Hiding Curtains Behind Curtains

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

TRANSACTIONS GETTING BURIED ON PRIVATE EXCHANGES WITH PRIVATE MEMBERS

EDITOR’S NOTE: As the press and Attorneys General and DOJ, and regulatory agencies get geared up for what will be prosecutorial events, the banks are busy burying the bodies in transactions conducted in “private exchanges” whose members are private as well. That’s why merely getting the “name of the trust” is a start, and a good one, but it is not the end of the story. You need a full scale history on the pools claiming ownership now and the pools that once claimed ownership of the mortgage loans but now don’t.

They are all named in a foreclosure proceedings as though they were real and as though they really owned anything. They do not own anything, even if we were to assume the pools or trusts were real. But they do have a huge liability created by the sale of credit default swap contracts, in which the entire SPV (or the tranches, which seem to have no independent existence but still are named as parties in these contracts) agree to pay to the buyer of the credit default swap, an amount of money equal to the “value” of the default. That value is declared and is presumptively correct as stated by the Master Servicer which is actually the Investment Bank.

The fact that the mortgage bonds were bogus and that the pools were fictitious is a big potential problem for the banks and large potential opportunity for the homeowners who engaged in transactions involving table-funded loans that were “securitized.”  So the solution adopted by the banks is the time honored tradition of keeping the “assets” moving. It is challenging to notice important details of something that is in motion. And one of the main ways that they are keeping it motion is through private trades on private exchanges in which the pools are broken up or terminated.

Why is this important? Imagine that you are in litigation with John Smith. Unknown to you and the Court because the attorney on the other side doesn’t tell anyone, contrary to his duties to do so, the parties have changed several times since the litigation began. John Smith has entered into private, unrecorded, unregistered transactions that change the whole context of your claim. It’s your job to press i  discovery for information regarding those changes. Believe me, they will do anything and everything to avoid disclosing that information. It is hot button that can be used very effectively in forcing some nice settlement or even full quiet title against the banks.

FROM MARY COCHRANE:

Just how did New Jersey entities West of Wall Street) control the mortgage real estate industry and harm the economy?

Norwest Corp & Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp (“CMMC”) and GMAC-RFC announce their newly acquired affiliate – largestproducer of non-conforming mortgage products ‘Norwest Asset Securities Corp’

Meanwhile diversitures, acquisitions continue where foreign owners acquire pipeline and place in their ‘stables’ national consumer production entities. Office of Comptroller of Currency the LOOPHOLE who allowed the SERVICER segway to become a pipeline separated from national banks and allowed the national banks to affix their privae brand label to the transactions.

Loopholes ‘Certain Relationships and Related Transactions’ processed over SEC (by private members of private financial exchanges) approved by OCC whos has visitorial powers and CONGRESS created and vested the ‘limited’ no correct that ‘unlimited’ supervisory authority control of the Federal Reserve System to ‘trump’ federal and state statutory laws created under Article I, to be enforced under Article II Executive Branch, and when ‘alleged unlawful business acts of commerce’ Petition to Redress Grievances submitted to CONGRESS regarding alleged unlawful business acts, submitted by consumers, CONGRESS has DUTY (fiduciary duty) to welfare of nation, to investigate the complaints and allow the Attorney Generals given Jurisdiction over such matters vested the powers to enforce laws.

When did the OCC get the authority to allow ‘banks’ and their subsidiaries (of any kind) to take deposits in any treasury ?
When did the OCC get the authority to allow SERVICERS, Master Servicers, SubServicers, Special Services, Agents/Dealers/Brokers/Distributors Wholesale and retail to affix the label of any Agent/Agency and use the name of a national bank to process all transactions related to foreclosure in bad faith preventing enforcement of laws using ‘visitorial powers’ to prevent Executive Branch to perform their duty and primary responsiblity from the Commander-in-Chief down, through each Governor of every state, in all 50 States and US Territories to not protect consumers and deny consumers due process of law and subject consumers to unlawful seizure of property whose possession taken by third party in larcenous manner.

Since when can the OCC allow any bank other than a national banking associatino to convert depostis of national bank into securities? Just because ‘Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.’ 2004 merged out of existence? All transactions of SERVICER as SELLER of Discounted Loans to non-related third parties who close not with Wells Fargo Bank NA rather Wells Fargo Funding and its subsidiaries whose Agents/Dealers/Brokers/Distributors are allowed to affix to all transactions related to consumer retail mortgage loans affix a national bank label, and call the ‘deposit’ of funding from unrelated third party (Investor purchase funds from Warehouse Lender all who are unrelated but a subsidiary – example Pinnacle and there are still 105 of these beauties alive and converting)…don’t understand? Call 973-347-3475….

Local Wells Fargo employee in 2006 winds up in bad faith sells to consumer a defective mortgage loan products and the consumer unaware the ‘mortgage financial products’ is defective at time of sale causing substantive harm to consumer…can not report to DOBI, NJ DOBI, Criminal Crimes Unit of New Jersey, Attorney General US and State, they say not their jurisidiction why? Wells Fargo Funding is not a national bank. The SERVICER ‘Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’ is a division of the National Bank! LOOPHOLE!
_______________________________________
Will ‘Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp’ be a division too?
________________________________________

What was ‘Request for no-action letter forwarded to Office of Chief Counsel Div of Corporate Financing, 6/18/1993 and response of SEC 8/4/1993 to no-action request as related to 1998 – Item 13 – Certain relationships and related transactions?
The Money Store Trust & Chase Manhattan Bank – Asset Backed Certificates Class BH-1? owner 100% — ?

Class AF-1 – Chase Manhattan Bank and
State Street Bank & Trust Co
Class AF-2 Money Store Trust c/o Mellon Bank NA & Chase Manhattan Bank & State Street Bank

Class AF-3 Bankers Trust Co (Deutsche Bank)
c/o BT Services TN; Bankers Trust Company/First Union Safekeeping Dealer Clearance, Chase Manhattan Bank, Prudential Securities Inc, c/o ADP Proxy Services, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood NY, Sate Street Bank & Trust Co,

Class AF-4 Northern Trust Co, PNC, State Street Bank & Trust CO,

Class AF-5, Money Store Trust, Bankers Trust c/o BT Services TN, c/o Mellon Bank NA, Chase Manhattan Bank/MSTC, State Street Bank & Trust CO,

Class AF-6 Money Store Trust, Bank of NY, Chase Manhattan Bank,

Class AF-7 Money Store Trust, Bankers Trust Co, c/O BT Services TN, Northern Trust CO, State Street Bank & Trust Co, US Bank NA, MPFP Proxy Unit, 601 Second Ave South, Minneapolis MN

Class AF-8 Money Store Trust, BNY, 100%

Class AF-9 Bankers Trust Co c/o BT Services, Nashville TN (Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co) c/o Mellon Bank NA, Chase Manhattan Bank, Firstar Trust Co,

Class AV-1

1998 MBIA Insurance Corp (Surety provider for The Money Store Trust Backed Certificates, Series 1998-A) and subsidiaries in 10K 12/31/1998 filed with SEC by MBIA inc on 3/26/19999 incorporates the consolidated financial statements.

——————————————————————-

1996 – Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp (“CMMC”) and GMAC-RFC and Norwest Corp annouce newly acquired affiliate largest producer of non-conforming mortgage products (Norwest Asset Securities Corp (“NASCOR”)

South Dakota Secretary of State (great records Thank You!)

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp
FB014938
Incorporation: 11/15/1991
Home State: New Jersey
Established SD: 12/1993 filed Annual Report
Status Inactive: 8/2005
August 2005 Withdrawal South Dakota

======================================
Flavor of why understanding how JPMorgan’s
Chemical Banking Corp: National Consumer Business EVP Thomas Jacob 1993/1994: What we have been lacking is a certain balance in our originations network. We are primarily a wholesale and correspondent lender. Integration of mortgage operations with Chemical’s.

Margaretten Financial Corp merger with Chemical Banking Corp; Chemical Residential Mortgage Corp, CEO David Frank 9/2/1994

As president of Margaretten, Thomas Jacob had been the designated successor to chairman Felix Beck even before Margaretten went public in February 1992. Thomas Jacob will be running the combined mortgage operations of Margaretten and Chemical, a business more than twice the size of Margaretten. Mr. Beck, Mr. Frank’s longtime mentor, will stay on as a nonexecutive chairman who retires in 2009 from Chase Holdings….

The Margaretten and Chemical Bank merger produced a mortgage operation with a servicing portfolio of more than $50 billion, pushing Chemical into the top 10 in the industry. Chemical Mortgage, based in Worthington, Ohio, was No. 13 and … http://www.highbeam.com/reg/reg1.aspx

Margaretten & Co. led by Felix Beck from loan originations 1990 to 1993 top 20 origintors. Now Margaretten has been swallowed by Chemical Banking Corp., the resulting Chemical Residential Mortgage Co. has moved a dozen miles to new quarters in Metropark, N.J., Mr. Beck has retired as chairman, and his long-time No. 2 man, David Frank, will head Chemical’s mortgage operations. http://www.highbeam.com/reg/reg1.aspx

Felix Beck retires 2009 from Chase Mortgage Holdings Inc. Formerly 1990 Margaretten & Co. Inc.
Perth Amboy, New Jersey

Copyright 2009 Mortgage Bankers Association of America: Felix M. Beck, who has served as chairman emeritus of Chase’s Home Loan Lending business for the past 14 years and has been in the mortgage industry for more than 60 years, has announced his retirement.

Beck began his career with New Jersey Savings & Loan League, working his way up to leadership positions with financial institutions that included Carteret Savings & Loan Association and J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corporation. He spent most of his career at Margaretten …
(Highbeam Research Free Subscription) http://www.highbeam.com/reg/reg1.aspx

David Frank elected president of Margaretten mortgage company 1/8/1991.
DAVID FRANK ELECTED PRESIDENT OF MARGARETTEN MORTGAGE COMPANY

PERTH AMBOY, N.J., Jan. 8 /PRNewswire/ — The elevation of David A. Frank to president and chief operating officer was announced today by Margaretten & Company, Inc. Margaretten, the mortgage banking unit of Primerica Corporation (NYSE: PA), is a leading provider of conventional mortgage loans and is believed to be the nation’s largest originator of FHA-insured loans for single-family homes and of VA-guaranteed mortgages.

As the new president of Margaretten, Frank succeeds Edward L. Blau, who was named vice chairman and continues as chief administrative officer. Frank’s advancement was …http://www.highbeam.com/reg/reg1.aspx

Eileen Reinhardt (Borad of Directors 1993 Merger)
Item of interest:
MARGARETTEN FINANCIAL FOUNDATION INC
(c/o EILEEN REINHARDT) 205 SMITH ST Charitable Organization * * * 05/1994

Annual Report – November 1992
Margaretten & Co. Inc. is 100% Owned by Margaretten Financial Corp
205 Smith St
Perth Amboy, NJ 08861
Incorporated: New Jersey
205 Smith St, Perth Amboy NJ 08861
Mortgage Banking
Middlesex County
Eileen Reinhardt SVP Margaretten & Co., Inc.

Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp
6/5/96 to 5/25/01

SEC Office of Chief Counsel, Division of Corporations, 9/17/1996 approve the request of Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp who choose to report report pursuant to Section 15(d), 13 and 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”),as amended (the “Exchange Act”), in the manner described therein.
======================================
Inquiring minds want to know in the Year Nineteen Hundred Ninty Six (1996)
is this the 1st Bear Stearns & Chase deal?

Whose private trust fund monies (pension fund? Bausch Lomb?) (Redwood Trust?) inside already January and March 1996.
=======================================
January $190,000,000 Class A-1
‘Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1996-1
March Class A-2$
Why PSA end date July 1996 (six months later)
6/26/96 424B2 Registrations Prospectuses — Rule 424(b)(2) & Prospectus • Rule 424(b)(5)

DEPOSITOR-COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1996-1

Class A-1 .. $190,000,000(6) % January 18, 2006 July 18, 2028The Offered

=======================================
In the Year Ninteenhundred Ninty Six: 1996

Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp (Depositor) 8-K • For 7/30/96
EX-4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement

Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp (Agent)

“Agent”: As defined in Section 5.02(d)(i)(A)
(Registrant) (Depositor)(Servicer of Mortgage Loans) (Initial: Paying Agent, Certificate Registrar & Authenticating Agent.

“Authenticating Agent”: Any agent of the Trustee appointed to act as Authenticating Agent pursuant to Section 5.01.

———————————————————————

Depositor, Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., 380 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017, Attention: Jacqueline R. Slater, with a copy to Jeanne M. Mininall, Esq., telecopy number: (212) 270-7481

Servicer: The Chase Manhattan Bank, CCMB Servicing Division, 380 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10017 Attention: Janice Smith, V.P. telecopy number: (212) 622-3553;

Special Servicer, Lennar Partners, Inc., 700 NW 107th Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33172, Attention: Jeffrey Krasnoff, telecopy number: (305) 226-7691, with a copy to Brian Bilzin, Esq., 2500 First Union Financial Center, Miami, Florida 33131, telecopy number: (305) 374-7593

Trustee LASALLES NATIONAL BANK and the
Fiscal Agent ABN AMRO BANK NV

LaSalle National Bank, 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1740, Chicago, Illinois 60603, Attention: Asset-Backed Securities Trust Services, Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Series 1996-1, telecopy number: 312-904-2084

(TRUSTEE NOTICES DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DULY GIVEN ONLY WHEN RECEIVED)
and ABN AMRO Bank N.V., as fiscal agent, of Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

Fiscal Agent initial Authenticating Agent:
The Chase Manhattan Bank,
450 West 33rd Street,
15th Floor,
New York, New York 10001,
Attention: Structured Finance Services (MBS), telecopy number: (212) 946-8302

Rating Agencies,
(a) Fitch Investors Services, L.P.,
One State Street Plaza,
33rd Floor, New York, New York 10004,
Attention: Commercial Mortgage Surveillance, telecopy number: (212) 635-0295, and

(b) Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services,
26 Broadway,
New York, New York 10004,
Attention: Commercial Mortgage Surveillance Group, telecopy number: (212) 412-0539

July 1, 1996, among Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. as Depositor,
The Chase Manhattan Bank as Servicer,
Lennar Partners, Inc. as Special Servicer,
ABN AMRO Bank N.V. as Fiscal Agent and
LaSalle National Bank as Trustee.
======================================

In the Year, 1998:
What does ‘Structured Asset Securities Corp’ got to do got to do with this?

Structured Asset Sec Corp Mort Pass Thr Certs Series 1998-8
1 SEC File (as “Issuer”)
Signatory (Directors, Officers, Attorneys, Accountants, Bankers, Agents, et al.)
9 Names (Directors, Officers, Attorneys, Accountants, Bankers, Agents, et al.)
1/27/99 Aranka R.Paul, Trust Officer
12/30/99 Chase Manhattan Bank
12/30/99 Karen Dobres, Trust Officer
1/12/99 Kimberly Costa, Asistant Vice President
12/4/98 Kimberly Costa, Assistant Vice president
3/25/99 Kimberly Costa, Vice president
11/9/98 Kimberly Kosta, Vice president
1/12/99 The Chase Manhattan Bank
9/8/98 Yarledy Marin, Vice president

39 Closely Related: Chase Manhattan Bank
Signatory with 63 Registrants:

7/29/98 424B5 Structured Asset Securities Corp
formerly Structured Asset Sec Corp Series 1998-2 ]

7/30/98 12/30/99 333-47499-04 ’33 424B5 [ by Structured Asset Securities Corp ]
’34 8-K, 15-15D, 10-K, 10-K/A

“Chase Manhattan Bank”
Latest Filing: 2/17/05 as Signatory

The Chase Manhattan Bank”
Latest Filing: 9/10/04 as Signatory

PCS Holding Corp [ formerly McKesson Corp/DE ]
McKesson Corp [ formerly McKesson Hboc Inc ]
Ohio Casualty Corp 2/8/95 – 9/4/07
Brinks Co [ formerly Pittston Co ]

July 14 1996 Statement No. 33-50010, which is incorporated by reference.

On July 14, 1996, in connection with the merger of Chemical Bank and The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association), Chemical Bank, the surviving corporation, was renamed

The Chase Manhattan Bank:

NJ Money Store Inc. 22-2293022

Guarantors Identification Number

DC Money Store/D.C. Inc. 22-2133027
KY Money Store/Kentucky Inc. 22-2459832
MN Money Store/Minnesota Inc.22-3003495
DE Money Store Auto Finance Inc. 22-3331186
DE Class Notes Inc. 22-3400682
NJ Dyna-Mark, Inc. 22-1920775
NJ Equity Insurance Agency, Inc. 22-1936537
NJ Major Brokerage Co., Inc. 22-1902811
CA Princeton Escrow 95-3427953
KY Money Store Home Equity Co 22-2522232
NJ Money Store Investment Corp 22-2293019
NY Money Store of New York Inc. 22-3143559
CA The Commerce Group 68-0103196
NJ Money Store Commercial Mortgage Inc.
22-2378261
NJ Money Store Service Corp. 22-2293016
NJ TMS Mortgage Inc. 22-3217781
DE Money Store U.K Inc. 91-1784015
CA Money Store Realty Inc. 68-0379803
DE TMS Venture Holdings, Inc. 91-1771259

Wachovia Commercial Mortgage Inc 1999-1
[ formerly Money Store Commercial Mortgage Inc ]
6/27/96 Money Store Inc/NJ
424B5 Money Store Trust 1996-B
Filing Agent: SEC CIK 950130

Money Store D C Inc
Money Store Kentucky Inc
Money Store Minnesota Inc
Money Store Home Equity Corp
TMS Mortgage Inc
Wachovia Corp New [ formerly First Union Corp ]
As: Group Member
(Non-Registrant Filer: Partner, Affiliate, etc.)
List All Filings as Group Member

Search Recent Filings (as Group Member) for
“The Chase Manhattan Bank”
“The Chase Manhattan Bank” has been a Group Member with the following 2 Registrants:
General Motors Investment Management Corp
[ formerly Promark Investment Advisors ]
J P Morgan Chase & Co
[ formerly Chase Manhattan Corp/DE ]

“The Chase Manhattan Bank” has/had a Group Member interest in 12 Registrants:

Home Properties Inc
[ formerly Home Properties of New York Inc ]
Money Store Inc/NJ

“The Chase Manhattan Bank” has been a Group Member with the following 3 Group Members:
Chase Manhattan Capital Corporation
Chase Manhattan Corp/DE
General Motors Investment Management Corp

Signatory (Director, Officer, Attorney, Accountant, Banker, Agent, etc.)
Chase Manhattan Bank” has been a Signatory for/with the following 63 Registrants:

A/I/Receivables Transfer Corp
[ formerly A I Receivables Transfer Corp ]
Abn Amro Mortgage Corp Series 2001-5
Bank of America FSB/CA
BMW Auto Leasing LLC
BMW Manufacturing LP
BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2000-A
Caterpillar Financial Asset Trust 2004-A
Caterpillar Financial Funding Corp
Chase Bank USA/National Association [ formerly Chase Bank USA ]
Chase Credit Card Master Trust [ formerly Chemical Master Credit Card Trust I ]
Chase Issuance Trust [ formerly Bank One Issuance Trust ]
Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust 1997-A
Choice Hotels International Inc/DE [ formerly Choice Hotels Franchising Inc ]
Cit Marine Trust 1999-A
Daimler Benz Vehicle Receivables Corp
Daimlerchrysler Auto Trust 2000 A
Daimlerchrysler Auto Trust 2000 B
Dillard Asset Funding Co
Fidelity Mt Vernon Street Trust
Financial Services Vehicle Trust
First USA Credit Card Master Trust
Haven Bancorp Inc
Hines Horticulture Inc
Household Consumer Loan Corp
Household Consumer Loan Deposit Trust I
Household Consumer Loan Trust 1996-2
Household Consumer Loan Trust 1997-1
Household Consumer Loan Trust 1997-2
Key Consumer Acceptance Corp
Manor Care Inc/New
Money Store D C Inc
Money Store Home Equity Corp
Money Store Kentucky Inc
Money Store Minnesota Inc
National Auto Finance Co Inc
National Financial Auto Funding Trust
Navistar Financial Securities Corp
Nissan Auto Receivables Corp/DE
Premier Auto Trust 1998 4
Premier Auto Trust 1998 5
Premier Auto Trust 1999-2
SLM Education Credit Funding LLC
SLM Funding LLC [ formerly SLM Funding Corp ]
Staples Inc
Structured Asset Sec Corp Mort Pass Thr Certs Series 1998-8
Sunburst Hospitality Corp [ formerly Choice Hotels International Inc ]
Superior Wholesale Inventory Financing Trust I
Superior Wholesale Inventory Financing Trust II
TMS Mortgage Inc
Wachovia Commercial Mortgage Inc 1999-1 [ formerly Money Store Commercial Mortgage Inc ]
WFN Credit Co LLC
WFS Financial 1997-B Owner Trust
WFS Financial 1997-C Owner Trust
WFS Financial 1997-D Owner Trust
WFS Financial 1998-B Owner Trust
WFS Financial 1998-C Owner Trust
WFS Financial 1999 C Owner Trust
WFS Financial 1999-A Owner Trust
WFS Financial Auto Loans Inc [ formerly Western Financial Auto Loans Inc ]
Wholesale Auto Receivables LLC [ formerly Wholesale Auto Receivables Corp ]
Wodfi LLC
World Financial Network Credit Card Master Note Trust
World Financial Network Credit Card Master Trust

“Chase Manhattan Bank”
Latest Filing: 2/17/05 as Signatory
“Chase Manhattan Bank” has/had a Signatory interest in the following Registrant:
Haven Bancorp Inc
=====================================

In the Year 2001, 21st CenturyTwo Hundred One: Y2K Compliant virtual banking around the world.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO. (1039502)
as of 12/31/2001

* J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO. (1039502) NEW YORK NY Financial Holding Company – Domestic
848 -* J.P. MORGAN EQUITY HOLDINGS, INC. (1832132) 1 NEWARK DE Financial Holding Company – Domestic
849 –* CMC HOLDING DELAWARE INC. (1022924) 848 NEWARK DE Financial Holding Company – Domestic
850 —* CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (489913) 849 NEWARK DE National Bank
858 —-* MARGARETTEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION (2397290) 850 EDISON NJ Domestic Entity Other
859 —–* CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (1612400) 858 EDISON NJ Domestic Entity Other (flows )
———————————
1999
Chase Manhattan Bank First Union NA Bk Com Mor Tr Ser 1999-1
c/o Chemical Commerical Mortgage Securities Corp 8/20/1993
380 Madison Ave New York, NY 10017-2951
IRS-13-3728743

Renamed Chase

160 Responses

  1. my family was needing SSA-787 this month and came across an online service that hosts a searchable forms database . If people need SSA-787 too , here’s a http://goo.gl/Y6WtLC

  2. Dear neidermeyer:

    Checked today with Secretary of State DE.
    Confirmed Sand Canyon Acceptance Corp is the renamed Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corp.
    They don’t leave reference to old name for public viewing.

    File# 2666235. Copies of documents may be requested from state for a fee.

  3. When you discuss ‘note’ you mean promissory note correct?

    For Notes (365 Days or less investments) as financial instruments are recorded in name of owner c/o Cede & Co nominee Depository Trust Co.

    Remember the receivables as assets on the servicer’s side formerly during origination (Seller of discounted loans) using your assets as their property to convert your property assignment electronic registration transaction called a ‘certificate’ in MERS which is on the receivables side not on the DTC side.

    The promissory note on the MERS side too.

  4. MERS an electronic registry ‘owners’ Wells Fargo, JPM, … created to record ‘certificates’ in paper form of those holding ‘receivables’ as assets on their books.

    Reference to ‘certificates’ in a trust are not in paper form, and before the court the redacted ‘spreadsheets’ the Plaintiff will secure a protective order to present as ‘evidence’ of a DTC Certificate present in CERTIFICATE-GATE falsified documents filed with court which are not DTC Certificates!

  5. @anon

    AGREED

  6. Mean — in time.

  7. Go back — go back — go back..

  8. David C Breidenbach
    Neidermeyer
    saveamericaonee

    E mail me please

    1. Findings and personal knowledge first hand from 2002 that really back MERS up and recent decisions back to reconsider. /

    . . [ But ! MERS is now standing again as nominee for Trust preferred shareholder in joinder holding a Fannie FHLMC backed cert.
    .
    2. General ledger breaks down of hypothetical G/L for capitalizing the trust Commons and Trust Preferred through origination and warehouse combined companies under Derecognition scheme

    3. Evidence of fed charging off “book” value of Trust Common and dilution of Trust Preferred to 10:1 enabling the preferred to step into a creditor position;

    4. Conclusive evidence for consideration of CA Appellate Ct to argue 5th and 14 th Amedn violations for credit bidding / Gov. forfeiture by deceptive pro tanto; testifying to purpose for recap Trust Common shares .

    5. Reinvest each foreclosure back into an indenture to restore the investment avoiding costly remuneration / pay out to TP Preferred at a 10:1 cap dilute rate.

    6. FNMA and FHLMC appointed to TPO only for purposes for restoring eligibility to non-qualified assets

    7. Reversal of order used to capitate assets cause the borrower home to acieve “zero basis” under credit bidding scheme. (Free and Clear)

    Thanks
    expert.witness@live.comWarehouse

  9. David C Breidenbach,

    Uncle!!! Not going to dispute this anymore.

    Lack of Due Diligence is hard to argue in courts as to sophisticated investors. Nevertheless, I do not care whether or not they win or lose — as long as the homeowner victims are taken care of FIRST.

    Since homeowners do not have the same resources as sophisticated investors — need more government action.

  10. saveamericaone, on May 25, 2011 at 4:13 pm said:

    Dear Mr. Soliman:
    Should H&R Block be worried it’ll be dragged back into mortgage mess?

    Saveamericaone
    Your very alert and dialed in .
    Thanks

  11. Mary ,

    You certainly know how to work the SEC info better than I do … and while that certainly SHOWS INTENT , the corporate registry State of Delaware shows they failed to file.

  12. Dear Neidermeyer,

    Clearly State of DE either missed electronic recording or ….never registered with state of DE and next question would be an oppsssiiiiieeeee or did not pay state taxes?
    Will take a phone call to find out.

    October 22, 1996 – Robert E. Durbish Dir & President
    Steven L. Nadon Director & Secretary
    (Signatory H&R Block) Includes restricted shares of Common Stock granted under the H&R Block, Inc. Long-Term Executive Compensation Plan for which the restrictions have not yet lapsed.

    William L. O’Neill Director & Treasuirer

    SEC Certificate of Incorporation.

    A. To acquire, own, hold, transfer, assign, pledge and otherwise deal with the following (collectively, the “Mortgage Collateral”):

    B. To authorize, issue, sell and deliver bonds or other evidences of indebtedness (“Bonds”) that are secured by a pledge or other assignment of Mortgage Collateral, manufactured housing conditional sales contracts, loan agreements, reserve funds, guaranteed investment
    contracts, letters of credit, insurance contracts,
    surety bonds or any other credit enhancement device (collectively, “Collateral”);

    C. To serve as depositor of one or more trusts that may authorize, issue, sell and deliver Bonds, mortgage pass-through certificates or other certificates of interest that are secured by a pledge or other assignment of, or represents an interest in,
    Collateral; and

    D. To do all such things as are reasonable or necessary to enable the Company to carry out any of the above, including without limitation entering into loan agreements, insurance agreements, servicing agreements, reimbursement agreements, issuing debt (subject to the provisions of this Article 3 and
    Article 9 hereof) and selling residual interests in
    Collateral or selling certificates of participation
    in any trust for which the Company serves as
    depositor.

    The Company shall have the authority to engage in any other acts or activities and to exercise any power permitted to corporations under the
    General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware so long as the same are
    incidental to, or connected with, the foregoing or are necessary, suitable or
    convenient to accomplish the foregoing.

    The Company exists only for the purposes
    specified in this Article 3, and may not conduct any other business without the
    unanimous consent of its Board of Directors.

    http://www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.95p.c.htm

    American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc acquired Option One

    FFIEC.GOV RSSD ID 2597595 (Domestic Entity Other) located in CA 10/7/1996

    Since only (3) entities on FFIEC and is acting as depositer had to be renamed from something

    Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation Co, 10/22/1996
    ‘Master Servicer’
    ‘Trust Fund’
    Depositor Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corp a wholly-owned subsidiary of Option One Mortgage Corp

    (Registrant) DE COrp
    c/o Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corp
    2020 East First St, Suite 100
    Santa Ana CA 92705
    714-558,7700

    SEC CIK 1025562
    Office Address
    3 Ada Rd
    Irvine CA 92618

    Business Entity Search New York reveal Active operating as Sand Canyon Corporation
    A California Corp who Registered in NYS
    3/30/1994 as Option One Mortgage Corp
    Renamed 12/11/2008 Sand Canyon Corp

    Dale M. Sugimoto CEO
    7595 Irvine Center Dr
    Suite 100
    Irvine CA 92618

    Of interest,
    4/7/1997 ‘Assurance Mortgage Corp of America’
    2/11/2000 H&R Block Mortgage Corp
    7/20/2009 ADA Services Corp
    7/20/2009 Option One Mortgage Services Inc.

    Massachusetts Corporation – Active dba
    ADA Services Corp

    In CA, Option One Warehouse Corp SURRENDERED 2/11/2000
    I find Coincidences striking like address
    3 ADA Irvine CA for ‘ADA Services Corp.

    In CA, Option One Mortgage Capital Corp merged out of existence in CA is a Delaware Corp
    3 ADA Irvine CA

    Option One Mortgage Corp in CA ‘Suspended’ Resigned 10/03/1990

  13. @anon;
    “but blame this on the fund manager?? Can we agree to that??.”

    Yes—up to a point-certainly there were fund managers that were either too woooed either overtly or covertly to be handling “other peoples’ money” ——-fell for the glitz—columns that dont add——-stupid assumptions.

    But if you and I must do business and you must invest money in your custody——-and I can lie to you wantonly, self-deal, pay people to compromise your position —–no holds barred get away with anything I can, that money will be gone same second you sign it over.

    The 1933-34 Acts etc were in response to this kind of corossive greed——caveat emptor does not work in the financial world. I cannot agree to in any way diminish the responsibility of a frauder –i hope that a frauder cannot assert a defense of contributory negligence. I personally would find that twist to be abhorrant to society.

    If there is collusion-then that is another matter.

    And of course the investors’ agents have a higher duty to lookout than a homeowner—-but people have a right to believe something. Or what use govt?

  14. neidermeyer

    Good post. But — now owned by Mr. Wilbur Ross — distressed debt buyer. Hedge fund billionaire.

    Mr. Wilbur Ross — you know — the same one — coal miners safety??– all that matters is what you make on the deal. Oh yeah — coal miners died — after Wilbur purchased distressed debt rights to mine — but never upheld safety requirements.

    Trust Mr. Ross?? But, of course, he is not regulated.

  15. David C Breidenbach,

    You make an important point – as to classes/tranches. Security investors — contrary to what SOME here believe — are only in it for the current income – that is all entitled to. Others were in it the game for far more. Security investors were NOT the creditor — my point is only that they should have know better – but blame this on the fund manager?? Can we agree to that??.

    Nope — not going away — cause know more than I can say here.

    And — Mary — you make an important point – in your fine details —
    “and clearing corporations and certain other organizations called ‘Participants’ and DTC.”

    Borrowers – by subprime refinances — were NOT the borrowers — Anyone want to check under “Responsibility” on credit reports??? Maybe not on all — but go back — go back. — if a refinance. Check out all refinances from time of home purchase. Participant……?????

  16. Mary , MSoliman , Anon ,

    ALL …

    I LOVE THIS CREW!

    I’ll throw this in the mix …

    Option One Mortgage Corp is IRS EIN 33-0727357 ,

    Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corp shows the SAME EIN (33-0727357) in SEC filings although it is a seperate entity… a reverse lookup (paid service) in the IRS database showing ALL NAMED entities authorized to use that number shows the following:

    OPTION ONE
    OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP
    SAND CANYON CORP FKA OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP

    **** NOT ONE MENTION OF OPTION ONE MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CORP !!! PAST OR PRESENT****

    OOMAC IS **NOT** REGISTERED IN DELAWARE OR ANY OTHER STATE ALTHOUGH IN DOZENS OF FILINGS IT IS LABELED “A DELAWARE CORP”.

    OOMAC IS NOT LINKED TO OOMC LEGALLY IN ANY PUBLICLY SEARCHABLE DATABASE

    OOMAC SHARES THE SAME ADDRESS AS OOMC AND “BORROWS” OOMC’s EIN FOR SEC FILINGS..

    IT’S PRETTY CLEAR THAT OOMAC NEVER LEGALLY EXISTED AS A SEPERATE ENTITY AS DEPICTED IN SEC FILINGS AND THAT ALL TRUSTS THAT HAVE THEM NAMED AS “DEPOSITOR” ARE EMPTY…..

    QUESTION: WHERE ARE THE NOTES ??? A NON-EXISTANT ENTITY CANNOT DEPOSIT/TRANSFER/SELL OR DO ANYTHING WITH THEM…

    ANSWER: SAND CANYON (FKA OOMC) MUST STILL OWN THEM…

  17. Dear Mr. Soliman:

    Should H&R Block be worried it’ll be dragged back into mortgage mess?

    Shares of H&R Block Inc. lost nearly 8 percent 5/8 on renewed fears that the company will be dragged back into the subprime mortgage mess. News that a group of mortgage bond investors may try to force H&R Block’s former mortgage unit to buy back potentially billions of dollars in defaulted home loans sent shares sliding.

    The mortgages written by Block’s former Option One unit, which stopped issuing new loans in December 2007, have been a recurring issue for investors in recent years

    Your room with a view as Chief Operating Officer of a similar agency 90’s into early part of decade limited. Executives are a senior class of consumer who choose view of contemporaries as playmates and as professionals who respect each other’s just doing business thing admiring those who profited.

    Integrity as a banking term (sound treasury) build upon ‘Stupid people sign stupid contracts all the time’ make a game out of the takings of property by deception, you know like John Stumpf CEO wants his employee to sell units to consumers as reasonable people and get me their real and personal property! John has no problem allowing third parties to take possession property (real and personal) in a larcenous manner; after all he’s just creating a sound depository and doing business.

    I’m the proverbial trash talker; very funny too cause I’m the other half of the couple ‘William & Mary’ the college I’ve visited.

    The view of the executive suite you kindly share with us your memory- of Anthony the good lawyer who got out in time! Wonder where he is now? I did not seek info to share rather was involved in researching info that pertained to your comment and feel compelled to share.

    I will share because I can a 4-D view of Option One – H&R Blocked for I have no paradigms

    What has WFC, CITI, BONY, HSBC and UBS got to do ? I share Option One stuff first but the gang’s almost all here.

    Issuing Entity: OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2000-5
    Wells Fargo Corporate Trust Oversight
    Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota NA
    c/o 11000 Broken Land Parkway,
    Columbia MD 21044.
    Why is IRS# PENDING? on a 10K TOO? For 2.5 years? 10KA filed 7/2002.
    For year ende12/31/2000
    NO IRS#, 410-884-2220 SEC CIK 1137130
    RE: PSA at bottom for those who don’t want to see details

    Option One: a California Corp – headquartered in Irvine CA incorporated in 1992, receiving applications for mortgage loans under regular lending program 2/1993, began funding mortgage loans indirectly 2/1993.

    Option One principal business Origination and sale and servicing of non-conforming mortgage loans. Option One wholly-owned subsidiary of H&R Block Inc.

    (Regarding Encore & Receivables & Notes & BONY Indenture Trustee & Country Wide & Option One subservicer) 2005:

    SUB-SERVICER: Option One Mortgage Corp subservicer all mortgage loans in accord with subservicing agreement

    Foreclosed Loans means the principal balance of mortgage loans secured by mortgaged properties the title to which has been acquired by Option One, by investors or by an insurer following foreclosure or delivery of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.

    “Recoveries” are recoveries from liquidation proceeds, deficiency judgments
    and MI proceeds.

    Indenture Trustee: The Bank of New York will be the Indenture Trustee under the Indenture and the Servicing Agreement. The Depositor and Seller may maintain other banking relationships in the ordinary course of business with the Indenture Trustee. Notes may be surrendered at the Corporate Trust Office of the Indenture Trustee located at 101 Barclay Street, New York, New York 10286.

    This means that Payments under book-entry format, to beneficial owners of Book-Entry Notes will be forwarded by BONY to Cede & Co. c/o DTC and DTC may only act on behalf of Financial Intermediaries, ability of beneficial owners to pledge Book-Entry Notes to persons or entities that do not participate in DTC may be limited – potential investors may be unwilling to purchase notes for which they cannot obtain physical notes.

    Note Owners payments from Indenture Trustee through DTC and DTC participants.

    DTC is required while notes are outstanding to make book-entry transfers among Participants on whose behalf it acts…DTC is required to receive and transmit payments of principal of and interest on such Notes.

    Indirect Participants: (banks, brokers, dealers, trust companies that clear through or maintain custodial relationship with a Participant with whom Note Owners have accounts with book-entry Notes are similarly required to make book-entry transfers and receive and transmit payments on behalf of Note Owners. Note Owners will not possess notes (Indirect Participants’ will receive payments and will be able to transfer their interest.

    ? 2006/2007(Encore Capital Trust II, Town & Country Insurance Agency, Linscomb & Williams INc. Encore Bank NA, Encore Bancshares Houston TX

    M.Soliman
    Note Owners permitted to exercise their rights only through participating organizations that utilize services of DTC including securities brokers, dealers, banks and trust companies, and clearing corporations and certain other organizations called ‘Participants’ and DTC.

    H&R Block Mortgage Corp Irvine CA01/01/2007 established Federal Reserve, 6501 Irvine Rd, Irvine CA Closed 12/31/1007 (Short Term Investment of?)

    Citigroup Forex Inc. 4/7/2003 formerly known as Salomon FOREX feeds to Salomon Brothers Holdings to Salomon Smith Barney Holdings
    ——————————
    Republic FOREX Options Corp
    Parent HSBC Holdings PLC
    HSBC North America Inc.

    REPUBLIC FOREX OPTIONS CORPORATION (1035027) 80 NEW YORK NY Securities
    Broker/Dealer

    Marine Midland Mortgage (USA) Inc. into above.

    HSBC Mortgage Corp (Canada) into HSBC Bank Canada to HSBC Republic Holdings to HSBC Americas Corp DE to HSBC North America Inc. to
    HSBC Holdings BV which sits on top of Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corp Limited – Hong Kong.
    —————————————————————

    Option One Mortgage Loan Tr Asset Backed Cert Ser 2000-5

    as Depositor (Financial Asset Securities Corp)
    Master Servicer Option One Mortgage Corp
    Originator Option One Mortgage Corp
    Sponsor: UBS Principal Finance LLC
    TRUSTEE Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota NA
    Moving money of investors to the left….

    (Financial Asset Securities Corp formerly
    Ocwen Mortgage Loan Trust Ass Back Notes Ser 1998-OAC1)
    First Trust of New York, NA ‘Trustee’
    Home Loan Asset Backed Securities
    Reliance on MBIA Insurance Corp and Subsidiaries as of 12/31/1995 and 1994
    Plan of Acquisition, Reorg, Arrangement, Liquidation or Succession

    UBS Principal Finance LLC
    299 Park Ave
    New York

    Financial Security Assurance Inc.
    350 Park Ave
    New York NY
    Surveillance Dept.

    Financial Asset Securities Corp
    600 Steamboat Rd
    Greenwich CT 06830
    Attn: Director, Mortgage Security Operations-Funding and Investments

    Wells Fargo Bank
    Sixth and Marquette
    Minneapolis MN 55479

    Like Sergeant Klinger ‘Wells Fargo knows nothing of material pending legal proceedings involving trusts created under PSA, Trustee, Servicer or Registrant ‘Trusts’

    10K – 22 Holders of Record Class A (Total) 29 1 each Class BIO, P, R1, R2, R3, S, X

    8K Current Report provided PSA for Certificates.
    8K filed by Option One? providing monthly distributions to holders of Certificates.

    There is my friend //Sherri J. Sharps, VP 3/15/2001

    10KA filed 7/24/02 for 12/31/2000

    (IRS#’s 52-2267432, 52-2267433, 52-2267434
    c/o Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota NA
    9062 Old Annapolis Rd
    Columbia MD 21045

    and my other friend /s/ Beth Belfield AVP 7/16/2002

    Yep: Filing Agent: Norwest Asset Sec Corp Mort Ps Thr Cert Ser 1998-1 Trust (Filer) (Owner) (Filing Agent)

    Why is Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2000-5 inside of UBS AG as Parent? This ‘Issuing Entity’ owned by UBS AG obviously (inside of Federal Reserve System) feeds directly into UBS Warburg LLC a Securities Broker/Dealer to UBS AG Zurich Switzerland Financial Holding Foreign.
    PARENT UBS AG

    UBS Warburg (FOREX) Inc. into UBS (USA) Inc directly to UBS AG

    Any relationship on paper to REPUBLIC SBI CORP FOREX Options Corp 1988 becoming Securities Broker Dealer, 12/30/1997 moved to NY and 4/6/2001 closed – Parent HSBC Holdings PLC and HSBC North America Inc.

    Republic FOREX Options Corp (1035027) Securities Broker/Dealer flow to/from HSBC Bank USA to HSBC USA Inc to HSBC North America Inc HSBC Holdings BV Amsterdam Netherlands sitting on top of HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corp Limited.

    Wells Fargo HSBC Trade Bank, National Association San Francisco CA flows to HSBC USA Inc. into above.

    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2000-5 Interesting currency flow to/from UBS Warburg LLC (RSSD ID 1576959) Stamford CT -Securities Broker/Dealer directly to
    UBS Warburg Inc. 3283541 & 1842216 to
    UBS AG 1243206 Zurich Switzerland 12/31/2000 operating as a financial holding company.

  18. @Marie from 23rd. Now that’s an interesting question because the orig trustee is still the trustee until he’s not.

  19. Dear marilyn lane

    Your are right on focusing on Title Company and relationships and which financial holding company ‘owner’ (through stock ownership fo a company for example).

    Title Companies remain critical element and special-purpose vehicle used to harm economy.

    Question: Why does the ‘Plaintiff’ not lis the Settlement Agent in foreclosures.

    Question: Could the Ponzi Scheme harmed the economies of the world heard in the USA September 2008 if the Settlement Agent had performed their fiduciary duty as Agency between consumer and lender.

    Settlement Agent
    A person responsible for ensuring that all laws and regulations are followed in transferring real estate from one owner to the next. For example, when one sells his/her house, the settlement agent performs the title search and conducts other activities necessary for the real estate to close smoothly. Generally speaking, a settlement agent does not represent either party in a real estate transaction. Some U.S. states require a settlement agent to work on real estate transactions.

  20. @ MS

    Im Ohio Sate U law———-Ohio U biochemistry

    Wright State [Wright Pat field] Physics

    1st job CPA equiv
    2nd job MBA equiv–intl cash magmt, basis points on bond repurchases-etc, etc-
    Then real world school of knocks
    then go to structured transaction design/drafting —tax design and legislative drafting——

    Consult to legislative branches–state fed–ftax raud deterrence-id love to go to formal bank reg govt consult—but crowded field

    I have studied many things—know details of few.

    But it is hard for somebody to lie to me persuasively.

  21. THIS GUY WONT GO AWAY – drives the “market.” Why would any security investor settle for 6% interest rate when they could get 13% or more from certain targeted homeowners??? Just amazes

    TAKE 100,000,000 AND COVERAGE LOPS OFF
    THE TOP 20%
    KNOCK OFF 5% MORE MI
    ANOTHER 10% FOR GSE AND
    AIG IS AS BIG AS IT GETS …
    OC TO TAKES YOU OUT 13 MOS.

    AND YOUR BUYING A STRIP THAT MATURES IN 90 DAY S WTF (FED WHERES THE FED)

  22. _Dave

    Funny …I know the feeling ….12 months cutting a deal for JV partner offer as a vulture fund with Carl Icahn. “He wrote the screenplay -“buy assets on the cheap and selling at a premium “. Looking out the board room window top of Rockefeller Plaza …broken TWA AIrlplance models everywhere.

    – Lets’s guess my Ivy League
    You – Harvard / No -Holy Cross? You – Yale, / No – Wharton You – Princeton No! / Yale & William and Mary What – William and who? She still alive…Trash talk –

    From womb 2 tomb; my numbers are what? – Scale, bring it to scale next Q —

    As an analyst these guys were doing big bank arbitrage trading — – all sitting back behind the long folding tables that went forever -watching their screen . watching and watching…siting their silent with catatonic look – I mean fixed to the screen every day. The trading floor is the size of a football field but silent – -They were “spot” trading parking money , spreads . . .etc . Nothing under a “Yard:

    And into guess what – YOU GOT IT short terms ABS’s Last – Hers a true story –

    Ivy Lug’s say’s your ROA fails expectations –
    I say really? Look at my cash 2 cash —
    Ohhhh , phenomenal COC is outstanding …really phenomenal …but ….too levered; no appetitie

    really – So … no cigar?

  23. @ anon

    reasonable men may disagree –its more likely than not–thus compromises occur

    My factual experience is not the same as yours–probably smaller on this topic—-and it is difficult to make sweeping statements with certain accuracy.

    The most senior tranche would be loaded with the crap and sold to [often] far east investors–cusips with chinese descriptions—-they were sold based on the expectation of coverage by the seniority of the entire pool of mortgage notes—–they never had to look at the quality of the notes/mortgages that nominally were designated to “pay out” the Class I MBS—90% over-coverage due to seniority.

    AAA rated even till the pool went to the equity holder and servicer upon collapse to less than 10%–paid out

    The Class III MBS was sold to pensions-the notes associated with that tranch were solid—–fixed 30 conventionals——the investors looked [theoretically] at the high quality mortgages that nominally supported payment to the class III MBS holders—and they were subject to the seniority priority of the class I MBS—they assumed the quality of loans was greater as the tranches improved in priority–

    that is the investor fraud-it was not so—–the quality was wost in the lowest tier “mortgage group I ” that nominally supported the class I MBS—that class actually depended completely on the waterfall seniority rights

    The classes were created for sale to 2 different groups -with different and conflicting sales pitches

    the class III pension investors thought they were buying low yield conventionals–and the rug was pulled out fromunder them

    the Class I’s were AAA until the trust folded

    The Class I foreign investors got paid—collected swap coverage when the value fell on all classes because only the insiders KNEW what classes were really safe ——as ROSS stated in interviews ,

    “We had a ball” buying these distressed MBs—which after “due diligence” ross bought up—he loves to do interviews—-they deleted the part about “having a ball” but the transcript remains—Bloomberg

  24. @ M Soliman;

    Re working “on the street”

    I spent almost 3 decades representing a conservative midwest industrial company with interests in steel and oil as a tax/financial planner.

    Baisacally that meant negotiating financial structures and agreements with the banks and investment banks —ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE.

    By way of example, I sat one year for several weeks 9 am to 10 PM negotiating one non-recourse finance deal on an internatl investment–in hard assets.

    the banks would push push push—our crew would say “time out” and ask the Jp Morgan folks to step out of the conference room while we contemplated just exactly how they were ripping us off—day after day—

    We would discuss options –hidden agendas –pricing etc——–I used to wonder if the room was bugged-their conference room with the windows overlooking the NYSE front door–intimidation you know for us dumb corn field guys

    “pluck your eye and eat it for a grape”

    RE partnerships, jt ventures, commercial paper, muni-port authority projects, bond offerings , sale/leasebacks, master limited partnerships, tax benefits transfers, REIts –up–down and sideways–

    Never turn your back-caveat emptor—for a team of lawyers and number guys

    ALWAYS are term sheets—always are forecast cash flows on spreadsheets-there is undoubtedly a plethora of contemporaneous spreadsheets shownig how the cash flows are to flow over time and to whom. There is evidence.

    Im now convinced that all Orders of foreclosure, deeds of trust procurred using false documents etc must be re-opened –set aside –and the state AG named as a friendly party defendant with an allegation that the owner of the note–my obligation is unknown-and the proceeds –whether by monthly payments or by sale and disbursed proceeds should escheat to the state.

  25. David C Breidenbach,

    Again, disagree. Without homeowner target, there would have been no investors, no security investors, and no fraud.

    Greed — as Mr. Alan Greenspan has said — drives the “market.” Why would any security investor settle for 6% interest rate when they could get 13% or more from certain targeted homeowners??? Just amazes me that anyone would ever even think this was justifiable from the onset. That is, that anyone think it was even feasible to force homeowners — who would use all their income — to pay high rates to security investors to fund their pensions. And, these homeowners had low FICO scores — meaning there was a high risk of default. These people were supposed to fund the pensions of others??? Outrageous.

    Reverse Robin Hood — steal from the poor – to give to the rich. Which, by the way, is still occurring now as Fed tries to “Fix” the economy – and by fraudulent foreclosures. .

  26. David said —–

    they may present the note-lost note affidavits are right there with Korrell Harp’s assignments and ** toilet paper. ** . No value. No banks around when sign time.

    M.Soliman-

    Dave – You must have worked on the street. — picked up more of your institutional vernacular as of late – take the cigar !

    TRUE I had a client –counsel YELL screaming . . .
    I emailed somthing about isolated Preferred cannot rely on the assets . . .only the QSPE ; ITS LIKE a dividend – although tp CERTS ARE A creditors –

    They found out —-its roll after roll of TP

    Person yells – “what you mean by toilet paper” Why Toilet paper ? Why ?

    Wow …LOL

  27. Awards and Contact Information
    FDIC Baby – FDIC

    I’m getting to be a bit far out to the right of you all . . . and it does get a little isolated out here.
    Alls Quiet on the Appellate level. It’s also like fishing a popular spot no one knows about.
    – – – not going to get in anyone’s way with the ongoing Lender attacks, burning ol Dixie or saber rattling

    – but ; Securitization argument Past tense is . . . I …just don’t think so Houston!

    I guess I got another route and its working so far. Under the radar if you will that’s why they call it a horse race.

    (I lived through FIRREA …working for an FDIC Lender; remember it well!) Anyway:

    HEY; I CAN’T KEEP A SECRET – NOT REALLY A SECRET ANYWAY

    See if you recognize any names on the governments list of liquidation service providers (Executioners)

    —————————————————————–
    FDIC Receivership Assistance Contractors
    Under Loss Share Agreement (LSA) contracts

    ** The securities resellers,
    ** coordinate the marketing and
    ** Settlement process, and
    ** support the securities in the secondary market.
    Awards and Contact Information for
    FDIC Loss Agreement Contractors,

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

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

    Barclays Capital
    Jay Kim
    745 Seventh Avenue, 5th Floor
    New York, NY 10019
    CastleOak Securities, L.P.
    Robert Bacon
    110 East 59th Street, 2nd Floor
    New York, NY 10022

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

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

    Goldman Sachs
    Kevin Gasvoda
    200 West Street
    New York, NY 10004
    Do you even know who you are suing?

    Expert.witness@live.com

    PRO TANTO – CONTRACTS

    The Underwriter (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.

    Pro Tanto Awards -“alienation by adverse parties ? US government siezure ? Fed will appraise your property. They will then send you a notice

    A pro tanto award is really . . . Consult a real estate attorney

    MSoliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  28. Best of all MSoliman , OOMC and OOMAC have their physical address in Santa Ana CA , just think of the BILLIONS in back taxes the state can confiscate… That should get their attention.

    I met with their counsel – Option One was owned by H&R Block who sold it early to get out. I met them (attorney Anthoney I believe ) They were selling paper fast before anyone else. Satisfaction may have been as early as 2007 – to a new buyer .

    Roger – Your a good guy ; I know that . Keep up the fight . All of you do the same. Ps. Very funny; You know my uni-cycle needs a new seat .

  29. Discovery
    – ABA Wire into Escrow and all subsequent wires (must for every endorsement )
    -Assignment for each Endorsement or
    -Countger parties agreement
    -Servicing Boarding Info
    -G/L Line item entry for each reporting
    -Min MERS Verification (here’s where MERS is on your side!)

    NOTE ARGUMENT –
    If this sercing agent is serious – holds a note in his possession – it means the basis in teh subject asset is satisfied . THAT I CAN TELL YOU WITH CONFIDENCE – He could never hold collateral PERIOD without satisfactio – Fraud.

    Bury them – they are vulnerable

    expert.witness@live.com

  30. @mary,
    There’s a note originated with ABC endorsed to
    Lehman Bank nka Aurora Bank FSB, then to Lehman Bros Holding, Inc then in blank. The loan servicer ALS allegedly got hold of it and is pretending it was never securitized. ALS contends not only possession, but ownership within a year of its inception and before default.
    Got any tips?

  31. @usedkarguy, just saw your may 23rd comment…gonna give some thought to that one.
    That’s not what I was talking about, but it has possibility imho.

  32. @DB – escheat – now that’s a good one. I think you’ve taken the lead on creative solutions.

  33. Hey! Maher! I could use a unicycle to take ALL my friends for a ride!

    johngault: you’re right, I didn’t, but I am now. Nice little blog you have going there. I’ll jump in later maybe. gotta go.

  34. @anon
    “The homeowners were the victims FIRST. They were the target of fraud — to fund everyone else’s pocket”

    Actually i think the investor money was the target and the predatory loans were the tool fashioned to skin them by timed failures within the trust structures.

    as far as rates go–it seems that i as an investor would and should look harder and pinch myself when somebody says ill give you this many points over AAA. No tears risk is reasonably expected and compensated or not–only need to hit the slots 80% to walk away in the black. no crying when lose 20%.of the time–or 100% either if you simply did not judge the KNOWN risk.

    Disclosure is supposed to be there but it was undue reliance on ratings and audit profession that got the less junior tranches’\
    .
    it is clear for example in AHM 2004-4 for the higher hifger numbered tranches less senior that were still senior grade to appear as if they were supported by conventional fixed rates etc —-look safe and not real jr

    but they were caught off gaurd by the blatantly illegal predatory monsters stuffed in the foundation tier support. So the entire tier of notes/loans collapsed with defaults and the waterfalls started quicker and flowed at much higher rate than anyone could have expected.-if you assume there is a law that is at least ocasionally enforced.

    How do you insure against non-enforcement–what policy is that Credit/default? Only if you were doing the inside rigging?

  35. @usedkarguy

    thanks, let me explain “escheat” in a broader context—-kind of historic equity stuff—call it blak letter common law.Which means before they tried to straightjacket civil causes of action by statute and reg. albeit the older common case law approach to settling issues is not generally up to facing modern commercial law.

    escheat in effect says if there is no known owner of an asset—such as a bank deposit—dividend payment, whatever, then rather than the asset falling into the hands of the party who owed the obligation as a windfall, the property went to the crown. Kind of derived from the king granting a duke a limited “fee” in land that runs to the heir of his [the dukes] body. The King knew they were good Normans and would support him and his in centuries to come should the peasant anglo-saxons rise. So the Duke could not break the condition that the property would go only to good future Normans by this fee tael or something like thati. Couldnt go sell it to some lowlife up and coming anglo-saxon that would turn on the king in a heartbeat.and use the castle against the King.

    So if the duke had no good honest heir that the king could depend on –or committed treason, then the possession of the land reverted to the King so he could find a solid Norman to man the castle.

    That reversion is an escheat in effect. So to apply the 900 yr old concept to our discussion, If we all agree that there was a note signed albeit at higher cost and diagreeably unexpected terms—-then something is still equitably owed —even if it is adjusted to reflect the abuses—eg maybe the house price was doubled in value by a pumped RE mkt–and the loan should be cut in half to reflect that –or whatever other adjustments to reflect damages and offsets–still some calculable amount you must agree is owed.But to whom?

    If the police seize an asset in a drug raid—-etc—and sell it–who gets the $$$. If a car is abandoned on a public street and no claimant with a proof of ownership shows up, who gets the $$$.

    escheat could solve several problems. If the faulty plaintiff in foreclosure has made a claim to a home, lets just say the state comes along and says”Hey thee fella–where’s your title—that sucker is mine if you dont come up with proof in 60 days–ie the original note and a clear and convincing statement of the chain of custody of that document–because we do not presume that it is THE ORIGINAL. UCC lost note affidavits fail any standard —no reasonable way to verify ownership of the note and thus the borrower is seriously injured because now she is at risk of a second claimant and etc. So they are out—-the note wherever it is –whoever owns it to whatever extent is cutoff forever by escheat to the state. Now yes the state has the basic claim on that note if in fact nobody can prove ownership with clear and convincing evidence–tough standard needed.

    The state then renegotiates the loan directly with the home-owner and her lower payments go to the state treasury and the neighbor across the street is not so angry–because even if he did not get a writedown, at least his taxes dont go up to pay for deficts.

    The 1st part about the escheat is already both statute and common law and I think if I were an AG Id be using the escheat laws to seize the claims that cannot be proven and help my citizens and balance the budget by seizing unclaimed funds—being homeowner reduced payments—and have an end to it. And that also implicitly eliminates windfalls on double insured MBS etc etc.

    if an invetor is going to lose–may as well lose to the society–put it in education funds if you want–those who dont want more money loosely to govts

    Put it in an infrastructure account
    Spend it on that.
    stop the freefall in values–seize the ABANDONED PROPERTY –the missing notes. What enslaves people is being chained to their homes’ debt–more and more homes deeper and deeper under water–people chained to their homes’ debt.sinking with the debt–the home in disrepair.

    Escheat would happen now if there were a King. and Im no monarchist—–I think this is the law today, the AGs just need slight statutory amendments or reg changes and courage–and a litigation budget. Somebody has got to step in between the consumers and the banks. That is why people put up with Kings so long. They would suggest nicely, “who are YOU?” The interloper says, Im the bastard son from Spain” King says, ” I dont think so, this is an escheat” and if there was a hue and cry from the unsiezed bastard interloper, off with his head.

  36. They deserve the top priority – and have received nothing.-ANONYMOUS

    Damn straight. ANONYMOUS Damn straight

    And oldie now but a goodie.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljHjZpC7bnc

  37. David C Breidenbach,

    Look — although you call yourself a “garrulous old man” — I am sure you are a very kind “young” man -(as we all are always) — and I certainly do not want pension investors to be slighted. Retirement security is important.

    My point is simply this — on the investment risk hierarchy scale — the higher the interest rate — the higher the risk. It has always been this way. Anyone who achieved an interest rate above market — knew there was risk — that is the game.

    But, I have no beef with these security investors — other than that they did not do due-diligence. Because, these security investors were NEVER the investor on the so -called loans. They just tried to reap the higher income interest return by the pass-through cash flows. Unfortunate that these high interest rates, assessed against subprime borrowers, were meant to fund ANY other person’s pension — because it was fraudulent. And, fraudulent investments always crash.

    If these security investors want to go after the investor perpetrators for fraud because pensions remain under-funded– so be it. Good luck to them. But, before they drain every penny from the investor insurance pockets — I hope the homeowners beat them to it. But, this is more difficult for homeowners and foreclosure victims because they do not have the legal resources the security investors have access to.

    Just think homeowner victims come first — before those that have lost interest rate differential investment — on the backs of the victims. The homeowners were the victims FIRST. They were the target of fraud — to fund everyone else’s pocket.
    They deserve the top priority – and have received nothing.

  38. “ESCHEAT
    When property and/or an estate is transferred to the government because a person has died without a will or an heir to his or her estate.”

    Mr. Breidenbach, thank you for your insights, and please keep them coming. I have proof of scienter regarding origination through securitization; would be happy to provide details.
    I don’t understand how relinquishing the property rights to the government would benefit the borrowers. We become serfs.
    “@ Mary;
    I ordinarily find your material easily readable and informative. I thank you for your dedication and detail. a couple items in the posting were hard to grasp for me,
    “acquisitions continue where foreign owners acquire pipeline and place in their ‘stables’ national consumer production entities” ”

    I believe this last sentence refers to Deutsche Bank/UBS/HSBC funding Wells Fargo’s manipulation of the market via the Wells retail storefront operations, supplemented by RELS Appraisals, and the co-sonspirators’ actions also agreeing to force the LIBOR up while fed rates dropped. Bankers will claim “we couldn’t trust what we were holding”, but they all knew from the beginning the market was filled with junk, uncollectable loans.

  39. To dbreidenbach

    I wish I’d known about Securitization back in 2005. Obviously no one told me that they would eventually push me into foreclosure. And you’re right. If I were ever to try to buy property again, I’d be very conscious of debtors rights. Virginia is awful.

    As to the “recitations,” I’m counting on the fact that the lack of language concerning the note in the assignment, which language ismandated by statute, should be construed against the banksters, creating an inference that they didnt have the requisite paperwork to foreclose

    Yeah, Virginia is the pitts. Thanks for your thoughts

  40. @all who care:
    Today,
    “Survey Finds First-Time Buyers in Short Supply to Absorb Distress
    First-time homebuyers – a segment that typically targets distressed homes – currently make up just one-third of the market, according to the research firm Campbell Surveys. While this is what would be considered their “normal” market share, the company says this is not enough demand to absorb the excess supply coming from defaulting homeowners and will likely make for a poor spring and summer buying season. Survey respondents in April reported that potential first-time buyers are having trouble finding foreclosed homes in move-in ready condition….

    http://mail.aol.com/33708-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/DisplayMessage.aspx?ws_popup=true

    So if 1/3 1st timers and declining, net is people who own homes already?

    2/3 remains—so every house bought = an empty house behind? or Financed subprime.? with 5 yr ARM? and they must mostly use no money-down subprime loans to fund the 1st timers–also LIFO emplyment in a faltering economy. Or bought at 15cents/dollar batch sales and flipped to slum rentals with quick payout.

    . Good Lord, is there no sense? They throw people in the street to put them in rentals–no matter what.

    The values will push the wages down able to afford the mortgages-in freefall with no bottom—house values-then job “immobility”, but cant get out of the house and note——–freefall—–like Spain, Greece..
    Because government is frozen immobile or glacial while Wall Street never sleeps. Country after country torn apart. Pre-WWII similarities. Desperation breeds danger.

  41. @ whomever re JG;
    “Paying the wrong party is not a defense to a hidc, btw. ”

    This is absolutely true and the reason why you must demand the note or an affidavit of lost note verified by a real bank employee–not a servicer stand in with ambiguous authority.

    this converges on M’s point about ambiguous statements in her case re holding the note.

    Let me describe one situation I have observed;

    In northeast Ohio a man who had been raised in a home–bought from his father—-40 something –hit a job problem. His loan was originated by a local bank years before.

    The complaint in the judocial foreclosure read more or less –the local bank made the loan X years ago——–it has not been paid——we want the house NOW. The original “local” bank had been bought out and changed hands several times between events.

    There was no allegation that this successor bank or anyone it represented was the current holder–

    They sent the entire county SWAT team out to physically carry Keith Sadler and some college kids engaged in entirely passive resistance from the home——-make any SS unit proud. All the gear bought with 911 Bush $$$—-riot squad stuff—-auto weapons. I honestly believe those police -thugs hoped they would get resistance so they could really use their expensive command center vehicles and weapons to quell this little revolt.

    So today——the 911 stuff has been converted from a system of defense against external-source terrorism into a system of domestic subjugation.

    At least in the hugely dangerous open fields around Bowling Green Ohio. There is definitely a lot of room to cut police, highway patrol,and non-essential quasi-military forces in OHIO.

  42. @ anonymous

    ” And, to security investors — I am sorry that homeowner victims can no longer pay you high yields to fund your pensions. I am sorry that you can not find alternative investments that produce comparable high yields. We used to call this “junk” investment. And, no matter how many bows and ribbons rating agencies put on subprime “loan” securitization — high yields MEANT high risk. Not only was all fraudulent to borrowers – but also borrowers were BLOCKED from refinancing out of these fraudulent loans — once the market crashed. They were trapped — continue to pay high yields — or we take your home.”

    Im pretty thick-skinned—learned long time ago –dont dish it out if you cant take it—

    Even as I debated your contention vis public service investment funds—defending the clown managers–I missed front page WSJ Monday

    BNY cheating Los Angeles pension fund complaining about strike prices on forex BETS.

    Irresponsible doesnt quite get it–some public finance clown in LA had the audactity to bet the pensioners $$$ against the international banks !

    Why not just go to Vegas-odds may be long but maybe not fixed tables –maybe not.

    Bets rather than investments—time to review the application of ERISA to prohibit this —-

    But my guess is that the investment managers were involved in it—-revolving doors–conflicts of interest —or outright kickbacks.

    Please California -let the DUIs/ pot kids out of prison and make room for the investment managers.——–and if public workers Union officials anywhere near—-including cops—same open population for them too.

    Is there no decency anywhere?

  43. @Marie

    “didn’t even bother to mention the note with the minimal requested recitations, ”

    In my experience they do not make oversights—–seriously—-there is probably a good reason that they did not reference the holder status—-

    I live in VA outside DC —-rent—–I did not realize VA was non-judicial. I would never buy a house in such a state.

  44. David C Breidenbach,

    Sorry if I offended you — never intended that. But, I disagree with you.

    Yes, there were speculators, but for the most single home homeowners were targeted and defrauded.

    Subprime “loans” were 100% “refinances” — not new home purchases. And, the value of homes was being inflated to lure homeowners to borrow against inflated property. While properties can decline in value — this never happens as fast and widespread as has occurred. And, I put loans and refinances in quotes — because they were not actually loans and not refinances. Mortgage title cannot be corrected with modifications – -unless all is exposed — and this will not likely happen (although I believe SOME will be exposed in near future). Therefore, a valid modification is impossible.

    I agree that the goal should not be a “free” house, but given the situation — as to subprime — homeowners should at least be restored to the position that were at — before the fraud. But, as I state, this is impossible without exposing and correcting all the fraudulent records. If perpetrators are not willing to do — need complete discharge — there is no other way.

    As to the security investors — as I have said, security investors are not the creditor – the “investors” in collection rights are the creditor. The securitization of subprime is documented in prospectus. Regardless of ratings — it is clear that security investors that invested in the subprime trust cash pass-through derivatives knew – or should have known – that the securities were derived from “loans” to borrowers with – largely- poor FICO scores. Now, I have an issue with those FICO scores — but, nevertheless — this was published — and THIS is why higher interest rates were paid on these toxic securities. Cannot achieve a higher yield without risk. Security investors knew the risk — and knew what they were investing in.

    I do not question your experience and respect all opinions. I just disagree. I have no idea how the fraudulent mortgage titles will be fixed. But, eventually they will have to be. And, unless government waves a magic wand — fraud will be disclosed in the process.

    And, to security investors — I am sorry that homeowner victims can no longer pay you high yields to fund your pensions. I am sorry that you can not find alternative investments that produce comparable high yields. We used to call this “junk” investment. And, no matter how many bows and ribbons rating agencies put on subprime “loan” securitization — high yields MEANT high risk. Not only was all fraudulent to borrowers – but also borrowers were BLOCKED from refinancing out of these fraudulent loans — once the market crashed. They were trapped — continue to pay high yields — or we take your home.

    Homeowners — are the only ones who have received NO aid from the government. All burden has been on the homeowners. Modify? with the same crooks??? Who are still defrauding?? No.

  45. The only thing which comes to mind to assist with
    post-foreclosure actions is I think it;’s called
    intervening law or like that. I forget. It’s case law which was not available at the time of the earlier action / event.
    I’ve seen that statute I think it was Abby referred to.
    I think ut’s unconstututional or at least cr–. Why should a homeowner have to tender? This leaves them in much worse shape than they were before their home was snarfed. They’re supposed to be out their house PLUS the amt of tender? There’s got to be a way to fight this. It’s just wrong. It’s really wrong when the house was stolen with a credit bid. If it were taken with a credit bid, the ‘lender’ isn’t actually out the dollars, so why the h should the homeowner have to be?

  46. Joann, that was a nice job. As I’ve said, I’m going to be a single-issue voter. Only problem with that is there may not even be any candidates giving lip
    service to the plight of Americans formerly known as the middle class.

  47. The distinction I am making is not about what YOU are asking be provided to you – from anyone. It’s about what the trustee has to be provided to proceed with foreclosure. The trustee didn’t receive it. The trustee didn’t receive it. The trustee didn’t receive it.

    Since the trustee didn’t receive it, he won’t be able to prove he did. Since the trustee didn”t receive it, then what is he doing trying to foreclose?

    He is bound by his fiduciary to KNOW that he is foreclosing for the proper party. Some piece of paper with some numbers allegedly demonstrating your default doesn’t evidence jack as to the party entitled to order him to come after your house. The proven owner of the Note can tell him to come after the house. This entails a properly endorsed note.

    What’s some honky assignment that’s finally procured demonstrate to the trustee (or anyone)?
    If the assignOR doesn’t own the note, he can’t assign the dot. If the assignEE doesn’t own the note, he has no right to rely on the honky assignment of the dot. Either way this assignment is a worthless piece of paper – without the note.

    How does the TRUSTEE (not you) know he is foreclosing for the right party since HE was not provided evidence of a debt owed to the party trying to get him to foreclose?

    Since the trustee has a fiduciary duty to foreclose for the right party, how can he fulfill this when he is not given evidence as to the identity of that party ? He can’t, because he isn’t given jack.

    If he’s still in the stages of foreclosure, he is
    in the process of breaching his fiduciary under this almost certain circumstance. If he has already foreclosed, he has already breached that fiduciary (and I believe it’s a fiduciary owed the borrower as well as the note-owner). Why would a trustee not have to protect a borrower from foreclosure by the wrong party? Paying the wrong party is not a defense to a hidc, btw.

    This is a cause of action, the breach of fiduciary.
    If he hasn’t already foreclosed, you can challenge him (NOT the bankster) in court to fork over HIS ‘evidence’ of default and evidence which shows HIM Joe Bankster has the right to get him to foreclose, to call the NOTE, AND that Joe Bankster provided him with that evidence, and therefore he is entitled to proceed against you . The trustee getting it ex post facto doesn’t count. He had to have had it from word one (which we all know he didn’t)

    If he has already foreclosed, while you may not get your home back, when he cannot prove that he was provided the evidence which allowed him to proceed against you at the time he should have gotten the evidence, you can still nail him.

    It’s not called wrongful foreclosure. It’s a different charge, a different tort which has its own shelf life like any other tort. So the judge can’t say well you could have said this earilier in post-foreclosure cases, but I can’t swear to it. I don’t think you had to have said it earlier, pre-foreclosure, but dont’ know.
    Certain causes of action don’t arise until certain actions have been taken, but I’m no scholar.

    Before you file, ask the trustee for evidence as indicated and notice him of your intent to file. Then use the fact that he didn’t give it to you as reasonable basis (for the court) that he didn’t give it to you because he does NOT have it.

    You can certainly say it before foreclosure. If it’s non-judicial and you get a notice of default, you can (prob after the notice above) file even the most humble of actions alleging the breach of fiduciary if you are up for the fight, and challenge the trustee to prove that HE was given evidence of the bankster’s interest as well as your default.

  48. My point was they’re so bold they didn’t even bother to mention the note with the minimal requested recitations, so my complaint will respectfully request that they take a stab at it. The statute seemed to mandate the recital. I guess lps didn’t have that code section in their database.

    I agree it’s toilet paper but under the totality of the circumstances, you know, Linda green, no proof of ownership, a transfer from the servicer to the trustee 3.5 years late…. Something has to stick….

  49. @ anonymous

    i fear I did not answer you directly enough re conflicts of interest or allegiances which i think is a fair question—-foundation correct?

    I spent 30 plus years in the corporate world as general tax counsel, legislative counsel , financial analyst , cash manager, tax accountant ——–inverse order for a large–not giant—industrial concern mostly. Then I took a job for a few years in a DC govt computerized data fusion center which identified. Then the contract is out cause of cutbacks–today I do volunteer work for various state govt infrastructure causes—–I understand fraud fairly well -I know how to identify fraud. It takes time–string together series of anomalies–odds rise that not just coincidence when things happen in magical sequences—geometric progression with each instance to separate the mere oversight from the pattern(s) of criminal enterprise. Usually if they jump the tracks they pick up speed-bigger faster——then burn out. I know iv bothered you all–a distraction——but I have been searching for patterns–and Im sorry Im a garulous old man. I see the patterns and I search for the past truth because it is at great risk of recurrence—-elder loans–reverse mortgages—more 5 yr ARMs–in face of absolutely predictable runup in rates -just like 2003-4——Al Gore calls it Amnesiamereica–or some such. Wall street never sleeps and never forgets.

    I have no clients.

  50. @ Marie—–they may present the note-lost note affidavits are right there with Korrell Harp’s assignments and toilet paper. The note must have a custody trail or you cant tell if its THE note–the servicers warrantees are lifetime-3 yrs. No value. No banks around when sign time.

    It costs too much to verify an original–easy 5k. They provide the custody trail or pay to prove its real. I do not know how to retire a note by a settlement with a 3rdparty.

  51. @ Anonymous;

    “It is only the collection rights “investors” ”

    Ok-the servicers that are collecting written-off accounts–they want the benefits of UCC negotiable instrument portability—liquidity w/o the burdens of following UCC.

    If they have done this–those that have —should not have the benefit of a windfall–unjust enrichment even if they did not have a direct hand in setting up the fall.

    But from a practical point of view -you just cannot hand out free houses or everybody will stop paying and every note will be subprime–the losses must be stemmed not hastened-or the teachers and we all will have nothing unless your well stocked with really small gold coins or big silver ones. I cant seem to find those myself this side of China–except prepaid by credit card –bet on the come. So thats not a good option–

    ALL? subprime loans discharged?
    ” because the “loan” was fraudulent to begin with”

    I really would like to touch on that; the borrower intended to borrow a reasonable amount to buy a house- albeit unnaturally inflated–so yes the TILA and RESPA etc are pretty much useless–and the originators took full advantage of that lack of civil rights and no enforcement by by by anybody!

    But the homeowner is entitled to what he bargained for but did not get-a house that is not inflated value–that he can reasonably afford. There are many parties that are affected. Put the money in the treasury if you want——iv said before—-let the funds escheat –plug the budgets–but you simply cant politically give away houses.

    ” Teachers/Police — retirement funds??? — SHOULD NEVER have been invested in subprime “loan” CDO security investments to begin with — it was against their risk-based investment guidelines. They wanted WHO?? to fund their pension — homeowner target victims?? Nevertheless, these were only SECURITY INVESTORS — not the owners of the (false) subprime loan collection rights. Non-diligent??– yes– but NEVER the owner.”

    The pension fund managers paid about more for the MBS than the principal of the underlying notes. Sometimes it looks like as much as twice–prospectuses usually suggest 110-120% but some 8Ks are very strange.

    They were cheated by outright misrepresentations in the SEC filings. Maybe they shouldv looked more diligently? But what in the world is Moodys for? This paper was not marked junk grade-it was AAA. Then Moodys says “if its all very well with you Mr investment fund my rating was merely advisory–not to be relied upon.” about 5 yrears too late.

    If we cant believe auditors ala all of these fly-by nites–and ENRON, and we cant trust any federal regulators and states have no authority and MOODys rates everything caveat emptor–where are we? I hope you have an answer cause I dont—-at least not one I want to state.

    Where we are is people need relief—a fair deal not a bloated loan on an overvalued “pumped” real estate. I think most would be happy with a write down to market less foreclosure loss value–and a simple no frills 30 year fixed at current market . they should take that and run.

    ““Reasonable Homeowners” ????? These homeowners are victims of fraud. And, the fraud is widespread — from the onset of ORIGINATION. Involving massive fraud”

    Yeah well 1st homes -but not specs and vacation cabins or -iv seen a number of speculators here—multiple houses–spec—Iv no tears for them sorry.

    “. Mediation??? Why??? To benefit the “investors” that hold fraudulent collection rights??? Is this what some here are about??? To get the fraudulent “investor” collection rights proceeds to the fraudulent “investors” — that never had any VALID/LEGAL right to collection to begin with??? ”

    Mediation to get it over—–to get the benefit of their bargain–to stop “waste” of real estate and property values and tax bases. To start over–hard with that awful 2005 bankruptcy. Hard enough. No–if you feel the claimant is not oed the $$$ the remedy should be escheat–not to shift it to a free house while the neighbor across the street goes on paying. Maybe Im from conservative Ohio and dont get coastal thinking-but I do not think that the free house thing will fly —escheat yes –free house no.

    “Any party you may represent?? Hope not – very disappointed if so”

    Disclosure is always good——-I use my name anonymous–you can find me —-I am retired–twice–iv been run over by the people you complain of–in ways which are nearly unimaginable -I would never have believed the degee they will stoop to effect pschological injury–until I experienced it 1st hand. Statute of frauds–so what! Independent counsel—slows up process—–insurance fraud–part of the settlement agreement if at all possible—property preservation–worst joke of all. retribution–absolutely. Govt protection –none.

    But I would tell anyone “take a real modification you are sure you can live with long term-do not follow my trail of tears.”

  52. Sorry jgault. I need to go back and review. I’ve been wrestling with my complaint all day.

    Anyway I agree with briedebbach that a copy of the note with endorsements or lost note affidavit is required I got neither with my nod etc. As a matter of fact there is no clear language in the assignment about the note and Virginia requires language from the assignor acknowledging transfer of the note. My banksters ignored all requirements regarding accounting for the note.

  53. David C Breidenbach

    You do not understand the distinction between “investors” and “security investors.” There is a big difference. This is the major oversight that is ignored and not addressed on this site. .

    It is only the collection rights “investors” that could actually do any write-downs that would include any meaningful principal reductions. And, at this point, complete discharge is warranted – not principal correction — because the “loan” was fraudulent to begin with!! As I now see it — there is no other way than complete discharge.

    Teachers/Police — retirement funds??? — SHOULD NEVER have been invested in subprime “loan” CDO security investments to begin with — it was against their risk-based investment guidelines. They wanted WHO?? to fund their pension — homeowner target victims?? Nevertheless, these were only SECURITY INVESTORS — not the owners of the (false) subprime loan collection rights. Non-diligent??– yes– but NEVER the owner.

    “Reasonable Homeowners” ????? These homeowners are victims of fraud. And, the fraud is widespread — from the onset of ORIGINATION. Involving massive fraud..

    Mediation??? Why??? To benefit the “investors” that hold fraudulent collection rights??? Is this what some here are about??? To get the fraudulent “investor” collection rights proceeds to the fraudulent “investors” — that never had any VALID/LEGAL right to collection to begin with???

    This is the problem — a fallacy that does not end because of the lobbying by these “investor” debt buyers — who fueled the mortgage fraud crisis to begin with!!. And, many of these debt buyers — were investment banks to begin with. But, as these banks “clear” their balance sheets — WHO now holds those rights???

    Any party you may represent?? Hope not – very disappointed if so. Have trusted your posts in past – up until this one. A “middleman” ??? No need for middlemen. Never a need for middlemen when fraud is involved.

    .

  54. If it were true that all investors were in on it–then the public employees retirement accounts would not have nose-dived forcing more contributions causing state/local defaults–yet to come.

    Dont get too carried away with the idea that anybody with a retirement account is a thief.

    In the old days–ie pre-WWII as I understand, you got paid you made your payments and built equity–they did not “hold back” to build accounts to protect YOUR future. You got it—you saved it. Then 1974 which I do remember came ERISA——-to attempt to bring order—–but the tax law forces you to put your money in their hands—-its 1974 allover again.

  55. @ JG:

    “spectre faced by homeowner’s as a steady diet when seeking competent representation.. The deer in the highlights stare followed by “They wouldn’t do that!”

    I see that FLA has cutoff funds for rocket dockets–I even think they are republicans. So now maybe there should be funds for mediation on write downs, and cuts to 2nds so people can resume life.
    and swaps down into what they can afford.

    If the people are resonsible home-owners in a house they can afford–or the house should have been priced that way before specs bid up–then that homeowner will be about 100 times more likely to preserve the value of the home than the “preservation” companies.

    And I disagree with contentions that most investors –at least the ones who got burned—in MBS/CDOs did anything but let their retirement accounts get swept away by stupid decisions by public finane people –who foolishly relied on a host of govt agencies to protect the integrity of the filings. The agencies failed. The last administration defunded them and put religious college grads that they would not know what they were doing in critical junctures. A thousand ways to throw sand in the gears. Im not persuaded that more regs were needed as the ones that were there are enforced. They can write statutes and regs all day and nite–and w/o enforcement the financial community at least seeks the lowest level of compliance possible–searches for ways–for holes–to gain competitive advantage. To get through the gate first with the most–cause the others get all crushed in the press or caught –certainly did not want to trail.

    The only way out now is mediation—–with somehow avoiding infusion of influence.

    Tie into the systems determining values–cut to prescribed percentage 60%? -Accessed by a mediator with automated processes—subject to other relevant evidence by the homeowner that the value should be less because of maintence –local factors-etc. What else can people do?

    But the investors Im talking about are teachers –police—-etc——insurance companies investing insured premiums–a ticking bomb there?

    This is you and me–on both ends-taken by the middleman. [men]

  56. Oh — how the money was made — on the peoples’ backs.

    Do not want to hear the poor investor story –“investors” — did it!!!

    David C Breidenbach,

    Fraud — Insurance — Fraud — Insurance — over and over and over.

    No record is valid — if that record is fraudulent. Period.

  57. @Abby;

    “based on recording irregularities ”
    Tender——like rescission.
    I saw that sort of thing in Marie’s materials—-is it in statute there or the judges just dont want to unwind and upend new occupants?–or just protect title insurers—–like Wilbur Ross’ “Assurance guarantee” i think is the name—–

    it occurs to me that the insurer must defend if title insurance was issued-so wilbur could engage you through the servicer AHMSI, as the agent for the trust-or its successor in interest if its folded, or through the title insurance behind the name of the current title holder—BFP?

  58. OK–any attorneys have ideas on how California homeowners who had UD but still in home fighting
    the foreclosure can deal with the ‘tender’ issue?

    The judges out here are saying if you allege wrongful foreclosure based on recording irregularities that you have to tender in order to proceed in court (I guess with that count).

  59. Tracy; “Yo, Tom. How ya’ doing? I got another deadbeat here. I need you to get me that house. Boss is off to Ibiza again and wants this in the
    mill (pun intended) before he leaves.”

    Tom: “Okay. Whattaya got?

    Tracy: “Ready? it’s min # 3859673435684779006”

    Tom: “Got it. How do I get the endorsed note, the dot, and the assignment of the deed of trust? Need my mail station here?”

    Tracy: You’re that new guy, aren’t you? You dont need those things.

    Tom: “Well what about some numbers and an affidavit of default?”

    Tracy: “Look, your code is 1276 – just log on to our database with I-Need-a-New Duece-Coupe’s user ID and you can see the bum hasn’t paid.”

    Tom: “Well what about the trustee? Has there been a substitution?”

    Tracy: “You really are green, aren’t you? Yeah, we’re gonna substitute the trustee as soon as Martin gets back from vacation. It’s a lot of paperwork and nobody cares about that stuff, anyway. Don’t worry about it.

    Tom: who’s supposed to sign off here on these numbers from your data base?

    Tracy: Somebody, okay? You type them up, swear to them, and then when you’ve got a bunch, get them over to your notary and when he gets them back to you send them to someone who gives a
    shyt. And ask someone there what else you need to swear to, will ya?

    Tom: who am I sending this to?

    Tracy: We’re gonna sub in Shyster and Mullarkey, I think, but send the stuff to National Default Procurement.

    Tom: you want me to send the stuff to NDP and not the new trustee?

    Tracy: Sure, Charlie plays golf with those guys and they want in the act. See, that way, when we take ours off the top, we include jacked-up
    figures for everybody’s services, so the more, the merrier.

    Tom: are you supposed to do that?

    Tracy: We can do anything we want. Wasn’t this explained to you when you took the job?

  60. A deed of trust is a three party instrument (not four party) by definition – the trustor,beneficiary, (by any other name), and the trustee.
    In’title’ states, it is the trustee who may hold legal (or ‘bare naked’) title for the benefit of the beneficiary, with the borrower retaining equitable title. Other states, known as ‘lien theory’ states, hold that the borrower retains legal title with the trustee holding an interest for the benefit of the beneficiary.
    There are two forms of title: legal and equitable.

    The trustee’s interest is limited to his duty to the terms of the deed of trust. There are no other rights conferred on the trustee. There is no provision in a deed of trust which allows the trustee to abrogate his duties.

    The beneficiary holds nothing in regard to title.

    An assignment of the deed of trust without a transfer of the note is a legal nullity. (which is why an employee of the servicer momentarily donning a MERS’ straw officer hat attempts to ‘assign’ the note along with the dot in their bogus assignments to the servicer, i.e, itself)

    It is the trustee and the trustee only who is empowered to garner the collateral in the event of default for the OWNER of the NOTE. If the owner of the note were found to not be the beneficiary of the deed of trust, the note is unsecured and the dot is a worthless piece of paper.

    If a deed of trust (or a statute) alleges a beneficiary may foreclose, there is no such thing as a deed of trust. What there is is a mortgage, sans the judicial f/c mandates, with some bare contingencies, conditions precedent, of notice of default to the borrower. This is entirely inconsistant with the legislative intent in allowing a deed of trust as a collateral instrument. To find otherwise is to say that the legislators, when allowing the document to be used in the place of a mortgage, meant to deprive the borrower of all safeguards and all due process. If a beneficiary could foreclose, the trustee would NOT be a necessary party to a deed of trust, and NO trust would have been created.

    This is the essence of how a deed of trust differs from a ‘mortgage’ (the doc prior to the implementation of the deed of trust and still used in some states), and with the deed of trust and hence the ‘trustee’,
    we saw the advent of the non-judicial foreclosure.

    Prior to the deed of trust, mortgages were the instruments used to secure a lender’s interest in a property. They generally required judicial foreclosure and in some if not all states involved rights of redemption.
    Lenders found this ‘cumbersome’, so they lobbied for the deed of trust.

    Can a trustee act as an agent for the beneficiary? No, he can’t. He’s a trustee, not an agent.

    If there were NO trustee, there would be NO deed of ‘trust’. To understand a deed of trust, it might be helpful to think of a line a foot long. The trustor (borrower) is at one end and the beneficiary/lender is at the other. The trustee is in the middle. Where he ISN’T is at one end or the other with either of the other two parties.

    In addition to defining a deed of trust, the fact that ‘trustee’ was used gives creedence to the dual fiduciary of the deed of trust trustee.

    If a deed of trust trustee does not perform his obligations to the trust, he is acting as an agent AT BEST and not a trustee. The question then is – whose? For whom is the trustee acting as an agent?

    To whom does the trustee owe a fiduciary?

    The choice of words, i.e., ‘trustee’ over ‘agent’ in the deed of trust would make it clear it is dual, that is, a deed of trust trustee owes a fiduciary to both the lender and the borrower.

    Case law is scant on the fiduciary of the trustee. One court, in Lewis v Jordan Investment, Inc., 725 A.2d 4955 (1999), recognized the dual fiduciary:

    “A trustee of deeds has the fiduciary obligation to comply with the powers and duties of the trust instrument, as well as the applicable statute under the District of Columbia Code. Perry v. Virginia Mortgage & Inv. Co., 412 A.2d 1194, 1197 (D.C. 1980) (citations omitted). THIS COURT HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT TRUSTEES OWE FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO BOTH THE NOTEHOLDER AND THE BORROWER. S&G Inv., Inc. v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 164
    U.S. App. D.C. 263, 270-71 n. 21, 505 F.2d 370, 377-78 n. 21 (1974)”

    Another circuit’s case says the trustee’s fiduciary is limited to the beneficiary, a proposition I find absurd for the reasons cited. The deed of trust replaced a a mortgage, which required judicial foreclosure. While the legislators allowed the deed of trust, to accomodate the lenders’ complaints regarding the time and cost of judicial foreclosure, it is unimaginable that they intended the borrower to have no safeguards, no due process whatsoever.

    And in that regard, today’s trustees are in fact acting as the ‘agent’ of the beneficiary and not as true trustees. When, in short, a trustee acts at the instance of an alleged beneficiary with no real evidence that the alleged beneficiary has the right to command default / foreclosure, not only is that trustee breaching his fiduciary to the borrower, he is breaching his fiduciary to the true beneficiary by not ascertaining that he is acting at the behest of the proper party. A trustee cannot be said to be acting within or meeting his fiduciary when he is not demanding and being provided evidence of the instigator’s authority to foreclose.

    He is also violating the tenets of good faith and fair dealing. And even i f a trustee’s fiduciary is limited to the lender (again I say this is absurd), the borrower is an INTENDED beneficiary of the terms of the trust.
    Any party who wrongfully induces a trustee to violate his trust position is guilty of “third party breach of fiduciary”, also known as aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary. And, again, it cannot be said that a trustee is performing his fiduciary – to anyone – when he institutes foreclose proceedings with no evidence of the instigator’s authority. And therein lies the story of the day – what documentation provides evidence of that authority to the trustee and what is / has been actually given to the trustee? I re-allege zero.

  61. @ M&G
    “What documents would support the forecloser’s
    interest?”

    The only thing that should be accepted as evidence is a note with CUSTODY TRAIL——or lost note affidavit—that is the bottom line if you want to prove and extinguish debt.

  62. usedkarguy – you didn’t read it, either.

  63. DB you raise a spectrum faced by homeowner’s as a steady diet when seeking competent representation.. The deer in the highlights stare followed by “They wouldn’t do that!”

  64. DB, I dont’ think you read the material at the link, either! It doesn’t need a warning to read – it’s short enough and to the point.

  65. Marie – did you follow the link and read what’s there?

    What evidence of the debt by the bankster was actually provided to the trustee to support the bankster’s foreclosure order? Probably next to nothing. Give some thought to this, if you will.
    IF the trustee were given next to nothing, what might this mean factually and as a legal matter?
    Remember – enforcement of the note was and is not being sought by the payee on the note.

    And also, the f/c mills aparently had access to the servicer’s computer database and logged in to see the borrower’s (and anyone else’s) payment history and other personal information, including social security numbers. This is outrageous in and of itself but the poiint is that it likely formed the next to sold basis of the foreclosing entitiy’s authority.

    What documents would support the forecloser’s
    interest? Really. When that question has been answered, then you know where to start as to the breach and any other relevant allegations of fact.

    The FACT is the trustees were not and are not provided documents supporting the bankster’s interests in our real estate.

    Is it appropriate, also, for a trustee to delgate his responsibilities under the deed of trust? These questions are unanswered because they’re not asked.
    It isn’t even the trustee doing much of the foreclosure – the NOD, the notice of sale.
    I think the ‘trustee’s’ autograph ends up on the
    trustee’s deed, if that.

  66. DB said ” Would you please explain the context of the limitation on extrinsic evidence—-to writings to vary their content? ”

    It’s called parol evidence. And it’s why MERS is and never was an “agent”. MERS chose the word ‘nominee’ – and that’s all they were – a nominee placeholder to avoid recordation of interests in real property. Or maybe the truth is the way the securitization is unravelling, there was really no interest to record……

    The doctrine basically prohibits oral or written statements to alter the contents of an
    existing written contract.

  67. i think the connection between Fidelity and all its subsideraries and Network Agreements went back much further than we realize

    .My two NYC Condos were foreclosed on in 1997 by corrupt dept collector attorneys Mullooly Jeffrey Rooney &Flynn hiding my mortgage payments.
    In 2008 I sought two orders to vacate the state court void ab initio judgments of June 30 1997. for lack of State Jurisdiction since I was under Federal jurisdiction on that date. When I served papers on everyone I found out Astoria Federal S & L had new attorneys and that MJRF had not worked for the bank for 7 years prior .

    Astoria Federal’s new attorney looking at the conflicting dates and knowing that they didn’t own it when they auctioned them off said It Indemnify,Indemnify Indemnify – we are stepping aside and the title companies are stepping in.

    In October 2009 when I received a decision from the NY Court of Appeals Frank Malone attorney for Fidelity National Title( for a client with a Forged deed) sent a copy of the decision to the attorneys MJRF Why? They weren’t Astoria’s attorneys, That showed me there was a connection between MJRF and Fidelity National Title.

    I don’t think the onion really has been peeled back yet?

  68. @neidermeyer

    yes they disclosed it in their 10K under regulatory matters eoy 2009——-it took a year until just before elections for it to come up-go figure

    albeit it doi my sensibilities, i think LPS did the right thing about disclosure of the issue-under sarbox

    you need to draw blood in the disclosures for the litigation attys which are none too bright—often anyway—to catch the scent

  69. @joann
    “Foreclosures of mortgages that were securitized past and present have been and continue to be illegal and it was and is a crime that is punishable by law.”
    NO–not true———–maybe should be—but a fed agency type is needed to hold the paper if you want 30 yr fixed to survive-its ARMs that are traps.

    I europe as best i can tell-the london banks at least have exterminated fixed long term loans-the people in ireland are all next to net net lessees

  70. @ Carie;
    “how the heck will this stuff be regulated in the future?”

    Better not be SEC, as recently as mid-2010, I cited a manually-filed loan list that was real in an SEC online filing in MTD, [to distinguish a REAL filing from my unfiled trust -list] where you are constrained to judicial notice of open source stuff if at all—–SEC removed all postings of manually filed loan schedules from its web site EDGAR and thereafter you have to obtain by FOIA–making it out of bounds in MTD practice. Within weeks if not days—maybe coincidence-SEC is not on the side of investors [ignored unfiled loan lists completely in failing to protect them] or home-owners. and then there is Madoff???? Iv got a recording from them when i filed notice with LPS’ audit committee under SARBOX about the notary problem in Alpharetta november 2009. They told me that disclosure of failed notarizations on assignments as to LPS ‘ shareholders was outside their jurisdicion–because it involved mortgages [tangentially]. If so I am at a loss to know what is in their jurisdiction. SEC is clearly there to whitewash abuse. To limit liability by quick settlements for people like old AHMSI’s Strauss etc.

    If it had been up to SEC Madoff would get an award for most inventive fraud scheme.

  71. David C Breidenbach,

    I have current AHMSI docs that were produced by LPS ,, just the regular servicer stuff ,, not assignments… and remember that LPS got caught (investigation ongoing) ptoviding robosigners and notaries for AHMSI ,, Reuters had a big story on it ,, end of 2010 ..

  72. @marie;

    “Mediate with interlopers?”

    I suspect it will be a safe harbor—questions. Is it binding?-I doubt it will. Can you pursue legal remedies; probably absent overextension of OCC jurisdiction by pre-emption–or state law changes.

    In any event, my guess would be that when it reaches you as it has the East coast, last week DC, the court’s 1st question will be what happened in mediation–did the parties proceed in good faith negotiations. Thats why Im concerned about the mediator selection process. You dont want a kangaroo court on either side.

    Bottom line is people need a place to live—and homes need to be maintained. Vacancies are abhorrent to society. They MUST reduce the principal to match the value of the home–or things will continue to sink underwater.

    The 3 way swap is the next best thing—–used in commercial transactions every day.

    The losers will be the property “preservation” outfits that seem more intent on stripping the homes than maintaining them. It is inconceivable that the solution to falling home prices is destruction of existing houses to reduce supply–but that is the way it is today.

  73. @ marie

    “If successor trustee is bogus, would original trustee have had any duty to review note and assignment and object to new trustee prior to surrendering his appointment?”

    Did the original get paid anything? If so hes got a duty to do something-join em.

  74. AMSI had an exclusive contract with LPS [see DOCX trademark] to produce necessary docs per their own sites an press releases[admissions].

    if your docs were prepared between about March 2009 and eoy 2009 -the likely out of an LPS office

    I did not know of the fee-splitting etc if it is wide-spread——–but that would seem to put LPS doc creators in bed with the foreclosing atty and then the trustee-with the entirety colored by LPS’ mgrs knowledge. I used the term conspiracy in my case-brought derision—–but common joint-profit enterprise comprised of partners/joint venturers to do bad things seems on point. Witness [not in conspiratorial sense ] the BP –Anadarko fuss —Anadarko was BPs “JOINT VENTURE” partner–and is liablr for a proprtional share of damages unless BP was subject to GROSS NEGLIGENCE which is deemed outside the scope of the partnering joint liability scope–unless specific evidence of actual knowledge by an Anadarko employee which is imputed to Anadarko. Otherwise simple negligence by any partner [not much in doubt here for DOCX] is imputed to all co-venturers.

    What you are doing is EXTREMELY important.

  75. If successor trustee is bogus, would original trustee have had any duty to review note and assignment and object to new trustee prior to surrendering his appointment?

  76. What I’m wondering is—when the dust clears a little after this nightmare—how the heck will this stuff be regulated in the future? I wonder where we’d be if Glass-Steagall had been left in place…?

  77. johngault: the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty would expressly be committed by failing to record the secured interest of the Trustee, ergo, subjecting the borrowers property to slander of title/wild deed, and subsequent foreclosure is a “theft by conversion”. ’nuff said

  78. Mediate with interlopers?

    I am where I am in part because I refused to pay these imposters, especially after they kept raising the price of keeping my property. I wouldn’t concede to thieves. They are never satisfied and they’ll be looking for new ways to get more, more, more. They stole titlle. Can’t we get that through their noggins? They don’t own the notes? What has this world come to when we negotiate with robbers.

  79. @ M.

    All you can do is to preserve every claim that you can think of—–in 2009, I raised robo-signing in my court–its on the record. At the time, I was considered “nuts” —–dismissed out of hand.
    Who would do such a thing–fraud on courts? certainly no Ohio atty would do such a thing—–nor would any great respectable company that had the brass to go public intentionally [thru its managers] create docs to drive court action that were not properly verified—it did me no good to be ahead of the curve, but if you preserve your claims maybe and keep them at bay-maybe these newer non-judicial items will prevail–or at least alter the law.

    In the end —it appears—all will be infront of “mediators” . The compelling question in my view today is: “Who picks the mediators and who reviews the reviewers?”

  80. @JG

    Im not up on trusts—–but my ancient recollections are that a trustee in this connection might be loosely described as a joint agent with duties to both parties. At least that is how I would approach the matter.

    The strange trusts that supposedly hold home-owner notes for the benefit of massesof MBS holders are creatures of accountancy and tax law–designed to evade taxes on markups and conceal underlying transactions.

    They were really creaed so the originators–fly-by -nites could avoid putting the notes [assets] and MBS [originator liabilities] on their balance sheets. If they had, then more securities fraud exposure–eg the common SEC 15’s where they opt out of disclosure for less than 10-=15? owners.

    The full disclosure of the enorormous leveraging of fly-by-nites especially that was actually occurring would have caused any investor to step back a few paces. The regulators and acctg rules perpetuated the fraud on investors by allowing the vitually unregulated sale of securities by fly-by -nites. The regulators allowed the perception to exist that the fly-by-nites had no continuing liability.

    That plus origination fees and backend servicing fees -and opportunties for inside trading in the opaque MBS/CDO markets created an atmosphere of “create and sell the loan products” ASAP.

    In my opinion, based on observing decades of fraudulent trax evasion scams—is that the entire fly-by-nite scenario was designed to open up run ASAP for three-four years-then burn-out with bankrupties. Destroy the evidence of fraud etc. This is a common pattern for frauders–Madoff was the exception–just better placed with strings in SEC enforcement that gave him more time. Typically the frauders are in and out in 3-4 years so as to avoid the also typical 3 year audit cycles of the regulators.

    It really is simple when you stand back and look at the forest rather than the individual trees. The ASAP loan-sale demands drove predatory loans which were set up i such a way [timed defaults from reset cliffs] that they would then upon default trigger the collapse of the whole trust–and the insiders only knew what CDO-MBS were of value—-hence a lot of vultures got richer off inside info.

  81. I think I may have a way to show breach: Ahmsi/Deutsche appoint bogus trustee, which “trustee” is owned by the foreclosure Atty hired by Ahmsi, an which attorney is on the appointment as having “supervised” the preparation of the Appointment. Somewhat circular perhaps, but seems to tie them together Whether an impermissible conflict is (?) Buyt they knew (Imputed?) the appointme nt if not the assignment was bogus. Definitely worth thinking about

  82. To Mr Breidenbach

    I do agree with you: not a rigorous analysis in that article . The search continues. Surely any doc that is used directly to further the foreclosure, such as the Assignment and Appointment sub trustee would qualify as intrinsic.

    I know this subject is getting a little tired but it’s really importantvi believe as it will no doubt be seized upon by the adders lying in the tall grass

    The fiduciary thing also is intriguing I’m struggling to imagine what a breach would look like where the homeowner has almost no rights. All you have are nonenforeceable notice rights and selling price doesn’t matter. Maybe on the front end: the appointment was part of the fraud and the trustee was aware. So boot him out your honor…. Maybe I’ll throw that in…..

  83. “A fiduciary duty is a formal, technical relationship of confidence and trust imposing greater duties upon a fiduciary as a matter of law. Generally speaking, it applies to any person who occupies a position of peculiar confidence towards another. It refers to integrity and fidelity. It contemplates fair dealing and good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the transaction… . A fiduciary duty may arise formally, as a matter of law, or informally, through moral, social, domestic, or purely personal relationships of trust and confidence.

    Certain relationships which give rise to fiduciary duties as a matter of law include (this may vary by state):

    (a) attorney – client; (b) partners; (c) spouses; (d) agent/principal; (e) officers and directors of a corporation; ***(F) Trustee of a Trust****; (g) employee to employer (in certain cases); and (h) executor of an estate to a beneficiary.

    Some if not all states’ law also recognizes a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, so that a third party who knowingly participates in the breach of duty of a fiduciary becomes a joint tortfeasor with the fiduciary and is liable as such, unless the third party had a legal right to do so.”

  84. In order to prevail on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, (2) a breach by the defendant of his or her fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, and (3) an injury to the plaintiff OR benefit to the defendant as a result of the breach.
    Lundy v. Masson, 260 S.W.3d 482, 501 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008

  85. Just a reminder here of my impressions that the dog-doobagef/c going on today creates causes of action based on breach of fiduciary.
    I’ve been pretty vocal in asserting that the dot trustee has a fiduciary to the borrower, as well as the lender. Deed of trust = a trust is created.

    http://www.sourceoftitle.com/blog_node.aspx?uniq=776

    I haven’t seen any suits in this vein yet. And some people think I’m full of it. I can only say as to the trustee, that’s what I was taught years ago in the
    3 sets of classes I took. The 3rd party breach of fiduciary argument is based by me on a landmark case (not involving loans) in around 2008. It’s also called “aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary”.

    Now, is this a possible post-foreclosure action?
    Don’t know. Maybe. But I sure as heck believe it’s an appropriate foreclosure defense.

  86. DG said
    “Ok so the manager in the course of his duties at a doc factory KNOWS that there is no real notarization—-the company is imputed with knowledge, and hands off the dirty documentation to the partnering………..”

    not necessarily to ‘partner’. Worse if not, I think, and the ramifications of this are about to make me throw up.

  87. @M okay I’ll reread Ibanez for what my lay opinion will be worth

  88. A maxim exists in the law that a wrongdoer should not be allowed to profit
    from his or her wrongdoing.107 The maxim is widely recognized and has even
    been codified in California.108 This principle is closely related to the equitable
    doctrine of “unclean hands,” which provides that a court of equity may deny
    relief to a party whose conduct has been inequitable, unfair, and deceitful with
    regard to the controversy at issue.109 The maxim has worked its way into
    several different judicial doctrines
    For example, with regard to probate matters, the courts and legislatures
    have developed “felonious heir” rules.110 A beneficiary under a will cannot
    inherit from the decedent if the beneficiary killed the decedent.111 Similarly, a
    107 CAL. CIV. CODE § 3517 (West 1997) (“No one can take advantage of his own wrong.”); Clark v.
    Madeira, 477 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Ark. 1972) (“One cannot profit by his own wrong.”); Wiley v. County of San
    Diego, 966 P.2d 983, 986 (Cal. 1998) (courts will not assist a participant in an illegal act who seeks to profit
    from the act’s commission); Hawthorne v. Canavan, 756 A.2d 397, 401 (D.C. 2000) (“A party may not profit
    from his own wrong.”); Hrynkiw v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 844 So.2d 739, 742 (Fl. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
    (insurance company need not defend or indemnify parents of son who shot someone because no person should
    profit from a wrong); Williams v. State, 404 S.E.2d 296, 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991) (“[T]he law will not permit
    an individual to profit from his own wrong.”); Nelson v. N. Leasing Co., 657 P.2d 482, 484 (Idaho 1983)
    (“[N]o one should be permitted to profit from his own wrong.”); Walter v. Carriage House Hotels, Ltd., 646
    N.E.2d 599, 609 (Ill. 1995) (doctrines of complicity and contributory negligence stem from principle that
    person should not profit from his own wrong); Cox v. Rolling Acres Golf Course Corp., 532 N.W.2d 761, 764
    (Iowa 1995) (“[O]ne cannot profit from his own wrong . . . .”); Dalton v. State, 591 A.2d 531, 538 (Md. Ct.
    Spec. App. 1990) (“[A] defendant cannot profit from his own wrong . . . .”); Gregory v. Fed. Land Bank, 515
    So.2d 1200, 1203 (Miss. 1987) (“No man should be allowed to profit from his own wrong.”); Howsden v.
    Rolenc, 360 N.W.2d 680, 682 (Neb. 1985) (“No one should be allowed to profit [from] his own wrong.”)
    (quoting Whitney v. Lott, 36 A.2d 888, 889 (N.J. Ch. 1944)); Alami v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 766 N.E.2d
    574, 577 (N.Y. 2002) (“[N]o one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own
    wrong . . . .”); State ex rel. Raines v. Gilbert, 450 S.E.2d 1, 2 (N.C. 1994) (North Carolina recognizes the
    principle that no man can profit from his own wrong); Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Tex.
    1995) (criminal defendant must prove his own innocence in subsequent malpractice action against attorney
    because person cannot profit from his own wrong); Adkins v. Dixon, 482 S.E.2d 797, 801 (Va. 1997)
    (“[C]ourts will not assist the participant in an illegal act who seeks to profit from the act’s commission.”)
    (quoting Zysk v. Zysk, 404 S.E.2d 721, 722 (Va. 1990)).

    m’s cite
    http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/bdj/23/23.1/Jacobson-Greany.pdf

  89. @ Marie

    I scanned your cite–awful example, but seemed intrinsic to the sale on several fronts. But thats facts.

    The buyer had the legal right to impair the sale—granted to him by the financer.

    the owner was harmed by the deception

    More significantly, if you marry rigorous association of a harsh extrinsic evidence rule with non-judicial foreclosure. Then it would appear that any scoundrel could force your property to be sold to another–so long as the give you notice—? or is notice extrinsic? certainly you are right about shoehorning into intrinsic there—just appalls me non-judicial foreclosure.

  90. JGault

    Looks like I was wrong wrong wrong Except how to explain ibanez. Basically only tge court can exercise the rights you no longer have?

    Guess I need to try to force fit everything they did into an intrinsic posture?

  91. M&JG

    Ok so the manager in the course of his duties at a doc factory KNOWS that there is no real notarization—-the company is imputed with knowledge, and hands off the dirty documentation to the partnering joint venture law firm–if fees split, shared profit motive, its a common enterprise–even supposed to file a partnership tax return irc 7103———now the lawyer who knows the docs are bad very well-they are not idiots and see more of them than anyone–get one atty to admit to linda green sign-alikes

  92. Oh , yeah, in civil, look like the choices are clear and convincing or preponderance, and dont include BRD.

  93. Knowledge is imputed

  94. @db, no you won’t likely find it in civil cases. That doesn’t mean you can’t allege it. It’s at least a phrase, a dynamic, every judge is familiar with. It’s the same thing to me. And since you mention it, I don’t know the bar to fraud’s application right off – whether it would in these cases be BRD or Preponderance. But that should be easy enough to ascertain.

  95. I looked a bit on that issue further to your context and I think I seethe issue—–akin to judicial notice barring notice of SEC filings in motion practice—techinical ways to avert upending a transaction despite a proved fraud.
    But its all over the place;
    I COPY A WRITER Bottom line is it looks like officers of court can call it what they will they are not supposed to use known falsified docs. If the doc creators and attornies are the same or jt venturers then they [the atty mailing to the court] are charged with knowledge of their partners acts—-impuet knoledge, i believe is called, if one knows they all know-thats why you dont want to be part of a bad operation.

    2003)(Fraud upon the court by an attorney, whether or not intrinsic or extrinsic, can be used to set aside a prior judgment), Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., 345 S.C. 28, 550 S.E.2d 584 (Ct. App. 2001)(Fraud upon the court by an attorney, whether or not intrinsic or extrinsic, can be used to set aside a prior judgment and court declined to follow reasoning of Bankers Trust v. Braten, 317 S.C. 547, 455 S.E. 2d 199 (Ct. App. 1995)), Hagy v. Pruitt, 339 S.C. 425, 529 S.E.2d 714 (2000) (Misrepresentation to obtain consent for adoption is extrinsic fraud but party failed to prove extrinsic fraud here by clear and convincing evidence),Mr. G. v. Mrs. G, 320 S.C. 305, 465 S.E.2d 101 (Ct. App. 1995)(Misrepresentation about parentage is intrinsic fraud), Evans v. Gunter, 294 S.C. 525, 366 S.E.2d 44 (C

    “2003)(Fraud upon the court by an attorney, whether or not intrinsic or extrinsic, can be used to set aside a prior judgment), Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., 345 S.C. 28, 550 S.E.2d 584 (Ct. App. 2001)(Fraud upon the court by an attorney, whether or not intrinsic or extrinsic, can be used to set aside a prior judgment and court declined to follow reasoning of Bankers Trust v. Braten, 317 S.C. 547, 455 S.E. 2d 199 (Ct. App. 1995)), Hagy v. Pruitt, 339 S.C. 425, 529 S.E.2d 714 (2000) (Misrepresentation to obtain consent for adoption is extrinsic fraud but party failed to prove extrinsic fraud here by clear and convincing evidence),Mr. G. v. Mrs. G, 320 S.C. 305, 465 S.E.2d 101 (Ct. App. 1995)(Misrepresentation about parentage is intrinsic fraud), Evans v. Gunter, 294 S.C. 525, 366 S.E.2d 44 (C

  96. H & R Block — changed their subsidiary (Option One) name to Sand Canyon — when they sold their loans to Wilbur Ross. What??? changed the name — when they sold the loans??? Yep.

    Basics.

  97. @db, no, I’m sorry I can’t, without spending a week researching. I just remember there is a distinction between the two and the application. I will, tho, run a search thru my files and see what comes up.
    I’m pretty sure I’ve got ‘stuff’…..somewhere.

  98. @db, In there is also an allegation of detrimental reliance on opposing counsel, communications which shouldn’t have happened ,of course.
    Detrimental relliance doesn’t normally fall under 60, that I know of without thinking about it for 3 hours, but it’s diff in this context because of the particular circmstances, that is, the impropriety of those comms in the first place.

  99. @ Marie and JG,

    Would you please explain the context of the limitation on extrinsic evidence—-to writings to vary their content? I was confused, I thought that you were referring to a deed issued by an officer of the court under a falsified premise–proof of void??

    “It is a general rule that extrinsic evidence cannot be admitted to contradict, explain, vary or change the terms of a contract or of a will, except in a latent ambiguity, or to rebut a resulting trust”

  100. @db – I read that mtn. It should come with a warning! I’d have to read the entire dockets, but form the hip, it looked to me like the departing attorney was a tad remiss. That seems a catch-22, when a case is in that state of flux. Apparently, the plaintiff didn’t want that att to depart. Otherwse, he could have stipulated, could he not, and then proceeded and been heard pro se? Alternatively, the departing att could have filed something to have the hearing heard on an expedited basis, which wasn’t done, either.
    Hell of a note tho if one doesn’t want the attorney to depart but the att wants to depart. Still, if in fact
    there’s no other recourse, and I don’t know, since that interim leaves the plaintiff without any avenue to do anything, the departing att should have done SOMEthing to preclude hearing on the other issues prior to the hearing on the departure. IMHO.

  101. @ gAULT,
    “In criminal law terms, the trustee’s deed is the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’.”

    I SEARCHED FOR CIVIL CASES THAT WOULD MAKE THE SAME RECITAL—WITH DESPERATION–I COULD NOT FIND IT. IT SEEMS LIKE A PERFECT APPLICATION–I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT ONLY IN THAT THE COUNTER-PLAINTIFF WOULD ALLEGE IT AND PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE RATHER THAN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT—-CONFUSING PROOF NEEDED TO PUT SOMEBODY IN JAIL WITH THAT NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE CIVIL FRAUD.

  102. aLTHOUGH i DO NOT PERFORM SUCH SERVICES AND DO NOT INTEND TO. IN MY OPINION THIS SOMEWHAT LIMITS THE HOMEOWNER TO ACCESS TO THE EVEN THE MOST LEGITIMATE SOURCES—SINCE FACE TO FACE IS SIGNIFICANTLY INVOLVED IN THE CURRENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS..

    tHERE ARE A MILLION OR MORE PEOPLE IN HOMES THAT IN ALL LIKLIHOOD COULD AFFORD THE REFI AT THE HOMES CURRENT VALUE–WITHOUT ALL THE DRAMA AND TERRORIZATION.
    mOST IMPORTANTLY WITHOUT THE WANTON DESTRUCTION OF BOTH LIVES AND THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE VALUE ITSELF.

    tHE MEDIATORS MUST BE ABLE TO COMPEL THE SERVICERS TO TURN OVER PERTINANT DATA AS PRESCRIBED BY THE MAGISTRATES IN RESPECT OF THE PROBABLE CURRENT VALUE OF THE HOUSE AFTER FORECLOSURE–AND WRITE THE DEBT DOWN TO THAT AMOUNT. tHE LOSS WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN INCURRED AND SOCIETY DOES NOT SUFFER MORE.

    iF THE HOME-OWNER WHO IS EMPLOYED YET CANNOT MEET THE AMOUNT PER MONTH FOR THE REDUCED AMOUNT, hE/SHE AS A HOMEOWNER WITH SOME REASONABLE SENSE OF VALUE TO HIS HOME [IE NO GROSS NEGLECT IN MAINTENANCE–PAID UP ON HIS UTILITIES———-THAT GROUP SHOULD GET A FAIR CHANCE GIVEN BY THE SERVICER TO DO A 3-CORNER SWAP. . THE PROBLEM IS THE SERVICER CANT DELIVER POSSESSION.

    THE SYSTEM DOES NOT OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE CORRECTED IN THE MOST ECONOMIC AND HUMANE WAY–UNLESS THE REALTORS COOPERATE.

    “Effective October, 2009 in California, it is illegal to collect any fees, regardless of the form, for negotiating or attempting to negotiate a loan modification for a residential mortgage. All modification services must be fully completed before any money can be collected. It is also illegal to divide fees or services into components for the purpose of avoiding this law.”

    HUD approved housing counseling agencies are exempt from this law.

  103. This like a murder scene and you send in the cleaner to rid the evidence. Ross bought Option One Mortgage too?

    Look up cases between the SEC and the CEO originators of 2006 between American Home and Option One, and they’ll tell you the whole story. The charges have already been filed in 2009 and settled with investors.

    Investors already sued and settled-American Home

    http://www.blbglaw.com/cases/00008

    New Century is Option One Mortgage. The corporate officers involved were Brad Morrice, Patti M. Dodge and David N. Kenneally.

    http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp21327.pdf

    Option One settlement

    http://luminentsecuritiessettlement.com/PDFs/FAQs.pdf

    Sounds like this the plan? By the time AG’s show up there are no bodies and the evidence has all been scrubbed down and washed away.

  104. As I mentioned yesterday I was worried about the intrinsic extrinsic brainteaser, and decided since ibown situation arose nonjudicially, the distinction should not apply. It was an extrajudicial taking, one might say

    As for the rest, I’ve been herding my ducks to the point that I messed myself up big time. Ducks will never get in line in my experience. You think you’ve got them. Quack! Someone escapes. I’m just going to plod forward. Knowing I have many sleepless nights ahead. Endless knots in my stomach. Oh boy No wonder people just walk away. What’s a stomach worth. Huh?

  105. @Marie or anyone really:
    Yes, fraud is an ugly word and proving it isn’t always easy. Then there’s knowing the diff between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and their application to the specifics of a case (hate that one).

    Regardless, in order to sustain any action, one needs some real grounds. Why shouldn’t Joe Bankster, who one is now inclined to believe might be more appropriately referred to Joe Mobster, have taken a house? What statutes, what rules were violated? Okay Joe Bankster did x, in violation of WHAT?
    Litigants and attorneys alike say Joe Bankster did this and that, with no recitation of the legal ramifications of the this and that, and the judge looks for the waste basket. They leave out case law support, also.
    Then they make an allegation peculiar to only one of the defendants against all of the defendants. Yeah, this forces the bad guys to expend resources to argue about it, but it doesn’t bode well for the lit with the court. Stuff like that. And the often fatally overlooked Nexus, the connection between the alleged actor(s) and the misdeed.
    I don’t mean to discourage anyone in standing up for their rights. In fact everyone who can, probably should. “Use ’em or lose ’em”. But one entertaining entering the ‘hallowed halls of justice’ has at LEAST got to have his ducks in a row as to the violations, especially given the current debate as to just how hallowed they are these days (about which I refrain from comment!)

  106. JGault

    Yes, I could very well be mistaken of course, but I recall there is no BFP status where fraud is proven. Unfortunately, I also recall I think that courts are only awarding damages where the house was sold?

    Were ibanez and similar cases only finding the banks didn’t have standing, or the docs, or whatever. So much more prudent to give half a loaf than to use ugly words like fraud in connection with those rich wall street types, especially as then maybe no one needs to return the house? I can’t remember how it goes.

    Not too many happy endings for the dispossessed.

  107. I cant get a pdf file to let me cut and paste from it.
    Anyone know if it can be done? I’m oretty lame with computer stuff. Thanks for this indulgence.

  108. Well, I guess, since void is void. And “fraud vitiates everything it touches”, now that I think about it some more.
    In criminal law terms, the trustee’s deed is the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’.

  109. Where are you Soliman? Nobody seems to know. You don’t have an address and are impossible to find. I would like to get some important papers from the court to you in order that I may receive justice. Maybe this link will explain why I as one of your clients is unable to physically find you. I am seeking a return of my funds for non compliance.http://www.la.bbb.org/Business-Report/Nationwide-Loan-Services-100072153

  110. See if I have this right.

    Foreclosures of mortgages that were securitized past and present have been and continue to be illegal and it was and is a crime that is punishable by law.

    Either the real deal was unsecured making any foreclosure illegal or the real deal was secured and the debt against the collateral (the home) has been paid in full making the foreclosure (and all of the payments after the date it was paid in full by anyone) illegal.

    The debt buyers and traders have been enriching themselves with collection rights and speculation on debts that no longer exist from people paying for or defaulting on debts that no longer exist. Or the debts may exist but there is no asset backing up the asset backed security that has also fraudulently been traded around as if it was secured.

    Geez. Time for govt. to declare foreclosure illegal. Tell people to pay their property taxes and save their money. Then sort out whether the debts are still owed or not after figuring out whether fraud on the Deed of Trust and or the fraud on the note and or fraud on the securitized trust agreement nullifys the whole transaction. Figure out the tax evasion and all the other frauds taken by the guys in the middle and whether that nullifys the whole transaction.

    Time for Govenment intervention. Time for truth and the rule of law to prevail. If the Government is complicit – God Help Us. Time for investor put backs (unless they were also complicit in the fraud). Way past time for homeowner put backs. Pay homeowners for the theft of their homes and the payment of bogus points, fees, escrow, title, principal and interest payments.

    Who in government will stand up and demand an end to this fraud? If no one does this and prevails – we have gone back to the middle ages – dark ages – and the America our ancestors fought and died for will perish as if it never existed. Campaign contributions by crooks be damned. The American public has brains. Show us the fraud. It isn’t complicated (that’s what the bad guys want us to think). We will vote for you even if you lose the fancy ads paid for by the crooks.

  111. Virginia. The worst

    Will look at statutes. Think trustees deed is prima facie evidence not conclusive hopefully

    You are very challenging which is good just don’t discourage me totally

    Desperately typing away

  112. “”Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication. ” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

    SEEMS AS IF THE PLAINTIFF ATTY THAT USES A FALSE ASSIGNMENT ETC IN COOPERATION WITH THE PREPARER OF THAT FALSE DOCUMENT THAT PURPORTS TO GIVE STANDING AND JURISDICTION IS A PERSON THAT IS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT-THE ATTEMPTED SEPARATION OF THE FEE SPLITTERS FROM THE SOURCE OF THE FALSE DOCS IS DRAGGING THAT BAGGAGE INTO THE COURT AND AT LEAST PREJUDICING THE JUDGE—COMPARTMENTALIZATION THU A COMPUTER DOES NOT GIVE DEFENSES TO A SINGLE CORPORATION-NOR SEEMINGLY A JOINT VENTURE -WHICH IS WHAT FEE SPLITTING CONNOTES.

  113. @Gault “how does one reconcile this with the alleged finality of the trustee’s deed? ”

    Is not this the essence of the issue where the deed was procured by fraud? so only a person who takes w/o notice is a good faith buyer—–suggests that linkage between servicer etc to current title holder is fatal against the “taking w/o due process”

  114. @Marie, what state are you in? What do your statutes say about recordation of interests in real property? Was there a bonafide recordation of an assignment prior to the first act of foreclosure? Or were you a victim of someone hiding behind MERS?

    But still, courts are essentially ruling that a homeowner’s rights are truncated at the instance of the trustee’s deed. Now, if according to certain facts like case law and statute, an action is void for lack of jurisdiction ( this can be true – but what is the particular bar – why was there no jurisdiction?) how does one reconcile this with the alleged finality of the trustee’s deed? It’s an area I haven’t explored. Maybe someone else has some ideas. I’im going to follow db’s link to that case.. Et vous?

  115. @Marie, well, yes, whether or not one had notice would be a question of fact. Whether or not one had reason and therefore responsibility to garner facts is also a question of fact. Courts have ruled that certain circumstances give rise to a duty to learn of adverse claims, and that sticking one’s head in the sand to avoid knowledge of those claims defeats a claim of “I had no notice, i didn’t know.”
    Possession by a party not on title, for instance, can be a circumstance which could be indicative of an adverse claim giving rise to the duty to find out what that’s about.

  116. OOMC and OOMAC address …

    ************************************************

    Requests to the Depositor should be directed in writing to its principal executive office at 2020 East First Street, Suite 100, Santa Ana, California 92705, or by telephone at (949) 790-8300. The Depositor has determined that its financial statements are not material to the offering of any Securities offered hereby.

  117. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
    1761 E. St. Andrew Place
    Santa Ana, CA 92705

    Interesting address, don’t you think? If we have nonexistent entities and lots of servicers and so-called trusts being moved around, it seems that most of the “invisible” entities actually have a visible place of business.

    Actually, according to most states laws, EVERY transfer of property must be recorded no matter where or inside what the transfer occurs.

  118. @neidermeyer
    In other mortgage news, Option One Mortgage Corporation, a division of H&R Block, has been sold to Wilbur Ross for an estimated $1 billion.

    Ross is known as a distressed asset investor who has, in recent months, agreed to acquire $42 billion in mortgage servicing rights from American Home Mortgage Investment Corporation and made a $1 billion investment in Bermuda bond insurer Assured Guaranty.

    Option One, the fourth largest mortgage servicer in the nation, services about $53 billion of subprime mortgages. These assets, combined with the American Home Mortgage Investment acquisition will give Ross the second largest subprime servicing portfolio in the nation after Countrywide Financial.

    Rights to collect–subject to apparent tax on the vendor as a california consolidated group—possibly subject to any uncollected tax in the hands of the acquirer under state tax and/or bulk asset salesrules designed to prevent frauds on creditors by conveyance of valuable assets out of the debtor estate.

    I would think that Cal could bring assessments against both groups———in fact it may be quite possible that Ross took subject to the tax liability by contract although he was fastidious to avoid pld AHMSI carryover liability when he purchased the servicing rights [collection accounts] of that entity from the bankruptcy trustee. I cannot see the bankruptcy of this entity parent? hard to imagine it was not scrubbed for Ross—-but absolutely california is able to enforce the tax law even if feds do not

  119. Sorry, Gault.

    Can’t type

  120. To mr fault

    Actual notice” The notice which the law presumes has been held to be actual, and not merely constructive notice. ….the knowledge charegeable to a person after he is put on inquiry by possession (the notice in this case – sic) is not limited to such knowledge as would be gained by examination of the public records.”

    A question of fact say the cases…..

  121. WOW! a Must Must See!

    The NATIONAL WAMU HOMEOWNERS SUPPORT GROUP
    WAMU screwed …..the WRONG PEOPLE!
    A message to all members of The NATIONAL WAMU HOMEOWNERS SUPPORT GROUP

    Former LPS Employees Allege 30% to 78% Error Rate in Borrower Mortgage Records, Contradicting Banker/Regulator Cover-Up

    The City of St. Clair Shores Employees’ Retirement System is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Lender LPS that was amended and expanded yesterday. The suit is against the company and its three top officers, charing them with violations of Federal securities laws with the intent of inflating the company’s revenues and stock price.

    Thx ShametheBanks.org

    via:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/05/former-lps-employees-allege-30-to-78-error-rate-in-borrower-mortgage-records-contradicting-bankerregulator-cover-up.html

  122. Msoliman , Anonymous ,

    You want one that is easy to demonstrate and you can research and confirm in less than an hour… here it is…

    Virtually all of Option One Mortgage Corps. CDO/Trusts have named Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corp. as the “depositor” , OOMAC is described in many Underwriting Agreements as a Delaware Corp. ,, OOMAC is not incorporated in Delaware , NY , CA or any of the 50 states ,, and no it is not listed as a subsidiary or linked legally in any public database to Option One Mortgage Corp. (now named Sand Canyon Corp) ,, they share a common address and officers but OOMAC does not now and has never legally existed.

    No depositor ? TRUST IS EMPTY , no discovery needed. every penny paid in , handled by the servicer and redistributed is fully taxable because REMIC cannot be complied with when there is no real estate being managed.

    Best of all MSoliman , OOMC and OOMAC have their physical address in Santa Ana CA , just think of the BILLIONS in back taxes the state can confiscate… That should get their attention.

    Needless to say these “investment products” touch a large number of powerful companies that want to get their money back …

    STIR THE POT SIR ,, STIR IT WELL … I WANT TO SEE A LEGAL DOGFIGHT THAT CONSUMES WALL STREET.. AND I WANT IT NOW.

  123. We are counting on you M. Soliman on Monday. Here is the link again. You can meet the Attorney General of California and get your coherent point across. Youtube it. Come on Soliman we are counting on you.

    Here is the link again.

    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/20/press-advisory-may-23-ca-attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-major-initiative-to-protect-homeowners-from-mortgage-fraud/

    And dont mess with the bodyguard try to be civil.

  124. to DCBreidenbach

    Elliot v Piersol
    1 Pet 328,349 26 u\U.S. 328,340 (1828)

    I should have walked right out of the courtroom to my two condos but I didn’t Judge Schlesinger and some judges refuse to follow the Supramacy clause of the US Constitution.

  125. There have been comments about “following the money rather than the paper-work”

    I heartily agree—–it would be the thing to do if you have access to a small army of money-crime investogators and forensic auditors. As I recall Justice said it lacked that ability. I do not doubt it—the complex transactions seemed even to defy the companies’ outside auditors repeatedly.

    This follow the $$$ thing is the guiding light of audit-at least investigation since auditors are not really supposed to ferret out fraud–unless by accident.
    Frankly, honestly –not to criticize—–but how in even an uncontested discovery–would you actually explain to a court what and how you approach it?

  126. @ ML
    The US Supreme Court case of Elliot v. Piersol
    Thanks

  127. @ msoliman,

    Goodness, incoherent ramblings—take a blood pressure pill—–you are embaressing yourself–and confusing everybody that are trying to glean bits of truth

    If a regulator or legislator or judge were reading this -do you seriously think their opinion would differ from mine on this particular point? it undermines the value of the others. Frankly maybe you are just so much smarter and insightful than everybody else–that this makes sense to you-well if that is the case why not complete your thoughts using paragraph structure and try to speak down to us –at least in a less confrontational manner

    I doubt many really appreciate the value of the snippits. If there is any.

  128. to David C Briedenbach
    The US Supreme Court case of Elliot v. Piersol
    …Under Federal law which is applicable to all States, The United States Supreme Court stated that if a Court is “without Authoriity, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but simply void and form no bar to recovery sought, even prior to reversal in opposition to them…

    How do the courts get around this. Well if they are like Judge Alice Scllesinger they simply ignore the facts that it is cited in all my papers. She prefered taking a bribe from the Title companies so that they don’t have to Indemnify.

  129. @J Gault further; example

    “Now, Plaintiff seeks relief from final judgment under FRCP 60(b), because of defense
    counsel’s misconduct and other manifest injustice permeated in the proceedings.”

    http://netbula.com/lawsuit/c07-05850-Motion-for-60b-relief-from-judgment.pdf

    Seems close to mark from where I sit.

  130. @j. Gault;
    Re #60—

    “(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.
    On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

    (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

    (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

    (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

    (4) the judgment is void;

    (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

    (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

    Sure seems like enough basis to try based on initial filing docs that are now pretty much admittedly void because they did not follow notary rules and leveraged the void assignments etc into a false claim——–notably one thought occurs to me——

    I read repeatedly that lack of substantive jurisdiction means the court where the filing occurred NEVER had jurisdiction in the 1st place to issue an order -therefore the Order of whatever nature-agreed by settlement etc is VOID–see above –gotta look at case-law

  131. Now how would I ever have expected to get a chuclkle or two at this site?

    MS, getting there
    “ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 100% OWNED BY THE ISSUER UNDER A TRS…..”:

    The notes identify the payment stream, return, whatever. (But I’ve actually believed a version of this for a long time). In code – parrot ms.
    How’d I do?

    .

  132. M. Soliman you are not hard to find

    Mr. Soliman was not too hard to find…….

    Maher Soliman’s Contact Info
    email

    mobile phone
    310-435-2628

    personal website
    http://www.borrowerhotline.com

    home address
    711 South Olive Street
    Los Angeles, CA 90014

    Maher Soliman’s Professional Experience
    Chief Examiner

    http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3539158

  133. Please don’t drink and comment…

  134. Hey Mr Soliman
    You can go meet the Attorney General of California and the Mayor of Los Angeles and plead your case this monday on Spring St in Downtown Los Angeles real close to you.

    A-Man —-

    HOW DO YOU KNOW WHERE I AM AT THIS MOMENT ? SPRING STREET – REAL CLOSE ? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT I AM NEAR SPRING STREET IN LA ?

  135. Meanwhile diversitures, acquisitions continue where foreign owners acquire pipeline and place in their ‘stables’ national consumer production entities.
    WHAT IS THE KEY OPERATIVE WORD HERE ….
    Office of Comptroller of Currency the LOOPHOLE who allowed the SERVICER segway to become a pipeline
    INCRIMINATION- SERVICING NOT ALLOWED IN A STRUCTURED DEAL (OCC WAS CLUELESS DAY ONE)
    separated from national banks and allowed the national banks to affix their privae brand label to the transactions.
    ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 100% OWNED BY THE ISSUER UNDER A TRS ….affix private —gibberish !

    M. Soliman

  136. You can go meet the Attorney General of California and the Mayor of Los Angeles

    M.Soliman – I met the Mayor – we talked in Sacramento… at a hotel bar.His personal body guard is 7′ no kidding…. He is a trip and a half ….but same with the State AG …they both said Passsssssssss!

    M.Soliman

    Famous Quotes – ” Out of order, I show you out of order. You don’t know what out of order is . . .
    I’d show you, but I’m too old, I’m too tired, I’m too frickin’ blind. If I were the man I was five years ago, I’d take a . . . .. to this place! Out of order? Who the hell do you think you’re talkin’ to? I’ve been around, you know? There was a time I could see. And I have seen. …But there isn’t nothin’ like the sight of an amputated spirit. There is no prosthetic for that.
    You think you’re merely sending this splendid [homeowner] back …. with his tail between his legs, but I say you are… executin’ his soul!

    Lt. Col. Frank Slade:

  137. Absolutely accurate — Very good lieN — a couple of points — Quote –“the banks are busy burying the bodies in transactions conducted in “private exchanges “Absolutely.
    ANONYMOUS.
    ————————————————————–
    M Soliman – Ahhh Really , burying the bodies is (?) is that like “Dont drink and Drive. Or maybe like rolling these credit bids into new Accredited registration? Its like …Hmmmm……Using equity in a borrowers home to re capitalize stock through “capitation”? Maybe like …ahhhh….Subrogation.

    Why would “they” want to bury transactions now? Do you see them using a nominee? Didi they not move these toxic assets off balance sheet and away from the banks who originated them and into the private sector?

    Hmmm ,Is this newsworthy ? What about ….. Well… wait a minute…. Like MERS ….secretive nominal interest…?

    ANOM – you’re the fountain of information are you not? Banks run for the Hills when they hear ANOM on the phone…

    Hey Ma’morche – Don’t private placements include the word “Private”? (Stop …please stop him….SOMEONE ….. Car-guy – HE IS YOUR FRIEND…please Ban him for life)

    Did the Government not say they acquired Fannie Mae to. . [.to kiss the “B” piece going forward] ….

    See, that is for your ears only….now ya all do not steal it, ya hear now! Nowhere for you to read yet …is it?

    (Please make him stop…)

    I promised existing clients I would stop giving away the shop here …keep working it Apocalypse. No, really Guys, I’m jus kidding…Goooooolly !

    But, if its not the Krispy Creme delegation, Barney Rubble or Dino – then – is it the Government, do ya think? Maybe the FED…..Do ya think?

    [We are headed (through Counsel) to the Appellate Court as this thing ran its course at the local Circuit Court level…]

    FAVORITE QUOTES –
    “I will not send our boys to Vietnam to fight …
    LB Johnson (56,000 Dead)

    “Let me say this about that ….”
    JF Kennedy

    “Your President is not a Crook!
    R. M. Nixon

    “I did not have a sexual affair with that woman…
    W. Clinton

    “If your loan is with Fannie Mae – we can help. If its not ….then pay your bills . . .
    B. Obama

    Always seek an attorney for legal advice. Call your state bar for more information. M.Soliman

  138. Yeah, we missed ms , didn’t we? Welcome back.

    DB, When a note is taken with notice of its dishonor, the party who has it is not a holder in due course. When not a hidc, that party is subject to any number of affirmative defenses by the maker – you.

  139. We are counting on you M.Soliman

  140. Hey Mr Soliman
    You can go meet the Attorney General of California and the Mayor of Los Angeles and plead your case this monday on Spring St in Downtown Los Angeles real close to you.

    Check out the link below with all the details

    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/20/press-advisory-may-23-ca-attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-major-initiative-to-protect-homeowners-from-mortgage-fraud/

    Tell them the facts M.Soliman.

    Be Strong and Courageous

  141. As the press and Attorneys General and DOJ, and regulatory agencies get geared up for what will be prosecutorial events, . . .

    Its been over a year since the report of Anton R. Valukas was issued ; the examination into the demise of Lehman Brothers, a formerly dominant global financial institution, that collapsed into bankruptcy during the Financial crisis of 2007-2010. Anton Valukas, chairman of the Chicago law firm Jenner & Block, was appointed by a bankruptcy court in New York in early 2009 to report on the causes of the Lehman bankruptcy.

    With fellow authors, he produced a 2200 page document detailing their views on the inner workings of Lehman Brothers, and possible avenues for proceedings against culpable directors and shareholders.

    The Valukas Report was made public following applications to the court on March 13, 2010.

    When you repeal the Safe Harbor Rule, SarBox, GAAP, beat up FASB , repeal the SEC Securities Laws governing enforceable acts , prohibit lobbying in favor of fair tax code enforcement and its all to avoid criminal prosecution and so forth , what in Gods name is the AG going to do.

    Look at the Nigerian barge caper and the Appellate court overturning the convictions. The AG still looks like an ass over that matter.

    And why, if they were dead on ….? Oh . . . What about B of A and the $10.3 Billion error.

    Nothing there Bubba …Controversy for controversy sake…..Nothing there !

  142. I have a question. Anyone have an answer? Might it be better in judicial foreclosure states to ‘re-open’
    the state proceeding (the f/c action) under the state version of FRCP 60 (assuming there is one) ,which has generally a shelf life of one year, rather than file a new action for some version of wrongful foreclosure? That would dissipate the res judicata arguments in a new suit, would it not?
    Do you think the trustee’s deed closed that door, the rule 60ish motion?

  143. Absolutely accurate — Very good Neil — a couple of points — Quote —

    “the banks are busy burying the bodies in transactions conducted in “private exchanges”

    Absolutely.

    AND

    “But they do have a huge liability created by the sale of credit default swap contracts”

    THOSE swaps are swapped out collection rights — AND those collection rights were orchestrated BEFORE the swaps were even executed – because subprime was nothing more than added debt to already documented collection rights – paid by insurance..

    AND

    “So the solution adopted by the banks is the time honored tradition of keeping the “assets” moving.”

    THESE ARE NOT BALANCE SHEET ASSETS — but rather — concealed collection rights INCOME – by private “exchanges” — that are kept going and going.and going by fraud.

    Deregulation.

    Court?? To prevail is to thwart the perpetrators — — despite the deregulation — Not easy — proof is concealed — by deregulation. .

  144. @DB
    In that BNY Mellon inevitably sought to gain something by referring to itself as the ‘new creditor’, if in fact it isnt and the notice were mailed to you, I wonder what laws / rules are inplicated?

  145. Bonafide purchaser: (dont think we’re done with that one just yet!)

    In Stone v. Jetmar Props., LLC, 733 N.W.2d 480 the court found:

    ” Public policy generally favors allowing a degree of reliance on the title shown in public
    records……But the reliance allowed is not absolute. A party attempting to invoke the doctrine …. cannot be negligent and cannot have knowledge of the defect in title….”

    Guess that would be true for proposed
    lenders on the re-sale in addition to the purchaser.

    In Pacific Gas & Elec. Co v. Minnette, 115 Cal.App. 2d 698:

    ” The notice which the law presumes has been held to be actual, and not merely constructive
    notice. ….the knowledge charegeable to a person after he is put on inquiry by possession (the notice in this case – sic) is not limited to such knowledge as would be gained by examination of the public records.”

    In Martinez v. Affordable Hous.Network, Inc., 123 P.3d 1201:
    “Actual notice occurs when a party has actual notice of a title defect.”

    In Life Savings & Loan Association v. Bryant, 125 Ill.App.3d 1012:

    ” A mortgagee of realty is regarded as a purchaser…..”
    Give extra thought to this one….

    In Newman v. 1st 1440 Invest., Inc. , 1993 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 354:

    ” Notice of a competing interest in the realty may be predicated upon actual or constructive
    knowledge, and may also be imputed if the circumstances impose a duty of inquiry upon
    the purchaser / mortgagee.”

    In Berlin v. Gaudin, 2007 Mont.Dist.LEXIS 450 (2007):
    ” A title depends not only upon the deeds and other writings appearing of record, but also
    upon a great number of facts nowhere appearing of record…Neither do the recording acts protect against conditions and rights revealable by a personal inspection of the property.”

    Don’t forget I’m not an attorney. These are just cases I have on file. And also remember that
    just because one gives notice, which should defeat bfp status, it’s still a long way to showing one actually has the interest which has been noticed.

  146. Zoe;
    Sorry, if i missed a question mark or two— I was asking questions of the Mary postings, because I was not sure what was meant—

  147. Foley received notice about DOCX issues soon before he “separated” from LPS ..

  148. David C. Breidenbach wrote:

    “And basically a fly-by-nite servicer–originator purportedly conveys the notes/mortgages to a bigname trustee natl bank—which claims exemption for the whole process under OCC rules from state AG investigation–using federal pre-emption doctrine.”

    Is this what the recent Bank of America transfers are about? I heard that many got notice of transfer, and I did too. In my notice, BNY Mellon calls itself the “new creditor,” but advised me to continue paying BAC. (My home is in foreclosure.)

    Whatever is going on behind all these curtains seems to be affecting me.

    A few days after the BNY Mellon notice, I got a notice from BofA Home Loans advising that the SERVICING transferred to the mother company, BofA, N.A., and that my homeowner’s insurance policy would be updated to reflect BofA, N.A. as “mortgagee.”

    The foreclosure plaintiff is BAC FKA Countrywide. MERS assigned the mortgage to BAC three days before claim was filed.

    Does all of this mean three entities are claiming to be the mortgagee now? If so, should I take some sort of action to notify the Court? Or ask for dismissal?

    If BNY Mellon is the new creditor, why does BofA, N.A. become the mortgagee on the homeowner’s policy and BAC show as the mortgagee for the foreclosure case?

    How would a judge view all of this happening several months after a foreclosure suit was filed? Could I ask for an accelerated hearing on this before this gets any more complicated? I am exhausted and I cannot keep all of this straight, and obviously, these three entities don’t know who the heck owns the note.

  149. She’s just getting it into “public domain” so it will show up in a google search for anyone who needs it!!!!

  150. I am in Bk with an adversary proceeding. I would like to construct an Objection to Proof of Claim incorporating the “Follow the money then the documents”. This seems to be what Soliman and Anonymous have been saying all along. I’m looking for this information which you have elaborated here: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/follow-the-money-and-then-the-documents/.
    But in the form of pleadings, and briefs.
    Any docs, please forward to:
    davidwood100@yahoo.com
    Thanks.

  151. Saturday 21 May 2011

    I keep trying, but I do not get Mary Cochrane messages.

  152. Thanks, Mary. I see what you are doing now. I also see that the idea of trying to zero in on a moving target is something the banks are interested in doing.

  153. @ Mary;
    I ordinarily find your material easily readable and informative. I thank you for your dedication and detail. a couple items in the posting were hard to grasp for me,
    “acquisitions continue where foreign owners acquire pipeline and place in their ‘stables’ national consumer production entities”

    Are you referring to entities engaged in origination of consumer loans as “production”. What does “pipeline” refer to? Im guessing brokers?

    And basically a fly-by-nite servicer–originator purportedly conveys the notes/mortgages to a bigname trustee natl bank—which claims exemption for the whole process under OCC rules from state AG investigation–using federal pre-emption doctrine.

    Did I get the essence?

  154. Dear Louise:
    I appreciate your candor.

    Yes, very difficult to read and understand.
    I’m placing (I pray) information in the public domain which is resting in what are known to be ‘intranets’ not on the public domain so the data will come up in searches.

    Information helps you realize as a consumer that there is more going on than a flat piece of paper.

    Is you were not aware of ‘Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp’ and GMAC-RFC and Norwest Corp, in agreements with affiliates who harmed you, that information may pop now in a search on google.

    I appreciate your tolerance and pray information you need to secure evidence from parties who may claim to be the owners of property can be disputed.

    Kind Regards,

  155. Mary, I appreciate your level of knowledge, but it is very difficult to understand the way it is written. I may be missing something, of course, but I don’t get it. Thanks.

  156. What I have noticed is Title Companies run their own games. William P Foley, CEO of Fidelity National Title, Fidelity National Financial, former chair of LPS Docx plays musicial chairs switching Titles he holds at Fidelity and its subsidiaries.

    But now, William Foley wants to give up all his executive Titles and just be stumping on his grapes in his wine business to get by —to get by the investigations going on at LPSDocx and other
    entities.

  157. May 20 (Reuters) – U.S. authorities closed two small banks in west-central Georgia and one in Washington state on Friday, bringing the number of foreclosures in 2011 to 43.

    CertusBank, a subsidiary of Blue Ridge Holdings Inc, bought the Georgia banks. Blue Ridge is led by former Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) and Wachovia Corp executives who want to build a regional bank in the U.S. Southeast.

  158. […] Source: Livinglies’s Weblog […]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: