FRAUD: ONCE UPON A TIME YOU COULD NOT KEEP THE BENEFITS AND YOU WENT TO JAIL

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

NOW WE BLAME THE VICTIM

TO THE VICTOR GO THE SPOILS

Submitted BY JOAN on 2011/08/11 at 12:43 am

As I read this blog, I was reminded of the centuries old legal principal, Fraus omnia vitiate, or “Fraud vitiates everything it touches.”

Here is more food for thought:

• Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 3 Pet. (28 US) 210 (1830), “Fraud vitiates everything”
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0824002.doc

• United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, 70 (1878) “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.”

• Ellett v Ellett Virginia 0824-00-2 (March 13, 2001) — a property settlement overturned and specifically cites Throckmorton.

• In Re Jose Alejandro Penafiel, Relator, No. 05-021316 Texas Supreme Court (2001) “Texas law holds that fraud vitiates every transaction tainted by the fraud”
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/05/05021303.pdf (Page 24)

• Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 426 (1875), “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters”

• Dakota Partners v. Glopak, Inc, 2001 ND 168 North Dakota Supreme Court.
http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/opinions/20010092.htm

And one more a bit far removed; nevertheless relevant:

• Lazarus Estates Ltd -v- Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 from the UK.

“No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgement of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgements, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; see as to deeds……. So, here, I am of opinion that if this declaration is proved to have been false and fraudulent, it is a nullity and void……”

(case excerpt from John Washburn, VoteTrustUSA, Voting Technology Task Force August 09, 2006)

64 Responses

  1. […] on August 14, 2011 at 8:04 am said: To lies The problem is that it isn’t as simple as that. Case in point: when I refinanced […]

  2. this BIG fraud originated 6 years ago and just keeps getting bigger and bigger….so sickening…but we’re still here….thank you anonymous….what if a lawyer for the “substituted trustee” perpetuated fraud by providing information that was unverified and rife with error?

  3. @anonymous

    victims not sinking is right. but what we have to do is Peitition the government about our grievences pursuant to our rights under art 1 Para 10 cl 1 of the US Constitution.

    Lets start writing the Petition re UltraVires contracts. and let the banks cite their authority for writing these Null and Void contracts.

    Lots of you are very smart about what happened down the line. but we should all be attacking every bank on the origination fraud, that they wrote Ultra vires contracts. So the fraud that happened after writing the Ultra vires contracts is not the heart of the issue. the heart of the issue is the banks lent their credit, prohibited by the Constitution.

  4. marilyn lane

    Well — interesting about those second computers!!! And, let us add cell phones — not part of any corporation — set up to verify that “loans” were paid — when they should have been — but were not!!!! Refinances?? Subprime? Np prior loan paid. Credit card debt?? You think you paid off?? Think again.

    Why are these “sources” set-up? Because the corporation itself cannot verify receipt of any payment for any debt related credit card — or debt related subprime “loan” refinance — that was nothing more than a transfer of collection rights — same as credit card debt.

    Those second computers and cell phones??? Where is the FTC????

    Oh yeah, — I get it — trying to save America as whole. That is the answer. It is the old “Boat” analogy — if the boat is sinking — and you can only save one or two — who do you save??? The answer to this question was — save the one with the most influential power to affect society as a whole. So, for those in control — the answer is — let the victims sink — we need to save the banking system.

    Know this is a simple analogy — but, this is what is happening.

    Problem to them — victims not sinking voluntarily.

  5. cubed2k

    Have to keep plugging — been doing forever – and will continue. The very fact that markets are in turmoil is indication that those in control do not know what they are doing. I have said this for a long time — certain persons in control — are out of control.

    New idea — turning foreclosure victims into renters — will not make it — the victims will not accept.

    Every single victim here — must continue outrage at what has – and is — going on.

    las vegas — BIG warning sign of fraud.

  6. @carie and lies is all they tell

    there seems to be so many posters with mixed agendas .
    some for the banks, some against the banks that we are not going anywhere.

    Those wanting the country to know the fraud perpertrated against
    the true homeowners have to start getting really active .

    I have the damm bank on my computer. I think how they did it is by having a second computer set up in a place unknown connected to my account.

    there have been times when I wanted to post something, I get blocked and it says I have the wrong name. I certainaly know my name and I don’t think Livinglies, or 4closurefraud, stopforeclosure fraud is any part of that.

    Most of the time I can get around it by going to the library.

    lets try to get the country organized to Petition.

  7. @cubed2k and anonymous

    …and once the bank gets their Ultra vires contract going
    they start flipping them to MERS, securitization, Wall Street,
    TITLE companies, etc.

    THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF PEOPLE and businesses who
    want to get their share of the illegal profits.

    It all stems from the Ultra vires contracts with the banks.

    stop the Ultra vires contracts and you will close down this whole fraud.

  8. @ANONYMOUS

    you said:

    “And, the industry is HUGE- many players/affiliates/subsidiaries/relationships with the BIG FOUR. .”

    ——————————–

    Yes, that is what I have figured out. It is HUGE, and thus it becomes real, people think it is real,

    and I mean by that because it’s stated as such in the media and in the internet when one does a search for defaulted debt or something like that and it always shows up as you default, you pay debt collector and they say the debt never goes away, you must pay or settle. What a bunch of lies. All hidden under complexity. Very smart of these law makers.

    I will pat myself on the back for figuring it out with the help of others. What I learned – one must always question everything and dig for the truth.

  9. @ANONYMOUS

    THANK YOU!

    It has taken me forever and a day to figure it all out.

    It is very nice to get confirmation. And it is very hard to get confirmation in researching the codes and laws and FDCPA’s and FTC’s codes and such confusing nonsense but yet the law if you will. And on top of all that, the so called expects because they have a degree and titles PHD’s, and are POMPOUS like the ex-president Greenspan and present president bernacki.

    Pompous is a nice word to describe our congress senators and House of Representatives and so called President of the USA.

  10. what if husband is sole borrower and wife is not ?

  11. johngault,

    You are getting too upset. Blurs the vision.

    Forget the “wrapping” — forget the the signing — forget the “participation.” None of this is valid when fraud is involved.

    What we have here is good old insurance fraud — last time I looked — criminal.

    We have fraudulent mortgages and fraudulent notes for which prior mortgage/note was never paid off – and insurance collected. This is the way collection rights are transferred — false default — insurance collected — with bogus note/mortgage refinance.

    And, is the debt buyers that are continuing the fraud with bogus documents.

    How much clearer can we be to explain it to you??

    Of course, if you are working to validate loan mods to these bogus “refinances” — you have an incentive to keep all going as is. Nice commissions — I am sure. But, this only continues the fraud — makes it ongoing for decades to come.

    Get the old note back?? Former discharge?? Check the signatures — robo in the inception.

    Lets get real, John, if you are working to earn an income by bogus loans mods for fraudulent debt buyers — let’s start by naming those debt buyers. Much easier to deal with all — when all cards on the table. Put the cards on the table.

    Perhaps, this would be the start of the solution to the massive fraud. That is, cards on the table.

  12. john gault—

    The false default has been explained over and over…I think you just don’t want to accept the truth…for some reason…

  13. btw – if they wrapped the old note in the new note, one way or another you should have gotten the old note back because you don’t owe both.

  14. @Anonymous and carie – don’t want your wrath! Nonetheless I have tried to explain the mechanics of what I think was done on sub-prime refinances in regard to the existing 1st based on what I could glean from your writings. What else are you looking for? The 1st did a participation agreement with the new guys or yes, they sold or assigned the collection rights to the payments on the original loan to the new guy, and wrapped the old note and old dot into the new note and dot, and released the first dot.

    Two things are or could be askew here: 1) the first was put into false default to rip off someone, including the IRS and 2) the new note (which included the balance on the original note) was sold as all ‘new’ money down the line including certificates to investors. If you want resolution, you might take your case to the IRS who got stiffed by a false default and write-off and ask them to join you in a suit. Actually, it should be a class-A imo. YOU got ripped IF you were induced to sign a note evidencing a debt for monies which had partially and maybe even mostly already been expensed, written off as uncollectible. Or contact an attorney who represents investors against the banksters and lay it out – their clients likely bought payment rights which had already been sold to other investors (the original loan).

    Maybe that attorney would have some more advice – a path I can’t think of to help out people who were the object of this scam.
    I don’t even know how you know these loans were put in false default. Not saying they weren’t , just dont know how YOU know.

  15. @nd – holy crud. Now I hear another piece of junk in here for the first time.
    You are saying the loan was funded, but the docs weren’t signed (loan not made yet), I think. I get it you mean they did this to avoid an expiration of the underwriting certificate for the loan? This could be the case if closings were backed out of the building and they didn’t want to re-underwrite the file. I haven’t heard enough details to know if anything wrong were done, or just exactly what. A loan is not made until note and dot signed (and loan is funded). Funds may arrive early to title company – nothing wrong so far.

    Only thing is – can NOT and I repeat can NOT charge a borrower (per diem at note rate) for funds sitting around before the loan is actually made. Whether or not a person were charged for funds ‘sitting around’ would be found on the HUD 1 if a purchase, or the final HUD 1 the borrower receives in escrow states in the mail after closing on a refi or at the closing of a refi in non-escrow states. There may be some misunderstanding here regarding these mechanics, what was going on, or there may be significant TILA violations and maybe other violations. Unfortunately, I the non-lawyer, don’t think those violations – collected inappropriate amts for per diem on loan prior to loan existing – void the loan. They would give rise to TILA rescission claims, tho and some case law holds the time as to the statute of limitations starts running at discovery of the violations. But if a HUD were created and signed by borrower ahead of note and deed of trust (not same day), that is a horse of another color (I’ve never heard of it, but you all keep popping up with doozies). Wish I had more details on what you are talking about as to this.

  16. cubed2k

    And, yes — “RE-AFFIRMING” the “DEBT” is exactly what is being done by loan mod —- the same as credit card debt — if you make even one payment to unknown creditor — for whom servicer is actually “servicing” — you re-affirm the debt.

    Anyone can hire a “servicer.” ANYONE.

  17. cubed2k

    You got it.

    And, all these subprime “mortgages” — were just an extension of the credit card debt fraud that had been going on for years. Subprime mortgages are nothing more than credit card debt — unsecured —- “notes” without a mortgage — and the notes are fraudulent. .

    And, the industry is HUGE- many players/affiliates/subsidiaries/relationships with the BIG FOUR. .

    No one knows who is trying to collect — and, this is the same as in credit card debt fraud.

    Courts love to say “you owe the money” — BUT — you owe the money to who????? If you do not have proper creditor stated — you STILL owe the money — EVEN IF YOU PAY IT.

    And, as far as HAMP — by concealing the identity of the CURRENT creditor (to the fraudulent debt) — you are denied the right to directly negotiate — You are denied the right to rectify the situation. And, you are denied the right to PROVE the debt was procured by fraud.

    You GOT IT.

  18. @ANONYMOUS

    cubed2k
    Yes — “But, there is no Contract between debt buyer and borrower.”
    That is, until they get you into a loan mod — in which all your legal rights are signed away — even against an unnamed creditor. . .

    Agreed totally. Same with credit card debt.

    And it is called Lack of Privity

    per http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/167.htm

    under “Contract Based ON LOANING MONEY (Common Court)

    ————————————–

    The Hamp program and modification program are all designed to get one a home mod but in actual fact all one is doing is re-affirming the debt (and lien) with the Servicer who is not on one’s DOT or Note, but one thinks they own the DOT and NOTE or are servicing for someone who does own the DOT & Note. And one communicates with the Servicer and one thinks they have to the power. But, in actual fact they do not have the power until you send in your financials and application for a home mod. Bingo, send in the application and your financials and you now have re-affirmed the debt and you have been took, your rights have just been signed away.

    So ANONYMOUS, just to double check – is this correct in a very simplistic view?

  19. @carie and lies is all they tell

    the following is the origination fraud with amost every bank contract

    a
    The abominable banking system that is in place today, gives a bank great incentive to foreclose on an Ultra Vires contract, as the bank demands lawful money returned for the unlawful money lent.

    By what Authority are the Banks doing this? There is no authority for doing this. This is in complete prohibition to Art 1 Para 10 Cl1 of our US Constitution.

    All of our cases with slightly different facts all stem from the same Fraud.
    The Bank did not lend you ‘LAWFUL MONEY” but the Bank intentionally wrote
    a “bad check” and gave it to you –to circulate as “money”

    I certainly did not know this kind of fraud wass going on when I signed my mortgage and note. Did you?

    The Mortgagor puts up a down payment, the Mortgagor pays a lot of fees and probably paid an attorney to represent them, all in order to get this “bad check”

    Would a Mortgagor have put in all that money, if one knew the truth of how the Banks ran their illegal business. I bet not.

    Did anyone notify you after that big day – the Bank’s check bounced – of course not. When the check that the Bank wrote came back to the Bank that wrote it, the bank didn’t say “we only have 5% , if that much and it was not stamped “insufficient funds” the bank stamped it “paid”

    So since the Bank did not have the money sitting in the bank’s account when they wrote the check, what the bank gave you is their credit.

    That is exactly what is prohibited by Art. 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the US Constitution.

    What authority gives the Bank the right to make contracts with “bad checks”

    Nothing- Nada.

    “Lawful money” is needed to make a contract valid.

    Over and Over Mortgagors gave a Bank a mortgage on their castle , in return for a Bank giving you a credit entry on their books and charging you Interest on this credit. Also illegal.

    Did the Bank give you lawful money or is that what you got, credit?

    Banks are not allowed to lend their credit- Banks are in the business to lend
    “lawful money” There is not a Bank charter that allows a Bank to lend their credit.

    And as we continued to make monthly payments the Bank collected more money on their fraud.

    You try writing a check when you don’t have funds sitting in your account to cover it.
    You can be sure that check is coming back marked”insufficient funds” You are not allowed to do it and either is a Bank.

    This scam of Ultra Vire contracts caused injury to us, the true homeowners.

    In addition the banks are laundering “bad checks”.

    The Banks violate Truth in Lending Laws.

    The Banks are collecting Interest on money that doesn’t exist. (Lending you 5% and collecting Interest on 95% of thin air)

    And once the Bank gets their Ultra Vire contract going, they start flipping them to MERS, Securitizations , Wall Street, Title Companies etc. there is no shortage of people all wanting to get their piece of the illegal profits.

  20. cubed2k

    Yes — “But, there is no Contract between debt buyer and borrower.”

    That is, until they get you into a loan mod — in which all your legal rights are signed away — even against an unnamed creditor. . .

  21. per anon

    Yes, if loan was written off — any party (servicer/servicer acting on behalf of) who now holds collection rights – those rights are for an unsecured written-off debt. IRS will not let them collect twice. And, everything must be properly transferred. See Footnote 35 by TARP Oversight panel – below —

    WRITTEN OFF DEBT, YOU CAN NOT COLLECT TWICE. PER IRS.

    the loophole, yes loophole, is the original creditor sells his written off debt, sells the names of this written off debt to DEBT COLLECTORS. Who call themselves debt collectors because they have a few accounts of which they collect for another. BUT, when they buy written off debt, they are not acting as debt collectors, they are acting as distressed debt buyers who hope the borrowers will pay because of the usual moral reasons. But, there is no Contract between debt buyer and borrower.

  22. YOU DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH SERVICERS, YOU COMMUNICATE WITH OWNERS OF YOUR LOAN,

    PER BELOW WHAT I POSTED.

  23. @carie

    per anon

    Servicer never divulges as to whether they are the current creditor to whom any payments will forwarded and not transferred to any other party, or whether servicer is acting on behalf of another party. If acting on behalf of another party — that party must sign the modification – servicer must disclose this.

    —————————

    Per this

    Transfer of Loan Ownership
    The ownership and servicing rights of your loan may be handled by one company or two. If ownership of your loan is transferred, the new owner must give you a notice that includes:

    the name, address and telephone number of the new owner of the loan
    the date the new owner takes possession of the loan
    the person who is authorized to receive legal notices and can resolve issues about loan payments
    where the transfer of ownership is recorded.
    The new owner must give you this notice within 30 days of taking possession of the loan. It is in addition to any notices you may get about the transfer of the servicing rights for your loan.

    http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/rea10.shtm

    ————————

    look at your paperwork received from your loans.

    Did you receive a letter from your servicer stating a new servicer was servicing your loan? YES

    Did you receive a letter from your new owner of the loan that states :

    the name, address and telephone number of the new owner of the loan
    the date the new owner takes possession of the loan
    the person who is authorized to receive legal notices and can resolve issues about loan payments
    where the transfer of ownership is recorded.
    The new owner must give you this notice within 30 days of taking possession of the loan. It is in addition to any notices you may get about the transfer of the servicing rights for your loan.

    DID YOU RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE NEW OWNER OF THE LOAN THAT STATES THE ABOVE? This is not to be confused with a servicer that sends you a letter stating they are the new servicer.

    I will repeat, did you receive a letter from the NEW Owner of the loan???????????????????????

    No, NO, NO, you did not.

    You have only received letters from a Servicer.

    It is right there at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/rea10.shtm

    READ IT.

  24. @carie

    ANONYMOUS, on January 26, 2011 at 3:49 pm said:
    Mary
    Servicer never divulges as to whether they are the current creditor to whom any payments will forwarded and not transferred to any other party, or whether servicer is acting on behalf of another party. If acting on behalf of another party — that party must sign the modification – servicer must disclose this.
    Yes, if loan was written off — any party (servicer/servicer acting on behalf of) who now holds collection rights – those rights are for an unsecured written-off debt. IRS will not let them collect twice. And, everything must be properly transferred. See Footnote 35 by TARP Oversight panel – below —

    “35 There are two documents that need to be transferred as part of the securitization process – a promissory note and the security instrument (the mortgage or deed of trust). The promissory note embodies the debt obligation, while the security instrument provides that if the debt is not repaid, the creditor may sell the designated collateral
    (the house). Both the note and the mortgage need to be properly transferred. 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. See FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3.”
    In order for modification contract to be validly executed in the name of servicer — need proper transfer of note and mortgage to servicer. Not enough to just hold the note for someone else. This is a contract. Bankruptcy reform bill was voted down twice by Congress – why? afraid Americans would understand what was really going on. Better for them to con homeowners further by luring into false mod contract. .
    angry & NOT TAKING IT
    The servicer/debt collector (current creditor) do not care about who OWNED the written off debt — WE CARE — if they can get away with non-disclosure — they will — and deregulation says — they can. Debt buyers love to state the past creditor as the current creditor — but, legally, this is not the case — and it is fraud and in violation of federal law. Courts accept that past (possible) creditor is still current creditor because that is how attorneys present it– but , this is fraud and a big problem — and it is not being investigated as it should be.
    Consumer protection laws say no. Though not as strong as we would like — consumer protection laws do exist — have to use them to the fullest. Including any sale of loan to any party — as outlined by the TILA — (and FDCPA for that matter). Tired of looking at this whole mess from “investor” prospective — there are “security investors” and “distressed debt investors” — need to distinguish — and need to focus on consumer law and protection.
    Everyone has a right to know their current creditor. If that right is violated — so is federal law. If you do not know your current creditor — you will be affected for the rest of your life. Any modification you sign will be false. It is time to stop focusing on investors (who have been paid back – except they may not have earned the usury interest rate they thought they would) and start focusing on consumer fraud — and violation of our rights. Investors have gotten help — they were bailed out — WE NEED THE HELP NOW.
    It does not matter that security investors may have helped fund the banks — they were not then — and are not now — our creditor. What a bank does with receivables is their business — we have no contract with security investors — or servicers unless the servicer acquired legal title –and if so — say so — and say when and how (as required by law) — and for what price. And, say this before a modification is negotiated — it is ammunition. Any concealment is — simply fraud upon fraud.

  25. @DianeJenkins:

    You posted:

    Christine, you predict Judges are going to see the Fraud? That is what I thought 2 years ago – nothing has changed – now Judge’s in California are enforcing the “Tender Rule” – Pay Up or you can’t stay in court to fight for your home –

    ______________

    Diane, do you have any evidence of this? Recently? Who are you to state such a thing? where is your evidence that this is happening now?

    —————–

    No reply = you are a shill.

  26. to mkd what state?
    there are some lawsuits in ca for promissory estopell. please appeal. fight for origination fraud. yes your mortgage was securitized but you can fight for motion to reverse due to origination fraud. the bank did not loan any money. they can not loan on their credit. a trust or investor loaned the money and was not on your note or mortgage. the only one who truly knows where the money came from is the title company. supeonea your title company for information. and when the truth comes you will win. we need some light at the end of the rainbow do this for you do this fo rus. lets expose the fraud dont be afraid

  27. A little more info, maybe it will help. I refinanced my home through a mortgage broker-which I called ABC. ABC is on the Note and DOT as the original lender. 123 is listed on the HUD-1 and MERS site as original lender I made 6 payments to 123 as they were the servicer. Then Wells became our next servicer. I do not recall on any of my statements refer to “debt collector”. In my research 123 bank was taken over by XXX and XXX after a couple of years was taken over by the FDIC. A check on the MERS website listed Fannie Mae and investor and Wells as servicer and that is all that was listed.

    Received NOD, but no trust was listed on the notice. Wells foreclosed on us in a non-judicial state. Filed BK and eventually lost the house. No redemption period. I started researching after the foreclosure because lots of things did not add up. I unfortunately, did not know of these sites until after we lost the house. For a long time I did not think I was securitized, but everyone I have talked to said since MERS and Fannie Mae were involved I had to be. I was advised by someone to go back to the beginning, that is when I noticed the original lender issue, 123 or ABC? I tried looking for the trust using all sorts of combinations using both lenders names and nothing would come up.

    When speaking with people they would always say check the PSA, what does it say? If I don’t know who the “original lender” is on paper, how do I find the trust? Was also told that I may never know which “secret trust” my loan was put into–whatever that means. Now if I am was off base here, someone please tell me. Can I still even after the foreclosure request that info or is to too late? Or am I SOL? I don’t want to waste anyone’s time or mine if I should be doing something different. Some have said to me to find the trust and others have said that serves no purpose.

    Thanks to everyone on this site. Have learned a lot on different topics discussed here.

  28. @carie

    Your not kidding. The Constitution gave the Judges their jobs and Most Judges want it to work for them and have no interest in it working for us.

    In spite of it all, I think our best position and ammunition is using the rights and laws and prohibitions set down by the Constitution.

    If the big four that are too big to fail, win, they have destroyed the Constitution.

  29. mkd:

    When you find out the name of the Trust that your (fake), mortgage is supposedly (not really), “pooled” into—you can then attack the PSA—Pooling and Servicing Agreement…which must be followed to the T—and you will discover that there is no sale/assignment to the Depositor…and no valid Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement.

  30. marilyn lane:

    Do the judges care about our rights when they evict us?????

    If the judges don’t care—what can we do???

  31. Christine

    Carie cannot do alone — it will take all of us here.

    “Too BIG To Fail” — the top 4 banks — that is what we continue to be up against.

    The BIG FOUR — had/have relationships and affiliations all over the place. It was the Big Four who were the only ones to have major contracts with Freddie/Fannie. It was the BIg Four who provided credit lines to smaller banks and mortgage correspondents/bankers/originators. It was the BIG FOUR who then acquired the originations and sold compliant loans to Freddie/Fannie by the contracts. Freddie/Fannie had retained dominant market share of mortgages until the subprime party hit Wall Street – and other investment banks joined the party.

    The BIG FOUR by contracts with Fannie/Freddie, also agreed to purchase “default” loans from Fannie/ Freddie. In effect, they purchased collection rights — and “refinanced” the rights as if it were a valid mortgage. However, a “modification” of Freddie/Fannie default purchased collection rights — was all it ever was. All that transferred in the process — were servicing rights. As demand from market security investors for security cash pass-through increased, manufactured defaults also became the name of game.

    And, these collection rights were leveraged over and over again — with other investment banks utilizing the subprime securities in CDOs, squared CDOs, synthetic CDO (all credit default swaps). Thus, security investors cash pass-through were derived from multiple layers of leveraging — all derived from the cash pass-through to collection rights. However, as I have stated numerous times — security investors are never the creditor. The collection rights are transferred by assignment only — not cash securities – cash is all that a security can pass-through. This is securities law. And, derivative swaps are NOT securities — they are contracts. .

    The BIG FOUR – besides contracts with Freddie/Fannie — also had/have numerous contracts with hedge funds/debt buyers to dispose of collections rights they acquired — market permitting. The crisis halted that market for awhile — but it has resumed.

    Bottom line — one of the big four provided the credit line for the fraudulent subprime “mortgages” — with many impostors on many documents in the process. And, the BIG FOUR — control the information as to the whereabouts of current (fraudulent) collection rights.

    The problem?? The BIG FOUR remain — “Too Big to FAIL” .

  32. Why are you asking who is the lender? You signed a contract with the Bank. An Ultra Vires contract because the Bank did not lend you lawful money. Period.
    what the banks did afterward is just alot of garbage and they are trying to distract you from the real issue that a Bank is not allowed to lend their credit.

    I asked tnharry on the California man’s posting for him to Cite the Authority that allows a Bank to make a Contract with credit. Don’t let the Banks poo poo this issue of lending their Credit. This credit vs money issue is why this Nation abandoned the Articles of Cionfederation and gave birth to the US Constitution.

    Tnharry has expertise? on Banks Cite the Authority that allows the Banks to do this?

    Some of you might think I am a pain, but you are missing out on your rights.

  33. What puzzles me about this issue of Fraud is how few jpeople on this posting are concerned wi;th the Rights given to us by the US Constitution.

    The Constitution is the paramount law of the Land. Why aren’t you focusing on Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.?

    If you don”t hold the Banks to the Law of the Constitution, why are you looking at the many variances for holding the Banks to lower laws.

    To me you are giving up your rights and joining the Banks side fighting about who owns the note, where is the note you are letting them run the show.

  34. mkd, on August 14, 2011 at 1:09 pm said:

    tnharry we need your expertise here.

    What about your HUD-1 Statement lists 123 as the original lender and the note and deed of trust lists ABC as original lender?

    MERS lists 123 as original lender. Who IS the original lender?

  35. dewayne,
    Very good overservation of facts.

    Originator ‘transactions processed in secret you don’t have copies of including instructions which LENDER to put policy in name of and what amount. The HUD that was processed on the date your signed should reflect the transactions of that date.

    However HUD’s I’ve seen were processed over faxes to closing agents who took possession of property prior to consumer signing in order to pre-fund escrow in order to close loans in accordance with Underwriters approve and then the additional subsequent resales.
    The date recorded in the county clerk’s or county recorders office is the real date that the ‘new loan’ you took is booked to correlate with the Lenders Policy and the ‘Issuing Entity’ c/o pass through agenty the Pre-funding linked to.

  36. mkd:

    Who is sending you statements? A servicer? A servicing “bank”? Does it say “debt collector on the statement? Have you written a QWR (qualified written request—legal document), DEMANDING that they tell you in writing “who owns my loan”? When I sent that to the servicer on my statements, they sent me a form letter saying Deutsche Bank owns such and such trust, which my “loan” is supposedly “pooled” into—all lies, of course…but that’s how I found out. They have to tell you…you have the RIGHT to DEMAND to know.

    Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank spokesperson say they don’t have any beneficial interest in any “loans”…uh huh…scumbags, all of them…

  37. The President needs to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The AG’s need to tell the truth—and start prosecuting…the FBI has been given this information. Do you really think they want the WHOLE truth about the “collection rights with no Lender” facts to come out? What do you think would happen? I am doing everything I can—but I am only one person…we need to use the internet to get the truth out there…we need someone in the media (Dylan Ratigan?), to help get the WHOLE truth out…the physical proof is available—and there have been meetings…that’s all I can say at this time. Powerful entities are at work here, trying to destroy the truth.

  38. Carie,

    With all due respect, I am very, very curious. Aside from blogging to no end and pointing out only the existing problems, what have you been DOING to effect change and/or correct this situation? What remedial action have you taken? What solutions are you proposing? What do you see as being a viable future for this country?

    Have you closed all your bank accounts and open new ones in local credit unions? Have you stopped paying anything to those same banks (provided that you owed them anything, of course)? Have you written to your AG, your state rep, your senator, the president, the press and anyone perceived to hold in any kind of power or authority to bring about change?

    And where, in your mind, did all those problems originate? Banks? Homeowners? Congress? The Constitution? What is, in your mind, a concerted decision taken by many or just a few? Most of us know where and what the problems are, today. Most of us want to believe that there is a way out of this mess and simple actions can be taken at our individual levels to force change. The great majority of people who do nothing are simply… too afraid to make one decision and implement one change, however small. And so long as it is the case, we can’t expect change at any level.

    So, how do you envision the future of this nation. What is your dream for it?

    Rosa Parks took action, just by herself. Gandhi took action and he started alone. MLK took action. Obama appears to take some action toward correcting the situation (possibly misguided at times but I believe he is honest and sincere and, as far as I know, he has not obscenely enriched himself on our backs. As a matter of fact, all the proceeds from his own books, a few millions, have gone to charity…) In my limited ability, I take action, even though I have not, yet, seen their result: victory is in the action.

    Do you have a plan we could suscribe to in a united fashion or is your purpose only to keep pointing all the deficiencies of a system we already know has stopped working and brought our entire country down to its knees?

    My purpose is not to offend you (although I suspect I will: people don’t like to be reminded that talk is cheap). Please kindly share with us your plan of correction for this country. Otherwise, that entire site has little usefulness for anyone…

  39. @Carrie

    You say attack the PSA. What do people do who cannot find the trust their loan was put in? I know of several people who are have been looking for a long time and they nor I can find nor I can find out what trusts our loans were put into. In an earlier posts I questioned as to who the original lender is. I have tried so many combos with the 2 listed original lenders and all I get is not match.

  40. Security investors — who are different from the debt-buying “investors” — are suing on the marketing of fraud in the securities themselves — that is — that the securities were derived from bogus “loans” — which they certainly were. But, these security investor lawsuits can never directly sue against the borrower — because security investors are NEVER the creditor. These security investors sue on the investment income lost because of fraud — and they sue the bank perpetrators.

    Remember, if security investors are naming themselves as the creditor in foreclosures (which would be false — but assume for a moment that it is valid) — then they are collecting damages by the foreclosure itself. The security investors cannot then go and sue the security underwriter for MORE damages. This would be collecting damages — twice — dual damages.. And, would be fraud upon the courts.

  41. @ron u seem to be up on the laws of our past. there is another one which states banks can not loan their credit . and thats what they did with these loans? the other questio biggest and craziest of the day. we were all bonded at birth for somthing like 6 mil. hence our birth certificate. no one knows this or there would be a big over runof the federal reserve demanding our money. acording to my info we do not owe ant debt we simply have to ask the fed for the our money to pay off our debt. do you know about this. far fetched but a known fact. here are a few post trying to figure all this fraud out

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

    http://www.nmcservices.net/youareaslave.html

  42. ATTACK THE PSA:

    The Depositor owns the Trust — and while the Trust was performing – the Depositor, on behalf of the Trust would be the party to bring the action. However, these Trusts have now been brought back on parent corp. (to Depositor) balance sheets because the Trusts as “off-balance sheet” SPVs — have been effectively dissolved. The only tranche holders to remnants of the Trusts is the US Government or the Depositor (parent) itself. We should be preparing to demonstrate that the loan was not validly conveyed to any Trust (which they were not). Do this by requesting the Mortgage Schedule which should accompany the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA) — and the MLPA cannot be an “intent” to sell — it must be validly executed and notarized (we know about those notaries). And, importantly, if MLPA and Mortgage Schedule can be proven, servicer must prove that all default payments have been paid to the trust on borrower’s behalf. If not, loan has been removed from the Trust with collection rights sold/swapped to a Third Party. This is how we can win — they can not prove anything.

  43. There are millions of mortgage loans in valid traditional mortgage-backed securities trusts.. Valid securitizations included mortgage loans securitized into Freddie/Fannie sponsored trusts. These loans were compliant as to loan limits, debt to income, risk, etc (although by REPURCHASES now know MANY F/F loans NOT valid). The security investors in F/F securitizations are NEVER considered the creditor to borrower. The security investors just receive pass-through of cash flows while the home owners are paying.. The mortgagee to borrower is the originator that sold the loans to Freddie/Fannie. However, there is question that F/F should be the mortgagee because loans were sold, then sold to them. Whether or not F/F is mortgagee/creditor — or the originator — the security investors are NOT mortgagee/creditor — and, not either is the trust or trustee — or servicer. Security investors do not sign satisfaction/discharge of mortgage when F/F loans are paid in full!!!

  44. Homeowners, please notice and act on this part of the topic post, as your pleadings and proof are important:

    “The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgements, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; see as to deeds…”

  45. There is NO LENDER…it’s all a LIE…collection rights do not have to be “funded”. A right to collection transferred by assignment—NOT A NOTE.

  46. @ carie this thing is getting deeper the further we research and the further we find out info. i need more info on your blog comment. i am aware of the fraud but what i am aware of is that the “banks” did not originate the loans they were originated by investors. and the true lender needs to be on note and mortgage for it to be valid and they are not.

  47. What about your HUD-1 Statement lists 123 as the original lender and the note and deed of trust lists ABC as original lender? MERS lists 123 as original lender. Who IS the original lender?

  48. FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD

    “…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…COLLECTION RIGHTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE “FUNDED”—THEY ARE SIMPLY A RIGHT TO COLLECTION TRANSFERRED BY ASSIGNMENT—NOT A “NOTE”—HOWEVER ALL WAS PRESENTED TO BORROWERS AS A NEW NOTE/LOAN—THIS IS THE TOTAL FRAUD FROM THE BEGINNING. THIS IS WHY NO NOTES WERE VALIDLY SOLD TO TRUSTS—THERE WAS NO NOTE TO A MORTGAGE TO TRANSFER!!!
    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.
    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 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!!!”

  49. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), is seeking input and ideas on how to liquidate the current huge inventory of owned real estate (REO) currently held by FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here is your chance to be heard. The FHFA, the conservator of the two government sponsored enterprises (GSE) in conjunction with the Departments of Treasury and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are requesting options for selling or otherwise putting the houses into useful service. The three issued a joint Request for Information (RFI) on Wednesday soliciting a range of ideas, including a transition of REO properties to rental use.

    http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/08102011_gses_reo_inventory.asp

    So, what this means is they are looking to offload up to a billion dollars worth of foreclosed homes at a time to investors (read:elite) with the express desire that these homes be rented to us. Geithner said, “Exploring new options for selling these foreclosed properties will help expand access to affordable rental housing, promote private investment in local housing markets, and support neighborhood and home price stability.”

    People, please look hard and see what is really going on here. Wikipedia:

    Rentier capitalism ~ a term which refers to a type of capitalism where a large amount of profit-income generated takes the form of property income, received as interest, intellectual property rights, rents, dividends, fees or capital gains.

    The beneficiaries of this income are a property-owning social class who, it is argued, play no productive role in the economy themselves but who monopolize the access to physical assets, financial assets and technologies. They make money not from producing anything new themselves, but purely from their ownership of property (which provides a claim to a {never ending} revenue stream.)

    Often the term rentier capitalism is used with the connotation that it is a form of parasitism or a decadent form of capitalism.

    Hmmm…parasitism? Folks, a simple examination of basic life sciences shows us what type of relationship we, the actual workers of society have with this financial class known as the rentiers.

    Biology 101 teaches us that symbiosis is defined as “life together”, i.e., two organisms live in an association with one another. Science further refines these relationships as such:

    1. Mutualism. Both members of the association benefit. ~ I don’t see that here at all. The workers hoe the rows while the rentiers lease us the land and sell us the products that we produce in their factories. Oh, and they fix the judicial, the regulatory, the legislative, and the administration so as to foreclose on us, forcing us all to become their renters for life. Nope, not mutualism.
    2. Commensalism. There is no apparent benefit or harm to either member of the association. ~ This doesn’t fit either. There’s plenty of harm when the lower and middle class lose their life savings and homes all the while watching their incomes drop and the cost of necessities like health care and food climb skyward, and the rentier class could be described as the causation of every bit of that nasty stuff.
    3. Parasitism. The term parasite refers to an organism that grows and feeds upon its host while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. ~ AHA! This explains the relationship perfectly! By leveraging upon our toil and sweat and buying swaps against everything we do in life in the real world, the elite contribute nothing of any value towards life on planet earth. Parasitic pathogens one and all.

    So, armed with the biology behind this life threatening scenario, what does a society riddled with parasitic life do with this new found knowledge? Are we doomed to a bloody revolution as Christine feared? No, not presently. There’s another way just prior to that big nasty. And it’s simple really. A peaceful social coup d’état. To keep with the biological reference, we simply foster lifestyles that will cause inducible defenses to kick in. This will cut off the energy flows that are supplying the parasites that are sucking the life force out of the masses. For if you believe anything, believe that none of these agents of destruction can function without our labor and our energies (monies,as well).

    How do we achieve this? Spread the word for everyone ever where to immediately stop any and all dealings with Bank of America, Chase, Citi, Wells, Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and any other entity that’s too big to fail or is even remotely menacing looking, you know….ivory towers and brass bulls (sp?) and all. Oh, and vote out the incumbents, no matter the party. They’ve had their free ride and proven themselves totally unworthy of support on both sides of the aisle. Better to start with nothing than to relive the nightmare over and over again.

    Don’t think it can happen? Read what the women of Versailles were capable of, under similar circumstances with similar elites:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Women%27s_March_on_Versailles

    Whatever happens, don’t buy into to the incessant talk coming from the Paulsons and Geithners and Dimons and Daleys and Summers and Rubins and Fromans and Obama’s of the world, as they’ll do or say anything to maintain privilege and status. Their talk is eerily comforting as if they truly believe what it is they’re saying, yet, it’s all lies. They all share one commonality, a desperate fear of actually having to work for a living shoulder to grind, all the while losing their gated communities and lavish lifestyles. Sure they can push deals that pillage, rape, and take homes by the millions, but that’s the extent of their elaborate dog and pony show.

    These same people, only with different names this time around, have been pillaging the masses on a consistent basis for generations. We’ve all simply watched as they’ve helped themselves to the mineral wealth of untold numbers of third world nations. They take the food products. They take the oil, believing that the locals are too stupid to value it as we do, so…. why not take it? We see it now in the military actions of this class to topple world leaders that stand in the way of their goals.

    It’s readily apparent in the total lack of news on the backstory as to why so many U.K. youths and Arab citizens are disaffected and resorting to rioting. And we as a planet stand on the verge of an austerity package to be handed to ALL OF HUMANITY! Why? Because the rentier class behind the curtain flat out refuses to lower the interest payments that they believe are due to them on our money that our politicians have borrowed from them, plain and simple.

    Only by withdrawing the funding that feeds these freeloading bloodsuckers can we the people return to fair incomes; with ample time spent nurturing our children, living in our own homes, caring for our elders, lending a hand to our neighbors, and stopping more often than not to smell the flowers. Without all that it’s just not worth the trouble.

    We will NOT surmount our problems until these rentier capitalists are flushed from the cesspool they’ve created at our expense with our sleepy approval. It’s time to awaken and kick some ass. Otherwise, be content to rent your souls, as they’ll figure out a way to leverage those soon enough as well.

  50. If you noticed the Iowa strraw poll winners were both House members who voted against the debt limit increase. They both know our government is
    one which is by, of and for the people, Not the bankers, Treasury, and Wall street. Andrew Jackson saw our day if we” to extenuate the present bank or ever consider establishment another like it” He paid off the debt. 1835. see 6th annual address. “and Supreme Ct ruling 1935. Congress cannot abdicate it’s duty” duty to coin

  51. so i think it is time to start writing judge shack. i did once but never got an email back. i even described how i was born ini brooklyn. and grew up in springvalley but never answered me. so here are some links. there is an LA reporter in one write home. he maybe able to help. we have to fight back our way if we do not want to do the way “THEY” want we are civilized humans and we can get this out in the open with out one drop of blood ours shed. we need to be persisitant and write everyone!!!!!! lets go troops we are on a mission now. we need to stop the fraud from continuing

    http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-hiltzik-20110814,0,835988.column

    http://www.freep.com/article/20110814/NEWS06/108140503/Fannie-Mae-promises-keep-families-homes-pressures-foreclosures

  52. Due Process does not include FRAUD.

    If each Judge is required by their Chief Judge to eliminate all Fraud, then we should all be home safe.

    Lets all put suggestions in and see how we can start this process

  53. In consideration of how unjust the courts have been in every state to
    the true homeowners and instead favoring the Banks, I think it is time for the citizens of each state get a Petition together demanding that the Chief Judges of each State uphold their oath to the Constitution and not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process.

    The right to and the protection of one’s property has been so ingrained
    in our Nation’s history that similar eleven words are written twice in our Constitution, once in the Fifth Amendment and then again in the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Maybe Judge Arthur Schack could help us write this? He is one of the few judges that follows the law.

  54. I have a question if your Deed of Trust and Note has different date from your HUD statement is that relevant. The reason why I ask this question is because the closing documets were already prepared on or about week before we closed. However, on Mers website the dated that is listed is not the dated we closed.

  55. I meant $1,800/month… (and it was a shot in the dark, since I don’t know exactly how much retirement, if any, SS will provide judges with) Still, the rest of my post stands.

  56. Let us know the ‘history’ of who and how ‘coddled’ ‘cuddled’ the individual agents, brokers, dealers, distributors brought into the network who are so deep into the mess have no way to get out without and speak without fear.

    The history is what I cut/paste so others not gifted in research may read and synthesize and draw their own conclusions. As painful as it may be to take in new information, the information critial to the future of our great nation and our childrens’ children entitlements, privledges and rights as a resident,, consumer and citizen of the United States of America.

    Thank you Joan, and all of the brave who choose to look back and look forward and don’t like what evil they see, hear, feel, spoken.

  57. Call me naive, Diane, but I firmly believe it.

    The alternative is a bloody revolution and I cannot, for one minute, imgine that it will come to that. Humans may have a very short memory. They have one nevertheless. And an unshakable sense of justice. It has been misplaced be it is coming back, as evidenced by the number of defense attorneys taking pro bono cases or cases for very little. What makes an attorney decide to work for next to nothing when he could very well decide to score huge, doing banks’ dirty deed? Why are so many of them flocking to seminars on the extent of the fraud committed and how to fight it?

    However, if we do want to make it happen, we all have an obligation to take on the fight. One of the main reasons judges have been so slow to react is that, so far, they haven’t been in the foreclosed homeowner shoes (although one recently was, in my own state. He was trying to obtain a loan modification from Chase and was instructed to stop paying his mortgage in order to obtain it. Chase started foreclosing…)

    Another reason is that, even today, so few homeowners have had the guts to take on the fight (fewer than 5% of all cases but it is changing) and it took that long for many defense attorneys to get up to date on the monumentality of the fraud and the arguments to presente.

    Lastly, until recently, entire states had not seen their pension plans as completely wiped out as we finally come to realize. It is one thing for nobodies like us to lose it all. it becomes another thing when judges contribute to pensions plans for decades and, at the time of retirement, realize that they will have to be content with $1,800/year. Investors (401K, 403, and holders of other plans) have lost them. It won’t take long for juges, teachers, firefighters, and state employees generally to say: “Wait a minute! Jamie Dimon and Moynihan have been racking up millions every single year, bonuses not included. Yet, after working every single day to save in anticipation of retirement, I have nothing to show for it. Time to make examples!”

    Patience is the name of the game. Patience, determination and unrelentless action. Blogging to no end doesn’t make it happen. Complaining and keeping one’s money with the big banks doesn’t make it happen. Paying credit cards and mortgages by fear of losing everything doesn’t make it happen. What makes it happen is the realization that, when you ain’t got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.
    And keep in mind that, were everyone to decide to stop overnight sending any money whatsoever to any of the culprits in this monumental con game, they would cease to exist.

    I am not afraid: the worse that happen to me is not to die (it is where I am heading no matter what) by to die sooner than I anticipated. I can die knowing that I gave it my best shot or die regretting not having given it even a try. We all have that choice to make.

  58. Christine, you predict Judges are going to see the Fraud? That is what I thought 2 years ago – nothing has changed – now Judge’s in California are enforcing the “Tender Rule” – Pay Up or you can’t stay in court to fight for your home –

  59. To lies

    The problem is that it isn’t as simple as that. Case in point: when I refinanced my house, I provided a signed tax form authorizing the lender to obtain my taxes for the previous 3 years. I also gave him specific amounts as to my monthly average incomes and I was completely honest, since I know taht the information was readily available.

    When I signed the ton of papers on my kitchen table, I initialed without realizing it at the time (after a while, you can’t see straight any longer) a document showing that I earned $96,000/year (which I never did). Because that refinancing was a variable interest, ARM with balloon disaster I hadn’t understood, I was able to rescind it when if became patently obvious that I had been conned, after weeks of a nasty fight against the lender, and refinance for fix interest rate, no balloon, no ARM, putting me almost back where I would have been, had I never refinanced at all. However, the second ton of papers I signed, undoing the first refinancing, contained (once again) that tax authorization and… a doc I initialed unbeknownst to me, showing my earnings at $120,000/year!!! Needless to say, my actual taxes were never requiested by the lender from the IRS but it doesn’t matter: I signed a doc with fraudulent declarations, unbeknownst to me and the argument will be made until the cows come home. Luckily for me, the same lender completed both stacks of documents within a few weeks of each other and a solid argument can be made that the lender intentionally fudged the numbers to get commissions and what not.

    Banks have told the judges: “Your honor, that borrower lied about his/her income in order to obtain a mortgage he/she wasn’t entitled to and couldn’t afford”. And because those docs held by the lender do contain your initials or signature, regardless what the bank subsequently did, a judge can feel taht he has a legal obligation to find that fraud was committed… by you, in the first place! No one in the transaction has clean hands and the judge may rule for the party he believes to have cleaner hands than the other or dismiss the case with or without prejudice. For right now, judges still believe that 2 rational sides were negotiating a mortage, both with the same level of sophistication, good faith, expertise, etc. They haven’t caught up yet on the extent of the deceipt and the fact that homeowners were completely unprepared to deal with that monumental, evil machine. And it appears more and more that some of those were… themselves judges. Now they have something and someone to relate to…

    Judges’ hands are tied by the heap of existing laws, many of them contradicting each other, and each attorney’s job is nothing more than pulling out the of the books those laws which will better demonstrate the validity of arguments and position. So, when it appears that a judge ruled in favor of the wrong party, do not automatically assume that he/she was bought by banks, biased against honeowners, crooked, etc. Judges are as flabbergasted by the gall banks display and cannot, in their wildest imagination, believe that anyone would have the nerve to flaunt so blatantly its bad faith, dishonesty and lack of consideration for the law. I would vouch to predict that, in the next 6 to 12 months, we’ll see a radical shift in judges decisions and it will no longer be at the advantage of banks to seek cover of the courts, anywhere in the country, in state or federal courts. The rulings of the past 2 years tend to prove that judges have slowly wised up. Give them the time to get over the shock of having been so completely irrelevant and completely played by the banks! And if, indeed, many of them are crooked and were on banks bankroll, give them the opportunity the lose it all and they will find religion in no time.

    Judges are as human as homeowners. The only non-human thing in that whole mess is banks. They can’t prevail. Impossible. Question of time. So, rather than antagonizing judges by lending them motives thay probably don’t have, we need to see that they were as duped by the system than we were. As I said, question of time. And to speed up the process, I keep advocating that everyone stop paying anything he/she owns to any big bank and turn to credit unions. Even if your credit get ruins, big deal! A common ill no longer carries any stigma. The way I see it, a good credit rating is only good to the extent that you want to get something on credit.

  60. so why are judges not following their own law??? that they all endocrined?? dont hey daily use case law to validate their ruling??? where are these rules when a bank shows up with fraud. FRAUD INVALIDATES THE TRANSACTION.. ok so the courts ar not following their own law? how do we recall our entire justice system in every state?????\

  61. But wait, You forgot about a company like Fidelity and its subsidarie Lender Processing Service that can fabricate False Representations with the greatest of skill making the true facts disappear .

    There is no such word like Fraud in Fidelity’s vocabulary as they keep reinventing ways to profit from false and forged documents.

    Fraud is good for Fidelity it keeps making them money.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: