Minnesota AG Backs NY AG: No Amnesty For Banks

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

POLITICIANS SMELL BLOOD: RUN AGAINST THE BANKS

“Every single American has paid a very heavy price for the behavior of the financial industry. Ordinary people have lost homes, jobs, income, and financial security because of the actions of this industry,” Swanson said in a statement emailed to The Huffington Post by a spokesman. “I welcome and embrace all efforts to investigate the banks and their executives and to hold them accountable for unlawful activity.”

Minnesota Attorney General Backs New York’s Eric Schneiderman In National Foreclosure Settlement Talks

Minnesota Lori Swanson

First Posted: 9/13/11 12:24 PM ET Updated: 9/13/11 01:40 PM

NEW YORK — As government officials work to settle claims that the nation’s biggest banks illegally foreclosed on American homeowners, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson has joined a group of law enforcers pushing for a narrow deal that would leave banks exposed to potential legal action in the future.

In a letter obtained by The Huffington Post, Swanson said any settlement with the group of banks over mortgage practices should exclude a release from claims over the creation of mortgage-linked securities. Swanson’s support for a narrow settlement unites her with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and attorneys general from three other states, who have said the banks’ alleged wrongdoing hasn’t been investigated thoroughly enough to merit a broader release from legal liability.

“[T]he banks should not be released from liability for conduct that has not been investigated and is not appropriately remedied in any settlement,” she said in a Friday letter addressed to Schneiderman, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and Associate United States Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. “For example, a settlement that focuses on mortgage servicing standards should not release the banks or their officers from liability for securities claims or conduct arising out of the securitization of mortgages.”

“[A]ny settlement between government regulators and the mortgage industry should have ‘teeth’ — holding the banks accountable for their wrongful conduct, enjoining future unlawful activity, and helping injured homeowners,” she continued.

The federal government, along with attorneys general from all 50 states, launched an investigation into big banks’ mortgage and foreclosure practices after it emerged last fall that mortgage companies employed so-called “robo-signers,” who signed thousands of foreclosure documents without reading them. Banks temporarily halted foreclosures last October, saying they would review documents for errors.

Settlement talks, which began in the spring, seemed to be moving toward a conclusion during the summer months, even though government officials had initiated only a limited investigation into the banks’ alleged wrongdoing, The Huffington Post reported in July. Elizabeth Warren, a staunch consumer advocate and recently a senior Obama Administration adviser, told a congressional panel that claims of illegal foreclosures may not have been fully investigated.

The banks, which include Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial, have pushed for a speedy resolution, as uncertainty over a legal penalty that could reach $20 billion has contributed to persistent slumps in their stock. “When we get that call we’ll be on an airplane, we’ll be down there, we’ll be signing up,” JPMorgan chief executive Jamie Dimon said during a conference call in July.

Schneiderman, who has firmly supported a narrow deal, was last month kicked off the committee leading the 50-state talks at the behest of Iowa’s Miller, who is leading the state group, The Huffington Post reported. That news broke a day after the New York Times editorial board voiced support for New York’s attorney general, saying Schneiderman “should stand his ground in not supporting the deal.”

The skirmish among government officials highlights divisions that have emerged, as federal officials and some state attorneys general advocate for a quick resolution, while others are urging the parties not to settle unless there has been a more thorough investigation. Some attorneys general, including Schneiderman, are also pursuing their own investigations.

Law enforcers recently proposed a deal that would effectively release banks from legal liability for securitization practices, the Financial Times reported earlier this month. The banks, which want the broadest possible immunity, called the latest proposal a “non-starter,” according to the FT.

In addition to Swanson and Schneiderman, the attorneys general from Delaware, Massachusetts and Nevada have also raised concerns about a broad release of legal liability for the banks.

“We have received Attorney General Swanson’s letter and agree that any agreement must not prevent attorneys general investigating the mortgage crisis from following the facts wherever they lead,” Danny Kanner, spokesman for the New York attorney general, said in an emailed statement.

“Every single American has paid a very heavy price for the behavior of the financial industry. Ordinary people have lost homes, jobs, income, and financial security because of the actions of this industry,” Swanson said in a statement emailed to The Huffington Post by a spokesman. “I welcome and embrace all efforts to investigate the banks and their executives and to hold them accountable for unlawful activity.”

70 Responses

  1. […] Read More: Minnesota AG Backs NY AG: No Amnesty For Banks […]

  2. @nabdulla

    Your understanding as to what the Constitution says is in line with what I think.
    In addition, I think that when Congress created the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 they gave a right that Congress itself had (by the Constitution)
    , but I am not sure they had that right to give away.

    @tnharry

    In the writing of our Constitution the words No State Shall…
    shows the restrictions the States had, …coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver …

    so State banks have to operate under that law

    National Banks operate under Federal law and Congress has never given the banks the right to lend their credit.

  3. @ tnharry

    in re your position that marilyn’s position is “nonsense”

    will you please give me your comment(s) on the following:

    “Your money (Federal Reserve notes) issued under the Federal Reserve legislation contends on the face of the money “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.”
    The constitution says (Article I Section 10) “No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.”
    An argument arises that while the states don’t have the right to make anything but gold and silver legal tender, that the Federal government does.
    But nowhere does the constitution give the federal government this right. Indeed Article X plainly states “The powers not delegated to the United States…. are reserved to the states respectively or to the
    people.”
    Thus the constitution clearly in effect restrains the federal government from making fiat money compulsory legal tender.
    Earlier Federal Reserve notes had promised to pay off in silver, and the $ was defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold. Current Federal Reserve notes don’t promise to pay anything — a $1 note today does
    not even promise to pay $1.
    But even if the note did promise to pay, the constitution plainly forbids that it be forced on anyone as payment. WHOEVER demands gold and silver may under the constitution so collect
    Precedents in court are plentiful. AM JUR 2D #8 says “the term dollar means money. Since it is the unit of the money of the country… it cannot mean promissory notes or other evidences of debt.
    “Bank notes… are a good tender as money unless specifically
    objected to.”

    Also….

    “In the U. S. the constitution is SUPREME. The judiciary, the executive, and the Congress itself hold office only by virtue of and through the constitution. The first thing a new president swears is to UPHOLD
    THE CONSTITUTION — not to change it, subvert it, evade it — but to be the CHAMPION of the constitution. The Federal Reserve says that the fiat Federal Reserve notes must be accepted in settlement
    of debt. The constitution says “NO”.”

    http://www.fights4rights.com/data/Daly_Affidavit_690626.pdf

    Thanking you in advance….

  4. @marilyn – i now believe your argument is a moving target and that may be your best strategy. the case you cite involves exactly what we’ve been talking about – a state created money and/or bills of credit, specifically unconstitutional.

  5. @tnhenry

    In Blacks Law Dictionary I found

    Craig v. Mo.

    “The emission of bills of credit upon the book of private corporation for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful….”

    Besides which it is the Holder in Due course that is entitled to foreclose and not the bank that issued the bad check.

    The same way all the other bank fraud exploded to the surface, so will this issue. Meanwhile tnhenry you work on writing your own version of the Constitution, lots of bankers would buy it.

  6. and it doesn’t have to be in the charter – it could be a resolution of the board

  7. i’m not the one making it confusing. you’ve just changed your whole tune to the bank charter and moved away from the unconstitutional idea. your claims are a moving target. no wonder they got dismissed.

  8. @tnharry

    There is not a bank charter that allows a bank to lend their
    CREDIT.

    Any bank that lends its credit is performing an Ultra Vires Act

    I have asked you too many times to Cite your authority that allows a Bank to lend its Credit.

    Who pays you to make simple facts into confusing issues. .

  9. @marilyn – and your definition of ultra vires is a little off too. as applied to corporations, an ultra vires contract would be one not authorized by the corporation’s bylaws, articles of incorporation, or the board. when dealing with something ultra vires and the constitution, it can only apply to the government, as the constitution says what states and branches of the government can do. if the government tries to do more than their constitutional grant of authority, then it is void and ultra vires. and that illustration dovetails right into my statements with you that the provision of the constitution you refer to uses the words “no state shall…”

  10. @marilyn – the problem is that the theory has been tested and shot down, including in your own case. IT”S NOT VALID. i’m pointing this out for the innocent people coming here for help. you’re certainly entitled to keep on believing it and to keep posting it here. but as a public service you should also include a sentence saying that it has been denied by courts, that it didn’t work specifically for you, and that you don’t recommend anyone else try it. if you were an atty and kept preaching this case and theory that is bad law, you would face disbarment for posing a danger to society.

    you have a good claim. what are you doing to set aside the order of sale that was entered without jurisdiction? i’ve asked you that at least 6 times across the various postings.

  11. @tnhenry

    When I was in Federal Court I hadn’t even ever heard of the Credit River Case.

    I had to do my Petition by physical research and their are many Ultra Vire cases that have been heard in Federal Court and the Bank always lost. I don’t have them on the tip of my head, but I have posted some of them either on Neil’s or Michael’s web pages when you played doubting Thomas with me.

    I do remember off the top of my head Thurgood Marshall said, the issue of Ultra Vires Contracts are not brought up often enough.

    This is the issue that is the basis of the giant fraud and what is destroying our country and our lives. If you don’t like me trying to tell
    this issue don’t read my posts.

  12. @tnharry

    I have proceeded past the issue of Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the Constitution. And my issue is Jurisdiction as the State Court proceeded prohibited by Petition being filed, read, accepted and docketed in Federal Court.

    When I filed my Petition in 1997 the United States Constituiton read then like it reads today

    Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1
    “No State Shall Coin money, Emit Bills of Credit….

    My Federal Question centered on Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1
    “No State Shall coin money, emit bills of credit…”

    The Hon Louis L Stanton no slouch on the meanings
    of the Constitution read and accepted my Petition and
    the case started.

    Never once did the Hon Louis L Stanton say”
    “Wait a minute, a little bird named tnhenry told me
    the Bank is not a State. We have a problem”

    Neither did the Judge and I ever had a discussion
    that any corporation that is not a State can create money,
    as per your theory.

    Why am I into this now?

    While I am still fighting for possession of my two condos even after Astoria Federal S & L’s new attorney admitted they didn’t own my two condos and the title companies were stepping in to indemnify,and did not want to indemnify their clients for their forged deeds ,I came upon these foreclosure fraud sites for mental support and camaraderiere and I see how terrible this is for all these people as it was for me.

    The injustice of how banks and attorneys are unjustly enriching themselves and stealing properties from ordinary homeowners.
    gets to my gut.

  13. @marilyn – you said “Just because they vacated that case doesn’t mean that the banks can abuse the Constitution”

    you’re partially right – because they vacated the case means that Banks AREN’T abusing the constitution. the case upon which you base your whole belief system was nullified. your case where you tried the same thing was dismissed. we’re approaching the definition of insanity here by doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    people often question my agenda and say i mislead homeowners. i would turn that back around on you marilyn. i don’t question your agenda, but your theory is dead in the water and the danger you pose to homeowners trying your bad theory is huge!! stop spouting this nonsense. someone may wander through the site seeking a ray of hope and seize on your ultra vires claim, bypassing other issues. It’s clear to me that, based upon the facts you’ve outlined before, you got a raw deal. but please don’t lead other people down that wrong path.

  14. @marilyn – we’ve had a lot of back and forth on this constitutional issue and it appears neither of us is willing to budge. maybe there is a federal judge out there willing to say it’s not frivolous. maybe there is a judge out there who doesn’t read the first three words of every sentence and will miss “no state shall” in the provision you rely upon. but i wouldn’t count on it.

    you have a case based on the sale order being entered while the court lacked jurisdiction. why are you still arguing what lost the case for you before? let go of the past and concentrate on what will work for the future.

  15. @ the original anonymous

    Sorry about that long posting I only highlighted the address
    of the Credit River Site but I goofed and much more came up.

    Just because they vacated that case doesn’t mean that the banks can abuse the Constitution and unjustly enrich themselves by stealing our properties with their Ultra Vires Contracts.

    Back in 1997 my case was docketed and begun in Federal Court, but with Bank pressure saying I wanted to change the banking system.etc
    was remanded back to state court.

    Considering todays circumstances their might be a Federal Judge looking at this issue as not frivilous and attach importance to Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the Constitution.

    This issue is the first fraud that effects all of us.
    A common denominator.

    What do you think?

  16. @ the original anonymous

    I know you know this case First National Bank of Montgomery
    vs. Jerome Daly -the Credit River Case.

    Even though it has been vacated the principals of this case clearly defined in the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law is similar to what has happened to all of us in relationship to to the original mortgage documents.

    available at http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/CreditRiver.html.

    here is the site .

    marilyn lane, on September 13, 2011 at 12:36 pm said:
    @johngault
    There are many motions read them all listed below
    River Case Files
    The documents below are PDF copies made from the files of the Clerk of Court for Scott County, Minnesota in the case of First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly.

    1968-12-09 Judgment and Decree

    1968-12-10 Notice of Appeal

    1968-12-11 Appeal

    1968-12-11 letter TRM to HPH

    1968-12-18 letter TRM to HPH

    1968-12-18 Notice of Appeal

    1968-12-19 Affidavit of Surety EM

    1968-12-19 Affidavit of Surety FD

    1968-12-20 Affidavit of TRM

    1968-12-27 letter JD to PF (first page only)

    1969-01-06 Notice of Refusal to Allow Appeal

    1969-01-07 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby

    1969-01-07 Application for an Order

    1969-01-08 Order to Show Cause

    1969-01-15 Affidavit of Prejudice

    1969-01-15? Motion

    1969-01-16 letter HEF to LEL

    1969-01-16 letter HPH to AEH

    1969-01-16 Order Transferring File

    1969-01-17 letter TRM to LEL

    1969-01-17 letter TRM to MVM

    1969-01-17 Notice of Motion

    1969-01-20 letter LEL to JD

    1969-01-20 letter LEL to MVM

    1969-01-23 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Judgment

    1969-01-24 Return to Order to Show Cause

    1969-01-30 Order to make Return on Appeal

    1969-02-07 The Daly Eagle

    1969-02-10 letter TRM to AEH

    1969-02-25 Notice of Appeal

    1969-03-28 letter HPH to clerk of the SCt

    1969-04-15 Order Dismissing Appeal

    1969-06-11 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby

    1969-06-23 Application for an Order

    1969-06-23 letter JCJ to district judge

    1969-06-23 Order to Show Cause

    1969-06-26 Affidavit of Jerome Daly

    1969-06-26 Return to Order to Show Cause

    1969-06-30 letter HEF to AEH

    1969-06-30 letter HEF to JCJ

    1969-07-01 letter TRM to AEH

    1969-07-17 Affidavit for Attachment

    1969-07-18 Affidavits of sureties

    1969-07-18 Surety Bond

    1969-07-22 Order to Sheriff of Ramsey County

    1969-07-22 Order to Sheriff of Scott County

    1969-07-31 letter TRM to HPH

    1969-08-01 Motion to Dismiss Appeal

    1969-08-04 letter HPH to AEH

    1969-08-28 Counter-affidavit of Theo R Mellby

    1969-08-29 Supplemental Return to Writ of Attachment

    1969-08-29 letter TRM to HPH

    1969-09-03 letter TRM to AEH

    1969-09-03 letter TRM to HPH

    1969-09-05 slip opinion In re Jerome Daly

    1969-10-01 Order

    1969-10-09 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby

    1969-10-09 Order to Show Cause

    1969-10-17 Motion for Contempt

    1969-11-04 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby

    1969-11-04 Order Directing Return of File

    1969-11-05 letter TRM to AEH

    1969-11-10 Affidavit of John Mahoney

    1969-11-17 letter JFC to HPH, with copy of foreclosure papers

    1969-12-01 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby

    1969-12-04 letter TRM to HPH

    1969-12-08 letter HPH to AEH

    1969-12-12 Motion to Advance Action to Trial

    1969-12-19 Order Setting Action for Trial

    1969-12-24 letter AEH to HPH

    1970-05-15 letter TRM to JMF

    1970-05-20 letter JFD to TRM

    1970-06-19 Stipulation of Dismissal

    1971-12-30 letter TRM to HPH

    Undated handwritten notes

    johngault, on September 13, 2011 at 9:36 am said:
    Marilyn – know how you spent 20 hrs a day researching? i know all about it. I look and feel 80, and I’m not and doubt I ever will be. My stock will go down for saying this, but I wouldn’t do it again, not for all the jewels in the crown. I think I’ve said this before – I’m sorry you had to go thru that. At that time, you were probably particularly alone, no support anywhere, and that made it a very tough deal. You’re tougher than me because it’s been many years for you and you’re still fighting the good fight. So bravo to you – truly.
    Can I make a suggestion? Can you please find that case and the other information, post it somewhere and link it here? That way at least some of us will read it.

    In today’s headlines, there was a deal on bank’s having to figure out how they’d unwind fwiw.

    marilyn lane, on September 13, 2011 at 8:31 am said:
    @ johngault

    I still think you should read the Credit River Case just to see the credit issue.

    That the case was vacated to me shows the power of the bankers. I also remember reading the JUDGE WHO MADE THAT DECISION WAS MURDERED.

    It used to be people would deposit money in the bank and get say 2% and then the banks would hold 5% of that amount and lend out the rest at 4% and that is how banks made money, but what the banks were lending out were their liabilities not their assets.

    No one was paying to much attention to that scam we trusted banks but then the banks got creative and started to improvise on that scam., all to our detriment.

    If an attorney takes on an issue that is not popular with the Courts they could end up losing their license and they know that. Looks like that is what happened to that attorney Daly and the Judge didn’t do so well.

    Maybe if the country funded 24 hour protection for an older Federal Judge who is ready to retire and sit quietly on a farm where he would would just read and write and eat ,we could get a Federal Judge to uphold Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the Contitution.

    qwester, on September 13, 2011 at 7:37 am said:
    Credit River has been vacated by the Mn Sup Ct and is not precedential:

    http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/creditriver.html

    marilyn lane, on September 13, 2011 at 6:22 am said:
    @johngault

    The basis of everyones Federal Petition would be the same, that a bank lent you their credit prohibited by Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1. of the
    Constitution.
    From there we all part because it depends on the facts of your particular case:
    how much money did you put down?
    how big was the loan?
    is it the original bank you signed your mortgage with that is foreclosing?

    You have to make patience and read how the Goldmiths established a banking system. You have to read how banks use their credit pretending it is their assets.

    There is also a case called the Credit River Case. (I think it is 1968)
    I didn’t know of it when I wrote my Petition but I think it explains the credit issue.

    In 1997 I knew every fact and reason . I don’t want to say anything that is not exactly accurate.

    In my particular case my down payments were more than the bank ever lent me in lawful money.

    I didn’t have the money to get a Constitutional Lawyer , I had to read read read 20 hours a day for weeks mostly sitting up in the libraries, cause I didn’t have a computer. and I made everyone nuts trying to find information.

    After I had filed a bankruptcy to try to stop the banks corrupt attorneys
    the Bankruptcy Judge told me to file a 510 motion against a fraudulent creditor.

    Looking that up is how I found this issue of a bank lending their credit .

    If one party in a contract acts beyond the power granted by law, then the whole contract between the interested parties are null & void.
    Ultra Vires.

    Read that Credit River case and look for the goldmiths theory on the internet. You will understand.

    johngault, on September 12, 2011 at 7:59 pm said:
    marilyn – no, I’m short on patience – and time. Please give us the abbreviated version. Banks get deposits. They are legally allowed to loan a certain percentage. No, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn they exceeded that percentage. I don’t think I can convert the excess lending into the note’s no good, if that’s the argument. As long as money changed hands, and it did, there was a loan made, even if the bank is found guilty of going over that percentage by the regulatory agency. Look, I’m not trying to rain on your parade or anyone’s. No one is. You keep saying banks lent their credit which is a bozo-no-no. No argument from anyone here. It’s true: bank’s may not lend their credit. Only questions of how you arrive at that conclusion. Tell me and I’ll hop right on your band wagon.

    ANONYMOUS, on September 12, 2011 at 5:59 pm said:
    Nancy Drewe

    Not a buzz-word. Manufactured fraudulent default is real — and exists in entirety. Some other aspect of loan agreement??? You mean false forced forced placed insurance??? Failure to pay taxes?? Fraudulent.

    Technical default??? Fraudulent.

    Nancy — you very well know this is not the case.

    marilyn lane, on September 12, 2011 at 1:47 am said:
    @johngault

    I have all my papers in a vault so what I suggest is that you google and read the complete history of the original bankers, the Goldsmiths to learn how banks operate.

    If you have alot of patience you might start examining bank filings on how much they have in the peoples banks deposits and the amount of mortgages the banks write.

    johngault, on September 11, 2011 at 9:48 pm said:
    @ND – johngaultwhoam@yahoo.com

    Nancy Drewe, on September 11, 2011 at 9:44 pm said:
    .Thank you Mr. Soliman. Will do.

    Both — citing and challenging.– while synthesizing individual ‘transactions’ relationship’s inside of ‘Agreements’ and individual transactions and group transactions, which collectively harmed our nation, states, municipalities, neighbors, friends and family.

    Did President Obama really not know before entering office that the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, note due paid under TARP was interest due before he took office? I’m sad he believed he could make a difference. Sadly, he has no influence over Federal Reserve’s Tim. Geithner.

    Nancy Drewe, on September 11, 2011 at 7:12 pm said:
    Will do John Gault but need your email 9733473475

    johngault, on September 11, 2011 at 6:17 pm said:
    @ND – I would love to read a bailment agreement. Send me one?

    Nancy Drewe, on September 11, 2011 at 5:11 pm said:
    The fat ugly tapeworm feeds on ‘cash’ not credit.
    The interest sugar feeds the beast the cash not the credit.

    Nancy Drewe, on September 11, 2011 at 5:09 pm said:
    But we purchased cash is how the deal went down look at the transactions ‘cash’ deposit – cash deposit – you have paradigm what was suppose to happen what came first cash then credit. Sale of Note, ‘cash’ passed to ‘Seller of Loan’ cash to depositor period. That happened first under 2 agreements Bailee Agreement and Sale & Servicer Agreement. I’m not speaking of law I’m speaking of transactions. Have you looked?

    Nancy Drewe, on September 11, 2011 at 5:06 pm said:
    Carie – Manufactured Default is a buzz word.

    Mortgage Servicers affiliates of a national bank.

    Sale of Note. Have you every seen a Bailee Agreement? I’ll send you a copy. Mr. Soliman my mentor, c/o LL, continues to point out the facts you all choose to ignore that put the transactions in order executed by agreement 2 sides ‘sale of note’ and ‘sale of loan’.

    Sorry Gary we can’t use simple words. Its time to use Investopedia and as necessary Legal & Financial Dictionary. Not being a smart ass just being real.

    All Retail Loans in technical default after 90 days.

    What is a technical default: A deficiency in a loan agreement that arises not from a failure to make payments as promised, but from a failure to uphold some other aspect of the loan terms.

    Technical default indicates that the borrower may be in financial trouble, and can trigger an increase in a loan’s interest rate, foreclosure or other negative events. Calling Servicer and telling them you lost your job get ready!

    For example, a real estate co-op can go into technical default if it has failed to keep up with building maintenance and repairs, even though the mortgage is paid up.

    Homeowners with mortgage payments that are current can find themselves in technical default if they fail to pay property taxes or homeowner’s insurance premiums.

    A corporation could go into technical default if it falls short of meeting promised operating ratios, such as the proportion of debt-to-equity, even if it has been making all loan payments as agreed

    Be afraid … be very afraid of HAMP or any other federal government regulatory agency plan impleted c/o Federal Reserve oversight c/o OCC c/o Freddie Mac c/o Fannie Mae c/o FHMA, and authorized (powers vested by Congress House of Representatives).
    which places you into forced default!

    How much is due December of the $14.3 Trillion dollar debt created by the Federal Regulator Agency payroll who works for Congress who has done abosolutely nothing to protect welfare of nation and acted as not donkey and elephants but a horses petard.

    Federal government c/o House of Representatives 435 of them responsible for placing you, your family, your neighbors, your municipalites, small businesses, municipalities, townships, commonwealths, states and nation in grave danger.

    HAMP, government prined more money to pay people who work for owners of the debt – hello does nayone get it yet?

    Government will pay for cost of short term notes in order to what — help debtor liquidate loans;

    For HAMP clearly we’ve followed the transactions and the cash not getting to creditors indeed but not the one you owe money too, no keep thinking and believing in good and that evil won’t touch you now or when homeless on the streets.

    You accured lots of late fees, interest, and are in technical default from first 30 days, starting 1st month 5th day, 1st of month you enter 2nd month shorting payments, which on the 5th of that 2nd month place you 60 days in technical default, and 3rd month by 5th day you are in technical default of 60 days, the robo-firm notified second month 5th day, to begin foreclosure imminient.

    Already considered 90 days late! Servicer gets control under conditions of some agreement including PSA exhibits and Sales & Servicing AGreement, etc.

    Retail performing loans were placed into technical defaults after 90 days in order to be liquidated. The late fees not paid place you in technical default. Any short places you in default. Asking servicer to pay taxes in escrow and short one payment places you in technical default.

    After 90 days, if you pay the lump (sum) of shorts due within 120 days and the amount accurate, including all lates fees, accured interest, etc.and if you were told the correct amount and pay the correct amount should not be in technical default right? Wrong, dirty deed done by 90th day 5th of 3rd month you were late.

    The investor paid in the 4th month, the loan moved to subservicer who will continue to track default c/o Servicer.

    Who do you think that the 4th month big payment went too? Not the Servicer. A hard money lender who was going to get the 4th month cash due from borrower or insurance.

    4th month big payment not given to CREDITOR.

    All the shorts of month 1, 2, 3, you know that reprieve where you felt safe moved ahead the foreclosure. That special forebearance plan, set you up to fail, placed the loan in a technical default reported to the credit bureaus as payee and receivable history. Your loans were thereafter setup to be liquidated, foreclosures moving forward because after 90 days, Servicer has right to ‘whatever the agreements specify – called conditions to take non-performing loans and move to subservicer while Master Servicer collects payments from servicer while loans performing and they will be placed into technical defaults when convenient and profitable for Seller – Servicer who has rights to resell and repurchase for pennies on dollar.The 90 days the servicer has to keep the loan performing who was paid? Not the Creditor!

    Forebearance Agreement consumers thought they were safe because President George Bush said consumers could get forebearance plans so we must be safe right? Get over it.

    The government is protecting the US Treasury not you!

    The money you paid did not go to creditor!

    You were put into foreclosure and the federal government has provedn since 2000 controlled did not help you but hurt you. Those 120 day deals, 90 day pay short amount — 4th month payment entire sum another way for hard money lenders to make a chunk of change. Was it really a test or creative method to secure more cash out of borrower? Has nothing to do with institutional investor, the note paid for held as pledged asset.

    HAMP c/o federal government private industry again insured they will be paid for costs to touch papers and consider modifications.
    Sure sell more insurance to insure transactions.

    Resubmissions guarantee cash paid to paper handlers of HAMP paperwork, lost every 30 days. Or is the resumbission necessary, documents held in black hole in order to place loans into forced default. Why did the HAMP Counselors have to say the paperwork lost resubmit? Everytime consumer resubmits one of those tax HAM forms a third party secures IRS Tax documents of borrower. Every resubmission allows they to go back and back and back and what find who the real owner of the note is? What? Get more IRS tax reports on borrower in order they find ‘assets’ they can attach to like pensions, IRA, 401K, insurance accounts, etc.? For any modification under the new regime and I mean regime will attach to all personal and real property to the debt.

    All data in a database has a purpose; all transactions have a purpose for input and output.

    HAMP a federal program shoudl be a red flag not a security banket for consumers. Know if the President Obama is pushing another federal program its for the benefit of the benefactors the private corporations not the residents of the state. Job program, Republicans what do you know?

    Nancy Drewe, on September 11, 2011 at 4:41 pm said:
    Marilyn until you open your mind its not the banking system who hurt you its the federal government you’ll never figure out how to move out of the box you are in and move forward offensively.

    johngault, on September 11, 2011 at 4:07 pm said:
    “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.”

    I missed any elaboration of this point. How is it the banks didn’t have the money in their accounts when they wrote checks?

    Nancy Drewe, on September 11, 2011 at 3:56 pm said:
    What Does Pledged Asset Mean?
    An asset that is transferred to a lender for the purpose of securing debt. The lender of the debt maintains possession of the pledged asset, but does not have ownership unless default occurs. A pledged asset is returned to the borrower when all conditions of the debt have be satisfied. The US Treasury in trouble ‘pledged the gold’ our asset part of our Living Trust per US Constitution, per the bond# affixed to my birth certificate, per the SSN attached to the bond deals related to Social Security. TARP payment was not a bailout it was payment of interest due right?

    Nora, on September 11, 2011 at 12:51 pm said:
    Great video, eye opening information and scary as well, that interview with Katherine Austin should be watched by everybody not only here in the US, but all over the world.

    marilyn lane, on September 11, 2011 at 10:10 am said:
    @johngault

    Below is a description of the origination fraud

    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 was 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.

    usedkarguy, on September 10, 2011 at 11:22 pm said:
    that was worth the watch. A very astute woman, indeed.

    johngault, on September 10, 2011 at 11:17 pm said:
    @Marilyn – please do repost. I’d like to see that argument again.

    marilyn lane, on September 10, 2011 at 10:16 pm said:
    @Nancy drewe

    I didn’t get cash I got the bank’s credit.

    Absolutely prohibited by the Constitution. If you can’t find my posting about how a bank runs their scam when you sign a mortgage and a note I will again put it on again.

    carie, on September 10, 2011 at 8:04 pm said:
    “…partly right about sale of existing “note” —- but, the GSEs could not just sell the Note- on performing loans — this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors. The Note (and it’s receivable stream) had to be falsely placed in default and charged-off in order to sell the “Note” — but, when this happens the Note no longer exists — thus, all that is sold is collection rights to a once existing note.

    You and Neil do not understand that security investors fund the BANK — not the borrowers — there is no direct relationship between security investors and borrowers. If banks are able to sell their income stream, that is an accounting transaction — it is not a “loan” to borrowers. This is why security investors are NEVER the creditor.

    Collection rights transfers are not funded by borrower transactions (ie fabricated refinance). Collection rights are transferred by assignment — not NOTES (which is why NOTES are fake)…the credit enhancers pay cash for collection rights — they use insurance for the purchase of the rights. This is why the subprime was so profitable — the bank debt buyers put up no cash for transaction — but, were then able to profit by the “sale” of the receivable pass-throughs to security investors.. This is also why MBIA (insurance co.) legal action against BOA and others is hugely important.”

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 7:23 pm said:
    And Marily, what the banks gave us was CASH. They took the CASH as deposits. The accrual promise to pay back the cash.

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 7:22 pm said:
    Astoria Federal Savings Bank – did business with who? That blessed them with exemptions as an affiliate of a national bank. Do you have the Bailee Agreement, know who the Bailee or Bailor were ‘Sale of Note’ and ‘Sale of Loan’? The missing payments if not but for the fact of OCC exemptions is larceny. What would happen if you took money that was suppose to go into the attorney trust account? If you are not an affiliate of a national bank you’ll be prosecuted and discovery provided. Else. not.

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 7:10 pm said:
    MARILYN MY POINT PURELY

    Exemptions
    Exemptions
    Exemptions

    Exemptions from what?

    OCC Blessed EXEMPTIONS upon all Mortgage Servicers affiliates of national bank

    Exempt from
    Exempt from
    Exempt from

    Enforcement of:
    Money Laundering Laws (FinCen)
    PredatoryLending Laws (FTC with sanctions)
    Consumer Protection Laws (State AG’s with Jurisdiction)

    What has this got to do with the harms you indeed have suffered?
    Everything!
    What can you do about that?

    IN a court of equity nothing dispute over property does party have standing – note holder in due course.

    In District Bankruptcy Court nothing.

    In State Court? Nothing – protective order will be issued preventing discovery and you’ll be forced in civil procedure to dismiss for their non-compliance and you’ll be accused of abusing court, and when you are forced by civil procedure by a non-compliant plantiff – what will happen? 50/50 Motion to Dismiss with or without prejduice. 2 years of torture, how many thousands of dollars and health issues?

    Out of the box thinking and strategry – find loopholes.

    Living Trust is the US Constitution.

    You and I – We the people have the entitlement to be safe in life and property and yet we are subject to alleged unlawful business acts – criminal prosecution jurisdiction of AG’s. And yet with visitorial powers of federal regulators with oversight Federal Reserve c/o OCC they prevent enforcement of laws.

    Help me draft using the right words seeking Commander-in-Chief of my state under Petition to Redress Grievances Seeking Injunctive Relief for ‘my authority’ 2 senators and congressional representative overstep limited powers.

    Article II Executive Powers – State Governors Enforce Laws and may use Executive Order when welfare of state harmed by negligence of Senate and House of Representatives.

    marilyn lane, on September 10, 2011 at 4:44 pm said:
    @Nancy Drew

    I want everyone to know that what 98 % of the Banks lent a mortgagor was their credit and prohibited by our Constitution.

    There was fraud in the origination contract and it was an Ultra Vires Contract. And that is what they should be studing reading and fighting about.

    I was all by myself when I had to fight back and hardly anyone would believe a bank would do something that was not legal. except I interacted with two Federal Judges that knew this issue.In those times it was acceptable to side with a Bank. Times have changed.

    If the banks are not willing to admit their massive fraud and give the true homeowners their properties , and the Judges protect our 5th and 14th amendment property rights, we can’t sit like bumps on a log we have to fight.
    Let the banks go under and give us all our 5th and 14 amendments right and protect our properties.

    marilyn lane, on September 10, 2011 at 4:27 pm said:
    @ Nancy Drewe

    (Continued from my below post)

    Astoria Federal S & L had gotten rid of those corrupt attorneys 8 years prior and the banks new attorney apparently looking at the dates knew the bank never owned my properties (NY is a lien state) and Mr. Arthur Walsh of O’Reilly,Marsh & Corteselli stated in NYSC It’s Indemnify, Indemnify Indemnify – we are stepping aside and the Title companies are stepping in.

    In steps corrupt attorneys Frank P Malone of Fidelity National Title and David K Fiveson of Coronet Title who did not want to Indemnify thier clients who knowingly bought Forged Deeds but wanted to be Intervenors and be heard and what they told Judge Schlesinger was Time makes Forgies Good and besides they had equity

    . Forged Deeds convey no Title and the only equity the title attorneys were speaking of was money under the table for Judge Schlesinger and she took it and ruled against the US Supreme Court case of Elliot v. Piersol.

    Pursuant to Elliot v Piersol these are my two condos.

    carie, on September 10, 2011 at 4:19 pm said:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/18/national/main20080533.shtml

    “Robo-signing” of mortgages still a problem”

    (AP) “Mortgage industry employees are still signing documents they haven’t read and using fake signatures more than eight months after big banks and mortgage companies promised to stop the illegal practices that led to a nationwide halt of home foreclosures.
    County officials in at least three states say they have received thousands of mortgage documents with questionable signatures since last fall, suggesting that the practices, known collectively as “robo-signing,” remain widespread in the industry.

    The documents have come from several companies that process mortgage paperwork, and have been filed on behalf of several major banks. One name, “Linda Green,” was signed almost two dozen different ways.

    Lenders say they are working with regulators to fix the problem but cannot explain why it has persisted.”

    NICE…They “cannot explain” why…
    Hmmm…gee, could it be…hmmmm…oh, I don’t know…maybe because…UH……IT’S ALL FRIGGIN’ LIE UPON LIE UPON LIE UPON LIE UPON LIE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING—STARTING FROM THE FRAUDULENT PAPERWORK WITH MATERIAL OMISSIONS WE SIGNED WHEN WE THOUGHT WE WERE GETTING A “REAL” MORTGAGE??????????????????

    marilyn lane, on September 10, 2011 at 4:16 pm said:
    @ Nancy Drew

    The foreclosure fraud against my two NYC condos started by a Bank Fidelity NY FSB hiding four mortgage checks (two on each property)
    faking a default in order to accelerate at what I subsequently found the purpose to be was to demand lawful money for the unlawful money (credit) lent The State Judges would not stop the fraud.

    I filed a Chapter 13 to try to stop the corrupt debt collector attorneys
    Mullooly Jeffrey Rooney & Flynn from stealing my properties. In bankruptcy court when the Hon Cornelius Blackshear told me to file a 510 motion against a fraudulent creditor I found the issue of Art I Para 10 Cl 1 of our Constitution

    The Hon Cornelius Blackshear told me to file a Federal Petition upon Federal Question with all the secus details.

    On May 8 1997 I filed the Petition. The Hon Louis L Stanton read it, accepted it for filing , sent me to the Federal Clerk to pay my fee (I demanded a jury trial) and get the case docketed. The next day I filed a copy of the Petition in the country clerk of State Court and that act effects the removal and the State SHALL NOT PROCEED NO FURTHER UNLESS AND UNTIL REMAND

    The Hon. Louis L Stanton issued his first orders for conference pursuant to Fed Rules and made a directive I write a letter to the
    Bank and demand a money settlement. (by thsi time Fidelity had gone under and Astoria Federal S & L became Successor in Interest)

    Unbeknownst to me the state court did not stop and the corrupt attorneys MJRF worked on getting a state judge to sign the two judgments of foreclosure while the case was under federal jurisdiction.

    Almost three months into the case these corrupt attorneys apparently pressured Judge Stanton to remand the case claiming I had a Montana Militia mentality and that I wanted to change the banking system.
    Judge Stanton remanded the case and the Federal clerk sent the certified notice of remand on July 29 1997.

    (The case was under Federal jurisdiction from May 8 1997 thru July 29 1997 and the void ab initio judgments of the state court were signed June 30 1997.)

    In their corrupt rush to get my two properties they auctioned off my two condos to straw buyers with these ab initio judgments. I told the the corrupt attorney Timothy Rooney this is illegal you cannot auction my properties with a void judgment and he said “who is going to stop us?.

    I was ousted

    I wrote a little book , sent it to Federal Senators, Federal Judges, OTS OCC etc etc etc

    One Federal Judge told me go back to State Court and open up the case . In Sept 2008 I sought two orders to show cause to mark vacated void Judgments ab initio of June 30, 1997 pursuant to the US Supreme Court case Elliot v. Piersol which states:

    Under Federal Law which is applicable to all States, the US Supreme Court stated that if a Court is “without Authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but simply void and form no bar to recovery sought, even prior to reversal in opposition to them …

    .

    THE REAL MONEY TRAIL | Quiettitleaction.Net, on September 10, 2011 at 2:01 pm said:
    […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: Bad Debt Reserve, bankruptcy, bonds, borrower, collection agency, countrywide, Cross Default, Debenture Redemption Reserve, Default Risk, derivatives, disclosure, Fixed Income, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, futures, Leveraged Loan, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, Non-Performing Loan, Personal FinanceRelated Terms, principal, quiet title, Redlining, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND Livinglies’s Weblog […]

    carie, on September 10, 2011 at 1:53 pm said:
    EXCELLENT VIDEO WITH CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS—AN ABSOLUTE MUST WATCH!!

    Video is almost an hour long but well worth sitting through…thank you for posting it…a LOT of VERY IMPORTANT information in there—from a former Assistant Secretary of Housing—WOW!!

    So, that’s what some of you guys are—attack poodles!

    Oh, well, I’ll just keep posting the truth—thank God for the internet!!

    qwester, on September 10, 2011 at 1:41 pm said:
    A bit too vehement for me. Please back up your assertions with numbers and sources and mind your punctuation in order to certify your meaning. I’ve been hearing these accusations for years but our standard of living keeps climbing. How can this be? We lack an uncompromised media capable of honest foresight to protect us from axelrodding puppet obamanations and their attending goons.

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 1:21 pm said:
    EXCELLENT VIDEO & TRUE
    WE NEED TO ACCESS 3100 COUNTIES AND DECENTRALIZE
    WE NEED TO PROTECT THE ‘LIVING TRUST’ OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND PRESERVE BLOOD, AND DEPRIVE THE BIG FAT TAPEWORM OF PROFITS. WE THE PEOPLE DON’T NEED GLOBAL BANK.

    EACH STATE ENGINEER HOW TO MAKE ME MONEY AND DEPRIVE THE TAPEWORM

    WARNING – DO NOT FEED NATIONAL BANKS
    DEPRIVE FEDERAL RESERVE BENEFACTORS PROFITS.

    WE ARE SHEEP LED TO SLAUGHTER FED FALSE INFORMATION BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

    THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS WHAT YOU BELIVE IS ‘GOOD FOR YA’

    OUR ‘SOVERIGN’ PEOPLE IN THE NATION BENEFITTED FROM ‘PROFIT SHARING’ WITH FOREIGN ENTITIES DOMICILED IN US IN ORDER TO LAUNDER CURRENCY FROM SOUTH AMERICAL FINANCIAL EXCHANGES THRU US FINANCILA EXCHANGES TO UK FINANCIAL EXCHANGES TO ….

    DON’ FEED THE BEAR OR THE BEAR WILL EAT YOU!

    THINK FOR YOURSELF. HOW MANY CONSUMER FELL FOR YOU CAN AFFORD THIS LOAN BELIVED ONLY BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THOSE WITH MORE KNOWLEDGE KNEW WE COULD AFFORD THE NEW LOAN.

    THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS TRUE THEY KNEW WE COULD NOT AFFORD THE LOAN IN 5 YEARS.

    YOU ARE. ENCOURAGED TO DO THINGS THAT MAKE MONEY FOR NATIONAL BANKS WHOSE OWNERS ARE OUTSIDE USA.

    WE GOT POORER MAKING MORE BUT MAKING LESS FOR WHAT WE ARE BORROWING PAID NATIONAL BANKS THEIR PART OF THE PROFIT SHARING PLAN.

    GOLD GONE. WAKE UP. THERE IS NOT GOLD WAS ALREADY USED 1990′S. TARP MONEY WAS DUE! WE’VE BEEN LIED TOO BY THE PRESIDENT’S OF THE UNITED STATES. DO THEY NOT KNOW? ITS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER PRIVATE CORPORATION NAMED FEDERAL RESERVE. THEY HAVE MINIMAL CONTROL OVER ‘FEDERAL REGULATIONS’ IN WHICH THEY SEEK THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO DO BUSINESS WITH GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT. FEDERAL RESERVE EXEMPT FROM CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT. 64% OF THE PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE CORPORATION FOREIGN OWNERS! HELLO!

    TARP $12 TRILLION -WAS ‘FORCED REFINANCE’
    NEXT PAYMENT DUE WE SHORTED. OPPS.
    TOXIC COMMERCIAL PAPER FINANCIAL SECTOR ISSUED
    NEXT PAYMENT DUE DECEMBER. ITS GOING TO BE A BLEAK CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY SEASON OF GIVING AND THERE WILL BE A LOT OF TAKING OF PROPERTY IF YOU DON’T LEARN HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF IN COURT OF EQUITY – FROM THE BEAR ! THE PARTY DOES NOT HAVE STANDING. THE NOTE WAS BIFURCATED JUST AS MR. SOLIMAN SAID.

    1996 THANK YOU FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON OWNED BY FEDERAL RESERVE – RULES CHANGED HOW CAPITAL FLOWS AROUND WORLD. REASON WHY CHEMCIAL BANK & CHASE MERGER 1996; WELLS FARGO HSBC TRADE BANK 1996; NORWEST CORP & GMAC & CHASE ’1996′ NORWEST ASSET SECURITIES CORP. ETC.
    JUNE 1998 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA C/O TRUSTEE WILMINGTON TRUST
    1998 – ALIGNMENT OF MERGER OF TWO CORPORATIONS ‘NORWEST CORP & WELLS FARGO & CO’ BOTH SURVIVED. THE FORMER REGISTRATION STATEMENTS OF NORWEST CORPORATION ARE ACTIVE.

    WE HAVE BEEN ‘MULES’ USED TO PUMP UP US ECONOMY – AND AT THE SAME TIME FLATTEN ECONOMY –
    CHANGE WHO IS THE OWNER

    5 TRILLION IN DEBT

    OWNERSHIP OF WEALTH IS IN HANDS OF SMALL # OF PEOPLE -ROTHSCHILD – ROCKERFELLA…. C/O CORPORATIONS THEY OWN C/O CEDE & CO NOMINEE DTC

    CASH MOVED OUT OF NATION WITH EVERY ‘DEPOSIT’ OF EACH CONSUMER PAYCHECK, EVERY AUTO 401K DEPOSIT C/O CORPORATIONS IN TRUST OF ‘CORPORATION TRUST CO’ MOVES CASH OUT OF US. LOTS USED TO BUY GOLD NOW STOCKPILED OUT OF US.

    WE ARE FISCALLY GOVERNED BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS

    WATCHING LIABILITYS BE SHIFTED INTO SOVERIGN GOVERNMENTS – GREECE – YEP!

    CORPORATIONS GET ASSETS
    GOVERNMENT GETS LIABILITIES

    SHIFT ALL MONEY IN PENSION FUNDS
    PUT BACK PHONEY BALONEY PAPER
    SHIFT OUT SOCIAL SECURITY FUND
    ONCE ALL SHIFTED OUT
    LEFT WITH PROMISES

    GLOBALIZATION

    Y2K-POPULATION OF AMERICANS CHANGE ADAPT TO CHANGES AND BENEFITTED FROM PROFIT SHARING

    HOUSING BUBBLE MOVE MONEY OUT
    MORE DEBT
    FEWER SMALL BUSINESSES
    FRANCHISES TAKEN OVER
    TIME NOTICE TOO LATE

    ENCOURAGED TO TAKE ON DEBT .. DID NOT KNOW WE COULD NOT AFFORD.

    GOVERNMENT KNEW WE COULD NOT AFFORD.
    WILL LOSE JOB STATISTICALLY PROBABLY
    FINANCIAL INSTITUTION MAKING LOAN KNOWS IT
    TAXES RISING, STRATEGY ALWAYS WORKED
    NO DOWN PAYMENTS, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO IT

    UNDER LAW – IF I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT YOU DON’T I DON’T DISCLOSE THAT IS ‘XXXX’

    FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
    ENCOURAGE TO TAKE DEBT
    MATERIAL ADMISSION
    FORMER SECTETARY OF HOUSING
    1996 FORWARD FRAUDULENTLY INDUCTED

    REALITY – SOLD OUT PENSION FUNDS AND IF WE CAN’T PAY OFF WHAT HAPPENS TO RETIRMENT SAVINGS

    2006 SPIRITAL FRONTIERS
    CONFERENCE HELP SOCIETY SPIRALITY
    HOW THE EMONEY WORKS

    LIQUIDATING WEALTH OF PEOPLE – NEXT IN PROGRESS – HEALTHCARE –

    GOVERNMENT USING GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY TO FORCE ‘CARTEL’ MORE PROFITS INTO ‘HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY’

    HEALTHCARE PROBLEMS. HUGE BANKRUPTING INDIVIDUALS. INDIVIDUALS CHARGED 8 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE CORPORATION WITH LIABILITY C/O INSURANCE.

    Steve, on September 10, 2011 at 1:00 pm said:
    Fraudulent inducement

    Excellent video: Catherine Austin Fitts : Deliberate Implosion of the U.S. Economy

    Guy_Fawkes, on September 10, 2011 at 11:49 am said:
    You cannot read “The Real Money Trail” without also watching this video:

    carie, on September 10, 2011 at 11:41 am said:
    Mortgage Database Proprietary Files:

    “Freddie Mac is the compliance agent for non-HAMP servicing/foreclosures. Non-Hamp means not Freddie/Fannie loan. All the data is considered “proprietary” — by an agreement between Treasury and Freddie in 2010 — all information compiled in a mortgage data-base — that is proprietary and cannot be revealed.

    …look for NJ case — In matter of foreclosures — in which Freddie refuses to divulge info to the court because of the Treasury agreement — and that the information in proprietary. “

    victor perez, on September 10, 2011 at 11:39 am said:
    This is incredible, my son and his wife lost their home and they had to go bankrupt we sent them the request questioniar they sent back a copy of the loan agreement and nothing else. They refuse to answer any of the questions, and I know they screwed my kids out of thier house. Having no money to hire a lawyer what can I do?

    carie, on September 10, 2011 at 11:19 am said:
    entity attempting to foreclose cannot produce conveyance of payments to—and/or balance sheet that fake “mortgage/loan” lies on…Hello?

    carie, on September 10, 2011 at 11:09 am said:
    manufactured default==false default…

    “Homeowners were in false default — before they even signed on dotted line for so-called “refinance.” Actually, just a modification of collection rights to “dumped” GSE loans.
    So — did GSEs know that there were fabricated defaults??? Why would they “sell” collection rights to loans they owned — rather than foreclose??? Because, they would then purchase the fraudulent “MBS” securities that contained cash pass-through on the collection rights from the banks. And, the GSEs could earn a higher return on these fabricated MBS — then they could on the loans that they actually owned. When these high interest “MBS” went Kaput — “investment” return collapsed.”

    A Man—payments going to unsecured debt collector masquerading as some entity having standing…meanwhile you sign away your rights on “new” contract—basically they “own” you now…for further “extraction”…

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 11:01 am said:
    Sadly no point to the madness … residents property subject to unlawful seizure — residents not safe in life and property when State of New Jersey Governor unable to enforce laws c/o State Regulatory Agencies but for the good reason an affiliate of a national bank’s mortgage servicer is attached to the taking of possession of property through deceptive acts.

    Want to live in pursuit of happiness? Claim your rights to the ‘Living Trust’ c/o of citizenship and residency. The US Constituton our inheritiance a Living Trust,

    Do nothing and you have violated the terms of the living trust, your duty as custodian, every resident, in every state of the nation, named beneficiry of ‘living trust.’

    Manufactured default in a complaint in a court of law – what will that get you? NO STANDING in a Court of Equity where merely a dispute over the debt and standing to take property to satisfy a debt limited to four corners of a contract. Hello!

    Headliner in Foreclosure Defense ‘ delay of the inevitable ‘
    third party taking possession of property through alleged unlawful business acts Court of Equity nor District Court over Bankruptcy – DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.

    Fraudulent Appraisals, Teaser Rates, and Manufactured Defaults
    Oct 2, 2006 – To cure what McDonnell terms a ‘servicer-manufactured default’, the borrower must pay the full amount necessary to bring the account current

    The A Man, on September 10, 2011 at 10:41 am said:
    Where are our Payments going if we do a loan mod or continue with payments. Follow the Bank Accounts. How complicated can that be.

    Point A to point B thru Z.

    NEVER AGAIN

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 9:10 am said:
    your point MANUFACTURED DEFAULT…. keep going ….

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 9:09 am said:
    The funny thing is its not a coverup or would not be in the light of day. Its business monkey business. The ‘Agreements’ what the agreements say and good reason the Bailee AGreement and the Cash they changed hands governed by separate agreements – Sale & Servicer Agreement, Purchase Loan Agreement the bifurcation the ‘deposits’ of loans forward sold get it forward sold ‘alternate investments’ c/o Registrant ‘SEC’ Depositor ‘ S-3′ and S-3/A hello how cash may be converted 90 days later into an accrual the note sold 90 days before.
    Deutsche Bank the named party on the Cashiers CHeck passing cash for sale of Note to Auroroa Loan Services in the Bailee Agreement and Deutsche Bank the named party on the Bailee Agreement selling note to SPV Aurora Loan Services.

    The only truth in these matters is the ‘robo-debt collector counsel’ without personal knowledge did process transactions ordered to attach debtor to property during default. Why? They move defaults from Wells Fargo & Chase to ‘GMAC Mortgage Corp’ special servicer who advances funding during defaults.

    carie, on September 10, 2011 at 9:06 am said:
    MANUFACTURED DEFAULT.

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 9:02 am said:
    They left the debt on the books the accruals of entities who when they fail get bailed out – get it! The money long gone – gold of United States long gone held by foreing owners as collateral! Get it! Reason for TARP.

    Real simple read Bank Secrecy Act

    all deposits owned by and governed by charter of busienss entity c/o Federal Reserve

    All cash Chase admits to investors in 10K report 1996 read it – cash deposits go immediately out of US and they do what they are allowed to do. In order to take cash of US Citizens and US Residents and do business over US Financial Exchanges, they had to domicle inside US in a state. The entity Aurora Loan Services,Inc. the ‘SPV’ of Lehman Securities and Deutsche Bank AG c/o Bankers Trust of California, National Association is the ‘exemption’ all affilaites of therefore henceforth ‘exempted’ c/o visitoral powers of OCC, and Federal Reserve oversight since …….allowed and allows this very day all cash deposits going into lockboxes to continue to be laundered!!!!!

    The harm is daily.

    carie, on September 10, 2011 at 8:59 am said:
    THE TRUTH—AGAIN:

    “There are millions of mortgage loans in valid traditional mortgage-backed securities trusts.. Valid securitizations included mortgage loans securitized into Freddie/Fannie sponsored trusts. Thees 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.
    When loans in F/F REMIC trusts (also used to be called PCs) —default for 3 months — the collection rights to the loan are “swapped” out (sold) to the servicer. Most of the servicers had agreements with F/F to purchase default loans — this was called “credit enhancement” — a form of insurance that passed any losses on defaulted loans from F/F back to the servicer. Sometimes, F/F would sell these defaults to servicer on an individual basis — and sometimes F/F would wait and “pool” the defaults to sell as a portfolio to either servicer or other “credit enhancer” to their trusts. But, this would NOT affect security investors — as the original trust — with thousands of other performing loans would stay intact. Once the servicer purchased the collection rights — they would sell collection rights at a discount to debt buyer “investors.”
    This is where big problems started – with subprime securitization– 100% of which were refinances. This means at some point, these “refinances” were a prior F/F loan that had been charged-off and removed from F/F trusts. And, when the charge-off and removal occurred — only collection rights survive. Thus, the subprime refinances were simply modifications of collection rights – certainly, they were not a new mortgage — as the subprime refinance originator falsely portrayed to homeowners — because the borrower still owed on the F/F default loan — even though the servicer purchased the default loan from F/F – the borrower still owes — but not a mortgage — only on collection rights. The borrower cannot get a new mortgage — all they were getting was a modification of collection rights to a default loan. Most often, homeowners were not even told they were in default on F/F loan — credit reports would not reveal. And, as the demand for subprime “refinances” increased — servicers started manufacturing defaults to meet the demand.
    The “investors” in these subprime “refinances” — were debt buyers of the collection rights from F/F. And, if there was a subsequent refinance — of collection rights the “investor” may or may not change. There is no dual funding — just because some cash was provided to the borrowers by the “investor” debt buyer — in “cash-out” — does not mean that the securization of collection rights “refinances” — was split. The subprime securization was funded by the debt buyers “purchase” of collection rights — thus, the debt buyers “investments” (hence the word investor) was the money they put up to purchase the collection rights from the servicer — who purchased from F/F — and any additional cash paid out to borrower —— the whole “collection right” bogus loan is securitizaed with subsequent derivative Security Investors receiving pass-through of cash flows. But, the security investors to these (bogus) trusts are NOT the creditor/mortgagee — just as security investors to F/F were never the creditor/mortgagee. And, just as with F/F — once these subprime “refinances” became delinquent — the servicer would advance payments to trustee for security investor pass-through for a certain amount of time — until the servicer deems the loan not collectible — at which point the servicer ceases making advance payments and the collection rights to that loan are also swapped out of the bogus subprime trust. Note — there is no change of security hands with a “swap out” — swaps are contracts –not securities. Securities can only be on current cash flows. Once the current cash flows cease — there is no more security — that is when contract swap comes in.
    Also, note that the credit enhancement mezzanine tranches were funded first — these subordinate tranches represent the right to “collect” on collection rights — and the only funding was the purchase of collection rights. Banks were/are the debt buyers — until they dispose of collection rights to a another party. The upper tranches (falsely rated as AAA to A1 etc.) — thus, the cash pass-through tranches — were owned and kept by the security underwriter subsidiary to the bank. Then, the both the mezzanine and A tranches were repackaged into CDOs — to be sold as pass-through to derivative security investors.
    As to AIG — and any other “security investors” — these 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.

    carie, on September 10, 2011 at 8:59 am said:
    I REST MY CASE WITH WHAT I WROTE YESTERDAY:

    Utter insanity…that’s what happens when you try to cover up fraud—over and over and over…and over again.
    Don’t you get it? All this blah blah blah of fake assignments and notary fraud and QWR’s not being answered and faked documents and bifurcation and MERS crap and endless litigation with banks and Wall Street and investors and SEC crap and “wrongful” foreclosures and no “loans” transferred to the trusts and PSA’s not followed and no mortgage loan schedules and no mortgage loan purchase agreements and servicer transfers and foreclosure mills and chain of title crap and filing a “lost journal” and who owns the note and quiet title crap and attorneys who don’t know jack and on and on and on and on…
    All because a few brilliant sociopathic materialists figured out how to pretend to have real mortgages securitized—but in actuality created securitization of collection rights (ONLY)—on false default debt.

    Just so a few A**HOLES could make a LOT of money.

    And here we are…tons of unsecured debt and everyone in denial.

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 8:56 am said:
    Marilyn Lane how can you be in court since 1999 over matter and its 2011 over same matter? And why do you spin the same information over and over what are you accomplishing? What is your goal? What is your compalint? What remedy does the Court provide in your complaint? What evidence do you have? Why have you been spinning? You have had to have spent a fortune and expending your good health. Strategry and transctions. What staute of limitation is not expired because you have in good faith been in court the whole time.
    1998 the mechanized organized methodical processing of electronic notes Parent Chase Manhattan Corporation Parent of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. 1998 Chase is the #1 in the Finance Univers. Norwest & GMAC partners with Freddie Mac & Microsoft & IBM, c/o TD Servicers did enable attaching cash to loans forward sold loans that would become the revenue stream – the bifurcation as Mr. Soliman taught me occurred between the Bailee Agreement sale of Note and Cashiers Check sale of loan

    johngault, on September 10, 2011 at 8:51 am said:
    “For purposes the bailout, they took the investor loss and claimed it as their own, taking taxpayer money in the trillions to bailout their ailing enterprises”.

    This doesn’t make sense. The bankster sold the payment streams on the loans to pool investors, so they got, say a billion dollars. Yes, the bankster is now supposed to make good on the payment stream to the pool investor, but they got the billion dollars out of them, so why would the bankster be ailing? The only reason the bankster would be ailing imo is if the bankster sold the loan to five different pools (now obligated 5 times on 1 loan) and then blew all the money on yachts, private jets, and ridiculous salaries and bonuses. Or, I suppose the same could be true if they had only sold the note once. That billion dollars went somewhere – apparently as described
    and or out of the country in the hands and control of the puppeteer ceo’s and pet officers / employees, like the guy who personally made 4 billion.
    But then, wait a second. The banksters didn’t get those loans for free – they themselves had to pay for them. When Lehman, for instance, bought monster loan portfolios to securitize, they had to fork over some dough. Theoretically, Lehman got more from pool investors than they paid themselves, so their profit was the spread to start with and then maybe some pool insurance, etc. But if they spent money left and right on yachts, private jets, and ridiculous salaries and bonuses, it wouldn’t take long to go thru it. Some households spend 2 dollars for every dollar earned. It’s not hard to see out of control spending at big companies which could burn thru billions in a NY minute. Otherwise, there is no reason for these companies to have been “ailing” (unless they had in fact sold the same loan numerous times).

    Nancy Drewe, on September 10, 2011 at 8:42 am said:
    And so its Nancy Drew’s commentary to a post not a submission.
    If you don’t understand the transactions, shame on you.
    If you are looking for law to win in court and have not requested the evidence shame on you.
    There is no mystery what they did and how they did it.
    Thank you Mr. Soliman. Its you and only you who shared the clues that led me to the Bailee Agreement. Anybody know what a Bailee Agreement is?

    You find my writing confusing because its thoughts typed at 100 wpm to get facts out there. I can’t believe none of you get it. I have the evidence why don’t you.

    But the fact of the matter remains the court is without authority over any of the acts due to exemptions of OCC and Federal Reserve Board as Federal Regulators c/o powers vested by Congress in which all overstep limited powers allowing exemptions from federal and state laws and regulations in place that ‘otherwise’ would have protected all of us!

    Exemptions from Money Laundering FIN Cen regulations are attached to every transaction between – Hellow –

    Deutsche Bank AG
    c/o Bankers Trust of California, National Association
    a National Bank under Parent Deutsche Bank A, under Federal Reserve System, oversight Federal Regulator.

    Guess who Deutsche Bank NA Letter ‘Bailee AGreement’ passes ‘Notes’ to as Sale c/o ‘Agent’ of Alternate Investmenet?

    Aurora Loan Services, Inc. SPV
    Conduit Central Service in Texas all now ‘affiliates’ of Mortgage Servicers c/o national bank!

    Hello anyone listening now?
    Call 973-347-3475 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 973-347-3475 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
    The only way you can win and stop the alleged unlawful business acts exempted from money laundering, consumer protection laws c/o FTC, and predatory lending c/o State Attorney Generals is to invoke one by one your first amendment right to Petition Redress of Grievances to Commander-in-Chief your Governor responsible to enforce laws to protect welfare of state. If you don’t get this you have not read the US Constitution, and don’t understand the organization of the corporation, the United States Treasury, Your mad because you don’t understand, get madder get angry and prove me wrong and in doing so you’ll learn the truty.

    marilyn lane, on September 10, 2011 at 8:21 am said:
    Looks like someone wants to talk in confusion so that those of us that know that the origination fraud of a bank lending you credit and not money is nothing but an Ultra Vires contract – null and void from the start.

    As we follow our Constitution and get closer to the truth , whoever this person is wants us to get distracted.

    ANONYMOUS, on September 10, 2011 at 8:21 am said:
    Becoming more and more an “investor” advocate site here.

    qwester, on September 10, 2011 at 8:19 am said:
    I deplore anonymous posts which this long winded recital approximates. It may have value in a post foreclosure and sale analysis of the facts but it lacks the legal authenticity required to apply it to a particular foreclosure unless one possesses knowledge superior to that of the Consumer in NJ in which case all this would be obvious. How can the average reader discover these hidden transactions in a form presentable to a court? It seems to me that expert financial testimony is required to expose whatever chicanery exists here. Neil should point this out to help us avoid wasting time.

    ANN, on September 10, 2011 at 8:05 am said:
    More info and pleadings samples at
    http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections
    http://www.foreclosureprose.com

    ANN, on September 10, 2011 at 8:02 am said:
    TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN FIGHTING FORECLOSURE:

    A) Send FDCPA Dispute and Debt Validation within 30 days of Summons and Complaint.
    * Failure of plaintiff to properly validate will give you both an affirmative defense (to prevent Summary Judgment) and present you with set off against judgment, and perhaps injunction relief. Google Case law for appellate rulings to support your position. This can be used in addition to your states Credit Collections act with more teeth.
    B) Send Qualified Written Response during litigation to opposing counsel.
    *Failure to respond within 60 days creates TILA affirmative defense (to prevent Summary Judgment), set off against possible judgment, in addition to the TILA/RESPA violations.
    C) Initial Response to Summons and Complaint can be held off with a Motion for Extension of Time, Motion to Quash or Motion to Dismiss within the 20/30 response period. Set hearing with Motion for Extension as some appellate courts rules that it doesn’t toll (extend) response periods when motion is moved within the response period.
    D) Request initial production of note. Standing requires servicing agent (bank acting as collection agency) to have mortgage assigned to them -or- via equitable assignment (note is a bearer instrument with blank endorsement). Check endorsement/allonge on note to see if its stamped pay to the order w/endorsements.
    E) Compel production of note for “D” if plaintiff balks at request, or, if they claim lost note, have them prove they are entitled to re-establish by your states laws.
    F) Hearing on Motion to Dismiss – Circuit courts usually will deny initial Motion even with strong evidence. However, use this as a “teaching moment” to the court. State case law where appellate courts found reversible error when this has occurred. This will tell judge your serious as they fear being overruled by appellate.
    G) Answer/Affirmative Defenses/Counterclaims will be required 20 days from denial of motion to dismiss. Continue to build case of material issues of fact that will prevent summary judgment short circuiting your case. If the issue shows the bank has a dozen bishops to testify, and you can produce 1 liar, then the issue is still at question.
    H) Appellate courts can be used to overturn circuit court rulings. Use them, and ask the circuit court to issue an injunction while appellate reviews the issues.
    I) If your judge is pro lender use Federal Courts for damages for FDCPA/TILA issues. They have a narrower focus of the law.
    J) Bankruptcy courts (Ch 13) using an adversary proceeding can be used wisely to avoid (Declare mortgage security invalid and become an unsecured claim). They also have a narrower focus of the law.

    Generally: Prepare to win or at least educate the courts on each of your motions, one small battle at a time. Don’t expect courts to give you a piece of real estate free and clear, but if you play chess know you can check/checkmate there moves without initially winning – e.g. if they can’t prosecute the case in (10 months Florida) the court can and will dismiss the case with prejudice, then you can obtain quiet title.

    Some info , pleadings samples at wwww.scribd.com/winstons2311

    Enraged, on September 10, 2011 at 7:46 am said:
    It is very bizarre but it doesn’t strike me as Nancy Drewe’s prose. The style appears different. Author hallucinating as much, though… and “challenging” is the greatest unerstatements of this decade…

    neidermeyer, on September 10, 2011 at 7:35 am said:
    Nancy Drewe ,

    We all understand that there is a complex maze of agreements and transactions very few of which are legitimate if the inter-agency contract language is applied. I for one fail to see how I can get party #4 in the chain to enforce a contract agreement with party #5 ,, and getting a judge in a foreclosure suit to enforce that agreement or even decide based on limited knowledge (and maybe 30 seconds allotted to the defendant to speak) that it is relevant to the immediate action.

    I see the value in these posts and explainations and it will become more relevant as the big money suits get underway…

    What we need more than anything is for one of the big money suits from an intermediary to gain traction, since this all revolves around the OCC and the Fed I would think that this needs to somehow

  17. @marilyn – it may appear that way sometimes, but i’m not against you. i’ve tried to offer advice many times. the fact that we disagree on the ultra vires issue doesn’t mean anything more than disagreement. i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again – the ultra vires is not your best argument. that court order going down while the case was active in federal court is your best argument. i don’t suggest giving up the other necessarily, but don’t let it overshadow the “best” argument

  18. marilyn lane,

    Yes — agree with you — fraud started in origination. For subprime — “loans” in false default before “refinance” origination.

    But, there is much other fraud involved and that is why there are “splits.”
    This is part of the reason “class actions” would be difficult — each case has its own story and circumstances with many players involved in the fraud.

    US government has failed.

  19. @ Jordana – thank you:) for the offer to help! I don’t know if you are still fighting your bank, and if so, sounds like you are holding your own! Each time you hear there was a win, it lends moral support to those of us who are feeling it is causing us more harm than good.

    @carie – my complaint did contain an allegation that it is now an unsecured debt and should be treated as such. Two reasons it should be treated as unsecured debt – bifurcation and re-purchase. Rescission was the main thing I was going after to at least recoup some of the lost money but knowing if I succeeded we would be forced to return the house. I also went for unjust enrichment as fraud is very hard to win. My complaint in that regard closely resembles the NV AG’s suit as that is exactly what happened to us. Of course, I have the TILA and RESPA violations added in. I tried to keep it as simple as possible and asked to be able to amend the complaint based on possible needed corrections because I am not an attorney and probably bungled the complaint it in some way, shape or form and based on any findings from discovery that would allow me to add charges but after talking with these foreclosure defense companies…hearing the bleak outcomes from other folks…it now seems kind of hopeless for such an enormous undertaking mentally and physically:( Unless all of the courts start ruling on law to send a clear cohesive message to the banks…they will continue to run amuck. Why wouldn’t they. They play the odds…a few loses against huge numbers of wins or those that don’t fight…they make out.

  20. @ the original anonymous

    what I have noticed is we are all so split up on our issues
    that it is a one by one fight against the bank or the court.

    WE need a common denominator to fiight unified.

    Few people agree with me prehaps I vent, Carie ,Marilyn A that the fraud starts in the origination contract. Everytime I bring up the Ultra Vire contract , in comes someone like tnhenry. He is not with us.
    He is with the banks.

    Do you have an opinion on this and what can strengthen us?

  21. carie, can you cite just one case where anyone was able to get anywhere closer to home by shouting debt collector?

  22. Katheryn

    Did you purchase or refinance in the last 10 years? Is your statement from a “servicer”? Are you paying a “servicer”? Does your statement say “debt collector” on it??? If so, it is UNSECURED DEBT. You can FIGHT BACK.
    These questions are important. You are not being told the truth as to your (probably), “fake” mortgage…the lawyers don’t know or don’t care…and the judges are being paid to push foreclosures through, so they don’t care either. FDCPA & TILA violations on unprecedented scale…

  23. Katheryn: It is a house and it is not more important than you as a person. Some jurisdictions are better than others. Where are you? You can email me directly. I don’t know if I can help but I am willing to try. Every time I was ready to give up someone threw me a bone. You just need a bone. jordanalipscomb@gmail.com

  24. I am really starting to feel it is an effort in futility. I contacted 15 attorneys today…every answer was not interested. I spoke with a loan foreclosure defense firm…they claim not a loan mod. co., After spending two hours with their intake worker I was transferred to the paral egal under the attorney. I told them I was basically just looking for some guideance if nothing else they could offer. He tells me that there is no way we would get a mod., and that it is useless as I will never prevail with my suit, with or without an attorney. He said the judge would ask one question and that is whether we can afford the mortgage. If not, then they will foreclose. Does not matter what I claim or can prove they did or did not do….none of it will matter. He said that they can stall a foreclosure from 12 -18 months and would handle whatever needs to be done to stall but the end plan would have to be that we give the house to the bank and he would probably be able to get us $5,000 to hand over the keys. I then asked what is in it for his co.; the answer – $1,800 within 2 months and then $500 a month until we turn over the house. So if we calculate it on one year it would be $8,800 to get the year and maybe $5,000. I told him that would be silly as my trial date would not be for another year and they already offered me $4,000 to give them the house. My point here is that there are thousands and thousands like me that have no choice but to go it alone and everyone tells you that you must have an attorney. I am sure I will loose even though I know that the law in my complaint is right on…it won’t matter anyway. I hate having my life in limbo and feeling one minute like you stand a chance only the next to be torn down. I think about the woman who just took her life and I wonder if it is more humane to not hope for something that seems impossible and with the odds so stacked against you. Maybe it is better to not hope and just try to put the pieces of your life back together while moving on. I think that the highs and lows and having your life hanging in limbo may do more damage mentally than giving in. Just a thought.

  25. Okay — posted lasted comment under “ANON” — and system states — “awaiting moderation” — because system does not recognize.

    So — let us see if this awaits moderation — by ANONYMOUS

    As much as we need this support — to keep investigations going — AGs are interested in their own state pocket losses by purchased fraudulent securities.

    I do not see one AG standing up for the victim homeowners. What NY and MN AGs are standing up for is — securities fraud. This has nothing to do with “investor/creditor” mortgage fraud and foreclosure fraud.

    In fact, could be harmful if AGs erroneously assume derivative contracts (linked -lingo) — are securities.

    AGs are desperate to save their own state budget deficits — they have not cared a hoot about foreclosure victims — which IS THEIR JOB.

    Nevertheless — will take any commotion.

  26. As much as we need this support — to keep investigations going — AGs are interested in their own state pocket losses by purchased fraudulent securities.

    I do not see one AG standing up for the victim homeowners. What NY and MN AGs are standing up for is — securities fraud. This has nothing to do with “investor/creditor” mortgage fraud and foreclosure fraud.

    In fact, could be harmful if AGs erroneously assume derivative contracts (linked -lingo) — are securities.

    AGs are desperate to save their own state budget deficits — they have not cared a hoot about foreclosure victims — which IS THEIR JOB.

    Nevertheless — will take any commotion.

  27. Thanx E. Tolle

  28. I really like and support Lori Swanson. However, you should all keep in mind that MN is a predominantly non-judicial foreclosure state and most homeowners do not take any action to contest it. Also, a creditor, such as a 2nd lienholder, can get an order for wage garnishment without even obtaining a judgment. It is an extremely creditor friendly state. MN homeowners, such as myself, have a hell of a time getting anyone on their side in this battle. I hope Lori puts some muscle behind this decision. If so, Wells Fargo and its buddies at LPS should watch their backs.

  29. The game was to move money under a scheme of deceit and fraud. First sell the bonds and collect the money into a pool. Second take your fees, third take what’s left and get it committed into “loans” (which were in actuality securities) sold to homeowners under the same false pretenses as the bonds were sold to investors. By controlling the flow of funds and documentation, the middlemen were able to sell, pledge and otherwise trade off the flow of receivables several times over — a necessary complexity not only for the profit it generated, but to make it far more
    difficult for anyone to track the footprints in the sand.

    If the loans had actually been securitized, the issue would not arise. They were not securitized

    This was a mass illusion or hallucination induced by Wall Street spiking the punch bowl. The gap (second tier yield spread premium) created between the amount of money funded by investors and the amount of money actually deployed into “loans” was so large that it could not be justified as fees. It was profit on sale from the aggregator to the “trust” (special purpose vehicle). It was undisclosed, deceitful and fraudulent.

    Thus the “credit enhancement” scenario with tranches, credit default swaps and insurance had to be created so that it appeared that the gap was covered. But that could only work if the parties to those contracts claimed to have the loans. And since multiple parties were making the same claim in these side contracts and guarantees, counter-party agreements etc. the actual documents could not be allowed to appear nor even be created unless and until it was the end of the road in an evidential hearing in court. They used, when necessary, “copies” that were in fact fabricated (counterfeited) as needed to suit the occasion.

    You end up with lawyers arriving in court with the “original” note signed in blue (for the desired effect on the Judge) when it was signed in black — but the lawyer didn’t know that. The actual original is either destroyed (see Katherine Porter’s 2007 study) or “lost.” In this case “lost” doesn’t mean really lost. It means that if they really must come up with something they will call an original they will do so.

    So the reason why the paperwork is all out of order is that there was no paperwork. There only entries on databases and spreadsheets. The loans were not in actuality assigned to any one particular trust or any one particular bond or any one particular individual or group of investors. They were “allocated” as receivables multiple times to multiple parties usually to an extent in excess of the nominal
    receivable itself.

    This is why the servicers keep paying on loans that are being declared in default. The essential component of every loan that was never revealed to either the lenders (investors) nor the borrowers (homeowner/investors) was the addition of co-obligors and terms that neither the investor nor the borrower knew anything about.

    The “insurance” and other enhancements were actually cover for the
    intermediaries who had no money at risk in the loans, but for the
    potential liability for defrauding the lenders and borrowers. The result, as anyone can plainly see, is that the typical Ponzi outcome — heads I win, tails you lose.

    So the paperwork was carefully created and crafted to cover the tracks of theft. Most of the securitization paperwork remains buried such that it takes search services to reach any of them. The documents that were needed to record title and encumbrances was finessed so that they could keep their options open when someone made demand for actual proof. The documents were not messed up and neither was the processing. They were just keeping their options open, so like the salad oil scandal, they could fill the tank that someone wanted to look into.

    Neil Garfield, October 2010

  30. ANONYMOUS, on September 13, 2011 at 5:55 pm said:

    Does not matter whether mortgage or DOT — claims are based upon securitization — and THAT is the problem.
    As to subprime — nothing more than collection rights were securitized. Remember, securitization is simply a method of pass-through of CURRENT cash flows. Anything with a cash flow can be securitized. The problem is — that securitization is meaningless as to the creditor. Security investors — and trustees — in any capacity — are NEVER the lender/creditor.
    The fraud lies in the securitization fraud “process” — and the means by which the “loan” was procured. The “loan” — in subprime — was never a “loan” at all — at least NOT a secured loan — by mortgage or DOT. .Thus, dischargeable by BK.
    That is the issue.

  31. @tnharry

    I want nothing more than an audience of 6 or 12 at a jury trial that I paid for in Federal Court to hear facts of this discusting scam of bank fraud and judicial injustice.

  32. I stand by that argument Marilyn – by and large, constitutional claims require that you can show a “state action” in order to properly state a claim. as to the case you cite, we’ve had that argument before and will have to agree to disagree. you made the coin money argument in your own case and lost. you have a great argument now about the lack of jurisdiction. do you have something pending on that issue still? my advice, if you’re willing to listen, is to pump up your strong argument and not the lesser ones. if you keep arguing the coin money issue you run the risk of your audience not getting the jurisdiction argument because you’ve lost them

  33. @tnharry

    The banks started their massive fraud with lending their credit .

    An attorney and a Judge lost their lives because they dared to defend our Constitution.

    That Credit River Case says it all about how the Banks produced their masssive fraud That is was vacated after these men were dead and no one their to defend it, make it all the more sickening.

    If you have a banking backgound help the people, don’t side with the racketeers.

    Read that Credit River case again and you will see it is Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1 No state shall coin monely, emit bills of credit….. that these damm corrupt bankers are offending.

    With your understanding of the Constitution, your theory is anyone who is not a State need not adhere to article 1.

  34. Right on, E.Tolle.

  35. “Bank of America sent more than twice as many notices of default to homeowners in August as in previous months, CNBC reports. A notice of default marks the first stage of the foreclosure process in states such as California and Nevada, where foreclosures do not go through a judge”.

    They go on to say that the reason for the curtailment at B of A as well as all the other banks was because “a number of major banks halted their foreclosures last fall once it came to light that they had used shoddy mortgage paperwork to foreclose on homes.”

    Anyone who has studied the facts behind the headlines understands that “shoddy” is simply a euphemism for fraudulent. And anyone with an IQ higher than a B of A teller’s hourly rate would also know that the reason we’re talking about only non-judicial foreclosures here is due to the fact that they can rape and pillage in the light of day non-judicially, fearing nothing, but gaining millions of homes from financially strapped Americans who are too weak to defend themselves. Like defenseless baby gazelles on the Serengeti surrounded by banking foreclosure mill beasts, only with banking regulators and congressional leaders lying off in the grasses laughing as only hyenas who will be cut in on the spoils do.

    And the doubling of notices of default is obviously a last minute push by these banksters who know the jig is up. And just like the Germans who shot and killed defenseless Europeans when they were in retreat, knowing full well that there was no hope and that they had lost the battle, these criminal banksters are on a tear to get as many spoils of war as they can cash in on before the noose is tightened.

    As if all of that weren’t too much to decipher by downtrodden American citizens who have always believed in the good old USA, maybe even defended her with life and limb, there’s an even darker truth that these same B of A higher ups are hiding from everyone as they lay off tens of thousands while continuing to cut themselves huge checks and bonuses, and I for one won’t rest until they’re all in 8’X10’ cells for life when it comes out into the light of day. I mentioned last week here that Chris Whalen had remarked on his site, Institutional Risk Analytics, that little issue concerning B of A’s dilemma that it may come out soon that they’ve sold the loans multiple times to multiple trusts. Whaaa? Isn’t that like….HIGHLY ILLEGAL? CRIMINAL? WTF Congress, would someone sit up and take notice here? Are all of you still on vacation? Obama? Holder? Walsh? Is anyone home? Does anyone enforce laws anymore? Can we get a little help here?

    We’re fast approaching the point of no return here. When this revelation comes out, and we know it will because it’s only a matter of time, will heads finally roll? Will our captured government finally act as if they’re horrified at the bankster criminality? Or will they aid in the de-criminalization of the industry that pays for their every whim?

    Watch Chris Whalen here (and read Yves Smith’s take as well):

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/new-york-times-runs-pr-for-bank-headcount-cutting-profiteers.html

    especially at the 3:30 mark, where he says about B of A, “Why didn’t they deliver the notes to the trust? Why? Because they were delivered multiple times….do you think a bank can survive that? The reason they didn’t do the documents correctly on the mortgage backed securities is because they sold the loan to more than one investor….you start talking about rescission, you start talking about RICO, you may even force the political powers to come in and get involved in this in a criminal sense, because that’s what we’re talking about, we’re talking about securities fraud on a systemic basis, and the only way we can fix this with respect to the government’s claims as well as the private investor’s claims is with receivership….”

    There is no way to resolve this absolute mind fucking display of mass criminality short of rescission on the investor AND the borrower’s side as well. Moral hazard you say? Fuck you! When it’s revealed that these institutions made millions off of each and every six figure mortgage loan sold to us by reselling it like a whore on a street corner over and over again, and please let me take a moment to apologize to each and every prostitute out there for comparing them to these disgusting assholes on Wall Street, then let’s talk about the moral hazard of reinstituting gallows in public squares, shall we?

  36. from Mandelman Matters –

    But the other truth is that I’m angry. I’m angry that I even have such responsibility… such power that my writing about someone’s situation has the potential to save their home from foreclosure. It shouldn’t be the case. The banks should not be allowed to lie to people, the process should be transparent… none of it should be done in secret.

    God damn the bankers that continue to treat American homeowners struggling financially as a result of the global financial crisis and our country’s deepening recession that they caused as if they are meaningless souls… as if they are to be disposed of like diseased cattle.

    And God damn those who have no compassion for the millions of Americans who continue to receive foreclosure notices every day… their lack of compassion comes from their ignorance of the facts involved, and at this point there is no excuse for that ignorance.

    And God damn the Obama Administration for ignoring and abandoning the American middle class in favor of the banking billionaires to whom he has given a blank check as reward for their crimes. None of this should be happening in my country.

  37. @marilyn – don’t associate me with that nonsense. i’ve made it clear that i don’t agree with you one that issue and I think it’s absolutely wrong. before you quote the constitution, you must read the constitution. the part you’re hanging your hat on begins “no state shall…”

  38. @Zurenarrh

    If tnharry were on our side, he would be telling everyone that
    what the banks lent us was their credit prohibited by
    Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of our Constitution.

    None of us put in our money , time and lives
    to get shafted by a corrupt banking system.

    Let the Banks be the victims of their own scam, not the
    true homeowners. No Bank should profit from their own
    criminal behavior

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

  40. I wonder if we will ever see the day when
    one Bank president will say
    ” I did this country wrong.

    I knew from the beginning that every mortgage I wrote is against the principals set forth in our Constitution.

    All the money I have accumulated from this fraud and I’m going to leave to my children and grandchilden won’t give them a good life when they are living in a third world nation.”

  41. Enraged–that Post story was good. Jeff Barnes is the man! But who was that coward at the end? We don’t want to negotiate with the banks! We want to crush them! AND WE WILL!

  42. Intresting tidbit… http://www.cnbc.com//id/44501759

    The FDIC is asking the big US banks to write a “living will”… a plan to “wind them down in an orderly fashion”.

    Really? Is someone considering pulling the plug?
    Or… does the FDIC know something we don’t but should…?
    The plot thickens.

  43. To cube2k,

    If you haven’t paid in two years and no one has come after you, should you consider filing for quiet title? I realize it might be risky and might wake up some old skeletons but… worth exploring, no?

  44. Question: how many lawsuits does it take to bring an entire bank (and America’s largest one) down to its knees?

    Answer: don’t know but it’s coming…

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/foreclosures/lawsuit-accuses-chase-of-nationalized-fraud-1856294.html

    To be continued…

  45. sorry…I just read Mandelman’s story (link below), and I’m beyond pissed.

  46. AND THE HOUSES SIT EMPTY…
    WHERE’S THE EFFING JUSTICE?

  47. UNSECURED GOD DAMN DEBT—PEOPLE ARE KILLING THEMSELVES OVER UNSECURED GOD DAMN DEBT.

  48. Right on, cubed2k…
    I told them (my fraudulent servicers), that I know it’s unsecured debt because of fraud—and I told them HOW I know…and now they ignore me…
    How many people have taken their own lives because they couldn’t pay a fake mortgage? What if they had been told it was unsecured debt because of the fraud? They could have at the very least filed for bankruptcy, and started their lives over…instead of taking it…

    Damn them all to hell…

  49. lets look at this simplicity that nothing in congress or judges or so called experts look at.

    Sam lends money to Joe with collateral. Contract is Joe pays back over a given time period. Joe no pay, he gives up collateral.

    How come I haven’t paid on my mortgage for 2 years now and nobody has taken my house?

    I mean, really. How come I have not been foreclosed on yet?

    I tell you, if I lent money to a borrower to buy a house, and he defaulted on the terms, I tell you I will foreclose on him and get the house back really quick like so as to resell it to somebody who will make the payments so he can own it.

    So why hasn’t somebody foreclosed on me? I mean it has been 2 years.

    Will the real owner please foreclose on me?

  50. It is really crazy, and how do you understand crazy, you can’t because crazy is crazy. it is no understanding, it’s crazy. There is nothing to understand because it is crazy, all the god dam rules all over the place.

  51. I tell you they are all incompetent boobs. Everyone one them, from house of representations to Senators to the president. They all get elected on their ability to talk, but none of them no anything about anything. The god damn treasury secretary giethener or however you spell his stupid name can’t even file his taxes properly using turbotax.

    What a god damn mess that nobody can understand or follow and yet every year more rules are added.

    What the hell is wrong with these people??????????????

    Every god damn year they state the tax code needs to be simplified but yet every god damn year more rules are added.????????????

    I give up.

    I’ll be blunt, you people in Congress and elected officals are INSANE. And the definition of INSANE is NO UNDERSTANDING, thus you are INSANE.

  52. this rape has to stop human lives are being lost. we are not a 3rd world country. i thought we cherished human life. please act now

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/09/i-failed-and-i%E2%80%99m-so-very-sorry/

  53. Carie ,

    You said … “”How about “fraud-linked non-mortgage associated empty trusts”?”” … that works for me but the news organizations lawyers would not allow it (yet) … using the somewhat ambiguous term “linked” as a standalone adjective is safe … so that is what they will use.

    ANONYMOUS ,

    I was giving an example of how opinions are shaped by arbitrarily framing the debate in a certain way , obviously the example was representative of the abuse of language only and not of the subject matter… similar to how the term “Ponzi scheme” is now in play in politics when using it in regards to Social Security … SS is of course a Ponzi scheme ,, has been for 70+ years … but people are being attacked for calling it what it is. I agree that the change in language IS important… The NYT (and others) are working to soften the impact of whatever comes out of these lawsuits,,, you’d better believe that among their sources they have plenty of inside information that they can’t or won’t publish yet, but they will when they can no longer offer “cover” for their high society Manhattanite buddies…

  54. re mortgage “linked” – here’s a few:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-14/deutsche-bank-sold-mortgage-linked-pigs-as-market-buckled-lawmakers-say.html

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/07/goldmansachs-idUSL3E7K70DN20110907

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903648204576554931375155722.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-14/bank-of-america-re-remics-reduce-mortgage-debt-as-basel-capital-rules-loom.html

    in this article:

    “Bank of America repackaged $13 billion of mortgage-linked securities in the first half, according to Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman for the company, and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

  55. A consumer advocate as a Senator??? Whoever heard of such a thing?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/elizabeth-warren-senate-massachusetts_n_960510.html

    Hope she gets it…

  56. ian, and E. Tolle

    You are right-on. “Linked” is a very different word that is not the same as “backed.” Linked implies derivative contracts — that are NOT securities at all (which is what I have been saying for a long time) — but, rather, “linked” is contracts derived from CDOS Squared that were derived from CDOs that were derived from securities that were derived from “certificates” that were derived from “loans” that were derived from origination — that was derived from fraud. Leverage.

    “Linked” is a very important “leak.”

    This has nothing to do with abortion/pro-life lingo. It has to do with financial instruments and derivative contracts. This is not about media promotion — but, rather, about contracts and deregulation. And, while abortion/pro-life issue is very important, it is not a part of financial fraud that our government agencies are obligated to uncover and investigate. We have not yet had that full investigation — not anywhere near.

    And, they know it.

    “Linked” — means they are getting ready — as E. Tolle states, — to defend contracts that have perpetrated the foreclosure fraud — that was based upon origination and security fraud. They are trying to “leak” the word — to prepare.

    Will not work.

  57. “Fair” Foreclosure Act? While they have robbed America blind they also attempt to take away our due process. The hypocrites that they are alleged in their answer to my complaint that allegations contained in my complaint violated their federal and state constitutional rights. I’m still trying to research now research constitutional law to determine exactly how they are applying that logic. I’m pro se and still trying to hold on. I managed to get to this point but finding it more difficult as the court case moves forward. Only one lawyer out of state willing to help but wanted advances far and above what I can afford as well as fees to register in my state, although he has a great rep. for this law. Most of what I have learned has come from this and other sites like these, so thank you. I doubt I will succeed; it is like a life boat up against the Queen Mary, but I’ll keep trying!

  58. How about “fraud-linked non-mortgage associated empty trusts”?

  59. Pettiton to Defeat Proposed Florida Unfair Foreclosure Law

    Dear Clients and Friends,

    Lenders have added a new weapon to their arsenal to defeat homeowners in the foreclosure crisis . . . legislation. Unhappy with the prying eyes of homeowners’ attorneys and judges, the banking lobby has drafted the “Fair” Foreclosure Act of 2012.

    The Bill, if passed, would preclude homeowners from defending a foreclosure, usurp the due process oversight of the courts and fast track the foreclosure process. If passed, it would dismiss the past fraud of banks which created our nation’s current financial crisis. Some of the most troubling provisions of the act include:

    Non-judicial foreclosure in most cases.
    Fast tracking of foreclosure cases once filed.
    Court must enter judgment within 45-90 days for uncontested foreclosures.
    Repeal attorney fee sanctions for bringing unsupported claims.
    Limit the right of homeowner’s to challenge wrongful foreclosures.
    As you can see, this proposed legislation attempts strip homeowners of basic rights of fairness. If passed, the bill would prohibit homeowners from effectively defending their homes. Presently, the banking lobby is soliciting a bill sponsor and supporters for this dangerous bill.

    Do your part! Please log on and review this petition.
    http://signon.org/sign/do-not-support-the-florida?source=c.url&r_by=533269

    All the best,

    Graham Legal, P.A.
    Ponce Plaza, Suite 410
    814 Ponce de Leon Blvd.
    Coral Gables (Miami)
    Florida 33134
    (305) 445-9185 – Local
    (888) 611-9811 – Toll Free
    (305) 445-8015 – Fax

  60. This probably won’t help us in the courtroom, unless we say …”See judge, they own you too, you just don’t know it.”

    This is cut and paste click on link to read full story. Its pretty scary.

    Who Runs the World? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control

    By Michael Ricciardi
    In the first such analysis ever conducted, Swiss economic researchers have conducted a global network analysis of the most powerful transnational corporations (TNCs). Their results have revealed a core of 787 firms with control of 80% of this network, and a “super entity” comprised of 147 corporations that have a controlling interest in 40% of the network’s TNCs.
    Note to the reader: see the very end of this article for a ranking of the top 50 ‘control holders’]
    When we hear conspiracy theorist talk about this or that powerful group (or alliance of said groups) “pulling strings” behind the scenes, we tend to dismiss or minimize such claims, even though, deep down, we may suspect that there’s some degree of truth to it, however distorted by the theorists’ slightly paranoid perception of the world. But perhaps our tendency to dismiss such claims as exaggerations (at best) comes from our inability to get even a slight grip on the complexity of global corporate ownership; it’s all too vast and complicated to get any clear sense of the reality.
    But now we have the results of a global network analysis (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) that, for the first time, lays bare the “architecture” of the global ownership network. In the paper abstract, the authors state:
    “We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure* and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.” [emphasis added]
    As a result, about 3/4 of the ownership of firms in the core remains in the hands of firms of the core itself. In other words, this is a tightly-knit group of corporations that cumulatively hold the majority share of each other.”
    In examining the details of this core, the analysis also showed that only 737 top holders accumulate 80% of the control over the value of all TNCs (in the analyzed network). Further,
    “…despite its small size, the core holds collectively a large fraction of the total network control. In detail, nearly 4/10 of the control over the economic value of TNCs in the world is held, via a complicated web of ownership relations, by a group of 147 TNCs in the core, which has almost full control over itself. The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations.” [emphasis added]
    The definition of TNCs given by the OECD states that they “…comprise companies and other entities established in more than one country and so linked that they may coordinate their operations in various ways…”
    Diagrams: (source) The network of global corporate control (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston)
    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
    Top 50 Control-Holders Ranking:
    {source: the following is quoted directly from the research paper]
    This is the first time a ranking of economic actors by global control is presented. Notice that many actors belong to the financial sector (NACE codes starting with 65,66,67) and many of the names are well-known global players.
    The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means that they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected.
    Shareholders are ranked by network control (according to the threshold model, TM). Columns indicate country, NACE industrial sector code, actor’s position in the bow-tie sections, cumulative network control. Notice that NACE codes starting with 65,66, or 67 belong to the financial sector.
    Rank , Economic actor name, Country, NACE code, Network Cumul. Network position, control (TM, %)
    1 BARCLAYS PLC GB 6512 SCC 4.05
    2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC, THE US 6713 IN 6.66
    3 FMR CORP US 6713 IN 8.94
    4 AXA FR 6712 SCC 11.21
    5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US 6713 SCC 13.02
    6 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. US 6512 SCC 14.55
    7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB 6603 SCC 16.02
    8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415 IN 17.25
    9 UBS AG CH 6512 SCC 18.46
    10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US 6712 SCC 19.45
    11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US 6713 IN 20.33
    12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG DE 6512 SCC 21.17
    13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US 6512 SCC 21.99
    14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP CH 6512 SCC 22.81
    15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923 T&T 23.56
    16 BANK OF NEWYORKMELLON CORP. US 6512 IN 24.28
    17 NATIXIS FR 6512 SCC 24.98
    18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE US 6712 SCC 25.64
    19 T. ROWEPRICE GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 26.29
    20 LEGG MASON, INC. US 6712 SCC 26.92
    21 MORGAN STANLEY US 6712 SCC 27.56
    22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JP 6512 SCC 28.16
    23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 28.72
    24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FR 6512 SCC 29.26
    25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 29.79
    26 LLOYDS TSB GROUPPLCGB 6512 SCC 30.30
    27 INVESCOPLCGB 6523 SCC 30.82
    28 ALLIANZSE DE 7415 SCC 31.32
    29 TIAA US 6601 IN 32.24
    30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB 6601 SCC 32.69
    31 AVIVAPLC GB 6601 SCC 33.14
    32 SCHRODERSPLC GB 6712 SCC 33.57
    33 DODGE & COX US 7415 IN 34.00
    34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US 6712 SCC 34.43
    35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CA 6601 SCC 34.82
    36 STANDARDLIFEPLCGB 6601 SCC 35.2
    37 CNCE FR 6512 SCC 35.57
    38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 35.92
    39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US 6512 IN 36.28
    40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US 6601 IN 36.63
    41 INGGROEP N.V. NL 6603 SCC 36.96
    42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US 6713 IN 37.29
    43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA IT 6512 SCC 37.61
    44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JP 6511 IN 37.93
    45 VERENIGING AEGON NL 6512 IN 38.25
    46 BNPPARIBAS FR 6512 SCC 38.56
    47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 38.88
    48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 39.18
    49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US 7414 IN 39.48
    50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO. CN 6511 T&T 39.78
    Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/138oe)

  61. IAN ,

    I’ll bet you any amount that it was a “style” change instituted by the NYTimes … they have a published list of phrases that their writers must adhere to … all of it intended to influence public opinion… for instance nobody is ever “pro abortion” in the NYTimes , they are “pro choice” because choice is a word that has positive connotations.

    Most other newspapers follow the NYTimes lead on these things …

    The “linked” word works well in many situations and years from now they will point to it and claim they were cutting edge in knowing that the securities were not “backed” but merely “linked”.

    http://www.amazon.com/York-Times-Manual-Style-Usage/dp/081296389X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315956426&sr=8-1

  62. Simon and Enraged ,

    If they prosecute the banks their cushy “show up when you feel like it” job at GS or BAC or WF with the huge salary and stock options (no cost options issued as a signing bonus) will not appear out of the ether like magic as they were promised so long ago…

  63. ian, I started noticing, probably around a year ago and mentioned it on this blog that it seemed to be across the board that the term had shifted from mortgage backed to mortgage based. It seems like the last few months or so that mortgage linked became the vogue. It’s probably all a part of the publicity campaign from ASF and ABA that will attempt to suggest that trust law needn’t be translated so strictly.

    Mark my word that that’s the next push from the banksters. How else can they legitimize the foreclosure of what should be trust held notes on a massive scale?

  64. There’s that term again, “Mortgage-linked securities”, a weasel word if ever I saw one. So they are admitting that they weren’t ” mortgage-backed securities”? Sure seems like it to me. Who inserted this term into the mix? Someone who sees the handwriting on the wall, I’d guess. Can someone here who is computer literate find out where this term first appeared,(last month I think), in which aritcle, who was the writer, and who was being quoted in the article? And then go from there. We all know that the mortgages are not mortgage-backed, so mortgage-linked means what?

  65. MN AG Lori Swanson not only drew a line in the sand, she stopped and kicked some in the face of the banksters who are used to being above the law. Kudos to her! The War of Wall Street Agression has another General. These attorney generals are proving to be the only defense against the rampant criminality. Where is the outrage from our president? Congress? Asshats one and all!

  66. Minnesota is the state that had it right about the fraud perpertrated by the banks in the Scott County, Minnesota case of First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly. (Even though after two of the principals of the case Jerome Daly and the Judge died, they vacated this decision)

    The bankers are getting illegally rich while they are destroying our Country and our Constitution.

  67. Right on.

  68. Simon, isn’t the right question more like: “Where the hell are our elected officials willing to uphold the law in exchange for a salary, paid vacation, health insurance, expense accounts and everything else We The People can’t even dream of?”

    And then, the next one should be: “When are the current ones up for re-election and how soon can we clean up America?”

    It’s coming, though. Not soon enough for any of us but it is coming…

  69. Per Tom Horne, “It is my honor to serve Arizona as Attorney General”
    So far he has done little to serve Arizona home owners. Mr Horne, the time has come to serve your quest. Please realize that Arizona home owners are counting on you…

  70. Where the hell are the republicans who still believe in the rule of law?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: