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


EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s the rule now — anyone anywhere who takes a look at the FACTS understands that the banks have committed a financial atrocity and that relying upon the banks for information is like going to a rapist for sex education. Looking at the “securitization scheme” that never actually happened and tracing the money two things are clear: (1) the deadbeats are the banks, not the borrowers (they are trying to collect on obligations that have been paid off multiple times) and (b) they are forging and fabricating documents to cover up the largest financial fraud in human history. 

Left unaddressed, the oligopoly that consists of a small group of people who have the power of running these banks but whose actions do not even favor the shareholders of those banks, are controlling our government. They are creating their own currency with impunity and dipping into the government (taxpayer) treasury whenever they want.

Just because you may not be in foreclosure and even if you can pay the mortgage payment, and further, even if you don’t even have a securitized loan in your chain of title doesn’t mean this isn’t hurting you. Look around you. The failure of government budgets, the economy in free-fall, are all going to effect your life and your children and grandchildren and their children for generations to come unless we come to grips with the fact that Banks are manipulating the media and the political agenda to avoid dealing with the tragic and atrocious behavior of the banks.

The megabanks must be broken, just like Teddy Roosevelt broke the trusts one hundred years ago. We have been here before and we dealt with it. It’s time to rise up and do it again — taking control of our lives and our country from those whose only interest is money and whose only morality is that which is based upon greed.


Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway asks you to join him in signing this statement, so that we can then ask other elected officials to follow. Sign on the right.

STATEMENT: “Today’s economic crisis was caused by Wall Street acting improperly. Every American has paid the price — with families losing their homes, investors losing their money, and many Americans losing their jobs. There should be absolutely no criminal or civil immunity given to banks for activity that has not yet been investigated.”

Big banks are seeking legal immunity for their irresponsible actions that led to our nation’s economic collapse. Attorney’s General from Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada, and New York have been fighting back. Frankly, all elected leaders owe it to their constituents to take this position. If we speak up together, more and more of them will.

72 Responses

  1. I like that, adownriverdiva!

  2. This whole scheme runs on confusion, infighting, ignorance of the game plan and the rules of the game.
    This didn’t happen overnight, the banksters planned this to the nth degree. No matter which way we tried to corner them, they always had an escape hatch ready to use.
    They made all the rules, cut off all our potential escape routes, nullified any kind of law or regulation the could be held against them and ensured that everybody would end up using their plan for failure. We say show the note, they file lost notes, we say the notes were never recorded at the county and they run out and record every sale since 1995 as though it happened yesterday.

    The only way would have been to nullify all mortgages made after 1993 and set everybody free, or mandated a moratorium on foreclosures. Which was never gonna happen.
    If we had known where the real source of power was, we might have been able to learn enough about commercial law and commercial contracts to stop the banks before they had a chance to take over.
    COMMERCIAL LAW AND THE UCCI, not real estate or property law
    Of course the only way is to fight them is with commercial law. Lawyers are bound by commercial law, so they can’t help us.
    We have been dragging the banks into the wrong courtrooms, using the wrong laws and rulings against them.

    Commercial law is all about contracts and we weren’t fighting them about contracts and how they violated them.
    It’s all about breach of contract, enforcibile contracts, valid contracts.
    We didn’t tie all the issues to breach of contract or an unenforcible contract.
    We couldn’t we didn’t know what was going on for years, had no clue that the reason they seemed invincible was because we were using the wrong tactics.
    Like the securities issue and who owns them; there are certain kinds of investments that don’t require a signature, no need to indentify the owner of these types of investments.
    So no matter what was done, there would never be a way to tell who the investors are because they have never been identified from the start, NO ONE KNOWS, so no one can tell.
    They were designed that way and sold that way, you can’t force the banks to reveal what they don’t have and never knew!
    The funny part is that if we do exactly as the banks do, we too, become invincible!
    We can do the very same things, the same way they are.
    Don’t tell them anything, don’t beg for a short sale, don’t acknowl.edge them at all, go ahead and sell your property, shuttle ownership back and forth so many times a computer couldn’t keep up with who owns its. and record as many papers as possible to establish a claim.
    If we will never know who the investors are, then the banks will never know who to take to court to foreclose on.
    If you can’t beat’em, Join’em. Fight fire with fire!

  3. Zurenarrh- great analogy of “loans”. Just accounting entries, that’s all. And as long as the digits,commas, and periods can be faxed to the next “lender” in the chain, then all the balls stay in the air! What a terrific idea! So, when someone gets a “satisfaction of mortgage”, does the “lender” get out an eraser and erase the digits on their asset side of the ledger, or just, leave it there? So, what is actually satisfied? Got me by the sneakers.
    Tnharry, whaddya say about zurenarrh’s description of loans versus accounting or ledger entries- especially on a “refinance”?

  4. where is the law which states that if the new “investor” buys the loan at a discount, they must disclose what they paid for the debt? is there such a law?

  5. Now THAT’S funny…disagree with the truth…ok, I guess that’s your right.

  6. carie i hope that’s a macro or something. you’re going to get carpal tunnel if not

  7. no z, i’m with you on the booking a loan on both side to stay at zero. that makes perfect sense to me. it’s the next step that others are taking that there were no loans that i disagree with.

    @carie – i get it, i just disagree. reposting your theory isn’t going to change my mind.

  8. From ANONYMOUS—

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

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

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

    “35 There are two documents that need to be transferred as part of the securitization process – a promissory note and the security instrument (the mortgage or deed of trust). The promissory note embodies the debt obligation, while the security instrument provides that if the debt is not repaid, the creditor may sell the designated collateral
    (the house). Both the note and the mortgage need to be properly transferred. Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt. See FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3.”
    In order for modification contract to be validly executed in the name of servicer — need proper transfer of note and mortgage to servicer. Not enough to just hold the note for someone else. This is a contract. Bankruptcy reform bill was voted down twice by Congress – why? afraid Americans would understand what was really going on. Better for them to con homeowners further by luring into false mod contract. .
    The servicer/debt collector (current creditor) do not care about who OWNED the written off debt — WE CARE — if they can get away with non-disclosure — they will — and deregulation says — they can. Debt buyers love to state the past creditor as the current creditor — but, legally, this is not the case — and it is fraud and in violation of federal law. Courts accept that past (possible) creditor is still current creditor because that is how attorneys present it– but , this is fraud and a big problem — and it is not being investigated as it should be.
    Consumer protection laws say no. Though not as strong as we would like — consumer protection laws do exist — have to use them to the fullest. Including any sale of loan to any party — as outlined by the TILA — (and FDCPA for that matter). Tired of looking at this whole mess from “investor” prospective — there are “security investors” and “distressed debt investors” — need to distinguish — and need to focus on consumer law and protection.
    Everyone has a right to know their current creditor. If that right is violated — so is federal law. If you do not know your current creditor — you will be affected for the rest of your life. Any modification you sign will be false. It is time to stop focusing on investors (who have been paid back – except they may not have earned the usury interest rate they thought they would) and start focusing on consumer fraud — and violation of our rights. Investors have gotten help — they were bailed out — WE NEED THE HELP NOW.
    It does not matter that security investors may have helped fund the banks — they were not then — and are not now — our creditor. What a bank does with receivables is their business — we have no contract with security investors — or servicers unless the servicer acquired legal title –and if so — say so — and say when and how (as required by law) — and for what price. And, say this before a modification is negotiated — it is ammunition. Any concealment is — simply fraud upon fraud.”

  9. And what do you mean about accounting principles vs. reality? Are they not one and the same?

  10. Tn,

    Let me clarify. No loan was made in the sense that most people understand and use the term “loan.” If I loan Bob $5, I then have $5 less than I had before. Not so for a bank–if the bank “loans” me $5, they also get to increase their books by $5. Or at least their books balance by listing $5 on each side of the ledger, so that the bank has neither more nor less money than it started with.

    Not to mention the fact that the bank loan is only on paper or in a database. They didn’t go to their vault and get $5 in cash to give to me. It was all done on paper–no cash or anything of value changed hands.

  11. OMG—you STILL won’t admit it…wow.

  12. we’d finally found a place where we both agree zurr and now you’ve opened a can of worms. let’s please not go down the “no loan ever happened” road again. confusing accounting principles with reality just doesn’t work. if no loan ever happened, then you didn’t buy the house or you didn’t refi the prior loan. under either of those scenarios, you don’t get to keep the benefit of that loan that never happened while claiming that it didn’t happen. either move out and walk away since you didn’t buy the house with the loan that never happened or pay the old mortgage that the loan that never happened paid off.

  13. And by doing that, their books appear to be balanced and they are no worse off financially–that is, their credits and debits appear to be even. When you think about it, this balancing act makes it appear as if no loan even happened, which of course it didn’t.

  14. Mark D,
    Because that’s how they balance the books. They “loan” out money and that “loan” is balanced by the “deposit” of the “loan.”

  15. Checks are deposited. Money is deposited. Money orders are deposited. How can a contract with an amount due over a certain period of time with interest be deposited?

  16. Well atta boy tn. The only reason I went to the trouble was because you seemed to be denouncing other salient points that Nora made. Specifically, you said that notes aren’t monetized. All I was interested in is proving that Nora was correct when she made that statement. The monetization statement of Nora’s is corroborated many times over by the federal reserve itself.

    I don’t think that her statement about destruction of notes is all that important.

  17. @zur – no, that simply doesn’t jive with the posting or the statement “…original Note was a negotiable instrument and thus destroyed after “depositing”. That’s pretty clear that there is some tie between negotiable instrument, destruction, and deposit. The imaging software idea was from your post, not hers. You went down all that road to prove some point that wasn’t even what I was referring to. I don’t need an “attaboy” here, but for goodness sakes i’d like to comment without defending myself all day long

  18. tn,
    I know–Nora didn’t say that depositing=destroying. She was simply saying that that notes are deposited and then destroyed, which the Florida Bankers admitted to the Florida Supreme Court. What Nora didn’t say–but which you seem to be implying that she said–is that depositing a note also has the effect of destroying it. How I read what Nora said is that 1) notes are deposited THEN 2) destroyed–the two acts are not the same thing. I too know how negotiable instruments work.

  19. @zur – i don’t disagree with you on how negotiable instruments work. read it again – Nora did say that endorsed notes are deposited and destroyed.

    ….They will have sent you just an old photocopy, because the original Note was a negotiable instrument and thus destroyed after “depositing”.

  20. @zur – you said “Nora is exactly right. Whether a judge believes it or not is immaterial.” I’d rather have a judge believe me and rule in my favor than be exactly right and be homeless every day of the week. i’ve said it so many times – file a well pled complaint with clear, concise claims for relief. the more esoteric the theory is, the more likely you won’t survive the motion to dismiss

  21. Nora never said that depositing=destroying. Notes ARE endorsed and deposited, just like a check. There’s no question of that. That’s the only way a bank can balance its books.

    Here’s quote from Todd in which he quotes the Fed itself:

    Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas publication MONEY AND BANKING, page 11, explains that when banks grant loans, they create new money. The new money is created because a new “loan becomes a deposit, just like a paycheck does.” MODERN MONEY MECHANICS, page 6, says, “What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts.” The next sentence on the same page explains that the banks’ assets and liabilities increase by the amount of the loans.

    The money quote (pun definitely intended): a “LOAN BECOMES A DEPOSIT.”

    What is your understanding of what happens to notes if you disagree with the Fed’s explanation?

  22. that’s not what i oppose Zur. it’s the idea that a note is endorsed, deposited like a check, and destroyed in the process. it’s a negotiable instrument, and endorsement does not equal destruction as Nora suggested.

  23. tnharry,
    If the publications of the Fed itself–which admit all this–won’t convince you, what will? This is also outlined in Wright Patman’s “Primer on Money,” prepared for the House of Representatives in the 60s. There is no question that this is how the monetary system works. It’s all openly admitted, but not part of conventional wisdom.

  24. tnharry,
    you are really grasping at straws. Maybe you’re right, maybe Walker Todd just flat-out lied to the court for 30 pieces of silver. Except that the Federal Reserve itself admits and disseminates to the public exactly what he is saying. Are they lying too? Does money work the way the Fed says it does or does it work according to the conventional wisdom?

    Here Todd quotes federal statute–I hope that you would find that authoritative:

    “The bookkeeping entries tend to prove that banks accept cash, checks, drafts, and promissory notes/credit agreements (assets) as money deposited to create credit or checkbook money that are bank liabilities, which shows that, absent any right of setoff, banks owe money to persons who deposit money.. Cash (money of exchange) is money, and credit or promissory notes (money of account) become money when banks deposit promissory notes with the intent of treating them like deposits of cash. See, 12 U.S.C. Section 1813 (l)(1) (definition of “deposit” under Federal Deposit Insurance Act).”

  25. you’re pulling one expert opinion affidavit from one case and a statement from another to prove your points. i have held in my hands 100+ original notes. they exist.

    “I realize that this notion is not popular, but that does not make it any less true.” but neither does Walker Todd’s expert opinion affidavit make it any MORE true…

  26. Here’s an even clearer explanation from Walker Todd in the affidavit:

    “The bank then usually would hold this demand deposit in a transaction account on behalf of the customer. Instead of the bank lending its money or other assets to the customer, as the customer reasonably might believe from the face of the Note, the bank created funds for the customer’s transaction account without the customer’s permission, authorization, or knowledge and delivered the credit on its own books representing those funds to the customer, meanwhile alleging that the bank lent the customer money.”

    Now, you may think Nora is a crackpot when SHE says it, but how can you argue with a former Fed employee who says it in a sworn statement?

  27. your authority is an affidavit from an expert witness for the homeowner in a case dealing with lack of consideration? hardly a neutral source of information. a paid expert witness could submit an affidavit saying that the sky is brown for the right case and fee.

  28. And yes, according to the Fed, changing figures on a balance sheet IS the same as creating money. Former 20-yr Fed employee Walker Todd (in the Fed’s legal dept.) explains:

    “Therefore, the bank’s original bookkeeping entry should show an increase in the amount of the asset credited on the asset side of its books and a corresponding increase equal to the value of the asset on the liability side of its books. This would show that the bank received the customer’s signed promise to repay as an asset, thus monetizing the customer’s signature and creating on its books a liability in the form of a demand deposit or other demand liability of the bank.””

    I realize that this notion is not popular, but that does not make it any less true.

  29. tnharry,
    I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that the notes aren’t destroyed. They most certainly are–the banks admit it:

    “The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file. See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Electronic storage is almost universally acknowledged as safer, more efficient and less expensive than maintaining the originals in hard copy, which bears the concomitant costs of physical indexing, archiving and maintaining security. It is a standard in the industry and becoming the benchmark of modern efficiency across the spectrum of commerce—including the court system. ”

    This is from a letter from the Florida Bankers Association to the Florida Supreme Court in 2009.

    Link here:

  30. changing figures on a balance sheet isn’t quite the same as creating money. plus – notes aren’t endorsed, deposited, and destroyed. the notes exist still. that argument is cut from the same cloth as Marilyn’s ultra vires/unconstitutional argument

  31. Here is a link to the affidavit of Walker Todd that Nora mentioned:

    The important stuff is highlighted.

  32. Also, from the Fed publication “I Bet You Thought,” Nora’s argument is OPENLY ADMITTED:

    “Banks create money by ‘monetizing’ the private debts of businesses, individuals and governments. That is, they create amounts of money against the value of those IOUs.”

  33. tnharry,

    Nora is exactly right. Whether a judge believes it or not is immaterial. She may not win her case if she uses that argument, but that doesn’t change the fact that she is correct.

    From the Fed publication “Modern Money Mechanics”:

    “What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the “loan”].”

  34. @Nora – if you honestly believe that nonsense about a blank endorsement on a note “monetizing” it and creating money, then your problems extend much farther than can help anyway. i didn’t make a “baseless, negative” comment about it beyond that it’s not state specific and that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for this stuff. i’ll throw the same comments that have been directed at me back at you – are you a shill for

    get a real attorney. if not, at least hire a real attorney to consult with you to coach you on being pro se. go to court and watch what happens and how the participants react and respond for a few days. watch a motion day and a trial from start to finish. for goodness sakes, the proprietor of the jurisdictionary site includes in his credentials his ham radio operators license and his private pilot’s license…

  35. Tnharry,

    I’m not discouraging people from getting attorneys. Rather I’m trying to encourage people to fight no matter what, attorney or not. I never encountered an attorney that had a monthly payment plan. In fact, I never encountered an attorney who was willing to take the case. Except an old college friend. He did help but eventually he bailed out.

  36. @tnharry
    You really should find out what you’re talking about BEFORE you write your terse comments. It’s obvious you have no personal knowlege of the material, and are making baseless, negative comments about it.

    Instead of “feeling sorry for” me, perhaps you should do something besides posting un-helpful comments and criticism, and crying that the sky is falling. Find out what you’re talking about first, lest you make a fool of yourself.

  37. I understand…well, I’m off to the dentist—seriously!!! Have a good one…

  38. i can’t argue with that carie. but i’d much rather face one of the pro se people than the ones represented by counsel in a hearing. i don’t spend nearly as much time preparing for the pro se people – the same canned arguments will work every time. i don’t know why you want to fight with usedkarguy and argue with anyone trying to help. get a lawyer or don’t get a lawyer, file suit or don’t file suit, it doesn’t matter to me in the end. but for goodness sake, keep an open mind. you’ve gotten awfully set in your ways with the unsecured/debt collector idea. if anyone pokes a hole in that you are toast. so much easier (for the litigant and the judge) to go with standing issues. can still weave the other stuff in, but lead with your best argument and let the others play a supporting role.

  39. There are also tons of people “losing” WITH attorneys…

  40. @carie – how do you go from the convictions that you show us everyday via your postings to “the big maybe”? there’s no guarantee. there’s no guarantee for most things in life. however, there is a huge likelihood of losing pro se. why not spend the money to increase your chances?

    have you asked around about a monthly “pay as you go” type of plan with attys? i’m really seeing that quite a bit now

  41. tn—I beg to differ re. comparing the other professions…a dentist usually knows what needs to be done—it’s not a “guess”…What is going on in the courts with regards to mortgage fraud is unprecedented—lawyers just “trying” things—case law needs to be made—seems to me…

  42. @Nora – if that was serious and wasn’t an ad for Jurisdictionary, then i actually feel sorry for you. that website/system doesn’t even appear to be state-specific. save your money for that first month’s security deposit instead.

  43. Many simply don’t have the money to hire an attorney. Buy jurisdictionary and learn how to do it right, by yourself. JUST FIGHT.

    You say Bernanke is snooping on our comments? GREAT! Stick it up your arse, you frigging criminal. We are gonna put you under the jail, and when your sentence is served forty seven years from now, we’ll let you go live in a tent in the park, you smug son of a…well you know, like we do, what a piece of shit you are. You’ll have a concience when we’re done with you, you arrogant, elitiest a**hole.

  44. but carie – that’s no different from a doctor, dentist, cpa, etc. you’re “renting” their expertise and experience.

  45. I think the frustrating thing is the idea that you would give someone a lot of money with a big “maybe” as the outcome…

  46. @zur – why would you discourage people from hiring attorneys? as long as the banks have attorneys, the homeowners need them. as to the “taking your money” issue, it’s a service you pay for, just like a doctor, dentist, cpa, etc. i too will encourage people to go pro se if absolutely necessary. something is better than nothing. but discouraging others from hiring counsel is not doing them a favor.

    @carie – you often state that attys cost too much. how many have you talked to? how much are they asking for? most would allow you to make a monthly retainer agreement. i’ve spoken to several in my area who do it for a monthly fee in the $1000-$1500 range.

  47. Nora C…..ya hoooooo!!!!!!! I just happen to swing over to Neil’s site and read the comments….You mentioned something I have asked before on 4closurefraud….The Note….my daughter has been in foreclosure for almost 2 years now.. She got a lawyer and had a hearing June 2010…the Judge told the lawyer for the plaintiff they needed to summit more documents of proof and dismissed it. A few weeks later another set of documents was filed and my daughter got her new set. I sat down to compare all the sheets in both sets. No new documents were added except the last page of the note was different…. In the first set under the signature was a large ‘ X ‘ covering the bottom of the sheet. On the new set the note had no X at all..but it had an endorsement ‘ without recourse.’..Washington Mutual FA and a signature…in the blank area it appears a very light an over used stamp impossible for us to read…..She called her attorney to ask her if she saw anything different in the 2 sets and the lawyer said there was nothing different…not telling what we found…. the lawyer accused her of wanting a free home….and was looking for an excuse. So I called the lawyer since I paid that attorney her high fee and asked her the same question…..she saw no change in the papers..and saw no way my daughter could save her house…she was fired that day. And we went to Stopa Law firm….. but what was confusing was others said their endorsement said ‘ with recourse ‘….no one every said ‘ withour recourse ‘…so we wondered why we were the only duck in the pond. are a God sent …and made my day.

  48. All lawyers wanna do is protect their livelihood by not pissing off any judges or other lawyers. And take a lot of your money in the process. We certainly don’t hear of any big wins from pro se people, but we also don’t hear of big wins from people with attorneys.

    Attorneys are not magic. There is no magic. I say sue the banks any way you can, lawyer or not. If you lose, oh well, you were gonna lose your house anyway by not fighting. Don’t leave it to “the professionals”–do what you gotta do to protect your rights.

    No offense to the lawyers among us.

  49. Ben Bernake says he has chosen to electronically snoop (“Social Listening Platform” ) on our opinions and websites, about the foreclosure-abetting Federal Reserve:

    Here’s my opinion…. drown with the corrupt banks you have aided and abetted against the American people – you den of vipers!

  50. Thanks, tn.

  51. usedkarguy + Lawyerguy are the most respected professions

    except for our Usedkarguy he is telling it like it is.

    Judges so happen to be attorneys.

  52. I feel sorry for your wife…are you this mean to her?

  53. I think you actually enjoy being a total a**hole…sad.

  54. Harry, this pro-se shit is for the birds. Judges will not recognize even the best arguments without an attorney watching. Procedurally, pro-se at a huge disadvantage and almost sure to get socked. Carie, you should spend less time in front of your computer shooting your mouth off and get a job to pay attorneys fees.

  55. Why hasn’t anyone mentioned the real reason they can’t produce the Notes?
    It’s because they endorsed them and deposited them. Check the last page of the photocopies they sent you for an endorsement, if you made a request for the original Note.
    They will have sent you just an old photocopy, because the original Note was a negotiable instrument and thus destroyed after “depositing”.
    Keep making motions to compel until some peon at the bank screws up and sends a copy that has the bank’s endorsement on the last page…proof that they monitized your signature. It will say, “Pay to the order of_______without Recourse” and that is how you beat them in court.
    Read the awesome affidavit of Walker F. Todd in the Bank One, N.A. v. Harshavardhan and Pratima Dave case.
    Clear proof that the Money Changers lent you nothing, had no risk, and used your signature without your knowlege and consent to make new money via the fractional reserve banking system, endorsed by our good old criminal Federal Reserve. They create a demand account in your name, and listed your “loan” as an asset on their balance sheet, which zeros it out, in zero balance bookkeeping. They forge your signature to make drafts on the liability account set up in your name. Ultra Vires applies to all contracts. They’re void. Get the goods on them through discovery and sue them for punitive damages.

    Here’s how it looks: Banks got money from investors. Banks got money from Borrowers. Banks got money from Government. Banks got money from Insurance policies. Banks got money from betting against loans they engineered to fail. Banks got money from Yield Spread Premiums. Banks got bailouts from taxpayers. Banks got money from default servicing. Banks get $6000 for each completed foreclosure. Banks get Deficiency judgment money. Banks get the artificially inflated equity created with fraudulent appraisals. Banks then get the houses to resell for more profit. What did banks risk or lend of their own? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They played with cash from all these other sources, and now they want the homes, too.

    Bankers need to go to jail, Department of Justice! Do Your Job!

  56. Used car, that happened to me too. Got a trial payment plan 3 months, honored it, they rejected my modification earlier this year. I sent in a new package and they came back with over thirteen conditions, because, I am an investor and wanted those filled in three days. Then they come back and say they want to close out the case because I need time to get my package together. In the meanwhile, they sock me for $1700 in late charges, a $360 inspection fee and just got a $90 dollar fee for goodness knows what. What a scam.

  57. i agree with usedkar – they’ll get around to you eventually. i would urge you to do what we’ve discussed before – be the plaintiff in either QT or BK, frame the issues the way you want them framed, don’t wait until you have to be reactive as a defendant. serve your complaint along with interrogatories, request for production, and requests for admissions. when they’re 1 day late, default them and/or move to compel. preferably with an atty, but without if necessary

  58. I know that.

  59. unless you have a black robe and sit up above everyone else when you speak, your opinions on standing just don’t matter carie. i know it’s how you feel, but what you can prove to a judge is what matters.

  60. They have no standing, usedkar.

  61. I think it’s funny that 5 hours after I sent the affidavits to the Nevada AG they announced criminal actions. I hope I had something to do with that.

  62. carie, expect a foreclosure lawsuit to arrive in the future. It took them ten months to show up and file in my case. don’t assume they’re giving up. They are “catching up”.

  63. The occupying wallstreet movement got some coverage on Huffington Post.

    Again the mainstream media is not an issue, nobody watches or reads them anyways. That is why they are on the verge or if not in or out of bankruptcy. The Internet Rules. Social Media Rules.

    thanx Abby





  65. Follow the Money: Money Talks BullSh3t walks.

    Where did my down payment go?
    Where did the payments I made for 3 years go?
    Where are my future payments gonna go?

    Did my payments go to the Creditor’s account?

    if the original Note (lost misplaced the dog ate it) and the chain of Title was broken?

    How do I know where my payments have and will go?


  66. Rise up and tell your local, state, and fed politicos.

  67. Neil’s post today says it all. Obvious common sense. Wake up America. Don’t waste any more time dealing with crooks and thugs. It isn’t even only a few individual crooks and thugs. It is massive amounts of blind enablers. All of us. We allowed a systemic mindless monster with a momentum all its own to run rampant. Stop the nonsence. Wake up and knock it off.

  68. usedkar—re. your post about the class action:

    I told my servicer to basically shove their “trial payment plan” unless they can PROVE to me conveyance of my payments to some “loan” that they said was in a “trust” owned by Deutsche. I said I’m on to your lies, and I know the trust is empty. You are a debt collector, and ONLY a debt collector.
    And I said you better make damn sure you stop the fraudulent foreclosure machine.
    My credit report says: “paying on a payment plan”.

    Haven’t heard a peep from them for months, and haven’t given them a dime for months.

    Very telling.

  69. As Dylan Ratigan says:

    We need to address:

    1. The base fraud in the financial system—& accounting/mortgage fraud.

    2. The need to cancel debt.

    3. The need to restructure the banking system.

    4. The need to reform the swaps market.

    5. The need to re-capitalize the banks.

    6. The need to get the ratings agencies in line.

  70. As to the Nevada AG: I supplied 5 affidavits executed by Wells Fargo’s own Jennifer Robinson. They were appreciative, to say the least. Let’s see where this goes. Kentucky AG is also on my e-mail list. Hooray for these guys!

  71. Philadelphia, PA: A class action complaint has been filed on behalf of all Michigan homeowners whose mortgage loans have been serviced by Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. and/or Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (collectively “Defendants”), and who, since April 13, 2009, (1) have entered into a Trial Period Plan (“TPP”) contract with Defendants and made all payments as required by their TPP contract and complied with Defendants’ requests for documentation, and (2) have not received or have been denied a permanent Home Affordable Modification Agreement that complied with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program (” HAMP “) rules.

    The Complaint alleges that Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC agreed to participate in HAMP, and are obligated to modify mortgage loans they service for homeowners who qualify under HAMP, a federal program designed to abate the foreclosure crisis by providing mortgage loan modifications to eligible homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants systematically slow or thwart homeowners’ requests to modify mortgages in order to collect higher fees and interest rates associated with stressed home loans.

    Members of the proposed class applied for HAMP loan modifications from Defendants, were prequalified for the program, and received TPP contracts calling for them to make three modified loan payments and submit certain financial documentation if they had not already done so. Despite fulfilling these obligations under the TPP contracts with Defendants, they did not receive permanent HAMP modifications of their loans, nor did they receive timely written notifications explaining the reasons for Defendants’ denials.

  72. In this lifetime I have voted for Democrats, Republicans and third party canidates. Not because they were nice or something but because I think different approaches are needed at different times. I would vote for Teddy Roosevelt today and a “Square Deal” even though I wish Franklin could have a go at making a “New Deal” work in spite of a deficit to deal with. Different times call for different measures. Not a politically correct point of view from right or left I realize but that is what I think. Conflicting stubborn opinions from many sides regarding blame, cause and prevention are still leaving the dying patient on the table. Even those who get it that an injustice has been done to America have very decidely different views on why that is and they have not rallied together for that reason. Immediate emergency measures were needed five years ago and now (tarp was not that). Opposing sides that “get it” from different angles should drop the soapbox and stem the bleeding. Get back to arguing about the past mistakes and future prevention after that.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: