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


EDITOR’S NOTE: Here we have the results of hundreds of hours of analysis corroborating everything we have said on this blog about the so-called transfers of mortgages. In plain language, the claim of the pretender lenders is that the mortgage was legally transferred into an asset backed pool governed by a trust created by the pooling and servicing agreement. But the PSA provides restrictions on such transfers and specific requirements as to the steps for transfer. Both the restrictions and requirements were violated in virtually every loan claimed to be in such a pool. New York Law which governs the ability of the trust or trustee to take action or accept assets states unequivocally that as a matter of law, the transfer never took place unless the requirements of the PSA were met.

As this segment points out the defect is not curable because of the terms of the PSA itself. This is why an analysis of title and securitization is so important in defending fraudulent  foreclosures and why I have expressed the opinion that the mortgage is not enforceable by anyone. Because the MONEY was divided up amongst the securitizers as though the loan was transferred. Hence, the obligation stated in the note, even if it were somehow deemed valid, was clearly separated from the mortgage or deed of trust in fact by the actual conduct of the parties in handling the money.

Bottom Line: Most of the foreclosures were and are fraudulent and void or voidable.

NEW YORK STATE LAW: Section 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust
Sec.    7-2.4    Act    of    trustee    in    contravention    of    trust If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.

As described above, in order to convey good title into the trust and provide the trust with both good title to the collateral and the income from the mortgages, each transfer in this process required particular steps.38 Most PSAs are governed by New York law and create trusts governed by New York law.39 New York trust law requires strict compliance with the trust documents; any transaction by the trust that is in contravention of the trust documents is void, meaning that the transfer cannot actually take place as a matter of law.40 Therefore, if the transfer for the notes and mortgages did not comply with the PSA, the transfer would be void, and the assets would not have been transferred to the trust. Moreover, in many cases the assets could not now be transferred to the trust.41 PSAs generally require that the loans transferred to the trust not be in default, which would prevent the transfer of any non-performing loans to the
trust now.42 Furthermore, PSAs frequently have timeliness requirements regarding the transfer in order to ensure that the trusts qualify for favored tax treatment.43
Id. page 19.
38 See Section D.1.a.ii, supra. 39 FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 40 N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 7-2.4; FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 41 FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 42 Amended Complaint at Exhibit 5, page 13, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 09-CV-1656 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2010) (hereinafter “Deutsche Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation”). 43 See FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 44 See, e.g., FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 45 Restatement (Third) of Prop. (Mortgages) § 5.4 cmt. B (1997).

132 Responses

  1. Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed!
    Extremely useful info specially the last part 🙂 I care for such information much.
    I was seeking this certain information for a very long time.
    Thank you and good luck.

  2. Thanks for all your efforts that you have put in this. Very interesting information. “Every man is the architect of his own fortune.” by Appius Claudius.

  3. Very nice post and right to the point. I am not sure if this is in fact the best place to ask but do you folks have any ideea where to get some professional writers? Thanks in advance 🙂

  4. So will the SEC ever notice that CountryWide has attempted to put ‘WILD’ mortgages into some of the CWABS listings?

    “WILD” means that the face of BOTH the DOT and the NOTE falsely show the LENDER to be a New York CORPORATION which did not actually exist and has since been incorporated in the specified state by an unrelated group.

    When is the SEC ever going to get wised up to these bogus mortgages. Proper transfer never really occurred, of course.

  5. […] View the original article here Tags:CONGRESSIONAL, OVERSIGHT, PANEL, TRANSFERS. This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011 at 7:04 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. You can . « Fraud of exclusion WTVT Leave a comment Name (required) […]

  6. About ‘Aurora Loan Services’

    Do any of you dedicated consumers trying to right wrongs …. recognize this infamous “Signatory”
    from Aurora who read the SEC Agreements recognize: E. Todd Whittemore EVP

    On Linkedin, Todd works elsewhere and so does his former associate, Chris Zimmerman – now VP Foreclosure & Bankruptcy at BankUnited

    Both worked for Aurora Loan Ser vices

    I’ve come up with a whole level of fraud no one is speaking of yet ‘CERTIFICATE GATE’

    There is an excellent reason no one has blown the lid off of ‘Certificate Gate’ and that’s because only the Counsel of the SEC speak to their clients the PRIVATE MEMBERS OF THE FINANCIAL EXCHANGE.

    I do wonder exactly how do SANCTIONS work? Does counsel for SEC have a chart they follow – base points if you will? When is CONGRESS brought in to review whether SANCTIONS or not?

    Mr. Soliman raised an issue where those who live in the business world ascribe not to the Principles of Justice or Fairness but are their acts within the scope of the regulators not to pop out and get audited? That is kind of the feeling I get.

    Kind of like consumers believing BBB is an agency they can trust? Can Wells Fargo move every complaint into a bucket in Des Moines and control bad press? YES.

    Kind of like consumers believing the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval meet certain standards?

    The Good Housekeep Seal of Approval means a lot more than the KPMG LLP
    Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
    The Board of Directors
    The Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association:
    KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative

    Or better yet, how about EMC Corporation in the 1980’s who morphed from Minneapolis over to NY? Are they related to EMC Mortgage Corporation, Servicer of Bear Stearns transactions?
    2 EX-34 (c)
    (logo) Deloitte
    Deloitte & Touche LLP
    JPMorgan Chase Tower
    2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 1600
    Dallas, TX 75201-6778
    Tel: +1 214 840 7000
    Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
    Board of Directors and Shareholders
    EMC Mortgage Corporation
    EMC acted as servicer involving residential mortgage loans, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006, and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant in the Securities Act of 1933 (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
    In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the asset-backed securities transactions for which EMC acted as servicer involving residential mortgage loans, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006, and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 is fairly stated, in all material respects.
    /S/ Deloitte & Touch LLP 3/12/2007


    Could the private divisions of corporate entities be used to file SEC documents which are suspect of SEC-robo signer’s? I say yes. Without first-hand knowledge did E. Todd Whittemore sign the 10K’s, etc? YES. I’m not saying he is a bad person. I’m just saying he was told everything was in order and he signed.

    What about the 25,837 transactions filed by the private filing agent who Wells Fargo & Co. Legal Department in CO has not reponded whether Norwest Asset Sec…..1998-1 Trust is utilized to file over 3,500 10K’s and how may Periodic Distributions for MASTER SERVICERS in the 10D’s, and how many of the 15D’s?….

    Todd Whittemore Former EVP of Aurora Loan
    Chris Zimmerman – now VP Foreclosure & Bankruptcy at BankUnited
    Past: AVP Foreclosue & Contested Default at Aurora Loan Services
    Managing Paralegal at Aurora Loan Services
    Default Supervisor at NPB Mortgage
    Education: Judge Advocate School
    Summary Results driven management executive with 10 years experience in default servicing. Strong managerial skills with a demonstrated ability to motivate staff to achieve established goals
    Specialties Expertise in:

    Foreclosure Timeline Management
    Contested/Litigated Case Resolution
    Bankruptcy Processing/Timeline Management
    LPS Desktop Conversion & Process Implementation
    REO Processing
    FHA/VA/GSE Servicing Requirements
    Team Building/Staff Training/Development
    Policy & Procedure Development
    Legislative & Regulatory Changes
    Vendor Management & Oversight

    Todd Whittemore no longer at Aurora Loan ‘Services’ Financial LLC now at Digital Risk LLC
    Past: AVP Foreclosue & Contested Default at Aurora Loan Services
    Managing Paralegal at Aurora Loan Services
    Default Supervisor at NPB Mortgage
    Education: Judge Advocate School
    Summary Results driven management executive with 10 years experience in default servicing. Strong managerial skills with a demonstrated ability to motivate staff to achieve established goals
    Specialties Expertise in:

    Foreclosure Timeline Management
    Contested/Litigated Case Resolution
    Bankruptcy Processing/Timeline Management
    LPS Desktop Conversion & Process Implementation
    REO Processing
    FHA/VA/GSE Servicing Requirements
    Team Building/Staff Training/Development
    Policy & Procedure Development
    Legislative & Regulatory Changes
    Vendor Management & Oversight

    Aurora Loan Services LLC 7/22/1997

  7. @MC – I take it you have found, then, no evidence of payment stream guarantees, to any tranche?

    How in the world does a rube get stuck in or agree to Class B6?

  8. Researching “any Class B Certificate remains outstanding and is held by or on behalf of DTC, transfers of a Global Security representing any such Certificates, in whole”

    The Class B1 Certificates will have a payment priority over the Class B2 Certificates. The Class B2 Certificates will have a payment priority over the Class B3 Certificates. The Class B3 Certificates will have a payment priority over the Class B4, Class B5 and Class B6 Certificates.

    Certain losses on the mortgage loans in each mortgage pool will be applied to reduce the principal amount of the class of the subordinate certificates that is lowest in seniority by the amount of these losses until the outstanding principal amount of that class has been reduced to zero.

    For example, the principal portion of such losses in pool 1 and pool 2 will first be allocated in reduction of the principal amount of the Class B6 Certificates until it has been reduced to zero, then sequentially to the Class B5, Class B4, Class B3, Class B2 and Class B1 Certificates, in that order, until the principal amount of each such class has been reduced to zero. If the applicable subordination is insufficient to absorb losses, then such additional losses will reduce the principal amounts of the senior certificates related to pool 1 and pool 2

  9. Researching “any Class B Certificate remains outstanding and is held by or on behalf of DTC, transfers of a Global Security representing any such Certificates, in whole”


    Global securities may be transferred, in whole and not in part, only to another nominee of DTC or to a successor of DTC or its nominee.

    Beneficial interests in the global securities may be held through the Euroclear System, or Euroclear, and Clearstream Banking, S.A., or Clearstream, each as indirect participants in DTC.

    Transfers of beneficial interests in the global securities will be subject to the applicable rules and procedures of DTC and its direct and indirect participants, including, if applicable, those of Euroclear and Clearstream, which may change from time to time.

    DTC has advised us as follows: it is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a “banking organization” within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a “clearing corporation” within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a “clearing agency” registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. DTC holds securities that its participants deposit with it. DTC also facilitates the post-trade settlement among participants of sales and other securities transactions in deposited securities through electronic computerized book entry transfers and pledges between participants’ accounts, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities certificates.

    Direct participants in DTC’s system include both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations. Access to DTC’s system also is available to others such as both U.S. and non- U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a direct participant, either directly or indirectly, which we collectively call indirect participants.

  10. Did Aurora Loan Services, LLC come after your home? From Kehoe, a 2010 case:

    According to ALS, servicing is defined in 12 U.S.C. section 2605(i)(e). And, quote:

    ” Servicing need not belong to the owner of the loan. Being the servicer only determines who performs the administrative function of receiving payments. The relationship between a borrower and a non-owner servicer is NOT contractual in nature.

  11. No, Indio! Notes are NOT notarized. Only the dot is, and the notary on a dot does not evidence anything as to the note.

  12. The notary that was present could testify if that is their signature other than that only the original maker.

    The notary stamp is self authenticating but it must be original. It should be nothing for them to get a notarized true copy of the original that is allegedly in possession. That is enough but they can’t even do that.

  13. Without, and maybe even with, an indisputable, established chain of custody, the ONLY party who may actually define a note as the original is the guy who signed it . (Good luck on that one, banksters) So there is no way Joe Bankster or its cronies can even make an allegation that any note is the original…………. until and unless they get one’s sworn testimony, it’s simply speculative, and thus the production of a note signifies nothing by way of evidence. It’s really very elementary, and really very overlooked.

  14. Fron In re Sheridan, Idaho:

    “Subsequent to the closing of the hearing and after the Court took the dispute under advisement, Movant filed a “supplemental affidavit” of its counsel (insert anyone – sic). See Doc. No. 28 (filed January 2, 2009). This affidavit alleges that Movant’s counsel obtained on such date the “original” Note and that the same contains an indorsement. Counsel states that his “affidavit is presented to supplement the record herein and for the Court’s consideration in the pending motion… ..

    The filing and consideration of this supplemental affidavit are improper for several reasons……..

    …………… Third, disputed factual issues in contested matters may not be resolved through testimony in “affidavits” but rather require
    testimony in open court. See Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9014(d). Under the circumstances, the identity of the holder of the Note certainly appears to be a fact in dispute falling within the ambit of this rule.

    Fourth, the affidavit is insufficient to establish that
    counsel (insert joe tall-tale-teller – sic) , as affiant, has the ability to testify regarding or lay the foundation required to admit the document. See Esposito v. Noyes (In re Lake Country Invs., LLC), 255 B.R. 588, 594-95 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2000).

    The assertion that the newly possessed note is the “original” appears to be based not on the affiant’s (counsel’s) personal knowledge but on the assertions of someone else.

    Fifth, the proffer of this “new” note as the “original” note directly contradicts Movant’s prior representations that the Note attached to the Motion
    was “true and correct” and the operative document in this matter. ….

    JG: lying then or lying now?

    Sixth, even were it considered, the “new” Note’s asserted indorsement states: “Pay To The Order Of [blank] Without Recourse” and then purports to be signed by Fieldstone Mortgage Company through a named assistant vice president. There is no
    date nor indication of who was or is the transferee. Fieldstone Mortgage Company may have indorsed the Note in blank, but this document does not alone establish that either HSBC Bank USA or
    Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust is the Note’s holder……

    Thus, even if a “nominee” such as MERS (insert any bankster – sic) could properly bring a motion for stay relief in the name of and on behalf of the real party in interest — the entity that has rights in and pecuniary interest under the Note secured by the Deed of Trust — nothing of record adequately establishes who that entity actually is.
    Under the evidence submitted at the § 362(e) final hearing, which consists solely of Exhibit 1, the only entity that MERS (insert any bankster – sic) could conceivably represent as an agent/nominee would be Fieldstone Mortgage Company (insert any bankster or trust or identify unknown – sic). …..

  15. We have to prove that whatever was public offered was in reality a private issued security in disguise. A promissory note is a private issued security. Any evidence of indebtedness is a security. We know that’s what the did . Proving the linkage in the book entry electronic security system will be tough.
    What you have are private securities becoming the assets of a public trust that issues interests in that trust. In doesn’t take a bran surgeon to know that private securities are the assets of the trust.

    I know there are SEC exemptions. The question is this one.I don’t think anyone decided at closing to IPO their house.

  16. Keep in mind that if one is going to allege an SEC violation, unless one joins the SEC to the action, the banksters will simply argue that there is no private right of action for an SEC violation (per se).
    Maybe it’s time to join the SEC to actions. Let’s join the IRS while we’re at it! I am so not kidding.

  17. Just for the record … DTC doesn’t hold the physical security. Cede and Co. does. They are virtually an impenetrable wall of mystery. Maybe that where all the missing promissory notes are? If you could prove one to one Asset back certificates to mortgage you would have a huge SEC violation. Making a private offering of a security public. There is an exception namely 144A but I doubt they are under it.

  18. Has anyone noted that the DOT specifies that the NAMED LENDER must be the one who executes the SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE?


  19. MARY …Of all the greek – Focus on this one area – Okay ?

    : … any Class B Certificate remains outstanding and is held by or on behalf of DTC, transfers of a Global Security representing any such Certificates, in whole

  20. Defendant is the beneficiary who lay claims to the mortgage loan in default AS WIRED TO to the plaintiff. Loan initially settles with Company “A” Company “B “wires the funds and Company “C” the ISOLATED AND REMOTE ENTITY buys the receivables depositing common shares thus entitling it to servicing receipts. “Gimmick”

    Company “D” are preferred shareholders.

    The CF is enough to issue a “waterfall” five or more times the value of the common stock. Since preferred shareholders do not convert to common, here , existing common shareholders will receive the residual equity value, on a per-share basis, after preferred shareholders receive their preference payment. We know preferred shareholders don’t convert, (i.e. diluted ). There was no conversion feature here and no desire to value the residual piece (while forced to retain the common trust shares. Weird even though these toxic issues were triple AAA rated; therefore – Ponzi? How the preferred are TPC redeemed – Ponzi? OR MORE AND MORE AND MORE TOXIC LOANS


  21. @ John Gault

    I would DEFINITELY OPINE that the “Substitution of Trustee is a “‘mortgage lending transaction”, or a part thereof.

    The Trustee has no real use outside of the relevant mortgage transaction.

  22. NRS 205.395 False representation concerning title. Every person who shall maliciously or fraudulently execute or file for record any instrument, or put forward any claim by which the right or title of another to any real property is, or purports to be, transferred, encumbered or clouded, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    (A gross misdemeanor is a crime. What is its civil ‘cousin’? )

    NRS 205.372 Mortgage lending fraud; penalties.

    1. A person who, with the intent to defraud a participant in a mortgage lending transaction:

    ……. (e) Files or causes to be filed with a county recorder any document that the person knows to include a misstatement, misrepresentation or omission concerning a material fact, commits the offense of mortgage lending fraud which is a category C felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

    (Is an assignment a “‘mortgage lending transaction”, or a part thereof?)

    NRS 205.405 FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS. Every person who shall, willfully or maliciously and with intent to defraud, make any false entry, or fail to make an entry, of any material matter which it is his or her duty to make, with intent to injure another, in any PRIVATE book or PRIVATE account, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    This one warrants extra consideration!

    Other states likely have mirror statutes.

  23. Form EX-4.1 “Instrument Defining the Rights of Security Holders”

    Looked inside a large Trust Fund Agreement.

    I’m considering how to prove alike the Assignments which were not registered in accordance with the statutory requirements, the MEMBERS of the private exchange ‘MASTER SERVICERS’ used a third party company to ‘hold’ in wiating the assignments in blank so the financial holding companies were unencumbered and could sell, resell and in the event of default assign to a loan trust, or certificate or trust fund and send in the TRUSTEE of the Master Servicer who was the BUYER.

    THE HUB MERS for the BENEFIT of the SHAREHOLDERS required members to record Assignments in blank.

    The HUB created in 1999 to move currency and reference in agreements to Certificate Registry – DTC – Euroclear – ….means time to learn exactly how DTC ….. fits and were the regulations followed. Mr. Soliman not to be used in foreclosue defense rather to understand and no longer be ignorant.

    EX-4.1 · 1st Page of 259± No Page-Breaks Line 13,278: … deposited on behalf of the subscribers for such Certificates represented thereby with the Trustee, as custodian for The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) and registered in the name of a nominee of DTC, duly executed and authenticated by … Line 13,284: … by adjustments made on the records of the Trustee or DTC or its nominee, as the case may be, as hereinafter provided. Line 13,297: … as custodian for DTC and registered in the name of a nominee of DTC, duly executed and authenticated by the Trustee as hereinafter provided. The aggregate … Line 13,302: … increased or decreased by adjustments made on the records of the Trustee or DTC or its nominee, as the case may be, as hereinafter provided. Line 13,780: … any Class B Certificate remains outstanding and is held by or on behalf of DTC, transfers of a Global Security representing any such Certificates, in whole … Line 13,790: … of such Global Security, in whole or in part, to nominees of DTC or to a successor of DTC or such successor’s nominee. Line 13,811: Global Security to Regulation S Global Security. If a holder of a beneficial interest in a Restricted Global Security deposited with or on behalf of DTC wishes at any time to exchange its interest in such Restricted Global Security … Line 13,818: … such holder is not a U.S. person, may, subject to the rules and procedures of DTC, exchange or cause the exchange of such interest for an equivalent beneficial … Line 13,822: … as Certificate Registrar, of (I) instructions from DTC directing the Trustee, as … Line 13,829: … applicable to such holder’s Certificates held through a Regulation S Global Security, (II) a written order given in accordance with DTC’s procedures containing information regarding the participant account of DTC and, in the case … Line 13,854: S Global Security to Restricted Global Security. If a holder of a beneficial interest in a Regulation S Global Security deposited with or on behalf of DTC wishes at any time to transfer its interest in such Regulation S Global Security … Line 13,859: Restricted Global Security, such holder may, subject to the rules and procedures of DTC, exchange or cause the exchange of such interest for an equivalent beneficial interest in a Restricted Global Security. Upon receipt by the Trustee, as Certificate Registrar, of (I) instructions from DTC directing the Trustee, as Certificate Registrar, to cause to be credited a beneficial interest … Line 13,868: Global Security, to be exchanged, such instructions to contain information regarding the participant account with DTC to be credited with such increase, and (II) a certificate in the form of Exhibit M-2 hereto given by the holder … Line 13,883: Regulation S Global Security to be transferred and the Trustee, as Certificate Registrar, shall instruct DTC, concurrently with such reduction, to credit or … Line 25,927: Global Security with DTC in the name of [name of transferor] (the …

  24. Has anyone noted that the DOT specifies that the NAMED LENDER must be the one who executes the SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE? Dig out your DOT and buried back on one of the later pages, is a section specifically on this topic in the DOT.

    In my own DOT, it even goes on to specify that this section is to have weight over any other section regarding this interpretation.

    Now,a MERS membership that is not even that of the LENDER was used to acquire a MIN number for the loan.

    Then the second servicer had their personnel use the MERS membership to execute that SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE.

    How many loans have this clause? Why is this clause being ignored? If this clause is enforced for loans where the original sham lender does not exist, they would be forced to have the original Trustee generate the NOD and the one that was issued by the servicer would not be of any use.

    I realize that some courts are just looking for ‘substantial’ compliance, not explicit. But this clause from the DOT explicitly excludes the Sub of the Trustee by any other than the LENDER.

  25. Dear Jim Cunningham:

    Regarding Mortgage Lenders Network – please see and amazing Transaction chart depicting movement of a mortgage originated by Mortgage Lenders Network.

    “Dan & Teri Securities Transaction Process Reverse Engineered Version 4.1
    Mortgage Lenders Network is in the middle of the flow chart.

    The business entity Mortgage Lenders Network is a domestic business entity registered in the state of Delaware and has to be registered in other states they do interstate business with. Registration is with the Secretary of State and/or Treasurer and assigned an ID# and file annual reports and pay taxes.

    The system is down at this time 1:32AM EST. Deleware provides limited information nevertheless you can look to see if the entity is registered. You can also look at other states such as Maryland where you’ll find more information than DE shares.

  26. © 2011 The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

    DTC is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law and a registered clearing agency with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    You know the song ‘ What’s PSA Got to do – Got to do with it?”

    Copied Article:
    Mortgage Divorce! 1 Posted by jmacklin on January 27, 2011 at 8:24 pm Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

    By James Macklin
    Secure Document Research

    Promissory Note Terms Vs. PSA/Prosectus Terms

    When we are handed a voluminous stack of documents at the closing table for our mortgage transaction, a Borrower is expected to make a decision based upon the duty and care that the party who drafted these “investment contracts” has placed into them.

    However, none of us at the closing table has any idea what most of the words, phrases, and legal terminologies actually means… especially those affecting our rights as a consumer and as a real property owner.

    Within the typical language of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement executed by the players of the securitization financing, there are countless references to the “interests” of the asset being conveyed, or, your Note and Deed. Interests are a finicky word of art used.

    The word simply means this:

    the asset, along with all of its’ benefits and liabilities.

    These are the “interests” being conveyed with the sale, set-over, transfer, conveyance, etc.

    So, under the terms of the Note we signed, look to the section titled:

    “Who is obligated under the Note” (usually sec. nine (9)).

    Here you will find that myriad entities may be, and probably are, also obligated under this same Note.

    These are the terms you have agreed to and bargained for.

    But the banking intermediaries would have us believe otherwise, as exhibited in the PSA under such language as:

    “The Depositor, Sponsor/Seller, Swap Counterparty, Master Servicer, Trustee do not intend for any obligation of themselves or their agents or employees to arise as a result of this Agreement”.

    This is contradictive to the terms and conditions that we have agreed to.

    Because the intervening assignments are a functional necessity to the bankruptcy remoteness of these assets, the specific substance of the PSA must be followed, including the mandate for the indorsement of each intervening assignment, along with the recordation of those assignment in the proper land title records office within the State of jurisdiction.

    Let’s go back to the language of the

    “Who is Obligated” section of our Note.

    Notice that anyone who endorses the instrument is also obligated under the Note.

    Does this create an unknown Obligor at closing?

    If an un-named Beneficiary is the result of the unilateral agreement known as a Promissory Note”, how do we have the understanding necessary to execute such a critical document?

    It is the contention of this author, supported by the very agreements signed under oath and filed for record with the SEC, that “interests” and “obligations” are synonomous within the four corners of the agreement we signed…and the agreements signed by the intermediaries.

    A court of competent jurisdiction shall be posed these foundational questions very soon, and often. Are we a party to these agreements known as PSA/Prospectus?

    If we do a simple word search on each of these and look for references to:

    Borrower, Mortgagor, Obligor, we find these terms are typically used in excess of 60-75 times.

    Yet we were never disclosed the terms and conditions of the actual “loan” transaction as it truly was executed, and the rights, duties and responsibilities of the intermediaries.

    These are material disclosures relative to fees, expenses and various credit enhancements which are attributed to the Borrowers’ payment stream.

    A divorce from this menagerie of deceit is not only appropriate, but a right that is being tried in many courtrooms.

    I believe that the judiciary will be tested on many platforms and small but visceral victories shall carry the day.

    .end of article

    Now copy from a

  27. Indio007 – Sorry but that is not what I’m inferring. You’ve taken too literally. Please read the agreements related to your loan trust, or certificates or trust fund. You’ll find detail reference to how the custodian

    Mr. Soliman with respect please understand perspective of Defendants without knowledge have no offense. If a defendant owes money to the party with Standing let them come and claim their property. Consumers are without accurate business statements withheld by the financial holding company and its affilaites are substantive omissions of material facts.

    Consumers finding themselves as defendants need to protect themselves from unlawful seizure of property or be subjected to multiple foreclouses on the same property.

    The only successful defense is a very strong offense. And those defendnats with knowledge with offense and catch the ‘B’s’ lying.

    The ‘Plaintiff’ must prove they have Standing.
    The defendant does not present a case of what was done wrong only provides evidence of fact to cast shadows where they exists.

    If the Plaintiff is the party with standing how simple and quick the process would be for the investor to claim the property in exchange for the default of the debt agreement.

    If the Plaintiff had Standing, the attorney’s would would bring into the Court the 1,600 page PSA and actual ‘Note’ along with a proper Assignment recorded under statutory laws at the time of sale to the TRUST, placed into the PSA. As a matter of fact, if I were the supervisor of the Plaintiff robo-mill I would make sure all of the required documents were attached to ensure the best turnaround for my clients Wells Fargo, Aurora and JPMorgan, for example.

    However, the ‘certificates’ and ‘notes’ transactions are part and parcel of a ponzi-scheme based on the agreements themselves the TRUSTEE is violating their own rules and regulations.
    Is that what you mean?

  28. Dealers Listed Above

    The Program provides for the initial appointment of certain dealers (the names of which are listed below
    under “”Dealer Agreement”) and the subsequent appointment of dealers in respect of the Program or any
    particular series of Bonds (all such dealers and any affiliates of such dealers together, the “”Dealers”) and
    agents of the Issuer. Any Dealer will be able to purchase Bonds on an underwritten basis, either individually or
    as part of a syndicate, or on an agency basis.
    The Dealer Agreement provides for Dealers to be appointed or removed from the Program and for
    Dealers subsequently appointed to receive the benefits and be subject to the obligations of the Dealer
    Agreement in respect of a particular series of Bonds for which they are appointed as Dealers.

    Dealer Agreement
    Bonds may be sold from time to time by the Issuer to or through any one or more of the Dealers and by
    the Issuer directly. The arrangements under which the Bonds may from time to time be agreed to be sold by
    the Issuer to or through the Dealers are set out in the Second Amended and Restated Dealer Agreement
    dated as of September 1, 1999 (as amended, supplemented or replaced from time to time, the “”Dealer
    Agreement”), among the Issuer, the FHLBanks and ABN Amro Bank N.V., Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays
    Capital Inc., Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit
    Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank AG London, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., FTN Financial
    Capital Markets, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs International, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.,
    J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., Lehman Brothers Inc., Lehman Brothers International, Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
    Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Mizuho International plc, Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
    Incorporated, and UBS Securities LLC. Any agreement for the sale of Bonds will, among other things, make
    provision for the form and terms and conditions of the relevant Bonds, the method of distribution of the Bonds,
    the price at which such Bonds will be purchased by the Dealers and the commissions or other agreed
    deductibles (if any) that are payable or allowable by the FHLBanks in respect of such purchase.

    The Dealers and certain affiliates thereof engage in transactions with and perform services for the
    FHLBanks, including without limitation the purchase and sale of investment securities. In connection with
    any particular issue of Bonds, the FHLBanks may enter into interest rate exchange agreements or other
    transactions with, or arranged by, the applicable Dealer or an affiliate thereof, or an unaffiliated third party.
    1. The Issuer and the FHLBanks have obtained all necessary consents, approvals and authorizations in
    connection with the commencement of the Program. The Board of Directors of the Office of Finance
    approved the Program on June 30, 1994.
    2. Except as described in the Information Memorandum, including any information incorporated by
    reference therein, and in the applicable Pricing Supplement, none of the FHLBanks is involved in any
    litigation or arbitration proceedings relating to claims or amounts which are material in the context of the
    issue of the Bonds nor, so far as the Office of Finance is aware, is any such litigation or arbitration pending
    or threatened.
    3. Except as disclosed in the Information Memorandum, including any information incorporated by
    reference therein, and in the applicable Pricing Supplement, there has been no adverse change in the
    financial position or results of operations of the FHLBanks, taken as a whole, which is material in the
    context of the Program or the issuance or offering of Bonds thereunder since the date as of which the most
    recent audited financial statements were prepared.
    4. The Bonds have been accepted for clearance through the Fed Book-Entry System, DTC, and the
    Euroclear and Clearstream systems. The CUSIP number and/or the Common Code, ISIN and CINS
    and such other relevant numbers for each series of Bonds will be set out in the relevant Pricing
    5. The Bonds will not be issued under an indenture, and no trustee is provided for in the Bonds.
    6. The Luxembourg Stock Exchange has allocated the number 2306 to the Program for listing purposes.

    Pricing SupplementFederal Home Loan Banks
    Global Debt Program
    Series ® ©
    ®Title of Issue of Bonds©
    The Bonds are Joint and Several Obligations of the FHLBanks and are
    not obligations of the United States and are not guaranteed by the United States.

    This document (“”Pricing Supplement”) is issued to give details of an issue of Bonds by the Federal
    Home Loan Banks (the “”FHLBanks”), acting by and through the Office of Finance (together with any
    successors and assigns acting in a similar capacity with respect to the issuance of securities, the “”Issuer”) of
    the FHLBanks under the Global Debt Program which commenced on July 1, 1994 ®and to provide
    information supplemental to the Information Memorandum referred to below©.
    This Pricing Supplement supplements the terms and conditions in, and incorporates by reference, the
    Information Memorandum dated March 1, 2006, and all documents incorporated by reference therein (the
    “”Information Memorandum”), and should be read in conjunction with the Information Memorandum. Unless
    otherwise defined in this Pricing Supplement, terms used herein have the same meaning as in the Information
    No person is authorized to give any information or to make any representation not contained in the
    Information Memorandum or this Pricing Supplement, and any information or representation not contained
    herein or in the Information Memorandum must not be relied on as having been authorized by or on behalf of
    the FHLBanks or by any of the Dealers (as defined in the Information Memorandum). The delivery of the
    Information Memorandum or this Pricing Supplement at any time does not imply that the information
    contained in the Information Memorandum or this Pricing Supplement, as the case may be, is correct at any
    time subsequent to the date of the Information Memorandum or, if later, the date of the documents
    incorporated by reference in the Information Memorandum or to the date of this Pricing Supplement,

  29. Federal Home Loan Banks
    Global Debt Program
    for issuances of Bonds with maturities of one day or longer

    The Federal Home Loan Banks (the “”FHLBanks”), acting by and through the Office of Finance of the FHLBanks (together with
    any successors and assigns acting in a similar capacity with respect to the issuance of securities, the “”Issuer”), periodically may offer
    bonds (“”Bonds”) under the Global Debt Program (the “”Program”) by means of this Information Memorandum (the “”Information
    Memorandum”) and a Pricing Supplement that will contain the specific terms of, and pricing details for, each particular series of
    Bonds. The Bonds will constitute joint and several unsecured general obligations of the FHLBanks.

    The Bonds may not be suitable investments for all investors, and the Bonds are intended for purchase only by investors capable
    of understanding the risks entailed in such an investment. No investor should purchase any of the Bonds unless that investor
    understands and is able to bear the price, market, liquidity, structure, redemption and other risks associated with that Bond. Investors
    should consult their own financial and legal advisors about the risks entailed by investment in a particular issue of Bonds, the
    appropriate tools to analyze that investment, and the suitability of that investment in each investor’s particular circumstances. See
    “”CERTAIN INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS” beginning on page 8 for discussion of certain risks that should be considered in
    connection with an investment in the Bonds.

    The date of this Information Memorandum is
    March 1, 2006.

    This is a 46 page document of interest to reasonable people I’m sure.

    11921 Freedom Drive
    Suite 1000
    Reston, VA 22090


    Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    33 Liberty Street
    New York, NY 10045


    Citibank N.A.
    21st Floor
    Citigroup Centre Canada Square
    Canary Wharf
    London E14 5LB


    Kredietbank S.A. Luxembourgeoise
    43 Boulevard Royal
    L-2955 Luxembourg

    Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.
    350 Park Avenue
    New York, NY 10022


    Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
    1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20006


    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
    1301 K Street NW
    Washington, DC 20005


    ABN AMRO Bank NV
    199 Bishopgate
    London EC2M 3X2

    Barclays Bank PLC
    5 the North Colonnade
    Cavary Wharf
    London, E14 4BB

    Barclays Capital Inc
    222 Broadway, 8th Floor
    New York, NY 10038

    Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
    383 Madison Ave
    7th Floor
    New York, NY 10179

    BNP Paribas Securities Corp
    787 Seventh Ave
    New York, NY 10019

    Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
    390 Greenwich Street
    4th Floor
    New York, NY 10013

    Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
    Eleven Madison Ave
    New York NY 10010-3629

    Deutsche Bank AG London
    1 Winchester House
    1 Great Winchester Street
    London, EC2N2DB

    Deutsche Bank Securities Inc
    60 Wall Street, 3rd Floor
    New York, NY 10005

    FTN Financial Capital Markets
    845 Crossover Lane, Suite 150
    Memphis TN 38117

    Goldman, Sachs & CO.
    85 Broad Street, 27th Floor
    New York, NY 10004

    Goldman Sachs International
    Peterborough Court
    133 Fleet street
    London EC4A 2BB

    HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
    452 Fifth Ave. Tower 10
    HSBC Tower
    New York, NY 10018

    J.P. Morgan Securities LTD
    125 London Wall
    London EC2Y 5AJ

    Lehman Brothers Inc.
    745 Seventh Ave
    New York, NY 10019

    Lehman Brothers International
    25 Bank Street
    London E14 5LE

    Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc
    4 World Financial Center
    7th Floor
    New York, NY 10080

    Mizuho International PLC
    Bracken House
    One Friday Street
    London, EC4M 2AA

    Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
    1251 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
    New York, NY 10020

    Morgan Stanley & CO. Incorporated
    25 Cabot Square
    Canary Wharf
    London E14 4QA

    UBS Securities LLC
    677 Washington Blvd
    Stamford CT 06901

  30. @ms@david
    Isn’t it actually by NY LAW , which prohibits trading of notes endorsed in blank?

  31. 99 Responses

    indio007, on April 23, 2011 at 2:49 pm said:
    @ saveamericaone

    Are you saying Eurostream went one to one, book entry security per home loan?
    You are alleging a secondary currency market sir , in which the issuer of said security(homeowner) has no knowledge of it’s circulation . The circulation effects his credit and liable to be excised taxed or income taxed.

    M.Soliman – These comments are technically accurate and stright on …raise arguments of NO WAY .

    I will assure you the transfer is highly deceptive yet no the less stands as a valid transfer.

    If the transfer fails then what?

    You loan is really owned by the lender after all? Then it opens up the question of -Can a lender perform a conventional foreclosure? Careful on how information is digested. M.Soliman

  32. @ saveamericaone

    Are you saying Eurostream went one to one, book entry security per home loan?
    You are alleging a secondary currency market sir , in which the issuer of said security(homeowner) has no knowledge of it’s circulation . The circulation effects his credit and liable to be excised taxed or income taxed.

  33. I needed to look up some terms:

    ‘Security” negotiable financial instrument
    broadly debt securities (banknotes, bonds, debentures) and equity securities, e.g. common stocks; and derivative contracts, such as forwards, futures, options and swaps.

    The company or other entity issuing the secuirty is called the issuer.

    A country’s regulatory structure determines what qualifies as a security.

    The ‘Master Servicer’ Prospectus selling the certificates (bonds) is a public offering (sale in the public domain).

    Disclosing the Master Servicer, interest rate payable to the investor, Issuing Entity, Clearing/Retistration: Book-entry through DTC, Clearstream, Euroclear

    I looked up Global certificates, book entry interests, depositories … These thirty banks are called the DTC participants.

    DTC, through a legal nominee, … large securities depositories exist, both in Europe: Euroclear and Clearstream. …

    Then I looked up how would a broker or clearing agent become a DTC Participant.

    The ‘market maker’ must either be a participant of DTCC (assigned a DTC Participant Number) or use a clearing firm that is a full participant of DTC
    Companies that are listed on the NYSE, the AMEX (ARCA) or NASDAQ markets are already considered properly vetted by DTCC and the SEC’s willingness to make the registration effective is considered a satisfactory and clean presentation. However, those companies who trade on a non-listed market can be more problematic. (FYI, if a company is non-reporting they may not be granted initial DTC eligibility or DTC may pull already-granted eligibility at any time. These companies will rarely be allowed FAST eligibility.)

    (The common thread of the Master Servicer are MEMBERS of the private financial exchanges who are already members of the DTC)

    DTC Members are similar to members of ‘MERS’ the shareholers (beneficiary of the transactions) allow its private members to 1) Be assigned a Member ID, 2) Clear transactions based upon electronically recording documents required in the PSA.

    Submission for Initial DTC Eligibility …

    Once a corporation has been vetted and approved for trading either by FINRA or by the SEC, the corporation must also submit an application to DTC for its initial eligibility to trade.

    If eligibility is granted, DTC will agree to hold an inventory of the corporation’s free-trading street name shares on deposit.

    These are the shares that will become the “float”, those shares that are free-trading AND held at DTC.

    There is currently no other depository that carries an inventory for clearing and settlement of publicly traded shares.

    The market maker (the dealer at a brokerage firm who agrees to carry the first amount of shares in inventory on behalf of their firm) must make the initial submission for eligibility.

    The market maker must either be a participant of DTCC (assigned a DTC Participant Number) or use a clearing firm that is a full participant of DTC.

    The participant number allows the market maker/clearing firm to enter transactions for their firm into DTC’s software.

    For approval by DTCC, the company will have to sign the Operational Agreement with DTC.

    However, DTCC retains the right to deny a company the ability to use their depository without providing a reason for this denial or an appeal procedure to redress grievances or wrongs.

    The company can still present an appeal but the appeal will not follow a specific procedure or necessitate a response from DTCC.

    Companies must have a clean presentation that includes, not only the effective registration, but also can include full disclosure of the provenance of all shares that will be initially deposited as free-trading shares.

  34. Dear Mr. Soliman:

    I am paying attention. Thank you.
    Holday blessings.

    LivingLies Members
    Go to GOOGLE and find your loan trust prospects sold in the public domain. Print a copy.

    Hold the Master Servicer ‘BUYER’ of your loan prospectus in your hands.

    The Master Servicer ‘as ‘BUYER’ did place the loan numbers into the Pooling & Servicing Agreement.

    The Master Servicer as BUYER is responsible for at long arms reach for the TRUSTEE who all were to ensure that the ‘certificates’ sold to investors were securitized (assignments lawfully recorded).

    Foreclosuegate is evidence that the Assignments and conveyance of the mortgages were not recorded lawfully.

    Certificategate is pending. When will we read about the notes being recorded in blank?

    Afterall, the transactions have two sides purchase of loans and conversion to a note. The conversion of currency out of the USA had to be recorded somewhere.

    The sale in the public domain of the certificates clearly state the notes were recorded.

    WHO: is not a mystery.

    The who is real and clearly stated in the prospectus.

    The ‘certificates’ belong to the investors of the stated loan trust.

    Where are the investors?

    Where are the notes?

    The ‘hub’ for the notes was an electronic registry whose members were required to endorse ? or were they in blank?


    Issuing Entity: Your loan trust name
    Clearing / Registration: “Book-entry through DTC, Clearstream and Euroclear”

    What is that ‘Clearing/Registration?
    An electronic hub?

    This Ahaaaaa moment presented by Mary.

    Blew my socks off. Consider how alike MERS electronic registry of MEMBERS required to record in blank assignments were not lawfully recorded.

    The Clearing/Registration exists for the Notes!

    Who “President Barack Obama, under Article II, Executive Branch, oath to enforce laws of the United States’ will he and US Attorney General Holder blow the lid off of ‘CertificateGate’?

    I do pray ‘LivingLies’ MEMBERS get credit!

    When will the ‘Investors’ who purchased the defective certificates (bonds) bring forth charges for the unlawful acts? An ahaaa moment beyond malfeasonace the US Attorney General with Jurisdiction blocked by CONGRESS who for the best interests of who? prevents enforcement of laws that would protect the welfare of the nation.

    The SEC Regulations clearly broken (Bond) and (Loan) cannot coexist.

    One must reveal both sides of the ponzi scheme and its time the Presidents starts to carry a big stick which is the U.S. Constitution rolled up tightly protecting us all!

    Definition: DTC, Clearstream and Euroclear – infrastructe and DTC was selected because of its experience in United States commercial paper.

    Were the MEMBERS ‘notes’ electronically recorded were endorsed in blank?

    Euroclear, Clearstream, DTCC Team for ECP Hub

    Euroclear, Clearstream International and the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. will jointly develop a central communications hub that will automate the sale and processing of European commercial paper and related money market instruments.

    The hub-to be called the European Pre-Issuance Messaging (EPIM) service-will go live in late September and electronically link all parties involved in the issuance of euro commercial paper, including banks, dealers, numbering agencies, issuing and paying agents and depositories. Among the network providers being considered is Radianz, a joint venture between Reuters Group Plc and Equant.

    The EPIM service will be the second automated pretrade communications hub for ECP.

    J.P. Morgan Institutional Trade Services, the global trust arm of J.P. Morgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs, among others, are already using a competing service called IssueLink, a Web-based version of CapitalNet’s software, which went live several months ago.

    CapitalNet, is a joint venture of Euromoney and Compusoft.

    Automated communications systems are considered key to the development of the eurocommercial paper market, which is estimated at $250 billion-a fraction of the U.S. $1.7 trillion market.

    The EPIM service will be owned equally by Euroclear, Clearstream and DTCC and operated by DTCC.

    It will be based on PIM, the Pre-Issuance Messaging service created by a DTCC subsidiary, the Depository Trust Co. (DTC) introduced in the United States in 1999.

    So far, EPIM has received commitments from two paying agents and one broker-dealer.

    DTC’s PIM processes about 270,000 messages on U.S. commercial paper per month, settling $143 billion worth of debt each day.

    “It is an industry objective to reduce processing costs by relying on existing infrastructure and DTC was selected because of its experience in U.S. commercial paper,” said Pierre Slechten, managing director at Euroclear in Brussels, who is coordinating the project for his depository. Indeed, because EPIM is reliant on DTCC’s computer mainframe at its New York City headquarters, the development costs will be minimized- to several million dollars-and time to market to under a year.
    EPIM will also rely on proprietary message types developed by the DTC for the PIM service, but additional fields will be added for Eurocommercial paper such as foreign exchange.
    Unlike EPIM, IssueLink uses only Clearstream to issue ISIN numbers and IssueLink is not endorsed by the European Commercial Paper Association, the europaper trade group.

    Euroclear decided not to participate in the IssueLink service citing concerns over technology issues.

    Dan Kuhnel, senior new issues manager for Clearstream, said that the international depository opted to join the IssueLink service as an interim step until the EPIM service was launched. “We will continue supporting the IssueLink initiative until the market decides to use only the EPIM service but are happy to support both if our clients wish us to do so,” he said.

    Let’s see how many members have pulled outof the SEC and unregistered themselves already.

    HSBC already pulled out of the US financial exchanges setup shop far away. Do they have to replace the ECP Hub now?

    The ‘new hub’

  35. Clearing/Registration:

    Bookentry through DTC, Clearstream and Euroclear

    Next segway as investors bring forth ‘CertificateGate’ will the public find out that the MEMBERS were required to electronically accepts ‘notes’ endorsed in blank

  36. […] View the original article here LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  37. […] View the original article here Tags:CONGRESSIONAL, OVERSIGHT, PANEL, TRANSFERS. This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 at 1:55 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. You can . « 17% Conversion Rates, $3.34 Per Hop!!! New SEO Plugin .lowest Refunds! Leave a comment Name (required) […]

  38. Allright. And you’re right about the blue print. That’s what a lot of litigation ends up being for the banksters, also. They suck the arguments out of the unwary homeowner and then they fashion a ‘fix’ and restate their ‘facts’.

  39. Sorry – wow

    It is hard. These sites are well read ….And what is written at times seems to beg the question – who are you working for? It’s guessing and ad lib. Look …the PSA is full of material misrepresentations. Send me a question about the PAS and I will answer for you .

    To write in detail about that what your deficient of is like offering a blue print for the opposition to use against you.

    Writing in a cryptic style . . .not something anyone lacking interest in subject matter will take time to decipher.

    You also have my email. Write your question down and send it.

  40. It is hard. These sites are well read ….And what is written at times seems to beg the question – who are you working for? Its guessing and ad lib. Look the PSA is full of material misrepresentations. Send me a question about the PAS and I will answer for you .

    To write in detail about that what your deficient is in is a blue print for the opposition will use against you.

    Writing in cryptic style . . .not something anyone lacking an interest in the subject matter will take time to decipher.

    You also have my email. Wrote your question down and send it.

  41. Oh, for Pete’s sake, MS! ‘Not arm’s length transaction, FDIC protected’ against unrecorded what-nots. Okay already. The only thing I can figure relevant that my brain can get to (altho I will guess when I have nothing AT ALL else to do about the arm’s length business) is that if the FDIC took over an IndyMac, which it did, and assets were transferred OUT but not recorded , the lucky recipients of those unrecorded transfers are not so lucky after all, and those assets are assets of the FDIC. Is this a test? This is America and this is an open comment board, so okay. You did keep it lively, I’ll say that. When it’s not maddening, it is sometimes even entertaining.
    Someone tell you some of us are puzzle addicts or something?
    Most of us are not angling for anything other than our mutual goal to save homes and to sometimes
    commiserate as the oppressed middle class we are, well, sort of. We lived with that tag for a long time. I lost my tail in the market and don’t bother telling me it was my own fault, even if that is all or partly true. I used to be proud to own certain stocks I wouldn’t have in a portfolio today if they were turning to gold. My spouse worked for 32 stinking years for a company which filed bk and ate all but the insured 40% of the pension. We don’t ‘complain’ unduly – I think we’d all like to see the law applied properly and equally. No one likes being treated like a peon.

    Yeah, sometimes we guess. It’s not like we have an elite group of A-list attorneys who are willing to take what what some might call chump-change cases. These cases don’t lead to fat contracts. I don’t mean to disparage those who do take on this cause, as here and there, good attorneys do fight for the homeowner.
    Some people even contribute pro bono.

  42. David – Read what you say —-good stuff , but read it again . . .TRUST cannot CLAIM it is a bona-fide or holder if that NOTE was not PROPERLY transferred – per contract, by real property laws, and UCC.

    The courts ignore this but by law – that TRUST has zip-authority over those Notes not properly transferred. They MUST correct the defect or eject it from the TRUST.




  43. Okay my apologies , your trying and that’s Okay! It must be the coffee. Maybe its the job.

    I tell you , you can have a town destroyed by a wild 2 ton elephant with one ear belonging to a circus who rolled into town.

    And good procedural attorney will have the case decided nolo by a hung jury.

    It does wear on you and you got to none the less love the American judical system. I really do mean that . Its down to may the best man win (I am referring to a case this week obviously)

    Only an attorney can represent your rights in a court of law


    D’Oench and Statutory Provisions” John Guilt
    (sorry about misspell) Now, as for you Ms Gault . . . .Good evening !

    Work Experience :
    1990 FDIC FSLIC Bank Officer
    1994 REIT MBS Structured Finance
    1995 Warehouse Director
    1997 Director and CFO Bulk Trading and Servicer
    2002 Analyst Sub Prime (Gherson New York)
    2006 Law Firm (Consultant SEC DOJ Mortgage Banking Criminal Cases)

    Other Cases:
    US At Gen VS. PinnFund USA
    CA Aty Gen Vs. TriStar USA
    US Aty Gen Vs. K Platinum
    Graupner Vs Select Portfolio Servicing. Filed 2/23/09 Graupner v. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT … Super. Ct. No. BC318930) …. 967; accord, Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126

    * Thanks for the “plug” … (but don’t call the Better Business Bureau again…LOL)

    TRANSFER & SUBSTITUTION OF ASSETS Company A is the originator and company B is the arranger and funding source. Company C is the secondary investor.

    Company A sells a pool to Company C who tenders stock certs for the amount outstanding held by Company B.

    Since its all less than arms the transaction under GAAP , the securities registration , in order to realize Derecognition company “C” is a REMOTE ISOLATED BEYOND REACH NOLO TOUCHE, CANNOT LOOK AT, CANNOT TALK TOO , CANNOT CALL CANNOT MESS WITH NO HOLDING HANDIES NO FOOTSIES …..Forget it.

    Your guessing my sister ….you’re guessing and here that is dangerous. People’s homes are at stake!

    M.Soliman (Who is M.Sol…thread) Too much time on our hands.

  45. D’Oench and Statutory Provisions” (FDIC/Corporate) or in its capacity as a receiver for a failed institution (FDIC/Receiver).

    The protection of the FDIC against unrecorded agreements or arrangements between a federally-insured depository institution (institution) and third parties is among the most important, long-standing and powerful protections afforded the FDIC acting in either its corporate liquidator capacity (FDIC/Corporate) or in its capacity as a receiver for a failed institution (FDIC/Receiver). This statement of policy is intended to inform persons doing business with an institution of the circumstances in which: (1) The statutory provisions (12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(9)(A), 1823(e)); and (2) the rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 (1942), will be asserted by the FDIC to bar certain agreements or arrangements entered into with the institution prior to receivership.

    See their web site where published as an addendum are “Guidelines For Use of D’Oench and Statutory Provisions” (Guidelines), which are discretionary and evolving by nature but nevertheless will serve to moderate the circumstances in which the FDIC will exercise these protections.

  46. Oops. It seems M. Soliman is saying that ABC gets a credit – the face amt of the replacement loan – to offset
    ABC’s basically having to eat the interest it had to pay the investor on the loan being replaced. That’s a pretty stiff guarantee. What kind of foo’ would do that?

    But who cares. We care about the legal status of the loan being replaced.

  47. M. Soliman, 24 years , i.e., the remaining term on the note, seems excessive given the real life expectancy of notes these days…? In other words, isn’t a payoff
    expected in like 11 years or less? Are you saying tough for the guarantor because the deal was the term as stated on the note?

  48. M. Soliman – You said. I think, although you did not identify the circumstances under which it would happen, that ABC servicer can do a replacement loan, right after paying an amt equal to the total expected payout on the loan being ‘retired’. Did you not? So if face amt is 400k and with interest ‘to term’, say another 24 years, that might be 650k, yes?

    ABC puts another loan in its stead. Are you saying that even tho ABC tenders a ‘like’ replacement loan,
    ABC is credited with the face amt of the new loan but is out the interest on the replacement loan? (Or there’s something about 90%, not 100%)

    So far, ABC is out (at 100% for simplicity) the 650k, plus the replacement loan of around 400k? Nah! I’m missing something, apparently. And ABC then goes after the property to recover what it can of the 650k?

    But, as you say, this 1st note is retired unless there are agreements which say otherwise…..? One way or another, ABC ‘stands on’ the same blank endorsement used to move the note into the trust, I guess. Normally, this would just be a post-default sale of the note, which significantly means ABC will never, ever be a hidc because it took the note with notice of its dishonor.
    It would be business as usual if the loan were not securitizied, and ABC had to take it back from XYZ S & L. But it isn’t. There’s some mystery here about securitization which I don’t comprehend. So whad up?

  49. Sherry R from the great state – Keep up the fight and dont be a stranger …..and watch out for the wild one from state of Brotherly love.

  50. Replacement Mortgage Loan:

    A Mortgage Loan or Mortgage Loans in the aggregate substituted by the Seller for a Deleted Mortgage Loan, which must, on the date of such substitution, as confirmed in a request for release in accordance with the terms of the Custodial Agreement,

    Herein is an example- Substitution is for assets deleted from a master servicers ledger. It is a recourse obligation for which the balance and amount due to term of the asset are due. The substituted loan is offered as an offset to losses but has no bearing on the fact the deleted loan has been satisfied – paid to zero.

    Under the Lazeraus loan theory – we ask, how are they foreclosing on zero? … it would require a write down to resurface under a credit bid and tender of a loan substituted in exchange for one charged to a loss.

    Substitution …credit bid….charge off and write downs …..get it? The PAS is killing your case.


  51. Fraudulent inducement, is recognized in promissory fraud, and requires that the misrepresentation be made without the present intention to carry it out; servicer’s claims are unrealistic or impossible to achieve.

    The Pooling and servicing agreement is designed and intended to offer a deceptive presentation of fact. While on staff with the Law Firm Gareeb Pham Law in Los Angeles I reviewed countless PAS and concluded the PAS was not only deceptive but would weigh little in a foreclosure defense.

    For what it was worth, that was at a time not a web site in town spoke to this matter of foreclosures . And the AARP had no interest in a matter their are now highly concerned with…

    So my point is this, why are you using it to defend a borrowers standing? The special purpose entities were used for more than just circumventing accounting conventions. As a result of one violation we have isolate in reference with the PAS, “Moon Goon Bank’s” balance sheet understates its liabilities and overstated its equity, and its earnings were overstated.

    Moon Goon Bank PAS let it to disclose to its shareholders it had hedged downside risk in its own illiquid investments using special purpose entities.

    However, the investors were oblivious to the fact that the special purpose entities were actually using the company’s own debt and distorted financial picture as financial guarantees to finance these hedges.

    This setup prevented Moon Goon Savings from being protected from the downside risk. Notable examples of special purpose entities material misrepresenations are cites as follows:


  52. Liquidated Loans:
    “Partial Liquidation Proceeds” are Liquidation Proceeds received by a
    Servicer on a Mortgage Loan prior to such Mortgage Loan becoming a Liquidated
    Loan and “net Partial Liquidation Proceeds” are Partial Liquidation Proceeds
    less expenses incurred with respect to such liquidation. A “Liquidated Loan” is
    a defaulted Mortgage Loan as to which the Servicer has determined that all
    recoverable liquidation and insurance proceeds have been received. A “Liquidated
    Loan Loss” on a Liquidated Loan is equal to the excess, if any, of (i) the
    unpaid principal balance of such Liquidated Loan, plus accrued interest thereon
    in accordance with the amortization schedule at the Net Mortgage Interest Rate
    through the last day of the month in which such Mortgage Loan was liquidated,
    over (ii) net Liquidation Proceeds. For purposes of calculating the amount of
    any Liquidated Loan Loss, all net Liquidation Proceeds (after reimbursement of
    any previously unreimbursed Periodic Advance) will be applied first to accrued
    interest and then to the unpaid principal balance of the Liquidated Loan. A
    “Special Hazard Loss” is (A) a Liquidated Loan Loss suffered by a Mortgaged
    Property on account of direct physical loss exclusive of (i) any loss covered by
    a standard hazard insurance policy or, if the Mortgaged Property is located in
    an area identified in the Federal Register by the Federal

    Repurchase or Substitution of Mortgage Loans” herein,

    (iii) the Class M Prepayment Percentage of (a) the aggregate net Liquidation

  53. Closing at house 2005 – not put on mortgage (ill better way for us to do it)
    3 Year ARM (2 Year Arm) Took all the papers left nothing.
    Notary: Joseph Diaz
    No Documents (copy of Note Alange) No sealed – not stamped.
    Sherry Robinson – SouthJersey –LivingLies stated that you have to make a motion to reopen at state level –
    AHM – Collectively Reserve Mortgages (Pinto) TX
    VA – Pinto
    Info on mortgage loan pool, replacement of, required insurance policies, etc. and these agreements are not part of but directly control and are inherent.
    Article I Conveyance of Mortgage Loans

    Servicer: Shall mean Wells Fargo Bank, National Association or any successor thereto appointed hereunder in connection with the servicing and administration of the Mortgage Loans.

    Servicer Prepayment Charge Payment Amount: The amount payable by the Servicer in respect of any waived Prepayment Charges pursuant to the Servicing Agreement.

    Definition of REO Property:
    A Mortgaged Property acquired by the related Servicer through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure in connection with a defaulted Mortgage Loan.

    Replacement Mortgage Loan:
    A Mortgage Loan or Mortgage Loans in the aggregate substituted by the Seller for a Deleted Mortgage Loan, which must, on the date of such substitution, as confirmed in a request for release in accordance with the terms of the Custodial Agreement,
    (i) have a Stated Principal Balance, after deduction of the principal portion of the Scheduled Payment due in the month of substitution, not in excess of, and not less than 90% of, the Stated Principal Balance of the Deleted Mortgage Loan;
    (ii) have a fixed Mortgage Rate not less than or more than 1% per annum higher than the Mortgage Rate of the Deleted Mortgage Loan;
    (iii) have the same or higher credit quality characteristics than that of the Deleted Mortgage Loan;
    (iv) have a Loan-to-Value Ratio no higher than that of the Deleted Mortgage Loan; (v) have a remaining term to maturity no greater than (and not more than one year less than) that of the Deleted Mortgage Loan;
    (vi) not permit conversion of the Mortgage Rate from a fixed rate to a variable rate;
    (vii) be secured by a first lien on the related Mortgaged Property;
    (viii) constitute the same occupancy type as the Deleted Mortgage Loan or be owner occupied; and (ix) comply with each representation and warranty set forth in the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement.

  54. LivingLies Patriots: Fellow member needs your expertise. A Veteran of the United States of America – don’t let him down. He did not let you down!

    Why would a New Jersey Attorney cause harm to a consumer and allow a foreclouse default summary judgement and not protect his clieent?

    Why would a New Jersey Attorney cause harm to a consumer and allow REO Brokers using name of LPS to enter home of consumer while they were in the middle of a stroke! at the hospital emergency room from the stress of the attorney not protecting the client I speak of.

    Why would a New Jersey Attorney cause harm to a consumer and the consumer did not know the attorney was harming them. The consumer has certification by Lynn S. that the Assignment appears falsified.

    I’ve seen the Assignment and as a reasonable person based on what I’ve learnd I would let my attorney know the Assignment falsified during the processing of a reverse mortgage in which AHM fought with the attorney – the attorney sent in a notary who only had wife sign a note – easier that way, and took off without leaving documents…
    why would that arrogant attorney belive he won’t be found negligent? and perhaps worse?
    Meanwhile we need to help these fellow American’s who have a good attorney for one month who has to face a BK judge the Foreclouse by default and appeal buried by the attorney who intent to take property by deception did allow third parties to take possession in larcenous manner.

    That is the info I am cutting and pasting from to reveal to the relevant discussion about
    Mortgage Loan Pools,
    about how loans are sold and moved out of the TRUSTS every day M. Soliman.

  55. Section 3.14
    Compensation for the Master Servicer.
    (It’s all about the Master Servicer) and there are only two:

    who sells back Servicing rights to SELLER
    Who is, as Depositor, …(funding goes into Wells Fargo’s settlement agent individual account funding from BUYER.

    BUYER can be intermediary funder like Deutsche Bank who moves currency for Welsl Fargo thru Corporate Securities Treasury during refiance.

    Section 3.13
    Realization Upon Defaulted Loans.
    The Master Servicer shall cause the Servicer (to the extent required under the Servicing Agreement) to foreclose upon, repossess or otherwise comparably convert the ownership of Mortgaged Properties securing such of the Mortgage Loans as come into and continue in default and as to which no satisfactory arrangements can be made for collection of delinquent payments, all in accordance with the Servicing Agreement.

    ‘Filing Agent’ responsible for the related agreements

    THE 10K’s certified are NOT SUBJECT TO SARBANES OXLEY – FALSE – BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT the CEO or CFO certifications! Rather the lunkies Mary Coffin EVP for example who are in collusion and complciity for the alleged unlawful business acts.

    ‘Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’ senior executives
    Des Moines IOWA and the
    Registrant and Filing Agent of the 10K’s (In-House) to remain hidd
    Filing Agent: Norwest Asset Sec Corp Mort Ps Thr
    WOW 25,837 SEC Filings (from 3/10/98 to 4/8/11)
    Cert Ser 1998-1 Trust
    C/O Norwest Bank Minnesota N A
    1100 Broken Land Parkway
    Columbai, Maryland 21703

    Mortgage Schedule
    Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement
    ‘inent to sell by’ not enough

    Absolutely the ‘Credit Enhancements’ are insurance and inside of other agreements consumers don’t read unrealted to their loan trust but controlling agreements over the private members.

    Example: Consumer in BK by trustee HSBC USA Bank NA (a national bank)

    Assignment filed after Complaint to Foreclouse by
    Zucker Goldberg Ackerman LLC

    Now recognized by Chief Justice Rabner Order to Show Cause in NJ December 2010 as a robo-mill debt collector law firm in Mountainside NJ.


    Assignment Agreement:
    Shall mean the Assignment, Assumption and Recognition Agreement, dated as of May 26, 2005, among the Seller, the Depositor and the Servicer, pursuant to which the Servicing Agreement was assigned to the Depositor.

    Cap Provider: Nomura Global Financial Products, Inc., or any successor thereto.

    Corporate Trust Office: The principal corporate trust office of the Trustee which office at the date of the execution of this instrument is located at 452 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10018, Attention: Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp., 2005-WF1, or at such other address as the Trustee may designate from time to time by notice to the Certificateholders, the Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Securities Administrator and the Servicer. The office of the Securities Administrator, which for purposes of Certificate transfers and surrender is located at :

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Sixth Street and Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479,
    Attention: Corporate Trust (NAAC 2005-WF1),
    and for all other purposes is located at
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
    P.O. Box 98, Columbia, Maryland 21046,
    Attention: Corporate Trust (NAAC 2005-WF1)
    (or for overnight deliveries, at 9062 Old Annapolis Road, Columbia, Maryland 21045, Attention: Corporate Trust (NAAC 2005-WF1)).

    Definition of REO Property:
    A Mortgaged Property acquired by the related Servicer through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure in connection with a defaulted Mortgage Loan.

    Deleted Mortgage Loan: A Mortgage Loan replaced or to be replaced by a Replacement Mortgage Loan.

    A Mortgage Loan is “delinquent” if any payment due thereon is not made pursuant to the terms of such Mortgage Loan by the close of business on the day such payment is scheduled to be due.

    Replacement Mortgage Loan:
    A Mortgage Loan or Mortgage Loans in the aggregate substituted by the Seller for a Deleted Mortgage Loan, which must, on the date of such substitution, as confirmed in a request for release in accordance with the terms of the Custodial Agreement,

    (i) have a Stated Principal Balance, after deduction of the principal portion of the Scheduled Payment due in the month of substitution, not in excess of, and not less than 90% of, the Stated Principal Balance of the Deleted Mortgage Loan;

    (ii) have a fixed Mortgage Rate not less than or more than 1% per annum higher than the Mortgage Rate of the Deleted Mortgage Loan;
    (iii) have the same or higher credit quality characteristics than that of the Deleted Mortgage Loan;

    (iv) have a Loan-to-Value Ratio no higher than that of the Deleted Mortgage Loan; (v) have a remaining term to maturity no greater than (and not more than one year less than) that of the Deleted Mortgage Loan;

    (vi) not permit conversion of the Mortgage Rate from a fixed rate to a variable rate;

    (vii) be secured by a first lien on the related Mortgaged Property;

    (viii) constitute the same occupancy type as the Deleted Mortgage Loan or be owner occupied; and (ix) comply with each representation and warranty set forth in the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement.

    Mortgage Loans: Such of the Mortgage Loans transferred and assigned to the Trustee pursuant to the provisions hereof, as from time to time are held as a part of the Trust Fund (including any REO Property), the mortgage loans so held being identified in the Mortgage Loan Schedule, notwithstanding foreclosure or other acquisition of title of the related Mortgaged Property.

    Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement:
    The Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement dated as of May 26, 2005, between the Seller, as seller and the Depositor, as purchaser.

    Credit Risk Management Fee Rate: 0.015% per annum.

    Credit Risk Manager: The Murrayhill Company, a Colorado corporation.

    Custodial Agreement: The Custodial Agreement dated as of May 1, 2005 among the Custodian, the Servicer and the Trustee

    Custodian: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a national banking association.

    Cut-off Date: May 1, 2005.

    Section 3.19 UCC. The Depositor shall file any financing statements or amendments thereto required by any change in the Uniform Commercial Code. The Depositor agrees to file continuation statements for any such Uniform Commercial Code financing statements which the Seller or the Depositor filed in connection with the Trust Fund.
    Master Servicer that complies with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as in effect on the date of this Agreement and the February 3, 2003, Statement by the Staff of the Division of Corporation Finance of the Commission Regarding Compliance by Asset-Backed Issuers with Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 as in effect as of the date of this Agreement. The Depositor hereby grants to the Master Servicer a limited power of attorney to execute and file each Form 8-K and Form 10-K on behalf of the Depositor. Such power of attorney shall continue until either the earlier of (i) receipt by the Master Servicer from the Depositor of written termination of such power of attorney and (ii) the termination of the Trust Fund


    Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.
    2 World Financial Center, Building B
    New York, New York 10281
    Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation
    2 World Financial Center
    New York, New York 10281
    HSBC Bank USA, National Association
    Institutional Trust Services
    4 New York Plaza, 6th Floor
    New York, New York 10004

    Mortgage Loans contain enforceable due-on-sale clauses, the Master Servicer shall cause the Servicer to enforce such clauses in accordance with the Servicing Agreement. If applicable law prohibits the enforcement of a due-on-sale clause or such clause is otherwise not enforced in accordance with the Servicing Agreement, and, as a consequence, a Mortgage Loan is assumed, the original Mortgagor may be released from liability in accordance with the Servicing Agreement.

  56. John Gault- “…..what is being done with the 200k?” That is the symptom of the problem. The problem of course is that the entity making the credit bid at auction is not the creditor. This really ticks me off. I am going to have to go to the next auction in my county and raise holy hell. Somehow I would have to do some research prior to the auction, but the counties are going broke, as are the cities and more than half the states, and they don’t know why.
    How the hell can anyone who isn’t the creditor make a credit bid? Here in the US! AND NOBODY KNOWS!

  57. Ian – thank you. Yes, who would have thought the IRS would one day maybe be the one entity who could help us?!

  58. Back in the old days of portfolio lending, ‘Your Town S & L ‘u sed to make loans and also service them.
    When there was a default, the property was foreclosed and then Your Town S & L sold the property to Mr and Ms HomeBuyer and got some of its money back.
    Now, notes are securitized, and no matter where you come down on the derivatives issue, there are many, many fractional owners of interests in the debt on the property located at 1234 Main Street, USA, and that interest is part of a monster offering.

    Today, when the Main Street property is sold after foreclosure and nets 200k, what is being done with the 200k??????

  59. John Gault- thanks for throwing yourself wholeheartedly into the fray here, you are turning over many stones which no one else has. Regarding holder status, the “holder in due course” is holder with a perfected chain of title and assignment. A “holder” may be someone who picked up the endorsed-in-blank note, from blank to blank, blowing across the parking lot as they strolled into the courthouse. And yes, the pretenders and the judges are treating the PSA and Trust issues same as a mosquito buzzing around your head on a hot day, merely an annoyance. Time to get the IRS involved with the REMIC/REIT violation issues and collecting the 100% tax due on favored-tax status breaches.

  60. Opps. I meant I have some support for the prop that servicers who allege possession of “bearer” notes are NOT entitled to enforce them, as they allege with reliance on the UCC.

  61. @David L – yes, now we’re getting somewhere. But I do have (at least) one question. According to some cases I have read, it is impossible to ‘fix’ the defects, at least when the note did not get into a trust by the cutoff date. These cutoff dates are to my understanding a “time certain”, period. There are no do-overs, no fixes. So not in trust now, never going to be in trust – no cure. Generally, equity will consider done that which was to have been done. But, these
    securitizations are special animals, and not subject to any ‘rules’ of equity, IMHO!
    The only thing servicers can rely on then, at all, will be an allegation that they are ‘holders’ of these promissory notes endorsed in blank, that these notes are bearer notes and therefore they may enforce them. They will continue to pretend that the securitization issues don’t exist, none of it matters – they’ve got a bearer note.
    It does get a little complicated, at least to me, regarding the UCC. There is a difference between a holder in due course and a holder. (And let me just make clear that I have some support for the proposition that the ervicers are entitled to endorce these alleged “bearer” notes. ) When ABC is the hidc, ABC is not subject to any (most if not all) defenses to the note. But, when ABC is merely the alleged holder, ABC is subject to every defense to the note, including any affirmative defenses, including “Servicer, it’s not your note and it’s not enforceable because……..”.

    I agree with your arguments, generally. May I ask you to read what I asked Soliman to read and comment?
    I posted the link. It’s a blog regarding the voluntary guarantees made by master servicers on the payment streams.

  62. M soliman

    How did they do it? (MERS)

  63. Hi Soliman,

    My point of the PSA and the “other-guys” violating their contract is this…

    The NOTES are “unsecured” (in-part)because the parties involved failed to comply. Their actions caused the NOTE to be decoupled from the Mortgage.

    I am NOT saying the courts agree. I am merely pointing out that it was the non-compliance and blatant ILLEGAL acts by the contracted (PSA) that are responsible for this consequence. The courts have dismissed as a mere technicality (IMHO) partly because in the past it probably was only a technicality. However, today we are witnessing law firms ABUSE this discretion and judges have been slow to catch-on or inept and refused.

    The defaults are immaterial – it does NOT matter because the actions that caused the security to become UNSECURED are incurable.

    That alone (legally) means they cannot foreclose.

    Again though – that TRUST cannot CLAIM it is a bona-fide or holder if that NOTE was not PROPERLY transferred – per contract, by real property laws, and UCC. The courts ignore this but by law – that TRUST has zip-authority over those Notes not properly transferred. They MUST correct the defect or eject it from the TRUST. Therefore the Servicer has NO-AUTHORITY even to accept payment. In fact, the Servicer owes a DUTY to the TRUST as does the Depositor & Sponsor to make SURE those NOTES were Transferred properly and/or REPORT within 5-30 days of any defects it discovers. Recordation is part of that DUTY.

    The issue (IMHO) we’re seeing is that ALL of these Trusts were blatantly illegal and CONTROLLED by conflict of interest. The Servicers – Sponsors – Depositors are all essentially the SAME corrupt bunch, which violates everything that was supposed to happen.

    The Servicer could easily be hit with the biggest losses on a default because if it was never transferred properly, the Trust is not required reimburse the servicer. That’s why (IMHO) we’re seeing so many blatantly fraudulent – forged documents. The Servicers were part of the corruption from the beginning and KNEW the Notes were never transferred. So, instead of reporting the defaults to the Trust, which would have been forced to report the default to the investors, the Servicers continued paying as the Note was NEVER in default. This way the Servicer could beat-up the borrower for extended periods – reaping huge profits – declare the default in the end – file claims for reimbursement – and NO-ONE ever knows about the ILLEGAL transactions because the investors do not know it happened. The servicers control all the information flowing between the parties. The Servicers created their own little gaming system by withholding the information and carefully manipulating the data to the Inestors. It was all working out fine until they could not explain so many defaults.

    I don’t think I’m 100% right about it but I believe it is generally correct.

    Just thoughts…

  64. M. Soliman. Can I ask you to read a blog here and comment:
    It’s called ‘Payment Guarantees by Loan Servicers’

    I understand that there is no incentive to modify loans, and I think I also understand that there is incentive NOT to. Messed up deal. Should not have given those HAMP billions to the banksters – the fox is guarding the henhouse – based on those ambiguous HAMP participation contracts, and yeah, we’re all pretty hot that the gov did. Who ARE these people working on these committees? Dang.
    Reminds me of Professor Higgins: “Why can’t the English teach their young to speak?”
    Why can’t our government ever get anything straight?

  65. Dang. VA guaranteed the loan. FHA insured the loan.
    I mention this in conjunction with the pmi on conventional loans. Wonder what hornet’s nest is going to emerge there in all this. This isnt’ pie in the sky bs stuff. PMI was on ‘conventional’ loans, (those not guaranteed by VA or insured by FHA), and underwritten pursuant to FNMA / FHLMC guidelines (no snickering!) and up to FNMA /FHLMC loan limits. You need discovery on this score to determine what payouts were made by any of these sources – the VA guarantee, FHA insurance, or private mortgage insurance if your loan were a conventional loan over 80 LTV.
    Using this path for discovery, you might also be able to learn any number of ‘other’ relevant issues.

  66. M. Soliman and then one can buy for every sellers there is a buyer

  67. M.Soliman the answer is they are in agreement to sell based upon:

    1., 2., 3.

  68. Soliman:


  69. M. Soliman, okay since one can’t repurchase assets from a trust . . .

    ASk yourself this question – over and over till you get it. So how do they do it? Since one (registrant / Bank) can’t repurchase assets from a trust . . .

    The beneficial ownership of the owner trust’s assets is represented by the certificates, which may be sold or retained by the bank.

    For accounting treatment, the Bank represents the transactions qualify as a “Guaranteed Mortgage Securitization” and that the Owner Trust qualifies as a “QSPE” as described in FASB Statement of Standards No. 140 “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities” (“FAS 140”).

    As defined, a guaranteed mortgage securitization includes a substantive guarantee by a third party. The Bank represents that the insurance wrap covers more than 90% of the securitized assets, which fulfills the substantive guarantee requirement. Also, the Bank represents that the Owner Trust meets the requirements of a QSPE as defined in FAS 140 which includes conditions to limit the permissible activities of the QSPE, what the QSPE can hold, and when the QSPE can sell or dispose of non cash financial assets.

    Accordingly, the accounting treatment would permit the Bank to record the resulting interests as securities even though none of the beneficial interests are being sold to a third party.

    However, the Bank would not be able to record a gain or a loss on the transfer of the assets.

    What’s up here?


  70. M. Soliman, okay since one can’t repurchase assets from a trust and certainly not from an empty one, then one of two things happened or is happening.

    1) Companies who entered into HAMP agreements did so bogusly in the entirety or
    2) The banksters just use HAMP funds to continue the payment stream on the ‘old’ piti.

    This is a great question:

    The accounting rules and requirement’s for recognition of assets and ownership are convoluted and difficult for a lay person to comprehend. Yet the idea of offering assistance with no mitigating factors is staggering for one to believe. When you participate in a game of Derecognition of assets & debt your options are limited in an economic collapse

    To offer consumers across the board assistance is in my view impossible to do. Assistance meaning offers of foreclosure abatement for reconciling sins, such as driving the middle and middle upper class economy into a real estate frenzy. Therefore, the great consumer relief program offering modifications as restitution will likely be shown to have been nothing but cheap talk.

    It’s especially true as the offers were what got the man elected and thereafter faded soon after stepping into office.

    The assistance programs offered by the alphabet org’s representing a social conscience of American bankers are also void of servicer economic incentives. The capacity to assist is burdened by emphasis on foreclosing. The timing and triggering of the various economic elements, measured by cost of recourse and threat of reclassification of assets (recognition) caused registrants to avoid assistance. Either that or face extreme adverse financial effects that were discarded in favor of liquidating the trust on unfavorable terms.


  71. John

    Case is Bank of New York, N.A. v. Raftogianis. The case was released for publication on November 16, 2010. DOCKET NO: F-7356-09, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, CHANCERY DIVISION, ATLANTIC COUNTY, 417 N.J. Super. 467; 10 A.3d 236; 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 221, June 29, 2010, Decided,

    I understand that this is only one case in NJ — but it is one of only a few cases that looks at the Mortgage Schedule and Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement in securizitation. Ibanez case does the same — and adds that an “Intent” to sell by Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement — is not enough.

    If a party claims to “Hold the Note” (such as a trustee for stated trust) – then that party claiming the right to foreclosure had to have been conveyed the note.

    Also, I have been talking about insurance for quite some time. You are right to start looking at PMI — I believe there is a pending government investigation. There are many types of insurance — and, I believe, many types of associated fraud. Think insurance fraud is criminal.

    Many loans put into default before any default even occurred. But, investigations rely on servicer information — if servicer says there was a default – investigators believe. Investigators must start looking at borrowers records.

    You have to ask — how did banks gain so much ground on GSEs in the mortgage market — and, so quickly??? Getting loans over the limits was one way — but many refinances were within GSE limits. These loans should have stayed a Freddie/Fannie — they did not.

  72. Anyone here ever work for a pmi company? We need to know just how these payouts are made on defaulted loans. All at once? Month by month as payments are not made?

  73. M. Soliman, Okay since one can’t repurchase assets from a trust and certainly not from an empty one, then one of two things happened or is happening.
    1) Companies who entered into HAMP agreements did so bogusly in the entirety or
    2) the banksters just use HAMP funds to continue the payment stream on the ‘old’ piti.

    Like this: If a borrower’s payment were 2500 and gets modified to 1800, say, the difference is 700, right?
    Nothing changes. Nothing moves. ABC just uses 700 a month of HAMP billions to supplement the payment stream…..

  74. @Gary H, Okay, I’m going to read it – thanks.

  75. Well, last I remember, the fee for servicing a loan was built into the interest rate charged the borrower…it was like 3/8ths of 1 percent. The average life of a 30 yr loan used to be 11 years, and the average life of a 15 year loan used to be 7 years. Based on those averages, earnings from servicing are substantial. Plus late fees (5% charged after 15 days late) and who knows what else. Bogus force-placed hazard insurance?
    Let’s just say that on a 30 year loan, that 11 years of servicing represents 15k (I made that figure up) . I dont’ know why servicers transfer /sell some or all of their servicing portfolios. I’m guessing it’s a trade for cash wanted just then. But in this new age of every scam or hustle under the sun, there are probably other reasons, as well.
    There’s nothing wrong with selling / transferring servicing rights, but, yes, servicing is big business.
    Most of you readers dont’ know this because you’re too stinking young unlike some of us, but back in the “old” days, the lender was the lender damn it and the lender retained the servicing, as well. It was called “portfolio lending”.
    Also, I’ve mentioned this before, but I will mention it again:

    No loan over 80% loan to value was ever made without ‘private mortgage insurance’ – insurance for the lender’s benefit in the event of the borrower’s default. The borrower had the honor of paying for this either as an addition to the interest rate (“self-insuring” it was called) charged, or as a separately identified charge.

    A whole lot of loans in the years of madness were made way over 80% ltv. I never hear one word about these mortgage insurance payouts to the lender. This insurance is not to be confused with pool insurance or default swaps. Surely claims have been made, given that there are so many defaults.
    Where is this money going? Why don’t we hear about it? Why are banksters submitting claims which do not include these proceeds? Don’t these proceeds as a matter of law reduce the debt? The pmi insured the loan down to 80%, so the ‘lender’ should be getting insurance funds for any amount over 80%, but they are nonetheless making claims for the entire amount.
    Tut tut.

    Like this: if a loan were 100k, then pmi would cover 20k (100 – 80). For ease of this example, forget any payments made by the borrower. Okay, the borrower defaults. Pmi kicks in and the lender gets paid the 20k. Where did it go?

  76. John,

    “I could use some help following this conclusion AS STATED. What act, what conduct separated the note and the dot?”

    In many cases the Note was kept by the lender / originator / servicer. See the testimony of Linda Dimartini…..

  77. @anonymous – which NJ case please?

  78. @concerned, Yes, it’s my understanding that when a dot assignment has not been recorded, a chapter 11 debtor may avoid the lien. I’m no expert – just remember reading something about it. Learned this from In Re Zitta, think it was, in AZ. If this is true, more people should get right on it.

  79. Modification. Modification. Modification. And, you thought you were refinancing.

    Transfer of servicing rights only..

  80. John Gault;

    Brother , or is it Sister ? Hmmmm. You have enough info – you broke it down very well. You cannnot search out what I gave you? Are you an English professor? . Google.. John Google, Yahoo, John Yahoo…FDIC ….your not sure of what….? You have written me often and we have talked…you are a woman anyway…right? In disguise like Cathy ? Please be honest here ? Are you a recruit for confusion sake -or the sake of confusion to distort the message ? Johnny , John ….John Boy …. ….what are you seeking here?

  81. California Aids Banks in Foreclosure Sham
    It was on or about the fall or 2008 when the state assembly passed legislation under CC2923.5. The bill was an addendum to the foreclosure rules under CC 2924. As an analyst and expert who testifies in securities related foreclosure cases, you develop over time a feel for what sounds right but echo’s something that does not ring at a commensurate pitch.

    Upon passage of the bill was the hope the State would pick up the slack where the federal promise of home preservation appeared to fail early on. It was right about this same time the director of the Office of Comptroller of Currency or OCC made an opening statement in a speech upon which he stated “I don’t know why the servicing agents won’t give modifications.

    California knows you cannot repurchase asstes from a trust and modify these loans. California assembly knows that these loans are cast into a civil litgation and are void of a foreclosure proceeding. Does California relaize these are not foreclosures ?

    Why do they want borrowers to believe people have a mortgage and some protetection afforded under a rule that …….Oh -oh!

  82. John Gault, pls contact me at your convenience.

  83. Can anyone explain why Wells Fargo Bank NA origination closings occur before consumer sees or reviews documents? They are the SELLER of the discounted loans selling to Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp who are in agreement with BUYERS and buy back immediately servicing rights.

    Investopedia: What Does Mortgage Servicing Rights – MSR Mean?

    A contractual agreement where the right, or rights, to service an existing mortgage are sold by the original lender to another party who specializes in the various functions of servicing mortgages.

    Common rights included are the right to collect mortgage payments monthly, set aside taxes and insurance premiums in escrow, and forward interest and principle to the mortgage lender.

    Investopedia explains Mortgage Servicing Rights – MSR
    The mortgage servicer must supply an annual statement outlining the duties that were performed. In return for this assistance, the servicer is compensated with a specific fee outlined in the contract established at the beginning of the agreement. Mortgage servicing rights can be bought and sold, resulting in the transfer of any administrative obligations.

    Many vertically integrated lenders today will service their mortgages in-house, which means they will also own both the loan and the servicing rights. These firms will also save money in the process.

    The business of selling servicing rights for mortgages represents a large business niche, and is a multi-billion dollar industry.

    And so in 2000, Norwest Corp & Wells Fargo & Co/MN aligned and were promoted as the #1 Originator, #1 Servicer and #1 Virtual Bank.

    Observation: The language contained inside the securities agreements does not include ‘LENDER’.

  84. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers in Congress, say the order is too lenient on the lenders.

    House Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday that would require lenders to perform a series of steps, including an appeals process, before starting foreclosures.

    Looked up ‘LENDER’ because I’m confused.

    Mortgage document uses term LENDER.

    The Mortgage document during default event comes alive when Wells Fargo Bank NA LENDER is not the

    ‘Temporary Lender’ Definition on Investopedia:
    A mortgage lender that sells the loans it originates into the secondary market shortyly after closing.

    What Does Temporary Lender Mean?

    A mortgage lender that sells the loans it originates into the secondary market shortly after closing, as opposed to holding the loans in portfolio.

    Most lenders are temporary lenders.

    These lenders have a few options when selling loans.

    Security dealers may be willing to purchase the loans for the purposes of securitizing the assets for resale to investors.

    Other lenders may buy the debt and hold it in their portfolios.

    The temporary lender may also sell its loans into its own trust, as part of a securitization process.

    Temporary lenders make money in three primary ways.

    First, they charge fees to the borrower.

    Second, they originate loans at interest rates above par value which allows them to sell the loans into the secondary market for a premium price

    (the loan is worth more in the secondary market than the actual principal balance of the loan because of the above par interest rate).

    Third, depending upon the slope of the yield curve, they earn a warehouse spread for the time in which they are the holder of record of the loan

    (the interest rate on the loan is higher than the interest rate at which the lender borrows money to fund the loan – this spread is earned until the loan is sold into the secondary market).

    Read more:

  85. Conundrum – Wells Fargo Bank NA (private brand label) instructs consumers to not pay loans and forces modification offers — a loophole again!

    Wells Fargo had already started in July to give homeowners in hardship a single point of contact when they sought a modification, said Teri Schrettenbrunner, a company spokeswoman.

    Sixty percent of the modifications Wells Fargo has made have happened before foreclosure started, she said. However, simultaneously pursuing foreclosure and a loan modification — called a “dual track” — allows Wells Fargo to look for options for the homeowner while satisfying contractual agreements with the investors who ultimately own the mortgages, Schrettenbrunner said.

    She said the company, whose mortgage operations are based in West Des Moines, has bulked up its work force that deals with mortgages. From the beginning of 2009 to 2010, Wells Fargo hired 10,000 people nationwide to work on home preservation, Schrettenbrunner said, bringing the total to 16,000.

    Wells Fargo has reviewed its own affidavits and determined it conducted no foreclosures that should not have occurred. But Schrettenbrunner declined to comment on whether the company will have to reimburse any foreclosed-upon homeowners as a result of the consent order.
    — Adam Belz

  86. Citibank, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, the nation’s four largest banks, were among the financial companies cited The other lenders and service providers cited by the agencies include: Ally Financial Inc., Aurora Bank, EverBank, HSBC, MetLife Bank, OneWest Bank, PNC, Sovereign Bank, SunTrust Banks, U.S. Bank, Lender Processing Services and MERSCORP.

    Under the agreements reached, the lenders and servicers have 45 days to hire an auditor and will “remediate all financial injury to borrowers caused by any errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies.” There is no minimum or maximum dollar amount.

    W.D.M.’s Wells Fargo unsure if it will have to reimburse anyone

  87. May I please share the OCC Cease & Decsist Orders issued today. Amazing and inquiring minds want to know more. I’ve requested copies of enforcement actions.

    April 15, 2011
    For Information: (202) 874-5770

    OCC Enforcement Actions

    WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released new enforcement actions taken against national banks and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with national banks.
    All Cease and Desist Orders, Civil Money Penalty Orders, and Removal/Prohibition Orders are issued with the consent of the parties, unless otherwise indicated as a Decision and Order issued by the Comptroller of the Currency.
    Copies of the final actions are available for download by viewing the searchable database of all public enforcement actions taken since August 1989 at
    You may also submit a request electronically to obtain copies through the OCC’s online FOIA site, Fax requests should be sent to (202)-874-5274. You can also obtain copies by writing to the Comptroller of the Currency, Communications Division, Mail Stop 2-3, Washington, DC 20219. When ordering, specify the appropriate enforcement action number.
    Cease and Desist Orders
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    2011-045 PNC Bank, National Association, Wilmington

    Significant (Blackrock) (Sterling) (National City)

    110 —* NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005-1 (3365803) #3 COLUMBIA MD Domestic Entity Other

    2011-022 The First National Bank of Polk County, Cedartown 3/8/2011
    2011-023 Conway Bank, National Association, Conway Springs 3/22/2011
    2011-024 Neighborhood National Bank, Alexandria 2/16/2011
    2011-025 (Modification) Cadence Bank, National Association, Starkville 3/4/2011
    2011-046 Citibank, National Association, Las Vegas 4/13/2011
    2011-052 HSBC Bank Nevada, National Association, Las Vegas 4/13/2011
    New Jersey
    2011-047 Metlife Bank, National Association, Convent Station 4/13/2011
    North Carolina
    2011-048 Bank of America, National Association, Charlotte 4/13/2011
    North Dakota
    2011-049 U.S. Bank National Association ND, Fargo 4/13/2011
    2011-049 U.S. Bank National Association, Cincinnati 4/13/2011
    2011-050 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 4/13/2011
    South Dakota
    2011-051 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Sioux Falls 4/13/2011
    2011-026 Eagle Valley Bank, National Association, St. Croix Falls 3/17/2011

    Civil Money Penalty Orders
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    2011-021 Pacific National Bank, Miami 3/23/2011
    2011-027 Matthew Moore, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 2/22/2011
    South Carolina
    2011-028 Collin D. Mackie, Southern First Bank, National Association, Greenville 3/15/2011

    Formal Agreements
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    2011-029 First National Bank and Trust, Atmore 2/15/2011
    2011-030 National Bank of Earlville, Earlville 2/18/2011
    2011-031 Woodlands National Bank, Hinckley 3/1/2011
    2011-032 The First National Bank of Germantown, Germantown 3/22/2011
    2011-033 The Kishacoquillas Valley National Bank of Belleville, Belleville 2/17/2011
    2011-034 American National Bank, Wichita Falls 2/22/2011

    Prompt Corrective Action Directives
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    2011-035 The First National Bank of Davis, Davis 3/2/2011

    Removal / Prohibition Orders
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    North Carolina
    2011-036 Maria C. Suan, Bank of America, National Association, Charlotte 3/9/2011
    2011-027 Matthew Moore, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 2/22/2011
    2011-037 Stacey L. Budd, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 3/15/2011
    2011-038 Joseph Braas, Blc Bank, National Association, Strasburg 2/17/2011
    2011-039 Michael Schlager, Blc Bank, National Association, Strasburg 2/17/2011
    2011-040 Mary Stankiewicz, Blc Bank, National Association, Strasburg 2/17/2011
    South Carolina
    2011-028 Collin D. Mackie, Southern First Bank, National Association, Greenville 3/15/2011

    Terminations of Existing Enforcement Actions
    No. Type/Bank/City/Old EA# Date
    2011-041 FA, Conway Bank, National Association, Conway Springs (EA# 2005-25) 3/22/2011
    2011-042 FA, Neighborhood National Bank, Alexandria (EA# 2010-006) 2/16/2011
    2011-026 FA, Eagle Valley Bank, National Association, St. Croix Falls (EA# 2009-222) 3/17/2011
    2011-043 FA, First National Bank of Platteville, Platteville (EA# 2008-166) 3/2/2011


    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was created by Congress to charter national banks, to oversee a nationwide system of banking institutions, and to assure that national banks are safe and sound, competitive and profitable, and capable of serving the banking needs of their customers in the best possible manner. OCC press releases and other information are available at http// . To receive OCC press releases and issuances by e-mail, subscribe at
    To unsubscribe, visit

  88. All right, Mr. Soliman. You said,
    ” Its Moot under FDIC and if the Trust is charged or written down as we know …why are you citing the PSA .

    Unfortunately, your sentence structure causes the sentence not to read. Generally accepted Accounting Principles? Okay. What’s moot under the FDIC? “And IF the Trust is charged or written down as we know”. Huh?
    How does one know an IF? First of all, because I’m a plebe, I guess, I don’t know what the FDIC has to do with these Trusts. The trust is ‘charged’ – you mean a debit to the trust? Who wrote down what? I just don’t think it’s that difficult to articulate any argument. Or is it?

  89. I apologize for the multiple posts of the same thing above. One more testament that I’m getting old.

  90. “Hence, the obligation stated in the note, even if it were somehow deemed valid, was clearly separated from the mortgage or deed of trust in fact by the actual conduct of the parties in handling the money.”

    I could use some help following this conclusion AS STATED. What act, what conduct separated the note and the dot? I can get it, of course, that the securitizer was paid for the note by the investors. I’ll call securitizer “ABC”. So ABC no longer has any interest in the note because it sold it to the investor, well, sort of. If the investor paid for something – I don’t know much about securities – but the investor actually got nothing because the note did not make it into the trust because of non-compliance with strict rules, I can see how a statement that the note is not enforceable would hold some water. But how does this lead to bifurcation? I do get it that the note is not in the trust as well as that ABC has no claim of its own to the note. The note it appears is in the ether.

    Now, can the investors say there was no meeting of the minds, so no contract was formed and get their money back? (In which case, quick, find their E & O insurance carrier and their assets. I dont’ think E & O covers fraud, though; if not, best for scammed investors to try another “angle” when making an insurance claim ) Must scammed investors rely on misrepresentation / fraud arguments? What is the investors’ recourse?
    Didn’t I get it that these notes were NOT non-recourse notes, that they were in fact recourse, or should have been? No, that can’t be, because it had to be a true sale pursuant to the strict rules, and I doubt, but don’t know, that a recourse note would qualify. But, even if they were recourse notes, this does not provide a path to the collateral (your home) for the investor or anyone at this point if the note never made it into the trust. “Recourse” notes only provides a path for the investor to force ABC to repurchase the notes, I would think.
    Were the investors entitled as a matter of law to rely on the representations in the PSA’s, whatever?
    That the mandates were in fact followed? We care, because if viable solutions aren’t found, and all the investors in all these scams are left holding the bag, (which also means there can be no enforcement of these notes at least until ABC repurchases them – oh, and proves it), it’s going to be another upset the judiciary and the government will be hard-pressed to handle. They just had to acknowledge that MERS has caused a ‘national situation’ which is going to require a whole lot of “unwinding” and quite a state of flux.

    As to the scammed investors, what were the TARP funds actually forked over for? I don’t really know. Was it because homeowners couldn’t make their payments?

    Somewhere in those agreements, master servicers or like that voluntarily guaranteed the payment stream.
    They weren’t actually guaranteeing payment stream on notes because the notes went in (should have anyway) and came out a different kind of paper? Lot of payment stream to come up with when payments aren’t coming in. Was it because Wall Street got bs ratings on bad paper and sold it at inflated percentages of its real book value to start with, and the schemes collapsed, as they will? Was it because one loan was actually sold into 5 trusts? And as to the loan being sold into 5 trusts concurrently, my favorite tag line is appropriate: “Who would know?” Thanks to MERS computer system, no one. Remember, all the entries of sales of notes were made only by members with no oversight whatsoever.

    I don’t see the bifurcation logic. I dont’ disagree with bifurcation, but I feel like that statement went from A to C. If it’s meant because the notes were or should have been turned into securities / derivatives, I don’t see it there. And I’m not sure that’s actually bifurcation. It seems more like the dot, mortgages became worthless pieces of paper without the debt evidenced by the Note….?

  91. Here’s something new:

    Can’t really get a grip on this just yet. Something about 16 major banksters ordered to reimburse homeowners for wrongful foreclosures! Anyone else seen this? It appears to involve B of A, Wells Fargo,
    Citigroup, Inc. and JP Morgan Chase. I’d like to see the names of the other 12.

  92. Here’s something new:

    Can’t really get a grip on this just yet. Something about 16 major banksters ordered to reimburse homeowners for wrongful foreclosures!

  93. Here’s something n

    Can’t really get a grip on this just yet. Something about 16 major banksters ordered to reimburse homeowners for wrongful foreclosures!

  94. ASSET cannot be transferred into a trust – correct! But when , when ? What Trust ? The QSPE ? The SPE? Preferred ?? Common??? You think the Street is stupid? Wrong The press picks up on hysteria and sensation.


    The assets can be transferred for capitalization purposes. Its the divested assets your thinking about or trying to grasp that can never be transferred back into a trust .

    Give the copyright where it is due – and stop the slander.





    (This is why I said _ ohhh Make him Stop. Please- Ohhhhh he has got to be stopped – Slander him – his speech —- anything we can ! He is helping Peolpe win their homes – someone stop him Ahhhhh)




    The note does not come into play as your suggesting. It’s a function of the capitalization which isolates the note and causes it to become divested. Now am I and all the European community winging it Anonyms. You’re sickening to read – really. They capitalize the QSPE with the basis in assets as you would empty a can of soup into a pan for God’s sake. Is it soup YES is it a can of soup NO. They can return the soup and allege the soup is bad to the market. But they cannot return the soup with an expectation of the can of soup being resold.

    This site is becoming a challenge…..MSoliman

  97. A few thoughts…

    Borrowers should show-up in court with either a COPY of the check to PAY-OFF the alleged debt or make COPIES of cash (twenty-dollar-bills) leaving them on the sheets – but offer those copies as payment…

    Is the tail-wagging the dog here…?

    The Borrowers are “technically” the CREDITORS – by lending THEIR NAMES & CREDIT to the agency (originator) alleging to offer the homeowner credit in exchange for the deposit of their security instrument – i.e. placing a lien on the property…


    The (other) parties obligated under the contract (PSA) violated certain laws inherent to the transaction’s Perfection required for said parties to attain a legally binding NOTE. IT IS THEIR “ILLEGAL” actions that carry the consequential ramifications causing the NOTES to become DECOLLATERALIZED – UNSECURED – BIFURCATED – or DECOUPLED.

    As we all know, that is not the homeowners fault – and a DEFAULT does NOT magically MAKE it the homeowner’s fault.

    The DEFAULT issue is secondary to the CRIMINAL ACTS committed by the “so-called” other parties of “THAT” other contract. The defaults are a separate matter because a default is NOT a criminal act. Deliberately misrepresenting and failing to disclose the true lender, true “injured party”, the authentic “party of interest” is ALL ILLEGAL under the FDCPA. The fact that the Notes were not even transferred goes to show A PATTERN to commit fraud, conspiracy to defraud, etc…

    However, if that NOTE was NEVER properly transferred as is required by the PSA, 424B(5), Purchasing & Selling Agreements, etc, then that SERVICER not-only has no right to foreclose – it LITERALLY & LEGALLY has NO-RIGHT even to COLLECT the MORTGAGE PAYMENTS.

    The SERVICER works for the Trust. It has NO authority outside the very limited contractual boundaries spelled-out in the PSA.

    The SERVICERS are in-effect – violating the FDCPA – but demanding payment of a debt they have NO AUTHORITY to COLLECT…


    “…In addition, the depositor will also deliver or cause to be delivered to the trustee (or to the custodian) for each single family loan or multifamily loan,

    • the mortgage note or contract endorsed without recourse in blank or to the order of the trustee, except that the depositor may deliver or cause to be delivered a lost note affidavit together with a copy of the original note in lieu of any original mortgage note that has been lost,

    • the mortgage, deed of trust or similar instrument (a “Mortgage”) with evidence of recording indicated thereon (except for any Mortgage not returned from the public recording office, in which case the depositor will deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the Mortgage together with a certificate that the original of the Mortgage was delivered to the recording office),

    • an assignment of the Mortgage to the trustee, which assignment will be in recordable form in the case of a Mortgage assignment, and

    Just some thoughts…

  98. Wow. This is HUGE. I hope the COP continues to make progress like this.

  99. Think Neil does excellent job of explaining non-conveyance.

    For a good legal explanation as to why there must be conveyance in addition to possession — see the NJ Judge Todd case. Cannot have possession if loan/note was not conveyed to the party that is attempting to foreclose.

  100. @ John Gault
    From my recollections, you are correct for the western states, (or at least CA), that this reversal of an actual sale is a first.

    But this falls in line with the reversal of sale in the Ibanez case from MA I believe.

    I think it is ironic that this happened here in San Diego. The foreclosure-prevention cases had already had to move as a group away from the local Superior court and had been re-filing in BK court. The local Superior court (in San Diego) had made a recent ruling that the state courts were UNABLE to stop ANY non-judicial FC! What will it take? having the ACLU step in and appeal non-judicial FC in this state because is eliminates any possibility of due-process? That local Superior court ruling could actually end non-judicial FC in CA. It certainly shows that there is cause for homeowners to push hard on the banksters controlling the state government to get the laws re-written or face the overturn of the non-judicial FC laws on appeal.

    Meanwhile, we are going to see the workload of the local BK court skyrocket. And yes, I also already had a case pending in this same judge’s court, although, fortunately, not in the UD stage of the game. Other than that, my case also has complete lack of perfection and this can be used in Chapter 11.




    Anyone have a UD comming up – what are you doing to get ready ? Lets hear

  102. @concerned
    According to what I got from Wm Hultman’s deposition in NJ, there was no corporate resolution authorizing Hultman to appoint certifying (straw) officers in the first place!

  103. I found ‘concerned’s’ CA case. This is far from the first time a court has made some of these determinations, though I thought this decision was particularly well-reasoned. And, I think it’s the first case where a foreclosure was “undone”…..?
    All hail Judge Margaret M. Mann (and brace for the appeal)!

  104. There are a whole bunch of loans where the ‘lender’ identified on the DOT and NOTE is NOT a ‘lender’. When a trade-name intentionally masks the true lender, since that named lender is NOT any company, MERS-membership is not present. The usage of a MERS-membership of a different-named company than is in the DOT and NOTE will be the next problem for the pretender. HOW can MERS have appointed anyone with this trade-named entity as ‘officers’ who can sign? This is abuse of the role MERS is given in certifying such ‘officers’.

  105. Okay- the comments made by me below are tough to grasp . sorry – Ill be back later…

  106. The court also found that MERS can NOT assign the DOT (because there is only designation by the ‘lender’ as a nominee without specifying what the ‘nominee’ was to do) AND the NOTE does NOT contain any reference to MERS.

    MERS can in fact – take the courts decision at its face – but here is where we all are breaking through to the other side MERS can and under GAAP this issue is put to bed with no Justices opine BK or not.

    This is a fundamental accounting understanding that the lender would rather have the court err on . I’m not going to detail things here as cases are pending and attorneys practicing law and a witness in deposition . But giving MERS standing robs them of foreclosure. I mean come on, is the loan registered with MERS to that date in question? And if it is….not until recognition is fulfilled.


  107. Oops, I left out a very important NOT in my earlier post.

    In the Southern CA BK court (think San Diego County here), that decision regarding a case with US Bank was that the assignment HAD to occur BEFORE the START of FORECLOSURE, NOT AFTER.

    Where I left out the important NOT: The court also found that MERS can NOT assign the DOT (because there is only designation by the ‘lender’ as a nominee without specifying what the ‘nominee’ was to do) AND the NOTE does NOT contain any reference to MERS.

    The borrowers are going to be able to claim clouded-title damages. The case in question has UNDONE the sale of the house and stopped the Unlawful detainer eviction of the borrower.

    The best that US Bank can hope for is being able to claim an unsecured debt of some amount. But with possible treble damages, they may have nothing. With the case being in BK, if they borrower has other credit-card debt, US Bank may take a real bath on this pursuit.

  108. @Anonymous, like to hear more about your ‘conveyance’ arguments, so pray tell!

  109. No conveyance ….What are you saying …..Please, Be more specific ….. I do not understand what your sayig here

    Interest in Title – encumbered at settlement -see ABA wire reference and manefest from member bank. Wire is offset by banks filing UCC 1 Genereal ledger line items shown as LHFS
    Collateral. Liabilities are booked at Settlement date . MERS standing is timed to effect delivery into the registration of Trust Common securities – under a forward upon registereing the MIN as an
    asset backed securities . The registration and electronic custodial supporting reference.transfers the interim mezz and UCC 1 to long term commercial paper platform and an asset registered as common stock. The trust at this point is Qualfied as a SPE —– Have I mentioned a loan here?


    No but I did mention MERS . Correct No loan and MERS . HMMMM MERS has standing , Judges know that …..But did I mention a loan yet ? No Loan and MERS registration ….Hmmmm


  110. All we are concerned with is court precedent. You can have a court acquit a criminal — cannot fight it. Need to keep establishing precedent – and, we are slowly doing.

    It adversaries claim PSA prevails –must tear it apart. The current important issue is not just possession — but also conveyance. And, conveyance cannot be demonstrated.

    Why?? because these subprime mortgages were nothing more than modifications of already classified default debt. Thus, nothing was funded – and nothing was conveyed. The trust ONLY contained — what they thought — was collection rights. And, those collection rights are deeply flawed.

    If you want to take on financial institution accounting — go for it. But, not a defense to fraudulent foreclosure. The defense is in conveyance (and without conveyance you cannot have possession) — There was NO conveyance. And, there was no funding — other than default debt buyer/investor funding of charged-off “collection rights” to unsecured debt.

    If you keep with this focus — you will prevail. And lower judge that gives a hard time — appeal. They do not want an appellate reversal.

    It is easy to tear apart conveyance. .

  111. Waves of SIV (Structured Investment Vehicles) write downs and Sub Prime defaults, who ceased to trust each other, and so the interbank rates (egg LIBOR) rose… This then led to the sharp fall in the share prices of Banks (… UBS, Indy Mac, Washington Mutual), Investment banks (Bear Stearns,

    Ps. That is not the same BBB company but entity some Waco created for their counsel I opposed in deposition.

    also – The Opposition pays for the deposition.

    Note – Take something positive from what I take time to contribute . . . do your research and stay off the bubble gum sites. My comments are to trigger your searches

    I don’t look to quarrel with anyone. Hell if you cannot take this what do you expect in court while fighting for your home.

    Go buy Wiley’s GAAAP guide and read the European sites, also learn about GAAP and controversy over FAS 140 ….learn capitalization and why things are not straight – – –

    Yet I allege the lenders are not doing anything illegal. / Yes they levered capital at 20:1 using insured depsoits and derecognised liabilties which is somthing the FDIC knew about . The fact they got 10:1 return from goodwill on peferred Trust Shares tells you that the party paying it back …aint paying it back Write it off …..10 to 1 savings over a single lost loan ? Hell yes. Now…call the debt collectors and repossession time .

    They just have you going in the wrong direction that’s all . . . And the FDIC is doing their best considering the problematic nature of things See IASB

    The comments are submitted with no current holdings in any company named herein and are not a recommendation or sell advisement for stocks and bonds held by others.

    Ask me to really share some of the insider things that happen to you and your loan….what I have heard and seen would blow you away. Really!




  113. We know that’s ull crap. I have found “Linda Green” releases of mortgage going back to 2004. That means Linda Green fraud goes back at least 7 years.

  114. Out today:
    In their investigation, regulators did not find widespread evidence of missing promissory notes or mortgages, as many foreclosed homeowners have claimed. Servicers generally had “sufficient documentation” to foreclose, the agencies reported in their review, which was released today.
    What are they thinking? Are we going to roll over?

  115. @Concerned, I have been fairly vocal about my impressions of MERS doing assignments or “MERS” doing anything. First of all, “MERS” per se doesn’t even do them – the straw officer at the servicer or f/c mill does them in the name of MERS. The principal is acting in the name of the alleged agent, which is legally tweaked. Every time one of these straw-men signed and recorded an assignment of the deed of trust, alleging to also assign the note, it was fraud (hate that word, but there you have it). It was also a violation of state recording laws because a false document was recorded. This false document was intended by its use to “relieve” you of your home ownership – theft by any other name. Courts have not looked past the foreclosure laws in their states; they have not looked to any common law remedies for THEFT of real property – YET. No one that I know of has alleged other common law remedies for this theft, either. That may be why most post-foreclosure suits fail.
    As to “MERS” bs allegation in the straw-man-servicer-foreclosure-mill-employee-generated-assignments, this is what MERS had to say about notes in 2004, and this is a verbatim quote:

    “Therefore, the Department and MERS are in agreement that the only statutory activity at issue, and the only issue for this court to decide, is whether MERS acquires mortgage loans……the common parlance of the word “acquire” in the mortgage banking industry refers to an investor’s acquisition of a mortgage loan on the secondary market.”

    JG: The biggest highlight of this bs statement is that it points to MERS knowledge that loans are in fact sold on the secondary market – to NON-MERS members. So, I give. Since even by its own bs terms, when a loan is sold to a non-MERS member, the last-MERS member standing in the chain was to record an assignment of that deed of trust in the land records to the Trust. They didn’t. MERS knows and admits here that “loans” are sold on the ‘secondary market’ to non-MERS members. (MERS had absolutely no way of knowing and didn’t give a hoot, speaking of hoots, whether or not those assignments got done. Why not record? Because no one, other than the unfortunate homeowner, wanted them done because doing so would prevent the THEFT of your home. The collateral without the debt it secures is a worthless piece of paper – and non-MERS members owned the notes.) And since none of the requisite ‘paperwork’ was done, apparently too much like work, notes were floating in the ether and unenforceable.
    Don’t want to dilute the argument – the point so far is MERS acknowledged that “acquire” refers to the investors who purchase the notes and that MERS does NOT acquire loans.
    More MERS:
    “MERS does NOT acquire loans….”
    “There is no rational basis for determining that MERS acquires loans.”

    This one really gets me:
    “Prior to MERS, an assignment or other appropriate document was required to be filed in the real estate records each time the servicing rights of a mortgage loan were transferred because the new servicer needed to appear in the land records in order to receive service of process.”

    JG: This is a bald-faced lie, a lie told to a Court with intent. Servicing rights to a loan have NEVER in the history of this country been recorded. (And any party who wishes to receive notice may record a ‘Request for Notice’. There is no justification for this lie – the intent was to deceive and to cover up the fact that it was in fact the servicer doing the foreclosure under MERS’ cover.

    “…reference MERS as having the right to exercise interests…”

    JG: These network attorneys make me dizzy. One doesn’t exercise an interest, one exercises rights, and MERS didn’t have any to exercise.

    “MERS only acts when directed by its members.”

    First of all, the notes weren’t owned by members, as MERS acknowledged, above. Secondly, MERS doesn’t act at all. It’s members do. Now what do you think this judicial panel would have thought if MERS had told the truth?

    Okay, now here it is:

    “MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note…”

    These quotes are from MERS v. Nebraksa Department of Banking and Finance, A-04-000786, Appellant Brief filed October 14, 2004.

    So what the h are MERS members doing executing and recording assignments of anything?
    And why was Mr. Hultman, MERS former Secretary (a real one) trying to posit otherwise in a NJ deposition?

    A deposition is made under oath.

    Here is the link to the entire MERS’ Appeal brief:

    Here is a link to the depo:

    I think you will find the deposition interesting as well as shocking. I hate to give those homeowners’ attorneys more work, but this info needs to be known.

    @Concerned, will try to find the case to which you referred. Unfortunately, cases in this jurisdiction or that by peer courts are not binding precedent. It doesn’t stop us from citing them in support, however. But one thing to remember, the court’s determination in a particular case is not necessarily reflective of the facts. When tall tales are told to get that determination, the determination is worthless, at least to those who find the tall tales.

  116. Ok, guys, you all need to take a look at what the CA SOUTHERN District BANKRUPTCY COURT just ruled: “”

    This is the BK court for San Diego County where we had that crazy ruling that the Superior courts can not stop a non-judicial FC.

    That ruling has caused all the filings to defend against a foreclosure to file for BK in the VERY district that has now ruled that the assignment has to occur FIRST and that MERS can be doing it!

    What a hoot!

  117. Anyone have a link to the entire report?

  118. Courts are going to treat the note first of all as if it had made it into the trust, particularly when there is no discovery. History has shown that affidavits and declarations are not reliable. (And they will not, or at least have not, dealt with the fact that the notes may not exist because they were converted essentially to derivatives – a subject I avoid as I am no master, not even a good student). Courts can’t yet get their heads around an unenforceable obligation – there’s still too much contrast between those two words. In other words, judges think “money was borrowed and the borrower is paying SOMEbody” bench law, of course. (One thing you can count on – if you allege your note is not in the trust because how it got there violated the terms of the psa, remic, sami, whatever, and therefore the vehicle which was to provide a tax haven, if you will, for the ultimate investor did NOT, the court will just say that is not a right of action going to the homeowner. (This is where the IRS’ involvement will actually aid the homeowner – when more dust settles and the investors get the tax bills because their tax-free investments were not tax-free.
    Should we feel bad about this? No, the investors can sue the bad guys – the bad guys have all the money. The investors will have to pay taxes – the country needs the money badly. The investors can sue the bad guys and get their money plus those tax dollars back with interest – probably at a statutory interest rate exceeding their expected return on the bogus mbs’s: money leaves the bad guys’ hands, goes back into circulation)

    I think the only thing which evidences a note is in a trust is the proper endorsements on it, done according to the documents which control / mandate the endorsements, i.e., those which mandate exactly what endorsements must have been done and when.
    There is already at least one case where endorsements were not done pursuant to the PSA (or whatever). Of course, the banksters made light of this and claimed an endorsement in blank covered all, so so what, your honor? “It’s a bearer note and the blank endorsement covers everything and everyone intended.” This might be true with a particular interpretation of Article 3 (when disregarding the PSA mandates altogether), I think it is, of the UCC.

    But, I remember a couple other cases, and posted them here, wherein reliance on Article 3 and or 4 of the UCC would have killed the banksters, so they (including MERS as I recall) decried Article 3 and 4 ‘s applicability to promissory notes collateralized by interests in real property. Those Articles deal with “holders” of notes. The banksters claimed it would be article 9 of the UCC which applies to these secured notes. They told the courts that the holder in due course provisions of the UCC do not apply to promissory notes at issue. As I recall, this is when the banksters (and MERS) were trying to enforce the collateral document without an interest in the note and without holding the note (as usual) but something in those particular cases caused them to make these allegations regarding the UCC. Perhaps some astute participant here would like to take this up and address this issue more thoroughly. There will be variances from state to state, as each state has its own adoptation of the UCC. Still, not an impossible task. All in all, tho, whether or not a loan is actually in the trust would be governed by NY law. I believe enforcement would then be governed by the UCC in the state where the property is located. Not gospel, tho.
    So, moving right along…..let’s say a note is not in the trust. Who owns it? Is the answer no one? Investors paid ABC for fractional interests in any particular note by the purchase of derivatives, right? (Again, this is a simplification) So, ABC got paid for the note. The note/debt as to ABC is retired by payment from the investors and ABC may not collect again from the borrower, which is what they’re actually doing. I would guess their justification to themselves is that the borrower stopped making the payments and ABC has guaranteed the payment stream to the investors. This was a voluntarily assumed risk of the alleged sale of the note, which is an affirmative defense available to the homeowner, I would think. That’s another story, of course. But, really, there is no right of action by ABC against the homeowner which I am aware of, at least none of which have been implemented by the bad guys. ABC just pretends to own or be the holder of the note.
    In either scenario – the note’s in the trust / the note’s not in the trust – what happens when the home is ultimately sold after foreclosure for, say, 300k? How does ABC or other bankster/servicer get the 300k (what is left of the 600k, say, paid to ABC by the fractional owners for the note) to the 5000 fractional owners? Got me. Think about it! I am guessing they might not, although they may continue the payment stream. Hmmm…300k free and also tax free. And like I always say, nice gig if you can get it, especially when the home was snarfed with a bogus credit bid. ABC gets 300k free cash and does or doesn’t continue the payment stream. By the way, as a matter of law, when an ABC who is not entitled to enforce the note does so nonetheless, pursuant to the holder in due course rules, as applicable, the fact that ABC got paid is no defense to the homeowner against the real hidc. Sad and sick, but true. Yeah, you can try to sue ABC, but in the meantime, you still owe the hidc. It’s a form of double jeopardy – one judges don’t get, maybe because it apparently hasn’t happened – yet. The reason it has happened yet is either because the investors, owning only fractional interests and not knowing each other, don’t realize they own the notes or because there truly is no longer a note to enforce.

    In any scenario, ABC has no interest in the note, for which it was already paid, or the note’s collateral. Especially now that MERS has jumped ship, ABC claims it is the “holder” of the note and entitled to enforce by virtue of this alleged possession. This ’round’ is going to come down to a few issues – one, the alleged possession of the note and what this means or doesn’t mean as a matter of law. Courts’ current posture as I understand it, those which have even gotten that far, is that the trustee of the securitization trust is the proper party to enforce a note. But in order to come to that conclusion, a court must look to the agreement, whatever it is – psa, sami, remic – and let’s not forget those agreements include some very specific mandates regarding the deeds of trust, as well. Without presentation of all this information, a court simply cannot be making informed decisions. Courts of course have an inherent duty to find facts. A court who rules in the absence of this information is implementing a very errant form of bench law in this writer’s opinion. performing Discovery has to be mandated.

  119. M.Soliman, If the opposition spends 3 days breaking down your character as you stated, who pays for your 3 days of depositions? Does the homeowner pay you for these 3 days?

  120. This is a link for M Soliman’s BBB standing.

  121. M. Soliman’s comments are as entertaining as Charlie Sheen’s rants and make just as much sense

  122. M. Soliman, not meant as a slam, it’s just that you have so much flowing by that it’s hard for mere mortals to get a drink.

    OK, I’ll ask….what is moot under the FDIC? I don’t follow….

  123. M soliman there proof the PSA is dead by fdic intervention or?? . so re-PSA – there is no need for any of us too argue it again [in this context]

  124. m soilman

    “FDIC and if the Trust is charged or written down as we know”
    i do not recall the a press release of this or the fdic going public with a statement – fdic is now the [ receiver or in control ] of these trust[s] and or assets… maybe i missed this news.& i’m fooish to ask or think the public would ever be made aware of “ANYTHING”
    BUT,, i’m not arguing the fdic does not control or charge off the value of these asset[s] or trusts or whatever they are called . please
    point to an article we can reference for this info.

  125. Tolle

    You can ask me to explain the PSA comment….charges? …reference what is I have cited…? .but no…firehose . Wow everyone is this guy a card. ASk me…what is it I can explain for you ….what do you want me to cite…..what?

    I have testified and consulted in over $10.0 million in value of homes in cases settled or prevailed .I was doing this in cases dating back to 2002 . Remand to trial in State Appellate Ct and 100% in deposition . Get deposed by the opposition and see if they invest three days breaking down your character (thanks to this site) . But I prevail friend . You do not want to hear this do you ? I prevail and its not with anything I am reading …Ask your question – MSoliman

  126. With all due respect M. Soliman, you trying to clarify things is like trying to drink from a firehose.

  127. But the PSA provides restrictions on such transfers and specific requirements as to the steps for transfer.

    The PSA cites GAAP …what’s wrong here today ? Its Moot under FDIC and if the Trust is charged or written down as we know …why are you citing the PSA .

    Would love to know what I am missing here – Just trying to clarify things thats all .

  128. I think you can be assured that there is fraud from the very beginning all the way through the transfers to the Trust and inside the Trusts as well. They started out with a fraudulent transaction, why do it right after that? Burmese

  129. What about lenders organized under the laws of Delaware, such as Mortgage Lenders Network? Is it the same set-up as New York?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: