AG Settlement is Not Done and Won’t Do Anything.


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

Editor’s Note: First let me answer the questions that have been pouring in — all asking the same thing. The answer is NO, the settlement won’t bar you from taking action to defend your home, sue the parties who defrauded you, quiet title or anything else UNLESS you accept the settlement and sign a release.
Frankly, the settlement, if it ever comes to pass (Delaware is out now which is a signal that the Vice-President’s son, as attorney general isn’t going for it) might not do much else except perhaps set some bottom of the barrel standards below which banks and servicers promise not to go. These promises most often have proven illusory — with banks committing the same acts, the same violations and the same arrogant display of raw power that they were using before.
There is nothing in the settlement that will stem the tide of foreclosures. But the Obama’s new commission is aimed at exactly that. The pundits missed it. They are talking about the new commission as though it is a repeat of the old commission and that everything is going to be business a usual. I don’t think so, and the appointment of New York’s Attorney General Schneiderman underscores my point.
Up until now, the focus has been on foreclosures and that is exactly what the Banks wanted. By misdirecting out attention to the “paperwork” in foreclosures, they distract us from the real issues presented in examining securitization itself as it was actually practiced, and the process of mortgage origination, as it was actually practiced. THAT is where the meat is.
The new commission will have an opportunity —- unless stopped for political reasons — to reveal the actual events, rather than picking at the carcass at what had been a plan of securitization. It will also have the opportunity to reveal mortgage origination practices in which the real creditor was intentionally hidden from the borrower — a violation of the Federal and State lending laws. And it will reveal the actual money trail which we will find did not even come close to conforming with the securitization documents ( the closing with investor lenders) or the mortgage documents (the closing with the borrowers).
If actual tangible relief comes from government action it will come from this commission. Everything else looks forward to stopping this from happening again through regulation. The new commission looks backward at what happened and can reveal, if they want it to, the many violations of statutes, rules and regulations in the securitization of loans, the collecting of money into pools, the funding of the loans, and the resulting need to create even more violations by fabricating forged documents after the loans became “non-performing” allegedly transferring the non-performing loans into the pools using those fabricated documents.
No investors on Earth would have accepted non-performing loans as a basis for their investment. The very idea of transferring loans in default into the pools is absurd. It’s not just that it violates the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement, it is that the practice of transferring the loans after default doesn’t make any sense. Thus there is no rational business reason to do so and the investors would all say and do all say they don’t want them.
By John W. Schoen, Senior Producer

A proposed $25 billion settlement between five big banks, state attorneys general and the Obama administration may help resolve some of the thornier legal issues surrounding the mortgage mess that caused the housing market to collapse.

It will do relatively little to stop the ongoing wave of home foreclosures or revive the deeply depressed housing market, however.

Talks got underway more than a year ago after a series of private lawsuits focused national attention on an outbreak of “robo-signing” and other shoddy and fraudulent document processing practices by mortgage servicers foreclosing on homes. Most of the key issues that have sidelined past tentative agreements have been addressed, according to a source close to the talks who was not authorized to discuss the proposal.

But a final agreement could still be weeks away. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said Monday that some terms still have to be resolved. He made clear that the parties still have significant work ahead of them.

“We have not yet reached an agreement with the nation’s five largest servicers, and we won’t reach a settlement any time this week,” he said in a statement.

The deal would require banks to devote roughly $17 billion of the total settlement to various types of loan modifications for homeowners. Rather than paying that amount in cash, lenders would receive a series of credit toward that amount based on a complex formula that would assign different levels of credit to different types of modifications. Decisions about which loans to modify would be left to bankers.

The program would apply largely to the relatively small universe of home loans owned outright by the five lenders, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC). Loans held by government-controlled Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac — some 60 percent of the 31 million U.S. home loans outstanding — would not be covered in the deal.

Another $5 billion would be set aside to help support state foreclosure relief programs. A portion of those funds would be used to pay homeowners who can demonstrate they were victims of abusive or fraudulent foreclosure practices. Those awards would average about $1,800. The system for arbitrating those claims and distributing those checks has yet to be worked out, according to the source close to the talks, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss the proposal publicly.

Another $3 billion would be applied to a program to refinance mortgages at lower rates.

If enough states go along, lenders would emerge largely unscathed from the settlement, according to Capital Economics housing analyst Paul Diggle.

“The total size of the scheme is unlikely to give lenders too many sleepless nights,” he said.

To put the $25 billion settlement in perspective, the amount represent about three-tenths of a percent of the lenders’ total assets, said Diggle. Because much of the settlement amount represents paper credits against loan modifications that may already be underway, the bottom-line impact would be even less than $25 billion.

The impact on pending foreclosures would also be very small. Diggle figures that as many as 100,000 borrowers could be helped by the settlement, a fraction of the 2.3 million homes in the foreclosure pipeline.

The program would help some “underwater ” homeowners who now owe more than their home is worth, cutting their balances by an average of $20,000. But the overall impact of $17 billion in reduced loan balances would be far too small to help revive the housing market. There are currently some 11 million borrowers with an average shortfall of roughly $65,000 — or a total of $700 billion — in “negative equity,” according to the latest data from CoreLogic.

As details of the settlement have emerged, critics have argued the proposal lets bankers off the hook too easily for the mortgage mess they created with sloppy underwriting during the housing boom.

“The reported settlement terms would amount to a slap on the wrist, allowing banks to write down the investments of many of my constituents, without sacrificing anything,” said Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown in a letter to White House officials involved in the talks.

President Barack Obama may tout the settlement in his State of the Union address Tuesday, after his administration has been pressuring state officials to wrap up a deal. Some consumer advocates say the White House, eager to broker a settlement, has supported terms more likely to win the bankers’ approval.

“The Obama administration has been has been more concerned with settling quickly than with settling in a way that moves the ball forward for homeowners,” said Diane Thomsen, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center.

Critics of the deal argue that, while it may spur lenders to act more quickly in the short term, it also creates a cap on the amount of mortgage relief they’re required to provide.

Ironically, a settlement could also have the perverse effect of speeding up the foreclosure pipeline. In October 2010, major banks temporarily suspended foreclosures to address complaints of widespread deceptive foreclosure practices, creating a backlog.

“A resolution of the robo-signing scandal leaves the way open for banks to re-start foreclosure proceedings that were temporarily halted after the scandal first came to light,” said Diggle.

It’s unlikely that all 50 states will sign off on the deal. Frustrated with the progress of the talks, California officials said in September they would not agree to a settlement. New York, Delaware, Nevada and Massachusetts, sued the five banks in December over deceptive foreclosure practices after all but abandoning settlement talks.

The settlement would provide strict guidelines to address those complaints, according to the source close to the settlement talks. Abusive foreclosure procedures have already been targeted by federal bank regulators. Last year, the Federal Reserve issued a series of “cease and desist” orders and the Office of the Controller of the Currency conducted a comprehensive review of the worst practices. In April, the OCC launched an enforcement action against eight large mortgage servicers monitoring those practices and instituting reforms.

Among the abuses regulators found were so-called “dual track processing” in which lenders working with a homeowner to modify a mortgage continue with legal proceedings to foreclose. In other cases, lenders had foreclosed without properly showing they had the right to do so.

As state courts continue to cite lenders for faulty documentation, some of the attorneys general don’t think those efforts by federal regulators have fixed the problem. On Tuesday, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said she plans to continue her lawsuit, which claims that lenders are foreclosing illegally on homeowners in her state without properly demonstrating that they held the mortgage.

“Our pending lawsuit seeks real accountability from the banks and real relief for homeowners,” she said in a statement. “We also need assurances that eligible Massachusetts borrowers will get relief and consistent treatment from the banks.”


34 Responses

  1. Well if the servicer is “not who you think it is” ( I personally thought the servicer was Lucifer) and they are holding notes, which we have been repeatedly told different things about, such as that they were destroyed to hide fraud, or kept in an electric state so that they could be traded repeatedly on an overnight basis, WHO THE HELL IS IT? and WHY DON’T THEY PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL NOTES? Cryptic stuff, these posts. I cry foul, fellas. If you mean to help me move back into my vacant, spider infested home, please SPEAKA DA ENGLAIS.

  2. msoliman/foreclosureinfosearch- thanks for answering my question. As soon as I get the explanation back from my translator, I’ll respond.

  3. Observation: To the best of my knowlege MERS is still being used for mortgage registration. This is the Crux of the matter! It is being allowed to process with methods that confict with County, State, laws & even violates some States Constitutions. Every thing else is just theater untill this is addressed. It allows securitaztion of land patent rights. and then thru a slight of hand and language it allows multiple cross collateralization of said property now euthamisticly named derivatives. Reduced to its Wall Sreet essence it always ls about ways to sell the same asset multiple ways to multiple investors. creating an upside down pryamid on that asset. This time it is your asset! Your home; packaged and securitized as the financial product. Focus on cutting the root, it has many heads.

  4. @anonymous, the real servicer is the same guy holding the Notes, who is also the same gut calling the shots all along. Hell, they aren’t even a bank.

  5. Oh yeah, and in -house counsel for servicer —- servicer not who you think it is.

  6. @foreclosureinfosearch

    Judging from your last post, you are also aware that in-house counsel for the Servicer calls all the shots and truly understands the depth of what they are really trying to protect here.

    They do not fear individual defenses and that is why they send in the local, do as instructed law firm. They are protecting the secret weapon though, and with recent political moves I see this all swept up through congressional reform right after the election.

    You do nail the point though. The N.A. (yes foreign banks) do not care if we all run the goose chase bickering about standing and assignment, conveyance, or lack thereof. I understand the the true meaningful litigation will come when defense / plaintiff attacks the servicer on cash flow. If you read the prospectus carefully, the mortgagor has no obligation to the trust from a cash flow perspective. The servicer guarantees those payments and triggers the default contract, than bleeds most off in excessive fees and defaults to the lower tranches of the pools anyway. In fact, if they ever forced these assets to be repatriated onto the balnce sheet (accrual pot) and forced out of held as investment versus tier one asset reserves, they would have to fold faster today than they would have in 2009.

    Folks don’t get it to the extent, that this is not just GS, BAC,WFC JPM, this goes directly to Freddie, Fannie and to some extent Ginnie. The real weapon they are protecting, is the ability to keep doing it the same way. They can’t deleverage and instead mask the true value of these pools so they can piecemeal it out to the public as social medicine.

  7. I heard an attorney use the mooch slander in court – its rude and not relevant.

    (I like this – keep them coming folks)

    Here is one directed to you, as no one else has answered:
    If the notes were in fact, never deposited into the Trust,

    First, let me state that as an expert I am confined to give snippets and barbs, curt to the point responses.

    I am not counsel and these questions you ask are to your credit “substantive”. Note that the term “practice” is generally understood, the practice of the law is the doing or performing services in a court of justice,

    “In any matter depending therein” which I cannot and will not do or violate. I am not counsel. What I share with you is not advice and not any single element of the various stages, and in conformity to the adopted rules of procedure. This does not satisfy legal advice and counsel, and by which legal rights are secured although such matter may or may not be depending in a court.’ Only an attorney can advise you accordingly.

    For informational purposes – I will state that at face value, the note is lost to the transaction under the accounting rules for divestiture. Clearly FAS 140 is subject to claims of divestiture.

    You are dealing with a reporting (taxable) issue and not a note issue per say. The critical question to arise is that of basis accounting. The accrued cost to date is what the party representing a foreclose claim is pursuing. A breach of contract for contract given in the “spirit” of those terms and conditions may precedent and likely prevail in a remedial hearing, petition, to determine an equitable lender or servicing agent claim and right to enforce the claim.

    While the note is arguably subject to a legal argument and judicial quandary, it’s something the attorneys leave on the table or sage way into arguments of produce the note (musical, love letter notation)

    Court looks at the petitioner as a lost soul. The note takes on a different type of contractual value that raises questions of broader jurisdiction and diversity in the matter. Actions consolidated into multi jurisdiction level proceedings emerge in these cases –“hello” “different plaintiffs but common defendants”.

    Defendants have more at stake as a result of the aggregated decision-making. In reality, most lenders in lawsuits are represented by common law firms that are compensated based on the results of the case. e.g., Jack B. Weinstein, Ethical Dilemmas in Mass Tort Litigation, 88 NW. U. L. REV. 469, 530 (1994) (“The plaintiffs’ attorneys often will receive a fee based upon a percentage of the total [settlement] fund . . . .”); Katherine Dirks, Note, Ethical Rules of Conduct in the Settlement of Mass Torts: A Proposal to Revise Rule 1.8(g), 83 N.Y.U. L. REV. 501, 502 (2008)

    Your arguing a monumental decision in consideration of how the note is viewed and whereby in mortgage claims these lender attorneys are a plaintiff thrown into the role as a defendant . . . where the matter is decided for a limited number of law firms who each represent a large number of clients and coordinate the settlement on their behalf.”); see also McCollum, supra note 4, at 48–49 (describing efforts by plaintiffs’ bar to secure “mass” representations of clients with claims arising out of 2010 BP oil spill in Gulf of Mexico).

    So the lawyers, if not the individual plaintiffs, stand to gain or lose significantly from pretrial motions and what I am getting at , which is a prepetition hearing to take away from the court a remedial or common law view of the note, you signed it , therefore….

    It’s for the pursuit of jurisdiction over statutory rules and conventional trust application to statute versus remedial decision making and equitable remedies that impose on a court a dangerous dosage of discretion.

    I will testify in court no less that a series of notes are equal to a vintage of households and those cash flows are subject to a consolidated note sold in series as a short term security that rolls at each annual quarters end. It’s a contract that is held to a demand as it’s divested of its value in the securities scheme

    When I offer my poor humor and challenge the reader into “Someone make him stop” its code. ..Calling out to the forces at be to start the next campaign of calling M.Soliman a fraud – rip off.
    Woe to the reader who takes this subject matter lightly as this is where the vulnerability to claims begins.

    “Ill thinks about it one said to day – you do that responded. But no Robo talk please!

    You have a series of bond offering through the same registration held to a indenture and fiduciaries role. To which note I ask. The amortized jurisdiction or the notional value and hearing over the matter. Learn what it means to judicially bifurcate the docket and not the claim.

    The note is capitalized as a notional value like an annuity. I believe and reformer to counsel it is an executory contract and subject to institutional congenital trust claims that it serves the actors involved as a surety or guarantee.

    (Nothing to date on this site has made mention on this an NG won’t call me back -that’s cool. Another guy had his attorney tell me it’s all BS and here we go again with M.Soliman is a Rip Off)

    Trust me on this – the note is held only to a demand as it is a notional value. I can affirm from my past work with a certain AG offices and appointed member of the Supreme Court, the notes are as good as destroyed.

    Then how can the servicer have any legal right whatsoever, to
    1. Collect monthly payments
    2. Place fib on borrower
    3. Pay property taxes
    4. Or do anything at all

    Because YOU, yes YOU give credit to the most prevailing fraud I see and that is the PSA. IT’S WORTHLESS AND CHUMP BAIT with regards to how it’s being used in a court. Read it carefully – Co -ops, master leases and security deeds- “let the sucker beware”. It was created to facilitate deal points for the assurances made to the note and securities registration but has substantive value in reference to something entirely unrelated.

    The lawyers use a PSA without understanding the discretionary trap it lays – what I am trig to say. Its firepower it possesses when viewed under a different set of glasses tells me to embrace its compliance and not attack it. Do a QWR and learn about the reverse order of litigating complex and convoluted matter in a common law court.

    The note is an assurance that satisfies the rating agencies wiliness to cast doubt the public will have revealed onto them the truth for why not a title insurer in the US would touch these securities, even with the offer of full indemnification for endorsement, by the US government. This we have the birth of the Government seal on every mortgage – Mers Corp.

    The note is pleaded as the indenture and the corpus is the pledge of US Homes to foreign national banks. The broader jurisdiction is mandating the note be heard in a non remedial decision and appropriate or competent jurisdiction. The liquidation of home is subject to a institutional conventional trust and nothing about the isolated note argument or referencing the PSA will come to your aid.

    No cannot service a loan in a mortgage backed structure financing scheme. They can only fulfill the guarantees made by the statutory trust holding that assurance in conventional trust rules.

    You say lack of adherence to the PSA, NY Trust Laws, IRC REMIC laws, state trust laws- They didn’t follow their own rules. Does this void everything? Or what?

    Void everything – hardily. Raise arguments over multi district levels in subject matter over claims that carry wide ranging diversity –

    You answered your one question here

    Your answer is eagerly awaited. Thanks.

  8. Nora, start asking for leave of his court to file an appeal on any decision. Check with your county and state to see if they have a pro-bono program going.

    The Judge is not there to be a lawyer for any party and no matter the state they make it pretty clear – you want to come to court pro se – so be it – but don’t seek leniency from me.

    You can ask the judge to recuse himself – probably not a good idea though.

  9. The GA courts are a trip.
    You last about one minute-fifty seconds, they don’t want to hear testimony from pro se filers, and the judge here opens every case by stating that he is an attorney, and you better have one if you expect to get anywhere in “his” court; if you asked a clerk a question about your filing your case and got a wrong answer, your first mistake was following their advice instead of paying an attorney. The Court is completely out of touch with the fact that no one has money to pay for an attorney. I plan to file a preemptive challenge–that’ll really make the arrogant asshole, er I mean judge, happy. His pension fund has been largely wiped out, so why does it matter? I think we’d all be much happier if he’d stayed an attorney, or left the bench.

  10. Nora, ask a local attorney how you would file admissions if they are not compelled to discovery, or just write it off as vague, or burdensome.

  11. Yeah, what she said!

  12. @foreclosureinfosearch:

    “Only a moouch wants a house for free”

    Please define “house for free”.

  13. Ha Ha! If only I had the money to hire a fantastic expert like you. I suffer from negatoreousincomus, like most of the other poor people who lost their homes to thieves who stole not only the homes, but the jobs that made it possible to pay these invalid liens!

    I assure you I’m no mooch! I tried for 22 months to get a modification, not knowing that Chase could profit more from a foreclosure and had no legal grounds to modify what they don’t own.

  14. msoliman- here is one directed to you, as no one else has answered:
    If the notes were in fact, never deposited into the Trust, no A>B>C>D>E sales, no nothing, then how can the servicer have any legal right whatsoever, to
    1.collect monthly payments fpi on borrower property taxes
    4.or do anything at all
    Lack of adherence to the PSA, NY Trust Laws, IRC REMIC laws, state trust laws- They didn’t follow their own rules.
    Does this void everything? Or what?
    Your answer is eagerly awaited. Thanks.

  15. Nora

    Hire me ….Hire Niel …Hire someone qualified ….

    Only a moouch wants a house for free

  16. Learned fellows forclosureinfosearch, iwantmynpv :

    This question is and always has been central to our case; How do we get hard evidence if the banks stonewall in discovery and dismiss any foreclosure actions where their fraud is likely to be exposed?

    I read every ping and pong, and write down your nuggets of wisdom, but I can’t introduce these into evidence and win on them, even when I understand them, because it has been too many years since I took Accounting (and frankly it bored me silly) and I don’t think the judge ever did.

    Piecing it together from snippets, no matter how good and right the underlying logic and experience, is kinda difficult. Has anyone written a brief on this, that we can buy?

  17. john gault and To Tell The Truth:

    “totellthetruth, I like your idea. We need a database for NOD’s, sub of trustees, assignments and another for psa’s/trusts…”

    We need a joiner or joinder or group case whatever it is called and a fighting chance for those who cannot afford attorneys individually.

    The docs get assembly line robo signed and filed in all states (not even noticed in non judicial) with same characteristics so why not all those in this or that state with this same “originator” (sold it years ago now servicer and or defunct) and this same NOD signed by this same DOD “trustee” (trustee debt collector sales organization) owned by this “lender” (servicer debt collector front for vulture debt buyer organization) and with this ADOT (fake claim of ownership by “successor” servicer pretend owner assigning/selling defaulted loans to same trust or group of trusts (same trustee bank) closed years ago signed by trustee sales organization employee as ceo of “successor…” ) Same SOT, same trustee sales postings, foreclosure procedures, same state statutes, ucc, federal violations.

    Attack all of the above and leave nothing out. One attorney could write one case for many. Could initially leave out the detailed specific individual predatory claims – go for the discovery of documents based on the already recorded false documents, false claims of ownership, false transfers of secured interest.

  18. The false making or forging of an instrument or writing purporting to have been issued by or in behalf of a corporation or association, state or government and bearing the pretended signature of any person therein falsely indicated …

    1) its not a fraud to endorse something to yourself under a fictitious name
    2) If you do the law holds you endorsed it to yourself
    3) Party “A” assigns by Robo to “B” and false assignment to party “C” —so what if they all are the same shareholder?


    expert.witness@live .com

  19. John G

    Note is not tender , not bearer paper it is a long term asset held to maturity

    Common stock used to launch short term maturities over 90 day duration that rolls four time annually …..

    Common are equitable interest’s get it …

    Common pledged to create the series …bond series ok – No ,

    (another fraud web site posted on me – for those who have backed me – keep the faith . These losers want you to stray) Thank PS to Dr. BK Nice Fool !

  20. The more time passes the more absurd things seem to get .

    **Up until now, the focus has been on foreclosures and that is exactly what the Banks wanted.

    MSoliman – foreclosure is not possible under a master purchase and sale and where the foreclosure is a REPO – Why are you still talking foreclosures. Why are you not helping these people if your in the know Neil ….Im called a fraud once a week and look what message your sending! Why

    ** By misdirecting our attention to the “paperwork” in foreclosures, they distract us from the real issues presented in examining securitization itself as it was actually practiced,

    MSoliman – Offering a series (get it series 1 , 5 , 12 ) is nothing more than creating a five year bond after issuing enough short term debt securities held and rolled every 90 days – hint hint every 90 days …get it ?

    a local bakery chain could do the same under these nuerotic private placements.

    ** and the process of mortgage origination, as it was actually practiced. THAT is where the meat is….

    MSoliman – was it mortgage orgination – like a predatory loan ? Is that what your saying? How can you take a property levered to100% or higher and issue an equitable interest held to the ownership of a REIT and voting rights? Voting Rights NG…Im still waiting to hear who you think is the owership ?

    Noone is suing the right players . . .Where is the preference and where does the purchase and sale come in big guy – Again where does the paid in capital come from ?

    Im convinced – you dont know or you would not be writing about this gibberish and hysteria …

    Want me to explain things to readers – just ask – 25 years in the business …I am no fraud Bubba .

    Just ask me NG …Im waiting ?

  21. Hultman appoints just about anyone who asks and pays the fee a v.p. or corporate secretay of MERS. Those people then execute documents in MERS’ name- including of course the assignments , every last one of them – generally for their actual employers ( a WF employee assigns a dot to WF, a B of A employee assigns a dot to B of A, an Aurora employee assigns a dot to Aurora, etc.) The Koontz court said fuggadaboudit, but only because this scam was brought to its attention. I can’t figure out why the sam H more homeowners don’t point out this bull. I think it qualifies as a crime under this ( I know it’s a crime, just not sure what all):

    “NRS 205.105 Forgery of instrument purporting to have been issued by corporation or state. The false making or forging of an instrument or writing purporting to have been issued by or in behalf of a corporation or association, state or government and bearing the pretended signature of any person therein falsely indicated as an agent or officer of such corporation, association, state or government, is forgery the same as if that person were in truth such officer or agent of such corporation, association, state or government.”

    Whether or not the execution of documents in MERS name by these straw-pretend officers is a crime described by this statute (with mirror statues in all states no doubt) depends on whether or not the law would find they are true officers of MERS by Hultman’s appt. They are not employees of MERS, don’t answer to MERS, aren’t instructed by MERS, aren’t paid by MERS, have no knowledge about jack in regard to the instruments they execute in MERS’ name, what they execute is not based on any MERS books of accounts, etc., etc. etc. .These self-assignments are deeply violative of public or any trust; it’s an assault on the law and even our dignity. In reality, because these banksters know what they’ve done and what they’re doing with these pretend-assignments, it’s also an assault on the judiciary, whom if they ever get it, should have a cow and a half. It should shock the conscience of the court, as it’s said, and as I’VE said, if it doesn’t , I dont know what would.
    How does a homeowner being a ‘dead-beat” stack up to the kind of moral depravity demonstrated by this willfully rotten, just plain rotten act?

  22. totellthetruth, I like your idea. We need a database for NOD’s,
    sub of trustees, assignments and another for psa’s/trusts. I can’t do it. I need a 1 + 1 = 2 manual if I get a new fax machine or change phones. Scribd and other sites have a lot of cases, but it’s a whole lot of work to read all the cases available on line. I tried, can’t keep up, and that’s probably why I look like I’m 80 when I’m really only 29 (okay, in my dreams). Organization is a really good idea imo.
    Someone commented on assignments being done just now on trusts closed years ago. All I can say is they are playing the great odds they’re going to get away with the lie. Hell, what’s one more.
    Maybe someone will answer my question about remics can’t own the security. If we understood this if it means what I think, easier to cite that law by name than argue the trust was closed in l943 (joke) unless you get a judge who will let you prove it. And I can tell you, you gotta get them boxed in & up against the wall, you rnm, (that’s a song) before you slam them with that, or they will do their tap, tap, tap dance. Maybe Mr. G’s deals prove it (trust is closed). I don’t know.

  23. Yes, we changed from Democracy to a dictatorship. Not the change we were expecting. We have lost more personal rights under his presidency than during any other, including the right to choose whether or not we want to buy health insurance. He has assumed the right to assassinate American citizens without due process. Criminal charges and the right to trial have been dispensed with. He signed the NDAA into law, authorizing the indefinite detention of citizens without charge or trial, and yes it damn sure does apply to legal citizens as it declares the world to be a battlefield; he has waged war on Libya and killed hundreds of women and children with drone strikes without the approval of congress who is required by the constitution to declare any wars we undertake. With re-election hanging there in view he’s attempted to garner votes by finally doing something to stem the flood of illegal foreclosures, after having left us under the running bus for years while his banker friends drove back and forth over us, and has stated that the banks aren’t guilty of any wrongdoing! How about the millions of dollars he and Michele’s vacations have cost the tax payers, at a time when many children on American soil are put to bed hungry and families are living in buses and tents. This is not the change–poverty and oppression–we were promised. It’s too late for him to change public perception either. He will go down in history as the president who signed the NDAA into law, shredding the last constitutional freedoms we had. You would think someone who taught constitutional law would be more likely to revere and respect it. If you naively think he isn’t funded by the ruling elite, check our where most of his campaign contributions come from…you guessed it! WALL STREET. 19 holes of golf are more important to this president than the civil rights and liberties of American citizens.

  24. This is from an ongoing case in a DC wherein numerous defendants
    are named, including FNMA and MERS :

    ” After separating ownership of the Note from the Deed of Trust,
    CW Home Loans, INc., in conjunction with CTC real estate Services, purposely shredded ownership of the original note (huh? how do you shred ownership?- sic) for the additional financial gain and motivation of tax-free income as a REMIC.* REMIC tax-free IRS rules only permit an income “conduit” for any income flows derived time-to-time from said transaction (transaction = loan?), with no ownership of the security documents permitted, further separating ownership of the Note from ownership on the recorded Deed of Trust.”

    What is being said, in words of one syllable or less please, about REMICs? Why is note shredded – dont’ get it. What’s the benefit of that? Who exactly is not allowed an ownership of the security doc (dot, I presume)? If it’s the investor, then what does this mean?
    And if the note is shredded, what’ there to fight about? Why not done deal: Bye bye, bankster?

  25. @ Nora

    “Barak “Hamilton” OBama is a tool of the banks, bought and paid for. A vote for him is a vote for dictatorship, tyranny and financial terrorism applied through the central power of privately owned banks.”

    I most humbly, respectfully, but STRENOUSLY DISAGREE.

    Two of the most important things that our President promised the People BEFORE and AFTER he was placed in office: “Things are going to change” and “The buck stops here”.

    So far, those promises HAVE BEEN KEPT.

  26. It would appear from my understanding of everything that Banks were actually the ones to initiate this whole ‘Settlement’ with the AGs or had someone (Obama) initiate it for them.

    Am I wrong?

  27. Okay, Neil, not bad. But, the subprime “loans” were falsely in default BEFORE the refinance. Funding?? What funding??? Purchased false default debt. Servicer transfer. All that really exists is sale of servicer collection rights. Insurance covered the “purchase.” No funding necessary.

    You still keep claiming the “mortgage loans” were valid and validly funded by “investors.” NO. The “investors” were the debt buying banks — who had major contracts — the only contracts — with the GSEs.


  28. I believe everyone in fraudclosure should post on this site the so called trust info on their lawsuit file from the plaintiff…see if together we can identify duplicates in their claims and any other discrepancies regarding the trusts info on these attempted fraudclosure docs sent to us…your thoughts…I believe this will really help those of us, including those from the non judicial states like Mr. Wade…lets find out if the banks are duplicating the info in both judicial and non judicial states similar to some of the identical fraudclosure attempts that showed up here in Florida counties with same alleged notes…

  29. @iwantmynpv,

    Not all PSA’s stipulate 90 day windows to transfer; mine which is a WaMu subsidiary securitization trust states they have 180 days!

    There’s an issue you don’t address; the Notes were deposited to create money of exchange on the bank’s books, it says so in the federal reserve’s own handbook, the affidavit of Walker F Todd, the Memorandum of Mortgage Fraud by David Mack and other writings.
    If this is acknowledged in a court of law by the bankers (it has been) then the line of thought would logically be that the banks just stole all the money investors supplied, as well as the equity in the “borrower’s property, the insurance proceeds, the bail out money, etc. Are you stating that this fact is not a challenge to a contract based in fraud?

  30. “As details of the settlement have emerged, critics have argued the proposal lets bankers off the hook too easily for the mortgage mess they created with sloppy underwriting during the housing boom.”

    Sloppy underwriting? How about a better, more accurate description:
    Fraud. They are never going to convince anyone it was a paperwork thing, when they took the steps they did to insure everyone but them lost on the deal.

    The bankers think we’re going to let them off the hook, but the fight is just getting started. The people of this country are going to take their homes back from these criminals, one lawsuit-one house -at a time. I expect to see an avalanche of law suits, and hear the death knell for the criminal Federal Reserve system. They can put all the spin they want on it, but we aren’t buying it anymore that a contract without consideration is valid, or that contract law violations committed at origination are inconsequential. We know about the insurance fraud, the hedge funds, the broker yield spread premiums that weren’t disclosed on the settlement statement, the garbage fees, rigged appraisals, data manipulation in forms to get the bogus loans past the Desktop Underwriting software…we know all about their huge Ponzi scheme and we’re going to claw back what they stole. Barak “Hamilton” OBama is a tool of the banks, bought and paid for. A vote for him is a vote for dictatorship, tyranny and financial terrorism applied through the central power of privately owned banks.

  31. Every foreclosure defense or claim requires a securitization audit. Finally someone posted the real issue here today. The “illusion of choice”. We can modify, or paperwork was faulty, MERS, it was an oversight, blah blah blah.

    The real fraud occurred prior to practically anyone sending their first payment for the obligation. A quick review will immediately show that in; 9-10 cases, the guy providing the monies to fund the loan was acting as an agent of / for the Pool Originator (s). the money was bled down through warehouse facilities of leveraged deposits from a subsidiary of the seller / donor bank, more likely an SPV, who also pooled the loans prior to conveying the right to cash-flow, thus leaving a shell account with the seller bank used to collect on default. Get a good attorney, have a chain created and show the judge why they can’t assign to the pool now.

    Moreover, regardless of whether the loan is in default or current. State law, federal law, tax law and there own prospectus / PSA requires the assets to be conveyed within 90 days of the closing date. To try to assign four years later is almost laughable.

  32. Robert Wade, are you in a judicial or nonjudicial state? Have you either answered the foreclosure action with an pleading or have you filed a lawsuit?

  33. would like to contact that has done a securitization audit with success. anyone there i would like to hear from you, if you are in a preceding now would to hear how that is going as well, contact me i am in the fight for home and pulling out all the stops, not holding back anything so my cry is unite and fight””” comments are welcomed. robert………………

  34. […] View article: AG Settlement is Not Done and Won’t Do Anything. […]

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: