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

Many questions are piling in as lawyers start to drill down into the whole securitization scheme. The COMBO helps; yet in order to properly present the case in court you need to understand more than just your transaction. When I started the blog, and periodically thereafter, I made reference to a doctrine that was created in the context of tax litigation but which applies and has been applied in commercial situations. Sometimes you have to figure out the goal of the transaction in order to determine the parties. The doctrines that apply are the SINGLE TRANSACTION DOCTRINE and the STEP TRANSACTION DOCTRINE. The key question that is answered is what was the goal — or to put it another way, if you take out that piece, would the same transaction have otherwise still occurred in some other fashion?

Applied to debt, whether it is mortgage or otherwise, it is stated as follows: If investment bankers were not selling mortgage bonds to investors, would the loan have been otherwise been made? If the answer is no, there would have been no transaction, then the doctrines apply. If the doctrines apply, then the nature of the transaction is determined by its goal — the issuance of mortgage bonds, and all the exotic hedge and credit enhancements products that went along with it. Once that is determined, the real parties in interest emerge — the mortgage bonds were sold for the purpose of funding loans. So the loans and the bonds are the evidence of the total transaction. The borrowers and the investors are the real parties in interest. Most interpretations of RPIT come down to money — who gave it and who got it?

It might be that the more significant party in interest on the borrower side is not the homeowner at all, but rather the investment banker who created a promise to pay the investors under false pretenses. The homeowner did not know about that promise and certainly had no idea of the false pretenses. The issue is whether the mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument is enforceable as to power of sale, foreclosure or otherwise. That can only be true if the right party has signed it and the right party enforces it. But it is also restricted to enforcement of a valid outstanding obligation, which is described in other instruments.

Usually, in a mortgage loan, the obligation is described in a note. In our current situation the obligation is described in a convoluted series of documents, some of the them fabricated, including the PSA,, prospectus etc. because the lender investor didn’t get a document from the homeowner, they received it from the investment banker. Thus the totality of the documentation with the investor and with the borrower might be used to describe the obligation — but then you have that pesky problem of Truth in Lending where all the documents must be revealed and disclosed to the borrower.

The only reasonable interpretation in securitization transactions is that the entire risk of loss would have shifted to a different party if the mortgage bonds were not being sold. This is what caused all the intermediaries to abandon normal underwriting standards. This ALL parties involved in ALL parts of the transaction are mere intermediaries or conduits and not possessed of any economic interest int he transaction, except those arising out of their role as a conduit. For example, if you write a check to Target to buy a TV, the goal was to purchase a TV. the fact that you wrote a check, that TARGET took the check to their bank, that the check was cleared through Federal Reserve or other intermediaries, and presented to your bank who sent it to their account processor which then provided the information as to whether the funds were present to cover the check, which led your bank authorizing payment is all irrelevant to the issue of the purchase of the TV. 

In our current crisis, all those intermediaries are vying for the TV when none of them has any economic interest in it. In this example, the intermediaries would have that opportunity if Target didn’t care whether or not they got back their TV or didn’t care to fight about it for whatever reason. The vacuum and opportunity for disinterested intermediaries to pretend to be interested and pretend to have rights to the TV would be almost irresistible if you had no ethics, morality or conscience. The single transaction doctrine and step transaction doctrine were created to  sort out such situations.

In the mortgage context, that is exactly what is happening. I predicted 4 years ago that litigation results would depend entirely upon whether the Banks could be successful at misdirecting the attention of the court to the parts of the transaction instead of the totality of it — the money processing through conduits and intermediaries — or if they were correctly instructed by borrowers that they now know that the real transaction was the purchase of a mortgage bond by investors and that the borrowers signature was merely incident to, and necessary for the completion of the transaction such that the investment banker would not be required to return the money to the investor.

Like Target in the example above, the investors have decided, so far, not to fight with the homeowner but rather to take their fight to the investment banker who sold them the bonds under false pretenses. But if the investors and borrowers did get together and settle the obligation in any manner or with any means, the issue of foreclosure would be over. There would be no obligation or at least there would be no default.

There are issues as to how to characterize the fraudulent foreclosures, unlawful detainer, seizure of personal property, etc. And the related question is whether those involve transfers of interests in property or if they involve instruments that are investments, securities or whatever. I have concluded as an expert that the documents of “transfer” (forgetting their foundation and authenticity for a moment) are in actuality part of a larger scheme whose end purpose was the issuance of multiple forms of securities or other instruments exempted from security regulation. Even if exempted, it doesn’t make it a real estate transaction.

It does make it a fraudulent scheme, if the the property owner was fraudulently induced into executing documents under the pretense that this was a conventional mortgage loan situation, when hidden from the property owner, it was really part of the loop of issuing “mortgage bonds” (certificated or non-certificated to investors. Since the goal was to get money from investors and then have them abandon their interests in the “mortgages” or the “property” the property aspects seem incidental to the real nature of the transaction.

In fact, when you take a step back, you will see that the borrowers were duped into becoming “issuers” of paper that they had no idea was going to be used for bonuses on Wall Street. Borrowers did not know that the amount loaned to them or for their benefit fell far short of the amount collected from investors.

Under that scenario, their was, as I have said from beginning, a single transaction. That transaction was between the investor and the property owner, which was undocumented since neither were in privity to a written instrument in which both of them appeared. Or it could be said that the note is one small part of the documentation, in which the PSA, A&A, prospectus,  bond, etc. were in TOTAL, the documentation. If those documents are, in total, the only documentation of the transaction, then the note cannot be accepted into evidence without the rest of the evidence.

And the security instrument or agreement (Deed of trust) might only mention the note. If it does that, then it has referred to a piece of paper that does not have all the terms of the transaction. Since they were intentionally hiding the existence of a the securitization chain from the borrower, it can’t be said that the omission of the other documents was accidental. Thus the security instrument would be invalid on the most fundamental grounds — it does not secure the obligation — evidence of which is contained in multiple instruments, it attempts to secure only the note, which does not contain all the evidence of the obligation and terms of repayment.

As such, if that is accepted by the Court, the security instrument would need to be reformed in order to be effective. Whether that reformation would relate back to the original recording is a question I cannot answer.  But in my opinion, no security instrument is capable of being enforced if it makes reference to a single document that is to be used as evidence of an obligation, the performance of which triggers the enforcement provisions of the security instrument — unless that single document contains all the evidence of the obligation.

57 Responses

  1. […] Like this: Like Be the first to like this post. Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | bankruptcy, borrower, CERTIFICATES, countrywide,disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, Mark Stephens, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, TRUSTS, WEISBAND « SINGLE TRANSACTION RULE REVISITED […]


  3. @DyingTruth, the nervous attorney got a sweet deal with my tenant’s attorney with the blessing of the judge this afternoon. the tenant’s attorney told me to not infuriates the judge because she’s working for my tenant’s to stay for two months, i told the attorney she has a valid lease until dec.31, 2011 and she has another 90 days to stay until my tenants could find a suitable place to live, but she she doesn’t want to confronts that fact. here’s the deal, my tenants should pay the rent $ 4000.00/month from nov. 2011, december 2011 until january 8, 2011 to GMAC Mortgage LLC East Dryer in santa ana, ca. i will get the complete address. i was so pissed with my tenant’s lawyer, i said why did you not question the nervous attorney why would my tenant’s will pay to GMAC when it was HSBC Bank who is the one filing the eviction? and why did you convince my tenant’s to pay $ 4000.00 when it fact, my tenant’s lease is only $ 2500.00 until December 31, 2011. i accused my tenant’s lawyer for not protecting her interest, instead, the attorney settled for what these debt collector’s wanted. she said she is afraid that my tenant’s will not be given enough time to stay. i ask her why did you accept her case if you cannot fight the eviction? another incompetent lawyer i met. so frustrating, these attorneys are all the same. i have never met any competent attorney as of this writing to understand and the have passion to fight for this issue. my BK has been discharged without me having a lawyer, i have cases in 2 superior court that i represented myself. i have a pending case in 9th court of appeal. can you blame homeowners to represent themselves because of lack of competent attorneys, even if they are some, they just pretend to know but actually they just want to make you financially broke. i wish we have coalition group to occupy the court and every hearing or trial in regards to foreclosure we will be there to protest so we could be heard loud and clear. how about PRO SE LITIGANTS COALITION GROUP?, LET’S START IT NOW.

  4. Anonymous, I’ll see what unfolds. I’d love to.

  5. boots,
    You have the right idea. For Californians the main focus should be on the Courts and Judges with CalPERS pensions that are the most heavily invested in MBS.

    I remember you also have problems with Quality Loan Service Corp. I want to remind you that their liscense expired in 2002 and they have no license to collect debts or conduct real estate transactions.

    The part that you said about the nervous attorney being the same attorney you saw at the auction should be investigated further. There’s gotta be something to it.

  6. Maybe 50cents can help. Supporter of the protests.

  7. E. Tolle

    One more thing — get me to Congress.

  8. E. Tolle

    Trust me — different avenues —- but, the protests are extremely important. Keep them coming.

  9. @ Anonymous, if I were your personal assistant, I would explain how I cancelled your Wednesday 3:00 PM with President Oblabla and instead scheduled you to confer at an OWS assembly, to shed your valuable insights among the protesters. I’d also explain how I cancelled your Thursday 4:00 PM with Speaker Bonehead, and scheduled in his place a march on B of A, as the raising of the citizenry’s awareness level of the bankster’s fraudulent practices was an act of immeasurable importance. Further, the en masse closing of accounts to follow could easily be likened to the tossing of tea into the harbor many years ago, and therefore much more worthy of your valuable time. You would speak to the tabloids afterwards.

    I’d further explain that due to your knowledge of the subject matter, speaking aloud at OWS would yield far higher results than meeting with someone such as the Sock Puppet-in-Chief, who already knows well the wishes of his handlers and who is perfectly following their script, and has since his early days of meticulously grooming at Harvard. Speaker Bonehead wouldn’t even warrant an apology for your being a no-show; I wouldn’t even bother calling his secretary as he wears his Elite Minion Badge on his chest for all to see and is a fool; any time spent with him is time you’ll never get back, like wandering too close to a black hole.

    There are many incredible events going on in an occupation near you, near us all. And trust me, one shouldn’t underestimate the liaisons being formed as we speak. Let me just say that you’d find yourself sooner than later in very good company, with many viable paths laid in front. I speak from experience here….coalitions ARE being formed.

    To withhold your support at this pivotal time, no matter the reason, might just be a huge mistake, one that affects many. I know you well enough to know that we both seek the same end, the re-establishment of the rule of law. The act of restoring this once great republic to its original intent will, in my opinion, have to be divided between a clever combination of articulate and sound arguments spoken alongside the threats of a good pitch-forking. Warm up the tar, and re-check your schedule. Please.

  10. How about instant emergency lawsuit filed simultaneously in all 50 states. 1,000 or 10,000 homeowners on each. Details of the mortgages not needed. All have same fraud. Use the state statutes, UCC codes, trust laws and constitutional laws. Get a few investors to sign on too (they got screwed too and they know it). Expose the servicer “foreclosure mill” to the detriment of both. Expose the no m in the mbs to the detriment of both. Read this investor lawsuit:

    Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York, Knights of Columbus, Plaintiff, v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Defendant. Filed August 16, 2011

  11. tsunami lawsuit filed by pro se (I think – I don’t think he is an attorney) John Korman posted elsewhere – 139 pages. Not sure but think he posted here in the past.

    He pulls no punches. Says it like it is. Attorneys afraid to do it. My feeling the more that say it the better – let the pretender banks and the pretender judges laugh it out of court. Last laugh will happen one day even if it is only in history books. It will be a laugh at the jerks who thought they could hide this under the table, a laugh that they also failed in the end but it will be tears for the unnessesay tragedy they perpetrated on the entire globe.

  12. @Boots:


    If there are any attorneys out there marching in the street – their time would be better spent helping with an effort such as this one you describe – wouldn’t even have to put their name on it just help draft the effort and facilitate the filing of it. Enough press might cause all homeowners to pay attention to the fraud in their own bogus mortgages and the link to this Greater Depression that just rolls on with no intervention whatsoever.

  13. anonymous,

    DO YOU THINK WE COULD START OCCUPYING THE COURT INSTEAD OF OCCUPY WALL STREET SO WE HAVE A FORECLOSURE COALITION THAT FOCUS ON THIS ISSUE. THE PROBLEM WITH FORECLOSURE FRAUD IS THAT THE GOVT. KNEW IT, THE JUDGES KNEW IT BUT NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THOSE WHO SUFFERED INJUSTICE AT THE HANDS OF THESE WALL ST. PAYROLL JUDGES. I THINK ALL PRO SE’s should group together and be united and form a coalition to # occupy the court. the foreclosure fraud will not stop until the judges realized that there are a coalition that questions their decision. i encountered a judge here in san mateo court when i attended a trial of unlawful detainer for my tenant, first i questioned the judge that the lawyer who represented hsbc did not file his notice of appearance since he is not the attorney on record, the judge told me it doesn’t matter anyone can represent. i was shocked another incompetent judge who told me as pro se that anyone could represent. i told the judge i disagree and it pissed him off because i question his authority. turn out the lawyers has been suspended for 2 years by the bar association of ca and just reinstated his license in nov. 2010 and when i questioned of not filing a notice of appearance his kind of trembling and nervous before the trial. but anyway, this incompetent attorney was there to wait for granting the UD but he was not successful, the judge gave us another 2 weeks for another trial.

    well, yesterday it was our trial, you know what happen this incompetent lawyer saw me and wants me to set besides him in the court room and told me i should pretend that everything is fine and i kind of wonder what the hell he’s talking until he realized i was the witness for my tenant who question him about for not filing a notice of appearance. and by the way, my tenant hired a lawyer for that hearing yesterday and probably because of his nervous he mistakenly think i am his witness. when the new judge arrived, she told us that the judge who heard the trial was a retired judge and there was already a statement I made during the trial. and the judge gave us a break so she could read the lease agreement . well that wait last more than an hour and when the bailiff looks for the lawyer he is no where to be found and my tenant’s lawyer saw him in another court setting on the bench. to make the story short, the lawyer for hsbc intentionally delayed the hearing and the judge told us that the previous judge would like to continue the hearing today @ 2:30 p.m. in south san francisco. my tenant’s lawyers told the other attorney that she needs to bill him for her time, and that’s where i saw this stupid lawyers was so angry toward my tenant’s attorney. so those homeowners who are facing eviction his name is Atty. norman newhouse in redwood city, ca.
    last night, i was trying to figured out , i met this guy before? but where? omg, i met him at the auction house in san mateo county, i’m 100% sure it was him, probably he was making a living in an auction while his license was suspended. well, if this attorney happen to represent the pretender lender, ask him right away if he is the attorney on record if not ask him if file a notice of appearance chances are he did not. my thoughts is that he has a connection inside the court.

  14. William Black is going to Zuccoti Park OCW.

    Every day the banksters and their politicians are pissing off more and more people.


  15. E. Tolle

    I greatly appreciate the protests — and, would be there if I was not working non-stop via other avenues to help expose the fraud.

    But, I really think a coalition might be helpful — that can get itself into Washington. I have volunteered to speak — if such a coalition could be formed. I really resent that the government just allows foreclosure victims to be abused (again) every day in courts across the country. The government KNOWS the foreclosures are fraudulent.

    The protests are not foreclosure specific — we need a foreclosure specific coalition.

  16. @ Anonymous, while I understand your feeling of hopelessness at being sold down the river by the state AGs, I don’t share your assumption and summation of OWS not focusing on foreclosures. I personally came too close for comfort to being arrested last week in a march on a bank to call attention to their illegal practices, and that was just one of three marches in one week. Believe me, there are an awful lot of committed people out there who have had it with foreclosures.

    There were only two hundred of us, a handful were arrested. It got good press coverage, which does help the cause. But the truth is, if we had had two thousand people filling the streets, there would have been an immediate call to action. More would have joined the cause, and the bank’s standard meme would have hit a wall. It won’t happen without a broader participation.

    You asked, “Where is the outrage?” Believe me, the two hundred of us, along with countless others around the country ARE outraged, and our traffic tying demonstration and loud chanting outside their ivory tower most definitely brought much needed attention to the cause. My question to you would be, “Short of sharing your dismay at the AGs of the nation on the internet, when will you assemble and express your indignation with others in a march against these illegalities?”

    One mustn’t sit back in hopes that others advance the cause. And it’s a mistake to assume that the OWS near you isn’t in support of whatever anyone’s particular cause happens to be. But the bigger mistake is not standing up with fellow citizens who have had enough and are willing to take it to the next level. Internet blogs worked for the early stages, but it’s passed time to escalate. It’s us or them, and I for one won’t take their world being foisted upon us all without a fight. Now’s the time. Grab a pitchfork.

  17. I am giving you a choice? Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

  18. The Permanent Editorial Board for the UCC is trying to change the meaning of the UCC in an attempt to persuade courts and judges to view their interpretation of the UCC as the actual authoritative law on the issue of who owns the note and who can enforce it without taking into consideration numerous other State Laws that are more germane to the issues today.

    On March 29, 2011, the PEB released for public comment its Draft Report on UCC Rules Applicable to the Assignment of Mortgage Notes and to the Ownership and Enforcement of Those Notes and the Mortgages Securing Them. Read submitted comments. A final report is expected to be issued in the fall. It will be posted here when it is issued.

    By far, the most critical and on point comment came from Georgetown University Law Center. Here are a few quotes:

    Strangely, the Report is virtually devoid of any reference to the financial crisis or the role that the UCC played in facilitating the financial structures the precipitated the global economic collapse.
    Instead, the Report seeks to impose a resolution on the courts to issues affecting the foreclosure crisis and the future structure of securitization purely as a matter of legal doctrine. This failure to grapple with the real-world implications of the problems the Report addresses or to acknowledge calls for reform on these issues seriously undermines the credibility of the Report.

    A PEB report is not an appropriate vehicle for resolving the serious legal issues posed by MERS or chain of title problems in residential mortgage securitizations. Unfortunately, the Draft Report gives the impression of being an attempt, if not to resolve these issues, than at least to put a finger on the scale to tilt the law to help shield large financial institutions from the consequences of sloppy legal compliance in the name of efficiency.

    In the remainder of this letter, we address several particular concerns with the Draft Report: (1) that the Draft Report is misleading because enforcement of mortgage notes other than through mortgage foreclosure is virtually meaningless; (2) the Draft Report is misleading because it focuses solely on the UCC issues when consideration of supplementary, contradictory, or superseding federal bankruptcy law, state procedural law, evidentiary law, real property law, trust law, and agency law might produce different outcomes; and (3) the Draft Report fails to recognize that UCC 9-203(g) may not be effective to transfer real property in title theory states.

    Download the entire PDF response here!!

  19. Things are at their worst—————-

  20. you all have this power:

    live life::::::::::::::::::

  21. @anonymous

    Maybe we should wake up””””””””””’

  22. @anonymous………….

    there is a saving grace………………

    do not bank. On consumer level, do not use consumer credit. or loans. Pay cash or debit cards if n fee. If you do not use credit from a bank or loan from a bank,,,,,,,,,,,,,,why that will stop it. You can borrow from a friend,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or start a business from friends………….that is how it is done without any corrupt legal system or corrupt loan system………… is done via friends who are friends and people are basically good. Yes they are. It is only a few that are corrupt. And it is only the media that promote people are not trustworthy when in fact they are. The evidence is all around in real life. Only the bankers promote via media that people are not trustworthy.

  23. “It goes to show how hard it is to make someone open his eyes.”

    As Neil says, JUSTICE is slow………………………….

    Do not get angry at your fellow american,,,,,,,,,,,,,just continue to open his eyes………………..persistence is a quality of life……………use it.

  24. cubed2k,

    Agree — and agree with M. Soliman —- whether he likes it or not.

    All being done to block investigation and fraud. Freddie/Fannie?? do not even believe the website.

    It is near over unless the states stand up to their AGs — and Obama — and Congress.

    Constitutional rights??? You will have none left — as one attorney put it to me — victims will remain a calamity. May attempt to bring to court — but will have slim luck. .

    Very difficult to challenge a settlement — now time is limited – if not gone completely. Need big case to block — but is likely too late.

    Problem has always been — no big law firm will take on — they were already in “others” pocket.

    No law firms to save. But, always ready and waiting to challenge a “settlement” — if anyone is there to do.

  25. watch the end————–

  26. AND this is what it takes—————-freedom is constant willingness to fight,,,,,,,,,,,freedom, liberty from debt………….stay away from the banks

  27. time to put your sunglasses on cuz the future is so bright:

  28. @anonymous, and if those that seek this new program, why they ought to demand they get the original back for the servicer,,,,,,,,,,,,,but people don’t know and will never ask,,,,,,,,,,,,for their original note back in a new refinance………….I forget the dam ucc on it.

  29. The bullshit attorney General will surely throw us all under the bus for their gain & our pain …..not me ,we ,US! i say FUK EM.
    ,we must reserve our rights !

    Dear Attorney General,

    I am [name], and this is my legal notice sent to you with regards to any singular agreement or settlement you, as Attorney General of [state], or any group agreement(s) or settlement(s) made as part of a group of state Attorney Generals, against the following entities: Those involved in fraud, foreclosure, transfer, assignment, and/or other unmentioned abuse(s) of actions [the crimes] of: the parties of lender(s)/bank(s)/servicer(s)/attorney(s)/associates/businesses or networks with the LPS suffix/trustees/default services, or any other organization, group, or affiliate of MBA. Collectively, [the crime parties].

    Let it be know that I, [name, address] expressly refuse to waive or forego any claim, right, or cause of action and redress; that in any singular agreement as Attorny General of [state], or agreement(s) as part of a group of state A.G.s, you may reach with [crime parties], I reserve my right or any right I may discover at a later date to redress without limitation, and will not have these rights rescinded, hampered or hindered through or by a settlement the Attorney General(s) may decide to enter into with the above mentioned parties.

    Sincerely and without prejudice

    thank you for your efforts!

  30. @anonymous,

    you got it. read it this morning. Helps those that are current in their payments and can’t refinance because the house is underwater. But it’s all new refinancing, meaning new MBS trusts, new money created,,,,,,,

    all under the guise of help…………….and it’s a good deal but you refinance on a new note………………..

    so all those that seek this program ought to seek this:

    § 3-501. PRESENTMENT.

    (a) “Presentment” means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee.
    (b) The following rules are subject to Article 4, agreement of the parties, and clearing-house rules and the like:
    (1) Presentment may be made at the place of payment of the instrument and must be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the person to whom presentment is made; and is effective if made to any one of two or more makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors.
    (2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.
    (3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement, or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.
    (4) The party to whom presentment is made may treat presentment as occurring on the next business day after the day of presentment if the party to whom presentment is made has established a cut-off hour not earlier than 2 p.m. for the receipt and processing of instruments presented for payment or acceptance and presentment is made after the cut-off hour.

  31. Here’ s our friend Maher Soliman (foreclosureinfo search… what he said :

    “The objective was to one day making mortgage lending and foreclosure a Federal oversight and not a scattered 50 state menagerie.”

    I think I agree…………….

    Bankruptcy is the same. Now they, the federal government=federal reserve system of banks = the president of the USA = the Federal reserve chairman= Jamie Dimon and other big banks = congress,,,,,,,,,,,,,, wants to control housing and not the 50 STATES.


    AG’s, in talks…………….with banks=federal reserve system of banks. To settle.

    I don’t know, you connect the dots.

    And why? So Wall St can trade paper………and collect a lot of fees. Why, because you work, we don’t work. You work the land, we don’t, we just collect you can work and service……… no work or service and pay, you shit out of luck grasshopper. Ownership, what are you talking about? We own, you don’t, you work, get it!!!!!!!!!!

    And that includes lawyers, doctors, car mechanics, dish washers… name it.

    We are the bankers, and we are global, we control all, so just work. And pay your bills.

  32. DT
    reinforcement of your statements!!
    When you hear “Democracy” out a politician’s mouth you should be inclined to desire they be held to account for their willful and intentional violation of the oath of office, which prohibits same, as such is inherently repugnant to the Constitution.

  33. leapfrog,
    “Anyone know how Harris could possibly “waive” an individual’s right to sue? I don’t see how.”

    Ask yourself these questions:

    Do you believe that we are a Democracy?
    Do you believe that there has ever existed, lower, middle and upper Classes?
    Do you believe that the Judicial Branch has the Power to Interpret the Law (a Power not Granted to any branch nor the States by the Constitution let alone the Judiciary) and Declare what it is?

    If you answered yes to any or all of those questions, then you have accepted Communism and the Rule of a de facto Government unrestrained by Law.

    In a Republic…
    Individual Rights are Secured
    All are Equal under the Law and
    the Government is restricted by the Law, but directed by the People that are the Sole reason for its existence.

  34. So Obama is going to help ONLY those who took out a loan AFTER the financial crisis culminated —- Quote —

    “The mortgage assistance plan by the Federal Housing Finance Administration will help borrowers with little or no equity in their homes, many of whom are stuck with 6 or 7 percent mortgage rates, to seek refinancing and take advantage of lower rates. The FHFA plans to remove caps that had allowed homeowners to refinance only if they owed up to 25 percent more than their homes are worth.”

    Six or seven percent???? That is — NOT victims of the financial crisis fraud — those in foreclosure — with interest rates — adjustable to 13 or 14% or more — just do not count.

    And, settlement by AGs??? Takes away your rights to sue. What will you get???? Nothing.

    You can tell I am angry. And, for those foreclosure expert help advocates — forget it.

  35. I called a friend, but not on regular speaking terms. I called because he filed Ch 13 BK and had a house. He filed Ch 13 because of the second, $225k worth, and he makes too much money to file Ch 7 BK. First was $800k in a prominent city in No Calif. So my friend is on a 5 year trustee plan to pay back debts from his current income and after the 5 years all is wiped out. First is gone on foreclosure and second is gone. He’s paying bank credit cards.

    So now he is in debt slavery for 5 years. Any excess income he makes goes to the creditors for the 5 years. He has 2 1/2 years to go. He says it sucks.

    He says it’s a shame and depressing as the house has not been sold, it is a nice house and has been sitting empty for 3 years now. He says the Jacuzzi is probably growing things in it unfit and will probably kill a person.

    There you go. Real life story. WTF is wrong with our system now. I will tell you, it’s all money, money going into Wall Street and their pockets and the real stuff getting shitted on.

    Thank You very much Congress. our AG’s, our really smart Politicians at the local and state level. Thank you for representing us, the people that work and got took behind a lot of legal laws.

    Let’s see, it’s Oct 24, 2011. Only FOUR god damn years ago,

    only FOUR YEARS AGO, you couldn’t buy a house without a bidding war, and prices got jacked up and up, and up.

    HOW COME NOT NOW? Prices are HALF what they were four years ago? HOW COME? Where are all the BUYERS? Interest rates are still low, right Mr Federal Reserve BANK? Mr Federal Reserve Bank, your tool to stimulate the economy, lower interest rates to get people to borrow more,,,,,,,,,,,,right Mr Ben bernacki? Hey, money is cheap……………………oh, that would be to borrow and pay back,,,,,,,,,,,,and it’s the time period that counts. Time, time, time, …………..time payments……………hahahahaha

    I think Occupy Wall Street ought to just move right into the Wall Street buildings where Goldman, BofA, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank conducts business. Why stay out outside in the cold,?????????/

    Move right on in into the buildings. Don’t you think.

  36. AG settlement — will ruin the good judges.

  37. neidermeyer

    Where is the outrage??? Occupy Wall Street not focusing on foreclosures — WHERE is the outrage???

  38. Occupy WallStreet enjoys the backing of 33% of the American Voters for now. It will rise.



    HUD REPO’S for $100 down only … and you can draw out “renovation expense money” at closing!!!

    Somebody lend me $100 QUICK!!!

    HUD has approved a program aimed at putting foreclosed homes back into the hands of owner-occupant buyers.

    In select states, from now into October of next year, buyers need a down payment of only $100 to purchase a HUD-owned REO home.

    The buyer must be an owner-occupant, utilizing financing insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Standard FHA underwriting guidelines apply, and the sale must be for the full amount of the current list price.

    The $100 down payment incentive program has been approved for two of HUD’s four national regions – the regions managed by the Denver Homeownership Center and the Atlanta Homeownership Center. HUD homes in the states listed, as well as the Caribbean are currently eligible for the program.

    Denver Homeownership Center’s Jurisdiction:
    •New Mexico
    •North Dakota

    •South Dakota

    Atlanta Homeownership Center’s Jurisdiction:
    •North Carolina
    •South Carolina

    HUD’s $100 down payment incentive program can also be applied to an FHA 203k loan, which can be used to fund repairs and renovations on the home. The 203k program allows buyers to finance both the mortgage and additional money for rehabilitation needs with a single government-insured loan.

    Matt Martin, CEO of Matt Martin Real Estate Management (MMREM), says this is one of the most exciting features of the new incentive program and should drive a lot of exposure to FHA’s 203k offering.

    MMREM is under contract with HUD to assist with disposition sales of its repossessed homes. MMREM handles properties throughout 16 states, or about a third of HUD’s REO portfolio.

    With an FHA 203k loan, “buyers can find a property that needs some TLC, fix it up however they want to, and finance the whole thing for $100,” Martin explained.

    “MMREM is excited to work with this recent initiative, in a way that it supports putting HUD homes back into the hands of homeowners,” Martin said.

    In addition to $100 down instead of FHA’s typical 3.5 percent down payment, HUD says it will also cover up to 3 percent of the closing costs in most cases.

  40. Enraged we make an example of Obama. And we say Who’s next?

    We The People remember?


  41. “In return, Californians would lose their right to challenge mortgages that were fraudulently issued — and, of course, the bank criminals would still go free.”

    Anyone know how Harris could possibly “waive” an individual’s right to sue? I don’t see how.

  42. It’s over — with an AG settlement coming down —- unless you live in one of the states that refuse to participate. Just try bringing claims to a court – it will be very difficult — going to have to be extremely imaginative.— your rights will largely gone.

    I have seen settlements like this — you cannot even opt-out —- over.

    Getting away with it. Blame your AG.

  43. As Customers Flee, Big Banks Don’t Seem to Care…really?!

    if they didnt care – this would NOT be posted to convey “their message” how weak!

  44. Not enough people are closing their accounts to really make any kind of a difference for big banks. What are we waiting for???

  45. See the reason why California is so important in the Crisis.
    California Judges are in the Banks pocket or should we say in the Judges pension.

    Mortgage Lending Volume, 2009
    Dollars in thousands Rank State 2009
    1 California $ 464,589,465
    2 Texas $ 138,725,212
    3 Illinois $ 121,874,989
    4 Virginia $ 110,819,560
    5 New Jersey $ 109,194,900
    6 Washington $ 99,718,910
    7 New York $ 96,217,566
    8 Massachusetts $ 94,762,556
    9 Florida $ 89,544,274
    10 Pennsylvania $ 86,898,610


    Apparently, scientists are now looking at the world reality from a strictly scientific standpoint, with numbers to back up their study. This would be enough to stop anyone from having kids…

    We need to act. We need to do it… yesterday! OWS is a good start but will it go far enough, fast enough?

  47. ENRAGED …What the hell am I missing??
    all the problems were and are created for a particular reaction, this would occur regardless of the “head” puppet!
    go ahead impeach him, untill WE THROW ALL THE BUMS OUT its the all same shit ,just different lip service !

  48. neil your right about the single transaction ,but…
    it seems the homeowner was NOT THE BORROWER.. the investment bank was, the homeowner was a pawn for a signature as source for “their house as collateral for issuance of the bond.
    if duped into a transaction that obfuscated the intention AND PARTIES . The unfortunate outcome will turn as it has already where the court knowing the borrower didnt know [ liability seems abstract at best] what and who the participants really were, well..the court cant just absolve the borrower of the debt…that would violate the intention of the debt and subsequent servitude !

  49. @A Man

    Empeach Obama… and put whom at his place? There’s not one guy we can trust who understands the issues and who would be willing to tackle them down. If Obama is empeached, Biden steps in. Does he know enough about the problems we’re facing? I like the old man but he doesn’t strike me as a heavy lifter… capable of standing up to the banks. Although I do believe he has some integrity. In today’s world, integrity might be the last thing we need in a president, especially if he’s going to confront the likes of Dimon and Moynihan…

    The thing I find mind-boggling is that those Obama programs are once again directed at a species on the brinks of extinction: those “homeowners who haven’t missed any mortgage payment”. There is almost no one fitting that profile anymore!!! And you and I end up, once again, picking up the tab. Am I the only one who sees that everything is deliberately done to create a world climate that will immankably lead to what Palin called a “Nukelar war”? Every day, i read something that brings us closer and closer to it.

    What the hell am I missing???

  50. The Class War has begun

    The Great Depression’s Version of Zuccotti Park

  51. The Class War Has Begun

    And the very classlessness of our society makes the conflict more volatile, not less.

    •By Frank Rich
    •Published Oct 23, 2011

    During the death throes of Herbert Hoover’s presidency in June 1932, desperate bands of men traveled to Washington and set up camp within view of the Capitol. The first contingent journeyed all the way from Portland, Oregon, but others soon converged from all over—alone, in groups, with families—until their main Hooverville on the Anacostia River’s fetid mudflats swelled to a population as high as 20,000. The men, World War I veterans who could not find jobs, became known as the Bonus Army—for the modest government bonus they were owed for their service. Under a law passed in 1924, they had been awarded roughly $1,000 each, to be collected in 1945 or at death, whichever came first. But they didn’t want to wait any longer for their pre–New Deal entitlement—especially given that Congress had bailed out big business with the creation of a Reconstruction Finance Corporation earlier in its session. Father Charles Coughlin, the populist “Radio Priest” who became a phenomenon for railing against “greedy bankers and financiers,” framed Washington’s double standard this way: “If the government can pay $2 billion to the bankers and the railroads, why cannot it pay the $2 billion to the soldiers?”

    •The Great Depression’s Version of Zuccotti Park

  52. I don’t know who else will be issuing mortgage insurance in the future. TRIAD Guarantee and PMI Group were the two largest. The bond insurers are almost all in BK as well. Just another case of the banks sticking it to their partners in the crime. They kill everybody off and then they keep the spoils. Nice for them.

    thanks Douglas.

  53. RUH ROH >>>

    Mortgage Insurer Unit Taken Over by Regulators

    Daily Real Estate News | Monday, October 24, 2011

    Insurance regulators in Arizona have taken over a main subsidiary of PMI Group Inc., a major mortgage insurer, The Wall Street Journal reports.

    As of Oct. 20, the Arizona Department of Insurance says it has “full and exclusive power of management and control of PMI.” Regulators will make half of the company’s claims, with the rest of each claims being deferred. Two months ago, Arizona regulators had ordered PMI to stop selling new coverage.

    Home owners who borrow more than 80 percent of a home’s value are usually required to have insurance policies. These mortgage insurers then reimburse lenders if home owners are ever unable to pay their mortgages.

    Since the housing bubble burst, mortgage insurers have faced billions of dollar in losses. PMI alone has faced $3 billion in losses since the fourth quarter of 2007, The Wall Street Journal reports.

    “America needs a stable and fiscally sound mortgage-insurance, which is so critical to providing financing for low-downpayment buyers,” says David Stevens, chief executive of the Mortgage Bankers Association.

    Industry experts say the impact to borrowers from PMI being seized by regulators should be minimal, as consumers will be able to buy policies from other mortgage insurers.

    Source: “Regulators Seize Main PMI Subsidiary,” The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 23, 2011)

  54. I guess nobody noticed: PMI corp. filed for bankruptcy protection on Friday or Thursday last week.

  55. Clip with Dylan Ratigan and Delaware AG Beau Biden… he is making the point of how can you “settle” without investigating the foundation—ie., “origination claims and securitization claims”…and MERS. He says the banks have lost track of who owns what in America…that only 1 in 5 mortgages are actually “owned” by a bank…and the part where they start talking about Fannie and Freddie…very interesting…

  56. Don’t understand the last sentence: seems somewhat circular.

    Can someone illuminate what was meant?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: