U.S. Bank/MERS loses Every Time in State Supreme Courts


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


The bottom line is that the foreclosures in the name of MERS were all bad. That means they are at worst reversible and most probably will be subject to a decree that they were void. US Bank does not fare much better. Their use of forged and fabricated instruments combined with the dubious authority of MERS, together with the fact that the person signing on behalf of MERS was not an employee or officer creates a factual void. The only way US Bank or any other bank can win is by getting past the Judge on the issue of pleading of proof. If they are required to actually state their case and bring forth witnesses to authenticate documents, and be subject to cross examination and discovery they would lose. But that doesn’t happen because either they win with the Judge on the front end of the case (threshold issues in pleading) or they settle using confidentiality statements.

I am receiving an increase in the number of letters I receive telling me how pleased the homeowner is with the result of his/her settlement despite the fact that they can’t tell me the terms. The Banks avoid discovery and hearings at which they must proffer evidence at all costs. They really have nothing to lose since they neither funded the loan nor acquired it. If they get the house, they have a windfall, if they don’t they lost nothing. So their strategy, more than anything else, is simply to make it as difficult as possible on homeowners so that most drop out of the contest. Don’t drop out! Persistence pays!

Round Up of State Supreme Court Decisions
By Jake Naumer July 26, 2011 at 9:09 pm
> How will our Arizona Supreme Court decide the certified questions in
> Vasquez?  I don’t know, but let’s look to other state supreme courts
> deciding issues of notes, deeds of trust, mortgages and foreclosure in
> the last year or two:
> Vermont:
> US Bank’s Allonge and Affidavits Don’t Pass Muster Vermont Supreme C
> Massachusetts Supreme Court
> Ibanez Compendium
> Maine Supreme Court
> Maine High Court Reverses Foreclosure, Paperwork Untrustworthy in Wall St J
> Kansas Supreme Court
> Landmark v. Kessler
> The relationship that MERS has to Sovereign is more akin to that of a straw
> man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer. A mortgagee and a
> lender have intertwined rights that defy a clear separation of interests,
> especially when such a purported separation relies on ambiguous contractual
> language. The law generally understands that a mortgagee is not distinct from > a
> lender: a mortgagee is “[o]ne to whom property is mortgaged: the mortgage
> creditor, or lender.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1034 (8th ed. 2004). By statute,
> assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. K.S.A.
> 58-2323. Although MERS asserts that, under some situations, the mortgage
> document purports to give it the same rights as the lender, the document
> consistently refers only to rights of the lender, including rights to receive
> notice of litigation, to collect payments, and to enforce the debt obligation.
> The document consistently limits MERS to acting “solely” as the nominee of the
> lender.
> Georgia Supreme Court
> US Bank loses on certified questions regarding attestation and
> acknowledgment of recorded documents for foreclosure
> Arkansas Supreme Court
> http://courts.arkansas.gov/court_opinions/sc/2009a/20090319/published/08-1299.
> pdf
> “Permitting an agent such as MERS purports to be to step in and act without a
> recorded lender directing its action would wreak havoc on notice in this
> state”
> and let’s throw in a Michigan appellate court just for fun:
> The Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion with potentially
> far-reaching effects: MERS – the Mortgage Electronic Registration
> System – lacks standing to foreclose by advertisement on many homes in
> Michigan.
> The case is Residential Funding Co., LLC v Saurman, Docket No. 290248
> (Decided April 21, 2011).  In that case, two home owners challenged
> their evictions at the end of their redemption periods claiming that
> MERS did not conduct a valid foreclosure.  Their reasoning was that
> MERS did not hold the underlying debt, which the Michigan foreclosure
> by advertisement statute requires it to hold.  The court agreed, and
> held that the foreclosure sales were invalidated.

106 Responses

  1. Dear Pam Bondi,
    There are two lawyers out of Coral Gables Florida named Andrew Braaksma supervised by Paul McKenna who we believe may have broken State and Federal Laws. We also believe that they may have severely violated many rules of the Florida Bar. We also believe that they are destroying the integrity of our courts and our legal system. They along with their clients (US Bank and SN servicing) have uttered forgery and submitted Forged deeds in court and that is a crime because they know and have now seen the evidence. Very credible well known highly respected Notaries have come forward with sworn affidavits proving that the documents they used are forged. If these document are in fact forged and have crossed state lines which we believe they have, then why aren’t these people being prosecuted for federal anti forgery crimes? I have spoken to many victims of US Bank that are saying the same thing that their deed are forged, How can this keep going on In America? We have to file a criminal conspiracy lawsuit against these attorneys when it is clear that the state should step in a stop them from what they are doing. We believe that RICO charges may apply, please defend the good people of Florida against this type of fraud on our courts. Most people will lose their homes when they shouldn’t, most people lost their homes because the banks have a mountain of money and they beat down anyone who fights them. They just keep hiring other attorneys who can claim that they didn’t know the documents were forged, but you know most are, the OCC knew they are and any reasonable person now knows that crimes are being committed by the banks and no one is going to jail. The Board of Directors of US Bank, SN Servicing and their attorneys like Andrew Braaksma and Paul McKenna need to be prosecuted if they have broken the law. Please investigate these men and put a stop to this. Ray Shelton

  2. Call ma ASAP 6192033609,

  3. leapfrog please double check statements on POA.

  4. What is the certified question in Vasquez if any knows so I don’t have to go hunt it down.

  5. Re E. Tolle’s comment on “Pat”

    This is for Pat if he is the Pat E.Tolle mentioned. The LAW makes the tolerance for the apr .125% . The LAW also says the tolerance for the amt financed shrinks to 35.00 when a f/c action is filed. So guess what, jerk—, the loan may be rescinded as a matter of LAW, and without tender, and I second what E. Tolle said to you. It wasn’t that stinking tough to get them right. Ever heard of an HP? How bout the software that spit it out for even morons. I’ll tell you why they’re not right most of the time – because the reg Z does not line up with the alleged g.f.e. many people never saw til their autograph was required – and then back dated- at the closing.
    You want to rant and rail because homeowners avail themselves of the law? Take it up with the legislators, like we have to do when we don’t like things. But you seem to think the only one who wants a pass is a borrower. Don’t get me going on the other sins, the deadbeatness, of the mortgage industry for which THEY want passes- you’ll lose.

    Btw, I probably forgot more about auditing loans than you’ll ever know. Good thing for you and yours I’m just too damn tired to start a new career.

  6. Great. Now if we could just make a dent with Wells Fargo….


    FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011

    Jackasses at Phelan Hallinan & Smieg foreclosure mill vacate the office and call police on KingCast/Mortgage Movies…. police ask “What the f*ck is going on?”

  7. Hey leapfrog, you got me wondering about this guy Pat. I Googled him myself. Wow! This guy is Mr. Vitriol when it comes to us deadbeats….I’m surprised he was able to bite his tongue and keep his BP in check while he was hanging here. Here’s a quote from his comment on Credit Slips:

    The homeowners who file lawsuits to stop foreclosures are generally frauds themselves. They want to cancel the debt, and think that they can do so by claiming TILA violations. I just “love” those bs claims. “The finance charge was understated by $100, so I rescind the loan.” And they want the home for free.

    Same with the MERS and Securitization arguments.

    The bottom line is that it is time for people to take responsibility for their own actions. Live up to their obligations. And if they don’t want to do that, then be foreclosed upon and start over.

    Posted by: Patrick Pulatie | March 09, 2011 at 08:13 PM

    I’ll take responsibility for my own actions and tell him to bite my ass next time I run into him.

    He ends up getting slashed and burned by a guy who takes him to task for slamming audits while attempting to sell his services for same. Go figure. You can read the gory details here, if you aren’t too squeamish:


  8. eDelivery

    MERS® eDelivery is a single highway for the effective delivery of documents and data from one lender to another using the infrastructure, open interface and standards of the MERS® eRegistry. MERS® eDelivery lets aggregators (also known as securitizers)
    work with brokers, correspondents and investors using a single open industry standard instead of attempting to integrate with multiple proprietary services.

    All eMortgage trading partners can adopt MERS® eDelivery with confidence knowing it leverages the backbone of the MERS® eRegistry, and powered by MERS.

    Google.com Search for the MERS® eRegistry
    to view flow chart revealing

    Proprietary eDocument Delivery Aggregatory Perspective versus

    streamlined ‘MERS’ eDelivery Aggregator Perspective

  9. Google.com MERS eRegistry and check out

    Lenders & Investors Integrated with MERS eRegistry last update 10/18/10

    “Neighborhood Mortgage Solutions LLC’ a loan modification scam
    Citibank NA
    Reliant Mortgage Co

    First Collateral
    Green Light Financial Services

    In-Production long list of names you all recognize starting with

    Technology System Providers Integrated with MERS eRegistry

    Note: MERS ‘excludes’
    eLYNX and TD Services dba TD Escrow Services who are indeed ‘integrated’ and pull in the nationwide actors if you will of the title and settlement agents, agencies, in agreements with title corporations and sub-services and trustees of ‘Title & Settlement Corporations’ and Insurance Companies including Fidelity, First America, Lawyers Title Services, Commonwealth, Landamerica, First National …

    ‘In Production’ Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, …
    In Integration ‘MRG (tesing SMART Docs)
    Wolters Kluwer
    (completed SMART Doc testing)
    In Production:
    Digital Docs
    Steward Home Mortgage Services
    SignialDocs, inc.

    From MERS eRegistry
    Addendum to MERS Membership Agreement:

    1. The MERS eRegistry is a registry system evidencing the transfer of interests in eNotes (transferable records) that are intended to satisfy the safe harbor provisions of Section 16 (c)
    of the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (“UETA”) and Section 201 (c) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“ESIGN”). The MERS eRegistry is owned and operated by MERSCORP, Inc., which also owns and operates Mortgage
    Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively, MERSCORP, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. are referred to as “MERS”).

    4. The only instruments that can be registered on the MERS

     eRegistry are eNotes
    (transferable records) as defined in UETA and ESIGN.

    Member Investors
    (i.e., persons to which transferable records are issued or transferred) will determine the acceptable conditions of sale and the form and format of transferable records; provided, however, that each transferable record registered on the MERS

     eRegistry must include a valid mortgage identification number (“MIN”) and a reference that the MERS

     eRegistry is the definitive source for
    information as to the current Member Investor. MERS should not be deemed to have a beneficial interest in any transferable record registered on the MERS

     eRegistry and MERS expressly disclaims any such interest.

    Upon written request, a Member who is the current Member Investor for an electronic record will be provided with a certificate of that status that the Member can provide to third parties as proof of their ownership of the electronic record.

    By submitting a loan registration or a transaction to the MERS eRegistry, the Member represents and warrants to MERS that, at the time of the submission:

    a. The Member has all requisite corporate power and authority, with all necessary consents, approvals, authorizations, orders, registrations, qualifications, licenses
    and permits of and from all public, regulatory or governmental agencies and bodies, to register loans and execute transactions on the MERS  eRegistry.

    b. The registration of loans and execution of transactions on the MERS eRegistry are legal, valid and binding on the Member and enforceable against the Member.

    c. The officers, employees and agents of the Member registering loans and executing transactions on the MERS eRegistry were duly authorized and acting within the scope of their authority.

    d. The information and data submitted by the Member to the MERS eRegistry in conjunction with the registration of loans and execution of transactions is true and correct.

    e. MERS and any other user of the MERS eRegistry are entitled to rely on the information and data (including any digital certificates or other authentication procedures) submitted to the MERS eRegistry by the Member.

    f. There are no legal or governmental proceedings pending or threatened to which the Member is a party that would affect the ability or power of the Member to register
    loans and execute transactions on the MERS eRegistry.

  10. @edgetraderplus – okay (fwiw) it’s at Detecting Mortgage Sec Fraud posted on 7/21. My outline is at 7/23 3:56 and amended at 5:27.

  11. Watch, as my hero Yves Smith SHREDS Patrick:

    Patrick Pulatie says:
    December 14, 2010 at 4:31 pm
    Just some quick comments.

    1. The PSA states that in states where allowed, MERS can maintain the status of nominee for the beneficiary and assignments would not need to be executed.

    2. For Countrywide Trusts, CW was the custodian of the documents, so they would retain the documents.

    3. The PSA does grant power of attorney status to the servicer. Also, as MERS members, it can be effectively argued that the MERS membership agreement creates a power of attorney status.

    4. The MERS Deed of Trust states that the borrower gives MERS the right to foreclose, if necessary.

    • Yves Smith says:
    December 14, 2010 at 5:32 pm
    In reverse order:

    4. is meaningless. Only the noteholder can foreclose, even the ASF had argued that point, “the mortgage [which is the deed of trust] follows the note.” MERS has said repeatedly in depostions, that it has nothing to do with the note. To be a “holder” you both have to have possession and have an owner. Someone can act as an agent of a noteholder, but MERS cannot act independently as you imply. And in 45 of 50 states, the note and the deed of trust cannot be separated, yet that is what MERS purports to do.

    3. As I said above, and you apparently did not read, any power of attorney will be defective if the notes never got into the possession of the trust.

    2. This is another irrelevancy as far as this post is concerned. Countrywide can act as custodian for the trust ONLY as an agent of the trust. If the notes were never conveyed to the trust, Countrywide cannot act as custodian. Everyone in Kemp agreed the notes were not conveyed OR transferred. They would have had to go through the intermediary parties listed in the PSA. That did not happen.

    1. This is irrelevant. Assignment of the lien is a different matter than conveyance of the note. In 45 states, the note dominates.


  12. @edgetraderplus – it was just a generic outline with no heading even, and it could probably only be used at the beginning of a case.

    My usual – “I am not an attorney and nothing I ever say or write is legal advice”!
    I had hoped it would garner some thoughts and maybe even improvement, but that didn’t happen. But I’ll look for it and repost if I can find it in short order.

  13. Friday 29 July 2011


    28 July 8:02 pm post below…

  14. @edgetraderplus – I’m sorry, but “huh”? Are you talking about a qt action I talked about?

  15. Friday 29 July 2011


    To which pleading do you refer? From which post?

  16. The Loan Forensic Audit – why posted on LL? The QT documentary leads to ‘buy Loan Forensics Securitization Audit’ and have your own counsel review. I’ve received a copy of Loan Forensic Audit and its not comprehensive and misrepresented by sales people who sell the audit in what the audit will provide. Consumer beware.

  17. Louise, if you got your loan thru a broker, there is very little if any doubt
    that it was funded by someone else. Some larger brokers had their own warehouse lines and sold loans post-closing, but none of the smaller outfits did. Countrywide, for example, in addition to having its own “retail” outfits was also a wholesale lender utilizing brokers for a great percentage of its business. Who was the lender when CW funded the loan which stated “ABC Broker” on the note and the loan had already been ‘purchased’ by CW? CW would not fund a loan it had not already purchased. The loan had to be ‘locked’ in by the broker with CW first. It was purchased and sold at what is called the “strike price”, and this was going on for years before securitization became rampant. It was just what it was. I was heavily involved on the street side, shall I say, and never saw anything untoward about it. I bought money at one price and sold it at another, much the same as any retailer like a furniture store. We were not gougers and did not do “hard money” loans, i.e., loans to people who shouldn’t get them by traditional (since totally abandoned by the lending community) underwriting standards. We only originated “A” paper. I never sold loans to CW, I’m happy to say. I will tell you this – the real money was in those hard money loans which were just coming about as I was exiting the industry. We chose not to do them.
    If you want to know who funded your loan, that info is in the possession of the title company, where the funds were wired by the party providing the funds for closing. Lenders have to keep their loan origination files for three years, as I reall. Don’t know about title companies. If you figured out how to get your hands on that info from title, or even the broker, as applicable, I’m just not sure what the call would be as to whom was the lender if it were a CW who funded the loan or what it would be good for.

  18. My observation about attorneys – very very few – presenting the right arguments: almost every one of those cases has lead to a stipulated
    settlement which is off the record. Something made me think as I read those cases that the settlement involved a meaningful modification.

    Fewer, but some, cases have lead to denials of the bankster’s attempt to claim a home with prejudice. Fewer yet, but again still some, have resulted in denials with prejudice and sanctions against the banksters.

    You have a right to decide which remedy you want to pursue. The problem is it takes about the same amount of savvy to get the first as the third.

    Many people here would likely be content with a reasonable modification.
    Many people here would likely NOT be content with a reasonable modification they had to put their lives on hold to chase and heavily re-mortgage their own futures in a gamble to get a reasonable loan modification.

    The jerkies got the TARP funds. The homeowners got HAMP funds but they were given to the TARP recipients who can’t or won’t use them for the homeowners. And even the loans getting some attention aren’t being modified – they’re being subsidized by the servicers, which to me, is demonstrative of their lack of interest in the notes (but that poses no problem to them in foreclosing and taking one’s home). It’s subzidiation, or very bad faith because the borrower’s old note is not retired in favor of a new one. Not that bad if the servicer never leaves the building or files bk.

    But, yes, I agree if Mr. Garfield feels like it, it would be useful to link to
    successful arguments. I don’t care why he has this site. I never prescribed to the argument about the loan being funded by Wall Street investors, i.e, who was the real lender. Because I don’t and feel it’s a waste of time, I’m sorry for anyone who thought that allegation might get them somewhere. It’s possible as these things evolve, I’ll be shown wrong, the argument has merit, and MR G will be the genius of the century. Dunno. I’ve even been ostracized by a certain group when I revealed I am a reader here. Like I said, I don’t care WHY he has this site including if it’s to line his pockets with gold. I won’t bore you with all the miserable nights I spent thinking I was alone in my own mess, but there were plenty.

  19. By the way, everybody, I keep seeing posts and comments about the fact that some “warehouse lender” actually put the money up for the loan. Well, that’s great, but how do we find the warehouse lender in our particular case? Is there some way to track that? If we cannot prove that some other entity provided the money, we can’t use that in a pleading. Lot’s of smart people comment on this blog. How do we find that out and the paper trail that goes with it? Just sayin’…..

  20. A shoutout to usedkarguy, hoping you know the meaning of ignorance is lack of knowlege… not stupid. I would never call a homebuyer stupid, I would say they are ignorant because they don’t understand the process due to lack of knowledge. People that post here are learning, gaining knowledge, I don’t see ‘stupid’ here at all. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment.

  21. tony, love your comment.. “A real lawyer seeks out your case like they are looking for treasure.” What happened to the ‘real’ lawyers. There is so much treasure in each of these cases and it seems to me the lawyers aren’t capable or don’t want to find it. The new lawyers entering the system really don’t know the old way. They are cutting their teeth on securitzed loans and have no experience or knowledge to draw on. They seem to be buying the banks line that everything they did was lawful and they must work with that system. To those of us who know it is not it is very hard to prove to them otherwise.

    The old school lawyers know what has happened is wrong but somewhere along the line they have lost their courage. They no longer have pride in their work. Sadly it is those lawyers I have to put my faith in. The old school lawyers and judges that should be standing up and fighting this miscarriage of justice. Those are the ones that are deciding the future of the nation in courtrooms everyday. When we they stand up and say enough is enough.

  22. Pat, I know you are gone but I did want to do a followup in case you are watching. You stated that nowhere did you say the homeowner should give up their houses and let the banks have them for free. No you did not say those words but you said that you wanted a solution that works for the banks and the homeowners. I fail to follow your logic. You state “Getting a home for free is not realistic. And anyone who wants to argue the Note, lawfulness of MERS/Sercuritization, or the Note has been paid is looking to get the home for free, no matter how much they deny it”. I get from that statement that homeowners have no right to argue those points, therefore, I mistakenly reached the conclusion that you were indicating the homeowners should give their homes to the banks rather than argue about ‘technicallities’.

    I totally agree, getting a home for free is not realistic especially when a bank depends on fraudulent documents to do so, has no standing, and the security instrument has most likely been destroyed. The Note and Mers/Securitization are the issues that must be argued.

    You further state “I care what is right or wrong and what is legal or
    unlawful.” This is the statement that I really like about your post but how can their be a win/win when all the evidence is pointing to the fact
    that the entire process was/is unlawful. I believe you started out on the right side but ended up compromising.

  23. Hey they forgot to include me in their stat analysis. I did a bankruptcy but I didn’t get anybodies approval – I just stopped paying on those plastic demons 2 years ago,

    yes sir ree, my own personal BK, approved by me. Didn’t cost me a penny and I saved the courts time and money too.


  24. THIS guy, Ed Degaldo, doesn’t like the idea, his business is now short selling REO

    and if GSE’s start renting, he loses business.

    Ed Delgado, former Wells Fargo executive and current CEO of the Five Star Institute told The Wall Street Journal that renting is “riddled with risk.”
    “Essentially you’re converting the [firms] from providing liquidity to a glorified national landlord for distressed assets,” he told the Journal.

    The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Obama administration is considering several housing policy changes, including requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loosen their stringent requirements for investors.

    The possibility of the GSEs renting some of their REOs was also mentioned as a way to help stabilize prices.


  25. These guys are Geniuses. Wow, principle reduction, why didn’t I think of that.


  26. what a bunch of lying sack of shits:

    Economic activity continues to grow but the pace has moderated in many parts of the country,



    Economy slowed sharply in first half of year


    SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN by the news media

  27. I knew it, headlines state a decline in foreclosure activity, but

    the rest of the story is (which headlines leave out)

    “However, RealtyTrac attributes these declines not to an improving market, but to delays in local foreclosure processes.”


  28. The policy change was officially adopted last week and carries an effective date of July 22, 2011.


  29. What this:


    Pointing out evidence that servicers make more loan modifications to loans in their own portfolios than those held by investors, AMI stated its belief that servicers are operating with a conflict of interest and putting more efforts into their own loans than in investors’ loans.

    servicers make more loan mods to loans in their own portfolios

    sounds like debt collectors making mods to defaulted credit card debt if you can get the defaultor to agree.

  30. Thank you so much Nabdulla. Unfortunately, I’m not in a judicial state but the point of information is well taken and greatly appreciated. I won’t stop fighting. I believe I’m on the right path, I’ve come to the conclusion that I need a judge who’s willing to listen to a pro se litigant and one who will actually take time to review the evidence in the record. The court would vacate the proceeding sua sponte if they would just take the time to review the evidence of record. Damning evidence, not presented by me but presented by the perpetrators themselves. If this were a dream, banksters believing they would get away with such a scheme would be laughable, TOO BAD THIS IS REAL LIFE IN AMERICA!!! Still I know justice will come to those who persistantly seek it, so the fight must go on…

  31. Wow, real mature…name calling…

    ANYWAY–it’s STILL all about this FRAUD:


    “Countrywide Admits Notes Were Not Transferred To Securitization Trusts”

    “Testimony in a New Jersey bankruptcy court case provides proof of the scenario we’ve depicted on this blog since September, namely, that subprime originators, starting sometime in the 2004-2005 timeframe, if not earlier, stopped conveying note (the borrower IOU) to mortgage securitization trust as stipulated in the pooling and servicing agreement. Professor Adam Levitin in his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee last week described what the implications would be:

    If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever. The chain of title concerns stem from transactions that make assumptions about the resolution of unsettled law. If those legal issues are resolved differently, then there would be a failure of the transfer of mortgages into securitization trusts, which would cloud title to nearly every property in the United States and would create contract rescission/putback liabilities in the trillions of dollars, greatly exceeding the capital of the US’s major financial institutions….

    Recently, arguments have been raised in foreclosure litigation about whether the notes and mortgages were in fact properly transferred to the securitization trusts. This is a critical issue because the trust has standing to foreclose if, and only if it is the mortgagee. If the notes and mortgages were not transferred to the trust, then the trust lacks standing to foreclose…”

    Not to mention they were never valid mortgages to begin with…only reaffirmation of collection rights…

  32. tnharry,
    Its non-judicial and I was tricked by the servicer into believing the foreclosure sale was postponed (they even sent confirmation in writing) but the sale commenced anyway (the day before Thanksgiving). I tried unsuccessfully to find an atty to take my case and I tried unsuccesfully to enjoin. After the sale was confirmed DBNTC (never any mention of a trust throughout the entire foreclosure proceeding) as the petioner/creditor/note holder assigned its bid to a trust with an LPS address.

    After reviewing the facts and the evidence presented in both the foreclosur case and the case to enjoin, and in light of the assignment of bid, I discovered DBNTC didnt have standing. As a result, I filed a Rule 60 motion in the foreclosure case (not in the case to enjoin) to set aside the foreclosure. And as unbelievable as this may seem (at least it was unbelievable to me) opposing counsel filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the trust as the PURCHASER, but when he came on the record for hearing he introduced himself as appearing for the trust as the PETITIONER, DBNTC was always the petitioner until this point. I argued that neither DBNTC nor the trust had standing and that fraud was being committed upon the court as we spoke simply by opposing counsel’s alleged appearance. This was the same attorney who represented DBNTC, the sub trustee and the servicer in the case to enjoin, now he miraculously has authority to represent the trust too. Anywho, the motion was denied for being moot.

  33. hey johngault, yes I did, and thanks for the compliment. we do use mortgages here in Wisconsin. Haven’t had time to read all this blather today, I was busy WORKING. But I will catch up. I’d love to talk to you. e-mail me at usedkarguy@yahoo.com with a phone number and maybe we can talk tomorrow night. and harry and pat, please don’t let the idiots bring you down. sometimes the best thing to do is ignore the ignorant. You can’t fix stupid. Thanks again. Goodnight.

  34. nabdulla, I like your style.

    Marie, thank you.

    cubed2k, he’s a shill but I don’t believe he knows it. I’ve been to his site. He believes that crap he spouts. He thinks that working out a solution with the banking industry is the way to go. But a lot of people in or near the industry do. Tavakoli, Levitin, Porter, just to name a few. Who am I to argue with such learned people? But I still will.

    A self-respecting nation cannot, on the scale accepted up to now, allow its foreclosure practices to be decided and carried out by the very institutions that created the problems to begin with. Allowing the banksters poetic license over the lives of millions of people who played by age old established rules shifts the win/lose odds decidedly in the favor of the bookmakers, just like in old gangland Chicago. The Mob always won on those bets, and so will the banksters.

    I’m guessing that in a couple of decades or so, a Wikipedia search will find stories sounding almost holocaust like in their portrayal of the events of the last few years. Families displaced to tent cities, belongings thrown onto neighborhood curbs, courts denying due process, illegal impossibilities like locks changed on houses with no mortgages; bold maniacal acts sounding more like the actions of third world dictators against rebel forces, not life in the republic for which we stand.

    We’d best get a handle on this stuff folks. It’s out of control and time’s up. We have to tell our legislators that it’s game over. FULL TILT. No more votes for bad guys and gals. Fix it or come home disgraced with no job prospects. And no more money for their corrupt masters. It’s easy, just cut off the money flow. Their greed will destroy them soon enough. To do nothing for even one more day is exceedingly dangerous. Because once the populace is satisfied that justice is dead or belongs only to the wealthy, people will no longer place their faith in the courts or their government. It’s that simple. And that’s how civilizations fail.

  35. @ Make It Happen
    “….if the pretender lender LACKED STANDING to initiate the foreclosure action from the beginning what post foreclosure method is used to attack it?”.
    The first thing is to get the Summary Judgment of Foreclosure vacated and set aside. I live in Brooklyn, NY – a judicial foreclosure state – so I’ll speak from here.
    Here in the State of New York, you can attack Judgment of Foreclosure either one of two ways: (1) a “Motion To Vacate Summary Judgment Of Foreclosure”, or (2) if, after the Referee’s Sale, the new “owner” has commenced eviction proceedings in Landlord/Tenant Court, you can file an “Order To Show Cause” with emergency affidavit and asking the Court for a TRO staying the eviction proceeding.
    Whether you go motion or OSC, your argument is the same – LACK OF STANDING. As Neil has correctly pointed out so many times – the lack of standing goes to the JURISDICTION of the Court. Here in NY, our highest Court – the NY Court of Appeals – held and declared years ago that: “Want of jurisdiction is a basic defect, not a trial error; it may be raised AT ANY TIME and CAN NEVER BE WAIVED”. People v. Nicometi, 12 N.Y.2d 428 (1963).
    That’ll get you in. Once in, settle down, relax, pull out your knitted shawl (Madame DeFarge – A Tale Of Two Cities), and start kicking ass. Take no quarter, and give none, (e.g., HSBC v. Silverberg). The Judges here in Kings County “got it”.

  36. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  37. Hey usedkarguy – did you see my response to WI stuff you posted?

  38. @usedkarguy – I wonder if you know part of what you’re asking.
    Yes, what we need are pleadings. I have a million because until recently I (like you I’m guessing) did not stop at reading decisions. I reviewed the whole stinking cases for who said what where when. . I
    posted a pleading of sorts last week I think it was, one I had penned.
    I don’t know if people thought it stunk or what but it got no reaction.
    I was of course disappointed by that, and not because I was looking for kudos by any means. If one has the savvy to make an assessment that it stunk, then one has the savvy to buff it up and cure my
    deficiencies. Add to it, subtract, something.

    The legal community is not going to help out here. The ones with the true interest in representing homeowners are generally up to their own eyeballs. In order for Mr. Garfield to post anything helpful, it has to have been decided because no matter how impressive a motion, say, appears, It aint over til the fat lady sings. Or I guess he could
    post a complaint and we could hold a Moot Court here!

    Someone (Mr. G?) could find a complaint with promise and we the readers will disect it as best we can. -OR- we can start at Mrs Goodpenny just got a notice of default. We can put tnharry in as the other side!
    We will carry on to the end of the case which we fashion or with Mrs Goodpenny fashion an action in state court which she files and go from there. This is a lot of work and I’m tired thinking about it!
    (I have posted a number of pleadings at scribd. I’m ‘behind’ because of my Pacer bill in retrieving them and the time it takes to find one I want to post.)
    Maybe Mr. G wants to spend the dough finding pleadings. That would be his call. I just dont know where else these pleadings will come from. You could dig some up and send to Mr. G for consideration?
    They’re lengthy, tho, so that might be a consideration $$ for this site unless the pleadings are just linked.

  39. I sell 100 items per month on ebay, and the stats are about 5 people per month try to scam me. Those are the stats. 95 people are right cool, don’t ever forget it.

    So, there are more good people than bad people by a wide margin. Unfortunately some of those bad people get into positions of power, And there are more of us that just want to live a life exchanging with others and all is good. And there are those that are connected to the bad ones that unfortunately go bad too, but

    the bottom line is there are more good people than bad,

    so what do you got to lose by fighting a bit? By not not giving up so easily? Depends on your sit and your survival calculations in your own mind.

  40. you see, they are experts at —————–

    none are the wiser

  41. It’s a mistake in my opinion to forget for one minute decisions. In fact, if I had the energy, which I don’t, I would compile what I see as a badly needed list of them with short capsulizations for each. No, don’t forget any case. Some decisions were lousy imo and that’s because the judge had a bent or the wrong arguments were made so the judge had to deal with what he had, which means they were appropriate unfortunately. But they’re all worth remembering for one reason or another. It may take a compilation from many cases to successfully argue what needs to be argued despite any precedential value in those cases. I’m a firm believer in plagerism in pleadings. Why knock yourself out if a judge has done a fine job of articulating an argument for you?
    Neil one day posts new decisions and other days there’s reference to older ones. It’s rarely if ever stale unless overruled.
    I truly believe tnharry is mostly a really good and useful devil’s advocate, but I think he missed that service on this one. Having said that, I still would miss him.

  42. anyways, that is how they do it, they introduce some new financial product, financial engineering I think they call it, should be rightly called financial manipulation,

    get everybody or lots of people involved in the new scheme, it now has wide ranging effects and everybody agrees and media promotes it, so add some rules, get it passed as law or code,

    and none are the wiser to the set-up. They just go along with it. Like the introduction of credit cards back in the 1960’s/1970’s. It is all steered towards Wall Street and the global markets now.

    none are the wiser : be none the wiser also not be (any) the wiser
    1. to fail to understand something Isabel must have explained her idea three times to me, but I’m afraid I’m none the wiser. If you take the label off the jar and say you made it yourself, your guests won’t be any the wiser.
    2. to not be aware of something The health department gave the restaurant a health warning, but customers were none the wiser.
    Usage notes: often said about efforts to be sure that no one is aware: I figured I could just get rid of the stuff, and you’d be none the wiser.

  43. Geez, Pat. That was so not the issue in Landmark. The issue was whether or not MERS was a ‘party’ entitled to notice, which is hardly insignificant. Not being a party entitled to notice has significant ramifications and defines who that party is not.

  44. I sell stuff on Ebay.

    Sold a couple of items, buyer gets them, sends me a message a few weeks after receiving them and says one is good, the other went bad after a few hours. I replied just return them and I will give you refund and pay for your return shipping. He replies you got a replacement for the one to just send me. I reply no. He replies I will return the bad one. I reply No, return them both. He replies “you agree to refund my money if I return”. I reply yes.

    I received the two items. One is completely burnt out, the other no longer tests good. Mind you I am an expert at what I sell, and I don’t sell crap to make a buck, I want no returns, and I take pride in selling good stuff.

    So,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I do a google search on his name. Up pops his profile on Lindekin. Up pops an article he wrote for a professional website. Up pops his facebook page. I do a google maps search on his address and see his home from birds eye view, my joint he has, not a getto.

    I put one and one together. This guy is scamming me.

    1. lindekin profile says he is in investment management.
    2. nice house.
    3. writes professional article – knows about what I sold him very well, not a rookie.

    I reply back to this guy and say dude, I see you are on lindekin, I see you are on facebook, I see you live in a nice house, I see you wrote some articles for a website. Dude, you know very well the items I sold you were good – what’s up with that?

    He replies back oh so very upset that I knew this stuff about him and even mentioned it was a “veiled threat”. He even mentioned “you agreed” to give me my money back if I returned, and if you don’t want to then you don’t have to lie about it. People, believe me I’m more than willing to give a refund on returned items, but the guy switched them with his bad ones and tried to get free good ones. Very old trick.

    You see, all he has to do file a not as described item refund thru paypal and he will get a refund. So my view is I got nothing to further lose by confronting him which I did. It has been 3 months now and no refund thru paypal.

    I just couldn’t believe this whole scene in that the guy is in investment management, but who knows what that means. He sounds like a debt collector.


    sounds like promise to pay and agreement when some debt collector calls one, and sounds like the banks, and Congress, and so on. Oh how MERS switched the rules on individual states and recordings and now tries to make it an agreement.


  45. E.Tolle.

    your post of Pat:

    This is downright comical from Pat:
    “What is important is to resolve the housing crisis in the shortest amount of time possible and with the least damage to the economy, homeowners and investors.
    Destruction of the entire financial system will only further increase the time frame until recovery can begin.

    In my opinion he is a shill.

    It is quite common on the yahoo stock message boards, why not here.

    I noted it on another thread here.

  46. Nancy Drewe—can you put all that in a nutshell…like a two sentence summary?

  47. Ann,

    “was to show that the real estate market is not as bad as some people think because wealthy investors are buying houses and condos in Florida in all-cash transactions.”

    wealthy investors are probably hedge funds CEO’s, wall street traders, bank executives, CEO’s of companies. All these people probably had inside info from the very beginning and now get the bargains.

    I wouldn’t call it a real estate MARKET if some wealthy investors are buying. That ain’t no market.

  48. dodododo,

    got it. thanks for clearing that up.

  49. @cubed2k

    In reading my post, I can see that I should written that sentence differently. What I was trying to say is the f/c party sees justification in fabricating docs just because the homeowner didn’t pay their mortgage. The f/c party could care less is what I was trying to get across. It was a poorly written sentence. So thank you for pointing that out.

    I “do” care. My house had a lot of equity in it at the time of foreclosure. We put in a $100,000 of our own money into my house and the property. That does not include the downpayment we made. Makes me sick to my stomach.

  50. The Biggest Transfer of Wealth in the History of Mankind; Does Anyone Care?

    Posted on July 28, 2011 by Mark Stopa

    Florida truly is the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis. Want more proof? While sitting in my hotel room in NYC, I happened upon a New York Times article about foreclosure sales in Miami-Dade County. The point of the article (the author’s “angle,” if you will) was to show that the real estate market is not as bas as some people think because wealthy investors are buying houses and condos in Florida in all-cash transactions. Hence, David Streitfeld titled the article “Affluent Buyers Reviving Market for Miami Homes.”.

    We can debate the veracity of that viewpoint, i.e. the real estate market is improving in Florida all day long – personally, I don’t think it is. The point, though, is that the article glosses over the bigger picture … In fact, everyone is glossing over the bigger picture.

    Even if you accept (which I don’t) the concept that the real estate market is improving, clearly, the market isn’t improving for everyone. As the article shows, the “deals” in this “buyer’s market” are almost always “cash” transactions. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars, cash, to buy an investment home. Do you? Do you know ANYONE who does? Clearly, it’s only the ulltra-rich, the mega-wealthy, the socioeconomically elite, who have the means to take advantage of this “buyer’s market.”. Remember, banks aren’t lending, so you have to be independently wealthy to buy any of these investments.

    So what does this mean? The mega-rich have the means to get “in” on these bargains while middle-class Americans stand helplessly on the sidelines and watch, knowing the deals are available but unable to do anything about it. Worse yet, these homes were taken from the middle-class, so it’s basically a double-whammy – the middle-class lost their homes, and they have to watch while the uber-rich buy their homes as investments at bargain-basement prices.

    Am I the only one disgusted here? Where is the outrage? Why isn’t anyone in our government screaming:


    It’s sadly ironic, actually. When he was running for President, Obama was accused by some of being a Socialist – of wanting to divide wealth equally among everyone. In fact, the typical Democratic viewpoint (I realize I’m simplifying) is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Yet during his presidency, exactly the opposite has transpired – the mega-rich are getting richer while everyone else is getting poorer.

    Unless something changes, this problem is only going to get worse over the next several years. Homeowners will keep getting foreclosed. Banks will keep unloading REO from their inventory, and they’ll keep doing so to the only people who can afford to pay cash – the mega-rich. Meanwhile, middle-class America will sit idly by, watching their collective wealth be transferred to those who are already wealthy.

    Many Americans already believe the US government is run by the rich, for the rich. After all, if this is what’s happening on Obama’s watch, what will happen if/when a staunch Republican
    Takes office? My point isn’t to initiate a political debate. Rather, it seems clear that nobody in our government is willing to stand up to the banking industry or the mega-elite because nobody in politics wants to bite the hands that feed them. And that’s the perpetual problem – the politicans are all rich (or depend on the rich for their re-election campaigns), so regardless of party lines, they all cater to the whims of the rich and powerful. If you disagree, you tell me – what is Obama, or anyone else in government, doing to stop/slow the unprecedented transfer of wealth from middle-class America to the uber-wealthy?

    My solution? Adide from not allowing foreclosures to be processed (at breakneck speed, if at all), I see a few options. First, let’s tax the hell out of all the banks that took bailout money and aren’t lending. I suppose I agree we can’t “make” banks lend, but we can punish them for refusing to do so. Make the punishment steep enough and they’ll start lkending again. That way, at least some middle-class Americans will have a chance to take advantage of the low real estate prices, if they so choose.

    Second, there has to be a way to get typical, middle-class Americans into our government. Our government is supposed to be run “by the people, for the people.” The system can’t work when virtually everyone in politics is rich … All that happens is there is no voice for the majority of Americans.

    I’m sure there are many other posible solutions. In my view, though, it all starts with acknowlkedging the problem. The current system isn’t working. It’s not fair that the rich are getting richer at the expense of mainstream America, and it’s appalling that nobody in a position of authority is saying so.
    Mark Stopa


  51. SEC transactions for Deustche Mortgage Securities Inc.
    (S-3) and (S-3/A) 2002 forward have everything to do with converting US Dollars into current and fixed assets and


    The Servicer services all of the mortgage loans it originates that are
    retained in its portfolio and continues to service at least a majority of the loans that have been sold to investors. Servicing includes collecting and remitting loan payments, accounting for principal and interest, contacting delinquent borrowers, and supervising foreclosure in the event of unremedied
    defaults. The Servicer’s servicing activities are audited periodically by applicable regulatory authorities. Some financial records of the Servicer relating to its loan servicing activities are reviewed annually as part of the audit of the Servicer’s financial statements conducted by its independent accountants.

    Registrant: Deustche Mortgage Securities Inc.
    Registration Statement S-3 & Amendments

    10/22/02 – S-3

    11/4/02 S-3/A Amendment

    1/27/04 – S-3

    3/7/07 – S-3

    Before companies may play, they must convert US dollars into ‘securities’ and/or ‘note’ and/or current assets in order to play and do business over SEC.

    Registrant Deutsche Mortgage Securities, Inc.
    a Delaware incorporation IRS 36-4509743
    Main Office Executives
    31 West 52nd St., NY NY 10019

    Jeffrey J. Murphy, Esq.
    Thacher Proffitt & Wood
    11 West 42nd Street
    New York, New York 10036

    Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: From time to time after this Registration Statement becomes effective.

    If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, other than securities offered only in connection with dividend or interest reinvestment plans, please check the following box. |X|

    The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that the Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the Registration Statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission acting pursuant to said Section 8(a),
    may determine.


    This Registration Statement consists of (i) a basic prospectus for use in a residential or multifamily transaction and (ii) two forms of prospectus supplement (one form to be used in offering a Series of Senior/Subordinate Certificates and the second form to be used in offering Mortgage Backed Notes). Each basic prospectus used (in either preliminary or final form) will be accompanied by the applicable prospectus supplement.


    On the closing date, approximately $[ ] will be deposited by [ ] in a
    pre-funding account maintained by [ ]. It is intended that additional mortgage loans will be sold to the trust fund by the depositor from time to time, from [ ] until [ ], paid for with the funds on deposit in the pre-funding account.


    The primary assets of each trust fund (the “Assets”) will include some or all of the following types of assets:

    o mortgage loans on residential properties, which may include Home Equity Loans, home improvement contracts and Land Sale
    Contracts (each as defined in this prospectus);

    o home improvement installment sales contracts or installment loans that are unsecured called unsecured home improvement

    o manufactured housing installment sale contracts or installment
    loan agreements referred to as contracts;

    o any combination of “fully modified pass-through” mortgage-backed certificates guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”), guaranteed mortgage pass-through securities issued by Fannie Mae (“Fannie Mae”) and mortgage participation certificates issued by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) (collectively, “Agency Securities”);

    o previously issued asset-backed certificates, collateralized mortgage obligations or participation certificates (each, and collectively, “Mortgage Securities”) evidencing interests in, or collateralized by, mortgage loans or Agency Securities; or

    o a combination of mortgage loans, unsecured home improvement loans, contracts, Agency Securities and/or Mortgage

    The mortgage loans will not be guaranteed or insured by Deutsche
    Mortgage Securities, Inc. or any of its affiliates. The mortgage loans will be guaranteed or insured by a governmental agency or instrumentality or other person only if and to the extent expressly provided in the prospectus supplement. The depositor will select each Asset to include in a trust fund from among those it has purchased, either directly or indirectly, from a prior holder
    (an “Asset Seller”), which may be an affiliate of the depositor and which prior holder may or may not be the originator of that mortgage loan.


    The Notes or Certificates, as applicable, will be entitled to payment
    only from the assets of the related trust fund and will not be entitled to payments from the assets of any other trust fund established by the depositor.

    The assets of a trust fund may consist of certificates representing beneficial ownership interests in, or indebtedness of, another trust fund that contains the Assets, if specified in the prospectus supplement

    The originator of each mortgage loan will have been a person other than the depositor. The prospectus supplement will indicate if any originator is an affiliate of the depositor. The mortgage loans will be evidenced by mortgage notes secured by mortgages, deeds of trust or other security instruments (the “Mortgages”) creating a lien on the Mortgaged Properties. The Mortgaged Properties will be located in any one of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico or any other territory of the United States. If
    provided in the prospectus supplement, the mortgage loans may include loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (the “FHA”) or partially guaranteed by the Veteran’s Administration (the “VA”). See “–FHA Loans and VA Loans” below.



    the Agency Securities will consist of any combination of Ginnie Mae
    certificates, Fannie Mae certificates and Freddie Mac certificates, which may include Stripped Agency Securities, as described below.

    Banks may only maintain their charters when they follow instructions of the Federal Reserve.

    Each Ginnie Mae certificates will be a “fully modified pass-through” mortgage-backed certificate issued and serviced by an issuer approved by Ginnie Mae or Fannie Mae as a seller – servicer of FHA loans or VA loans, except as described below regarding Stripped Agency Securities.

    The loans underlying Ginnie May certificates may consist of other loans eligible for inclusion in loan pools…


    Fannie Mae certificates are Guaranteed Mortgage Pass-Through
    Certificates typically issued pursuant to a prospectus that is periodically revised by Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae certificates represent fractional undivided interests in a pool of mortgage loans formed by Fannie Mae. Each mortgage loan must meet the applicable standards of the Fannie Mae purchase program. Mortgage loans comprising a pool are either provided by Fannie Mae from its own portfolio or purchased pursuant to the criteria of the Fannie Mae purchase program.

    Fannie Mae provides funds to the mortgage market by purchasing mortgage loans from lenders. Fannie Mae acquires funds to purchase loans from many capital market investors, thus expanding the total amount of funds available for housing. Operating nationwide, Fannie Mae helps to redistribute mortgage funds
    from capital-surplus to capital-short areas. In addition, Fannie Mae issues mortgage-backed securities primarily in exchange for pools of mortgage loans from lenders. Fannie Mae receives fees for its guaranty of timely payment of principal and interest on its mortgage-backed securities.

    Fannie Mae is a federally chartered and stockholder-owned corporation organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, as amended (the “Charter Act”). Fannie Mae was originally established in 1938 as a United States government agency to provide supplemental liquidity to
    the mortgage market and was transformed into a stockholder- owned and privately managed corporation by legislation enacted in 1968.


    Each Freddie Mac certificate represents an undivided interest in a pool of residential loans that may consist of first lien conventional residential loans, FHA loans or VA loans (the “Freddie Mac Certificate Group”). Each of these mortgage loans must meet the applicable standards set forth in the Freddie Mac Act. A Freddie Mac Certificate Group may include whole loans, participation interests in whole loans and undivided interests in whole loans and/or participations comprising another Freddie Mac Certificate Group. If the trust fund includes Freddie Mac certificates, your prospectus supplement will include any material additional information regarding the Freddie Mac guaranty program, the characteristics of the pool underlying that Freddie Mac certificate, the servicing of the related pool, payment of principal and interest on the Freddie Mac certificate and any other relevant matters about the Freddie Mac certificates.


    Freddie Mac is a corporate instrumentality of the United States created pursuant to Title III of the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970, as amended (the “Freddie Mac Act”). Freddie Mac was established primarily for the purpose of increasing the availability of mortgage credit for the financing of needed housing. It seeks to provide an enhanced degree of liquidity for residential mortgage investments primarily by assisting in the development of secondary
    markets for conventional mortgages. The principal activity of Freddie Mac currently consists of the purchase of first lien, conventional residential mortgage loans or participation interests in those mortgage loans and the resale of the mortgage loans so purchased in the form of mortgage securities, primarily
    Freddie Mac certificates. Freddie Mac is confined to purchasing, so far as practicable, mortgage loans and participation interests in mortgage loans which it deems to be of the quality, type and class as to meet generally the purchase standards imposed by private institutional mortgage investors.

    Freddie Mac certificates are not guaranteed by the United States or by any Federal Home Loan Bank and do not constitute debts or obligations of the United States or any Federal Home Loan Bank. The obligations of Freddie Mac under its guarantee are obligations solely of Freddie Mac and are not backed by,nor entitled to, the full faith and credit of the United States. If Freddie Mac
    were unable to satisfy those obligations, distributions to holders of Freddie Mac certificates would consist solely of payments and other recoveries on the underlying mortgage loans and, accordingly, monthly distributions to holders of Freddie Mac certificates would be affected by delinquent payments and defaults
    on those mortgage loans.

    The Freddie Mac certificates included in a trust fund may have other characteristics and terms, different from those described above, so long as the Freddie Mac certificates and underlying mortgage loans meet the criteria of the rating agency or agencies rating the Notes or Certificates, as applicable. The
    Freddie Mac certificates and underlying mortgage loans will be described in the prospectus supplement.


    The Ginnie Mae certificates, Fannie Mae certificates or Freddie Maccertificates may be issued in the form of certificates (“Stripped Agency Securities”) that represent an undivided interest in all or part of either the principal distributions (but not the interest distributions) or the interest distributions (but not the principal distributions), or in some specified portion of the principal or interest distributions (but not all of those
    distributions), on an underlying pool of mortgage loans or other Ginnie Mae certificates, Fannie Mae certificates or Freddie Mac certificates. Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, as applicable, will guarantee each Stripped Agency
    Security to the same extent as that entity guarantees the underlying securities backing the Stripped Agency Securities or to the extent described above for a Stripped Agency Security backed by a pool of mortgage loans, unless otherwise
    specified in the prospectus supplement. If the trust fund includes Stripped Agency Securities, your prospectus supplement will include any material additional information regarding the characteristics of the assets underlying the Stripped Agency Securities, the payments of principal and interest on the
    Stripped Agency Securities and other relevant matters about the Stripped Agency Securities.


    The Mortgage Securities will represent beneficial interests in loans of the type that would otherwise be eligible to be mortgage loans, unsecured home improvement loans, contract or Agency Securities, or collateralized obligations secured by mortgage loans, unsecured home improvement loans, contract or Agency
    Securities. The Mortgage Securities will have been

    (1) issued by an entity other than the depositor or its

    (2) acquired in bona fide secondary market transactions from persons other than the issuer of the Mortgage Securities or its
    affiliates; and

    (3) (a) offered and distributed to the public pursuant to an
    effective registration statement or (b) purchased in a transaction not
    involving any public offering from a person who is not an affiliate of
    the issuer of those securities at the time of sale (nor an affiliate of
    the issuer at any time during the preceding three months); provided a period of two years elapsed since the later of the date the securities were acquired from the issuer.

    Although individual Underlying Loans may be insured or guaranteed by the United States or an agency or instrumentality of the United States, they need not be, and Mortgage Securities
    themselves will not be so insured or guaranteed. Except as otherwise set forth in the prospectus supplement, Mortgage Securities will generally be similar to Notes or Certificates, as applicable, offered under this prospectus.

    The prospectus supplement for the Notes or Certificates, as applicable, of each series evidencing interests in a trust fund including Mortgage Securities will include a description of the Mortgage Securities and any related credit enhancement, and the related mortgage loans, unsecured home improvement
    loans, contracts, or Agency Securities will be described together with any other mortgage loans or Agency Securities included in the trust fund of that series. As used in this prospectus, the terms “mortgage loans,” unsecured home
    improvement loans, contracts, include the mortgage loans, unsecured home improvement loans, contracts, as applicable, underlying the Mortgage Securities in your trust fund. References in this prospectus to advances to be made and
    other actions to be taken by the master servicer in connection with the Assets may include any advances made and other actions taken pursuant to the terms of the applicable Mortgage Securities.


    To the extent provided in a prospectus supplement, a portion of the proceeds of the issuance of Notes or Certificates, as applicable, may be deposited into an account maintained with the trustee (a “Pre-Funding Account”).In that case, the depositor will be obligated to sell at a predetermined price
    — and the trust fund for the related series of Notes or Certificates, as applicable, will be obligated to purchase — additional Assets (the “Subsequent Assets”) from time to time, and as frequently as daily, within the period (not to exceed three months) specified in the prospectus supplement (the “Pre-Funding Period”) after the issuance of the Notes or Certificates, as applicable, having
    a total principal balance approximately equal to the amount on deposit in the Pre-Funding Account (the “Pre-Funded Amount”) for that series on the date of its issuance. The Pre-Funded Amount for a series will be specified in the prospectus supplement, and will not in any case exceed 50% of the total initial Security Balance of the related Notes or Certificates, as applicable. Any Subsequent
    Assets will be required to satisfy specific eligibility criteria more fully set forth in the prospectus supplement, which criteria will be consistent with the eligibility criteria of the Assets initially included in the trust fund, subject to those exceptions that are expressly stated in the prospectus supplement. In addition, specific conditions must be satisfied before the Subsequent Assets are
    transferred into the trust fund, for example, the delivery to the rating agencies and to the trustee of any required opinions of counsel. See “ERISA Considerations –Pre-Funding Accounts” for additional information regarding Pre-Funding Accounts.

    Except as set forth in the following sentence, the Pre-Funded Amount will be used only to purchase Subsequent Assets. Any portion of the Pre-Funded Amount remaining in the Pre-Funding Account at the end of the Pre-Funding Period will be used to prepay one or more classes of Notes or Certificates, as
    applicable, in the amounts and in the manner specified in the prospectus supplement. In addition, if specified in the prospectus supplement, the depositor may be required to deposit cash into an account maintained by the trustee (the “Capitalized Interest Account”) for the purpose of assuring the availability of funds to pay interest on the Notes or Certificates, as applicable, during the Pre-Funding Period. Any amount remaining in the Capitalized Interest Account at the end of the Pre-Funding Period will be
    remitted as specified in the prospectus supplement.

    Amounts deposited in the Pre-Funding and Capitalized Interest Accounts will be permitted to be invested, pending application, only in eligible investments authorized by each applicable rating agency.


    Each trust fund will include one or more accounts, established and
    maintained on behalf of the securityholders into which the person or persons designated in the prospectus supplement will, to the extent described in this prospectus and in the prospectus supplement deposit all payments and collections
    received or advanced with respect to the Assets and other assets in the trust fund. This type of account may be maintained as an interest bearing or a non-interest bearing account, and funds held in that account may be held as cash r invested in some short-term, investment grade obligations, in each case as described in the prospectus supplement.

    READ the ‘S-3’ and ‘S-3/A’ the heart of the matter. If you don’t know how to find your S-3 Registration Statement contact the experts Luminaq. 8K – Registration Statement ctrl+click, will link the SS-3 and S-3/A applicable will be created prior to borrowers mortgage loan.

  52. The current system isn’t working. It’s not fair that the rich are getting richer at the expense of mainstream America, and it’s appalling that nobody in a position of authority is saying so.
    Mark Stopa


    Posted in Main|Leave a comment

    Florida Lawyer Facing Suspension for Mortgage Modification Scam

    Posted on July 27, 2011 by Mark Stopa

    Nearly every client or prospective client who has consulted with Stopa Law Firm over the years has expressed a desire to obtain a loan modification. As much as I’d love to tell these homeowners what they want to hear, the sad reality is that mortgage modifications are few and far between, especially those with principal reductions.

    Unfortunately, not everyone in the industry shares the necessary candor with homeowners. The story below, for instance, shows how one Florida lawyer duped thousands of homeowners into paying him an up-front fee based on promises of a loan modification … promises which he obviously can’t deliver.

    If you’re a homeowner facing foreclosure, let this be a gentle reminder of a a few basic things.

    1. Loan modifications are rare, especially with principal reductions. I know that’s frustrating, believe me – but don’t shoot the messenger.

    2. If anyone is promising you a loan modification with principal reduction, predicated on you paying an up-front fee, be very wary – it’s probably a scam. The number of scam operations has gone down in recent years, but as you can see, they’re still out there.

    3. Even if you’re trying to get a loan modification, you must defend your foreclosure lawsuit in the interim. Otherwise, you may think you’re negotiating for a mortgage modification, but those negotiations will end quickly once the foreclosure lawsuit ends with a Final Judgment of Foreclosure.

    Of course, if you’ve been a victim of William O’Toole or Summit Legal Group, feel free to contact Stopa Law Firm for a consultation – we’ll be happy to see if it’s not too late to help you.

    Here is the article, courtesy of the Daily Business Review.

    The Florida Bar has called for an emergency suspension of Boca Raton lawyer William O’Toole, declaring the foreclosure defense lawyer presents “great public harm.”

    In its petition for suspension, which the Florida Supreme Court is expected to rule on today, the Bar alleges that O’Toole has partnered with non-lawyers to create Summit Legal Group and collect up-front fees from clients for mortgage modifications.

    State law prohibits non-lawyers from collecting up-front fees in exchange for promises of obtaining mortgage modifications. Attorneys general throughout the country have warned consumers that mortgage modification centers are a relatively new phenomenon that produce few or no results for distressed homeowners. The Bar has warned lawyers not to partner with non-lawyers on such endeavors.

    According to the Bar’s petition, O’Toole is the subject of 20 complaints and has been under investigation by the Bar since March 2010. He partnered with non-lawyer Randy Baker, who is under investigation by the Florida attorney general, the petition states, to send him “leads” and then split fees with Baker in violation of Bar rules.

    O’Toole currently has between 2,500 and 3,000 clients “and admits that he has so many files he does not know the status of the client’s files,” according to the Bar petition.

    O’Toole did not return phone calls by deadline.

    The Daily Business Review recently reported that another lawyer, Rashmi Airan-Pace, was suspended by The Bar for allegedly operating a similar mortgage modification service with a non-lawyer company. The Bar alleged Airan-Pace took up-front fees and promised to obtain mortgage modifications for underwater homeowners without results.
    Mark Stopa


  53. Pat wrote:

    “….expect massive anarchy, rioting, looting, food shortages, money shortages, and in other words, the complete breakdown of society. Troops would be in the street. Martial law in effect. Public services breaking down. Loss of utilities. You name it, and it would happen.”

    Hank? Is that you? Pat, are you Henry Paulson? Didn’t the $10,000,000,000.00 of taxpayer money you gave to your old haunt Gold Sacks via AIG fix that problem? Oh…it only fixed it for you and them? What about the rest of us? What’s that you say?

    “The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title.”

  54. 5/6/97 -5/16/11 Deutsche Bank National Trust Co
    [ formerly Bankers Trust Co of California NA/FA ]
    U.S. SEC # 1020242

    Deutsche Bank Trust Company formerly known as Bankers Trust.

    INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW WHY OVER SEC, in 2002/2003, Bankers Trust changed name to Deutsche Bank and utilized pass through agency ‘Structured Asset Securities Corp’ Filed 12/18/03 with Deutsche Bank Trust Americas 333-106925.
    YES DB Filings.

    SEC File 333-106925 — Structured Asset Securities Corp
    [ formerly Structured Asset Sec Corp Series 1998-2 ]

    Form T-1 – Statement of Eligibility of a Corporation Designated to Act as Trustee

    Form 3052B – Statement of Eligibility of a Corporation Designed
    to Act as Trustee

    Exhibit 1 – Articles of Association

    Exhibit 2 – Certificate of Comptroller of OCC

    Exhibit 3 – Certification of Fiduciary Powers

    Exhibit 4 – Existing By-Laws of Deutsche Bank National Trust

    Exhibit 6 – Consent of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

    Exhibit 7 – Reports of Condition of Deutsche Bank

    Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association
    BT Trust Company of California, National Association
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

    OCC and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas


    Ronaldo Reyes, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:

    1. I am the duly elected Assistant Vice President, of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, a national bank organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America (“Association”).

    2. The Articles of Association of the Association, under the name of BT Trust Company of California, National Association, were filed with the Comptroller of the Currency, Northeastern District office on February 13, 1986 (the “Original Articles”). A copy of said Original Articles, as amended from time to time and as certified by the Comptroller of the Currency on February 4, 2002, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

    3. A further amendment to the Articles of Association of the Association, changing the title of the Association to “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company” effective April 15, 2002, was filed with the Comptroller of the Currency, Western District Office Licensing Unit on March 28, 2002 (the “Amended Articles”). A copy of that amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

    4. The Original Articles and the Amended Articles, taken together, constitute the entire Articles of Association of the Association, as in effect on the date hereof; such Articles of Association of the Association have not been further modified or rescinded.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company this 31st day of October, 2003.

    /s/ Ronaldo Reyes

    EXHIBIT ‘A’ Comptroller of the Currency
    Administrator of National Banks
    Washington DC 20219

    I, John D. Hawke, Jr., Comptroller of the Currence, do herby certify that the document hereto attached is a true copy, as recorded in this Office, of the currently effective Articles of Association for “Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association,” Los Angeles, California, (Charter No. 18608).

    IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,, I have hereunto subscribed my name and caused my seal of office to be affixed to these presents at the Treasury Department in the City of Washington and District of Columbia, this Mondeay, February 04, 2002. TREASURY SEAL
    /s/ John D. Hawke, Jr.
    Comptroller of the Currency

    Certificate of Amendment of Articles of Association of Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A.

    I, David Abramson,k certify that:
    1. I am the duly elected Secretary of Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A.

    2. On January 17, 1992, at a special meeting of the Shareholders of Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A. the following resolution and amendment to Article FIFTH of the Articles of Association of Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A. was adopted.

    RESOLVED, that Bankers Trust Holdings, Inc. the sole shareholder of Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A. (“BTCal”), hereby approves the ….

    “BT Trust Company of California, National Association”
    Purpose of organizing an association to carry on the business of a limited purpose trust company under the laws of the United States, the …

    Main Office City of Los Angeles

    General Business of the Association shall be conducted at its main office and its branches.

    Signatures noted from 1985 include Harold Atkins hmmm.

    /s/ Peter E. Lengyel 10/7/85

    /s/ Harold K. Atkins 10/7/85

    /s/ John L. Murphy 10/7/85

    /s/ Allan C. Martin 10/7/85

    /s/ Rein Lumi 10/7/85

    /s/ Gerard P. Hourihan 10/7/85


    Notary of State of New York attests Peter E. Lengyel witnessed 10/7/1985

    Attn: Licensing Unit
    50 Fremont Street, Suite 3900
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    (415) 545-5930, FAX (415) 442-5315

    April 4, 2002

    Sandra L. West
    Assistant Secretary
    C/o Deutsche Bank
    31 West 52nd Street-M/S NYC09-0810
    New York, NY 10019

    CHARTER NO. 18608

    Dear Ms. West:

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has received your letter concerning the title change, appropriate amendment to the First Article of Association of Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association. The OCC will update their records to reflect that as of April 15, 2002, the title of Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association, Charter Number 18608 will change to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

    The original of the bank’s respective Article has been forwarded to the bank’s official file with our Office and an original is hereby returned for your records.

    As a result of the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, the OCC is no longer responsible for the approval of national bank name changes nor does it maintain official records on the use of alternate titles. The use of other titles or the retention of the rights to any previously used title is the responsibility of the bank’s board of directors. Legal counsel should be consulted to determine whether or not the new title, or any previously used
    title, could be challenged by competing institutions under the provisions of federal or state law.

    Very truly yours,

    /s/ James A. Bundy
    James A. Bundy
    Licensing Manager




    I, DAVID ABRAMSON, certify that:

    1. I am the duly elected and acting Secretary of Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association (formerly, BT Trust Company of California), and as such officer, I am the official custodian of its records; that the following is a true and correct copy of resolutions adopted by the Association’s
    shareholders; and that such resolutions are now lawfully in force and effect:

    RESOLVED, that the Association is hereby authorized to amend the First Article of Association to read as follows:

    FIRST: The title of this Association shall be “Deutsche Bank
    National Trust Company.”

    FURTHER RESOLVED, that the effective date of the amendment of the First Article of Association shall be April 15, 2002.

    2. The following is a true and correct copy of a resolution of the
    Association’s Board of Directors, and such resolution is now lawfully in force and effect:

    RESOLVED, that the amendment of the First Article of Association to change the title of the Association to “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company” is hereby approved, effective April 15, 2002.

    3. The foregoing amendment to the Articles of Association has been duly approved by the Board of Directors of Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association on March 21, 2002.

    4. The Resolution and Amendment set forth above has not been modified or rescinded and is in full force and effect.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and the seal of this Association this 27th day of March 2002.

    /s/ David Abramson

    Mr. James A Bundy, Licensing Manager
    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
    Western District Office
    50 Fremont Street
    Suite 3900
    San Francisco, CA 94105-2292

    Dear. Mr. Bundy:

    Re: Bankers Trust Company of California; National Association (Charter No. 18608) Title Change and Amendment of First Article of Association

    Please be advised that the Board of Directors and sole shareholder of Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association, have authorized a change of title for the Association, effective on April 15, 2002, as follows:

    From: Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association
    To: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

    Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 21a, we are hereby requesting approval of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to amend the Articles of Association to reflect the name change arid enclose two certified copies of the proposed amendment.

    The Association, whose principal office is located at 300 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071, was originally chartered in October 1985 under the name of BT Trust Company of, California, National Association.

    From its inception through June 4, 1999, the Association was an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Bankers Trust New York Corporation (now, Bankers Trust Corporation) (“Bankers Trust”). In June 1999, Bankers Trust, including itssubsidiaries, was acquired by a subsidiary Deutsche Bank AG, a bank organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany.
    Deutsche Bank was recently listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and its activities are reported daily in the U.S. media.

    Since its acquisition of Bankers Trust and subsequent listing on the New York Stock Exchange, awareness of the Deutsche Bank brand has increased significantly. Management now deems it

    Mr. James A. Bundy
    March 28, 2002.
    Page 2

    in the best interests of the firm at this time to consolidate all of the U.S.-based businesses under the global Deutsche Bank brand.

    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

    Please direct any questions or problems regarding this application to the undersigned, as follows:

    c/o Deutsche Bank
    31 West 52nd Street – M/S NYC09-0810
    New York, NY 10019
    Phone: (212) 469-8174
    Fax: (646) 324-9056

    Sincerely yours,

    By:/s/ Sandra L. West


    cc: Joseph Marcy, OCC Lead Trust Examiner

    Foy B. Hester, Vice President and Controller
    Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A.

    David Abramson, Secretary and Counsel
    Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A.

  55. Pat,

    your response to Kelly,

    “When 95% of the cases are dismissed, it has to show some validity.”

    I think your 95% number is based on the the fact that 95% do not fight or contest.

    Just like 95% do not contest their defaulted credit card debt.

    So, where do you get this 95% number?

  56. dodododo,


    but you say, ” But so what, I could not make my mortgage payment so who cares?”

    why should the foreclosing party get a free house? I’d rather you get it. You paid the insurance and property taxes for awhile. You watered the lawn and took care of it. As these banks ultimately get to manufacturer money at a 10 to 1 leverage and collect interest on their 10 to 1 leverage, who cares that they might lose as they have not really lost as much as they claim but their exec’s sure make big bucks for doing nothing, really.

    Well, I care.

  57. @make it happen – did you file a complaint to set aside the sale and quiet title? how specifically did we get to a rule 60 motion following a nonjudicial sale?

  58. This is non-judicial and the challenge was made as motion in the cause pursuant to Rule 60 and the judge said the court lacked jurisdiction b/c the issue was moot since the sale already occurred Still fighting, just confused after that ruling. And you’re right tnharry, I’m attempting to prepare myself for every opposing argument that may come my way so I greatly appreciate your input.

  59. For what it us worth. We all should know that when we come on these sites and express our own opinions, someone will not agree. That is a given. tnharry has critized a couple of my postings in the past, but so what? I may not have agreed with him totally, but he did got me thinking on a few things. I am in way defending him or anyone else, just expressing my opinion.

    We come to these sites to learn, understand and hear what others have to say. You can take what you read as fact or fiction and investigage the facts for ourselves. We can make up our own minds. I like the old posts and if not interested, I don’t read it. To stomp away and slam the door because someone did not agree with me is childish. My opinion.

    I came to this site looking for answers. And from the info on this site I found errors starting with my mortgage papers all the way through the foreclosure. And those errors have been acknowledged by people in the know. I believe that fraud could be a big factor in my case. But that is my opinion. Yes, I know the judge declares it so or not. Yes, I could not pay my mortagage and I totally understand that the bank has the right to foreclose. However, in my strange thinking, I expected my foreclosure to be done within the law that was set up to protect everyone involved. My opinon it was not. Just because I did not pay my mortgage does not give the entity foreclosing the right to fabricate documents in order for them to foreclose. Even the people submitting these docs know it is against the law. It blows my mind also about the careless done when making up some of these doc. But so what, I could not make my mortgage payment so who cares?

    So anyone who does not like my post, have at it. I’m a big girl and I won’t be crying to my mommy that someone hurt my feelings. My opinion like it or not. You can even comment on my spelling errors if you like.

  60. E Tolle

    I find your contributions and sentiments well articulated as usual

    I do wonder as well as posted by tnh, what is the current obsession everywhere with MERS. If your home is taken by LIES,the injury is the same. Robosigners did the dirty work of all the banks, not just that shell.

    Lets talk about Deutsche Bank for awhile. Let’s talk about how to deal with originators that went out of business leaving chaos in their wakes
    Let’s get really good advice about lost notes

    Mers is not so mysterious now is it?

  61. MERS & eLynx hmmmm…HUD, Freddie, Fannie, ….

    Corporate Name: US Bank National Association (Warehouse)
    Address: 800 Nicollet Mall BC-MN-HO3B
    City,State,Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55402
    Toll Free Number:
    Direct Number: (612) 303-3577
    Fax Number: (612) 303-2253
    Primary Contact: Jeanine Coyne
    Member Org ID: 1002354
    Lines Of Business: Interim Funder, Document Custodian, Collateral Agent
    eRegistry Participant: No
    eDelivery Participant: No

    Corporate Name: US Bank as Custodian/Trustee
    Address: 7420 S.Kyrene Suite 111
    City,State,Zip: Tempe, AZ 85283
    Toll Free Number:
    Direct Number: (480) 756-7263
    Fax Number: (999) 999-9999
    Primary Contact: Lynn Butts
    Member Org ID: 1000727
    Lines Of Business: Investor, Document Custodian, Trustee
    eRegistry Participant: No
    eDelivery Participant: No

    Notice the ‘eDelivery’ ?
    Notice ‘Not’ an ‘eDelivery nor eParticipant’ and what does this mean to you the consumer as borrower? a lot!

    COMMON DENOMINATOR ‘all consumers as borrowers’ and nationwide newtork connected not by MERS but other systems including eDelivery and eParticipants whether on-line or off-line get electronic and/or US mail delivery of all ‘transactions’!

    eLynx is how the nationwide network of attorneys and title and settlement agents do business on behalf of the ‘beneficiary’ and ‘trustee’.

    Settlement Agent Management: “With the increased risk of fraud and greater need for scrutiny in the loan process, lenders need more transparency with their closing partners and agents. The Settlement Agent Management (SAM) component of the eCN from eLynx gives lenders the tools and information they need to work with their closing partners.

    At the heart of eLynx’s electronic closing network (eCN) is SAM. 100,000 of the nation’s closing agents are registered and maintained within eCN. Registered agents handle closings for virtually every bank in the US. It is a simple process taking a settlement agent just a few minutes, but it greatly reduces a lender’s risk of fraud perpetuated by closing agents.

    SAM also provides greater visibility into the status of the closing including the scheduled closing date and information about funds disbursement.

    How it works:

    1.Before an agent can access documents sent by a lender through eCN, the agent must identify themselves by registering with eCN. To register, the agent provides contact information, employer data, notary status, procedures for document handling, agent ID with Title Underwriters, and their history with lenders.
    2.The settlement agent then sees a list of loans assigned to them. In order to access the actual closing documents, they must provide information about the closing and have verified the GFE/HUD charges. Closing information includes:
    The Title Underwriter who will be used
    The agent’s Title Underwriter Agent ID
    County for recording documents
    Scheduled closing date
    Funds disbursement method, including specific bank routing information where applicable
    3.Once the identity of the settlement agent is verified, the agent can view and print the closing documents.
    4.During the closing process, SAM records all activities related to the closing. This information is available to the lender and can be used to track the loan closing’s progress.

    Consumers who suffered fraud at the hands of settlement agent sue for express and implied warranties the eLynx member whose handler eLynx stated the following benefits:

    -Reduced risk of settlement agent fraud
    -Better tracking of individuals executing loan closings
    -Better understanding of when loans have closed and funds have
    been disbursed
    -Ability to restrict access to loan documents from Settlement Agents
    that fail to represent the lender as the lender requires
    Improved borrower experience through better closing coordination

    What about promies of Electronic Closing?

    What about Secondary Market?

    With increased regulation and market uncertainty, investors are increasingly concerned with the transparency and quality of the loans they purchase. Some investors are planning to review HUD and Appraisal data and documents prior to committing to purchase a loan. eLynx gives lenders the ability to quickly deliver loan documents and data to investors before, during, and after closing.


    Electronic Investor Delivery
    Quickly export the entire loan folder to an investor. eLynx currently supports multiple investor-specific protocols.

    Appraisal, Credit, and HUD Data Delivery
    As a result of recent mortgage market and regulatory changes, investors are looking for additional data to make purchase decisions. Stay ahead of the trend and use the same trusted service to provide your investor community the loan information they require.

    Maintain only one connection to eLynx while eLynx maintains the connectors to your investors
    Deliver loan documents and data electronically to investors
    Reduce cost of the process for you and your investors
    Free up funds faster than your paper-based competitors

    What about eHUD?

    Discrepancies between estimated and actual closing fees are common and require lenders and settlement agents to reconcile the differences. Unfortunately, new RESPA rules make discrepancies between the Good Faith Estimate and HUD-1 costly for lenders. eLynx can help mortgage professionals stay in compliance and avoid costs and penalties by automating the HUD-1 approval process.

    eLynx’s eHUD solution offers real-time HUD-1 collaboration between lenders and settlement partners. Using the online tool, lenders can instantly see differences between data in the GFE they delivered to the borrower and the HUD-1 being prepared by the closing agent. Differences that fall outside of the tolerance set by RESPA rules are highlighted. The lender can negotiate with the settlement partner to reconcile the data or can issue a new GFE that matches the HUD-1 data.

    eLynx’s eHUD:

    is not a point solution, but is integrated into an electronic closing network that reduces fragmentation in the mortgage process and has 100,000 connected settlement agents
    incorporates the RESPA regulations and identifies issues quickly
    allows lenders and settlement agents to quickly finalize a HUD-1 well in advance of a closing
    quickly and easily supports the disclosure, and redisclosure (if necessary) process
    does not replace existing LOSs or Title systems, but provides a mechanism for connecting the information contained in both
    allows lenders to deliver the HUD-1 data to GSEs

    How it works:
    1.The lender sends eCN a preliminary HUD-1 that includes the fees as disclosed to the borrower.
    2.The settlement agent views the HUD-1 and updates the data to reflect actual fees. Note: If the settlement agent is also using the eCN integrated system, their HUD-1 data can be imported into eCN automatically, eliminating the need to make entries manually.
    3.The eHUD screens highlight any differences between the data provided by the lender and the data provided by the settlement agent. The lender and settlement agent can then reconcile the differences.
    4.The eHUD system automatically compares the negotiated fees with the GFE provided to the borrower.
    5.The settlement agent prepares the final HUD-1 and marks it as ready for review; the system automatically notifies the lender.
    6.The lender reviews the updated HUD-1 and can accept or reject it electronically. The settlement agent receives notification of the decision.
    7.Once approved, the final HUD-1 and the associated data are sent to the lender LOS.

    Throughout the review and negotiation process, only one of the parties can access the data at a time and a complete audit trail is maintained.

    eHUD can help:

    ensure compliance with RESPA regulations concerning good faith estimates
    negotiate HUD-1 fees easily and quickly using on-line collaboration tools
    reduce per-closing costs, eliminate overhead, and support more closings with few staff
    improve customer/borrower satisfaction by providing closing documents and the HUD-1 in advance of the closing

  62. that’s good stuff Nancy, keep it coming…

  63. Corporate Name: US Bank as Custodian/Trustee
    Address: 7420 S.Kyrene Suite 111
    City,State,Zip: Tempe, AZ 85283
    Toll Free Number:
    Direct Number: (480) 756-7263
    Fax Number: (999) 999-9999
    Primary Contact: Lynn Butts
    Member Org ID: 1000727
    Lines Of Business: Investor, Document Custodian, Trustee
    eRegistry Participant: No
    eDelivery Participant: No

    Back To Member Search


    Copyright© 2002 by MERSCORP, Inc. 1-800-646-MERS (6377)
    Other products or company names are or may be trademarks
    or registered trademarks and are the property of
    their respective holders.

  64. Rule 60 is one way to make the argument. And post sale doesn’t HAVE to preclude the quiet title action, but it’s a more uphill way to do it certainly. If this is a judicial foreclosure though, why are you relying on Rule 60 relief? The axiom that a void judgment is void is good, but why wasn’t the argument made before judgment was taken? If they truly lack standing then they lack standing, but I think the court may try to take issue with you if you allowed things to proceed also. just be prepared for whatever they throw at you.

  65. My thoughts are the pretender lender didn’t have interest in the property prior to foreclosure so it can’t have an interest after. Many of us want to know post foreclosure methods of attack…

  66. Thanks tnharry. Question, b/c I can’t seem to completely grasp this concept, if the pretender lender lacked standing to initiate the foreclose action from the beginning what post foreclosure method is used to attack it? I thought it was Rule 60(b)(4). I’ve also read plenty of case law that states a void judgment can be attacked at anytime in any proceeding. Not saying a Quiet Title Action is the proper remedy, just asking what other methods are available if its not a Rule 60 motion?

  67. Pat seems to be from the liberal-softie school of thought: like “oh, our modern society is so advanced and wonderful, if only we could all just get along with the banks we wouldn’t have to have society collapse…”. Not capturing it exactly, but getting there.

    The problem with that approach is that the banks don’t play that way. They want us to bring knives to a gunfight but this nicey-nicey compromise approach only allows the bankers’ looting to continue. And trying to tell us over and over that we won’t get free houses and that we must have attorneys and that oh if we only knew what he knows, then all would be well is just not helpful to us.

    This is down and dirty trench guerilla warfare and we didn’t start it, but we ARE going to finish it.

  68. @make it happen – as always, jurisdictions very, but the answer should be no under the theory that you no longer have title to quiet post sale. and if you know of the sale date and do nothing to stop it or defend it, there’s a danger that you’ll face estoppel issues and/or failure to mitigate damages when you file something post-sale.

  69. Pat,

    I know you said you were leaving but, the depression had nothing to do with the american public. It was about the tight grip on the money supply by the federal reserve. This is a fact, the federal reserve admits and talks about it them self.

    Also there was never a great depression in this country before the federal reserve bank was in total control of the money supply. If no one ever learns anything from this site please learn that.

    That is why when they want something pass and it doesn’t they put a firm grip on the money supply. Isn’t it funny huge corporation are making money hand over foot, but people are still losing there jobs by the thousands? Or that banks say they are making profit but making no loans? How about if the debt ceiling does not raise there will be panic the banks say?

    Again why come to the table with a bank, when if people made a run on the bank they don’t have the funds to meet the demand? That in an out of itself proves you going to the table with the wrong person.

  70. Thank You Seeking Remedy!!! Can one file a Quiet Title Action post foreclosure? The video seems to state it can only be filed prior to the completion of the foreclosure.

  71. Tony,

    Most of the attorneys doing foreclosure work are nothing more than foreclosure mills themselves. I know. I have seen it first hand time and again.

    But, enough said about that.

    The people on this website have succeeded in driving me off again, as of this post. The irrationality of their thinking, and the lack of cognitive dissonance in even considering other arguments or options is just absurd.

    Now you can all cheer because I am out of here for a long time.

  72. Alice,

    Servicers have the authority to execute loan modifications on the behalf of PSA’s, as long as the PSA allows for modifications. Yes, they do purposely stall, lose things, etc., but that is a different issue.

    And, I did not say for homeowners to give up their homes and let the banks have them for free. Show me where I said that.

    What I said was that homeowners cannot expect homes for free, and that it will not happen.

    I also said that the best way to retain a home is for a “win/win” situation be created for all parties involved.

    Has anyone hear ever really reviewed what happened during the Depression? Remember, the Depression occurred when there was a large rural presence in the country, with strong agricultural basis. Yet, the cities and rural communities were still devastated.

    If the same hits now, expect massive anarchy, rioting, looting, food shortages, money shortages, and in other words, the complete breakdown of society. Troops would be in the street. Martial law in effect. Public services breaking down. Loss of utilities. You name it, and it would happen.

    Does anyone really want that?

  73. This is downright comical from Pat:

    “What is important is to resolve the housing crisis in the shortest amount of time possible and with the least damage to the economy, homeowners and investors.

    Destruction of the entire financial system will only further increase the time frame until recovery can begin.

    OMG and WTF! That is the bankers/regulators line verbatim.

    No, what’s really important Pat, is that integrity is returned to our judicial/legislative/regulatory, and last but not least, the administration of the United States, after having been totally captured by Wall Street.

    The 5 million homes that have already been taken fraudulently need to be returned. And this is precisely where you and I differ….you believe that it’s just a matter of getting a modification that keeps the homeowner in the house and the bank on the other end happy. That’s bullshit!

    There is no solution that allows the criminality to continue. That includes modifying fraudulent contracts or allowing conjured conveyances, period. There is no acceptable solution that doesn’t demand prosecutions for the rampant criminality that’s been taking place across the financial industry with reckless abandon.

    So, it would appear from your statement that we need to turn a blind eye to these criminal endeavors in order to expedite the return to normalcy. Therefore, in order to stave off financial armageddon, we need to swallow a few million criminal acts against the populace.

    I’ve got news for you Pat….financial armageddon is here, and it was set-off by Wall Street a few years ago, and it’s been continuing due to attitudes like yours that are willing to accept the fact that felonious acts are a occurring, and may be just a necessary by-product of the crises. $16 trillion dollars later, and there are still people like you hoping to set things right with the banks in the hopes that we can all get along again. Unbelievable.

    tnharry, your rant about Neil pushing his wares is ludicrous. Neil spends very little bandwidth marketing his products on this blog, but who could fault him if he did? Living Lies belongs to him. Luminaq belongs to him. Nowhere does any of the literature on either site mention tnharry. So what exactly is it that makes tnharry believe that he has the right to adjust the menu here?

    One more thing, and to echo a comment about Neil’s work as it pertains to newbies….this is a very important point. Many are just now finding LL, and rehashing old arguments is never a bad thing. And one thing I can tell you without a doubt, I personally have had the opportunity to speak with Neil on several occasions and I can promise you something without hesitation, he is a scholar no doubt, but he’s also a gentleman of the highest order. Nuff said.

  74. Look it’s not about tnharry or Pat bashing, it’s about saying that the banks should get something out this. This no one forced you to sign on the dotted line crap, or I worked hard for and no one should get a free ride just does not make sense.

    “After the lawsuit is filed, he will try to work things out with the other side. The goal is to seek a reasonable solution for all. He is so successful in this approach that the attorneys on the other side that he has dealt with before work with him to achieve acceptable results.”

    Pat this kind of written has many people scratching there heads.

    1st why come to the table with someone who is not suppose to be there in the first place? This come to the table is nothing more than making the lawyer look good, help there career and oh and glad the client can get something out of it too. No lawyer can tell me different, I am lawyer this is what they teach us.

    USA beat the British, yet paid the British reparations for all the land and business the British empire would lose. Is that really winning a war? Wonder why the colonies were broke after the war and had to form a new government so they can lay taxation to get some money in there hands.

    I think people forget that lawyers are for profit, not non profit. Lawyers are like fast food, they want to give you something tasty and quick. Meaning they were able to cut time and cost because the food is made with processed meats and cheese, so they can make it faster. meaning you don’t have to wait in line for a long time thus leaving and going some where else.

    If a lawyer made you real food, meaning really took its time as Pat says they do, then how would they take care of the next customer? They couldn’t the other customers can wait they have court dates to show up to. So instead the lawyer acts like they are taking there time, reading over cases when instead they are really calling the lawyer saying “look I have so and so case lets just settle you get paid I get paid bank gets paid home owner get paid”

    This is not work, or looking deep into your case. A real lawyer seeks out your case like they are looking for treasure. They don’t care who or what the other lawyer doing unless they are sending over legal documents. A real lawyer does not care how long the case may be because they think to them self it could be me.

    You don’t do deals, this is the real reason why there is no “new information” coming out. All theses settlements none went to trial. I mean how can you say so and so isn’t the real part in interest and then make a deal with them because they gave you a nice figure of money? That makes no sense.

  75. tnharry,

    Just so you know, I am not a shill for lenders. I just want to present the other side of the story so that people know that everything is not “cut and dried” and legally settled.

    The people here do not want objective and reasoned discussion. They only want to hear points that back up their beliefs, whether the points are accurate or not.

    I get calls daily from homeowners needing assistance, and most are reasonable with what they desire. Those I will consider working with, after they have spoken with an attorney.

    The ones who call with attitudes like expressed here, I have found to not just be unreasonable in demands, but often they committed fraud themselves, or were professional investors who got caught with their pants down. Yet, they will always claim that they were defrauded.

    I don’t deal with them because they are never happy no matter what you do for them

  76. Pat, you seem quite reasonable but asking people to believe that somehow they must support this fraud to save a system is a pretty big request. You are asking people to give the banks their houses for free so the systems doesn’t collapse, You say the people want to modify their loans..but who do they modify their loans with? No one seems to know who has standing to modify these loans.

    The system is going to collapse, the foundation has cracked. The bulldozers are coming in now and tearing it all down. The bulldozing of houses is a symbol for the destruction of the banking system. They built this house of cards and it was really shoddy construction. No one can save it, least of all homeowners giving the banks their homes for free.

  77. Okay, tn…whatever you say—have a good one!

  78. Seeking Remedy..excellent video. Thank you. This is a very good explanation for those needing help. I look forward to the day when every homeowner starts filing Quiet Title actions offensively. This is the only way we are going to put a halt to all of this fraud. I would like to see those homeowners who lost their homes becaue of fraud get their homes back. The banks are now bulldozing their foreclosures.. oh the lawsuits…the banks are bring themselves down all by themselves.

  79. Pat says: “Destruction of the entire financial system will only further increase the time frame until recovery can begin.”

    They ALREADY destroyed it…do you READ the headlines???

    Time frame??? Give me a break. They did it to themselves and they WON”T get away with it…who cares how long it takes…our children’s and grandchildren’s future is at stake here…

    “Securitization”? There was no “securitization” of the “fake” mortgages..ALSO in the headlines…

  80. @carie – you’re a fool if you believe the agenda here is anything other than marketing Neil’s products. he does good work, i don’t dispute that. but he gives just enough information here to make you want more, and to make you want to buy his products. and i don’t begrudge him that and neither should you. but to think this is some charity he’s running is just silly.

  81. @tn—the only “agenda” here is to attempt to help reveal the massive fraud perpetrated by the banksters/fraudsters…you’re either for that “agenda” or against it, it’s that simple.

  82. A man,

    Illegal foreclosures? It must still be defined what an illegal foreclosure is. Many people have different definitions for “illegal” and until there is actual legal findings for illegal foreclosure, the term is ambiguous at best.

    Assuming that MERS and Securitization is ruled unlawful, the entire financial system completely collapses. People hear say that is what they want, but I don’t think that they understand the true effects of such a result. Perhaps they should study the Depression to understand what they are asking for.

    IMO, it is foolhardy to ask for what is not going to happen. Instead, create a “win/win” scenario for all parties involved. For most people, excluding those here, “win/win” means obtaining a realistic loan modification whereby they can keep the home and investors will minimize losses. And this is what most homeowners desire.

    What is important is to resolve the housing crisis in the shortest amount of time possible and with the least damage to the economy, homeowners and investors.

    Destruction of the entire financial system will only further increase the time frame until recovery can begin.

    As to defending Hitler and Musselini, you make an oblique reference to “Nazi” which suggests that I represent a similar camp. That was totally uncalled for and I find it completely offensive. It is crap like that that undermines any valid point that you might raise.

  83. Pat says: “Create a “win/win” situation for all parties.”

    Yeah, ok…and let’s let all the prisoners out of jail, and from here on out not let anyone pay for those pesky little crimes…come on—let’s have a win/win for everyone!!! Whoopie!!!

  84. Thank you again Neil. These facts need to be repeated over and over. I am sure this site gets new visiters everyday as more people are starting to question their foreclosures. The best starting point imo is Mers and how they have clouded the title of every home in their system. Someone commented that people need to understand how the judicial system works. I would say those in the judicial system need to understand how a mortgage loan works. Those in the judicial system that are approving f/c on homes in the Mers system are condoning fraud on the court. We are only at the beginning of the unraveling of this fraud. As time goes by it will become obvious that the banks have gotten millions of free house because of fraudulent documents and the ignorance of the judicial system.

  85. how in the name of all that is holy can i get flamed by the masses for posting the following:
    “Post sample pleadings from a successful quiet title case. Post pleadings from successful defense of judicial foreclosure or motions for relief. Have a guest commenter delve in depth on bankruptcy rights and strategies. Anything really, that points people in the right direction. Constant harping on MERS and straw men doesn’t save houses.”

    i truly don’t understand you people. i’ve tried to engage in reasonable conversation, and have offered specific advice to people and you don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t include the words “MERS is a sham” or “there was no loan”. hell, I tried to have a real discussion the other day about robo-signing and we went down the anarchy and chaos road yet again instead.

    continue your Neil worship. i’ve offered constructive criticism and been vilified. i don’t think he’s curating the articles posted currently. today’s is pulled from the Findsen law website and attributed to professional poker player Jake Naumer. read the card player’s take on cases that have been discussed and pat yourself on the back for the victories. frankly, it would be as instructive or more to focus on cases where MERS or the bank wins because then you could find a way to distinguish from their facts. only telling one side of the story is just as much championing an agenda as Pat, I and others have been accused of doing.

  86. Great information here people. Explains things clearly.


    See all three parts!

  87. Pat and TnHarry the reason we are taking a winner take all. Is the same reason we defeated Hitler and the Imperial Japanese and Mussilini in World War 2..

    Unfortunately Pat you are defending Hitler and Musselini in the Nuremberg trials (Which is your rite)


    The Banksters have commited Crimes against humanity. 2million illegal foreclosures a year in the United States is more than enough proof that something is Seriously wrong. Not to mention the destruction of Businesses and Commercial properties.

    Just like the United States did not bomb the Gas Chambers and allow jews into the country on a massive scale in order to save them. We are doing the same thing with the same carachters. Deutsche bank Bank of (italy) Amerca etc…


  88. Leapfrog,

    tnharry and I are two different individuals. In fact, I would love to speak with him personally to discuss various things.

    The reality is that we both are involved in what is going on a daily basis, and from different directions. But we both see what is occurring in the courts, and we are realistic in approaches.

    Why make arguments that have no merit? Or are going to fail in the courts? Such argument only distract from the legitimate arguments that can be made.

    Why is it a “winner take all” strategy that most people here want to employ? Why not create a win/win situation for everyone.

    The attorneys who take a completely adversarial position against the lenders and their attorneys have greater problems getting positive resolutions for their clients. That has been proven time and again.

    The best attorney that I work with uses a different approach. When he files a lawsuit,he spends many hours getting the complaint correct. It is not a “canned” approach, taking a couple of hours.

    After the lawsuit is filed, he will try to work things out with the other side. The goal is to seek a reasonable solution for all. He is so successful in this approach that the attorneys on the other side that he has dealt with before work with him to achieve acceptable results.

    That is an approach that other attorneys need to consider.

  89. Kelly,

    You need to really understand how the judicial system works. These are all cases decided in specific jurisdictions. Such rulings only apply in the jurisdictions. They mean nothing elsewhere, and especially when only state statutes apply. For example:

    In the 4th Circuit, just providing a Right to Cancel to a borrower without filling in all the data, rescission dates, etc, the court has found that the RTC is in compliance.

    In the 9th District, it would be a failure to comply.

    Also, so what that there has been a few decisions against MERS in different states. Each case is based upon different issues, so there is no relevant theme.

    What you don’t get is that there are thousands of cases monthly whereby the arguments against MERS never even gets past the demurrer. The allegations are dismissed continuously.

    You can blame it on the judges as not knowing what they are doing, but this argument can only be presented so long as an excuse. When 95% of the cases are dismissed, it has to show some validity.

    So I am a lender/servicer shill? You haven’t a clue. If you did, you would understand that I was one of the first people involved in helping homeowners. In fact, one company that claims to certify “auditors” used my own work and tried to duplicate it, and that is the basis of how they got started.

    A high profile auditor who is well known in the media for his actions in homeowner defense got into the business by me, and used my initial work as a guide. So don’t throw that bs at me.

    I don’t care who is right or wrong. I care what is right or wrong and what is legal or unlawful. That is why I present only “unbiased reports”, taking no side no matter who is the client. I tell the facts on each side, and let the chips fall where they may.

    If I am asked by an attorney to evaluate a case, I do so. If I find borrower fraud, I report it immediately to the attorney so that he can determine whether he wants to represent the client or not.

    I have done work for several people here. And I have found fraud by the borrower, which prior to 2010, I would not place in a report. Now I do.

    I know of people here who have been dropped by their attorneys for not being truthful.

    And, there is one prolific poster here that I had talks with, learned enough that I declined the case. Later, I saw the loan documents and found that the person knew exactly what was going on with the loan, was a knowledgeable borrower, and yet was claiming fraud.

    I was contacted by a law firm asking me to be an expert witness for them against a borrower. When they identified the person, I immediately declined because I knew the borrower and the case. It was the person I described above. To have done anything else would have been unethical. (BTW, I did not reveal what I knew about the situation either.)

    Here is the simple truth. Most of the people here want to engage in “winner take all” actions. And they are looking for arguments to support their cases, so they hang out here with others who are of like minds.

    The reality is that very few will “win” what they want, perhaps one or two only. The rest will lose. Period.

    What all need to do is to set realistic goals of what they want to achieve, and then use means to achieve those goals. Create a “win/win” situation for all parties. Don’t go “winner take all”.

    Getting a home for free is not realistic. And anyone who wants to argue the Note, lawfulness of MERS/Sercuritization, or the Note has been paid is looking to get the home for free, no matter how much they deny it. (You can argue certain points of legal standing, but use it for leverage to obtain realistic goals.)

    I know many people who have visited this website and are shocked by the radicalism of the comments. The comments like “kill the bankers” and other similar comments does nothing to lender credibility.

    I know many attorneys that have gone to Neil’s seminars. I have myself, in Jan 2009. The general consensus of most is that this stuff does not work and they no longer try to even raise the issues.

    I also know that there are things in the Seminar that are in error. Neil talks about TILA 226.34, and that it requires a lender to determine the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. Factually this is correct, except that it only applies to HOEPA loans, and less than .1% of borrowers had HOEPA loans. There are other issues as well, but you really do not care to hear about those issues.

  90. I think harry hit it on the head. Neil, I love you as much as my hunchback brother, but we’ve got to do something here that isn’t being done; and that’s COACHING! Put up some of these pleadings have been successful. As much as we have learned over the last three years, we are still infantile in our current state. Old news is okay, a compilation of “victories” is poignant, but there is no direction here. I know you (nor others) can’t practice law “over the internet”, but this is a legal blog, and we should be seeing more that’s related to the legal battle being waged rather than all this opinion that really doesn’t accomplish anything. You have successfully “started a movement”, but there is a deterioration of the kinetic energy that was once present here. Everybody and their brother is pitching “securitization searches and loan audits”, but the homeowners aren’t able to do anything with any of that stuff. I, personally have been successful to the point that I’m still in my house: stopped three sheriff sales, forced a bogus modification out of the servicer, and retaliated with another suit with claims different than those addressed in the foreclosure suit (no res judicata here). I will give credit where credit is due. You’re the reason I’m where I’m at. But I had the good fortune of having a job where I could spend 3000 hours over 3 years in front of the computer and still make a living (barely) while I learned and read and researched my balls off.

    Let’s get this to the next level, and get some real attorney-based comment and commentary.

    Please don’t misconstrue the criticism for ingratitude. But we need to do more here.

  91. MERS is a vehicle of convenience by corporations known as servicers and banks to rip off the American people of their property rights and by use of a Ponzi scheme to fleece people of their money. No more, no less. From what I am reading, these banks and servicers have already fleeced other populations in Asia, Europe and Africa. I think they are starting to run out of people to fleece–unbelievable. This is a fight to the death of America. Do not give up!

  92. I’m beginning to think TN and Pat are the same sock puppet.

  93. tnharry,

    More and more new people are, unfortunately, searching the internet for news on MERS everyday. They are seeing Neil’s site for the first time, and thanking God for it.

    This MERS article would be brand new, and timely, to them.

    TN, regarding your remark about the link that isn’t functioning in the article. You do realize Neil’s site has been hacked into recently, yes? These links get “stopped” from working ALL THE TIME, and it is by “people” who don’t want the material to which these links take readers, to be read.

    I know you have been visiting this site for a long time, TN. How can you, in good conscience, make a comment with the words Neil and lazy in the same sentence?

    I’m not spending anymore time on this commentary today, but I am leaving this discussion so upset that anyone, anyone, would treat Neil so carelessly.

  94. The truth is being told.
    The time of telling a
    Thousand Lies or
    Lying a Thousand Times
    To cover a Crime?
    The end is Near.
    I just wish the
    new beginning was

    I will not presuppose why people(?) post these distortions
    of truth. But the ultimate lesson will be learned. Sooner or
    later truth prevails. Even now the professional deniers
    must realize that soon they must put out resumes because
    THIS mission has FAILED. Are these PR people failures
    in their own right? My answer? YES. As long as they look
    in the mirror every morning obliviously not realizing their life is a Living Lie.

  95. pat and harry, look at the top of this page….nowhere does it say “Foreclosure News”, or Breaking Foreclosure News”, or “Everything You Want Foreclosure”. It doesn’t even claim that anything will be timely, or that commentary won’t be hashed or rehashed.

    There’s no guarantee that a commonality will be expressed through themes. If you want common themes, go to brothersgrimm.com.

    No one was ever told that there would be no obsessing with Mers, or that months old cases wouldn’t be dredged up…..suits rehashed.

    What you will find is the words wordpress, which relates to blog, which means that the person who pays the bills for the site can pretty damned well do or write whatever he/she wants to.

    I’ve searched all over this site and was unable to locate anything about a living lies democracy, or that Neil G was here to lead you to the promised land or set out to even mildly please anyone.

    So feel free to comment to your hearts content. Just don’t expect this site to cater to your desires or even live up to your expectations. If you’re obsessed with that, go to wordpress.com. There’s plenty of zeros and ones left for your own blogging endeavors. Good luck with that.

  96. For Pat and Tnharry:

    I will say this again to you:

    You sound like Nicholas Biddle trying to save the Second Bank of the united states. Funny thing though, when the bank was denied a charter this was the only time the United States ever paid off the entire debt period. Your writing here sounds like the Ally Bank commercial ” I love my bank.”

    Learn true economics and then come back. Your writing sounds like a teacher saying Columbus discovers America, when all he did was start the slave trade a major business in the Americas. You can’t discover a place that already has people in it, nor bring civilization to a country when you kill them. For civil means peaceful and killing sure is not peaceful.

    Also lets get into how this writing is flawed:
    Slavery was like MERS and the securitisation problem today. They said if it is found illegal the economy would fail and the world would go down the tube. Heck the supreme court even found it legal, there was a war over this (and party over other things too). When it was abolish did the US go under? Was everyone living in caves? NO, and there is only one time any country or area ever went into a economic dark period, and that was when Europe went into what is called today the middle ages. This reason was only because Europe was push back and blocked off of trade routes, with the fall of Rome. Not because people was not paying there mortgage’s.

    This tag team of yours is more of an conspiracy, he said, she said than any ones posting on here. All you need is the meat of the matter not the side dishes. Your postings are making people think it is harder than it needs to be. While I agree it is old news but look at it this way old news still has meat in it.

    I mean if you use that saying it is old new, then surely old case law shouldn’t be used right? Then again tnharry you don’t Shepardize your case law so I can see where you come from. 🙂

    The meat or heart of the case must always be pulled up and used because the meat is where you win. Not sliding on some new doctrine so in later yrs they can say you made it up. This is a human right issue so this is something that the courts can not take without due process. This is not a civil right issue that can be rubber stamp and thrown under the rug. Its like G-d said “dust is where we came and dust ye shall be”. The meat in what G-d said was we are dust.

  97. I want to thank Neil for this posting.
    It helped to boost my courage at a time when I was in doubt about hiring a lawyer to defend me.
    I also want to praise Martha Coakely for coming out and pushing the subject of MERS. If it helps anyone at all in this fight it is worth it.

  98. Pat,

    And I can’t even believe your post!

    Perhaps the main issue upon which the court decided the cases is different, but to say there is no common theme running through any of these cases is absolutely wrong.

    Landmark was not “for the most part” anything; it was a huge decision, with huge ramifications across the industry. And if you will read the decision you with see it discussed standing, party of interest, priority of lien status, registration status with the register of deeds office, and so much more I can’t begin to list it here.

    Some of the facts are exactly the same in these cases.

    Ibanez may not have had MERS as an issue, but the pertinent point in Ibanez is a lender better have a registered ownership interest in the mortgage BEFORE they foreclose, or the foreclosure will be vacated. MERS has been proven, time and time again, NOT to have any rights to assign, so obviously the similar issue issue is a foreclosure with a MERS assignment will be vacated. Any interest a MERS Assignment might have appeared to transfer to another entity would not have actually done so. A MERS assignment is a meaningless peice of paper.

    I am obviously not an attorney, and you are obviously a MERS proponent, and a supporter of the lenders and servicers. You won’t convince anyone here. Neil has been a good educator.

  99. It does seem that the last month has been “Not Neil Like” commentaries. I hope everything is okay with Neil. Maybe the hack that was mentioned, someone else is actually bringing the articles. Not sure, but we should pray for Neil and his well being. He has truley helped a lot of us get our bearings on this mess.

  100. Kelly – these cases are months old and have been discussed ad nauseum on the site already. There’s a growing obsession with MERS here that simply isn’t productive or helpful to the people fighting for their homes.

    Post sample pleadings from a successful quiet title case. Post pleadings from successful defense of judicial foreclosure or motions for relief. Have a guest commenter delve in depth on bankruptcy rights and strategies. Anything really, that points people in the right direction. Constant harping on MERS and straw men doesn’t save houses.

  101. Beth Findsen’s group?

    This really is misleading to her readers and to clients. I had thought better of her.

  102. tnharry,

    If you think this is old news you are obviously not watching the industry.

    How about a thank you to Neil and to everyone who contributes here for the excellent work they do, instead of a negative comment? If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. Other people will be helped by this post.

    Or did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?

    Kelly L. Hansen

  103. tn,

    More important, with these cases, the factual pattern is different in each. There is no common theme.

    Ibanez did not have MERS as an issue. It was about assignments AFTER a foreclosure had occurred.

    Landmark was a battle pitting first and second mortgages for the most part.

    Michigan dealt with only the recorded beneficial interest being able to initiate foreclosures and in their name under state statutes.

    Georgia is about actual knowledge.

    Again, there is no common theme running through any of these.

  104. and the only case that includes a link, albeit not a functioning link, goes to an error page if you cut and paste it. that’s just lazy Neil

  105. Info came from a post by Findsen Law with live links

    thx Jake

  106. Have we just stopped posting timely information in favor of rehashing old news over and over?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: