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


There are some new investigation and document products we will shortly have on line and some back office litigation support for lawyers that I know will be a hit. We want to be clear about the main elements of our message:

The LOAN OBLIGATION arises by operation of law when the borrower takes the money. There doesn’t need to be any paperwork for you to owe money when you received it. The presumption is that it wasn’t a gift.

The PROMISSORY NOTE is supposed to be evidence of the LOAN OBLIGATION that arose by operation of law. But in the case of nearly all loans that are claimed to be securitized, the note is NOT evidence of the obligation owed tot he true creditor. The NOTE contains elements of the obligation, but fails to identify the creditor (the inventor/lender) and fails to provide all the terms for repayment. The MORTGAGE BOND given to the investor/lender also is NOT evidence of the obligation to repay because it fails to identify the homeowner as the borrower (instead it identifies the Special Purpose Vehicle or “Trust”) and contains many terms for repayment that have nothing to do with whether the homeowner pays or not, while other terms are conditioned or triggered by the homeowners refusal or failure to pay.

The MORTGAGE DEED or DEED OF TRUST is neither the OBLIGATION nor the EVIDENCE OF THE OBLIGATION. It is a separate agreement which allows a creditor to seize, foreclose or otherwise encumber property based upon (A) the existence of a debt that remains unpaid (B) the breach of an agreement to repay that debt. The MORTGAGE is INCIDENT to the NOTE only because it says that it secures the repayment as set forth in the NOTE. It could be incident to the obligation, but it never says so.

A MORTGAGE does not attach to any property, real or personal, without satisfying the elements of perfecting a lien, which means sufficient disclosure such that one stranger in the marketplace would know who holds the interest and how they could satisfy the obligation and clear the title to the property of any encumbrance arising out of the MORTGAGE. Just because a MORTGAGE document exists does not mean it is actually a mortgage and even if it was intended to be a mortgage it does not mean that it legally is attached to the land without perfecting the lien and recording it.

A MORTGAGE is an interest in real property. Interests in real property must be recorded. In the case of loans claimed to be securitized, the mortgage or deed of trust identifies nobody (usually) who is a creditor by either name or description. Instead, anticipating the trading of receivables arising out of obligations from the homeowner, the servicer, the insurance company and others, it describes nominees or actors who are merely place holders for the real people. The “real people” are those whom Wall Street participants will LATER select.

That is why the mortgage is not perfected as a lien against any property even though it says it is and even though it is recorded. The reason is that in order for a lien to be perfected, it must be apparent from the official record who to go to in order to pay the balance due and receive a satisfaction of the obligation. That information is absent from virtually all notes and virtually all mortgages and deeds of trust. If you must take somebody’s word for it, it must be litigated and a court order must be entered in order for title to be cleared. (Quiet Title)

TRANSFERS of interests in receivables (OBLIGATIONS), NOTES and/or MORTGAGES are devoid of any substance if the lien was not perfected — except to say that it is possible that the obligation, unsecured by any interest in real estate (no valid mortgage) might have been legally transferred to a new “creditor” if they paid for it, if it isn’t in default and if the borrower gets notice of it. Any purported creation or transfer of a mortgage does not become a valid enforceable lien against property unless it is recorded and otherwise satisfies the elements of a perfected lien. This is so confusing that it explains why even the securitizers will claim or even foreclose on the same obligation trying to enforce a mortgage that never attached to the land. Ultimately they must fail.

Our COMBO tells the tale of what is in the official records, what the relationship is between the documents that are in the official title records, and who was probably behind the transactions that occurred at the closing table with the homeowner, unbeknownst to the homeowner. The TITLE REPORT tells the story and pertinent details of all title matters in official records book as they relate to loans on the property. The TITLE COMMENTARY includes further research into who signed documents and whether the documents are authentic or contrived.

Together the TITLE REPORT and TITLE COMMENTARY tell the story about whether there are breaks in the chain of title as to the deed, the mortgage or any other interest in the real estate. The SECURITIZATION REPORT tells the story about how the money was handled and suggests, along with the SECURITIZATION COMMENTARY how the reality of the transaction can be accurately portrayed, notwithstanding differences in the the documents contained in the official records books.

Our COMBO does not tell the customer that his loan is actually in an asset backed pool or trust because (a) that would not be true a statement and (b) it would defeat the purposes of the customer who wishes to disengage himself from the encumbrance of a mortgage that never attached to his land. Once the customer produces his own report showing the loan was securitized, he is admitting the lien was perfected, and admitting it was transferred, leaving the only issue being “transferred to whom?” People argue with us and say “But I saw it on the Fannie website!” Yes I’m sure you did. I’m equally sure that whoever put it there didn’t know anything about the supposed transaction that put it on the Fannie list, that the documents were never transferred and that the original mortgage and note were fatally defective documents that never attached to the land. Fannie, Freddie or “Melvin” won’t convince me otherwise.

OUR COMBO shows that the money moved but the documents didn’t.

  • It shows that the mortgage was written but never perfected as an attachment to the land.
  • It shows that the note was written and signed but it didn’t describe the whole transaction and contains false representations about the identity of the lender or creditor.
  • It shows that the obligation might still exist, but without additional accounting from the ACTUAL creditor ( the investor/lender), neither the balance nor the payments due can be known.
  • It shows that the servicer has an obligation to continue payments in exchange for a fee, even if the homeowner does not pay.
  • It raises factual questions about the actual status of the obligation and the actual status of title.
  • It provides adequate traction for issues to be raised to file a suit for quiet title.

57 Responses

  1. I hope you ll fight real hard against this MERS.
    I fear it could in some way be used to pay our national debt when the Federal Reserve’s 100 year charter expires soon.
    I have sent letters to judges, recorders, attorney generals and congressmen asking not to reward MERS corruption and cave in to their political advances of favoritism.

  2. to M Scott, on September 6, 2011 at 5:08 pm
    My BK attorney was Laura Burri of Rnghart law in Boise Idaho. i just fornd out she represented FHLMC (Freddie Mac) in FHLMC vs Appel 06, a land mark case in ID. my case involves NWT Inc. RCO Wells Fargo. I was in HAMP 3 times and now in court with FHLMC. I think there was a conflict of interest as she represented FHLMC and is on the Freddie Mac Fannie Mae retainer list. I don’t know what to do. pegsworld@live.com help!

  3. @nomods – are you smoking something? Your misperception is almost humerous. I adore MS, even though, well, he knows……….

  4. I can’t stand it. Gotta say (probably again) at least one reason Cruz irks me. California is eroding deeds of trust. A dot creates a trust and a trust requires three parties.
    The stinking trustee, if he doesn’t just plain have an equal fiduciary (special position of duty and trust – a person with a fiduciary to John owes John an allegiance of sorts and honesty) to the trustor (borrower) and the beneficiary, was put in a deed of trust to create the trust (gotta have a trustee for a trust) and to see that the rights of each of the other two parties are upheld. Judge Mann says it is the beneficiary who may foreclose, and it is the beneficiary who is foreclosing, not the trustee. It’s true the beneficiary is commanding the foreclosure, but it is the trustee who owes
    both the borrower and the lender at least a duty of fair dealing who actually forecloses (notice of default, notice of trustee’s sale, supposed to conduct the sale – now there’s a crock today).

    Let’s got back in time a bit. Prior to dot’s, all states used judicial foreclosure of mortgages which means the bankster had to go to court and get court approval to take your home. You had an opportunity to show up in court and say ‘not so fast there, slick’. You also had a ‘right of redemption’ within a certain amt of time. A mortgage had no trustee to carry out anything or to look after anyone and that’s why judicial foreclosure was required – there was a JUDGE involved, and in a simpler time historically (no securitization for starters). A dot came from a convenient piece of legislation and allowed the lender to avoid the time and expense of judicial foreclosure. If it were meant to be that a lender could simply skip judicial foreclosure and just say to the borrower “you’re in default and now I’m taking your house”, there would not be a three party ‘collateral instrument’ like a dot. But there IS a three party collateral instrument. That’s what a dot is.
    I see what is going on in CA (really everywhere) as a further erosion of
    homeowners’ rights to some protection. These decisions are basically deeming the dot trustee as an unnecessary party and further absolving him of any responsibility. If they whittle it down any further, the dot trustee will go from his current front man position to the completely invisible man, neither of which was the legislative intent.
    I don’t believe that Judge Mann meant to further erode borrowers’ protection, but the banksters will sieze on certain language, and that is when the trustee will become even more worthless to the homeowner than he is currently. I also don’t agree with her assessment of a dot because she puts it on a parity (evenness) with a mortgage, but a mortgage requires judicial foreclosure and has that protection (or used to). In this regard, I find this decision and others like it alarming, regardless of how well-meaning. In essence, a dot will be treated as a mortgage but one which does not require judicial foreclosure. So in all this time of dot’s, it will end up, devolve to, nonjudicial foreclosure between the lender and the borrower only (trustee will be negligible) instead of judicial foreclosure which is appropriate with only those two parties. This is a mockery of a DEED of TRUST and a punch in the face to the creators of the dot and to homeowners.

  5. From Cruz v. ALS (skunks), MERS, et al:

    “The Court denies the Motions to the extent that they assert ING was not required to record its assignment of beneficial interest before it foreclosed. The Motions request the Court reconsider its holding in U.S. Bank N.A. v. Skelton (In re Salazar), 448 B.R. 814, 822-24 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2011), that California Civil Code § 2932.5[3] pertains to both mortgages and deeds of trust. For the additional reasons set forth in this Memorandum Decision, the Court reaffirms its analysis in Salazar and concludes that ING’s failure to record its beneficial interest rendered its foreclosure sale void……..

    The Court denies the Motions to the extent that they assert ING was not
    required to record its assignment of beneficial interest before it
    foreclosed. The Motions request the Court reconsider its holding in U.S.
    Bank N.A. v. Skelton (In re Salazar), 448 B.R. 814, 822-24 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2011), that California Civil Code § 2932.5[3] pertains to both mortgages and deeds of trust. For the additional reasons set forth in this Memorandum
    Decision, the Court reaffirms its analysis in Salazar and concludes that
    ING’s failure to record its beneficial interest rendered its foreclosure
    sale void…….

    Cruz has properly stated claims for wrongful foreclosure and quiet title based upon ING’s non-judicial foreclosure of the DOT.[7] Section 2932.5 required that ING’s interest be of record at the time of the foreclosure sale, and it was not. MERS was the beneficiary of record when ING foreclosed, but ING was the actual foreclosing beneficiary.[8] The Trustee’s Deed identified ING as the foreclosing beneficiary, and that recital is a binding statement of fact. Bank of America v. La Jolla Group II, 129 Cal. App. 4th 706, 731-32 (2005). Because ING lacked an interest of record, it was not authorized to proceed with the foreclosure sale under § 2932.5, rendering the sale void. Dimock v. Emerald Properties, 81 Cal. App. 4th 868, 874 (2000) (sale under deed of trust by former trustee void, and tender of the amount due is unnecessary); Bank of America, 129 Cal. App. 4th at 712.[9]”

    I don’t agree with Judge Mann on everything, as I’ve previously said, but she didn’t ask me. Some of these decisions which appear to be in the homeowner’s favor are foxes in sheep’s clothing, and more bad news is that they read like ‘what not to do’ for criminals who just re-manipulate “facts” for their next 100k thefts of real property. There’s probably nothing to do for that, though. I’m posting this lest we forget the valuable rulings in this case”
    assignments need to be recorded.

    This loan was originated by SCME. They were pretty big, I think, so it’s possible Aurora Loan Services did not underwrite this loan. I’d still bet they did, which means imo they were participants in any TILA violations but once again got off the hook. (the TILA claims were dismissed). Cruz probably did not know how those deals worked, so he wouldn’t know to inform the court. If ALS were the original servicer, it was likely ALS’ loan program and they did in fact underwrite it. ALS had both retail and wholesale outlets.
    Their retail outlet may have been limited to Colorado. If ALS is your servicer, and specifically if they were the original servicer, 99.99% the loan was brokered to them. Don’t forget this if you are making a TILA claim!
    Once loans were brokered or otherwise wholesale’d to them, they generally sold the loans to Lehman Brothers Bank nka Aurora Bank FSB and then to Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. for securitization and retained the servicing. However, like everyone else in this sorry act, they sort of skipped getting the endorsements, so of course the loans didn’t make it into the trusts. LBHI owns Aurora Bank which owns ALS – something like that.
    So they just get the endorsements (they probably have rubber stamps by now) on a probably phonied-up note and claim to be the noteholder and rpii (UNless there’s a TILA claim made).

  6. @ John Gault,

    The only person is in kahoot is yourself. There is a reason such an individual like M Soliman earned the status of a expert witness.He’s actually a down to earth individual and willing to help those who seek.I been on this site reading from day one this site was created and learned valuable info as a foundation prior to solimans knowledge and teaching.I am a pro se in Los Angeles and will be battling soon in court under the guidance of M Soliman expert witness.I will prove those that speak negative remarks about him are wrong and it will take a miracle with prayer if decides to accept your help and business.

  7. @E Tolle – when one thinks about it, that is the most likely scenario to have caused such “upheaval” and we have MERS to thank for it.

  8. My esteemed colleague from the Power of NOW

    Tolle Said – Or if Sally wants to make a bundle of money real quick, without having to deal with all of that burdensome legal stuff, she can simply sell the same note over and over again to all 19 relatives

    1. Divestiture of assets and
    2. Dilution of common to preferred –

    So what ? Please People. Eckert , you know this!


    Next chance up I got a great storyline from off shore attorneys and their view of the tragic judicious error or claims mistake made by US Homeowners.


    ***Phil , Regie …to think you have been sitting on this for over a year – Wow!

  9. Or if Sally wants to make a bundle of money real quick, without having to deal with all of that burdensome legal stuff, she can simply sell the same note over and over again to all 19 relatives. Now that’s a sweet deal no matter how you look at it. Unless of course you trigger a crash that erases a few hundred trillion dollars from the economy destroying millions upon millions of folks worldwide in the process. But what the hell, it’s not like anyone’s going to put you in jail or anything.

    As Chris Whalen wrote recently:

    “….there is also the specter of exposing multiple pledges of the same loan, another area of potential operational risk and legal liability for the entire banking industry.”

    I’m looking for a pattern of this to drive a nail in the coffins of Blankfein, Dimon, Moynihan, Mozilo, Thain, etc. We’ll be much better off with all of these known criminals in 8X10 housing. And then to watch their mansions get shortsold or foreclosed…oh the humanity!

  10. carie, on September 6, 2011 at 9:53 pm said:

    Unsecured debt attempting to be collected by third party debt collectors…so I say BACK OFF, I only want to “deal” with true, REAL creditor…

    Think for crying out loud Think!

    Proposition 1. Lost note – Forget it.
    Proposition 2. Lost Shares – Oh Lord- BIG Problem !!!!!!

    Now Send in the debt collector’s…..

    THINK for the sake brain cells here – People your knocking on the door – Think

    Carie Said …. I only want to “deal” with true, REAL creditor. Problem is—THERE IS NONE!!!!!!!! Carie Almost right ! No there is One !!!!!!!! Your forcing your hand in a conventional argument while sitting on a securities abomination. A Robust market is the only way out of this . Otherwise they to replace “market” value using “Book” to foreclose. In a dead market they have to rely on “Book” and that is a GAAP FASB, securities and IASB “Obstruction of Justice”.

    THINK !


  11. Take a MERS Rep. to Lunch.
    By M.Soliman

    To John Boy: My most respected and hardest working researcher. Read your own analysis – (damn good in fact people) . Your on to it…..JG . Your on to it .

    General Premise – Lose the Note to an electrode registration for purposes to create participating shares. So What?

    Lose the note please …Lost note , lost to divestiture (M.Soliman 2007) – SO WHAT? MERS has it covered so . . . no cigar there Gomez!

    Lose the shares, Please LOSE THE SHARES …..Oh no – If you lose the shares your going to call MERS and Say “Hey Buddy. Would you like to join me in court to tell this story…

    MERS says – Hey Einstein – I think you got it. MERS then says….”Lets go sit and have a very very long talk.

    How are they going to unscramble this egg? Take a MERS representative to lunch. You wont regret it.


  12. Unsecured debt attempting to be collected by third party debt collectors…so I say BACK OFF, I only want to “deal” with true, REAL creditor…problem is—THERE IS NONE!!!!!!!!

    This is the TRUTH.

  13. MS – you’re always a hoot. I don’t know jack about electronic anything complying with the UCC. But let’s see… If I wanted to let my family of 19 in on my 100k note to Billy, endorsing to them wouldn’t do it, unless maybe I endorsed fractional interests to each of them -or- we formed some type of entity to endorse the note to. Got me on that one. Now if I make ledger entries to evidence their fractional interests, I am still the only holder of the note entitled to enforce it. Mi familia only bought a return on their investment. They may have a cause of action against ME if they paid me for their fractional interests and I don’t perform, but they still have no holder status or right to enforce the note. But, then we have to consider that the sec deal involves a trustee for the 19 fractional owners and the fractional owners have a group name, which is missing in MY deal with my family unless we have organized, which under the ledger deal we haven’t. In the sec scenario, the trustee is supposed to have possession of the note. You are insinuating that the depositor retains an interest in the note, also, are you not?

  14. Well, MS, it looks like the answer is no one. If the investors paid the depositor (or whomever) for the notes, but the notes didn’t make it into the trusts, the notes are retired. In a case with which I’m familiar, it took the bankster almost 2 years to produce a note. They either had to fabricate it or get the missing endorsements or both. The judge refused to grant the homeowner summary judgment or a declaratory judgment all that time. This person should have appealed. Sigh.

  15. John Gault:

    WHO owns those notes?

    M.Soliman – Come on . Think. Neil , John, Used Kar Guy and Regie Comma. Don’t drink the grape if you intend to magistrate .

    Capitalization of the Note as Consideration for Common stock
    1. Note = Cash flow / Shares
    2. Fractional Shares = Capitalization
    3. Common Stock authorized at $250.00 a share is diluted at a 10:1.1. factor. Preferred Shares = dilution @ $25.00 per share. The dividend share or pro rata ownership held by the Depositor / 10 =
    REIT Fractional share or entitlements (under ownership with the Nominee)


    Billy gave Sally a note for the amount of money he borrows against his play house . The note is payable in monthly installments over 12 months. Sally wants to share her investment made to cash strapped Billy with the entire 19 other members of her family.

    Sally will –

    (a) Carve the promissory note at thanksgiving dinner
    (b) Name each family member as an investor on her ledger
    (c) Seek lender subsidies for Anonymous to confuse the issue

    (d) Replace the promise to pay by Billy with a UCC recognized electronic registration.

    By the way …..E Readers do it…Droid phones do it…internet services do it ….ticket master do it (its a contract write)….Electronic engine diagnosis does it ….Pay Pal does it….DMV Does it…..health care does it….airlines do it. Election Polls do it….E magazine subscriptions do it…Time shares do it…

    Wait a minute…Time shares…How do Time Shares Do it?

    Um Hum! ! !


  16. A MORTGAGE is an interest in real property. Interests in real property must be recorded. In the case of loans claimed to be securitized, the mortgage or deed of trust identifies nobody (usually) who is a creditor by either name or description.

    M.Soliman: Not necessarily ….not under long standing title theory and understanding for possessory and non possessory bare and legal title rights. Trust deed and mortgage title claims are the same whereby the sale date in a deed of trust is precedent to occupancy.

    Why …want proof? Who is paying the insurance , taxes and even sending out property inspectors (maintenance) during the Notice of default period.

    Your onto some very very Hot subject matter here that can pull you out of this nose dive into foreclosure rights claims and conventional lender bender surrender recoveries.


  17. I think we all agree many if not most of the notes never made it into the trusts, so that’s one thing. So I give, WHO owns those notes? I still think it’s a dead end to scream the lender shown on the note and dot at closing was not the true lender at the moment of closing. First of all, to make this showing, one must look at the contracts (good luck and I don’t say this to be defeatist – I say it because many of those companies are toast) between the named lender and the party supplying the funds (by way of wire generally through the title company). I can have an agreement with Joe Blow to provide me a warehouse line (which I pay for) or I can buy money from Joe Blow and resell it – all day long. There’s nothing wrong with this. The only thing which is questionable imo is that in that scenario, I have most likely sold the loan to Joe Blow before it’s closed. But how does this invalidate the loan – how does this hide the identity of the lender if I have bought the money, sold it to the borrower, and then sold the loan? This is how the lending industry worked for many years – every since the advent of
    “mortgage companies” in lieu of banks and S & L’s loaning their deposits.

    The reason I am saying this yet again is because I think the argument is a dead end and real arguments are what is needed. I am personally “pretty cranky” about how notes may be manipulated so that it may look like anyone the banksters want is entitled to enforce them, even bs copies pawned off as originals.

    ND says certain businesses are exempt from TILA, RESPA, what not.
    Well, what the courts don’t know is that a company like Aurora Loan
    Services who regularly screams ‘we’re exempt as a servicer’, actually
    provided the progarm guidelines for those loans and underwrote them, as well. They were the true culprits (jacked up appraisals, liar loans, you name it) but then rely on their servicer status to dodge legitimate complaints regarding origination bs. Back in the days before MERS, one could generally tell who underwrote a loan because the deed of trust was assigned immediately after closing to that party. Now thanks to MERS, guilty parties are getting off the hook for their origination transgressions. I have studied ALS at length and every single time a borrower makes a TILA claim, ALS is at it with this we’re just a servicer bs. Conversely, when there is not a TILA claim involved, ALS will swear repeatedly it is the note-owning rpii, not merely the servicer. I would imagine the rest of these jackals I have not studied in depth do the same bs. When parties do this, rely on their roles as servicers when there is a TILA claim, and don’t tell the court it was THEIR loan progarm and they underwrote it, imo it is at a minimum constructive fraud.
    That’s how it worked – the originator was provided loan program guidelines by these slimeballs like B of A, WF, CW, ALS. The banksters were
    initally after the spread between what they sold the money to the originator for and what they paid for it. Their biggest target was the servicing of loans because it pays 3/8ths of 1 percent of the loan amt and is built into the rate charged the borrower. Servicing is big business and always has been, even before we got ripped by MERS and the rest of Wall Street.
    If you got duped into a loan with 2% for 5 minutes and then 12% for life, the better course imo is to rely on state law which imposes a fiduciary on the lender or broker. Not all states do. I think California does, for instance. Some states’ laws state than any allegation you can make against the originator, you can make against the assignee. It’s kind of like the guilt follows the note.
    If no one told you (and I’m sure they didn’t) that you were signing up for a piece of dogshyt, no one was looking out for you obviously. Whether or not they should have is found in each state laws. I’m talking here about
    fiduciary or fair dealing, and not TILA which is federal.

    Then securitization came along, and the rush was to get loans in and out the door to sell because everyone made yet more dough on the sales and the big fish targets were the saps who bought interests in the pools. More spread. But companies still wanted the servicing because they wanted that income and it put them in control despite what the borrower or sec investor thought and whether or not it should. They rack up late fees, bs forced-placed insurance less than arm’s-length, and so on. Then they figured out how to bet against them to profit even more and didn’t give a hoot who got burned in the process.
    They steal homes with impunity. Swell bunch of rat-b’s we’ve spawned. I call them traitors because that’s what they are.

  18. so who set-up this system? Usual response will be the democrats or the republicians, or the government,

    but WHO is behind the scenes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,???????????

    More than likely the banks and their lobbyists or Wall Streeeet.

  19. @Charles Cox


    and you said:

    “In the US, the States actually own real property, you don’t. You only own a “bundle of rights” to the property. Anywhere there are “eminent domain” and “taxing” rights to real property…well, don’t pay your taxes and see what happens.”

    Funny, this is what I thought. It’s actually another scam on the American people and they go along with it.

    So, 30 years go by and one pays off his mortgage so he is free and clear and owns his home, his land. Not so fast, Don’t pay your property taxes and you are out on the streets. Jeepers. I’m 80 years old and I don’t pay my property taxes and I’m out on the streets. Jeepers. Who set-up this system?

  20. Effective October 1- The New Fannie Mae Servicing Guidelines
    September 5th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    I encourage everyone to carefully review the brand new, hot off the presses Fannie Mae Delinquency Servicing Guidelines https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/pdf/2011/svc1108.pdf and understand just how important these regulations are for every homeowner and advocate who suffers under the burden of the foreclosure nightmare. These guidelines provide important requirements that servicers must comply with and their failure to do so could provide additional remedies for homeowners…..

  21. Adding the rest of the information for the above, was cut off or was too long, not sure which. Also sent to Federal Home Loan mortgage corp, and the Ringert Law firm (both certified return requested), 35 questions related to: “qualified written request” under the Federal Servicer Act, part of the real estate settlement procedures Act 12 U.S.C 2605(e) all of this was after the fact. (foreclosure) my friends were trying to get it refi’d and they slipped in the foreclosure before they knew what hit them. the case that i thought might work is the CV2011-3080 in Kootenai County, Judge Luster. in this case Chase had attorneis from Boise do a Lis Pendens, the owners did not show up, thiis is where the judge null and voided all of the banks involved and the servicers as well. please let me know if anything can be done now.

  22. My friends are facing foreclosure. I have been reading your information for about 4 weeks, its kinda intimdating to say the least, but the education is definately worth it! They live in the state of Idaho where non-judicial foreclosure is the rule, in particular Kootenai County, Coeur d Alene city. Originally they were with Global Credit union in WA. and went thru many servicers and banks for years, finally they were told that their house was owned by Fannie Mae or Federal Mortgage Loan Corp. They received notice from an attorney in Boise Idaho telling them that they were being offered 2,500 dollars to leave the property in broom clean condition and get out! I found a case in the same county CV2011-3080 wherein the judge null and voided all the paerwork from RECONTRUST et al. and returned the property to the original owners. the above case cv11-3080 is not realted to my friends property. I am not an attorney but had a little paralegal training long ago. My friends started their loan thru Global Credit Union via MERS, and was passed around thru various Servicers and Banks?? most all of the Notaries were licensed in more than one state. Is that legal? and of course they had the famous ROBO signers in the paper work as well. Laura Hescott, Christine Anderson, Liquenda Allotey, Kathy Taggert and many more. Appointment of Successor Trustee was recorded on 3-7-2011 by Kathy Taggert for JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA successor in interest fro the FDIC as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank a federal association, by: Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. Kathy Taggert as Attorney in Fact. When it all was funneled down to Freddie Mac, it was all recorded on the same day Jul 7, 2011. after that, the attorney’s in Boise Ringert Law Chartered, attorney Laura E Burri. WE/I sent them letters (burri) as the following: to: washington Mutual and Pioneer title Trustee services DISPUTE OF DEBT AND NOTICE OF DEFAULT, TO: RINGERT LAW CHARTERED, SENT GOOD FAITH DISCOVERY NOTICE:VERIFICATION OF PROOF OF CLAIM REQUESTED and REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

  23. Bart,

    Bingo…you’ve got it. In addition, bear in mind the notes were never perfected and put into the trusts (even if they could be) pursuant to the PSAs either…the pools are empty in actuality. They fabricate fraudulent documents (after the fact) to cover their tails and unfortunately the judges are [mostly] buying it.

  24. so if a “trust” was allegedly used but the deed that was used in the trust is invalid, there is no security for the trust to attach to…..And if all the “mortgages” and “notes” do not name the real parties of interest then they also are invalid…..This sounds really simple…why can’t anyone get this here????

  25. jonhgault,

    If you can’t grasp the DOT/Mortgage follows the Note, you don’t need to post anything. Um…yep…this is reasonably considered black letter law in all States…and memorialized in Carpenter v. Longan since (1852) among many others. Regardless of the “theory”… tortured rulings notwithstanding.

  26. Enraged why don’t you call? 973-347-3475. I’m a consumer I don’t bite and I take no offense. I have facts and evidence and good intentions. The only reason everyone is frustrated is you all can’t understand why Neil would post so you scan to see if there is something valuable. The information valuable in context. The harms are broad specturm. There is no one fit all but for the fact with intent we were setup to fail and they harmed our country, our family, friends, neighbors, fellow LL members. I’m not one of the REO Lenders, Brokers, Dealers, Agents, Distributors, Loss Modification Pranksters. I’m just Nancy Drewe my favorite character as a kid mystery detective finding facts, evidence, that is what you need, and an understanding of the complex levels of taking one transaction between 2 parties, governed by the ‘charter’ of the Account Holder of the cashier’s check, cash taken out of a TRUST of some PENSION FUND attached to a Loan, forward sold, passed over to a depositor who is the seller, obligator, debtor who is a registrant on the SEC governed to accept cash c/o S-3 Form etc. COMMERCE is COMPLICATED. Multi-dimensional, is the depositor governed by a bank charter no its a domestic entity other, but the depositor is an SEC Registrant, is authorized by the Registration Statement of SEC regulations to put up $50 billion dollars and allowed to sell $50 Billion dollars of securiies. The Temporary Lender is allowed to approve the borrower for a credit line based on state statutes, regulations, exemptions… and as a national bank’s affiliate of Mortgage Servicer additional federal statues and regulations and exemptions. All that is confusing is the fact you have not read the vast agreements, acts, etc. that govern what was a simple mortgage promissory note that turned into the largest 21st Century Money Laundering – Ponzi Scheme in whcih a group of foreign private wealth benefactors profitted.

  27. Scott,

    In NJ, the Assignment Presenting Property to substitute Trustee c/o Loan Trust is recorded with County ClerkLis Pendens filed signed by attorney recording lawsuit in progress. It’s this Assignment that lets the defendent contest allegations and seek court review evidence for lack of Standing.

    I’m sorry if I’m not understanding.

  28. Carie right on. I’m there with you.

    Sadly, in writing, the OCC 2002 forward have visitoral powers c/o Supremacy Clause and allow all Mortgage Service’ss affiliates of national banks to be exempted from all Predatory Lending, TILA, RESPA, HOPA, Money Laundering, violations. Scarier yet, 2006 US Code, moved OCC under Federal Reserve. Scarier yet, Federal Reserve now publishing ‘adjudication’ sanctions affixed to Wells Fargo Bank NA $85,000,000. FDCPA I agree completely. But what are we to do when the State Attorney General may not enforce consumer protection laws if you don’t have evidence. In 2010, Federal Reserve c/o OCC and FREDDIE/FANNIE under US Code all information ‘proprietary’ so how are we going to get evidence if the local bank closing agent won’t turn over copies of the ‘cash’ transaction c/o REMITTER in which the Tempoary Lender ordered as Seller of Loan# ‘cash’ and Purchaser’ paid cash c/o somebody else’s trust c/o TRUST Company Agency, under a Sale & Servicing Agreement, the Loan0123456789 & servicing rights back to ‘Servicer’ all affiliates of national bank’s Mortgage Servicer. If you had the copy of the Cashier’s Check that revealed the ‘purchaser’ and ‘seller’ and ‘loan0123456789 would we be able to bring into court complaint, and name purchaser and seller and at the appropriate time ask to be dismissed for we are not a named party?

  29. @scot -I meant “endorsements” of notes aren’t recorded, either (any more than notes themselves).

  30. Why do you continue to bicker about the notes when there were none??? Not REAL ones, anyway…

  31. @charles cox – um, nope. I don’t believe it. A dot does not follow a note, certainly not in a title-theory state. When I am up to it (can’t cut and paste so have to type the whole dang thing), I will illustrate.

  32. @scot – Notes are not recorded – ever. Note evidences an obligation to pay a certain amt of money. Without a dot or mortgage, a note is an
    unsecured debt. Lenders don’t want to make unsecured loans, so they use our homes as collateral for the note by way of a mortgage or dot. It is only the mtg / dot which attaches to our homes, not the note per se. The obligation recited in the note is referred to in the mtg / dot, ‘tying’ them together. In order for a lender to maintain (generally) its priority status as to the collateral, the lender records the mtg or dot. They run title reports to see if anyone may be ‘ahead’ of them before they fund a loan. If there is another loan on the home as indicated by a search of the county recorder’s records, they will want it paid off so they can be first.

    There is a difference between a mortgage and a deed of trust. One is a lien (mortgage) and one, most specifically one in a “title-theory state” (deed of trust) is actually a transfer of legal title to real property. With a deed of trust, the title to the real property is transferred in trust to the trustee for the benefit of the beneficiary, with the homeowner retaining “equitable title”. While a dot is not a lien exactly, it acts as one, at least until there is an alleged default.
    Carpenter v. Longan dealt with a mortgage, a lien, and it was determined that a mortgage follows a note, and this said essentially that a mortgage (lien) was “incidental to the note”. That’s not true with most deeds of trust. As crazy as it sounds, one party may own the note and another be the beneficiary of the deed of trust. A deed of trust, however, without the note interest is a worthless piece of paper. Some schools of thought believe that once a note and dot are held by different parties, they have been not just bifurcated (split) , but fatally bifurcated in that they may not be re-joined.
    If this is true, the note will always only be an unsecured debt with no
    collateral. The people who believe this believe this ‘ism’ may be found in the Restatement of Contracts – 3rd, I believe it’s called. Splitting a note and dot will not make the note unenforceable, however. It will make it
    unsecured, but nonetheless enforceable. (Good luck with no collateral – can’t get blood out of a turnip).
    Assignments of notes are not recorded, either. (There was a time when this just wasn’t necessary. It’d be a good idea today.) Banksters allege 100 percent of the time that these promissory notes at issue are negotiable instruments. I’m not sure they are they days, but that’s another subject.
    Notes which are negotiable instruments are transferred by endorsement, like “Pay to the order of….” on the back of the note generally. Deeds of trust must be assigned, however because they represent interests in real property. Assignments of deeds of trust were always done and recorded with the county recorder (called registrar of deeds in some counties, I guess) before MERS got in the act and messed us all over good and messed up the entire records of land ownership in this country.

    The legislators either didn’t anticipate the splitting of the note and dot’s , or they did and were influenced by the banksters’ lobbyists as evidenced by some laws which now fail to protect the homeowner.

    You said,

    “Knowing that the US Supreme Court and numerous State Supreme Courts have ruled that if you record the assignment of the note there is no need to record the assignment of the mortgage because the mortgage is an incident of the note but if you only record the assignment of the mortgage and not the note the mortgage is void and the not is unenforceable….”

    The courts did not so rule – I’m afraid you misunderstood. What some courts may have ruled is that if there has been an endorsement of the NOTE, there need be no assignment of a MORTGAGE (a lien). With a mortgage (a lien), if only the mortgage is assigned to Bankster 409, but the NOTE has not been endorsed to Bankster 409, Bankster 409 has a “worthless piece of paper”. It’s worthless because the bankster has a “collateral instrument” (the mortgage), but he does not own the note which evidences the debt the mortgage secures. (If you give me a mortgage on your home without giving me a note, I have nothing because it is the Note which evidences the debt to me.)

  33. johngault,

    Most if not all States have ruled there is no applicable distinction between a mortgage and deed of trust for these purposes even though the banksters’ shysters try.

  34. Take 10: Carpenter v. Longan was in regard to a mortgage, not a deed of trust.

  35. “The reason is that in order for a lien to be perfected, it must be apparent from the official record who to go to in order to pay the balance due and receive a satisfaction of the obligation.” ?????????????

  36. There may not have been any case that challenges Carpenter v. Longan but there are numerous cases that have agreed with this decision and used this decision to rule in favor of the homeowner. The fact that there are no cases that have challenged the Carpenter v. Longan decision should speak volumes in it self.

  37. Harmon Law Office is bugging out, KingCast gets another sanction threat:



    NationStar and Harmon Law foreclosure mill are worried about KingCast/Mortgage Movies exposure of their violation of Court Order to produce original documents in Marie Miller foreclosure case.



    06 SEPTEMBER 2011

    Nashua PD, NH GOP and Kelly Ayotte Attorneys threaten sanctions when Judge McCafferty’s silent recusal is exposed in KingCast v. Ayotte et al, NH Dist 2010-CV-501 but they don’t even have their facts straight.

    They have a goddamn Judge who used to work for the same goddamn firm defending the case who also employed the lead goddamn Defendant and the Judge doesn’t even mention it, then recuses herself.

    I logically raise the issue of voiding her Report and Recommendations and get threatened with Sanctions by a slate of high-powered “our shit don’t stink” lawyers.

    Well guess what guys:

    You shit does indeed stink to high hell.

    This is why common folk have no faith in the U.S. Justice system.


  38. re-posting ANONYMOUS:

    “This is strictly as to subprime.
    They “refinance” the subprime “collection rights” — after they purchase them. So, get you to sign new docs — with a NOTE. Problem is the NOTE and Refinance were procured by fraud – invalid — and so were the collection rights. Think of this way — sort of like the “load mods” that are being offered now. No different.
    You cannot refinance an already default debt – all you can get is a “mod.”. And, not without fraudulent title — mortgage title in effect — non-existent. “Debt collector” — and that is all you had with subprime “refinance” — collects on false GSE default/reject — but, not for the GSE — they sold the “rights.” Debt collector — collecting on modified GSE default/reject debt. That is all subprime is about.
    Separation of “note” and “mortgage” — BEFORE the refinance —Invalid “NOTE” — not secured. . Note without a mortgage — unsecured.”

  39. From FDCPA site:


    Ҥ 807. False or misleading representations:
    A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt…

    …(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of
    any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of
    any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment,
    or sale of any property or wages of any person unless
    such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor
    intends to take such action.”


    Crimes against humanity…at the very least civil and human rights violations on unprecedented scale…

  40. Sorry, I was responding to the part of your comment about Deed of Register purpose to attach description of property. Surely one of the job responsiblities which state requires, accurate business records of the municipal properties. The purpose of Recording Each Assignment is that the State has vested interest in the property records for multiple reasons, eg transfer taxes, …

    We know that the new debtor is a new nominee who is without attachment to the property and who is not part of the promisory note’s security.

    The lawsuit to place a lien on the property without merit by the new debtor and the good reason we go to court and assert our affirmative defenses.

    Can you head off the lawsuit with good evidence ? Yes. Call Mr. Skidmore 512-761-1007 for more information.

  41. Scot,

    Notes are not “assigned” they are indorsed. They’ve never been recorded…deeds are (and assignments of them are supposed to be in some/most states).

    There has been no case challenging the US Supreme Court case Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 273 (1872) making a split of the note from DOT/Mortgage a legal nullity. No need kicking that dead horse.

  42. @smurf—I meant demand FULL accounting from THEM…ie.:

    “. ..You 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 you may win — they can not prove anything.”

  43. @SMURF:
    No, they have NO RIGHT to foreclose—I believe they are in DIRECT violation of FDCPA by even threatening to foreclose on UNSECURED DEBT. Send CEASE AND DESIST/DISPUTE OF DEBT and FULL accounting–with Mortgage Loan Purchase agreement and Mortgage Loan Schedule (they don’t have unless fraudulently fabricated!!!), —send letters to ALL addresses—certified—and to any fax numbers you have. State TILA, RESPA, and FDCPA laws–as Nancy Drewe suggests. Must do within 30 days!!
    Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are on to their lies and fraud.


    “First -tired of parties here working for the crooks –so tired of some here trying to make a business on fraud against homeowners. It simply is not acceptable.

    Second, once all proprietary “records” are finally divulged, subprime refinancing fraud is exposed — game over for those who are still trying to making a buck on the fraud.

    Third, the securitization of fraudulent “collection rights” — was a scam from the onset — never MBS — get your heads out of MBS — these “refinances” (not actually refinances) — were “loans” REJECTED from traditional MBS — credit enhancement was created from layers of mezzanine tranches for credit default swaps — (purchase of collection rights) — and were NEVER secured mortgages. This is what caused the financial crisis FALL. Understand that subprime securization was manufactured securitization fraud.

    Fourth — the direction in courts — has been fraud upon the court — over and over — and, this is finally surfacing. There was no “funding” — PERIOD. —- All that existed was a purchase of collection rights from GSEs — by which “purchase” was covered by insurance for fabricated default and rejects.

    Fifth — if you want to say that any borrower is responsible for any non-”funded” loan — that fabricated “funded” loan is unsecured — because there was NO VALID MORTGAGE.

    Sixth — There is NO lender. NO LENDER. NO FUNDING — NO MORTGAGE — Just your good “ole” debt buyer shyster — for unsecured fraudulent collection rights.

    If anyone here chooses to think otherwise — you are — and have been — barking up the WRONG tree — and not battling the battle that needs to be fought.
    You are, instead, feeding the “investors” to falsified collection rights — and giving credibility to a loan that is not a loan — and not a mortgage.
    You are feeding the homeowners to “wolf” debt buyer “investors” — as they prefer to be called.

    Proof?? in the mortgage data base proprietary files.”

  44. Nancy, thanks for the replies. But you never answered the question. Why aren’t the assignment of the notes recorded at the register of deeds. Now that the US and State Supreme Courts have ruled that if someone only records the assignment of a mortgage and not the note than the mortgage is void and the language in the mortgage clearly states only the lender has the right to foreclose. The lender is the entity listed on the note or if the note has been sold and or transfered than the entity who endorsed the note is the lender they only have the right to foreclose. Just because you have a mortgage with you name on it does not make you the lender and does not give you the right to foreclose. The note must also be in your name and if the note and or mortgage were assigned the dates of the assignments must match. If they do not match than the assignment of the note must be dated prior to the date of the assignment of the mortgage in order to have legal standing to foreclose. This is the major problem in the foreclosure mess. The assignments of the notes do not match the assignments of the mortgages. Most times there was never an assignment of the note and if there was there was only an assignment in blank and we all know that an unnamed entity cannot foreclose.

  45. Enraged,

    You do have it wrong. You need to understand the difference between “real property” and “personal property” and you don’t.

    In the US, the States actually own real property, you don’t. You only own a “bundle of rights” to the property. Anywhere there are “eminent domain” and “taxing” rights to real property…well, don’t pay your taxes and see what happens.

    Too involved to get into right now but that’s the quick and dirty.

  46. Hey Enraged, you wrote:

    “I am sick and tired of reading posts….”

    Have you ever thought of not reading them?

  47. Once again Nancy Drewe, that one liner makes absolutely no sense to me.

    The way i understand it is: car title = house deed. Once you pay the house off, you’re free to “sell, give, deed” the car to whomever. Hence house deed = car title. State has interest in car title. State won’t allow you to sell car without title transfer. State will register the car to all the parties listed on the car title and all those parties must sign over the title if they want to transfer ownership of the car to anyone. Right? State has interest in car. State collect fees from ownership of car.

    Mortage + note = car loan (?). As long as you haven’t paid it, you can’t sell it, give it away or deed it without the agreement of the lender, i.e. the person having put up money on your behalf. Except that:
    1. Lender didn’t put up any money and couldn’t prove that a payment was effected from Lender’s account to previous owner/lender; or
    2. Lender did put up money but got reimbursed immediately by the servicer with money sent by the trusteee gathered from several trusts he manages (one way to slice and dice). Or by several trustees from money comings from different trusts they manage (a second way to slice and dice). Fannie Mae used to be one of those trustees, right?
    State has interest in house. States collects taxes and fees from owernship of house.

    If I understand well, servicers manage their own trusts. Wells doesn’t touch Chase’s who has nothing to do with BofA’s, etc. It’s called Wall Street. If true, when Servicer changes, it means that trusts has changed. Different servicer = different trust + different trusteee. Right? BUT in order to accomplish it, both mortgage + note must be transferred, right?

    And what has happened is that only one doc was assigned/transferred (and not always): mortgage. Note remained behind, never endorsed, never transferred, sometimes simplys tossed as inconsequential.

    Again, that’s how I understand it.

    Would anyone (except Nancy Drewe who confuses me more than anything else and throws info at everyone’s face no one can use or needs, as though to show off) please let me know if I understand properly? I am sick and tired of reading posts from people who seem to be shooting from the hip and throw in big words no one gets, concepts that make no sense, ideas no one can comprehend, etc. We’re all in the same boat here: we’re all trying to save our damn house. We need practical, not esoterical. Otherwise, go publish your book for the very few esoterical minds willing to read that extensive crap no one gets. I can see why most judges wouldn’t range on some Nancy Drewe’s side and wouldn’t “get it”! It’s unbearable to read and makes absolutely no sense, between the lacking grammar and the choice of terms.

    Sorry for venting but I’m not the only one feeling that way.

  48. Hi Neil,

    Hope you are feeling better, I just want to thank you for referring me to the NHC site, I signed up and traveled through the entire site, I throughly enjoyed it. It’s good to have a support system and a knowledgeable staff, I cannot wait till it’s all up and running and that all of us homeowners feel that someone has our backs. Take care, and thank you for all you do.

  49. Smurf Mortgage It ‘Deutsche Bank’

  50. The County Recorder, County Clerk, oath of a public office, have duty to State for their municipality to keep ‘accurate’ property records for State Trasury.

    Assignments are record of legal transfer of property (debt lien) (satisfaction) are recorded.

    Bank Closing Agent is the local counsel in New Jersey, a judicial state, who are responsible c/o local mortgage servicer RETAIL to pay appropriate fees, transfer taxes collected, etc.

  51. State has vested interest in mortgage and reason property described like a car title, the state has a copy.

  52. SCOTT – I am a consumer and believe if I’ve correctly understood what I’ve read, the UCC Codes to do business intrastate and interstate govern right of local debtor to collect through the ‘Assignment’

  53. Neil, could you please answer this question that no one seems to be able to answer or they refuse to answer. I agree with what you say about the mortgage and the mortgage being an incident of the note. But based on the US Supreme Court and numerous State Supreme Court decisions if only the assignment of a mortgage is recorded and not the note than the mortgage is automaticly becomes void. Because the note and mortgage have been split. The note is on bank A’s name and the mortgage is in bank B’s name. Making both instruments virtually unenforceable.

    I have been told by 4 Register of Deeds offices that the only reason that the assignment of mortgages are recorded and not the assignment of notes is that the mortgage lists the legal description of the property and the note does not. This makes no sense. If this was the case than why are both the note and the mortgage recorded after every financed home purchase and after every refinance.

    Knowing that the US Supreme Court and numerous State Supreme Courts have ruled that if you record the assignment of the note there is no need to record the assignment of the mortgage because the mortgage is an incident of the note but if you only record the assignment of the mortgage and not the note the mortgage is void and the not is unenforceable. Than why are only the assignment of mortgages being recorded. This makes no sense and I cannot find anyone to give me the real answer to this question. Could you please answer this question.

    Thank you for your time.

  54. this is very interesting, I am learning a lot from your blog.

    Looking forward to the American Homeowners Coop

  55. Has any one heard of these people Residential Credit Solutions/RCS. They send me letter saying they are our new server and if we don’t pay or answer them before 30 day’s they will start forclosure.now in researching the I came across this link


    if they are Unlicensed Debt Collector do I have to paid my mortgage to them and can they foreclose on us.

  56. MortgageIT was the one I refinance with .Is MortgageIT Still Around.

  57. Do you mean NHC the National Homeowners Cooperative?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: