MIRANDA RIGHTS FOR BORROWERS

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

POSTED BY “RESEARCHER”

See also fdic-servicers-are-advancing-funds-on-loans-supposedly-in-default

EDITOR’S COMMENT: It isn’t just Bank of America. And it isn’t just the servicers. EVERYONE in the securitization chain has a legal problem, a liability problem and is subject to potential fines, penalties, damage awards to borrowers, punitive damages or treble damages. It’s just not the way they say it is. The problem is that the presumptions of the banks keep seeping into the consciousness of borrowers, their lawyers and the judges that hear the cases. The presumptions are all wrong. So when borrowers mount a challenge to a servicer, pretender lender, MERS or other entity, they use terms that basically admit their case is wrong and that the banks are right. THERE ARE NO MIRANDA RIGHTS IN THIS BATTLE SO LET ME SAY THAT ANYTHING YOU SAY OR DO MIGHT BE USED AGAINST YOU.

  • When you refer to your servicer as “the bank” or “the lender” you are most probably (a) wrong and (b) making an admission against interest that can be used against you.
  • When the “servicer” sends a statement, don’t assume it is right. It probably does not show any credit for loss mitigation payments received by the real creditor from third parties. Don’t even assume they are the servicer. There is a master servicer that is directing the puppets in this play and only they know what money was paid to whom.
  • When you refer to your loan as being in trouble or in default, the same thing applies — you are most probably wrong. The servicers, AS CO-OBLIGORS ON YOUR OBLIGATION AND UNDISCLOSED TO YOU) ARE MAKING THE PAYMENTS. Legally that means there is no default. If the servicer has any claim against you for for the money they spent (assuming they spent it out of their own pocket, which we don’t know to be true) it is separate and apart from your loan obligation, note or mortgage. It’s just like any other creditor’s claim — unsecured.
  • When you receive papers to fill out for a modification, don’t assume that you are doing anything but wasting time — a favor to the “servicer” who wants that time to pass so they can foreclose. If you are being offered a modification, make sure the party making the offer actually has authority and don’t take their word for it — make them prove it. Just participating in the modification process could be an admission against your own interests and create a reasonable presumption in the mind of a judge that even you believed that they were the parties with standing — so why should he/she accept your challenge to it now?
  • When you receive papers from anyone, don’t assume they were authorized to send them, that the information contained in them is correct, or that their declaration of default is correct, authorized or even legally proper.
  • When you refer to your servicer as a servicer, you are also most probably (a) wrong and (b) making an admission against interest that can be sued against you. Having made the payment to the creditor, they are now simply a debt collector at best, and most probably the only claim they have is either as a debt collector, or for unjust enrichment. But wait there’s more —- if they advanced the payment for you then in order to even have a claim against you they must show a transfer of some kind on behalf of the creditor to BAC or whoever claims to be the “pretender servicer.” I’m sure they will come up with some document when challenged, but that brings us right back to the fact that the obligation was never effectively transferred and accepted into the pool that was created to receive it. So the “servicing” was never officially authorized by the originating lender, who was paid in full at your closing.
  • When you refer to your mortgage obligation the same thing applies. Don’t say it. It probably doesn’t exist. You may have an obligation but it most probably is NOT a mortgage obligation. The lender of record in the county recording office is not and never was owed one dime in most cases. Therefore under any property or mortgage law (check with a lawyer) there was no encumbrance or mortgage. There was just a piece of paper that was a lie. A note signed in favor of a party you didn’t know wasn’t owed any money and a mortgage signed in favor of a party who didn’t own the debt. THAT is the essence of an unsecured obligation.
  • When you refer to the amount due on your loan, you are subjecting yourself to the same thing. You are most probably wrong because of all the loss mitigation payments made by multiple parties as part of a deal that you knew nothing about, contrary to the disclosure requirements under federal law, and you making an admission against interest that can be used against you.
  • WHEN YOU THINK YOU HAVE A SETTLEMENT MAKE SURE IT IS BROUGHT TO COURT WITH A JUDGE DECLARING THE STATUS OF TITLE IN A QUIET TITLE ACTION. Otherwise you could find yourself, like some buyers at foreclosure auctions, subject to yet another mortgage or obligation you never knew about.
  • BOTTOM LINE: JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CASE — DON’T SAY A WORD AND DON’T ADMIT TO ANYTHING UNLESS YOU HAVE SPOKEN WITH A LICENSED ATTORNEY IN THE PLACE WHERE YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

———————————————————

Bank of America and BAC Home Loans Services, LP have major issues on their hands; they could be buried in litigation for years.

1) BofA owns BAC (BAC) Home Loans Servicing, LP; they transfered all loans from BofA to BAC to create layers.
2) BAC is now a debt collector.
3) BAC is not responding or answereing RESPA QWR’s
4) BAC is not responding to FDCPA dispute letters
5) BofA has misrepresented who owns the loan in RESPA QWR response letters. Some times stating up to 4 differnt entities own the loan in differing indivdual repsonses.
6) IF BAC is sent a RESPA QWR, BofA answers it for them. BofA is a legal entity and BAC Home Loans Servinc, LP is a legal entity.
7) BAC and BofA claim in notice of defaults that they are the owner/creditor/holder of the loan; when BofA has stated in RESPA QWR response letters that they are merely the Servicer of the loan.
8) Advertising in Newspaper advertisements for notice of sales as BofA being the creditor/holder/owner and foreclsoing on properties they did not own, were merely the Servicer.
9) BofA acted as the orginating lender, then admits to selling a borrowers loan, stating in RESPA QWR’s BofA is merely the Servicer, but has kept the NOTE, MORTGAGE and all docuements since orgination. This is an admission of not perfomring to the Pooling and Service Agreement and to the letter of the law for the Trust agreement.
10) BofA and BAC represent to borrowers that the borrower is denied a loan modification due to The Investor denies it. BofA then communicates in writing to the borrower the name of a creditor, other than BofA, that is owner of the borrowers loan, misrepresenting and misleading to the borrower the loan had been sold. Then in Court and lawsuits BofA changes its claims to state BofA owns the loan and that BofA made mistakes stating that the loans were sold, when BofA did not sell them. BofA had them placed in internal divisions owned by BofA, but given different names. These names mislead borrowers in to beleiving the loan has been sold.

BofA has serious issues; not to mention the issues of closing loans where it did not investigate borrowers income or ability to repay the loan, also BofA owns an appraissal company, Home Focus Services, LLC, and ordered appraissals through its own entity!

55 Responses

  1. excellent post, very informative. I wonder why the other specialists of this sector do not notice this. You should continue your writing. I’m confident, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by chezza martin. chezza martin said: RT @mrs_rick_s: MIRANDA RIGHTS FOR BORROWERS: http://t.co/ykCOjmQ #Foreclosure […]

  3. To Steve: I have a Flor Valerio who signed as Assistant Secretary of Recontrust and notarized by Michelle Miller on June 22, 2010. Let’s swap signature blocks and compare. My email is rebecca1568@gmail.com

  4. Searching for anyone involved with Harmon Law Offices from Newton Ma. A forclosure legal mill in Ma., especially an attorney by the name of Allison Dalton West. Any affadavits and or any signiture examples; showing she signed for MERS as vp / sec. Looking for help in fighting BAC !!! E-mail fla1213@gmail.com

  5. david,

    Know of similar conflicts.

  6. dny,

    Absolutely correct – and if you have owned your loan for many years – and have refinanced – go back and trace Fannie/Freddie involvement – it will likely conflict with the prior bank’s records. Freddie/Fannie’s records are in disarray. But, of course, the courts buy anything the attorneys say.

    Why? see my response to “Loans actually allocated to many pools”.

  7. Zurenarrh,

    I have a similar situation. In my case, Freddie Mac says they own the loan in one place, and own the mortgage in another.
    I have a email from their legal department that confirms their owning the loan supplying Freddie’s own LOAN NUMBER. LL’s staff member found the Freddie Mac trust my loan was placed in.

    So here we have a case in which there was no delivery of note to Freddy or their loan pool, no assignment to the same.

    Freddie here is not the investor.

    The bank has briefed the Bk court that in spite of these facts, it is the holder of the note and entitled to remove automatic stay based on their possession of the note (which they never transferred)

    davidwood100@yahoo.com

  8. C Salter,
    My statements are my opinion.

    Are you saying you filed bankruptcy to keep you house and they still did not let you keep your home? I’m sorry to hear about the theft of your personal possessions. We won’t be made whole until we stop acting like ‘incorporeal’ entities like BAC and BofA and Wells Fargo and PNC and others have a mind of their own and are operating without any controls.

    Our future generations will wonder how the People could act like we were powerless when we are ‘corporeal’ and alive, and allodial, and have inalienable rights, and someone created an ‘incorporeal’ organizations, put a corporeal male/female in charge of it’s operations, and based upon some rules they wrote, they are making it appear as if it’s uncontrollable and running amuck and stealing property and displacing all corporeal male/female and their young, healthy, sick, or disabled.

    If there wasn’t a man with a gun in the picture to keep this going on, we’d have the power to take back what was stolen. But with the power of attorneys with the help of judges to send sheriffs to our homes to remove us from our property on the representation of an ‘incorporeal’ bank, we have a major problem.

    I’m not a registered voter. I don’t even participate in their system, and I find it hard that they have pulled me into their world with their man and a gun telling me I don’t have the rights I have by right of blood, and making me leave.

    Now registered voters, who signed on to that system, have registered their participation and agreement to the rules and regulations that were set up for all of the rest of the registered voters to comply with. I’m not a party to those rules and regulations and I do not agree to have my rights trumped on because these entities (ie persons) haven’t taken the time to find out who they are dealing with and are treating us all the same way.

    I don’t want to know their system, and I want to be protected from their infringement of my ‘free will’.

    And do you know what was ‘liquidated’ by the bankruptcy? If you have a job, how long will you be employed before you are laid off? I can’t prove anything, but most who file bankruptcy that I’ve seen have been unemployed within a year of receiving the bankruptcy. Are they liquidating their Soc. Sec. Account or something? Bankruptcy is a contract that is too, mysterious to me to be comfortable with entering into…it’s about as complicated at the contract to own a home, except you agree to have a trustee liquidate you for the benefit of your creditors, and you totally trust the ‘legal system’ and attorney to operate in your best interest, when we all know the attorney is an ‘officer of the court’, and that judges represent the State, so it’s one time that ‘One’s’ interest is truly not being represented, but it’s the path that many seek.

    Nothing against you, I’m rambling for some reason in my posts. I shall remain silent.
    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, in jure proprio, in propria persona, life, alive, a freeman, corporeal, allodial, free, whole blood, live born, born alive

  9. Consider the following correction:

    “EDITOR’S COMMENT: It isn’t just Bank of America. And it isn’t just the servicers. EVERYONE in the securitization chain has a legal problem, a liability problem and is subject to potential fines, penalties, damage awards to borrowers, punitive damages or treble damages.”

    Replace “securitization” with GSE BUSINESS MODEL and you will be able to focus on each players role. There would have been no party for the players unless the government guaranteed the GSEs MBSs on day one.

  10. BofA/BAC NEVER NOTICED me, with them “acquiring” my alleged loan from Countrywide. I filed charges of fraud against CW in FED court in July 2009, BAC/BofA perpetrated theft of my personal property and locked me out of my house in October 2009, (there is no record of assignment in our county recorder’s office to BofA/BAC!! My insurance is paying the theft claim and I “re-entered” my home and am living in an empty home while they try to “evict’ me!! All this forced me into bankruptcy and the judge lifted the stay in favor of the perpetrators…the FRAUD-CLOSURE runs deep!!

  11. zurenarrh and ANONYMOUS

    “If the originator never transfers the note but DOES sell its entitlement to receive payments, then NO ONE in the securitization chain can be a Noteholder as defined by my note.” – Seems no courts are looking at the language of the actual “contracts” (- indeed most don’t even look at the paper at all). Or perhaps this issue isn’t being raised properly in courts. By “eviscerating the note” haven’t the “contracts” (the note and security instrument) been breached well before the “borrower” was declared to be “in default?”

    STILL… now you should consider adding another element to your theory: table funding. Ask yourself, how can an “originator” “sell” what it never “owned?” Seems Fannie, Freddie, Wall Street et al were actually advancing the funds for the loans that others (the “pretender lenders”) “originated” for them. And what if those funds that were advanced didn’t belong to Fannie, Freddie, et al either, but were advanced from “certificate holders” of forwardly-sold MBS certificates? As this blog has pointed out now for years, that’s a massive TILA violation and probably fraudulent as well. So how does “selling” the “receivables” and “holding onto the notes” work when the “originator” never actually shelled out a penny for the “loan” in the first place? Successful discovery would seem to be essential.

  12. Bob G.,

    Careful with the Bloomberg distribution reports. The reports are fed by the servicer – and can be totally not accurate.

  13. zurenarrh

    To the contrary – I agree with you. Receivables is an accounting term – it is an asset to a corporation. And, receivables represent CURRENT payment. A note is a promise to pay with the mortgage enforcing the note.

    In securitization, the receivables are removed from the balance sheet and sold to an off-balance sheet conduit – for the pass-through of current payments to derived security investors. Once there are no longer receivables – there is no longer securitization of that asset. Mortgage-backed securities must be derived from CURRENT (liquid) assets – and not illiquid assets such has a foreclosure.

    Since the trust was only set-up for pass-through of current receivables (hence securities), the whole loan ownership remained with the originator. If fact, prior to the mortgage crisis – it was the originator who would foreclose – not the trustee/trust/ or servicer. This is why the notes were never actually conveyed to any trust. Off balance sheet conduits purchased receivables – not the whole loan. Whether or not this was a “true sale” is a whole complicated question – not yet addressed in courts.

    The problem at crisis was that the originators collapsed – they could no longer bring foreclosure actions. The question then became – well -who can bring the actions? And, the banks then started to manufacture conveyance of the whole loan to the trusts. But, this is being done “after the fact” – and representations and warranties originally intended – no longer hold water.

    Now, while a REMIC may hold foreclosures – foreclosures cannot be assigned with knowledge of default. Thus, all manufactured assignments violate REMIC rules and – make representations and warranties that are not valid at the time of the manufactured document.

    However, I believe, that the whole loans were also sold by the originators to the security underwriters parent corporation – and not retained by the originators (thus originators did not just sell their receivables). And, that the security underwriter securitized the parent corporations receivables – with the whole loan rights remaining with the parent corporation. It is pretty clear from Goldman Sachs testimony that this is what occurred.

    Courts only care about – YOU OWE THE MONEY – but if you do not owe it the stated party – the foreclosure action is fraudulent – period. Can they get there ducks in a row – years later? No – this would be fraudulent – but courts may still say – Who CARES? Not a good track record in courts..

    I agree with you – you write – “If the originator never transfers the note but DOES sell its entitlement to receive payments, then NO ONE in the securitization chain can be a Noteholder as defined by my note.”

    But, believe banks did purchase whole loan rights from the originator. Their purchases were done by other funding such as commercial paper. – It was not funded by the trusts. The removal of receivables – to the trusts- is a separate funding – via the sale of securities. The trusts could not be set up before the removable of receivables – the loans had to be on banks on-balance sheet BEFORE the securitization. When they remove to off-balance sheet, by accounting gimmicks, it transforms Whole loans into securities. When the securities collapse – as they did – the whole loans must be moved back onto balance sheet (converted back from receivable securitization to whole loan – with the receivable written off). This has also occurred via FASB 166 and 167. Then the question is – does the banks still have the whole loan rights – or have they sold them to a third party?

    Under any scenario – the trust/trustee/servicer are NOT the creditor.

  14. NY Real Property Law re Trusts… check out paragraph (c) below:

    ARTICLE 4-A TRUST INDENTURES AND INTERESTS THEREIN

    § 129 Real Prop. No deposit agreement shall be valid or binding which
    does not set forth the following provisions for the protection of the
    bondholders:

    (a) That the fees of the members of the committee, the assignee or the
    other person or persons to whom the deposit agreement was given, as the
    case may be, shall be reasonable and subject to the approval of the court.

    (b) That the deposit agreement may not be amended without the approval of
    the court.

    (c) That the mortgage investments deposited thereunder may not be sold,
    pledged or otherwise disposed of without the unanimous consent of the
    depositing bondholders or, in lieu thereof, the approval of the court.

    (d) No deposit agreement shall be valid or binding or confer any rights
    whatever upon any member of a committee, assignee or other person to whom the agreement was given, who has any financial interest directly or
    indirectly in the depositary named or to be named by such committee,
    assignee or other person, and no person shall act for a bondholder or a
    deposit agreement who has such an interest.

    DOES YOUR STATE HAVE SIMILAR TRUST PROVISIONS?

  15. If anyone has any documentation signed by these two Notary’s, I would appriecate a copy of them.

    1. Ahmad Afzal
    2. Flor Valerio

  16. COULD BE VERY USEFUL, INDEED…

    Check out this site. Change the last year from 2007 in the URL to whatever your trust year was, and then search. This will bring you to the annual report wherein you can find the REMIC trust that supposedly has your note/mortgage. You will then be able to find the CUSIP of your deal. Have someone run it through Bloomberg or another lookup locator. This will tell you where the deal is and the status.

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p938–2007.pdf

  17. THIS IS JUST AWFUL

    These bastards just will not stop. See the link below.

    http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Leaning-on-the-at-risk-709912.php

  18. The original note should be presented for payment – it is the negotiable instrument, and without it there is no evidence of debt.

    That’s one of the problems with MERS mortgages – when a homeowner pay off in full, MERS executes a release of the mortgage.

    But, the note debt is not released, and the original note is never returned and marked “paid”.

    If the original note should ever resurface, payment could be claimed upon it. I don’t know about other states, but in Illinois, a promissory note can be claimed upon for up to 20 years.

    That would be something, if someone showed up at your door claiming you still owe the entire note debt 19 years after you paid off your home.

    They set up this scam (overappraisals) so that no one would be able to sell the home or pay it off, they were banking on a refinancing every time (with MERS, of course). The few who would be able to pay off in less than 30 years or so would be given a release of mortgage – but most get a refinance or get foreclosed upon.

    Nice scam.

  19. Re: my question below, perhaps that is why MERS Milestone reports refer to Fannie Mae as an “Investor” rather than as a “Noteholder,” because the originator doesn’t transfer the note, the originator has only sold rights to receivables/borrower payments to Fannie/securitizers.

    That would seem to comport with Neil’s single transaction theory, in which the money trickles down from investors to borrowers, with the banks as middlemen.

    I still am having a hard time letting go of my theory that, according to the language in my note at least, the “Noteholder”–i.e., the person I am obligated to pay–essentially doesn’t exist. This arrangement I’m referring to, if accurate, seems to lend further weight to my theory since my note defines the Noteholder as the person who has taken the note by transfer AND is entitled to receive payments. If the originator never transfers the note but DOES sell its entitlement to receive payments, then NO ONE in the securitization chain can be a Noteholder as defined by my note. That’s because the originator has the note but not the right to receive payments. The securitizers and/or investors have the right to receive payments but not the note. Therefore, according to the language of my Note, the person I’m supposed to pay doesn’t exist.

    Anonymous disputed that argument on another thread, but
    the more I think about it, the more sense the argument makes to me. Specifically, Anonymous opined that “There is a distinction between securitization of receivables and “whole loan” ownership.” And by the way, I’m not trying to challenge Anonymous or anything. I respect Anonymous very much.

    But the “whole loan” IS the receivables IS the whole loan, isn’t it? That’s the entire point of the note–to create receivables. The note is all about the receivables–how much is owed in principal and interest, who is to be paid, when payments are to be made, a promise that the money will be paid, even an address to send payments to.

    If the receivables are sold, as the trust documents say they are, then isn’t the person that is still in possession of the note essentially only the equivalent of a note custodian? That is to say, the possessor of the note (the evidence of the obligation) essentially has a worthless piece of paper in this scenario because the possessor has contracted with another person to take the benefit of the piece of paper while holding on to the piece of paper, which only exists to insure that the benefits (payments) are paid.

    OK, I’ll stop rambling…take it apart again, Anonymous. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part to try to take the wind out of the sails of the securitization arrangement by simply citing and referring back to the terms of the agreement itself. But maybe there is some legal precedent or case law I am unaware of that precludes that.

  20. Very interesting post about BoA/BAC. I am entangled with these characters in my non-judicial state. I am finally beginning to see what Neil is talking about when he says that the originators didn’t transfer the notes.

    My originator was Countrywide, now Bank of America. My servicer is now BAC–was Countrywide. When they wanted to do a trustee’s sale, they recorded an assignment from “MERS as nominee for Countrywide Bank, FSB” to BAC. I now realize that they most likely did the assignment that way because Countrywide never transferred the note to Fannie Mae, who now claims to hold my note and claims to have held it at the time I sued them, the assignment notwithstanding.

    The notice of sale said that BAC was the Noteholder, having been granted that status by Countrywide Bank, FSB. That’s impossible because according to the FDIC website, Countrywide Bank FSB became an inactive institution three months prior to the assignment.

    But here’s my question, and maybe Anonymous can answer it (I’ve asked it before but never saw an answer)–why would Fannie Mae or any other securitization party not take the note? And if Fannie or other securitizers didn’t take the note, did Fannie et al. actually pay for the note?

    I’m not sure I’m making myself clear. I can believe or I understand that the originator (i.e., Countrywide in my case) may not have transferred the note to the purchaser (i.e., Fannie Mae in my case). But what purchaser in its right mind would give consideration for something–i.e., the note–but not take it.

    Perhaps the scenario is more like this: the agreement between Countrywide and Fannie (or generally between originators and securitizers) is a mirror image of the agreements between the “trusts” and the investors, that is–the originators sells rights to receivables/borrower payments to the securitizers but the originator keeps the paper/original note. Is that what is happening? Is that what Neil is getting at? So that in effect, as Neil says, the investors get a bond, but it’s a bond derived from the bond given by the originator to the securitizer, with the originator keeping the note?

    If that is the case, then obviously none of the alphabet soup trusts (or any other trusts) “hold the note”–they only have contractual rights to the borrower’s receivables/payments.

  21. Social Apocalypse, I know nothing, and if I think I know something, i know nothing. But I believe, they will ignore your letter and move forward. It will not reach anyone with the power to stop anything, even their attorneys. You may need to have that letter forwarded to a Sheriff’s office or something so that they will understand that someone is making a false claim and trying to take your home. You also need to be careful how you sign documents when they serve you a forcible detainer or unlawful detainer or some other paper notifying you of a suit, or eviction.
    See if someone can inform you of how to sign the process of service.
    It may be sui juris in propria persona, a freeman, or in jure proprio in propria persona, corporeal male, or something, but you have to know how to defend your action. They are treating you like a ‘person’, and a ‘person’ has no rights, so to speak. I didn’t know I was being presumed to be a person, and that they were treating me as one. I lost my home to fraud. They took my trust deed and saw a provision for acceleration sale and substitute trustee, and ran with it. But they were not the ‘Lender’ and only the ‘Lender’ could appoint a substitute trustee, and only the ‘Lender’ could call for an acceleration of the obligation.

    All I’m saying is, they will pull you into court in some form, and you’ll need to know how to defend your rights, and if you’ve signed anything ‘preserving’ your right to ‘not’ be pulled into court, such that the court does not have jurisdiction, you may take the steam out of their fraud action.

    Again, I don’t know how to do it, I had one shot and didn’t know then what I know now, and so I don’t have another opportunity to try what I’ve learned in the mean time.

    Just do whatever you can to keep them from treating you like a ‘person’, a court has jurisdiction over a ‘person’. Body, man, woman, child, individual, being, guardian, agent, representative, and many other words, end up meaning, a person.

    Bob G. Unless you can read the Deed, I would not stake too much on the ruling in Arizona. The faults I saw, the ‘trustee’ was a substitute, and the real trustee was still in existence and still holding the legal title for the beneficiary who had ‘the note AND an interest secured in the home’, but no one could ever get the legal title from the original trustee, because no one had BOTH documents, so they popped up and appointed substitute trustees to perform the ‘foreclosure actions’ so they could try to clean the title and get standing, and have the original trustee transfer the legal title to the substitute trustee, who now doesn’t have to show a Note and a Deed but shows a sale and a purchase, or a sale and a REO. It’s crazy, but that’s what was happening. I can say, ‘thou shalt not steal’, and there is a real male or female behind the operation of these banks that are ‘owning’ this property, and by divine right, they will be judged and their soul will realize they sold it into purgatory for pieces of the Universe that never ‘belonged’ to them.
    I’m glad I’m enlightened enough to not be who they are. By divine right I’m me, and not them…thank the Creator for that.
    I send them my love, because they will need it when the time comes. You see, they infringed on a basic Universal right, and as such, will be held accountable for infringing on my right as a spiritual being to have a human experience that allowed me to have property. They are no greater, we are all spiritually connected. The Creator in them, knows what they’ve done to the Creator in us…there is no secrets…it’s the same Creator, knowing all and allowing the lessons that come with our actions to manifest itself.

    There is an imbalance that will have to take care of itself, by Natural Law. Be patient and send Love if you can, but worry not about these court cases. None are setting a precedence that is a ‘rule of law’ or protective of basic rights, thus far.

    When you start seeing people die off realize the rapture comes in many ways, and we know not the heart of men or the deeds they’ve done without our knowledge. I’m sure these perpetrators family and friends will be saying ‘how nice and giving’ they were at their funerals. We know otherwise, from their actions against us.

    Light and Love,

  22. Bob G

    Email me for my contact phone number and I’ll share what I know about the wet notes

    providencegroup@ymail.com

  23. The one thing this whole past 3 years has taught me is a huge erosion of any trust in anyone to do with mortgaging/loans and government. It is really sad this is what has become of America. I for one have not put any money in any Bank for over 2 years. I pay cash and keep my finances in a “safe” place. Maybe more of us should take this approch, it may be the time to push the too big to fail system over the edge.

  24. ONEWEST FORM INTERROGATORIES IN CALIFORNIA WITH SET 3 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

    FAT BOY ATTORNEY ED TREDER

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/39497533/ONEWEST-BANK-FSB-INDYMAC-FAILED-BANK-FSB-FAT-BOY-ED-TREDER-ANSWERS-FORM-INTERROGATORIES-AND-ADMISSIONSIndymac-Form-Int-Ad-3

    READ THIS WITH THE ONEWEST MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

  25. fighting mad, mad as hell,

    Absolutely correct. You write – “Homeowners DID PAY THE NOTE up until it became too burdensome. It was the massive resetting of toxic ARM’s that set off the the implosion.”

    You were targeted to default – that was the game – there was profit in you. Banks were not making profits off of lower interest rate mortgages – they needed YOU to make high interest profits. And, they invented FICO – to make sure that you were HIGH RISK and, therefore, you falsely warranted high interest rate profits. Falsely – because you were targeted for the scam.

    And, media claims all foreclosures are NOW just related to the unemployed. Bogus – this is not true. Underwater mortgages (and also those stuck in high interest rate mortgages) are three times the unemployment rate.

    When will they tell the truth?

  26. Bob G.,

    I am not an attorney – but believe this is state related law. Know in my (judicial state) – it is required – but, that does not mean that judges may not even sometimes overlook it – if a copy is certified. .

    I have never been a fan of produce the note. The note could be turned over to attorneys -five minutes before an action is filed – or during the action. It is just absurd. .

    This is why conveyance of the note is critical – note must be properly conveyed to that party prior to foreclosure – and must not be conveyed to any other party after litigation commences. And, note must be negotiable. Have problems with both – as I express often.

    Nevertheless, find it odd that a court would not enforce production of the original note. Clearly, fabricated copies (even certified) are being falsely produced all the time. If a party is not in possession of original note – it is likely that the path (and negotiability) of that note has been altered. The original note is critical because copies will not contain all endorsements or allonges. Thus, someone else may be in possession of the original. This is critical in bankruptcy – that is, the CURRENT creditor must be identified. Enforcement of a note is not the same as creditor identity as required in bankruptcy. If courts are accepting non-production of original (not-fabricated) note – to me, that is is a red flag to file for bankruptcy and try to enforce the identity of the current creditor. These are two different courts that MAY contradict each other.

    Wish I could say more – saw you have posted this question twice – anyone else out there to answer Bob G’s (long time poster) question??

  27. SUBJECT: GOLDMAN SACHS EMBEZZLEMENT SCHEME – SECRET SECONDS

    THE LATEST SCAM – ALERT!!! DO NOT WAIT FOR THE FORECLOUSRE MILLS, SERVICERS OR LENDERS TO GIVE YOU FORECLOSURE DOCUMENTS OR ASSIGNMENTS – THEY ARE NOT GIVING YOU EVERYTHING – ORDER A TITLE SEARCH OR GO TO YOUR COUNTY RECORDER TO SEE WHATS BEEN RECORDED ON YOUR PROPERTY – WE DID AND THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND:
    In May 2005 we deposited and invested $200,000 in Real Property, where we recently found out that $118,800 was embezzled out of our property from Mortgage Lenders and Trust Brokerage Companies, namely Goldman Sachs through an escrow Transaction. The $118,800 in funds was paid to these embezzlers from the Investors unbeknownst that the securitization happened by encumbering our property and making up a fraudulent fake Promissory Note and Deed of Trust.

    See the link for further information: https://fdaaccount.box.net/shared/a1pjz9sz5c

  28. Enough already, we are losing sight of a few glaring facts!

    1. Homeowners DID PAY THE NOTE up until it became too burdensome. It was the massive resetting of toxic ARM’s that set off the the implosion.
    That means, despite what the lenders claim, THEY ARE NOT DEADBEATS! THEY HAVE A TRUE CLAIM TO THE HOMES BECAUSE THEY HAVE PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ALREADY!
    AND THAT IS A LEGIT CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP!
    OUR MONEY DID NOT GO INTO SOME BLACK HOLE AND DISAPPEAR, WE HAVE RECEIPTS!
    WE ARE NOT DEADBEATS BY A LONG SHOT! 5 YRS AT $1000 A MONTH IS $60,000 BEFORE MISSING A PAYMENT. NOT COUNTING THE 20% DOWN PAYMENTS!
    I say, screw all those spouting off about we want free homes!
    WE DIDN’T GET A BAILOUT, WE PAID CASH FOR OUR HOMES!

    2. ASK THOSE SEEKING FORECLOSURE WHAT WAS THE REAL PURPOSE IN GRANTING LOANS DESTINED TO DEFAULT?
    THEY KNEW, WERE WELL AWARE OF THE DEFECTS.

    3. Understand that these toxic mortgages and all the side bets on them are the root cause of the entire Recession, because the creation of MERS allowed lenders and all their cohorts to CHEAT EVERY COUNTY OUT OF LEGITIMATE RECORDING FEES FOR EACH SALE AND TRANSACTION.
    MERS WAS CREATED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HIJACKING ALL THOSE MILLIONS OF RECORDING FEES FROM THE STATES. MULTIPLY $65 BY 65 MILLION HOMES IS :
    $4,225,000,000, THAT IS $4.2 BILLION DOLLARS FOR JUST THE FIRST SELLING OF THE NOTE. AND THOSE NOTES WERE SOLD ON THE AVERAGE 6 TIMES AND THEN PAID FOR AGAIN BY MORTGAGE INSURANCE!

    EVERYTHING ABOUT MERS IS ILLEGAL,ESPECIALLY CLAIMING THE POWER TO FORECLOSE.

    4. The lenders also planned to take over the rental market, had set up an agency to handle the influx of new renters.

    5. The lenders started pushing legislation to legitimize everything they were doing way back in April. THIS IS NO COINCIDENCE! IT IS PLANNED. THAT IS INTENT TO DEFRAUD AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

    6. The lenders also covered all the bases for ensuring that no homeowner would be able to escape going into foreclosure, this was a well orchestrated attack scenario that would have made Eisenhower proud. In fact, it was so well planned that they made the mistake of getting overconfident and getting sloppy and lazy and failed to completely cover their asses, and that is how we nailed them!

    THEY WERE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
    WE ARE BETTER AND HAD MORE TO LOSE, LIKE OUR HOMES AND DREAMS.

    ANYBODY RUNNING FOR OFFICE NEXT MONTH HAD BETTER BEWARE!
    I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE MAD AS HELL!
    THEY ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PEOPLE COMMITTING SUICIDE AND ARSON!

    BEFORE ELECTION DAY, WE BETTER SEE BANKERS, LENDERS, MORTGAGE BROKERS, NOTARIES AND ROBO SIGNERS ON TRIAL , ARRESTED AND BEING CHARGED WITH FRAUD, TAX EVASION, RICO VIOLATIONS AND MORE OR ALL HELL WE BE BREAKING LOSE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
    WHY SHOULD WE OBEY THE LAW WHEN THOSE OPPRESSING US ARE FLAUNTING THE LAW AND LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THEIR YACHTS?
    WHERE’S THAT JUDGE THAT SENTENCED THAT MENTALLY HANDICAPPED MAN TO 16 YEARS IN PRISON FOR STEALING A MILKY WAY, TO TEACH HIM A LESSON?
    BRING HIM OUT OF RETIREMENT!

  29. “THEY ARE SO [F] **CKED”

  30. I knew it! This is all predenter lenders in the same den. I was not kidding with do not answer your phone, change your number and do not give any personal information to anyone. The harrasment calls may not be able to be used in court due to only recently have they been saying that your call my be recorded. But I have heard that they are taking conversations and perhaps making a whole conversation of it that points in thier favor. And if they get your banking informaton they may try to levy you. We all need to be on our toes here. I thank you Mr.G for for time and efforts to keep us all informed. We will prevail.

  31. Foreclosure Nightmare – MERS –
    No Legal Foundation
    By Joel Skousen
    Editor – World Affairs Brief
    10-15-10

    Begin Excerpt –

    The role of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) throughout the foreclosure furor is interesting-mostly because there is no legal basis for its role. It was created out of whole cloth by the investment bankers who brought us the Mortgage Backed Securities fiasco, without any basis in law. Reuters explains what MERS is:

    “The growing furor in the United States over improper foreclosure documents is focusing intense attention on MERS, a mortgage-record service company that tracks more than 60 million mortgages. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems [MERS] has filed thousands of foreclosure actions around the country on behalf of lenders. Its right to do that is under challenge. Several courts around the country recently have ruled that MERS lacks the right to file such cases.

    “MERS, based in Reston, Virginia, is a private company owned by leading banks and mortgage processors. They founded it in 1995 to speed up legal record-keeping of mortgages and sales of mortgage loans through securitizations. Its main purpose was to be an electronic registry that would keep track of repeated sales of mortgage loans as the number of new mortgages and refinancings boomed [without having to comply with the laws requiring a notarized document of transfer of title signed by the new and old owners-that’s the problem]

    “Homeowners’ lawyers and advocacy groups contend that MERS has no right to initiate the actions because it doesn’t own the mortgage loans. Lending laws specify that only the actual owner of the loan can file a foreclosure action. Lawyers also have alleged that MERS bypassed laws requiring mortgages and refinancings to be recorded in county recorders offices.”

    This is not a trivial issue, because mortgage title companies are on the hook for millions. When a foreclosed home is transferred, they have certified the titles, many of which are now subject to fraudulent conveyance. The Financial Times says they’ve uncovered fraud in Well Fargo filings­the sole big bank that claims they don’t have any problems.

    “Unlike Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and GMAC, Wells Fargo has not halted foreclosures and has maintained that it has no problems with its procedures. Yet, a sworn deposition by one of its loan documentation officers suggests otherwise. Xee Moua said she signed as many as 500 foreclosure-related papers a day on behalf of the bank. Ms Moua said the only information she had verified was whether her name and title appeared correctly. Asked whether she checked the accuracy of the principal and interest that Wells Fargo claimed the borrower owed ­ an important step in banks’ legal actions to foreclose ­ Ms Moua replied: ‘I do not.’ Ms Moua nevertheless signed affidavits, reviewed by the Financial Times, that said she had ‘personal knowledge of the facts regarding the sums of money which are due and owing to Wells Fargo’. These affidavits were used in lawsuits brought by Wells Fargo to repossess homes.”

    Mish Shedlock tells of how this whole thing is mushrooming into a major problem for the courts. “The allegations raise the possibility that foreclosure proceedings nationwide could be subject to legal challenge. More than 2.5 million homes have been lost to foreclosure since the recession started in December 2007.

    “In the wake of massive foreclosure fraud, attorneys general in all 50 states have launched a probe into problems with documents used in foreclosures. A joint investigation by every state and the District of Columbia could force mortgage companies to settle allegations that they used flawed documents to foreclose on hundreds of thousands of homeowners.

    “It could take months, at least, for any settlement to be reached. The banks could also be subject to financial penalties and be forced to pay some people whose foreclosures were improperly handled. For banks, ‘the most efficient way for them to get out from under this is to settle across the board,’ said Kathleen Engel, a law professor at Suffolk University. ‘It’s quite possible that there will be insiders who come forward to reveal the inner workings of these ‘boiler room’ foreclosure mills, which likely won’t be good for the banks.’

    “Florida’s Rocket Docket Grinds to a Halt: Home to more foreclosures than 47 U.S. states, Florida sought to clear out its backlog with a system of special court hearings that dispensed with cases quickly, sometimes in less than a minute. Florida’s legislature appropriated $9.6 million this year to pay semi-retired judges and case managers to clear the backlog of foreclosures. The goal is to clear 62 percent of the backlog by next July… Now that Bank of America, JP Morgan and Ally Financial Inc. have put the brakes on foreclosures or evictions to look for irregularities, he said he’s ‘very doubtful’ his courts can resolve that many cases. The circuit, which covers the area around Clearwater and St. Petersburg, has a backlog of 33,000 foreclosure cases, he said… We’re still getting 1,000 cases a month.'” Wow.

    Tyler Durden talks about the potential costs to banks: “the tab could reach $6 billion… Investigations of how banks are seizing homes may prolong foreclosures by as much as three months, at a rough cost of $1,000 per month for each property in the pipeline. The biggest firms likely need to add staff to comb through the files, costing them each $1 million a year.” Sounds like a good excuse for the banks to cut a plea deal and settle for what the public thinks is a big fine­but it would be small change compared to losing the right to foreclose.

    Personally, I don’t hold out much hope that the financial Powers That Be (PTB) are going to let all those foreclosures go down the drain over a “technicality.” The White House is already sending a message that it won’t back any federal moratorium on foreclosures. The Washington Post wrote that “Federal regulators sought to prevent the growing furor over improper foreclosures from escalating, pressing mortgage lenders to replace flawed and fraudulent court documents while insisting that foreclosures continue apace.” ­Business as usual.

    Sadly, it’s not just foreclosure technicalities that are wrong. Some banks are violating the laws in other ways, like using thugs to break into homes, change locks and evict delinquent owners before filing proper foreclosure proceedings-making bogus claims like “the power is off, and we have to safeguard the house from freezing.” In the summertime? Sure.

    End Excerpt

    Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.

    Copyright Joel Skousen 2010 – All Rights Reserved

    Partial quotations with attribution permitted

    Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief

    World Affairs Brief, 290 West 580 South, Orem, Ut 84058, USA

  32. Summary Judgment Reversed by Appeal Court – Plaintiff fails to refute Defendant’s Affirmative Defense
    ————————————————–
    See full DCA Court Order at http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Oct%202010/10-13-10/4D09-2280.op.pdf
    Bravo Jessica. Tickin Esq. of The Ticktin Law Group

    JUDITH ALEJANDRE and SERGIO TERRON, Appellants,
    v.
    DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
    f/k/a BANKER’S TRUST COMPANY, as TRUSTEE
    and CUSTODIAN FOR NATIXIS 2007-HE2, Appellee.

    No. 4D09-2280.

    October 13, 2010 –

    Joshua Bleil and Jessica Ticktin of The Ticktin Law Group, P.A.,
    Deerfield Beach, for appellants.

    No brief filed for appellee.

    Judith Alejandre and Sergio Terron (Alejandre) appeal the summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Deutsche Bank Trust Company. Alejandre asserts that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment and that they had asserted affirmative defenses which were not denied by Deutsche, dealt with during the hearing on the motion for summary judgment or addressed in the final judgment. We agree and reverse.

    Deutsche filed an amended complaint with the necessary documentation alleging that it was entitled to foreclose on the property in question. In Alejandre’s answer to the amended complaint, they asserted as affirmative defenses, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and unclean hands. In moving for summary judgment, Deutsche attached an affidavit stating that it had advanced to Alejandre, and is owed by Alejandre, the sum of $337,567.26. In its motion, however, it did not address any of the pending affirmative defenses. Nonetheless, the trial court granted Deutsche’s motion for summary judgment, prompting this appeal.

    “The standard of review of the entry of summary judgment is de novo.” Craven v. TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd.,925 So.2d 476, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Further, [t]he law is well settled in Florida that a party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought.” Id. at 479-80. “Summary judgment cannot be granted unless the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, conclusively show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Frost v. Regions Bank,15 So.3d 905, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

    When a party raises affirmative defenses, “[a] summary judgment should not be granted where there are issues of fact raised by [the] affirmative defense[s] which have not been effectively factually challenged and refuted.” Cufferi v. Royal Palm Dev. Co.,516 So.2d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Thus, “`[i]n order for a plaintiff . . . to obtain a summary judgment when the defendant asserts affirmative defenses, the plaintiff must either disprove those defenses by evidence or establish the legal insufficiency of the defenses.’” Id. (quoting Bunner v. Fla. Coast Bank of Coral Springs, N.A.,390 So.2d 126, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)). In such instances, “[t]he burden is on the plaintiff, as the moving party, to demonstrate that the defendant could not prevail.” Id.

    In Frost, a bank/mortgagee filed a foreclosure claim against a mortgagor. In response to that complaint, the mortgagors filed an answer that contained the affirmative defense of notice and opportunity to cure. The bank filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition to that motion, the mortgagors did not file any papers or affidavits. At the hearing, the mortgagors contended that summary judgment was improper because the bank failed to address their affirmative defense. The trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment. Frost, 15 So. 3d at 906.

    On appeal, this court reversed. We stated that the bank failed to refute the mortgagors’ affirmative defense of lack of notice and opportunity to cure. The bank failed to meet this requirement because “[n]othing in the bank’s complaint, motion for summary judgment, or affidavits indicate that the bank gave the [mortgagors] the notice which the mortgage required. The bank also did not establish that the [mortgagors’] lack of notice and opportunity to cure defense was legally insufficient.” Id. at 906. This Court held that “[b]ecause the bank did not meet its burden to refute the [mortgagors’] lack of notice and opportunity to cure defense, the bank is not entitled to final summary judgment of foreclosure.” Id. at 906-07.

    In the instant case, as in Frost, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was improper. Here, as in Frost, Deutsche moved for summary judgment, but in that motion, it failed to address affirmative defenses raised by the mortgagor, Alejandre. Because Deutsche failed to address Alejandre’s affirmative defenses, it did not carry its burden on summary judgment. Therefore, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was erroneous. We do not pass upon the merits of the affirmative defenses, as that is a matter to be addressed in further proceedings.

    Reversed and Remanded for Further Proceedings Consistent with this Opinion.
    TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

  33. Anonymous-jackpot !!!
    Just wanted to add that derivities are worth $600 trillion dollars!
    So much at stake, so now you know why there’s such a rush to push these pesty foreclosure through, at all cost !

  34. ANON – do u know where its says that a lender must produce the original, wet ink note in order to enforce and foreclose? Can’t seem to find that anywhere, although I’m sure that it is right in front of me somewhere.

  35. Wow – has this blog grown. The fraud is so massive – do not believe it can ever be effectively investigated. Too many parties involved – so wide-spread. Each day the fraud expands.

    Agree with everything above that Neil writes – except – at some point, servicers STOP advancing payments on your behalf -usually this is at charge-off of the receivable. In addition, Servicers are only obligated to advance payments until they believe the debt is no longer CURRENTLY collectible. Again, the foreclosure process is not a liquid process – it takes time – and, foreclosure – plus expenses – is the action that deems the debt as NO LONGER collectible.

    Thus, servicers determine when to cease making advance payments. At this point, collection right “authority” supposedly passes to the servicer – but there are investors, and derivative investors that fund the servicer. The servicer only has the right to collect on behalf of another party – they are not entitled to foreclosure proceeds. They are servicing for someone else – and someone outside the original trust.. And, want to add that is the likely ONLY the residual tranche of any trust that still survives. This is because the residual tranche was never securitized (sold to security underwriters). Who owns this tranche? – the servicer – and that tranche is continually “resecuritized” – but not really resecuritized because it was never securitized in the first place. But – THAT is where the servicer advance payments are funded from.

    The derivative market is huge – (thank you , Lucy) – there are derivative contracts (not securities) written upon derivative contracts. The government must assure that all foreclosures proceed to cover their bailout of insurance contracts – that mandated derivative contract sale of collection rights – from a derivative contract.. The banks account for servicing rights – but the derivative counterparties would scream bloody murder if their rights are not honored. And, by the government bailout – the government enforced derivative contracts derived from their derivative bailout. Same goes for AIG – government bailed out AIG derivative contracts – but AIG had derivative contracts with other parties – for collection rights.

    Confused enough? That is the way they intended to be – all never thought anyone would catch on – BUT
    THESE DERIVATIVES MUST BE HONORED AND THEY ARE MASSIVE.

    Government has big problem if foreclosures do not commence as planned. And, failure here would signal high risk to numerous other derivatives tied to other assets.

    We are nothing more than SCAPEGOATS. All was handled very poorly from onset – no wonder Mr. Paulson got down on his hands and knees to Congress. He knew.

    But, given the depth of this blog, readers, and, most importantly Neil – we will not lie dead.

  36. I say it’s PAY BACK TIME !!!
    These foreclosure mess well take long time to unravel, so in the mean time, we should show them that we have the absolute power to bring them down to their kneees.

    Change your banks. take all your money out of these tbtf banks and go to your local community banks that you can trust.

    The idea of leaving your hard eared money for these crooks to manage is absolutely ridiculous.,

    According to the latest news, the stocks for these tbtf banks are taking a quite a beating, yeah !!!!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/15/AR2010101506584.html

  37. in trustee sale states the law favors the thieves. you have sue and ask for action to quiet title. the sooner the better. the banksters and their felonious accomplices started asking for additional changes to the laws in the books.

    put prwssure on your AG and legislature. the banksters want to break our back now that we have exposed them for what they are FELONS

  38. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2216465

    Allegation: Goldman Sachs EMBEZZLEMENT?
    The Market Ticker ® – Commentary on The Capital Markets
    Posted 2010-10-16 13:54
    by Karl Denninger
    in Foreclosuregate
    Allegation: Goldman Sachs EMBEZZLEMENT?

  39. I have a BOA/BAC case and want to follow BOA here. On a minor note, can someone tell me if it is advisable to file a copy of a QWR on the foreclosure docket that I’m dealing with. I know it is a communcation between ‘lender’ and ‘borrower’, but in addition to that should it be filed on the docket?

  40. We have sent the following letter regarding our rescinded loan which was then subsequently sold to another servicer, and now has sent NOD:

    Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested

    Dispute of Notice of Default and Dispute of Mortgage Debt Owed

    (below information is as represented on notice of default, but intended for the actual beneficiary of our deed of trust in fact)

    To: Loan Services
    address

    Loan Services, LLC
    address

    C/O XYZ Trustee Services Inc.
    address

    Re: Notice of Default File #
    John Doe
    Jane Doe
    Loan #123456789

    We are in receipt of the above referenced Notice of Default posted on our home at . We are writing to inform you, as outlined in State and Federal consumer protection law, that we hereby dispute Loan Services’ assertion that we are in default of a mortgage with their company. We do not owe Loan Services any money and please consider this letter our final and official notification of that fact and further, we request that refrain from contacting us further about this debt that we do not owe.

    was notified on numerous occasions since that the note on our home was lawfully voided by Rescission Action in due to numerous material defects. On every attempt to notify of the rescission, they responded by dismissing the rescission as “not their problem”, and advised us that we were obligated to continue making payments on a rescinded mortgage until it was “validated” by court order, or they would begin foreclosure proceedings, which they stated they were legally allowed to do. We now know this information was blatantly false, and in direct violation of laws regarding a creditor giving false information to us for their own financial gain.

    As ’s “legal department” should surely be aware, according to Regulation Z of the Consumer Protection Act, a mortgage rescission action is final, self-enforcing, and does not require validation by court order under any circumstances. Mortgage payments are NEVER made on a rescinded mortgage. Additionally, we have responses from both Morequity and Wilmington Finance (with whom the rescission action was implemented) confirming that they were in receipt and fully aware of it prior to them selling the mortgage to , thereby transferring the liability of their unlawful response to the rescission to , as proclaimed “assignor”, which is also disputed.

    As they were made FULLY AWARE on multiple (documented) instances, Loan Services unlawfully collected several payments from us. After we retained legal counsel we were advised to STOP sending money to for a mortgage that had been legally voided, and we did. ’s recent letter stating that our payments to them “voided” the rescission is both false and presumably stated for purposes of financial gain. Nothing voids a rescission. At best, was collecting payments on unsecured debt which they were under the understanding they had acquired. Their assertion that defaulting on that debt would cause them to own our home, is false and therefore also in violation of the FDCPA. That being the case, they never provided lawful disclosure to us regarding our rights as debtors under The Act.

    At this time, we demand that we be immediately reimbursed for this unlawful collection of un-owed debt, minus payments made on our behalf for taxes and insurance.

    We further request that Loan Services repair derogatory credit reporting against us as soon as possible, as we were NEVER delinquent on an account with them at any time.

    If insists on further action on it’s assertion that we have a mortgage with them, and IF they are found to, in fact, have a mortgage that we owe, we will be forced to defend ourselves. We have retained legal representation and are prepared to pursue remedy for violations committed against us plus damages and attorneys fees, including but CERTAINLY NOT limited to:

    not responding to a legal rescission action
    all money owed through rescission action
    all charges of RESPA violations, as confirmed by the State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions
    unlawful response to a Qualified Written Request from Ms.
    unlawful deception when advising us of our consumer rights from Ms.
    unlawful deception when advising us of our consumer rights from your “Bankruptcy Department”
    multiple violations of automatic stay during bankruptcy
    wrongful collection of debt
    false credit reporting

    We have been carefully documenting and recording these violations since our our rescinded mortgage was sold to Loan Services in . We have attempted to cooperate with , but as has repeatedly rejected our efforts at resolution, we are left with no option other than to defend ourselves against their escalating assault against us and pursue remedy for fines, damages and attorney’s fees to the fullest extent the law allows to protect our property, our legal rights and recover money that was illegally collected. The emotional distress this situation has caused is extreme and will be considered.

    Further, we request that any future correspondence from Loan Services, or their representatives be done through US Mail, and to refrain from using telephone contact. Our efforts at telephone contact with have been absolutely unproductive and redundant. We will, as we have always done, promptly respond to mailed correspondence.

    Cordially;

    John Doe and Jane Doe

    cc: attorneys name

  41. NEED SOME HELP HERE …

    Can someone point me to the legal authority or citation that states that the person attempting to enforce the note in a foreclosure action must present the “wet ink” original of the note, rather than a copy?

  42. Researcher, I was asking myself the same question. Have I already said too much by asking for a loan modification and providing personal information, including a tax form allowing BoA to retrieve my tax return? This article leaves me very concerned. They lost all of my other documents, but that one is probably safe and secure!

  43. Doesn’t this illegal behavior deserve a RICO remedy? At least two incidents would indicate a pattern of behavior, and there are many more than two.

  44. In this Wall Street Journal Article Bank of Amerifraud claims it will resolve the issue of foreclosures by Oct. 31, 2010

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704049904575554372238256744.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection

  45. FOR THOSE OF YOU IN AZ or perhaps other Trust Deed states…this case does not look very encouraging. Bottom line is that a trustee’s sale is not the same as enforcing the note action, so the show the note defense along with all the others does not apply.

    MAXA v. COUNTRYWIDE LOANS, INC. (Ariz. 7-16-2010)
    Christine Maxa, Plaintiff, v. Countrywide Loans, Inc., et al., Defendants.
    No. CV10-8076-PCT-NVW.
    United States District Court, D. Arizona.
    July 16, 2010

  46. I am a shareholder and own 1200 shares of DJSP. As it turns out, I am in foreclosure. The firm representing the plaintiff is the Law Offices of David J. Stern.

    Do you think it is possible and a good strategy to have his firm removed for there being a conflict of interest?

    Do you think a conflict of interest exists?

    Thanks.

  47. Did somebody raise Reagan and Nixon from the dead?
    The name of today’s game is…(drum roll, please)
    PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY!
    NEVER ADMIT TO ANYTHING, ALWAYS MAKE IT SOUND LIKE IT’S NO BIG DEAL, THAT ANY PROBLEMS ARE MINOR, THAT THE OPPOSITION IS USING FLAWED INFORMATION AND EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE IS LEGAL, PERMISSIBLE AND BEYOND REPROACH!
    And when cornered to account for issues, DENY, DENY, DENY!
    Followed by massive LIES, LIES, LIES!
    Finished off with a huge dose of feigned indignation at being accused of any wrong doing.
    It’s right up there with TOO BIG TO FAIL!
    WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY MEAN ANYWAY?
    THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BUSINESS OR NATION THAT WAS TOO BIG TO FAIL!

  48. The entire scenario was rigged against us!
    The pretender lenders knew all along that nobody was in default because the loans were protected by the servicers being set up to pay the note no matter what.
    So technically if you missed a payment, you only owed money to the servicer, not owner of the note!
    And to get their money back the rushed foreclosures thru to the sheriff’s sale!
    Even though there was no default, no owing a mortgage payment!
    It’s all smoke and mirrors! There’s so much crap going on behind the scenes that we may never know what was really keeping the housing market going!
    IT’S ALL AN ILLUSION OF A BULL MARKET, IT’S A TOTAL HOUSE OF CARDS AND IT’S BEEN HIT WITH AN EARTHQUAKE!
    AMERICA COULDN’T BE DESTROYED FROM WITHOUT, IT COULD ONLY BE DESTROYED FROM WITHIN BY THOSE WHO WERE ALREADY AT THE TOP!

    Or this is more like the movies:”The Producers” and “For Pete’s Sake” have come to life as “Creative Financing for the 21st Century!
    In”he Producers” Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel over sold the investors on the play “Springtime For Hitler” and could only get away with the scheme if the play failed, but it didn’t.
    And in “For Pete’s Sake” poor Barbara Streisand borrowed money from a loan shark and when she couldn’t pay it back had her contract sold off to “investor” after “investor” as the debt grows out of control, making the situation worse each time it was sold.
    The mortgage industry has now reached the part of the movies where everything blows up, the investors are mad and the only thing left is being thrown in jail.
    Everybody now knows there’s a big scam going on!
    Take a bow BoA and all your friends, time is up now you have to own up to the monster show you have created.
    Somebody had better be thrown in jail!
    If it’s good enough for Martha Stewart it’s good enough all the lenders, servicers, notaries and appraisers!
    People at the top of this humongous dung heap had better be put behind bars or all bets of any kind of a recovery are off!

    GIL SCOT HERRIN SANG:
    AIN’T REALLY YOUR LIFE, AIN’T NOTHING BUT A MOVIE!

  49. MR. Garfield could you please set up a Bank of America page for us. thanks

  50. based on the statements above…”not to say anything” how do we make and raise dipsute issues in RESPA QWR’s so we can build our case for later?

  51. Wells Fargo and Chase do not answer QWR’s either, even when they are supposed to be servicers of the loan in question.
    the AG of WA state just put the hammer down on certain “foreclosure mills”. One is the company being sued where H. John Kennerty’s deposition regarding Wells Fargo was taken, Northwest Trustee Services. Mr. Kennerty seems to assert that this mill’s attorney’s imagine the assignments and order the underlings to create them. Because this involves a lot of people in Oregon, we may see some amazing connections to the creation of forgeries by all parties working together. Go to any office of county records in Oregon and you can see foreclosure documents so sloppy that better than 50% appear bogus if you look at it for one minute. Longer than any of the robosigners took to create them.

  52. When they say you took the Money. It is like playing a crap game with rigged dice.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: