Loans Actually Allocated to Many Mortgage Bonds

Editor’s Comment: Rick explains here how each loan was used multiple times. He’s right, I think, that legally the borrower does not owe anything on the NOTE. But the obligation remains under that scenario under some theory of law or equity, probably unsecured.

see http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/10/second-leg-down-of-americas-death.html

by Rick Humphreys

The Foreclosure Mess

“Homeowners can only be foreclosed and evicted from their homes by the person or institution who actually has the loan paper…only the note-holder has legal standing to ask a court to foreclose and evict. Not the mortgage, the note, which is the actual IOU that people sign, promising to pay back the mortgage loan

“Before mortgage-backed securities, most mortgage loans were issued by the local savings & loan. So the note usually didn’t go anywhere: it stayed in the offices of the S&L down the street.

“But once mortgage loan securitization happened, things got sloppy…they got sloppy by the very nature of mortgage-backed securities.

“The whole purpose of MBSs was for different investors to have their different risk appetites satiated with different bonds. Some bond customers wanted super-safe bonds with low returns, some others wanted riskier bonds with correspondingly higher rates of return.

“Therefore, as everyone knows, the loans were ‘bundled’ into REMICs (Real-Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits, a special vehicle designed to hold the loans for tax purposes), and then “sliced & diced”…split up and put into tranches, according to their likelihood of default, their interest rates, and other characteristics.

“This slicing and dicing created ‘senior tranches,’ where the loans would likely be paid in full, if the past history of mortgage loan statistics was to be believed. And it also created ‘junior tranches,’ where the loans might well default, again according to past history and statistics. (A whole range of tranches was created, of course, but for the purposes of this discussion we can ignore all those countless other variations.)

“These various tranches were sold to different investors, according to their risk appetite. That’s why some of the MBS bonds were rated as safe as Treasury bonds, and others were rated by the ratings agencies as risky as junk bonds.

“But here’s the key issue: When an MBS was first created, all the mortgages were pristine…none had defaulted yet, because they were all brand-new loans. Statistically, some would default and some others would be paid back in full…but which ones specifically would default? No one knew, of course. If I toss a coin 1,000 times, statistically, 500 tosses the coin will land heads…but what will the result be of, say, the 723rd toss? No one knows.

“Same with mortgages.

“So in fact, it wasn’t that the riskier loans were in junior tranches and the safer ones were in senior tranches: rather, all the loans were in the REMIC, and if and when a mortgage in a given bundle of mortgages defaulted, the junior tranche holders would take the losses first, and the senior tranche holder last.

“But who were the owners of the junior-tranche bond and the senior-tranche bonds? Two different people. Therefore, the mortgage note was not actually signed over to the bond holder. In fact, it couldn’t be signed over. Because, again, since no one knew which mortgage would default first, it was impossible to assign a specific mortgage to a specific bond.

“Therefore, how to make sure the safe mortgage loan stayed with the safe MBS tranche, and the risky and/or defaulting mortgage went to the riskier tranche?

“Enter stage right the famed MERS…the Mortgage Electronic Registration System.

“MERS was the repository of these digitized mortgage notes that the banks originated from the actual mortgage loans signed by homebuyers. MERS was jointly owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (yes, those two again …I know, I know: like the chlamydia and the gonorrhea of the financial world…you cure ’em, but they just keep coming back).

“The purpose of MERS was to help in the securitization process. Basically, MERS directed defaulting mortgages to the appropriate tranches of mortgage bonds. MERS was essentially where the digitized mortgage notes were sliced and diced and rearranged so as to create the mortgage-backed securities. Think of MERS as Dr. Frankenstein’s operating table, where the beast got put together.

“However, legally…and this is the important part…MERS didn’t hold any mortgage notes: the true owner of the mortgage notes should have been the REMICs.

“But the REMICs didn’t own the notes either, because of a fluke of the ratings agencies: the REMICs had to be “bankruptcy remote,” in order to get the precious ratings needed to peddle mortgage-backed Securities to institutional investors.

“So somewhere between the REMICs and MERS, the chain of title was broken.

“Now, what does ‘broken chain of title’ mean? Simple: when a homebuyer signs a mortgage, the key document is the note. As I said before, it’s the actual IOU. In order for the mortgage note to be sold or transferred to someone else (and therefore turned into a mortgage-backed security), this document has to be physically endorsed to the next person. All of these signatures on the note are called the ‘chain of title.’

“You can endorse the note as many times as you please…but you have to have a clear chain of title right on the actual note: I sold the note to Moe, who sold it to Larry, who sold it to Curly, and all our notarized signatures are actually, physically, on the note, one after the other.

“If for whatever reason any of these signatures is skipped, then the chain of title is said to be broken. Therefore, legally, the mortgage note is no longer valid. That is, the person who took out the mortgage loan to pay for the house no longer owes the loan, because he no longer knows whom to pay.

“To repeat: if the chain of title of the note is broken, then the borrower no longer owes any money on the loan.

“Read that last sentence again, please. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

“You read it again? Good: Now you see the can of worms that’s opening up.

“The broken chain of title might not have been an issue if there hadn’t been an unusual number of foreclosures. Before the housing bubble collapse, the people who defaulted on their mortgages wouldn’t have bothered to check to see that the paperwork was in order.

“But as everyone knows, following the housing collapse of 2007-’10-and-counting, there has been a boatload of foreclosures…and foreclosures on a lot of people who weren’t sloppy bums who skipped out on their mortgage payments, but smart and cautious people who got squeezed by circumstances.

“These people started contesting their foreclosures and evictions, and so started looking into the chain-of-title issue, and that’s when the paperwork became important. So the chain of title became crucial and the botched paperwork became a nontrivial issue.

“Now, the banks had hired ‘foreclosure mills’…law firms that specialized in foreclosures…in order to handle the massive volume of foreclosures and evictions that occurred because of the housing crisis. The foreclosure mills, as one would expect, were the first to spot the broken chain of titles.

“Well, what do you know, it turns out that these foreclosure mills might have faked and falsified documentation, so as to fraudulently repair the chain-of-title issue, thereby ‘proving’ that the banks had judicial standing to foreclose on delinquent mortgages. These foreclosure mills might have even forged the loan note itself…

“Wait, why am I hedging? The foreclosure mills did actually, deliberately, and categorically fake and falsify documents, in order to expedite these foreclosures and evictions. Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism, who has been all over this story, put up a price list for this ‘service’ from a company called DocX…yes, a price list for forged documents. Talk about your one-stop shopping!

“So in other words, a massive fraud was carried out, with the inevitable innocent bystanders getting caught up in the fraud: the guy who got foreclosed and evicted from his home in Florida, even though he didn’t actually have a mortgage, and in fact owned his house free -and clear. The family that was foreclosed and evicted, even though they had a perfect mortgage payment record. Et cetera, depressing et cetera.

“Now, the reason this all came to light is not because too many people were getting screwed by the banks or the government or someone with some power saw what was going on and decided to put a stop to it…that would have been nice, to see a shining knight in armor, riding on a white horse.

“But that’s not how America works nowadays.

“No, alarm bells started going off when the title insurance companies started to refuse to insure the titles.

“In every sale, a title insurance company insures that the title is free -and clear …that the prospective buyer is in fact buying a properly vetted house, with its title issues all in order. Title insurance companies stopped providing their service because…of course…they didn’t want to expose themselves to the risk that the chain of title had been broken, and that the bank had illegally foreclosed on the previous owner.

“That’s when things started getting interesting: that’s when the attorneys general of various states started snooping around and making noises (elections are coming up, after all).

“The fact that Ally Financial (formerly GMAC), JP Morgan Chase, and now Bank of America have suspended foreclosures signals that this is a serious problem…obviously. Banks that size, with that much exposure to foreclosed properties, don’t suspend foreclosures just because they’re good corporate citizens who want to do the right thing, and who have all their paperwork in strict order…they’re halting their foreclosures for a reason.

“The move by the United States Congress last week, to sneak by the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act? That was all the banking lobby. They wanted to shove down that law, so that their foreclosure mills’ forged and fraudulent documents would not be scrutinized by out-of-state judges. (The spineless cowards in the Senate carried out their master’s will by a voice vote…so that there would be no registry of who had voted for it, and therefore no accountability.)

“And President Obama’s pocket veto of the measure? He had to veto it…if he’d signed it, there would have been political hell to pay, plus it would have been challenged almost immediately, and likely overturned as unconstitutional in short order. (But he didn’t have the gumption to come right out and veto it…he pocket vetoed it.)

“As soon as the White House announced the pocket veto…the very next day!…Bank of America halted all foreclosures, nationwide.

“Why do you think that happened? Because the banks are in trouble…again. Over the same thing as last time…the damned mortgage-backed securities!

“The reason the banks are in the tank again is, if they’ve been foreclosing on people they didn’t have the legal right to foreclose on, then those people have the right to get their houses back. And the people who bought those foreclosed houses from the bank might not actually own the houses they paid for.

“And it won’t matter if a particular case…or even most cases…were on the up -and up: It won’t matter if most of the foreclosures and evictions were truly due to the homeowner failing to pay his mortgage. The fraud committed by the foreclosure mills casts enough doubt that, now, all foreclosures come into question. Not only that, all mortgages come into question.

“People still haven’t figured out what all this means. But I’ll tell you: if enough mortgage-paying homeowners realize that they may be able to get out of their mortgage loans and keep their houses, scott-free? That’s basically a license to halt payments right now, thank you. That’s basically a license to tell the banks to take a hike.

“What are the banks going to do…try to foreclose and then evict you? Show me the paper, Mr. Banker, will be all you need to say.

“This is a major, major crisis. The Lehman bankruptcy could be a spring rain compared to this hurricane. And if this isn’t handled right…and handled right quick, in the next couple of weeks at the outside…this crisis could also spell the end of the mortgage business altogether. Of banking altogether. Hell, of civil society. What do you think happens in a country when the citizens realize they don’t need to pay their debts?”

57 Responses

  1. J, Good point. Once the alleged Note is sold into the alleged trust, that is it. You can’t use it for any purpose again.

  2. I think the admin of this web page is in fact
    working hard in favor of his site, since here every data is quality based material.

  3. MAHER SOLIMAN is a FRAUD. There is tons of bad press about him all over the Internet. There are also complaints filed with the DOJ. Eventually, the scammers & spammers are discovered…!!!

  4. […] came to them from some mysterious “anonymous source”, or outright claiming that they wrote it, like Rick Humphrey here., or Cumberland Advisors’ Chairman and CIO David Kotok here. Both of them ripped off my recent […]

  5. Re: the editors comment…

    “But the obligation remains under that scenario under some theory of law or equity, probably unsecured.”

    If the note is unsecured, and the borrower filed bankruptcy, wouldn’t the note be extinguished?

  6. Interesting glitch. Let’s try it this way…

    http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/10/second-leg-down-of-americas-death.html

    Gonzola Lira wrote the original article.

    I give up if this one censors the link.

  7. I predict deflation where values crash down to 1968
    values because the lending system will grind to a halt.
    Will this be a bad thing? I don’t think so. It will be the
    beginning of an American Renaissance. The bubble began in 1968, like a blister, it needed to pop so the
    healing would begin.
    We must reestablish honest lawful money and an
    honest banking system. The wealth of America is still
    there but it needs to be returned to its rightful owners,
    the American people. All fraudulent loans made with
    credit made out of thin air, need to be liquidated. The
    Bible calls it a “Jubilee Year” when all the debtors get
    released and take back their pawned property.

  8. Seems your system will not take my link, so here’s the text.

    Cheers,
    Marshall McLuhan

  9. Hey, Mr. Garfield!

    When will you be telling your readers that Rick Humphreys has quoted entirely from this source: HERE

    Mr. Humphreys even left in all the quotation marks. I think proper attribution to the original author is required for civil discussion. This was written days earlier. Shame on Rick, and partly on you for not checking first. Rick explains nothing. Gonzalo did the explaining and Rick “quoted” his entire article.

    This plagiarism has also occurred with another web site.

    Let’s give credit where credit is due.

    Sincerely,
    Marshall McLuhan

  10. Ignore paragraph (3) in my post below. It is a typo.

  11. WHOA ! PRODUCE THE WET INK NOTE DEFENSE. HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS?

    UCC § 3-511. Waived or Excused Presentment, Protest or Notice of Dishonor or Delay Therein

    * * *

    (2) Presentment or notice or protest as the case may be is entirely excused when

    (a) the party to be charged has waived it expressly or by implication either before or after it is due; or

    (3) Presentment is also entirely excused when

    (6) Where a waiver of presentment or notice or protest is embodied in the instrument itself it is binding upon all parties; but where it is written above the signature of an indorser it binds him only.

    What this says to me is that if your note says that you waive presentment, then you don’t get to demand the wet ink version of the note (aka the original).

    What am I missing here?

  12. Here is what I have found from American Securitization Forum regarding REMIC

    “ASF Submits Request to Treasury, IRS re REMIC Changes on October 8, 2010”

    http://www.americansecuritization.com/story.aspx?id=4449
    

  13. frankielee

    Agree with you..

    What I am trying to point out is that the borrowers were giving nothing in the bail-out – and are still being giving nothing. Not even adjustments that reflect the current loan value. This is not an acceptance of the fraud that was perpetrated – I have been fighting that for years. it is simply an observation that we continue to be publicly ostracized and made the scapegoat. There is no compromise by the banks or government. If they had mandated principal reductions, interest rate adjustments, and bankruptcy reform at the onset – at least this would have been some effort to help the victims. Nothing was done.

    Gary H, – makes a good point – the banks/media/government are now saying that the people are in default so long that the foreclosures will eventually go through. Gary is right – we should not be paying on fraudulent contracts. And, the reason defaults are so long is because we are ascertaining fraud – and who is actually owed the money – if anyone. You cannot pay a false creditor – because the debt is then never paid. And, one reason they stall foreclosures is to first allow charge-off of the receivables – so that collection rights may then be sold.

    I resent the fact that even Mr. Geithner is trying to clear the market of foreclosures – and that people are still being held accountable for inflated loans on inflated appraisals by fraudulent loan contracts. Mr. Geithner and Mr. Dimon are saying – those that deserve to stay in home will stay in home. By “deserve” they mean – you must continue to pay the inflated loan – this is absurd because others are buying the same home (asset) – at a big discount. There is no rhyme or reason as to Mr. Geithner’s and Mr. Dimon’s conclusion. No one should paying on a fraudulent contract.

    Point is – if the government had mandated principal reductions at the onset of crisis, perhaps, there would not be as many defaults. Fraud could have been addressed later.

  14. There is a fore-seeable issue / problem in a court action that has been lightly touched on here in some of the comments made which goes to;

    1. The many number of months / years behind in not making mortgage payments.

    2. Why did the servicing bank allow this non-payment to occur for months / years before starting foreclosure proceedings?

    3. When asked in court why the payments were not made on a mortgage contract, how does one counter?

    We all know that the chain of title issues are deeply flawed, but what are the courts looking at in some states, as with the obligation to pay on said contract? I do believe I have a counter answer and I’d like to hear others. Here is mine…..

    “An obligation of payment, based on a fraudulent contractional agreement, is not payable to anyone regardless of the transaction. A contract exists which bears on or to each party and holds the same weight in performance and significance. Neither party should be given judicial priority / precedence without first hearing the facts”.

    Gary

    BTW, Go back to the “origination”, it’s there (fraud) in the county filings, the DOT and more…..just look for it!

  15. lucy

    re S kop as your bk attorney..
    “for 1st hand experience–contact me ..freak 4 u atcomcastdotnet

  16. @Lucy

    I 100% recommend M. Soliman.

    I cannot guarantee a win. I cannot say you won’t have frustration through the entire process. It is an emotional roller coaster. You will need to have patience.

    What I can state that I have no doubt that M. Soliman knows just about every complicated piece of process puzzle – from the appraisal, underwriting, etc through funding through securitization and right down to the deed upon sale in a foreclosure and everything in between. He knows his stuff. He was in the business for 25 years. I have yet to meet anyone who has more knowledge of what actually happened. The latest stuff he has uncovered is just amazing. He doesn’t give up. He is on the phone with everyone from the banks, trustees, FDIC, Fannie Mae… whoever… He leaves no rock unturned. He works long hours unveiling information. When he is on to something, he follows up on it. And, this is something I have seen with my own eyes in his office, not just fluff or words. I have had to have blind faith, but I do feel that even with just he information I have received, I have gotten what I paid for. I am looking forward to seeing the reply from the other side when they see my lawsuit.

    I saw I didn’t answer one of the questions from your previous post and that is who does he work for. He works as an expert witness to counsel. You can look up rules of court to see how that works. He must follow all those rules.

  17. Sorry-Steven Kop’s website is newdawnlaw not bluejaylaw.

    Jennifer,Jose-Are you recommending them?

  18. @ Lucy

    I hired M. Soliman on my case about 6 months ago. Prior to that I did a lot of research over an 18-month timeframe.

    I will admit that at the time I didn’t fully understand what he was saying. There is a reason for this though. What happened on the other side is complicated and it is so for a good reason. I spent time and even recorded a couple of our conversations (with his permission) so that I could look stuff up and shop it around with other people. I would even draw diagrams and things for my own use. Everything started coming together. Now, everything he told me back then is coming out in mainstream (or some form of it that is understandable by media followers).

    I have not hired Kops on my case yet as I haven’t gotten that far. He is mostly a BK attorney. I can tell you that I have been impressed with his BK knowledge. It is also of my opinion that he can represent what M. Soliman state in court. My home is located in Oregon, so if I work with Kops, it will be on an advisory level. I am still looking for a good attorney in Oregon.

    M. Soliman’s testimony has won cases. I have reviewed all of the cases I could get my hands on. He has also worked with Banks on settlements for his clients.

    I do understand that it is very frustrating to not be able to completely absorb what he says. I was there and still am to a degree. But, if one takes time to research each point, look at his testimony, any complaints he has written or any cases he was witness in, you will see it is not BS information.

    It is of my belief that his testimony is the best shot I have. Judges are not really listening to fraud arguments or about robo-signers or errors in paperwork very well. That does not change the fact that you agreed to the terms and conditions of the loan. It is my belief that one must show that what the banks did caused you harm. You must show that they did things that break the law. It is also of my opinion (some may disagree) that you should draw a clear line from what they did to your situation and show that you were misled into signing something that was misrepresented.

    About websites… well, they change all of the time. I don’t think that is an issue.

    I am just saying, it is not right to post only negative stuff. To be fair, a full picture should be painted. M. Soliman has winning testimony. He also does a lot of work for the small fee he charges.

    People should do their due diligence, of course. If anyone wants a reference or to ask questions about M. Soliman, I am available @ jennifergirl@gmail.com. I’d be disappointed if people pass on a solid opportunity to keep their home simply because they cannot absorb the convoluted information. It is convoluted and confusing because that is what the banks, et al created. If it were a straight line, they wouldn’t be able to steal our homes. It is up to the courts to hire experts to translate or rebut any of his testimony that is not clear.

  19. Jennifer

    You say you worked with both M. Soliman and Steven Kop?
    When did you retain their services?

    I contacted them sometime early last year and decided not to use their services.

    Steven Kop-his website-bluejaylaw is offlinenow.
    M. Soliman-borrowershotline, nationwideloanservices….
    I don’t know where or who he works for.

    I just want everybody to be careful, and due some reasearch. Google and look up before committing.

    “Don’t trust-verify,verify”

    Jennifer, Jose-I’M glad t they were able to help you, and if you don’t mind, when did you retain their services?

    Has anyone use either Soliman or Kop’s services?

    I have problem with people promoting their business on this website.
    Also, I have hard time comprehending Soliman’s comments, I guess I’m just not bright enough to understand his points.

  20. The Post Fraudclosure is a Constitutional Crisis is from http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com.
    Note the Sewer Service process fraud. Check if you were property served. Check if the date the foreclosure lawsuit was filed and the date the summon was served. In the event that the summon was served before the foreclosure lawsuit was filed, there is a fraud as the summon is fake. Summons can’t be issued before the foreclosure suit is filed.
    You can file Motion to Quash the Service then the entire law suit will be void. Happens a lot of time according to Foreclosure Defense Attorney

  21. VOID AB INITIO – Florida Fraudclosure Gate is a Constitutional Crisis –
    —————————————————————-
    Have a seat people, it’s going to be a rough ride. Things are going to get tough, but the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Pandora’s box cannot be closed, no multi state settlement agreement will settle things. Class actions will not make things right. When this all plays we’re going to be looking not to our modern financial system or current court decisions, we’re going to have to look quite a bit further back. Let’s start here….

    4th Amendment to The United States Constitution

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    14th Amendment to The United States Constitution

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Now, the Constitution of the United States of America is not typically cited in connection with foreclosure cases and the 4th Amendment does not strictly apply to civil cases, but what’s going on in Florida’s foreclosure courtrooms has taken us far beyond the typical state law considerations and outside the purview of our state court system which has proven wholly unprepared at dealing with the myriad problems demonstrated by Fraudclosuregate. A powerful, reckless and I believe unconstitutional mindset has been allowed to permeate our judicial system and the effects will reverberate throughout the entire country. While it is an unfortunate and quite disturbing fact that the great majority of foreclosure cases are not properly defended by an attorney or contested in any way. After being served with a foreclosure lawsuit, most homeowners just lay down and play dead. They walk away, they ignore the lawsuit, they do not contest the lawsuit.

    Or do they? Do they ever get served with the lawsuit? In many cases they do not. Remember that for a court to have jurisdiction over a person. In order for that court’s ruling to have any legal force or authority at all, each defendant in that lawsuit MUST BE PERSONALLY SERVED. There is an exception to that rule and that is if a person really cannot be found, the court can grant an exception and allow the case to proceed against the defendant through Constructive Service or Service by Publication. But remember, alternate service is just an exception for the real thing. The Constitutional thing, the Due Process thing. The high percentage of foreclosure lawsuits that proceed not through personal service but through constructive service is a very real problem. Remember the defendants in these homeowner cases lived in the homes in most cases. In the vast majority of cases, they still do. So why all the Constructive Service? And what about no service at all? Sewer service is real. The woman speaking in broken English who just called to tell me no one ever served her or her husband but they lost their home….her story is real. The immigrants family I know who are hanging under a pending foreclosure sale date but who never got served….their story is real. And so are thousands perhaps tens of thousands of other stories like this all across this state. While their stories are real, some things are not. The two “original” summons I’m holding in my hand….they’re not both real. The Final Judgments of Foreclosure, the Certificates of Title… those are not real. They’re VOID. They don’t exist. A judgment over a person from a court that does not have jurisdiction is a nullity, Void Ab Initio. A term we’ll all be learning about for years to come.

    And what about the cases where a Defendant actually does get served, but chooses not to respond or who throws up a pro se plea? Does our modern court system owe no duty at all to those people? I must respectfully disagree with a good judge who I respect who was recently quoted in the New York Times saying:

    “We’re processing thousands of cases where no one is really contesting them, and in those instances, something like that just would not be brought to our attention,” said W. Douglas Baird, a judge in Clearwater. “It’s not a situation where the courts have the ability to go through every document that’s filed and challenge and question those documents.”

    (I don’t want to single this judge out, he expresses an opinion of the state of the affairs in foreclosure courtrooms across the state.)

    See Washington Post Article Here

    Our courts have a responsibility not just to those people who do not contest the case and to those pro se who throw up a response. Our courts have a much greater responsibility to our Constitution and our system of justice and to society as a whole. If our courts do not challenge and question documents and if our judges do not challenge and question a system that has gone wild and out of control…the system will go wild and out of control. And that is the system that we no find ourselves faced with.

    If our judges are not challenging and questioning “those documents” , is anyone questioning “those documents”? If no one is really contesting “them”, what might “they” be getting away with? If big issues like Assignments of Mortgage and Service of Process have gone wild and out of control, what else is going unchallenged and unquestioned? Forget about Stephan and the robo signers…has anyone ever really challenged any of the numbers? And if no one is challenging the numbers what’s going missing? What’s slipping through? But then what does it matter anyway, I mean they’re all just deadbeats in foreclosure right? And what’s a few thousand dollars extra in a foreclosure judgment right? What’s a few thousand dollars between friends? Between family? (Uncle)

    But back to that thing called The Constitution of the United States. I submit that all defendants, whether they respond to the case or not, are entitled to due process. Those defendants are entitled to due process and the whole of society is entitled to due process. I am entitled to due process in every foreclosure courtroom across this state. Every citizen is entitled to due process….but we are not getting due process if the courts do not have the ability to go through documents and challenge and question those documents. And a judgment that lacks due process in a foreclosure case results is a seizure of property that is not reasonable. The application of the Fourth Amendment applies because the real party at interest that is seizing this property is the United States government through its agents Fannie and Freddie. (Ignore the Plaintiffs in these cases, they are straw parties used to obscure the real party in interest, Uncle Sam.)

    And while we’re at it, let’s talk about another one of those little Amendments to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The press has gone wild reporting over Fraudclosuregate, as indicated in the attached story in the New York Times. The story is great, but it misses an important point….All of this has broken because the press is now reporting what is happening in our courtrooms…and the banksters don’t like it one bit. As you see from the attached motion that was filed in a Maine Courthouse, they are trying desperately to prevent the public from reading the kind of information that is posted on this website.

    protective-Order-of-Removal-of-Jeffrey-Stephan-s-Deposition

    Tie the New York Times article and the Order that was filed in court and you will see that Fraudclosuregate broke because the Stephan deposition was posted on this blog. Don’t ever forget the debt of gratitude we all owe to Tom Cox and Tom Ice. Without their work and the depositions being made public, they would have continued to get away with it….please also note the date on the Ice deposition. The banksters are working hard to try and put the genie back in the bottle and to hide all of this from you, the American people….but I have other plans. We’re going to keep fighting them. The American people are going to rise up and fight the Wall Street Wizards and the Fat Cats and their minions toiling away in law offices all across this country.

    The press will continue to do the sacred job our founding forefathers empowered them to do….and somehow we will all make our way out of this mess….maybe….

  22. @ FrankieLee,

    Don’t be messin wif my Dr. Bronner’s Peppermint Castile Soap! LMAO

    That, by far, was the best laugh I’ve had all year. I recognized it right away. I can’t even tell you why I still pick up the bottle in the shower and still read it.

  23. Oh and Anonymous, my last post was not meant as a rant upon you. I’ve learned tons from you and your rational views. Please don’t think otherwise.

  24. Anonymous, you wrote:

    “Well, Mr. Geithner and MR. Dimon. – most would be able to stay in their home and pay – IF you allow principal reductions set at market interest rate. But you refuse.”

    Am I just being too hardcore about this that I don’t see any way whatsoever to modify with these people? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s simply allowing the fraud to be established as law, is it not? How can one come to the conclusion that it’s OK to agree with the person holding the gun to their head? Terrorism wins in the end?

    This all boils down to letting this oligarchy remain entrenched, or demanding it’s downfall and destruction, if that’s what it takes. No longer can we be ruled by a system whose legislators wink and nod to these destructive powers who own and game the system that the rest of us live and toil under.

    I’m all for DEMANDING a RESET. They go, and we stay. Plain and simple. And I’ve got the pitchfork to prove it.

  25. Wells Fargo preparing for repurchase demands! It’s started with investors and TI getting first dibs.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wells-fargo-prepares-tsunami-loan-repurchase-demands

  26. M. Soliman, WTF? You wrote:

    “What an apology we Rabbis owe Israel, Marx, Mao, all mankind, for not teaching Astronomy’s great All-One-God-Faith, that with just 6 words eternally unites the human race! As teaches African-shepherd Astronomer Israel for 6000 years, “LISTEN CHILDREN ETERNAL FATHER ETERNALLY ONE!”

    Oh sorry, that’s my Dr. Bronners soap label, which is slightly less cryptic than your offerings. I just want to know who you are, and if you’re on the side of the force, or breathing heavy in a black helmet and robe.

    BTW, I have some of your posts here that I can prove to be lifted verbatim from mainstream writers…how’s that I wonder?

    I don’t know you or who you represent. But your brilliance in these matters is always hidden behind an obscurity that dilutes the former. Why is that? Can you enlighten? Please embarrass me, I can take it.

  27. M. Soliman is right – it is the warehouse lines of credit and commercial funding sales/purchases that are missing – gone – not showing for the actual sale.

    As to Mr. Geithner – stop the spin. We are not buying.

  28. Here is some more information I received from M. Soliman:

    WAREHOUSE LINES ARE ACTUALLY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENTS:

    Warehouse Lending Applicability . From time to time the parties hereto may enter into transactions in which the Seller agrees to transfer to the Agent on behalf of the Buyers, Eligible Loans on a servicing released basis against the transfer of funds by the Buyers, with a simultaneous agreement by the Buyers to transfer to the Seller such Eligible Loans at a date certain or on demand in the event of termination pursuant to Section 18.2 hereof, or if no demand is sooner made, on the Termination Date, against the transfer of funds by the Seller. Each such transaction shall be referred to herein as a “Transaction” and shall be governed by this Agreement, as hereinafter defined.

    1. U.S. Bank has also agreed to provide a separate revolving swing line repurchase facility to initially and temporarily purchase Eligible Loans pending their purchase by all of the Buyers pursuant to this Agreement.

    2. In court cases in at least three states, the MERS database failed to attain legal standing in mortgage foreclosure challenges. A lawful assignment has the two elements of the law, intent and consideration. The alleged holder of the note disconnects with the MERS database acting as a title holder. To win property upon a seizure there must be proper documented transfers by assignments.

    3. Either the FDIC sold your loan at closing or the FDIC has retained it temporarily. In either case, your obligation to pay has not changed. Within a few days after the closure, you will be notified by the FDIC, and by the purchaser, as to where to send future payments.
    4. In the case of a delinquent loan, the FDIC will “set off” the loan against the borrower’s deposits (if any) before paying deposit insurance. In the case of a non-delinquent loan, the depositor might elect to “set off” the loan against his/her deposits in order to receive full value for any uninsured funds (i.e., funds in excess of the $250,000 insurance limit). In either case, no “offset” is possible unless the obligations are “mutual” – meaning that the borrower and the depositor must be the same person or legal entity acting in the same legal capacity.

    5. Loans are negotiable instruments that are routinely sold in the financial markets. When a loan is sold, the borrower retains all the rights and obligations associated with the note. The borrower will be notified by the new holder of the note and given payment instructions.

    6. Assets Sold Without Recourse
    Assets (including loans) sold without recourse are generally not a contingent liability. In the case of participations, the bank should reflect on the general ledger only that portion of participated loans it retained. However, some banks may follow the practice of repurchasing loan participations and absorbing any loss on such loans even when no legal responsibility exists. It is necessary to determine management’s attitude toward repurchasing these assets in order to evaluate the degree of risk involved. Contingent liabilities may result if the bank, as seller of a loan participation without recourse, does not comply with participation

    7. Noncompliance may result from a number of factors, including failure on the part of the selling institution to receive collateral and/or security agreements, obtain required guarantees, or notify the purchasing party of default or adverse financial performance on the part of the borrower. The purchaser of the participation may also assert claims against the bank on the basis that the financial information relied upon when acquiring the loan was inaccurate, misleading, or fraudulent and that the bank as a seller was aware of this fact.

    8. Therefore, a certain degree of risk may in fact be evident in participation loans sold without recourse. Examiners need to be mindful of this possibility and the financial consequences it may have on the bank. Further discussion of loan participations is contained in the Loans section of this Manual.

    9. Assets Sold With Recourse concerns assets transferred in transactions that do not qualify as sales under GAAP remain as balance sheet assets. For example, loan transfers that do not qualify for sale treatment would remain on the balance sheet and the proceeds raised from transfer are reflected as a secured borrowing with pledge of collateral.
    10. Recourse and Direct Credit Substitutes refers to a recourse obligation or direct credit substitute typically arises when an institution transfers assets in a sale and retains an obligation to repurchase the assets or absorb losses due to a default of principal or interest or any other deficiency in the performance of the underlying obligor or some other party. Recourse may also exist implicitly where a bank provides credit enhancement beyond any contractual obligation to support assets it sold.

    11. When an examiner encounters recourse arrangements or direct credit substitutes (commonly found in securitization and mortgage banking operations), they should refer to the outstanding Financial Institution Letters, Call Report guidance, Part 325 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations, and FAS 133 and 140.

  29. WAREHOUSE LINES ARE ACTUALLY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENTS:
    Maher Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    Warehouse Lending Applicability . From time to time the parties hereto may enter into transactions in which the Seller agrees to transfer to the Agent on behalf of the Buyers, Eligible Loans on a servicing released basis against the transfer of funds by the Buyers, with a simultaneous agreement by the Buyers to transfer to the Seller such Eligible Loans at a date certain or on demand in the event of termination pursuant to Section 18.2 hereof, or if no demand is sooner made, on the Termination Date, against the transfer of funds by the Seller. Each such transaction shall be referred to herein as a “Transaction” and shall be governed by this Agreement, as hereinafter defined.

    1. U.S. Bank has also agreed to provide a separate revolving swing line repurchase facility to initially and temporarily purchase Eligible Loans pending their purchase by all of the Buyers pursuant to this Agreement.

    2. In court cases in at least three states, the MERS database failed to attain legal standing in mortgage foreclosure challenges. A lawful assignment has the two elements of the law, intent and consideration. The alleged holder of the note disconnects with the MERS database acting as a title holder. To win property upon a seizure there must be proper documented transfers by assignments.

    3. Either the FDIC sold your loan at closing or the FDIC has retained it temporarily. In either case, your obligation to pay has not changed. Within a few days after the closure, you will be notified by the FDIC, and by the purchaser, as to where to send future payments.

    4. In the case of a delinquent loan, the FDIC will “set off” the loan against the borrower’s deposits (if any) before paying deposit insurance. In the case of a non-delinquent loan, the depositor might elect to “set off” the loan against his/her deposits in order to receive full value for any uninsured funds (i.e., funds in excess of the $250,000 insurance limit). In either case, no “offset” is possible unless the obligations are “mutual” – meaning that the borrower and the depositor must be the same person or legal entity acting in the same legal capacity.

    5. Loans are negotiable instruments that are routinely sold in the financial markets. When a loan is sold, the borrower retains all the rights and obligations associated with the note. The borrower will be notified by the new holder of the note and given payment instructions.

    6. Assets Sold Without Recourse
    Assets (including loans) sold without recourse are generally not a contingent liability. In the case of participations, the bank should reflect on the general ledger only that portion of participated loans it retained. However, some banks may follow the practice of repurchasing loan participations and absorbing any loss on such loans even when no legal responsibility exists. It is necessary to determine management’s attitude toward repurchasing these assets in order to evaluate the degree of risk involved. Contingent liabilities may result if the bank, as seller of a loan participation without recourse, does not comply with participation

    7. Noncompliance may result from a number of factors, including failure on the part of the selling institution to receive collateral and/or security agreements, obtain required guarantees, or notify the purchasing party of default or adverse financial performance on the part of the borrower. The purchaser of the participation may also assert claims against the bank on the basis that the financial information relied upon when acquiring the loan was inaccurate, misleading, or fraudulent and that the bank as a seller was aware of this fact.

    8. Therefore, a certain degree of risk may in fact be evident in participation loans sold without recourse. Examiners need to be mindful of this possibility and the financial consequences it may have on the bank. Further discussion of loan participations is contained in the Loans section of this Manual.

    9. Assets Sold With Recourse concerns assets transferred in transactions that do not qualify as sales under GAAP remain as balance sheet assets. For example, loan transfers that do not qualify for sale treatment would remain on the balance sheet and the proceeds raised from transfer are reflected as a secured borrowing with pledge of collateral.

    10. Recourse and Direct Credit Substitutes refers to a recourse obligation or direct credit substitute typically arises when an institution transfers assets in a sale and retains an obligation to repurchase the assets or absorb losses due to a default of principal or interest or any other deficiency in the performance of the underlying obligor or some other party. Recourse may also exist implicitly where a bank provides credit enhancement beyond any contractual obligation to support assets it sold.

    11. When an examiner encounters recourse arrangements or direct credit substitutes (commonly found in securitization and mortgage banking operations), they should refer to the outstanding Financial Institution Letters, Call Report guidance, Part 325 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations, and FAS 133 and 140.

  30. Hi Lucy,

    I have worked with both M. Soliman and Kops.

    I would not spread information that I don’t have first-hand knowledge. You probably feel you are doing the world a benefit by doing so, but the opposite is true.

    Both gentlemen share valuable information with the public and really do have the best information out there in their respective industries. I have been researching for 2 years. Everything M. Soliman told me about 6 months ago is surfacing now. He is about that far ahead of everyone else and this has been consistent.

    It would be more beneficial to others to also share the positive press and wins either one of these gentlemen have under their belts. The numbers are far greater. Who knows what happened in any one-off situation unless you were there? We don’t even know if that email chain had been doctored. None of us do.

  31. Geithner…

    This guy was sold to us as the reincarnation of Alexander Hamilton. Had to have him. No one else in this part of the Milky Way Galaxy would do. And we had to have him yesterday.

    This guy was the president of the NY Fed. Yet he did his own taxes using turbotax. But he wasn’t smart enough to get it to work properly, which is why he got in trouble with the IRS…or so he says.

    Now I ask you…if you are the prez of the NY Fed, why would you be doing your own taxes? Why not just turn the matter over to your CPA?

    Answer: Because you want to try to underreport income or overstate expenses and/or take positions, deductions, credits, etc. that you know are false or that you are not entitled to take. And it’s a lot more difficult to do that when you turn your stuff over to a CPA. This guy is dishonorable and it makes me sick to think that he is our Treasury Secretary. Shame on America.

  32. GEITHNER…

  33. Do not know who RIck is – but some clarifications. The ratings agencies claim that the “pool” was assigned to all the tranches – not in equal proportions – but to all the tranches. Some of the tranches were then purchased by other financial institutions for CDOs. – this is where the riskier loans were separated from other loans. That is, the original REMIC trust allocates the pool to ALL the tranches – then subsequent derivatives (CDOs) separate the risk. Fitch has confirmed – and they rated the paper. Fitch states that the original REMIC structure was just an order of priority for payment. All loans to all tranches – but in different proportions. Rick confirms later in his article (he does not mention the proportions).

    Rick writes – “When an MBS was first created, all the mortgages were pristine” – that is correct – and it is why the REMIC allocates to all tranches. What happened AFTER that – is the problem. Mind you – any other “packaging” – was a derivative – not the actual REMIC itself. In fact, REMIC tranches were also combined with other REMIC tranches to form CDOs. The CDOs, and their derivatives- derivatives have derivative – are the undisclosed tsunami – But, they are NOT the original Trust – they are only derivatives.

    The banks also own MERS – in addition to Freddie and Fannie – and BINGO – to Rick. As the the Freddie/Fannie originally guaranteed loans are placed in default (or falsely placed in default with Freddie/Fannie collecting insurance money) – the banks took over the “default” loans. DO NOT confuse default – with only “NOT PAYING” – default included loans that had misrepresentations/predatory lending/fraud. Fannie/Freddie dumped them – and SOME were falsely dumped – I am looking at this now. And, the trace to Fannie/Freddie is contradictory and flawed.

    The original REMICs were organized to support Fannie/Freddie. But – some loans were fraudulently dumped by Freddie/Fannie – with fraud in insurance collection – and placed as a default debt with the security underwriter parent bank servicer – or hired servicer. Banks became aggressive with this process – allowing servicers to falsely report loans as in default – in order to effectively “steal” loans from Fannie/Freddie – who was no match for the big banks. Fannie/Freddie just collected mortgage title insurance (not the default swap) – and – mortgage title is greatly flawed and invalid – for many. Not defending Fannie/Freddie – they were just dumb.

    Now, as I allude to in other post – the whole loans were either sold directly to bank (they knew it was not Freddie/Fannie compliant) – or they were sold directly to Freddie/Fannie – and bumped out of Freddie/Fannie due to servicer misrepresentation – or insurance fraud. And this has nothing to do with securizations.

    Under either scenario – the chain of tile is far from complete – repeat, the trusts were just for securitization of receivables. The whole loan went somewhere – and there are NO documents in this FIRST part of the chain. NO DOCUMENTS – NO RECORDING – NO VISIBLE ACCOUNTING.

    Believe there is much insurance fraud – that is the crux of what is going on.

    And, Mr. Timothy Geithner states today – that the foreclosures must go through – although he also states that no one who deserves to stay in home will be evicted. What some deserve and some do not??? This is a repeat of what Jamie Dimon (Chase) said on Thursday/Friday “THOSE THAT DESERVE TO STAY IN HOME – and CAN PAY – WE WILL WORK WITH.” Guess Jamie and Timothy got together to discuss strategy.

    Well, Mr. Geithner and MR. Dimon. – most would be able to stay in their home and pay – IF you allow principal reductions set at market interest rate. But you refuse.

    Had a young woman come to me – a week or two ago – stating they she is underwater – husband is out of work – but she has a good – and important societal job. She resents the fact that she is paying huge mortgage loan – and yet someone just bought the house next door for MUCH LESS. And, they paid only 3% down – with a low market interest rate. Mr. Dimon and Mr. Geithner – you think this is fair??? When the banks inflated the home value to qualify borrowers based on the bank’s home appraisal – and not ability to pay?? Well – that is called predatory lending – in case you forgot.

    Mr. Geithner is putting his spin. And, the media – they are just a Rah- Rah crowd – but they do not even know what they are “Rah – Rahing” about – they do not have a clue – they are puppets.

    Broken “chain” – is putting it mildly.

  34. Aurora Loan Services LLC is the debt collector for my loan. The real lender The Loan Center “table funded” the loan. Loan Center is now an extinct entity!! MERS was on my trust deed as “nominee” for the “lender.” Aurora Loan Services aka ALS is part of Aurora Bank FSB, which is owned by Lehman Bros.
    I have no idea who the real lender is.

  35. Dear Lucy, loan mod scams or else as any one want to call them, all have failed because of what we know today. How are these thieves going to modify something they do not own, and how are they going to get approval from investors they have no idea who they are.

    All the banks have done so far is to lie , cheat and steal. No matter is you are a Ivy league lawyer, if you came into the LOAN MOD business and thought it was easy money and that because you were a hot shot lawyer and by sending a nice letter on your letter head that as going to work. That as we have witnessed has not worked, the system the bankers created has victimized everyone.
    We of course attack those who for some reason have not been able to do what is right for you and others. I do not have all the facts. But as far as I am concerned, good or bad we need everyone fighting the enemy.

    The enemy does not care to lie in court, they do not care to forge documents, do you think they were going to tell you the truth and if for some reason the 500,000 people that so far have been so lucky as to get a loan mod in this country and lucky enough to find themselves in a situation where the real creditors do not come back to get what is allegedly theirs then, good for them.

    I have cases here in MD, DC and VA where three banksters are fighting for the same note, go figure.

    There are cases the lawyers here lost in court based on fraud, and the foreclosure defense lawyers were sanctioned for defending the rights of us the consumers. There are no saints in this world, we thought we had a President that was going to work hard for change, well he did fulfill his promise. we changed presidents, but he never told us that the country was changing for the worse and that his answer was going to be , just keep on stealing, cheating and faking your way to the top.

    I feel bad for any one to lose their money and their homes. But I think these times are not normal. I have my home on the line, with four kids, it is hard to get employment, when you have lymphatic cancer. But the fight is raging. we need to press on. We will not like some of our general, we wont like some of our soldiers, they may be rude, their character may be even dubious at best. But in a war for survival as this one is for me at least. These soldiers on the fringe have been a great refuge and a vault full of knowledge.

    we all have something positive to contribute.

    It is easy to attack without all the facts brought to bear

  36. Dear Mr. Soliman,

    I wnat to thank you for your help and FREE information, it has helped me and the lawyers I have worked these three years a great deal. I know one cannot be good for all and all for good. But some people including myself have made bad moves and desperation is not the best adviser.

    keep up the good work and if you have the formula to get justice, then by all means continue to bottle it.

    Good job on a very difficult and unfair world.

  37. The Foreclosure Mess:

    Amortization & Front-loaded Interest

    If you finance a vehicle and the lender charges you 7% interest, it means that you simply multiply the loan amount times 7% and then divide it by the term or number of months you are going to pay the payment. This is a seemingly fair arrangement if the funds were not hypothecated and the bank were using its own money. But mortgages are far far worse.

    When mortgage lenders advertise a 7% loan rate they do not use the simple interest formula discussed above. They charge you 7% of the balance for every year of the loan. That is why if you pay a mortgage for the full thirty years, they actually make 2-3 times the loan amount in interest! This deception is compounded by the fact that since real estate tends to appreciate and we re-finance regularly, we never notice the real cost of the money we “borrow.” And since the lender only has 10% of the money lent to us in reserve, the real returns for them are astronomical. Is it any wonder that lenders have done everything in their power to keep us in the dark, uninformed and in financial bondage? And we pay for these loans with money created from our honest labor and contribution to society.

    http://mycreditoptimization.com/How_to_Beat_Any_Collection_Agency.html

    Forensic Mortgage Audits and Foreclosure Defense
    Quiet Title Actions
    oliver@ipa.net
    john

  38. The real question is: how do we set up the lawsuit to get rid of the servicer-so-called lender to hand over the house free and clear of the lien and with good title?

  39. We’re still waiting for your explanation?

    STEVEN KOP BUSTED BY HIS OWN STUPIDITY: Now the FBI & FTC Are Involved
    Posted on June 17, 2009 by thebigbearianreturns

    CONSUMERS THAT LOST MONEY TO LOAN MOD SCAMS!!!

    Bad Biz Finder Files Lawsuit Against California State Bar (and its Loan Mod Attys) – Please Join for Reimbursement of Monetary Damages: Click Here for More Information: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/page-not-found-consumers-in-crisis-saves-the-day/

    Here is an email exchange from the couple we wrote about before. It begins on Sunday, February 21, 2009 with Robin and John S reaching out to Steven Kop for help and ends brutally less than a month later. This guy makes Moe Bedard look like an altar boy.

    We will, however, be doing a follow-up story on Maher Soliman.

    Bad Biz Finder

  40. These corporate paper-shuffling banks didn’t actually build one building in this country. We did. Yet they claim ownership of almost all of them.

    Cancel ALL securitized bank residential mortgages for fraud and nullity.

    Liquidate ALL of the foreclosing banks including Goldman Sachs, AIG, Deutsche, FNMA, (Federal Reserve) for FRAUD. Nullify their foreclosures*, transfer their remaining liquid assets to the depositors, and transfer any remaining profits, assets, & buildings pro-rata to the cheated pension funds.

    Families living in free & clear homes can survive this depression, with part-time jobs.

    We all can rebuild this country into something to real be proud of again, debt-free this time!

    It will take stress-free time, character, & real freedom. Americans have done it before.

    How about us?

    For the children!

  41. You may also want to take a look at these articles about Steven Kop and Maher Solimon:

    Also, see these articles:

    Post Date: June 2, 2009

    Post Title: “Attorney Steve Kop Has Floated Out to Sea Without His Paddles: Part I of II.”

    http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/attorney-steven-kop-has-floated-out-to-sea-with-no-paddles-part-i-of-ii/

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    Post Date: May 25, 2009

    Post Title: “Attorney Steven Kop is Confronted by Bad Biz Finder and Reacts in a Very Predictable Manner.”

    http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/attorney-steven-kop-is-confronted-by-bad-biz-finder-and-reacts-in-a-very-predictable-manner/

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    Post Date: May 23, 2009

    Post Title: “Consumer Writes: Steven Kop Stole Our Money and James Parsa Stole Our Time.”

    http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/the-ultimate-cautionary-tale-steven-kop-steals-couple%e2%80%99s-money-and-then-james-parsa-uses-president-obama-to-steal-some-more/

  42. THE IMPOSSIBLE FORECLOSURE
    What you do not hear

    Its more of and issue for what you really should be focused on before seeking counsel and deciding to go to court.

    * Basis in assets and Mark to marketability
    * Transferring devalued assets for valuable
    * Consideration – homes appraised value
    * Debt collectors conducting repossessions
    * Collectors in a “staged” foreclosure under State rules and code
    * Mortgages are unsecured debts
    * Subrogation enforcement by Fed contractors
    * Agents claim they are substituted trustees
    * Foreclosure is mute procedure benefiting a right of judgment
    * Fee title is absolute to charges taken by securities holders
    * Securities holders are compensate with NOL –
    *NOL is Gov. Right to subrogate

    I’m getting a little tired here. We have another 20 or more arguments to support claims for the controversy and right to defend title. Well be back to share them here with you in a little while.

    So counsel, why are you pleading MERS and RESPA and what is it you think your courts are going to yield too given the preponderance of evidentiary your leaving on the table.

    expert.witness@live.com

  43. The Bof A story is something attorney Kop and I broke last summer and now it’s back making news. I sold to Citi and BofA and know the game, you might say.

    What was called window dressing and done solely to prop up earning’s. In fact this was revealed last April with the Lehman Bros. investigation by a US trustee.
    Folks here need to stay ahead of the press and use their advance notice to promulgate their case into an award before the masses jump on board.

    By that time we may have pre-emption which I am calling by year end. By January I believe the US government will take the preemptive strike to portray itself as a an elixir for the United States economy by now enforcing foreclosures under the Dept of Treasury for bank inventory under receivership through MERS system as a electronic beneficiary

    Remember the stock that was charged to zero lacks mark to marketability meaning your home is free and clear and the trustee sale is for re-establishing basis in assets (213-880-6288 for more info.)

    It’s called a condition precedent for lack of standing that is absent from every sale. Neil may want to comment further.

    As for BAC the problem of shuffling assets is not the issue here. As I said before the securitization process demands a robust market. If the market goes flat the lights come on and the roaches go running.

    When a securitization is proposed you have a series of events that begin with loans originations being transferred in to cash. Then the cash is used for capitalization or to purchase securities in a REMIC. The REMIC receives the cash it uses to purchase TRUST certificates.

    Thrust upon receiving cash sells stock to the REMIC use for the waterfall. The stock is issued by the Trust as a pass through for the loans it purchases from the purchaser; say Lehman bros. who bought the original loans from the lender.

    Now Lehman can pay cash to pay down the warehouse line used by the bank to fund the original loans it purchased.

    At any one moment in time the banks and investments will need to maintain their minimum thresholds of compliant ratio of stock to cash to loans outstanding.
    Thus BofA is not a victim of dirty deeds done dirt cheap. It’s not window dressing but shuffling of more and more assets to and from in order to keep FDIC and OTS regulators satisfied.

    What’s my point here…..think about it?

    . . . Oh’ please think about it before you head into court. It’s the difference between a legal financial disaster compounding an already bad situation and receiving from a court of law the right to quiet title.

    Fight censorship of the press.
    Expert.witness@live.com

  44. Is this why the FED’s are now stating they want to buy more “Bonds”. So they can own “something”?

  45. Sorry for posting too much, there’s so much articles out there that are worth reading.
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/10/at-root-of-crisis-we-find-largest.html

  46. one endorsed and one not endorsed, Sorry, any comments.

  47. Wells fargo just submitted two notes in my case one endorsed and one note endorsed, any comments. The loan was a single transaction.

  48. Consider the following correction:

    “But once mortgage loan securitization happened, things got sloppy…they got sloppy by the very nature of mortgage-backed securities.”

    Instead of “Loan Securitization” , replace that with “GSE Business Model” and you will realaize that there are many more layers to this onion.

    None of it would have happened with out the guarantee given by congress to the GSEs MBSs.

  49. Every American homeowner SHOULD stop paying their mortgage. It’s the only way to put a halt to this fraud.

  50. Rick Humphrey’s wrote: The Foreclosure Mess

    What I see is a hole lot of folks out there giving their “opinions” has to the whole mortgage mess…and I appreciate it but I would like to have this site focus on the “finding the facts and conclusions in law”.

    In this last two years I have tried to focus on “just” having the foreclosure thrown out.

    In the last 6 months I have focused on the creation of the “Trust”.

    Clear logic would make you want to think that those investors wishing to take risks on investing in Mortgage Backed Securities have relied upon Wall Street giving them the run down on how it all works.

    Wall Street has to follow the guide lines as set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission as per the Federal Register, Friday, January 7, 2005, 17 CFR Parts 210, 228, et al. Asset-backed Securities; Final Rule.

    Notes, whether or not they are Mortgages, Credit Card, Student Loans or Auto Loans, are converted into Securitized Instruments.

    I keep bringing this up as there is a constant drift from where this needs to go.

    Converted means to change. A Note is changed into something other than what is once was. The value of that Note is pooled with other values to create a Total Amount which is used to determine the Value of each of the Certificates or Bonds of which the Notes were converted.

    There is nothing in any reports by the Securities and Exchange that says or shows how that Bond is then converted back into a Note or the value of the Bond is put back into the Note if the Note is not paid on. The investment is lost and so goes the Note.

    The asset-backed security; the security is the Bond or Certificate issued in the conversion, is no longer an asset.

    In closing our good government says this in the above reference document:

    Consistent with current practice and our proposals, we are not requiring audited financial statements regarding the issuing entity for the asset-backed securities in Securities Act or Exchange Act filings.

    Hey, you have a get out of Jail Card and you can say whatever you want in your reports….how about that….

    Forensic Mortgage Audits and Foreclosure Defense
    Quiet Title Actions
    oliver@ipa.net
    john

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: