The Myth of the Credit Bid – Red-Handed

COMBO TITLE and SECURITIZATION Search, Report, Documents and Comprehensive Analysis


Credit Charles Koppa (Poppa Koppa) with putting me onto this. He does GREAT work. He’s not lawyer but I trust him more than I do most lawyers to get to the bottom of things. He’s kind like one of those dogs that gets a bite of something and then NEVER lets go as the teeth go in deeper and deeper. I like that approach. The pretenders deserve it.

Credit Dan Edstrom with compiling everyone’s work including my own into securitization commentaries that work the material they way it should be done. Besides doing the Subscriber Members COMBO TITLE and Securitization Analysis, and the component parts, he also does a magnificent job of drilling down even further proving two points: (1) that while the borrower is dealing with a “Notice of Default” the Trust and investors are getting reports specifically stating that the same loan is performing — and they a re getting paid! and (2) that the distribution reports at the pool level are either on-going (Meaning the pool still exists) or they are no longer being sent (meaning the pool has been dissolved).

There are so many chairs and shells moving around I know it is difficult to keep them straight. That is exactly the point. The pretender lenders are going to keep them moving as long as they can because they are getting thousands of free houses every week through intimidation, fraud and deception of borrowers, court clerks, and Judges. But there are a few points in time at which the the chairs and shells stop moving or at least slow down. One of them is at the sale on the courthouse steps.

Charles Koppa pointed out the chicanery when he shared an ongoing study with me that showed changes in the bid price just hours before the sale and the resulting windfall to the new “buyer.” With pretenders swarming like flies around you-know-what it is no wonder that they find it easy to slip different entities in and out of the foreclosure process. But here is a simple proposition with far reaching implications regarding tracking the money, tracking the title and tracking the real obligation and the real creditor. ONLY THE CREDITOR CAN MAKE THE CREDIT BID. Anyone else must actually pay money.

Oops. It turns out that virtually no money is exchanging hands at these sales. And the Trustee is accepting a credit bid from an entity that wasn’t even named in the Notice of Default or the Trustee is issuing the deed to an entity that never made the credit bid or any bid at all. THAT TRANSACTION IS VOID ACCORDING TO MY READING OF THE STATUTES, WHETHER YOU ARE IN A JUDICIAL OR NON-JUDICIAL STATE. Maybe in some states it would be considered voidable but either way there is no “clear title” transferred and there is no successor in interest, which means that the homeowner still owns the home after the sale and can file a quiet title action against the originating lender and the party who received the title from the Trustee or Clerk, depending upon the procedure used. There is no defense as far as I can see and there might not even be an attempt at defending. Easier to let one slip by than risk a ruling that says these sales are all void.

But there is the rub. You can kick the can down the road for only so long. It doesn’t change the facts. NONE of the creditors filed foreclosure actions or sales in any of the securitized loan transactions. NONE of the creditors even knew the loan was not performing because they were being told quite the contrary by the very same group that declared the loan in default. ALL of the loans had co-obligors who in fact did pay but were not disclosed to either the borrower or the actual lender (investor). NONE of the notes were assigned at or near the time of the closing of the loans. NONE of the security interests were assigned at or near the time of the loan closing. NONE of the notes or security interests were endorsed or even transmitted to anyone after the loan closed unless the case went into litigation in which case they either “found” or re-created the documentation without admitting what they had done.

NONE OF THE OBLIGATIONS WERE COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE, MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST. AS PAUL  HARVEY LIKED TO SAY, THE “REST OF THE STORY” WAS IN THE MORTGAGE BOND, PROSPECTUS, PSA, ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION, INSURANCE CONTRACTS, CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS, TRANCHE STRUCTURING THAT THE LENDER RECEIVED. As I said at the beginning of this blog, this is all going to come down to two doctrines that are inescapably in favor of the homeowners and borrowers, including the ones who THINK they lost their homes: the single transaction doctrine and the step transaction doctrine. NONE of the actions of the securitization intermediaries would have any business reason to occur without the investment by the lender (investor) and the acceptance of the obligation by the borrower. That makes it ONE transaction between the the investor and the borrower no matter how complicated you WANT to describe it.



So they wait until nobody is looking, for that moment that appears clerical (ministerial) in nature and then they slip in new entities again, thus cheating the lender (again), but leaving the homeowner with legal title. The homeowner walks from the deal thinking it is over. But in truth, it is only just beginning. Now we enter the NEXT chapter of the mortgage meltdown.

11 Responses

  1. Hey Neil,
    Didn’t Maher Soliman tell you about the credit bid fraud like 2 years ago? Who told Koppa?

  2. Trespass Unwanted,
    Let me first say, I express great empathy for your loss. In looking to find the county’s natural meaning for the word “person” as was understood when the Constitution was made one needs to look and find it in the instrument upon which the country was declared which layed the actual foundation for the institution of a constitution which was the Declaration of Independence which specifically defines an individual person as being human. And any governmental body who applies that to mean a corporation because it is composed of a group of persons violates the 14th Amendment because it not only specifies that the Constitutional rights extended by it is afforded to every person not person(s) and applying it to mean such violates its equal protection provision by giving extra rights to a person who belongs to a group of persons or granting protection to any specific group but excluding everyone else. The only way the court was able to overrule an act of Conhgress was that it was repugnant to the Constitution which Congress is bound, then it is equally valid and applicable that court opinions of Judges may be overruled by the Law for which they are bound.

  3. I had previously notified the Department of Revenue with Washington State that they should be investigating the trustee sales wherein the sale was classified “exempt” from paying excise tax on the sale as they were claiming it as a foreclosure and credit bid.
    I just received word from the Department of Revenue that they had one where they are paying the excise tax on the bid, instead of exempting it. So it appears that the “pretender lenders” don’t want to be in hot water with the tax departments of the various states by avoiding the tax due, BUT if they are paying the tax and claiming that they are not the rightful lender that can perfect a foreclosure and be exempt from paying excise tax, are they not then admitting they are stealing the home and have no right to call it a foreclosure and trustee sale?

  4. Niel,
    Where would I find the statutes that you mention in this ariticle?
    (Oops. It turns out that virtually no money is exchanging hands at these sales. And the Trustee is accepting a credit bid from an entity that wasn’t even named in the Notice of Default or the Trustee is issuing the deed to an entity that never made the credit bid or any bid at all. THAT TRANSACTION IS VOID ACCORDING TO MY READING OF THE STATUTES, WHETHER YOU ARE IN A JUDICIAL OR NON-JUDICIAL STATE.)

  5. I know nothing and if I think I know something, I know nothing. I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.


    And individual is a person and a person is a corporation.

    And the supreme court’s ruling was about a person or persons which is basically one or more corporations.

    Remember, in the movie The Matrix, Morpheus mentioned they usually don’t wake up older people because it’s harder for them to see the matrix.

    Morpheus also said their world is based on rules and our advantage is we don’t have to follow them, but they do.
    I remember the karate scene where he and Neo sparred and he beat Neo, and told him to concentrate. He said something like, I may appear to be faster but I’m not.

    Although that scene did not go into detail, I believe, it was a scene where each time Morpheus sparred with Neo, he started off with the same moves, and after Neo concentrated, he knew his first strike would be with his right hand, followed by an attempted kick, and than a left hand, and another left and then a kick and a right, etc…so as we watched the movie, toward the end, Neo had anticipated every move and knew exactly what to do to strike back or to avoid being hit.

    I’m saying this to say, they are stuck in procedure, and from one of the other blogs, they don’t even seem to know law, because if you provide them with case information, they will procedurally rule against you without ever reviewing the case law that would redeem you and your claim. It takes a higher court, or those that have the juice and fight to appeal, to go back and correct the lower court. But for all those the lower court shut down by procedure, they probably could care less of the ones who know they ‘error-ed’ and need to be corrected, because the majority of us will walk away defeated and not spend the juice to correct them in their wrong.

    Anyway, if you spend enough time in there and watch how to move about with other cases, you’d get an idea of the procedures and know what to say or do at each step of the process to defeat them in ‘a lawsuit’, as Neo defeated Morpheus in Karate.

    Here’s the Black’s 5th definition of those words and others that may trigger something for someone and help with this crisis.
    Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See also (this is in bold) Person. (this was in bold)
    As an adjective, “individual” means pertaining or belonging to a member of a partnership as his separate and private party, apart from the assets or property belonging to the firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.
    ………………….. ——————————
    Person. In general usage, a human being (ie. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relation Act, (..that special S looking symbol..) 2(1)

    Remember the phrase “It’s not personal it’s business.”
    Courts only see corporations, so it’s two businesses in a suit in a court of equity. Now in a court of law two persona could have ‘actions’ brought against each other, but in a court of equity, ‘suit’ is brought, ie lawsuit.

    How to invoke the court of law before they invoke the court of equity, I don’t know and haven’t tried. I’d have to enter into a court enough times to figure that out, and I haven’t. My first experience was my eviction.
    Persona. Lat. In the civil law, character in virtue of which certain rights belong to a man and certain duties are imposed upon him. Thus one man may unite many characters (personae), as, for example, the characters of father and son, of master and slave.

    Man. A human being. A person of the male sex. A male of the human species above the age of puberty.
    In its most extended sense the term includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children. See (in bold) Mankind (in bold).
    In feudal law, a vassal; a tenant or feudatory. The Anglo-Saxon relation of lord and man was originally purely personal, and founded on mutual contract.

    Proper. That which is fit, suitable, appropriate, adapted, correct. Reasonably sufficient. Peculiar. naturally or essentially belonging to a person or thing; not common; appropriate; one’s own.

    Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, and aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. V. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right to use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. The highest right a man can have to anything; being used to refer to that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy.
    The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchise, and incorporeal hereditments, and includes every invasion of one’s property rights by actionable wrong. Labberton v. General Cas. Co. of America, 53 Wash.2d 180, 332 P.2d 250, 252, 254.
    Property embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership, whether a legal ownership, or whether beneficial, or a private ownership, Davis v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 495 S. W.2d 607, 611. Term includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment and possession for lawful purposes. Hoffmann v. Kinealy, Mo., S W.2d 745, 752.
    Property, within constitutional protection, denotes group of rights inhering in citizen’s relation to physical thing, as right to possess, and dispose of it. Cereghino v. State By and Through State Highway Commission, 230 Or. 439, 370 P.2d 694, 697.
    Goodwill is property, Howell v. Bowden, Tex.Civ.App., 368 S. W.2d 842, 848; as is an insurance policy and rights incident thereto, including a right to the proceeds, Harris v. Harris, 83 N.M. 441, 493 P.2d 407, 408.

    I have been reading the definitions of counterclaim and action.
    There has to be a way to reverse these things before they get this far.
    Seems we are filing answers, but it would serve us wall to state an action against these parties doing these things.

    Action. Conduct; behavior; something done; the condition of acting; an act or series of acts.
    Term in its usual legal sense means a suit brought in a court; a formal complaint within the jurisdiction of a court of law. Pathman Const. Co. v. Knox County Hospital Ass’n, Ind.App., 326 N.E.2d 844, 853. The legal and formal demand of one’s right from another person or party made and insisted on in a court of justice. An ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which on eparty prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense. It includes all the formal proceedings in a court of justice attendant upon the demand of a right made by one person of another in such court, including an adjudication upon the right and its enforcement or denial by the court.
    See also Case (Cases and controversies); Cause of action; Civil action; Collusive action; Counterclaim; Cross claim; Direct action; Forms of action; Penal action; Petitory action; Plenary action; Proceeding; Suit; Transitory action.

    A Plaintiff who’s suffered no injury brings their suit into a court of equity, the reason being is they want the judge to believe there was a trust agreement and you breached the trust. If we knew how to invoke a court of law when we are pulled into the court by their fake claim, we should be able to shut them down, because if we knew how to invoke a court of law when we enter the court, the Plaintiff would have to be an injured party requiring remedy or relief, and they aren’t even the proper party to the suit.

    If we could enter the court by special appearance in propria persona and invoke the court of law, that may be a step in the right direction.

    Each time we appear in court, because they do that sort of roll call thing at the beginning, it seems that you appearance for that day and that time, (in the Now) can be special appearance in propria persona and you can make a statement to make that a court of law for that special appearance and get the relief we seek by turning the tables, if we knew how.

    Light and Love,
    at arm’s length
    Trespass Unwanted, in propria persona sui juris

  6. Also consider this, they put people in mental wards that do things for their “imaginary friends”.

  7. Neil, I sooo soooo sooo appreciate your blog. With every one of your posts I am understanding more and more about the fraud and how to defend my home.

  8. Neil,
    Yeah but what about filing a quiet title action in state court after you have been evicted, but are still in federal appeals from a case filed way before the eviction. In my case a 3 day notice to quit was served before the Trustee’s Deed was even notarized and the UD was filed before the Trustee’s Deed was even recorded (which contains names of different parties than those named in the UD) and the 3rd party partnership whom the deed even says paid nothing didn’t even exist and still even isn’t registered with the SOS????

    Courts don’t seem too bright nowadays even the supreme court. The case in Citizens United v. FEC is a prime example, this case declared a law passed by Congress unconstitutional in favor of an entity whom is not a person but may consist of persons. This power to declare laws unconstitutional comes from the case of Marbury v. Madison, but like many cases where a precedent opinion is used, the principle it was based upon is ignored.
    “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. … The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals”. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (____), 1 Cranch 137 (1803)
    The principle on which the Court declared the power do declare an act of law unconstitutional was that it effected the vested rights of an individual. Corporations are not individuals they can be divided, merged etc…, so Citizens United is contradicted by the very case where this power originated and it will have to be overturned and with it the Courts will lose that power which they have become accustomed to abusing.

    Comments from EVEYONE PLEASE.

  9. Neil, you do a great job. Would like to speak with you – but do not want to email.

    Distribution reports are worthless- they are simply a tracking of original source (likely invalid to start)- and do not divulge subsequent changes along the way. Pretend lenders try to attach themselves – by a fine thread – which has been broken – to an original “earmarked” source. If anyone here is current – just try to trace your payments – there is no trace. And, if you are not current – try to trace whether or not your servicer has advanced all your payments – which they are required to do – there is no trace.

    Problems are deep and covert – it is a very tough battle. Have to keep exposing and pressuring – at every opportunity we get..

  10. I’d also add the (not insignificant) TILA implications of money being advanced – not by the pretender lender – but by a “bankruptcy remote” special purpose vehicle, or special purpose entity that probably no longer exists, AKA “table funded” without proper disclosure.

  11. this is crucial for non judicial states where the final recording od the transaction mey take up to six months.

    all these foreclosure mills and title insurance companiez thought the odds someone would find out and go after them was almost zero.

    the emperor is naked.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: