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



As I have said, for years, this will be long process. The banks will spin their tales and the mainstream media will pick up on the bank’s version of events because the banks seem more credible. For one thing, the claims on this blog that led to thousands of lawsuits against the banks did not seem possible. Why would banks who practically invented the dotted i’s and crossed t’s in piles of documents sometimes 3-4 inches think get it wrong? It seemed even less credible that they would intentionally get it wrong since the defective documents would undermine their claim to a lien on homes — a lien that was the last-ditch protection against non-payment.

But they did get it wrong and they got it wrong intentionally. They did it because THAT was the way they were making outsized profits from inflated fees and profits that never existed before. They even acted on the premise that the worse the loan, the more screwed up the documentation, the more money the banks were and servicing entities (owned by the banks) were making.


22 Responses

  1. I wass pretty pleassed to find this website. I wanted too thank you for ones time
    for this particularly fantastic read!! I definitely savored every part
    of itt and I have yoou saved as a favorite to
    see new information in your blog.

  2. Foreclosue Hamlet states March 5th 2011:
    Deutsche Bank is Screwed In Re Gilbert NC Appeals Court

    Lender: First National Bank of AZ

    There is not MERS MEMBER of this LENDER which means the RETAIL Transaction was not recorded belonged to WFC or JPM

    I’m right!

    1/7/1958 – First National Bank of AZ established as a national bank.
    6/1/1981 – First Interstate Bank of AZ NA,
    6/1/1996 – First Interstate Bank of AR NA, was renamed
    Wells Fargo Bank Of Arizona, NA
    Wells Fargo Bank of Arizona, NA was acquired by Wells Fargo Bank NA 9/1/1996

    Wells Fargo Bank of AR NA was renamed to Phoenix Main OFF and became a branch of Wells Fargo Bank, NA

    Wells Fargo Bank, NA
    101 North Phillis Avenue
    Sioux Falls SD US 57104
    OCC RSSD ID 451965
    RNT 12100248
    FDIC 3511
    Commercial Banking

    Wells Fargo & CO. RSSD ID 1120754 San Francisco CA – Financial Holding Company – Domestic flows to

    Wells Fargo Bank Arizona National Association RSSD ID 49362 – Phoenix AZ

    Flows to Charter Bancorporation Inc RSSD 1207422 Minneapolis MN Bank Holding Company

    Sixth & Marquette
    Minneapolis MN 55479 ‘Domestic Enity Other

    5/18/1988 – 6/17/1997 First National Bankshares moved. from 302 South First St. Tucumcari New Mexico (a Bank Holding Co) and 9/1/2001 changed from a Bank Holding Company to a Domestic Entity Other.

    9/1/2001 Finally First National Bankshares Inc was acquired by Wells Fargo & Co. RSSD ID 1120754.
    Minneapolis MN Domestic Entity Other

    Substitution purports to remove ‘Matthew Ragaller’ as TRUSTEE and appoint successor David A Simpson PC – Substitution of Trustee’ identified
    as Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee for Residential Accredit Loans Inc.

    Mary comment: Do you all know that GMAC-RFC in 1996 co-joined with Norwest Asset Securities Corp is GMAC Mortgage Corp dba GMAC Mortgage Corp of IA, GMAC Mortgage Corp of PA have been renamed from BANCO Mortgage?

    Norwest Corp Asset Securities Corp (NASCOR) & Structured Asset Securities Corp (SASCOR)

    Back to Foreclosue Hamlet
    RE Gilbert 050311NC App 527, 248 S.E. 2d at 387

    Page 12.

    In Order for the Foreclosure to Proceed, the clerk of court must find, inter alia, the existence of a “valid debt of which the party seeking to foreclose is the hole” and a “right to foreclose under the instrument” securing the debt)

    Establishing that a party is the holder of the note is essential to protect the debtor from the threat of multiple judgments on the same note.

    If such proof were not required, the Plaintiff could negotiate the instrument to a third party who would become a holder in due course, bring a duit upon the note in her own name and obtain a judgement in her favor . . .
    Requiring proof that the Plaintiff is the holder of the note at the time of her suit reduces the possiblity of such an inequitable occurrence.
    Liles, 38 N.C. App. at 527, 248 S.E. 2d at 387

    Definition of ‘holder’ under Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) as adopted by NC controls the meaning of the term as it is used …

    the person in possession of the instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified party that is the person in possession.

    Petitioner’s production of original Note with Allonge as true and accurate copies…plainly evidences the transfers of the Note.

    The COURT did not agree.

    Under UCC as adopted by NC instrument is transferred when it is delviered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery to enforce the instrument.

    Production of an original note at trial does not, in itself establish….. Page 14.

    Thank you Foreclosure Hamlet:

    The indorsements evidencing the alleged assignment as follows:

    First National Bank of Nevada
    Amy Hawkins, AVP
    First National Bank of AZ

    Pay to the Order of:
    Without Recourse
    By /s/
    f/k/a Bankers Trust Company of California NA
    as Custodian as Attorney in Fact

    Illegible Name & Title
    Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee WITHOUT RECOURSE
    Residential Funding Corporation
    Judy Faber VP

    The mistake in T&L not valid as matter of equity.
    Court ruled in favor of foreclosue proceeding.
    Respondents timely entered notice of appeal.

    This case is bad news for Deutsche Bank.

    The court is basically saying the “Trustee” ( Deutsche) and the “Trust” (Deutsche for Residential Accredit Loans) itself are not the same legal entity.

    Every note I’ve ever seen concerning Deutsche Bank has the trustee part. Now there are all these notes made out to the wrong party. The only way to fix it is for Deutsche Bank to endorse over to the Trust. Well that will be a huge problem because it will bust the REMIC for a late transfer and the fact that most likely the note is in default at the time of transfer.

    I would bet there are thousands of cases that slipped through the cracks would the exact same fact pattern.
    SEC and FFIEC Info on Deutsche Bank

    You’ve seen in prior posting
    MERS MEMBER is No 1002829
    DB Structured Products Inc.
    Lines of Business: Servicer, Subservicer, Interim Funder, Investor, Document Custodian
    Primary Contact: MERS Dept.
    Fax 212-797-5160
    Ph 212-250-9340
    eRegistry & eDelivery Participants NO

  3. How Detusche Bank as a Trustee will attempt to harm you in bankruptcy court.

    See Case No 07-077227-PB7 (Bankr.S.D.Cal 6/9/2008)
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for WaMu Series 2007-HE1 Trust, its
    assignees and/or successors

    The TRUSTEE will argue against you if you claim Deutsche Bank may not foreclose on the property because the Assignment was not recorded.

    US Bankruptcy denied relief as to: CC 2932.5 if DBNTC could not provide ownership documents it could not….

    An Assignment of the Note amounts to an Assignment of the Deed of Trust.

    Deutsche Bank has provided no convincing evidence that the Note was ever assigned to Deutsche Bank. Furthermore, even if the Note was assigned to Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Bank is not the party asserting a security interest in the Property. Rather the motion is brought by Deutsche Bank as TRUSTEE for HE1 Trust. The record is devoid of any further assignment to HE1 Trust.

    In summary, the only question before the Court is whether Deutsche Bank and/or HE1 Trust has an interest in the Proeprty. The Court holds that Deutsche Bank has failed to provide evidence that it, let alone HE1 Trust has a security interest in the Property. Accordingly, the motion is denied. Deutsche Bank’s motion for relief from stay is dened without prejudice.

    WaMu retains possession of Note and Deed of Trust as Agent for Deutsche Bank.

    The Trustee, Deutsche Bank, argues that based upon “…..” may not foreclose on the Property because the Assignment was not recorded. That may be. However, that is an issue the TRUSTEE can raise with the state court if relief from stay is ultimately granted.

    Both parties allotted much ink and paper to issue of whether Deutsche Bank has a perfected security interest in the Note. The Court finds this discussion beyond the scope of the motion before it. Deutsche Bank has moved for relief from stay to proceed against the Property. Whether or not it holds a security interest in the Note is irrelevant. Since we are not concerned with a security interest in the Note, all talk of a ‘perfected lien’ on the Note is beside the point.


    Regarding Asset Backed Securities, could be Depositor, Underwriter, even one of its Special-Purpose Vehicles SPV’s could be a national banking association or sent in during a foreclosure or bankruptcy as a substitute trustee:.

    Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
    Formerly Bankers Trust Co of California NA 8/1/96
    3 Park Plaza 16th Floor, Irvine CA 92614
    Maiing: 1761 East St. Andrew Pl, 2nd FLoor Santa Ana CA 9270a
    IRS 13-3347003
    7,443 SEC Filings 5/6/97 – 2/14/11
    As ‘Filer’ ‘Owner’ ‘Filing Agent’

    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), as Trustee for

    In MERSONLINE.Org registry
    DB Structured Products Inc.
    60 Wall St. NY NY 10005
    212-250-9340 Fax 212-797-516
    Primary Contact: MERS Dept c/o Deutsche Bank NA
    MEMBER ORG ID: 1002829
    Lines of Business: Servicer, Subservicer, Interim Funder, Investor, Document Custodian
    eRegistry Participant: NO
    eDelivery Participant: NO

    Business Entity: New York State
    Jurisdiction: Delaware
    Active – Initial DOS Filing: 4/30/1970
    1/11/2002 changed name to DB Structured Products Inc.

    Mary reveals below information on Deutsche Corporate Trust Services and imagine name change in line with DB Structured Products Inc. name change. Was Deutsche Bank Shapres Pixley Inc. 1/7/1994 – 1/10/2002
    And was 1/6/1994 thru 4/30/1970 Deutsche Bank Sharps Pixley Inc. former name Sharps Pixley Inc established 4/30/1970.

    During foreclosure or bankruptcfy in CA for example, the Deed of Trust may list ‘WaMu’ as the beneficiary and “California Reconveyance Company’ as the Trustee. On the SEC, you’ll find Deutsche Bank Trust Company/National Association to be a ‘Filing Agent’ of Deutsche Bank AG and 1 SEC File as ISSUER SEC File 028-12000 13F-NT/A and 13F-NT. First Filing 8/15/06 – Last Filing 2/15/11.

    Don’t be frustrated if you are not understanding these facts. The more you read them and try to understand them you’ll realize you are smarter than the average bear. I could not spell ‘SEC’ when I started October 2008.

    Detusche Bank Trust Co National Association
    280 Park Avenue
    New York NY 10017

    How does Deutsche Bank have a perfected lien against the Property and Chain of Title?

    Deutsche Bank will assert to the court it is the ‘current beneficiary of a primissory note and deet of trust by way of Assignment’

    What is the ‘Trustee’ I mean ‘are’ the TRUSTEE’s in SEC Reconstituted and/or their Reconstituion Servicing Agreements going to do now? regarding

    Assignments in CA for example:

    MERS Fatal Flaw in Ca, on May 12, 2011 at 10:19 am said:
    In California it’s coming down to one key issue, MERS NOT having an assignment of the Note from the Original Lender to MERS, legally recorded.
    “The assignment of the lien without a transfer of the debt was a nullity in law.”
    “A lien is not assignable unless by the express language of the statute.”
    “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”
    CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872), U.S. Supreme Court
    More info at https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia

    Well in the USA Deutsche promoted itself 2002 forward Trust & Securities Services

    Deutsche Bank`s Trust & Securities Services provides an extensive range of trust, agency, depositary, custody, fund administration and related services on over EUR 7 trillion in debt and equity securities worldwide. Its six globally integrated product groups ensure that every service is provided by expert, specialist staff.
    Debt Services offers a range of products for bonds, CP and MTN programs, project financings, escrows, restructurings, syndicated loans, auction rate securities and Islamic financings
    Structured Finance Services specializes in asset and mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations and asset backed CP conduits
    Corporate Services provides management and administration for a variety of tax-neutral and tax-advantaged structures
    Alternative Fund Services provides administration for hedge funds, fund of hedge funds, private equity and other alternative investment vehicles
    Equity Services covers ADRs, global shares, German shares and German capital transactions
    Direct Securities Services provides safekeeping and clearing services for securities in more than 32 markets worldwide.
    For information about Deutsche Bank residential property foreclosure and REO (real estate owned) inquiries please click here
    All funds in a “noninterest-bearing transaction account” are insured in full by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from December 31, 2010, through December 31, 2012. This temporary unlimited coverage is in addition to, and separate from, the coverage of at least USD 250,000 available to depositors under the FDIC’s general deposit insurance rules.

    The term “noninterest-bearing transaction account” includes a traditional checking account or demand deposit account on which the insured depository institution pays no interest. It also includes Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (“IOLTAs”). It does not include other accounts, such as traditional checking or demand deposit accounts that may earn interest, NOW accounts, and money-market deposit accounts.

    For more information go to http://www.fdic.gov

    2/06/2002 Deutsche Bank wins Trustee Awards in Securitization Markets

    2003 – Deutsche Bank Corporate Trust Chicago Office Opens

    Deusche Bank expands Municipal Trustee Services

    Deutsche Bank Coporate Trust wins EURO CP Award

    2004 Deutsche Bank opening new Corporate Trust Office San Francisco

    Deutsche Bank also has regional corporate trust offices in Charlotte, NC; New York; Chicago; Olive
    Branch, MS; and Santa Ana, CA.

    NEW YORK, JANUARY 20, 2004 – Deutsche Bank’s Trust & Securities Services today announced
    the opening of a regional corporate trust office in San Francisco, California. The new office is the
    latest in the continuing regional expansion of traditional corporate trust services launched by
    Deutsche Bank in June 2002 in the US.

    Raafat Albert Sarkis heading Unit in CA was a Vice President in US Bank’s corporate trust unit. Head of Global Debt Services within Deutsche Bank’s Trust & Securities Services. “Raafat’s wealth of industry knowledge, his client relationships and his proven track record will help ensure that our clients in the Western states benefit from localized expertise and a commitment to exceptional customer service.

    Deutsche Bank ranks among the global leaders in corporate banking and securities, transaction
    banking, asset management, and private wealth management, and has a significant private &
    business banking franchise in Germany and other selected countries in Continental Europe.

    Deutsche Bank’s Trust & Securities Services is one of the leading global providers of trust and
    securities administration services.

    Through a fully integrated network of specialist offices worldwide, the group provides domestic custody in 23 securities markets as well as trustee, agency, registrar, depositary, SPV management and related services for a wide range of financings. Products serviced include bonds, auction rate securities, medium term note and commercial paper programs, asset backed and mortgage backed securities, CDOs, SIVs, project financings, escrows, syndicated loans, American Depositary Receipts and German equities.
    FDIC Chairman Shelia Blair sure looked uncomfortable in her ‘skin’ on 60 Minutes. What do you think?

    Regarding Deutsche Bank… The first chart depicts the mortgage transaction as many (most?) of us still understand it:

    Here’s Chairman Bair’s second chart, “Borrowing Under a Securitization Structure”, depicting the typical mortgage transaction in 2007 (click to enlarge):

    The County Auditor’s database says the owner of this house is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. It says Deutsche Bank NTC paid $50,000 for the house in a sheriff’s sale in March 2007. The sheriff’s sale was the outcome of Case CV-05-554639, an action for foreclosure against the previous owners, filed in Common Pleas Court in February 2005 by Deutsche Bank NTC “as Trustee”.

    But Deutsche Bank never held a mortgage on 4111 Archwood. And Deutsche Bank doesn’t really own 4111 Archwood now.

    We’ll get back to Case CV-05-554639 and that magic word “Trustee” in a minute. But first, a short tour of the New Mortgage Industry, courtesy of the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair.

    Chairman Bair testified before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services last April. Her entire testimony is well worth reading, but it’s modestly famous for two charts.

    The first chart depicts the mortgage transaction as many (most?) of us still understand it

    As Chairman Bair explained to the Committee:

    Securitization takes the role of the lender and breaks it into separate components. Unlike the more traditional relationship between a borrower and a lender, securitization involves the sale of the loan by the lender to a new owner–the issuer–who then sells securities to investors. The investors are buying “bonds” that entitle them to a share of the cash paid by the borrowers on their mortgages. Once the lender has sold the mortgage to the issuer, the lender no longer has the power to restructure the loan or make other accommodations for its borrower. That becomes the responsibility of a servicer, who collects the mortgage payments, distributes them to the issuer for payment to investors, and, if the borrower cannot pay, takes action to recover cash for the investors.

    And she listed some of the roles in this modern mortgage transaction:

    o Issuer – A bankruptcy-remote special purpose entity (SPE) formed to facilitate a securitization and to issue securities to investors.
    o Lender – An entity that underwrites and funds loans that are eventually sold to the SPE for inclusion in the securitization. Lenders are compensated by cash for the purchase of the loan and by fees. In some cases, the lender might contract with mortgage brokers. Lenders can be banks or non-banks.
    o Mortgage Broker – Acts as a facilitator between a borrower and the lender.The mortgage broker receives fee income upon the loan’s closing.
    o Servicer – The entity responsible for collecting loan payments from borrowers and for remitting these payments to the issuer for distribution to the investors. The servicer is typically compensated with fees based on the volume of loans serviced. The servicer is generally obligated to maximize the payments from the borrowers to the issuer, and is responsible for handling delinquent loans and foreclosures.
    o Investors – The purchasers of the various securities issued by a securitization. Investors provide funding for the loans and assume varying degrees of credit risk, based on the terms of the securities they purchase…
    o Trustee – A third party appointed to represent the investors’ interests in a securitization. The trustee ensures that the securitization operates as set forth in the securitization documents, which may include determinations about the servicer’s compliance with established servicing criteria.
    “Bankruptcy-remote”. What a great adjective.

    So what does this all have to do with 4111 Archwood? While I explain, you might want to keep that second chart handy.

    In August 2003, the couple that had owned 4111 Archwood since 1996 refinanced it for $93,500. Their lender was Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, a division of ACC Holdings of Orange, CA, which also owned Ameriquest Mortgage and AMC Mortgage Services. Argent was the biggest single subprime lender in Cuyahoga County between 2003 and 2005, going from no originations in 2002 to nearly 2,400 in 2003, 4,900 in 2004, and 3,800 in 2005. (Following several years of lawsuits and other problems, ACC recently closed Ameriquest’s doors and sold Argent, AMC and Ameriquest’s servicing contracts to Citigroup. Argent is now doing business as Citi Residential Lending.)

    Less than two months after the mortgage on 4111 Archwood was signed, Argent Mortgage Co. LLC transferred it to Argent Securities, Inc., which “deposited” it, along with thousands of other Argent mortgages into something called “Argent Securities, Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-W5″.

    Let’s just call it “ASIABPTCS2003W5″ for short.

    As you may have guessed, ASIABPTCS2003W5 is one of those “bankruptcy-remote special purpose entities” Chairman Bair mentioned. It was set up by Argent to be the vehicle by which all that mortgage paper, with a face value of $1.5 billion, would be sold to investors. Once that was accomplished, the mortgage on 4111 Archwood became a tiny piece of the paper assets owned by ASIABPTCS2003W5, a corporate entity owned not by Argent but by its investors.

    The “Pooling and Service Agreement” that created ASIABPTCS2003W5 named Argent’s sister company, Ameriquest Mortgage, as “Master Servicer” for all those mortgages.

    And it named Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as the “Trustee” of ASIABPTCS2003W5 — the party paid to represent the interests of the investors and oversee the Master Servicer’s performance.

    This all happened at the beginning of October, 2003.

    Sixteen months later, in February 2005, the borrower was in default and Deutsche Bank — as the Trustee for ASIABPTCS2003W5 — filed an action for foreclosure in Common Pleas Court.

    But — funny thing — nobody had bothered to tell the County Recorder, who’s legally in charge of keeping track of these things, that Argent Mortgage had sold the mortgage to ASIABPTCS2003W5. Ten months into the foreclosure proceeding, the magistrate somehow figured out that Argent was still the mortgagee of record and that Deutsche Bank lacked standing to foreclose on the property. (As the case summary, entry for 12/21/05, puts it: “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE CASE AND PLACE ON THE ACTIVE LIST IS DENIED. THE PARTY PURPORTEDLY GRANTED RELIEF FROM STAY IS NOT THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ACTION.”)

    The lawyer for Deutsche Bank quickly filed a motion to make Argent the “substitute plaintiff” in the case. The magistrate agreed to this, putting the foreclosure back on track. Then Argent’s lawyer got it together to file the correct document — it’s called a “Release Assignment” — with the Recorder’s Office in February, confirming the sale of the mortgage on 4111 Archwood to, ahem…


    Finally, seven months later — after the foreclosure was granted to substitute plaintiff Argent, which had sold off its interest in the mortgage three years earlier — the magistrate granted a second plaintiff substitution, swapping Argent out and “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee of ASIABPTCS2003W5″ back in.

    So it was “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee of ASIABPTCS2003W5″ listed as plaintiff on the sheriff’s sale notice, and as the grantee (buyer) on the sheriff’s deed. And now it’s “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company” listed as the owner on County records — with a tax mailing address at 505 City Parkway Suite # 100, Orange, CA, which just happens to be the last-listed address of Ameriquest Mortgage. (Remember them? Master Servicer for ASIABPTCS2003W5. Now defunct. Mortgage servicing contracts bought by Citigroup.)

    But of course Deutsche Bank NTC doesn’t actually own 4111 Archwood, any more than it actually ever owned the mortgage.

    ASIABPTCS2003W5 — that “bankruptcy-remote special purpose entity”, a paper creation owned by nobody in particular — owns 4111 Archwood.

    Deutsche Bank, as Trustee, just represents ASIABPTCS2003W5 for certain purposes. Ameriquest Mortgage was supposed to take care of ASIABPTCS2003W5′s properties, but Ameriquest is out of business; this job may have passed to Citi Residential.

    So who’s actually responsible for 4111 Archwood? Good question.

    That’s just one house. Deutsche Bank currently “owns” over 900 houses in Cuyahoga County through foreclosures in which it acted as Trustee for some “special purpose entity”, commonly an entity created by Argent. Argent alone organized at least thirty-one of these billion-dollar mortgage-backed investment pools from 2003 through 2006.

    So maybe you can see why Judges Boyko, O’Malley, Rose, et al are making a big deal about checking Deutsche Bank’s paperwork.

    This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pm and is filed under Deutsche Bank. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


  4. Thank you Mark!
    Why acquire evidence? Good evidence? For the very reasons Mark describes those of you who ask ‘Should I be worried” Yes.

    The COURT will rule over evidence not your knowledge. What evidence do you have? The time is now to save every penny and get the evidence constructed to enable attorney’s to present to the court egregious acts and infer elements that the party standing before the court is not and never can be the party with Standing!

    Want to get mad? Lean how the Loopholes and Special-Purpose Vehicles (SPV’s) subsidiareis and Agencies and Agents harmed you using pass thru agencies..

    So many want easy answers to fix the problem. You can’t unless you understand what the problem is. And the problem does not fit in a few bullet points.

    Who is NASCOR & SASCOR

  5. These are the exact words of the Deutsche Bank spokesman, a Mr. John Gallagher:

    “Deutsche acts as Trustee, and has an administrative role…but has no beneficial ownership, stake, or interest in the underlying mortgage loans.”

  6. Just wondering if anyone knows what my IndyMac “servicer” might try next—and what my next plan of attack (or defense) might be—my story so far in a nutshell:

    Did a refinance in 2006 with Indymac—(MERS,etc.)

    Went into default (income bad because of economy), April 2010, was told “we can help you, but you must be in default”…

    Months of wrangling, (the usual lost paperwork on their end etc., fighting like hell to get a “loan mod”—(not realizing that they are a total crock).

    Finally granted a “trial mod”—made one payment, then started reading all the stuff on “livinglies”—then went to my county recorders office to check on recorded documents…( I had already sent a cease and desist to the company pretending to have the authority to sell my house…haven’t heard from them since)

    I had obtained an email address for a “default escalation specialist” at IndyMac…and have been communicating with him, but I seem to know more about everything than he does…

    Lastly, I emailed him insisting that he prove to me that Deutsche bank owns my loan—he scrambles for a couple of days, finally sends me a fabricated “Substitution on Trustee” (which is not recorded in my LA, CA county) dated 2010 and signed and notarized in Travis, Texas…where the servicer is…

    I told him the document was not legally recorded in my county, that back-dating is illegal, and that a spokesman for Deutsche Bank said publicly that they have NO BENEFICIARY INTEREST IN ANY LOANS.

    He has not responded in several days….should I be worried?

  7. Dear Mark,

    Thanks for your input. I wished you had written this up some weeks ago. I would have had the “LAWYER” I hired to something about the NOTE that was presented in court.

    The LAWYER told me my case was over once the PRETENDER LENDER brought the note and made it available for the judge to look it over. My LAWYER did not even bothered to show up to court. He did his “JOB” over the phone, he did charge in advance for his lack of effort.

    However, I know not all lawyers are like that. Ad there are many brilliant lawyers that get it and take their time to punch holes in the FAKERS armor.

    I wish you the best. May god guide your every step!!

  8. SEC is there for investors. We need other government agencies — who are – so far — either scared , sleeping, or under the influence.

  9. buttons,
    Oops forgot the link for you > http://scholar.google.com/advanced_scholar_search?hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=2003

    Hope this helps. Good Luck.

  10. buttons,
    Don’t listen to THE A MAN, he’s one of those religious fanatics.

    Search published Court opinions and research by the Circuit you’re located in so you’ll know what to expect and what should be pleaded (most recent District Court decisions of your State will provide the best accuracy for what the Judge will expect).

  11. buttons,
    Seriously consider handling the case “Sui Juris” (In My Own Right). Schedule a Hearing ASAP and show up for Oral Argument.

    P.S. Hire a Court Reporter

  12. So, when is it going to be aired on NBC?

  13. Mr. Garfield you should be KNIGHTED!!!

    Thank you for helping to reveal the truth…I told my husband this morning that I feel like I can finally “exhale” for the first time in a long time…I hope your eye is healing nicely!

  14. buttons go on Huffington Post. and maybe somebody will help you.


  15. I believe too that the Judges will come around and have in fact, done so on some of the cases – Re Judge Schack.

    Thanks to Living Lies and its contributors

  16. Has the SEC ever addressed the problem of securities such as CWABS that contain “AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER – A CORPORATION” mortgages?

    Neil has documented these loans that only identify the lender as the AWL CORPORATION as ‘WILD’ mortgages.

    CountryWide fakes out some people including some attorneys with the usage of a separate filing of a ‘d/b/a’.

    For that ‘d/b/a’ to be valid on these ‘WILD’ mortgages, the reference to that D/B/A would need to be clearly used on the mortgages instead of the naming of the LENDER as “America’s Wholesale Lender – A New York Corporation”.

    The problems created by the identification of a CORPORATION that was never formed can not be solved by generating ‘d/b/a’ filings all over the US. The only place that MATTERS is one they can not fix: THE FACE OF THE DEED AND NOTE.

    SO WHEN will the SEC ever stop the inclusion of these WILD mortgages in the trusts that have certificates listed with the SEC?

  17. Also looking for Bankruptcy Attorney who understands TILA VIOLATIONS and TILA Rescission violations… Any suggestions??

  18. YAY!
    Finally, they are listening and seeing the real problem………I would love to be able to get my story in the news. It is unbelievable what the lender has gotten by with because the judge refuses to uphold the laws. I now have a lawsuit filed against the lender in federal court and need media exposure and a lawyer who GETS IT! Any takers???????

  19. Let’s hope so!

  20. Now it’s time the media and courts admit that the banks and financial institutions are the cause of the real crisis. Home owners need to be restored and some one needs to go to jail. Unleash Bill Black !

  21. Preparing for Trial In a Foreclosure Case

    Posted on May 11, 2011 by Mark Stopa http://www.stayinmyhome.com
    I have a trial tomorrow in a foreclosure case. It’s in Lee County, of course – the county where the judges prosecute cases by setting trials sua sponte. Right now, I’m earnestly preparing for trial, but I thought I’d take a break to discuss the two issues are paramount in virtually every foreclosure case/trial. Depending on the facts of a particular case, there may be other issues, of course, but these two issues are critical to a Plaintiff’s ability to win at trial and should, in my view, be vigorously defended in virtually every case:

    1. Introducing the Note into evidence.

    2. Proving the homeowner’s default in payments and the amount owed.

    Re. the former, we all know the Plaintiff must introduce the original Note into evidence, failing which a foreclosure judgment cannot lawfully be entered. The fact that a Note is “self-authenticating” makes this seem like a low hurdle – the Plaintiff’s attorney simply needs to hand the original Note to the judge and it will be admitted into evidence. Fortunately for homeowners, it’s not that simple.

    Under Fla. Stat. 673.3081, if a homeowner denies the authenticity of a Note or the signatures thereon in the pleadings, the Plaintiff must authenticate the Note, and its signatures, at trial. There is still a presumption the Note and all signatures are authentic, but by contesting authentication, a homeowner can force the bank to authenticate the Note at trial. This may be harder than you think. For instance, if I challenge the authenticity of a blank indorsement, the Plaintiff must put on testimony from someone who can swear, under oath, that he/she saw the indorsement executed or that he/she recognizes the signature and it is authentic. Similarly, if I challenge the authenticity of the Note, the Plaintiff must present a witness who can testify he/she saw the homeowner sign the Note or who recognizes the homeowner’s signature based on other documents. The way that Notes change hands between banks, neither of these things would be very easy, and I doubt the Plaintiffs’ lawyers will be prepared to deal with these evidentiary issues. In other words, it’s quite possibly that if the homeowner preserves these evidentiary objections at trial, the Plaintiff’s lawyers won’t be prepared for them and won’t even have the requisite witness(es) at trial to testify.

    Re. the second issue, testimony at trial must generally be based on personal knowledge. That means the Plaintiff must testify to events he/she has seen with his/her eyes or heard with his/her ears. This is virtually impossible to do with regard to proving a homeowner did not pay a mortgage payment or proving the amount owed, so the Plaintiff invariably must rely on documents to prove these facts. This is permissible, but only if the Plaintiff can introduce these documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

    Again, this is harder than you think. The Plaintiff must show: (1) the documents are a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation; (2) made at or near the time of the event; (3) by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge; (4) kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity; and (5) that it was the regular practice of that business to make such a record. All five elements must be satisfied or the documents cannot be used as evidence at trial.

    I’m not trying to teach anyone how to practice law. Rather, my point is that there are virtually always things that can be done to make it difficult for a bank to prevail in a foreclosure case; these are just two examples. So don’t give up – keep fighting foreclosure!

    Mark Stopa


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: