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




SEE BROTHERS V BAC ET AL Memorandum Brief Partial Summary Judgment FINAL-1


EDITOR’S NOTE: Now we are getting down to business and moving into the 5th inning of 9 inning game. As stated on these pages (resisted by virtually everyone) this Bankruptcy Trustee is seeking to have the court declare that the lien is VOID. That means they have nothing that gives them the right to foreclose and it means that the title to the property is subject to a court order declaring the rights of the parties, to wit: that the homeowner, as petitioner in bankruptcy, has plenty of equity because the home is not being used a security for the loan, even assuming that the loan created a legitimate obligation and even if you assume that the obligation is in fact owed to BAC Home Loans (Bank of America).

BAC WAS DETERMINED TO AS TO ITS STATUS: IT IS NOT A CREDITOR, which means that it cannot neither pursue payment as an unsecured claimant nor pursue foreclosure (which is pursuing payment) using foreclosure.




Section 506(d) states: “To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void, unless – (1) such claim was disallowed only under section 502(b)(5) or 502(e) of this title;; or (2) such claim is not an allowed secured claim due only to the failure of any entity to file a proof of such claim under section 501 of this title.”

Following consideration of evidence, testimony of witnesses and argument of counsel, this Court ruled from the bench finding that the claim of BAC was disallowed as a secured claim. An order (Dkt. # 49) consistent with the Court’s ruling was entered herein on August 31, 2010.

Based upon the Amended Proof of Claim and its attachments, Trustee filed an Amended Objection to Proof of Claim alleging, among other things, that BAC lacked standing as a secured creditor to file its claim in the bankruptcy case. (Dkt. #31, Amended Objection, ¶ 2)

After consideration of all matters properly presented, the Court ruled that BAC failed to offer evidence that the trust CWMBS 2005-­R1 held both the Note and the Deed of Trust and, therefore, it was not a creditor of the debtors.    (Dkt. Entry dated August 18, 2010, Dkt. #49)



67 Responses

  1. There’d be huge ramifications within the lending industry, regardless if it was a bank or another type of lender, if they were able to lend credit. That would essentially be criminal, because a stated amount of credit is based on reported income and worthiness of the applicant and extended only to the approved party or entity. They can’t sell their “approval” and therefore their line of credit to the highest bidder under any circumstances; it’s fraud and that is exactly what they did.

    Money is completely different. It is a physical thing rather than an abstract, and monetary transactions are controlled by Uniform Commercial Code, U.S. Banking law and ultimately by our own constitution–the U.S. Constitution and individual state constitutions. The fractional reserve banking method allowed these crooks to lend us all into the proverbial ditch, here, and now they want to pay a small fine for their criminal acts and continue to steal with impunity.

  2. @ johngault
    What Madoff was able to do for so long with such authority to so many people is that few even questioned him.

    The banks are doing the same thing . With great authority they are lending their credit

    Search for the law that allows a bank to lend their credit.

    There is none.

    Instead a bank loaning its credit is in direct prohibition to
    Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the US Constitution

    Congress has never given the banks the right.

  3. @marilyn – and the other thing is, that law applies to BANKS, not other lending institutions. The banks probably formed holding companies, or like that to get around this rule.

  4. marilyn – I am not disputing that banks may not lend their credit. As I said, I don’t think the way they operate off credit lines is lending their credit. They can lend their own funds and funds they’ve borrowed. What caused one of the big trips with Lehman Bros Holdings and I forget who, was LBHI’s overnight borrowing, for instance. Not the borrowing itself, (well actually that’s debateable) but a consequence. Someone, I forget who, snarfed LBHI’s deposit, which it held as exclusive security for X, and that someone (BOA was it?) was just recently ordered to cough it up because they tried to apply it to Y. I think most money is borrowed / rented, it’s rote, and I don’t see that as qualifying as using a bank’s credit. Anyway, at the thought of those arguments, I see a permanent headache. I understand that you think the invalidity of using bank’s credit is a show-stopping deal-breaker, so it would be grand if it were ever proved to have merit.

  5. Colorado bk court, like all bk courts, has local rules. CO’s local rule 4001-1 is very informative. It appears to support the argument that relief from stay is not issue preclusive and a borrower may yet make claims or defenses in another court, like state court. I thought the case cited by the court for its determinations was ‘lame’, was in 2001 before all this bs hit the fan, but the case says one may move for a directed verdict in one’s favor at the relief hearing when the bankster has failed to support its claim, something you might want to discuss with your bk attorney.

  6. @ johngault

    I have my Petition in a vault, 50 miles away and in order to give you the exact words I would have to go get it so instead I am going to give you facts off the top of my head and say the following

    There is no bank charter that gives a bank authority to lend its credit and Congress has never given banks authority to create money. What banks are doing are making Ultra Vires contracts of their credit and unjustly enriching themselves.

    The Federal courts have consistently ruled that banks canot lend their credit. (National Bank of Tallapoosa vs. Monre,
    American Express vs Citizen State Bank
    Nortons Grocery v. Peoples National Bank)

  7. No, John. They actually inflated the fees for the money. A huge part of their profit was generated from nothing more than fraudulent fees.

    They were rarely challenged, and they refused to provide any accounting of the basis for determining the amount owed, when asked.

    These big banks think they’re above the law…end of story.

  8. @Nora – I do a lot of research and until recently, that involved looking at pleadings on Pacer. I have seen one law firm turn in an allegedly secured claim in a bk case for 3 times the amt of the original amt stated on the note. No negative am for 2 years would even create that kind of inflated amt due. It was in a no asset chapter 7 where scrutiny would be ‘limited’, probably pro se. I suspect this law firm of others such inflated claims. I’m guessing the client (read bankster) uses this bk stuff for inflated tax losses, tho I don’t know the mechanics. They better hope I never have the time or inclination to keep digging.

  9. ” According to the article, the illegal behavior targeted homeowners who were already behind on their mortgage payments. Countrywide allegedly charged these homeowners up to 400 percent of the normal fee for services like property inspections, and sometimes didn’t give any notice of extra charges. When homeowners went into bankruptcy, Countrywide allegedly inflated the debts it entered into the bankruptcy court, essentially using the system to get extra money from bankrupt borrowers. The U.S. Trustee program, which enforces bankruptcy laws, worked with the FTC to resolve the case; an official would not confirm that it was also referred for criminal prosecution to the Justice Department. An FTC spokesman said the agency would need some time to reconstruct how much money is owed to individual borrowers, in part because “most frat houses have better record-keeping” than Countrywide did”. end quote
    (This quote from an article posted here:
    Fees made the banks BILLIONS in the case of JP Morgan Chase, and MILLIONS for other banksters. The wall street banks stacked the deck so that they would profit from every angle, including the defaults of the borrowers they set up to fail.
    What we need to do is DEMAND criminal charges. Write to your rep, your senator and your AG and describe your outrage. They as your agent, must be removed from office if they refuse to levy charges against such massive scale criminal activity. Congressional Review should be made of any legislation proposing the banks be let off with no jail time and only monitary settlements. They’ll get away with it all, if you let them. It’s time to send every mega bank notice that evidence of their crimes against Americans will result in criminal prosecution and long jail terms.
    The AJC here in Atlanta ran an article on July 14th, 2011 with the headline, “FDIC sues insiders at failed GA bank.” If Federal Bank Regulators will go after the little guys, why the hell aren’t they going after the bigger criminals?
    They charged the 15 former directors with gross negligence and other breaches of their duties in the December 2008 failing of the Haven Trust Bank. This article goes on to mention that only nine criminal actions have been filed nation wide since 2008! WTF?
    We are going to have to lobby on our own behalf, for criminal charges.
    Write to the FDIC. Tell your story. Cite FACTS. Demand action.

  10. @marilyn – yes, banks are prohibitted from lending their credit. That bare statement is all I remember. I’m just not sure using their lines of credit to fund loans is the same as lending their credit. They used their credit to get the lines of credit……those lines of credit become borrowed funds, admittedly, but I just don’t think it’s their “credit” being loaned to the borrower. Funding ‘stuff’ with borrowed funds goes on in any arena. The only possible distinction I can see is that a line of credit is generally drawn on and while the right by the bankster exists to draw on those funds, the funds/loan don’t exist (in the bank’s column) in fact until they are used to fund a borrower’s loan. In other words, there’s no loan (yet) between the institution providing the line of credit and the bankster until the account is drawn on and goes straight to title to fund the borrower’s loan. I don’t think that’s going to get it, though, but I’m no scholar on the issue.
    There is probably tons of case law on the interpretation of lending credit, altho maybe not as to funding mtg loans per se. But, those cases might provide clues. Be interesting to see some.

  11. correction

    that next to last paragraph of my below posting should say:

    start rereading the US Constitution paying strict attention to
    Article 1 Paragraph 10 Clause 1 of the
    US Constitution.

  12. @ johngault and Nora –

    Nora is absolutely right. The mortgage agreement you made with your orignal bank is null and void from the start. Simply because the bank lent you their credit and did not lend you money. Money and credit are not the same thing. BANKS ARE PROHIBITED FROM LENDING THEIR CREDIT.

    That the banks were able to get money ten minutes after writing the mortgage doesn’t count. They did not have money when they made the deal.

    That is an “ultra vires contract” Ultra Vires contract are null and void ab initio.

    Those of you who have argued with me on these sites, about me talking of Bogus money better start rergarding our US Constitution

    If you allow a crook to take a finger, they’ll take your arm.

  13. Someone here said the bk trustee had joined his action against the bankster. I said beware the bk trustee’s long arm. I was just reading a newer bk case involving a homestead and found an interesting discussion of homestead exemptions in Nevada, including this:

    “Given this interpretation of Nevada law, the United States Supreme Court
    has held that the filing of a declaration of a Nevada homestead after the
    filing of a bankruptcy case but before sale of the property is effective against the bankruptcy trustee.”

    This appears to be a quote from Meyers v Matley, 318 U.S. 622
    This is only applicable to Nevada. Other states may have similar laws although their homestead exemptions may be less. Nevada’s is pretty high and requires residency for a certain amt of time before you can get a homestead exemption ( NRS Chapter 115)

  14. Hay-elp! I’d really llike to read these pleadings from the post, but every time I click on them, I go nowhere….?

  15. Cap One is the worst. They’d give a cc to a rock. IN l991 I was on a family vacation over spring break in Cancun. Cap One had a table set up between the pool and the beach and the college kids got some trinket for filling out a cc application. I wanted to pound them into the sand.

  16. Right on, Nora.

    Here’s crazy for you:

    Capitol One had their lawyers sue us—they got a judgement and a lien…

    Every month we get something in the mail from Capitol One trying to get us to open a new line of credit…

  17. I like the way you think. I’ve said for years that we should all stop buying (pun) into the credit mindset. Blow up the credit reporting agencies, which operate outside of the law, like the federal reserve. Save for what you want and do without it until you have enough saved. Keep your paid off car, no matter what that dilbert Clark Howard says. For two thousand dollars you can take an Auto Tech course at night school and learn how to fix your car yourself, like I did. Yeah, I smell like tranny fluid once a year, but my 1987 Nissan runs like a new one, and I don’t owe anybody a damn thing.
    Mom and Dad never had any lines of credit. Their house was modest and paid 4. They took vacations in their paid for car, too. Slept good and ate well, and laughed at tupperware families. I miss that, badly. It pisses me off that a credit reporting agency is making literally millions selling my information. What gives them the right?

  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Richest_Man_in_Babylon_(book)

    The Fifth Cure: Make of thy dwelling a Profitable Investment
    Arkad suggested to his class during the fifth day to “own their own home”, which is the fifth cure, for them to enjoy fully their lives. He explained that if they choose to rent a room or house then their families would not be at ease. He also stated that a man who has his own domicile will receive many blessings and will reduce his cost of living and lastly will satisfy his desires.

    Own your home, fuck you BANKS.

  19. @JohnGault & E.Tolle.

    With me limited mind I see it this way:

    Prior to the advent of the internet, not many public – that is Joe six pack and Joe Plumber, were in the stock market, they didn’t have enough money. It cost something like $180 to buy a stock, whether one share or thousand, I don’t know the figures. And the stock market was just producing nominal gains over the time period of a few years or several, nothing great. So your average public was able to invest in regular savings accounts or CD’s which paid something like 10% interest, forget the actual rates now. Then the internet and then people could get online accounts to buy and sell stocks cheaply, forget the figures, but a lot less than $180. Then you have the introduction of 401K’s/IRA’s, and guess what, interest rates started going down, so loans and CC’s provided less and less returns – slowly over a period of time and thus interest rates one got for saving become not so attractive, and guess what people begin to switch their savings from savings accounts to stocks – IRA’s, 401K’s, stock trading accounts – the markets were in a bull market. Dot Com’s hit the seen. Entry was cheap to enter the Wall Street game of riches to be had. Stories hit the headlines of how some plumber becomes a millionaire trading stocks.

    I remember headlines about American’s are no longer savers, saving rates are going down. I even said to myself, saving, the stock market is a better deal, more money to be made there, that is how people are saving nowadays. You headlines are full of shit. Little did I know at the time.

    So, in between we have glass stegall repealed, and other such things.

    So there you have it, money transfered from middle class, working stiffs – me included, to the Wall Street wizards who now control congress & the rules and they have gotten everybody involved in their game, and that includes the banks.

    There was a separation of Wall Street and Main Street. Not no more, Main Street has 401k’s and IRA’s and pension’s and bonds for public work projects and cars and homes (ABS/MBS). All under the guise of we can help grow your money – – – for a fee.

    Those that understand the system – those that do not understand the system do not even know (life goes on).

    Cash is King. Under my mattress. If you put yourself in debt, you are giving up your future to time payments. And you are causing an artificial demand, thereby hurting everybody in the long run by raising prices.

    What if everybody stopped, like now, all at once, using their credit cards to pay for things, and just used cash or debit cards? Would prices go down or up? Or if everybody saved for a car or home, and paid cash? What would happen? To prices?

    the stock market is secondary. No company receives your money to invest to reward you profits. But dividends help but they are based on stock price and yield so you don’t make anything. It’s all make believe. Suckers we are, me included.

    That’s how I see it living 50 years now on earth. Gold Silver, I don’t know.

    But hey, I’m out of debt and life is good for me. My security is what I can do to make money and save it ill regardless of the stock market and savings rates at banks or credit unions. . I’m happy. Me stats are going up. And I owe nobody. I am becoming the Richest Man in Babylon. And more importantly, I am ripping off nobody. And why, because I exchange in abundance.

    There are four conditions of exchange as I see it.

    1. exchange with somebody and give nothing in return = rip – off, criminal gets something for nothing.
    2. exchange with somebody and give partial return – go out of business pretty quick.
    3. regular business exchange – give something, exchange same value.
    4. exchange in abundance – give better than expected results or exchange and be a howling success.

    So, where is Wall Street in this exchange? Up and down, boom and bust, invest for the long haul, stress, are they telling the truth, is this a good investment, on and on? Warning, prior performance is not indicative of future performance. Bulls and Bears.

  20. Foreign Trusts in ‘secret jurisdictions’

    Term Definition
    Financial intelligence units (FIUs) from across the world.
    Financial intelligence units are responsible for following “money trails” in efforts to counter money laundering and terrorist financing. The Egmont Group is intended to share understanding and promote collaboration amongst FIUs.

    Elsewhere an unknown place in which it is assumed, but not proven, that a transaction undertaken by an entity registered in a secrecy jurisdiction is regulated.

    The Enforcer oversees the actions of the trustees of a trust to ensure that those actions further the purposes stated in the trust deed / documents / instruments. It is commonplace in locations where trust enforcers are allowed that the trust instrument provides that the Enforcer has an absolute right of access to any information or document which relates to the trust, the assets of the trust or to the administration of the trust.The role of trust enforcer does three things. First it implies a lack of trust in the trustees. Second it makes clear that the trustees cannot and do not manage the trust because the enforcer clearly has power over them and therefore must in practice be the trustee. Thirdly, because the enforcer will in many cases be working on behalf of the trust settler there must be doubt whenever there is an enforcer in situ as to whether the settler has actually divested themselves of control of the assets held in trust, which is a pre-condition of a valid trust in most major jurisdictions but not in those places where enforcers are not allowed. Enforcers are not part of UK trust law.

  21. @Nora – you said:

    “The whole contract is null and can’t be enforced for so many reasons,

    ‘not the least of which is the fact that the foreclosing entity had no money invested to begin with because they didn’t fund the loan.” ‘

    That’s just not accurate, imo. I don’t think the question is whether or not the foreclosing entity funded the loan at origination. The real question is does the foreclosing entity have a PRESENT interest in the loan – is that party the current owner of the note (or properly documented agent of that owner) and is there a proper chain of title for the deed of trust? I think it’s appropriate to ask, also, when one claims to OWN a note and dot if the consideration paid for them was adequate. Inadequate consideration is a clue that that
    party does not in fact own the beneficial interests alleged, as usual, imo.

    You also said:
    “In a report found on 4closureFraud.org from last year, it states: “Indeed, it appears as though many loans and other mortgage related assets have been double and even triple-pledged to various constituencies”. Fannie and Freddie, who bought loans from various originators, found six million dollars worth of fraudulent loans on the books after they discovered they had been sold multiple loans from Taylor Bean Whitaker that were bogus. So what did they do about this? They looked after their own bottom line. They never reported the fraud to law enforcement or anyone outside the company. Remember, they issued almost 50% of all mortgage backed securities!
    They feared that the servicing fees from the loan pools would be at risk if it got out that loans “that had no value” populated the books.”

    Servicing fees would be at risk? Are they high? They can’t have even be ieved this was basis to keep quiet. I don’t know the reliability of the source of that “report”, but I believe loans probably were sold triple or higher times. Thanks to MERS, no one would know. I’ve no doubt that is one of the hidden sins, maybe even the biggest with the most awful consequences to our country. A borrower makes only one payment. Sooner or later, it’s going to tell. I think we know when that was.

  22. @Nora, pretend I’m tnharry! (sorry, tnh!) Just why can’t the notes be enforced if someone other than the named lender on the note funded them? (I dont’ know that this rises to fraud, but it’s my understanding that even if something does, one must demonstrate damage.)

  23. @tony – any chance you would hazard a capsulization as a layperson? Just so we know what we’re looking for?

  24. @tony, so far I have read a l997 or later case (IL) which refers to in rem v. quasi in rem and cites to the case you referenced. In rem won – as to judicial foreclosure in IL, anyway. I thought it was a crock because it involved the property of a diseased party with no representation in the jud foreclosure proceeding.

  25. @carie, welll, I was hoping for opinions on the big question. You appear to address matters you feel I left out,and I see for you the matter you state is paramount, as maybe it should be if you’re right.
    **Is underlying all this an assumption or belief that the loans were funded by investor monies with the loans having been sold forward and converted from loans to collection rights?** To me, even though I can’t support it and ain’t trying, that theory indicates the note is destroyed.
    I got lost there, I’ll tell you. Not to be confused with I doubt it. I
    guess you are saying the collection right is on the payment stream or what not for the certificate, which evidences what you are calling pro-rata interests in payments. I would call this fractional interests, but I may be wrong, or maybe it’s the same thing.

    From your explanation, I think I have now and then believed something else. And that is that the notes represent – or are -cdo’s and are NOT sold to the trusts. They only evidence the particular loans involved as to certain certificates, as evidence of WHAT is generating the payment stream on the certificates.
    Regardless of what the investors believed, the notes are to be maintained by the custodian (don’t all laugh at once!) purely to 1) evidence the
    collateral, if you will, for the certificates and 2) to keep them the hey
    out of circulation, i.e., 86 further endorsement which would negate them as collateral. I do not know why if the loans were to be true sales, they
    were not endorsed to the trust or the trustee, and I have never seen one so endorsed. Over my head. Well, one reason comes to mind: enforcement. But still, IF the psa’s or something make the banksters/servicers agents for enforcement (read foreclosure) why not endorse to the trust or trustee?

    In my scenario, there is a loan. Someone benefitted from loan proceeds and that someone signed a promissory note. What this means if the para above were shown to be accurate – or in the hood – is that it was the last guy who got the note (properly endorsed and maybe not even then) who actually owns the note, not the trust. Now this is hard for me to express , and I sure as hey don’t know how it sits with the UCC nor trust law, as applicable: the trustee holds those notes in trust, just like the trustee in a deed of trust holds either equitable or legal title in trust for the benefit of the beneficiary (deed of TRUST – DEED of trust). This is where it gets difficult for me. The last guy on the note actually owns them, but the investors, the certificate holders, have the beneficial interest in the payments because they bought that in the form of certificates. (?) The trusts or the trustee doesn’t own the notes – that last guy does, but the investors have the rights to payments on them.

    Are the notes actually hypothecated? I dont know, that’s for sure, but it’s
    possible. If the notes have been hypothecated – pledged as security for a
    debt – it seems to me that the last guy on the notes signed up to pay the
    notes, is a co-borrower as far as the investors are concerned, and maybe that goes to the borrower, also. This jives with no true sale, and the money to be paid the investors, which because it was not a sale but more a loan to the investors, is at the rate of the notes, somehow aggregated.

    Now, where the trouble lies is this arrangement must not jive with at least
    NY trust law. Remember we briefly touched on the fact that the IRS is still (at last we heard) debating if it wants to ‘nail’ the investors for the
    taxes on these “non-trusts”? Why would this be? Because some people are right and the trusts are totally messed and don’t provide for the good tax treatment the investors thought they were going to get because the investors only made loans themselves. The only thing held in trust is the evidence (if that?) of which notes created the last guy’s obligation, the payment stream, to the investors and by which this theory, that guy is a co-maker or guarantor.
    Yikes. This would certainly cause some noise, wouldn’t it?
    Now where does this land as to taking our homes? If the banksters admit
    this, they are admitting a number of things: 1) there was no sale, 2) the
    investors would owe a ton of moolah because they wouldn’t or shouldn’t get the preferential tax treatment they were sold, 3) they lied to sell their
    product. This doesn’t even consider all the endorsements which weren’t done or the considerations regarding the deeds of trust.

    As I said, I believe a loan was made, even if were with what turns out to be borrowed funds from the investors or with the last guy’s and then he
    borrowed against the notes himself. But that may be tweaked, because he may have become an obligor or guarantor himself, but he also really owns the note. Illegitimate for this reason? I’m not the one to make that call.
    I mean, if I want to hypothecate a note, I can probably become an obligor or guarantor, but this is definitely over my head.

    If this theory is at all in the hood, I’d say the last guy is stuck, but is
    coming after us, anyway. He can’t stop paying if he guaranteed or is an
    obligor on the note himself, unless he wants his own default with the

    He CAN come after us, assuming a very big assumption that the deed of trust is in order (which it isn’t), but to do so in his own right is to admit the
    BIG LIE. But if I got this right, the IRS already knows, so
    who/what is he still trying to hide from? The investors might be the answer and or a public acknowledgment of the scam.

    I can’t answer an obvious question: why not just sell the notes to the
    trust? I can’t even venture a guess because I don’t know trust law from a
    hole in the ground. If MS knows (got me – he may have other ideas altogether), maybe he will deign to tell us without riddles in words of one syllable or less. If you know, MS, you might as well. If it’s true and a plebe like me can get this far, better minds will get further. Be the hero. Sieze the moment!

    I only started writing this to try to discern what Carie is saying and wade thru why she says (and apparently anonymous) the trusts are empty.

    But back to the matter of which is the greater threat, which is my own real interest this minute fwiw. The demise of equality and the justice system and all that entails, or a possible economic bloodbath in a country already teetering?

  26. carrie:

    I know what you mean, these “mortgages” in securitizations are not mortgages. These are just servicing rights with no security behind them that were even traded to begin with.

    This is the reason why I said read the book so you can understand how mortgages are done. You will then understand how the game is played, and where they try to attack a home owner, with the twisting of law.

  27. Nora—NOT REAL MORTGAGES…NOT “mortgage backed” securities.
    See my post below at 2:42 pm.

    THIS is the WHOLE truth that needs to GET OUT THERE.

  28. “to understand how the court system works on mortgages.”

    tony—not real mortgages…see below…

  29. Basically, we can’t look to government for protection. Government has been bought and paid for, by the multi-national corporations and banks. The Federal Reserve has piled the debt on the taxpayer’s back for bailing out the banks when rightfully they should have been allowed to fail, like any other business that abandones prudent practices in the name of profit.
    Taking the banks down ourselves, is the only way–our leverage.
    When originating the loans, many of the banks sold the loans before they even closed to Fannie, Freddie, Ginny and IndyMac, and the loan funding came directly from those GSE’s, even though your loan documents say you owe WaMu, BOA, Chase, etc. This is what they don’t want exposed to the light of day. The whole contract is null and can’t be enforced for so many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the foreclosing entity had no money invested to begin with because they didn’t fund the loan.
    In a report found on 4closureFraud.org from last year, it states: “Indeed, it appears as though many loans and other mortgage related assets have been double and even triple-pledged to various constituencies”. Fannie and Freddie, who bought loans from various originators, found six million dollars worth of fraudulent loans on the books after they discovered they had been sold multiple loans from Taylor Bean Whitaker that were bogus. So what did they do about this? They looked after their own bottom line. They never reported the fraud to law enforcement or anyone outside the company. Remember, they issued almost 50% of all mortgage backed securities!
    They feared that the servicing fees from the loan pools would be at risk if it got out that loans “that had no value” populated the books.

    JPMorgan Chase was found guilty of bribing government officials, and way too many other prosecutable crimes to list here. An article in the Sept 24th, 2010 New York Times was titled, “GMAC’s Errors Leave Foreclosures in Question.” The big players even admit their wrong doing, and yet no one has gone to jail and no one has been charged with anything. What does that say to you? To me it screams that our government is a part of the problem, not the solution. Dismanteling the government that has sold us down the river of no return will take a concerted effort on our part. We have to stand up now. We have to begin to organize and fight back. If we can’t press criminal charges against them, then we should do what we can, and that is tell the truth and demand accountability until they’re sick of hearing us and do the people’s bidding.
    Unseat the crooks who hold office and vote for crap like the Patriot Act. I watched Saxby Chamblis, my representative here in Georgia, vote FOR illegal wire tapping, surveilance and the bullshit perpetrated on us by this completely unconstitutional act. Why are we letting the asshats, those we’ve elected, do this? Saxby will be receiving my five page letter in a couple of days, what are you willing to do, friend? If you don’t do anything else, research which politicians have a record of voting for personal liberty, freedom, and constitutional rights on every issue. Can the ones that don’t. Until we get the crooks out of our government, they will continue to let these banks run the show.

  30. A treatise on proceedings in rem By Rufus Waples 1882

    This book is free on Google Books. Don’t know how long it will be up, but if you want to understand how the court system works on mortgages.
    This book is written from a under study of the well known Supreme Court Judge, Judge Story. This book is still up to date because it is on merely jurisdiction. It even gives case law so you can look up and understand it. If you have a West Law or Lexis Nexis account you can then see how these cases went through-out the years.

    This book is a must read, and you must truly get all of it. For there is power in knowledge, and we as the American public are lacking it badly.

  31. @johngault—you said—
    “As far as I know, no court of law has ruled that the source of funding was not the lender named in the note and therefore the lender was not the lender, as and if applicable and what this might mean. We’ve discussed some of that here, right? None has been adjudicated that I know of. Not saying a court may never find this, just that if one has, I don’t know about it.
    There are some arguments made here about subprime loans not being loans at all and I have to say I have no idea what that’s about.”

    Here it is again:

    “First, ‘certificate purchasers’ are the banks themselves (security underwriters) and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor (the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived –it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary) that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans) and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.

    Second, since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a) and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no ‘funding’ at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.

    Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default. However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK. ”

    Thank you, ANONYMOUS.

  32. Nora and Johngault

    If you have already discussed starting with constrictor BOA, I have no problem. I still need to know where you will put the first billboard and have an idea of the logistics and price involved. I am flatbroke, self-employed and trying to support a free clinic I co-founded where I live but I’m sure I can put together a few bucks.

    Someone was mentioning the media being bought by the banks and Wall Street. I do believe that a number of reporters want this infamous circus resolved and are so openly outraged about what has been done to America (the debt ceiling monstruosity being the last drop) that I expect they will also contribute toward action. I have a few names in mind and, as far as I know, most of their contracts forbid them to support political parties but not non-profit grass-roots organizations.

    Remember that doing nothing now will immankably lead to eruptions of violence, riots and a serious increase in crime throughout America in the future. Personally, i see that future to be closer at hand than we all think. As a matter of fact, crime is seriously up where I live compared to last year or the year before. Every other day, robberies take place, people are killed and all of a sudden, we have a major heroine problem. So, we need to act. We need to wake up America. Fast.

  33. The stock market is tumbling based on what is already and if it doesn’t head north soon, I see a 2008 ish free-fall., despite the White House’s assurance today. This hurts more than the banksters – it hurts a lot of regular people who haven’t and won’t sell or cover for lack of sophistication, if nothing else. (I’m not sophisticated – I just know those words and what they mean, not the mechanices.) I also feel very strongly that people we don’t care to are benefitting by the downfall because they are sophisticated enough to sell short, etc. and reap even more benefits from what is a disaster for the little guy. Even more of what is left of the pie is going over to the other side imo. (I have no reason to believe this wasn’t also true in 2008, despite any outward appearance.) Our economy, imh and unlearned opinion, relies on spending and production. Production appears to me to have become an ancient art and even spending at Walmart is down. T
    So if we hoot and holler visibly, who’s gonna get hurt? Is our target covered? Let’s say they are, at least to some extent, and it’s really we the average people who are going to feel the brunt of the fallout from negative publicity.
    We talk the talk – will we walk the walk at this cost? Is publishing our
    disagreement with B of A’s, et al, legal pass worth the potential destruction? Some of us don’t believe in tbtf. I have no opinion because I don’t have the info. Or, maybe it was true in 2008 but no longer true today.
    I think in order to answer that question about walking the walk, we really need to consider and identify what we would be railing about. What comes to my mind readily is unfair treatment of the white collar crime (this assumes there were actual crimes perpetrated) and or misdeeds which nearly led to a global financial tsunami, causing job loss, loss of any manner of assets, and demoralizing and undermining the quality of millions of lives. We say the banksters don’t have any interest in our homes because the loans never made it to the trusts (for starters) and or the debt was retired by some form of insurance. The former has been demonstrated in more than one case. I have never seen an adjudication of the latter. Doesn’t mean it’s not a valid allegation / fact; I just have not seen such an allegation reach scrutiny.

    I feel certain that some people were deceived in one way or another about the loans they were getting. The infamous “teaser rate” comes quickly to mind. I feel just as certain some a.p.r.’s were wrong. Not everyone was deceived and those people should not rely on this fact as “source of anger” / unfairness and look for legal remedy for an injury not sustained. Those roads for recourse shouldn’t be closed for the people who were messed over in this manner. RESPA and TILA claims, in my lay opinion, can still be made even if the AG’s settle with the banksters.

    As far as I know, no court of law has ruled that the source of funding was not the lender named in the note and therefore the lender was not the lender, as and if applicable and what this might mean. We’ve discussed some of that here, right? None has been adjudicated that I know of. Not saying a court may never find this, just that if one has, I don’t know about it.

    There are some arguments made here about subprime loans not being loans at all and I have to say I have no idea what that’s about.

    We’re rightfully angrier than hell that TARP gimme funds were or even had to be forked over to pay for the sins of the banksters. I’m of a belief that right now, I am the grown up grandchild who lives with the consequences of lousy regulations and spending from when I was a child. You always hear about what this and that is going to do to our grandchildren. We were and are already the grandchildren it was done 0to. We have to cut back on social security and healthcare and education funding, etc., etc., etc. because of those old choices and
    now most heinously having to fork over billions and billions to save the world from Wall Street’s sins.

    We’re rightfully angry that banksters took HAMP gimme funds, refuse to modify loans (read subsidize imo), and mess a lot of people over but good in the process of those ultimate denials. I’ve read the stories here about homeowners forking over their info in good faith, and in many cases, many times. I’ve read the stories about people who thought they were in negotiation or even had been accepted only to wake up with a get out of here notice on the door. Ftr, this is a particular motivation for me. I am livid that the people I perceive as having ruined lives were put in charge of “modification”. For me, that comes with a statement that the people who gave the HAMP funds to those banksters KNEW no gov’t agency could be created to do it because the ownership of the notes was so *(*&^!* up. Now some could say yeah, but that was the best the gov could do with that reality. That was a reality which should never have come to exist and I point to Washington for that one. People say they don’t want big government, yet we want and need the government to protect us from this, do we not?

    So, yes, we have a lot to be very, very angry about. I’m sure I missed a ton. If we make a move, a real move to protest the slaps on the wrists the banksters get, and it actually does cause more economic damage, is this a consequence we can live with? To determine that, we have to look at which is the larger – unpunished crime and the devolution of our constitution and the law, an appearance if not a fact that wrongs may be bought off, and the sacrifice of the American homeowner V. a potential if not probable deep recession. Which is the greater threat?

    Punishing the banksters whom imo so richly deserve it will also not imo
    necessarily lead to more relief to the homeowner, unless it comes with some kind of admission that every loan is messed for one reason or another.

    That’s my layperson, no-formal-economic-training-half-xxx-educated two cents.

  34. A must read:

    Austin v. Royal League, 316 Ill. 188 (1925)

    Read it 4-5 times, understand there is no lien but merely equitable claim against you. When you understand this you will see why, banks lobbies for non judicial status in all states. Also why they are quickly asking for relief of the automatic stay.

  35. Christine,
    I say nay. But one principle player at a time, please. One of the fundamental tenents of advertising is “one big idea” at a time.

    Start with one, selected by popular vote; when they squirm, move on to the next target. Everyone please select our first target with a vote.

  36. The way I see it is Fannie Mae doesn’t want publicity…they want everything involving the (fake) mortgages and homeless people to stay hush hush…just like all the unemployed…hush hush…people are getting too upset…”we have to keep things quiet while we figure out what to do…”

    So—we have to figure out how to get publicity…’course, don’t the banks and all the “money people” OWN the media??? That’s the real challenge…getting publicity—reaching the most people…because the people “in charge” DON’T want the truth to be known…because it affects their bottom line.

  37. And I do have a question for Johngault and Nora:

    Do we need to stop at BofA? Can the full page ads be about ALL of them?

  38. @Nora – please email me at johngaultwhoam@yahoo.com

  39. Johngault,

    I really like your idea and I want to DO something. I have grown tired of reading that everything is doom and gloom. I know it isn’t and that, as long as there is life in us, there is a call to action.

    My questions would be: Where would the billboard be? I am thinking NY (Wall Street, you see…) or Washington DC (no need to explain). I am also thinking contacting TV channels as soon as it is up to get more coverage (free). I know that channels such as MSNBC and CBS have extensivley reported on the bank fraud outrage. I’m in Ohio but, populationwise, it is a small state. Where are you?

    The thing I always look at is numbers: one person can’t do much and can be quieted easily. Make it 20,000 and it becomes much more difficult to shut them up.

    E. Toile made what I view as an extremely valid point about our crisis and the missing almost-7 trillion. We could mention it and it could even be the title of the billboard:

    Where are my 7 trillion? (With faces of all races and ages with a puzzled look in the background). And underneath, some hard numbers: how much the bailout cost, how much bank CEO’s personally racked up from it, how much Paulson got (3.8 billion, right?), how many homeless American there are in the US and the number of children among them, etc.

    That will be some wake up call!!!

  40. johngault!
    I LOVE your idea! My grandfather, who was V.P. of Sinclair Oil before it became ARCO, once took out a whole page ad in a newspaper when a business he traded with screwed him. It cost him many thousands of dollars, but it capitalized on the principle of negative image advertising. He not only got replacement tires, a free wheel alignment and an apology, it so severly impacted the store’s sales, they were out of business in six months. They tried to sue him, but lost because they couldn’t prove any of the things he said weren’t true, and other patrons who’d also gotten the shaft from that store came out of the woodwork when the case was heard.They mobbed the courthouse and demanded the judge rule in favor of their champion.

    If BOA fears negative publicity, then we LOVE it! In their case, all we’d have to do is tell the truth. We could publish one homeowner’s story at a time, starting with the most aggregious foreclosures that involved putting the elderly, families with sick children, cancer patients, our dear veterans who’ve been treated so horridly, and so many others, out on the streets with nothing simply because they lost their income. You can count me in on this. I will donate the little money I can spare, and I will be glad to write the ads. I write sales letters and ads for a living, and I will donate my time to expose BOA and the rest of the too big to fail-ers crimes to the light of day. I’ll even help with research!

    I truly believe our numbers will be our salvation in our war on banks. We have to capitalize on our strengths and use those weapons that are available and legal. Your idea has been proven to work in the past and it will work again if we implement it on a massive scale. There are great stories to be told, truthfully, and they must be. We must make sure our message gets to the people and businesses who still have money or lines of credit with the evil giants among us. Let’s get this done. I have nothing to lose; Chase stole my home. This is our chance to get even, by telling the truth for all eyes to see. They fear truth…and our numbers. We hold the winning cards, here.

  41. Hi Carrie,

    I must be either extremely naive or have my head in the clouds (it hasn’t hurt me so far and has allowed me to accomplish many things I never knew I could even try, in the 50+ years I’ve been on this earth. So, I’ll stay that way and keep pressing on…)

    Fannie Mae is stopping the Walk, to which many, many non-profit organizations were participating and from which they were benefiting. That was a great thing.

    I know nothing about organizing a walk but I would like to submit an idea: Fannie Mae is considering canceling. It doesn’t mean that the non-profits cannot unite, take over and organize together that same Walkathon, without Fannie Mae, does it? What I gather from the article is that Fannie Mae was unable to give an idea of its overhead costs for the Walkathon. Wouldn’t it be worth finding out what it entails before deciding it is a horrible thing? Who knows: if we were to look into it and came to realize that a consortium of non-profits could organize that same walk and instead of collecting $.20 to the dollar, they were able to actually collect $.50 all expenses paid, then it would be a good thing for Fannie Mae to let go of it.

    Again, that was just a thought.

  42. Ok, all, read Yves’ (another of my heroes!) take on this “settlement”:

    “This part of the settlement discussion is sneaky and troubling: “alleged failure to properly securitize home loans in accordance with state laws.” The big violation with “proper securitization” is chain of title, and more and more homeowners are waking up to the mess banks have made here and are not happy with it. Yet even as offensive as this waiver is, the AGs can only waive their rights to prosecute. They can’t waive private parties’ rights to action, which means borrowers can and will continue to use chain of title issues to fight foreclosures, and investors, if they finally take enough losses to rouse themselves, would also be able to sue on this basis.”


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

  44. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/bank-of-america-justice-foreclosure-fraud-settlement_n_916490.html

    “For example, it could involve a release from liability for alleged lending abuses; alleged failure to properly securitize home loans in accordance with state laws; alleged abuses of distressed borrowers who fell behind on their payments; alleged illegal behavior when foreclosing on those homeowners; immunity from suits involving a combination of those claims, or from all of them — an effective grant of immunity from prosecution.”


    The banks have been responsible for a LOT of those.

  45. This Country is crying and begging for a violent Revolution, i visualize myself running down the street at wallstreet using all of the ceo’s and banksters for shooting practice, my opinion , shoot those guys on sight and we will have our country back , They are puting us agaist the corner
    and the USA is a big sleeping lion waiting to wake up, if and when we wake up , i asure you ……shit will rain from the sky in biblical proportions and it wont fall on us “THE PEOPLE”. So enjoy it while it last …wallstreet. The Lion Started to wiggle his tail in signs of waking up.

  46. BAC WAS DETERMINED TO AS TO ITS STATUS: IT IS NOT A CREDITOR, which means that it cannot neither pursue payment as an unsecured claimant nor pursue foreclosure (which is pursuing payment) using foreclosure.

    That’s right Neil, they just a broker.

    As they are for CC debt as it is ABS’d and Car loans and Kohl’s department stores and even Dell Computers.

    neidermeyer, on August 2, 2011 at 3:24 pm said:
    Neil ,
    I love your comments ,, the way I would put it is in the old carnival barker lingo …
    “You Cannot Win If You Do Not Play!”

    I have a slightly different view, I do not wish to get caught up in the Court/legal game. My view is if “one is now Holder In Due Course, then previous Holder in Due Course” should send me written confirmation that a new Holder In Due Course is NOW Holder In Due Course and I send payments to them or their assigned collectors for payments, not to be confused with debt collectors – who are contracted or assigned to collect a debt FOR ANOTHER on late payments or just payments. I do not accept or agree or write back to a written communication from a implied New HIDC stating that they are collecting a debt or stating that they are a HIDC w/o proof. Where’s the paper, proof one is a HIDC? So why should I communicate with such a letter? Would not the actual HIDC tell me that a new HIDC is authorized to accept payments from me for the debt which they sold to another?

    What if original HIDC wrote off debt as uncollectiable and then got IRS tax write-off?

    What if original HIDC sold wriiten off debt names to so called debt collectors, and counted that as as income? What is the specific code or rule for such things?

    So now so called debt collectors buy written off debt and market it as debt owed to original creditor to the borrower and they are debt collectors? Borrower is none the wiser that debt was written off, don’t you think?

  47. I reviewed the bankruptcy case and adversary proceeding. The key to the MSJ are whether the facts are undisputed. The trustee has selected facts necessary to satisfy the statute. Those facts are based on the court docket and proceedings. Seems those would be hard to dispute. It’s not the same as disputed deposition testimony that a party did X or Y. Seems like a pretty smart angle. Can’t wait to see BAC’s response.

  48. Seizing fraudulently foreclosed properties by the Banks has gotten so
    out of control, that the Banks don’t know what to do with their
    foreclosed properties.

    On the other hand almost anyone looking to buy one of these properties
    unless they have all cash, are filling in paperwork and taking our mortgages on property they knowingly don’t own.

    Why aren’t the AG’s prosecuting them??

  49. Great letter Christine. Great idea JG. The time has come to stop playing nice with all the parties involved. Still professional, but no longer please of please nice. They need to be reminded that they work for us, not the banks. Fifty AGs are doing their best R. M. Renfield impersonations. This is how I see it:

    We gave the “financial community” north of $7 trillion dollars outright with absolutely no transparency after they screwed the pooch. Now, a couple of years later, our G men occasionally bitch slap one of these entities to the tune of, in the case of one settlement in the news within the last few weeks, $108 million. Another figure in the news these days is a proposed BAC settlement for $8.5 billion, probably the one mentioned in the article.

    Then you hear Dimon whine about having to put away money against future litigation. Yeah right. Cry me a fucking river. By my calculations, we’re still missing somewhere around $6,092,509,000,000.00, give or take several hundred billion.

    But the banks continue to fund their candidates of choice, including the AGs and Justice, make no mistake about it. Thus insuring they’ll get the right people into offices up and down the line who will do their bidding. Could it be any plainer than what we’re witnessing right now? John Walsh? Eric Holder? Tom Miller? Pam Bondi? Michelle Reagan? I could go on all night!

    The candidates then write, or simply sign the pre-authored (by the FIRE lobby) legislation which allows these financial players the ability to loan us our own money to our municipalities for bridges and airports, as well as ship their earnings offshore. They also get to pay their fines with these lump sums. They also get the Supreme Court of their choice. They also get our money free from Bernank and Tim. And it all goes round and round again. It’s brilliantly incestuous. The very definition of the best that money can buy.

    And we the taxpayers get to watch when we’re not working. The rest of us just look for work. This is starting to reach critical mass. The AGs need to step up to the plate or face the pitchforks and tar. And I’m not kidding here. Enough is enough. Obama has already raised more campaign funds than he had total in 2008, mostly from Wall Street. They say he’ll end up with a billion dollars by election time. Fool me once, shame on…. or whatever Bush said…..screw them all!

  50. You know, if the thing B of A fears more than anything is negative publicity (even if they could hire the talent and ultimately avoid their ‘misdeeds’), we could collectively give them some. What would that look like? How could we give them some? I’m thinking full page ads (alright – large ads) in high profile publications and billboards. We need a fund, damnit. Who’s up for the task? An existing homeowner-friendly non-profit seems a good choice for managing the fund.
    I know of one in the eastern part of the country where I admire the work done by the attorneys on behalf of homeowners. Now, I’m serious, guys.
    If I were to approach them, or if you’re an attorney known to champion the homeowner and the proper application of the law who would relieve me of the job which would be fine with me, how many would be willing to make a contribution and or make suggestions for the ads? Maybe they should be addressed to the AG’s who are letting the B of A’s skate for a pittance, if that. Don’t we want to see gazillionaires treated the same way your average criminal is? Dang, the bigger the “white collar” crime, the less likely to see jail time (cept for Madoff and a handful of bit-playing others). Wouldn’t they just croak?
    What does anyone think? I don’t need or really want to lead anything. If someone else has already got this going on, any form of organized opposition, point the way!
    But let’s know what we’re doing and be ready to accept the consequences which may be, against some allegations, pretty nasty. What’s that they say? The cure is worse than the illness? We don’t believe that, tho, when the illness is the usurption of and disregard for our constitution and equality, the founding principles and the greatness of this country. At least know that is a decision we could be making (the cure could be nastier to take than the illness at least for a season or 10). If I don’t get a lot of feedback, I will take that as disinterest in my idea of fighting back. Mr. G, hope you don’t mind me posting this here. At any rate, you didn’t say it – I did.

    Or, maybe I’m off and writing our representatives including AG’s would do it, as others urge. I sort of doubt it. What say ye?

  51. good point, leapfrog!

  52. We can all write our AGs as I did. Below is mine’s answer to my e-mail. Nothing more than “I feel your pain, don’t ask for specifics and don’t say “banks”…

    August 1, 2011

    Dear Christine,

    Thank you for contacting me regarding foreclosure fraud.

    I am committed to protecting Ohio families. I am very concerned about foreclosure fraud and its impact on Ohioans. I am actively looking into appropriate remedies.

    Across the board, the office is working on all fronts to fight consumer fraud. Specifically, I am increasing the office’s focus on criminal prosecutions of consumer fraud.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. If my office can ever be of assistance to you in the future, feel free to contact us.

    Very respectfully yours,

    Ohio Attorney General

    —–Original Message—–

    It is my understanding that AGs of all 50 states are currently negotiating a settlement with the banks responsible for the economic crisis through breach of law, fraud, irresponsible lending, misrepresentations, etc. all punishable by law.

    It is also my understanding that the 20 billion mentioned for the past weeks would be subject to immunity and that legal pursuits would not be undertaken against the culprits.

    This is absolutely unacceptable. As a homeowner who was conned into a refinancing by unscrupulous lenders and who suffered for the past three years with fraudulent fees, threats of foreclosure, violation after violation of legal statutes by the servicer, I can attest that 3 years of my life were stolen by the banks.

    Mr. DeVine, I understand that your political career is important to you. Please understand that, without people to elect you, your political career will not survive. You were elcted to defend Ohioans from the abuses they were subjected to and to redress the many wrongs committed. I intend to see public servants I elect fulfill their mandate and comply with the description of the position.

    Please do not, under any circumstance, allow a 20 billion settlement (largely insufficient to redress all the wrongs mentionned above) be conditional to immunity of banks officers and directors who spent the greater part of the past 15 years enriching themselves at the expense of our middle-class and literally destroyed our country.

    Thank you in advance.

  53. Sorry to ruin your day, John G. This doesn’t affect Fannie/Freddie and will only be in “some states”. The article wasn’t very clear though and its still HORRIBLE no matter which way it is sliced. What I want to know is how do these SERVICERS have the standing to negotiate “settlements” for loans that never made it into the trusts, etc. Then they would not be the actual party in interest. Papered-over fraud over paper-overed fraud. Disgusting and stinky!

  54. @leapfrog – thanks for making my day! Not! So I read it and now I’m sick anew. First of all, this is bench law. If I got it right, they are going to allegedly settle our rights, but will no doubt say there is no private right of action for felonies. A band-aid, another stinking band-aid. And that’s not bad enough, so we get some more: our collective fate will once again be held by the same gang which caused our collective decline in the form of bankster-controlled modifications. I’m getting sicker by the minute. But really, the loudest, saddest deal under the sun is that the law is being bought, no matter how you slice it. In the interest of national and global economy. Poor Al Capone – he just didn’t think large enough. Didn’t he know only really, really large crime pays?

    For those of you who don’t get around to reading the material at leapfrog’s link, the powers that be are contemplating a deal which relieves BOA and likely other suspected if not known felons from criminal liability for their myriad sins. They have to agree to modify some more loans! Yippee!
    Now I’m no scholar on the subject, but maybe seizure is a more plausible
    alternative. There must be a path and I know there’s cause. Behind door no. 1: the criminals run the asylum. Behind door no. 2: the inmates run the asylum. Geez oh man, this is so you know. Even balancing all the ‘equities’ I can think of including our coveted ratings and the chaos after losing same, I just couldn’t vote for the criminals. Maybe some of you are right – maybe it’s time for revolution, a peaceful one.

    These people are traitors, I tell you. They perpetrated acts which did involve the commissions of crime and deceit and which are ruining our country and undermining our constitution by the miserable, abject failure to apply law equally. On the other hand, maybe the inmates currently running the asylum are actually acknowledging they’re no legal match for the talent endless pockets can buy, another sickening and almost terrorizing thought.

    We need some extreme acts of patriotism and some real talent of our own, not that paid for by banksters, to step forward and champion equality under the laws of the USA. Those guys aren’t reading this; they’re in their billion dollar offices (yeah, okay), but some readers know those guys and might begin the call. I guess I would ask “what do you want to be remembered for?”

  55. Yes, E.Tolle, I am ready to snap. This bogus TBTF zombie bail-out/settlement/taxpayer reaming is beyond ridiculous. I will write my AG (Kamala Harris), but I have written her SEVERAL DOZEN times and NEVER EVER had a response. Even old Jerry B, who has a sister who works for the banksters, bothered to respond a couple of times. I’m not sure about Harris. Big talk about being tough with the banksters, but doesn’t even respond to the folks who elected her. To borrow A Man’s phrase…Never Again.

  56. Hey leapfrog, when do we just snap en masse? Side Deal = Bailout.

    “Participants believe such a pool would lessen the risk posed by moral hazard, a scenario in which people escape consequences for destructive activity, thus encouraging more destructive activity in the future, sources said.”

    The irony there is too much. If the AG’s and Justice would simply turn that phrase around they’d realize that everything they’re considering here is a moral hazard, based upon their forgiveness of the bank’s atrocitites. That’s your moral hazard.

    Everyone needs to write, not call, their AGs. Believe me, I’ve talked with them on many occasions, and know that the written word does more than a phone call any day.

    This crap has to stop, before they grant complete imunity not just for the past, but for everything in the future as well. The way they’re headed, that’s the next step.

  57. Btw, what happens when we look at the dot and prescribe the same arguments used in this case to MERS’ plain language that it is the nominee of the beneficiary in the dot’s? Of course they’re not the same rules for application, but those plain language rules no doubt exist in reference to a contract like a deed of trust. Plain language is supposed to preclude parol evidence, which is verbal testimony to clarify something ambiguous. Problem is still, tho, that the dot ‘s trip over and contradict themselves, no?
    Those guys, the ones with law licenses, who had a hand in crafting this piece of dog-doobage should lose them to start with. Wouldn’t it be nice if the ultimate decision were that the dot terms were irrconcilably inconsistant
    and so no bueno?

  58. Red Alert! Slightly off-topic, but this sounds like a bogus sell-out by our captured regulators & AGs


  59. Neil ,

    I love your comments ,, the way I would put it is in the old carnival barker lingo …

    “You Cannot Win If You Do Not Play!”

  60. I would hope he’s not after home, but he could be. I don’t mind paying creditors off, as I said I really don’t owe that much in discharged bills – fair is fair. Its my understanding that he can only take enough to pay the creditors (and his share of fees). Even if I have to move because he’s after the house, I’m okay with that, just as long as these banksters don’t get unjustly enrich themselves and profit from the theft of my home.

  61. The trustee filing a mtn for summary judgment after the evidentiary hearing
    seems to be the appropriate vessel for game over. Summary judgment may appropriately consider ‘stuff’ outside the pleadings, which to me would include the jazz at the evidentiary hearing. He had to file something to put a period at the end of the sentence in regard to BAC ‘not’. Worth noting as a pleading. Otherwise, as I recall, he had only a mtn in opposition to their claim which did not define the rights of the parties. I think it’s that res judicata thing. Maybe one of the illuminati here will further expound on this for our benefit. Yeah, okay, that was a razz, but nonetheless a most sincere request. Not necessarily a sj mtn per se, but why in this instance the trustee chose it as his vessel of choice.

  62. @leapfrog – yes, that might be good news re: the trustee joining your suit! I so do not want to steal your thunder or rain on your parade, but….
    Good news if he is not after your home for the bk estate (and he gets 10 percent) , you have a large homestead exemption in your state and you have filed it if necessary to receive its benefit, or you have made a deal with him? Now if your suit doesn’t ask for a determination that no debt is owed on the home (limited to a finding Joe Bankster 109 has no interest), that won’t be an issue.
    Imo based on common sense and an article I read after a national summit of bk trustees by one of the guest speakers (which I can no longer find), the bk trustee has a responsibility to see that only proper parties get jack, in a word.

  63. Being in Mississippi myself, I’ve had my eye on this case for a while. Barkley is doing great work. Hey, BAC and BOA constrictor–read up on this because it WILL come up when next we meet!

  64. Good news! Trustee has joined my AP too. Most of my debt was the house with BAC. Had under 20K or so in unsecured and the rest of debt is being paid back (taxes, student loan and ride-through on auto loan). Interesting times indeed. : )


    What investor/lenders? The empty trust???

    “Just after subprime mortgage closing — only servicing rights are actually transferred. It is not until this “loan” (not really loan) goes into default that they had to scurry about to try to make it appear that the fake “loan” actually went to some trust. This became particularly important because courts were already coming down stating the servicer is not the creditor.
    What does it matter that they put you in default (again) on subprime refinance before you default?? — you were already in false default!!”

  66. I read the trustee’s motion for sj. I certainly applaud his logic and demand that the relevant stautes be interpretted and applied based on their plain language.
    I can’t know if this will survive appeal, but I would think everyone should hang onto this deal because if nothing else, it should ‘motivate’ banksters to have their stinking ducks in a row (otherwise known as evidence generally)
    before seeking the jurisdiction of at least a bk court to assist in resolving their alleged problems. It’s obviously worth noting that even with an opportunity to support its claim, BAC could not. This isn’t altogether good news for the homeowner, tho, because presumably, the trustee wants the home for the benefit of the bk estate. The Mississippi homestead exemption isn’t very much, on i & b. Maybe the trustee will cut a deal with the homeowner which in essence will act as a loan modification. Now that would be a win-win for the homeowners and their bk estate.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: