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

Homeowners facing foreclosure race to get help from mortgage assistance program

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: The race is on. The banks want those houses, come rain or come shine. Despite the obvious defects in their chain of title, the obvious absence of the real creditor in both the initial transaction (resulting in an unperfected lien) and the obvious defects in supporting paperwork, the pretender lenders are pressing the pedal to the metal. Homeowners are in a for a real fight now as the banks find ways and tactics to get around the issues of proof and evidence that would otherwise show the mortgages to be unenforceable, at least by the banks who are seeking the foreclosures.

The livinglies seminar in Hawaii has been revamped to present “THIRTY TRICKS THE LENDERS WILL USE AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT” as part of the seminar, and homeowners, recognizing the threat are getting help from the people who can really deliver it — the cottage industry that has grown up around helping homeowners. Modifications and other program assistance has proven to be a farce where only a tiny percentage of people get any help, and usually that is only temporary.

Here is a sampling of the tricks that will be highlighted at the Hawaii seminar: But before I list these, let me say that in non-judicial states the SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE is the most vulnerable document and without, it there can be no foreclosure. Make sure you get someone to really analyze the document, the signature, the authenticity and everything else. There is gold in there for you.

  1. MODIFICATION: “No help for you until you are behind in your payments”: BAM! Foreclosure is on the way.
  2. MODIFICATION: “Send us your paperwork: We didn’t get it” — leading you deeper and deeper into foreclosure certainty
  3. MODIFICATION: “Send us your financial statements, list your assets”: Now they have a list of assets to attach if they get a judgment against you.
  4. TRANSFER OF SERVICING RIGHTS ONLY used “accidentally” as transfer of the loan. LOOK CLOSELY!
  5. MOTION TO LIFT STAY: One party moves for the Order and another forecloses.
  6. DEFAULT: At the same time they are telling the homeowner they are in default they are telling the investor that the loan is performing and the investor is getting PAID! where is that money coming from and if the investor is getting paid, where is the default. 
  7. “We are the the holder of the note”: So is my your Aunt Tilly if she manages to get hold of either the original or a copy that she uses to prove a “lost note.” They must be the holder and the owner of the note to foreclose.
  8. Using non-judicial procedure to foreclose on property they could not foreclose on if they had to plead and prove a judicial foreclosure.
  9. “TRUSTEE, for …..Trust”: Assumes there is a trust and that they are really the trustee and that as Trustee they were given the right to foreclose.
  10. “TRUSTEE” — when there is no trust and the asset backed pool is actually a general partnership. 
  11. PERFECTION OF THE LIEN: Initial mortgage or deed of trust contains only nominees and no real parties in interest and thus no creditor.
  12. TRANSFER FROM BANKRUPT ENTITIES AFTER THE  BANKRUPTCY — where the entity  did NOT claim loan receivables in the asset schedules.
  13. TRANSFER FROM ENTITIES THAT NEVER OWNED THE LOAN: Never booked in their accounting records as loan receivable because the loan was made by undisclosed creditor.
  14. TRANSFER OF “DEFAULT” LOAN TO INVESTORS AFTER THE CUTOFF DATE: What investor would accept the transfer of a loan in default, where the property values had gone down by 70%. 
  15. TRANSFERS IN VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIZATION DOCUMENTS: The pooling and servicing agreement provides the exact manner in which loans will be accepted into the pool. Which of those terms did they ignore?

That’s half of them. More later. There are answers for all of these questions and more at the Hawaii seminar and in the  COMBO Title and Securitization report shown above, the forensic analysis we offer and the loan level accounting we offer. Get educated. Buy the DVD. Watch the free videos. Read the free forms on this site, get a Forensic analysis, Get a Loan Level Accounting, hire a lawyer to check out all you are reading here or anywhere else. There is a wealth of information on the net for FREE.

But if you want to keep your house you MUST BE INVESTED IN THE PROCESS OF KEEPING YOUR HOME SAFE FROM THESE BANKS. When you wake up a few years from now and realize you didn’t need to give up your house, you won’t feel good about it. Be careful about who you hire just like anything else. Some people are good and some are not.

(Jonathan Newton/ WASHINGTON POST ) – Lateese Hodge, a loan application processor for the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, receives applications for mortgage assistance.

  • (Jonathan Newton/ WASHINGTON POST ) - Lateese Hodge, a loan application processor for the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, receives applications for mortgage assistance.
  • (Jonathan Newton/ WASHINGTON POST ) - Cheryl Taylor, left, of Laurel looks over her application for the emergency mortgage assistance program with the assistance of receptionist Donnette Armwood.
  • (Jonathan Newton/ WASHINGTON POST ) - Dawn Shallue takes in applications for an assistance program set to expire at the end of the month.

By , Published: September 15

Thousands of Washington area homeowners facing foreclosure have deluged state housing agencies with last-minute appeals for help from a $1 billion federal mortgage assistance program set to expire at the end of the month.

In Maryland, where homeowners must apply for assistance by Friday, figuring out who qualifies for help has become an urgent, all-consuming enterprise. The state’s housing agency has hired temps, conscripted division heads to do data entry, and asked employees to stay late and work weekends to attack piles of paperwork that have grown exponentially as the deadline loomed.

Banks have stepped up their actions against homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, setting the stage for a fresh wave of foreclosures. (Sept. 15)

Banks have stepped up their actions against homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, setting the stage for a fresh wave of foreclosures. (Sept. 15)

About 4,000 Marylanders struggling to hold on to their homes have applied, including hundreds who turned out for a mortgage-assistance workshop in Prince George’s County, which has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the state.

An additional 10,000 sought help in Virginia, where the deadline to apply for the program passed Thursday and eligibility is being determined by the federal government rather than the state. District homeowners participate in a separate program that does not have an immediate deadline.

Many of those seeking help from the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program, as it is known in Maryland, will not qualify because they do not meet its long list of requirements. Their frantic scramble comes amid signs that the number of foreclosures, which had slowed dramatically after problems surfaced with how lenders were processing the paperwork, could begin rising again.

The number of U.S. homes with an initial default notice, the first step in the foreclosure process, rose 33 percent in August from July, foreclosure listing firm Realty­Trac said.

Roseanna Vogt, 58, is desperate to avoid losing her Calvert County home. She was among scores of homeowners who made the trek to the state Department of Housing and Community Development in Crownsville on Thursday to hand-deliver her mortgage-assistance application.

She said she has been looking for work since she was laid off by a nonprofit group more than a year ago. She recently divorced and as part of the settlement took possession of her house in Chesapeake Beach. But without a job, she cannot afford the mortgage payments. Her ex-husband had been covering them but recently told her that he was going to stop. She has lived in the house for 22 years and has $110,000 left to pay off.

“Things have gotten so bad for me. I don’t have a vehicle anymore,” she said. “It is sitting in the driveway. I don’t have the money to fix it.”

She came to drop off her application with a friend, Susan Prentice, 41, of Huntingtown, a widow with cerebral palsy who is trying to stay in her home even though her lender, Fannie Mae, has foreclosed on it.

The mortgage-assistance program, part of last year’s financial regulatory legislation, offers bridge loans to homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgages and have lost income because of the recession. The loans are to help cover mortgage payments for up to two years, or a maximum of $50,000.

59 Responses

  1. Please inform me of a good lawyer who gets it in St.Louis Mo

  2. You guys are talking like you have a legal hope of beating the Federal Govt. ,the bankers that own them and the police ( jack booted thugs ) are you for real its time for a second civil war , do you not see what has happened in the last 20 years ??? I am no lone wolf nut job , I know what I see and if you dont see it may God save your soul -Malco peace

  3. The day they come to my house you will know my name , it will be wwIII up here , what the hell – they want blood on there hands I will get my wife and cats out and I WILL make a stand , I have more firepower than most swat teams , and my military backround will leave them in a bad way ,I am not bothered by flash bangs tear gas , I will die here but I will take at least ten innocent men following orders w/ me .Is it worth it ? You lose B of A I have already rigged the house .Hell even the sheriffs dept is scared of me , I was trained by a Korean Green Beret so bring it boys , I am READY -Malco

  4. Yes, the problem is the attorneys don’t “get it”. However, for those of you in Maryland there is an answer, Professional Compliance Examiners, (PaCE), LLC. PaCE has worked with homeowners in MD to get foreclosure actions stayed and dismissed using the very defenses discussed on this website. If the loan is securitized the PSA is reviewed to see if the Note contains the proper endorsements – the answer is aways NO. In Maryland Fannie and Freddie rarely foreclosure in their own name, the foreclosure is in the name of the servicer. Time after time, once this is pointed out to the Judge via the testimony of PaCE’s experts, the Judge has dismissed the foreclosure action. Go to Doug Rian’s or Elizabeth Jacobson’s LinkedIn site and you can pull the cases that PaCE’s audits and testimony have been used by homeowners to get their foreclosure dismissed. This is no pie in the sky theory, this is homeowners fighting and winning to keep their homes.

  5. “the idea that the receivables, as opposed to the note, are what makes securitization tick.”

    ” entity attempting to foreclose has NO PROOF of actual “loan”—only “collection rights” assigned at “closing”—cash pass-through receivables were securitized..NOT any “loans”-”

    ANONYMOUS, on August 30, 2011 at 2:41 pm said:

    No — “loan” collection rights — NOT sold into a “BOND” or security. Only receivables are “securitized” ie — passed through. The “collection rights” remain with the entity that purchased them.
    Do not know how many times I have to shout it —- security “bond” investors — are NOT the creditor — never were — and never will be.
    Of all people — Bernanke told us this — at the onset of the crisis. But, too many here want to make security investors — the creditor. The Fed Res — has stated — in now law — that this is not the case.
    Any continued promotion of this false notion — is extremely detrimental to homeowners. Get over it.


  7. Wow–a blank endorsement is all powerful! This Virginia policy does call into question the idea that the receivables, as opposed to the note, are what makes securitization tick.

    So according to Virginia–and, according to the study I’ve done of the UCC (not exhaustive), the note is the thing. He who holds the note has the power to enforce it, if it is endorsed in blank.

  8. Horvath (2011):

    Indeed, the state’s policy dating back to at least 1827 has been to allow the bearer of a negotiable instrument (that is, the person to whom funds are owed) to endorse the instrument “in blank.” Whitworth v. Adams, 26 Va. (5 Rand.) 333, 1827 WL 1200, at *45 (1827) (Cabell, J.). Such an endorsement allows the bearer to transfer the instrument freely, insofar as it makes possession the sole precondition to enforcement of the instrument. Id. (“[H]aving been endorsed in blank, every bearer or holder, be he agent, trustee, finder or thief, has a right to sell [the instrument], and to transfer it, by delivery.”).

  9. @anon – how do you reconcile “Thief not able to enforce — error in the court — must have conveyance in order to be holder.” with a holder by virtue of a blank endorsement?

  10. Anonymous

    Error but now the law as precedent in Virginia

    How do you get around it

  11. Marie,

    Thief not able to enforce — error in the court — must have conveyance in order to be holder.


  12. Mr Garfield.

    Please note the 4th Circus, I mean Circuit, recently held in Horvath v BNY ( may 2011) that a thief may enforce the Note, so your item no 7 is not correct law in Virginia, that is, don’t need to own the Note in Virginia contrary to your assertion in item 7 hereinabove.

  13. @cubed2k, exactly….trying to get “experts” to agree upon the details of securitization is like deciding who is going to hand the teller the note and who is going to drive. It’s like Madoff explaining which aspects of his business model worked and which didn’t, as if an improvement or a tweak might fix things. It’s like hearing Obama state passionately that we need to “right the middle class”, and then watching in astonishment as he does nothing whatsoever ….day after day after day.

    For financiers and their correspondent puppets in government, the idea of piling debt onto the backs of our kids in the form of student loans, loans that can never be reduced or extinguished, unlike any debt in the history of the world, makes complete sense. But the usurious rates they charge on these funds aren’t enough…..they need to leverage these debts into ever larger “derivative” products so as to maximize their income, as who can live off of 15% interest? How’s about that times 50?

    The same with credit in any form. The problem as you’ve pointed out, is that if or when you run afoul of their system and its creditor friendly rules, and that’s increasingly likely with the legislation that’s been adopted over the last few decades, you’re trapped in involuntary servitude for life. I know elderly folks who are still saddled with student loans. They’re like hamsters on a wheel, tiring from the constant effort and damaged credit thanks to FICO, but unable to get off this wheel. And there’s no hope of retirement what with high food, shelter and fuel costs. Pay the man.

    And yet completely the opposite of this, when the financial geniuses screw the pooch there’s no discussion whatsoever…..the entire savings and future productivity of generations is conjured out of thin air. Our government pledges whatever amount is necessary (or not) to pay off the wild bets placed on the roulette wheel that is securitization and leverage. And it continues to this day, here and in Europe, even though we’ve seen no impact from the trillions of dollars moved to Wall Street. The looting is just getting started in earnest.

    This behavior, this insanity as you called it, is simply accepted as our modern way of doing things. But the dark truths behind this fiction lies much deeper, as none of this is as it appears. These funds, the quadrillions of dollars that are termed “losses”, actually went into the pockets of the uber rich. And now this great land grab, unlike anything ever witnessed is a furtherance of the elite taking the last and most important resource available, our homes and business properties. The world is one big Monopoly board, and they charge rent for anything and everything needed.

    Even deeper still and the most secretive underlying truth is that all of this massive debt, sovereign debt, is being paid to….the banks! We are borrowing money from the banks to pay them back, and to pay for all of their risk taking gone bad to boot! Talk about hamster wheels! A never ending cycle of impoverishment is built right into this modern financial mechanism. But don’t bother protesting. The Ministry of Truth won’t stand for it, securitization has been ordained. Move along, you have work to do.

  14. Recent fourth circuit opinion (horvath v BNY, May 1011) re Virginia law:

    II. For several centuries, Virginia has attempted to enhance commerce within the state by ensuring that negotiable instruments – broadly defined under Virginia law as “unconditional promise[s] or order[s] to pay a fixed amount of money,” see Va. Code Ann. § 8.3A-104(a) – are freely transferable. Indeed, the state’s policy dating back to at least 1827 has been to allow the bearer of a negotiable instrument (that is, the person to whom funds are owed) to endorse the instrument “in blank.” Whitworth v. Adams, 26 Va. (5 Rand.) 333, 1827 WL 1200, at *45 (1827) (Cabell, J.). Such an endorsement allows the bearer to transfer the instrument freely, insofar as it makes possession the sole precondition to enforcement of the instrument. Id. (“[H]aving been endorsed in blank, every bearer or holder, be he agent, trustee, finder or thief, has a right to sell [the instrument], and to transfer it, by delivery.”). This approach allows the parties to avoid thorny disputes about who has to pay whom, and when, in favor of a simple rule: possession permits enforcement. After all, as the Whitworth court observed, “[t]o compel the purchaser to go into enquiries as to the consideration, or to permit the parties to the bill to object to its payment, on any of the grounds stated, would greatly impair the negotiability of bills and notes; their most distinguishing, most useful, and most valued feature.” Id.

  15. @ evoldog1234

    the reason why you can’t find a lawyer who gets it……….

    is explained in this link provided by ABBEY IN CA who posted it further down in this thread………….

    (nobody gets it — is the answer)

    You read that link and the experts can not even decide what is correct with the UCC’s governing mortgages and notes.

    YOU scroll down in that link and read the letters by lawyers.

    What do we have??????? The experts arguing over the rules and the codes. Which apply, which do not? And they are trying to interpret the rules.

    NOBODY GETS IT, you see NOBODY GETS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Well, the solution is quite simple………………

    outlaw the securization of mortgage loans and all other loans…………..

    But nobody talks about that, they just talk about which rules apply and nobody can figure it out.

    Now that is insane, …………….

    unless of course you want nobody to figure it out,,,,,,,,,,,, especially the common folk.

    My conclusion in part———–don’t feel stupid because you can’t figure it out, nobody can……………

    see, if the powers that be outlawed securization of all loans, why Wall Street and the banks do not make so much money.

  16. The A Man .

    Neidermeyer why do you think the Oligarch Warren Buffet invested money in BofA?
    and the other Banks? Especially Wells Fargo?
    I believe that he was given a guarantee by the administration,,, I also believe that the tide is coming in and he will lose all his Citi gains on WF. Warren Buffet has been an outsider , an outsider at the highest levels , forever … feasting on companies mortally wounded by the tax code… he knows what happens at the adults only table … and he is getting a piece now… he is being used .. depending on the courts he will either end up owning the next incarnation of the national bank (#1 bank of us. ,, #2 fed reserve ,, #3 what’s next after fed res fails) or he’ll be forgotten in 20 years. If I was him ,, and I was spending other peoples money I’d do the same.

  17. Once again, ANONYMOUS gets it exactly right:

    “Biggest issue as to universal UCC —— and it is pretty universal —— there needs to be conveyance to be considered ““holder.”” Cannot be a holder without conveyance.
    There has been no conveyance.”

    On this much, ANONYMOUS and Garfield agree, i.e., there has been no conveyance, so the foreclosing entities aren’t holders. That’s it–that’s the whole argument. A note can only be enforced by its holder (and the mortgage follows the note). In my own case, Fannie Mae is claiming to be the holder of my note, yet the note that has been proferred by them as evidence (with a sworn affidavit that said note is a “true and correct copy”) has no endorsement at all. There has been, therefore, no conveyance to Fannie Mae from my now-defunct lender. Fannie Mae then, is not the holder of my note and has no right to enforce it–easy peasy. There’s nothing for the judge to decide–he should only acknowledge that there has been no conveyance. But I fully expect the judge to act like that’s some trick or some delaying tactic on my part, even though common law, statutory law (i.e., my state’s version of the UCC), custom, and common practice–as well as common sense–ALL dictate that there must be endorsement. Endorsement has been standard practice FOR CENTURIES, even before this country existed (see quote below)!

    So to the people below who are complaining that Neil is only out to make a quick buck and that the tactics and strategies he talks about are worthless, I say you’re wrong. The courts are not there to uphold the law for the people, they are there to protect the interests of the “system.” THAT’S why we’re not seeing more victories–because the courts just won’t allow them in order to keep “the system” going a little longer, not because the strategies and tactics that Garfield talks about have no merit.

    QUOTE (from Williams v. Williams, a case heard by the king’s bench in 1692):

    “The plaintiff, Thomas Williams, being a goldsmith in Lombard street, brought an action on the case against Joseph Williams, the projector of the diving engine, and declared upon a note drawn by one John Pullin, by which he promised to pay 12l. 10s. to the said Joseph Williams, on a day certain; and he indorsed the note to one Daniel Foe, who indorsed it to the plaintiff, for like value received. And now, the plaintiff, as second indorsee, declared in this manner, viz., ““that the city of London is an ancient city, and that there is, and from the time to the contrary whereof the memory of man doth not exist, there hath been, a certain ancient and laudable custom among merchants, and other persons residing and exercising commerce, within this realm of England, used and approved, viz., &c. So sets forth the custom of merchants concerning notes so drawn and indorsed ut supra, by which the first indorser is made liable, as well as the second, upon failure of the drawer, and then sets forth the fact thus, viz.: And whereas also, a certain John Pullin, who had commerce by way of merchandising, &c., on such a day, at London aforesaid, to wit, in the parish of St. Mary le Bow, in the ward of Cheap, according to the usage and custom of merchants, made a certain bill or note in writing, subscribed with his name, bearing date, &c., and by the said bill or note, promised to pay, &c., setting forth the note; and further, that it was indorsed by the defendant to Foe, and by Foe to the plaintiff, according to the usage and custom of merchants; and that the drawer having notice thereof, refused to pay the money, whereby the defendant, according to the usage and custom of merchants, became liable to the plaintiff, and in consideration thereof, promised to pay it, &c., alleging that they were all persons who traded by way of merchandise, &c.”

  18. President is not voted, but selected.

    By the WS bankstas. That is the reason why O is not increasing tax on WS salaries that are accountable directly correlate to the last financial crisis. Did you hear the comment of Timmy in Europe about the financial tax to be charged. He is selected by O. This is all planned.

    No luck with change and hope to be expected. I know the truth heard from the insider. I am really sick of it.

    At least some officials in Europe have common sense.

  19. DanJS,
    I do believe you have hit the nail right on the head! The foreclosures are EPIDEMIC. At best, as Neil has pointed out again and again, the foreclosures are of extremely questionable legality. But foreclosure always has the same result–real property is taken from a person and transferred to a corporation.

    And notice that the foreclosures aren’t selling–or rather, there are more foreclosed properties in corporate “inventory” than “the market” can sell, meaning that the corporations–i.e., the banks and/or other financial institutions own LOTS of residential property. The media act as if this is a problem for these corporations, but as DanJS points out, holding all this real estate is actually their (final?) SOLUTION.

    In that context, read this quote from the New York Times in May 2011, just four short months ago:

    “The nation’s biggest banks and mortgage lenders have steadily amassed real estate empires, acquiring a glut of foreclosed homes that threatens to deepen the housing slump and create a further drag on the economic recovery.
    All told, they own more than 872,000 homes as a result of the groundswell in foreclosures, almost twice as many as when the financial crisis began in 2007, according to RealtyTrac, a real estate data provider. In addition, they are in the process of foreclosing on an additional one million homes and are poised to take possession of several million more in the years ahead.”

    So if these data are correct, the corporations have doubled their real estate holdings in just four years’ time! And they’ll more than double that in even LESS time! The quickening is upon us. And quite frankly, even if the corporations do end up selling some of these so-called REO properties, the corporations will just illegally take them again–as they’re already doing, with the blessing of the courts–and the cycle will continue. I know of this from my own experience, because the property the bank is illegally trying to take from me has already been the subject of foreclosure at least once. And get this–the house was sold in a foreclosure auction to a bank, and guess who “bought” it from the bank? The bank owner’s daughter! Now that’s making good use of your family connections! She told us all this when she sold us the house at a greatly inflated price, and being the schmucks we were then, we didn’t think a whole lot about it. She said that her family had been doing that FOR YEARS!

    One other aspect to this story–I think that the idea of forcing millions of people into foreclosure and/or bankruptcy has the effect of increasing the financial industry’s bottom line because when people experience foreclosure and/or bankruptcy, their credit is of course ruined. However, “lending” institutions are more than happy to “lend” to such people even after foreclosure and bankruptcy–at a much higher interest rate! It’s a win-win for the banks that way–they get our property, ruin our finances, and then get to charge us even more for “credit,” which with the decline/stagnation of earning power (if lucky enough to have a job), credit is the only way to be able to afford anything (because inflation makes the price of everything go up while wages decline or stay the same, with the inflation being due to the massive increase in nominal fiat/fake money that exists)!

    Unfortunately, for most of us, it takes actually going through this situation to believe that it is happening or even can happen. Well, I guess at this rate it won’t be much longer before the majority of the population has experienced this scheme, and hopefully at that point it will be game over for these scammers.

  20. fwiw-I think the reason for the allonge when proffered – is the vampires want to avoid being accused of altering the instrument that has NO endorsement , think about it!

  21. Who’s good in Maryland??? Please, someone throw me a bone because that list of lawyers that get it………..DON’t Get it.

  22. Question is — why are Americans accepting this??? Why are Americans still believing Pres. Obama will come through for them???

    He is not. But, they still believe he will — that is why they voted him him. He is not.

    But, then again — who — in the alternative — will they vote for???


  23. Sorry left this out. And in both Female Male Heterosexual homosexual etc…..

    evil like all diseases does not discriminate.

  24. Carie why do you think they put him in? We are dealing with very very evil people. And these evil people come in all colors and religions and non religions.


  25. If President Obama were NOT African American, there WOULD be rioting and revolution by now…think about it.

  26. E. Tolle

    If plead properly — and by using existing supporting case law, you will win.

    Certain states are far more ahead that others. Thus, even though it may not be your state — case law is influential.

    Biggest issue as to universal UCC — and it is pretty universal — there needs to be conveyance to be considered “holder.” Cannot be a holder without conveyance.

    There has been no conveyance. Reason for this as to subprime — besides obvious lack of conveyance by trust agreements and schedules — is that collection rights cannot be conveyed by “traditional” mortgage and note. Thus, Unsecured.

    Are courts difficult?? Yes — but largely by fabricated documents. Have to see through the fraud.

  27. The very people that claim to help — may be lobbying the US Government to protect their “interests.” That is, distressed debt buyer interests. In fact, the US Government has come to rely on the “private” debt buying industry.

    But, very ironic — those very same people — are also being lobbied against. By who??? By second mortgage “owners” — whose very collection right interest is wiped out by wide-scale pressured foreclosure fraud.

    So the “interest” groups — are lobbying against each other. To push wide-scale foreclosure — and to block it. Ironic — yes???

    Of course, the very human interest as to throwing fraud victims out on the street — remains.

    No solution in sight — not by this administration — or by any representatives that are just concerned about campaign “pay-off.”

  28. >The A Man, on September 16, 2011 at 3:55 pm said:

    Neidermeyer why do you think the Oligarch Warren Buffet invested money in BofA?
    and the other Banks? Especially Wells Fargo?<

    "Nach meiner Meinung"… I remember in the early 1960's, the "Warren Buffets" of that time were "The (Bunker) Hunt Brothers and Howard Hughes."

    Setting aside the novelty of Howard Hughes… the Hunt Brothers made a nearly successful attempt to "corner the market" on silver. Think about what would happen to their net income if their efforts had been successful!

    Now, think… What would be even better than "cornering the market" on a specific commodity? How about engineering a "take down" of the economy of an entire nation? Better yet, what about doing that with every nation's economy in the whole world?

    Who would benefit? Those with hard assets… Gold, silver, real estate.

    Bankers have used the "fractional banking system" for years to create money not printed by the mints of our government(s,.) They have literally created "soft assets" *fiat money" out of thin air.

    But why, you ask, would anyone (even the wealthy) want fiat money rather than hard assets? The answer is… no one would! Even the wealthy. But, if you can create "wealth" in the form of "account balances" or "cash" and then…. convert it to hard assets… before the "system fails"!

    You guys (and gals) who post to this forum are intelligent… and more informed than most. What does Fraudclosure look like other than a "conversion" of a "soft asset" (a mortgage obligation" to the "secured hard asset" (the real estate.)

    These same "idiots" are like foxes in the henhouse…They ain't dumb, they are devious! They have two or three very forward-looking options…. Buy precious metals, acquire real estate legally, or "convert 'paper' " loans… mortgages on real estate illegally. The important thing for them to do is to hold the "real property" when the "house of cards falls."

    Who cares about legality when high powered lawyers can be paid massive fees with fiat money to deliver hard assets in time to benefit from the fall of a government and its economy?

    "He who owns the gold (and silver and real estate" rules." There won't be chaos… They will be hailed as "saviors" when they "re-establish" a "new and stable" government, including a "just legal system and set themselves and their "current co-conspirators" in positions of power and influence in the this "brave new world."

    Whatever "new currency" is "necessary" must be acceptable by all the "new governments" of the world…. and used by the consumers of the several nations.

    Homes "owned by the prudent" will be available to rent to the former owners who will have no choice but work for whatever wages will be paid in the "new currency."

    "Cornering the market" is not "sexy" if you can "collapse the markets" to your own benefit…. pity the uninformed but don't help them understand the motives of their "benevolent masters."

  29. Neidermeyer why do you think the Oligarch Warren Buffet invested money in BofA?
    and the other Banks? Especially Wells Fargo?

  30. From “The Hill” read the article there

    Dems slam Obama for going ‘AWOL’ on mortgage crisis

    By Mike Lillis – 09/16/11 05:57 AM ET

    Leading House Democrats are accusing the Obama administration of ignoring the lingering mortgage crisis and threatening tens of millions of Americans with foreclosure in the process.

    The lawmakers — encouraged by Obama’s mention of mortgage relief in his address to Congress last week — were quickly deflated just days later when their efforts to learn the details of the White House plan proved unsuccessful.

    “The administration has been AWOL on this issue,” charged Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), “and the American people are suffering because of the mismanagement.”

    “In my entire political career, I’ve never seen anything this irresponsible,” he added.

  31. Carrie – I remember reading HERE, over and over, I think it was part of the lead in to sell me something…well, not every time maybe, but anyway, Neil saying I can’t help you directly, but can work w/your atty…but I don’t read of any instances of that happening, adn again, by extension, for him to make that declaration, you’d think SOMEBODY did it (got a lawyer adn hooked up with Neil) and it would subsequently be bragged about here, and justifiably so – but nothing, NADA is ever listed in these blogs (or are teh articles I guess dirivative of one blog?) barking up the success stories of any of us that A) hooked up our lawyer with Neil, and B) had an exlemplery outcome. If it had happened, we’d all be all over it.

    If it’s that Fing simple, the lawyer we hire is almost inconsequential, all we should have to do is hook ’em up with Neil – and I’ve simply seen no evidence of that having happened – if it HAD, we’d all have already hooked up with one of the guys that hooked up with Neil adn was a fabulous success – I haven’t read of any of those here, anyone else that has?

  32. I would beg, borrow or steal to actually find an actual lawyer who actually GETS IT…doesn’t seem to exist.
    They are all just pretending to know what to do in an unprecedented situation.
    What about the lawyer in Huston that someone wrote about here a while ago who said that he had “7 wins under his belt already—effectively stopping the foreclosure and threatening their securities licenses—and got back every penny paid to the servicer from the time the securitized audit showed the “loan” had been assigned to the REMIC trust and according to the PSA.”

    WHERE ARE THOSE EFFING LAWYERS??? If he can do it—why can’t the lawyers here? Nobody has answered my question.

  33. Thanks, guys…teh list of links is so voluminous, so I used the search tool – kinda figgered that’s what it was for…8-)…searched Gerorgia Foreclosure lawyers and all I got was a 2008 article on the legislature passing a new foreclosure law…again thx – leapfrog’s (I think it was ) link has a few nearby…

  34. Evoldog: Did you try here?

    Also look at Max Gardner BK Bootcamp Grads, state listings. You can also try NACA (Nat’l Assoc of Consumer Attys). Mandelman has a few recommended attorneys on his site also.

  35. or evoldog you could use the links on the left of the screen just above where the comments start for the links provided regarding finding an atty.

    i don’t know what to think anymore – i’ve made the same comments about the lack a compilation of real, useful, and proven tactics and been villified. you manage a “right on” by carie.

    the site is what it is. various agendas being promoted, conspiracy theories bandied about, services being sold…somewhere within there you find some solid information though. continue to weed through the nonsense and find it for yourself. it is here somewhere, just spread around

  36. Right on, evoldog…WTF???

  37. HEY!!!!

    Man, I’ve been following these livinglies blogs for a few months now, I guess; I have/had a few houses, still have my claws in a couple and can probably get a couple/few more back –


    I’ve been reading non-stop B.S. about buy this! Buy that! Try this! Try that!


    I can find 10 different ways from Sunday on this site to give you money for stuff that is MEANINGLESS in the hands of anyone but an expert, and it’s supposedly still a bit of a crap shoot then –


    And if you have, it’s a state F’ING SECRET – I sure can’t get it out of you.


    I listen to expert after expert ramble on about securitization, lost notes, LENDER WEAK SPOT AFTER LENDER WEAK SPOT, but at the end of the F’ING day, there’s not a G’DAMN THING I CAN DO WITH IT – IT’S ALL USELESS B.S without an attorney to put it together.

    Even if you try to do it yourself, you get what I caught a few days ago -GUESS WHAT?!?!?! The what, 1K-2K you spent for the secruitization report is usless without this NEW thing you need to buy, and again, without a lawyer, even THAT”s no F’ING GOOD.

    Sooooo, what…is this all little more than an exercise in blowholery?

    Just a bunch of pompous ass talking head wannabees blathering on with their ‘expert’ opinions, while the rest of us that need a practical application for your rhetoric lose our houses one by one, as you bark on and on about how you saw this coming 4 years ago…WHO GIVES A F*CK?

    Give us something we can use…if you’re telling me you haven’t compiled a short list of lawyers you work with in each state, you’re complete Fing idiots – or just don’t really care.

    If you’re telling me there IS such a list, or that you could easily compile one but you’re just not going to give it to us, then you’re COMPLETE F’ING AS*HOLES.


  38. Just FYI… when you are dealing with Countrywide and Bank of America. If you win the case against them, or suing them or planning to sue them.


    Oh, no, we have to actually prove our cases!” Bank lawyers respond to the Glarum case
    by Mike Wasylik Esq. on September 16, 2011

    Glarum has the banks running scared.
    The biggest challenge banks face in today’s foreclosure crisis is that they still haven’t come to grips with the need to tell the truth when they testify. The recent case of Glarum v. LaSalle [PDF] has put even more pressure on the banks to tell the truth in foreclosure court, and now the banks and their lawyers are in a blind panic.

    Banks have to provide admissible evidence in foreclosure cases
    In the Glarum case, the trial judge had granted a summary judgment in favor of the bank, and ordered the Glarum home to be sold at auction. In support of its motion for that summary judgment, the bank offered the sworn affidavit of Ralph Orsini, who swore that the Glarums had defaulted on their loan and that they owed the bank a particular amount of money. Unfortunately, Orsini didn’t know these things were true, so he relied on the computer database to tell him these things. And according to the appellate court, that’s where the problem began:

    Orsini did not know who, how, or when the data entries were made
    into Home Loan Services’s computer system. He could not state if the records were made in the regular course of business. He relied on data supplied by Litton Loan Servicing, with whose procedures he was even less familiar. Orsini could state that the data in the affidavit was accurate only insofar as it replicated the numbers derived from the company’s computer system. Despite Orsini’s intimate knowledge of how his company’s computer system works, he had no knowledge of how that data was produced, and he was not competent to authenticate that data.

    (Emphasis mine.) The appellate court threw out the affidavit, and the resulting judgment, because Orsini’s statements were mere hearsay. They didn’t prove anything.

    Applying long-held evidentiary principles to foreclosure cases
    Bank lawyers, instead of recognizing this case as reaffirming long-understood principles of basic evidence, have sounded the alarm. Here’s what one “client alert” from Greenberg Traurig had to say:

    The Fourth District Court of Appeals has sent a strong statement that more generic affidavits currently utilized in some cases will no longer be sufficient where they do not include specific and detailed factual information regarding the compilation of the loan and payment data into a computer system. In doing so, the appellate court may have achieved the unintended result of dramatically changing the foreclosure landscape in Florida.

    Again, emphasis mine. Changing the landscape? Hardly. Here are some of the things that Greenberg Traurig recommends banks will need to do in future foreclosure cases:

    The affiant should be familiar with and have a specific understanding as to how the records are kept by the company and about the company’s recordkeeping practices in general.
    The affidavit may need to include factual information establishing that the records relied upon were kept in the ordinary course of the company’s regularly conducted business activity, with specific reference to each record that is relied upon.
    …the affidavit may need to contain language addressing the procedures that the company takes to ensure that the information input into its computer system is accurate.
    …the information included in the affidavit will need to be sufficient to show that the records were made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge.
    The courts may even require the affidavit to provide information regarding the procedures used by the prior loan servicer to ensure that the information is kept within the normal course of its business…
    Particular care should be given to who the company selects as the affiant…
    None of this is revolutionary, or even surprising, to anyone who’s ever litigated a commercial case before—it’s “Business Records 101.” Business records are never admissible, because they are hearsay, unless you do all those things. Why? Because business records are hearsay, so you have to lay the groundwork to get them admitted.

    Pursuant to section 90.803(6)(a), Florida Statutes, documentary evidence
    may be admitted into evidence as business records if the proponent of
    the evidence demonstrates the following through a record’s custodian:

    (1) the record was made at or near the time of the event; (2)
    was made by or from information transmitted by a person
    with knowledge; (3) was kept in the ordinary course of a
    regularly conducted business activity; and (4) that it was a
    regular practice of that business to make such a record.

    That’s always been the law in every case, and the Glarum court has now ruled that the same law that applies to everyone else now applies to banks, too. And that’s just fair.

    If you want to save your home, you’ve got to take depositions.
    What lessons can be learned from Glarum? first, that banks are terrified of having their affiants’ depositions taken, and will fight even harder to prevent that from happening. They are terrified of what “borrower’s counsel” like us can do when we have the opportunity to ask them questions under oath. And when we do get the chance to ask those questions, we can blow a foreclosure case right out of the water, just like in Glarum.

    Finally, borrowers, homeowners, and other foreclosure defendants should know this: taking depositions in your foreclosure case is a critical step in protecting your home—one that our law firm has long viewed as essential in almost every foreclosure case. And it’s a step that almost no foreclosure defendant is competent to handle on their own. If you want to save your home, you’ve got to get a good lawyer who knows how to take a deposition—no exceptions.

  40. I understand what you are saying, E.Tolle…but WHY aren’t “foreclosure defense” attorneys DEMANDING that “servicer and trustee produce ledgers that show that servicer advanced all delinquent payments to the trustee on behalf of the borrower”?

    from ANONYMOUS:

    “Freddie/Fannie was cause of title flaws from onset — because they sold collection rights to loans FALSELY placed in default. They sold to bank debt buyers — and then “invested” in the fake securities the banks “sold.” Profit???? the only goal — could make more on fake collection rights than on actual Freddie/Fannie “owned” loans.”


  42. Carie, while I appreciate your fervor, there’s a little something lacking in your “friend of the blog” brief. Of course you’re correct about the big picture as to PSA’s and such, but if you’d leave this blog for just a short while and go into a courtroom, any courtroom will do, anywhere, you’ll find that the judges aren’t interested in hearing any of your arguments. Many have even gone so far as to rule that the borrower has no right to discuss the securitization agreements, being a third party not affected by that transaction. I don’t agree, just saying.

    Yes there’s been a victory here and there, but far fewer than defeats, which are a regular course of business daily in the courts. As to your repeated claim that these are just debt collectors and have no business foreclosing, re-read the first paragraph as it relates to judges willingness to lean over the bench in rapt attention and interest. It just ain’t happening.

    Nothing personal here, but people searching for legal tips that they might hang a hat on need to hear proposals that aren’t untried, no matter how true they are or sound. Or better yet they, we, could use pointers to case law that proves multiple rulings in favor of your proposals. Until you can point to a winning scorecard in the courts, homeowners trying to pull together defenses along these lines are simply cannon fodder. Kaboom.







  44. brian davies—

    The PSA MUST be followed to the T—if yours has no Mortgage Loan Schedule and no Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement—how can they foreclose??? This should be foreclosure defense 101!!!

  45. brian davies—

    from your posts:


    WHAT??? Refinance FRAUD??? Let the criminals get away with it??? Whose side are you on???

    and also—again:

    “Additionally, according to the report, mortgage servicers are expected to repossess about 800,000 homes this year.”


    It’s ALL unsecured debt—from FRAUD.

    The sooner this is recognized and admitted the better.


    Believe it or not–it would eventually be “good business” to just admit it…not immediately—but eventually.

  46. Carie in California as well as other States the note is needed and the Security is assumed to tag along.
    So the note and the note endorsed assignments thereof are the critical point. Buyers and sellers of notes only need the note the other paperwork is not as critical.
    We argue the other points separation etc. however the courts look mostly to the UCC. The games played using affidavits of lost notes and allonges to recreate what was not done. It is like a gimme in golf. Close enough.
    Only when you have them in litigation and against the wall can the issues of actual fund transfers with routing numbers occur. It is nice to discuss however for 99.9% of the people who read it here will never benefit, as it is too costly to get that far in litigation.
    If one can get there many of the transfers were not done according to the wires. In my case the second assumed buyer wired to the first JP Morgan Chase to pay the loan. The Originator was UAMCC, just the broker fortunately we are in a position in the 9th circuit to see if the courts wish to look at this issue, including the PSA which was judicially noticed along with the note endorsements including an allonges, and endorsements in blank and the MERS audit trail. Soon we will know if the court wishes to look into it or turn its head away. He is the full listing of pleadings, subpoenas, briefs etc. to read.

    That is why the litigation is so hard. You need to tear down the wall, endorsement by endorsement by using MERS audit Trail, The PSA, The land title records [especially if bogus] and discovery tools and even then it is a battle.

    The work is so hard and costly, while the Bank has the money to defend. Their costs in my case far exceed the value of the house. Do they care? No! Do the attorneys care. No! The system is set up as you are only as guilty as you can afford financially to be.

  47. Just a friendly reminder to all that what’s gone on here nationally is 100% fraudulent, and the concealment of same cannot be held as a standard indefinitely, and THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE, eventually. It’s either that, or our nation goes up in flames. It really is that simple. I for one don’t care to live in an America devoid of law. There will be a reckoning, it will just take a little time.

    Fraudulent Inducement and Validity

    Fraud is using deception in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some legal right and the parting with property or surrendering some legal right occurs. Fraud vitiates all contracts, written or verbal, sealed or unsealed.[i] If an assignment is obtained through some kind of fraud, the entire assignment in invalid. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.[ii]

    There is no distinction between sealed instruments and unsealed ones contaminated with fraud. Both are treated as void and the jurisdiction of courts of law extends equally to each.[iii] If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. In such case, the innocence of the creditors named in the deed will not save it from condemnation if there was fraud in fact on the part of the grantor.[iv] The intentional withholding of assets from the assignee is regarded as a fraud upon the rights of creditors and it is sufficient to render the assignment void.[v]

    However, if a written contract fails to express the real intention of the parties because of fraud, mistake, or accident, the true intention is to be regarded and the erroneous parts of the writing disregarded.[vi] If the execution of an instrument is obtained by fraud, the instrument is not binding on the party executing it even if he or she did not read it.[vii]

    [i] Landmark Dev. Group v. Tmk Assocs., 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 731 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2002)

    [ii] International Milling Co. v. Priem, 179 Wis. 622 (Wis. 1923)

    [iii] Day v. New England Car-Spring Co., 7 F. Cas. 252 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1854)

    [iv] Luckemeyer v. Seltz, 61 Md. 313 (Md. 1884)

    [v] White v. Benjamin, 3 Misc. 490 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893)

    [vi] Verry v. Murphy, 163 N.W.2d 721 (N.D. 1968)

    [vii] International Milling Co. v. Priem, 179 Wis. 622 (Wis. 1923)


    Rate on 30-year mortgage falls to record 4.09 pct.

    Source: Associated Press/AP Online
    Publication date: September 15, 2011

    WASHINGTON – Fixed mortgage rates fell to the lowest level in six decades for the second straight week. But few Americans can take advantage of the historically low rates.

    Freddie Mac said Thursday that the average rate on the 30-year fixed mortgage fell to 4.09 percent this week, down from 4.12 percent. That’s the lowest rate seen since 1951.

    The average rate on the 15-year mortgage, a popular refinancing option, fell to 3.30 percent from 3.33 percent. Economists say it is likely the lowest rate on the 15-year ever.

    Mortgage rates tend to track the yield on the 10-year Treasury note. Worries over Europe’s debt crisis are pushing investors to shift money into safe Treasurys, forcing the yield lower.

    Over the past year, the average rate on the 30-year fixed mortgage has been below 5 percent for all but two weeks. That compares with five years ago, when the average 30-year fixed rate was near 6.5 percent. A decade ago, it exceeded 8 percent.

    Still, cheap mortgage rates haven’t helped home sales. Sales of new homes are on pace for the worst year on records dating back a half-century. The pace of re-sales is shaping up to be the worst in 14 years.

    Many Americans are in no position to buy or refinance. High unemployment, scant wage gains and large debt loads have kept them away.

    Others can’t qualify. Banks are insisting on higher credit scores and 20 percent down payments for first-time buyers. Some homeowners have too little equity invested in their homes to meet loan requirements.

    Most people must also pay extra fees to get the low mortgage rates. Those fees are known as points, with one point equaling 1 percent of the total loan amount.

    The average fees for the 30-year held steady at 0.7 point. Fees paid on 15-year fixed loans and both 5-year and one-year adjustable rate loans were all at 0.6 point.

    Once fees are factored in, the average rate on the 30-year loan rises from 4.09 percent to 4.25 percent, Freddie Mac said.

    A drop in mortgage rates could provide some help to the economy if more people could refinance. The Obama administration is looking at expanding a government program to help more eligible homeowners refinance. When people refinance at lower rates, they pay less interest on their loans and have more money to spend.

    But many homeowners with good jobs and stable finances have already refinanced in the past year. The average rate on the 30-year fixed loan fell to 4.17 percent last November, and to 4.15 percent last month. Both were previous lows.

    Homeowners typically pay a few thousand dollars in closing costs when they refinance. To refinance again, most experts say rates would need to fall an additional 1 percentage point to make it worthwhile.

    To calculate average mortgage rates, Freddie Mac surveys lenders across the country Monday through Wednesday of each week.

    The average rate on a five-year adjustable-rate mortgage rose to 2.99 percent. That’s higher than last week’s 2.96 percent, the lowest records dating to January 2005 and the sixth straight week of record lows for this type of loan.

    The average rate for the one-year adjustable-rate mortgage fell to 2.81 percent from 2.84 percent. That’s the lowest on records going back to 1984.

  49. brian davies—

    from your post:

    “Additionally, according to the report, mortgage servicers are expected to repossess about 800,000 homes this year.”






    Lennar Offers Zero Down, Zero Closing Costs and Up to $33,000 in Savings on Ready-To-Move-In Homes in 15 Orlando Area Communities
    Friday, September 16, 2011 / Lennar Homes

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Lennar is offering zero down payment, zero closing costs and up to $33,000 in savings on select ready-to-move-in homes sold by Sept. 30 in 15 Orlando-area communities, including Heritage Isle at Viera in Brevard County.

    Mark Metheny, president of Lennar’s Central Florida Division, said the offer—along with Lennar’s “Everything’s Included” pledge—applies to ready-to-move-in homes at Legacy Park and Cortland Woods at Providence in Davenport, Camden Landing and Preston Pointe at Wyndham Lakes in south Orlando, Nona Terrace in southeast Orlando, Treviso, Celery Estates and Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Independence in Winter Garden, Stoneybrook Hills in Mount Dora, Eagle Dunes in Sorrento, and active adult communities Heritage Hills in Clermont and Heritage Isle in Viera in Brevard County.

    Metheny said homes sold in September must close by Nov. 30 to qualify for this special buyers incentive offer.

  51. brian davies—

    We know all that—can you or someone else PLEASE answer my question? tn?

  52. According to the data released by RealtyTrac, the leading online marketplace of foreclosure properties, foreclosure filings in August rose 7% from the prior month with 228,098 properties issued notices of default, auction or repossession during the month. However, this is still down 33% from August 2010 figures.

    As per the source, a total of 5 states – California, Florida, Michigan, Illinois and Georgia – accounted for about 53% of the overall foreclosure activity in the month under review.

    Though there was surge in new defaults, the number of property auctions and repossessions by banks continued to decline in August. Issuance of default notice, the first step in the foreclosure process, surged 33% sequentially but dropped 18% year over year to 78,880. This is the largest sequential rise since August 2007.

    However, foreclosure auctions fell 1% from July and plunged 43% from August 2010 to 84,405 properties, which is a 37-month low figure. Similarly, rate of bank repossessions, the final stage, slipped 4% from the previous month and 32% from the year-ago comparable period to 64,813 properties, marking a six-month low figure.

    Additionally, according to the report, mortgage servicers are expected to repossess about 800,000 homes this year.

    The increase in overall foreclosure activity indicates that the banks and mortgage servicers have stepped up their resources and started taking actions against those homeowners, who have failed to make mortgage payments. This is almost a year after the banks and mortgage servicers, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corporation (BAC) and Ally Financial Inc., had temporarily suspended foreclosures across the country.

    The reasons behind the halt and decline in foreclosure activity over the last year were flawed paperwork, delays due to process held up in courts, re-filing of earlier filed foreclosure cases, enquiries by regulatory agencies and reluctance of lenders to take back properties resulting from declining home sales.

    Further, a combination of various measures – loan modifications, lender-borrower mediations and mortgage payment assistance for the unemployed, – were also taken up by national and state-level regulators to allow distressed home owners to prevent foreclosures.

    However, with many of the problems getting resolved or in verge of resolution, the foreclosures are bound to rise. The increase in foreclosure activity also shows that the U.S. housing market is on the threshold of a turnaround but it will not be as fast as required. Hence, we should now gear up for an exceptional rise in foreclosure activities over the next several months.

  53. Sheeple, STOP! Stop trying to save that house! They will lead you on and get you to sign NEW documents! Just to hide the fraud in the original!. Foreign investors are taking over America, All the trusts are empty from the past refinances never paying off the prior loans, and they just robo signed satisfactions. The trusts are EMPTY! How much longer can the FDIC/FHHA cover this up. The finger in the dam will not work forever. It was one big Ponzi scheme designed to rob you. Is there not anyone in power that is not corrupt? Who still believes in the law? The Constitution.Get Obama out!

  54. Carie

    What good are these rhetorical questions. The banksters do as they please, whatever term you prefer to use when referring to them. They will come to you with an invitation to move. Count on it

  55. In south Va there are no lawyers for such challenges. Period. Please mr Garfield stop giving UNREALISTIC advice. It’s very distressing to read that a good lawyer will save the day. Why not tell everyone to sprout wings amd fly. What good are your docs without an expert willing to testify.

    Good lawyers are scarce amd prohibitively expensive if you’re lucky enough to find one

  56. sorry…I meant of WHICH no original creditor/lender can be proven…

  57. AGAIN I ask:

    How can a “debt collector” collect a “house” on unsecured debt—of when no original creditor/lender can be proven???? As in some entity that bought collection rights is attempting to foreclose???

    Isn’t that the crux of all this wrangling? As in no “mortgage” can be proven with a balance sheet showing payments from homeowner???

    Hello??? Anybody???

    This is just so damn infuriating—

  58. So, who’s good in Georgia?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: