REPORTS COMING IN THAT BOA WILL BUY AIG TO HIDE THE TRANSACTIONS

Under the guise of an IPO, BOA and others will put AIG to sleep. Sources close to both BOA and AIG have informed me that they believe that, after a round of meetings, the strategy was hatched. Apparently there are items of information that would be highly destructive to the the banks’ position regarding viability of the mortgages, obligations, notes, and mortgage backed securities.

I would suggest that this information be researched and corroborated if possible. Help Needed.

FROM Carrie Bekker: Neil, here are some links to recent articles

Banks Make Grab for AIG Pie
WSJ — 1/14/11
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576080350510331750.html

Banks Jockeying to Lead AIG’s ‘Re-IPO’
CNBC Friday, 7 Jan 2011
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40965683/Banks_Jockeying_to_Lead_AIG_s_Re_IPO


22 Responses

  1. Well aint that just dandy, an IPO of a taxpayer bailed out/owned company! When do we the people get to see the book’s of the investment viability of AIG. Has the prospectus been posted online @ any government sponsored site so the beleaguered taxpayer can read it? Lets see if they give the “average American” a slice at this pie!

  2. Deb wynn

    Footnote: “anyone want to specultate on whether JPM as a servicer is liable for FDCPA violations? How about FCRA?”

    IF servicer acquired legal title while loan was in default — they are subject to the FDCPA. But, more likely, servicer is servicing for another party — that they will NOT disclose. Thus, servicer did not acquire legal title — and is not subject to FDCPA. But, then WHO is subject to FDCPA — unidentified party??? According to TILA — servicer must disclose the creditor –but must ask them first. And, creditor is not the trust/trustee — they only have a right to current cash payments. So — guess servicer is in violation of TILA — and for “covering” violation of undisclosed party – by not disclosing the identity of the current creditor as required under the FDCPA — and by the TILA.

    As far as FCRA — if servicer is reporting — they are responsible.

  3. FIRST STANDING-RELATED VICTORY IN VIRGINIA: Aurora’s claim to title thrown out for lack of standing!

    http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/first-standing-related-victory-in.html

  4. So yeh. But does it restore trust here or overseas

  5. Jamies not looking good

    Foreclosureblues
    Adam Levitin…Foreclosures in Violation of the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act
    January 18, 2011 @ 4:30 PM › Foreclosureblues
    ↓ Leave a comment
    Foreclosures in Violation of the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act

    Yesterday, January 17, 2011, 4:51:33 PM | Adam Levitin
    A few months ago, after the robosigning scandal broke, the banks assured us that they had done a thorough review of their foreclosure processes and everything was in order.  I seem to recall JPMorgan Chase’s CEO Jaime Dimon stating in an Oct. 13, 2010 earnings call, “for the most part by the time you get to the end of the process we’re not evicting people who deserve to stay in their house.” Thus, by mid-fall, the banks had sounded the all clear sign, and said it was safe to go back in the waters.

    And yet now we learn that JPMorgan Chase has been engaged in wide-scale violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, including overcharging active duty military members on their mortgages and wrongfully foreclosing on their homes.  That’s a lot of egg on JPM’s face right now.  I guess, given the scope of JPMorgan’s foreclosures, Dimon’s “for the most part” statement is true, but it hardly instills confidence that our foreclosure process is working properly.

    Banking is a business based on trust, and the farther we go down the foreclosuregate rabbit hole, the harder it becomes to believe the banks.  How many times are we going to keep believing the “there’s nothing to see here folks” line?  Can we trust Jaime Dimon when he tells us that the situation is under control?  What happens to our financial institutions when they lose their credibility with the public?

    Footnote:  anyone want to specultate on whether JPM as a servicer is liable for FDCPA violations? How about FCRA?

    Share this:
    Email
    Digg
    Print
    Facebook
    Reddit
    StumbleUpon

    Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

    The Testimony of Adam Levitin by Karl Denninger…REPOST FOR RELEVANCE
    Adam Levitin…The Investigative Process
    Adam Levitin Tells Congress: Citigroup, Bank Of America, JPMorgan & Wells F…
    SCRA Relief for Obligations
    Categories: Uncategorized

  6. msoliman,

    Sense sarcasm in your comment — but, unfortunately that is all judges go by. Understand your reference to Enron and barges — and completely agree as to your focus on bogus accounting. In addition, there is almost non-existent case law on “true sales.”

    Problem is that we that we can barely get out of state courts regarding foreclosure — and if we do, most district court and Circuit Court decisions address technicalities rather than substance.

    Did you read the Utah case I posted below? Saw the complaint and attorney does a good job on question of funding — not only is entire case dismissed in federal court but, also, the attorney is sanctioned!!

    The case against Enron was by the SEC. Never mind that we cannot get SEC to investigate for borrowers (authority is for investors), we cannot get any government agency to prosecute. And, much could be exposed in SEC investor suits — if there were not settlements before much is actually revealed.

    In addition, as you have pointed, our government has changed accounting rules to accommodate the fraud — and they provided bail-outs to cover-up fraud. To complicate all, much information is not available to us due to deregulation – compliments of Congress.

    We are stuck with judges who are very perplexed about securitization and accounting (recall one judge – with feet up on bench) stating — “judges are not very good at accounting.” So we have to use whatever we can to get their attention to begin with. And, the only way of doing that is by past decisions that show something is very wrong. This is why MA case is so important. Along with Todd case in NJ — know of few other cases where judge will tackle securitization — at least not at the foreclosure level. Investors may get this attention (with the backing of SEC and/or large law firms — but, as stated above, most cases are settled so there is no admission of guilt. Perhaps it is the magnitude of the mortgage origination and foreclosure fraud (much larger than Enron) that precludes a meaningful investigation by any government agency. But, this should not be an excuse.

    It would be very helpful if you were able to initiate a complaint (maybe class action) that addresses the issues you discuss. A favorable decision would be something borrowers could use as precedent. And, if we could ever get a case to the Supreme Court of the US, I am confident that the decision would be favorable for homeowners.

    Believe you are very intelligent, and I respect that. If you can get some court exposure on the issues you discuss — I take my hat off to you!!!

  7. Anonymous

    Citing Stare Decisis is a huge consideration to contemplate. I respect your rationale here and take my hat off to you …much respect.

    I often contemplated the doctrine of precedent where it arises in volume – decisions that actually oppose that set forth under GAAP and even the IRS code.

    Case in point – No one has ever challenged my cited case for “Power Plant Barges off Coast of Nigeria”. The barges were collateral used in a sham sale involving obvious breach of GAAP SFAS 140 -3 controlling interest and FIN 105 REPOS.

    Its such a great case to get across your point.

    Merrill Lynch executives were indicted and criminal convictions prevailed against of the parties involved. This event was a side bar born from testimony in the ENRON case. (CFO who had turned states evidence on a plea bargain.with US prosecutors.)The damning mea culpa from mouth of the south CFO Fastow opens this can of worms against four Merill exec’s. sending them to jail with the media and public saying WTF (wheres the Foul)

    THE MERRILL CONVICTIONS WERE OVER- TURNED (I believe) I also REGULARLY recite the Craig Electronic criminal matter (1996 trial / check that ) and convictions falling under accounting irregularities that were overturned by the appellate courts.

    READ IT WITH A EYE TOWARDS WHAT THEY DID AND LENDERS SELLING LOANS OVER AND OVER AS SOME ALLEGE.

    What has me losing faith in a judicial system and Counsel on both sides is the notion of “Ignorance prevails. “Ignorance is Absolute and Absolute Ignorance prevails in a Courtroom” That and Judges are for the most part a maple bar short of a half dozen .

    Don’t buy it and I will tell you I read a District Courts opinion and ruling on a recent matter dealing with the FDIC repudiation powers.

    This Justice was brilliant in analysis of the facts leading to the banks demise and circumstances similar to our endeavors here . This black robe was all over the facts and proffered a technical four point ruling most attorneys i know wouldn’t easily decipher.

    Coincidently he ruled against the FDIC demand to “Stay” a State Appellate court tentative ruling . . . That’s good for the Mass decision ….

    M. Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  8. Neil, here are some links to recent articles

    Banks Make Grab for AIG Pie
    WSJ — 1/14/11
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576080350510331750.html

    Banks Jockeying to Lead AIG’s ‘Re-IPO’
    CNBC Friday, 7 Jan 2011
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/40965683/Banks_Jockeying_to_Lead_AIG_s_Re_IPO

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/40965683/Banks_Jockeying_to_Lead_AIG_s_Re_IPO

  9. M.Soliman

    Completely behind you as to bogus accounting. Nevertheless, judges decide cases on precedent law and statutes. Have to find case law that backs your premise — otherwise, issue for AGs and Congress.
    Judges are fixated on Stare decisis — what you are talking about has never been decided. Nevertheless, believe AGs should be listening to you. .

  10. Jeff

    Utah — land of confusion.

    Think this attorney needs help — see below.

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
    COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY
    ADVOCATES,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    CITIMORTGAGE, INC., MORTGAGE
    ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
    SYSTEMS, INC., FEDERAL NATIONAL
    MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, AND JOHN
    DOES OF UNKNOWN NUMBER,
    Defendants.
    MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
    ORDER, AND ORDER TO SHOW
    CAUSE
    Case No. 2:10-CV-00885-CW
    Judge Clark Waddoups
    INTRODUCTION
    This action is brought before the court on removal from state court. Plaintiff makes
    various claims, as stated infra, stemming from a quitclaim deed it obtained on June 16, 2010.
    Plaintiff’s contention is that Defendants cannot foreclose on the process because any such power
    they may have been granted by the previous owner was destroyed in the securitization process of
    the corresponding debt. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
    upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff moves to remand this case back to state court on the
    theory that John Doe defendants destroy diversity. The court grants all motions in favor of
    Defendants, and orders Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for
    bringing a frivolous motion.
    Case 2:10-cv-00885-CW Document 19 Filed 01/12/11 Page 1 of 9
    2
    BACKGROUND
    The facts relating to Plaintiff are surprisingly few. Plaintiff alleges that it purchased a
    quitclaim deed for the subject property from Pamela Watson (the “predecessor”) on June 16,
    2010, which it recorded on June 21, 2010 in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office.1 On July
    13, 2010, successor Trustee Paul M. Halliday, Jr. posted the Notice of Trustee’s Sale on the
    subject property with a date of sale listed as August 12, 2010.2 For the purpose of providing
    context in deciding the parties’ motions, the court also finds the following facts surrounding
    predecessor’s interest in the property.
    Predecessor executed a note in favor of CitiMortgage, Inc. (the “Lender”)3 and delivered
    a deed of trust, conveying the property in trust to First American Title. The trust deed was
    recorded on February 14, 2008.4 The beneficiary named in the trust deed was Mortgage
    Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”), acting solely as nominee for Lender and
    Lender’s successors and assigns, and the successors and assigns of MERS.5 The debt was then
    sold by CitiMortgage to Fannie Mae as an intermediary step in the securitization of the debt.6
    The debt was then pooled and sold to investors.7
    On April 27, 2010, an Assignment of the trust deed was recorded wherein beneficial
    interest in the trust deed was assigned to Lender.8 There is no allegation that Lender did not
    authorize or adopt, nor was unable to authorize or adopt the substitution of Trustee naming Paul
    1 (Compl., ¶ 34.)
    2 (Compl., ¶ 57.)
    3 (Compl., ¶ 36.)
    4 (Compl., ¶ 37.)
    5 (Compl., ¶ 38.)
    6 (Compl., ¶ 45.)
    7 (Compl., ¶ 46.)
    8 (Compl., ¶ 56.)
    Case 2:10-cv-00885-CW Document 19 Filed 01/12/11 Page 2 of 9
    3
    M. Halliday, Jr., or the issuance of the Notice of Default and Election to Sell the property as
    administered by Mr. Halliday. Both occurred on April 12, 2010.9 On July 13, 2010, Mr.
    Halliday posted the Notice of Trustee’s Sale on the subject property with a sale date of August
    12, 2010.10 This action was submitted to the state court on August 3, 2010, and is now before
    this federal court on removal.
    I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
    Plaintiff objects to the removal of its case to federal court and now moves to remand it
    back to state court. Plaintiff’s theory is that by including “John Does of Unknown Number” in
    its complaint, this court now lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 11 The court rejects Plaintiff’s
    misrepresentation of the governing statutes.12 In addition, the court also rejects Plaintiff’s use of
    inapposite caselaw.13 Plaintiff’s contentions are without merit, and Plaintiff’s motion to remand
    is denied. 14
    9 (Compl., ¶¶ 54-55.)
    10 (Compl., ¶ 57.)
    11 (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Remand, 1) (Dkt. No. 10).
    12 Plaintiff asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) applies to “filing a Notice of Removal.” To the contrary, the text does
    not use either the word “filing” or “notice.” Rather, it states that “[f]or purposes of removal . . . the citizenship of
    defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.” Moreover, the removal language requires the
    receiving district court to have original jurisdiction, but specifically excludes defendants of fictitious names in
    considering that jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiff’s characterization of § 1441 in order to justify
    its broader contention. See (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Remand, 1).
    13 In response to Defendant’s opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel attached a copy of Commonwealth Property Advocates,
    LLC v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-86, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42228, at *1 (D. Utah Apr. 29, 2010),
    as decided by this court. Commonwealth considered a plaintiff whom sought to bring suit in federal court on
    diversity grounds. As such, it is inapplicable to this case because there was no removal to federal court under 28
    U.S.C. § 1441. Plaintiff’s counsel is also reminded that simply attaching cases without citation or explanation is
    unhelpful.
    14 Plaintiff argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) gives a plaintiff the ability to avoid federal court by simply naming John
    Doe defendants, even after the defendant successfully removes a case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. As a
    note, such an action would do little more than unnecessarily open a door to abuse. If accepted, Plaintiff’s contention
    would only encourage plaintiffs to include John Doe defendants to purposefully avoid the federal courts, and thereby
    strip defendants of the protections that the federal judiciary was intended to preserve.
    Case 2:10-cv-00885-CW Document 19 Filed 01/12/11 Page 3 of 9
    4
    II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
    The court finds this motion to remand to be frivolous. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel is
    ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and ordered to pay Defendants’ costs
    related to this motion to remand, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c)(3). It would be helpful to
    the court if counsel were to cite authority for the proposition that a plaintiff whose case has been
    removed to federal court may defeat diversity jurisdiction by joining John Doe defendants.
    Counsel should also address how he believes he has met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
    11(b)(2). Counsel is ordered to respond no later than 10 days from the date of this order.
    III. MOTION TO DISMISS
    A. Standard for Motion to Dismiss
    When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court “must accept all the
    well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and must construe them in the light most
    favorable to the plaintiff.”15 The court need not, however, consider allegations which are
    conclusory, or that “do not allege the factual basis” for the claim.16 Moreover, the court is not
    bound by a complaint’s legal conclusions, deductions, and opinions couched as facts.17
    Although all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor, a
    complaint will only survive a motion to dismiss if it contains “enough facts to state a claim to
    relief that is plausible on its face.”18 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
    factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
    15 David v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 101 F.3d 1344, 1352 (10th Cir. 1996).
    16 Brown v. Zavaras, 63 F.3d 967, 972 (10th Cir. 1995); see also Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
    1991) (“[C]onclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which
    relief can be based.”).
    17 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted).
    18 Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
    Case 2:10-cv-00885-CW Document 19 Filed 01/12/11 Page 4 of 9
    5
    for the misconduct alleged.”19 Under this standard, a claim need not be probable, but there must
    be facts showing more than a “sheer possibility” of wrongdoing.20
    B. Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action: Injunctive Relief
    Plaintiff’s first claim appears to be premised on the notion that Utah Code Ann. § 57-1-35
    provides that when lenders transfers the note for securitization, it loses the rights granted in the
    trust deed and the authority to foreclose. Plaintiff alleges that the Trust Deed states:
    Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests
    granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with
    law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and
    assigns) has the right to exercise any or all of these interests, including, but not
    limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the property; and to take any action
    required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this
    Security Instrument.21
    Echoing its previous language in Marty v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys., the
    court rejects Plaintiff’s interpretation of § 57-1-35 and dismisses Plaintiff’s claim:
    Plaintiff offers no evidence or legal argument that MERS cannot contract for the
    right and power of foreclosure regardless of who holds the note, or the beneficial
    interest under the trust deed. Nor does Plaintiff demonstrate that such rights are
    actually “lost by transfer of the debt.” Utah Code Ann. §57-1-35 does not address
    whether the parties can agree by contract to have someone other than the
    beneficial owner of the debt act on behalf of that owner to enforce rights granted
    in a trust deed.22
    19 Aschroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
    20 Id.
    21 (Compl., ¶ 40.)
    22 Marty v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys., No. 1:10-cv-33-CW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111209, at *15 (D.
    Utah Oct. 19, 2010).
    Case 2:10-cv-00885-CW Document 19 Filed 01/12/11 Page 5 of 9
    6
    C. Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action – Estoppel/Declaratory Judgment
    Plaintiff contends that “refusal of the Servicer, upon demand, to disclose [the interest of
    any assignees is binding on the assignees and as a result] defendants, and such assignees, are
    estopped to assert any present default on the debt, or power of sale under the Trust Deed.”23
    Under Utah law, three elements are required to prove equitable estoppel:
    [F]irst, a statement, admission, act, or failure to act by one party inconsistent with a claim
    later asserted; next, reasonable action or inaction by the other party taken or not taken on
    the basis of the first party’s statement, admission, act or failure to act; and, third, injury to
    the second party that would result from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate
    such statement, admission, act, or failure to act.24
    Adopting its language in Marty, the court similarly rejects Plaintiff’s contention:
    No claim is made that Defendants acted or failed to act inconsistently with a claim later
    asserted, that Plaintiff relied on a statement of Defendants, or that injury arose from a
    contradiction or repudiation of any such statement or action. Rather, Plaintiff simply
    alleges that a demand for information was made and that Defendants failed to respond.
    Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that could feasibly fit within the estoppel framework.
    Therefore, this cause of action is dismissed in favor of all Defendants.25
    D. Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action – Declaratory Judgment
    Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated Utah law in various respects. Plaintiff contends
    that the Substitution of Trustee violated Utah Code Ann. § 57-1-22(1)(a), and that the Notice of
    Default violated § 57-1-24.26 Defendant also alleges that successor Beneficiary CitiMortgage,
    Inc.’s Assignment of Deed of Trust was not issued by defendant Beneficiary MERS, thereby
    invalidating the assignment.27 Plaintiff argues that this alleged assignment was in violation of
    23 (Compl., ¶¶ 68, 70.)
    24 Youngblood v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2007 UT 28, ¶14, 158 P.3d 1088 (internal citations omitted).
    25 Marty, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111209, at *6.
    26 (Compl., ¶¶ 75-76.)
    27 (Compl., ¶ 76.)
    Case 2:10-cv-00885-CW Document 19 Filed 01/12/11 Page 6 of 9
    7
    Utah Code Ann. § 70A-3-302(b).28 Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that the foreclosure was done
    without the power of sale pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 57-1-23.29
    The court first notes Plaintiff’s poor articulation of these assertions. Indeed, they are
    merely conclusory with little explanation of how the violations occurred. Even so, the
    commonality between all of these allegations is that they beg the question of the enforceability of
    the trust deed, in view of its alleged separation from the note. Because the court has found that
    the authority to foreclose is not necessarily barred simply because a note has been securitized, as
    explained supra, Plaintiff’s contentions fail. Nothing suggests that the substitution of trustee, the
    notice of default, or the foreclosure were otherwise done in violation of the Utah Code.30 Lastly,
    the court also finds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts to maintain a claim under Utah Code Ann.
    § 70A-3-302 regarding holder in due course. This cause of action is therefore dismissed.
    E. Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action: Quiet Title
    Plaintiff alleges that the trust deed “has been unenforceable by defendants from the first
    transfer of the debt . . . .”31 As such, it appears that Plaintiff’s quite title action is premised on
    the notion that if Defendants’ claim to title is successfully challenged, then by default, title must
    be quieted in the plaintiff’s favor. This proposition misstates the law. “To succeed in an action
    to quiet title to real estate, a plaintiff must prevail on the strength of his own claim to title and not
    the weakness of a defendant’s title or even its total lack of title.”32 However, Plaintiff offers
    nothing to prove the strength of its claim, but simply attacks the perceived weaknesses of
    28 (Compl., ¶ 77.)
    29 (Compl., ¶ 79.)
    30 See generally, Marty, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111209.
    31 (Compl., ¶ 93.)
    32 Collard v. Nagle Constr., 2002 UT App 306, ¶ 18, 57 P.3d 603 (quoting Church v. Meadows Springs Ranch
    Corp., 659 P.2d 1045, 1048-49 (Utah 1983)).
    Case 2:10-cv-00885-CW Document 19 Filed 01/12/11 Page 7 of 9
    8
    Defendants’ title.33 This failure alone defeats Plaintiff’s claim. Second, as explained supra, the
    attack on Defendants’ claim to title are without merit. Lastly, “[predecessor] is still in default on
    the loan and it is this that clouds [the] title . . . .”34 Accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiff’s
    argument and dismisses this claim.
    F. Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action: Refund, Fees and Costs
    Plaintiff claims that “Defendant Servicer and Trustee’s pretense of authority to foreclose,
    or attempt to foreclose, under the Trust Deeds was fraudulent.”35 Additionally, Plaintiff states
    that “Defendant Servicer’s assertions to the Court herein that they hold and are entitled to
    enforce the obligations of the Notes would constitute a fraud upon the Court, subjecting
    defendants to sanctions and imposition of fees and costs under §78B-5-825, U.C.A. (1953).”36
    Plaintiff then demands “fees and costs, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee . . . and [a
    reimbursement of Plaintiff’s] fees and charges under the debt and Trust Deeds.”37 “As dubious
    as they are, the court need not consider the merits of Plaintiff’s argument. Where the other claims
    have been dismissed, any possible remedy is likewise extinguished, and this cause of action
    against all Defendants is dismissed.”38
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.39 Defendants’
    Motion to dismiss is GRANTED.40 Plaintiff’s counsel is also hereby ordered to show cause why
    33 (Compl., ¶¶ 88, 90.)
    34 Marty, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111209, at *28.
    35 (Compl., ¶ 94.)
    36 (Compl., ¶ 95.)
    37 (Compl., ¶ 96.)
    38 Marty, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111209, at *29.
    39 (Dkt. No. 9.)
    Case 2:10-cv-00885-CW Document 19 Filed 01/12/11 Page 8 of 9
    9
    he should not be sanctioned. Such response shall be in conformity with the instruction given
    herein.
    DATED this 12th day of January, 2011.
    BY THE COURT:
    ____________________________________
    Clark Waddoups
    United States District Judge
    40 (

  11. TO ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA OF IRVINE–LOS ANGELES, THERE WILL BE A WORK SHOP PUT ON BY DANIEL EDSTROM.

    GUEST APPEARANCES BY BRIAN DAVIES AND PAUL NGUYEN. WE WILL SHARE THE LATEST THINKING AND ACTIVITIES IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AND ESPECIALLY BANKRUPTCY

    IF ANYONE IS IN THIS AREA AND WANTS TO UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE ART ARGUMENTS FOR HOMEOWNERS I SUGGEST YOU COME.

    THE DETAILS OF THE DAY EVENTS WILL BE:
    Workshop Information

    This is a comprehensive 1-day workshop to get you quickly up to speed in understanding the mechanics of securitization and the financial meltdown

    Objectives:

    * Securitization in relation to Residential Mortgages from the period 2001 to 2009 will be studied in detail to understand what is occurring with homeowners today and what can be done to stem the rising tide of foreclosures. We are not lawyers and we do not provide legal advice.

    Major Topics

    * Mortgage Lending History * Securitization * Prospectus, Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the Trust Agreement * Endorsements and Assignments * Proprietary Currency, Appraisals and Ratings * Application of Law in Motion Practice * Advances and other Credit Enhancements * Trusts and Special Purpose Entities * Q&A Session * and much more!
    Designed for:

    * Attorneys and legal professionals involved in quiet title, foreclosure, bankruptcy and other types of title litigation.

    Workshop Agenda
    8:30-9:15 Introduction
    9:15-10:00 The Securitization Process
    10:00-10:15 Morning Break
    10:15-11:00 Prospectus, Pooling/Servicing and Trust Agreements
    11:00-11:45 Discovery
    11:45 to 1:00 Lunch
    1:00-1:45 Proprietary Currency, Appraisals and Ratings
    1:45-2:30 Application of Law and Motion Practice
    2:30-2:45 Afternoon Break
    2:45-3:30 Credit Enhancements in Action
    3:30-4:15 Trusts and Special Purpose Entities
    4:15-5:00 Closing Q&A

    ** Schedule subject to change without notice **

    Thanks,
    Dan Edstrom
    dmedstrom@dtc-systems.com
    http://www.dtc-systems.net
    Office: 530.392.4639
    Home Office: 530.887.1200
    Cell: 916.207.6706

  12. Sorry if this is a repost:

    How accurate are property records?

    By Tom Harvey

    The Salt Lake Tribune

    Published: January 16, 2011 04:41PM
    Updated: January 16, 2011 01:01AM

    Chris Detrick | The Salt Lake Tribune

    Walter Keane poses for a portrait at his office Friday January 7, 2011. Keane has filed lawsuit that resulted in homeowners getting title to their property even if they owed someone money because of flaws introduced into the nation’s property recording system by an entity created by the Mortgage Bankers Association.

    A Utah court case in which the owner of a Draper townhouse got clear title to the property, even though he still owed $132,000 on it, raises new legal and financial questions about a property-records database created by mortgage bankers.

    The award of a title free of liens means that whoever owns the promissory note on the Draper property — likely a group of faraway investors — no longer has the right to foreclose to collect on a delinquent loan. Indeed, the townhouse owner has sold the property and kept the money. Those who own the promissory note probably don’t even know what occurred.

    Decisions such as the one 3rd District Judge Glen Iwasaki handed down in the Draper case could have a big impact as the state wends its way through hundreds of lawsuits involving foreclosures, loans on properties for more than they’re worth and predatory lending practices that led Utahns to lose their homes as the real-estate bubble burst.

    Quiet title • Last year, the owner of the Draper property contacted attorney Walter T. Keane to help him deal with lenders, though Keane won’t say what the problem was and the owner declined an interview request.

    Keane filed what’s called a “quiet title action,” a lawsuit in which the owner seeks clear title to a property free of liens by lenders or others.

    In Utah, when you take out a mortgage loan to buy a home, you sign a promissory note held by the lender and a deed of trust that is recorded at the county recorder’s office. The promissory note gives the holder the right to collect payments on the loan. The recording of the deed of trust gives the lender the right to foreclose on the property if you default on the loan.

    A trustee appointed by the lender also is recorded with the county and actually holds legal title to your property subject to the conditions of the trust deed.

    The lawsuit over the title to the townhouse named Garbett Mortgage and Citibank FSB as the holders of promissory notes as recorded on trust deeds filed with the recorder’s office. Integrated Title Services was listed as trustee of the Garbett Mortgage trust deed, while First American Title was the trustee of the CitiBank trust deed.

    Trust deed tag-along • But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

    MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

    The new arrangement greased the way for mortgages to be packaged together and sold to investors who were relieved of the need under the traditional system to record the true owner of the promissory notes and to pay the county recording fees, which average around $35. Attorneys charge MERS is largely an instrument to avoid paying fees every time a promissory note is sold and resold and eventually packaged with others and owned by group of investors.

    During the latter part of the real-estate boom, hundreds of thousands of subprime loans were packaged and sold using the MERS system. MERS has registered about 31 million loans, the company’s chief executive said in congressional testimony in November. CEO R.K. Arnold also said in a 2009 deposition that the system had saved its members an estimated $2.4 billion that would have gone to county governments.

    Who’s the beneficiary? • Under the state’s quiet title laws, Keane said he did not have to name MERS or serve it legal papers in the lawsuit because it was not the legal owner of title to the property. Those were title companies. In addition, attorneys contend, MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” or holder of the promissory note because it readily has admitted it has no financial interest in any notes or mortgages.

    Normally, a trustee named in a trust deed has a legal duty in Utah to the entity that holds the promissory note and for fair dealing with the homeowner. But in the townhouse case, First American Title filed a response to the quiet title action saying that it had no idea who had the right to collect payments on the promissory note, nor did it admit to knowing any other basic information about the property.

    “The fact of the matter is First American Title doesn’t know who the beneficiary of the trust deed is and basically they disavow any interest in it,” Keane said. “It’s an acknowledgement [the recording system on this property is] a fiction, that they don’t have any real interest in it.”

    Garbett Mortgage also told the court it no longer held an interest in the property. Integrated Title never filed a response to the lawsuit but did withdraw as a trustee with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office.

    “Considering the owner of the property [the title companies who were trustees] failed to dispute the matter, and further considering that the original lender claims no further interest, the court nullified the trust deeds prior to setting any type of trial date,” Keane said.

    So in the four months that the process took, the owner was able to gain title and deny the owners of his loan the ability to foreclose on the property for nonpayment. That means the promissory note owned by investors may be worth far less than they paid for it because it is no longer backed by an asset.

    Record reliability • MERS spokeswoman Karmelo Lejarde said MERS actually added reliability to the system of county recording offices.

    “Prior to the creation of MERS [when servicers routinely held the mortgage lien for the note owner], the information in the public land records was not accurate due to delays in recording assignments or missing assignments that never got recorded,” she said in e-mail that appears to be a boilerplate response to questions about MERS’ role in the nation’s property registration system.

    “With the MERS System, mortgage data is more accurate and title information more reliable. The MERS process creates accountability and transparency, helps keep costs low, reduces the risk of errors in record keeping and makes it easier to keep track of the lien if a loan is sold to other banks and investors.”

    Gary Ott, the elected Salt Lake County recorder for the past 10 years, disagrees. He characterizes his office as a neutral party that permanently safeguards records, all of which are available for public inspection. In the past, parties were able to record each transaction or lien involving a property so a clear picture emerges of the title history of a property, Ott said, adding that with computerization, the recording is now nearly instantaneous once documents are received by his office.

    “You can trust what you see at the recorder’s office because it’s up to this date, everything is in order,” said Ott, “and you can’t see at MERS if it’s in order at all. That’s the scary part, and people’s homes are something you shouldn’t mess with.”

    Default judgment • Keane said he’s been able to obtain quiet title in the same manner in two other cases. Another attorney, Abraham Bates, said he recently also won a quiet title action in a similar case in Salt Lake County.

    In Bates’ case, a couple who owed $417,000 on a house whose value had dropped way below that also sued for quiet title.

    He named the original lender and a title company listed as trustee on the trust deed. Because neither responded to the lawsuit as legally required, the judge granted the couple a default judgment that still must be verified in court, Bates said.

    Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

    “MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.”

    New questions • While these decisions stripped the owners of the promissory notes of the ability to foreclose on the property to recoup missed payments, it does not preclude them from suing the people who signed the notes to try to recover lost monies.

    But that action would open up a new line of questions about the MERS method of property recording, said Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor who has made a national name for himself recently by questioning the legal foundations of MERS’ appearance in property-recording records and its role in foreclosures.

    Under laws adopted by all 50 states, the owner of a “negotiable instrument” such as a promissory note must be in physical possession of the document, said Peterson. Otherwise it would be like someone trying to cash a photocopy of a check instead of the actual check.

    “One cannot be a holder of a note unless one is in physical possession of that note,” he said.

    But Peterson said evidence is coming out in courts that shows the actual promissory notes or mortgages signed by buyers were not transferred as the notes made their way into the mortgage-backed securities investment pools.

    That could mean in these cases that no one is in a position to try to collect because the actual notes are lost or destroyed, potentially making some promissory notes investors think they hold worthless.

    Right to foreclose • Bates said he has more than 100 lawsuits pending over MERS-related questions and has hired more attorneys for his firm to handle the increasing load.

    State courts have been more favorable than federal courts to homeowners seeking to halt foreclosure proceedings based on questions about MERS’ legal standing under state and federal laws, the attorneys say.

    Rulings have gone different ways in different courts. But Bates said he and Peterson are teaming up to appeal a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell that dismissed a lawsuit claiming MERS did not have the legal right to initiate foreclosure proceedings.

    The attorneys are appealing Campell’s ruling as it relates to Utah law to the Utah Supreme Court. A decision will help sort out the issues with MERS over whether it actually can initiate foreclosures even if it does not have any financial interest in the promissory note, Bates said.

    A ruling favorable to the homeowner “would be an absolute tsunami in terms of foreclosure in the state of Utah,” he said.

    If MERS is not able to start a foreclosure action, “then there will be a brick wall put up over all nonjudicial foreclosures prosecuted in this state,” Bates said.

    tharvey@sltrib.com

    What is MERS?

    The Mortgage Bankers Association created the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, in the mid-1990s. It is a database that holds the names of the entities that have a financial interest in a particular mortgage, such as investment funds that bought bundles of mortgages called mortgage-backed securities. MERS is recorded on many property deeds of trust in Utah as the “beneficiary” of a loan taken out on a property even if that loan is sold and resold many times. MERS allows the actual loan owners to avoid paying fees every time a loan is sold.

  13. AIG: Subrogation Claims Agent for the FDIC

    As for BofA – stop for a moment and ask yourselves, “why?” Why can a lender like BofA not foreclose? I side step direct arguments exposing Robo signatures and faulty assignments for a reason. “They will bring it back again and do it right the next time. 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 Bof A the lender is lost to the right of foreclosure then its obvious forgery and faulty assignments are likely to emerge and with regularity and consistency for the fraud.

    This paramount claim for 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 BofA agreed to abide by at commencement of this botched decade long securitization project and cannot avoid accountability by the regulatory scrutiny of the FDIC.

    ARGUMENT #1-Banks like BofA are Lender‘s, by their own means and methods of accomplishing their object (accounting goals), have lost the right to foreclose.

    Therefore BofA must orchestrate a deceptive and unlawful means to reverse engineer that which they cannot do under SOP for pursuing 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 BofA books.

    If a “bad” loans is entered as a current asset versus impaired asset, the enders avoid reserving for teh asset.

    The false entry onto the books is a fraud and shall distort the next quarters earnings.

    This is a strong argument for pressing the claims for lender culpability in a predatory claim

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    .

  14. Just a quick note. Every year I receive requests to endorse assignments for controversy involving a lender like GMAC who bought my paper and a borrower seeking to quiet title. We are talking about paper originated and sold over 10 years ago. The foreclosure is held up by the borrowers counter complaint and the lender is required to document the chain of title.

    I purchased the loan from ABC Bank and warehoused it with CitiFinancial Group. I sold the loan to GMAC and assigned the loan accordingly. Divestment is usually used in reference to the relinquishment of authority, power, property, or title. For example, a lender having transferred the beneficial interest in the note is divested of the right to interest to recover any money.

    I would not use MERS and therefore the MERS “trump” card is not available to the lender foreclosing.

    Case in point Lenders as alleged cannot record an assignment in a securitization whereby the registration with MERS is cause for dual consideration. But non MERS to MERS transfers are much harder to document so please be aware of MERS presence on your deed or mortgage.

    The break in the chain of title is actually the registration with MERS. You cannot register a security and have a recorded assignment – its dual consideration and that’s a fraud.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  15. 10,000 foreclosures DISMISSEd TODAY in Maryland because of GMAC robo-signer

    http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/01/16/10000-gmac-foreclosures-stopped-in-maryland/

  16. Here’s a great read from Veteran’s “Today”

    DYING TRUTH: You’re gonna love it!
    JB Campbell: Mortgage Fraud
    January 7, 2011 posted by J. Bruce Campbell · 32 Comments

    Foreclosure fraud is in the news. Or it was. It probably will be again even though the media masters don’t want to talk about it. There’s a big decision coming up in Massachusetts as to whether securitized mortgages are just so much toilet paper. The banks got so greedy that merely collecting usury on “loans” that cost them nothing wasn’t good enough. They “securitized” them, bundling thousands, millions of mortgages and turning them into “securities,” selling them to even greedier speculators without the little detail of recording the transfers of ownership. Massachusetts’ highest court is going to decide if your mortgage ought to be zeroed out and the house put in your name, no more questions asked. And if you lost your home in the current Great Depression, as so many of us did, you’ll probably be able to get it back.

    Foreclosure fraud is based on mortgage fraud, of course. Anything the banks do is based on fraud and lies – no exception to that rule. Mortgage fraud, interest fraud, foreclosure fraud – they’re all connected. Banks don’t lend a dime in real money – they credit your account with electronic entries out of the ether. They take zero risk but collect real cash from you and if you fall behind they take your house and sell it to the next poor sucker.

    You may recall a couple of months ago that several big banks had suspended all foreclosures in all fifty states because a couple of homeowners had discovered the nature of the mortgage and foreclosure scam. The former congressman Alan Grayson’s YouTube video explaining the scam went viral. Then it became a non-subject. The lie factories went silent on the subject, not even trying to lie for their banking masters since the credibility gap in Manhattan could swallow Rockefeller Center, where so many lies originate.

    So what happened to me and my friends twenty-eight years ago probably won’t happen to you, now that the fraud is becoming widely understood. The SWAT team probably won’t show up at your place for a foreclosure eviction. The SWATs may come for other reasons but the way things are going today, it won’t be for an eviction because fraud nullifies all contracts.

    My friend Pete was a decorated Vietnam veteran. He got the Silver Star and Purple Heart for an action in which his unit was overrun by Vietcong and most of them killed. Pete and several others were wounded and Pete picked up an M-60 that wasn’t being used and managed to kill over a dozen VC in an extended fight and saved the lives of the wounded guys, allowing all to be rescued some time later. His award was re-evaluated and a survivor recommended the CMH but the officer-witness died during the process. The point is that Pete knew his way around guns. He had no criminal record and made his living as a real estate broker in central California. He and his wife Gwendolyn had done quite well in the real estate boom in the ‘70s, buying and selling fixer-uppers. Then the interest-rate crisis of 1980 hit and real estate didn’t sell so well with the prime rate at 23%, thanks to Paul Volcker.

    By 1983 he fell behind in his mortgage payments and the bank in Santa Cruz foreclosed. Pete and Gwen had $240,000 in equity in their lovely property in the giant redwoods up on Summit Road. The bank, I came to realize, had no equity, no risk and no standing. But they had a crooked judge named Christopher Cottle, who was a reformed gang member according to an article in the Santa Cruz paper. But I didn’ t know that until later.

    I read an article in the old Spotlight newspaper about the Minnesota legal case of First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly of 1968. Do a search on that and discover some interesting things, such as the banker admitting that “banks create money out of thin air – it’s standard practice.” The jurors were so taken aback by this casual admission that they quickly found for Jerome Daly, and the judge, Martin V. Mahoney, remarked, “It sounds like fraud to me.” Daly’s contract with the bank was made null and void and the farm was his in fee simple. I missed the part where Judge Mahoney was murdered by poison six months later. The Daly case potentially was the death warrant for the standard bank practice of lending credit, should it ever become widely known.

    I took this article to Pete and Gwen and suggested that they sue their bank for fraud and usury, based on Jerome Daly’s experience. Neither of them was very good on the typewriter so I wound up doing the paperwork of their lawsuit for them, which you can imagine was rather detailed.

    The case went to court and was dutifully thrown out by Judge Cottle, despite our showing that the bank had put up nothing of value and had created credit out of thin air. It was appealed and indignantly denied by another judge. Pete assured me that he was licked but that we had fought the good fight. I went to Santa Fe to visit some friends. While there I had a bizarre nightmare that persuaded me I must return to Carmel as quickly as possible. If you ever have a weird dream and get an irresistible urge to act on it – don’t. This was possibly the worst mistake of my life, and I’ve made a few of them.

    When I got home there was a message on my machine to call Pete, that he was going to be evicted and he needed another gun. Naturally, I took him a Heckler & Koch HK-91 in 7.62mm NATO that morning. And a half-dozen 20 round mags. I’d already given him a .357 Magnum revolver but he obviously could use more firepower.

    What was I thinking? Pete had given me an M1A1 Thompson submachine gun a couple of years earlier that he’d brought back from Nam. I’d needed a clean gun to use against David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger in 1980 in an operation that unfortunately went south, with me going to jail – no conviction. But Pete had come through, no questions asked, and I could hardly do less – right? Don’t answer that. We were also involved in an operation against Paul Volcker in ‘82 but one of our confederates was arrested and burned us to make a deal. Pete managed to persuade the FBI that the guy was lying. And I had just finished the manuscript of my book that would start the militia movement and was in a very revolutionary mood. Taking on some stinking banker’s SWAT team didn’t bother me, frankly. The team wasn’t ready for our combined anti-terrorist experience in Africa and Vietnam, if we’d been serious.

    I showed up with the equipment and had lunch with them, their daughter and baby granddaughter and another vet named Jimmy. I checked him out on the rifle and said, well, if the cops weren’t going to show then I was going to go back to Carmel and get some sleep, as I’d had none since leaving Santa Fe thirty hours earlier. I went out to the upper gate and swung it open and looked down the road and saw the SWAT team approaching, single-file. Camouflage, AR-15 rifles and one bolt-action sniper rifle. Eight guys.

    Back down to the house. Hey, Pete – they’re here.

    The SWATs took positions behind bushes and trees. Pete had, at Gwen’s insistence pinned on his Silver Star and Purple Heart. Jimmy had a camera and wandered down to the lower gate to take pictures, the doofus. The sergeant in charge of the SWATs asked Jimmy to come a little closer so they could talk. Jimmy fell for it and the cop grabbed him. Jimmy yelled and pulled away but Pete went hustling down there to see. The sniper and his helper rushed Pete from behind and drew a bead on him. I stepped off the porch and waved frantically but silently for them to Get Back, Get Back! For some crazy reason, they got back. Maybe they were confused by my clothes. I had on slacks, white shirt, dark tie and sport coat. I probably looked like a cop. Gwen saw what happened and naively said, “Bruce, go up there and talk to them! Tell them to stop it!” I had nothing better to do, so I did what she said.

    I could see where they were hiding so I walked carefully up the gravel drive toward them and took off my jacket and put it on a bush. They were both aiming at me. I raised my hands and said I just wanted to talk. One of them shouted, “You’re under arrest! Get on your knees!” I kept my hands up and said, “No, I’m not getting on my knees. I’m just asking you not to shoot my friend. He needs his day in court.”

    “I said you’re under arrest! Get on your knees!” I shook my head and picked up the jacket and walked back down to the house, ignoring their shouted orders to stop. Pete came up from the lower gate and said, “What’s that all about?” When I pointed to the sniper and assistant, I got in a lot of trouble. I said, “Pete, those guys about killed you from behind when you ran down there. Gwen wanted me to talk to ‘em, and I said not to shoot you.”

    Pete calmed down a little after that and the SWAT team withdrew after an hour or so. They cut water, gas, phones and power to the property. At one point, one of the SWATs fired his weapon. I looked out of the upstairs window where I’d been trying to take a nap and saw Pete lying on the porch below me. I thought he’d been nailed, but he yelled out, “Don’t get nervous in the service!” One of the dopes had had an accidental discharge. After a couple more hours, for some reason, they allowed the press to pour onto the property. Television, newspaper, radio guys were everywhere, interviewing Pete and Gwen. I told Pete that we needed some more guys up here and I’d take a chance and drive down to the local store and make some calls, but to hold on to my dog in case they busted me. Cops generally kill dogs. He said okay. I drove carefully through the throngs of reporters, out onto Summit Road and was immediately busted and pulled out of my car and put face down on the asphalt. Then into a car and taken downtown. After several hours I was taken to an interrogation room and a detective started with the questions. What the hell was this all about? I said that Pete needed his day in court, that he’d sued a bank for fraud and usury and Cottle threw it out. Well, this isn’t how you get justice, taking on a SWAT team. Really? How do you get justice?

    He didn’t much care for me and I got the orange suit and was put in a cell block from the 1930s with a lot of guys. I was in there for five days. On about the second day, the jailer yelled out, “Where’s Campbell?” He said I had an attorney visit, which was pretty good since I didn’t have an attorney. It turned out to be two detectives. The one guy said he was with the Sheriff’s office and the other one was with the Coroner’s office. Coroner? “Yeah, we need next-of-kin information on Pete and Gwen.” You killed ‘em? “We can’t say anything until we notify next-of-kin.”

    Wow. So now, I’m looking at Murder One. Any cops killed? “We’re not sure at this time.” Uh, huh. Wow. My friends are dead and I’m up for murder. “So, how about the next-of-kin information?”

    I didn’t know where their next-of-kin lived or even what their names were. I wasn’t any help, but I would have been if I’d known. That’s how good they were.

    I staggered back to the cell block. After an hour or so, the jailer called out my name again. “Hey, those two detectives said to tell you that the property’s secure and nobody was killed. They said you looked in pretty bad shape.” Whaddya mean, no one was killed? Besides my two friends, you mean? “Buddy, I’m in jail just like you are. I only know what they told me.” Someone shouted at me, “Hey, come look at this!” They could see a television screen beyond the cell bars and the news was on. Turned out that Pete had taken the whole gang, Gwen, daughter and her baby and Jimmy, right down the mountain, through the SWAT lines and the huge redwoods. He did it because the FBI had gotten in the act and gassed them. Pete watched my Scottie keel over at his feet just as he himself was getting extremely sleepy, along with everyone else. So he told them that they had to get out. I don’t know how the hell he did it but he pulled off a good one. That’s why the cops pretended they were dead so they could trick me into telling them where they probably went. They did trick me but I didn’t know anything.

    Here’s how I avoided prison: The initial detective asked me the next day to go up to the house to talk Pete into giving up. I wanted to talk with him and get our stories straight so I immediately agreed. Shortly before the other two pulled the KGB trick on me, the first one changed his tune and bitterly denounced me as the brains of the whole operation. He said he’d found the lawsuit papers in my car. He said, “I know that you took the guns to him. We had a witness who saw the whole thing.” The thing was, no one had ever read me my Miranda warning, either out on the asphalt or in the squad room or anywhere. So I immediately said, “Yes, I took him the guns. The guns were mine.”

    I eventually did get an attorney. I told him that I admitted bringing the guns to Pete.

    “You what? Why did you say that?”

    “Because I was never read my rights.”

    He hesitated. “Are you sure about that?”

    “I’m sure.” He checked with the detective, who reluctantly confirmed it. And for that reason I did not go to prison for twenty years. I was charged with multiple felony conspiracies (with no co-conspirator), much more serious charges than Pete, but they were all reduced to one misdemeanor accessory-after, because of the bad confession, and I had to do about seven weekends in jail.

    Pete wasn’t so lucky. He was at large for a couple of months but was finally arrested in the courthouse where he was trying to get his legal papers. I went to his trial and the sniper pointed at me and broke into tears, saying that I had pointed him out to Pete and he could have been killed and that he had a family! His boss, the sergeant, took the stand and admitted that the Sheriff had authorized the SWAT team to kill all of us. Pete said, “Even the women and the child?” Yes, everyone. Pete got six years, did about two and a half at San Quentin.

    So, we were a little ahead of the power curve on mortgage and foreclosure fraud. But now, twenty-eight years later, the true nature of the fraud is exposed for everyone to see. It is exactly as Jerome Daly and Pete told their respective juries, that the banks create money out of thin air but we have to give them hard cash or the property – plus interest. The banks couldn’t lose.

    Until now. Now, they can’t win. They’ve been caught and their monumental crimes against the people are being revealed.

    Representative Marcy Kaptur tells her Ohio constituents, do not leave your home under any circumstances. Demand to see the original note. In the great majority of cases, there is no original note because the mortgages have been “sliced and diced” and bundled and securitized and not legally recorded before they were turned magically into “mortgage-backed securities” and peddled to stupid and greedy speculators overseas. The federal government is in on the fraud also. Phony and Fraudie (Fannie May and Freddy Mac) have a bogus front company called MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Service) that has assumed power over millions of these fraudulent mortgages, but to avoid scrutiny, have moved MERS to New Delhi, or Calcutta or Bangalore or some damn place. That’s India! Does that sound kosher to you?

    Hell, yes – Circle K kosher.

  17. Quiet title may not be the answer for everyone but it can definitely work for some.

    http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/mers-means-quiet-title-in-salt-lake-city/

    MERS MEANS QUIET TITLE IN SALT LAKE CITY
    Posted on January 17, 2011 by Foreclosureblues

    How accurate are property records?
    By Tom Harvey
    The Salt Lake Tribune
    Published: January 16, 2011 04:41PM
    Updated: January 16, 2011 01:01AM

    Chris Detrick | The Salt Lake Tribune

    Walter Keane poses for a portrait at his office Friday January 7, 2011. Keane has filed lawsuit that resulted in homeowners getting title to their property even if they owed someone money because of flaws introduced into the nation’s property recording system by an entity created by the Mortgage Bankers Association.
    A Utah court case in which the owner of a Draper townhouse got clear title to the property, even though he still owed $132,000 on it, raises new legal and financial questions about a property-records database created by mortgage bankers.
    The award of a title free of liens means that whoever owns the promissory note on the Draper property — likely a group of faraway investors — no longer has the right to foreclose to collect on a delinquent loan. Indeed, the townhouse owner has sold the property and kept the money. Those who own the promissory note probably don’t even know what occurred.
    Decisions such as the one 3rd District Judge Glen Iwasaki handed down in the Draper case could have a big impact as the state wends its way through hundreds of lawsuits involving foreclosures, loans on properties for more than they’re worth and predatory lending practices that led Utahns to lose their homes as the real-estate bubble burst.

    Quiet title • Last year, the owner of the Draper property contacted attorney Walter T. Keane to help him deal with lenders, though Keane won’t say what the problem was and the owner declined an interview request.
    Keane filed what’s called a “quiet title action,” a lawsuit in which the owner seeks clear title to a property free of liens by lenders or others.
    In Utah, when you take out a mortgage loan to buy a home, you sign a promissory note held by the lender and a deed of trust that is recorded at the county recorder’s office. The promissory note gives the holder the right to collect payments on the loan. The recording of the deed of trust gives the lender the right to foreclose on the property if you default on the loan.
    A trustee appointed by the lender also is recorded with the county and actually holds legal title to your property subject to the conditions of the trust deed.
    The lawsuit over the title to the townhouse named Garbett Mortgage and Citibank FSB as the holders of promissory notes as recorded on trust deeds filed with the recorder’s office. Integrated Title Services was listed as trustee of the Garbett Mortgage trust deed, while First American Title was the trustee of the CitiBank trust deed.

    Trust deed tag-along • But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.
    MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.
    The new arrangement greased the way for mortgages to be packaged together and sold to investors who were relieved of the need under the traditional system to record the true owner of the promissory notes and to pay the county recording fees, which average around $35. Attorneys charge MERS is largely an instrument to avoid paying fees every time a promissory note is sold and resold and eventually packaged with others and owned by group of investors.
    During the latter part of the real-estate boom, hundreds of thousands of subprime loans were packaged and sold using the MERS system. MERS has registered about 31 million loans, the company’s chief executive said in congressional testimony in November. CEO R.K. Arnold also said in a 2009 deposition that the system had saved its members an estimated $2.4 billion that would have gone to county governments.

    Who’s the beneficiary? • Under the state’s quiet title laws, Keane said he did not have to name MERS or serve it legal papers in the lawsuit because it was not the legal owner of title to the property. Those were title companies. In addition, attorneys contend, MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” or holder of the promissory note because it readily has admitted it has no financial interest in any notes or mortgages.
    Normally, a trustee named in a trust deed has a legal duty in Utah to the entity that holds the promissory note and for fair dealing with the homeowner. But in the townhouse case, First American Title filed a response to the quiet title action saying that it had no idea who had the right to collect payments on the promissory note, nor did it admit to knowing any other basic information about the property.
    “The fact of the matter is First American Title doesn’t know who the beneficiary of the trust deed is and basically they disavow any interest in it,” Keane said. “It’s an acknowledgement [the recording system on this property is] a fiction, that they don’t have any real interest in it.”
    Garbett Mortgage also told the court it no longer held an interest in the property. Integrated Title never filed a response to the lawsuit but did withdraw as a trustee with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office.
    “Considering the owner of the property [the title companies who were trustees] failed to dispute the matter, and further considering that the original lender claims no further interest, the court nullified the trust deeds prior to setting any type of trial date,” Keane said.
    So in the four months that the process took, the owner was able to gain title and deny the owners of his loan the ability to foreclose on the property for nonpayment. That means the promissory note owned by investors may be worth far less than they paid for it because it is no longer backed by an asset.

    Record reliability • MERS spokeswoman Karmelo Lejarde said MERS actually added reliability to the system of county recording offices.
    “Prior to the creation of MERS [when servicers routinely held the mortgage lien for the note owner], the information in the public land records was not accurate due to delays in recording assignments or missing assignments that never got recorded,” she said in e-mail that appears to be a boilerplate response to questions about MERS’ role in the nation’s property registration system.
    “With the MERS System, mortgage data is more accurate and title information more reliable. The MERS process creates accountability and transparency, helps keep costs low, reduces the risk of errors in record keeping and makes it easier to keep track of the lien if a loan is sold to other banks and investors.”
    Gary Ott, the elected Salt Lake County recorder for the past 10 years, disagrees. He characterizes his office as a neutral party that permanently safeguards records, all of which are available for public inspection. In the past, parties were able to record each transaction or lien involving a property so a clear picture emerges of the title history of a property, Ott said, adding that with computerization, the recording is now nearly instantaneous once documents are received by his office.
    “You can trust what you see at the recorder’s office because it’s up to this date, everything is in order,” said Ott, “and you can’t see at MERS if it’s in order at all. That’s the scary part, and people’s homes are something you shouldn’t mess with.”

    Default judgment • Keane said he’s been able to obtain quiet title in the same manner in two other cases. Another attorney, Abraham Bates, said he recently also won a quiet title action in a similar case in Salt Lake County.
    In Bates’ case, a couple who owed $417,000 on a house whose value had dropped way below that also sued for quiet title.
    He named the original lender and a title company listed as trustee on the trust deed. Because neither responded to the lawsuit as legally required, the judge granted the couple a default judgment that still must be verified in court, Bates said.
    Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.
    “MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.”

    New questions • While these decisions stripped the owners of the promissory notes of the ability to foreclose on the property to recoup missed payments, it does not preclude them from suing the people who signed the notes to try to recover lost monies.
    But that action would open up a new line of questions about the MERS method of property recording, said Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor who has made a national name for himself recently by questioning the legal foundations of MERS’ appearance in property-recording records and its role in foreclosures.
    Under laws adopted by all 50 states, the owner of a “negotiable instrument” such as a promissory note must be in physical possession of the document, said Peterson. Otherwise it would be like someone trying to cash a photocopy of a check instead of the actual check.
    “One cannot be a holder of a note unless one is in physical possession of that note,” he said.
    But Peterson said evidence is coming out in courts that shows the actual promissory notes or mortgages signed by buyers were not transferred as the notes made their way into the mortgage-backed securities investment pools.
    That could mean in these cases that no one is in a position to try to collect because the actual notes are lost or destroyed, potentially making some promissory notes investors think they hold worthless.

    Right to foreclose • Bates said he has more than 100 lawsuits pending over MERS-related questions and has hired more attorneys for his firm to handle the increasing load.
    State courts have been more favorable than federal courts to homeowners seeking to halt foreclosure proceedings based on questions about MERS’ legal standing under state and federal laws, the attorneys say.
    Rulings have gone different ways in different courts. But Bates said he and Peterson are teaming up to appeal a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell that dismissed a lawsuit claiming MERS did not have the legal right to initiate foreclosure proceedings.
    The attorneys are appealing Campell’s ruling as it relates to Utah law to the Utah Supreme Court. A decision will help sort out the issues with MERS over whether it actually can initiate foreclosures even if it does not have any financial interest in the promissory note, Bates said.
    A ruling favorable to the homeowner “would be an absolute tsunami in terms of foreclosure in the state of Utah,” he said.
    If MERS is not able to start a foreclosure action, “then there will be a brick wall put up over all nonjudicial foreclosures prosecuted in this state,” Bates said.
    tharvey@sltrib.com

    What is MERS?
    The Mortgage Bankers Association created the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, in the mid-1990s. It is a database that holds the names of the entities that have a financial interest in a particular mortgage, such as investment funds that bought bundles of mortgages called mortgage-backed securities. MERS is recorded on many property deeds of trust in Utah as the “beneficiary” of a loan taken out on a property even if that loan is sold and resold many times. MERS allows the actual loan owners to avoid paying fees every time a loan is sold.

  18. Gwen,

    This article is written by Dave Krieger, ” The QT man”

    http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/missouri-trustee-fails-on-motion-to-dismiss-in-pending-quiet-title-action/

    MISSOURI TRUSTEE FAILS ON MOTION TO DISMISS IN PENDING QUIET TITLE ACTION
    Posted on January 11, 2011 by Foreclosureblues
    Today, January 11, 2011, 2 hours ago | Dave KriegerGo to full article

    TRUSTEE FAILS ON MOTION TO DISMISS IN PENDING QUIET TITLE ACTION
    By Dave Krieger

    Most of the judges and foreclosure attorneys on both sides are watching this case carefully. It should be noted here that former civil rights lawyer and 30-year trial litigator Gwen Caranchini, no stranger to the blog sites by any means, had her best day in court in years in her case against Bank of America, MERS and an alleged “substitute trustee”.

    On Friday, January 5, 2011 at 1:30 p.m., Caranchini showed up to a court hearing in the Jackson County Circuit Court on Friday. The trustee, who in this particular case is going it alone (as Bank of America and MERS removed the initial claims Caranchini filed to federal court) pro se, filed a motion to dismiss her breach of fiduciary duty claims and attempted wrongful foreclosure claims as well as a motion for sanctions for filing the claims.

    The judge in this case has known Caranchini for some 30 years. Even the judge was stymied by the arguments Gwen was proffering, admitting that she felt as if she was “in kindergarten” when it came to understanding the issues and terms involved in the discussion. The judge set over two hours aside, in part to get educated, as Caranchini came to court loaded with documentation, including the slip order from the Ibanez decision, which she handed a copy of to the judge, who read it at the start of the hearing.

    The problem in Caranchini’s case … the documents on file in the Jackson County Recorder’s office that were relevant to her case “did not make sense” to the judge; as compared to much of the recordation issues in Ibanez. According to this author’s research, which is used to craft chain of title assessments for review by title companies and attorneys in their preparation for litigation, when the chain of title was properly demonstrated to the court, the judge “got it”.

    The judge in this instance looked carefully at the stamps (of the signors), the dates, what the documents were proffered to be … and smiled; she had never had this pointed out to her. Caranchini then discussed how Chicago Title, who issued the declination letter which is incorporated into Section 12 of the book “Clouded Titles”, found her chain of title to be irretrievably broken. The judge then inquired as to whether Chicago Title would offer up an expert to testify, to which Caranchini answered in the affirmative.

    To prove a point about the differences in arguments … Caranchini then went through some of the issues involving securitized loans; the judge did not understand the importance of it. The argument then got down to the note (which you knew it would at some point). The judge looked at the trustee and asked him if he had the original note. Then she asked him if he ever had the original note. Then she asked him if he had ever seen the original note (which he previously attempted to foreclose on). Then she asked him whether the alleged lender had the original note. To all of these inquiries, the trustee responded … NO!

    [In this case, the appointment of successor trustee was filed 13 months BEFORE the assignment proving the alleged lender was filed; a trust whose last 10-K was filed in March of 2007!]

    The Court then granted the trustee’s motion to dismiss the wrongful foreclosure from the lawsuit; however, the trustee’s motion for dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty was denied!
    Then the judge urged the trustee that he should join in a settlement conference scheduled by a federal magistrate in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in Kansas City, which set for February 18, 2011.

    Then the judge denied the trustee’s motion for sanctions against Caranchini, saying, “these are developing claims and we have to let them develop”, allowing Caranchini thirty days to amend her petition and to bring the quiet title and declaratory judgment claims back into court that had been previously removed, as the Court indicated they needed to be put back into the litigation in state court to be joined with the trustee. (The trustee was not a party to the action when the quiet title and declaratory judgment counts were removed.)

    From Caranchini’s own observations, she is totally convinced that the judge understood the issues involving agency, quiet title, declaratory judgments, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence (some of which have damage claims attached). According to Caranchini however, the judge did not understand all of the terms and arguments involving securitization and essentially admitted that on the record.

    This goes back to the problems the author has previously written about regarding what is fundamental in proving agency and what is not. Education of the Court in pointing out the flaws on your recorded documents is extremely important. The declination letter is also on the record. The Ibanez decision in this instance proved to gain impetus with the Court as well as to its applicability regarding proving agency. The judge ordered deposition of a Chicago Title expert witness (That’s part of discovery folks!) by the end of March and set a trial date for October 24, 2011 (unless the parties settle beforehand). Needless to say, the trustee wasn’t happy. He’s still a Defendant in the lawsuit. Not having even seen the Note didn’t sit well with the judge either. You can probably surmise where this case is headed.

    Two days later, Caranchini received an Order in the mail from another judge in Jackson County Circuit Court, where she had a motion for temporary restraining order against Bank of America et al: “Now on the 5th day of January, 2011, the Court takes up and considers Defendants Bank of America and BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Request to Quash Hearing on Plaintiff’s Request for TRO. After being duly advised on the premises and for good cause shown, the Court hereby denies the same without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that additional proceedings be STAYED due to this cause pending in federal court and the possibility of remand back to circuit court. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

    This would certainly cause the author to surmise that there is the possibility for a remand of the original case from the federal court back to the Jackson County Circuit Court, where the action to quiet title in the county in which the property is located is supposed to be heard. Because there are both state and federal judges involved, it would also probably be safe to assume that both state judges are in agreement on the procedural aspects of this case and that they’ve also had at least telephone conferences with both judges in the U.S. District Court. Look for a lot of action on this case in February (the case was filed last April). Look for possible settlements and an agreement to allow quiet title with the purchase of homeowner’s indemnity coverage! Caranchini is following my suggestions as I outlined in the book “Clouded Titles”.

    http://www.cloudedtitles.com

  19. SLOPPY SECONDS!
    Yeah Brian, the name tells it all.
    In my second the DOT is DATED 2 days after I signed, and the Notary is aknowledged a day after this even, by a person I never MET, Never Saw, Never spoke to.
    She FORGED my name in her Notary book, and attached a fraudulent affidavit to a deed of trust that has my name TYPED in (unlike my husbands that was computer generated ) and its not my signature.
    SOMEBODY hoped I would not remember the name of the real notary I signed “other” docs with three days before.
    It’s the Notarys that are the bottom of this pit of snakes. They are the ones who are the culprits. They pulled the trigger.

  20. How can BOA buy anything else when they are insolvent? The rumors must be true as BOA is forced to swallow everything toxic. But when will it all implode? I want it to implode NOW – I’m growing impatient for my schadenfreude.

  21. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47032889/Sls-Questions-Faxed-Qwr-Response-Included-1-17-11

    SECOND MORTGAGE QWR, INCLUDES NOTES ENDORSED AND THE NEW NOTEHOLDER.

    LITTLE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE SECONDS. THEY ARE MUCH MORE SLOPPY THAN THE FIRSTS. THIS LETTER IS TO IDENTIFY WHO ONE WOULD SERVE TO FILE AN ADVERSARY AGAINST THE SECOND NOTE. THESE TRANSACTIONS NEVER WOULD HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY. EXCEPT WE ARE NOW DIGGING DEEPER.

    ANYONE WHO READS THIS DOCUMENT KNOWS THEY WERE BLOWING SMOKE AND THAT THIS ON ITS FACE IS A BIG FRAUD. THE PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO JAIL.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: