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


So you have denied the claims of the pretenders and put that in issue. You have even alleged fraud, forgery and fabrication and the catch-word “robosigning”. But the Judge, alleging that he did not want to “make new law” (which wasn’t true) or allegedly because he didn’t want to start an avalanche of litigation interfering with judicial economy (and therefore allowing fraud and theft on the largest scale ever known to human history) has not only denied your claims and motions, but refused to even put the matter at issue, thus enabling you to at least use discovery to prove your point.

So the pretenders have their way: no evidence has been introduced into the record. You have proffered, they have proffered, but somehow their proffer means something more than your proffer even though no proffer is evidence.

Attorneys recognize this as low hanging fruit on appeal, where the trial judge is going to get the case back on remand with instructions to listen to the evidence and allow each side to produce real evidence, not proffers from counsel, and allow each side to conduct discovery. It’s not guaranteed but it is very likely. And the pretenders know that if it ever gets down to real evidence as opposed to arguments of counsel, they are dead in the water, subject to sanctions and liability for slander of title and other claims.

So they have come up with this strategy of setting supersedeas bond higher and higher so that the order appealed from goes into effect and they are able to kick the can down the road with a foreclosure sale, more transfers etc in the title chain, thus enabling them to argue the deed is done and the “former” homeowner must be relegated to only claiming damages, not the home itself. People can be kicked out by eviction proceedings that typically are conducted in courts of limited jurisdiction where in most states you are not allowed to even allege that the title is not real or that it was illegally obtained.

Initially supersedeas bond was set at levels that could be met by homeowners — sometimes as little as $500 or a monthly amount equal to a small fraction of the former monthly payment. Now, Judges who are heavily influenced by banks and large law firms, especially chief Judges who stick their noses into cases not assigned to them, are making sure that the case does NOT go to jury trial and essentially influencing the presiding Judge ex parte, to set a high supersedeas bond thus preventing the homeowner from obtaining a stay of execution on the eviction or the final judgment regarding title.

Of course it is wrong. But it is happening. You counter this by (1) making the record on appeal as to the merits of the appeal (2) adding to the record actual affidavits and testimony as to value, rental value etc. and (3) of course demanding and evidential hearing on the proper amount of the bond. Here you want to search out and produce the bond set in similar cases in the county in which your case is pending. Make sure you have a court reporter and a transcript on appeal and that the record on appeal is complete. It is not uncommon for certain documents to get “lost” or allegedly not “introduced” so when the appellate court gets it you can be met with the question of “what document?”

The other reason they are increasing supersedeas bond is because of a misconception by many pro se litigants and even some attorneys. They have the impression that the appeal is over if the bond is NOT posted with the clerk. And they have the impression that they can’t challenge the amount of bond set, or even go to the appellate court just on that issue and ask the appellate court to set bond — something they might not do but when they remand it, it is usually with instructions to the trial judge to hear evidence on the relevant issues — again something the pretenders don’t want.

Supersedeas bond ONLY applies to execution of the order or judgment that you are appealing. You can AND should continue with the appeal and if you win, the Judgment might be overturned — which means by operation of law you probably get your house back.

All these things are technical matters. Listening to other pro se litigants or even relying upon this other sites intended to  help you is neither wise nor helpful. Before you act or fail to act, you should be in close contact with an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. Local rules can sometimes spell the difference between the life or death of your case.

24 Responses


  2. Oh and I forgot the important part:

    The identity of correspondent, and maybe even a copy of the check sent to the title company off the bank account, should be in the Title company’s files on your transaction. The correspondent is usually a “sister company” or other fiduciary of the pretender.
    The bank account may be in the pretender’s name – but the pretender did not have the funds to lend in that account, and the funds for your loan were deposited in that account shortly after settlement, and not before.
    So, how could it possibly have “lent you money”?
    Here it is hard to get info on someone else’s account – but maybe a private investigator or attorney can dig into it – here, we can get the FTC, Attorneys General, etc to investigate. They cannot represent individual people, but they can only dig in and issue fines for wrongdoing. This is the problem for many over here – not enough attorneys who are willing to represent at an affordable price, and it seems most don’t understand the issue at all.

    Hope it helps.


    over here in the states a “title agent” witnesses/prepares the settlement/closing of a mortgage loan. If they do the same over there, have you tried to request a copy of everything on file with the title company for your transaction (loan application, everything).

    I found my pretender lender’s correspondent by doing this. The pretender lender goes through that correspondent to get to a financial institution (like a bank). The pretender lender originates the loan (finds borrowers by itself or through a broker), the correspondent arranges a “credit line” from the bank to the pretender. Your promissory note probably went directly to the correspondent after execution (ie the pretender never had an interest/never endorsed) and given directly to the bank to endorsed in blank and electronically filed. The original is deposited on the bank’s books (converted and negotiated as cash in the newly formed credit account) repaying the pretender’s credit line. The correspondent then writes a check from the bank’s own account (including the originator’s premium for originating the “loan”) and sends it to the title company, who distributes the funds in settlement. Not a penny comes from the originating lender in this scenario.towards the credit line. The electronic note is sold and transferred electronically, sometimes many times to different entities. The only time a”copy” of the electronic note is printed is when it’s needed for foreclosure, and it is in blank so all they need do is fill in the blank or leave it blank (bearer copy), or even assign to new endorsee. But it is not the original note.
    If you can find the “correspondent”, you can find the real lender. Which is probably the bank itself, who has no legal contract with you, and has just defrauded you out of real and personal property, using a pretender lender to cover the trail of fraud. The bank can claim that it is not responsible for the loan transaction, so you cannot sue it when your loan fails for fraud. Since it can claim non-liability, even if you do sue the pretender lender on contract, you are damaged and can’t “repay” so the “innocent” bank claims “equitable” right to your property.
    Maybe, if you can prove that the bank knew all along and had affiliation at settlement with the pretender and it’s correspondent, it won’t look so “innocent” anymore.

    I’m sorry for your situation. I had always though of living in Ireland plains or highlands as an adventure – too much TV, I guess…looking at it in the context of your situation, it now looks like a fight for survival. Good luck to you – don’t give up if you can help it!

  4. nabdulla,

    Simple answer to your question — the banks wanted the “loans” in their hands — out of the GSEs — and that is what largely happened as the market share shifted with the subprime. In addition, in return for “sale” of collection rights, the GSEs invested in the bogus subprime “MBS.” GSEs — compliant. They could make higher interest rate investment income on the bogus MBS — rather than holding the loan themselves. Profit — always the motive.

    Eugene Villarreal

    Don’t ring any bells for NJ — the stay for uncontested foreclosures has been lifted — as the “Master” is now “assured” that the “banks” have their documents in order.

    In addition, Legal Services have been cut all across the country.

    Fasten your seat belts.

  5. MERS assignment of mortgage to CountryWide (Bank of NY v Silverberg) > BOA buys CW assets > BAC “is not selling the assets themselves only the rights to service the mortgages and collect those fees” > Fannie Mae contracts with new “servicer” > servicer forcloses on property > Referee’s deed > previous owner evicted into street > new “owner” can’t get title insurance > Where is all of this going??????

  6. @ carie

    WHY WOULD Fannie Mae pay even $0.05 for the “collection rights” to “loans” that are ALREADY toxic or destined so????
    Isn’t this taxpayer money?

    “It looks like no one was fooled when the Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) Dan Fitzpatrick reported that Bank of America (BAC) had sold the servicing rights to of 400,000 loans with an unpaid principal balance of $73 billion to Fannie Mae for $500 million. There were numerous reports yesterday calling the deal a “backdoor bailout.”

    The rights being picked up by Fannie Mae were originally worth more than the purchase price, said a person familiar with the deal. The bank decided to sell the portfolio at a loss because its value is expected to deteriorate further, this person added. The loans have a 13% delinquency rate, and more than half of the loans are in troubled U.S. real-estate markets.
    Fannie Mae doesn’t service any mortgages but can purchase the servicing rights in order to transfer the day-to-day management of those loans to a different company.

    BAC is not selling the assets themselves only the rights to service the mortgage and collect those fees. The WSJ’s Fitzpatrick strongly hints that the portfolio is expected to deteriorate further making collection tough.

    That was enough to whiplash the stock again on Wednesday. Bank of America stock was down again almost 11 per cent yesterday after a drop on Monday of more than 20 per cent on Monday, mitigated by a temporary rebound of 16 per cent.

    Abigail Field In Fortune: Fannie Mae is purchasing “the servicing rights in order to transfer the day-to-day management of those loans to a different company.” That’s another huge sign that Fannie Mae is overpaying. If the rights were really worth $500 million, wouldn’t a private company pay that for them? Instead, it sounds like Fannie Mae is doing a bailout two-step, one to BofA and one to whomever takes these rights off Fannie Mae’s hands.
    Another thing needs to become clear: where did Fannie Mae get the money to do BofA the favor of buying these rights? Fannie Maejust asked for another bailout of its own, seeking a new $5.1 billion infusion last week.

    The last time Fannie Mae got involved in shape-shifting servicing rights to hide fraudulent activity it was Taylor Bean Whitaker. That‘s the mortgage originator, audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers that used Fannie Mae’s silence and their influence, according to Bloomberg, to market servicing rights on bad loans to GMAC.

    How do we know the most recent $73 billion portfolio is full of loser loans made via potentially fraudulent means? Fannie Mae told us so when they sued Countrywide, the mortgage originator and source of significant woe Bank of America bought in 2008.

    The New York Times Dealbook, January 3, 2011: Bank of America announced Monday that it had paid more than $2.5 billion to buy back troubled mortgages and resolve related claims from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — deals that may prompt a wave of such settlements by big banks.

    The agreements center on home loans that Countrywide Financial sold to Fannie and Freddie at the height of the mortgage bubble. The government-controlled housing giants, which have suffered billions of dollars in losses in recent years, have said that the lender misrepresented the quality of the loans.

    How much of the portfolio Fannie Mae just agreed to market – the servicing rights, that is, or the right to collect fees for collecting on the loans – consists of the loans Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac put back to BAC earlier this year?
    I’m not sure but I do know two firms who probably do.
    KPMG was auditor of Countrywide until it was bought by BAC in 2008. KPMG was the one approving the internal controls over asset valuation when the repurchased loans and the $73 million now that need to be “serviced” were first originated. KPMG was also auditor of Fannie Mae until 2005.
    PricewaterhouseCoopers is auditor of Bank of America and also of Freddie Mac.
    PricewaterhouseCoopers is also the auditor of the Federal Home Loan Banks and AIG. These are two more organizations suing Bank of America to repurchase loans first originated by Countrywide because they allegedly have representation and warranty weaknesses.”

  7. Updates on the East Coast, NH + NJ.

    13 AUGUST 2011

    Phelan Hallinan Schmieg update + U.S. Trustee FOIA Attorney Larry Wahlquist faces uphill battle as KingCast/Mortgage Movies mortgage info. request heads toward Federal Court.

    Dear reviewing counsel:

    Certain of your DOJ staff are wasting taxpayer monies and abusing the public trust by failing to provide a press exemption relative to requested FOIA information on mortgage fraud. As 60 Minutes has noted, this is an issue that affects every American in one way or another, yet Attorney Larry Wahlquist conducted no analysis whatsoever of my position as a journalist irrespective of the facts that:

    1. NH U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty expressly ruled “KingCast is an African-American journalist…..”
    2. NH expressly ruled (in a mortgage website case no less) that website owners in New Hampshire are journalists when they provide news and information that the public may find useful. As you may see on the following page, my journal pages this year have approximately 160,000 hits. Two days ago I posted a video of Senator Kelly Ayotte discussing her failures as NH AG on the FRM Mortgage Ponzi scheme and ignoring my notice of Felony Wire Fraud and it has already 988 hits. Please pardon the colorful language used to describe Senator Ayotte:
    Kelly Ayotte Town Meeting: “She’s full of shit….” (and will gut the CFPA)

    3. My YouTube page has 244 subscribers, 190,000 upload views and 11,000 channel views. I dare say that is indicative of reasonable consumer interest given that I do not publicly advertise or employ any hit-boosting software.
    4. I am published in Boston area newspapers and television.
    5. I am published in respected mortgage journals on the World Wide Web.
    6. I was a guest speaker at the 2011 New England News and Press Association annual trade show and conference.
    7. The denial of media status is arbitrary and capricious as you may readily determine by the correspondence between Attorney Wahlquist and me. In point of fact, at the height – or nadir – of his insouciance he didn’t even respond to the letter written below.

    Twenty years ago my first job as a licensed attorney was to make the transition from law clerk to Assistant State Attorney, because I believed in our government and in our system of laws. By his (in)actions in this matter it is patently evident that Attorney Wahlquist is disrespecting that system of laws because he doesn’t like what I am exposing.

    Peace guys have a great weekend!

  8. Level “twelve” becomes level “one” when it is proven that signed “mortgage contract” is VOID. There is PROOF of this…but, as you can imagine–the cover-up was/is intense.


  9. To Nancy Drewe
    John Gault
    Thank you all for the very informative input. ANONYMOUS and Carie seem to be on the same page, but Mr. Neil Garfield has had different opinions about the lender/creditor.
    Nancy Drewe you are absolutely right about Legal Services of New Jersey. They are at the forefront in New Jersey helping ALL the homeowners. Because of their report, they shed a light on the judicial system in New Jersey.Its eight months later and the banks are still fighting the Order. Robo-signing has/will be an issue that the banks are trying correct fraudulently through the courts that have been unbelieveably lenient to the banks. If the courts can not see through this robo-signing issue how on heaven’s earth can they possibly see through the fraudulent lender/creditor issue ? You guys are talking at level twelve while the judges are just at level one(so they pretend to be). FreddieMac is in agreement, according to papers filed in the New Jersey Order, with the banks(servicer) being the Attorney in Fact. They have not disclosed that they are the owners of the mortgages/notes with loans that are in foreclosure and using the Servicer, not the lender, as the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has not submitted any authority to act on FreddieMac’s behalf. The judges are allowing this without any questions even when it is brought to their attention.

  10. ‘Counsel advised the Court of the meaning of the stamps: “After
    the note was executed, there was an endorsement. The endorsement
    went from Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, to Lehman Brothers Holding.
    And that’s the first endorsement that you see. Then there’s an
    endorsement in blank, from Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc. And that
    is the second endorsement that you see. And that is what you see
    when you have foreclosures, they want it endorsed in blank.”

    This was taken from

    IN RE ABBOTT (S.D.N.Y. 5-4-2010)
    In re Suzan Roberta Abbott, Chapter 7, Debtor.
    Case No. 09-37125.
    United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York, Poughkeepsie Division.
    May 4, 2010

    The ‘counsel’ was for Aurora Loan Services, LLC, the servicer allegedly in possession of a bearer note.

  11. This was posted here on September 5, 2008:

    TIMOTHY McCandless
    15647 Village Dr
    Victorville, Ca 92392
    TEL (760) 733-8885; FAX (909)494-4214

    In order to be valid the assignment must be recorded California civil code 2932.5.

    Any Californians here ever looked into this?

  12. Eugene Villarreal

    Legal Services attorneys brought to Supreme Court Justice Rabner’s attention processing the BK’s. Majority of foreclosures are uncontested by the masses because there is no where to turn to find help. By the time the summons served, the SUMMONS provides point of contact the robo-mill whose employees are trained to say ‘Don’t worry about it.’

    Let us “Thank God for the ethical attorneys’ who provide ethical services to people in need and remind ourselves who blew the top off of Foreclosure-gate:

    NY Times October 15, 2010. … Pine Tree Legal Assistance in Maine, launched a national firestorm which

    THe little Maine house that triggered Foreclosure-gate. It’s no ‘surprise’ that GMAC Bank Trust Operations recommends eCnomia 1999 vertical integrator facilitating robo-signing.

    “The foreclosure docs were robo-signed by an ethics-challenged drone at GMAC who said he ‘signed’ 400 a day and never reviewed any of them. GMAC calls this a “technicality” as does the Obama Administration. The stock markets would beg to differ, as banking stocks got clobbered today as everyone realizes just how serious this fraud and corruption is.

    And it all started because a volunteer lawyer at a legal assistance nonprofit spotted the robo-signed docs for the house in Maine and deposed the GMAC employee”

    A posting on that story by another party revaled :

    FREDDIE MAC is in agreement with David J. Stern in FL
    of David J. Stern of Plantation, Florida. Stern has been accused of falsifying mortgage notes in effort to repossess properties as quickly as possible. MotherJones . com broke the story on Stern, stating that he “rubber stamped mortgage assignments using notary public stamps that had been outdated for months.” Stern resigned after Florida Attorney General, Bill McCollum launched an investigation against his law firm.

    Estimated over 100,000 cases involved in $1.3 Million dollar lawsuit in which David Stern suing Freddie Mac’s taking back Case Files. Case Files of FREDDIE MAC will be controlled by 15 digits – 5 plus 10. 5 the MEMBER ID? of TS?
    The File Doc ID documented in UCDP and File Doc tracks INVESTOR/LENDER/LOAN information including PDF appraisals documenting ‘collateral’ and ‘remitter’ transactions.

    SEC documents and inside of CTS-Link you’ll find reference to ‘GMAC’ c/o TRUSTEE dba Wells Fargo Bank NA ‘Securities Administrator’ and Corporate Trust Services depositor c/o Norwest Asset Securities Corp renamed to Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp in Frederick MD.

    Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in agreement with FREDDIE MAC.
    GMAC is in agreement with FREDDIE MAC.

    FREDDIE MAC and Daivd Stern in Agreement otherwise Daivd Stern could not sue FREDDIE MAC.


    In May 2005 we deposited and invested $200,000 in Real Property, where we recently found out that $118,800 was embezzled out of our property from Mortgage Lenders and Trust Brokerage Companies, namely Goldman Sachs through an escrow Transaction.

    The $118,800 in funds was paid to these embezzlers from the Investors unbeknownst that the securitization happened by encumbering our property and making up a fraudulent fake Promissory Note and Deed of Trust.

    Scary right here in the USA: April 2011
    Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, along with the Federal Reserve completed their investigation. The report claims over $535 billion in real estate mortgages may require foreclosure review due to fraudulent loan documents.

    Scarier yet, OCC does not investigate Retail transactions.

    Office of Inspector General where are you? I keep forgetting. Your in need of a knowledgeable employee to blow the whistle. There are none. The clerks who take in information – nope. CRA Consumer Complaint Cases – nope. OCC Large Bank Examinations. Nope.

    SPIN OF 60 MINUTES – No Due Dilligence

    April was it “60 Minutes” aired a segment on robo-signers; employees hired by banks to forge signatures on up to 4000 loan documents per day. Why the need for forged documents? Because banks did not have adequate documentation to commence with legal foreclosure.”

    Employees are hired by vendors who provide integrated services and profit from transactions related to conglomerates’ entities who engage in real estate industry transactions related to real estate Origination, servicing of debt and defaults, foreclosures and bankruptcies, Real Estate Owned Lenders/underwriters who advance funding for debt to keep loans as collaterla in portfolio status performing.

    Due Process when you owe a debt means contesting allegations making Plaintiff who brings complaint to prove they are the party who may take the property.

    Americans have been led to believe the foreclosure crisis was caused by ‘deadbeat borrowers’ who defaulted on loans. The truth of the matter is the funding for the existing transactions are now coming out of the ‘income’ of the banks instead of the ponzi-scheme funding itself through new loans.

    The real estate mayhem stems from corporate greed and ignorance of the body of Congress both Houses not protecting the welfare of the nation in global commerce.

    The lack of standards in plain sight to insiders led to high level of mortgage fraud that began with banking executives and trickled down to body of unscrupulous networked bank attorneys, title and settlement agents, appraisers, mortgage brokers, and institutional investors as owners of assets and resold assets over and over and over again, using deposits of ‘certificate holders’ and deposits of ‘borrowers’ of real estate loans to purchase hedge investments for a win/win at the expense of world economy.

  13. The material posted here looks like really good info – thanks

  14. @anon – you haven’t said so, but you and I appear to agree that the investors only own any payment stream MADE and have no collection rights
    because they do NOT own the loans (and didn’t fund them), and no collection rights were assigned or sold to them with the payment stream certificates, and they similarly have no right of subrogation. And I have questioned, and feel like I have to continue questioning, whether or not notes subject to this treatment, that is, which (notes) are themselves split with one party owning them and collection rights (if any) and another owning the rights to payments when made, remain negotiable instruments. There are probably more arguments I don’t know how to make in this regard.

    This has lead me to believe the notes are owned by the depositor, I guess it would be, and he is dragging this secret out as long as possible to garner what he can and this without the investors knowing how badly they were really duped. Unlike the poverty-stricken homeowner, the investors collectively have the means to go after the tricksters. When the depositor finally comes out of the closet, he will still have to prove proper endorsments and assignments of dots, which at the moment is being covered by MERS mainly. But they have to fight like hell not to because of the implication of what it meant when foreclosure was done by MERS (read member) or the legally impotent securitization trustee ( also read MERS-member).

    And these questions / issues coming out re: the members paying for legal fees for other parties are really good ones – conflict of interest if nothing else. These issues were highlighted by was it attorney Wiley? If you didnt read the material at his site (which was linked here), it’s worth a read in regard to those conflicts and legally skewed as hell circumstances. .

  15. Anonymous ,

    I understand what you’re stating ,, makes perfect sense …

    All docs submitted so far against me were created by LPS , presumably on behalf of the sevicer. Trustee is only named plaintiff party.

    I have documentary files from the trustee itself (public MBS shelf data is available) post “NOD” that strongly indicates my loan is not in default in the eyes of the trustee .. It sure looks to me that the trustee sees my loan as NOT in default ,, probably due to payments from the servicer.

    I would like to present that data and use it as leverage to get discovery ,, not only the usual discovery we all seek relating to the chain of ownership but I also the fax/e:mail that the plaintiffs attorney received ordering the suit… I want to force the opposing counsel to acknowledge the servicer and have them listed as a substitute/additional plaintiff party ,, I don’t want them hiding. Prior (winning) suits relied heavily on discovery being sidestepped by THAT party.

  16. Hi neidermeyer,

    Reply to your comment — “homeowner objected to the plaintiffs attorney “representing” XYZ as Trustee and demanded proof.”

    You must understand that trustees – and “security investors” are NOT the lender — not the creditor — not the mortgagee. Trustees to trusts — however fabricated those trusts may be — simply act in a fiduciary capacity to security investors as to cash pass-through of assigned receivables only – converted to pass-through securities.

    Once those CURRENT receivables are gone (in accounting – receivables are for current cash flows), the trustee’s role is gone – and security investors are entitled to — NOTHING. Over – done — gone. In fact, assignment of receivables derived from a “loan” (fabricated or not) — NEVER transfers ownership of collection rights/debt/fraudulent mortgage to the security investors.. Assignment of receivables is — simply — assignment of CURRENT receivables. Security investors are NOT the creditor – not the lender — not the mortgagee — and they will NEVER be the creditor, lender, or mortgagee. .

    What has been orchestrated by foreclosure mill attorneys is an attempt to portray security investors as the “lender/creditor” i.e. –in some eyes — the “funder.” equates to “lender.” This is bogus and false — and is slowly being exposed as fraudulent in courts across the US. NO security investors EVER directly funded ANY mortgage originated loan. Do not care about pre-funding — or anything else. Security investors are simply not qualified to ever fund a mortgage loan — they do not own collection rights — they are NEVER the creditor or lender. They do not fund mortgage loans — bogus or not — to borrowers. And, if some here do not get off this kick — you will lose — lose –lose.

    Once any person/party/individual starts portraying the security investor as the “lender” of “funder” — you have lost the battle. Again, and Again, security investors are NEVER the lender/creditor/mortgagee – or funder directly to the borrower. Borrowers must have a lender/creditor that is approved to lend money — security investors are NOT approved to lend any money directly to borrowers. Any transaction derived from such a fraudulent non-existent contract — is invalid. .Security investors are NOT qualified to be mortgage “lenders/creditors.” They are simply recipients of cash pass-through assigned receivables — that is all. .

    This is my major issue. .

    Accepting otherwise — is a major flaw in foreclosure defense – and destructive to homeowner victims.

  17. Dear Neil,
    I use your first name as a form of comfort with regard to a gentleman who has devoted years of his life to help people in mortgage distress. My name is Elaine Wright, I live in a small rural village in the north west coast in Ireland, if you were to to a google map check on where I live , basicaly im in the middle of no where. Neil you cant help me here in Ireland, thats a given. But in trying to save our home here in Ireland from a pretender lender Iv been trawling through sites mainly yours in order to find some kind of way to save our home from these fraudsters here in this country. Neil over there you have a simple rule called perfection of title when it comes to securitisation. But its a mess here, what these criminal are doing in this country is , utilising a flaw in our title registration laws. What they do is preform an equitable assignment of the securitised mortgage to the SPV or the orginator, but the pretender lender holds onto the equitable title to the property.The only way Neil I may be able to challenge these scum bags is on the follow the money trail, Neil Investec is the merchant banking organisation which is behind our pretender lenders, they are our there in the USA also. Neil im a 44yr old mun of 2 who will be the first if given the chance by our oh so antiquated courts to challenge these pretender lenders. Neil 2 cases have occured in the UK in relation to pretender lenders, Paradon v Pender 2003, 2005 and Basinghall Finance Plc v Butler both lost in the courts because the whole idea of selling forward wasting brought to light as was not the financial trail as in who fronted the money to begin with, ie the pretender . Neil legally you cant help me that I knoow. But Neil from reading your website iv managed to fin out our mortgage was secutitised and in our laws Investec registered a first and second legal charge on the assets of our pretender lender. Im terrified Neil , ill be the first to try this angle in Ireland. We dont have Edgar here to sourse info on the mortgage pool our organisations to do combo searches like you have over there. Neil the only way I can nail them here in Ireland is via the money trail and the whole trustee status. You cant give me legal advise but can you help me with the money trail. Neil we are broke, we live in the countryside same as the plains over there, no crap im telling the truth, im an unemployed psychiatric nurse and my othrt half as i call him is an unemployed tyler, we have had our lives taken from us , we now try to grow our own veg to feed us and cut wood to fuel our home because thats what our lender wants from us in order to comr up with any money we can to pay them.Neil iv spent seven months day and night trying to understand how it works over there with ye and also in the UK where they have started to question the whole securitisation process, but what England hasnt coped onto is the whole selling forward process and the money trail thats why the 2 cases iv mentioned have lost in court. Neil I beg you from the bottom of my heart without legal advise hou do I go the money trail to get then, im no genious, im a nobody over here who so admires the laws ye have to protect your people in a society which is so far behind in its laws and its consumer protection policies its almost frightening. Every day I log onto your website to read the larest developments with great joy to see your victories. Just a word Neil please on how to do the money trail, the title arguement wont wash here untill I can prove the pretenderlender didnt foot one penny of the cash, its only when I catch then out r=on the money can I tear apart the title issue.

    Please I beg you some comment, some advise not legal, some direction as to how to persue the money trail would be so much appreciated.

    If you cant point me in the right direction, I understand, but I wish you and all your followers over there all the best.

    Neil if you cant help me would you send me an email to say so.

    With the greatest of admiration for your work,

    Yours Sincerely,


  18. Defendant objects to this matter being brought in this venue and with the claim ‘amount demanded does not exceed $10,000’. This is an attempt to collect a debt and property in excess of that, and stands in direct violation to California Civil code of Procedure §86(1) and (4) and local Rule 3.20(g), which states: ‘the limitation for a collection of debt case may not exceed 25,000.00 dollars in value’. Plaintiffs have improperly docketed this unlawful detainer, when they knew, or should have known, that the value of property in question exceeds the statutory limitations of this court, and as such, should be dismissed accordingly.


  19. As I keep saying, “it’s the judges” who are responsible for allowing all the fraud to continue in the courts. For this reason, the New Jersey Supreme Court Justice stopped all the foreclosure in New Jersey( 95% of the cases were Uncontested) on December 20, 2010 because the “judges were just rubber stamping the foreclosures” and he needed to bring integrity back to the courts and with Due Process. They didn’t investigate the more serious fraud, but settled on the Robo-signing and to this date, they have not finalized the “Order to Show Cause” case. The Plaintiff’s(bank) attorneys submitted the fraudulent papers, but the judges knowingly accepted them as facts. Judges needed to be held accountable like the rest of the frausaters . Homeowners did not commit the fraud or crimes.

  20. Anyone see this piece of garbage yet?

    Sounds eerily similar to the Fed report of ZERO wrongful foreclosures.

  21. Carie ,

    What do you think would be the likely result if a homeowner objected to the plaintiffs attorney “representing” XYZ as Trustee and demanded proof … Lets say the homeowner has hard evidence from the trustees own files that the loan is still listed as colatteral , a situation that cannot exist if the loan is in default… Other docs submitted by “Trustee” plaintiff were created by the Servicer and I believe the Servicer (not named as a party with the “trustee” Plaintiff) is actually the moving party and the party paying the plaintiffs attorney as they are tired of making substitute payments as they are obligated to.

  22. Right to Know


    Laws that make government or corporate data and records available to the public or to those individuals with a particular interest in the information.

    The people have the right to know THIS INFORMATION:

    “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.
    Do not need to know the “processes” — subprime/alt-a/jumbo refinances (as nearly 100% were refinances) — were and are nothing more than a transfer of servicing rights to false collection rights. And, jumbo new purchases fit in the same category.
    This does not preclude QT challenge — all for it — just want most to understand — we are not challenging mortgage title — it never existed in the first place — we are challenging ANY title based on fraudulent loan (collection rights) assumption – and fraudulent mortgage title origination – to begin with.
    All is NOT as THEY would like it to appear to be. Far from it. If you call them a “mortgage” — when it is not a mortgage — they will try to find some way to hold accountable —-this is wrong – and it is FRAUD. Just because it looks like a “duck” — does not mean it is a “duck” — no matter how it “quacks.”
    Unsecured — name of the game. .
    Subprime/alt-a/jumbo — were not mortgages — they were transfers of collection rights (albeit — with escalated balance owed and egregious terms). Once the Note/loan — is charged off — no more mortgage — only collection rights survive.
    TARP Inspector General — Footnote 35 again — and again– and again.
    “Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”
    Securitiztion can be for any cash flows — but the security investors are NEVER the creditor. In the case of subprime/alt-a/jumbo securitization — there were no mortgage liens — the cash flow pass-through was only for pass-through of cash payments to collection rights. No mortgage lien – not mortgage — no pass-through of collection rights itself. Transfer of servicing rights only.
    The “investors” were the debt buyers that purchased the collection rights — period. The security investors were duped to believing that the cash pass-through was to valid mortgage liens. But, these security investors never were the lender, never were the creditor, and never were the mortgagee — because there was never any valid mortgages!!!!! And, security investors are NEVER the creditor.
    CDOs??? nothing more than derivatives from the false assets that the false securitizations were based upon to begin with!!!”

  23. This makes me want to vomit.

    A question: What happens when the homeowner asks for PROOF that the “trust” even exists that the (sub),Trustee and servicer says the “loan” is pooled into? Not to mention compliance with PSA—which has NO LOAN SCHEDULE in it? What does the judge say to that?

  24. These judges need to be hauled before a grand jury when they do this. We are the citizens, they are not our masters. We pay their salaries–the legal, on-the-table salaries, anyway. Any ideas on how to hold these judges accountable aside from an appeal? How do we get them before grand juries? I remember hearing something about this somewhere but never heard the details…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: