60 MINUTES: SECURITIZATION PROPERTY TITLES ARE A “TRAIN WRECK”

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Neil Garfield

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM

GET LUMINAQ COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

PAYMENT TO HOMEOWNERS TO BACK OFF LITIGATION PROPOSED

30,000 QUIET TITLE ACTIONS ALREADY FILED AND NUMBERS ARE CLIMBING SHARPLY

SHEILA BAIR: A Flood of Litigation from Homeowners is Swamping the Court System.

60 MINUTES; SECOND CRISIS IN THE MAKING

60 MINUTES OVERTIME: WHO OWNS YOUR MORTGAGE

Scott Pelley did a strong pice on the securitization scam last night on 60 minutes (see above links and watch the video). BUT THE SECURITIZATION MYTH WAS NEVERTHELESS PERPETUATED. According to Pelley, we don’t know who owns the mortgages AND THE TITLE IS CORRUPTED so people won’t be able to sell or refinance their house. The clear implication is that we don’t know who owns the house. But the answer is as simple Property Law 101. There is no mystery here. The fact that the securitizers intentionally or unintentionally screwed up the paperwork and the closings is not the homeowners’ problem.

WHO OWNS THE HOUSE? THE HOMEOWNER OF COURSE. THAT WOULD BE THE PERSON OR PERSONS IN THE PROPERTY RECORDS OF COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE WHO WERE PROPERLY REGISTERED AS THE GRANTEE OF DEED FROM THE FORMER PROPERTY OWNER. The implication that the securitizers actually have some right to the house is wrong, and CBS was unintentionally carrying the message from Wall Street that this is just a paperwork mess that could be cleaned up. But as we have repeatedly said, if it were that simple, it COULD be corrected legally and they wouldn’t have need to have $10 per hour clerical people signing as vice-president of 20  different lending institutions, most of which they never heard of, were never employed by and who didn’t even know of their existence.

The reason why the paperwork is so screwed up is that Wall Street tried the usually successful practice of burying the opposition in paper. But the paper is meaningless. What Pelley missed in his focus on robo-signing was that the closing with the homeowner was defective in the first place and the only “correction” that is possible is to get another signature from the borrower. Good luck. The fact that Federal and state lending laws require that the lender be identified and that the fees and costs all be disclosed before the closing required that information to be on the promotional information given to the buyer, the Good Faith estimate, and the closing statement as well as the promissory note and mortgage or deed of trust. None of that was done.

SO THE QUESTION OF WHO OWNS THE MORTGAGE IS IRRELEVANT. There is no mortgage or deed of trust that can be enforced. The liability for the loan runs from the borrower to the lender. The party on the documents was not the lender. THAT is why this can’t be corrected without the cooperation of the borrowers who are now going to be presented with various proposals to induce them to sign off on paperwork that will make the initial filing of a mortgage valid and legal. It is highly unlikely, without a very significant payment estimated between $20,000 and $100,000 that any homeowner or former homeowner is going to sign such a document.

If the home is STILL worth less than the proposed mortgage, a significant number of homeowners simply won’t sign.

The bottom line is that the liability exists — only to the initial investor or successors who purchased mortgage bonds — and even there, such rights would only be valid if established i courts of equity where the “creditor” would come in with “clean hands” and a credible claim about how they are suffering a loss. Such parties might be and probably would be subject to answers, affirmative defenses, set-off, counterclaims and especially suits for quiet title, which are the last thing that pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury want to get involved with.

THE REAL BOTTOM LINE IS THAT NEARLY ALL THE LOANS WERE UNDISCLOSED TABLE-FUNDED LOANS MEANT FOR THE SECURITIZATION MARKET, VIOLATING FEDERAL AND STATE LENDING LAWS. AT LEAST 96% OF ALL “LOAN TRANSACTIONS” HAD MONEY CHANGE HANDS BUT NONE OF THOSE HAD ANY VALID DOCUMENTATION.

PELLEY CALLED THIS A TRAIN WRECK. I disagree. I CALL IT JUSTICE AND THE APPLICATION OF LAW INSTEAD OF THE RULE OF WEALTHY MEN. When Xerox forgot to patent their document copying process, nobody said we should treat it as though they had the patent. Quite the contrary. When bankers, who have been doing this for hundreds of years, “forget” to document their liens and prioritize them, nobody should be saying we should give it to them anyway. Why? Because we already know they sold the same thing multiple times. In many cases, perhaps most, the “creditor has been paid, and perhaps over paid.

The consequences of homeowners getting an unintended collateral benefit from Wall Street’s screw-ups is unusual only because it is the little guy who is getting the benefit. But it is also society at large, where the attempted transfer of wealth did not succeed. Homeowners are realizing that they actually didn’t lose their house and are not at risk of losing their homes and that if they have any liability they have no burden of finding out the amount due or the identity of the creditor to whom it is due. The world is realizing that the mortgage bonds were empty pieces of paper and they have trading spit balls instead of proprietary currency.

The opportunity presented by this turn of events is enormous in terms of our ability to rebuild infrastructure, upgrade education, and level the playing field of what we want as a free market without domination by giants that are too big too fail and too big to manage or regulate.



Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

« »

69 Responses

  2. Joseph Quinn, on April 12, 2011 at 5:20 pm said:

    All got scamed bu Docx especially “linda Green”
    please notify usps,
    https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/forms/MailFraudComplaint.aspx

  5. ANONYMOUS, on April 7, 2011 at 6:13 am said:

    Your letter below is much more coherent than you usually write. Where are the preferred and common shares? Not in REMIC. A REIT?

  6. MSOLIMAN, on April 7, 2011 at 3:21 am said:

    Sample Dispute Letter to Servcing Agent Supervisor
    By M.Soliman

    Date

    Your Name
    Your Address
    Your City, State, Zip Code

    Subject: Your loan number
    Attention: Customer Service

    Name of Loan Servicer
    Department Reference
    Address
    City, State, Zip Code

    Dear Sir;

    This is NOT a “qualified written request” under Section 6 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). It is none the less a non-threatening appeal offered in good faith and within the operative meaning of RESPA , fair disclosure and relevant securities law.

    Before I commence with prosecuting the case I have assembled against your firm, you are entitled to every benefit available to acknowledge the following:

    You either opened this correspondence or it was presented to you for a response. Therefore you’re under a duty of care to “personally” address the information herein and this request for an ernest, ethical response.

    This is subject to where it has come to my attention the above referenced loan was sold to an “investor”. It was securitized meaning the loan or interest in the loan was sold to one or more investors. Under the accounting rules your office may not formally service the loan as you represented.

    Problem one is you can legally monitor my loan as allowed through the investor’s master servicing agent. Since the firm selling the loan is who your affiliated with you can affirm or deny your motivation to comply with the procedures I am dictating from fact.

    1. Upon the loan falling into default you shall be notified.
    2. At 60 days you’re asked by the Trustee managing the Trust or investor membership, to satisfy my loan, meaning to pay it off.
    3.Your firm is then obligated to pay for the entire loans principal balance outstanding by depositing an equal amount of cash with the trustee.
    4.Since your firm and or affiliate’s received stock for the loan at transfer, this procedure is tantamount to paying twice for my loan.

    I have further learned the stock you received is of the class “common trust shares”. From these shares are borne preferred trust shares. Therefore your satisfaction or pay down of my loan in default is mandatory and highly problematic. Since the accounting rules under GAAP prohibit any tampering or any control of loans sold, your firm is also liable for an amount to ten times the “goodwill” amount outstanding.

    I am writing to you to confirm your firm’s procedure that directs your personnel to request that I miss three payments prior to qualify for a modification program. This is, as you know, a sham procedure and a civil violation. It is also a common practice of your firm.

    Since a REPO is impossible your policy is to avoid the repurchase by enticing enough homeowners into default. While we make payments towards a sham modification your allowed to recoup some of the losses incurred to date under your recourse provisions.

    Even more disturbing was to hear that upon enough homeowners being duped into this deceitful practice, you’re allowed to use the high number of defaults to “call” the entire investment. It’s called a “capital call” and something of a fail-safe to hedge against coming out of pocket to make good on loans otherwise “charged off to a bad investment. You let the foreclosure now substitute for your damnd to repurchase or replace the loans with cash !

    Without a capital call procedure and MERS at your beckon call, you would never had made me the loan. Nor would you have ever sold it into a trust investment offering preferred and common trust shares.

    Please do not believe you can continue this highly controversial tactic that clearly violates the securities registration under SEC enforcement of 1122 AB. However, be aware of is the magnitude of this matter and the criminal implications under the SEC enforcement of United States Securities’ laws.
    Congress created direct liability for individuals who commit securities fraud, and as an additional deterrent, section 15 of the 1933 Act and section 20(a) of the 1934.

    As for your role, Act 6 establishes secondary liability for persons who exercise “control” over primary violators of the securities regulations.

    PLEASE TAKE NOTE – – – Your now made aware of my knowledge of your actions and your intentions for merely proffering a clear and definitive answer to this request for confirmation.

    You can at this time resolve the matter with a formal statement “denying” your knowledge of such fact or admit accordingly. Either way you may be asked to testify in this matter should this case go to court.

    Please describe the issues as you see them having evolved to date or provide an explanation in detail and what action can be taken for an immediate halt this unlawful practice leading to wrongful foreclosure.

    Sincerely

    Joe Lunch Bucket

    Cc: Securities and Exchange Commission

    expert.witness@live.com

  7. Katheryn, on April 6, 2011 at 3:47 pm said:

    What difference…they can all pound sand

  8. MSOLIMAN, on April 6, 2011 at 2:43 pm said:

    Right On! Year Zero!
    Too bad for the banks, let them eat dirt and pound sand!

    WRONG THIS IS THE FED – IS ANYONE LISTENING

  9. MSOLIMAN, on April 6, 2011 at 2:41 pm said:

    You Dan E analysis and information from Luminaq is not evidentiary. You incorrect in numerous areas and what your selling is materially misrepresented

    It is damaging to a foreclosure case and not accurate

  10. WELLS/WACHOVIA: NO CONSCIENCE, NO MORALS, NO REGULATION —- FRAUD « Livinglies's Weblog, on April 6, 2011 at 9:38 am said:

    […] SEE RELATED STORIES: 60 MINUTES: TITLE PROBLEMS ARISING FROM SECURITIZATION A ”TRAIN WRECK” […]

  11. BlaqRubi, on April 6, 2011 at 12:13 am said:

    I would write to the top two people, CEO’s of the company – specifically address it to people. At the bottom of the letter I could cc: The Department of Justice; the IRS, the FTC, and your state attorney general. I would send all copies via certifed mail return receipt. I would keep the letter one page but powerful and to the point. (In the Meantime, I would have an attorney file a lis pendens on my property and record a Declaration of Homestead in the County Recorder’s office. I would read up on Real Estate Law and other relative stuff cuz if they can’t produce the evidence your require – and you WILL need to VERIFY that doc, no photoshop or “certified” copies you need VERIFIED copies and you decide to stop paying them you will need to be prepared for a serious fight. Oh, I forgot after you send the letter, FIRST go to the County Recorder’s office and see what is recorded on your property. You may find your note has BEEN paid off years ago! I have been fighting for 6 YEARS now. It is not about free and clear, this has been my LIFE that has been stolen as welll. Hope this helps you some what!!

  12. BlaqRubi, on April 6, 2011 at 12:05 am said:

    JayHayes you are on pointt!!! I would like to see some sort of FEAR FACTOR. I can’t focus right now, just got done with legal docs in my case in two different courts for ONE mortgage!! Will give U some Ideas tomorrow! Love your posts!

  13. jay Hayes, on April 5, 2011 at 11:14 pm said:

    Any comments on this letter to the servicer?

    To whom it may concern:

    I own the property at the address listed above, and your bank services my mortgage.

    Over the last several weeks there have been many stories documenting the problem that banks are foreclosing on homes without proof that they own the loan.

    I have learned that in many cases, banks like yours do not even know who owns the loans you service. Employees at several leading banks have admitted to rubber stamping tens of thousands of foreclosures every month, without even checking to make sure that the bank had a legal right to proceed with foreclosure.

    In some cases, banks allegedly falsified mortgage documents to cover up their mistakes. There have been reports of two banks trying to foreclose on the same home, banks foreclosing on homeowners who were current on their payments, and even of a bank foreclosing on a home where the homeowner had never taken out a mortgage to begin with.

    This is not merely a “technical problem”–it is the difference between having a warm bed at night and being out on the street.

    As a homeowner and a customer of your bank, I am horrified. I had always believed that it I played by the rules, I would be protected, but now I know that banks like yours think the rules don’t apply to them.

    To protect myself and my family, I need to know who owns my mortgage. Within thirty days, I would like to know the name, address, and phone number of the bank or investor that owns my mortgage.

    Furthermore, in light of the recent allegations of foreclosure fraud, I demand to see the original mortgage note proving ownership over my home loan.

    I would like to see copies of all endorsements and assignments of my mortgage note and where and when the assingment(s) _if any – were recorded.

    I also ask that you provide me with evidence of your firm being contractually retained to service my loan. (italics indicate added by LR)

    If you fail to produce a mortgage note proving that you have a right to collect my mortgage payments, provide the information I am legally entitled to,

    I will be forced to consider all options available to me to ensure that my family and my home are protected.

    I ask that I receive my response in writing.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

  14. ANONYMOUS, on April 5, 2011 at 3:32 pm said:

    jay Hayes

    FTC investigating? We might as well get out the lawn chair.

  15. WHO OWNS THE HOUSE? THE HOMEOWNER OF COURSE « How to act like an American, on April 5, 2011 at 2:41 pm said:

    […] 60 MINUTES: SECURITIZATION PROPERTY TITLES ARE A “TRAIN WRECK” […]

  16. jay Hayes, on April 5, 2011 at 1:40 pm said:

    Here is the interesting undertone of the 60 Minutes story that I haven’t heard.

    In this story, they spoke of 1 million foreclosures happening last year
    and another

    1 million this year. break that down to 50 states and that equals 20,000 new STATE lawsuits in one years time.

    That would destroy every court system in every state in the US.

    The banks nor the government are driving the bus on this issue, the homeowner is.

    For once, people are standing up to both and making both of them prove their case.

    This has been talked about on the internet for a long time now. I give cudo’s to CBS for showing this story and bringing this to light.

    Thanks to people like Neil Garfield and Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for standing up for the little guy when no one else would.

    Make them show the note.

    If the state court systems break down, you
    may finally see bank execs prosecuted.

    Every Home Owner facing Foreclosure should file a law suit.

    Don’t walk away from you’re home!

    Let’s kick some Bankster But..

    Make them prove there ownership, or legal standing, they can’t!
    With phony robo signed doc’s and $10 hr. VP’s, fraud run amuck corrupted notary’s…. I don’t think so!

    Id say home owner’s have a chance

    Their are lot’s and lot’s of resource’s that can help you defend your home.

    Now is the time for the little guy to strike back against the evil empire!

    Just my two cents!

  17. jay Hayes, on April 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm said:

    How ironic that the last quote in this article comes from Lender Processing Services, a major architect of this debacle and the major source of robosignin g. (By the way,it’s past time we drop the “so-called ” or “alleged” in conjunctio n with robosign/e d/ing – robosignin g is a FACT.)
    Go to scribd.com and search for “Lender Processing Services” and “The Summit,” LPS’s newsletter . There are three back issues posted from ’06 and ’07. The ’06 issues includes an article that describes robosignin g – they were doing 1000 docs/day. Read about attorneys getting kickbacks per billable file! Read about attorneys getting awards. Read about all the law firms we know term foreclosur e “mills.”
    60 Minutes said the FBI is camped out in the JAX LPS location. You can’t get the Jax or Minneapoli s newspapers to write about LPS to save their lives.
    People need to go to JAIL! Bankers, lawyers, notaries, forgers… People need to go to JAIL.

  18. OPISO » FED POLICY FAVORS MEGA BANKS AND IS ANTICOMPETITIVE ADDING TO TRAIN WRECK, on April 5, 2011 at 11:33 am said:

    […] 60 MINUTES: TITLE PROBLEMS ARISING FROM SECURITIZATION A ”TRAIN WRECK” EDITOR’S COMMENT: With 7,000 community banks and credit unions, an electronic funds transfer […]

  19. Dave Krieger, on April 5, 2011 at 10:15 am said:

    I was at the viewing event with Lynn Szymoniak in Florida, along with a host of those affected. It was great putting a face to those I have spoken with via phone. I also was afforded the opportunity to see two victories in the Miami-Dade Rocket Docket on Monday morning!

    If you are seriously thinking about quiet title, you might consider visiting my website at
    http://www.cloudedtitles.com

    The eBook is still worth the investment, even for attorneys looking to expand their client list.

    We have several more Florida attormeys pursuing quiet title actions and I agree with Neil, this is only the beginning of a serious legal onslaught on the banks. Unfortunately, the Florida legislature seeks to cut court funding instead of bolstering it … what fools they are! Someone should remind them of the consequences of their actions.

    DAVE KRIEGER
    CLOUDED TITLES

  20. jay Hayes, on April 5, 2011 at 8:13 am said:

    The Federal Trade Commission is investigating Ocwen Financial Corp., which has turned over documents relating to the company’s home loan servicing and foreclosure activities.

    Ocwen, which has 245 employees in its West Palm Beach office, said in its 2010 annual report that it received a “Civil Investigative Demand” from the FTC for paperwork and information regarding its practices.

    The company is one of the largest home loan servicers in the country, specializing in sub-prime accounts and lauded for its work modifying mortgage payments under its own programs as well as through the federal Making Home Affordable plan.

    Last year, Ocwen, which was based in West Palm Beach until January when its headquarters officially moved to Atlanta, modified 69,917 loans to reduce monthly payments for home owners.

    In its annual SEC filing, Ocwen reported a net income last year of $38 million on revenue of $360.4 million. It services about $70 billion in loans.

    Paul Koches, Ocwen’s executive vice president, said the FTC’s request for information was made in November at the height of the “robo-signing” controversy. Many major lenders temporarily halted foreclosures pending inquiries into the apparent mass signing of foreclosure documents without review. Ocwen did not freeze its foreclosures, saying the issues affecting other lenders and servicers were not a problem for it.

    “We’ve not been advised of any wrongdoing, and we’re fully cooperating with the commission,” Koches said this week about the FTC’s inquiry. “It’s a generic review of operations.”

    And it appears Ocwen is not the only company the FTC is reviewing.

    Joel Winston, associate director of the FTC, confirmed the Ocwen investigation and said “we are looking at more than one possible target.”

    One of the problems that brought foreclosures to a standstill in the fall was that bank employees were allegedly signing thousands of foreclosure and court-related documents with little to no knowledge of what they were signing. In some cases they were swearing to having personal knowledge of each case, when they did not.

    Documents suspected to have been wrongfully executed included assignments of mortgage Such transfers became necessary in the real estate boom as mortgages were sold and resold, packaged into securitized trusts and otherwise transferred in a labyrinthine fashion.

    While Ocwen never froze its foreclosures, an Ocwen employee who signed assignments of mortgage was mentioned last year in a Florida attorney general’s presentation outlining alleged forgeries on documents used in the foreclosure process.

    State investigators showed the signature of Scott Anderson, which appears in at least four different ways on mortgage assignments.

    Koches acknowledged that the signatures were not all Anderson’s, but he said that doesn’t mean they were forged. Certain employees were authorized to sign for Anderson on mortgage assignments, which Koches noted do not need to be notarized.

    Still, Ocwen has since stopped the practice.

    Koches downplayed the FTC investigation.

    “Virtually every federal and state agency that has any jurisdiction over the mortgage industry is involved one way or another in reviewing companies that fall within their reach,” said Koches, whose company has about 2,274 employees, 80 percent of whom work in India.

    The company’s Feb. 28 annual report says no wrongdoing has so far been alleged, but it warns investors of potential fines stemming from the FTC investigation.

  21. usedkarguy, on April 5, 2011 at 7:50 am said:

    Tim, that was a MOUTHFUL!

  22. jay Hayes, on April 5, 2011 at 7:46 am said:

    TRUSTS USING LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES DOCUMENTS IN FORECLOSURES

    Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Editor, Fraud Digest, December 7, 2010

    As scrutiny of mortgage documents continues in Congress and in the press, attention turns to the trustees and mortgage-backed trusts that have relied heavily on these documents to foreclose. Many of the trusts that relied on mortgage assignments prepared by Docx/Lender Processing Services in Alpharetta, Georgia, the fraudulent practices of Lender Processing Services were the focus of an investigative report by Reuters News Service on December 6, 2010. The report challenged the company’s frequent assertions that the document preparation problems were limited to one office and a short period of time.

    Investors and homeowners can look to the following series of trusts that are among those that have used Docx-prepared documents almost exclusively in foreclosures. In thousands of cases, the trusts listed below have been unable to produce the mortgage assignments held by the trustees’ document custodians and have instead used Docx-prepared Assignments. In almost all of these cases, the trustees claimed that they acquired these mortgages many years after the trusts’ closing dates, and often AFTER the foreclosure actions were filed by the trustees.

    The following 150 trusts, holding mortgages with a combined value of approximately $100 Billion, relied almost exclusively on Docx Assignments to foreclose:

    13 American Home Mortgage Asset Trusts, with Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Citibank as Trustee;
    12 American Home Mortgage Investment Trusts with Deutsche Bank, U.S. Bank, Citibank, and Bank of NY Mellon as Trustee;
    10 Ameriquest Trusts with Deutsche Bank as Trustee;
    5 Argent Trusts with Deutsche Bank as Trustee;
    4 Asset-Backed Securities Corporation Trusts with U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo as Trustees;
    14 Bear Stearns Trusts with Citibank; U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo as Tustee;
    12 Carrington Mortgage Loan Trusts with Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo as Trustee;
    7 Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust with U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo as Trustee;
    4 Deutsch Bank Alt B Trusts with HSBC as Trustee;
    16 Harborview Trusts with Deutsche Bank as Trustee;
    20 Option One Mortgage Loan Trusts with Wells Fargo as Trustee;
    14 Soundview Home Loan “OPT” Trusts with Deutsche Bank and Citibank as Trustee;
    7 Structured Asset Investment Loan Trusts with U.S. Bank as Trustee; and
    12 Structured Asset Securities Corporation Trusts with U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo as Trustee.

  23. usedkarguy, on April 5, 2011 at 7:37 am said:

    Douglas C., Roger here. You may have missed my post abount county commissioners (read LAWYERS) and other officials in Kenosha County resigning their positions in lieu of making their financials public record, which is a common policy for people in those public positions. That is proof in and of itself that the insiders (local politicians, lawyers, judges) are profiting from the act of dispossessing the homeowner/borrower. The fraud and criminal conspiracy runs quite deep.

    ANONYMOUS: just “hello” and “thanks”.

    Maher: laches, wild deed, derecognition, fraud, forfieture; in that order?

  24. CoCo, on April 5, 2011 at 6:54 am said:

    I want free and clear title to my home plus all of the money that I paid to Bank of New York Mellon for a bogus loan modification. I paid 8 months at about $1,400.00 per month. I made my payments to Wells Fargo in Sacramento. They kept saying I never made my payments. No wonder. I was sending them to a bank that didn’t own my loan. No one knows who owns my loan. First of all Saxon said it was Meritech, then JP Morgan Chase, then Wachovia, now Bank of New York Mellon. I have a fake robo signer, Alfonzo Greene. He was supposedly VP MERS. He assigned my mortgage 2 years and 2 months after the fact of the assignment date of first page of assignment. I was served Lis Pendens 3 months before bogus assignment of mortgage. I agree, all fake robo signers and notaries should be sent to prison for fraud. They knew better. You know the notaries knew better. The girl on 60 minutes thought the whole thing was a good laugh. I’d like to see her behind bars along with the rest of them. They admitted to a crime. How can they not be prosecuted? ‘Ignorqance of the law is no excuse”.
    The banks cannot take most of our homes. I want my home and all of the money that I paid these bogus banks back, and I will fight for it. Since most people will only accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from Bair and the FDIC, it is probably better for the them to GIVE US QUIET TITLE PLUS DAMAGES. What does everyone else think?

  25. ANONYMOUS, on April 5, 2011 at 5:40 am said:

    Problem with this is still — how you define “investors”? Security investors are NOT the creditor. There is only a FAULTY (by false chain) assignment of loan receivables to trustee in securitization. Mortgage is either just transferred to custodian — or was supposed to be assigned. Under either case, mortgage is not SOLD to trust/trustee — and certainly not sold to security investors – at least not in a securitization. Again, from TARP Footnore 35 — “while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    There is a DIFFERENCE between assignment and sale. Although current cover-up “assignments” try to NOW state that there was a also a sale of mortgage — this is too late. Any sale occurred way beyond cut-off date of REMIC contract.

    At the very least, we are talking about unsecured debt.

  26. neidermeyer, on April 5, 2011 at 3:17 am said:

    Posting here because this thread is getting some action.. Can we create a crisis by suing an entity in the foodchain that profits from the fraud but has limited defense resources.. say a Realtor selling foreclosed property and not disclosing the seller has not shown actual deeded ownership? Surely we can find a recent buyer of a foreclosure or simply go shopping with a realtor for a few days..

  27. tim, on April 5, 2011 at 2:24 am said:

    Neil, yeah, about time you got off produce the note crap and got on the ucc crap that is the only way consumers will get relief and, by the way, noting you have kept that canary in your mouth too as it is too lucrative to rip consumers off for the audits bullshit but, fact is the lie consumer supposed advocates misrepresent is that the originating lender, if he is still around as Lehman brothers in our case but performance of the contract can never be delegated out of touch or remote from the originator as even during securitzation, in consumer loans, the originator owes to duty of good faith and a consumer can demand under ucc the originator control his bastard servicers so that is the other piece of shit the no good goddam lawyers have not told consumers and consumer you folks need to read the freaking law and quite relying on web sites like this to tell you the law they want you to know, just enough that is, so that you spend all your resources on the bullshit lawyers who are not pursing the claim correctly anyway as the bastards need only apply fixation requirements under ucc 3-204(a)(c), instead of chumping up the consumer as the lawyers who get it right also do. Consumers remember Neil Garfield told you UCC LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO CONSUMER LOANS, THEY DO AND DO NOT BE DECEIVED ANY LONGER READ UCC LAWS U.C.C. § 2-106(1)(2)(3)(4), Contract Termination , you have a right terminate your contract at anytime, even if not for cause, though you would have a legal battle on your hands and you have a right to pursue the originators also and Neil is right about this, you own nothing to no party other then the originator if, even him, as they used and brokered the loan on your credit undisclosed, they could not do this under UCC. Sadly Neil G site should have reveled these revelations in the ucc law however, Mr. Garfield has written in his Garfield primers on page 311, UCC DOES NOT APPLY!!!!!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!!!! RIGHT HERE IT IS UCC § 3-103. DEFINITIONS.
    (a) In this Article:
    (1) “Acceptor” means a drawee who has accepted a draft.
    (2) “Consumer account” means an account established by an individual primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
    (3) “Consumer transaction” means a transaction in which an individual incurs an obligation primarily for personal, family, or household purposes: by the way for those rotten lawyers who are too lazy to read the law they are steeling the consumers money for they know these facts and CONSUMERS, DO NOT LET THE DUMB LAZY FREAKING LAWYERS TELL YOU THAT UCC DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR LOAN, IF THE LOAN HAS MERS, IT APPLIES TO YOU!!!!!!! DO NOT LET THAT DUMB ASS LAWYER TELL YOU UCC APPLIES ONLY TO BANK ACCOUNTS, THAT IS A LIE, IT APPLIES TO THE FUCKING INSTRUMENT IS WHAT IT APPLIES TO FOR THOSE BASTARD LAWYERS WHO HAVE ASSISTED IN CONSUMERS LOSING THEIR HOMES UNDER PRODUCE THE FUCKING NOTE AND MERS SHIT SO CONSUMER READ THIS AND GO TO WORK consumers!!!!!!

    Where the bullshit lawyers are failing your consumers is that they are failing to attack the fucking instrument, so fuck the produce the note crap against mers, cut them out and the expense all and any transfer was illegal unless the indorsements are affixed to the fucking instrument!!!!! Look at your states deed perfection laws, the bank also had to comply with those recording demand and, notably, in MD Under Real property laws 7-101(a)(b)(c), Deed Absolute in Terms to be Considered a Mortgage, LISTEN MARYLANDERS AND THOSE DUMB LAWYERS WHO ARE NOT LITIGATING THIS AGAINST THE DEEDS, DUHHHH, BUT THE LAW DEMANDS IN ORDER FOR THE INSTRUMENT TO BE PERFECTED YOU HAVE TO FILE ALL CONTRACTS FOR WHOS BENEFIT ANYTHING WAS DERIVED FROM THE RECORDING OF THE GOD DAM DEED!!!!! NOW, MOST RECORDERS OFFICES SHOULD BE REJECTING DEEDS IN MARYLAND PURPORTING TO BE SECURITIZED INSTRUMENTS OR, INSTRUMENTS WITH MERS IN THE BECAUSE THE FUCKING PSA AND ALL THOSE CONTRACTS WITH ALL PARTIES FOR WHO THE FUCKING BANK AND THEIR CLOSING LAWYER STOLE YOUR CREDIT TO GET YOU THE LOAN ON YOUR FUCKING CREDIT BUT THEN NEXT IF THE READ THE DAM REAL PROPERTY LAWS, IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT FAILURE TO RECORD THESE DISCLOSURES RENDERS THE INSTRUMENT NOT PERFECTED AND OF NO LEGAL FORCE!!!!! And that this section of Real Property must comply with Title 9 reqs.(read them their below) and there has been no compliance then the instrument cannot be enforced is unsecured and subject to discharge, for a Maryland lawyer that gives a shit look further under MD Real Prop 15-102, which adjust the real property recording req. dates as of abolishing of Glass Steigle, therefore IN MD AND MOST STATES THESE LAWS MANDATE RETROACTIVE RECORDING OF THESE CONTRACTS AND UCC TITLE 9 DEMANDS IT SO, THE OTHER FUCKING LIE THE BASTARD LAWYERS HAVE BEEN LETTING THE BASTARD FORECLOSURE BASTARDS GET AWAY WITH IS FAILING TO MAKE THE BANK COMPLY!!!!! THEN GO TO MD REAL PROPERTY 3-101, BINGO, SO WHY THE FUCK ARE WE PRODUCING THE NOTE AND FIGHTING MERS??????? SO THE DUMB CONSUMER PAYING THE BASTARD LAWYER CAN STAY FRIENDS WITH THE BANK, HE NEVER WANTS TO NOT BE FRIENDS WITH THOSE BANKS AND ROB YOU OF YOUR MONEY CAUSE THE LITIGATION IS GOING TO FAIL AND THE CONSUMER WILL SUFFER THE LOSE OF THEIR HOME OVER THE BASTARD LAWYER BEING GREEDY AND LAZY, REFUSING TO READ THE LAW AND UPHOLD YOUR RIGHTS IN THE COURT!!!!

    IT HAS GONE NOTICED SITES LIKE NEILS ONLY TELL THE CONSUMERS THE LAWS THEY WANT TO MISLEAD YOU INTO FIGHTING, THOSE LAWS ARE NOT ALWAYS MOST BENEFICIAL TO THE CONSUMER, SO DO NOT FOOL YOURSELVES CONSUMERS!!!!! THE LAWYERS JUST WANT YOUR MONEY AND DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR HOME AND YOU OR ELSE IF YOU ARE IN MD AND ANY STATE, THE WOULD BE LOOK TO THOSE REAL PROPERTY LAWS AND TITLE 9 REQ. UNDER ENFORCEMENT AND THOSE SCUMMY, GREEDY BASTARDS WILL SEE THAT AS OF THE LIFTING OF THE GLASS STIEGLE MOST INSTRUMENTS THAT ARE SECURITIZED INSTRUMENTS MUST HAVE ALL ACCOMPANYING CONTRACTS RECORDED ALIKE SO, THE LAWYERS FUCKING LIE ABOUT DISCOVERY IS BULLSHIT, THE BASTARD HAS DISCOVERY AT HIS FINGERS RIGHT THE FUCK IN HIS COUNTY LAND RECORDS AND REAL PROPERTY LAWS AND UNDER UCC, THEY ARE JUST ROBING THE CONSUMER FOR THEIR BANK BUDDIES AS SURELY THEY ARE NOT THAT FUCKING DUMB? THE LAWYER KNOWS THESE WERE REQ. UNDER REAL PROPERTY LAWS TO MAKE THE INSTRUMENT PERFECTED!!!!!!!

    AN UNPERFECTED INSTRUMENT CANNOT BE ENFORCED, DUHHHH, AND, THE BANK IS IN A WHOLE LOT OF HELL AND TROUBLE FOR WHAT IS NOT IN THE FUCKING LAND RECORDS, THAT IS, THE PSA AND ALL INTER CONTRACTS BETWEEN ALL PARTIES A PART OF THE SECURITIZATION SO THIS IS THE BULLSHIT AND LIES YOUR LAWYERS ARE DOING FOR YOU CONSUMERS, THEY ARE PIGS, GREEDY ROTTEN FUCKING PIGS WHO WILL GET THEIR DUE IN THE END.

    The lawyers are in on it and only going to take your money and dam sure are not going to do anything in your interest whatsoever!!!!!
    LAWS U.C.C. § 2-106(1)(2)(3)(4), Pursuant to U.C.C. your originator and servicer are responsible for the performance of any subordinate contracts, Definitions: “Contract”; “Agreement”; “Contract for sale”; “Sale”; “Present sale”; “Conforming” to Contract; “Termination”; “Cancellation”.
    (1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires “contract” and “agreement” are limited to those relating to the present or future sale of goods. “Contract for sale” includes both a present sale of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. A “sale” consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price (Section 2-401). A “present sale” means a sale which is accomplished by the making of the contract.
    (2) Goods or conduct including any part of a performance are “conforming” or conform to the contract when they are in accordance with the obligations under the contract.
    (3) “Termination” occurs when either party pursuant to a power created by agreement or law puts an end to the contract otherwise than for its breach. On “termination” all obligations which are still executory on both sides are discharged but any right based on prior breach or performance survives.
    (4) “Cancellation” occurs when either party puts an end to the contract for breach by the other and its effect is the same as that of “termination” except that the cancelling party also retains any remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed balance.

    § 2-717. Deduction of Damages From the Price.
    The buyer on notifying the seller of his intention to do so may deduct all or any part of the damages resulting from any breach of the contract from any part of the price still due under the same contract.

    § 3-115. INCOMPLETE INSTRUMENT.
    (a) “Incomplete instrument” means a signed writing, whether or not issued by the signer, the contents of which show at the time of signing that it is incomplete but that the signer intended it to be completed by the addition of words or numbers.
    (b) Subject to subsection (c), if an incomplete instrument is an instrument under Section 3-104, it may be enforced according to its terms if it is not completed, or according to its terms as augmented by completion. If an incomplete instrument is not an instrument under Section 3-104, but, after completion, the requirements of Section 3-104 are met, the instrument may be enforced according to its terms as augmented by completion.
    (c) If words or numbers are added to an incomplete instrument without authority of the signer, there is an alteration of the incomplete instrument under Section 3-407.
    (d) The burden of establishing that words or numbers were added to an incomplete instrument without authority of the signer is on the person asserting the lack of authority.

    § 3-118. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (e), an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time must be commenced within six years after the due date or dates stated in the note or, if a due date is accelerated, within six years after the accelerated due date.
    (b) Except as provided in subsection (d) or (e), if demand for payment is made to the maker of a note payable on demand, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the note must be commenced within six years after the demand. If no demand for payment is made to the maker, an action to enforce the note is barred if neither principal nor interest on the note has been paid for a continuous period of 10 years.
    (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), an action to enforce the obligation of a party to an unaccepted draft to pay the draft must be commenced within three years after dishonor of the draft or 10 years after the date of the draft, whichever period expires first.
    (d) An action to enforce the obligation of the acceptor of a certified check or the issuer of a teller’s check, cashier’s check, or traveler’s check must be commenced within three years after demand for payment is made to the acceptor or issuer, as the case may be.
    (e) An action to enforce the obligation of a party to a certificate of deposit to pay the instrument must be commenced within six years after demand for payment is made to the maker, but if the instrument states a due date and the maker is not required to pay before that date, the six-year period begins when a demand for payment is in effect and the due date has passed.
    (f) An action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an accepted draft, other than a certified check, must be commenced (i) within six years after the due date or dates stated in the draft or acceptance if the obligation of the acceptor is payable at a definite time, or (ii) within six years after the date of the acceptance if the obligation of the acceptor is payable on demand.
    (g) Unless governed by other law regarding claims for indemnity or contribution, an action (i) for conversion of an instrument, for money had and received, or like action based on conversion, (ii) for breach of warranty, or (iii) to enforce an obligation, duty, or right arising under this Article and not governed by this section must be commenced within three years after the [cause of action] accrues.
    § 3-119. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO DEFEND ACTION.
    In an action for breach of an obligation for which a third person is answerable over pursuant to this Article or Article 4, the defendant may give the third person notice of the litigation in a record, and the person notified may then give similar notice to any other person who is answerable over. If the notice states (i) that the person notified may come in and defend and (ii) that failure to do so will bind the person notified in an action later brought by the person giving the notice as to any determination of fact common to the two litigations, the person notified is so bound unless after seasonable receipt of the notice the person notified does come in and defend.
    § 3-203. TRANSFER OF INSTRUMENT; RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY TRANSFER.
    (a) An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.
    (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.
    (c) Unless otherwise agreed, if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of indorsement by the transferor, the transferee has a specifically enforceable right to the unqualified indorsement of the transferor, but negotiation of the instrument does not occur until the indorsement is made.
    (d) If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee.
    § 3-204. INDORSEMENT.
    (a) “Indorsement” means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose of (i) negotiating the instrument, (ii) restricting payment of the instrument, or (iii) incurring indorser’s liability on the instrument, but regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument.
    (b) “Indorser” means a person who makes an indorsement.
    (c) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of an instrument is a holder, an indorsement that transfers a security interest in the instrument is effective as an unqualified indorsement of the instrument.
    (d) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that is not the name of the holder, indorsement may be made by the holder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holder’s name or both, but signature in both names may be required by a person paying or taking the instrument for value or collection.
    § 3-205. SPECIAL INDORSEMENT; BLANK INDORSEMENT; ANOMALOUS INDORSEMENT.
    (a) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument, whether payable to an identified person or payable to bearer, and the indorsement identifies a person to whom it makes the instrument payable, it is a “special indorsement.” When specially indorsed, an instrument becomes payable to the identified person and may be negotiated only by the indorsement of that person. The principles stated in Section 3-110 apply to special indorsements.
    (b) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special indorsement, it is a “blank indorsement.” When indorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially indorsed.
    (c) The holder may convert a blank indorsement that consists only of a signature into a special indorsement by writing, above the signature of the indorser, words identifying the person to whom the instrument is made payable.
    (d) “Anomalous indorsement” means an indorsement made by a person who is not the holder of the instrument. An anomalous indorsement does not affect the manner in which the instrument may be negotiated.
    § 3-304. OVERDUE INSTRUMENT.
    (a) An instrument payable on demand becomes overdue at the earliest of the following times:
    (1) on the day after the day demand for payment is duly made;
    (2) if the instrument is a check, 90 days after its date; or
    (3) if the instrument is not a check, when the instrument has been outstanding for a period of time after its date which is unreasonably long under the circumstances of the particular case in light of the nature of the instrument and usage of the trade.
    (b) With respect to an instrument payable at a definite time the following rules apply:
    (1) If the principal is payable in installments and a due date has not been accelerated, the instrument becomes overdue upon default under the instrument for nonpayment of an installment, and the instrument remains overdue until the default is cured.
    (2) If the principal is not payable in installments and the due date has not been accelerated, the instrument becomes overdue on the day after the due date.
    (3) If a due date with respect to principal has been accelerated, the instrument becomes overdue on the day after the accelerated due date.
    (c) Unless the due date of principal has been accelerated, an instrument does not become overdue if there is default in payment of interest but no default in payment of principal.
    § 3-305. DEFENSES AND CLAIMS IN RECOUPMENT.
    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to the following:
    (1) a defense of the obligor based on (i) infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract, (ii) duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor, (iii) fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms, or (iv) discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings;
    (2) a defense of the obligor stated in another section of this Article or a defense of the obligor that would be available if the person entitled to enforce the instrument were enforcing a right to payment under a simple contract; and
    (3) a claim in recoupment of the obligor against the original payee of the instrument if the claim arose from the transaction that gave rise to the instrument; but the claim of the obligor may be asserted against a transferee of the instrument only to reduce the amount owing on the instrument at the time the action is brought.
    (b) The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection (a)(1), but is not subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection (a)(2) or claims in recoupment stated in subsection (a)(3) against a person other than the holder.
    (c) Except as stated in subsection (d), in an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument (Section 3-306) of another person, but the other person’s claim to the instrument may be asserted by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.
    (d) In an action to enforce the obligation of an accommodation party to pay an instrument, the accommodation party may assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument any defense or claim in recoupment under subsection (a) that the accommodated party could assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument, except the defenses of discharge in insolvency proceedings, infancy, and lack of legal capacity.
    (e) In a consumer transaction, if law other than this article requires that an instrument include a statement to the effect that the rights of a holder or transferee are subject to a claim or defense that the issuer could assert against the original payee, and the instrument does not include such a statement: (1) the instrument has the same effect as if the instrument included such a statement; (2) the issuer may assert against the holder or transferee all claims and defenses that would have been available if the instrument included such a statement; and (3) the extent to which claims may be asserted against the holder or transferee is determined as if the instrument included such a statement.
    (f) This section is subject to law other than this article that establishes a different rule for consumer transactions.
    § 3-306. CLAIMS TO AN INSTRUMENT.
    A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds, including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument.
    § 3-307. NOTICE OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.
    (a) In this section:
    (1) “Fiduciary” means an agent, trustee, partner, corporate officer or director, or other representative owing a fiduciary duty with respect to an instrument.
    (2) “Represented person” means the principal, beneficiary, partnership, corporation, or other person to whom the duty stated in paragraph (1) is owed.
    (b) If (i) an instrument is taken from a fiduciary for payment or collection or for value, (ii) the taker has knowledge of the fiduciary status of the fiduciary, and (iii) the represented person makes a claim to the instrument or its proceeds on the basis that the transaction of the fiduciary is a breach of fiduciary duty, the following rules apply:
    (1) Notice of breach of fiduciary duty by the fiduciary is notice of the claim of the represented person.
    (2) In the case of an instrument payable to the represented person or the fiduciary as such, the taker has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is (i) taken in payment of or as security for a debt known by the taker to be the personal debt of the fiduciary, (ii) taken in a transaction known by the taker to be for the personal benefit of the fiduciary, or (iii) deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as such, or an account of the represented person.
    (3) If an instrument is issued by the represented person or the fiduciary as such, and made payable to the fiduciary personally, the taker does not have notice of the breach of fiduciary duty unless the taker knows of the breach of fiduciary duty.
    (4) If an instrument is issued by the represented person or the fiduciary as such, to the taker as payee, the taker has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is (i) taken in payment of or as security for a debt known by the taker to be the personal debt of the fiduciary, (ii) taken in a transaction known by the taker to be for the personal benefit of the fiduciary, or (iii) deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as such, or an account of the represented person.
    § 3-308. PROOF OF SIGNATURES AND STATUS AS HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.
    (a) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature. If an action to enforce the instrument is brought against a person as the undisclosed principal of a person who signed the instrument as a party to the instrument, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant is liable on the instrument as a represented person under Section 3-402(a).
    (b) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection (a), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under Section 3-301, unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, the right to payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the defense or claim.
    § 3-603. TENDER OF PAYMENT.
    (a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.
    (b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.
    (c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.
    § 3-604. DISCHARGE BY CANCELLATION OR RENUNCIATION.
    (a) A person entitled to enforce an instrument, with or without consideration, may discharge the obligation of a party to pay the instrument (i) by an intentional voluntary act, such as surrender of the instrument to the party, destruction, mutilation, or cancellation of the instrument, cancellation or striking out of the party’s signature, or the addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge, or (ii) by agreeing not to sue or otherwise renouncing rights against the party by a signed record.
    (b) Cancellation or striking out of an indorsement pursuant to subsection (a) does not affect the status and rights of a party derived from the indorsement.
    (c) As used in this section, “signed,” with respect to a record that is not a writing, includes the attachment to or logical association with the record of an electronic symbol, sound, or process to or with the record with the present intent to adopt or accept the record.
    § 9-210. REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTING; REQUEST REGARDING LIST OF COLLATERAL OR STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT.
    (a) [Definitions.]
    In this section:
    (1) “Request” means a record of a type described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4).
    (2) “Request for an accounting” means a record authenticated by a debtor requesting that the recipient provide an accounting of the unpaid obligations secured by collateral and reasonably identifying the transaction or relationship that is the subject of the request.
    (3) “Request regarding a list of collateral” means a record authenticated by a debtor requesting that the recipient approve or correct a list of what the debtor believes to be the collateral securing an obligation and reasonably identifying the transaction or relationship that is the subject of the request.
    (4) “Request regarding a statement of account” means a record authenticated by a debtor requesting that the recipient approve or correct a statement indicating what the debtor believes to be the aggregate amount of unpaid obligations secured by collateral as of a specified date and reasonably identifying the transaction or relationship that is the subject of the request.
    (b) [Duty to respond to requests.]
    Subject to subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), a secured party, other than a buyer of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory notes or a consignor, shall comply with a request within 14 days after receipt:
    (1) in the case of a request for an accounting, by authenticating and sending to the debtor an accounting; and
    (2) in the case of a request regarding a list of collateral or a request regarding a statement of account, by authenticating and sending to the debtor an approval or correction.
    (c) [Request regarding list of collateral; statement concerning type of collateral.]
    A secured party that claims a security interest in all of a particular type of collateral owned by the debtor may comply with a request regarding a list of collateral by sending to the debtor an authenticated record including a statement to that effect within 14 days after receipt.
    (d) [Request regarding list of collateral; no interest claimed.]
    A person that receives a request regarding a list of collateral, claims no interest in the collateral when it receives the request, and claimed an interest in the collateral at an earlier time shall comply with the request within 14 days after receipt by sending to the debtor an authenticated record:
    (1) disclaiming any interest in the collateral; and
    (2) if known to the recipient, providing the name and mailing address of any assignee of or successor to the recipient’s interest in the collateral.
    (e) [Request for accounting or regarding statement of account; no interest in obligation claimed.]
    A person that receives a request for an accounting or a request regarding a statement of account, claims no interest in the obligations when it receives the request, and claimed an interest in the obligations at an earlier time shall comply with the request within 14 days after receipt by sending to the debtor an authenticated record:
    (1) disclaiming any interest in the obligations; and
    (2) if known to the recipient, providing the name and mailing address of any assignee of or successor to the recipient’s interest in the obligations.
    (f) [Charges for responses.]
    A debtor is entitled without charge to one response to a request under this section during any six-month period. The secured party may require payment of a charge not exceeding $25 for each additional response.
    § 9-303. LAW GOVERNING PERFECTION AND PRIORITY OF SECURITY INTERESTS IN GOODS COVERED BY A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
    (a) [Applicability of section.]
    This section applies to goods covered by a certificate of title, even if there is no other relationship between the jurisdiction under whose certificate of title the goods are covered and the goods or the debtor.
    (b) [When goods covered by certificate of title.]
    Goods become covered by a certificate of title when a valid application for the certificate of title and the applicable fee are delivered to the appropriate authority. Goods cease to be covered by a certificate of title at the earlier of the time the certificate of title ceases to be effective under the law of the issuing jurisdiction or the time the goods become covered subsequently by a certificate of title issued by another jurisdiction.
    (c) [Applicable law.]
    The local law of the jurisdiction under whose certificate of title the goods are covered governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title from the time the goods become covered by the certificate of title until the goods cease to be covered by the certificate of title.
    § 9-304. LAW GOVERNING PERFECTION AND PRIORITY OF SECURITY INTERESTS IN DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS.
    (a) [Law of bank’s jurisdiction governs.]
    The local law of a bank’s jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a deposit account maintained with that bank.
    (b) [Bank’s jurisdiction.]
    The following rules determine a bank’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part:
    (1) If an agreement between the bank and the debtor governing the deposit account expressly provides that a particular jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part, this article, or [the Uniform Commercial Code], that jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction.
    (2) If paragraph (1) does not apply and an agreement between the bank and its customer governing the deposit account expressly provides that the agreement is governed by the law of a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction.
    (3) If neither paragraph (1) nor paragraph (2) applies and an agreement between the bank and its customer governing the deposit account expressly provides that the deposit account is maintained at an office in a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction.
    (4) If none of the preceding paragraphs applies, the bank’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the office identified in an account statement as the office serving the customer’s account is located.
    (5) If none of the preceding paragraphs applies, the bank’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the chief executive office of the bank is located.
    § 9-404. RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY ASSIGNEE; CLAIMS AND DEFENSES AGAINST ASSIGNEE.
    (a) [Assignee’s rights subject to terms, claims, and defenses; exceptions.]
    Unless an account debtor has made an enforceable agreement not to assert defenses or claims, and subject to subsections (b) through (e), the rights of an assignee are subject to:
    (1) all terms of the agreement between the account debtor and assignor and any defense or claim in recoupment arising from the transaction that gave rise to the contract; and
    (2) any other defense or claim of the account debtor against the assignor which accrues before the account debtor receives a notification of the assignment authenticated by the assignor or the assignee.

    U.C.C. § 2-210(2)(a). Delegation of Performance; Assignment of Rights, their duties under the contract (a) A party may perform its duties through a delegate unless otherwise agreed or unless the other party has a substantial interest in having the original promisor perform or control the acts required by the contract. Delegation of performance does not relieve the delegating party of any duty to perform or liability for breach. Distressed Consumers, you may call, 410-257-5283

  28. DyingTruth, on April 4, 2011 at 11:55 pm said:

    I don’t think many People fully understand that when they “ALLEGE” all of our ‘loans’ (loose term used for credit extension) have been securitized, what that means is they’ve conducted 2 majorly different transactions and are duping both parties into thinking they can connect those 2 different transactions (which is not possible) by inventing a name for a PROCEDURE THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

    “MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION”

    Basics 101
    What’s a Mortgage? Mortgage = Security which secures a Debt

    What’s a Note? Note = the Debt or Proof of it and the Right to the payments from it, which the Mortgage secures

    Okay, so how could they and why would they securitize many of individual securit(ies) (think in plural security, not SEC) en mass, when the 1 type of transaction with homeowners only provides for that one security (the mortgage), even individually its assignability to and enforceability by any other non-contractual parties without all parties’ thereto mutal consent quite possibly notwithstanding, uncertain and still open for dispute.

    Why would they “Back” “Securities” with “Mortgages”, when Mortgages are what secures the Debt that backs them up?

    Can you even secure a security, and if so what would that accomplish?

    Why wouldn’t (more importantly from the investors/pensioners perspective why didn’t/haven’t) they have just secured the Notes into the Trusts because that’s the only thing that gives meaning to the Mortgages in the first place?

    If they never assigned or actually in all technicality they did assign the Notes “Without Recourse” with no intended assignee in receipt accepting the endorsement or receiving it as a holder in due course, but receiving an amount exceeding FULL FACE VALUE AT MATURITY OF ALL THE NOTES from unknown unidentified parties in a completely different kind of transaction that specifies using the money from that for the Mortgage transactions in exchange for God knows what as consideration and security, but not stipulated for or expressed or implied by the parties as any kind of intention to the Mortgage transactions, how could homeowners possibly still owe anything?

    They never assigned the Notes because they never intended to this much should be obvious to the Courts, but Judges are so furious to realize and recognize that they and their pensions have been defrauded that they refuse to see and accept the truth for what it is (their money got used to cover up the Banks’ long trail of origination fraud). And now Banks are using that frustration to get the Judges to get their hands dirty in finishing the job, sealing it off with the clash of a Gavel. So when it’s all said and done they’ll have them for us to blame, because they should have known better.

    MORTGAGE NOTES CAN”T BE SECURITIZED

    See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 110 S.Ct. 945, 108 L.Ed.2d 47 (1990)
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18068523124125938239

    “[T]ypes of notes that are not securities include the note delivered in consumer financing, the note secured by a mortgage on a home, the short-term note secured by a lien on … assets, the note evidencing a `character’ loan to a bank customer, short-term notes secured by an assignment of accounts receivable, or a note which simply formalizes an open-account debt incurred”. Id. at 65 (internal quotations omitted).

  29. angry & NOT TAKING IT, on April 4, 2011 at 9:08 pm said:

    it goes no where from here..
    isn’t it obvious by now? ! the msm avoids all the in your face facts because … oh man. no explanation is really necessary we all know why & if you dont know then try turning of the tv ,forever.
    re- law ..its all about the pension.. period !
    long gone is the rule of law, its long been confiscated by our [the] owners.

  30. alexlogic, on April 4, 2011 at 8:49 pm said:

    Louise makes an excellent point, didn’t the 60 minutes feel like…..it just ended?

  31. DyingTruth, on April 4, 2011 at 8:25 pm said:

    Could all this really be a symptom of a much LARGER problem? We have a Constitution and Laws made in pursuance thereof for a reason and I’ve never heard any judges complain to Congress or the States’ Legislatures that judges need better Laws in order to protect homeowners and penalize Fraudclosers. But I have heard the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court complaining to the Senate to hurry up and confirm more ACTIVIST JUDGES ready to serve a (Communist) lifetime appointment of molesting the Law to their un-equalhanded benefit and our everlasting detriment.

    When judges decide cases in this day and age, instead of being conscious of their duty to say ‘what the Law is’ and enforce it as is, they are ever so conscious of the affect the case would have on future cases if the law were actually enforced to serve the ends of justice, that they base their decisions solely on the economic effects it will/may have on their pensions/investments/financial interests through the judicial activist de facto advent of “precedent”, that the Law doesn’t matter anymore or even that the Supreme Court 20 years ago said (See citation at bottom) that mortgages and notes can’t be securitized or converted into securities.

    It’s a waste of time using what was the conventional methods of enforcing the Law and Justice, when those who are charged with administering its enforcement are less concerned with its integrity, thinking irrationally and are more concerned with their own personal loss/gain that may come as a result from deciding other people’s cases.

    The other 2 branches’ main purposes and functions are dependent on their being administered in the judicial branch (the Articles of the Constitution are in their numbered order for a reason). Laws are not pushed throught a Legislative process of motions, amending, striking words etc. then voted on and passed between the 2 houses in Congress of 535 members (100 Senators and 435 Representatives) whom are elected by US then sent to the President whom is elected by US to be executed as finalized and written into Law (unconstitutional Laws notwithstanding), only to be ignored, neglected, mutilated etc. by some UNELECTED activist judge(s) purportedly appointed for life, protected by a self-proclaimed judicial immunity and unaccountable to the People.

    We the People did ordain and establish and are guaranteed a Republican (NOT the political party) form of Government Ruled by Law (them, not us), not by a Judicial Dictatorship purporting to act under the color of Law, but in absolute defiance and contravention of the Law. When the Judiciary breaks down the whole system becomes dysfunctional, useless, meaningless and devolves into a chaotic threat to us all, whom are the only reason for its existence. States look at and see this as the leading example and then follow suit.

    We need to remove and replace the broken branch (the judiciary) and put the People in its place. For those who promote, want and preech Democracy, that’s the best place to start. Tell any and every judge proclaiming that we’re a Democracy to step down from the bench and let us decide our own fates, because in a Democracy the People are the Judge, Jury and Executioner (activist judges NOTLEFTSTANDING). And as long as the judges continue their reign of Judicial Supremacy, the will of the People shall remain their prisoner.

    Grassroots movement is the only way to go. Forget the MSM they’re only distractions that report very little to not look too suspicious. But we have seen how effective negative publicity can be. So we should create our own brand of justice with a blacklist website for judges (as well as sections for Lenders, Servicers, Trustees, Attorneys) who bring about injustices, compile their cases to be graded for errors and condense them for later final ajudication by Juries of We the People as the final arbiters.

    This is actually somewhat prescribed for in the Constitution (although, not specifically), and has been known as the last resort to relief for centuries. EQUITY. And since the power of prescribing Equity is delegated nowhere in the Constitution it is reserved to us “the People”, whom the Tenth Amendment does not restrict as there are only prohibitions against the States, not us.

    Unless we all stop and realize that a reasonably rational alternative remedy like this is the only viable solution to a constructive compromise, we will all remain stuck banging our heads up against the wall of the Titanic destined to drown in our own self-enabled destruction.

    “[T]ypes of notes that are not securities include the note delivered in consumer financing, the note secured by a mortgage on a home, the short-term note secured by a lien on … assets, the note evidencing a `character’ loan to a bank customer, short-term notes secured by an assignment of accounts receivable, or a note which simply formalizes an open-account debt incurred”. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 65, 110 S.Ct. 945, 108 L.Ed.2d 47 (1990)(internal quotations omitted)

  32. 60 MINUTES: SECURITIZATION PROPERTY TITLES ARE A “TRAIN WRECK” | rhisnapshotwa, on April 4, 2011 at 7:21 pm said:

    […] Check out: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/60-minutes-securitization-property-titles-are-a-train-wre… […]

  34. ian, on April 4, 2011 at 6:05 pm said:

    A-MAN and ANONYMOUS- I also saw the Federal Reserve comment that “they found no evidence of fraud during their investigation”. There must be some law against a federal …… I mean private person lying about things of such massive national and international import. I just caught myself there, about to call FRB spokesperson a federal employee. How about that? NO FRAUD? On the other hand, how about they show us JUST ONE THING which was properly and legally done in the securtitization ponzi? JUST ONE! They can’t.

  35. Cheryl, on April 4, 2011 at 5:47 pm said:

    Ms. Bair is regulator of all small banks. You also need to address John Walsh, head of Comptroller of the Currency who regulates all bigs banks, such as BOA, Wells Fargo, etc.

  36. BlaqRubi, on April 4, 2011 at 5:34 pm said:

    Perhaps we should write to Ms. Blair and ask her to STEP DOWN from her position if she does know know what her job duties require. If she is in bed with the banks, she should join their asses in jail. Now to even SUGGEST that millions walk away to accommodate FRAUD is Appalling and grounds for immediate DISMISSAL. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren would better serve in that position.

  37. BlaqRubi, on April 4, 2011 at 5:31 pm said:

    @cubed2k I was talking about the 60 minutes comments you posted – no response for the completely ignorant!

  38. BlaqRubi, on April 4, 2011 at 5:28 pm said:

    @Karen Pooley 400,000 + Treble Damages AND quiet title. My Terms. Leslie

  39. ANONYMOUS, on April 4, 2011 at 5:27 pm said:

    BlaqRubi,

    You are right — “that certain mortgage instruments were created with the INTENT to defraud the homeowner into default,”

  40. ANONYMOUS, on April 4, 2011 at 5:24 pm said:

    THE A MAN,

    Disturbing comment in the Huffington Post link you provide — “Last month, Federal Reserve officials completed a survey of foreclosure filings, finding no evidence of wrongful foreclosures.” — Would like to see Fed Res accounting basis for no evidence.

    cubed2k,

    Great post — but not just about proper documents. These “mortgages” were not mortgages at all — but, rather inflated “unsecured” debt based upon inflated home appraisals.

    “Do not pay your bills you lose your home” — the commentator states. No one should pay any bill when they do not know WHO they are paying. Further, no one should pay any bill when the documents are false — and there is no valid mortgage title to a home asset. Finally, no one should pay any bill when the “bill” is not a secured a mortgage loan — fraudulently represented — and, for which that “bill” should be written off in BK – since no party can claim any secured right to collect.

    No party should be responsible for any fraudulent loan. More will surface — but not with surveys by the Fed Res.

    Pay your “Bill” — to crooks?? — think they call that extortion.

  41. BlaqRubi, on April 4, 2011 at 5:18 pm said:

    cubed2K – I will not even GRACE with a response. Obviously a RENTER who does NOT understand FRAUD CANCELS the CONTRACT. At this stage of the game if you DON’T understand that certain mortgage instruments were created with the INTENT to defraud the homeowner into default, then you need to keep living under that daym rock.

    I agree with Karen, The FDIC is obviously on CRACK. $20,000 to allow the BANKs to get away with FRAUD, FORGERY and other CRIMINAL acts AND give the slimy bastards your house on top of that is simply RIDICULOUS.

    I AGREE with J. Hayes the people interviewed on 60 Minutes are either incredibly STUPID or have already worked out some sort of legal waiver of prosecution – and if they did not – they should be SLAMMED in jail. Expecially the NOTARY. Now I AM a Notary and have been for 12 YEARS. NO EMPLOYER can tell me how to NOTARIZE. NO employer can tell me what is obviously WRONG is RIGHT. Her Commission should be REVOKED. Both of them should be charged with FRAUD, unless they turn over the other NOTARIES and employees and managers of DOX who gave the Instructions and they SHOULD suffer some penalty for being INCREDIBLY STUPID.

    I continue to fight for my home and I INTEND to win. It is not about FREE and CLEAR any more. It is about JUSTICE. It is about 6 years of my life STOLEN defending my RIGHTS to my HOME. A FIGHT that should NOT have been an issue in the first place, if the CROOKED ass BANKS were not allowed to run amuck. period.

  42. PJ, on April 4, 2011 at 4:39 pm said:

    And the other thing that is never addressed is the “property tax” assessment imposed on people with homes owned free and clear. How many of them have been put on the street’s for bubble inflated unstainable tax bills?

  43. brian davies, on April 4, 2011 at 4:32 pm said:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52280427/Plt-Opp-Onewest-Dem-Mot-Stk-Rjn-Ind-Bk-Mers-04-04-11

    CALIFORNIA FIGHT CONTINUES AGAINST ONEWEST BANK FSB. GOOD FIGHT GOING IN CALIFORNIA.

    ADVERSARY HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY DEUTSCHE BANK. FILING FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM ON THE PLEADINGS. IT WILL BE HEARD MAY 3, 2011. THE DEMURRER IS APRIL 19, 2011 FOR MERS AND ONEWEST.

  45. PJ, on April 4, 2011 at 3:07 pm said:

    The FDIC chair’s interview was very skillfully coached WATCH & LISTEN to her very carefully, it was double speak for the Moral Hazard argument, alibet without saying but at the same time saying Americans should stand by and allow fraud on the courts and the of abolishment decades old property law.

  46. indio007, on April 4, 2011 at 2:49 pm said:

    Shouldn’t they be called “under the table” funded loans?

  47. saveamericaone, on April 4, 2011 at 2:29 pm said:

    by SaveAmericaOne April 4, 2011 5:27 PM EDT
    Scott Pselly
    Please interview Neil Garfield and story on
    ForeclouseBlues who we depend upon who have the facts you don’t have.

    Sorry but you don’t have knowledge and spun a story around information based on spin not facts.

    We need you even if you think we are deadbeats.

    We sit before the court where the SERVICER, Wells Fargo becomes a Securities Administrator during default event and (late payment – modifications – forebearance – all allow foreclosue to continue) and Wells Fargo Bank NA (a private brand label) as SERVICER also becomes SECURITIES ADMIN and turns – actually presents debt to Trustee as Plaintiff to collect and the loan is not in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the Loan Trust does not exist as a legal entity in the US and therefore is foreign and the party before the court without evidence spits upon the Federal Republic.

    How I know your not educated in these matters you keep saying ‘BANK’

    Stop saying ‘bank’ its SERVICER who as SELLER sold discounted wholesale LOANS and did not securitize the transactions. Stop the spin report the facts we need you.

    973-347-3475

    Mary Cochrane
    http://www.saveamericaone.com

    Linkedin Mary Cochrane

    Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-504803_162-20049744.html?assetTypeId=41&tag=accordionB;commentWrapper#ixzz1IamM9tFl

  48. kenneth S.Taylor, on April 4, 2011 at 12:59 pm said:

    KENNETH S. TAYLOR ETAL [PRO SE]
    PRO SE 8610 HADDEN TWINSBURG OHIO 44087

    COURT OF APPEALS
    NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    C. A. NO. 25281

    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFIATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT2,
    Plaintiff -Appellee
    vs.
    KENNETH S. TAYLOR et.al. ALYCIA TAYLOR-DRIGGINS,
    Defendant -Appellants

    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )

    Appeal from Summit County
    Court of Common Please
    Case No. C V-2007-11-8364

    MOTION TO STAY WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT , PENDING APPEAL AT NINTH JUDICIAL CICRIUT 25281, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 11-047, AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 11-3277, AN COUNTERCLAIM TRIAL IN LOWER COURT AND, FEDERAL COMPLAINT 5:10 V 2766 ALL FOR TILA Right of Rescission, : PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,
    DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE
    FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling,
    FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUEIT TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;
    JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON.

    Motion to stay SHOULD be granted ,Judges must look at Praecipe For Order For Sale filed by Kevin L. Williams in trial court on June 1 2010 attached as Exhibit ( A A ) the signature on this filing is another forgery of his name. The court has erred, the entire case contains many errors of substantial Due Process, substantial Procedural Due Process, With all due respect to the Judges residing, you have failed to preserve any of the Taylor’s Constitutional Civil Rights to any hearing before the court , to contest fraudulent assignment, fraudulent affidavit, the eight forgeries before the court , the defective order of sale , the void summary Judgment granted, with no original blue ink note, that has been reported to court as lost or destroyed and missing, with no title in any plaintiffs name ever in this case, with no mortgage in any plaintiffs name, with no title search being performed, an the judge Tom Parker who has allowed this Case to matriculated through the court ILEGALLY AND UNLAWFULLY WITH BIAS , PARTIAL , RULINGS AND PREDETERMINATON TO HELP AND ASSIST PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY by lying about defendants Counterclaim , an conspiring with plaintiffs attorney , lying throughout his summary judgment order , while he is under two motions of recusal ,and has violated his sworn oath of office, violated Cannons, an refused to honor a direct order of the appeals court and has not set case for trial, instead he order a five page briefing of parties position so that he can predetermine a new strategy to destroy defendants counterclaim Mr. Kenneth S.Taylor pro se wants no part of this witch hunt , judge Tom Parker has been expose in this case , he has lied to help plaintiffs many times and have not followed the Ohio and U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio along with the Ohio prosecutors office is on notice of the incessant egregious level of fraud and corruption by this law firm of Manley Deas Kochalski , the court should Call them and ask to speak to Kevin L. Williams, ask a hard question, why do you have two uniquely different signatures.) And why have either attorney for plaintiffs ever made an appearance? as the court just sits and watches and turns a blind eye, not only is this one Black African American Family home being destroyed in which they have lived for 23 years , its bigger than us it is a destruction of the American legal system as the founding fathers are turning in their graves. This entire system was created on Gods biblical principals, this court has a sworn duty to act and act with a since of urgency even in the face of trying to preserve a banking system that has destroyed this country morals and ethics and continues to rip away at the fabric of America, all by unbridled greed. Plaintiff must be stopped from unlawful sale of defendants home as they have filed a second unlawful order of sale with trial court that no longer has jurisdiction over this case that has been remove to this federal court its force is inescapable, the case is now pending in four higher courts as lower court has just made to many errors See latest plaintiffs illegal order of sale filed on docket:
    18/2011 — **CASE COSTED THRU 3/18/11 – PENDING. No Image
    03/18/2011 — #2010-2098 ORDER OF SALE RETD. ENDR. AND I MAKE THIS RETURN BY ORDER OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY. SCSO Document 1

    03/14/2011 PRO SE DEFENDANTS, KENNETH AND ALYCIA TAYLOR’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL UNDER CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005, FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION. Document 2

    03/10/2011 NO ATTY. REQUIRED COURT ORDERS PARTIES TO BRIEF THEIR POSITIONS. PARTIES ARE TO FILE BRIEFS, NOT TO EXCEED FIVE PAGES IN LENGTH, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AND PROVIDE COPIES TO COURT’S STAFF. TP Document 3

    03/01/2011 NO ATTY. REQUIRED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR SANCTIONS FOR MISBEHAVIOR OF OPPOSING COUNSEL. Document 4

    Now comes Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins from hereinafter the (“Taylor’s”) And they hereby gives notice that they are requesting in this Case No.: C. A. 25281 A

    MOTION TO STAY WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT , PENDING APPEAL AT NINTH JUDICIAL CICRIUT 25281, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 11-047, AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 11-3277, AN COUNTERCLAIM TRIAL IN LOWER COURT AND, FEDERAL COMPLAINT 5:10 V 2766 ALL FOR TILA Right of Rescission, : PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,
    DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE
    FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling,
    FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUEIT TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;
    JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON.

    This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings, Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 ., Moreover absolute proof of fraud is attached; a forgery of Kevin L. Williams signature submitted to trial court date January 15, 2010 as Exhibit (B2) all which have affected Defendants Substantial rights and Procedural rights to Due Process and Fundamental rights; Rights to Privacy, Life, Liberty or Property Goss v. Lopez, Roe v Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut; Rights To Notice/ Contest Charges/ Hearings, Private v. Public , National v. State Governments, In School v. Out Of School Suspensions , Laney v Farley. WHEREAS: We pray now and for last as humbly as we know how that this Honorable high District Court and its high District Court Honorable Judges grant this motion to stay in one of the most remarkable and bizarre set of circumstances before are nation courts in this case in whole .
    Respectfully and Humbly Submitted by:
    _______________________
    Alycia Taylor- Driggins, Kenneth S. Taylor [prose] /s/ for Defendant/ Appellant Kenneth S. Taylor 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087 1-330-425-1542 katickit@yahoo.
    Memorandum In Support
    A rescission action may not be barred by prior or subsequent TILA litigation which did not involve rescission (Smith v. Wells Fargo Credit Corp., 713 F. Supp. 354 (D. Ariz. 1989) (state court action involving, inter alia TIL disclosure violations did not bar a subsequent action based on rescission notice violations in conjunction with same transaction which were not alleged or litigated in prior action) (See also In re Laubach, 77 B.R. 483 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987) (doctrine of merger bars raising state and federal law claims arising from a transaction on which a previous successful federal TILA action was based; merger does not bar, however, rescission-based on the same transaction)).

    Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se filed a copy of the notice of rescission letter (See Exhibit I)
    The Truth-in-Lending law empower Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se to exercise his right in writing by notifying creditors of his cancellation by mail to rescind the mortgage loan transactions per (Reg. Z §§ 226.15(a)(2), 22e6.23(a)(2), Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(a)(2)-1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).
    Also, the principle does apply to TILA 3 years period of rescission since despite due diligence, Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se could not have reasonably discovered the concealed fact of TILA violations in-depth and explicitly until after this court dismissed plaintiffs lawsuit for lack of standing filed in this Federal District Court in Ohio Northern Division on June 20,2007 case number 5: 07 CV -0840 SEL and Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor was alerted of fraud involved in his mortgage loan transaction, and nothing has change the Plaintiff continue to lack standing, as the same defective fraudulent assignment is before this court again, as this matter has been decided by this very court .
    Plaintiff believes that the principle of equitable tolling does apply to all claims in this action, given Defendants’ violations of Constitutional law and federal and state statues and codes, 42 U.S. C. 1981, 1988, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, at all times relevant hereto, as detailed below, Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered the concealed facts of violations in-depth and explicitly, until they were faced with Defendants attempt to enforce an “illegal alleged foreclosure, sale and dispossession of the Property” (“Foreclosure”), at which time, they were assisted by others in researching all matters concerning the legality of the Foreclosure, as well as the media coverage of government entities’ and homeowners’ accusations of fraud in the enforcement of millions of foreclosures, leading them to study all documents and events relating to the purchase or the Property.
    Defendants do not have standing or enforceable right to enforce the note and any incidental right to collateral so as to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ Home, including without limitation, conducting a trustee’s sale relative to that property. Defendants threaten to, and unless restrained, will foreclose upon Plaintiffs’ Home by conducting a SHERIFF’S sale or causing a SHERIFF’S sale to be conducted, or otherwise. Any such action would result in a new cause of action for “wrongful foreclosure,” cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, and will cause pecuniary compensation which will not afford adequate relief because Plaintiffs’ Home is unique. This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings, Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655. Moreover absolute proof of fraud is attached ; forgeries of Kevin L. Williams signature submitted to trial court , all which have affected Defendants Substantial rights and Procedural rights to Due Process and Fundamental rights ; Rights to Privacy , Life , Liberty or Property Goss v. Lopez, Roe v Wade , Griswold v. Connecticut; Rights To Notice/ Contest Charges/ Hearings, Private v. Public , National v. State Governments, In School v. Out Of School Suspensions , Laney v Farley. All under the fifth and 14th amendments whether there exists “a substantial question” and “good cause” for a stay turns on the applicant’s “reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits and whether the applicant will suffer irreparable injury.” Books v. City of Elkhart, 239 F.3d 826, 827 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2209 (2001). If either one of these elements is established, the stay should be granted. See id. at 829 (granting stay “although the [applicant] presents a weak case for a grant of certiorari”); see also Deering Milliken, Inc. v. FTC, 647 F.2d 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir.) (Existence of “substantial” issues constitutes “good cause” that would make the court “obliged to grant” stay), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 958 (1978). Both elements are present here. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Injunctive relief is necessary to enjoin Defendants from foreclosing upon Plaintiffs’ Home since they lack standing and any enforceable rights under the Promissory Note.
    The equitable tolling principles are to be read into every federal statute of limitations unless Congress expressly provides to the contrary in clear and ambiguous language, (See Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 560-61, 120 S. Ct. 1075, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1047 (2000)). Since TILA does not evidence a contrary Congressional intent, its statute of limitations must be read to be subject to equitable tolling, particularly since the act is to be construed liberally in favor of consumers.
    Security Interest is Void
    the statute and regulation specify that the security interest, promissory note or lien arising by operation of law on the property becomes automatically void. (15 U.S.C. § 1635(b); Reg. Z §§ 226.15(d)(1), 226.23(d)(1).
    As noted by the Official Staff Commentary, the creditor’s interest in the property is “automatically negated regardless of its status and whether or not it was recorded or perfected.” (Official Staff Commentary §§ 226.15(d)(1)-1, 226.23(d)(1)-1.).
    Also, the security interest is void and of no legal effect irrespective of whether the creditor makes any affirmative response to the notice. Also, strict construction of Regulation Z would dictate that the voiding be considered absolute and not subject to judicial modification.
    This requires the original lender Option One Mortgage Corporation, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond and to submit canceling documents creating the security interest and filing release or termination statements in the public record. (Official Staff Commentary §§ 226.15(d)(2)-3, 226.23(d)(2)-3.) Instead they all made excuses, Option One admitted receiving right of recession to cancel loan on July 18, 2008 in there legal department, See exhibit (G-2) and failed to respond See exhibit (G), exhibit (E) shows American Home Mortgage failing to rescind loan. its all completely fraudulent as plaintiffs attorney , has sworn in her brief before the Court Of Appeals in Ohio Ninth Judicial District at III Statement Of The Case Sands Canyon executed the loan on February 6, 2006, and they conveyed property to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company on June 29th 2007 that is after they lied to this court and said they owned Taylor home and filed a federal lawsuit pretending to be owners of are home and real property this is a crime that has harmed us nothing can cure this fraud it cannot be fix, more lies and corruption are for sure going to keep reoccurring as these plaintiffs continue to lie to court any witness affidavit or affiants testimony to these facts are perjury , not one single allege lender has responded to defendant rights to cancel. Add to that plaintiffs have sworn original promissory note is missing, title is missing , they have no deed of trust or mortgage in plaintiffs name it’s the worst case of fraud ever realized in a court of law in which judges sworn to uphold the law just look the other way.
    Extended Right of Rescission
    The statute and Regulation Z make it clear that, if Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se has the extended right and chooses to exercise it, the security interest and obligation to pay charges are automatically voided. (Cf. Semar v. Platte Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 791 F.2d 699, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1986) (courts do not have equitable discretion to alter substantive provisions of TILA, so cases on equitable modification are irrelevant).
    The statute, section 1635(b) states: “When an obligor exercises his right to cancel…, any security interest given by the obligor… becomes void upon such rescission”. Also, it is clear from the statutory language that the court’s modification authority extends only to the procedures specified by section 1625(b).
    The voiding of the security interest is not a procedure, in the sense of a step to be followed or an action to be taken.
    The statute makes no distinction between the rights to rescind in three day or extended in three years for federal and four years under Ohio. TILA, as neither cases nor statute give courts equitable discretion to alter TILA’s substantive provisions.
    Since the rescission process was intended to be self-enforcing, failure to comply with the rescission obligations Option One Mortgage Corporation, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Sands Canyon Corporation, America Home Mortgage Servicing Incorporated, subjects themsevles to potential liability.
    XIII. Non-Compliance
    Non-compliance is a violation of the act which gives rise to a claim for actual and statutory damages under 15 USC 1640. TIL rescission does not only cancel a security interest in the property but it also cancels any liability for the Mr.Kenneth S Taylor, Pro Se to pay finance and other charges, including accrued interest, points, broker fees, closing costs and that the lender must refund to Mr.Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se all finance charges and fees paid.
    Plaintiffs all of them mentioned above have failed to respond to recession letter as set forth by the law Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se has the option of enforcing the rescission right in the federal, bankruptcy or state court (See S. Rep. No. 368, 96th Cong. 2 Sess. 28 at 32 reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.A.N. 236, 268 (“The bill also makes explicit that a consumer may institute suit under section 130 [15 U.S.C., 1640] to enforce the right of rescission and recover costs and attorney fees”). That lawsuit has been filed and is pending in this court also; case number 10-02766, which is why a stay is absolutely necessary.
    TIL rescission does not only cancel a security interest in the property but it also cancels any liability for Mr. Kenneth S.Taylor Pro Se to pay finance and other charges, including accrued interest, points, broker fees, closing costs and the lender must refund to Mr. Kenneth S.Taylor Pro Se all finance charges and fees paid
    Thus, Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation are obligated to return those charges to Mr. Kenneth S Taylor, Pro Se (Pulphus v. Sullivan, 2003 WL 1964333, at *17 (N.D. Apr. 28, 2003) (citing lender’s duty to return consumer’s money as reason for allowing rescission of refinanced loan); McIntosh v. Irwing Union Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 26 (D. Mass. 2003) (citing borrower’s right to be reimbursed for prepayment penalty as reason for allowing rescission of paid-off loan).
    XIV. Sources of Law in Truth in Lending Cases
    “These include TILA itself, the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Z which implements the Act, the Official Staff Commentary on Regulation Z, and case law. Except where Congress has explicitly relieved lenders of liability for noncompliance, it is a strict liability statute. (Truth-In-Lending, 5th Edition, National Consumer Law Center, 1.4.2.3.2, page 11)
    XV. Synopsis of How Rescission Works
    The process starts with the consumer’s notice to the creditor that he or she is rescinding the transaction. As the bare bones nature of the FRB model notice demonstrates, it is not necessary to explain why the consumer is canceling. The FRB Model Notice simply says: “I WISH TO CANCEL,” followed by a signature and date line (Arnold v. W.D.L. Invs., Inc., 703 F.2d 848, 850 (5th cir. 1983) (clear intention of TILA and Reg. Z is to make sure that the creditor gets notice of the consumer’s intention to rescind)). See exhibit ( I)
    The statute and Regulation Z states that if creditor disputes the consumer’s right to rescind, it should file a declaratory judgment action within the twenty days after receiving the rescission notice, before its deadline to return the consumer’s money or property and record the termination of its security interest (15 USC 1625(b)). Once the lender receives the notice, the statute and Regulation Z mandate 3 steps to be followed.
    XVI. Step One of Rescission
    First, by operation of law, the security interest and promissory note automatically becomes void and the consumer is relieved of any obligation to pay any finance or other charges (15 USC 1635(b); Reg. Z-226.15(d)(1),226.23(d)(1). . See Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(d)(2)-1. (See Willis v. Friedman, Clearinghouse No. 54,564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 2, 2002) (Once the right to rescind is exercised, the security interest in the Mr. Kenneth S Taylor’s property becomes void ab initio).
    Thus, the security interest is void and of no legal effect irrespective of whether the creditor makes any affirmative response to the notice. (See Family Financial Services v. Spencer, 677 A.2d 479 (Conn. App. 1996) (all that is required is notification of the intent to rescind, and the agreement is automatically rescinded).
    It is clear from the statutory language that the court’s modification authority extends only to the procedures specified by section 1635(b). The voiding of the security interest is not a procedure, in the sense of a step to be followed or an action to be taken.
    The statute makes no distinction between the right to rescind in 3-day or extended as neither cases nor statute give courts equitable discretion to alter TILA’s substantive provisions. Also, after the security interest is voided, secured creditor becomes unsecured. (See Exhibit #6)
    XVII. Step Two of Rescission
    Second, since Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor has legally rescinded the loans transaction, the alleged mortgage holders Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation must return any money, including that which may have been passed on to a third party, such as a broker or an appraiser and to take any action necessary to reflect the termination of the security interest within 20 calendar days of receiving the rescission notice which has expired.
    The creditor’s other task is to take any necessary or appropriate action to reflect the fact that the security interest was automatically terminated by the rescission within 20 days of the creditor’s receipt of the rescission notice (15 USC 1635(b); Reg. Z-226.15(d)(2),226.23(d)(2).
    XIII. Step Three of Rescission
    Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor is prepared to discuss a tender obligation, should it arise, and satisfactory ways in which to meet this obligation. The termination of the security interest is required before tendering and step 1 and 2 have to be respected by Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and Sands Canyon Corporation
    XIV. Conclusion
    I will be requesting an itemized statement of my payment record in writing to Option One Mortgagee Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation
    Once the court finds a violation such as not responding to the TILA rescission letter, no matter how technical, it has no discretion with respect to liability (in re Wright, supra. At 708; In re Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F,2d 1066, 1078 (3d. Cir. 1992); Smith v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., Supra. At 898. Any misgivings creditors may have about the technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the courts.
    Since Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation have not cancelled the security interest and return all monies paid by Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor to we request Stay all court litigation in this matter UNTIL ALL MONIES PAID BY TAYLOR ‘S ARE RETURNED. The lenders named above are responsible for actual and statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a). Once again, THIS COURT SHOULD REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO send a copy of my payment history and other document showing the loan disbursements, loan charges and payment made directly to this court for examination.
    Defendants do not have standing or enforceable right to enforce the note and any incidental right to collateral so as to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ Home, including without limitation, conducting a trustee’s sale relative to that property. Defendants threaten to, and unless restrained, will foreclose upon Plaintiffs’ Home by conducting a SHERIFF’S sale or causing a SHERIFF’S sale to be conducted, or otherwise. Any such action would result in a new cause of action for “wrongful foreclosure,” cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, and will cause pecuniary compensation which will not afford adequate relief because Plaintiffs’ Home is unique. This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings , Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 . Moreover absolute proof of fraud is attached ; forgeries of Kevin L. Williams signature submitted to trial court , all which have affected Defendants Substantial rights and Procedural rights to Due Process and Fundamental rights ; Rights to Privacy , Life , Liberity or Property Goss v. Lopez, Roe v Wade , Griswold v. Connecticut; Rights To Notice/ Contest Charges/ Hearings, Private v. Public , National v. State Governments, In School v. Out Of School Supensions , Laney v Farley. All under the fifth and 14th amendments Whether there exists “a substantial question” and “good cause” for a stay turns on the applicant’s “reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits and whether the applicant will suffer irreparable injury.” Books v. City of Elkhart, 239 F.3d 826, 827 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2209 (2001). If either one of these elements is established, the stay should be granted. See id. at 829 (granting stay “although the [applicant] presents a weak case for a grant of certiorari”); see also Deering Milliken, Inc. v. FTC, 647 F.2d 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir.) (Existence of “substantial” issues constitutes “good cause” that would make the court “obliged to grant” stay), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 958 (1978). Both elements are present here. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Injunctive relief is necessary to enjoin Defendants from foreclosing upon Plaintiffs’ Home since they lack standing and any enforceable rights under the Promissory Note. WHEREAS: We pray now and for last as humbly as we know how that this Honorable high District Court and its high District Court Honorable Judges grant this motion to stay in one of the most remarkable and bizarre set of circumstances before are nation courts in this case in whole .
    Respectfully and Humbly Submitted by:
    _______________________
    Alycia Taylor- Driggins, Kenneth S. Taylor [prose] /s/ for Defendant/ Appellant Kenneth S. Taylor 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087 1-330-425-1542 katickit@yahoo.
    PROOF OF SERVICE
    The Plaintiffs hereby certifies that on March 24, 2011 a copy of the MOTION TO STAY WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT, PENDING APPEAL AT NINTH JUDICIAL CICRIUT 25281, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 11-047, AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 11-3277, AN COUNTERCLAIM TRIAL IN LOWER COURT AND, FEDERAL COMPLAINT 5:10 V 2766 ALL FOR TILA Right of Rescission,: PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,
    DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE
    FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling,
    FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUEIT TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;
    JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON.
    Was filed at clerks office and a foregoing copy was sent to Plaintiffs, address to their attorney’s office name below via ordinary U. S. mail.
    ROBIN WILSON THOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 KEY CENTER 127 PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114-1229 216-566-5500
    KEVIN WILLIAMS MANLEY DEAS KOCHALSKI LLC P.O. BOX 165028 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 1-614- 222-4921 Thomas L. Feher and Anthony J. Rospest.

    Dated this 22nd day of March, 2011

    PRO SE 8610 HADDEN TWINSBURG OHIO 44087
    KENNETH S. TAYLOR ETAL [PRO SE]

  49. THE A MAN, on April 4, 2011 at 12:25 pm said:

    Cubed2K I wanted to add that I enjoy reading your comments

    thanx

  50. larry g walker, on April 4, 2011 at 11:59 am said:

    i live out in the country, with only dial up for the internet, i cannot down load most items because of the time restraint, however i would love to watch the video, how do i buy a copy of the 60 min tape. I too have a loan, however I also do not know who my lender is, and i guess my servicing company also does not know who my lender is, because we have sent out 11+ qualified written request letters over the past 4+ years, and we still do not know who our payments are going to.

  51. cubed2k, on April 4, 2011 at 11:41 am said:

    I think everybody should copy my below post, make many copies at your local copy store, and give them to your neighbors and friends, and tell them to do the same. And I think you should tell your friends and neighbors to write a QWR to their servicing company.

  52. THE A MAN, on April 4, 2011 at 11:40 am said:

    Karen Pooley it is not a bribe. but other than that I like your thinking.

  53. THE A MAN, on April 4, 2011 at 11:38 am said:

    cubed2k The issue is that you are making the payments to the wrong entity and you will at the end of the day will be liable for your fruadulant contract.

    I am not getting into the

    Appraisal Fraud
    Notary Fraud
    Broken Chain of Title which enabled them to sell the loan multiple times fraud.
    They broke every law and they must pay. Nobody is above the law. Not even a Super Power like the United States

    NEVER AGAIN

  54. cubed2k, on April 4, 2011 at 11:34 am said:

    This is a nice rebuttal on the comments section on the 60 minutes overtime video linked above:

    y etoddler April 4, 2011 10:38 AM EDT
    I feel for everyone going into foreclosure, and yes I’m in the industry. However, everyone I know that is in foreclosure, even if they are in a “good” FHA or Conventional, not subprime, loan did not pay their mortgage. That is pure and simple. You do not pay your bills you lose your home. I do think the banks are evil, but it still doesn’t make it right to expect that someone should hand you a home becasue of lost original paperwork. The paperwork will either be found (or a copy)or a trail will eventually be found or affidavit’s of lost Title will be file. If someone owed me $200 for money I loaned them and then said they won’t pay me back because I couldn’t find my copy of their agreement to repay, I would be outraged. People have to take responsibility sometimes. When people lose their home in foreclosure, they don’t have to pay anyone anything, or pay tax on the deficiency (people with 2 mortgages are a little trickier) and is a safety net for those people. Does everyone know that FHA allows you to buy a home 3 years later. Some people need to take their lumps and move on.

    etoddler, your ignorance is a perfect example of the problem. Centuries-old rule of law requires that the ORIGINAL note be surrendered to the Court BEFORE judgment is rendered, to prohibit that note from showing up against the debtor again later. Contrary to what many think, lost note affidavits were meant to be the exception rather than the rule, and were meant to be rendered and accepted in court under STRICT guidelines. They are not meant to be an “oops” I lost the note somewhere, some way, on some day. Unfortunately, many judges are accepting them that way without question.

    Your comparison about an unpaid loan is food for thought, so let’s think. If you lost the paperwork proving that I owed you $200, who is irresponsible? And if you didn’t lose it, but you aren’t exactly sure where it might be, why should I pay you and NOT get back the original note? (Especially if that note is now indorsed in blank: the same as a blank check floating around with collection rights against me to the bearer.)

    And if you paid someone to forge a document to give you illegal advantage in court, who should take the lumps? And if you sold that note 30 times and were paid for it 30 times without the other buyers knowing about each other, but you forge a document to force me to pay you too, who is immoral? And if I pledged to you collateral for that loan and 30 other people think their purchase is backed by that same collateral, who bears responsibility for that? And why would any reasonable person pay off that loan to YOU after finding out all of this and learning that you can no longer prove that you own the note that 30 other people think they own? Why would I pay YOU, now knowing that you cannot legally cancel the debt at payoff?

    This is far beyond irresponsibility of homeowners. If an employee presents an incorrect legal document once, that can be considered human error. If someone does it twice, it should be grounds for the employee’s dismissal. If an employee is INSTRUCTED to do it FOUR THOUSAND times a day (and is assured that doing so is legal), that is nothing less than criminal intent and deserves jail time for those in charge. The legal guts of fraud is proving intent, and with a room full of $10-per-hour employees forging THOUSANDS of documents per day, intent proves itself.

    I am completely floored with how ignorant most people are about this issue. And I am shocked that many are falling for the bank quick PR stunt to divide homeowners on this issue. The “deadbeat” mantra was received, hook, line and sinker, and the paying homeowner watches his or her equity being stripped away, including that which was bought with hard-earned money for down payment. It was the perfect PR move to appeal to the “paying” homeowner, to keep them propping up the banks with their payments.

    WHY is anyone paying the very institutions that have devalued ALL property and brought our country to highly-likely financial collapse? Why is anyone paying another payment until they send a Qualified Written Request (QWR) (Google it, samples are readily available for download) to the servicer to find out if the payment is going to the real owner of the note?

    There is no debate here, the largest banks ADMITTED forgery and perjury, for which courts have allowed “do overs.” Average Americans doing the same thing would already have lost their case and been in jail for fraud on the Court.

    Congressional hearings and investigations exposed lie after lie, yet nothing is being done to stop this. MERS is still in operation, loans are still be securitized, and home values are still falling. Politicians and bank executives rely on Americans remaining asleep or ignorant. This is outrageous!

    60 Minutes failed to ask the right question: WHY did the banks forge the documents. WHY are the banks not required to produce an authenticated original note or a fully-documented lost note affidavit and the proof of transactions that led to the foreclosing bank’s ownership of the note. According to law and regulations, banks are required to have obtained the note by legal transfer and must surrender the note to the Court or explain the circumstance around how and when the original note was lost. If is obvious that the banks cannot or will not do this in many, if not most, cases. Herein lies the complex crux of the matter.

    Americans, WAKE UP! Be grateful for the few homeowners and legal experts who are helping to fight these CRIMINAL acts, for reporters who are really investigating and reporting their findings, and for employees who have come forth to tell the truth. Admitted felonies deserve far more than a reprimand and a fine…or a payoff disguised as a “settlement.” To the executives of these financial institutions and government entities, millions or even billions in fines are just the cost of doing business. I think they laugh all the way to their offshore bank.

    Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-504803_162-20049744-2.html?assetTypeId=41&blogId=10391709&tag=contentBody;commentWrapper#ixzz1Ia3Kgzim

    etoddler, your ignorance is a perfect example of the problem. Centuries-old rule of law requires that the ORIGINAL note be surrendered to the Court BEFORE judgment is rendered, to prohibit that note from showing up against the debtor again later. Contrary to what many think, lost note affidavits were meant to be the exception rather than the rule, and were meant to be rendered and accepted in court under STRICT guidelines. They are not meant to be an “oops” I lost the note somewhere, some way, on some day. Unfortunately, many judges are accepting them that way without question.

    Your comparison about an unpaid loan is food for thought, so let’s think. If you lost the paperwork proving that I owed you $200, who is irresponsible? And if you didn’t lose it, but you aren’t exactly sure where it might be, why should I pay you and NOT get back the original note? (Especially if that note is now indorsed in blank: the same as a blank check floating around with collection rights against me to the bearer.)

    And if you paid someone to forge a document to give you illegal advantage in court, who should take the lumps? And if you sold that note 30 times and were paid for it 30 times without the other buyers knowing about each other, but you forge a document to force me to pay you too, who is immoral? And if I pledged to you collateral for that loan and 30 other people think their purchase is backed by that same collateral, who bears responsibility for that? And why would any reasonable person pay off that loan to YOU after finding out all of this and learning that you can no longer prove that you own the note that 30 other people think they own? Why would I pay YOU, now knowing that you cannot legally cancel the debt at payoff?

    This is far beyond irresponsibility of homeowners. If an employee presents an incorrect legal document once, that can be considered human error. If someone does it twice, it should be grounds for the employee’s dismissal. If an employee is INSTRUCTED to do it FOUR THOUSAND times a day (and is assured that doing so is legal), that is nothing less than criminal intent and deserves jail time for those in charge. The legal guts of fraud is proving intent, and with a room full of $10-per-hour employees forging THOUSANDS of documents per day, intent proves itself.

    I am completely floored with how ignorant most people are about this issue. And I am shocked that many are falling for the bank quick PR stunt to divide homeowners on this issue. The “deadbeat” mantra was received, hook, line and sinker, and the paying homeowner watches his or her equity being stripped away, including that which was bought with hard-earned money for down payment. It was the perfect PR move to appeal to the “paying” homeowner, to keep them propping up the banks with their payments.

    WHY is anyone paying the very institutions that have devalued ALL property and brought our country to highly-likely financial collapse? Why is anyone paying another payment until they send a Qualified Written Request (QWR) (Google it, samples are readily available for download) to the servicer to find out if the payment is going to the real owner of the note?

    There is no debate here, the largest banks ADMITTED forgery and perjury, for which courts have allowed “do overs.” Average Americans doing the same thing would already have lost their case and been in jail for fraud on the Court.

    Congressional hearings and investigations exposed lie after lie, yet nothing is being done to stop this. MERS is still in operation, loans are still be securitized, and home values are still falling. Politicians and bank executives rely on Americans remaining asleep or ignorant. This is outrageous!

    60 Minutes failed to ask the right question: WHY did the banks forge the documents. WHY are the banks not required to produce an authenticated original note or a fully-documented lost note affidavit and the proof of transactions that led to the foreclosing bank’s ownership of the note. According to law and regulations, banks are required to have obtained the note by legal transfer and must surrender the note to the Court or explain the circumstance around how and when the original note was lost. If is obvious that the banks cannot or will not do this in many, if not most, cases. Herein lies the complex crux of the matter.

    Americans, WAKE UP! Be grateful for the few homeowners and legal experts who are helping to fight these CRIMINAL acts, for reporters who are really investigating and reporting their findings, and for employees who have come forth to tell the truth. Admitted felonies deserve far more than a reprimand and a fine…or a payoff disguised as a “settlement.” To the executives of these financial institutions and government entities, millions or even billions in fines are just the cost of doing business. I think they laugh all the way to their offshore bank.

  55. Jack, on April 4, 2011 at 11:08 am said:

    A *major* problem is that the average homeowner cannot find counsel to assist.. This is why millions will/have lost their homes.

  56. Louise, on April 4, 2011 at 10:38 am said:

    I hope 60 Minutes will do another show on the foreclosure mess. It is a very good way to get it out into the world even if it comes up a little short. There is plenty more to report on and be outraged about. Everyone who has never missed a mortgage payment, and their mortgage was closed between 1998 and the present should be worried about losing their home. Even if the home is not lost to foreclosure, every day the value of the house drops. Not a good investment any more.

  57. THE A MAN, on April 4, 2011 at 10:38 am said:

    On Commercial they are willing to negotiate from what my friends tell me.

  58. Pat Balan, on April 4, 2011 at 10:36 am said:

    THE SOLUTION TO THIS WRECK WILL NOT BE EASY. THE BANKS HAVE TO COME TO THE TABLE.

    THIS IS ONLY HALF THE STORY. WHAT ABOUT COMMERCIAL MORTGAGES. THE SAME DOCUMENT ISSUE PLAGUE THIS GROUP AS WELL PERHAPS. DO THE READERS HAVE INFO. ON THIS
    PAT

  59. Swarm The Banks, on April 4, 2011 at 10:07 am said:

    The irony in this mess is that if took 100,000 employee hires working for the next 5 years to fix all the fraud of the past 10 years, that would actually be a good thing for the economy.

    Jobs would be created, and wealth would be fairly redistributed to those who have been stolen from.

    So why is Bair scared? Is Bair scared of creating 100,000 jobs to help millions of homeowners who were not treated fairly?

    Is Bair more scared of those 100,000 new hires than the next round of trillion dollar bailouts to bankers who will take their HUGE cut even if they do nothing but cannibalize existing companies by buying those companies for pennies on the dollar and calling it a profitable quarter for their bank?

  60. THE A MAN, on April 4, 2011 at 9:50 am said:

    Watch Sheila Bair’s Body Language she did not look too comfortable. Fox News does body language analysis. Maybe somebody can get them to do a body language analysis.

    ALL THE JUDGES NEED TO DO IS APPLY THE LAW. CRIME DOES NOT PAY. THIS APPLIES TO JUDGES TOO. JUST LIKE THE LAWS OF GRAVITY APPLIES TO ALL OF US.

  61. Karen Pooley, on April 4, 2011 at 9:44 am said:

    I hope all of you will call the FDIC office of the Ombudsman and tell them you will accept the bribe.

    For the amount you were fraudulently induced to + treble damages.

    Need to get the calling campaign going.

  62. THE A MAN, on April 4, 2011 at 9:36 am said:

    Kickboxer I like the way you think. Krav Maga. The Israeli way to get out of an ambush is to rush the shooters. Please watch the bonus material.

    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/04/04/watch-the-60-minutes-report-on-foreclosure-fraud-here-w-bonus-material/

    A good Bankster is a Jailed Bankster and the Judges if they are complaining about too many lawsuits all they have to do is follow the law and their wont be anymore lawsuits.

    NEVER AGAIN.
    STOP AMERICA FROM BECOMING A NAZI NATION.
    4 MILLION PEOPLE ARE BEING ILLEGALLY EVICTED FROM THEIR HOMES AND BUSINESSES THIS IS A HOLOCAUST.

  63. trespass unwanted, on April 4, 2011 at 9:32 am said:

    I know nothing and if I think I know something I know nothing. I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.

    Private recording for corporeal ears only –
    recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-471751.mp3

    Positive law. How does a $250,000 home get monetized to $93,000,000 dollars.

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, alive, allodial, corporeal, live born, born alive, whole blood, free, life, adult, freeman, in jure proprio, in jure divino

  64. kickboxer, on April 4, 2011 at 9:28 am said:

    One thing that did disappoint me a bit about the 60 Minutes segment, and that is that more time was spent on teen gospel than the foreclosure crisis.

  65. kickboxer, on April 4, 2011 at 9:24 am said:

    Let the laws be applied or let the housing market be damned forever.

  66. Linda, on April 4, 2011 at 9:22 am said:

    Great points, Niel.

    Yeah, but we’ve gotta admit 60 minutes has come a long way toward exposing this problem. I’m pleasantly surprised they went this far. And Ms. Bair didn’t hold back.

    We can’t expect the average homeowner to understand most of this stuff, but there was just enough evidence there to grab their attention and get them stirred up, in my opinion.

    It should wake up a few hard-headed and ignorant realtors, attorneys, and judges.

    People will be questioning if anyone owns their mortgage.

    I would think banks will now start scrambling to get homeowners to sign new contracts, as you said.
    Jeez…banks are stubborn and slow.

    For instance, I sent a letter to the Pres. of Wells last week stating that legal action was pending if I could not reach an agreement and they immediately phoned me the next day indicating they are seriously looking into my situation.

    In the meantime, however, I have to pay big bucks to stop an eviction. Just absurd.

    People, stay in your homes. The more time goes on, the more this crap gets exposed and the more remedies come to light. If you have to sue, then sue.

    Now is a good time to sue.

  67. Jay Hayes, on April 4, 2011 at 9:21 am said:

    Good Exposure: let’s see where it goes from here!
    Ms Bair is a Bank Regulator. (FDIC?).. seems to me she should have been outraged over the forged and notarized documents.
    I didn’t hear her say she is starting an investigation into the fraud she just witnessed. Or at least refer it to the proper authorities.
    She laughed and smiled a lot.
    Doesn’t she have a duty to enforce Bank Law’s?
    All the robo signers should be prosecuted… and anyone who instructed their employee’s to forge legal documents should be prosecuted as well.
    I don’t think the average Joe could go on national television and admit he committed forgery and fraud, and Not face some kind of jail time.
    What Martha Stewart did was far less!
    4000 forged documents a day from one person? WOW
    Doesn’t a notary have a bond?
    In my state I think you can go after the notary’s bond for $10,000 per occurrence
    4000 forged notarized doc’s x $10,000 is a lot of $$$
    That’s just one days work for Linda Green or should I say Green’s
    That money could fund a really good legal defense, and help a lot of families save their homes!
    A class action against the notary bond might be a good idea.
    One thing is for sure…. the notary and all the Linda Greens would role over on Senior Management in a heart beat, if they were facing jail time!
    It’s hard to watch these people laughing and making jokes about committing fraud when some many families are losing everything they have.
    What happened to our country? We are living in very sad times..
    Just my two cents.

  68. Karen Pooley, on April 4, 2011 at 9:19 am said:

    I will be the first to step forward and take the bribe. My terms:
    $400,000 + treble damages

  69. Katheryn, on April 4, 2011 at 9:12 am said:

    Right On!
    Year Zero!
    Too bad for the banks, let them eat dirt and pound sand!
    Let there be new improved banks and keep families in their homes and communities. It is the only way to get this mess cleaned up and give the economy the jump start it needs. Since the banks and wallstreet created this mess let them fall and let the people rise up!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d