguments without the PSA and the layering of the laws that control these securities (true sales required) and REMIC (no defaulted or nonconforming loans and must be timely bankruptcy remote transfers) and NY trust law and UCC law (as to no ultra vires acts allowed by trustee and no unaffixed allonges, etc.).

    The PSA is part of the admissible evidence that the court MUST have under the exacting provisions of the summary judgment rule if the court is to accept any plaintiff affidavit or assignment.

    If you have been successful in your cases thus far without the PSA, then you have far to go with your litigation model. It is not just you that has “the more considerable task of proving that New York law applies to this trust and that the PSA does not allow the plaintiff to be a “nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.””

  16. Monday 16 August 2010

    LOL usedkarguy…

  17. Please excuse my barging in without an introduction, but I am a bit stuck on an issue and hope that someone here can give me a bit of guidance. I am an attorney in Illinois where I focus on foreclosure defense. I have been researching the securitization issues and feel comfortable raising them in the context of foreclosure cases.

    Here is the issue. I just had a foreclosure mill attorney raise the issue as to whether I was seeking to enforce the PSA on a case. They cited to a section of the PSA that listed who could enforce the agreement, and obviously the defendants in foreclosure cases were not listed. Have you encountered this issue, and if so, can you give me a quick thumbnail on your response?

    I appreciate any guidance you can provide me.

  18. What he is alluding to is that the attestation reports are key to illustrating the fraud in the underlying loan transactions.

  19. EDGE, if you only knew him before he found commas and periods!

  20. I agree with Edgetraderplus, I also don’t understand Soliman’s points. And I thought it was just me too!

    I really do want to understand what he is saying. I can’t help but feel it is important to our cause.

  21. Monday 16 August 2010

    MSoliman:

    You seem to have some pertinent contributions to make. If only you could express yourself in a way that makes sense, for I have a hard time following what you say.

    Maybe it is only me…

  22. Implementing SOX 404 — Auditor’s Attestation
    To express an opinion on whether the financial statements are fairly stated

    The auditor’s conclusion about member bank management’s assessment pertain directly to the auditor willingness to concur with management that internal control is effective, not just to the adequacy of management’s process for determining whether internal control is effective.

    The auditor MUST identify controls and their objectives, and THEN determine whether the controls, if operating properly, would effectively prevent or detect errors or fraud.

    When implementing Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX 404), it is important for management of public companies to understand the requirements of the auditor.

    The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has adopted Auditing Standard No. 2, An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction With an Audit of Financial Statements.

    This Standard addresses the attestation engagement referred to in SOX 404(b) as well as Section 103(a)(2)(A) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the relationship of this engagement to the audit of the financial statements.

    Auditing Standard No. 2 describes an integrated audit of the financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, resulting in two separate objectives:

    To express an opinion on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting
    Throughout the Standard, the auditor’s attestation of management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control is referred to as the audit of internal control over financial reporting.

    The auditor must obtain evidence about whether internal control over financial reporting is effective by:

    Evaluating management’s assessment process
    Obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting Identifying significant accounts, relevant assertions, and significant processes
    Evaluating and testing the design of internal controls
    Evaluating and testing operating effectiveness
    The auditor should evaluate management’s assessment process as each phase is completed, or even as each step within a phase is completed — not when the entire process is completed.

    The auditor’s procedures will include inquiry, observation and inspection of relevant documentation. Walkthroughs will be performed for each major class of transactions to confirm the auditor’s understanding of the design of controls and their operating effectiveness.

    The auditor must evaluate the implications of the findings from the audit of internal control over financial reporting for the financial statement audit. Where controls are effective, the auditor may be able to alter the nature or timing, or reduce the extent of substantive tests; however, the auditor must still perform substantive procedures for all relevant assertions related to all significant accounts and disclosures during the financial statement audit, and will consider the effect of each control deficiency in designing the nature, timing and extent of those substantive procedures.

    The auditor’s report must include two opinions as a result of the audit of internal control over financial reporting: one on management’s assessment and one on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Reporting and communication by management and the auditor are discussed in the final article of the Implementing SOX 404 series.

  23. Friday 13 August 2010

    I do not understand this thread. Where are any of the comments located?

  24. How do we get on the list to receive the commentaries? I have numerous foreclosure defense cases in Illinois that would benefit from the information.

  25. ad as hell pro se, on August 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm Said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I too am pro se against Deutsche Bank, who foreclosed on my home in Jan 2009, and an Unlawful Detainer, which I lost in Aug. 2009, The original lender now defunct.
    I filed my own suit against eight in June 2009, the case still pending, Deutsche Bank recently won to have the Lis Pendens removed, because the house is supposed to be sold. I have documents that are also recorded in records, that shows the VP for the original lender (New Century), assigning the deed of trust, then the same day and the same VP, signs a substitution of trustee for Deutsche Bank. I also have another recorded document that shows this same VP works for Ameriquest. This person has never worked for any of the three. The judge totally ignores this, as I have had it judicially noticed. Deutsche Bank also claims to have been assigned the deed of trust while I was default, because of a temp layoff in 2006, I defaulted in Nov. 2006 and fortunately was able to cure March 23, 2007, while the alleged assignment took place on March 7, 2007. It was non performing.
    The other obstacle (other than the judge), is that the Attorney for DB has filed declarations of a person that works for him, as the manager of his eviction service, claiming to be an REO manager for DB. He also files proofs of service, that have totally different signatures of persons claiming to be the same, as well as a person that does not exist anywhere in the state of CA. My 3/60 foreclosure notice to quit has the Attorney signing as the ATTY for the new owner Carrington, then files the UD as Atty. for the owner DB. Due to the notice of right to cancel blank, and defective upon its face, it tolled the time to rescind to three years, which by QWR, I did 10 days before sale. The judge, not knowing the operation of a calender, sides with the ATTY, who claims the house was already sold. The sale date Jan.
    29, 2009. The rescission date Jan 20, 2009. I received a response
    from NC, who said Carrington owns the loan, Carringtons untimely response, states DB is the owner but respectfully declines to accept
    the rescission (not their choice). Now DB I still have not heard anything from, except the Atty. and the UD. These issues also have
    been raised. Don’t matter.
    Yet another matter, the foreclosing trustee (Old Republic) filed the
    NOD on June 3, 2008, but they were not executed until July 15, 2008
    or effected (recorded) until Jan 08, 2009. The initiated the NOD 42
    days before actually authorized, with no new notice. Also judicially
    noticed, the deed of trust, the same, don’t matter. What do I do about
    the judge, who is either stupid or paid, and the lawyer who likes to
    evict people and lie, and commit perjury, subornation of perjury and
    commit fraud upon the court, as well as allowing, aiding and abetting the fraud of his client. I am about to completely loose my home of
    24 years, because of liars. If there is an Atty. out there PLEASE
    mad as hell and pro se

  26. I agree that the courts are highly antagonistic to the vapor money theory. However, what we are talking abouit here is not vapor money, so much as just outright fraud, where the “lender” has been paid and the obligation satisfied. It is no different than if your rich grandmother took it upon herself to pay off your mortgage. It doesn’t matter who paid it, just that it was paid. A liitle different here, in that an insurance company or other entity (investor) may have a legitimate claim, but not the plaintiff on the caption of the foreclosure.

  27. To my knowledge no “vapor money theory” argument has won a case since the 1969 Credit River decision. Thus in the courts it doesn’t seem to matter if it is true or not.

    My expectation is that if a person fighting a foreclosure goes into court with anything resembling that argument they are certain to loose.

  28. Are the commentaries going to be posted here as well?

  29. *E-tp

    i think you might want to give a little more credit to those who read this blog. many already know of what you speak.

    the problem with overly broad generalizations and conspiracy theories (as true as they may be) is that they WON’T help anyone stay in their home and certainly no judge is going to want to hear;

    “your honor, there was a conspiracy perpetrated on the American people by the Federal Reserve and the NWO”

    i appreciate you trying to “wake up” the American people but the purpose of this site (if I am not mistaking) is not to prove conspiracy theories… it’s to help people PROVE FRAUD in a court of law. you are not going to save the world by posting here, but you may be able to help someone stay in their home.

    there’s plenty of fake/false/fabricated/forged docs waiting for you in your local courthouse and recorded in public land records. do you ever sit and observe “public” foreclosure hearings or research files in your local jurisdiction?

    i do – just about every day… i also went to observe “public” foreclosure hearings here in my hometown (FL). guess what, i was told “NO” because it was a “security risk”

    it was part of a research project i was working on for my business law course. but it’s really hard to observe when you can’t even get in the door!

  30. Sunday 8 August 2010

    TW:

    You are the prefect example. Go after the messanger when you don’t like the message.

    Ignorance is bliss and easier to deal with.

    And you are 100% right. No one wants to hear this “crap.”

    Point taken.

  31. Sunday 8 August 2010

    Implants? Goldman Sachs is the farm club from which most of the important officials guarding the Treasury hen house come.

    Many may find me tedious for bringing up issues concerning the government, the Fed, fiat money, etc, but unless one has an understanding of how this country was literally taken over by the moneychangers who gained control of this nation’s currency and replaced it with worthless fiat, over several decades so few would notice the change, no one will appreciate what is going on re mortgage foreclosures.

    Mention was made that this happened in the 1930s, the exact same thing, only the farmers lost all their farmland. [Home ownership was not that prevalent in the 1930s.] [Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.] Now, the banks own at least 50% of all the housing and are holding on to most of the properties to manipulate the market and “values.”

    Few may be aware, but private financing has all but disappeared…i.e. corporations used to be primary fixtures in the lending market…no more. Who can compete with the government?

    The banks are ALL owned by the “Central Bank,” aka
    the Federal Reserve, in turn owned by a foreign consortium, aka the New World Order, [NWO], who pull
    ALL the strings, globally, now. Believe it or not, Obama, any president, is a puppet to those who control the money. It is too incomprehensive for most people to fathom, let alone give it credence.

    Just hearing the words “Central Bank” make my skin crawl.

    Glenn Beck is an idiot, as far as I am concerned, with his self-annointed role as some sort of savior. He only understands a little of the true story, and that can be dangerous because he inadvertently gives out the wrong message.

    I had to chuckle when Anonymous referred to me as “angry.” Hardly. I am a realist and deal with what is.
    There is the old expression, “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.” I can tell anyone who reads what I have learned and experienced, but few will ever take heed. Most everyone, especially on this site, is consumed by their immediate problem of foreclosure, understandably, and cannot for the life of them ever see any connection with their current delimma, and what has been orchestrated by those who control the money.

    Tentalces? The NWO has a stranglehold on this nation, and they view people as mere pawns. Why do you think the expression “Human Resources” came about, in place of what used to be known as “Personnel?” This country can more readily be described as Fascist than anything else, for those who understand what the word means.

    The collapse of this country is underway, and the clock is ticking. Two years, five years? No one knows. the signs keep growing, but people, sad to say, are too ignorant to see and recognize them.

    Obama promised change, and was likely sincere. Once elected, he had to deal with political reality, if he wanted to live. The assinations of Lincoln and Kennedy were over money issues, plain and simple.
    The Civil War was financed by one faction of the Rothschild, for the North, and the South was financed by another faction of the Rothschilds. “Follow the money” has greater significance than most people realize. The assination attempt on Reagan occurred because he pledged to reduce the size of goverment. After he recovered, he embarked on a huge expansion of the Federal govermnment. NOBODY treds on the turf of the NWO, not even presidents.

    I have said it before, in government, there are no accidents. EVERYTHING is carefully planned…not executed well, but carefully planned nonetheless.

    See? Now just yesterday I told myself to lay off the commentary unrelated to foreclosures. It is much like Anonymous talking about all the details of securitization, tranches, etc. When one has knowledge about what is truly going on, it is difficult not to let others know.

    What little I know is verfiable for anyone who wants to take the time and read what history and court decisions say about this country. I mentioned Executive Orders. Never mind. People want to watch TV and eat their pizza before it gets cold.

    Cheers!?

  32. E-tp – I mainly see you here posting your long, drawn out (boring) dissertations about life, history, taxes, etc. and throwing jabs and attacks at anyone that you see posting a comment that you don’t care for.

    guess what – nobody wants to hear your b**ching and whining. try adding some value or helping someone for a change… what are you some freakin’ genius, you know everything huh?

    who cares you don’t pay taxes and the IRS doesn’t make you… (i guess you don’t shop anywhere huh)

    are you just here to criticize people or are you trying to piggy-back off of this site to draw hits to your “trading” service?

  33. E-tp & A man

    Can you prove him wrong – what he says about the Goldman “implants” in Washington? I’m not much of a fan of anything Main Stream Media but dang, never knew about all these “tentacles”. Thanks for sharing your “opinions”

  34. To Matt Weidner: Matt, you didn’t lose anything – you merely have a variety of ingredients on the table of adversity to try and cook up another dish – that’s all – the Taylor matter will probably trigger something that, while one case is sadly down, millions may be saved – you’ll get something out of this – don’t worry – you have a silent force behind you!

  35. edgetraderplus Glenn Beck reminds me of Benito Musolini

    You hit it on the nail a real demagogue.

  36. Saturday 7 August 2010

    Glenn Beck, self-appointed “messiah” for the masses too lazy to do their own research.

    Caveat: don’t drink the cool-aid.

  37. I hope it is posted on this Blog ! 🙂

  38. I’m not much for main stream media… but Beck NAILS IT on this one!

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KFjR4f6TZk&hl=en_US&fs=1?color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b]

  39. OOPS DAN EDSTROM

  40. HALELEUJAH. I WAS ABOUT TO CONTACT DAN ENSTROM

    THANK YOU

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: