COCHRANE: “TEMPORARY LENDER” OR “PRETENDER LENDER?” AGENCIES PLAYING WITH WORDS

CLE SEMINAR: SECURITIZATION WORKSHOP FOR ATTORNEYS — REGISTER NOW

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mary is right and points out potential danger signs in these moves by the government agencies. They are leaving room for new terms and possible acknowledgment and validation of the use of originating lenders who are not lenders at all. “Temporary lenders” is used as a substitute for pretender lender. Either they were the lender or they were not.

It would be potentially acceptable to start a category of “temporary lender” if the securitizations were done right, if the disclosures were made, and if the the borrower really understood what was going on. The same thing holds true for investors who were putting up pension money for what they thought were ordinary residential mortgage loans without bells and whistles and misdirection. But that isn’t what happened. The pretender lender (“temporary lender”) is nothing more than a straw-man to hide the true lender and to hide the feeding frenzy on fees that sometimes vastly exceeded the entire loan Principal.

No doubt the use of the word “temporary lender” was a negotiated term. We must be vigilant in holding their feet to the fire. In nearly all cases, the party named on the disclosure statements, the note and mortgage or deed of trust as the “lender” was nothing more than an unlicensed mortgage broker even if their name was, say, Wells Fargo. They were not funding the loan — the money had already been secured by advance sales to investors (under the legal practice of selling forward where you can sell something you don’t have yet).

The failure of to disclose the real lender is a violation unto itself leading to various remedies and consequences — especially as to perfection of the lien, and providing the context for a transaction with clear title. But the intentional act of FALSELY stating the name of the Lender without any reference to disclosing a principal or under ordinary principal agent rules, and the failure to provide either the real lender or the borrower with the documents (some of which should have been recorded in the title registry in the country recording office) creates a fatal defect in perfecting a lien to the point where the note is a nullity and the mortgage or deed of trust is nothing more than a wild deed. Any subsequent foreclosure sale in which a deed is used on a credit bid would similarly be a wild deed subject to either being ignored as void or voidable by judicial action.

This is what results in the real transaction between the borrower and the real lender being undocumented and the the recorded documentation being false and even fraudulent. The only conclusion possible under law, in my opinion, would be that the note is unenforceable for the simplest of reasons, and that the mortgage is an invalid unenforceable document.

The consequences of this is that the “assets” being reported on the books of the mega banks are simply vapor, which they already were because of the lack of proper documentation even if the original mortgage was valid. The consequence of that is that those banks are going to either need more capital — trillions of dollars — or they will need to be resolved and sold off into pieces to the hundreds of hungry medium and small bankers who have been healthy all along.

In plain language, putting ANY value on the shares of those mega banks is at best speculative and at worst simply foolish.

submitted by Mary Cochrane

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).

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/temporary_lender.asp

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/04/14/20110414biz-foreclosurereimburse.html#ixzz1JdQZIczu

28 Responses

  1. “John G. Stumpf”
    a.k.a. “John. G. Stumpf”
    Latest Filing: 4/8/11 as Signatory

    As: Registrant Stumpf John G

    As: Signatory
    (Director, Officer, Attorney, Accountant, Banker, Agent, etc.)

    List All Filings as Signatory
    17 Registrants:
    Chevron Corp [ formerly Chevrontexaco Corp ]
    Stumpf John G
    Target Corp [ formerly Dayton Hudson Corp ]
    Visa Inc
    Wells Fargo & Co/MN [ formerly Norwest Corp ]
    Wells Fargo Capital X
    Wells Fargo Capital XI
    Wells Fargo Capital XII
    Wells Fargo Capital XIII
    Wells Fargo Capital XIV
    Wells Fargo Capital XIX
    Wells Fargo Capital XV
    Wells Fargo Capital XVI
    Wells Fargo Capital XVII
    Wells Fargo Capital XVIII
    Wells Fargo Capital XX
    WF Deferred Compensation Holdings Inc

    “John G. Stumpf” has/had a Signatory interest in the following 3 Registrants:

    Chevron Corp [ formerly Chevrontexaco Corp ]
    Target Corp [ formerly Dayton Hudson Corp ]
    Wells Fargo & Co/MN [ formerly Norwest Corp ]

    EX-10.1

    ———————————————————————-
    Exhibit 10.1
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
    1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220
    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
    The company set forth on the signature page hereto (the “Company”) intends to issue in a private placement the number of shares of a series of its preferred stock set forth on Schedule A hereto (the “Preferred Shares”) and a warrant to purchase the number of shares of its common stock set forth on Schedule A hereto (the “Warrant” and, together with the Preferred Shares, the “Purchased Securities”) and the United States Department of the Treasury (the “Investor”) intends to purchase from the Company the Purchased Securities.

    The purpose of this letter agreement is to confirm the terms and conditions of the purchase by the Investor of the Purchased Securities. Except to the extent supplemented or superseded by the terms set forth herein or in the Schedules hereto, the provisions contained in the Securities Purchase Agreement — Standard Terms attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Securities Purchase Agreement”) are incorporated by reference herein. Terms that are defined in the Securities Purchase Agreement are used in this letter agreement as so defined. In the event of any inconsistency between this letter agreement and the Securities Purchase Agreement, the terms of this letter agreement shall govern.

    Each of the Company and the Investor hereby confirms its agreement with the other party with respect to the issuance by the Company of the Purchased Securities and the purchase by the Investor of the Purchased Securities pursuant to this letter agreement and the Securities Purchase Agreement on the terms specified on Schedule A hereto.

    This letter agreement (including the Schedules hereto) and the Securities Purchase Agreement (including the Annexes thereto) and the Warrant constitute the entire agreement, and supersede all other prior agreements, understandings, representations and warranties, both written and oral, between the parties, with respect to the subject matter hereof. This letter agreement constitutes the “Letter Agreement” referred to in the Securities Purchase Agreement.

    This letter agreement may be executed in any number of separate counterparts, each such counterpart being deemed to be an original instrument, and all such counterparts will together constitute the same agreement. Executed signature pages to this letter agreement may be delivered by facsimile and such facsimiles will be deemed as sufficient as if actual signature pages had been delivered.

    In witness whereof, this letter agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto as of the date written below.

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

    By: /s/ Neel Kashkari
    Name: Neel Kashkari
    Title: Interim Assistant Secretary for
    Financial Stability

    WELLS FARGO & COMPANY

    By: /s/ John G. Stumpf
    Name: John G. Stumpf
    Title: President & Chief Executive Officer

    Date: October 26, 2008

    * * *

    Tarp Letter to John Stumpf from Chair Harry Waxman 10/2008

    Page #1
    http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/001385493/profiles_BonusPage1jpg_2930_596802_xlarge.jpeg

    Page #2 of 3 and #3 of 3
    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/bonuses-tarp-banks-how-much-do-you-think-they-really-got-back-in-2009-want-to-see-the-letter-from-c/question-632815/

    Is the SEC Private Trasaction with Federal Reserve related to Chair Harry Waxman Letter TARP FUNDS 10/28/2008?

    What good did they do with TARP – pay for their employees and affilaites to process HAMP paperwork over and over and over and over and over again?

  2. Wells Fargo Bank NA

    8 Closely Related:
    Bitterroot Asset Management/Inc –
    SEC # 1427382 – 2/27/08

    IntraWest Asset Management/Inc –
    SEC # 1427380 – 2/27/08

    Iris Asset Management/Inc –
    SEC # 1427381 – 2/27/08

    Pelican Asset Management/Inc –
    SEC # 1427384 – 2/27/08

    Thirty-Eight Hundred Investments LTD –
    SEC # 1427454 – 3/6/08

    Violet Asset Management/Inc –
    SEC # 1427383 – 2/27/08

    Wells Fargo & Co/MN –
    SEC # 72971 – 4/29/11

    WFC Holdings Corp –
    SEC # 105598 – 2/27/08

    SEC Files processed 5/14/1999 – 3/4/11 Wells FArgo Bank NA:

    5/14/99 3/4/11 028-01341 ’34 13F-HR/A, 13F-HR, 13F-NT, 13F-NT/A
    12/28/07 2/27/08 811-22158 ’34 3 [ * ]
    ’40 N-8A, N-2, POS AMI, N-PX/A, N-PX, NSAR-A, N-CSRS, NSAR-B, N-CSR, 40-17G, N-Q
    6/6/96 6/25/04 000-23996 ’34 NT 10-K, PRER14A, DEFR14A, PRE 14A, 10-K405, 10-Q/A, 3/A, NT 10-Q, 3, 4/A, 10-K, DEF 14A, 4, 8-K, 10-Q [ * ]
    ________
    * There were multiple parties involved in these filings.

    ———————————————————-
    Wells Capital Management Inc.
    29 Cloely Related (1) Owner Relationship
    Thirty Eight Hundred Fund LLC

    As: Registrant
    Stroup Stanley S

    ——————————————————————————–

    As: Signatory (Director, Officer, Attorney, Accountant, Banker, Agent, etc.)
    List All Filings as Signatory

    Search Recent Filings (as Signatory) for “Stanley S. Stroup”
    “Stanley S. Stroup” has been a Signatory for/with the following 9 Registrants:
    Goldenbanks of Colorado Inc [ formerly First Golden Bancorporation ]
    Wells Fargo & Co/MN [ formerly Norwest Corp ]
    Wells Fargo Capital IX
    Wells Fargo Capital VI
    Wells Fargo Capital VII
    Wells Fargo Capital VIII
    Wells Fargo Financial Inc [ formerly Norwest Financial Inc ]
    WF Deferred Compensation Holdings Inc
    WFC Holdings Corp [ formerly Wells Fargo & Co ]

    “Stanley S. Stroup” has/had a Signatory interest in the following 3 Registrants:
    First Security Corp/UT
    Teradyne/Inc [ formerly Teradyne Inc ]
    Wells Fargo & Co/MN [ formerly Norwest Corp ]

  3. Dear ANONYMOUS

    “CertificateGate” Who will break that story?

    Norwest Asset Securities Corporation (NASCOR) Article below June 1996.

    SEC 8 Closely Related to SELLER of discounted loans, Periodic Distributions of Master Servicer ….

    CERTIFICATEGATE!
    The same elements of ‘robo-signing’ by the officers of the Issuing Entities exists in CERTIFICATEGATE as Foreclosuegate.

    When will the MEMBERS of the SEC’s Officers who signed the Certificates, and related Agreements attesting to what? be brought into the light of day.

    Are MEMBERS of the financial exchange to be held to a higher standard/ Who caused more harm? The DOCX & LPS & Robo-Law-Mills who create falsified docuements or the robo-signers of the SEC 10K Attestations for example?

    When will robo-law mills attorneys in all 50 states and territories become accountable for filing falsified documents and are to be held to a higher standard under oath these attorney’s present to the court the documents they create and/or falsify: Lis Pendens, Assignments and Complaints. Statutory laws exist for those who file falsified documents with public offices? Should the attorney’s under oath be held the a higher standard? Than the MEMBERS Officers who signed the 10K’s of the Loan Trusts, Certificates and Trust Funds? Than the employees of DOCX and LPS?

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

  5. Your out of line Counsel. Slander and malicious attacks for what. These comments are subject to bar review I assure you . Brenda , came bye to say hi 48 hours ago. Are you under some influence counsel ?

    This is an attorney speaking – I do not believe it .

  6. NY attorney JB

    Seeking to manipuate the experts findings into what ….? What you want the court to believe. – Why JB . You have my email-

    Loan Mods do not exist.
    NO LOAN MOD. I DO NOT DO MODIFCATIONS.

    I testify to GAAP , Derecogntion , FASB FAS 140, transferring assets , capitation, Balance sheet short fall – Not what you wanted ?

    These are not LOAN MODS I INVOLVE MYSELF WITH. COUNSEL IS OUT OF LINE HERE.

    – Cease and desist .

    – The MERS transactions were assigned in blank to faciliate the lies and the substantive omissions of material facts intentional to take consumer property by deception.

    – MERS has standing . This , not a modifcation is your way out…

  7. ANONYMOUS, on April 22, 2011 at 5:07 pm said: How these CDOs got to be rated triple A — is another problem

    Derecognition ….got it …..for the 1,000th time …..moving liabilities off balance sheet . Got it

  8. saveamericaone,

    Partially correct — quote — “The investors were lied to about the ‘notes’ they were only loan#’s and were not securitized lawfully period.”

    You are correct — that only loans #s and not notes were securitized. The problem is that the “investors” who invested in these “loan #s” — were part of the scam. These investors purchased debt collection rights — that could NOT be securitized. They did this by buying lower tranches and derivatives to set-up trust — that were set up to absorb defaults — and orchestrated defaults – to begin with.

    At the same time — the banks held the pass-through tranches themselves – to the orchestrated trusts — and utilized both some of their tranches and many lower tranches for CDO derivative investments.

    These CDO derivative pass-through “security” investors — never owned the loan “collection rights” — and were only pass-through recipients for receivables on collection rights. But, collection rights themselves are NOT current receivables.

    How these CDOs got to be rated triple A — is another problem. Credit rating agencies upped rating because of the implied lower tranche (Debt Buying) derivatives — that would supposedly support higher tranche pass-through. By combining many tranches with many trusts — CDOs and Squared CDOs were formed. These investors never owned the loan/collection rights/or lien. And, these CDOs were always “HIGH RISK” investments.

    Perhaps these CDO investors were “duped”. But, these CDO investors were often pension fund “investors” — who were prohibited from investing in risky investments. Any prospectus for CDOs — and the trust securities from which they were derived – explained the HIGH risk of the subprime underlying “assets.” These institutional investors are considered highly sophisticated — and, therefore, possessing knowledge to ascertain the risks. Rarely do such “investors” succeed in courts.

    Many of these CDOs were also packaged into Auction-Rate Securities — for which pass-through investors have been completely compensated.

    The only remaining investors in any “toxic” assets and derived securities/derivatives — are the bottom-feeders that funded the mortgage loan originations to begin with.

    These bottom-feeders were the creditor from the onset — they are the creditor now (unless they disposed of to another bottom-feeder) — and, they are concealing their identity and role in courts across the country. Not only are the foreclosures fraudulent — the origination is fraudulent.

    Go to Retail Collection Attorney Network — for a list of debt buyers and sellers. Among them — some of the largest banks.

    If anyone is “banking” on stating that loan has been paid via insurance etc., this will not work to negate debt collection. Must attack the fraud of the debt collection – from the start of the debt collection origination — fraudulently called a “mortgage” — and the resulting fraudulent foreclosure.

    If any of the subprime loan originations were valid — prior trust would be paid off by a refinance. This did NOT happen. And, SEC must have records — for all loans that paid off prior trust by a refinance. Where are these records??

    Iron Mountain??

  9. – The investors were lied to about the ‘notes’ they were only loan#’s and were not securitized lawfully period.

    – The MERS transactions were assigned in blank to faciliate the lies and the substantive omissions of material facts intentional to take consumer property by deception.

    -Were the Agents who actually sold to ‘investors’ the defective financial products licensed brokers? Why cant’ investors sue one by one as Susy Orman did Merrill Lynch for taking her $10,000 in a money market fund and lost her money in an inappropriate investment?

    -The investors purchased the certificates. They are not connected to the notes which are not securitized and the notes are referenced by loan numbers in a PSA.

    -The consumers mortgages were part of the feeding freenzy but here I ask why? Because only 5% would contest? The beneficiary of all of the transactions (bank) operating as a financial holding company (classification) created by Federal Reserve federal administrative agency? or the Federal Reserve Board.

    How did the FRB pull the wool over Congress?

    -Investors were told the higher interest rate they would earn on their money was a solid investment because the investors had access to all of the properties which were not lawfully securitized under the UCC laws and are statutory.

    -Why did the US Government purchase these financial products?

  10. Indeed lucky for reasonable people to have the insight of a COO of the entities involved extremely valuable. Mr. Soliman can you share your insight how operations of financial holding company the new Federal Reserve classification affected you?

  11. Let’s stay focused on who our real “adversaries” are. Maher Soliman is not the enemy. He raises many thought provoking questions here, and, as far as I know, he has not harmed anyone here.

  12. Mary

    Thank you for being here.

  13. I am an attorney in New York and I actually used Maher services. I was highly disappointed and when I ask for a refund of my $2100 he would not respond or pickup the phone. He is a ripoff artists. Now his live testimonny may be what he say it is but don’t ever ever buy an audit from him. I have the conversation recorded if anyone wants to here it between him and myself asking for my refund and his reply.

    Also his former partner Brenda was left broke and penniless as result of her dealing with Maher.

  14. When is a bank not a bank? When Congress allows banks to license their subsidiaries, affilaites who are in agreements the right to use their name.

    Consumers are the weakest link now homeless deliberately targetted by foreign organizations. How? Let’s see – Nationsbank methodically acquired the retail servicing entities acquiring general purpose entities late 1980’s thru late 1990’s who would provide non-conforming loan products and the private family trusts behind Nationsbank acquired INDYMAC and Countrywide Funding / Norwest Corp and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association? Wells Fargo & Co/MN?

    What are you going to do when you want a mortgage? It’s bad enough Congress has done nothing to protect the welfare of the nation for the past decade, and its bad enough the President has done nothing to protect the economy, third element of our national security except look forward to his next term when everyting will magically be better.

    If you need a mortgage tomorrow, what are consumers going to do who do not ant a defective mortgage? Congress, hello – anyone home? Congress blew it big time. Had someone been awake and paid attention would there be consumer protection laws and regulations? Who was looking the other way when Congress lifted Glass-Stegal and fomer President Clinton slipped through passing the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act end of 1999″

    What a travesty. Create a new federal reserve classification and in a decade destroy America!

    Why, Who, What, When, Where, How financial holding companies operate. Where are the disclosures? Had there been disclosures and the manufacturer been held accountable for placing into the public domain financial products without defects or suffer consequences this disaster could have been averted.

    Do you realize as a consumer, you are safer purchasing a sump pump which literally sits in water with electricy passing through the unit than you are purchasing a United States mortgage.

    When you purchase a sump pump, Congress put into place regulations holding the manufacturer accountable for manufacturing defects forcing products to be placed into the public domain for consumer consmption to be free of defects.
    In the event there is a manufacturing defect in a sump pump at the time of sale, the consumer can go to court and file a complaint.. Thanks to due process of law, consumers can file a complaint and seek remedies, both tort and punitive damages if there is a defect at the time of sale–of the sump pump.

    How sad, millions of us no longer have basements to install the safe sump pumps

    As consumers, we don’t have to pre-inspect the sump pump to be safe from defects. As a consumer we have to pre-inspect the mortgage as constructed by the manufacturer. Who is that by the way?

    I know if frogs had wings they would not bump their when they jump.

    Please ask your congress persons why they did not put into place any protection for consumers yet? Summer Vacation is almost here. They are pushing out Elizabeth Warren the FED RESERVE who is responsible for perhaps looking the other way! Encouraging others to look the other way. Oh no not collusion, or collaboration or negligence. Nothing like that.

    When will consumers be able to pruchase financial products and financial services?

    We learned the hard way that HUD TILA RESPA do good only for the pretender lenders placing a stautue of limitations on intentional harms against consumers.

    Where are the disclosures and warnings I need to see glaring back so I’ll know the next time a ‘mortgage bankster’ asks me to sign a credit authorization form.

    WARNING WARNING WARING IF YOU SIGN THIS FORM AND INITIAL AFTER EACH DISCLOSURE PARAGRAPH, AND BLOCK OUT ALL WHITE SPACES ON THE FORM, AND SIGN THE BOTTOM OF EACH FORM, AND DATE THE FORM AND TIME STAMP:

    WARNING! MAY CONTAIN DEFECTS FOUND TO BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH! Divorce, Strokes, Suicides, Heart attacks, tool of mass destruction of the Federal Republic.

    STRANGER DANGER…We mask all transactions with ‘Bank NA’ withholding substantive material facts providing inaccurate business information.

    WARNING! Your signature and intitials mean you clearly understand taht our intention is to be deceptive, to take your property and we will take advantage of you coming and going!

    CONSUMER WARNING: You are not safe signing a credit application. By allowing our employee ‘somebody’ to make an inquiry places you into a virtual world-wide database where we will share with all of our affilaites around the globe your information.

    Why can’t consumers bring forth claims against the manufacturer of the financial products which were created with defects and placed into the public domain for consumer consumption? Indeed the products were found to be defective at the time of sale.

    Is Congress going to allow the consumers to continue to be harmed?

    Where is Elizabeth Warren my hero?

    Are mortgages to yet be handled by the same pretender lenders, temporary lenders or agents, brokers, dealers, distributors retail and wholesale who are allowed to use — private brand labels – like Wells Fargo Bank NA TRUSTEE, Wells Fargo Bank NA LENDER.

    Great, there are laws and regulations to protect us from a defective sumpt pump but now we have no basement!

    The negligence of Congress simply devestating! The President of the United States looking the other way unacceptable. The OCC and OTS and FRB do not have the authority to enforce laws and the Attorney Generals serve at the pleasure of the President. Let us send the President our three wishes for use of his Executive Powers: 1)

    1) All manufacturers to include financial holding companies and their subsidiaries and affilaites responsible are subject to regulations and will be liable for tort and punitive for placing defective products into the public domain for consumer consumption found to be defective at time of sale.

    2) The manufacturer required to provide express and implied warranties, full-disclosures, acknowledging they have pre-inspected their products to be safe not to pillage, plunder and maurader the general population.

    3) All consumers may be protected by their State Attorney General and US Attorney General who will work together with all state and federal administrative agencies and be allowed to bring into court as Plaintiff in Joinder holding all of the manufacturers’ subsidairies, affilaites, agents, dealers, brokers and distributors accountable for alleged unlawfull buisness acts Congress vested Jurisdiction. In the event Congress wants to also sanction these manufacturers consumer’s evidence will be shared upon request.

    Seriously!

    Sadly, there are no consumer protection laws regarding purchasing financial products and financial services. None! Even the name of the institution can be deceiving. Consumers have been targetted by deceptive advertising since 2000.

  15. Here is something very interesting about the BBB.

    Researched in 2008-2009 BBB Complaints and tested myself.

    Complaint against Wells Fargo Home Mortgage storefront in Succasunna, New Jersey, whose employees are responsible for alleged loan origination frauds, the BBB Trenton NJ moves automatically all complaints to Des Moines Iowa BBB.

    That way, Mary Coffin, EVP Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Instituional Lending division controls all responses.

  16. nomods, Maher also helped me to understand way beyond most peoples learning curve. He is one “in the know”. As such, an “expert witness is one contracted by counsel to testify as to…” whatever the issue at hand is.

    Mr. Soliman has never represented himself as an attorney. He provides testimony to things of which he knows.

    I paid him for something, he tried to help, no harm no foul. Never beefed about it here. I said that the value of Mr. Soliman’s product would best be derived when contracted for and delivered by counsel. Pro-se litigators we are not. We are fumbling for things in a world from which we are meant to be excluded.

    I suggest the little “anonymous” move on. There’s nothing to see here.

  17. BBB is never accurate.no different than our fico score agency.there are many good business owner operating in low to f grade on BBB. The problem lies in complainer.it’s is almost next to impossible to please everyone

  18. M.Solimans BBB rating is based on the review of the BBB Rating review. This is a comany that as a business owner you pay to be a member of. If M. Soliman does not like the review he has he should not have joined the rating agency. If M. Solimans reputation is ruined it is not because of me. Let the rating speak for its self and take responsibility for where it belongs.

  19. The BBB was from another Anonymous . Its not anything to do with me or anyone here . It is wierd

  20. @ anonymous,

    the link you provided was m soliman past. Ruining someone’s reputation will not get your home free and clear from being stolen. I have personally met m soliman in reality, he is a down to earth intellectual individual. What he post is evidence he is on the side of the homeowner. What you post, makes me think your on the side of the bankers. M soliman has earned my credibility.he knows the truth especially from the insiders perspective.

  21. This is a link to M Solimans Nationwide Loan Services Company BBB rating. http://www.la.bbb.org/Business-Report/Nationwide-Loan-Services-100072153 BEWARE!!!!!!!

  22. Yes — nothing more than “unlicensed mortgage broker”. But, loans are not sold directly to secondary market “investors.” Securitization is the removal of receivables from a balance sheet — and this occurs AFTER the bank purchases the loans from the “unlicensed mortgage broker.” It does not matter if banks were able to secure funding from eventual secondary market security investors prior to origination — it matters from whose balance sheet were the receivables removed. .

  23. My thoughts have so much profanity in it I won’t post now. I am sick to my stomach. How do these felons get out of jail FREE again? This is sick and wrong and we all look like morons to allow all of this. America — the home of the fraud. Debi

  24. Hey , I am up working a file – Hit me up if you want expert.witness@live.com MSoliman

  25. The truth doesn’t really set you free. The purchase of my families home was subject to all the violations that have been outlined above and on Neils blog for 3 years. But that really does not matter. They intend to auction off my house tomorrow. I would be in jail for doing what they have done but they just get a home that has been paid for many times over. I’ll tell you later about my “lawyer”.

  26. Fannie Freddie are the Trust Preferred Obligor and that is for cash flow – not Real Property

    expert.witness@live.com

  27. I search for a logical result, an answer – something to make sense of the foreclosure kayos. All actions lead to one point. Either Fannie or the banks end up with almost all the foreclosed loans – Socialism? The homeless begin to mount. No $$ available to make new loans to buy the empty homes because the banks wrote more mortgages than they have assets to carry. The banks fail – and the gov’t takes over the bank(s) holding the properties… The gov’t ends up owning all the properties belonging to the states – that maybe might want to secede from the “union”… BofA is failing and no one is talking about the week-long loss down from 13.48 a week ago to 12.42 (over -11.60% DROP in a month) with drastic drops daily and a line in Chinatown on the street last week by Chinese drawing out funds…

  28. Temporary Lender is a gestation facility used to fill a forward under a REMIC Purchase and Sale.

    MERS is the True beneficiary (Guys and Girls – should I spell it out for the entire opposition to come into court and defnd themselves ?)

    MSoliman
    expert.witness@live.com

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: