Proper Use of Securitization and Title Research Displayed in Action

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

submitted by Tony

Editor’s Note: One of the things that struck me about this submission was that only a year ago it would have been unlikely for any but the bravest to try this analysis and now it is getting commonplace. The fundamental facts and black letter law can only be finessed if you let them. Once you get the idea behind the ABCDE chain analysis and apply it to recorded title, and securitization of receivables, the defects become obvious. The more obvious they are, the easier it is to explain it in Court. The easier it is to explain it in Court, the more credible it sounds to a Judge. The more credible it sounds to a Judge, the more likely the pretender lender is going to be ordered by the Judge to come up with proof — real evidence — that simply does not exist. The failure of the pretender lender to come up with the evidence ends the case in your favor.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

I have the original NOTE endorsed in Blank,” Pay To The Order of __________.”with out recourse, signed by the Senior VP of RBMG.

I have a sworn affidavit that states a written assignment of the note was never prepared and the SELLER into the securities stated that they WARRANT AND REPRESENT IT HAS NEVER BEEN SOLD TO ANY OTHER ENTITY.EMC(seller) was to sell the note to Bear Stearns which was the depositor into the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities,inc. Asset Backed certificate series 2003-2.

Bear Stearns was to sell/ assign the Note to JP MORGAN CHASE as trustee of the Trust.

There has been a foreclosure started on the mortgage on March, 3 2009 by The Bank OF New York Mellon as successor trustee for JP MORGAN CHASE who claims to be the owner and holder of the note, by way Of an assignment which was recorded at the ROD on March 19, 2009, 16 days after the LIS-PENDENS , and the summons and complaint .

I have a letter dated July 13 2002 from Mers that states the loan has been removed from the MERS system and the MIN# deactivated.

Mers had no authority to do an assignment and the assignment was done by a known “robo-signor” and in the Corporate name of RBMG that not only deactivated the MIN # but also removed the loan from MERS.

RBMG was also defunct and has been since 2005 when it was aquired by NETBANK and subsequently shut down by the FDIC in 2007.

The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON produced in discovery two allonges the first was from RBMG to EMC and the second was an allonge directly to JP MORGAN CHASE from EMC.

First thing is the PSA ( pooling and service agreement) the governing document of the securities describes in detail the percise chain of title it also describes who is the seller ,the depositor ,the master servicer and the trust. Even though the sworn affidavit produced by the successor trustee stated no written assignment was ever prepared, so the allonges was a direct attempt to decieve the investors and knowingly a misrepresentation which is fraud.

BEAR STEARNS was the depositor into the securities.

First let start with the allonges both are undated and one is not even signed: according to the UCC an allonge is only used when there is NO ROOM ON THE ORIGINAL NOTE FOR ENDORSEMENT and must be firmly attached as to become a part of the note. AN ALLONGE cannot be used to transfer interest and is invalid if there is room on the note for endorsements and is invalid it not attached. A lost note was produced from EMC but not anywhere in the document is there a conveyance, it is not a valid assignment.

Here is an excerpt from the PSA;BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES, INC., Depositor EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Seller and Servicer WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Master Servicer and Securities Administrator and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK Trustee
POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT Dated as of June 1, 2003
BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2003-2 ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-2
(DD) The assignment of Mortgage with respect to a Mortgage Loan is in recordable form and is acceptable for recording under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Mortgaged Property is located.

Proper perfected chain of title:
Originator to seller:RBMG to EMC
seller to depositor: EMC to Bear STEARNS
depositor to the trust:Bear Stearns to JP Morgan
trust to successor trustee: Jp Morgan to The Bank of New York Mellon

5 Responses

  1. My signature has been photoshopped onto the Note. How do I know? I have a very large signature which I ALWAYS sign right on the line. I have two F’s in my last name which I write with the top part of the F above the line and bottom part below the line. The note they showed me had a very small version of my signature well above the line. The F’s do not intersect the line. It has been photoshopped. Only the original note will do. http://www.challengingforeclosure.com Sirak@challengingforeclosure.com

  2. I have the original note in my possession, The plaintiff “The Bank of New York Mellon” knows that I have the Note it was presented to them in discovery and ask to authenticate it , what they don’t realize is they are focusing on the Date stamp at the top and the Paid in full stamp, the only thing that is of great importance on the Note is the endorsement in blank making it a bearer instrument. A note endorsed in blank is negotiated by transfer of possession. I’am now the owner and holder of the note.

  3. David,
    Well spoken. Could’nt agree with you more.

  4. Has the “purported” original note been authenticated by chain of custody proof and a qualified forensic document examiner?

    The thing that constantly amazes me is that there are so many innocents out there that are stupid enough to believe that they can discern a forged copy from a true original. I have yet to see anyone actually descibe how the ink chemistry and document examination is properly determined-if you actually put the chemistry examination online so people can see how complex it is-then theyt would be a lot less likely to be jumping to the conclusion that the purported original notes that pop up as needed are not mere forgeries.

    THERE IS NOT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THE US THAT IS CAPABLE OF FORMING AN OPINION AS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF A PURPORTED ORIGINAL—waivers happening en masse.

    The pleadings must deny the signature-it is not enough that they see a certified copy and admit in error that the signature is true—-its NOT—-it is not possible for a reproduced signature to be real. If the complaint attaches a supposed certified copy of the note-DENY THE SIGNATURE. Only the real note has the signature-and none of you is smart enough or has the equipment to certify your own purported signature. But its done constantly–even if the purported original is later found to be a utter and complete forgery-they will say you waived. Get smart-deny the signatures—demand access to the purported originals and have them examines ASAP. FIND THE FORGED NOTES–PROSECUTE THE LAWYERS THAT “UTTER” THE FORGERY AND LETS FIND THAT MILL THAT REGENERATES THE ORIGINAL FROM THE SCANNED ORIGINAL.

    It is no different from forging a check-except for the amount. It is a crime-best way to stop the abuse is to focus in on their lawyers for the lenders and press forgery charges -after you get the forged notes and have proven the forgery. Would a bank cash a forged check? Why should you give up your home in exchange for a forged note? beware waivers and prosecute the utterers–“look up “utter a forgery”.

  5. Oops! Hold your horses everyone…Countrywide Still Has the Notes!

    This story sounds vaguely familiar, like WFB claiming they have no “errors”…

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/11/countrywide-offers-not-very-convincing-explanation-of-testimony-on-its-oops-we-still-have-the-note-snafu.html

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: