TRUSTEE HAS NO WITNESSES WHILE SERVICER PURSUES FORECLOSURE

submitted by Anonymous

Most often Deutsche Bank is the trustee — not the servicer. In cases where the trust is named as plaintiff — ABC trustee for “certificate holders” to XYZ trust — they are the named plaintiff — not the servicer. But, it is actually the servicer that is proceeding against you. If goes to trial — the servicer will have difficulty getting a witness for the trustee because — as Ian states — . “the Trusts in many cases have absolutely no idea that a foreclosure is being brought in their names.”

If foreclosure plaintiff is the Servicer, the Servicer is not (most often) the real party/creditor — they must state on whose behalf they are acting. They will then name the Trust/Trustee — who is also not the real party/creditor since security investors are also not the creditor. If you challenge chain, transfer, assignment etc., the Servicer as plaintiff cannot testify to anything but payment history. Would need witness or affidavit from Trustee regarding the chain and mortgage collection rights whereabouts – and all documents — this is how Robo-signing fraud became rampant.

Also, even if it can demonstrated by a Mortgage Schedule that loans was originally “earmarked” for transfer to a Trust, this does not mean loan stayed in the trust. And, default loans are removed from trust after servicer stops advancing payments. So- you would need the remittance ledger from Trustee – to show trustee is still receiving advance payments from Servicer.

Mortgage Schedule should also be accompanied by a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (which is also a Repurchase Agreement). Have not seen any MLPA that was actually legally executed
– only says “intent” to sell.

In addition, the chain of assignments and endorsements must follow the PSA. By PSA it is the Depositor that purchases loans from originator – and it is only the Depositor that can cause assignment/endorsement to the trust. By the PSA there is no Power of Attorney to trustee or servicer to cause assignment. Thus, really need affidavit/witness from the Depositor to testify. Since mortgages cannot be passed onto security investors — assignment/sale of mortgage stops with the Depositor — it is a Depositor owned trust.

At this time, for the subprime trusts only , payments for current borrowers are not being transferred by servicer to trustee — neither would a payoff by refinance be transferred. And, if those in default suddenly won the lottery and could pay loan in full — neither would this payoff be directed to the trust/trustee.

Foreclosure proceeds are not going to the Trust/Trustee — or servicer to the trust. None of these parties can be plaintiff in foreclosure actions – and cannot be stated current creditor in BK.

111 Responses

  1. I every time spent my half an hour to read this webpage’s articles or reviews all the time along with a mug of coffee.

  2. Are we going to community meetings?. Do we know what Robo signing and the movement of N.A. banks is really all about?. What Is Agenda 21- for sure: There are no private property rights or homeownership, there are no vehicles, and where one can live has already been designated for a fully-realized Agenda 21 plan, led by the United Nations and a future one-world government.

    The same year that Bill Clinton established the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, the International Code Council was also created.

    The International Code Council has developed a large number of “international codes” which are intended to replace existing building codes all over the United States. The following is a list of these codes from Wikipedia…
    • International Building Code
    • International Residential Code
    • International Fire Code
    • International Plumbing Code
    • International Mechanical Code
    • International Fuel Gas Code
    • International Energy Conservation Code
    • ICC Performance Code
    • International Wildland Urban Interface Code
    • International Existing Building Code
    • International Property Maintenance Code
    • International Private Sewage Disposal Code
    • International Zoning Code
    • International Green Construction Code
    These codes are very long and exceedingly boring, and those that write them know that hardly anyone will ever read them.
    And for the most part, they contain a lot of things that are contained in existing building codes or that are common sense.
    But a lot of poison has also been inserted into these codes. If you read them carefully, the influence of Agenda 21 is painfully obvious.
    Unfortunately, even most of the local politicians that are adopting these codes don’t take the time to read them. Most of them just assume that they are “updating” their existing building codes.
    So what often happens is that there will be fights in local communities between citizens that are concerned about the encroachment of Agenda 21 and local politicians who regard such talk as nonsense. The following is an example of what is happening all over the nation…
    Summit Hill Borough Council last night unanimously adopted the “2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code,” but not before some audience members expressed vehement opposition to it.
    An overflow crowd of 34 people attended the meeting, with some there to specifically voice their displeasure.
    Sandy Dellicker, a borough resident, said she was against using an “international” maintenance code, arguing that it falls under the plan of Agenda 21 of the United Nations; an agenda for the 21st Century.
    She said, “UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world.”
    “This is not a conspiracy theory,” she told the council. “This is for real.”
    She said the International Property Maintenance Code had been adopted in Montgomery County, but the county “has already gotten rid of it” because of its dictatorial direction.
    “This is not what Summit Hill and the United States is about,” she said.
    Council members pooh-poohed her assessment. “In my opinion, the International Property Maintenance Code is to protect citizens,” said Council President Michael Kokinda.
    It would be great if these codes were just about public safety. But that is simply not the case. Sadly, these codes are often used to fine or even imprison homeowners that haven’t done anything wrong. Sometimes “code violations” are even used as justification to legally steal property from law-abiding homeowners. A post on the Freedom Reigns Radio blog detailed some of the things that are often done in the name of “code enforcement”…
    1) The ‘Code Official’ – anybody the jurisdiction calls – a ‘Code Official’ – is the sole interpreter – no due process – Gestapo!
    2) Every day an offense occurs is a separate mandatory misdemeanor – $555/day and/or a month in jail in Charleston, W.Va. They can fine you out of your home and jail you at their whim!
    3) Anything the ‘Code Official’ says is not in good working condition – sticky window, dented or plugged gutter, torn window screen – whatever he says is not in good working order – hundreds of dollars of fines per day and/or jail time – usually a month – for every day the offense occurs.
    4) Any unsanitary condition – whatever the ‘Code Official’ says is an ‘unsanitary condition’ – empty pop cans – puddles – dog droppings on your property – same deal – same fines and/or jail time – every day.
    5) Any plant that the ‘Code Official’ says is a ‘noxious weed’ – same deal – same fines and/or jail time – every day. He can steal raw land.
    6) He can fine you out of your home and jail you with no due process. Any court proceedings are window dressing as there is no remedy associated with this ‘code.’
    7) It can be ‘adopted’ – just by an ‘administrative decree.’
    WITHOUT COURT ACTION OR NOTICE THE CODE OFFICIAL CAN:
    1) Enter your house whenever he – the sole interpreter – deems reasonable.
    2) Prevent you from entering your house.
    3) Tear your house down with your stuff in it.
    4) Bill you for the demolition.
    5) Place a lien on it for fines and/or demolition charges – steal it.
    6) And ‘best’ of all, no insurance I know of will cover your losses.
    You’re left w/a house and your ‘stuff’ in a landfill – and any remaining unpaid mortgage, any remaining fines, any remaining taxes, and any remaining demolition charges after they steal your property
    These codes restrict what homeowners can do with their own properties in thousands of different ways. If you rebel against one of the codes, the penalties can be extremely harsh.
    And there is often “selective enforcement” of these codes. That means that they will leave most people alone but they will come down really hard on people that they do not like. You could even end up with a SWAT team on your doorstep.
    Just ask some of the people who have been through this kind of thing.
    Even if you have your mortgage completely paid off, that doesn’t mean that you really “own” your property. If you don’t pay your taxes and obey the “codes”, you could lose your property very rapidly.
    The philosophy behind all of this is the same philosophy behind Agenda 21. The elite believe that you cannot be trusted to do the “right thing” with your own property and that your activity must be “managed” for the greater good. They believe that by controlling you and restricting your liberties that they are “saving the planet”.
    Unfortunately, you can probably expect this to get a whole lot worse in the years ahead. Our society is shifting from one that cherishes individual liberties and freedoms to one that is fully embracing collectivism. So our politicians will likely be making even more of our decisions for us as the years move forward.
    Do any of you out there have any “code violation horror stories” to share? If so, please share them with us by posting a comment below…
    Consider the following section from the UN website on Agenda 21′s plan for “promoting sustainable human settlement development.” Emphasis added.

  3. […] March 28, 2011, the mortgage foreclosure case of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank v. Joan Eakins, et al. Case No 03-CA-004775 Div A, Hillsborough […]

  4. […] March 28, 2011, the mortgage foreclosure case of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank v. Joan Eakins, et al. Case No 03-CA-004775 Div A, Hillsborough […]

  5. tojohn gault added a new comment to the post TRUSTEE re forbearance prohibited by state law?

    My guess is that this could relate to state costitutional law-possibly implemented by statutes that might be something like,
    “No division of the executive branch shall mandate the alteration of financial contracts” —–citing the state or federal constitutions’ prohibitions of interference with contracts. creation of Ex Post facto impositions [as in tax] and takings without due process —–etc

    This is something iv pondered in the AG efforts——it would seem that these defenses will likely be raised by servicers in particular where they bought up the MBS or CDOs or whatever and are now collecting the underlying home-owner notes after squeezing out what remains of investor interests

  6. Mr. Soliman

    If you are referring to me — all capitals – ANONYMOUS — I am not a plant. I work for no one. Know nothing of your business — know nothing about you.

  7. The anonymous is a plant. Research work on my comments – trying to decypher what I wrote to date to keep LL out of a lawsuit I am bringing …soley to discredit me and insulate this site from litigation

  8. Anyone know what the heck this might mean, to what state law it might refer?

    “In the event that a modification step (e.g., principal forebearance) is prohibited under applicable state law, a servicer may skip the modification step…”

    Color me ignorant, but I can’t imagine a state law which would prohibit forebearance. Forebearance is when someone agrees to pay later and someone else agrees to GET paid later, right?
    In the only proposed ‘modifications’ with which I’m familiar, the servicer won’t reduce the amt owed one dime – they stick it on the balance “down the road.” This is forebearance, is it not? What state law might prohibit this?

  9. Not to mention violations of their CIVIL RIGHTS and HUMAN RIGHTS…

  10. Oh how I wish all the millions of displaced, traumatized homeowners and their children could sue for billions for pain and suffering…fat chance, when the judges are on the side of the criminal banksters…

  11. Here is a comment I found on the LA times website re. lawyer fighting fraudclosure:

    “I strongly disagree with State Bar Judge Richard Honn in his decision to revoke Michael T Pines license. The State Bar itself needs to be investigated? Why? Because it is part of the reason citizens victimized by Wall St’s egregious trading practices have been further victimized. Many turned to the State Bar and got zero help. Instead they encountered chaos, mis-management of their paperwork, and if ANYTHING they should be revoking the licenses of millions of attys representing the banks. Furthermore, the JUDGES OF THIS COUNTRY have been complicit in refusing to allow lawyers representing the families a/g the banks to put forth their cases by blocking them in a myriad of ways which by default allowed banks to steal homes by the millions. I personally sat in a court where Michael T Pines quoted California Supreme Court ruling, and the sitting Judge said, while waving his hand dramatically in the air, and I quote: “Oh that is the Supreme Court UP THERE.. they can afford to be lofty, we don’t agree with them down here…OVERRULED.” Our mouths fell on the ground… the Judge refused Micheal T Pine’s to be heard on behalf of his client, to follow Supreme Court precedent… this and many other ludicrous rulings by judges clearly Pro-Bank, clearly not interested in having these cases in their courtrooms in the first place, the lying under oath by the Banks’ hired zombies, forced Mr Pines to take the drastic steps he is now being once again punished for. Years from now, I can only hope the truth will come out and Mr Pines will be recognized for trying to fight an impossible battle in a corrupt court system, a corrupt country, a/g Bank Cartels that displaced millions of Americans, causing them great ill health, traumatized their children, and ruined not just our nation, but the global economy.”

    Posted by: enrique marquez | April 28, 2011 at 10:35 PM

  12. Regulation AB disclosures.

    FAIL – The transaction documents must require that disclosures be made to investors that, at a minimum, comply with Regulation AB (including any future changes made by the SEC), including loan-level or pool-level data, as appropriate by asset class.
    FAIL – Sponsors of privately offered securitizations, which currently are not required by the SEC to make such disclosures, must comply with Regulation AB in order to obtain safe harbor protection under the Final Rule. Unlike the SEC’s proposed revisions to Regulation AB, this condition will apply to all private offerings, including statutory private placements. The SEC’s proposal would impose a similar disclosure requirement in transactions exempt from registration in reliance on Rule 144A or Rule 506 of Regulation D.

    Structure and other disclosures. The transaction documents must require that the capital structure, priority of payments, subordination features, and representations and warranties (along with remedies for breaches thereof) of a securitization be disclosed to investors by the time the obligations are issued.

    FAIL -The transaction documents also must require similar disclosure regarding any liquidity facilities or credit enhancements, waterfall triggers, and servicing policies governing servicing of delinquent assets.

    Ongoing performance data. The transaction documents must require that sponsors provide investors with credit performance information regarding the underlying assets, including delinquency and modification data, any additions or removals of assets, servicing advances, and losses to particular tranches.
    Compensation and retained interest disclosures. The transaction documents must require that disclosure detailing compensation paid to originators, sponsors, rating agencies, mortgage brokers, and servicers be made at issuance. In addition, the transaction documents must require that any credit risk retained by any of these parties be disclosed, and that any changes to compensation or retained interests be disclosed to investors as long as their interests are outstanding.
    Documentation and Recordkeeping:

    Authority under transaction documents. The transaction documents must define the contractual rights and responsibilities of the respective parties and must clearly distinguish between any multiple roles performed by any party. Each party must be afforded sufficient authority to fulfill its duties.
    Standardized documentation. The transaction documents must “use as appropriate any available standardized documentation for each different asset class.”
    In supplementary information accompanying the release of the Final Rule, the FDIC states that “[i]t is not possible to define in advance when use of standardized documentation will be appropriate, but certainly when there is general market use of a form of documentation for a particular asset class, or where a trade group has formulated standardized documentation generally accepted by the industry, such documentation must be used.”
    Retention of Risk:

    Skin in the game. Prior to the effective date of interagency regulations on risk retention to be issued as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, transaction documents must require sponsors to retain at least five percent of the credit risk of the securitized assets, either by retaining at least five percent of each tranche sold to investors or by retaining a “representative sample” of the securitized assets equal to at least five percent of the principal balance of the securitized assets.

    Sales, pledges or hedges of this retained credit risk are not permitted, except for the hedging of interest rate or currency risk. Upon the effective date of such interagency regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act, those regulations will exclusively govern the requirement to retain risk under the Final Rule.
    Other Conditions:

    FAIL – Arm’s length. Securitization transactions must be negotiated at arm’s length and transaction documents must require that obligations issued in a securitization may not be predominantly sold to affiliates or insiders of the sponsor, other than its wholly-owned, consolidated subsidiaries.**Derecogniton!

    Agreements in writing. The transaction documents must be in writing, must be approved by the sponsor’s board of directors or loan committee, and must have been continuously in the official record of
    the sponsor.

    Ordinary course. Securitizations must be entered into in the ordinary course of business and not in contemplation of a bankruptcy or with any intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.

    Adequate consideration. Transfers of securitized assets must be made for adequate consideration.

    Perfection of transfer or security interest. The transfer of assets or security interest must be properly perfected under the Uniform Commercial Code or other applicable state law. UCC !
    FAIL -Separate agreements. The agreement evidencing the transfer of assets from the sponsor, as transferor, must be separate from any agreements evidencing the duties of the sponsor, if any, in any other capacity.

    DISCOVERY Recordkeeping requirements. The transaction documents must require sponsors to maintain electronic or paper copies of closing documents and recent 10-K filings, and separately identify securitized assets within any internal databases.

    In addition, the documents must prohibit any sponsor that also serves as servicer from commingling securitization funds with its own. The transaction documents must also require that records be made available for review by the FDIC upon request.

    Unknown or unavailable information. The proposed rule would permit omission of information that is not available to the sponsor after “reasonable investigation,” provided that the type of information omitted and the reason for the omission is disclosed.
    Uncertain Application of the Safe Harbor

    Although several of the changes made in the Final Rule were designed to reduce the risk that a securitization believed to have the benefit of safe harbor protection at closing will later fail to qualify, some uncertainties remain in the final text. Under the Final Rule, securitizations may still lose the benefits of the safe harbor at a later date as a result of, among other things:

    A determination that the transaction documents were not based on “available standardized documentation” for the related asset class;

  13. To ANONYMOUS

    Yes….I agree…… I agree: false creditor= false debt. After the pretender AHMSI repeatedly sent demands (alleged defaults) for fees associated with misapplied payments I stopped paying because it was akin to extortion. There was no way to get them to reverse the fees. They would hold payments in suspense, charge (and deduct) late fees and “advances” from my payments, force place homeowners insurance when I already had a policy, and so on. I knew they would ruin me financially if I continued to pay, so I stopped paying, which was, of course,
    what they wanted.

  14. PRO TANTO – UNFAIR CONTRACTS
    And scams. And if that was not enough….

    The big bank NA Underwriters (for the above) may also work with the credit rating agencies to potentially obtain credit ratings for the securities, coordinate the marketing and settlement process, and support the securities in the secondary market.

    The securities live on you see, after your home is used to capitate the value of chattel! Rigged bid and no condition precedent sounds a lot like forfeiture. Pro Tanto Awards are by admission in the deed upon sale. Usually, after the government has determined that they will take your land via eminent domain, the government will appraise your property.

    Typically, you are sent notice with a pro tanto award. A pro tanto award is an offer on your property based on the appraisal. Most people accept the pro tanto award, but you don’t have to.

    By legal definition – [Latin, For so much; for as much as one is able; as far as it can go.] A term that refers to a partial payment made on a claim.. In an Eminent Domain case, pro tanto is the partial payment made by the government for the taking of land. This payment is given Without Prejudice, and
    . . . the petitioner can maintain an action for the full amount of the land. A pro tanto defense is a defendant’s counter-claim against the plaintiff for one-half the requested damages.
    DEFENSES: Innocent Owner -The law provides an innocent owner with a defense to the property seizure. To prove that you are an innocent owner, you must show that your property was seized, but you had no knowledge that the property was being used for a criminal activity.

    City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Plotkin), B225082
    In a petition for a writ of mandate arising from an action for inverse condemnation, summary judgment in favor of real parties on the ground that the creation of condemnation blight resulted in a constitutional takings is reversed, because real parties failed to present facts necessary to sustain a Klopping claim for precondemnation damages.

    Appellate Information Decided 04/12/2011/ Published 04/12/2011; Judges MANELLA Court California Court of Appeal Counsel

    M.Soliman.

    Consult a real estate attorney to determine if you should accept or reject a pro tanto award.

  15. Well, I believe that this means if the FDIC takes over the bank, then they split out the assets after they have been typed. I used to call it the good bank and the bad bank. Isn’t that what they are doing with these contractors.

    I think so.

  16. WHO SAID NOT EVERY LOAN IS AN FDIC MANAGED ASSET?

    Do you really know who that bin NA is worling for?

    Herein is the FDIC Receivership Assistance Contractors listing and WOW!

    Under Loss Share Agreement (LSA) contracts are Awarded and Contact for FDIC Loss Share Agreement Contractors work which have been awarded to the Contractors listed below, for Single Family (SF) and Non-Single Family (Non-SF) loss share loans, including whole loans and securities backed by SF and Non-SF loans.

    Under these contracts, certain assets of bank(s) are identified as Loss Share Assets and passed to an acquiring bank(s) (Acquirer) under Purchase and Assumption Agreements (P&A) subject to Loss Share coverage.

    The Underwriter will assist the FDIC and/or any of its financial advisors, in connection with the FDIC’s Program, with respect to analyzing the Loans and the results of due diligence obtained on the Loans.

    The Underwriter may propose alternative structures and disposition strategies, and recommend an optimal securitization structure, assist the FDIC in reviewing and monitoring the preparation of transaction documentation.

    Awards and Contact Information for FDICLoss Share Agreement Contractors,

    Amherst Securities Group
    444 Madison Avenue 7th Floor
    New York, NY 10019

    Banc of America Securities, LLC
    One Bryant Park, 11th FL
    New York, NY 10036

    Barclays Capital
    Tel. 212-528-7383
    745 Seventh Avenue, 5th Floor
    New York, NY 10019

    CastleOak Securities, L.P.
    Tel. 212-610-5587
    110 East 59th Street, 2nd Floor
    New York, NY 10022

    Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
    390 Greenwich Street, 5th floor
    New York, NY 10013

    Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
    Tel. 212-250-8473
    60 Wall Street, 3rd Floor
    New York, NY 10005

    Goldman Sachs
    Tel. 212-902-8768
    Kevin Gasvoda
    200 West Street
    New York, NY 10004

    Do you even know who you are suing? Looks to me like the lender and his robo signitures are just a little bit insulated. . . .maybe even immune from prosecution

    Expert.witness@live.com

  17. ooo but fdic sold “servicing rights” one west is a Debt collector…for who…who is claiming losses on their taxes?

  18. ooo forgot to mention that they sold the home to the :trust” credit bid!

  19. can i throw a curve ball ….i just got a 1099A from onewest…DBA INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES iA DIVISION OF ONE WEST BANK) IT SAYS IT IS “LENDER” AND THAT THE LENDERS “AQUISITION” OR KNOWLEDGE OF ABANDONMENT 4/21/10 (I DID NOT ANANDONE THEY FILED A FORECIBLE DETAINER, I WAS NEVER INFORMED OF THE AUCTION and I WAS LITIGATING!)
    THEY ARE CLAIMING THE FULL AMOUNT PURPORTEDLY OWED lord i need to be a tax expert too? this is contested ofcourse (lis pendens, but was recorded after indymac went into receivership) so i am given a 1099A, they embezzel my home then claim on the tax and give me a 1099A

  20. THANK YOU ANONYMOUS!

    I think i have the “ammo” I need—for now!

    Take care—!

  21. carie,

    Am not an attorney. But, trustee acts on behalf of the trust — if trust is gone — so is their role. There is no plaintiff (at least not a named plaintiff) if trust does not exist — and trustee role is gone (even if trust not gone – trustee role ends when collection rights swapped out). Derivatives (credit enhancement) are not part of any trust — they are DERIVED from the (bogus – subprime) securities – to which the trust (NOT derivatives) claim(ed) rights. Trust was always for current cash receivables ONLY. Derivatives — as to swaps — swap OUT.

    Joyce

    Homeowners (for subprime loans) put into false default debt — before they even defaulted. And, many not even in default – for the false default debt they were put into. Even if in default on false default debt (falsely portrayed as a mortgage) — no one should EVER be paying unidentified CURRENT creditor. The word is CURRENT. Past is past — and of no relevance to borrower.

    Marie — detrimental reliance — on falsely represented “CURRENT” creditor —

    Signing off on this for now. Have to. Will not read any more responses — because have to keep control to not respond. FOR NOW.

    Sure that will give SOME a — field day.

    .
    . .

  22. Carrie:

    This is a great question and a lot of us need some confirmation even on what attorneys may be telling people. Hope it gets answered

  23. John Gault and Marie, David B. and of course Anonymous

    I can give you at least 5 cases which clearly set the homeowner up to fail. My email address is:

    seniorauthor@yahoo.com fka Joyce Louise

  24. Marie, how were you pushed into default by the servicer? Could you sustain an allegation that you detrimentally relied on this ‘push’?

  25. @anonymous – wonderful! You articulated this argument in a manner such as we could follow it – the one regarding charged off debt. And you’re right, of course. If the debt that was evidenced by the note has been paid, charged off, whatever, than it is something else, which is being sought by the people who bought at a discount or any amt the charge off. I am not familiar with subprime loans per se and had no idea they were being charged off as you describe. The people who charged off the debt evidenced by the note better be reporting the sale of the charge off, btw.

    There is no collection right on a note, a debt, which has been retired by charge off or otherwise. The money, the debt, is no longer a ‘receivable’ to sell, is this not so?

    The charge off was an ‘election of remedies’ for the default.

    Allowing the sale of a charged off debt to a debt collector strikes me as messed up.

  26. @David CB – Why, to M Soliman, of course.

  27. Anonymous:

    What happens to a foreclosure case if the plaintiff entity,(the securitized trust, *not* the Trustee for it), no longer exists or cannot prove it exists?

    Thank you.

  28. “Plus, ms, are you in the right forum? Not an invitation to leave – dont’ get me wrong! You are talking double-triple-what the heck account-entry master-degree (well, at least under-grad) isms to people who have no idea and will have no idea what you’re talking about. We are not good students of these principles. You might consider your debate with someone where it will produce some results. Like to see that.
    That is, unless you are sending a message thru this forum in case people who understand your stuff are reading it.”

    Please somebody let me know who/how to reach this person to whom this post is responding?

    I am very interested in the info

    dcbreidenbach@aol.com

  29. Joyce Cauthen ——would you care to open up a private discussion-the items you raise should be tracked down.

    dcbreidenbach@aol.com

  30. To John Gaulti can’t truthfully say I didn’t know about Linda G. I was pushed into default by the servicer, who made increasing demands for junk fees and the like. I had intended to file various challenges but was embroiled in a logistical nightmare, working in another state from the locale of my property (Virginia) They “accelerated” and before the letter even got to me, it was over.

    My “reliance” such as may be at this point is that a forged deed is void, ab initio, if one can still believe in basic legal principles. But as has been pointed out often enough the courts proceed from the result they have predetermined and work backwards; thus my forged assignment from the servicer, as pretender-successor to the originator, to deutsche bank, will probably amount to no more than a momentary irritation, easily disposed of with a minimum of mumbo jumbo.

  31. Anonymous:

    I cannot thank you enough for your comments on collection rights.

  32. First — I am not Roger — I am not in foreclosure – I am not in default — and I have never been delinquent.
    Everyone has valid strategies. What works in court is what is important.

    Just addressing “collection rights” here — and my focus has always been on subprime “mortgage” loans – which were almost 100% refinances. . Many – if not most – of these loans were originally originated as a GES home loan purchase loan. Once these GSE loans went in to default — often falsely — the loans are charged-off. Once any loan is charged-off — only collection rights to the default charged-off debt remain. The original loan/note receivable — is gone.

    Debt buyers — many banks were big debt buyers — purchased collection rights to GSE charge-offs at steep discounts – with insurance covering the rest to GSEs.

    Then the banks would “refinance” the collection rights — these were the subprime refinances. At subsequent refinance — which were often solicited — the default debt is extended even higher. All with high interest rates above the market rates.

    Each time a “default” loan was refinanced again — it was only a modification of “collection rights” to the default debt. What you have is a false note — without a mortgage — and, therefore, is dischargeable in BK.

    GSEs participated by buying tranches to the subprime trusts — and sometimes combining them into their own “wrap” deals.

    Know I will get more grief from some here — but, I am ignoring. I respect all. .

  33. Anonymous –

    Could you enlighten us briefly about “collection rights”. Would greatly appreciate it.

    I hope we are on target down here in what we are doing. For example, one one case, the defaulted loan that never got into the trust in the first place should have been repurchased once it became 90 days delinquent according to the pool.

    However, the trustee has the fidiciary duty to request the repurchase of the loan by the Depositor (who is really the owner of the note and lien because it never transferred). Since the note was endorsed over to the trustee by the originator and an assignment was executed by the originator to transfer both the note and the lien to the trustee, we submitted our claims to the court showing that what we had – was a “Note” in transit because of repurchase of a note that never made it into the trust in the first place.

    Since the note and lien were claimed to be in the trust, the trustee was simply following the MLPA, but because the plan from day one was to foreclose on the lien, the trustee did not COMPLETE THE REPURCHASE REQUIREMENTS OF ENDORSING THE NOTE BACK TO THE DEPOSITOR NOR REASSIGNING THE NOTE AND LIEN BACK TO THE DEPOSITOR –

    THIS I BELIEVEVE WAS DONE TO ALLOW THE TRUSTEE TO SHOW THE COURT AND SAY THEY WERE HOLDING THE NOTE VIA THE CUSTODIAN PER THE PSA AND MLPA AND COULD PRESENT THE SAME AT THE COURT, WHICH THEY DID.

    WE ARGUED THAT THE TRUSTEE MAY HAVE BEEN HOLDING THE NOTE, BUT THEY DID NOT COME BY IT LEGALLY BECAUSE IT WAS ENDORSED OVER TO THEM BY A PARTY WHO HAD NO RIGHT TO DO SO AND WHICH WE BELIEVE HELD THE NOTE IN LIMBO FROM ENDORSING SO THEY COULD MAINTAIN COLLECTION RIGHTS THROUGH THE DATE OF FORECLOSURE.

    WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHT ABOUT THIS – A NOTE IN TRANSIT BACK TO THE DEPOSITOR BUT THE TRUSTEE IS STILL CLAIMING THEY ARE THE NOTE HOLDER AND CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT I GUESS THROUGH THE UCC CODE.

    EVERYONE IS GIVING THE SERVICER FAR TOO MUCH AUTHORITY – THE SERVICING AGREEMENTS ARE THE KEY TO WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TRUSTEE IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE DEPOSITOR, NOT THE SERVICER – LOOKS TO ME LIKE ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE ACCORDING TO THE PSA WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY – I BELIEVE THEY DO HAVE A FIDICIARY DUTY TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS TO TRANSFER THE NOTE (IF IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM BACK TO THE PARTY THAT DOES – THE DEPOSITOR. BECAUSE THEY RAN OUT OF LOANS AND MONEY IN 2008 – THERE WAS NO WAY THE DEPOSITOR COULD REPURCHASE OR SUBSITUTE THE MORTGAGE BECAUSE NOBODY WAS ORIGINATING ANY MORE LOANS – PERHAPS THEY DID DOUBLE UP FROM TIME TO TIME USING THE SAME LOAN IN SEVERAL POOLS TO COVER THEIR “SHORTAGES” PERHAPS. AFTER ALL I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY WOULD GO INTO THEIR PROFITS FROM THE INITIAL SALE –

    THE OCC’S AND SEC HEADS NEED TO ROLL, BUT FIRST THE CONGRESS TO WHOM THESE IDIOTS REPORT TO – REMEMBER, THE PSA AND THE SERVICING AGREEMENTS ARE NOT RECORDED ALONG WITH MOST SERVICING RIGHTS – SO IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, ANYTHING TRANSACTION AFFECTING THAT LIEN MUST BE RECORDED AS TO CREDITOR (13.001) AND (194.02 – i THINK THESE BOTH WORK IN SOME CASES AND CAN BE USED TO HELP WITH STANDING AS TO CREDITOR.

    No wonder we could not subsidize the homeowner for the first million that went into default which would have preserved the housing industry – they could not allow the homes to not be foreclosed on – nor modifiy the loans, after all – a free house for the lender appears to be the name of the game from what I am reading on this site. I am still confused somewhat about that.

    The states had their chance to protect the people and they did not – now we are answering to the feds who are clearly going to control both the state reps and the attorney generals, which will, in effect, allow the banks to control the feds while the feds control the people . Does this make sense?

    All of this has become far too complex for most readers –

  34. I did not cover the pool insurance but no matter how you slice the cake, insurance was paid because of a defaulted loan that existed in the pool. Is that money paid to the investors – where did it go? Are the investors in the securities receiving the funds? Does anyone know?

    The feds know and they will not convince me that they haven’t looked into it. Are the feds giving away the toxic assets to the communities / non profits for 100% while investors pay a huge discount – how is that money applied?

    What happened to the good ole days when we knew about such things and the servicer had to submit his detail sheet before foreclosing?

  35. USED CAR –

    Each and every state according to their foreclosure laws most surely incorporates the manner in which all funds will be applied to the Account – not the general ledger. In otherwords, do we not need to determine how the calculation for auctioning the property at foreclosure is to be applied.

    In otherwords, are the servicers bound by a calculation that does not allow them to collect or sell a property for more than what will be owed after all applications of payment have been made – for example, if MI insurance was received or will be received, hazard insurance proceeds from a claim, or reimbursement from any other source, errors and omissions, etc.

    Have the laws changed so that lenders can make money off of foreclosures? This did not use to be the case?

    If they are not allowed to make money over and above that for which they have not been reimbursed, then we can now add this to the host of misdeeds by the lenders.

    This would explain why lenders and servicers trump of the charges on occasions wouldn’t you say. For example my Katrina victim whose home was under five feet of water and not insurable was charged two – $1600 each winterrizing fees, 2- hazard insurance policies for $3,000 each when the house was not even insurable – instead of a $6000 deficit, she ended up with a $19,000 deficit in escrow even though she sent them a proceeds check for $60,000 to pay her loan balance in full.

    The woman was on the kidney transplant list and it took me 1 and 1/2 years to win a release of lien and get the charges removed because they tried foreclosing on her several times for the deficit balance. Now these are trumped up charges if ever and there was no MI insurance, etc – but if there had been – what would her bid have been?

    Two days after winning the release, this homeowner was sent home in a coffin as she was murdered in her temporary home here in Texas. Perhaps had the servicer not fought us so long for so little, this woman would have been back with her family sooner rather than later.

  36. @anonymous – I just dont’ get that whole business. I guess it’s because I still believe the notes and the securities cannot co-exist. If this is true, the notes are retained by the custodian as evidence of what the securities were derived from (dangling participle – how’s that, MS?) , that is, what notes in particular. I mean, they’d have to be kept or destroyed, and there is no evidence that the notes wereintended to be destroyed. The notes are like a receipt.
    But or and now they’re dead………
    The alternative is I own securities backed by notes backed by real property collateral instruments.

    Why is a trustee necessary to this kind of trust? Exactly what is the ‘trust’ created? If the latter scenario were the real one, I just don’t think a trustee would be necessary. Is he the guy to whom paymentss are made, and then literally does what exactly with them? What is their next voyage?
    Sound like I took a step back? Maybe it’s that it’s after 2 a.m. and I am in a fog, or maybe these are legit questions needing real answers.

    I know why a trustee is necessary to a deed of trust, and I also know the horrors of the abuse now being sanctioned by what was a legislative gift to lenders (non-judicial foreclosure). So, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn there is a similar scam with those trustees.

    But if it’s true the sec and the note cannot co-exist, as I’ve said, there are no mortgage-backed securities because the note was the only path to the collateral document, the dot or the mortgage. A derivative / security / bond is not collateralized by a dot or mortgage, is this not so? And if it’s true, then what there might be is guarantee-backed securities, which is why I am so interested in the post-default payment made by the servicer or someone. Performance under the guarantee wouldn’t kick in until the borrower fails to pay.
    Yes, I guess it is the depositor, if you say as I dont’ remember, who must endorse the note to the trust. The reality is that this didn’t happen, of course, since those guys just couldn’t be bothered in their rush to create yet more paper. So they executed docs where necessary and f/c in MERS name.

    They bought time to find or manufacture notes and get missing endorsements. What’s really abysmal about this is they counted on the court’s either ignorance or willful misapplication of various rules and statutes. Yes, I believe those guarantee amts paid are to be kept in a separate ledger. From FNMA’s website, it appears FNMA reinburses the guarantee payments by the servicers – called advances – to the servicer, at least for a certain amt of time and that this info is being withheld from courts and borrowers (which means bogus default numbers are being submitted. Even if the servicer were not reimbursed those advances and had to ‘eat’ them, these advances shold be separately plead since they are not monies due under the note to the noteowner and thus not ‘covered’ by the collateral.
    As I recall, In re Walker – bk ND CA? – was a case where discovery showed that the note never made it into the trust. (Can’t swear this was one of ‘those’ cases; think so – I have a LOT) But as usual, there will be a dfff of opinion among the judiciary as to what this means. Is the note enforceable and if so, by whom? The depositor was paid for the note, so as to the depositor, the note is retired, paid.. Why should the depositor nonetheless on any legal theory be able to enforce the note? If the note never went into the trust pursuant to the governing documents including the PSA, the note never went into the trust. and is therefore not enforceable by anyone claiming the right ‘under’ the trust. Who is the party who was harmed? Who caused the harm to the harmed party? Me thinks it’s the depositor who never got physical possession of the note in the first place (no doubt) and never itself endorsed the note to the trust.

    And if there really is a payment stream guarantee by the servicer (or someone), then when it is discovered the note never made it into the trust, there is going to be conflict between the servicer and the depositor and they will first try to take their’s out of the homeowner’s property.
    If the depositor didn’t perform, then it is the depositor who should pay. But, they will see to it that the servicer or other bankster comes up with the note now endorsed in blank, and claims holder status under the UCC, that is, someone with a right to enforce the note against the borrower by mere possession. That’s what’s going on just now (even if the note did make it into the trust).

    As I said somewhere yesterday, I see a conflict between an interpretation of the UCC allowing enforcement by a party who is not the real party in interest and the real party in interest rules.

    If I were able to get discovery, I would ask for the chain of custody of the note and dot from its inception, as well as dates of alleged endorsement.

    I haven’t been able to graqpple with the fact that actions are being taken in the name of the trustee without the trustee’s knowledge just yet but it is just exactly what they did with MERS.

  37. Roger –

    That’s why I’m missing the argument (if there is one, really) between my friend Mr. Soliman and yourself. Both of your arguments intersect at the collection of a defaulted loan AND a defaulted security.
    ——————————————————————
    Roger – What is your deal?Ambassadoro de Zoro

    No servicing functions; No Right of Substitution
    Only deleted files. Foreclosure is a recourse function- there is No condition precedent. Common Stock owns the HOLDCO investment and a TRS is the obligor at a 10 times goodwill ratio. There are no loans to speak of here.

    Okay, I’m a fraud and whomever you’re buying into is the person of the hour (trying to piggyback the GAAP arguments . . . way late in the game,
    “Fame – whats your name whats your name _”Bowie .

    So read the US Trustee report on Lehman Bros.
    See GAAP on Derecognition. It’s a FIRRA on steroids with the FDIC participating in a recalibrated trust by curing the problem with your home as an REO. Discover what is being disclosed under capitation of Liabilities back into assets-
    It’s a fixed charge on average of $300 M and isolated write down that is revalued with a swap of equity for your balance outstanding. It’s called a credit bid at a trustee sale brought by the creditor as alleged meaning a trust event held by a fiduciary is used to wash assets for the benefit of the collateral. YOUR HOME.

    I am lost as to why people will support the stupidity being published that favors a foreclosure. Forget about my comments and read for yourself.
    “I had a dream there were clouds in my coffee clouds in my coffee . .”Do you realize the “Conservator” is the foreclosing party here WITH NO STANDING untill I see these comments! and Trustee (Deutsche Bank recon Trust etc. – is replaced by an appointed Receiver? The debt collector is the creditor of record!

    There is no servicing to mention here “unless you let them back into the picture”. AND SOMEONE HERE RECITES BASIC CONVENTIONAL ASSGINEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS DOING JUST THAT (KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AND FORGET RELEIF – Yep Real Good —think there Einstein!)

    Look – The ABA wire details are represented by MERS. Preferred shares demand the payoff needed for a conventional foreclosure is a 10:1.1 ratio! Fannie and Freddie have to enter where the cost to cure this problem is $1.0 Million per every $100K foreclosure. It’s a fact the Trust Commons are charged to a write down.

    Anonarama is explaining a 1996 Trust recovery arguing a conventional foreclosure RESPA violation under a deed for bond scenario – – — which is (what the state and others want you to do) not what you have here.

    Please don’t drink and write…..Peace!

    expert.wintess@live .com

    (do tell the CA Appellate Court to reverse the 2010 decision to REMAND because someone said to someone that someone said MSoliman is a Ripp Uff .

    You lost a home and look like a flounder out of water —really flipping kicking and screaming – but its your attorney or brother in law or pizza man who said not to listen to these arguments . ” You really want the truth. Modifcation they told you . Call the BBB and call NACCA HOPE and Carmel Corn Manufacturers . Dont forget a chance to submit a file 10 times before its lost again – and then you go to sale. And the BBB is really dialed in ….OMG

    I want my …I want my.. . I want my …Mod if fi

    By Make him Stop
    expert.witness@live.com

  38. @Marie- yes, post foreclosures are tough because the banksters are relying on legal isms which they say mandate you should have made those arguments pre-foreclosure. Me? Of course I think it’s heinous when courts say welll, you were in default, so run along. I mean courts actually say it’s okay that the wrong party took (read stole) your house as long as the court thinks they otherwise complied with the court’s preceived version of the rules! It’s an outrage!
    Now, as to that Linda Green business. Is it that you couldn’t have known about her ‘scam’ prior to your foreclosure? I have not researched post-f/c avenues back to homes. Maybe someone here will. But if you didn’t know about the LG scam, you could hardly have asserted it prior to the f/c, right?

  39. Plus, ms, are you in the right forum? Not an invitation to leave – dont’ get me wrong! You are talking double-triple-what the heck account-entry master-degree (well, at least under-grad) isms to people who have no idea and will have no idea what you’re talking about. We are not good students of these principles. You might consider your debate with someone where it will produce some results. Like to see that.
    That is, unless you are sending a message thru this forum in case people who understand your stuff are reading it.

  40. MS – I think you do in fact know what you’re talking about. Reminds me of a friend of mine. He knows a lot about a certain subject – a lot. But, for the love of ivy, he is not able to convey what he knows in such a manner as to be understood. Just the way it is sometimes. I would like you to please take no offense, but perhaps you could add a person to your ‘business’ who has the gift of imparting information that we the great unwashed might be able to follow it! I’m just saying. I have to risk staring my own ignorance in the face when I read your stuff, or else avoid it to spare myself the trauma…………….

  41. foreclosure defense handbook’s.

    The horror and pain of the gibberish being sold out there . . . .its a money making event Wikipedia must ealy try and stop it from reoccouring over and over again!

    MSoliman

  42. Folks;

    Your Loan Is Not Directly Implied As A Trust Asset – Do Your Understand This Corollary?

    Your Loan / Note Is with the Bank That Originates the Receivables used to capitalize a loan pool. The Line Used To Fund the Pool Is A UCC I filed and nothing to do with a Deed of trust. ISOLATED REMOTE , COMMERCIAL LINES ..no mortgages !

    And Paid In Capital is by the likes of Duetsche Bank and Swaps of the the Commercial Lines from One Hand To Another For what G/L puposes and capitalizing the OWNERSHIP OF THE REIT AND AS TRS FOR THE TRUST

    Derecognition.
    Derecognition.
    Derecognition.

    Now We Have Someone Telling Use the G/L Is Not Important

    Cannot Take Much More Really

    [Get ready – some Lender Love WASTE named Ginger is circulating another defamatory Who is M.Soliman happy People and sad persons hate campaign. ]

    Stay focused and do argue the right argument.

    I’m here for the grand event – a webbased assets backed discussion / confrontation with any Wall Street top Gun out there. Securities attorneys’, fund manager, I was one of you Bubba , I know the deception sold as a PSA first hand . . and I am here waiting ….

    MSoliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  43. John

    And to add, ledgers have nothing to do with chain of assignment/endorsement – ?????? Here we go again ….

    only Depositor has that knowledge – and was only party to cause assignment/endorsement. Ledgers only have to do with payments and misapplied payments and advance payments – and SAs have knowledge as to swap out removal.

    ???????

  44. Sorry didn’t mean to post twice

  45. Anonymous, John Gault and other contributors:I truly appreciate your experience and insights; unfortunately Im “post foreclosure” and thus feel my arguments have narrowed considerably. I think at this point I must cling to Linda Greens lovely signature on my Assignment and hope for the bestI keep wondering whether the reliance argument vis a vis the trusts might run in favor of the players in the trusts. Ie if payments were being transferred and the various players pantomimes were more or less as expected, wouldnt the court notwithstanding some decisions to the contrary, decide to honor the intent of players?Not sure if I can explain what I really still dont understand

  46. Anonymous, John Gault and other contributors:

    I truly appreciate your experience and insights; unfortunately I’m “post foreclosure” and thus feel my arguments have narrowed considerably. I think at this point I must cling to Linda Greens lovely signature on my Assignment and hope for the best

    I keep wondering whether the reliance argument vis a vis the trusts might run in favor of the players in the trusts. Ie if payments were being transferred and the various players’ pantomimes were more or less as expected, wouldn’t the court notwithstanding some decisions to the contrary, decide to honor the intent of players?

    Not sure if I can explain what I really still don’t understand

  47. SYNONYMOUS, what if I have performance stats (ABSnet) that show 40% default rates inside seasoning, that is, inside the 2 year post closing time frame? 40% del, bk, f/c, reo. What is the real trigger event for receivership? (Maher?) Debt collection rights are triggered after extinguishment. Solimans’ chart/graph/explanation of lines (cash) for loans, loans for bonds, bonds for stock, and stock for cash solves the puzzle. Who’s got the button? The banks are holding the cash (from the investors and the swaps), the servicing rights (cash cow, don’t believe a thing about ‘pays peanuts’) and the stock. The worthless bonds are left to the hedge funds to be serviced after the “originated to fail” QSPE assets are charged off after insurance payoffs. Again, the house is like the left over carcass of all the fraud that occured after the note was signed by the borrower. They don’t need the house. They got paid already. Everybody got paid. The foreclosure is there to keep people paying and perpetrate the myth that somebody legitimately is owed the debt, much less as a secured party in interest..

    Hey, I said it before on this blog: Maybe the government is going to give all the property to the Red Chinese in exchange for the worthless Treasuries? Then who is your debt collector going to be? Go to the Grand Canyon Skywalk and see how the Chinese do things. Your fucked!

    That’s why I’m missing the argument (if there is one, really) between my friend Mr. Soliman and yourself. Both of your arguments intersect at the collection of a defaulted loan AND a defaulted security. If we could ever, EVER, talk about, create, solidify, a legal theorem that explains, utilizes, and combines the ACCOUNTING ISSUES THAT BACK UP THE STANDING ISSUES AND PUTS THE JUDGE IN A POSITION TO SAY “……I’d like to know, too, who is collecting on this loan?….”, by God, we’d be winners!

  48. Ian. Thanks it will be our first meeting with this judge. I pray he rules on the facts.my lis pendens is in hsbc, s way ! ” trustee” for the deutsche trust.

  49. John

    And to add, ledgers have nothing to do with chain of assignment/endorsement – only Depositor has that knowledge – and was only party to cause assignment/endorsement. Ledgers only have to do with payments and misapplied payments and advance payments – and SAs have knowledge as to swap out removal.

    But, of course, as to subprime refinances — we are always only dealing with modification of charge-off collection rights. Swapped out — just before anyone even actually refinanced. End result?? — no one documented as paid by a refinance.

    Can this ever be rectified?? Records destroyed.

  50. Abby in CA,

    Amazing this can even happen.

  51. john gault

    Not sure which comment you are referring to. Contrary to poster here – my comments are my own — I speak spontaneously from experience — and from my own research.

    You may be referring to my comment regarding NJ Courts — and responses to OTC — there is a settlement – but responses to court continue.

    “Securities Administrator” — was brought up in responses by Trustees to trusts to the Court (3 days ago).. SAs have huge role in ISDA (International Swap and Derivative Association) agreements. The SAs – are usually the same entity as the Master Servicer — but not always the case. Sometime the SAs are also the trustee — but responses from US Bank and Deutsche Bank to NJ Court — indicate no “information” conveyed to them — if SA was not named for the trust.

    SAs – in addition to ISDA agreements, are responsible for the collection ledgers which demonstrate all advances by Master Servicer to the trustee. They will be able to tell you when advances ceased – -and when loan became part of an ISDA agreement – that is, collection rights “swapped out” of the trust. (of course validity of original trust is in question).

    Some trusts name the SA — others do not — for those that do not – the trustee usually acts as SA..

    Thus, appears to me, that SAs -when also the Master Servicer, can manipulate past payments as they saw fit — are in control of records — that must be presented to trustee. Trustee relies on those records, and servicer never presents those records in court. Simply put — we do not know who Master Servicer/ SA is acting on behalf of — when they foreclose — but we know they are not acting on behalf of trustee to trust if the Master Servicer/SA ceased advanced payments. If SA was not named in Prospectus/Trust — trustee has no knowledge at all — even if they are named in foreclosure action – because trustee has no access to information.

    I will say this — servicers records are horrendous. Thus, if also acting as SA — also horrendous. And, by this process, no one knows WHO is trying to foreclosure upon them. No one EVER had the capacity or ability to negotiate a loan mod with their current creditor/collection rights holder. Every month of default was lost to borrower to renegotiate their loan — because the real party is concealed.

    Detrimental Reliance???? to Marie — and others — Yes — you were denied the right to know WHO — if anyone – you owe money to.

    Your opinion, John ?? if that is what you are referring to.

  52. Deb wynn- looks like you are moving along quite nicely, glad to see that you mentioned the A>D transfer, I went over that with you your 1st or 2nd time on LL, and very important that the ‘new’ judge is listening to you. Looking forward to May 4th, pls keep us all posted. NOTE: I have never seen one proper A>B>C>D chain of assignment in constructing a bankruptcy remote vehicle, which is what every single trust is supposed to be under NY Trust Law, under which 99% are organized. If you are missing the sponson and depositor then there is no true sale, REMIC is void, REIT is void, Trust is non-existent. Go get-em Deb!

  53. No, I want to reread the comment. I was into something else and now can’t find it.

  54. @ john gault,

    There are a few things regarding that in the article above—are you referring to the remittance ledgers?

  55. @anonymous, the other day you posted a comment which I thought was particularly interesting regarding
    payment streams / payments by servicers – maybe also about loan modification. I can’t find it. Where was that please?

  56. FORECLOSURE HOME PURCHASER IGNORES A RECORDED LIS PENDANS AND NOW TRIES TO STEAL HOME IN A COURT OF LAW

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/54280495/FORECLOSURE-HOME-PURCHASER-IGNORED-A-LIS-PENDANS-AND-NOW-TRIES-TO-STEAL-HOME-INSIDE-OF-A-COURT-OF-LAW-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Annul-Stay

  57. john gault,

    when the mortgages defaulted, the loan servicer will becomes a debt collector that is a fact admitted by aurora loan services. they collect mortgage payment from the borrowers and collect a debts from borrowers if the loan was in default. or the loan servicer will hire third vendors to collect a debt. if you notice the loan servicer will notify you that you are late in your payment and would disclose on their letters on the bottoms of the page that ” they are attempting to collect a debt” this is disclosure needed to comply with FDCPA Act. and if you ignore those notices from the loan servicer, the loan servicer will hire a debt collectors disguising as a ” substituted trustee” in order to record a NOD. if you read the NOD at the bottom of the page, its very clear the disclosure ” we are attempting to collect a debt” this compliance alone under FDCPA is an admission that they a debt collectors under the FDCPA ACT. another fatal defect . don’t be deceived by these debt collectors hiding as a “trustee”. everytime you sued them under FDCPA they will claim an exemption because they are the ” trustees”. in my case the federal judge dismiss my FDCPA claims because my property is a rental property and I took out loans for “business purposes” which i filed an appeal in the 9th district court” against the pretender trustee, the loan servicer and the law firm who file the motion for relief. the court has not yet decided on this matter. my arguments under FDCPA is that the inception of the origination of my mortgages is to refinance to lower the mortgage payment, however, at the time of closing escrow, my husband doesn’t want to move because there was a problem of toxic hazzard, the acrylic painting they put on the ceiling and its a big job.too many problems to be fixed in order for us to live when tenants moved out. so, we decided to fixed it and spent money to rehabilitate the property and was vacant for a year before i decided to rent it out because my children don’t like to move and get used to the house we are living in at that time.
    the question here by the time the mortgages defaulted , it was already a rental so under FDCPA is not qualified because I used it for business. my arguments here was that rental property units 1- to 4 unit buildings is not a business loan, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will only buy 1-4 unit buildings and not ” business purposes” mortgages. the purpose of the origination of my loan is to “refinance” secured by my property to lower the interest rates and affordable monthly payment. i did not obtained this loan for” business purposes” or else i will not be approved of my refinancing. my understanding in “business loan” you are running a a business company and obtained loan through commercial banks and the collateral of that loans is tthe “business asset itself how much your business worth. well, again i am sharing my experiences with you all so you could have ideas on moving forward with your litigation. i think it is easy to understand if the subject property is your principal residence under FDCPA ACT but again to plead under the ACT, you should understand how these debt collectors becomes a “trustee’. they become a trustee if you don’t pay the arrears by recording a substituted trustee by naming themselves as ” trustee” these actors are good actors but has a bad script.

  58. E. Tolle

    Thanks. Never can stay away — this happened once before. And, never cut and paste — have no need to. All fabricated by certain party. Never could figure out the reason for his personal vendetta. But, my commitment goes beyond. Will ignore.

  59. Folks in AZ. My case civ phx. 1587 jat. Wynn v toll brothers. New visiting judge Robert Clive jones. We have oral argument 4th may. Watch thus judge

  60. Trustee is a foreclosure mill atty/ agent for the foreclosing servicer who is not the owner in due course and neither the correct party in interest
    first base – proove standing 2 nd base if you get to it – is there a valid claim being that I owe the money to you so show me how you come to own the asset on your boooks being that there us a
    A defunct Bsnk and a conservator/ FDIC innthe middle no mention of deutsche Bsnk depositor and it purportedly is, my loan is in a deutsche trust listed as REO…think about this
    now here’s a spanner in the works. 3- was the security instrument treated innsuch a way to deliver absolute perfected title is the certificate of title perfected ummm … Ato d transfers do not count. ( Omg we have carrot juice) I’m revisting ucc I may be way off..,

  61. And did you know that when a bankster comes after you, you can fire back that the bankster/service “failed to join an indispensable
    party”, ( that party being the noteowner) and now that I think about it, you can make this defense, which I believe is an affirmative defense, even when the bankster / servicer alleges possession of the note.
    You have to make this assertion as soon as possible, because it’s one of those use it or lose its.
    Don’t take my word for this – google, google scholar, or yahoo those words (“failure to join an indispensable party”) and read at least some of the stuff that comes up.

  62. @boots – I don’t believe a trustee is a debt collector, but most alleged dot substituted ‘trustees’ are not trustees – they are agents for the servicers (or someone). An agent for the servicers (or anyone) is NOT a trustee. Period.
    So, the person trying to collect from you IS a debt collector, but that person is NOT a trustee.

    If I were filing bk, as to any lender on my home, I would write “unknown” – I would never enter the name of the servicer. If I had already filed bk, and I had put the servicer in there, I would file an amended schedule changing it to unknown or as boots said, disputed,, etc. Tthis is in the wrong order – sorry can’t this para moved.
    The debt collector is not a trustee because he is acting as an agent for the servicer (and not even the true beneficiary of the deed of trust who is the note-owner). Agents cannot foreclose. I don’t care what anything says. The trustee has duties to both the lender and the borrower. Think about it. If an agent (for anyone in the act) can foreclose, why would an agent even be necessary? Why put another party between the payee of the note (whether that payee is the original payee or the payee by transfer / endorsement) and the borrower? Why not skip the dot ‘trustee’ altogether and just have the noteowner/beneficiary foreclose? Why have someone else do it?

    The dot, as I have tried to explain, is a three party instrument – not a two party. Tthe trustee was put in there legislatively to be faithful to the terms of the deed of trust, the contract, and to enforce and protect the rights of the other two parties – the beneficiary and the borrower. That’s how lenders got to skip judicial foreclosre – that is, having to file an action in court and getting a judgment before foreclosing: they got the legislation to allow them not to have to go to court and get those judgments, by placing another party in the act – in the dot- to enforce and protect the rights of the lender and borrower.
    Debt collectors only act for , protect and endorce the rights of only one of those parties.

  63. @usedcarguy – I saw that LaSalle case cited in another case in early 2009. The judge was unmoved and allowed the servicer to continue….
    The unfortunate homeowner did not know to appeal.
    When you’re in federal juris, and a judge hands down a decision which baffles you, you can file a motion under Rule 52 requesting clarification. You can also file for reconsideration under rules 59 and 60. There are time constraints for these, generally.

    Which reminds me, now that MERS isn’t allowing foreclosures in its name by the bankster / servicers, whoevertheyares, we’re in “Round II” with our latest ‘challenge’, the alleged possession of a bearer note and who can enforce. So, Round I, MERS (the illusion) v American Homeowners, heinously went to “MERS” (i.e., its members) because they sneaked up on us and the judiciary. Well, that’s one way to look at it.

    Round II is shaping up (or is it down?) as “Alleged Possessor of Alleged Bearer Note v American Homeowners.” or alternatively, “Alleged Trustee of Alleged Trust v American Homeowner”. ( Give us your own name – we need some laughs around here)

    Just now, I think there’s a conflict between any provision of the UCC which provides for carte blanche enforcement of (alleged) bearer notes and the real party in interest rules, at least in federal
    jurisdictions. In other words, if the UCC says any Joe with possession of a Note endorsed in blank can enforce same, is this in conflict with rule 17, etc. which mandates that an action be prosecuted (or defended) by the real party in interest? The real party in interest is the person with the right to payment, that is, the person who will suffer the loss, essentially, by the note’s non-enforcement. This is not the person, as this is playing out and will play out, in (alleged) possession of the note, like the stinking servicers.
    And btw, what is the servicer doing with a note that is supposed to be held by the custodian? If the servicer actually does have the note, then I’d bet the farm the endorsements were never made, or at least they were not made at the time of the alleged events, which changes everything.

    If there is a conflict between the UCC and rules like
    FRCP 17, there is going to have to be straight-on resolution. Maybe someone will weigh in.

    Which reminds me of the fact that MERS has claimed in litigation that promissory notes secured by interests in real property are NOT negotiable instruments, per se, and are not governed by
    articles 3 or 4 ( which as I recall without looking address the ‘bearer’ issues), but rather by article 9.

    Did you know that when a bankster alleges to have your original promissory note that there is no way this can be a ‘fact in evidence’ until and unless testimony has been elicited from YOU that that is your original signature? Believe me, there is no one else in the act who can so testify.

    If the original isn’t produced, it’s also possible the alleged endorsements are on someone else’s note (or some piece of paper), since a COPY of a note is literally just stapled together. Don’t even know if that endorsment page – of the copy – has anything at all to do with your note. I guess it’s clear I don’t put anything past that gang. Maybe I didn’t make this clear – yes, I believe they would staple a phoney endorsement page to a copy of your note.
    I’m pretty certain I’ve seen it done.

    There is also a rule of evidence, Federal Rule 1002, the best evidence rule, which mandates that the original of a document be produced when the contents of that document are at issue. An endorsement is a “content’, at least in my opinion. There are state versions mirroring this rule, also. In Nevada, it’s NRS 52.235. (Young v Nevada Title, 103 Nev 436)

    Please remember – I’s not an attorney and this iz not legal advice…just recollections from cases I’ve read.

  64. not to confuse the word trustee, i will give some input and correct me if i am wrong. in foreclosure proceedings as my experienced dealing with different trustees, there are only three “trustees” involved on this procedure
    1. one the original trustee on deed of trust usually an escrow company, title company or sometimes the original lenders.
    2. the substituted trustee when the loans is defaulted usually a debt collectors or third party.
    3. when the loan has been securitized then there is also a trustee involved usually deutch bank as trustee for certain trust, HSBC as trustee, us national bank as trustee and etc. etc. in my case i included the loan servicer, the trussee on a securitized trust if any, the substituted trustee in this case is a debt collector company or debt collectors law firm as my defendants. i did not include the original lender on its origination because mostly they are no longer doing business as a company.
    the loan servicer usually are the one responsible to report any derogatory report to the credit bureaus. the loan servicer who are actually listed as creditor in the credit report. so, if you file BK and listed loan servicer as your creditor then you have to make sure you check disputed, unliquidated, contingent on your schedule D, creditors holding secured claims. when the foreclosure lawyers of pretender lenders quickly filed a motion for relief from stay, their fatal mistakes is to rely to those company who created those fabricated documents such as LPS, Doxx and other vendors who used robo signers to make the documents looks like a legal documents. once the network law firm was hired it was this law firm to research who is the beneficiary on those defaulted loans, if there was no assignment found then the attorneys will ask the loan servicer to execute an assignment of deed prior to filing a motion from relief because standing is very important in the BK case. however,, the NOD has been already mail out to the homeowners asking them to pay the arrears , or have 30 days to dispute the debt . this is were we went send letter for debt validation to the debt collectors who sent the NOD. the NOD stated that the beneficiary of your loan is your loan servicer. then there is also a substituted of trustee naming the securitized trust as the beneficiary and then comes the assignment of deed usually MERS is the beneficiary. so for an ordinary person this is very confusing. when you look for MERS ID it will tell you different investors usually the depositors of the trust. so by the time you review this documents with different beneficiaries you could tell something wrong. it is not right. this is the fatal defect that makes the foreclosure void. one of my case, the judge understood that i plead with particularity about the wrongful foreclosure because the substituted trustee beneficiary of my mortgage is deutsche banks as trustee as of 2009, but only the in 2010 that the assignment was executed. so how could deutsch be a beneficiary in 2009, when it was only 2010 that deutsch has that interest as beneficiary? that documents prove fatal defect in chain of title in foreclosure proceedings. but the judge still gave them the benefits of the doubt and order the attorneys to write a brief how did deutsch became a beneficiary after the fact. i don’t know how the attorneys could do it but i guess they are working hard now. i am just sharing my experience as a pro se.

  65. Debi – to avoid ‘funky’ transcripts, have your order form for the audio cd with you and request it right after the hearing. 25.00 – 30.00 and see if you can wait for it.

  66. joyce,

    just give me your contact number, I will call you. my case is very complex when i filed my chapter 11. maybe you will understand if i will explain it to you.

  67. from “Residential Mortgage Issues in Consmer Bankruptcies, Norton Annual Survey of Bankruptcy Law”

    If a loan has been securitized, the real party in interest is the trustee for the securitization trust, not the servicing agent. (See LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Nomura Asset Capital Corp.., 180 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469-71 (S.D.N.Y 2001). accord, LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. 237 F.Supp2d 618, 631-634 (D.Md.2002) . The rule does not turn on who is in possession of the note.
    In the LaSalle-Nomura case, the bank brought an action against Nomura Asset Securities Corp., the asset securitization trustee, “as Trustee for Certificate Holders of Asset Securitization Corporation Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1997D-5.” Defendants moved to dismiss, in part on the grounds that the real party in interest, pursuant to Rule 17, was the mortgage servicer. In denying the motion, the court found that the real party in interest was the trustee of the trust (the plaintiff in the case), and not its loan servicer (which had not been joined in the litigation). LaSalle-Nomura, 180 F.Supp.2d at 469-471.

  68. @ deb wynn:

    I LOVE that carrot analogy! 😉

    So the question I still have is:

    If the carrots (mortgages) have been made into carrot juice(securities?)—and the juice has either been drunk or evaporated—how can they legally foreclose—ON ANYONE?????

    I’m getting thirsty…

  69. I love you all, am in gratitude to all who post, Neil Anonymous and Maher Soliman, THANKYOU.
    personally, i dont give a a flying fig who said what first or whos paste n copy it is…or who spelled what wrong, come on…we live in desparate times for sure.
    and please no whining about money spent just because it did not bear immediate fruit.my first attorney point blank refused to file because i couldnt afford a lawsuit this big, well im still on it nearly 3 yrs later, but i do appreciate the attys honesty.. how can one attorney do this alone, WE NEED EXPERTS i am only as good as my experts and my attorney decides strategy, somewhere between anon, neil and soliman is the best shot, only my humble opinion, but Maher soliman has been very patient with me, a year ago he told me as simply as he could, “we have carrots, we turn them into carrot juice, thus…no more carrots lol, for those who understand what they did with the security instrument.. well thats a darn good analogy..i know the judge might not appreciate carrots…but what im saying is its tough…not many attorneys or experts are willing to work as hard as the aforementioned, this stuff will kill you, slowly, so my point is they sacrifice too.THANKYOU FOR YOUR HELP.

  70. Glad you’re back ANONYMOUS, need you here and plenty!

    Please don’t let Dr. Bronners get to you. for what it’s worth, I’ve caught him plagiarizing other people’s work on several occasions. The only reason I checked is because his writing suddenly became very lucid, and I wondered why the change?

    Stick around, would you?

  71. Boots: Wow

    I am concerned however that just because they said you were in a trust but you later found out that they said you were not, somebody recorded a lien on that property and therefore, it would not be considered unsecured. You don’t want to miss an opportunity to cover the property in the BK by simply stating that it was unsecured when in fact it may not be if due diligence has not been done.

    HSBC one of the underwriters and acting trustee perhaps denied it was their’s, but who was the original lender and whose Deed of Trust Lien was recorded and where does the chain stand. It is possible this is a repurchase or substitute out of the trust and is in a lender’s bank portfolio which means the lien is still active.

    One lender is claiming that they cannot prove the loan is in the trust by looking at the mortgage loan schedule, but has continued to try to foreclose based on their being the “note Holder” and with assignments of course that were filed 5 years after the note was supposedly sold to the trust.

    Just have to be careful –

    What does the latest title search show as to creditor, etc.

  72. we all talk about the “trustee” in a securitized trust, but we forgot to ask if that certain trust described in PSA agreement was indeed followed according to the agreement. I found out most of the trustees in securitized mortgages are all empty pool meaning that there were no actual transfer of the asset going to the trust.
    in my opinion, i read seven of the PSA agreement on all my properties, but none of my mortgages has ever been in the pool or in the trust. its an empty pool. i called one of the trustee in one of my property HSBC as the trustee for DALT xxxxx , I even talked to the one handling the account itself. According to her, my name cannot be found on the trust nor my property address, I said what do you mean? she said that my property didn’t belong to the trust. bingo, in my reorganization plan my treatment on this loan is unsecured loan and I was discharged from Bk. my credit report said the amount i owed is zero. what does it mean then ? it was totally wipe out.

  73. ask the question? How was the money I paid on my loan transferred to the investor (whoever you say it might be at a point in time).

    If money was paid on your loan (advanced to the trust if you were in default, then you have a right to know how much was advanced on your behalf.

    why isn’t someone asking? If we consider that the depositor paid off the original lender in full and alledgedly took ownership of that note and lien, does not note and lien not belong to the investor if the Depositor (Purchaser) agreed to offer it as a mbs certificate. The investor paid for it so where is the paperwork – the SEC knows the intent was for the loan to secure the investment the investor was making – so if servicers, trustees and other parties are hanging on to insurance proceeds, etc etc., that doesn’t hunt does it? This whole thing is wacky.

    can anyone explain? The originator got his money but it did not pay off your loan as it merely purchased the note and lien which now belongs to the investors with the administrator trustee. How can servicers, etc intercept proceeds that do not belong to them. – This is a scary situation.

    If the loan did not transfer into the trust, then hey, the note and lien would not have transferred or may have been repurchased and if so, it would be the Depositor who would collect it back from the originator and then return the invenstor’s money or substitute the collateral with another like loan.

    We have been doing this till the cows come home – except we remitted our proceeds to the legal party and if loan does not meet requirement due to default ext, then it is repurchased or substituted. Guess someone wanted to keep the proceeds from government tarp or it was paid out to other parties unknown for whatever reason, I have no idea since they have not proven they have an interest or who they are? I hope I am not confusing anyone but I am looking for answers to these questions.

    Making believe loans are in a trust when they are not is someothing that can be determined within a very short period of time – Like trump said – stupid. And now borrowers and homeowners along with investors are being scammed beyond anything imagainable.

    Can we not get our own committee together and get up there instead of talking about this same stuff day in and day out.

  74. ANONYMOUS

    Thank you for your support and the others that contribute. I have learned a great deal from all who post on this site. Three years ago I thought this was garbage and considered walking from my house even though I was current with the payment. But after research and tips from NG I have found the truth and will continue to seek the truth. Further I would rather stand an fight than pay for the crimes committed by Wall Street and the banks,. All of this is the truth in which the US legal systems ignores.

    Again thank you and the others for your participation within our battles.

  75. I am concerned about what we are all saying can and cannot be done by the trustee and the master servicer. Do we have proof that the master servicer cannot and is not operating under a master servicer contract authorized by the PSA.

    If the money given to them on behalf of a borrower or the borrower himself but is not sent on to the trust if indeed the loan moved into the trust, then this would be the total ultimate scam of all times.

    Why would the SEC and the Attorneys General not review the investor accounting reports that go in with the servicer’s collections for the month and determine which general ledgers of which companies are actually receiving the money or is the money being held by the Servicer. None of these questions are answered as far as I know, does anyone know.

    A servicer collects the money, any insurance proceeds, etc etc., so it is a very simple measure to verify the proceeds received and how they were submitted via the investor reports or trustee bank accounts. If it isn’t there, then somebody is in a lot of trouble.

    In all my 45 years in the business it was a simple matter to collect and payout and this gives the appearance of stupidity across the board with respect tothe all regulatory, internal auditors, federal auditors –

    It would take about ten minutes to follow a loan if someone would walk in and ask to see it which is by the way, every borrower’s right to do so, at least it used to be. Copies of insurance proceeds and posting data may not be looked at, but the individual file and general ledger can and should be looked at with your attorney or cpa.

    This whole thing is out of wack – Like Trump said, the government is really stupid and just look at which they have done by not allowing the regulatory to do their job if that is indeed what has happened. But somebody needs to ask why?

  76. In addition, the chain of assignments and endorsements must follow the PSA. By PSA it is the Depositor that purchases loans from originator – and it is only the Depositor that can cause assignment/endorsement to the trust. By the PSA there is no Power of Attorney to trustee or servicer to cause assignment. Thus, really need affidavit/witness from the Depositor to testify. Since mortgages cannot be passed onto security investors — assignment/sale of mortgage stops with the Depositor — it is a Depositor owned trust.

    At this time, for the subprime trusts only , payments for current borrowers are not being transferred by servicer to trustee — neither would a payoff by refinance be transferred. And, if those in default suddenly won the lottery and could pay loan in full — neither would this payoff be directed to the trust/trustee.

    Foreclosure proceeds are not going to the Trust/Trustee — or servicer to the trust. None of these parties can be plaintiff in foreclosure actions – and cannot be stated current creditor in BK.

    This makes complete sense anonymous—follows the securitization trail anyway—-query how to tell if trust is bought out though?

    Another twist gets sometimes to same end is a trust that failed on the frontend for whatever reason. Either the defunct and in bankruptcy originator/lender albeit nominal or the depositor if it was transferred and filed to meet UCC art 9

  77. Just one more thing to Marie—

    This take you back to origination — fraud in the origination — subprime mortgages were not mortgages at all – relied on false information. .

    And, once they got you in one — they were never going to let you out.

  78. Thanks to my friends.

    Said I would only post if I feel I need to.

    As anyone been reading responses to NJ Court original OTC? Go to New Jersey Courts — click on “here” for “in the matter of Residential mortgages” — and go to responses by US Bank, NA and Deutsche Bank.

    Interesting regarding recent response and — “Non-SA Trusts” — SA standing for Securities Administrator. So — quote from latest filing —

    “The Trustee does not receive from mortgage loan servicers loan-level data that would have enabled it to provide responsive information concerning Non-SA Trusts (in Appendix A). ”

    Oh — so they only have information for trusts for which there is a named Securities Administrator. Most often, where a Securities Administrator is named that party is also the Master Servicer. Security Administrator role is closely tied to ISDA Agreements (International Swap and Derivative Association)..

    Yes, SaveAmerica — Deutsche is also a securities underwriter (securities were sold to security underwriters) . Just never saw them as a “servicer” — but could be wrong. .

  79. ANONYMOUS
    Please stay. I know what you are saying. You are not going anywhere because the people need you.You are 100% right. We want to see the “Servicer Remittance ledger and the Trustee’s Remittance ledger and the game will be clear the default will be declared null and void. We need to ask the attorney representing Servicer and Trustee to state the authority to identify who exactly he is representing.In the United States, a law firm usually cannot represent a client if its interests conflict with those of another client, even if they have separate lawyers within the firm. A prohibited or undisclosed representation involving a conflict of interest can subject an attorney to disciplinary hearings, the denial or disgorgement of legal fees, or in some cases (such as the failure to make mandatory disclosure), criminal proceedings.The consequences for attorney who represents conflicting interests include malpractice liability and professional discipline. Lack of disclosure to the court can result in a court later finding extrinsic fraud and possibly setting aside the earlier court order, as well as disciplinary action against the attorney.Trustee is just the named Plaintiff and attorney is getting instructions from the Servicer or the LPS, Docx etc and shares the legal fees with non attorneys(LPS, Docx)

  80. @ saveamericaone,

    Just WHO is the “BUYER of bad debt”?

    And WHY would someone pay money to a servicer for a “loan mod”, when the “reality” of the loan that the servicer is “servicing” cannot be proven?

    I’m just a layman(woman) trying to figure all this out!!!!

  81. Thank you Anonymous

    From Reuters:
    In a brief statement in response to questions from Reuters, the agency said: “The IRS is aware of questions in the market regarding REMICs and proper ownership of the underlying mortgages as set out in federal tax law, and is actively reviewing certain aspects of this issue.”

  82. Sorry ‘annoymous’ whoever you are

    DB is not always the trustee but a ‘xxx national banking association’ for any transaction of the MEMBERS who are in Agreement (Lehman, Bear Stearns, Structured Asset Securities, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, BONY) during default event will send in a party with a title to confuse you.

    TRUSTEE in relationship to the default event of a consumer will wear a hat to collect money at long-arm reach for the BUYER of the bad debt and is not the TRUST.

  83. M.Soliman, on April 29, 2011 at 2:41 am said:
    Neil;

    You are funny today ascribing to the ethics of a good accounting or securities board would ever do this kind of stupidity.

    HELLO!

    Challenge – Let’s see what insight as COO you believe to be substantive omissions of material facts with intent to take property by deception?

    EX-34 (n)
    (logo) KPMG
    KPMG LLP
    303 East Wacker Drive
    Chicago, IL 60801-5212
    Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
    The Board of Directors
    The Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association:
    We have examined the compliance of the
    Corporate Trust Services division of
    Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Company) with the servicing criteria set forth in
    Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued
    (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended)
    residential mortgage-backed securities,
    commercial mortgage-backed securities and
    other asset-backed securities, for which Wells Fargo Bank NA provides
    master servicing,
    trustee,
    securities administration or
    paying agent services,
    excluding transactions issued by any agency or instrumentality of the U.S. government or any government sponsored entity (the Platform), except for servicing criteria
    1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii),
    which Wells Fargo Bank NA has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2006.
    Management is responsible for Wells Fargo Bank NA’s compliance with those servicing criteria.
    KPMG responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about Wells Fargo’s compliance based on our examination.
    KPMG’s examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) – test basis evidence about Wells Fargo Bank NA’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances
    determining whether Wells Fargo Bank NA processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria
    KPMG procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by Wells Fargo Bank NA during the period covered by this report.
    KPMG tested Wells Fargo Bank NA’s individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether Wells Fargo Bank NA processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.
    KPMG procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by Wells Fargo Bank NA during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions.
    We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.
    (See Accompanying KPMG management Assessment of Compliance
    “With Applicable Servicing Criteria for: servicing criteria 1122(d)(4)(i),
    ‘Wells Fargo Bank NA’ has engaged various vendors to perform the activities required by these servicing criteria.
    Wells Fargo Bank NA determined these vendors are not considered a ‘SERVICER” as defined in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB
    Wells Fargo Bank NA elected to take responsibility for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to each vendor as permitted by
    Interpretation 17.06 of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance Manual of Publicly Available Telephone Interpretations (“Interpretation 17.06”).
    Wells Fargo Bank NA asserted it has policies and KPMB LLC procedures in place designed to provide assurance vendors’ activities comply in all material respects with servicing criteria applicable to each vendor.
    Wells Fargo Bank NA solely responsible for determining it meets SEC requirements to apply Interpretation 17.06 for:
    The vendors [- – – – – – ]
    Related criteria as described in its assertion
    KPMG performed no procedures with respect to Wells Fargo Bank NA interpretation 17.06.
    KPMG examination disclosed noncompliance with
    Criterion 1122(d)(3)(i)
    Wells Fargo Bank NA during 12 months ended 12/31/2006.
    Certain monthly investor or remittance reports (10D?) included errors in the calculation and/or reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets.
    KPMG opinion material non-compliance described above
    compliance is determined based on Interpretation 17.06 belongs to Wells Fargo Bank NA not KPMG
    KPMG attests to their limited testing to be in compliance in material respects servicing criteria
    For past 12 months 12/31/2006. /S/ KPMG LLP CHICAGO IL 60601 3/1/2007
    KPMG LLP
    303 EAST WACHER DRIVE
    CHICAGO IL 60801-5212

    (NOTE: 10K’S FILED 1ST QUARTER OF FOLLOWING YEAR.)IMPORTANT!

    QUESTION ON THE TERMS:
    Thesaurus of ‘Vendor’
    cheap-jack, huckster – a seller of shoddy goods
    merchandiser, merchant – a businessperson engaged in retail trade
    hawker, packman, peddler, pedlar, pitchman – someone who travels about selling his wares (as on the streets or at carnivals)
    selling agent – someone who sells goods (on commission) for others
    dealer – a seller of illicit goods; “a dealer in stolen goods”
    underseller – a seller that sells at a lower price than others do; “he went all over town looking for undersellers”
    Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

    IN ‘NON-COMPLIANCE’ WHO WERE THE ‘VENDORS’ WELLS FARGO BANK NA AGREE THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE AND WHAT DOES ‘VENDOR’ MEAN? ven•dor also vend•er (v n d r)
    n.
    1. One that sells or vends: a street vendor; a vendor of software products on the Web.
    2. A vending machine.
    ________________________________________
    vendor [ˈvɛndɔː], vender [ˈvɛndə]
    n
    1. (Law) Chiefly law a person who sells something, esp real property
    2. (Engineering / General Engineering) another name for vending machine

    Vendor Financing
    The act or practice of a company lending money to a customer so the customer can buy the company’s products. Vendor financing allows the company to increase its sales because the customer likely would not have bought from the company otherwise. However, it carries a great deal of credit risk, especially since the customer may or may not have a good credit history and may not pay back the debt. In a situation in which the company is not repaid, it essentially has bought its own products and given them to the customer. In such cases, it writes off the loss as bad debt. See also: Credit sale. http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vendor+Financing

    Vendor Financing

    What Does Vendor Financing Mean?
    The lending of money by a company to one of its customers so that the customer can buy products from it. By doing this, the company increases its sales even though it is basically buying its own products.

    Investopedia explains Vendor Financing
    This is a sneaky method a company can use to increase sales. It is also very risky, as the companies it lends money to are usually not very financially stable and may never pay back the money. If they don’t pay back the debt, the lending company will just write-down the loss as a bad debt.
    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vendorfinancing.asp
    Filed Under: Stocks
    Related Terms
    • Bad Debt
    • Big Bath
    • Cook the Books
    • Floor Planning
    • Restatement
    • Time-Sale Financing
    • Vendor Note
    • Volume Discount
    • Voodoo Accounting
    • Write-Down
    • More Related Terms

    Showing results for vendor financing.
    Vendor Financing Definition
    Vendor Financing – Definition of Vendor Financing on Investopedia – The lending of money by a company to one of its customers so that the customer can buy …
    http://www.investopedia.com > Dictionary
    Vendor Note Definition
    … The use of vendor financing can make it easier for a company to increase its sales volume, but in doing so it also incurs the risk of the buyers it finances …
    http://www.investopedia.com > Dictionary
    Time-Sale Financing Definition
    … Dealer Financing; Debtor-In-Possession Financing; Financing; Vendor Financing; More Related Terms. Related Links. What Is A Cash Flow Statement? …
    http://www.investopedia.com > Dictionary
    In-House Financing Definition
    … Vendor Financing; More Related Terms. Related Links. The Importance Of Your Credit Rating – Do you know how your borrowing activities affect your credit rating? …
    http://www.investopedia.com > Dictionary
    Dealer Financing Definition
    … Vendor Financing; More Related Terms. Related Links. Business Owners: A Guide To Qualified Retirement Plan Loans – Thinking of adding a loan feature to your …
    http://www.investopedia.com > Dictionary
    Floor Planning Definition
    … Inventory Accounting; Vendor Financing; More Related Terms. Related Links. Will Corporate Debt Drag Your Stock Down? – Borrowed funds …
    http://www.investopedia.com > Dictionary
    CFA Level 1 – Liabilities
    … 9.20 – Types Of Off-Balance-Sheet Financing. Types of Off-Balance-Sheet Financing. … Companies use take-or-pay contracts to ensure that their vendor makes the …
    http://www.investopedia.com > Exam Preps
    Accounts Receivable Financing Definition
    … Related Terms. Accounts Receivable – AR; Accounts Receivable Aging; Asset Financing; Capital; Corporate Finance; Vendor Note; Working Capital; More Related Terms …
    http://www.investopedia.com > Dictionary
    Retirement of Securities Definition
    … which means debt has been paid off. Filed Under: Bonds, Retirement. Related Terms. Buy Back; Non-Cash Charge; Security; Vendor Financing; …
    http://www.investopedia.com > Dictionary
    Detecting Two Tricks Of The Trade
    … is writing down bad debts, you should question why it is lending money so freely to companies with credit problems – the answer could be vendor financing. …

    Top 8 Ways Companies Cook The Books – Find out more about the fraudulent accounting methods some companies use to fool investors.

    Top 8 Ways Companies Cook The Books
    by Rick Wayman (Contact Author | Biography) http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/071502.asp#13040966139092&close

    1) ABC trustee for “certificate holders” to XYZ trust — they are the named plaintiff — not the servicer. But, it is actually the servicer that is proceeding against you.

    M.Soliman – There is no servicer to speak of in a Mortgage Asset Backed trust

    If foreclosure plaintiff is the Servicer, the Servicer is not (most often) the real party/creditor — they must state on whose behalf they are acting.

    M.Soliman – The “Master Servicer is the Trustees select appointment.

    They will then name the Trust/Trustee — who is also not the real party/creditor since security investors are also not the creditor.

    M.Soliman – The trustee is the creditor with Preferred Trust Shares owed the preference in a BK. But if these are BK remote and isolated – why are we having this discussion!

    Would need witness or affidavit from Trustee regarding the chain and mortgage collection rights whereabouts – and all documents — this is how Robo-signing fraud became rampant

    M.Soliman – There is no Robo Homo issues here …The Debt collectors are working on behalf of appointment by a receiver under the FDIC as the conservator. Insulated

    In addition, the chain of assignments and endorsements must follow the PSA. By PSA it is the Depositor that purchases loans from originator – and it is only the Depositor that can cause assignment/endorsement to the trust.

    M.Soliman -This comment is referring to deal structure whereby the Depositors and the Purchaser are one in the same in common stock for receivable’s swap – its valued Derecognition.

    Think about what you’re publishing here

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  84. Dear ANONYMOUS, on April 29, 2011 at 6:19 am
    Please you can’t leave.

    M. Soliman.
    You are a confusing man.

    Why did you not explain about the ‘B’ Certificates a long time ago?

    Why are you here?

  85. uprootedone

    google Richard Fine esq. It is unbelieveable what the Court System in Los Angeles is doing to people. It is beyond Corruption. That is why Los Angeles looks like Crap. From the Potholes in the roads, to not haveing a Football team, LA Department of Water and Power giving false water bills etc……. All Backdoor Deals.

    The above are all allegations.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  86. To Anonymous:

    You said (to m.soliman):

    “For your satisfaction, I am going to greatly reduce my postings here. I have done what I can — with honesty and concern for all the harm done to people. Will make occasional comment if I feel it is necessary, but for most part — I will refrain.”

    WHO CARES about his “satisfaction”!

    I believe you posted the response here re. Deutsche bank for me…and I am deeply grateful. You have been an informed, and beautifully understandable voice among the madness.
    Again, thank you from all of us for your knowledge and dignity—and PLEASE keep us informed as you see fit!

    God bless.

  87. From Boots”
    i pursued my case on the basis of fraud by execution of the fabricated documents in order to foreclose, however, after the court determine that there were misrepresentation, i have to prove detrimental reliance in order to proceeds with my fraud case, how i was harm since i admitted i defaulted on my loans”

    It seems to me that Boots has presented an important, practical question, as judges will grab onto the reliance issue pretty quick or the fact that one is not intended as a beneficiary of any of these agreements. Yes, there was fraud but so what. You were not entitled to rely. I would also appreciate the response(s) of those “in the know” if this problem can be overcome…

  88. I too am one who wasted $2ooo.oo dollars on M. Soliman and never received the services I paid for. Mostly gibberish,uncomprehensible,off the subject matter, full of misspelled words. I would advise others to spend their money on a good attorney and steer clear of M. Soliman. Here is a link to His BBB rating in Los Angeles http://www.la.bbb.org/Business-Report/Nationwide-Loan-Services-100072153

  89. Brian:

    Not so sure I agree with you on this as I do realize there are still some judges out there that have attempted to do the right thing.

    The power is with the people – who have not yet decided that they must take a stand for the rule of law even when they may very well be going up against the judges.

    If Judges are taking bribes of which I was not aware, then we are very definitely in a lot more trouble than one could have imagined. Sort of like the beginning of the end for the rule of law.

    As I have noted, this has been going on for years and we are yes, still talking – no direct action, and so forth.

  90. about judges; In a union where 2 of the branches of government are acting unlawfully, we had best be very careful about tarring every judge with the same brush.
    These are our last hope, if you haven’t realized it yet. They are the only entity in our nation that can act for you even when being pressured to act against you. They are the only power left.
    By all means, get the proof out there on bad ones. The law is the law, and their acting within that law is what we want. 5 judges can do what all the state legislatures and congress can not do. They set precedent. They cause the reinterpretation of law, or definition of those key elements that we need to see upheld. They have already ordered MERS is a non thing, when every other body of government is being paid by MERS member banks and GSE’s for their silence. Note no prosecutions for any such party?
    Please, don’t attack the only bastion of justice you are going to need desperately as you go forward without having reason. A Florida judge recently admitted to what may be serious crimes assisting wrongful foreclosure and the mills violating the law. If he isn’t removed and punished, then we will all see that one piece of the judicial branch as rotten. We know our supreme court has become an aberration and disgrace.
    But it is the one judge that each of must might have to face. Until there is no more justice, these are our last link to justice as it once was.

  91. “assignment/sale of mortgage stops with the Depositor — it is a Depositor owned trust”

    What do you mean by this? A trust has no ownership, per se. The trustee holds beneficial title on behalf of the certificate holders/investors. They are the ones who have rights and ownership of the assets inside the trust. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

  92. A comment about who is supposed to take care of the property – it should not be the taxpayer or the community muncipal divisons.

    Once the property is auctioned and if it is deeded back to the creditor by Trustee’s Deed then, in that event, the loan servicer for the trustee, by agreement, would be the proper party to maintain the home after foreclosure – unless the creditor has transferred or required by agreement that all REO properties are to be transferred to another Servicer for that express purpose.

    In short, the creditor (owner of the mortgage), and the servicer or any other designated party is responsible and would be subject to suit if they do not maintain their property as is required by the ordinance or laws of the state, whichever is applicable.

    Most communities across this nation and their municipal districts have caved to the Banks (owners of the notes and their servicers) and have used taxpayer money to maintain bank owned properties – but only because the community or municipal agency, could not force the bank to do it.

    What was most frightening is the fact that communities and non profits were using tarp money I believe to buy the homes from the lender(creditor) at heaven knows what price – probably 95 to 100%. The lenders saved their maintenance cost and still probably got their properties sold – Glad to know that all has stopped because there is no more money to be throwing at these lenders.

    Since when does the owner of the property not have to pay to maintain it? Why would the banks think they could get away with it and are in fact, actually doing just that? It was standard operating procedure as far back as I can remember since 1960 up until 2000 and the creditor’s servicers did take care of it for the most part – Now that has not been the case since 2004 – It all came to a screeching halt. But then, what else is new?

  93. Are California Judges on the Take???

    California Judge Peter Meeka Refuses to Disclose Financial Benefits to Him by Bank of America, Accord Due Process

    Bribing of state and US judges by Bank of America must be a serious concern.
    [] []

    Los Angeles, April 12 – In Lomas v Bank of America(KC059379) Plaintiff Susan Lomas is trying to protect her rights through a Quiet Title action against alleged fraud by Bank of America and others in foreclosure procedures.

    The case is opined as Fraud on the Court through collusion of BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, California Judge PETER MEEKA, Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE, and Attorney MARK ASDOURIAN, aimed to dispossess Lomas, while denying her due process and access to an honest court.

    In the latest episode in this case, Lomas appeared in court on Friday, April 8, 2011, with requests for:
    · Due process notice and service of minutes and access to court records.

    · A statement on the record by Judge Meeka regarding financial benefits to him, if any, by Bank of America.

    In response, Lomas was subjected to what is opined as another instance of Fraud on the Court: Lomas was told that her requests were denied, but no minutes at all were produced for the proceeding (see copy of the minutes below).

    The records, which Lomas received from the Office of the Clerk as “minutes” showed a date of “00/00/00”, with no evidence of a hearing by any Judge of the Court and no evidence of any hearing or ruling at all.

    Bribing of state and US judges by Bank of America must be a serious concern. Under similar circumstances, the following judges responded in the same manner:
    · US Judge Virginia Phillips;
    · US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, and
    · California Judge Terry Friedman.

    A pattern of false and deliberately misleading court records is found in the case of Lomas v Bank of America all along:[ii]

    · None of the minutes were certified by the Deputy Clerk of the Court;

    · None of the minutes were noticed and served by the Court;
    · Multiple proceedings were secretly listed in the minutes as “off of the record”;

    · No Initial Case Management Conference was ever held;
    · Plaintiff has been repeatedly denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket), where the true registration of the proceedings (or lack thereof) would be discerned;

    · An invalid online “Case Summary” is published by the Court, which would lead a naive reader to conclude that valid and effectual proceedings have been held and rulings have been entered by the court.

    · Attorney Mark Asdourian appears in the case for BofA, while refusing to provide certificate of Attorney of Record. Attorney Asdourianhas filed false and deliberately misleading banking records as “Request for Judicial Notice”, which was granted by Judge Peter Meeka.

    · No declaration or any other record signed by Bank of America authorized person was ever filed in the case.

    Conduct of Bank of America in this case is inconsistent with the Bank of America Code of Ethics and Outside Counsel Procedures, which prohibit appearances by unauthorized attorneys and obstructionist conduct in litigation. [iii]

    The conduct of Judge Meeka and Clerk John A Clarke must also be deemed as violations of the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of Plaintiff Susan Lomas.
    []
    Minutes of the April 8, 2011 Ex Parte Proceedings, as received by Plaintiff Susan Lomas from the Office of the Clerk.
    ____
    LINKS:
    [1] 11-04-08 Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379): Ex Parte Applications for Due Process and for a Statement by California Judge Peter J Meeka Regarding Financial Benefits to Him by Bank of America

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52844251/
    [ii] 11-03-20 PRESS RELEASE Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379) Bank of America Continues Racketeering in the Los Angeles Superior Court

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/51160102/
    11-03-20 Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379) in the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles online “Case Summary” and Minutes

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/51157264/
    11-04-05 Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Fraud on the Court in a Quiet Title Action
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52336989/

    11-04-06 Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379) “Request[s] for Judicial Notice”- Additional Evidence of Fraud on the Court in Foreclosure Procedure s
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52420585/
    11-04-07 Press Release: Lomas v BofA (KC059379) Judge Meeka is Requested to Restore Due Process, Declare Any Benefits from BofA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52494342/
    11-03-31 Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379) Request and Response for Certification of Authority as Attorney of Record s
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52516705/

    [iii] 09-01-27 Bank of America Code of Ethics s
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32173783/
    08-12-11 Bank of America – Outside Counsel Procedures
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932516/
    _____________

    Joseph Zernik, PhD
    Human Rights Alert (NGO)
    Human Rights Alert – NGO
    Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
    _______
    http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
    Locations of visitors to this page
    Flag Counter: 118
    http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
    []
    Total Reads: 329,929
    Followers: 452
    http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
    []
    http ://twitter.com/inproperinla
    []
    http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
    http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
    _____________________________
    WHAT DID THE EXPERT SAY ABOUT THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS?
    * “…a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences.”
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50753639/
    Prof Paul Krugman, MIT (2011)
    _____________________________
    WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
    * “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit.”
    Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
    * “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”
    Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/
    * “Innocent people remain in prison”
    * “…the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of…”
    LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306 /
    _____________________________
    WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
    * “…corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
    United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
    _____________________________
    WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE STATE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES?
    * “On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations.”
    Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute (2010)
    http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert
    _____________________________
    WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?
    * “More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning “mandatory and enforceable” ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by “recent media reports,” the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others.”
    More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (February 2011)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49586436/
    _____________________________
    WHAT DID CHIEF JUDGE OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS, 5TH CIRCUIT, SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
    * “The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition…”
    Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Edith Jones, speaking before the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School (February 2003)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50137887/
    _____________________________
    WHAT DID THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
    * In a speech in Georgetown University, Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” on the US Department of Justice.
    Transcript of Senator Leahy speech (2009)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38472251/

  94. A former state judge faces a maximum of 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to trading favorable rulings in criminal cases for more than a quarter of a million dollars in bribes.

    Abel Corral Limas, former elected judge of the 404th Cameron County Judicial District Court in Brownsville, pleaded guilty on March 31 before a federal judge to a one-count criminal indictment that charged him with racketeering.

    A federal grand jury in Brownsville returned Limas’ indictment under seal on March 29, and it was unsealed upon Limas’ March 31 appearance. At Limas’ request, however, the court resealed the charges that afternoon for another two weeks while prosecutors hammered out the former judge’s plea deal.

    U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen unsealed Limas’ indictment, plea agreement and a factual summary of his case Thursday.

    Limas, 56, currently practices law in Brownsville. He served two terms as a state district judge from January 2001 to December 2008.

    At his March 31 appearance Limas admitted to using his state-elected office to receiving more than $257,300 between August 2007 and January 2009 in a bribery and racketeering enterprise.

    “He accepted money from criminal defendants and intermediaries in return for favorable judicial rulings in criminal cases, including terminations of probationary terms and modification of probationary terms and bond terms,” U.S. Attorney Jose Angel Moreno said in a statement. “He also accepted money and other consideration from attorneys in civil cases pending in his court in return for favorable pre-trial rulings in certain cases.”

    In addition to the possible prison term, Limas faces up to five years of probation and a fine of up to twice the amount of gross proceeds he obtained through the bribery and extortion, when he is sentenced on July 5.
    Prosecutors say authorities have also arrested Limas’ “middle man,” Jose Longoria, 52, a Mexican national currently residing in San Benito, Texas.
    Longoria was charged on March 31 with wire fraud arising from the bribery, an honest-services crime that carries a 20-year sentence and a $250,000 maximum fine.

  95. to. mr. soliman,
    even if we insist accounting fraud as you always suggested, for me as a pro se, it is so hard to explain that in front of the judge because i myself is not good in numbers. i think only people who has an accounting background could fully understand it. i pursued my case on the basis of fraud by execution of the fabricated documents in order to foreclose, however, after the court determine that there were misrepresentation, i have to prove detrimental reliance in order to proceeds with my fraud case, how i was harm since i admitted i defaulted on my loans. this is what i am working for now to amend the complaints on Fraud cause of actions. because if proven I was harm then I could seek monetary damages from the defendants. for me accounting fraud is also a good defense by i forgo that route because i am not good at it.

  96. Both Soliman an Anonymous argue legitimate defenses. Mainly however, accounting [Garfield] of the loan transaction needs to begin before entering a court of law. If the “Servicer” representing the “Beneficiary” to the transaction, can not produce supporting documentation as to “Where is my money going or where has it been” is a defense in and of itself. Not getting too caught up in GAAP but staying the course with these ligitimate questions and production of the supporting documents in question. Normally, the servicer will not provide verified responses [documents with signatures] to these questions. Any court will be suspect of fowl play because the servicer claims to be the (Agent) of the beneficiary. Accordingly, the PSA argument has gone both ways in the courtroom . Some argue the borrower is not a party to the PSA and others say they are. Bottom line, unravel the transaction by beginning a “Chain of Title Assessment”. Here you find where the corruption actually began. Begin to build your case from there. A quiet title though not easily accomplished will be legitimized once defects in title are proven outside of court in your own discovery. When entering court for a variety of claims, name quiet title as well. Discovery before entering a court is key to any victory.

  97. Anonymous – have worked on these files as well and agree with your comments 100% and in fact have presented our charts based on them for several cases. – You have offered much to assist us. YOU MUST CONTINUE TO POST –

    Debi – I will call you today, hope that is okay?

    American Justice – I would be interested to hear about the WF/Ocwen case. I am working with a couple of attorneys in Houston regarding chain of ownership. Your comment is a bit confusing, can you call me?

    So many attorneys are not on top of the securitization issues, but they are attempting to “get with it” now. A little late in the day, as with the Judges.

    My number is – 281 385 9498

  98. Fraud According To County Recorder!

    Oakland County Clerk Bill Bullard said Monday there’s evidence to warrant an investigation into document fraud surrounding county properties that have been or are about to be foreclosed.

    The alleged fraud may be the basis to set aside foreclosures for civil or criminal proceedings, Bullard said.

    In a letter to Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette dated April 25, Bullard alleges that assignments of mortgages filed in the county bear the signature of a “Linda Green” — the same name that was part of the subject of a recent “60 Minutes” investigation into mortgage document fraud.

    “Our role is limited, we don’t prosecute,” Bullard said Monday. “We’re just turning over documents to the proper authorities and asking them to take action.”

    There was no immediate response Monday morning from Schuette’s office to Bullard’s letter.

    In his letter to Schuette, Bullard said his investigation was prompted by a recent “60 Minutes” program “which reported widespread forgery of mortgage documents prepared at the direction of some of the largest financial institutions in the country.”

    In that program, “60 Minutes” interviewed people who had been hired by a company to sign assignments of mortgages as bank officials and, in some cases, notarize the documents.

    An assignment of mortgage indicates the original mortgage has been transferred to a third party.

    The “60 Minutes” investigation focused on mortgages repackaged and sold as mortgage-backed securities, but assignment of mortgage documents weren’t physically provided.

    As mortgage delinquencies rose, banks hired mortgage servicing companies which provided “assignment of mortgage” documents after the fact, the “60 Minutes” show alleges.

    The news program detailed accounts of people paid $10 an hour to sign the name “Linda Green” as a bank officer for numerous banks on assignment of mortgage documents.

    Bullard said he has uncovered five signatures of “Linda Green” on assignments of mortgages recorded in Oakland County in 2008 and 2009.

    “I have also reviewed numerous other mortgage assignments whose bank officers’ signatures vary widely from signature to signature, leading me to suspect forgery,” Bullard wrote.

    “I am enclosing copies of these recorded documents with this letter,” Bullard wrote. “My review of over 12,000 recorded assignments of mortgages in 2010 is ongoing.

    “Based on this information, I am asking that you join with me and other Registers of Deeds across Michigan in taking action against any financial institutions which have participated in this fraudulent criminal activity,” Bullard said in his letter to Schuette.

    “These actions could include assisting citizens in setting aside foreclosures which were illegally based on fraudulent documents. You should also consider class action lawsuits seeking monetary damages as well as criminal prosecutions of those individuals and corporations guilty of this massive fraud,” Bullard wrote.

    As in other parts of the country, foreclosures remain a problem in Oakland County.

    There were a record 9,292 foreclosures recorded in Oakland County in 2010.

  99. A Must Read!

    The promise made by a mortgage company in San Diego could not have been more blunt.

    “Accredited Home Lenders offers an unusually broad line of subprime mortgage products for wholesale mortgage brokers,”

    the company’s Web site boasted in its heyday. “Send us your toughest loans, and let us earn your business.”

    Yana Paskova for The New York Times
    The New York Fire and Police Departments investigated after a fire in a Bronx building killed three people whose access to a fire escape was blocked by illegally built walls.
    Related

    “Send us your toughest loans, and let us earn your business.”

    Those were the days: from 2005 to 2007, Accredited made $29 billion in subprime loans.

    Among them was a balloon mortgage for $384,000 in November 2005 to one Domingo Cedano, who used the money to buy a three-family building at 2321 Prospect Avenue in the Bronx. The mortgage carried an interest rate of 7 3/8 and monthly payments of $2,491. Mr. Cedano put none of his own money into the purchase.

    By this week, Mr. Cedano had long since stopped making payments. The property was in foreclosure. Accredited Home Lenders itself had gone bankrupt.

    On Monday morning, when a fire in the building killed three people who lived on the top floor, it was a warren of rooms nested inside rooms. As the stairway roared with flames, illegally built walls blocked access to the fire escape for Manuel Lopez and Christina Garcia and their 12-year-old son, Christian Garcia. How did the building get this way, and who was responsible?

    Here was one of the most confounding legacies of the subprime era: the nearly cosmic invisibility of who owns what. Loans were made, then bundled and sold in securitizations to investors, and these were traded again. The connection between lender and borrower vanished. Sometimes the bundles of loans were sold through public filings, but often they were not. The Prospect Avenue loan began with a company in San Diego, then moved to another one in Flint, Mich., and was taken over by a company in Oklahoma City.

    As of one year ago this month, a state law makes it clear that the lenders are responsible for a property once it has gone into the foreclosure process.

    “The legislation required that once a foreclosure takes place, it’s up to the bank or whoever foreclosed on the property to take care of it, maintain it, make sure it’s safe,” said State Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, a Bronx Democrat who sponsored the bill. “If not, the local building department can go in and make the proper repairs.”

    That’s not what happened at 2321 Prospect.

    In response to complaints about illegal subdivisions and other problems at the building, city inspectors went to the building 10 times, but they were never able to get in and they left notices outside. The city also mailed notices to Mr. Cedano, who was listed as the owner of the property, said Tony Sclafani, a spokesman for the city’s Buildings Department.

    Mr. Klein said building departments in other parts of the state had used the law to force lenders to take care of properties in foreclosure. “In my own district, in the northeast Bronx and southern Westchester, we’ve been able to use it to push the lenders into dealing with their responsibilities,” he said. “These foreclosures can cause community eyesores.”

    The loan made by Accredited six years ago is now the property of a trust for unidentified investors, and the Bank of New York Mellon serves as their trustee. The bank has engaged Vericrest Financial, a company in Dallas, to handle the loans in that trust, including the foreclosure proceedings.

    Did Vericrest take care of the building while it was in foreclosure, or even know that it was supposed to?

    “Vericrest is not going to comment,” a spokesman said.

    The state law was a start, said Harold Shultz, who worked with the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development for 30 years and is now a senior fellow with the Citizens Housing and Planning Council of New York.

    “We have a big mess to unwind, and foreclosure is going to be a big part of it,” he said. “We have to make sure that our foreclosure procedures can deal with our actual problems. Despite the attempts of the New York State Legislature, we need to do more.”

    Among his suggestions: Make sure that competent receivers are appointed to run troubled properties, and set up a system in which government authorities are alerted when a building is in the limbo of a lengthy foreclosure proceeding.

    “We need to make sure, in general, that foreclosure is a process in which properties are watched over and don’t get lost in the shuffle,” Mr. Shultz said.

    E-mail: dwyer@nytimes.com

  100. Anonymous,

    Thank You, for you excellent contributions to this blog.
    Don’t go anywhere, and please do contribute, as often as possible.

    I must apologize, I am the person that referred Mr. Soliman to this web site. In 2008 I found him via a website, and paid him $1500.00 to do a Mortgage Audit. He of course appears to have great understanding of the “industry”.

    His “audit” was presented to the Judge, who stated,” There is nothing factual in this compliance review having to do with this case, it is all generalizations, with numerous misspellings, it is hardly credible.”

    I informed Mr. Soliman of what the Judge thought of his work, and Mr. Soliman’s reply was something to the effect, since it was such a rush job, that he didn’t have time to properly put it together.

    The Judge seemed interested in what I had to say, and pleaded with me to hire an attorney, and continued the case.

    Fortunately I found this website around the same time, (when there had only been 25,000 visitors) WOW what change!law, fraud, etc. were what got the Judges ear, not high finance talk, TILA and RESPA generalizations.

    By the way Maher, I could use that $1500.00 back.

  101. ANONYMOUS ,

    I agree 100% with Ian , I find your postings to be both insightful and extremely useful PLEASE CONTINUE ,, that said I also enjoy reading M. Soliman .. What I see going on is a “blind men describing an elephant” situation ,, Soliman knows accounting (and in a business “complex civil” court with big budgets and dozens of witnesses) it is certainly of prime importance … I myself have held many technical jobs , I am a ME pilot , was a stockbroker and a data security expert … I “kinda” see the full picture but I myself get confused with all the named players and their conflicting and overlapping roles.. I’ll eventually get it in an epiphany moment ,, hope it’s soon..

    American Justice ,

    If you have 2 different banks claiming ownership of the loan you are golden… find the cash to engage a lawyer anyway you can ,, SELL YOUR CAR ,, BEG RELATIVES ,, whatever it takes .. This is why we have quiet title actions. I would just go to the courthouse and find the first lawyer I see defending a homeowner … maybe in BK court .. and talk to them … GET IT DONE!

  102. ANONYMOUS- am following Maher Soliman’s rebuttals of your postings. In a court of law, it has been accepted again and again that the PSA is the controlling document or governing document. Not Wiley’s GAAP handbook. You are correct in that all flows from the PSA, this has been reinforced this week by the Reuters article on IRS mulling over their enforcement of the REIT/REMIC provisions of the IRC in regards to “…..trusts not following the strict guidelines of the PSA”, thereby violating and as a result negating the favorable tax treatment of such financial vehicles. So while I believe that M.Soliman is astute in championing the accounting issues, which are numerous, I believe that as a legal defense your approach and personal in-depth knowledge is the better way to go.
    Courts can barely ascertain whether an adjustable rate mortgage tied to LIBOR is correct- FBI said years ago that 60% of them were incorrect, and that it wasn’t random, as the mistakes weighed in favor of the ‘lender’, not the borrower. So if the judges can’t figure even that out, I personally wouldn’t want to step into a courtroom and base the defense of my home or property on accounting and tax rules, the complexity of which would make a grown man begin sobbing. Please continue your posts.

  103. Any attorney available in Texas to handle a case where a homeowner was foreclosed on last month and now scheduled for this May 3rd is another foreclosure suit against same homeowner, same property except now with Wells Fargo. Homeowner has not been served either time, Ocwen was the original servicer and sold the home to Wells Fargo, they state in an auction in April and Wells Fargo has decided to also sue the homeowner for the same home, less than one month later. They will not take calls, nor answer letters of request for information. Can anyone help?

  104. confused- Hold on to that letter from the ‘big bank trustee’. Go to the courthouse and pull your instrument summary list, there should be an assignment of mortgage from X to the ‘big bank trustee’. This may be from MERS, it may be from someone else. These two documents, when produced in a court of law, should stop the foreclosure dead in its tracks. Additionally, the signatures and notarizations will evidence the fraud, as will the attestations of the law firm bringing the action on behalf of the (bogus) trust plaintiff. Keep us all posted, good luck.

  105. Finally the European Union is taking action. Hopefully they will go after the corrupt Judges in America too. We will then be able to Extradict them to Europe.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/eu-cds-probe-targets-16-l_n_855361.html

    NEVER AGAIN

  106. M.Soliman,

    Not going to get into with you.

    I have told you over and over — I do not copy anyone — Do not read WIkipedia —

    I remain ANONYMOUS for many reasons – if you knew why — and my sources — you would not be criticizing me.

    I have no reason to harm you or your business. We need businesses to help the people. I have none and do not want one.

    Only started posting here to share what I KNOW — and hope others may eventually benefit in whatever way they can. My perspective is not only from years of research – with many many contacts — but also from how courts currently approach the issues.

    Believe common goal is stop the fraudulent foreclosures. I am not in foreclosure.

    For your satisfaction, I am going to greatly reduce my postings here. I have done what I can — with honesty and concern for all the harm done to people. Will make occasional comment if I feel it is necessary, but for most part — I will refrain.

    This does not mean that I am ceasing to help stop the fraud — I will continue what I am doing — outside of posting on this blog. Again, what I do has no profit and is not a business.

    Good luck to you.

  107. A BIG BANK Trustee has admitted to me in writing that they did not know they sued me for foreclosure in there name and for me to direct all issues and questions to the loan servicer, a seperate third party entity, unrelated to the Trustee they said.

  108. Neil, u should be on 60 minutes. It seems you are the ONLY one who understands what has transpired here. I wish you could scream from the roof tops what has really gone on and that the trustees have no standing. Are u available as an expert witness? Better yet; do u have any securitization seminars in florida?? You are an amazing, well educated, caring man. Thank u for all you are and especially for all you do. If you could answer my questions about expert witness, I would be greatly appreciative. I’m working on 10 cases of sheer fraud where th trustees are bringing action (wilshire loans and wmc and ameriquest the very best as well. The judge in miami let wells fargo take a wmc loan- we are still working on getting that sale vacated. Judge Bailey was positively NOT going to bring the fraud back into the court -period. I watched her change words, be rude, cut off the defendant every single time on his own motion. It was horrifying!! I watched as she cut off the defendant and tried to make him look retarded. I watched it myself. It was a freak show. Then she changed the transcripts too. What kind of world is this anyway. So sicken and disgusted and praying God is still out there. Debi 561-389-9339.

  109. It’s something I just hate to see people caught up on – The PSA. It is so ambiguous and distorted it is designed to leave the untrained eye with hope –

    but unravel the lies and deception and there you have a winner.

    DON’T TRUST OR CITE THE PSA – READ
    SEC FILES SETTLED ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES

    The Commission announced today a settled enforcement action against Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS) for violations . . . . occurred during a pending Commission investigation that is seeking to determine whether, among other things, . . . improper trading of securities prior to the firm’s issuance of research concerning such securities.

    The Commission found that BAS repeatedly failed to promptly furnish documents requested by the staff, provided misinformation concerning the availability and production status of such documents, and engaged in dilatory tactics that delayed the investigation.

    BAS consented, without admitting or denying the Commission’s findings, to cease and desist from committing or causing violations of Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-4(j) thereunder. BAS alsoagreed to a censure and a $10 million civil penalty.

    The Commission’s order finds that BAS willfully failed to preserve or promptly furnish certain records after they were requested. In
    particular, the Commission found that BAS failed promptly to produce (i) electronic mail, including a particular e-mail exchange relating to
    matters that BAS knew were under investigation, (ii) certain compliance reviews,

    + and (iii) compliance and supervision records concerning —the firm.

    The Commission’s investigation is continuing. (Rel. 34-49386; File No.3- 11425; Press Rel. 2004-29)

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  110. Neil;

    You propagate information from an unknown whose knowledge is suspect. You are advocating the unknown who plagiarizes Wikipedia. This is not a game to be played with peoples livelihoods.

    No credible name on a worthwhile accounting or securities board would ever do this kind of stupidity.

    It’s a waste of time but here we go again-

    1) ABC trustee for “certificate holders” to XYZ trust — they are the named plaintiff — not the servicer. But, it is actually the servicer that is proceeding against you.

    M.Soliman – There is no servicer to speak of in a Mortgage Asset Backed trust

    If foreclosure plaintiff is the Servicer, the Servicer is not (most often) the real party/creditor — they must state on whose behalf they are acting.

    M.Soliman – The “Master Servicer is the Trustees select appointment.

    They will then name the Trust/Trustee — who is also not the real party/creditor since security investors are also not the creditor.

    M.Soliman – The trustee is the creditor with Preferred Trust Shares owed the preference in a BK. But if these are BK remote and isolated – why are we having this discussion!

    Would need witness or affidavit from Trustee regarding the chain and mortgage collection rights whereabouts – and all documents — this is how Robo-signing fraud became rampant

    M.Soliman – There is no Robo Homo issues here …The Debt collectors are working on behalf of appointment by a receiver under the FDIC as the conservator. Insulated

    In addition, the chain of assignments and endorsements must follow the PSA. By PSA it is the Depositor that purchases loans from originator – and it is only the Depositor that can cause assignment/endorsement to the trust.

    M.Soliman -This comment is referring to deal structure whereby the Depositors and the Purchaser are one in the same in common stock for receivable’s swap – its valued Derecognition.

    Think about what you’re publishing here

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: