Securitization Search: No, You Don’t Want to Prove that the Loan is in the Pool or “Trust”

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

“Securitization is a great challenge to understand — especially since the parties in the securitization chain didn’t play by their own rules, much less obey laws, rules and regulations concerning the securitization and recording of transfers of interests in property, loans or documents.

Borrowers are frequently mislead by both the banks and servicers on the one hand, and the companies that provide support services for lawyers and property owners on the other. By listening to  Judge’s objections, attorney argument in court and reading the media, borrowers often think that it is in their interest to show that the loan is actually in the pool, trust or group specified.

This is how you lose cases for borrowers. Because all we really know is that there is a record in existence in which a loan is claimed as an asset. We don’t know how the data entry occurred much less what documents, if any, support that data entry. Where are attorneys are mistaken is that by asserting that the loan is in fact in the pool, they have waived all their objections to bad assignments, non-existent assignments, indorsements, and transfers of the obligation, note, mortgage or other documents.

The research that shows the CLAIM that the loan is in the pool accomplishes two things: (1) it shows that this pool in public records makes the claim of ownership through securitization — which might be sufficient in and of itself since the party foreclosing might have nothing whatever to do with that pool and (2) it shows whatever party is probably appropriate as a defendant or target of aggressive claims by the borrower and discovery. And one should note that the claimed existence of a pool or trust does not mean that such a pool or trust actually exists or ever existed.

So the reason you get the COMBO is to show that the are inexplicable breaks in the chain of title, and in the usual case to prove that the loan never made it into the pool, but that the money sure did. That break between the payments and the documents is what allows the aggressive attorney to make various claims of non-disclosure and false representations against the other side.

By proving that Pool XYZ is the actual claimant, and that the Pool is a REMIC which may not own or transact any business, you show that the real parties in interest are the investors. BY showing that the loan never actually made it into the pool, you show that the investors have a claim but that the original mortgage was either never perfected a as lien or that the note was split from the mortgage later. Either way the right to enforce the mortgage agreement for non-payment becomes impossible if the law is correctly applied. The last thing you want to do is paint yourself into a corner where you are asserting facts you couldn’t possibly know but which match up perfectly with the would-be foreclosers intent to foreclose.”

40 Responses

  1. Louise, since there is no entity called ‘Citibank as Trustee for a xxxyej -2005’, say, I’m not sure who the heck you’d serve. As I suspected, DE has about 25 registrations for Citi something with another but smaller cast of registered agents. I’d pick ‘The Corporation Trust Co.’, whose address you’ll find there, if I had to pick one. I don’t have any other ideas. Maybe someone else here does.

    But this doesn’t necessarily mean Citibank in DE is what you need. I just picked that state because DE is corporation ‘friendly’.
    Now that’s interesting. Say you know your loan is in a particular trust (or should have been or w/e) and you file bk. How does one make sure that
    trustee is notified if there is no legal structure (and you’re not content with
    listing the rat-b servicer)? Got me. Attorneys must know….?

  2. Louise, call “Consolidated Service Company”. They accept service of process for many companies by contract.

  3. Louise – I’d start by checking at the Delaware Sec of State’s website.

  4. Does anybody know who the service of process is for CitiBank.

    or for CitiBank Trusts?

  5. treebrown where in pa are you ? Please email me at ladyoniron@yahoo.com
    anyone from pa please email me thank you

  6. ATTACKING THE ASSIGMENT
    Courtesy of Mr. W. Roper
    Quote
    The Florida Court of Appeals for the Fourth District handed down a rather unfortunate decision today which is yet another instructive case, illustrating rather starkly precisely WHY one doesn’t want to simply flail away at assignment forgery. Sometimes, as in this case, it is better to embrace the forged assignment, at least in the alternative.

    Instead, Appellant Jacquline Harvey expends all of her energy attacking the very document which ought to have defeated the plaintiff had the proper argument been made and developed.

    The case involves one of the special DOCX assignment forgeries executed by Korell HARP and Tywanna THOMAS.

    And although Harvey was perceptive enough to have noted and argued that HARP and THOMAS were found to have been executing other instruments asserting various other authority, this fell far short of the evidence needed to establish fraud and, moreover, failed to implicate the plaintiff’s holdership of the note, which in many jurisdictions is sufficient, when shown to have preceded filing of the suit, to establish the plaintiff’s right to judgment.

    But there was an easier and more certain path. This suit was commenced on April 6, 2009. The forged DOCX assignment was dated April 16, 2011, but is shown to have a “effective date of March 31, 2009”.

    Antedating the effective date of an assignment has been shown to be ineffective almost everywhere. And even if the court had found otherwise, this would have been a very robust basis for appeal!

    Simply accepting the forged assignment at face value, the assignment seems to prove that the plaintiff lacked ownership of the note and mortgage at the date of commencement of suit. And standing is measured from commencement!

    Unfortunately, defendants and particularly pro se litigants, such as Ms. Jaqueline Harvey, have become so mesmerized with trying to prove fraud and misconduct that they overlook the obvious.

    Lognstanding Forum particpants will recall that in late 2007 and early 2008, I chronicled here at the Forum the dismissal of upwards of 400 cases in teh Ohio Federal Courts. The Ohio Federal Courts cleared the dockets of foreclosure cases filed with facts substantially similar to those in the Harvey case.

    That is, the plaintiff filed suit and only afterward forged an assignment which purported to convey the interest of the originating Lender to the foreclosing entity.

    In these cases, the borrowers were not only unrepresented, but most NEVER EVEN ANSWERED the suit. The Federal Court looked past the rather conspicuous, yet unproven, fact of the forgery. Instead, the court merely focused on the date of the assignment. Since the assignments pled into evidence by the plaintiff showed on their face that the plaintiff acquired its interest in the note and mortgage after commencement, the Courts dismissed these cases en mass.

    This was the central issue in the Dowd, Boyko, Rose, O’Malley and Holshuh decisions.

    Now, borrowers have become fascinated with proving that the forged assignment is, in fact a forgery, and that the court should disregard the assignment. The borrowers are fascinated that the assignment is fored by a notorious Georgia document forgery mill known as DOCX. When invited to disregard the assignment, the Court can then simply look to the note and indorsement.

    There is a time and a place to deliberately attack the assignment forgery. That is in a second refiled action after the dismissal of the original case! And this needs to be done with thoughtful discovery to include the deposition of the key persons involved in the criminal activity.

    Had Ms. Jacqueline Harvey employed this strategy, her case probably would have been dismissed either by the trial court OR on appeal and she would now be relitigating with ALL of the additional information about the character of the DOCX forgeries available to her for her defense.

    Instead, she focused upon the WRONG ARGUMENT, overlooked the obvious and now has lost her home in a case where a WIN was not only possible, but OBVIOUS!

    I have previously pointed out that the GOAL is NOT to tell reveal to the court the TRUE facts of the case. Where a plaintiff pleads FALSE EVIDENCE that eviscerates its own case, WHY NOT SIMPLY USE THAT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF?

    The case is:

    Harvey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, No. 4D10-674 (Fla. App. 4th Dist., June 29, 2011)
    http://www.4dca.org/opinions/June%202011/06-29-11/4D10-674.rhg.pdf

  7. All Blog PostsMy BlogEdit Blog PostsAddOptions▼.Wells Fargo Custodian of the TRUST
    Posted by fraudsters on October 28, 2011 at 5:00pm
    View Blog
    .WF.pdf

    according to wells fargo http://www.ctslink.com . this is the alledged loan that was fraudulentily placed into the series : group 3- page 12 -(1080-1109) Days delinquent- outstanding balance 78,082

    page 14 -1080 -1109 – 78,082

    and page 20

    Group 3 -0013264617 -Mar-2011 -01-Aug-2001 -SC 80.00 -83,600.00 -78,082.00 -01-Aug-2008 -36- 8.875% -20,237.06

  8. @boots…..if you are in fact in court pro-se/per surely you filed a complaint! In doing so your asking…..”i am ready to tell the judge about this evidence”. I would expect you already know the answer in the proper way to accomplish this!!?

    Since a demurrer has been filed, write an opposition/answer and file and serve it 10 days before the hearing.

    If you do not understand procedure and the rules of the Court, any perceived fault you mention cannot be placed on the judge in the matter.

    The reason judges/courts do not like pro-se/per litigants is because the pro-se/per litigants will not take the time to learn the statutes and case citations relative to their complaint and the pro-se/per litigant has expectations that the court will “side” with the emotional and moral side of an argument, which is not true…..the court decides on factual allegations submitted by both party’s, as an arbitrator to each side under the Law.

    By posting this, am I’m a pro-se/per litigant or…..you decide otherwise.

  9. boots,
    Get any evidence in the record before you file an appeal. When any judge starts misbehaving file a motion to recuse based upon the judge’s substantial financial interest in foreclosures (and the apparent prejudice you are suffering from it) through his/her CalPERS pension which holds a huge amount of MBS and company stock in corporations which depend on foreclosures.

    Be sure to tell judges that you, nor any homeowners are the reason their pension has suffered huge losses and courts have been forced to make budget cuts, it is the companies they’ve invested in, which pre-planned to use those things as the main incentives for driving judges to rule in their favor.

  10. Today — news — supposed possible Congressional request for investigation — re — Merrill Lynch “derivatives” — “transferred” to Bank of America, NA —–

    Know BofA purchased Merrill — but — something they do not like here.

    Ahh— those derivatives.

  11. Occupy Wall Street gets it

    http://occupywallst.org/article/ows-and-occupythehood-march-solidarity-those-forec/

    NEVER AGAIN.

  12. “By listening to Judge’s objections”

    All the more proof that judges are unable to act impartially, and without that requisite component “due process” is nothing more than a fairy tale.

  13. I just received this video about 7 candidates for the house delivering a 35,000 signature petition to Boehner’s office. Boehner, of course, was MIA…

    It may have made the news but I haven’t seen it there.

    http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_ows_99_boehner/?akid=5612.1199790.-vp9Xg&rd=1&source=e2-boehnervid-wallwarr-nondon-morn-v3-imgorigarrow&t=1

  14. speaking of securitization
    http://www.secinfo.com/d1Z7kr.u1T1.htm

    seems on 12/13/2006 fremont iv loan- knew [and or had planned along] to exit the sub-prime market – taking with it any accounting of 1122 ab accounting attestation report from Fremont Investment & Loan as the SERVICER taking all the servicing $$[payments] i suspect were pocketed & sent off shore, as the revised report of servicing is empty with a note laughing that you expected to find accounting ??!!
    hahahahaha they screwed everyone @ the gate..
    now how to name them & hold the sec to the fire.!?

    I like this too
    “All such errors were the result of data processing errors ”

    Material Instances of Noncompliance by the Company

    1122(d)(3)(i)- Delinquency Reporting – During the reporting period, certain
    monthly investor or remittance reports included errors in the calculation and/or
    the reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets, which errors may or may not
    have been material. All such errors were the result of data processing errors
    and/or the mistaken interpretation of data provided by other parties
    participating in the servicing function. All necessary adjustments to data
    processing systems and/or interpretive clarifications have been made to correct
    those errors and to remedy related procedures.

    Material instances of Noncompliance by any Vendor

    NONE

    Material Deficiencies In Company’s Policies and Procedures to Monitor Vendors’
    Compliance

    NONE

    EX-33 (e)
    (logo) WELLS FARGO

  15. Here is my reaction to the Delaware suit against MERS: challenge MERS’ status as a “dummy” entity: http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2011/10/alternative-way-to-challenge-mers.html

  16. Read: TURNING A BLIND EYE: WALL STREET FINANCE OF PREDATORY LENDING, Fordham Law Review

    Learn how the banksters set up their entire business model to rape and pillage just out of the legal reach of borrowers, with the approval of our captured government. Keep in mind folks, every single law that has been passed into existence did so with the wink and nod of a legislator near you, knowing full well the ramifications of the predatory nature of what they were doing.

    After reading this, the only conclusion that can possibly be reached is that there is absolutely no place in a fair society for the criminals on Wall Street, who will game any and every available system to maximum profit regardless of the cost to society. No peace!

    A long read but well worth it.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14461355/Turning-a-Blind-Eye

  17. @Carie,

    I don’t agree that “you do not sue”. It all depends what the accounting shows. If you have Tila, Respa and other violations clearly documented, you QWR the banks, they don’t answer, you stop paying and you sue. I am a proponent of attacking first because when you attack, you direct the issues to raise. When you defend yourself, the issues have already been raised and you are much more limited in what you can do.

    PLUS (and this is important), there is a knee-jerk reaction we all have, especially courts: it goes something like this: “No one likes to deal with court. No one sues for the hell of it. People sue when they’ve tried everything else and it failed. Therefore, if the bank sues, it MUST have a solid reason and it must have tried everything to accommodate the defendant.” The prejudice is set. If you attack first, that same knee-jerk reaction applies to your advantage.

  18. I tend to agree with Neil: as a potentially foreclosed-on homeowner, I do believe that there is a limit to how much we want to know for two reasons:

    The plaintiff has the burden of proof. it is up to the plaintiff to prove standing, failure to pay on the homeowner’s part, and to make his case. Our job is to question absolutely everything. To ask the right questions, we need to investigate our loans up to the point where we know too much and can, inadvertently, blurt out the wong thing. It happens. A lot. In their zeal to prove their points, homeowners make the mistake of giving too much information. We want to plant so many seeds of doubt into everything the plaintiff states that, ultimately, juries (or judges) end up questioning everything and become biased against the bank.

    What we need to learn is to question every single document and how it fits in the chain of title, not make affirmations that it doesn’t because, the minute we affirm anything in court, it becomes up to us to prove it. The bank says: “Here is the pool in which your mortgage was securitized”. “Well, you show me this paper with a number. How do I know that that number has anything to do with me? Show me. I want the complete historic accounting on that mortgage, from the first penny on and from the first day on.”

    And if we keep those lines of “show me”, “explain to me”, “prove it”, “I can read English and I still don’t see where what you are saying is written”, “where does that document come from?”, “what does that document mean?”, “how did this document come to exist?”, “Is it possible that that document is actually not saying what you just explained but rather the opposite? The way i read it is completely different.”, “what does that document have to do with you?”, etc. we are much better positioned. Banks attorneys are relentless in their questioning until they have us admit what they want. We must play the exact same game. Hence the need to push for jury trial: if i don’t understand what the attorney is saying and I keep asking him to explain and prove, you can bet your boots the jury has the same questions. If I don’t understand and keep asking questions, there is a big chance the judge doesn’t either but, God forbid, he wouldn’t ask the questions. So we need to do it for him so that he thinks “yeah, that’s a good question.”

    Remember what I said once: a little boy (or a little girl) in a black robe with lots of powers and an ego the size of Texas.

  19. I have a difficult time describing table funded loans with local lender, assigned to servicer aka large national bank, but Fannie Mae guaranteed. The Fannie part is harder for me to break down for many. Any suggestions?

  20. i have a hearing coming up this november. DB as trustee for certain trust claimed as a beneficiary of my loan under the trust. the problem when i found out that my loan never made it in the pool of trust because the trust according to the documents i obtained from SEC, were consist of mortgage loan of year 2004, 2005 and the quarter of march 31, 2007. my loan existed only after march 31, 2007. but DB still insist that they are the beneficiary since 2008. i am ready to tell the judge about this evidence.
    what proper way to say not to infuriates the judge? the hearing is about the defendant’s demurrer. i need to disclosed this new evidence because the judge always sustained defendants demurrer. if i make a statement about it, i know judge won’t like it but i have to say it. when i go for an appeal at least that statement would be a part of my case record. as pro se the judge will not allow you to proceeds even to conduct a discovery. my only hope is to wait for the final judgement so i could proceeds to file for an appeal. the superior judges are washing their hands about this issue of foreclosure fraud and i think the judges wants the appellate court to decide it. any suggestions how to make my statements on this new evidence? i know the decision already, its a kangaroo decision. a new judge was assign to my case, i don’t know what happen to the other judge, but the last hearing i attended, i made a statement that the new recorded substitution of trustee is a dead company that cannot perform its duty as a trustee of my deed. the judge ignored those evidence and was upset when i told him i will appeal that decision and until now i don’t have that final judgment yet so i could appeal his final decision. frustration of course, but the more i was challenge, the more i fought. let’s see what happen.

  21. Subject: 4.5 Million Fraudclosed Borrowers May be Eligible for Reviews |
    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/10/27/4-5-million-fraudclosed-borrowers-may-be-eligible-for-reviews/
    Read the complaints below written by Government lawyers. You will find find many fraud committed by the 17 banks and their fraudulent
    methods of establishing Trusts . There are even Trusts idenfication and the fraud associated with them
    Many foreclosure defense lawyers refer to these complaints for defense strategy.
    More details of the complaints of US GOVT. v. 17 BANKS at

    http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=110

  22. Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

    If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

  23. @davidw

    one more:

    tony, on October 25, 2011 at 4:08 am said:

    The reason why the judge threw it out was because or jurisdiction. The court lacked control of the res…. People this is why DBNTC got kicked out of probate court in California trying to dismiss its duties for the Indymac trusts. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear anything it said in court because DBNTC is empty, all the so called trust are not an legal entity, thus court had no control over the res. This is why you do not sue but instead when they file suit against you file for dismissal based on jurisdiction. The court must address this issue and show how they have it.

  24. @davidw

    Here are a couple of posts from Tony re. jurisdiction:

    1. Ask where the “note came from. If they say from “collateral file” or “loan file” …then you have them where want them.
    “Loan File” means not original, but merely COPY of a purported note. Check FASB or FDIC definition of these words you will be shocked in what you find.

    2. Was the loan securitized? If so then it will show even more that they do not have the original documents. As anything sold in the secondary market is not a QFC (qualified financial contract meaning the loan document) but merely a NON QFC merely servicing rights (unsecured debt collection) that were purchased.

    FINAL AND MOST IMPORTANT: JURISDICTION

    Does this “company” even have control over the res? (property in question) Many people want to claim fraud but instead should be showing court lacks jurisdiction in the matter all together.

    tony, on October 17, 2011 at 6:57 pm said:

    It is “unsecured” debt protected by smoke and mirrors. What makes it funny is that it isn’t even unsecured debt. Unsecured debt is when you atleast owe someone money. These servicers are not even owed any money they just hoping they can get something from you.
    I was at a hearing the another day and the judge asked the “banks” lawyer does the servicer have standing? They said no, then she asked can they join the “real party in interest”? Lawyer said no, the judge shook his head and hoped that the pro se didn’t hear that.
    Of course the pro se did and he said can we end this case now, I think I won on the issue of standing and real party in interest plus lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge said yeah I think you did. Denied the banks (without prejudice of course). The the judge asked for the so called note that they had. Lawyer said no you can not get my note, how will I foreclose he said you know it and I know it that’s not going to happen. Banks lawyer said but we have the note we should be able to move. Judge said you can’t even get pass jurisdiction first much less talk about notes.
    It was a funny case, after the case the judge closed out the rest of the docket he was so mad. So in short always bring up jurisdiction first before you even get to your other areas of defense.

    tony, on October 8, 2011 at 8:51 pm said:

    People I will say it again DO NOT SUE. A good offense is a good defense. Let them come to you and then beat them on jurisdictional grounds.
    You must understand bank don’t win because of the facts, they get you dismissed for failure to state a claim. You need to beat them on jurisdiction. Don’t even let them come in the court room with they owe us. Don’t let the judge even get to look at any facts outside of jurisdiction.
    The reason why people are winning is because of standing and real party in interest. Which means jurisdiction, use it I swear it will knock the socks off of them. Then when you beat them on these grounds it will be hard for them to ever come back at you because they lost on even entering the court to state a claim.
    Lawyers know this, stop getting beat because of twombly. Start winning because you wont allow then to get access to lie in the courts. Before any case can be heard the court must be shown it has jurisdiction, and if you dont question it, then it looks like you agreed they had it by consent.

  25. Neil. I understand. However, is it possible (through an in depth securitization) to show that a loan was put into a trust and thereby prove that the trust had recieved monies that effectively “paid off” that mortgage?

  26. HERE IS THE ACTUAL COMPLAINT BY AG BIDEN IN DELAWARE AGAINST MERS, MERSCORP

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70559019/READ-COMPLAINT-HERE-NOW-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-SAYS-MERS-VIOLATES-DELAWARE-LAW-PRESS-RELEASE-AND-FACT-SHEET

    complaint is after the press release in this document

  27. ACTION ALERT–PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND HELP CALIFORNIANS —AND PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS PETITION

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70662342/ACTION-ALERT-CALIFORNIANS-NEED-HELP-ASK-OUR-AG-TO-HALT-FORECLOSURES-UNTIL-INVESTIGATION-COMPLETE-PLEASE-SIGN-PETITION-AND-DISTRIBUTE

  28. http://www.thetruthaboutmortgage.com/lehman-files-for-bankruptcy-bofa-snaps-up-merrill-lynch/

    How would the purchase of Merril Lynch by Bofa affect boa collecting for an Merril lynch trust? I am confused.

  29. I live in Pennsylvania and I have searched the net and court cases and I can not find a single case dismissed for lack of standing where the bank is representing a trust. Am i missing something? I have prepared my own motion to vacate as the assignment on file is believed bogus because it is filed a year after the trust close date. Should I hire an attorney?

  30. I would love to donate, this is a great site, with helpful information. Please let me know where to send the donation.
    Thank you.
    ibecker17@aol.com

  31. Your combo should come with a referral to experts willing to analyze the results in court

    My friend. 22 wins . Just last night trustee to postpone Mondays sale to next year. I ll can give you what you need . But find an attorney to argue it GOOD LUCK!

    In cross examination I am asked

    Opposition: Did my client commit a fraud?
    I won’t say

    Opposition: Say it. Why not? You said a trust cannot foreclose correct?
    Not until term.

    Opposition: Okay, well then they committed a fraud correct?
    No comment.

    Opposition: Say it, Say it sir . You found the white out and said the document is corrupt, Correct?
    You said corrupt.

    Opposition: Is this a fraud, tell me. Is this a fraud or not?. Just tell me yes or no.?
    No comment.

    Opposition: Did my client commit a fraud?
    I won’t say

    Opposition: If they F/C ….well then they committed a fraud correct?
    No comment.

    Opposition:Why? If my client cannot foreclose then the foreclosure is a fraud. Correct.
    No comment

    Opposition : Then admit the fraud. Say it. Did my Client commit a fraud?

    Yes. They committed a fraud….

    Opposition: Thank you. One more question…I found this on Living Lies web site. Did you write this?
    (I’m handed the piece)
    I can’t say

    Opposition: What is WTF . . .
    I don’t know what you’re referring too.

    Opposition: Yes you do. That’s all.

    This was an interesting exchange and counsel for plaintiff fails to object . WOW . Did the Bar send out a message or something to lawyers?

    Do you know why he presses for fraud in the questioning re: foreclosure?

    expert.witness@live.com

  32. Reader : Most of the loans did not make it into the trust.

    Stop Your babbling . What are you trying to say ? No never! So? No loans ever made it into trust . What is with this loans into trust gibberish.

    Sorry but write something here if you know what your talking about .

    M.Soliman

    For Gods Sake – People losing homes and the core arguments are woefully missed . Creating your own gravamen for theory sake is throw away material.

    Sorry, get the basics down …first .

    expert.witness@live.com

  33. proving that Pool XYZ is the actual claimant, and that the Pool is a REMIC which may not own or transact any business, you show that the real parties in interest are the investors.

    M.S – No way you wrote this . Are you serious. Is this what you believe? Do you know who are the investors in the REMIC? You do know correct?

    BY showing that the loan never actually made it into the pool, you show that the investors have a claim but that the original mortgage was either never perfected as lien or that the note was split from the mortgage later.

    M.S. Perfected lien – do you believe these loans really existed. Is that what you believe . Loans are held in a trust or REMIC? Do you see the recording at settlement ? Why do you believe for a moment they did not prefect?

    The last thing you want to do is paint yourself into a corner where you are asserting facts you couldn’t possibly know …

    M.S. Facts are known . Lord these deals are manufactured on a conveyer belt over 8 years. When you say REMIC where is the Not for Profit here? And why do you leave out the TRS and GP who the recourse or redress in the consumer claims?

    You do know why the Lender never is the Seller ? So Why no assignment ? And Why No consideration ?

    Holy Horse Sheets …late in the game to be talking about this!

    Peace

    M.Soliman

  34. Most of the loans did not make it into the trust. The banksters wanted to sell the loan more than once. Why put it into a trust? If it made it into the trust, they would have more difficulty selling it again and again. The group of people who thought this scam up wanted to fleece the investors, fleece the borrower, and fleece the government and anybody else they could ensnare in their slimy plot. In fact, the scam is ongoing. They sold the house multiple times which means the debt is retired, and now they will take the house illegally, too.

  35. @tony

    Can you elaborate on the elements of dismissal based on these findings?

  36. Marie,

    You are correct the getting a combo means nothing. This is something you can find out yourself, and when you do just ask for a dismissal on jurisdictional issue.

  37. What good is getting a combo if you have no expert. There are few attorneys and no experts I’ve been able to locate willing to work with those who must go pro se

    Your combo should come with a referral to experts willing to analyze the results in court. Otherwise it’s nothing but interesting “information.”. Not evidence. Right?

  38. Neil,

    You are one of my heroes! I get your new bogs daily in my email! Great info!

    Dan Edstrom from DTC-Sysytemd posted on this site of yours in early August 2011 about a ruling in my BK that is similar to this post. I have evidence that my loan was NOT pooled, but so far, the particulars in my case have never been heard, as summary judgment (unlawful detainer, eviction) was granted in favor of US BANK NA, which I appealed all the way up to the CA Supreme Court, but my case was not accepted as a Writ of Certiorari on “grounds if great public importance that must be immediately resolved”. HA! What a joke! Denial of due process by all the CA courts, excess of jurisdiction and abuse of discretion are not a can of worms the CA SC wanted to deal with. I suppose that Gay Marriage takes precedence over Grand theft of a home and rendering 30,000 Californians homeless every month!

    Nonetheless, the issue of the proof I have that my loan was never pooled into the Trust that purports to contain it has yet to be brought forth. The SEC, US Dept of the Treasury, OCC, FTC, HAMP, IRS, have been notified and there are many investigations into the matter. I can hardly wait to show and tell the evidence (by court record of the OL’s BK just 11 days after my loan closed). I have that the trust is empty, bogus, and an illusion.

    Please contact me and I’ll share more re the trust issue. Thank you!

  39. Yesterday I posted a link to the state of DE v MERS, filed 10/27/11.

    This is at the DE attorney general’s website:

    “If you are a Delaware resident and believe you have been harmed by MERS, contact the Attorney General’s Office by e-mail at mortgage@state.de.us or call the Attorney General’s Mortgage Hotline at 800-220-5424″

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: