Shell Game: Nominees and Principals All Change Depending upon Circumstances


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


In reality there are nothing but nominees for undisclosed principals on both the note and mortgage. The money for funding the mortgage came from investors who pooled their money together. At the moment the borrower accepted the benefit of the loan funding, an obligation arose by operation of law between the borrower and the lender. But the lender is different than the party named on the note and mortgage (DOT).

This does not mean the obligation does not exist. But it does mean that the documentation contains declarations of fact that are not true. Hence it must be concluded that either the note is NOT evidence of the debt or that at best it is partial evidence of the debt — the balance of the information being contained in the closing documents with the investor lender and parole evidence in which the actual money trail differed from both the closing documents recitals for the borrower and the closing documents recitals with the investor lender.

Under ordinary rules of construction, the note is not the obligation. The note is considered the evidence of the obligation — if it indeed contains declarations of fact that are true. The mortgage or DOT is neither the obligation nor the note. The mortgage is considered to be incident to the note. Thus if the note is defective, the mortgage does not contain terms that are enforceable. Hence the issue is not whether the debt exists, but whether it is secured by collateral and if so, under what terms contained in which gaggle of documents that the parties used to “securitize” the loan.

This is not confusion created by the borrower who thought justifiably that he could rely upon the representations of the persons attending the loan closing that the parties were properly disclosed and that their remuneration was properly disclosed in accordance with TILA. This confusion arises strictly because the intermediaries wished to create a gray area in which they could claim ownership of the loan for purposes of trading and gambling “off balance sheet” and without accounting to either the investor-lender or the homeowner-borrower.

In order to sustain the position of the opposing parties, the court would be required to accept the parties shown at closing on the note and mortgage as the real parties in interest for one purpose, the parties who traded in insurance, credit enhancements and credit default swaps as owning the loan for other purposes, and the investors from whom all the money was obtained for funding the loans as the real parties in interest for still other purposes.

The chaos from these practices are precisely the subject of indictments and civil suits across the country in which the title registries were either ignored or corrupted or both. The burden of clarification and proof of ownership should be on the party or parties seeking relief and it should result in a single lien that is owned by one or more parties and not multiple liens without any accounting for which party can submit a credit bid and for how much the credit bid can be submitted.

If the note and mortgage (DOT) are incomplete at best and wrong in certain respects in describing the transaction then the lien purportedly recorded against the debtor’s property was never perfected. The actual security instrument contains MERS, an admitted nominee for an undisclosed principal and a “lender” which in fact was a nominee for an undisclosed lender or other party.

The point here is that the obligation that a rose by operation of law when the borrower accepted the funding is either undocumented or incompletely documented, making it unsecured. If the property is unsecured then it is part of the bankruptcy estate which can then be utilized, unencumbered for the beenfit of creditors and the debtor alike.

The proof of this line of thinking lies in the alleged auction which was improperly conducted. Assuming the auctioneer was properly and duly authorized however, and that the substitution of trustee was properly and duly authorized, the party submitting the bid at auction did so without tendering any promissory note much less the complete package of documentation that would prove its status as holder and owner of the loan (i.e. the party to whom the money is actually owed arising from the borrower’s obligation when the loan was funded).

At the alleged auction, the auctioneer announced the receipt of a credit bid from a party that had not established itself as the actual creditor, nor did the auctioneer collect the note that would constitute the bid. Since there was not cash paid at the auction, there cannot be said to have been a transaction because neither the cash nor the note was tendered as a bid. Hence the “sale” was a fictitious sale and the deed issued upon sale would have been improper, leaving the debtor with title tot he property unencumbered by the alleged mortgage or DOT.

It is one thing to apply the law for purposes of  jurisdiction and establishing a colorable right to initiate a foreclosure proceeding. It is quite another to bid the property into one’s own name to the detriment of the actual creditor, leaving the debtor with a continued liability.


81 Responses

  1. DEED OF TRUST- what is an illegal deed of trust? what to look for in a deed of trust documents you received at closing. According to mortgage documents received at closing, DEED OF TRUST is a security instrument together will all riders. Deed of trust must travel with promissory note in order to foreclose. Both must be original WET SIGNATURE. But, if the DEED OF TRUST is illegal or defective they cannot enforce a foreclosure is this correct?

  2. ANONYMOUS- good to hear from you. My post got your attention I see, I have to throw things out there to keep everyone awake and alert, otherwise we (myself included) can become zombie-like and stop thinking.
    We have to surround ourselves with positive energy and reinforcement in order to keep moving forward.
    It is truly, as a human being, extremely difficult to understand how this could have happened and is still happening.
    Sort of like watching the same horror movie over, and over, and over-
    but the truth will come out if we all do our parts, whatever we can do.

  3. Hi Ian

    No money transferred by warehouse credit lines.

    Let’s say that I am a bank, and provide you with a credit line, and you use it to purchase a “pink diamond.” I say — give me the pink diamond and I will “credit” your credit line — you owe me nothing, but I get to keep the pink diamond. You, in effect, deliver the “goods” to me.

    The problem is — what was supposed to be done with the credit line for mortgage refinance origination? We are not just talking pink diamond purchases. The credit line was supposed to be used to pay off the prior “loan” at the refinance origination. But, prior loan is never paid off. Prior :”securitized” trust — never paid off. Why? Because “loan” already in (false) default. No need to pay off.

    Servicer purchases collection rights from GSE, as to charged-off default, and collects on its own insurance. Servicer purchases on behalf of the lender to the brand new refinance — who just acquired collection rights — no money passed — but, they own the pink diamond.

    The world of subprime — and why it collapsed. No real mortgages/loans in the pipeline. Security investors (and you can pass through cash flows on collection rights) — knew the Triple AAA — was not Triple AAA at all — was not even valid mortgages/loans.

    All subprime — new purchases over GSE limits, and refinances — first passed through the GSEs.

    A mortgage/loan is a mortgage/loan ONLY if it qualifies — subprime never qualified. But, borrowers were told otherwise.

  4. @ John Gault

    A. You’re giving me way to much credit B. I’ve got way too many irons in the fire. I’ll post from time to time when something strikes me. C. Someone more eminently qualified than me can perfect and make efficient the argument put forward. (its a balance sheet world)(two distinct markets = loss of contract privity)(loss of contract privity = no mortgagee)

    In my previous post I surmized what the consideration was and that the assignor had effectivly exchanged the intrinsic value of the note for freshly capitalized securities and no longer had the burden and benefit of note ownership. Those would be defaultable securities, much like the Greek bonds, and the assignor was drooling over the chance to load up on cds worth 10x or more the value of the cash flow. Ask yourself if you own cash flow rights insured at 10x or more whether or not you would root for and perhaps create conditons ripe for a cds trigger get that payout. It is a fantastically evil scheme financing the borrower’s promise to pay under the note using defaultable securities, getting Freddie and Fannie to guarantee them, and slathering on piles of default insurance “just in case”.


  6. Patrick – any chance you want to try to fashion the argument as if it’s in a complaint? If we’re not able to do that, it will join the ranks of other arguments and go no where. The only argument I have come up with to try to get discovery without giving an arm and a leg etc. is our need to know if the bankster is a holder or a holder in due course since the defenses vary significantly.

  7. @ John Gault

    John asks: The note has been destroyed by its conversion into derivatives?

    Pat says: Ownership of the whole and inseparable loan contract created with the borrower’s signature at inception of the loan is impossible. The terms of the promissory note contract requires a two part test to determine if an entity is the note holder entitled to enforce the instrument. The note must be acquired via transfer and the entity must be entitled to receive payments made under the note. This requires the plaintiff, or anybody alleging possession of the genuine note, to recognize the debt transfer by reporting the instrument as financial asset along with the corresponding liability on its balance sheet ledger. The owner of “the debt” is the only entity entitled to enforce the note according to the terms of the borrower’s note. Contract terms which are more strict than state statutes are controling.

    Securitization is just a receivables financing scheme with collection rights retained or assigned. Typically, nobody can tell you who owns your note if cash flow, or loan liability, has been financed by a third party because as a financial asset it is equal to the liability amount which would be zero. You can’t own a contract, or loan asset, worth zero.

    What you can own is the loan, which is another way of saying I’ve invested in your promise to pay, or loan liability, for the next x years. You can also own the right to collect for the benefit of the investor. The bankers created two distinct marketplaces for loan obligations. One market for cash flow rights, and one market for collection rights. Thats the purpose of creating derivatives, to create markets that wouldn’t normally exsist in an effort to maximize yield. However, two distinct markets for debt owners rights and interests = loss of contract privity.

    The fact that collection rights are assigned, sold, or transferred tells us that other debt owner’s rights and interests must also be assigned, sold, and transferred. Negotiation of the note, which is supposed to evidence a transfer of 100% of the debt owner’s rights and interests, is impossible if a debt owner’s collection rights have been retained or assigned in a distinct transaction.

    Here is something to chew on. The debt owner’s cash flow rights have been tendered for valuable consideration. What is the consideration?

    Cash flow rights are used to capitalize other marketable securities. Once capitalized, the securities have value and can be used as the consideration for the cash flow assignment. Thats right, the assignor has effectively exchanged the note for securities which means it still benefits from the borrower’s payments without the benefit and burden of note ownership. It also most likely retained collection rights.

  8. @John Gault,

    My point is to get the pretender to say they do have an insurable interest (fraud) or they don’t. If they don’t have an insurable interest then have them removed from the policy (and no interest in the loan). Maybe you don’t even need to list a loss payee since you don’t know who the lender is?

    Yes I think this is a bold move but I believe sometimes you need to try different things when the same old thing isn’t getting results. I think it’s getting worse for homeowners where I live not better.

    Who cares if they try and put forced placed insurance on you. Seriously if you’re not paying the mortgage then what are they going to do try to get a garnishment to pay the policy when you already have one in place. Do you have a contract with the servicer to carry insurance on the home with the agent/nominees name? I don’t my contract says I have to carry a policy with the “lender” listed as the loss payee.

    The DOT verbage is heavily in favor of the bankster but it says the “lender” will approve or disapprove of the policy. I don’t really care about litigation. That’s we’re I’m heading. I have a couple other things I’m trying to do before I strike that I can’t discuss yet.

    Anyway, if you request the change the insurance company will want to check with the “lender” first before the change is made. This (I believe) puts the lender in a catch 22.

    Also, if the insurance company refuses to change the loss payee than it gives you reason (I believe) to stop paying the policy and not look like a dead beat. Yes I think this would open the door for litigation with the insurance company although that would not be the goal nor would I pursue it. I think the insurance company would side with the pretender in every situation the lender claims to be the “bank”.

    I think you could however get a statement from the insurance company stating why or why not the change was approved or denied. I think any info you get from the insurance company may prove useful in court.


    @carie – I posted this for anon. Don’t know if he read it. I’ll make you a deal – I will read the material at your link if you will read the one above. Problem – I can’t get your link to open other than getting to
    the website. When I click the topic, nothing happens. Tried numerous times including going to list of articles.

  10. @hman – interesting, but playing with fire. I was going to resist your querry for that reason, but it’s in fact irresistible. If a homeowner tried such a tactic, changing his loss payee on his homeowner’s insurance to himself and maybe “John Doe” (or maybe without John Doe), would it have the desired result – force a bankster to demonstrate an insurable interest? First of all, must acknowledge that an insurance company would not want to set itself up for litigation. The only real reason to make this change is to force a hand, right?
    The insurance co would want to hear, right or wrong, from the bankster that the bankster should be removed as a loss payee. And or the bankster would write a letter or some such to the insurance company, and the ins co would want to take the info therein as gospel. I think you might then be put in the position of suing your insurance company, also, (or maybe not) which is decidedly not the goal, right?
    Would there be a possibliity of avoiding litigation by standing on ‘the bankster needs to prove its insurable interest’, which is what you want? I couldn’t know. Once you put this strategy in play, you may find yourself invested in following thru and doing so might entail the litigation I think you are trying to avoid by this move. But it might be tried just to see how it plays out if there’s no harm in doing so, about which I also don’t know. From a purely selfish standpoint and also considering the (unlikely) chance such a move could in fact force a bankster to demonstrate insurable interest – without litigation – for the benefit of all of us, I’d like to see someone make this move.

  11. In talking about credit bids, someone here, maybe even NG, said
    the credit-bidder should be forking over the note as the credit bid.
    That’s a mouthful and so worth looking into. I think the truth is that the dot trustee should be given the note with endorsements and public record should show the complete chain for the dot. Enforcement requires notice, which of course is one of the many things MERS thought they’d just skip when they dreamed up their scheme to avoid, well, everything. The dot authorizes the trustee to foreclose for the ben, and no one else. How does the dot trustee know so and so is the ben entitled to payment of the debt? That is the attack, or one of them. If presented properly, why wouldn’t this be a slam-dunker? The dot trustee is being given exactly nothing which evidences anyone’s right to tell him to foreclose. When he refuses to fork over what tells him he is following the dot (aka nothing), sue him. Don’t leave him out of a suit. Or sue separately, but don’t let this go unchallenged. If he stands on the new assignment being done since MERS’ consent order and MERS’ ensuing mandate for no more foreclosure in its name, sue him anyway. First of all, the assignment was a self-assignment by the assignee’s employee. The dot trustee has done NO diligence. He’s MAYbe pulled some figures from the servicer’s database. Sue him for breach of fiduciary (may or may not get dismissed – careful, dont’ want to pay fees* ), bad faith dealing and
    breach of contract. If the dot trustee did not get the note which demonstrated that the alleged ben is owed the debt, he cannot know that he acts for the right party. If a credit bid is in order, the dot trustee should be 1) making that warranty to the auctioneer (which imo should be noticed) or else 2) getting off his butt, go to the auction, and submitting the note as the credit bid, probably the latter. To me, no note = no (credit) bid. We need to follow up on this very, very salient issue. Is there a credit bid without the note? I say no. So, the auctioneer gets the note as the credit bid – what then should become of the note physically? Should the auctioneer mark it paid and return to the borrower? And just as an auctioneer would not take copies of 100k in dollar bills, he should not take a copy of a note for a credit bid. He needs the original.
    *In 2008, I started hollering about dot trustee fiduciary. At the time, some circuits said yeah, some said nay. Nevada, in recognition of the issue, recently passed legislation which says the dot trustee owes no one a fiduciary – gag – but they did not make that statute retro-active. They did, however, spell out some duties of the dot trustee, so even in the absence of a fiduciary, the dot trustee does not get to act as if this is a free-for-all (x for the borrower).

  12. @carie – a long time ago, I tried my best to fashion the mechanics of the refinance of a loan into a new subprime loan. You and anon say there were no new funds advanced and that might be true except as to cash out, which would necessitate funds. Hard to remember now, but it was something like the orig loan was put into false default for the purpose of removing it from the pool. Something went on between the old servicer and the new one, and that something smacked of bull and the one who really paid for it might have been the investor in pool 1 who was expecting payment on the orig note, now falsely defaulted. When the old loan was put into false default for the purpose of removing it from the pool, how did this impact the investor? Got me, but I’d hazard a guess he got the shaft. The new subprime loan was re-packaged as all new debt and re-sold into a new pool.
    Lenders between themselves can do ‘participation’ loans all day long, I believe. Securitization is the big issue. Problems here are that 1) borrower is charged fees on new loan amt without consideration that part of that loan is in fact ‘old money’ (orig loan balance removed from pool 1 and used as partial funding for new subprime loan)
    and 2) the false default, if this is true, no doubt had adverse consequences to the guy in pool 1, and 3) fees charged to investor(s) in pool 2 as if total loan amt were new funds.
    So what does this further look like to borrower? Was the original loan ‘retired’ in public record or not? Was a new dot recorded which would inherently allege all new funds by way of the stated loan amt?
    If this were done, and I don’t know, I do know that the TILA figures
    on the reg z are messed and fatally so because the a.p.r. would be sky high, I mean sky high, since most of the money was ‘old money’ although fees were charged as if the loan were all new money. So then so what? Well, then one can spend a goodly amt of time searching for TILA cases which support a prop that the SofL tolls from the time of discovery of the violations, not the time of the violation act, which I have somewhere, I think. I offered to fork over my TILA cases, but no one took me up on this.
    I don’t know if they’re the bomb or not, but they’re a place to start and get some grasp of the rules of the road. Then one can spend another goodly amt of time finding case law which supports assignee liability.
    Then one can find support for a prop that one needn’t tender first – that the lender (or successor) must do X first. No, none of it’s fair. It’s a massive amt of work. But that’s where anyone who got this treatment finds himself. Won’t do any good to shoot the messenger.

  13. If the original documents do not consummate there is no lien. There must have a payment on that original recording, if there is not and you have evidence of why, then it is an unperfected lien really no lien as it never existed. You do not have to prove out any further then that. Contract law. Read Neil’s unperfected liens for more situations.

  14. @Patrick – now you’re on it. You’ve better and more succinctly expressed what you mean – thanks. One more time and we’ll probably really get it. I’m trying to frame what you’re saying and its ramifications so this skipped-accounting-102 brain can get it. The note has been destroyed by its ‘conversion’ to derivatives? The note is no longer evidence of a debt owed because the right to payments, the right to the obligation, has been traded for cash (or something of value)? Article 3 of the UCC with all its holder / possession isms is not applicable to these notes because the note no longer represents an obligation (that obligation having been sold), and for the party who traded the note for something of value to try to yet collect on the note from its maker is outright fraud? Similarly, the first party may not now try to endorse the note to the second party who already paid something of value for X rights and this is because?
    You have expressed the (accounting) mechanics in a beneficial manner and now I’m trying to sum up those facts into the ‘so what’. I’m the guy who paid something of value for the obligation. What are my enforcement rights withOUT transfer of the actual note (which may be an impossibility)? This question acknowledges, obviously, that I fall short of getting everything you are conveying or else you didn’t get to that part?

  15. Mechanics liens need to be paid to sell your home so the same would apply if the servicer tried to foreclose.there is no clear title, its like the tax man. If you have liens this may be a blessing in disguise.

  16. Another Scenario,

    Someone mentioned Mechanics Liens. My understanding is Mechanic liens take priority over the lenders mortgage in a foreclosure. I could be wrong. However, there is also the “priority of recorded liens.”

    So when the originator goes out of business but is still the lender on record what happens when a contractor tries to foreclose on a mechanics lien? The contractor under a mechanic lien is supposed to give notice to the beneficiary. If the contractor attempts to contact the lender and they can’t be found will the contractor be able to foreclose under a mechanic lien? Will the attempt and notification in the newspaper etc…be consider by the judge enough to foreclose?

    Also, say the lien is for $20K. If the homeowner bid the 20K cash at the auction and they are the highest bidder would they get the house back?

    Anyone have any insight to mechanic liens please respond


  17. DanDiener,

    You stated you investigated your account? Can you be a little more specific when you state “It took less than a minute thereafter for my friend and I to correct this issue.”

    Are you refering to the loss payee? Did you submit a change to the loss payee? If so my understanding was that only the “lender” could submit this change.

    Currently my servicer is listed as the loss payee. I continue to pay my taxes and insurance but I’d like to have them removed if possible. My question is who do you put in their place if the Originator is out of business. Surely you don’t want a party without an “insurable interest” as the loss payee. Can you submit yourself?

    Also, what about force placed insurance. If you change the policy won’t the servier hit you with forced placed? The DOT has provisions in it that says the borrower agrees to carry insurance to protect the “lenders” interest. Maybe changing the loss payee (if it can even be done) would make the pretender to prove they have an interest to add forced place?

    Anyone know? Please help out?

  18. “If the note and mortgage (DOT) are incomplete at best and wrong in certain respects in describing the transaction then the lien purportedly recorded against the debtor’s property was never perfected. ”

    That’s a bold statement, and while probably true, the statement alone can’t be taken to the bank. The article falls short of supporting that
    statement with statute and or case law and that’s what’s needed.

    Does the note describe the transaction? If not, why not and so what?
    Does a MERS’ dot describe the parties thereto? Is it a legitimate instrument? If not, why not and so what?

    Agard has been on the radar again lately, yet Judge Grossman’s prophecy that his ruling would have far-reaching consequences has not come to fruition. Why not? Why has the logic and law applied by J Grossman been abandoned in search of a new cure?


    “Debtor who paid sums due under a promissory note to someone other than the payee on the note bears the risk of loss when the person to whom the funds were paid was not the agent of the payee.
    Payment must be made to rightful holder or his authorized agent;
    payment to the wrong party does not discharge the obligation. Burden of proving agency rests on THE PARTY WHO CLAIMS THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE TO AN AGENT. ”

    Jackson v. 2019 Brandywine, LLC, et al
    Court of Special Appeals of Maryland July 2, 2008

  20. Please be advised that you do not own 389, never consemated the documents due to documents being returned marked bad loan by where house, no title here for you, be ware of your first payment not going to the original named entity. And yes you two owe me the services rendered bill, that is not going away here. Thanks for the free speech Neil.

  21. dandiener1

    Your background in sales, mortgages, collection and insurance combined with your insight into what has now happened to you with your own mortgage and servicer is invaluable and thank you for sharing it. I beleive you will be successful in fighting this. Perhaps judges will take you seriously when they have ignored others. I am sure there are more and more with your background facing this now. Pretty soon no one will be immune. Not even the “banks” and “bankers” themselves. People who did everything right and paid on time for years even decades are treated like deadbeats and their homes siezed by interlopers, pretenders and outright theives in many cases. Where is the outrage over this in society? Most suffer in silence. I am glad you are no longer stressed. Deciding to fight win or lose does provide peace of mind if a person can hold on to basic living expenses. Others who can barely hold on may have no other choice but to passively disappear into oblivion without a whimper. Please fight the fight. You are well positioned to be taken seriously.

  22. @dandiener1

    You are amazing and more power to you.

    I fought as hard as I had the ability and resources to—even re-recorded my Grant Deed and paid my own property taxes, hoping it would help…but, my (non-judicial CA) house was sold to a real estate investor in December, and they had a UD trial last Monday which I didn’t show up for because I’m out of time, money, and will…so we are out of here. I just wish I knew what to say or do to the guy who “bought” my house from a foreclosure mill with no proof of ownership of promissory note (servicer stated he didn’t have to tell me who “real” creditor was because of “privacy laws”), and forged, fraudulent, fabricated documents at my county recorders office…the usual total BS.

  23. dandiener1

    I could not agree more with what you just posted. I no longer am playing the game either.

    I like you lived in this home and paid on time always until my income took a major hit and was told by the servicer there was nothing they could do.

    I am 58 yrs old and also know the business and everything went haywire once I also did a refi and it was not a cash out it was to get away from a predatory reset. Out of the pan and into the fire!

    If this can happen to me it can happen to anyone.

    My title is clouded big time and I do not know to this day after three court battles who is the rightful person to pay. It is the darndest thing I have ever seen.

    I like you have no stress anymore I just fight them as they appear.

  24. Carie..

    I’m in my house. It wasn’t free. I made payments on it faithfully for more than 15 years before I refinanced. This mess ensued when my income took a dive and I contacted the “first” mortgage servicer to make arrangements for a restatement of the terms of my note.

    I’m 67 and have been in commission sales (even as a mortgage broker and as a sales agent for a collections company) for more than 40 years.

    This was not new to me… This was not my first rodeo. I knew how the system worked. Or thought I did…

    What I did not know is the “the system” had changed during the last 15 years.

    My first recognition of this fact was when I was told I would not be told who the owner of my note was and that there was no one else I could talk to about making a change.

    My second understanding of the “new reality” was when I was told I had to be delinquent for more than 60 days before they could even discuss a “modification.” Reluctantly, I “followed the instructions” of those who were “helping me.”

    Now I know what I should have done here in Georgia (or any other “non-judicial foreclosure state.” I should not have been intimidated by the existance of this inequitable, un-just law. I should have waged a suit immediately. Three years later I now know why.:

    My biggest mistake was assuming I “had to tell representatives of the mortgage servicing company” anything about my financial affairs.

    Every document I sent them… every word I spoke, was to my own detriment. I was giving them every bit of information they asked for… Where I derived my income… Where my bank records were kept, what my finances had been for the most recent months…. None of which I should have given them.

    The mortgage servicer is not (or should not) be “entitled” to that information after a loan has been closed.

    Carie, I even made the mistake of consistently “updating” their records with information about me and my wife that was more current. I was a “dummy,” but that has changed.

    Whatever happens, I will never speak or provide records to an employee of a mortgage servicer (or any other collection agency) again!

    I know what I owe and I know what I’ve paid…. and now I will always be able to prove those facts.

    I will only correspond with an adverse party by means of a court… whether I function as a “Pro Se” attorney, or I hire legal counsl who is more knowledgeable about these matters than I am.

    And woe be to the “shyster” who represents to me that he knows more than I do about these matters and starts charging me for “learning on the job”! I will get my just recompense!

    I will challenge any effort for anyone to insinuate themselves into a role of “escrow agent” for my loan. I did not authorize one at my closing and I have not authorized one since. I found out that a mortgage servicer contacted my insurance company and had the loss payee designation on my homeowner’s policy changed from the original “lender” to them.

    I immediately had my agent, a friend I once supervised, to give me an explanation (Yes, I also sold insurance… and later became an insurance investigatior with the state insurance department.)

    We investigated the history of my account together, It turned out, a letter was sent to the home office of my insurance company by the “mortgage servicing agent” (and accepted without additional verification of authority.)

    That letter (without even stating an interest as an escrow agent) instructed the company to make this (criminal) unauthorized change.

    It is unlawful to insure a person or property in which there is no “insureable interest.” Else, my next door neighbor could insure my life for a million dollars and across town to “take out a contract” on my life….. claim the proceeds,,, pay his low-life “conspirator,” get away scott free, and spend the rest of his life jet-setting around the world.

    [ Does this sound eerily like some other events you may know of?]

    It took less than a minute therefafter for my friend and I to correct this issue… and insert into the insurance company’s record a direction from the homeowner (me) to disregard any party other than myself myself who may “pretend” to have an “insurable interest” in my house.

    The same applies for property taxes. When I went to pay my taxes personally, I was told that the taxes had already been paid by “the escrow agent.” I was livid! If I cannot prove I have lived “openly and notoriously and continuously in my home” to the current date, I could lose my home to an “adverse possession lawsuit” by any interloper who fraudulently acts on my behalf as though I was absent.

    I still don’t know whom “can prove” I owe them money. The “pretender lender” was went into bankruptcy and there is a “cloud” in my title chain at that point. There will be a point that I sue for “Quiet Title.” When that happens I will still have the proof of more than seven separate “robo-signers” on three fraudulent assignments. Whoever “authorized” those signatures will rue the day they did so.

    Meanwhile my strategy is to do nothing until a varmit raises its ugly head by “initiating a legal action”.

    Until then, all the stress is gone from my life.

    Peace be unto you.

  25. dandiener1

    I love what you posted and suspected the same in my situation.

    One word of caution watch your credit report. I was discharged in Chapter 7 and the present servicer just sold my loan to a new servicer changed the loan number and they ignored the discharge order and instead of foreclosing came back and destoryed my fresh start and trashed my credit a year and half after BK 7. I hauled them back in to court on Adversay proceeding and won hefty sanctions. Watch your credit report and fight them.
    To Carie no the house is not Free and Clear in a non-judical state they will continue to Foreclose. I have been out BK-7 since 2008 and I also hauled them into Federal Court on FDCPA and settled out of court before trail. Now we are back in court on UD hearing and I am fighting wrongful foreclosure by a party who has no interest inthe home. Keep fighting it has four years for me and I am stil in my home.
    Don’t give up. I have always wanted to pay for my home they sold it on the court house steps for 30% lower then I offered in a modiffication request. I can afford my home now that they have changed my loan number and sold it on the courthouse steps and I have been discharged I have no presonal reponsibility for the hoeme. That said this is my home and if I could work with the true owner of this property I would gladly work out a paymewnt plan otherwise I will see them in court till my last breath.

  26. BTW with respect to the NCB Fraudclosure case in the video below:

    (Lightbulb came on:
    They never amended subsequent “complaints” in writing because they were barred by res judicata, i.e. they had already lost. Read and watch carefully).




  28. Look at source documents, are you all still confused?

    You signed a Promissory Note under Power of Sale you passed your trust estate the loan# affixed to ‘Promissory Note’ and all attachments Notes/Riders and all private entitlements, encumbrances, liens of equtiy created 2 days before you signed for example, and restrictions (beneficial interests owned already by others)…. the Sales Contract for Property was exchanged for DEED in your name … POINT?
    You closed with SERVICER!

    Custodian Servicing Loan closed with ‘Settlement Agent’ during RETAIL CLOSING

    You all ignore what is in front of you if you’d just look at the transactions

    The lien recorded in name of SERVICER Anybank NA allows its beneficiary to come back into court and claim their beneficial rights under lien of equtiy created 2 days before











  30. Nasty updates on National City Bank fraudclosure:

    Every day I get a phone call or an email from someone hurting from mortgage foreclosure fraud I feel the bile rise and I throw up a little in my mouth. In this case they tried the first time and she showed them proof of payment and the Judge threatened to audit the bank, case closed. They tried a second time and got shut down again and had to remit $4,000 in bogus fees and charges. Is the third time the charm? They have now managed to gain traction by retroactively changing her monthly payment and seem on track to boot an innocent woman out of her home. They denied her discovery in the State Court and now she is suing for Fraud in the Federal Court, and she claims her Federal Claims should not be truncated by Rooker-Feldman or Res Judicata because the bank’s theories of foreclosure have shifted each time and thus she did not truly litigate the issue before the Court in a way that should invoke those doctrines.

    If they get the house I hope she sues them for a RICO violation. They somehow managed to dodge liability in this 2009 case, Frederick v. Select Portfolio and Pierce & Associates but in my heart of hearts I believe they did in fact lie to the homeowner about when the auction would be. Most of these foreclosure mills are pure dirtbags, just like Phelan, Hallinan & Schmieg — who called the police on another innocent homeowner seeking proof of standing to foreclose. Then the police came and were on our side. Watch the movie at bottom for that one.

    At top, watch today’s video to see how the Chicago, Illinois Piece and Associates foreclosure mill operated, leading to Case No. 1:11-CV-01057 (Fed. Dist. Central Ill).

  31. @dandiener

    So—are you in your house free and clear?

  32. @Enraged,
    I don’t have a passport. I have a birth right to be here, and you leave by leaving the system, you don’t give up your birth right to be here and you don’t expatriate.
    You stop participating and you stop telling them you are part of their system.
    Has nothing to do with crossing borders or leaving this soil.
    A lot of what we go through is illusion and if the illusionist sees you don’t see the tricks, they exploit them.

    Trespass Unwanted

  33. Someone asked if we can sue the county for not determining if the auctioneer had the right to accept a “credit bid” in a foreclosure sale.

    I discovered (by accident) that the party who “auctioned” off my home on the courthouse steps was neither an attorney nor a county official, but someone hired by the mortgage servicer’s attorney to show up, read the foreclosure notices and then bid the amount he was instructed to bid “the credit bid” without stating whom he represented (the mortgage servicer) nor without providing proof that the amount he bid was the amount owed to the “owner of the note” who was also not proved to be the holder of the note.

    This is because I live in Georgia, one of the “non-judicial foreclosure states.”

    The county or the sheriff of the county is not having a “Sheriff’s Sale.” As best I can determine “foreclosure auctions” are simply required to be held on courthouse steps in Georgia. The “auctioneer” is simply someone paid to “go through the actions” by someone else, whom I assume is the mortgage servicer’s locally retained attorney.

    In answer to the questioner, though I am not an attorney, I would presume that one could “accost” the “auctioneer,” demand his or her indentity and contact information and the contact information of whomever “commissioned” them to perform this function, and initiate a suit against those parties, including the attorney, the mortgage servicer, and even the publisher of the “local county organ” whose “printed public notice” was used to “gather” interested parties to the courthouse steps of the “first Tuesday of every month.”

    (Other than suing, I did just that when my home was “auctioned” even though I had filed Chapter 7 as a Pro Se litigant the Thursday before and the “auction” should not have taken place… but did anyway.” I even demanded and obtained the “amount of the ‘credit bid’ ” from the “auctioneer.” That and the address of the attorney that wrongfully did not withdraw my home from the “auction process.”

    BTW, ten months later, I am through my Chapter 7, and have had my “unsecured debts” discharged. I listed every party that could possibly assert an interest in my home as “unsecured debtors” on my bankruptcy “Creditor Matrix.” I named them all, attorneys, appraisers, mortgage servicers, the original “pretender lender” (now bankrupt themselves,) all “assignees” listed in the courthouse records, all creditors of any type showing up on three different credit reports, the Trustees, et al. My strategy was to “smoke out one party at the “341 hearing of creditors” who would challege my assertion that there was no secured creditor. None showed up.

    When the morgage servicer’s attorney filed a request for a hearing to argue for a lift of the stay of foreclosure, I was prepared with a rebutall listing the reasons the lift of stay should not be granted. Not only that, I had the names of 5 “robo-signers” on two assignments and even a copy of a deposition given by one of them in another court where the “surrogate signer” stipulated she never worked for the company she where she signed as a “Vice President.”

    At the “341 hearing” the Trustee was provided all of this information in a simple, straight-foward way….. I can already filed it at the clerks office and provided the Trustee with a hard-copy as well as a “clerk-stamped copy” to put in the hands of the secretary of the Bankruptcy judge assigned to my case.

    At this point, all of this is history… the “opposing attorney” after encountering a “pro se” litigant who was properly prepared, withdrew the request for the lift of stay hearing “indefinately.”

    The BK judge’s “clock” kept running, and because the “opposition” retreated, the discharge of all debts was granted, signed, and “sealed.”]

    Oh Yes! … the charge we should make against the rascals locally? Why not “Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Theft by Fraudulent Means”? Maybe Neil or another reader who is an attorney can suggest a legal gambit here?

    That “auctioneer” could just as easily been one of the various teen-aged or college student “robo-signers”… or my next door neighbor who found a way to make some extra money one morning every month.

    If a few of these “no-bodies” ended up being publically humiliated by becoming the parties to a criminal suit… or maybe even an arrest by a local Sheriff for being “caught in the commission of a crime” on the courthouse steps, these issues may get into a court to be heard by a jury of peers.

    Who says we have to have the money to sue an international investment bank? All politics are local, and the fruadulent foreclosures can be tracked to a beginng in every county to a “closining table” for a purchase of a home or refinancing of a loan. Even in “non-judicial states” there are ways to get into courtrooms to address a grievance.

    Homeowners can literally show up at the courthouse steps with pitch-forks to “rattle” some of those who are there each month. Did you know that the parties most affected by fradulent foreclosures very seldom actually “show up at the scene of the crime” where their homes are stolen… the courthouse steps? Homes are not “stolen” from the “street address” of the house itself.

  34. N. Dakota also only state telling Federal EPA to go screw and going after oil. Low population and high resources. It is oil. Very interesting what is happening up there.

  35. right on Niel absloutely correct. but get a CA judge to hear it ha

  36. Yes, and the fact that they are “misstated” by NEIL himself is horrifying…and sad.

  37. The shell game analogy can help focus on the fraud and criminal aspects of the crisis rather than simply a paper trail, “mistakes” approach that Wall St and the politicians want to cram down our throats.

    Anyone have a refinance where a “good” bank”, TBTFers, claim to pay off the “bad” loans and then claim they could not change loan because investor would not allow it?

    This is a case where “big bank” is manipulating the confusion it seems.

    Any lawyer or advocate that is familiar with this scenario, contact would be appreciated. In CA.

  38. Quote——-“The money for funding the mortgage came from investors who pooled their money together.”

    What??? No. The “loans” were pooled — not investor money. And security investors only purchased fractional interests to cash receivable pass-through to a “pool” of subprime loans to which only collection rights existed. They purchased this pass-through from debt-buying “investors”, including banks, who could not, and did not, transfer collection rights to any trustee, fake SPV, or security investors to false mortgage-backed securities.

    Part of the reason so much cover-up occurs is because the facts continue to be misstated and concealed.

  39. Five Largest Banks ‘Should Be Broken Up’: Fed’s Fisher

  40. @Enraged

    “N. Dakota appears to be the only state doing very well”

    I think it has all this too:

    balanced budget, lowest unemployment, low taxes, pensions funded, low interest rate loans, education funded, lowest foreclosure rate, no banks in the state have failed and more.

    Some say it is because of rich resources of agriculture and oil. All states have valuable resources. I think it is their banking system and these hard times are showing that it works. Other banks and businesses in North Dakota are happy. They partner with the state bank. It isn’t socialism. It is a mostly Republican state too I think.

    The states and counties are just like homeowners. They are paying too high a price for their debt to the too big and getting bigger monolith monopoly private global corporations.

  41. @Trespass,

    I understand what you’re saying but it has little to do with what i was alluding to. Do I know i can leave anytime i want and go wherever I want? You bet. I have the passports to show for it. But it’s not a solution. We live in society. As a society, we have an obligation to look for answers. My point was that, at the federal level, we’ve been royally screwed every step of the way.

    On the other hand, N. Dakota appears to be the only state doing very well (I wonder if they are part of the settlement… Now, that would be really funny!) I was looking at their system and thinking out loud that it may very well be the way each state will end up going: splitting from the feds who helped create that mess and going back to a human scale society..

  42. Notices were all signed for on Friday and Saturday, notices are at receipt, stay out of our property, do not return, criminal activity will be filed if you continue as we have many forgerys. This is drop dead.

  43. @EULE,
    Thanks for the post. I read the comment at the end from the Bank of America filing.
    “”There can be no assurance as to when or whether binding settlement agreements will be reached, that they will be on terms consistent with the Servicing Resolution Agreements, or as to when or whether the necessary approvals will be obtained and the settlements will be finalized,” reads language in the bank’s annual 10-k filing.”

    Assurance in Black’s Law 5th Edition is
    Assurance. The act or action of assuring; e,g, a pledge, guaranty, or surety. A declaration tending to inspire full confidence.

    Assure in Black’s Law 5th Edition is
    Assure. To make certain, and put beyond doubt. To declare, aver, avouch, assert, or ensure positively. To declare solemnly; to assure to any one with design of inspiring belief or confidence.

    Bottom line, they are not guaranteeing a binding agreement.
    If there is no binding agreement, there is no agreement.
    If they did nothing wrong, they don’t even have to sit in any settlement agreement. If they did something wrong, they can’t bargain their way out of what they’ve done.

    Our government cannot negotiate with Terrorists.
    A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.

    The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:


    (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

    1. cause a reaction of any type to his threat[s] by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
    2. place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
    3. prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
    4. cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
    5. place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
    6. influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

    Terroristic act
    Looks like these activities are clearly defined and if those of us who have been forced from our homes review these separate definitions we would find that under #1, their office caused a reaction by an official that deals with emergencies. it caused a ‘sheriff to be involved in all of the dispossessions that took place.
    #2. A judge in their unlawful detainer or writ of possession stated the sheriff can put their hands on the occupant/homeowner/rightful owner to remove them from the premises. #3 the interrupted the peacefully occupation of our own homes (form of conveyance). #5 placed us in fear of serious bodily injury (do you remember that family that had an live internet stream where they squatted in their home and didn’t want to leave and the officials broke in and looked for the camera and disrupted the transmission so we could not see how they treated the occupants as they removed them from their own property?) #6. Influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government or the state…now how on earth can someone commit such atrocious acts against the ‘free people’ of a country, even if they want to ‘act like we are not free’, we are free, and the government and it’s agencies are influenced by their acts such that they do not protect the rights of the people who are free and who have a birth right and a divine right to be here and live peacefully and obtain property and live and pursue happiness…we may not find it but we can pursue it without interference from terrorists within our own country.

    If there is a settlement without prosection, everyone involved should be guilty by association just like they would with any criminal act. If you assist someone in the commission of a crime you are an accessory to the fact (or something similar legal)…we are not a corporation, this threat occurred to the organic life that has the CREATOR within …and the “CREATOR within” them has a duty to recognize who we are and what was done in violation of Universal Law. Universal law is of superior authority over anything these people can write among themselves to give them perceived rights among each other. It’s a Universal Trespass.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, Life, Free and Independent State, People, Allodial, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  44. Thanks for the great info and comments.

  45. @Enraged,
    in the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy could always leave and go home, she just forgot how. It ended up being her ‘declaring’ her right to be home.

    The state is the People…if you are going to look for the ‘state’ you will never find it unless you look at ‘you’. The state can always recede from the Union. That means you can always leave the system that oppresses you. Many never thought of it like that. No one ever told you that you do not have to ‘belong’ to the system that oppresses you, but in a weird way if there is a heaven and a hell and you register for a system and it turns out to be hell. Well there’s a lot of people who do not make the move to ‘unregister’ so they can leave that hell.

    The state referenced has a governor, secretary, attorney and more but who put them into place? The people.

    The People have ‘State’s Rights’, and the life has ‘Divine Rights’. No man can take away rights you have except through fraud, deception, coercion, extortion, or in an act of war.
    You’ve heard God is everywhere and is in everyone.
    Why is it when I say Creator, people don’t think of the same thing.
    The Creator is everywhere and is in everyone.
    The writers of the Declaration of Independence knew about the Creator.
    All men are created equal; endowed by their Creator.
    A king tried to be more equal than the men and they knew their rights to not be governed unless they wanted to be governed. They chose to govern their selves.
    They created a Republic. In a Republic, if I want a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich and everyone else want a Bologna sandwich, I can have a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich and everyone else can have a Bologna sandwich.
    In a Democracy, I would be a minority and the majority would rule and I’d have to eat a Bologna sandwich or not eat at all.
    I choose the Republic form of government.
    The government where I can govern myself and find my own Way.
    (I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life)

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, Life, Free and Independent State, People, Allodial, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  46. What Government?
    Bought and paid for by the banks.
    Look up the definition of fascism.
    It may already be too late.

  47. @Ken Johnson,
    Don’t burn it down. It’s been done before and they criminalize the act…if it’s not some destruction of property charge, they move to arson or endangering others or act like it would have spread to other homes or any number of things they can stack…and the courts belong to them so there is no such thing as a fair trial for the choice of destruction of your own property and no fair trail for the choice of protecting your property from unlawful seizure…chances are likely you’d purchase a representative (attorney) and you’d be so far removed from your rights that you’d have none by the time you are thrown under the bus.
    If only we could teach each other who we are, and that it’s not a definition, and if only we knew how to defend our rights, even in front of judges who know who we are but they are taught by their satanic god to not see the Creator within us, so they pass judgment against us as if we are a person with no soul rather than a People with the Creator within. If you only knew how they are able to judge you without recognizing you for who you really are, you’d know the abomination within their ‘business’ which is not a place of law it’s a place for conducting financial transactions underneath a bankruptcy where they get you to be the trustee and they are the beneficiary – acting like you breached a fudiciary duty or failed to perform an obligation that the plaintiff claims a loss of right or injury but the plaintiff is not ever in court and is only represented but you let his representative speak to the judge without objecting that they have to be sworn in and speak under oath or it’s just hearsay and not admissible, and anyone drawn into that place of business has a right to meet face to face anyone that has accused them of a loss of right or an injury.
    I digressed (on purpose) Someone got a clue.
    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, Life, Free and Independent State, Allodial,

  48. @Joann,

    If anything, what may very well happen is that states start considering pulling out of the union, especially is their economies have been ruined by the feds (which they have. And no make-believe settlement of 350 million will do for my state, the 8th most adversely impacted by the fraudulent foreclosures).

    The day that happens, we will be left with state banks, credit mutuals and other financial infrastructures over which we’ll have a better handle. TBTF won’t have a stronghold anywhere anymore. What i found remarkable in her interview is that she mentioned that not only did N. Dakota suffer no foreclosures but, in addition, it consistently comes under budget year after year, while subventioning public works and all the state programs. Obviously, they know what works.

    Quite frankly, the “eminent domain” theory was first broached by Mandelman over a year ago. Marc Dann, the former Ohio AG, felt that it made a lot of sense but no one else had mentioned it again until Eileen Brown in her interview. This may become the only resolution we need to break free from big banks, become financially independent and reclaim our individual state sovereignty.

    And why not? But at that point, the Feds better not throw us in a war as they seem to be so intent on doing (Iran? China? Who’s first?) because i doubt that, individually, states will want to participate, especially if it is done as underhandedly as iraq and Afghanistan…

    The Feds created that monster. The Feds will eat it, one way or the other.

  49. Can we sue the counties we live in for not collecting proof of ownership to consummate a “credit bid” ,, allege that they are cheating the citizens out of millions ($Billions) of tax dollars that should have been contributed by others … I think we’ll get some good press and gain some concessions … This could be done in every county I’ve seen .. The courts are the one entity in this mess that hasn’t had any pressure put on them …

  50. @Enraged

    Re public banking. Think that in the end this will be the only way out of this even if it takes a long time before it is realized as the only solution. Just wish it could be sooner rather than later. Interesting article and interview. Very interesting that Ellen Brown is now saying counties could easily do it themselves. Some counties will be more motivated than others and they could just forge ahead and get it done perhaps without involving the state or federal level. She made the point that Los Angeles is bigger than North Dakota. Hope she is talking to the Assessor Recorder of San Francisco. His audit was a move in the right direction. Every county should do it.

  51. I have another property…so I just have to move out of state which is just as bad as renting. But how can I walk away with something instead of less than anything?

  52. Thanks Carrie. Should i set the house on fire then? I would rather that than give the bank a free house. Of course, I want to fight and win. Do I need to go to law school on the fast track and become the judge? So how are some homeowners getting settlements?

  53. @Ken Johnson

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news…but NOTHING works. Hope you find a nice rental and have a job to pay the over-priced rent. Good luck.

  54. What? (scratching head)
    Improperly appointed substitute trustee is the auctioneer for the property in non-judicial state. Improperly appointed substitute trustee makes the credit bid. No money changes hands.
    Improperly appointed substitute trustee works for the same pretend creditor the trustee works for. The Trustee, who represents the interest of the beneficiary; waits for improperly appointed Substitute Trustee to file a document that they have sold the property at action and the Trustee hands the Trustee’s Deed to the Improperly appointed Substitute Trustee. Improperly appointed Substitute Trustee tries to wash the Trustee’s Deed by filing more paperwork locally giving a Special Warranty Deed to Fannie Mae.

    There is a term called repudiation.
    The beneficiary named on the Deed of Trust repudiated any claim to the property as soon as the Trustee representing their interest gave the Trustee Deed to another who did not have a note nor interest. The contract is breached and no one can come back and compel performance from the named borrower. At best, if the property was taken, the named borrower should get all they put into the property back and the real party lender should get all the money back they put into the transaction if the pretender is going to steal the home and keep it. It is unjust enrichment for the pretender to get the money from the one who funded the transaction and the named borrower who paid principal plus interest and provided sweat equity for the upkeep of the home and paid all taxes without having full ownership.
    Repudiation. Rejection; disclaimer; renunciation. The rejection or refusal of an offered or available right or privilege, or of a duty or relation. The act of a buyer or seller in rejecting a contract of sale either partially or totally. U.C.C. 2-708, 2-711.
    Repudiation of a contract means refusal to perform duty or obligation owed to other party. Pitcher v. Lauritzen, 18 Utah 2d 368, 423, P.2d 491, 493; Draughon’s Business College v. Battles, 35 Ala.App. 587, 50 So 2d 788, 790. Such consists in such words or actions by contracting party as indicate that he is not going to perform his contract in the future. Continental Cas.Co. V. Boerger, Tex.Civ.App., 389 S.W.2d 566, 568.
    Repudiation of contract is in nature of anticipatory breach before performance is due, but does not operate as anticipatory breach unless promisee elects to treat repudiation as breach, and brings suit for damages. Such repudiation is but act or eclaration in advance of any actual breach and consists usually of absolute and unequivocal declaration or act amounting to declaration on part of promisor to promisee that he will not make performance on future day at which contract calls for performance. Robinson v. Raquet, 1 Cal.App.2d 533, 36 P.2d 821, 825.
    Trustee has a duty to the beneficiary, once the Trustee’s Deed is handed to another the beneficiary/lender on DOT no longer has the property in trust. There is no longer an obligation. If the obligation of the note is still floating around then whoever broke the chain should responsible for the debt (either Trustee is fine with me; both are supposed to be aware of who has the Note and an obligation secured by the home in their fudiciary capacity as Trustee). Obligations not created by the borrower do not belong to the borrower.
    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, Life, Free and Independent State, People, Allodial, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  55. Thanks Joanne. I think I follow. Good stuff for my own case. When is the hell going away?

  56. @ All

    Can anyone recommend an experience trial litigator in Texas.

  57. Correction to previous post. Typo sorry –

    “note merely prodedlural” should read “not merely procedural”

  58. Funny how fannie mae now all the sudden worried about taxpayers after getting yet another $5 billion yet they werent worried about with corrupt Obama buddy Franklin Raines looting $100 million in personal fees, giving VIP loans to Dodd and giving a job to Barney Frank’s boyfriend and to be fair and I am sure greasing the lobby coffers of Republicans too…. and generally driving the business into bankruptcy.

    What a bunch of hacks. So Fannie gets $160 billion in bail out while they sue me and I am supposed to pay 100% on an upside down corrupt loan and eat a balloon payment at the end of 30 yrs.

    All the while they never admit to the name of the trust etc.

    Mmmm.I don’t think so.

  59. Ken Johnson

    Just my 2 cents take from my own docs and no sale date yet and I am definitely and obviously not an attorney and obviously don’t have one either just trying to “get it” and wish I could say these things to a judge for a start (would like to say a few more things) You may have similar issues – I don’t have MERS or Fannie Freddie:

    The entity named as beneficiary in the acceleration letter is not a beneficiary. The named servicer does not represent the beneficiary (customer reps don’t even know who it is and qwrs have conflicting answers with last one finally naming trustee bank but not the trust and definitely NOT naming the defunct originator named on the acceleration letter and NOD). The entity named as beneficiary on the NOD is not a beneficiary. There is no default to this party. This party cannot declare the amount of the default either. The servicer party named as contact on the NOD does not represent the beneficiary or even know about its interest. or what is owed to the beneficiary. The entity on the ADOT who is assigning “For Value Received” “All Beneficial Interest” is not themselves a beneficiary who can sell or assign anything. They never purchased anything and the robo signing fake executive signing the ADOT is not even employed by the non-beneficiary (pretender). The trust cannot accept any sale or assignment now and cannot accept an assignment with these several attributes (in default, past 90 days, only the depositor can assign, ect.). Their initial ownership and therefore their ability to foreclose is now in doubt. The proper receipt by an identified beneficiary of payments made in the history of the mortgage is now in doubt. The presence of a non beneficiary making transfers in the recorded chain of title clouds the title and no further transactions of any sort can legally occur until this is resolved. There was no notice of the change in beneficiary (as per bogus ADOT) as required by law. There was no way to discover that an illegal sale is proceeding which will cloud the title. Can an attorney say???? Harm – Emergency TRO -Injunctive Relief -Now -No bond – Merits – In interest of all society – homeowners and investors – No harm to Non beneficiary – Beneficiary not identified – No tender if not identified – note merely prodedlural – In the interest of both beneficiary and homeowner to stop illegal sale. Declaratory relief to quiet title. Real party in interest must stand up and prove up in order to take the house. Fraudulent transfer of ownership interest in real property has been declared and fraudulent sale and or transfer is being attempted. Fraudulent documents have been fabricated and recorded…..

  60. Neil Garfield says: leaving the debtor with a continued liability.

    Pat says: The debtor agreed to pay on the liability arising from the terms of the loan contract agreed upon by both parties at the inception of the obligation via a signature.

    The signature created a loan liability booked on the right side of the lender’s balance sheet that represents the current and future payments to be made by the debtor for the lender’s benefit. ( i.e. receivables or cash flow)

    The signature also created an asset, the note or written embodiment of the loan contract, which is booked on the left side of the lender’s balance sheet as the loan asset.

    The value of the loan asset and liability amount must counterbalance each other on a balance sheet ledger to be valid and is labeled as “the debt”. An owner of “the debt” has possession of the note and controls the right to receive the current and future loan payments (i.e. cash flow) Debt manifests itself on a balance sheet and gets transferred off one balance sheet and unto another.

    If a debt owner sold and irrevocably assigned its cash flow rights via a UCC article 9 assignment to an existing pool of like kind cash flow rights IN EXCHANGE FOR other valuable consideration as I have argued instead of transfering the note to a successor via a UCC article 3 negotiation, then control over the right to receive the loan’s cash flow is given up by the note holder and that entity cannot report the loan’s liability on the right side of its balance sheet ledger anymore despite keeping possession of the note. The debt owner’s intangible property rights and interests have been tendered whereby the note in its possession is destroyed as evidence of those rights and interests under the ordinary rules of construction.

    Since assets and liability amounts must counterbalance each other, the value of the note kept in its possession must equal the loan liability reported which after an article 9 assignment described above is zero or nothing. To claim otherwise is to admit balance sheet fraud. If there is no more liability to report that can counterbalance the loan asset, or note, THEN THERE IS NO CONTINUED LIABILITY under the instrument the borrower signed. There is only one debt instrument the borrower signed at inception of the obligation and the borrower never agreed to pay a liability amount for the benefit of securities holders and is not in contract privity with securities holders.

    The note, reported on the left side of the ledger, is worthless to its holder because its value has to equal the liability amount reported on the opposite side of the ledger.

    This is akin to a business owner deciding to finance its receivables because it doesn’t want to wait 6 months to recoup its outlay. A business owner extends credit to its customer manifesting itself as receivables if it doesn’t conduct business on a cash basis. An entity that financeed its receivables doesn’t have the right to receive and enjoy the receivables (i.e. cash flow) once they become paid by the customer and thereby can’t report those receivables on its balance sheet as if it will benefit from being paid.

    The lien granted to the lender is valid so long as the note has value as reported on the lender’s balance sheet. If the note is rendered worthless by an article 9 assignment of the debt owner’s cash flow rights, then so is the lien and there can be no mortgagee. How to explain to a judge that the note the lawyer is waving in front of him/her is worthless in a coherent and efficient fashion is a trick but I’m convinced this will all come out in time. We live in a balance sheet world and sometimes its helpful to get 10,000 ft view of things from that perspective.

    Bottom line is that borrowers’ signatures were used to capitalize securities offerings containing their own terms and provisions which made other entities joint and several with borrowers and this was left undisclosed at the loans closing which means 1) a meeting of the minds never occured and the borrower was fraudulently induced to grant its valuable signature or 2) the borrower is a beneficiary of the terms and provisions of the securities offering and has other undisclosed entities standing beside them in an obligtion to pay investors rendering any default by the borrower impossible. (Which is another motivation to never attach a PSA as an exhibit to a colorable claim to foreclose)


  61. Public banks can expose MERS fraud, claim houses for local communities
    Posted on March 1, 2012 by Carl Herman

    Leading author Ellen Brown explains in the video under ten minutes with Jeff Rense, and writes how public banks (and here) can expose the big banks as having destroyed legal title to mortgaged homes when they gambled with so-called “mortgage backed securities,” then take possession under eminent domain when nobody can provide legal evidence of holding title.

    The homes can then be rented or resold within their communities rather than be left empty, destroyed by vandals, or profit the banks that destroyed title.

    Another advantage of public banks is at-cost credit. Three examples of its benefits:

    1.They can lend to itself for infrastructure investment rather than sell bonds. This eliminates the typical 50% nominal cost increase by having to fund infrastructure through private debt.
    2.At-cost credit can provide 1-2% mortgages, reducing current nominal mortgage costs by nearly half.
    3.Public mortgages could supply all needed local tax revenue.
    The 99% have to hear about this from independent writers because corporate media cover the big banks’ assets.

  62. There is only one way to resolve this mess..Fire Holder, and Fire DeMarco,
    Get rid of Wall Street, Let the Banks fail and do not vote for Obama or any other sorry ass that supports these bastards !

    They want to pay for the crimies committed by the Banks, Wall Street and the US Government

  63. Demarco wants you to pay for the cromies committed by the Banks, Wall Street and the US Government

    Despite some green shoots in the economy, the housing sector remains weak. With 11 million Americans still underwater on their mortgages, some housing experts believe it’s time for more dramatic solutions.

    The idea of reducing the principal on the loans of underwater homeowners used to be a fringe concept, embraced by a few outliers. Today, many policymakers believe principal reduction is necessary to keep some troubled homeowners afloat.

    But so far, the nation’s biggest mortgage holders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, haven’t embraced the idea.

    Policymakers Split

    Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan has argued in favor of Fannie and Freddie writing down principal for homeowners. “We do think principal reduction is a step that’s important,” Donovan said Wednesday. “That can be good both for homeowners and for taxpayers.”

    There is one form of loan modification [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are not pursuing, and that’s principal forgiveness.

    – Edward DeMarco, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director
    But the approach has its critics, including the Obama administration’s own acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Edward DeMarco. The FHFA took over Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship three years ago, when the financial crisis prompted a massive bailout of the two companies.

    DeMarco, along with Donovan, spoke in Washington Wednesday at an event co-sponsored by the National Journal. DeMarco says Fannie and Freddie have modified more than 1 million loans using various means other than principal reduction.

    “There is one form of loan modification [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are not pursuing, and that’s principal forgiveness,” DeMarco says. “But that does not mean that we are not making great efforts to assist troubled homeowners in underwater mortgages that have the ability to meet a mortgage obligation.”

    DeMarco argues it doesn’t matter how home loans are restructured, so long as the payment amount decreases. Fannie and Freddie are doing this, he says, not through principal forgiveness but through “forbearance of principal”: charging no interest and deferring payment on principal amounts into the future.

    “This is an efficient way to provide assistance to the borrower [to] keep them in their home,” DeMarco says. “If the borrower is successful in this modified loan, it preserves for the American taxpayer an ultimate recovery on the debt.”

    Moreover, DeMarco says, current law doesn’t give him the authority to forgive principal, even if he saw fit to do so. “If there’s a larger macroeconomic or public policy purpose to serve by using taxpayer resources to provide debt forgiveness for certain homeowners, that’s the judgment of elected officials,” he says.

    Principal Reduction: A Moral Hazard?

    DeMarco and other critics of principal reduction say any policy that appears to pick and chose possible beneficiaries creates what’s known as a moral hazard. In other words, it creates perverse incentives for people to deliberately renege on their obligations with the hope of qualifying to have some of their home loan forgiven.

    Related NPR Stories
    Crisis In The Housing Market

    Feb. 23, 2012
    Bank Settlement Could Spur More Foreclosures

    Feb. 10, 2012
    Obama Outlines Fresh Mortgage Refinancing Plan

    Feb. 2, 2012
    But HUD’s Donovan says failing to reduce principal for qualifying homeowners creates its own moral hazard issues. Namely, every time a home goes into foreclosure, the neighboring homes decline in value. That means those neighboring homeowners end up holding the bag.

    Donovan argues the forbearance-of-principal approach doesn’t create enough of an incentive for homeowners to keep paying their mortgages — especially in cases where they are deeply underwater.

    “If you have somebody who’s going to pay for 10, 15 years and still isn’t building any equity in their home, what kind of message are you sending them? What’s the moral hazard there?” Donovan asks. “From my point of view, all these efforts on refinancing [and] principal reduction for the folks who are doing the right thing is going to solve a moral hazard problem.”

    John Dilorio is CEO of 1st Alliance Lending, a company that banks hire to refinance and reduce principal on some of their loans. Private banks see the value of principal reduction, he says, so why not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

    “They make the decision that refinance and principal reduction is more financially advantageous to them than foreclosure or short sale,” Dilorio says. “So how can that be the position of the private marketplace, but not the position of the conservator of Fannie and Freddie — who are in control of far more assets?”

    Pressure Still On For Fannie And Freddie

    Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie were not party to a recent settlement between major banks and state attorneys general. That settlement included an agreement to write down $17 billion worth of homeowners’ principal.

    Without Fannie and Freddie included in that arrangement, California Attorney General Kamala Harris says that means her work is not done. “The settlement we reached with the five big banks was good, but it was only one part of the whole issue,” she says.

    Harris says she’ll continue to work with other state attorneys general to put pressure on the Federal Housing Finance Agency to change its position.

  64. Great comments today. How is this playing out in Nevada? How is the John Hancock suit playing out? What can I take from the San Francisco recorder’s investigation into court before my sale date next month? How can a Alameda County Judge stop the bank’s fraudclosure? What can I suggest to my attorney? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks

  65. Goldman Sachs Japan Employees Have Done What Most Bankers Would Consider Unthinkable — They’ve Unionized

    Lisa Du | 2 hours ago | 205 | 1

    An American bank is making headlines in Tokyo as the effects of a turbulent year on Wall Street takes its toll—what may be the first ever Goldman Sachs employee union has formed in Japan, The Japan Times reports.

    Here’s a brief explainer on how this happened: Japan’s notoriously strict labor laws make it nearly impossible to fire someone. There are only three reasons why an employer can lay off a worker: poor performance, disciplinary/behavior issues, and economic constraints, according to Global HR News.

    In each instance, the employer must prove without a doubt that the termination of the job is absolutely necessary, or they may be ordered by a judge to keep the employee. In a country known for lifetime employment and customs that encourage an aura of constant ambiguous politeness, we probably shouldn’t be surprised.

    In most cases when companies want to let an employee go, they encourage the worker to resign or sign an agreement to leave, and that’s what happened when Goldman Sachs was laying off workers in Japan as part of the firm’s announced layoffs.

    According to the Japan Times, Goldman bankers were told that their work had become redundant and were given “mutual separation agreement” to sign that detailed severance pay and other services Goldman Sachs would provide. The signing of the agreement, however, is complete optional and simply a way for the firm to avoid future lawsuits. Employees are allowed to negotiate better terms or even get their jobs back before signing, and that’s exactly what three bankers decided to do. When Goldman Sachs didn’t budge in the terms of their agreement, they decided to join the National Union of General Workers Tokyo Nambu, later forming the Goldman Sachs Japan Employee Union branch.

    As this happened, Goldman had also lawyered up and decided to actually fire the employees, cutting them off from their salaries and other benefits, like residency sponsorships and insurance. But the union is still fighting, and are now going on the publicity offense by planning press conferences and sending out releases.

    See, technically, Goldman Sachs never had a reason to fire those employees so they actually have a case.

    Here’s why, from The Japan Times:

    … when laying off workers in Japan for economic reasons, there “must be a business necessity to resort to the reduction of personnel,” and companies must take comprehensive steps before actually laying off workers. Companies should institute a hiring freeze, reduce overtime and executive salaries, transfer employees, not renew those on fixed-term contracts, and solicit voluntary retirement.

    With Goldman Sachs setting aside $10 billion for bonuses in 2011, union members feel Goldman Japan has failed to take the necessary steps under domestic law to justify layoffs.

    Whatever happens, it doesn’t look like the the Goldman Sachs union is going away, and we’re looking forward to whatever the group may stir up in the future.

    Read more:–theyve-unionized-2012-3#ixzz1ntIg9BtT

  66. I will repeat it over and over: it is worlwide and it is moving and shaking.

    Goldman Sachs employees in japan have unionized!–theyve-unionized-2012-3

  67. @Joann,

    I completely agree with you. No one should be compelled to file for bankruptcy in order to figure out who the creditor is. It’s completely insane and it makes no sense to me either.

    And because so many people are growing more and more frustrated, even beyond limits, said limits will explode. We’re getting there.

    History has showed it time and time again. Trying to rewrite it as our government all the banks are doing serves no purpose other than buy them some time before the whole shebang falls apart.

  68. @Carie,

    1) I was once an investor. I used to have a 401K. It was invested. I no longer have it. It’s gone. Where did the money go? (That question is only rhetorical… for what I am concerned. I ask it because many people are in that situation)
    2) When I bought my house, the previous owner got a check since he had equity into it. Where did the money come from?
    3) In 2007 and 2008 we bailed out banks hand over fist (including foreigh ones such as in Lybia, Syria, Honkong and Malaysia). Why, for what purpose and where did the money go?

    Until we can answer those questions, we have to use the vocabulaty we have in order to try to convey certain realities and/or questions. There has been no word created to identify the source of the money for the very simple reason that… we don’t have words to differentiate all the different frauds committed. We have very few words, in fact, to define fraud: people are basically honest and fraud of that magnitude is unconceivable for most of us. Hence the lack of adequate words to describe it.

    Right now, we can only make do with the vocabulary we have. It’s completely obsolete (as our legal system) in the face of such a diversified and wide-ranging fraud but it’s the only vocabulary we have.

  69. Here is ANONYMOUS’ post again (re.subprime):

    First, “certificate purchasers” are the banks themselves (security underwriters), and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor—the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived—it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary), that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans), and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.
    Second, since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.
    Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default. However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights.

  70. Jim, on March 1, 2012 at 9:48 am said:

    “All of this doesn’t matter. All that matters is what judges will accept as truth. And It is most often the banks’ “truth.”

    I am afraid you are right about this. There should be no grey or complicated or hidden areas when it comes to people’s homes and neither judges nor anyone else should be able to just rule according to their personal point of view outside the law.

    All, I apologize for being stubborn in challenging the concept of an “unsecured” obligation that many experts see including bankruptcy attorneys and Neil. A person should not be forced into bankruptcy to challenge the validity of a contract or agreement. They should not have to spend down their assets paying the wrong party and if they have done this there should be restitution.

    It is still my simplistic point of view that there is no unsecured obligation by the documents signed by the homeowner. Read the documents signed. The party who has a right to take the home has the right to the payments. Right to the benefiit of payment and right to enforce the power of sale is a single party. When this party is paid in part or full the obligation is reduced by that amount. There are no other parties to the transaction agreed upon and signed by the homeowner. There is only an obligation to the party who encumbered the home or to whoever purchased “for value” the secured obligation from that party. Unpopular point of view I guess and not one that could be made in court I guess either but I guess I am just dense about this.

  71. Carie- i understand your angst at Neil’s repeated assertions that the investors funded the loans/mortgages/obligations or whatever. Having said that, I know a couple of things;
    1. If someone borrowed to buy a home from someone who had a standard, old-fashioned mortgage (non securitized) held by a local bank, (purchase money mortgage), then they got the money from somewhere. (duh)
    2. Not so with GSE rejects, where all that was in play was the sale of collection rights at pennies on the dollar. (so far so good)
    3. Now, if the originators had warehouse lines of credit with the TBTF banks, at the same time that the investors around the world were shovelling money to the investment banks who set the pools/trusts up in the first place.
    4. So, as the originators went under, leaving the warehouse lenders unpaid, (100s, if not thousands,went under), the mortgages, or whatever you want to call them, were already funded by the time they went under.
    5. So why would they need the investors’ money at that point? Seems they already had the money. From the warehouse lines.
    Just playing the devils advocate here, trying to look at things from odd angles. anybody else have thoughts on this?


  73. Neil—why, oh why, oh why, oh WHY, do you keep saying an “investor” somehow “funded” a mortgage…NO FUNDING–NOT BY AN INVESTOR, NOR ANYONE ELSE…you confuse the issue and obfuscate the truth—RIDICULOUS…STOP DOING THAT…it destroys your credibility every time you do it…please tell the truth.

    “…The money for funding the mortgage came from investors who pooled their money together. At the moment the borrower accepted the benefit of the loan funding, an obligation arose by operation of law between the borrower and the lender…”

  74. Case in point. Another Goldman Sachs inside trader investigated.

    Eventually, all the dots will be connected.

  75. @Jim,

    For now.

    I, for one, have absolutely no doubt that it will change. Slowly but surely. I realize that optimism is frowned upon and that it can deserve you the name “shill”, “mole”, etc on this site but all I need to do is look at how far we’ve come in the knowledge of what was committed by the banks since 2007.

    The hardest thing seems to be to explain it in a way that it makes sense for a judge. Many people might very well have gotten it (and I’m not one of them… too many pieces make no sense. I know it’s wrong but i can’t formulate it) but very few have, thus far, been able to adequately explain it. i happen to believe that it is because judges cannot fathom the extent of the fraud. It flies right in their face and compltely makes their job obsolete and irrelevant. i don’t think any judge wants to feel irrelevant. Irrelevance puts their entire life and role in society into question.

    Hard pill to swallow for anyone…

  76. All of this doesn’t matter. All that matters is what judges will accept as truth. And It is most often the banks’ “truth.”

  77. Monumental mess of such proprotions that no one wants to touch it with a 20-foot pole, no one wants to really look into it, no one wants to correct it and no one even wants to talk about it. In order to talk about it, one has to understand it and, regretfully, very few people want to spend the time and energy required.

    To top it off, those who do understand it either don’t want to explain it in a manner that makes it palatable or simply cannot because it isn’t and never will be. How does one explain “intentional and complete chaos”?

    We know. We live through it. So… what else is new? Become involved. That’s the only way to force our government elect to tackle the issue once and for all.

  78. Your always on target Neil.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: