How Many Banks Does It Take to Screw America?

NOT QUITE THAT SIMPLE

EDITOR’S NOTE: The assumption is that if MERS is screwed we are all saved. I have it on incontrovertible authority that the mega banks already have a plan mapped out for that and in fact they are already putting it into action. Considering their success in kicking the can down the road so far, any singing and dancing should be muted. You see they don’t have to do anything because nothing will happen to them no matter what they do. That is the status quo and it does not seem like that is going to change.

So don’t rely upon the assumption that they are going to be required to give homeowners or borrowers something like the “free house” myth which they turned upside down on borrowers while the banks themselves stole the houses with a “credit bid” instead of cash.

ON THE OTHER HAND, LET’S LOOK AT THE LEGAL STATUS QUO AND YOU’LL SEE WHY THE LAWYERS ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE GETTING NERVOUS. It’s quite possible, even probable now, that in order to perfect the correct loan documents the banks, the pretenders, whoever (watch out for scams here) are going to offer incentives for homeowners to SIGN NEW DOCUMENTS. From what I’ve seen so far, it is pretty obvious and quite definitely confirmed by friends from the dark side that they are not going to sponsor a barbecue where they give out money. A toaster oven maybe, but not the whole mortgage.

BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AS NASTY AS I AM, HAVE VERY LITTLE TO LOSE HOLDING OUT TO THE BITTER END AND REFUSING TO SIGN ANYTHING AND PURSUING QUIET TITLE. So far the number of people I have seen willing to tough out the case until the biter end is less than 3%, which is about half the normal default rate. So even if the number of people willing to fight doubles, the banks still have nothing to lose even if they give up the entire house equity and mortgage and note and even pay attorneys fees and damages. It’s no more than a rounding error.

THE FACT THAT AMERICA IS SCREWED BY THIS SECURITIZATION ILLUSION doesn’t bother anyone on Wall Street — it never did. The only thing Wall Street works for is a trade where something of perceived value moves and a fee is earned. Now here is the surprise for those regular readers of this publication: I don’t think there is anything wrong with Wall Street’s intent. They weren’t out to ruin the country, they just didn’t care. They were doing what they were created to do — improve liquidity to grease the wheels of commerce. I’m not saying that nobody should go to jail, mind you, but the real problem is that the promoters and creators of this so-called securitization scheme that never actually existed were never under any impression that they were breaking any law or that even if they did anything would happen to them. And they were right.

If you think you hate Wall Street, think again. What you really hate is the fact that government didn’t do the job of controlling Wall Street — a lesson we learned in the roaring 20’s, the salad oil scandal, the savings and loan scandal, the Long Term Capital Management Scandal, Enron, World-com, etc. etc. So if someone has you supporting a restriction on government regulation, they are being paid by Wall Street to keep you thinking that way. Think about it.

MERS Tapped for Federal Investigation

By: David Dayen Wednesday March 2, 2011 1:45 pm

We have yet another major bank today that fully expects to be dinged by federal and state regulators for sloppy mortgage practices.

PNC Financial Services Group Inc. expects to sign consent orders with U.S. regulators because of allegedly faulty mortgage servicing and foreclosures.

The orders are likely to come from the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Pittsburgh-based PNC said today in its annual filing with securities regulators. The actions may include activities tied to the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, the registry designed to track mortgage-servicing rights and ownership of U.S. residential loans, according to the filing.

The MERS piece is interesting. As we know, MERS is basically at the end of its rope, forced to tell servicers to stop foreclosing in its name because of a string of lost court cases. Now, PNC, along with BofA and Citigroup, are saying publicly in regulatory filings that MERS may be ruled essentially invalid for mortgage transfers. Keep in mind that the major banks created MERS and still fund it.

Bank of America said legal challenges against MERS have asserted that use of the system can “cloud ownership” of a loan, according to its filing. The Charlotte, North Carolina- based lender, which ranks second in U.S. home lending and first among mortgage servicers, said it uses MERS for “a substantial portion” of new home loans, including those sold to investors or transferred into securitized trusts.

The process “is based on a well-established body of law that establishes ownership of mortgage loans by the securitization trusts, and we believe that we have substantially executed this process,” Bank of America said in its filing.

The question of MERS’s “legitimacy” drew scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department and Congress as well as regulators and state attorneys general, Citigroup said in its filing. The bank “has determined that the integrity of its current foreclosure process is sound,” the New York-based firm said.

What does this mean for outstanding loans? Many states are working on legislation that would disallow foreclosures on homes without a full chain of title. California is the latest. If MERS is forced to the sidelines, or their process ruled invalid, what does this mean for the chain of title?

There’s a way out of this for the banks, to clean up the complete mess they’ve made, but they’d have to actually provide homeowners with relief to compensate for their near-destruction of the residential housing market. To those who find this unworkable – the serious ones, not McMegan – I would simply ask them what they believe is the proper relief. Because aside from the fact that investors and not servicers should be able to determine whether they allow principal mods to borrowers in trouble, and that all economic signs point to that as the best way to stop foreclosures and save the economy, allowing yet another massive case of financial fraud to pass without punishment does more damage to the integrity of the country than anything I can think of.

41 Responses

  1. ANON, you’re critique is right on the mark.

  2. Joyce, contact me please about the WI case of which you speak.

    Usedkarguy@yahoo.com

  3. Anonymous:

    Thanks for the info. This helps us more than you know. This case in Wisconsin has a horse about 30 feet from the finish line so it should not be long now for this client.

    I sure hope he doesn’t stumble.

  4. Joyce Louise

    I also remember reading — but not where — will have to look.

    Assume first — only a partial write-off of first mortgage loan to the actual value of the asset– in my opinion, there can then be no second mortgage claim. Actually believe borrowers have far stronger claims in BK as to secured versus unsecured debt than is represented by some BK attorneys. And, this is due, of course, to the large loss in market value of assets that supposedly secured the loan.

    Not an attorney — but believe competent BK attorney could address this — if — they ascertain as to where collection rights on first mortgage loan currently lie. “Collection rights” are not secured. This was implied in the November 2010 TARP Oversight Report (Footnote 35). Tracing collection rights on second mortgage may be more difficult than tracing on first mortgage. Does not mean you do not owe the “debt” (by collection rights) — just means — not secured. To date, few BK attorneys have been active enough to pursue. And, this is of particular importance in deficiency judgment states – where BK is critical. Any errors in BK as to actual creditor and amount of “debt” owed – is a huge mistake.

    Strongly believe BK is the place to be to flush out the creditor and status of the “debt” — but, attorney MUST be aware of EVERYTHING – and willing to pursue.

  5. Anonymous

    Can you please tell me what the status of the deed of trust would be on a second lien if the note is charged off? I know it is different for each state but is the deed of trust then invalid or still a valid deed of trust or mortgage? Seen info posted about second liens but I can’t find them.

  6. John

    My post in 09/10 — “conditional” is key word.

    ANONYMOUS, on September 20, 2010 at 6:39 am said:

    Mr. Garfield has a post, today, which is very important.

    He discusses how the loans remained with the originator – who were already paid, and how only receivables were passed through to security investors. However, courts do not seem to care. Reasoning by courts is that you owe the money – and too bad. The problem with this is that you have a right to know WHO you owe the money to, you also have a right to know how much the collection rights to debt was purchased for – as I believe this should affect government mandates for loan modification (no one should be making a huge profit on loan mods). Most of the originators are gone and the SPVs dissolved or torn apart. – “dismantled.”

    My question is why investors who are claiming fraud are being given attention in court – and the subject victims of the fraud do not get the same attention. There are numerous investor lawsuits ongoing. A very informative one is Plumber & Pipefitters v J.P. Morgan Acceptance.

    There is a new focus on investors, insurers, and Repurchase Agreements. If courts are going to claim “You owe the debt” and rely on faulty and fraudulent assignments/endorsements, we have to show – that none of the intermediaries in the securitization chain have a right to collection. And, that it is likely, the mortgage loan was, or is now, removed from the process. And, that the note is not negotiable because it was not unconditionally endorsed – which is required for negotiability. This challenges “Holder in Due Course.”

    There is case, not exactly on point – but discusses note negotiability and “conditions” render the note – not-negotiable:

    AMERITRUST COMPANY, N.A., a national banking association, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, Cross Appellee, v. C.K. WHITE, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee, Cross Appellant.

    No. 94-8370

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

    73 F.3d 1553; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 1597; 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1277; 75 A.L.R.5th 725; 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 818

    END

    from me – as discussed, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements contained numerous conditions for Repurchase (which is part of the purchase agreement), and investors and others are in process of examining loans to demand repurchase. You have to also remember that when the loan crisis hit , the banks immediate reaction was to activate repurchase demands to the originator. This was major cause for shut-down of the originators – they could not meet the demand. Question then is, was the loan in question ever repurchased, or subject to a repurchase – deeming it “conditional.”

    Bloomberg article regarding current repurchase investigation – which was likely already posted on this blog::

    Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) — The regulator overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said his agency’s review of subpoenaed records doesn’t mean it is “pursuing anybody” for selling bad loans to the U.S.-backed mortgage giants before the credit crisis.
    The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s review of documents sought by 64 subpoenas in July is simply looking for errors or omissions that could compel lenders to bear losses, Edward J. DeMarco, the regulator’s acting director, told a House Financial Services subcommittee at a Washington hearing today.
    “The losses are extraordinary and we owe it to the American taxpayer to find out where these losses are coming from,” said DeMarco, whose agency has overseen Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since they seized in September 2008 amid a financial crisis that pushed them to the brink of collapse.
    Regulators are under pressure from lawmakers to stem losses for taxpayers and recoup money from banks that sold faulty loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without hindering the housing market’s recovery. DeMarco and Michael Barr, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for financial institutions, were called to testify today about the progress they’ve made since the companies came under government control.
    Congress and the Obama administration are weighing the future of the two companies as part of an overhaul of the U.S. housing finance system. Fannie Mae, based in Washington, and Freddie Mac, based in McLean, Virginia, lost $166 billion on guarantees of single-family mortgages from the end of 2007 through the second quarter, according to the FHFA. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has promised a comprehensive proposal by January.
    ‘Biggest Problem’
    “The biggest problem in the economy is that we have 3 or 4 million too many homes,” said Chris Kotowski, a banking analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The solution “will take another two or three years to work,” he said.
    The clean-up effort includes seeking refunds from lenders who sold loans based on false or misleading information, and the two government-backed firms aren’t the only ones demanding buybacks. The Federal Reserve, private mortgage investors and mortgage insurers are combing through loan documents for faulty appraisals, inflated borrower incomes and missing documentation that would support a refund request.
    As of the end of the second quarter 2010, Fannie Mae had $4.7 billion in outstanding repurchase requests, and Freddie Mac had $6.4 billion in outstanding repurchase requests. DeMarco said that outstanding repurchase requests continue to be “of concern.”
    Misrepresentations
    The FHFA in July issued 64 subpoenas to firms that sold mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, trying to determine whether misrepresentations or omissions might require issuers to repurchase the loans. Lawsuits tied to faulty mortgages were filed against lenders or underwriters by bond insurers such as MBIA Inc. and by at least three Federal Home Loan Banks, according to analysts.
    Lenders are resisting some buyback demands, with Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender and largest servicer of Fannie Mae’s loans, calling negotiations a battle that it’s fighting “loan-by-loan.” Among those lodging claims, Chief Executive Officer Dominic Frederico at Assured Guaranty Ltd. said last month that the talks are “like Chinese water torture. They’re very painful, have taken a long time.”
    Assured, based in Hamilton, Bermuda, has asked federal and state banking and insurance regulators to intervene in the disputes, Frederico told analysts during a conference call.
    Barney Frank
    Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who leads the Financial Services Committee, has urged the Obama administration to ensure FHFA uses its full legal authority to recover money from banks. Frank endorsed a letter signed by lawmakers including Paul Kanjorski, the Pennsylvania Democrat who led today’s subcommittee hearing.
    Bankers have faced more queries from analysts during this month’s round of investor presentations, and some companies have begun breaking out data. Repurchase demands are running at about $1 billion a quarter at JPMorgan Chase & Co., Chief Executive Jamie Dimon, 54, said yesterday at a Barclays Capital investor conference in New York.
    “It’s expensive,” said Dimon, whose New York-based bank ranks second by assets after Bank of America. “I think that will continue the rest of this year, next year and maybe a little bit longer.”
    Repurchases have cost the four biggest U.S. lenders $9.8 billion, according to Credit Suisse Group AG. The total could exceed $179 billion for 11 of the largest lenders, according to Chris Gamaitoni, an ex-senior financial analyst at Fannie Mae who now works at Compass Point Research and Trading LLC, a Washington-based investment bank.
    The Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, a trade group for companies that provide private insurance for defaulted mortgages, said Bank of America may owe its members $10 billion to $20 billion alone for breaches of representations and warranties, as the buyback guarantees are called.
    Limited Damage
    The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which wouldn’t say how much it was seeking in buybacks, has $69.1 billion in mortgage and other assets it took on when it helped rescue American International Group Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos. in 2008.
    Bank of America has paid $3.86 billion related to buybacks since the third quarter of 2008, according to an investor presentation in New York yesterday. The Charlotte, North Carolina-based company still faces $11 billion in unresolved requests and insurers have sought files on $9.8 billion more, according to regulatory filings.
    The bank has reserves of $3.9 billion to cover mortgage buybacks and has called the losses manageable, according to yesterday’s presentation by CEO Brian T. Moynihan, 50.
    Requests Denied
    Bankers say that not all requests become claims, and not all claims translate into actual buybacks. About half the requests don’t survive scrutiny, according to Credit Suisse, and as for valid claims, losses are typically less than the stated amount of the loans. That’s because loans are typically backed by collateral and covered by reserves, according to bankers. Loss estimates from analysts range from 35 percent to 60 percent.
    Kotowski at Oppenheimer estimates $7.4 billion of losses over the next year for six of the biggest U.S. banks, including Bank of America and New York-based Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan. That’s one of the lower forecasts among Wall Street analysts.
    “Just because people are bringing suits doesn’t mean they have merit, doesn’t mean they’re going to get everything they want,” Kotowski said.
    –With assistance from Jody Shenn in Washington, Michael Moore in New York, David Mildenberg in Charlotte. Editors: Rick Green, David Scheer.

  7. Anonymous, please repost link (?)

  8. Joyce Louise

    Good Point!!!

  9. Anonymous

    Very good and should we not add the violation of state laws that trump the fed law? Isn’t the contract breached if they say they will follow applicable law, but then do just the opposite? Several cases working down here in Texas.

    The pospectus says the loans may be subject to violation of state laws, etc.

  10. John

    Thought you would be able to click on my Sept. 20, 2010 post — but, appears you have to look it up. What I write below — it not from this post.

  11. john gault,

    Yes – UCC applies by state — but very uniform. Here is link to my post in September – and 11th Circuit case- Georgia.

    ANONYMOUS, on September 20, 2010 at 6:39 am said:

    Repurchase Agreements are “put backs” — for numerous reasons – including misrepresentations, breach of contract, fraud, etc. etc. If repurchase is executed — then loan/note was conditional – rendering it — not-negotiable. Cannot indorse loan notes that were subject to repurchase — because were never valid to begin with. We have no way of knowing if loan/note was repurchased – but, do know that there were numerous “misrepresentations” at execution – including the stated lender.

  12. Here is a link to MERS assessment of the UCC’s relevance to promissory notes:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50171939/MERS-discussion-of-the-UCC-in-Motion-to-Dismiss

  13. Well, anonymous, I’d sure like to see that, so please look for it!
    I know there was a time when the town and state where the note was initially executed by the borrower was the big ticket because that is where the UCC would then be applied to the note – that state’s. That’s why notes have that info on them – where they’re being executed. The only thing I can think which would change this would be some regulatory thing regarding
    securitizations, remics, psa’s and all those other
    words in the ‘new’ language.

  14. UCC is common law it also has to do with land laws that came out of England which is how land law was established in the US.Judges get really upset when you bring this into play as even though they know about it they have no expierence level with it.It also makes them do thier jobs and have to think back to how they were taught.Neither of which is very popular with judges.BTW this is also known as Administrative Law.Equally as unpopular with judges.

  15. john gault and Ian

    Note has to a negotiable instrument in order for UCC to apply. Mortgage notes were supposedly sold via a chain including a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA). But, MLPAs (and I have only seen “intent” to sell in MLPA), include a standard Repurchase Agreement. By including Repurchase Agreement in MLPAs, this should make the note non-negotiable (there is some supportive case law regarding “repurchase agreements and non-negotiability – I posted this quite awhile ago – but forget where). This would toss out the “Holder” argument.

    PSAs and REMICs do not specifically address UCC – but imply by referring to indorsements.

    John – Why would a bankster argue that UCC does NOT apply??

  16. Well, now I have another case which indicates the note is subject to the UCC in the state where the note is located. So if the custodial file is in CA, say, it would be the CA UCC. But, I also recall now that you mention it yet another case where a bankster
    argued that the UCC does not apply to mortgage notes! Dang, I don’t want to think this hard tonight!

  17. Ian, funny you should mention this just now. I think I just read today that these notes are regulated by the NY UCC. Will cite later if I can find it.

  18. Does anyone know if the words UCC law appear in either PSAs or Prospectuses(regarding securitized loans in trusts). It would seem as though plaintiffs’attys are using traditional mortgage law(pre securitization) to address securitized mortgages governed by the PSA ,and IRS REMIC law where UCC law is neither mentiioned nor addressed,thereby rendering UCC law irrelevant. In other words,since the PSA and the IRC REMIC provisions do not mention UCC law, the arguments by the plaintiffs attys which reference UCC law are null and void. Rebuttals?

  19. Here is a useful term found in common law:

    “Crave Oyer”. It means bring the original document to court. It is a common law writ which requires documents to be read in court. I found it in a case where the debtor is seeking modification. She also wants the modification attached, as an allonge, to the note to evidence the modification (if she ever gets one).
    Rule 1002 addresses the best evidence rule in fed
    jurisdictions, btw. I think it’s 52 in state venues.

    Someone was looking for help in Washington. The bk court in the western div has a local rule:

    King County local rule “5 (d) filing. No motion for any order shall be heard unless the original documents pertaining to it have been filed with the clerk.”

    Check your local rules for variations of this rule.

  20. dny

    Maybe — but all is only temporary. Green pastures do not last for very long.

  21. ANONYMOUS – I agree, except to the extent that the days are long gone for fraudsters, that is. With investment banks currently driving up the price of oil and all of us paying the price for this speculation at the pumps, I’d say they have just moved on to “greener” pastures.

  22. 1 Bank, it’s called the FED.

  23. Oh, and as to JP Morgan Chase and B of A,
    the writing is on the wall, and that is evidenced by the fact that title companies are refusing to issue insurance on foreclosed properties where MERS was involved and where the chain is otherwise not clear. You can follow this ‘stuff’ at sourceoftitle.com

    If you are in litigation or fighting your foreclosure, make sure to file your Notice of Pending Litigation with your case number at the recorder’s office. Don’t forget to put your parcel number at the top left. And watch your margins (call recorder and ask) or you’ll get charged an extra filing fee if your margins are not what the recorder requires.
    This is not quite the same as a lis pendens, although it may act the same.

  24. I also followed b davies’ link to MERS’ response to the subpoena. Of course, the response was a crock, and it’s no surprise MERS felt it necessary to state among its disclaimers that it couldn’t be held
    responsible for the veracity of anything on its computer system. Gee. Aren’t we stunned?

  25. Okay, one of you rocket scientists help us out here! I followed the link about JP Morgan Chase firing MERS. So far so good. Then I followed another link to a newer article, wherein JPMC is singing the blues about the potential for payouts $$$$ to investors on repurchase of ‘substandard’ loans (my word), etc. Wasn’t JPMC the recipient of funds from default swaps, pool insurance, and the all-but-forgotten good old private mortgage insurance (pmi)? Who exactly had to pay the JPMC’s these monies? Where’d the dough go? Out of the country with our TARP funds? (I repeat: Traitors)

    And speaking of pmi, who the heck is getting these funds and how does this inpact the debt owed by the borrower? There wasn’t a loan made in this world over 80% loan to value that didn’t have pmi, whether it were factored into the rate, aka ‘self-insuring’, or added as an upfront cost and a monthly
    premium to the borrower (which means it also inpacted the APR and the amt financed on the Reg Z Truth in Lending statement). PMI is to protect the lender in the event of the borrower’s default on what is (well, he–, used to be) considered a high loan to value.

    So, if a loan had pmi, and the borrower defaulted,
    the lender makes a claim on the pmi. So why is the bank/lender/beneficiary trying to collect on the house as well? How does / should this sit in equity? And what about the default swaps and the pool insurance monies?

  26. jig007 – thumbs up

  27. Oh, yah-stinking-hoo. Really! I guess I got stoned and missed the investigation into MERS in November. I hope it’s not a kangaroo court affair. We need to see that the voluntary-only entries into MERS computer system are addressed in this investigation as well as the unbridled, unchecked, free-for-all actions of its members in regard to the (bogus) assignments.

    In the meantime, here is a new link to some very good defenses to banksters trying to take your home:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50070912/Walker-v-Citi-Objection-to-Citi-s-Proof-of-Claim-Jan-26-2011

    The objection (Round II) discusses Citi’s allegation it is the trustee of Walker’s loan which is allegedly in a trust. Walker proves it isn’t , as well as offers good evidence the alleged allonge to the note is bogus.
    An allonge to the note is a document banksters try to use when they didn’t bother getting the endorsement(s) on the note itself, and generally is created after the fact in my opinion as a cover-up.

  28. Oh, yah-stinking-hoo. Really! I guess I got stoned and missed the investigation into MERS in November. What I routinely refer to as non-existant and impossible diligence by MERS is related to corporate governance. Either way, whatever you call it, there is none, and I am thrilled that this is finally being addressed. I only hope it’s legitimate and not a kangaroo court investigation. We need to see that the voluntary-only entries into MERS computer system are addressed in this investigation as well as the unbridled actions of its members in regard to the (bogus) assignments.

    In the meantime, here is a new link to some very good defenses to banksters trying to take your home:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50070912/Walker-v-Citi-Objection-to-Citi-s-Proof-of-Claim-Jan-26-2011

    The objection discusses Citi’s allegation it is the trustee of Walker’s loan which is allegedly in a trust. Walker proves it isn’t , as well as offers good evidence the alleged allonge to the note is bogus.
    An allonge to the note is a document banksters try to use when they didn’t bother getting the endorsement(s) on the note itself, and generally is created after the fact in my opinion. This is worth a read.

  29. http://www.scribd.com/Supoena-Records-From-From-Mers-12-08-2010/d/44917907

    Here is the complimentary mers audit trail suponea results. Any one think there is a break in the chain?

  30. HOW MANY HOMEOWNERS DOES IT TAKE TO SCREW MERS?

    March 4, 2011

    Honorable Sam Farr
    17th Congressional District
    100 W Alisal Street
    Salinas, CA 93901

    RE: County Recording Fees
    Recovery of Lost County Revenues

    Dear Honorable Farr,

    At the suggestion of your office (Carina), I am writing to request a meeting with you. The topic I would like to discuss involves recovering lost county recording fees. You may be aware of the entity “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems” (MERS). MERS has come under fire in most jurisdictions across the United States. MERS has for several years now, bypassed the county recorders offices across America to the benefit of its shareholders which include the major lending institutions, ALTA, Mortgage Bankers Association, etc. MERS developed a DATA base beginning in the late 1990’s to track mortgage assignments and activities related to mortgage transfers amongst lending institutions, investor groups, and mortgage servicing companies. MERS never received permission from Federal or State Governments or by any legislation to conduct this enterprise. In several cases, MERS was not licensed to conduct business in many states, California included.

    Recently, I have discussed the issue with John L. O’Brien. Mr. O’Brien is the Register of Deeds for Essex County Massachusetts. His office has initiated a suit against MERS to recover approximately $22 million dollars in lost fees in his county alone. It is my understanding for Massachusetts alone the county figures are as high as $200 million dollars combined statewide for lost revenue. See enclosed. Additionally, in a recent development, North Carolina, Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen announced they too will seek an investigation of MERS in trying to recover $1.3 million dollars in lost revenue. See enclosed.

    I have contacted Mr. Vagnini’s office and am hopeful of a return phone call to discuss the matter. I recently addressed the Pacific Grove City Council at their meeting on March 2, 2011. I was not surprised that many people have not heard of MERS as it relates to the many problems of our foreclosure crisis as well. MERS is facing a Federal Investigation as of March 2, 2011. See enclosed.

    Please consider a meeting with me to discuss the recovery of lost revenue for Monterey County.

    Sincerely,

    James *. ******a

    Cc: John L. O’Brien, Register of Deeds, Jeff Thigpen, Register of Deeds

  31. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47935217/UNIVERSAL-AMERICAN-MORTGAGE-COMPANY-WAREHOUSE-AND-BUYBACK-Closing-Documents-and-Agreement-of-Universal

    does anyone know about these warehouse lines and Lennar and Universal American Mortgage Warehouse scams. Please read and contact me if these anyone understands these.

    Fighting DBNTC and they have answered. Trial set for September.

    b.daviesmd@gmail.com

  32. dny,

    Who supports a mega-pool– and everything else?? The People. Harm the people — you harm everything else. Only ones to benefit from all the fraud were those that profited at the top. Those days are long gone.

  33. I think we should wizz on all the banks. When in college and after a few drinks, my Frat House would go onto the crosswalk above the major highway, we would all take a leak. All they could do was turn on the windshield wipers and roll up the windows. Ah, the good ole days.

  34. […] 4 Mar COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION SEARCH, REPORT, ANALYSIS ON LUMINAQ NOT QUITE THAT SIMPLE EDITOR'S NOTE: The assumption is that if MERS is screwed we are all saved. I have it on incontrovertible authority that the mega banks already have a plan mapped out for that and in fact they are already putting it into action. Considering their success in kicking the can down the road so far, any singing and dancing should be muted. You see they don't have t … Read More […]

  35. Neil,
    I for one am as nasty as you are–to the bitter end, I say! Resistance is victory!

  36. .

    We assume that “Wall Street” and “Government” are 2 different entities when in fact any “regulation” would have been worked out by Wall Street.

    Who remembers the basics of “control theory 101”? It’s not the control algorithm, it’s the “set point” which primarily determines the outcome: If you set your room thermostat to 100 degrees, do not complain!

    Who is in in charge of the economic “setpoint”? A free market, driven by supply/demand consensus? LOL
    .

  37. JOIN FLORIDIANS AS WE ONCE AGAIN RALLY IN TALLY ON mARCH 9–to show the legislature who we are as homeowners in foreclosure. Last year we helped stop the non-judicial bill and this year there are other bills to stop.

    Buses start in Miami and travel up both coasts to Tallahassee, Florida–make your bus reservation through 4closurefraud.com —
    Everyone welcome in the entire country–le’s show the nation what’s happening–there will be booths, talking to representatives, etc–bring your show of fraud!

  38. Don’t overlook the fraud that is in the Deed of Trust provisions that may be in conflict with applicable law. Breach of Contract still holds.

  39. I agree editor and it goes like this.

    First they lobby to get the laws changed or regulation put in place, Congress passes the rules or laws, whatever. Then when something happens they say Congress, Congress put the laws in place, our hands were tied because of Congress or they didn’t put in enough regulation.

    Just like Ben says Congress put the rules there, they passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. I’m just trying to do my job. So Ben answers to Senator Kirk that a government can issue currency without having a trillion dollar debt. So I propose the Gov take over the Federal Reserve and the Gov hire Ben Bernanke to run it since he knows a Gov can issue currency without having a trillion dollar debt.

  40. On topic: It wasn’t just homeowners who were screwed during the go-go years. Look around you in your own community for other lasting fallout from Wall Street’s exuberance for fabricating currency – and lots of it – out of thin air.

    Today’s Bloomberg article: “Olympic Pool in Hedge-Fund Mecca Drives Greenwich YMCA to Brink” at
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-04/greenwich-ymca-s-default-after-olympic-pool-leads-jpmorgan-to-deep-water.html

  41. You know just for once if the feds. would actually stand up and do the job that we the people pay them to do it would be friggen amazing.Are they going to …not so much.It’s past time for a tea party and way past time for a revolution.Wake up people its now or never.Don’t just take it to the streets ….take back the streets all of them they belong to us the people of America.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: