“DESTRUCTION OF THE NOTE”

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

COMMENT FROM “BUYER”: I love this argument. But, could someone please point to the rule/law which states the note MUST be destroyed once it is securitized? There’s kind of a disconnect there. Seems destroying the note cuts off the funding mechanism for the Certificates, so isn’t making sense to me.

———————————————————————————————
ANSWER FROM EDITOR — BUYER: It is not that it must physically be destroyed.

The issue is whether the note actually describes the obligation. It doesn’t.

First the act of closing a loan wherein the lender is not revealed invalidates or destroys the note even though acceptance of the money creates an obligation. The question is to whom that obligation is owed.

Second by “securitizing the receivable according to terms far different than the note ever recited, the description contained in the note becomes increasingly remote from a proper description of the obligation, which keeps changing as the receivable, not the note, moves up the securitization chain. Thus the receivable — the actual obligation that the note purported to describe — keeps changing while the note remains the same and the original note never moves physically by delivery, transfer documents (endorsement, assignment etc.)

Thus the point is that the note is destroyed by operation of law. And the problem the pretender lenders have is that the note, even if it is transferred and delivered does not describe the receivable (payments from borrower, insurer, counterparties etc.).

ONE ON ONE WITH NEIL GARFIELD ONE ON ONE WITH NEIL GARFIELD

63 Responses

  1. I do understand, (if you only knew whay your saying…) Maher .

  2. Monday 17 January 2011

    Mr Soliman:

    Allowing others to “write brief comments” under your name without disclosing it is also a form of fraud, and the 180 degree response from “you” below makes me suspect as to who is really doing the response for it is wholly inconsistant, in tone, with all your previously “authored responses.”

    Then, to focus on a predatory lending practice that is far from what you have been discussing in more detailed, of “un-Soliman” sorts, securitization practices, does not make sense.

    You have lost credibility with me. Fraud is fraud.
    Eedgetraderplus

  3. E . Tolle

    This is M. Soliman. I do have a staff and they are at times my greatest support. These people volunteer their time and efforts and are determined to help others; albeit we mostly serve attorneys and paralegals.

    I could not survive under the current workload consisting of new clients and existing engagements. Some engagements I refer to herein date back to clients and cases now going on three years. These older cases mirror the new ones in arguments for a wrongful foreclosure claim based upon thenotion parties of interest have sold their rights to the entire asset.

    Now, people here are allowed to write brief comments under my name (domain) etc., limited to redundant arguments we testify too used in foreclosure defense. Notwithstanding proffering excuses, I take responsibility for everything written and do apologize for things said in the heat of frustration.

    To finish up our point of contention under this subject heading – let’s stop for a moment and ask ourselves, “why?” Why can a lender not foreclose?

    If I personally appear to distain arguing Robo signatures and faulty assignments, know that it is for a reason. It is wrong and a fraud no doubt, but again – the lingering question of “how does a lender lose its right to foreclose” must initially be answered. If we can show the lender is lost to the right of foreclosure then its obvious forgery and faulty assignments are likely to emerge. And it does with regularity and consistency.

    This paramount claim your making for a fraud begs overwhelming support of the FASB and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The accounting rules are followed by domestic and international banks and businesses. Adherence to GAAP is something the banks agreed to abide by at commencement of this botched decade long securitization project . GAAP violations cannot avoid accountability by the regulatory scrutiny of the FDIC.

    ARGUMENT #1-Banks who are Lender‘s, by their means and methods of accomplishing their object (accounting goals), have lost the right to foreclose. Therefore the lenders must orchestrate a deceptive and unlawful means to reverse engineer that which they cannot do under the policies and procedures for a conventional foreclosure.

    This assertion is made in testimony and does therefore consider the anticipated deployment of fraudulent documents and recording instruments.

    ARGUMENTS #2 – All FINANCIAL FRAUD perpetrated in the course of business has an economic implication motivating the deceitful act. Embezzlement, antitrust allegations and white collar theft are either “premeditated” done in advance of the accounting concern, openly under a disguise against the accounting concern or done so in hindsight and in avoidance of being caught. For example, a predatory loan is unaffordable and likely to default. The bad loan was underwritten and approved and eventually entered onto the lenders books.

    Therefore predatory Loans must be classified as a an impaired asset versus a current asset.

    It is not necessarily a fraud according to the appellate courts whereby a borrower and lender conduct business under a predatory scheme and each is alleging no knowledge of falsified financial data used to qualify. Foreclosure, especially in a one action state, is something private the parties must resolve themselves where the matter is determined mutually culpable.

    It is fact that upon its settlement (“closing and disbursement”) that the accountant enters the loan as a “receivable” onto the company books. Fraud emerges the moment the accountant records a loan as a current asset. If the loan is verified as impaired the bank must reserve significant capital against it for likelihood of failing. The bank’s failure to properly enter the borrower loan as an impaired asset will constitute a fraud for reporting purposes.

    By definition a predatory loan is a contract of indebtedness originated or acquired by its holder that will not survive the immediate or estimated life of the loan. The life of the loan is with dual meaning as for its terms and the estimated life determined by a calculation known as prepayment speed. Again, the banks willingness to avoid reserving significant capital against an impaired loan is a fraud and is shared by the assignee under a lawful transfer of the asset to assignee. The rationale for the loan and assignment being void is the same burden of qualifying the asset is shared and transferred onto the purchasing parties.

    The rationale for fraud used herein is compounded by the fact these loans are alleged SOLD into what we on Wall Street referred to as a “brain dead” entity. The fact is securitization involving predatory elements, are transferred by bone-fide sale to a BPV. That purchasing party is a separate entity with legal standing and deemed isolated or remote from the seller. The loan in default is held by an entity “the PURCHASER” that is held solely to the integrity and quality of assets represented by the SELLER, your bank.

    FRAUD CLAIM – the seller never had to reserve for an impaired asset on its books – not if it intended to unload it fast. AND WHO BETTER TO DUMP A BAD LOAN TOO THAN A “BRAIN DEAD” ENTITY CAPITALIZED BY UNSUSPECTING INVESTORS.

    -More later –

    M. Soliman
    Emailto:expert.witness@live.com

  4. M. Soliman, you probably already know this, as your writing confers that you know quite a bit. Hubris was once a legal term, and was considered the greatest crime of the ancient Greeks. It’s obvious that you have a high sense of personal status and value your wisdom.

    And while you would probably recognize “consideration” as being another legal term, it can also go a long way towards respecting others, as in consideration for repeated requests for simple, noncondescending explanations of what would appear to be extremely focused ideas in your mind. Only for some reason/s, your ideas aren’t translating from your thought processes to the masses. My view only here.

    K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Soliman. Being patronizing or condescending doesn’t need to be in this Living Lies picture, and is entirely needless for the followers here. Some here are sophisticated in legalese, some are not, but are trying. Why not simplify and increase the ease of understanding? It just might suit all.

  5. …for that matter:

    How could one determine the current disposition of the Trust? Rather, if it remains active or not. If it’s all been settled and disposed of, then what’s left?

    Most trustees/depositors issued an SEC Form 15 which notifies SEC of their intent to cease reporting.

    If a Trust is settled/dissolved, what reporting would there be available?

  6. M.Soliman

    You write — “The loan was sold and that is that – Get it?” Not according to non-existent execution documents — “Get it?”

  7. MSoliman said:
    “The loan was sold and that is that – Get it?”
    —–

    Please confirm for me that the transaction to which you refer above is the Trust/Trustee selling to the investors.

    -OR-

    is it referring to a post-trust transaction of selling the asset to ‘collectors’ at a discount after trust settlement?

    Thanks

  8. To our clients!

    Linda of Oregon; Thanks for keeping the faith. Sale postponed indefinitely. BAC wants to talk now? Stay the course and let’s do it again!

    Karen of Los Angeles, CA coming up on two years since we lost the unlawful detainer. . . and still in the house. What’s wrong with Duetsche Bank? Maybe they are not the real party of interest as we alleged in US District court?

    Congrats Chauncey Vs Wa Mu; It’s going on two years and we are ready to appeal the US District court efforts to side step the accounting rules that placed Enron exec’s in Jail!

    Congat’s Yun LA, CA; they may have dismissed our case but without prejudice. Bring it back as you were supposed to be out of the home back in November.

    Congat’s Counsel in Contra Costa CA Wrongful foreclosure matter. Going on three years and Sun Trust has finally met their match. We are going to jury trial.

    The Henderson’s – No Cal. You may have lost the home but a $500,000 cash offer is not a bad way to go!

    To Oleg of Wa. I love it. You tell Wells we will file criminal charges for material misrepresentation for “lies” and they fire their staff. Love it!

    To the rest of the expert. witness clients. . ..Keep the faith and enjoy the ride!

    M.Soliman

  9. Bill Gate Huh – Wait a minute …I think i like this guy…Paece

  10. FROM RECENT INTERVIEW PUBLIC TELEVISION- INTERVIEWED M. SOLIMAN

    Barry – get a life! 22 wins to date and your waiting for the boogie man – fool

    . . . Securitization accounting is based upon the “transfer of control” when determining a right to foreclose. This approach for banks to transfer risk or rewards eliminates foreclosure from the question of standing. The buyer is not foreclosing it’s the seller (bank) who is alleged to have lost control of the subject loan.

    Transfer of control would mean the assets have gone beyond the reach of the transferor, whereby the transferor cannot re-acquire the same, except at market price . . .and the transferee is free to deal with the assets and make a profit on the assets.

    The only means for a repurchase is in an open market fair bid or auction and that’s what the lenders are doing. Buying your home at Trustee or Sheriff sale. But you do not get the money – you the fee title holder allow the lender to buy back your home on 100% credit bid.
    The underlying basis is: if the bank has sold the loans the buyer is free to hold or dispose of the assets further and make a profit, or suffer a loss. The bank therefore has transferred the reward to the buyer.

    But the buyer is not foreclosing is it? And if it were as we are led to believe then MERS is the bridge used to break the law.

    THIS IS CRIMINAL conduct by bank officials.

    The reward of making a profit on selling loans at a market price prohibits the bank from also mitigating risk whereby its is obligated to buy back the loan from the Buyer, something we already said it cannot do anyway.

    This is twilight zone mentality that makes a mockery of the US and international accounting rules. This government knows this. The pooling and servicing agreements are hurting you not helping you while looking for gibberish clues as to proper compliance and conveyances. The loan was sold and that is that – Get it?

    expert.witness@live.com

    Barry – sorry – but don’t look stupid reading this pal!

  11. M. Soliman,

    Expert – yes, I believe you are, maybe the very best.
    Witness- you need a lot of help here.

    Lots of brilliant people have Asperger’s syndrome and have learned to deal with it. Bill Gates for one. We need you to communicate coherently. Learn to spell, make a sentence, order a paragraph, forget the Latin terms until you can fix your spelling on the English parts first, otherwise it all reads like gibberish. Your stuff just does not flow. Please humble yourself a little and recognize you’re part of the problem. It’s not your message people reject, its your delivery. I am slowly catching on to some of your material and believe you are for real and probably kind hearted, and correct. Many of your posts come across so arrogant and demeaning to the community. Aspbergers is the only thing that makes sense to me. You can beat it. I mean you no disrespect, quite the contrary. You have potential to help prevent a lot of needless suffering if you would communicate.

  12. M.Soliman,

    back a few years ago you wrote an article, you hit the nail on the head. Wall Street turned a dead market alive, the housing market, they really got it going. Just like they did with the dot coms, I mean Peapod – get your groceries delivered – how does one do this San Francisco or any big city, there is no parking. But yet Wall Street turned stupid ideas into multi million dollar enterprises with no earnings, and the suckers bought and bought these stocks as they went public – and Wall Street to this day still promotes you are INVESTING. Buying a stock is not an investment as the company never sees a dime of your money, but brokers do and others do if you sell at a loss, buying stocks you are just trading – only difference is time frame – whether that be milliseconds, days, months or years – you are just trading pieces of paper called stock certificates which are now all digital – just like money is.

    Price of oil went to $150 per barrel some years ago, oh it’s supply and demand per Wall Street, then oil drops, ok where is the supply and demand that it drops???? Now it’s going back up again. Where is the supply and demand, with 10% unemployed in USA and more in other countries. Doesn’t amke sense.

    Back during the housing boom, year and year house prices are going up, it’s in the news everywhere. I says to myself – where do all these buyers come from? Where were they 10 years ago? Why are there so many buyers of homes, did the population explode all of the sudden? And now there are no buyers, were are they? Have the lights been turned on and the cockroaches all now hide in the dark?

    Living Lies.

    What is the next created boom that we can capitalize on? I saw it in the housing boom and by golly I thought to short all those high flying housing builder stocks, but I had no money and Wall Street even has that game part rigged as you can only short with margin, your average guy with a small stock account can not short.

    Living Lies.

  13. Look, they Arrested Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein >>>>

    😉

  14. Derecognition

    Definition: Derecognition is the removal of a previously recognized financial asset or liability from an entity’s balance sheet. You should derecognize a financial asset if either the entity’s contractual rights to the asset’s cash flows have expired or the asset has been transferred to a third party (along with the risks and rewards of ownership). If the risks and rewards of ownership have not passed to the buyer, then the selling entity must still recognize the entire financial asset and treat any consideration received as a liability.
    source: http://www.accountingtools.com/dictionary-derecognition

  15. Mike H, What state are you working on these cases?

  16. Expert I think I got it,

    Two Sales and an Assignment took place, or the REMIC Trust faces derecognition by the IRS.

    REMICS are tax favored pass-through trusts with strict rules. A qualified mortgage must be purchased by the REMIC within three months of the startup date. IRC § 860G(a)(3)(A)(i)-(ii)(2006). If it is contributed after the three month window, it must qualify as a “qualified replacement mortgage.” IRC § 860G(a)(4)(A)-(B)(2006). A “qualified replacement” must be traded for a defective obligation and may not be conducted more than two years after the startup date. 26 U.S.C. 860G (a)(4)(B)(ii)(2006). The IRS imposes a 100% tax on net income derived from prohibited transactions. 26 U.S.C. 860(F)(a)(1).

    Buy requesting under GAAP the accounting of the transfer and saleswe would discover what actually happen am I headed in the right direction?

  17. YOU CANNOT LOSE THE ARGUMENT!

    Look, being an ex insider has its perks…. Read on:

    Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section X.XX of the YYYY Agreement, Orchid bank shall service the Mortgage Loans pursuant to the Servicing Agreement as modified by Section XX of this Agreement, for the benefit of the Assignee. Orchid Bank acknowledges that a REMIC election will be made with respect to the Mortgage Loans and that the Master Servicer, pursuant to this Agreement, will administer on behalf of the Assignee the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

    This language is either a clear violation of GAAP and cannot survive the “derecongnition” argument.

    Or, you just won you home, as the meaning and intent of the language used therein is evidence of the lost right to foreclose.

    M. Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

  18. Expert one question you stated that:

    Accrual accounting under GAAP and reestablishing basis in assets.

    Ps. For those kind enough to infer my commentary is lacking evidential material sufficient to prevail – you do not understand the power of GAAP. (Nor understand these things I used to do to you . . .foreclose under strict adherence to GAAP

    How does one obtained information under GAAP that would demonstrate Derecognition?

    To whom would you make the inquiry to the pretender lender ?

  19. Assignment, assumption and recognition agreement

    English. It’s not the grammar …give that I write about to the opposing counsel to run by their Wall Street securities people and watch. . . See if he understands.

    In Graupner vs. Select Portfolio Services before the Ca Appellate Court – they took shots at me all day – for two days actually. They went to their expert and they found out the meaning of merit. ..as they did watch the decision to REMAND get sent back to the trial court .

    I’m sorry but am I here to entertain you?

    Am I here to teach you? You have my email! If you really wanted to learn something you would contact me. . . And not get off with this public shift away from the facts.

    Who do you work for? Really?

    I’m not here to educate you or subscribe to your demand for unusual sensitivity or insight, or in showing you competencies …a compassionate willingness to express things in a beautiful or romantic meaningful way. Your confusing people on something very-important

    – Why Who are you ?

    It’s the start of the 8th round and Ali is a 15 to 1 underdog in Zaire who suffered punishment beyond the body’s capacity for pain and consciousness. Now Forman’s all but ready to go….Dundee in his corner literally screaming at Ali, it’s over its over, take him out, now damn it. Take him out now …it’s over ….now damn it.

    Forman was left flat on his face and Ali shocked the world.

    That’s communication….Yes my friend. This is where we are as the fight is nearing an end.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  20. o why would anyone in their right mind make such a loan? The answer must be that the correspondent lenders made their profit selling the
    same Note multiple times to multiple different investors on the secondary market.

    Mike 80 files and your now asking this question ?
    1) Prepayment from 2004 thru 2006 caused this mess.
    2) Demand for more and more product forced them to ratchet up appraisals
    3) They were not seeking profit so much as guarding against recourse for prepay fall out.
    4) These liar federal regulators knew this to keep the IMB and WAMU doors open since 2004. These banks robbed peter to pay Paul
    5) If your attorneys are not including equity stripping in their lawsuits – Mal practice time.

    So why would anyone in their right mind make such a loan?

    Recourse provisions and capital requirements for obligations they were losing control of. As for selling the same Note multiple times to multiple different investors on the secondary market. . . .has anyone heard this message.
    D E R E C O G N I T I O N

    Its my turn to lash out.

    LISTEN . . . .D E R E C O G N I T I O N
    – yes they sold it over and over and that’s what we can prove .
    D E R E C O G N I T I O N I’m called a Con , Grip off , fraud and told i need Meds . . .thanks for the complements.
    D E R E C O G N I T I O N or better yet
    D E R E C O G N I T I O N But what is it your doing for others with no guidance or understanding of something so many others are clueless on. These decisions you see…bring it down, they are tomorrow’s Blues…D E R E C O G N I T I O N Drive a stake through the heart of the oppositions clueless foreclosure complaints.

    NOW GE T THE REAL ARGUMENTS OUT !D E R E C O G N I T I O N

    They “RECEIVER’S” don’t stand a chance (if only an attorney would listen to me….As a Mortgage Backed Trust accountant told me with a witness on line …”You may have the answers – but no attorney will ever bring it (ANSWERS ) to court. …THEY DON’T GET IT …click… HE WAS RIGHT !

    m.soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  21. Saturday 15 January 2011

    Mr Soliman:

    Your posts seem to be trying to convey important information, but I am having a devil of a time understanding that which you want to convey.

    BSE asked for clarification as to your statement about MERS being one’s best ally and proof that the note was “divested.”

    How so?

    Further, “The MIN is your best evidential argument for the lost note.” I believe the following was your response for clarification:

    “MERS registers the divestment of a note into a marketable security marked for a duration and set under a look back period.”

    Perhaps you are so well versed in understanding accounting procedures that your statements seem to be suficient for insight. Maybe it is just me, but I have no idea what you just said.

    Also, in your response to John, you said, among other things:

    “There is no note where its form and substance is divested of its inherent value.There cannot be a nominee granted a capacity to execute a foreclosure.”

    Are you referring to the securitization process, which is not clear to me but I infer, maybe even incorrectly? There is a disconnect between your premise and conclusion, again something that may seem elementary and clear to you, given your knowledge or level of understanding, but it escapes me.

    “MERS is a nominee for the US government.”

    Now that will take some explaining.

    At times it seems English is either not your first language or you did not pay much attention to grammer in school. I do not have any problem with either, but you will have to compensate for either, a bit more, if you wish to get your message[s] across.

    I, for one, would like to see that.

    Cheers…

    mn

  22. I have been working on 80 cases since last year. In most of the cases, the Note presented is
    a counterfeit color photocopy or a blatant forgery.
    In almost all the cases, the debtor allegedly signed
    a Note for much more than the property was worth
    even at the time of the loan, as proven by comparing
    the tax assessment at the time of the loan to the
    amount of the loan. (We have full value assessments in florida).
    The interest rate was usurious and the debtors
    income could in no way cover the loan. Default was
    an absolute certainty.
    So why would anyone in their right mind make such a loan? The answer must be that the correspondent lenders made their profit selling the
    same Note multiple times to multiple different investors on the seconday market. They counterfeited the original Note multiple times and
    sold it to gullible investors. They must have set up
    reserve acoounts with the servicers with part of the
    proceeds so that the investors got paid for awhile
    until the whole Ponzi scheme collapsed in 2008.
    The original Notes must have been intentionally
    destroyed to hide the crime of counterfeiting since
    if one were caught with the original, that person would be the primary suspect. This is why the original Note will never be found and why MERS only knows the name of the servicer, not the various
    Note holders. Only the servicers know who the holders of the counterfeit Notes are and they are not
    talking. Only a grand jury subpoena will loosen their
    tongues and show the world what really happened.

  23. Maher- how does one Legally recapture a charged-off investment? And while we all know that the fdic/other agencies are complicit in these scheme, I don’t seem to see any proof. Please elucidate. Thanks.

    ———————————————————————-
    (Brian – Good stuff – thank you !)

    First OUTSTANDING QUESTION

    1) Its an egg that cannot be unscrambled
    2) If the beneficial interest claims are required to prosecute the terms and condition of the note then title is up for grabs – here’s your shot .
    3) Its called recapitalization

    You buy a Ferrari because you love the car, its been your dream, low self esteem, whatever your malfunction is ….

    You pay $200,000 cash for the mean machine.

    Then six months later you come to find you owe $200,000 for IRS taxes due.

    So you charge off the car. Write it down to zero as it if were totaled.

    Your $200,000 loss on the car equals the deduction to offset your taxes.

    That’s easy enough , right? Well there’s a problem in that your garage still houses the car which means you cannot drive it, sit in it even really look at it.

    So after six months of this nonsense, you have had enough. You credit bid back the car and finance it’s cost through your local bank. That’s right, your now in debt for $200,000 but you wont be going to jail soon.

    For those who lost therir homes or are about to – its called a credit bid for the full amount at trustee or sherrifs sale.

    Accrual accounting under GAAP and reestablishing basis in assets.

    Ps. For those kind enough to infer my commentary is lacking evidential material sufficient to prevail – you do not understand the power of GAAP. (Nor understand these things I used to do to you . . .foreclose under strict adherence to GAAP)

    The first time offender who robs a bank is likely to get five years in the joint. Falsify a balance sheet like Enron’s Boys club – its 20 years. Defraud the FDIC and its thirty years and $1 million fine.

    ….. Its called IRS code.

    m.soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  24. http://www.scribd.com/doc/46835663/mortgage-notes-signed-in-blank-simplified

    ELIZABETH
    BARRETT DAFFIN, TREDER, AND WEISS ARE LOW LIFE SCUM BAGS. I MET HIM AND HAD INTERACTION WHEREBY I CALLED HIM A FAT…., TOLD HIM HE WOULD GO TO JAIL.

    FROM LIVING LIES AFTER THE 341 HEARING WHERE FAT BOY ED TREDER SHOWED UP TO SCARE ME.

    b davies, on October 15, 2010 at 2:04 pm said:
    Chapter 7 unsecured debt—341 hearing.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/39002836/ONEWEST-HAS-NO-STANDING-MOTION-FOR-RELIEF-FROM-STAY-WITH-OBJECTIONS
    Out of nowhere comes Attorney Ed Treder, head counsel of NDEX WEST LLC owned by Dolan Media (ticker DM) saying he represents Deutsche Bank. (no proof of claim on file), but as a creditor.
    Trustee–Mr. Treder you represent Duetsche
    Treder-Yes, I want to ask questions.
    Mr. Davies–ok
    Treder–Did you sign a Mortgage?
    Mr. Davies–No,, I signed a note.
    Treder–(surprised)-oh, and how much is it for.
    Davies–Two notes for a total of $550,000
    Treder–what is the value of the property?
    Davies–$230,000.
    Treder–so you are looking for a free house.
    davies–No!
    Treder-Do you have a civil case filed? Did you put it on schedule D.
    Davies–Yes
    Treder–Are you asking for money.
    Davies–Yes
    Treder–How much?
    Davies–Well with all the news of fraud going on I think it maybe alot of money.
    Treder–You are trying to get a free house
    Davies–No
    Trustee–I see you have a civil case with $2.7 mm judgment.
    Davies–Yes
    Trustee-Well I need the details of who is collecting.
    Davies-Ok
    Treder–You say this is unsecured.
    Davies–Yes
    Treder–What are your arguments.
    Trustee-Stop
    Furst (atty Davies)–we have a hearing on the objection to Onewest motion for relief from automatic stay. Our position is outlined in our (Van Eck) objection.
    Trustee–You mean sell the house and pay the creditors.
    Davies–Yes.
    Treder–Treder–Treder
    Davies–Close your mouth.
    Trustee–It is ok with proceeding on the unsecured claim. I need details of the civil case.
    After the hearing while walking out. Davies and Treder have words. Alot of words. @#$%$%^^&&**(%%*(*))(*)*))((*&&(*)((&(&(fat m…..f….)@#@#$$%^^**)(
    It was conveyed to Treder (a rather Fat man) that Davies felt that the behavior of Treders foreclosure mill and others like the one in Florida risk the owners of such acts to criminal sanctions, or at least it has been conveyed as such to Davies. Davies repeated this to Mr. Treder several times in the across the street rather loud conversation.
    :):) For those screwed by NDEX WEST LLC–that one was for you.
    ny, on October 15, 2010 at 1:54 pm said:
    Where’s AlQaeda when you need them?

  25. http://www.scribd.com/doc/46231292/DAVIES-ADVERSARY-COMPLAINT-VS-DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-AS-TRUSTEE-OF-RAST-2007-A5-PAUL-NGUYEN-RJN-1-RJN-2-FILED-1-2

    ADVERSARY WITH JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 SEC PROSPECTUS, PSA JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 LAND TITLE RECORDS PAGE 491(STARTS). KILLING 2 BIRDS WITH ONE HOPEFULLY BIG STONE.

  26. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THE STATE SUPERIOR COURT OF FEDERAL ORDER AND FINDINGS OF FACT THEREOF,

    IN NON JUDICIAL STATES THE PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNER IS NOT STAYED FROM THE STATE CASE GOING FURTHER. SOME TIMES TRIS IS GOOD.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/46772075/Request-for-Judicial-Notice-CALIFORNIA-SUPERIOR-COURT-NOTICE-OF-FEDERAL-ORDER-With-Order-Inc-090697-Filed-1-12-11

  27. http://www.scribd.com/doc/46872931/Adversary-Davies-Production-of-Documents-deutsche-bank-national-trust-as-trustee-FINAL

    PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR ADVERSARY TO DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE OF THE RAST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH SERIES 2007-E, UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 1, 2007

  28. ADVERSARY INTERROGATORIES FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/46893931/Davies-Adversary-Interrogatories-1-27-11-FINAL

  29. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

    Gary Hare, ESQ. (Bar No. #86398)
    Global Capital Law, PC 17111 Beach Blvd., Suite
    #100 Huntington Beach, CA 92647
    Phone: (714) 907-4182
    Fax: (714) 807-4175
    Email: ghcmecf@gmail.com

    Attorney for Debtor and Plaintiff,
    Brian W Davies

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    In re:
    BRIAN W DAVIES,
    Debtor.
    _______________________________
    BRIAN W DAVIES,
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECUITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH SERIES 2007-E, UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 1, 2007, ITS ASSIGNS AND/OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST; and all persons claiming by, through, or under such persons, all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s title thereto; and DOES 1-150, Inclusive;
    Defendant. )
    Chapter 7

    Bankruptcy Case No. 6:10-bk-37900-TD

    Adv. Proceeding No. 6:11-ap-01001-TD

    DEBTOR’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH SERIES 2007-E, UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 1, 2007

    Date:
    Time:
    Dept: ROOM 225 RIVERSIDE
    Judge: HON. THOMAS B. DONOVAN

    DEBTOR’S REQUEST FOR REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED UPON DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/46891451/Adversary-RFA-1-14-11-Davies-With-Exhibits-1-3-FINAL

  30. Maher- how does one Legally recapture a charged-off investment? And while we all know that the fdic/other agencies are complicit in these scheme, I don’t seem to see any proof. Please elucidate. Thanks.

  31. MERS registers the divestment of a note into a marketable security marked for a duration and set under a look back period.

    expert.witness@live.com

  32. John –

    I can assure you the FDIC understands the dilema regarding foreclosure and technical morass concerning these “cyber-vision” loans.

    There is no note where its form and substance is divested of its inherent value.There cannot be a nominee granted a capacity to execute a foreclosure

    MERS is a nominee for the US government.

    Foreclosure is developing into an ad hoc procedure evolving into a means and method for restoring charged off investments.

    The material facts are the invesment was allocated to DEPOSITORS who rely on their certifcates as collateral

    One cannot foreclose on a CD or other common stock equivalents therefore the beneficiary does not exist.

    In receivership is a liquidation of “orphaned” assets removed from the investors “deposits” accounts and from the borrower “indebtedness”.

    What your witnessing is a marriage of depositor cappital and divested mortgages.

    Depositor capital + Divested mortgages = Foreclosure

    The controversy is the reunion of the contributing economic components required to bring a conventional foreclosure . . .as we remember from days gone bye.

    Talk to the FDIC or a Wall Street accountant and get a dose of Greek like you never could imagine. (“it’s all I can do to stay with these conversations”)

    It is a highly sophisticated argument with many moving pieces. The controversy is brought in a highly diverse and technically oriented argument.

    So what if the judges don’t get it as you might say ? First, read an SEC complaint …really – try it sometime. Second, I bid you this . . . .”woe to the man who portrays a federal district court judge an ignoramus”. . . . .Let the ignoramus leave the court as they entered….

    expert.witness@live.com

    Thanks Neil

  33. Soliman

    You and Neil are the best two individuals I know that would be perfect to get a site going that gives and represent the homeowners side I was in BK court on wednesday the U,S, Department of Justice Trustee for the Southern district had one of her trustees sit in on my hearing after I spent almost two hours with her I could not believe it, BUT I saw as a opportunity to not only help myself but others there is a Law Firm here in Texas Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Turner and Engel LLP the foreclosure mill here that has a separate business were they offer substitute of trustee services they dont even brother to file a assignment they just mail you their patent copy of of there product “substitute trustee notice of sale”. and that’s it they sell your home.

    Well I filed bk and just as the saying goes I listed the original lender Flagstone Lending group as the creditor, WOW here comes the forelcosure mill filing a notice of appearance and mandating that I amend my matrix and schedules to show CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC as a secured creditor.

    I came on this web site and davie brains and blew out the frame and servered a judicial notice from the Texas Attorney General office that personally advise CHASE that that type of behavior was not only violates civil laws but criminal as well.

    I objected and clearly stated that you have to have consitutional standing to file a motion in federal court I also charged them with fraud on the court because CHASE Home Finance LLC was my servicer but they were never may mortgagee.

    Well the U,S Trustee was me to amend and convert to Chapter 13, she also wants me to explained why what this law is doing is illegal.

    I have not answered that question yet because I know that it is not only going to affect my case but others that come behind me she is the trustee for the Southern District Region.

    That said I need a way to explain why a assignment is in and of itself a sign of fraud.

    Simple a clear HELP

  34. BSE

    Good question — I am finding much discrepancies in MIN numbers —- Who is the culprit????

  35. Steve

    Mr. Ross Wilbur is a distressed debt buyer — loves to purchase distressed debt at steep discount — and turn a profit. His now owned servicer “AHMSI” — loves to falsify documents in court — and “pretend” attachment to dissolved trust —- which no longer has any RIGHT to foreclosure proceeds.

    But, then again, Mr. Ross is making a nice profit for his own “investors.” Who are we to challenge his procedures??? — We have every right!!!!

    Open your books — Mr. Ross.

  36. MSoliman

    If I have a MIN number then it is no longer a note. Please explain , I need to understand.

    “The MIN is your best evidential argument for the lost note. I am telling you – MERS is your ally and proof the note was divested. . .so stop asking for counter parties to evidence a note . If its got a MIN it no longer is a note”.

  37. Elizabeth,

    Your post is extremely important. It is a link to a party who has an interest in keeping foreclosure going — as is.

    This is simply cover up of continued fraud. AGAIN, and again — need our own “institute” to tell it as it really is.

  38. More to go on Ian than just signature,

    American Home Mortgage Servicing sends letter that they are not the loan originator prior to foreclosure and that American Brokers Conduit is the originator. Turns out according to Department of Corps they always have been the same (“doing business As.”) American Home Mortgage Servicing and American Brokers Conduit filed bankruptcy at the same time (within a week of each other). Mr. Wilbur Ross bails American Home Mortgage Servicing out of bankruptcy. Sorry, American Home Mortgage Servicing still continued to service the fraudulent loans. MR. Wilbur Ross said so in article that these were bad loans.

    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2007/db2007088_157817.htm

    He pretty much claimed that borrowers were not going to make payment and that borrowers payment was more than borrowers income. Sounds like William Blacks statements doesn’t it.

    What silly is you still bait and switch the borrowers income and still wont disclose the signed income 1003 forms even after foreclosure.
    Knowing we were placed in loans designed to fail you still continued to service the loans and still elected to steal our homes.

    Sorry Mr. Wilbur Ross it appears you went out and bailed out more than you can afford.

  39. NEIL

    THERE IS ANOTHER BILL IN THE WORKS SEEKS TO CHANGE PROPERTY LAW THAT WOULD TAKE ANY HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERS A MUST READ

    http://content.thirdway.org/publications/362/Third_Way_Memo_-_Fixing_Foreclosure-gate.pdf

  40. To Soliman, ….DITTO !!! Try to comment in complete sentences.

  41. Sorry John ,

    I’m not sure what you mean ?

  42. Please be careful about some of the links added to replies on this site. Some take you to a site for so-called legal help. The email link comes up entirely different from the Web site which is supposedly connected to an attorney. Also, the Web site copy says his license is in Washington and Ohio, but the contact number is a South Carolina exchange. Just be careful.

  43. If Soliman uses the same language he uses here in court, I think he might get arrested!

  44. What is a cram down and when can’t the borrower have one in bankruptcy?

    EQUITY STRIPPING AND LOSS OF COLLATERAL . WAIT IN LINE SORT OF SPEAK. USUALLY ONLY ON SECOND MORTGAGES

    M.SOLIMAN
    expert.witness@live.com

  45. Neva, on January 14, 2011 at 9:10 am said:

    Under contract law, anything illegal in the contract, voids the entire contract. If one does not equal one, then one can’t somehow become two.
    1=1=1 not 1=1=2
    WELL——————-NO SO FAST —————–

    People , understand capitalization and how it works

    RAISING CAPITAL AND SHIFTING ASSETS AND LIABILITIES TO AND FROM . EXAMPLE

    Lender Balance Sheet
    Assets 100,000 Loans Held
    Liabilities 100,000 Credit Lines
    —————————
    >>>0.00 Net Equity in Loans
    …………………………………………………………………………………

    QSPE Balance Sheet
    Assets / 100,000 Deposits
    Liabilities / 100,000 Credit Lines
    ————-
    Net Worth 0.00 Net Equity in Loans
    Investors Capital Account
    ————————————–
    Shares 1,000 X 100 Price per Share
    100,000 Capitalization

    ………………………………………………………………………………..

    REVISED SPE
    Lender Balance Sheet
    ASSETS $ 100,000 / Loans Held
    Liabilities $ 0.00
    —————————–
    Net Worth $100,000

    *********Free and Clear *************

    Its called moving the liabilities off balance sheet .
    De recognition under GAAP / FAS 140 / SFAS 140-3

  46. What is a cramdown and when can’t the borrower have one in bankruptcy?

    Lenders dread hearing about cramdowns and lienstripping, but since many borrowers have been unable to obtain a loan modification, the next step could be a bankruptcy reorganization to restructure their debt.

    During the plan process, the debtor can propose a reduced interest rate and see if the lender will consent. Sometimes, a junior lender may be wholly unsecured and can be “stripped” during this process. Depending on the bankruptcy court’s local procedures, the debtor will either bring an adversary proceeding or file a motion to value the collateral.

    Setting the value will determine whether there is equity and whether the lenders are secured.

    In the recent case of In re: JOEL RODRIQUEZ LOPEZ, Chapter 13, Debtor. Case No. 10-47520 EDJ. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California. November 24, 2010, the debtor did exactly that. Wells Fargo had a loan secured by debtor’s primary residence in Brentwood, California.

    Apparently the property was underwater and Debtor filed the motion to value the collateral in the hopes of limits Wells Fargo’s loan to only how much the property was actually worth, ie, if the property was worth $300k, but the loan was $400k, the Debtor was hoping to cram down the $100k so that $100k of the debt would be unsecured, and thereby paid out differently by the plan, perhaps pennies on the dollar.

    Sounds great for the debtor, right? Only one problem–as the court noted “Bankruptcy Code § 506(a)(1) provides that, “[a]n allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest … is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property…” 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1).1 A secured claim is thereby limited to the value of the collateral that secures it. But, § 1322(b)(2) provides that a debtor may not, through the chapter 13 plan, modify the rights of a claim “secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence ….” In other words, the first priority lien against the debtor’s residence is exempt from the so-called “cramdown” provision of § 506(a)(1).”

    So, nice try, but no cigar in cramming down a 1st position loan. The borrower is stuck. The lender does not have to offer a loan mod, the lender does not have to approve a short sale and the lender does not have to eat a cramdown.

  47. Question: I made a settlement agreement with lender had a mortgage via line of credit. They assured my they had the original note. I have completed my end of the settlement agreement but now the Bank won’t return the original note sent copies signed by bank officer certifying they were copies of the original. I don’t think they have them. Isn’t this fraud and default of the agreement. Anyone have case law on this? Under UCC “presentment” I believe they have to return the Note>

  48. When asking for the chain of title does it go back to the original note when you first bought the house up to present or from the last refi note to present that has to be presented? Does the original note get endorsements up to present or when it is paid in full after the refi does the chain stop and start again? I can’t seem to find reference to this info. In GA. Thanks.

  49. Neil,
    I’m in a situation where the original note has just been presented, with a rubber-stamped indorsement in blank by a REAL prior VP of originator. The sig itself is part of the rubber-stamp. From what I can find, that’s o.k. so long as the sig person has given authority, and in some cases, is present. Hard to prove in any case.

    Aside from all that, there appears to be no assignments (yet provided) to the Trust. Yet, it’s the Trustee for the Trust foreclosing.

    The original note was presented to me by plaintiff’s attorney outside of court. (hint: do they not wish to present it to the court?) Documents were retained by plaintiff atty.

    Question: Think I’d like to ask the court to take possession of the ‘bearer’ instrument until such time as the true, legal owner of the instrument can be determined.

    So, in court, what can I do to ask the judge for the court to take it from plaintiff atty and preserve my protection from fraudulent use of the bearer instrument? Injunction?

    This is still pre-trial, I’ve got them tied up with a motion to dismiss on capacity, so an Answer hasn’t even yet been filed.

  50. Under contract law, anything illegal in the contract, voids the entire contract. If one does not equal one, then one can’t somehow become two.
    1=1=1 not 1=1=2 http://www.challengingforeclosure.com Sirak@challengingforeclosure.com

  51. Steve- find a recognized forensic handwriting analyst- will cost $200 or so. For an experienced, trained analyst it is SO EASY to identify forged signatures-then you have something to go on.

  52. Can anyone please answer this? Can the Deed of Trust chain be “fixed” by the lender if the note has not been securitized? The note went from Party A to Party B to Party C. Assume Party C did not securitize it.

    Recorded Deed of Trust is in name of MERS as nominee for Party A, no assignment after that.

    NO foreclosure action is occurring. Can Party C NOW go to A and get A to assign Deed of Trust to B and B to assign Deed of Trust to C, thereby correcting the chain? Hard, yes, but legal?

    If not legal, exactly why not? Thanks so much for any input.

  53. Would the people providing the alleged custody or the handling of my obligation “NOTE” notify me that they will in fact destroy the document and that a new legal vehicle for which my signature was never a part of be used to assert their rights?

    Securitization is just a fancy word created to hide the fact that this is just a pyramid scheme, that it is full of fraud, and it is just not sustainable through time.

    Our free market system has to go through booms and busts, it is the nature of the capitalist system. It is its birth defect. We can have laws and regulations to delay, mitigate and even reduce risks. However, when you look at the securitization process, all the side deals, all the insurance policies, and the way the documents went, up, down and sideways the process, there is only one conclusion, it is a fraudulent scheme, and it would have collapsed regardless of whether these crooks generated sub prime loans or not. I was just a matter of time.

    Our congress, our white house, our state legislators, our judiciary, our regulatory agencies are all guilty of collusion. There is no difference between this mess and the mess left behind the collapse of a pyramid scheme. OOPS!, sorry, there is a big difference, we lose our homes, and they continue with the party and the intentional dilution

    I now this not a technical argument, or a legal argument, I wish I could be so eloquent and well prepared and educated.

    One last thing, I am just amazed at the new White House Chief of Staff a J.P. Morgan Chase Executive, So many great Business and Political persons out there and our President could only think of a BANKSTER. There go your chances to get an honest assessment by the White House about this growing debacle.

  54. If the lender decides to send the signed copy of the note which I don’t believe is my signature what good is it receiving it approx. a year after a non-judicial foreclosure?

  55. BSE is referring to its contribution value like a check issued and cashed.

    GAAP will permit either 1.) a direct pledge of the note to create a bond. 2) The sale of the note 3) tender of the note for other consideration.

    1) alleges the note is lost to Obligee custodial or bailee
    2) The note is lost to the Purchaser.
    3) Alleges the note is registered into another recognized marketable shape of form …..

    For #3 you need an national recording system, or means for mortgage registrations for fictionalized electronic registry citing ownership or a “Mortgage Electronic Registry System”.

    The MIN is your best evidential argument for the lost note. I am telling you – MERS is your ally and proof the note was divested. . .so stop asking for counter parties to evidence a note . If its got a MIN it no longer is a note.

    Lost my Keys is like Lost my Dog.
    But Lost all my money in Vegas . . .
    At least the top two you may get back!
    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    (What gives . . .NG ?)

  56. I filed a chapter 13. Wels Fargo filed a proof of claim
    of 150,000. We objected and listed value at $75,000. and objected to standing. Notarized infromation was filed stating the note and mortgage was never sold to Wells Fargo and the propert was listed as owned by Fanie Mae. Wells Fargo is willing to accepted my value if we drop our objection to standing. Should we accept?

  57. I filed a chapter 13. Wells Fargo filed a proof of claim as owner of both note and mortgage on one of our invesment properties, We objected to their claim of standing and also filed a property valuation of approximately 50% of their claimed amount. We filed notarized informaion that stated the note and mortgage was not sold to Wells Fargo and was listed as a Fannie Mae owned loan. Comment

  58. Neil – Another excellant comment ! but the point is that the note is destroyed by operation of law.

  59. Is this article the same thing as saying securitization results in a change in terms to the original mortgage which means the mortgage obligor must approve in writing every time there is a change in securitization?

  60. Interesting as always.

    And speaking of “the note”, any news yet of what happened in Bailey vs Bank of New York Melon?

    There is no news anywhere on January 13, so I take it BoNY was able to produce the custodial file?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: