Negative Equity Rising and Still Understated

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Negative Equity Rising and Still Understated

Editor’s Comment: 

In our pretend world which is being narrated by the Banks, the housing crisis is easing, people are starting to buy foreclosed homes for investment and domicile, and the defects in documentation were just paperwork problems that will get fixed. The foreclosures are real, we are told, the banks hold the assets on their balance sheets, the auctions were valid, the credit bids were properly accepted by the auctioneer as a no-cash offer from a bona fide creditor. Planted articles and stories across the media spectrum would have us believe that the worst is behind us.

In the real world, even those who wish to portray the housing market to be in some stage of recovery admit that the number of homes with negative equity is increasing as prices continue to fall far below the alleged balances due on those dubious loans and mortgages. And they admit that the amount of negative equity in each house is deepening to the point where, as in the movie Larry Crowne, the owner simply turns in the keys or waits out the foreclosure.  Strategic defaults are increasing rapidly as people realise that they can recover some of their losses simply by not making a rent or mortgage payment for as long as they can hold off the bank. 

The amount of negative equity is computed without regard for selling expenses and other factors usually totalling around 10%. So the “average” $175,000 house is actually at around $157,000. If the principal demanded on the loan is, on average, $325,000, it is easy to see why even the spinners must admit that the owner of such a home is likely to walk away from a bad investment. In order for there to exist a valid reason to stay, the homeowner must hold out for a price increase of more than twice the current value of the house — something that everyone concedes is not going to happen, even with inflation, for a minimum of 20-30 years. The stigma once attached to such a move is largely dissipating and even those who extend credit are beginning to soften up on using a foreclosure to deny credit — opting instead to charge more from a customer who otherwise had a stellar credit history. 

So in the real world, the housing market is still going down and it must — because the inventory of empty, abandoned homes is increasing. The re-sales, short-sales and even modifications are barely making a dent in the growing number of defaults and foreclosures on the horizon. And then on top of all that, despite the bank narrative, a new narrative is coming from the courts and law enforcement. The real world has millions of foreclosures that never should have happened. The real world has millions of homeowners who have every right to reclaim the title and possession of their homes. And that is the other reason why housing prices continue to fall below 2001 levels — even the buyers are aware that there is considerable risk associated with “buying” a home from a company whose claim to ownership is at best unproven and at worst an outright lie.

by THE KCM CREW on MARCH 6, 2012

Last Week, CoreLogic released their Negative Equity Report for the fourth quarter of 2011. The report delivered some important news. Let’s go over the key findings in the report.

What Is Negative Equity?

When a home’s current value is less than the existing mortgage on that home, the house is said to be in a ‘negative equity’ situation (other terms used to describe this situation are ‘underwater’ and ‘upside down’).

How Many Homes Are in a Negative Equity Situation?

The CoreLogic report stated:

“11.1 million, or 22.8 percent, of all residential properties with a mortgage were in negative equity at the end of the fourth quarter of 2011. This is up from 10.7 million properties, 22.1 percent, in the third quarter of 2011.”

This is important because studies show that people in a negative equity situation are more likely to default on their mortgage payments than people who have equity in their homes.

How Many Homes Are Approaching Negative Equity?

According to the report:

“An additional 2.5 million borrowers had less than five percent equity, referred to as near-negative equity, in the fourth quarter.”

Many experts believe that housing prices will soften in the first half of 2012. That will cause a percentage of these homes to fall ‘underwater’.

Bottom Line

History has shown that a percentage of those 2 million+ homes will enter the distressed property category as some families decide it no longer makes sense to pay their mortgage. Any increase in short sales or foreclosures will impact prices in an area.

118 Responses

  1. @ Enraged

    Folks Enraged is right. Stay away from securitization, 1031’s, 1099’s, trusts, etc..it will not help you, short-term.

    The basis for your argument starts at the beginning, when the ink dried. I, too was running around like a chicken with my head cut off, didn’t understand any of it, and my education is still short on the entire process.

    I can’t speak to how successful I will be in the end, but start from the contract inception. Stay with what you do know to be true. Read, read and read some more, check and verify. The case is in the details. You can find filings to the SEC, get your “original work product” from the closing attorney (it belongs to you), pull all the paperwork…deed, note and assignments from your local deed office and verify transfers…e.g. look at the place of transfer, state, city and check the companies who have taken the assignments, making sure they have no conflict of interest and are legitimate.

    Do some legal research…you can file a complaint on a napkin…seriously. File an injunction (use others filings as a guide, lawyers do, they have templates) a restraining order…Lis Pendens…buy some time.

    The other thing I have learned, they have to file something for you to answer it. With no information about their case and how they intend to proceed, you bounce off the wall, trying to figure out what to respond with. Read everything over and over, check the dates, times, signatures, parties, enclosures, accounting if you have a QWR), anyone who has touched your paperwork…has a piece of your information!

    As everyone here knows, this is not legal advice, as I am not an attorney or purport to be one, but educational sharing from one victim to another.

  2. The banks and government want us to sell our souls for a reduction.
    Further, there’s this nugget from the opening page on the “consumer relief requirements”:

    Servicer shall not, in the ordinary course, require a borrower to waive or release legal claims and defenses as a condition of approval for loss mitigation activities under these Consumer Relief Requirements. However, nothing herein shall preclude Servicer from requiring a waiver or release of legal claims and defenses with respect to a Consumer Relief activity offered in connection with the resolution of a contested claim, when the borrower would not otherwise have received as favorable terms or when the borrower receives additional consideration.

    Wow. In other words, servicers can force borrowers to sign away their due process rights for accepting principal reductions associated with the settlement.

    As expected, the monitoring elements of the settlement include a quarterly self-report by the banks, after which an independent monitor can scrutinize the reports. So the banks are essentially policing themselves here, while the monitor has to wait several months to review their work and see if they are not according themselves properly. This is an invitation to abuse.

    Taken from a web site ! To tired to remember the name it was unfamilar with me and I am to tired to care right now and very disappointed in our government. They are pushing the buttons of the American people. What a bunch of bull!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. @John Gault,

    I know something is up. I made the comment earlier that mainstream media has yet to touch upon the worldwide resignations. Jeez! They aren’t talking about the settlement, foreclosure, bank fraud and the likes. Can’t expect them to talk about anything but Rush Limbaugh losing sponsors, right? Now that’s real news!!!

    I found out today that France and Germany are talking about the massive resignations. I mentioned it to Yves Smith who poopooed it on the grounds that there are no comparisons from previous years and that, therefore, it is unimpressive since turnover is pretty much endemic in Wall Street. The thing is: it is NOT just WS. It is worldwide.
    And the fact that, indeed, there are NO comparisons from previous years is very revealing to me.

    What I don’t know yet is whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. I have chosen to give it a good spin. For all I know, I may be grossly mistaking and it is the other way around: the finalization of some sinister plan. I don’t know. I’ll keep positive about my spin until proven otherwise.

  4. Enraged, am I misunderstanding the USA Vs the fruadclosures? Abby From Calif, states it is a formality, for the settlement. Is this case filed in the court to be dismissed or squashed, by the judge for the settlement? If so, what a travisty. Our government is pushing our buttons. I know the crime is bad, worse than imaginable. If so I dont think I will sleep like a baby tonight. And for those whom saw the case law list for homeowner wins, those cases are what you want to copy and use. It is not easy for a pro se(propria persona) to know how to put a case together, if you copy a won case that fits your issues and claims it is much easier to win. I wish I had that knowledge and knew how to find case law when I first began my fight against this crime. I have sought attorneys, made trip after trip to talk to an attorney, and paid over eleveen thousand for help and wound up pro se. It is pretty scarey but far less scary when there is a case to follow and cases for case law, which is as important as statute law. Take the case law to the attorney you may find to help him also.

  5. @enraged – I think you’re right about something being up. I thought this when facebook announced it was going public. They do not need the money. I mentioned your guy had a 2008 article. He really did a lot of research for that one. I know – I’ve often pondered taking on such a writing, but I know how much work it entails and haven’t been up for it. It’s more or less annotated, which is a God-send to me and will be for anyone who reads it. I can’t tell you how much good info is in this lengthy article.

    http://www.edcombs.com/CM/Custom/foreclosure%202008_3.pdf

    Daniel Edelman is an Illinois attorney. If he can’t help a homeowner, I don’t know who could. No dough? Find him on Pacer. Imitation is the best form of flattery, right?
    Still got good credit or friends with money and wanna sock it to a deserving bankster? Find your tila violations (shouldn’t be hard) and rescind. Even if you must ultimately tender (or cut a deal with a new financing source), your tender will be essentially offset by any dime you paid for the loan (fees, points, whatnot) and every dime you have paid in as interest (we’re talking thousands and thousands) must be applied to principle reduction when determining the amt of tender. If you started out at 250k, paid 11k in fees, and 50k in interest since origination = 250k – 11k – 50k = amt of tender (gain of 61k!) Ya stinking hoo!
    But, your bankster most likely will not follow the fed rules which require them to do x and y first when you notify them of rescission, so you could end up in even better shape. Not an attorney – these are lay-person thoughts. We need an honorable benefactor or 10 (aka private money) to help us employ available strategies. Surely there are moneyed folks out there who would like to leave a better legacy for THIS country?

  6. Manor Mortgage Corp v Giuliano, 251 N.J. Super. 13, 596 A.2d 763 says that a broker is the CREDITOR when a loan has been table-funded but closed in the broker’s name. It is the only case I have seen which addresses this issue. “If the broker made the loan in its name, under the industry practice commonly known as ‘table funding’,
    the broker is a creditor…….” This was a rescission / TILA case in 1991.

  7. @enraged – edelman has a newer version from 2008 which has led to a lot of good info, like this:

    http://mortgage-home-loan-bank-fraud.com/legal/Homeowners-win-case-law.pdf

    I found this interesting because each case listed supports a particular argument (and that argument is listed).

    @dee – there is a case toward the bottom which might be of particular interest to you about withholding info.

  8. @John Gault,

    Thanks. I’ve grown a little weary of people running in every direction, listening to anything and everything, having no fool proof strategy, trying their best without an understanding of the system and ultimately losing their house for want of proper guidance.

    Securitization may be a great argument but it doesn’t save the house and it is NOT for the homeowner to make.

    The mere fact that that attorney spells out that the best defense is a strong attack confirms what I have said all along and practiced. And so far, it is working for me. I have yet to see a house saved by Nancy Drewe posts and i even find them dangerous.

  9. @enraged – kudos! You scored on that Edelman deal – the material at the link you posted today. I am only part way thru reading it and am pretty happy to see case law which supports EVIDENCE in lieu of hearsay from the banksters on some pretty salient issues, like default figures. It’s a very informative read which I’d sure call a must-read. Thanks for posting. (some of the material is state-specific, but a lot is not – the rules of evidence are the rules of evidence and TILA is fed)

  10. JAIl the BANKSTERs !

  11. About the bank resignations, I just wanted to say something else: up until a week ago, the news didn’t make it to mainstream press. Today, it is in mainstream press in both Germany and France.

    Still in fringe websites here in the US but it doesn’t mean it isn’t true: as we all recall, Livinglies was a “fringe” website for several years and, to some extent, it still is.

    What matters right now is that humanity is awakning. Slowly but surely. I predicted something like that way back then. I feel beter and better every day!

  12. OK. I admit: vengeance is sweet. Knowing those guys are in pain and flat broke feels good. I’ve wanted to read that for a long time. One at a tme, THEY WILL feel our pain (and, according to the Bible, they will actually feel it 7 times over…)

    Bradley Jack, ex-Lehman exec, charged again with forging prescription
    Updated 11:08 a.m., Monday, March 12, 2012
    .
    Bradley H. Jack, of Westport, a former investment banking chief at Lehman, has been charged for the second time in less than a year with forging a prescription for a controlled substance. Photo: File Photo / Westport News
    Bradley H. Jack, of Westport, a former investment banking chief at…..

    Latest News .Bradley Jack, ex-Lehman exec, charged again with forging prescriptionWestport weather: Sunny & 60sCustom colonial offers views, sanctuaryThe Real Deal / Advice for buyers on their ownIsraeli soldiers to speak at Westport ChabadCongregation for Humanistic Judaism celebrates Purim’Penguins’ plunge in support of Special OlympicsHouse fire doused after smoke detector alertLatest Westport property transfersPage 1 of 1
    Bradley H. Jack, of North Avenue, a former investment banking chief at Lehman and an owner the most expensive residential property in Fairfield, has been charged for the second time in less than a year with forging a prescription for a controlled substance.

    Jack, 53, was charged Friday by Westport police with second-degree forgery in connection with an incident last November when he is said to have forged the date of a prescription for a controlled substance at a CVS pharmacy that was made out to him by a Fairfield doctor.

    He posted $5,000 bond and is scheduled to appear March 21 in Norwalk Superior Court.

    Last June, Jack was charged with second-degree forgery and forgery of prescription after Fairfield police said he tried to illegally obtain Oxycontin and Ritalin pills at a local CVS pharmacy.

    In August, he was granted permission in Bridgeport Superior Court to enter the accelerated rehabilitation program, which if successfully completed, would allow him to avoid prosecution on the drug charges.

    Jack and his ex-wife Karin are listed as owners of a 20-acre waterfront estate on Sasco Point in Fairfield, the residential property with the highest value in town. The property at 1143 Sasco Hill Road is appraised at $34.5 million — and with an assessed value of $24.5 million for property-tax purposes — the property boasts five buildings, an in-ground pool, tennis courts and a stable.

    According to a list of tax-delinquent property released in February by the Fairfield Tax Collector’s Office, the Jacks’ unpaid tax total was also the largest — $271,923 owed on the estate dating to 2010

    http://www.westport-news.com/news/article/Bradley-Jack-ex-Lehman-exec-charged-again-with-3399542.php

  13. 270 GLOBAL BANK RESIGNATIONS – Part 3 OPEC OIL BANKS 3/11/12

    UPDATE 3-11-12 270 GLOBAL BANKS IN A SHAKE UP. UPDATE 2/24/12: Over 441 United States Bank Failures Since 2008-2012 Under Obama’s White House reported by the FDIC.GOV Complete Failed Bank List http://www.fdic.gov

    http://www.firstpost.com/topic/place/new-delhi-270-global-bank-resignations-part-3-opec-oil-banks-video-o0TkgyFbx2o-140-1.html

  14. @ dee

    I have had two attorneys, one was very experienced as a trial lawyer, but no good with real estate, trusts, assignments, etc…cost me a penny to get nothing, he was not competent and using my money to get OJT. Then went to a bankruptcy attorney, cost me more money, had a staff of 10 and didn’t finish the schedules and the BK was dismissed, all that money and no change in the result…WOW, is all I can say. This area of law is evolving and many seasoned attorneys do not understand the complexities of it. “Let the Buyer Beware”…and then you have the attorneys never meeting their clients and just using faxed paperwork to take your house. Really? Just my take here: but sometimes the simplest thing, the smallest thing goes unnoticed and it makes your entire case! As for the lawyers, you need to ask the right questions…how much do they really know about the client and case law and Statutory Law surrounding the “basic” elements of your contract, legal basis for the foreclosure and authority, what types of complaints do you have and where is the jurisdiction for this to be heard? This all matters, as each of our cases our different, but the same. The nuances and paper trail are the basis to your outcome, not just litigation and trial experience.

    My $.02

  15. @ Enraged

    I have an assignment in my possession, where the attorney for the “servicer”, assigned himself trustee and transferred the supposed loan into a “trust”, in a company HE OWNS PRIVATELY, verified by the North Carolina Secretary of State documents. He has never met the servicer, he claims to defend and the employees and notary listed on the transfer are not listed as employees for his firm, but on Facebook as working for the Defense attorney and the Servicer. That is just the tip of it…that’s what I getting at…not good for him. As I understand this, it is a disbarment for the attorney. Can’t deal with him yet, too much court business, but will address this later and use it in court.

  16. Just came across a very good article from an Illinois law firm about why it is SO IMPORTANT to sue the servicer BEFORE foreclosure is filed, why it should be done in district court on allegations of statutory violations and why insisting on a jury trial is a must.

    Even if this isn’t your state, the info applies to most since it is district court.

    http://www.edcombs.com/CM/News/News178.asp

    Read it, study it and save it. Then assess if your chances are better in your home state court or in district court and… GO FOR IT!

  17. It looks like much of the mess started with improper accounting management within Freddie and Fannie.
    If you are upside down on your home you can thank this F*****K’N government for supporting the crime. Send these Bastards to Jail !

    http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/1318/statementofcase.pdf

  18. Something is brewing and no one knows what it is and to whose benefit. There seems to be a worldwide clean up in the works (and I’ll keep monitoring the numbers). There are also talks of forthcoming war and today’s 60 minutes with ex-Mossad about Iran seems ominous.

    Our government has no money to wage a war while helping its citizens. It is stalling while selling us bill of goods after bill of goods (cheap, and with our money anyway). In three months, we’ll be back to where we were before Christmas: haggling about whether or not to raise the debt ceiling and increase taxes on the 1%. A choice has to be made between which war is the most important one: against Iran to help Israel (and the banks) or… for us so that we can keep regrowing the economy with our hard work and our ingeniosity. Government needs to pronounce where it stands and prove it.

    One thing seems assured: the longer government waits to act and seek redress from the banks on our behalf and the more certain they make it that we will have a bloody civil war here. They want a war; they will have one. Maybe not the one they would like to wage but it is coming. What is not in question is that:

    1) We cannot/will not be kept in the dark much longer;

    2) While it is campaign year here and billions are being wasted under the nose of the millions who lost everything in libel and slander against everyone and anyone, there is less and less evidence that any of the candidates deserves to end up at the White House in November. The people will see to it.

    3) http://www.The99declaration.org is becoming more active as time passes and the schedule of forthcoming activities and actions at the OWS level has already been widely published. There is a full-time contingent of people at OWS who have absolutely nothing to lose and who voice louder and louder that dying for justice is more honorable and preferable to becoming slaves and destitute. The movement isn’t just in the US but worldwide. It transcends any government and has the power to produce coups d’etat everywhere.

    No matter what form it takes, change is coming. Obviously not from Obama but the guy had his chance. If he blew it as royally as he has so far, his political career is finished and so is the career of everyone who refused to range on the side of the 99. The numbers speak for themselves: we can only prevail.

    Join the 99 Declaration. They need volunteers to help organize the forthcoming events. Contact michaelpollok@the99declaration.org to volunteer your time or send some money.

  19. When you watch the lisa Epstein video, she states this corruption stems from securities fraud. They made muuuucccchhhh more money by committing securities fraud on top of the money they already were paid , the servicing fees, the HAMP fruad, and then get to steal the house. Bidding on defaults they new in advance were set up to default, the insurance money on the defaults, it was open season to the greedy. Then tax TARP money to steal our tax dollars, all by sophisticated Con artist. Read Wall Street and the Financial Crisis, Anatomy of a Financial Collaspe. One big criminal entity with multiple heads of banks all envolved in the same crimes. Con games. They set MERS up as a shell game, Freddie and Fannie were shell games. Our government is imbedded with it all.

  20. CORRECTION: my earlier post, wherein I asked if anyone lives by a servicer’s office building and could hang around at quitting time, slip some employee a 50, and get some info or docs. I had said, tell them there’s more where that came from.
    To clarify, if there is more where that came from, it isn’t coming from me. Although I’ll cheerfully chip in. But not this week. Get back to me in a couple weeks.

  21. I have been suspicious from the beginning as to why Fannie/Freddie are so adamantly opposed to principal corrections/writedowns. They sold off false collection rights to default debt, so if they told the servicer/debt collector, “you have to clip 100k from this guy’s balance”, how would that or could that possibly work? The servicers/debt collectors would want to be reimbursed for the phantom debt which they could no longer collect on but which they paid for. Maybe this is why the servicers all got TARP loans. Which is curious in itself, because from a by-the-book definition, they are collecting payments on behalf of a trust. At .25% per loan per year. A 200k loan, they get paid 500 bucks a year, plus whatever junk fees they can foist on the hapless homeowner. Anybody here live by a servicer’s office building? How about hanging around at quitting time and slipping somone a 50 for some info? Tell them there’s more where that came from.

  22. It will be interesting to see just what is final on this agreement. And how long it takes to figure it out. The American public including myself has no respect, nor trust in our government officials. They have not earned it and the ones that did trust them have learned not to. They have lost our trust in them. I would love to be proved wrong. I would much rather have my trust restored in them. The loss of trust of our officials is scarey and disheartening. A hopeless feelling. I am a fighter though and wheres their is a will there is a way.

  23. Whistleblower Lawsuits Against Banks Extinguished in Foreclosure Fraud Settlement
    By: David Dayen Sunday March 11, 2012 11:47 am
    Tweet118

    I think my disgust over federal housing policy is just about complete. As you know, we’re still waiting for the actual terms of the foreclosure fraud settlement, more than one month after the announcement. But more information has dribbled out, not much of it to the good. Michael Hiltzik rounded up some of the more troubling issues. He mentions that OCC penalties will get folded into the settlement, basically charging $0 for their violations. The Federal Reserve did the same thing. He mentions the Ted Gayer study showing that only 500,000 borrowers will even be eligible for the principal reduction in the settlement, half of what HUD and other regulators promised. And he adds that the Treasury Department restored all HAMP incentive payments for servicers who failed to meet their obligations under the programs. As Hiltzik writes, “If the banks had shown as much forbearance toward their struggling borrowers as these three agencies have shown toward the banks, the foreclosure settlement wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place.”

    But it gets worse. Remember those whistleblower lawsuits announced last week, alleged fraud in how Bank of America abused HAMP? iWatch News expanded on those reports, showing the different strategies BofA used to delay and deny loan modification claims for eligible borrowers:

    The suit claims Bank of America:

    Told borrowers and regulators that a complaint was “under review” while internally classifying the files as incomplete.

    Parked cases with terminated or vacationing employees and sent payments to a “partial account” instead of crediting them to the loan, artificially inducing or prolonging a delinquent status.

    Tried to persuade borrowers that did qualify for HAMP to take a proprietary loan that came with much less favorable terms, a violation of the bank’s agreement with the government when it took the bailout money.

    And there was another whistleblower case, unsealed last month documenting appraisal fraud at Countrywide, now part of BofA. And there was a third whistleblower case documenting underwriting fraud on FHA loans. These whistleblower lawsuits, along with the investigations we know about on foreclosure fraud and securitization fraud and other servicer abuse, paint a picture of a complete and utter criminal enterprise at Bank of America and elsewhere in the mortgage industry.

    Well, guess what. The whistleblower suits were folded into the settlement, which is why they were recently unsealed:

    The $25 billion foreclosure settlement released Bank of America from a lawsuit charging the bank with fraud violations under the Home Affordable Modification Program.

    Gregory Mackler, a former contractor with the servicing outsourcer Urban Lending Solutions, filed the lawsuit as a whistleblower on behalf of the U.S. in July. BofA contracted with companies like Urban for scanning documentation and working with borrowers seeking assistance through HAMP […]

    A BofA spokesman said the bank received no evidence the allegations in the Mackler suit were true, and it focused on improving borrower experience through HAMP.

    “At Bank of America, HAMP is the first of numerous programs we extended to our customers in need of assistance, and it is central to our ongoing efforts to assist our customers who continue to struggle with economic factors, including unemployment and under employment,” the spokesman said.

    How could a private citizen’s whistleblower suit get extinguished in a federal settlement? We haven’t seen the terms, of course, but apparently the Mackler suit could have been filed under the False Claims Act on behalf of the US government, which was being defrauded. Mackler probably got a payout for his services, but the suit sought $5,500-$11,000 in fines per violation, which could have ranged into the billions. So when faced with documented proof of noncompliance with and abuse under HAMP, the government simply passed it off and folded it into their settlement, and for good measure gave back all the incentive payments owed to the same banks alleged to have defrauded them in this lawsuit.

    That would not have worked differently if Bank of America executives were in charge of the government’s actions. The government could have mandated principal forgiveness under HAMP, armed with proof of abuse as well as the associated foreclosure fraud investigations. And they didn’t do a damn thing. In fact they threw more money at the banks to encourage principal reductions, and will allow them to use those HAMP modifications as part of the settlement.

    If there’s anything approaching accountability in the Obama Administration’s actions against the banks, I’m not seeing it. And as for that vaunted task force, co-chaired by Eric Schneiderman, check out this revealing but little-noticed piece of testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) questioned Attorney General Eric Holder about the size of the investigative panel. He cited Phil Angelides’ recent op-ed on the panel, known as the RMBS working group, and how Holder committed only 55 lawyers and investigators to the panel which is about half of the investigative force put just to the Dallas Bank Fraud Task Force during the savings and loan scandal, a much smaller fraud. He asked Holder if the Justice Department needed more funds to hire more investigators for the task force. And Holder said, “No, we’re cool”:

    BROWN: And you of course are aware of the public sentiment of — of anxiety, frustration, outrage, pick your noun, towards the fact that so few people have been prosecuted. Talk to me about the working group, the dollars you’re dedicating of the $55 million increase you’re asking for. Is it going to go into the RMBS working group?

    HOLDER: The — I will say first off that this whole mortgage fraud problem — scandal that we are dealing with is something we have taken extremely seriously. We brought charges against about 2,100 people last year — over the course of the last few years in connection with the mortgage problem. The number of people who — I guess you mentioned there are 55 federal personnel to vote (ph) to this new the (ph) RMBS task force. That’s the federal component.
    But one of the things that I think is unique about that is that we’re working with our state and local partners, and in particular state attorneys general. And so the number of people who are ultimately devoted to that task force will be, I think, substantially greater than that. And I suspect we will also be adding people from various U.S. attorneys offices around the country.
    I think we’re looking at four or five that will be intimately involved in this. So I think that number will ultimately go up. We’re going to have adequate resources in terms of the numbers of people to do the job that we need to do with regard to the residential mortgage-backed securities working group.

    Brown also asked about extending the statute of limitations on some of these crimes (many statutes are nearing the end right now), and Holder said he’d have to talk to the prosecutors.

    In other words, this isn’t a priority for Justice at all. They could give a damn about accountability or deterrence. The Administration wants to hold some press conferences where they can tout relief for a couple individual homeowners, maybe with big novelty checks, while nobody who committed this total disaster that led to millions of foreclosures and millions more unemployed, the ones who broke the US residential housing market and engaged in a mass scheme to cover up their crimes, will in any way feel pain for any of this. That guarantees that we’ll be back here again, maybe in the near future. Because protecting corrupt and criminal banks only invites more corruption

  24. @Dee,

    “But the fine print took another month to finalize”

    Know why? ‘Cuz every screw-them-over-some-more-with-font-4 is what takes the longest to write in jargon that makes sense to no one and especially not to people who speak and write English.

    I bet that thing will be 457 pages long and will require a degree in finance, law and politic science to understand… Java’s right: better not cash that insulting $1,800 right away. That thing will explode within 6 months of implementation.

  25. I have an article in my case of a reply from Chase to Deutsche Bank, stating they are not the party of interest to sue in the Deutsche Bank, V. RECONTRUST, DUE TO THEY ONLY ASSUMED THE SERVICING RIGHTS NOT THE LOAN. Read the Chase Assumption agreement FDIC/WAMU and the extention agreement on the web. Chase only assumed servicing rights not beneficiary or interest /ownership rights. Non of them did.

  26. freddie, Fannie, BOA, Chase, Wells Fargo, none of them own the houses/mortgages. By law they have destroyed the proof of any contract, voided and nullified contracts, and have never lent money for the houses. The are all con artist debt collectors attempting to collect uncollectable debts. They have no authoity to modify, or give principle reductions on any of the securitzed loans. They are all pretending like the King that had no clothes, that they own all this. It is our job to prove they dont and to stop the stealth of free houses out right owned by the victims, by law. Not justice. Justice would never have allowed this and the people whom lent the money would know whom they are. This is all unconstitutional bank law! Not standing law and justice definately not constitutional law. No mods, no principle reductions, and no accepting $2,000.00 bread crumbs for your house. You own the house if it is a securitized loan. Fight for your rights. This is not just a house you are fighting for it is America not being turned into the dark ages. Mit Romney believes we should rent our own homes from the government. He is just another Obama. Rick Santorum. does not speak of the real issues surrounding the fraudclosures, but Ron Paul Does. I would vote Rick Santorum to keep Mit out of office. We need change for the better not change for the worst. Read the reports from John O’Brien and Phil Ting. 75%-84% of the assigments are faulty, invalid, and 100% of the securitized pools are invalid. voiding the contracts period. Read the OCC letter dated January 14, 2005, national banks law does not preempt state law. Soooooo! only unconstitutional bank law preempts all. ) See the Case Washington State V. RECONTRUST. all the banks are not in compliance with any state laws. Not just RECONTRUST. See Shawn Newmans article Freddie, Fannie Shell Game. and read Freddie and Fannie do not accept notes and state the servicers are not to claim they are the owners of the notes. They are all committing securities fraud and tax evasion. Look at all your letters from the banks. We are a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. Not we are the owner/beneficiary attempting to collect a debt. Con artist debt collectors attempting to collect an uncollectable debt. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust V FDIC, Chase/WAMU. Deutsche bank by their own hands swears Chase and the FDIC did not transfer the WAMU trust intime and the trust are null and void( faulty). NO GOOD! nothing owed on the houses!!!! See the employee depositions of AHMIS stating AHMIS does not own the loans/notes and never did. AHMIS IS JUST A SERVICER.(debt collector) all found on the web. AHMIS AND MANY MORE DEPOSITIONS FOUND ON STOPFORECLOSERFRAUD.COM under depositions at the top of the page. the AMHIS is right at the top and there is more on AHMIS at the bottom of the first deposition. I believe one is a whistle blower. See Gary Mackler Whistle Blower BOA HAMP fraud. See #BlackMonday Ex-Bank of America Empoyee can prove mortgae fraud part 1. It is my belief Freddie and Fannie bought up empty mortages knowing they were empty, cause Freddie and Fannie cashed the notes and turned them into empty securitized pools and sold empty notes in blank or empty securitized pools into stocks and retirement funds, and it was all a con game, and to have the real notes show up would prove securities fraud and tax evasion. So Freddie has a policy they dont want any notes and they did not sell the notes to anyone they gave servicing assumption rights to all banks to go and steal the houses as cons as debt collectors and gave them all instructions not to claim they own the mortgage. It is not just MERS that is a fraud beneficiary it is every servicer claiming they are the beneficary. The only fraud notes are fraud notes. There are no notes. This is just my belief. And so much for my dream the AG’s are using what is good for the goose is good for the gander, unless this is a pretend offering of the settlement to the judge on Monday.

  27. (Reuters) – A previously announced $25 billion settlement between five major banks accused of abusive mortgage practices and government officials will be filed in federal court on Monday, people familiar with the matter said late Friday.

    The pact unveiled February 9 is expected to result in payments and other mortgage relief for about one million borrowers, but must first be approved by a judge.

    Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup Inc and Ally Financial Inc agreed to the settlement after 16 months of negotiations with state attorneys general and federal agencies, including the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    But the fine print took another month to finalize.

    Negotiators had hoped to file a settlement on Friday, but the deal was held up at the last minute over a disagreement between Nevada and Bank of America, people familiar with the matter said.

    The state and the bank had negotiated a separate side deal to resolve an older lawsuit filed by the state.

    The nature of the Friday disagreement was not immediately clear. Representatives of Nevada and Bank of America could not immediately be reached for comment after business hours.

    The larger deal, to be spread out over three years, requires the banks to cut mortgage debt amounts and provides $2,000 payments to certain borrowers who lost their homes to foreclosure.

    It releases the banks from civil government claims over faulty foreclosures and the mishandling of requests for loan modifications. Forty-nine states signed the pact.

    The probe that led to the settlement discussions started after evidence emerged late in 2010 that banks robo-signed thousands of foreclosure documents without properly reviewing paperwork

  28. What is frustrating is trying to find an experience trial attorney. I’ve wasted time and money on my previous attorney.

  29. Chris is on the money. For those believing that pulling off anything that seems illegal or out of the normal bounds is wrong, it’s time to stand back and realize what’s going on here. The biggest heist in history needs to be combated like resistance fighters of a generation passed. Gum up their system with LPS-like documents. Let them try and figure out whether their forgery is the real forgery. Screw them. This is war.

    John, “agrarian serfdom” was your phrase, not mine. I’ll take agrarian any day over the dying-decaying military/industrial complex that’s killing everything for profit. I’d prefer to live like our great-grandparents than these fools on Wall Street any day.

  30. @Chris,

    What are you getting at? You must have some kind of theory behind your question… Because I am not sure I inderstand it. Are you trying to suggest that foreclosure attorneys are actually working for themselves and filing court actions, unbeknownst to the “real party of interest”, i.e. the bank, servicer, trustee or whomever?

    At this point, I would say that anything is possible. I have seen attorneys opening collection agencies so that they could purchase unpaid debts for pennies to the dollar and collect the whole amount for their own profit by filing suit gainst the poor, ignorant schlemiels through intimidation. My highly optimistic self tends to doubt it, though.

    Then again, had I been told that banks used robo signers, I wouldn’t have believed it a year ago. Had I been told that many people agreed to be modified upwards a couple of years ago, I wouldn’t have believed it.

    So… why not? But again, that would be a very dangerous long-term game to play for anyone who believes in any kind of justice. Oops! Whay am i saying? Attorneys do not believe in justice: they believe in the rule of law… If there isn’t any law forbidding it, must be allowed, right?

  31. I don’t know how many of you have considered this, but many of the attorneys working for the servicers/banks have never met their clients. They are relying solely on the papers they receive to foreclose. It occurs to me, anyone with a computer can download and copy deeds and notes from the local courthouse. And, anyone can get a PO Box, get a name and phony up “forged authority”…something to think about?

  32. The banks know the paper system is at an end.
    By that I mean the fiat dollar.
    If you look at it from that perspective then all becomes clear.
    They want “hard”assets when the music stops.
    This also explains why they haven’t been releasing much of
    the shadow inventory.
    It’s also why we have the”pump and dump” stock market,however
    the suckers (us) are not falling for it.We will however end up paying for it anyway.
    Our real national debt is closer to $30 tril.lion when you add in
    the GSE’s ,worthless “trash for cash’ Fed balance sheet ,student loans,dollar swaps etc.etc.
    Add in unfunded liabilities and State,city,private pension shortfalls
    =$130 trillion.+
    None of this can or will ever be paid.
    The paper currency game is over.He who has hard assets wins.

  33. Fire Demarco ! Jail the Banksters !
    Include a few officers within Freddie and Fannie.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-m-abromowitz/principal-reduction_b_1336723.html

    There’s a growing consensus among economists, investors, academics, and consumer advocates that more “principal reduction” — writing off a portion of a mortgage that exceeds a home’s value in exchange for a higher likelihood of repayment — can help avoid another wave of costly and economy-crushing foreclosures. That’s good for homeowners and lenders, and because millions of underwater mortgages are controlled by the government, it’s also good public policy.

    But the country’s two biggest mortgage companies are not convinced, according to Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency — which oversees the government-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    “Both [Fannie and Freddie] have been reviewing principal forgiveness alternatives and both have advised me that they do not believe it is in the best interest of the companies to do so,” DeMarco told Congress last week. He added that principal reduction is inconsistent with his mandate to protect taxpayers, who have invested more than $150 billion in the companies since 2008.

    This stance makes FHFA the “big boulder in the path to principal reduction,” according to former Obama economic advisor Jared Bernstein.

    To be sure, FHFA’s position may make some sense if the only goal is to protect the short-term interests of Fannie and Freddie. Principal reductions require the lender to recognize a write-down on their books today in order to save more money tomorrow. In the case of Fannie and Freddie, that may mean billions in temporary support from taxpayers — not to mention another unflattering headline.

    But more than three years into the conservatorship — with no clear path forward for winding down Fannie and Freddie and home values still weakening — FHFA should be thinking long-term. Here are three reasons why the agency should give its stance on principal reduction another thought.

    First, analysis from FHFA itself shows that principal reduction helps the books of Fannie and Freddie. A large-scale effort to revalue underwater mortgages — so that the loans reflect the huge drop in home values over the past 5 years — would actually save Fannie and Freddie about $20 billion over the life of those loans compared to doing nothing, the study found.

    And that was before the Obama administration announced new incentives for Fannie and Freddie to write down principal through the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP. For the first time Fannie, Freddie, and their servicers could get as much as 63 cents on every dollar written off. So those savings should be even greater today.

    Second, reams of economic evidence support principal reduction as the most effective way to stave off unnecessary foreclosure. Recent research from Amherst Securities found that severely underwater loans — where much more is owed than a house is worth — default at a much higher rate than loans at or below the home value. This is true across all mortgage types (prime, subprime, Alt-A, etc.), even after accounting for borrower characteristics like credit scores and debt-to-income ratios, according to the report.

    This should not be a surprise. Families that are hopelessly underwater often cannot see the long-term upside from making expensive monthly payments into a bad investment. On the other hand, borrowers with more equity are naturally more likely to stick it out in tough economic times by making deep cuts to savings or other areas of spending.

    That’s why principal reduction, which rebuilds equity by writing down what is actually owed, is such an effective foreclosure mitigation tool. Recent studies from the UNC Center for Community Capital, the New York Fed, and Santa Clara University’s Sanjiv R. Das confirm that principal reductions are often the best value to lenders compared to other loan modifications — such as capitalization or interest-rate modifications — because they prevent more foreclosures. Indeed, even the model FHFA used in their analysis assumed that principal forgiveness avoids more re-defaults than alternative modifications.

    Fewer foreclosures mean a stronger, more stable housing market, which undoubtedly benefits Fannie and Freddie in the long run.

    Third, the private sector has shown that principal reduction is good business practice. About 15 percent of private loan modifications in the third quarter of 2011 involved some sort of principal reduction. And that number was even higher for modifications done on loans that banks hold on their own books.

    Many private firms have worked out ways to reduce principal responsibly without creating skewed incentives for borrowers. The subprime servicer Ocwen has one particularly promising approach: a so-called “shared appreciation” program for certain underwater borrowers. In exchange for a principal write-down that restores 5-percent equity in the home, the borrower agrees to make timely payments and shares 25 percent of any future home price appreciation when they eventually sell. As of this summer — one year after the pilot began — Ocwen reported that its principal modifications were experiencing re-default rates of less than 3 percent, far below what’s seen in typical loan modifications.

    Despite this and other field-tested ways to write down mortgage debt responsibly, Fannie and Freddie refuse to embraced principal reduction as a viable foreclosure mitigation tool. And their regulator, FHFA — with full authority to plot a different course — has yet to urge them to do so. So instead of recognizing the losses we all have already sustained, the taxpayer-supported mortgage giants continue to put off until tomorrow the bad news of today.

    It’s time they rethought that position. Only then can we start mending a housing sector that remains one of the biggest drags on our economic recovery.

    This commentary first appeared in The Atlantic, and is co-authored by David Abromowitz, Senior Fellow, and John Griffith, housing policy analyst, both at the Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org.

  34. Lynn Szymonaik is far from a robo signer. She is an advocate against robo signers and has exposed them on 60 minutes and all over the web. You wont find her name on a fraud document. You will find her on Fruad Digest web site by Lynn Szymonaik.

  35. Great Question! ONE that so many are pursuing the answer. Is there an answer? What would intervention look like?

  36. I s there any way a private party can file an intervention ?

  37. Between some looking like they are working for the borrower? and the servicers…the under lying…deceptive agenda..is to string out the borrower…or get their right paperwork…for the sake of crediblity..or valid documentation from you….and allow time to run on so the borrowers mortgage can go upside down….that was the purpose of looking like they were working in appearances for the borrower….these known among themselves and the lender/pretender. that under the carpet…tight lipped it makes for a juicy forclosure outcome.
    Wolves licking thier lips.

  38. Mew TraK:
    Have I seen the name Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., somewhere before, is there a Lynn that is known among the ROBO Signatures?
    Posted on August 26th, 2011 in News
    HSBC FORECLOSURES AND THE NEWTRAK SYSTEM OF LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES
    Posted on26 August 2011. Tags: 3rd Circuit Ct of Appeals, angela j. taylor, bankruptcy, confidentiality, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, Former Fidelity National Information Services, fraud digest, HSBC, In re Taylor, Judge Diane Weiss Sigmund, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, Moss Codilis, network agreement, Newtrack, newtrak, niles and angela taylor, niles c. taylor, Pennsylvania, Udren Law Office, United States Trustee, UST
    HSBC FORECLOSURES AND THE NEWTRAK SYSTEM OF LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES
    By Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Ed. Fraud Digest,
    August 26, 2011
    On August 24, 2011, Circuit Judge Fuentes of the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, issued an opinion in a case appealing the reversal by the District Court of sanctions originally imposed in the bankruptcy court on attorneys Mark J. Urden and Lorraine Doyle, the Udren Law Firm, and HSBC for violations of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. Highlights from that opinion, particularly regarding Lender Processing Services and HSBC, are set forth below. In this decision, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions with respect to Lorraine Doyle, the Udren Law Firm, and HSBC. The District Court’s decision reversing the bankruptcy court’s sanctions against attorney Mark Udren was affirmed. The appeal was taken by Acting United States Trustee Roberta A. DeAngelis, In re Nile C. Taylor, et al., Case No. 10- 2154, 3d Cir. 2011. Ultimately, the Taylors lost their home. The sanctions imposed by the Bankruptcy Court, reversed by the District Court and finally affirmed by the Circuit Court, were minimal. Doyle was ordered to take 3 CLE credits in professional responsibility; Udren himself to be trained in the use of NewTrak and to spend a day observing his employees handling NewTrak; and both Doyle and Udren to conduct a training session for the firm’s relevant lawyers in the requirements of Rule 9011 and procedures for escalating inquiries on NewTrak. The court also required HSBC to send a copy of its opinion to
    all the law firms it uses in bankruptcy proceedings, along with a letter explaining that direct contact with HSBC concerning matters relating to HSBC’s case was permissible.
    The Court made the following findings:
    • HSBC does not deign to communicate directly with the firms it
    employs in its high-volume foreclosure work; rather, it uses a
    computerized system called NewTrak (provided by a third party, LPS)
    to assign individual firms discrete assignments and provide the limited
    data the system deems relevant to each assignment. The firms are
    selected and the instructions generated without any direct human
    involvement. The firms so chosen generally do not have the capacity
    to check the data (such as the amount of mortgage payment or time
    in arrears) provided to them by NewTrak and are not expected to
    communicate with other firms that may have done related work on the
    matter. Although it is technically possible for a firm hired through
    NewTrak to contact HSBC to discuss the matter on which it has been
    retained, it is clear from the record that this was discouraged and that
    some attorneys, including at least one Udren Firm attorney, did not
    believe it to be permitted. [The Udren Firm represented HSBC in this
    bankruptcy foreclosure.](Page 6-7)
    • LPS is also not involved in the present appeal, as the bankruptcy
    court found that it had not engaged in wrongdoing in this case.
    However, both the accuracy of its data and the ethics of its practices
    have been repeatedly called into question elsewhere. See, e.g., In re
    Wilson, 2011 WL 1337240 at 9 (Bankr. E.D.La. Apr. 7, 2011)
    (imposing sanctions after finding that LPS had issued “sham” affidavits
    and perpetrated fraud on the court); In re Thorne, 2011 WL 2470114
    (Bankr. N.D. Miss. June 16, 2011); In re Doble, 2011 WL 1465559
    (Bankr. S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2011). (Footnote 5, Page 6)
    • Doyle [the attorney from the Udren Firm representing HSBC] did
    nothing to verify the information in the motion for relief from stay
    besides check it against “screen prints” of the NewTrak information.
    She did not even access NewTrak herself. In effect, she simply
    proofread the document. It does not appear that NewTrak provided
    the Udren Firm with any information concerning the Taylors’ equity in
    their home, so Doyle could not have verified her statement in the
    motion concerning the lack of equity in any way, even against a
    “screen print.” (Page 8 )
    • In May 2008, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on both the motion
    for relief and the claim objection. HSBC was represented at the
    hearing by a junior associate at the Udren Firm, Mr. Fitzgibbon. At that
    hearing, Fitzgibbon ultimately admitted that, at the time the motion
    for relief from the stay was filed, HSBC had received a mortgage
    payment for November 2007, even though both the motion for stay
    and the response to the Taylors’ objection to the proof of claim stated
    otherwise.8 Despite this, Fitzgibbon urged the court to grant the relief
    from stay, because the Taylors had not responded to HSBC’s RFAs
    (which included the “admission” that the Taylors had not made
    payments from November 2007 to January 2008). It appears from the
    record that Fitzgibbon initially sought to have the RFAs admitted as
    evidence even though he knew they contained falsehoods. (Page 10)
    • The bankruptcy court denied the request to enter the RFAs as
    evidence, noting that the firm “closed their eyes to the fact that there
    was evidence that . . . conflicted with the very admissions that they
    asked me [to deem admitted]. They . . . had that evidence [that the
    assertions in its motion were not accurate] in [their] possession and
    [they] went ahead like [they] never saw it.” (App. 108-109.) (Page
    11)
    • At the next hearing, in June 2008, Fitzgibbon stated that he could
    not obtain an accounting from HSBC, though he had repeatedly placed
    requests via NewTrak. He told the court that he was literally unable to
    contact HSBC—his firm’s client—directly to verify information which
    his firm had already represented to the court that it believed to be
    true. (Page 11)
    • The bankruptcy court held four hearings over several days, making
    in-depth inquiries into the communications between HSBC and its
    lawyers in this case, as well as the general capabilities and limitations
    of a system like NewTrak. Ultimately, it found that the following had
    violated Rule 9011: Fitzgibbon, for pressing the motion for relief based
    on claims he knew to be untrue; Doyle, for failing to make reasonable
    inquiry concerning the representations she made in the motion for
    relief from stay and the response to the claim objection; Udren and
    the Udren Firm itself, for the conduct of its attorneys; and HSBC, for
    practices which caused the failure to adhere to Rule 9011.
    • Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the
    equivalent of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires
    that parties making representations to the court certify that “the
    allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or,
    if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support.” Fed.
    R. Bank. P. 9011(b) (3). A party must reach this conclusion based on
    “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.” Fed. R. Bank. P.
    9011(b). The concern of Rule 9011 is not the truth or falsity of the
    representation in itself, but rather whether the party making the
    representation reasonably believed it at the time to have evidentiary
    support.
    • As an initial matter, the appellees’ insistence that Doyle’s and
    Fitzgibbon’s statements were “literally true” should not exculpate
    them from Rule 9011 sanctions. First, it should be noted that several of
    these claims were not, in fact, accurate. There was no literal truth to
    the statement in the request for relief from stay that the Taylors had
    no equity in their home. Doyle admitted that she made that statement
    simply as “part of the form pleading,” and “acknowledged having no
    knowledge of the value of the property and having made no inquiry on
    this subject.” (App. 215.) Similarly, the statement in the claim
    objection response that the figures in the original proof of claim were
    correct was false. (Page 16)
    • In particular, even assuming that Doyle’s and Fitzgibbon’s
    statements as to the payments made by the Taylors were literally
    accurate, they were misleading. In attempting to evaluate whether
    HSBC was justified in seeking a relief from the stay on foreclosure, the
    court needed to know that at least partial payments had been made
    and that the failure to make some of the rest of the payments was due
    to a bona fide dispute over the amount due, not simple default.
    Instead, the court was told only that the Taylors had “failed to make
    regular mortgage payments” from November 1, 2007 to January 15,
    2008, with a mysterious notation concerning a “suspense balance”
    following. (App. 214-15.) A court could only reasonably interpret this
    to mean that the Taylors simply had not made payments for the period
    specified. As the bankruptcy court found, “[f]or at best a $540 dispute,
    the Udren Firm mechanically prosecuted a motion averring a $4,367
    post-petition obligation, the aim of which was to allow HSBC to
    foreclose on [the Taylors] “house.” (App. 215.) Therefore, Doyle’s and
    Fitzgibbon’s statements in question were either false or misleading.
    (Pages 16-17)
    With respect to the Taylors case in particular, Doyle ignored clear
    warning signs as to the accuracy of the data that she did receive. In
    responding to the motion for relief from stay, the Taylors submitted
    documentation indicating that they had already made at least partial
    payments for some of the months in question. In objecting to the
    proof of claim, the Taylors pointed out the inaccuracy of the mortgage
    payment listed and explained the circumstances surrounding the flood
    insurance dispute. Although Doyle certainly was not obliged to accept
    the Taylors’ claims at face value, they indisputably put her on notice
    that the matter was not as simple as it might have appeared from the
    NewTrak file. At that point, any reasonable attorney would have
    sought clarification and further documentation from her client, in order
    to correct any prior inadvertent misstatements to the court and to
    avoid any further errors. Instead, Doyle mechanically affirmed facts
    (the monthly mortgage payment) that her own prior filing with the
    court had already contradicted. (Page 20)
    • Doyle’s reliance on HSBC was particularly problematic because she
    was not, in fact, relying directly on HSBC. Instead, she relied on a
    computer system run by a third-party vendor. She did not know where
    the data provided by NewTrak came from. She had no capacity to
    check the data against the original documents if any of it seemed
    implausible. (Page 20)
    • Although the initial data the Udren Firm received was not, in itself,
    wildly implausible, it was facially inadequate. In short, then, we find
    that Doyle’s inquiry before making her representations to the
    bankruptcy court was unreasonable.
    In making this finding, we, of course, do not mean to suggest that the
    use of computerized databases is inherently inappropriate. However,
    the NewTrak system, as it was being used at the time of this case,
    permits parties at every level of the filing process to disclaim
    responsibility for inaccuracies. HSBC has handed off responsibility to a
    third- party maintainer, LPS, which, judging from the results in this
    case, has not generated particularly accurate records. LPS apparently
    regards itself as a mere conduit of information. Appellees, the
    attorneys and final link in the chain of transmission of this information
    to the court, claim reliance on NewTrak’s records. Who, precisely, can
    be held accountable if HSBC’s records are inadequately maintained,
    LPS transfers those records inaccurately into NewTrak, or a law firm
    relies on the NewTrak data without further investigation, thus leading
    to material misrepresentations to the court? It cannot be that all the
    parties involved can insulate themselves from responsibility by the use
    of such a system. (Page 21)
    We also find that it was appropriate to extend sanctions to the Udren
    Firm itself. Rule 11 explicitly allows the imposition of sanctions against
    law firms…In this instance, the bankruptcy court found that the
    misrepresentations in the case arose not simply from the
    irresponsibility of individual attorneys, but from the system put in
    place at the Udren Firm, which emphasized high-volume, high-speed
    processing of foreclosures to such an extent that it led to violations of
    Rule 9011. (citations omitted)(Page 24)
    • We appreciate that the use of technology can save both litigants and attorneys time
    and money, and we do not, of course, mean to suggest that the use of databases or even
    certain automated communications between counsel and client are presumptively unreasonable.
    However, Rule 11 requires more than a rubber-stamping of the results of an automated process
    by a person who happens to be a lawyer. Where a lawyer systematically fails to take any
    responsibility for seeking adequate information from her client, makes representations without
    any factual basis because they are included in a “form pleading” she has been trained to fill out,
    and ignores obvious indications that her information may be incorrect, she cannot be said
    to have made reasonable inquiry. (Page 26)

    Fraud Digest by Lynn Szymoniak ESQ.

  39. If you accept the settlement, they’ll have a signature for their offer of the right to steal your home and settle with you for $2000 in exchange for being free from blame.

    The living people have the Creator within…you don’t have to look out or up, just look in. The founding fathers knew the Creator was within and that we have a right to property.

    What God has put together, let no man put asunder.

    There is culpability. With a signature and acceptance of the offer of a settlement, you’d be hard pressed to find an attorney to fight for you for your home. It’s your home until you sign away your right to it. Accepting their offer for the home, whether they tell you, you can still sue, you think about it. Will accepting their money for stealing the home and then turning around and using the same judges and courts that gave them your home to sue them for it, going to get you the home back?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/mortgage-mortgage-settlement_n_1336257.html?ref=business

    The first shall be last (the first to cash the check) and the last shall be first (those who know that the property is still theirs according to the documents in the county showing the broken title).

    You may not be able to get back in now, but as people drop out by modifications that lead to foreclosure, or by bankruptcy that leads to loss of the home and clear title, and by the settlement that ‘forgives’ them of the criminal liability from theft in exchange for $2000, there will be fewer claims left that they will still be bound to.

    If there is no loss of right, or injury, there is no suit. If the settlement absolves them from their culpability in stealing, then ‘yes you can sue’, but that doesn’t mean you will win. There is always a ‘play on words in their world’.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, divine, allodial (The Creator within, serves no Lord), people, state, in jure proprio (in one’s own right), jure divino (by divine right)

  40. Fraudclosure | Lisa Epstein Strikes Again (VIDEO SPEECH) w/ Suprise Announcement
    Posted by 4closureFraud on March 10, 2012 · 13 Comments

    from foreclosurefraud.org on the right side column.

  41. Here is an HSBC scenario I found by a woman named Mildred, a customer of HSBC. Can HSBC be defined except by it’s crookedness to undermine any and scam off as much of people’s $’s as they can, and in order to gradually and eventually move toward their internal agenda to fraudulantly foreclose on as many as they can…luring people on, as if they are concerned, customer reps are set up unbeknownst to themselves to play along and play the internal game they don’t know about or even understand. Irene, HSBC replaced President, who was something like McDaungh before her, I believe. They bribe attorney’s if one happens to say, when they scheming casually pusure the question if one breaks their false foreclosure sales on a court house steps, if they can get that info, they can get there before you and buy or bribe them….and it sure seems like to me…that many attorneys are for sale…cause HSBC offers them the payoff and sell you out….BE Aware and be careful..HSBC cannot be underestimated in what lengths it will go to…they are up to their necks in corruption it seems anyway…a little more is no big deal….unless that it CATCHES UP to them with big penalty, fines, prosecution…judges look with a microscope at their paperwork….called ‘discovery’.

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/hsbc_mortgage.html

    Mildred of Oklahoma City, OK on Jan. 23, 2012
    Satisfaction Rating: 1/5
    This is a continuation of a complaint with HSBC, and our Constitutional Right to do a reverse mortgage. We followed the Federal requirements for a reverse mortgage. When we went to the internet to review our information before closing, we saw “an invalid account, no notice”. We notified the other mortgage company of the problem. We faxed a copy of what appeared on the internet. We did receive (2) written explanations from HSBC, after time had lapsed for the reverse mortgage. The first statement said “we still have the same account number, and the second, months later”, we do not know what happened to our website, and more about default. We continued to pay our mortgage, and make a notation of “an old account number on our cashier check, because we do not want to lose our home”.
    The remark about “default,” did not ring a bell, until recently. We have received numerous letters concerning a “short pay”. Was it possible that the internet account of an “invalid account number” was correct, but the homeowner was unaware? We feel we did everything we could in order to do a reverse mortgage. Our home is an important part of our retirement. We reported a discrepancy. We have had that account no. for more than seven (7) years, now all of a sudden it became “invalid”.
    We caught a major error before printing a reverse mortgage check on an “invalid account number on our behalf. Our problem was that our cashier checks always had our account number, and to find it “invalid” creates a problem with taxes and our reverse mortgage. How many accounts did we have with HSBC? Were we to sign federal documents when we had documents in question, of an account change for our reverse mortgage? Does HSBC owe us monetary compensation for their website?

    What do you think?

  42. E.Tolle,
    Agrarian serfdom was no better than debt serfdom.
    It was enforced by the sword,and yes this time it will
    be enforced by the gun.

  43. @Patrick, et al – do you see relevance of this information (below) to your position on the ‘treatment’ of securitized notes? I think it’s at least related since two parties have (or did at one point?) an interest in the debt obligation. I am still struggling with the identity of the note owner when there is securitization. In the trust created by a dot, say, it is the trustee who holds (one of the two forms of) title in trust for the benefit of the beneficiary, yet the dot trustee has no beneficial interest of his own. Therefore, it can’t be said (nor does it appear necessary) that either the ben or the dot trustee literally ‘owns’ anything, tho they each have rights and at least the dot trustee has duties, as well. (It’s weird and the dot is actually a special animal because the dot trustee does in fact hold one form of title to the real estate, but he has no beneficial interest all the same)
    So when a note is securitized, assuming all were done properly, akin to the ben in a dot, the derivative buyers don’t own the note. The sec’n trust holds the note in trust for the benefit of the deriv owners or ? 13 trillion dollar question to me.
    As you point out, enforcement of these notes requires two things: ownership and the right to payment. So, a note at least for enforcement must be 1)”owned” by someone and 2) that someone must have the right to payments.
    The deriv owners don’t own the note. It’s held in trust and isn’t my belief that the deriv owners may not also own the note pursuant to relevant trust law accurate?
    This arrangement seems to ‘work’ for that gang UNTIL there’s default. (The banksters took default insurance for their own benefits – next on list) Enforcement appears to require unity of ownership and right to payments and no one has both those.
    Now the deal below describes what must be done when a loan becomes a cdo, which is not really the same thing as what’s going on in sec’n, or at least I don’t know that these are cdo’s. That assessment could change when there is more of the warranted and long overdue look at the guarantees made by master servicers or gse’s or others. When there is default, the provisions of the dot
    say the default triggers X. But there is nothing in the arrangement of sec’n of the note -with the note being held in trust – which could trigger a change in the lack of unity of ownership and right to payment in the note, which unity is required contractually if not by the UCC, right? It isn’t like “bzzzzt, the note’s in default, so now the deriv owners own it”. I suppose a look at promissory notes held by other trusts would be informative, but just now, I have no such stuff to look at. (anyone?)

    Collateral Assignment of Mortgage or Deed of Trust
    AUTHOR: D. Dickard

    DEFINITION

    A collateral assignment of a Mortgage or Deed of Trust is primarily a personal property right, i.e., the rights to the underlying Note itself given to the assignee, but the collateral assignment can be insured if certain steps are followed. One way to look at a collateral assignment is that the Note and Deed of Trust now have two beneficiaries, both of whom must be dealt with if the Deed of Trust is to be foreclosed, released, or reconveyed. When a Note and Deed of Trust are created, they become a receivable, or asset, in the hands of the lender. If the lender itself subsequently decides to raise cash, they can sell the asset to another investor and assign the Note and Deed of Trust outright to that investor. Sometimes the original lender decides instead to raise cash by borrowing money from another lender. As part of that transaction, they can pledge that asset as security or collateral for the loan they are receiving. The collateral assignment is the document that is recorded to show that the original lender used the asset as security to borrow money, rather than selling the asset outright to a new investor.

    PERSONAL VERSUS REAL PROPERTY
    The holder of a Collateral Assignment does not own an estate in real property. This is because the collateral they hold is the promissory note itself, as opposed to the lien against real property created by the Deed of Trust. Default by the original lender on the collateral loan does not directly entitle the collateral assignee to foreclose on the Deed of Trust. This makes sense if you consider that the property owner should not be vulnerable to losing their property to foreclosure unless the property owner itself has defaulted on the original Note and Deed of Trust. By law, a promissory note is personal property, which is governed by the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. If the original lender defaults on the collateral loan but the property owner has not defaulted on the original loan, the collateral assignee must assert its rights to the original promissory note pursuant to the UCC. See related topics, Uniform Commercial Code.

    LENDER PRIORITY
    It is common for both the original lender and the collateral lender to have simultaneous, proportionate rights to the original Note and Deed of Trust. One reason for this is that the collateral loan is often for less money than the original loan. When this scenario occurs, the original lender will not want to assign all of its rights to the original security to the collateral lender. Accordingly, anyone dealing with a Deed of Trust that has been collaterally assigned should presume that both lenders have rights to that security. If a collaterally assigned Deed of Trust is being paid off, either both lenders should sign the release or the collateral lender should reassign its rights back to the original lender. If the property owner has defaulted on the original Note and Deed of Trust and a foreclosure is looming, the foreclosure should be conducted on behalf of both lenders and the foreclosure proceeds should be distributed according to their proportionate interests in the original Note and Deed of Trust. As will be discussed further in the next section, it is critical that the collateral lender has actual possession of the original promissory note. Even if a collateral assignment is recorded in the real property records, the UCC will still give priority to the actual holder of the original note. See related topics, Uniform Commercial Code.
    TITLE POLICY TREATMENT
    The willingness of title companies to insure a collateral assignment will vary from state to state. Some states will be prohibited from issuing loan policies on collateral assignments because the primary collateral (the promissory note) is characterized as personal property. Title companies that are willing to insure a collateral assignment may do so via a new loan policy, but will typically insure by endorsement to the original loan policy. There is one common denominator to every request to insure a collateral assignment; the only way to validly transfer a note is by written endorsement on the original, together with physical transfer of it to the new lender. Before agreeing to insure a collateral assignment, the title company should inspect the original note to verify that the collateral assignee is the current holder and that any chain of endorsements is consistent with the recorded chain of assignments. In some cases, the title insurer will accept written assurances of these facts from a reputable lender or escrow holder in lieu of inspecting the original note. However, in the event that the title insurer cannot verify these facts to their satisfaction, they may either refuse to insure the collateral assignment or will except from coverage any loss or damage incurred due to failure by the collateral lender to hold the original note. The title insurer should also decline to provide any type of UCC coverage, because the issue of UCC security priority is beyond the scope of real property interests covered by a title policy.

    Title policy endorsements insuring collateral assignments contain the following language:

    The Company assures ‘the Assured’ (a) That the beneficial interest under the mortgage referred to in paragraph ___ of Schedule ___ has been assigned to the Assured as collateral security; (b) That no reconveyance either full or partial of the insured mortgage or any modification or subordination thereof appears in the public records. The Company hereby insures the Assured against loss which the Assured shall sustain in the event that the assurances herein shall prove to be incorrect.

  44. Hey Shelley,

    I’ve noticed that you post things but you forget to post the website. Do you know what that one is? Makes it a lot easier than google it. My computer is riddled with bugs and it’s incredibly slow…

  45. It’s gona get hectic and exciting!!!

    Springtime for Occupy: Movement’s Plans For Coming Weeks and Months Sunday, Mar 11 2012

    Apparently Occupy WS hasn’t been hibernating, they got busy organizing in a way that will impact the 1% where it counts…

    By ALAN FARNHAM
    March 8, 2012

    It’s shaping up to be a busy spring for Occupy. The movement born last year in a New York City park has come roaring back to life this week after a period of hibernation. It promises to be even livelier in weeks and months to come.

    On Monday, according to the Sacramento Bee, a crowd numbering in the thousands, including Occupy protesters, converged on California’s capital to denounce soaring college tuition costs. Chanting “You’ll hear us out, or we’ll vote you out,” they tried to occupy the capitol rotunda. Some succeeded. In what the Bee called “a massive show of force,” 100 California Highway Patrol officers arrested 68.

    Occupy is taking credit for the White House’s recent decision to move a May meeting G-8 leaders from Chicago, where Occupy and other groups had threatened protests, to safer and more remote Camp David. “We scored a victory, forcing them to retreat to the back woods of Maryland,” Andy Thayer, Occupier and spokesperson for the Coalition Against NATO/G-8, tells ABC News.

    Protests still will be mounted, he says, against NATO, which has chosen not to flee Chicago and will meet there as planned. “There’ll be a mass march on the NATO summit,” says Thayer, “not only a march, but any number of other activities. It’s unclear whether it will be on the 19th or 20th. We will decide in the next few days.”

    All around the U.S., other Occupy actions are in the works.

    John Minchillo/AP Photo
    An Occupy Wall Street protester holds a sign… View Full Size

    Rick Santorum Wins Big in Kansas Watch Video

    Obama: ‘We Can’t Drill to Lower Gas Prices’ Watch Video

    GOP Hopefuls Look to Key Southern Primaries Watch Video
    Next week Occupy St. Louis will host a Midwestern conference of regional Occupy groups, where Thayer will speak.

    In Manhattan, veterans of the original Occupy Wall Street have just returned from a five-week bus tour of 12 Northeaster cities, where they met with counterparts to exchange ideas, network and offer seminars on such practicalities as how to organize a march. “It was pretty cool,” says Occupier Pete Dutrow, who says he has been “pretty much a full-time activist” since the Occupy movement started. He was a member of the Finance Working Group in and has now moved on to other projects.

    Regarding money, Occupiers should start to get support later this month from a new entity called the Resource Movement Group (RMG), bankrolled by wealthy supporters sympathetic to the movement. The backers include Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s, as well as Danny Goldberg, former manager of Nirvana. Their goal is to raise $1.8 million, to be given out as grants of up to $25,000 each to protesters whose projects win RMG’s approval.

    A web posting by Occupy’s General Assembly describes RMG as “a fund source that believes Occupy is ready to transit from being a series of spontaneous actions to a more strategic national movement.”

    On April 28, Occupy Cleveland will kick off a celebratory event called Occupy The HeartFest, which will serve as a kind of warm-up for the NATO protests in Chicago and for a nationwide General Strike planned for May 1st.

    The May Day General Strike calls for workers and students around the country not to show up for work or school. The idea, say organizers, will be to show the “1 percent” what life without the “99 percent” would look like. In New York City, Occupy Wall Street has discussed a morning disruption of commerce, followed by a mid-day demonstration in support of immigrant rights, capped off by an evening march.

    On May 9, Bank of America shareholders will hold their annual meeting in Charlotte, N.C. They’ll have company. Occupy’s protest plans for the meeting are in flux, but organizers view it as an opportunity to agitate against BofA’s and other banks’ home foreclosures.

    Continue here for video coverage:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-movement-plans-spring-surprises/story?id=15870450#.T13nB_V9qCg

  46. please pass this on to everyone!
    Fraudclosure | Lisa Epstein Strikes Again (VIDEO SPEECH) w/ Suprise Announcement

  47. ”Make no mistake, even the pretense of democracy that we have now is over in America. We are returning to the dark ages.”

    Bring it on. Better to return to the dark ages of agrarianism than to the securitized world they’ve fashioned. Make no mistake, the societal model that TPTB will push to save, at gunpoint, will be one in which we slave for the continuation of their leverage model; one in which we work and they profit off of our work, the toiling having nothing even remotely connected with society’s betterment, only their profit margin. They consider us a commodity. Death to Wall Street.

  48. History repeats itself. We need to teach our young to teach their young, of this internal crime against people inside their own government and to always get involved and be political. My youngest son is very political and his now eleven year old has been political since she was eight years old and is aware of all the politics going on and carries on an adult conversation with knowledge of the politics going on. I have always stressed to my children to have a mind of their own, I could be wrong, seek your own answers and if I can argue mine are right then I am right, it you can prove me wrong then I am wrong. We debate all the time. When my children were very young, one of my sons told me this must be true cause you say it is mom. I stopped the car and told my children never go by what someelse says, have a mind of your own and seek the truth. And debate me. Bad mistake they always have since! My oldest son is now becoming political but not enough. Only because he has just woke up to the crimes of our government. My daughters are only a little political. My husband is very political but always votes a little different than I do and thinks different than I do. We all have that right. But for the most part we agree on the major issues, but only after many debates between each other. I do know squeeky wheels get changes done. Contacting our represenatives and public petitions make changes. I understand I am personally causing heated debates in the senate here in Washington state. I am hearing complaints from a party that I am causing waives and he thinks this is bad. wants a meeting with me. However someone I know involved with politics says i am a good squeeky wheel, and someone whom thinks I should stop being a squeeky wheel and thinks he should be able to ask me not to speak my piece is someone I dont give a lot of credit to. I wonder what his agenda is. Must not be the same agenda, but I will talk to him.

  49. They should not be resigning they should be trucked off to jail at this speed, but this is a great sign they dont think the settlement is going to work and they are bailing. Thanks for the update.

  50. The biggest problem I have now is that after
    going down that rabbit hole I now realize;
    The whole system has been fake since the 70’s.
    It was certain to fail from day one.
    History repeats
    It was just a matter of time till everything paper was doomed to
    fail.
    2008 was just round 1.
    The baling wire and duct tape now holding the whole financial system
    together is failing.
    The only question now is if the constant barrage of Govt.& MSM
    lies can keep it going to get it to the last ever presidential election.
    Make no mistake .even the pretense of democracy that we have now ,is over in America.We are returning to the dark ages..

  51. I have always been political standing my ground and asking everyone to get their heads out of the sand and vote and call, write or email their repres. Long before this mess became unveiled to so many now. The credit score companies, and the banks were on my dirt list as organized loan sharks. I did not have a real clue to how bad it was, I knew it was bad but not this bad. I was involved with the grassroots group Ida Ballisoites and Helen Harlow whom were able to obtain the largest ammount of signatures on a petition ever, to stop sex predators also, and implimented awareness classes in he schools from Kindergarten to the twelth grade, to be aware of sex preditors and how to protect themselves. If I could I would be a full time advocate for justice. I have to eat too. I was financially harmed twice, once by a corrupt mayor in Auburn, Washington I have absolute proof of and then the banks. So I dont have the extra money to hire help at my business so I can do more. I inform people as much as I can by computer and go to meetings when I can get a family member to run my spa. My husband just had cancer surgery and wont be back to help me. He is free of cancer, but has been recovering for four months and is working for my son his shop making excavator buckets and many other parts for a good income. That will make a difference for us. So I run this place thirteen to fourteen hours a day and have in the past for over thirty years now. I am trying to bring the mayor to justice also. I have absolute evidence including deposititons, but the courts are full of corrupt judges and my attorney I hired throw my case under the table. He called me and asked me if I would accept a million dollars from the city, and he said before I answered I dont think you will. And I said that wont even buy my property back. The first brief he wrote was an amended complaint, that allowed all my Pro se evidence and my served summons and complaint removed from court as he sat silently by allowing the city to do this to me. I was not self educated in law and had won the case by default and hired him to file the default. He instead filed an amended complaint that I had refused to sign, for a week and then he sent me a redone one I signed, but he slipped pages out that I can prove dont have the fax date of March 03, on them and slipped in the fax dated pages of a week earlier April 23, 2007 all obvious on the pages filed. Then sat in silence while the city removed all my evidence and filed appearances and removals while being timebarred from defense, and cliamed I was on a flat statute of limitiations and did not file timely and had me thrown out of court. Filed false affidavits in the court. I am fighting them for fraud upon the court and felonies. The mayor policy lied to me and Breached his oath of office to keep my small business off my commericial property and I have proof in color..I am in the middle of suing the attorney also. The judge told the attorneys attorneys I had proven Breach by my attorney in color, yet dismissed my case, but he made sure my ex attorney did not get another 125,000.00 in fees from me.in his counter suit.. How just is that? All the city attorneys and the Washington State judges are members of the same Washington State Insurance Pool of Authorites. and all have a conflict of interest in judgment against a case against a city official insured and protected by contracted attorneys to this insurance pool I have a real fight against crime in the courts by the attorneys and judges and the banks and judges. Our state is a corrupt as it gets. A well known attorney I am sure you have heard his name and read some of his doc, here that is fighting for the people, was warned not to got to the Clouded Titles meeting a few weeks ago and speak, and the “rumors” are the Wa State bar warned him not to. I only hear this by rumor, I know he did not come and I was there and he was suppose to be a speaker.

  52. 254 Resignations From World Banks, Investment Houses, Money Funds – 11 March 2012 – It’s another 18 more than yesterday…

    Posted on March 11, 2012 by lucas2012infos | Leave a comment

    http://www.facebook.com/MassResignations

  53. @Shelley,

    And you know what is, actually, killing us all?

    The whole fraud thing didn’t take place overnight. We were there all along, not observing, not paying attention, not asking questions, not caring about much other than me, myself and I. My house. My kids. My job. My vacations. My retirement. My charities (needs the feel-good thing in our life, right?)

    So long as government didn’t cause any major upheaval into our lives, we were happy with it. Silence gives consent.

    And when things started happening, we asked government to handle it. We gave the psychiatric ward’s key to the inmates. Carte blanche. “Go do your government job and fix it for us”. And we looked all surprised and hurt when they either:
    1) Made it worst by trying to save their own skin before anyone else’s
    2) Were so incompetent that they hired the culprits instead of launching investigations right of the batt
    3) Starting pointing fingers in every direction while running for cover, capitalizing on the financial debacle, stashing millions away from insider-trading info and doing nothing…
    4) Or worst yet: were at the origin of the whole shabbang.

    What’s killing us all is that… we know it. We saw it take place, from beginning to end.

    I’ve got news for everyone: the writings may have been on the wall since 1945 but it makes absolutely no difference if they were in a language that we couldn’t read!!! Only a very few number of people absolutely knew what was happening: those who concocted it, had the vision of it and endeavored to make it happen. Those are the true culprits. They have it coming. That’s what justice is all about.

    Everyone else was only a manipulated participant. Just like us. Let’s now observe justice at work and, instead of taking it for granted like we did everything else, let’s really celebrate it. What we can’t do is start feeling all depressed and miserable because it’s taking soooo long! Didn’t happen overnight. Instead of looking at how much there is to do, let’s concentrate on every little progress in the right direction.

    That’s the only way.

  54. Sure would be nice if two negatives (two frauds = a positive) and the good guys trick the bad guys and we win! Going home to sleep better with hope tonight, that millions may be able to wake up from this ongoing hell.

  55. @Shelley,

    Dreaming is good. Dreaming is healthy. Dreaming beats living in a nightmarish hell any day of the week…:)

  56. Thanks you too! I sure hope we are right! And not just dreaming.

  57. @Shelley,

    I think you’re starting to see what I see. Why do you think I keep posting those bank resignation numbers?

    When you actually look at the list and at the links, you get quite an assortment of interesting reasons for the rats jumping off the ship. A few (very few) are being immediately recycled to another bank but the great majority resigns years ahead of the their contract expiration, because of ongoing investigations. Look at the number of Goldman Sachs guys who’re gone!

    Your hope that the AGs are actually pulling a bankster on those guys might not be so farfetched after all… and looking at it that way allows me to sleep like a baby. Getting angry over the situation is only killing you. Doesn’t do anything to the bankers. I’m done killing myself. Now, I spread the cheers because you know what? If you want something to happen, all you have to do is repeat it over and over. People catch up on the spin you put on it and… before you know it, it becomes everyone’s reality.

    Banksters are jumping ship. There’s a big clean up going on. It’s bigger than Obama and Romney. It’s worldwide. Good is triumphing evil.

    Have a terrific night!

  58. @ Carie,

    I did show up to the unlawful detainer telling the judge this was mortgage fraud and the DA, who I thought at the time, was suppose to be there helping me (I knew nothing of law). All the judge did, in my observation, was count the dots on the ceiling tile until I was finished. A stranger to me, a woman, was in the court room and after the hearing outside she said, “That was B.S. Go trash the heck out of that place. No one can say how you lived.

    Left with anger and morals, my stunned disbelief leaned towards the morals. This was 2009 and today I still wish I got the bulldozer.

  59. Enraged, it just came to mind, that maybe the AG’s are pulling the same dirty tricks on the banks, the banks pulled on us. WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER”, a FRAUDSETTLEMENT, like the fraudclosures, with promises to send the paperwork for the finaly signing and it never comes, while the truth is exposed and their goose is cooked. Paralleling lawsuits with fraudsettlements!? Could we be so lucky? It would serve us well to use this tactic to bring them to justice. Some of the same dish they dished out to us, but for the good of America instead of the devastaion of America. We can only hope and use our imaginations for now. Is trickery allowed to bring criminals to justice?

  60. @Shelley,

    Preaching to the choir, aren’t you?

    Been doing that for months. It doesn’t do one bit of good. Until banks actually start failing (and with the recent 236 bank resignations worldwide and counting, something is definitely boiling… Plus governments are going to run out of money very fast with the constant bailouts of everybody and his brother. So it is bound to happen and to happen fast) and they lose even more than they have yet.

  61. The matter is always the same: You wouldn’t forge a deed if you rightfully had ownership or authority of any property. There would be no need to. The judges know this, as they breath every day and ignore it.

    Secondly, when you do not loan money to someone, you have no right to collect anything from them or take their property. Contract law is very simple…and that is what this is! A contract is made up of offer, acceptance and CONSIDERATION, which we do not have from the banksters or originators.

    Lastly, many of us were never afforded the right of rescission (never in paperwork), which is also the law. Right from the very start the lies and cheating were in play. The “intent” is evidenced in everything that is going on and everyone knows it, right up to Obummer.

  62. Churches Send Repentance Message to Banks
    “Let us pray daily for the conversion of their hearts”
    ——————————————————————————–
    like this church it would be a great move to stop injustice if all the churches removed their money to smaller banks. Not just churches but everyone whom has not done it yet. Cut up all credit cards and distance yourselves from the big banks. Investors have got to be doing this! The cat is out of the bag and the gig is up. The crooks are fools and so are the government reps that think they can fool the investors again. or the people. Massive people I know are waking up to see this crime. They all have friends and loved ones effected y this crime. Send notices to all the realtors they are are on notice they are selling stolen homes, for their sake, so they are not envolved int eh chain of law suits coming and they are coming. Good realtors I know have lost their incomes and homes to these banksters, and now they will be caught in a chain of law suits selling stolen homes, unless they are unscrupulous, then what ever happens they have asked for it, and they were warnedm, if they are not warned they may not know. Also warning them puts them on notice they now know and are subject to lawsuti. Also when they are warned they will stop selling stolen houses and the banks will be hurting. The new homeowners wont be tossed from their homes they thought they owned but were like a stolen car. Inform all realtors and anyone in the housing industry to go to Clouded titles.com and seek a class on clouded titles and how to protect your self from law suits. Dave Kreiger gives siminars on this issue. Rob McKenna at a siminar I went to hear him at a REIA meeting told the investors purchasing homes there is no worry to continue purchasing homes. WHAT THA? Every home stolen, every stolen home purchased just makes a huger web of hell for everyone. What a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to decieve. Just like a lie or fraud, the tangled up mess just grows until it is out of control. And this lie and fraud is beyond out of control. Flat out disgusting and UNCONSCIONABLE! The banks are evil doers. Prayers for their souls is a gracious jesture from this church, however its hard to believe they have souls that can be saved unless hell freezes over. They have done the unthinkable most heartless unconscionable acts at every layer of the peel of an onion.

  63. no final settlement is a good sign. We all need to ask everyone to demand their AG’s withdraw from this settlement.

  64. tHIS IS WHAT i FILED ON COUNTY RECORDS IN HOPES TO BLOCK THE FRAUDSTERS AND I AM NOW SENDING A DEMAND FOR THE FRAUD ASSIGNMENTS TO BE STRIKEN !
    Remember I am pro se and have no legal knowledge other than self taught and everyone should seek an attorneys advise, (if you can find one). This is just what I have done for me personally.

    Recording requested by and
    When recorded return to :
    name
    add.
    City , State, zip
    Instrument #_______________
    LotTax parcel ____________
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    Space above this line for Recorder’s use only

    NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST
    NOTICE TO Agent is Notice to Principal
    Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

    Notice is hereby given to the following parties:

    Chase, Deutsche Bank, &MERS,WAMU, & Long Beach, (Chase assumed servicing rights only see Chase/WAMU & FDIC assumption agreement on the web and extention agreement: No endorsement from strawman lender to Deutsche Bank nor Chase: I object to the aforementioned fraud beneficiaries attempt to collect an alleged debt that is uncollectable and is executed by imposter beneficiaries, making false claims by fraud affidavits in county records. This alleged debt is uncollectable and is NOT owed to the above listed imposters/fraud beneficiaries. In regard to deed of trust ________________.

    To CEASE AND DESIST from any further action in regards to Deed of Trust _________________.
    .

    Filed in King County Recorders Office, King County, WASHINGTON.
    1. The fraud Beneficiary is not the Note Holder of Due Course and has no Standing and right of enforcement on foreclosure actions.
    2. The fraud Beneficiary is not a Creditor in this Loan and can never prove it before a court.
    3. The fraud Beneficiary has already sold the Promissory Note and cannot fulfill the requirement of presentment under U.C.C. article 3-3-501 (b)2 (1) nor article 9.
    Should you proceed with any foreclosure or quiet title action against me, I swear by the Bible and all that is holy, We will sue you for wrongful foreclosure for 3 times the value of the loan. This we swear to you. With every breath we take and every dime we make, We will earn monies needed till our dying breath, you will pay for your fraud should you continue and want to defraud us.
    The Fraud Beneficiary cannot prove any of these claims in court. And all the above listed fraud beneficiaries are imposters whom have no standing by law. You will lose in a civil action and a criminal action. As Trustee, you will also be named in our civil action. You have been warned Govern yourself accordingly. We DEMAND you to remove fraud affidavit filed by fraud beneficiary Deutsche Bank and Chase Bank , assumer of only servicing right after the PSA’s were invalid, from the FDIC and WAMU & Long Beach, the straw man originators for the lender John Doe never disclosed to the I and My Husbank, never assigned by Long Beach Mortgage to anyone, the note in “blank” never entered the PSA” s as it was supposed to, the PSA left in blank, and the PSA that was in blank , not transferred to the fraud beneficiaries within the PSA contractual time allowed by New York Law PSA contract law, ‘VOID’ the PSA even if the PSA had not been fraudulently left in blank and empty. Fraud beneficiary MERS broke the chain of title in the two previous loans to BECU when BECU filed electronically twice before the March 03, 2006 mortgage contract that by law is invalid and VOID, and uncollectable. As of March 03, 2012 the Contract is uncollectable for another reason. The six year statutes of limitations on written contracts in Washington State which include Mortgages, and deeds of trust and promissory notes causes this contract to be uncollectable, due to the breach at inception. Non disclosure of the true lender and the predatory loan not disclosed to John and Shelley Erickson. The Representation Esttopple applies, and adverse possession law for the state of Washington and Castle law apply to this VOID contract, that is uncollectable by law.. See http://www.foreclosureprose.com/storage/case_study/Brief-MERS-v-Nebraska-Dept-of-Banking.pdf
    This brief contains potential damaging revelation for any plaintiff(and or beneficiary) trying to foreclosing using MERS name or fabricating fraudulent assignment using MERS. In the brief, MERS admits to not having any interest in a mortgage or note. This brief should be introduced into evidence via judicial notice in any case involving MERS. See A.G. Rob Mckenna Amicus Curiae brief filed on February 14, 2012.
    See : attached case in full: http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/MERS%20is%20a%20SHAM.pdf. See the OCC letter on the web: Occ letter January 14, 2005, national bank law does not preempt state law. Deutsche Bank is not in compliance with Washington Deed of Trust Act law nor in compliance with Washington State CPA law for the same reasons RECONTRUST is not in compliance in “ Washington State V. RECONTRUST, filed by AG Rob McKenna. See Deutsche Bank V FDIC.Chase.WAMU. See……
    SEE on the web: FDIC & JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA’S P&A AGREEMENT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE NOTES.
    The Purchase &Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note.
    U. S. DISTRICT COURT CASE # CV10-0815 0D2 (FFMx)
    JAVAHIERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA et al:
    Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011
    Decision can be found at http://www.chasechase.org/doxcc/Javaheri35Order.pdf
    US Code: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1641
    § 1641. Liability of assignees can be found at
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1641&url=/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001641—-000-.html
    From the decision”:

    C. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. (See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.

    From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:

    WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE – SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff’s residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB’s history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.

    Wall Street and the Financial Crisis – Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,
    was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial
    crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily
    available for download at the Senate Subcommittee’s website. 2
    Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that “JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC” (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.

    Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those
    matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California
    Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
    See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);
    Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff’s property when it acquired

    Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
    – 17 –
    WMB’s assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff’ mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.
    Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff’s residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff’s residence. This is not a liability issue.
    Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.

    Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff’s single family
    residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff’s default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB’s assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.

    If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it
    proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss
    this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase
    could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court
    __._,_.___
    Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have
    capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.

    The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff’s pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.

    Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.

    Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been
    appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender.

    The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located.” (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).

    Defendant asks the Court’s approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff’s
    property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary
    of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though
    Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.

    (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…
    Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.

    Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.

    The mortgage is not secured by the note and the contract is breached at inception due to failure to disclose the true lender and fraud assignment to Duetsche Bank National Trust whom is unlawfully doing business in the State of Washington, not incompliance with WA Deed of Trust Act and not in compliance with the Washington CPA laws and Washington Corporation laws. See on the web OCC letter dated January 14, 2005 stating National Bank law does not preempt state law. Duetsche bank has never been authorized to be doing business of any kind including banking , foreclosing, and being a beneficiary in the State of Washington and has been foreclosing unlawfully in the State of Washington. Our names here mortgage contract Breached at inception causes unsecured statutes of limitations three year law to be in place and is uncollectable after the payment has not been made to the lender for three years. The Erickson’s have never had the lender disclosed to us, as far as we knew the lender was a John Doe unknown. It is the duty of the borrower to make sure the borrower is paying the proper person for the debt or be liable to pay the debt again to the proper party. It is not our liability or duty to pay a fraud beneficiary. It is our duty not to pay a fraud beneficiary. See attached Amicus Curiae by AG Rob McKenna, Page 7, paragraph two, Third sentence, The court has said that borrowers who pay off their loans without knowing the owner of the loan should take the risk of loss if another asserts the same debt. See Rodgers, 40 Wn. App. At 1321, (It is “long –settled law that one paying a note either negotiable or non negotiable, should demand production of it upon payment or risk having to pay again to the assignee”.)(citing In re Columbia Pac. Mortgage , Inc, 22
    Bankr. 753 (W.D.Eash. 1982); RCW 62A.3-602(a)(ii) (a loan is only considered paid to the extent that the payment is “ to a person entitled to enforce the instrument.”) Price, 161 Wash. 690 There is evidence that some lenders never transferred promissory notes at all. E.g. In re Kemp, 440 B.R. 624, 628 (Banker. D. NJ. 2010) (bank officer testifies that it was customary for originating bank to maintain possession of the original note when the loan was sold.); Dale Whitman, How Negotiability Has Fouled Up the Secondary Mortgage Market, and What To Do About It, 37 Pepp .L. Rev. 738, 757-758 (2010). See Kurt Eggert, Held Up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine,, 35 Creighton L. Rev. 503, 538 (2002); The beneficiary mind you not the fraud servicer Chase Bank, nor fraud beneficiaries claimed by Deutsche Bank only by deception and fraud. Washington State also has the adverse possession law and the Castle law in place. All contact by this alleged debt collector has been in bad faith with unclean hands committing unfair and deceptive acts and violated its duty of good faith by noticing and conducting trustee sales while failing to perform statutory requisites for conducting such sales as contained in the deed of Trust Act, RCW 61.24.030 and 040.Those failures include: (a). failing to maintain a physical presence with telephone service at that address. (b). Failing to identify the actual owner of the Promissory Note in the Notice of Default. (c). Failing to obtain proof that the beneficiary is the owner of the promissory note secured by the deed of trust.(d). Failing to clearly and conspicuously identify in the notice of Trustee’s Sale the defaults other than non payment, , that entitle the beneficiary to foreclose and which may be cured by the borrower. Instead, deceptive fraud debt collectors like yourself, Identify every possible default and demand those defaults be cured whether those defaults have actually occurred or not. (e.) Conducting foreclosure sales in on public places such as the garage of private office buildings and a hotel ballrooms, etc. (f). Creating or using documents essential to a valid trustee’s sale, or to a reconveyance of the deed of trust, that are improperly or not at all signed and sometimes without a printed name, improperly executed, notarized or sworn to, including: i) documents that were not signed in front of a notary, ii) documents that had both the signature and notarization applied mechanically while claiming that the signatory personally appeared before the notary, iii) using signatories who simultaneously claim to be officers of the beneficiary, of MERS and of a servicer, all while actually being employees of the deceptive debt collector, and ( iv). Executing documents without direct knowledge of the facts contained therein. (g). Conducting joint prosecution and /or defense of legal claims with the beneficiary or its agents on matters related to its duty of good faith to the borrower. Violating RCW 61.24.030(6), failure to maintain the statutorily-required physical presence in the state of Washington, with telephone service at that address. (a). By issuing Notices of Trustee sales and foreclosures conducting trustee’s sales, and issuing Trustee’s Deed without maintaining the required physical presence, debt collector Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust the servicer, fraud beneificiary, has misrepresented its authority to issue such notices, conduct trustee’s sales, and issue Trustee’s Deeds. (b). By conducting the non judicial foreclosure process while failing to maintain a physical presence with telephone service, the debt collector has unfairly: 1) prevented homeowners from having face –to-face contact with their trustee, ii) prevented homeowners from gaining response to time-sensitive foreclosure issues, iii. prevented homeowners from physically presenting time-sensitive payments to stop a foreclosure, iv). Prevent homeowners from physically presenting mortgage related documents in a manner that will stop the beneficiary from claiming the homeowner failed to provide such documents, and vi ) in bad faith negotiated a modification plan you had no authority to negotiate paralleling the unauthorized negotiation with foreclosure. Vii). Potentially clouded title to homes it has sold at auction. Viii). All the above a systemic crime that has caused me, the homeowner loss of income , and raised mortgage payments due to unlawful fees added to my mortgage intended to default me and thousands of homeowners in a scheme to steal my house and thousands of homeowners home . Because courts are not generally involved in the foreclosure process, homeowner’s only protections are the detailed procedures and requirement contained in the Deed of Trust Act, and a neutral foreclosure trustee whom insures those procedures are followed to the letter. You as an alleged debt collector of this alleged debt, have failed to comply with the procedures of the Deed of trust act in each and every foreclosure you have executed and specifically mine, the homeowner of this property. You are not registered to be doing business in the state of Washington, therefore not in compliance with any Washington state laws listed above.

    DEMAND IS MADE

    Any and all records, assets, and items belonging to said trust are here by demanded to be turned over to the Trustor and Grantor, our names here., immediately!
    Any and all monies received for and on behalf of the trust are to be immediately surrendered to the Grantor, to include any monies received by sale of the promissory note signed by our names and tendered on the date of FEBRUARY 20TH 2012 TO THE AGENT FOR THE (prior trustee in fraud), and Cashed out by the STRAW MAN Long Beach Mortgage (previous lender in fraud) and being held by fraud beneficiary Chase Bank and fraud beneficiary Deutsche Bank National Trust.
    TERMINATION OF INDENTURES
    Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
    Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
    All previous terms on Deed of Trust#___ __________ are hereby revoked due to insufficient proof of claim and breached contract at inception, with multiple breaches after all listed above.
    REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
    Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
    Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
    I, OUR NAMES , Grantor and Trustor, hereby revoke any and all powers of attorney claimed granted to:
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST & CHASE BANK (past fraud servicer/beneficiary), MERS( former fraud beneficiary of Deed of Trust #_______________), WASHINGTON MUTUAL (past fraud beneficiary), CHASE BANK (claiming to be the present fraud beneficiary), DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST(Former fraud trustee for Deed of Trust #________________), Long Beach (straw-man originator, fraud lender)
    The fraud beneficiaries and the true John Doe unknown beneficiary have been given ample opportunities to provide proof of claim through a private administrative procedure. However, they have not been able to provide valid proof of claim in the time allowed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Notice to Lender’s Default have been issued and notified to all parties.
    CERTIFICATION

    I, NAME , under full liability, do say that I have read the above NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST, TERMINATION OF INDENTURES, and do know the contents to be true, correct, and complete, and not misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    ____________________
    PRINTED NAME FEBRUARY ___, 2012
    NOTARY
    I, _______________________, a notary public residing in King County, Washington State, do say that on the date of ________________,___2012, that a man known to me as NAME did appear before me in his true character and did attaché his autograph to the above document.
    _____________________________ _________
    NOTARY DATE
    1-10 of 875,000,000 results• Advanced
    • Washington State Constitution

    We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler … be compelled to advance money or fees to secure the rights herein guaranteed. SECTION 23 BILL …
    http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx

  65. By Gawd! Abigail Field is really pissed!…

    Understanding the Mortgage Settlement
    Part 1—The Money

    By Abigail Caplovitz Field | March 7, 2012

    ShareSomeday the mortgage settlement will be filed in court and thus we will get to see its terms. Which day? Who knows—the latest deadline, the end of February, passed in silence, and annual reports filed at the end of the month with the SEC by Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Ally Bank, three putative deal signers, unequivocally stated there’s no final deal yet. As Wells put it, 19 days after the deal was announced:

    “Furthermore, there can be no assurance as to when or whether a definitive agreement regarding the settlement will be reached and finalized or that it will be on terms consistent with the settlement in principle.”

    Still, enough details of the agreement ‘in principle’ have been released, including by Wells in that annual report, for me to write this guide.

    The settlement has four basic moving parts: money, lawsuit peace/liability release, mortgage servicing standards, and enforcement. I’m going to look at all four in three different posts. This one focuses on the money in the settlement.

    Understanding the Money In the Mortgage Settlement

    The two money points to keep your eye on: whose money are the bankers’ spending? (Answer: maybe yours.) And how much money are we talking about? (Answer: who knows, it depends on the banks’ decisions. Doesn’t matter anyway; even the most inflated values are too low to make a difference.)

    In addition to these two big issues, there’s two money related F*** Yous in the deal, directed at the American people. One is the grossly inadequate $1800/payment to a percentage of foreclosed homeowners, and the other is the fact that under the deal the banks can get tax dollars via HAMP “incentive” payments, including banks whose poor performance caused our government to withhold HAMP payments from them.

    Finally, by looking at these deal terms we can see the banks’ power in action.

    Remember Folks: The Money Is Supposed To Be A Penalty

    Let’s start with a very basic question: Why is there any amount of money at all in this settlement?

    Well, the banks are getting something—a substantial liability release from state and federal prosecutors and regulators. That means that the banks have done considerable wrongdoing; otherwise there’d be no peace to buy. So despite the “help for homeowners” rhetoric, don’t be confused about the nature of the money in the deal: It’s a penalty. The banks are paying money because they did wrong.

    I know, I know, in the final settlement the language will say they neither admit nor deny wrongdoing. And I agree with Judge Rakoff that’s a travesty of justice. Doesn’t change the fact that the banks’ wrongdoing is the only reason they’re ‘paying’ anything.

    So riddle yourself this: Why do the banks get to ‘pay’ their penalties using other people’s money?

    Paying a “Penalty” With Other People’s Money

    In this settlement, the banks can use other people’s money—largely your money, as a taxpayer and worker—to ‘pay’ their penalty in two different ways. First, the bailed-out bankers (B.O.Bs) are allowed to modify loans they service but don’t own. Second, these B.O.Bs can violate a basic legal principle—“lien priority”—to spend your money when normally they’d have to spend their own.

    Modifying Loans They Don’t Own

    When a loan is modified, particularly when principal is reduced as the settlement intends, whoever owns the loan takes at least a paper loss. The homeowner owes less interest and principal. (I call it a paper loss because if it prevents foreclosure, such a mod almost certainly nets the loan owner more money.) And who owns most of these loans? Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, pension funds, and 401ks. That is, taxpayer, taxpayer, worker, worker. You.

    Why are our law enforcement representatives at the state and federal level accepting a deal that allows 1%er bailed-out bankers pay for their misdeeds with the taxes and retirement security of the 99%? As a matter of principle, that’s just wrong.

    Making the Last First to Bail the Bankers Out Again

    The deal lets the bailed out bankers use other people’s money—your money—to pay their ‘penalty’ in a second way: keeping second mortgages alive when they should be wiped out.

    According to long standing, basic legal principles (not to mention contracts), first mortgages are supposed to be paid in full before the second mortgage gets a dime. That’s what being “second” is all about. But the mortgage settlement doesn’t honor lien priority. Wells Fargo’s annual report says this:

    “Subject to a number of requirements, servicers participating in the settlement will be obligated to implement second lien principal forgiveness on second mortgages it owns when another participating servicer reduces principal on a first mortgage via its proprietary non-HAMP modification programs” [at page 75; bold mine.]

    Note; the language doesn’t mean the second mortgage is gone; just that principal must be forgiven. This early draft piece of the settlement, published by the Wall Street Journal, makes that clear. What’s going on?

    Well, ask yourself: who benefits by keeping the seconds alive? The answer, as has been pointed out clearly by Yves Smith and others, is the big banks taking the deal. See, if they were forced to wipe out seconds and then write down firsts, they’d be insolvent or close.

    Note that this is the second time “our” government has done the banks’ bidding on second mortgages. The first time was HAMP. And that version of inverting the creditor hierarchy is even worse: seconds don’t have to be modified at all, even if the first is. Apparently bankers were nervous about violating lien priority in practice; one of the reasons HAMP has been a failure has been a lien stalemate. The bailed-out bankers’ are unwilling to write off their seconds when modifying firsts, but are afraid of modifying firsts without wiping out their seconds. And either they aren’t asking investors for permission, or if they are, they’re being told no.

    Will this time be different?

    The Excuse: Investor Consent

    The official claim is: ‘hey, there’s no problem, those B.O.Bs will only spend other people’s money with permission’. Well, if that’s true, it’s easy: not going to happen. But I think the claim that they’re going ask permission, much less than they’re going to receive it, is just more Obama Administration b.s.

    See, each security is governed by a contract that requires a certain number, a high number, of investors to consent for consent to count. The exact number varies, but it can be more than 50%. Consider that under those same contracts, it can be significantly easier for investors to unite and demand that the security’s trustee bring the servicer to heel. Given the rarity of that collective action, despite tremendous servicer provocation, I can’t take Team Obama seriously when they say the B.O.Bs will get investor consent.

    Add to that practical hurdle, there’s anecdotal evidence servicers aren’t making any effort to communicate with investors about modifications now, mods that are all better for the investor than foreclosing. Check out this Mandelman podcast with investor attorney Talcott Franklin. Now, asking investors for permission to modify a loan when it makes them money is one thing; asking investors in first mortgages to take a hit while a second mortgage survives is entirely another. What possible reason do investors have to say yes?

    Consent or no, it’s incredibly galling, from the public’s point of view, to allow the banks to “pay” their penalty with other people’s money. The banks should pay cash–their own cash–to buy legal peace. The government could then spend that money to help homeowners, however it wants.

    Investors who want to stop this nonsense before it starts need only do one simple thing: go on record as saying “no.” Send a letter to both sides of the deal stating which securities you own, and how much, and reject mods that violate lien priority and that are used to pay the banks’ ‘penalty’. And when you serve that notice, put out a press release and attach the letter.

    Understand the ‘Billions’ in the Deal

    Many different numbers have been claimed for the size of the deal, but $25 billion seems to have more content than most. But the $25 billion number doesn’t represent 25 billion dollars; instead it’s an arbitrary number that the banks must reach by accumulating various credits. Because the banks can get less than a dollar credit for a dollar of “help”, the government and the banks claim that homeowners may get more than $25 billion in help. In addition, the $25 billion in credits may grow because other servicers can sign on to the deal.

    Thing is, it’s not at all clear that the ‘help’ will be apportioned in helpful ways. That is, a homeowner that is $75k underwater isn’t much helped if they’re suddenly $50k underwater. Beyond that, it’s not at all clear that the banks will use real money; that is, some or even many of the principal reductions may simply reflect money the banks have already deemed uncollectable. That is, the settlement may let banks “pay” by improving the accuracy of their accounting.

    Similarly, the bankers can get some credit for writing off the difference between the foreclosure judgment and the loan amount, which is called a deficiency judgment. How real that write down is depends on what the bank would have done without the settlement. Was it going to try to collect it? Sell it to debt collectors for cents on the dollar? Write it off entirely? How much money, really, is the bank “spending” by writing it off?

    But even if every dollar involved was real money, and all the dollars were maxed out, it still doesn’t matter. From a fixing-the-housing-market perspective, the numbers are tiny. Homeowners are three-quarters of a trillion dollars underwater. From a righting-past-wrongs perspective, well, most of the money doesn’t go to that purpose, and what does is grotesquely inadequate.

    But the actual number of billions involved isn’t the key to understanding the billions. What you really need to see is the power behind the numbers. The banks have total discretion to figure out how to “pay” up, and their choices shape the ‘total’ amount involved. Meanwhile some foreclosed homeowners got liquidated damages of $1800.

    Contrast that display of raw bank power with this alternate reality: The banks got fined, in cash, an amount that reflected the scale and depth of their wrongdoing and the damage it has caused us all. To assess that fine properly, our state and federal law enforcers cooperated and investigated thoroughly. Because of that thorough investigation, law enforcers knew how to compensate victims appropriately and did so.

    The Big F*** Yous

    Which brings me to the two big F*** Yous in the deal. The first is aimed at people who were foreclosed. Hey you there, look, we’re sorry we took your home. So here’s $1800. Now run along and give it to your new landlord, my Wall Street buddy. Worse, the cash only goes to 750,000 people, when millions have been foreclosed and evicted in recent years.

    Also, how does $1800 square with what we know is the scale of the problem? It’s not like the government doesn’t know what’s going on. Foreclosure Secretary Shaun Donovan told Jon Stewart that the government’s investigation discovered that “as high as 60% of the foreclosures were being done wrong” (at 5:17).

    The second big F*** You is aimed at taxpayers. Apparently the government thinks the B.O.Bs need an incentive to comply with the settlement. See, the B.O.Bs are going to get tax dollars for their compliance. Seriously; the B.O.Bs get paid HAMP cash under the deal.

    And the salt rubbed in that wound? Well, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America did such a lousy job honoring their HAMP commitments that the government has withheld some $80 million from each. But under this deal, Chase and BofA get all that money, and the right to collect HAMP payments again.

    The Bottom Line: The Banks Are In Charge

    If you think about the fact that the banks have the option of paying their ‘penalty’ with other people’s money (mostly yours);

    If you think about the fact that the banks have total control over the amounts of money and who gets it;

    If you think about the fact that the banks can get taxpayer subsidies for merely complying with the settlement,

    If you focus on the fact that the only meaningful help in the deal is given to the bankers (2nd lien treatment), not the homeowners,

    then you can see the status of power in America. And you won’t be fooled by Team Obama PR telling you to like this deal.

  66. I have listened closely to Neil Garfield ever since December of 2009 approx and I have used everything but the kitchen sink for claims that he did not recommend to do but keep it simple. I threw all claims against them HAMP MOD FRAUD included and I mean all claims. I took the case to a litigating attorney and he told me to file it on my own I might just win. But I have been pretty scared. The state and district judge here are bankers judges therefore my case went to Appeal court and I am waiting for a ruling. Praying everyday for justice. Washington state is a non judicial state. I made five mod payments before they unapproved me and turned my mods into partial payments and said therefore I was in foreclosure. I ran to an attorney and gave her close to nine thousand and she did nothing for me yet. But I do agree with her it has gotten better for me and others with all the discovery and case law that has come out. I gave up on her in frustration. But if she had done something when I ran to her we may have been bank lawed out of court and lost. She decided to bankruptcy and I did not hire for bankruptcy. I hired her for mod fraud. So I went pro se and now propria persona.

  67. Shelly and Coleen

    Your posts today. You are right about this. I am in non judicial. No trustee sale scheduled yet. If ever sold at auction (could happen in a few months in non judicial) will be fighting this fraud…..however in the meantime…..

    What about fraud NOD. There is no default to defunct institution that sold mortgage years ago – that party is not a beneficiary – just saying… that party cannot lawfully be named as beneficiary on NOD and servicer named as contact for amount of default to non beneficiary is obviously not party (as per the NOD itself) who is authorized to speak for beneficiary trust named in the ADOT – there is no mention of trust or indentured trustee for trust on the NOD anywhere – servicer reps have no knowledge of trust at all and qwr’s name three different entities as “investor” with no mention of trust – finally a third qwr names indentured trustee bank for the trust as “investor” with no mentiion of trust which is not correct – no beneficial interest by indentured trustee for trust and purported actual beneficary trust is not named. NOD has to show true beneficiary and does not.

    Fraud ADOT. Servicer named in NOD as contact for default to defunct original “lender” (acquired servicing only from original “lender” now defunct who purportedly sold it paid in full years ago to sponsor who purportedly sold it paod in full years ago to depositor who purportedly sold it years ago paid in full to trust)….this servicer pretend beneficiary assigns all beneficial interest “For Value Received” now to trust (and purportedly now transfers the note to the trust who purportedly should already have it as per psa and certificates, agreements ect warrented and represented to investors sec irs ect). Signer for servicer pretend benefciary is low level employee working for DOT trustee company not even for the servicer – is known robo signer and signs as VP of servicer (prentending to be beneficiary) who is selling “For Value Received” and assigning now a mortgage to a trust (impossible and fraud by any number of ways).

    Called them out on this demanded and got a Recession of NOD but robo computer mill simultaneously spit out another recorded NOD with exact same disputed characteristics – will dispute again….however….

    What about cease and desist and or tro and or injunction ect before a trustee sale date and or sale…anyone? Declare the docs to be fraud starting with the letter “intent to accelerate” on behalf of defunct original “lender” paid in full years ago – and NOD – and ADOT?

    Purported beneficiary trust now on record by fraud ADOT cannot foreclose either until recorded chain of tile is “corrected” (previous owner was depositor not servicer) and amount of default is properly declared by purported true benefciary (trust) and amount properly sworn to by party authorized to speak from records of true purported benefciary (indentured trustee for trust).

    If these parties cannot or will not do this in a lawful beneficiary statement requested by authorized individual (the homeowner) as required by law and or in court under penalty of perjury and sworn affadavit and or ect. no one else can (non beneficiary cannot do this).

    What is the amount owed the purported true beneficiary today? What have they been paid against the secured interest and by who? Where did homeowner payments go? Who else in addition to them is owed what by the homeowner today secured or unsecured?

    The beneficiary trust must now prove up the chain of title (purported previous owners) in order to foreclose. They acquired nothing in the assignment from the servicer who never owned anything or acquired anything they could sell or transfer.

    So how do I write this up – thinking file in it federal court – using TILA statatory penalty for no notification by”new” beneficiary for ADOT. Harm not even needed to claim this but harm is – no notification – no way to ever notice all of the above automatically occurring in non judicial where strict laws are in place to prevent all of the above.

  68. video of the farce settlement that needs to be withdrawn in its entirety. Or we need to go after the AG’s.
    VICTORY | SB 1890 / SB 670 / HB 213 The Florida (un)Fair Foreclosure Act is DEAD!!! Congrats Everyone!!! Recent Posts
    Matt Stoller on RT News | Obama’s Financial Practices ‘Dishonest Pretend Schemes’ (VIDEO)

  69. It is acts like this the AG’s need to be brought up on charges of Breach of Fudiciary duty. This is Bullshit and a crime against the major population of Americans loosing homes due to HAMP violations. Which is hugh! It is my understanding you can privately sue them for this. I sure hope so.
    AG settlement clears BofA from Whistleblower HAMP lawsuit
    The multistate AG settlement scheduled to be filed Friday released BofA of any liability under the Mackler suit.
    AG settlement clears BofA from Whistleblower HAMP lawsuit
    The multistate AG settlement scheduled to be filed Friday released BofA of any liability under the Mackler suit.
    ——————————————————————————–
    ——————————————————————————–

  70. THE POLICE AND THE JUDGES THE BANKS ARE ALL DOING UNLAWFUL ACTS. THE US CONSTITUTION IS ROAD KILL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS THRIVING BANK LAW NOW. BUT HOLD YOUR OWN AND SEND A COPY OF THIS AS A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER TO THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT. Non Judicial states are corrupt states. We need to throw all government officials that support this crime and unconstitutional law out of office and send summons or and notices mandating them to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to CEASE and Desist unholding Unconstitutional law. Throw them out on Breach of Oath of Office and Breach of Fudiciary duty and upholding Unconstitutional law is treason and give all the judges and lawyers SUPPORTING this unconstitutional law, notice of the mandated 18USC2,3, &4 mandating them to report fraud, ” Not” support it. Send in police reports and evidence of the felony to the police and Sherriff. By signature required certified mail. Posting a copy with the CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ON county records. I am a pro se and would love to have help from an attorney that would send a Federal Question or motion of somekind to the U.S. Supreme Court asking if SMJ’s without discovery are unconstitutional? I believe they are and these SMJ’s are what is allowing the courts and the fraudster lawyers to get away with corruption. SMJ without discovery are as unconstitutional as it gets to me. Depriving us of our substantive due process 42USC1983 statutes. Our Bill of Rights and the first amendment and much more law. It is a way to dance around the crime and deprives us of our rights, especially Pro se cases.

  71. the TRUTH-

    FORECLOSURES

    non judicial foreclosures are unlawful

    foreclosure unlawful without due process of law, and trial by jury

    constitution is supreme with bill of rights

    REPOSSESSIONS

    repossession is criminal trespass without a lawful court order.

    Sherrifs

    They are limited to making sure there is no breach of the peace (outbreak of violence).

    They are not there to reposess – they can not be involved in any way

    Any further active involvement is aiding and abetting a criminal act including criminal trespass

    USA 4th amendment right to be secure in person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures

  72. Carie, Fraud upon the court has no statutes of limitations. When a party is lacking standing and frauds lack standing and they file fraud false affidavits in the court for any reason it is fraud upon the court. Request for a new trial for this reason is a valid reason and to ask for more time up to ninety days to find counsel. If you dont find council you can file it your self.

  73. Please every one show up! You can win the house by showing up. The courts are leaning more to the homeowner these days, because of the proof. Is it to late to file lack of standing and motion for a new trial? State you did not know what to do and could not find council that would help? MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL can be based on fraud upon the court, and this is fraud upon the court. Look up an attorney to just file that or look up anyone that can help you get the form for it and if you can not afford an attorney for more than the paperwork, go to trial with all the proof of fraud assignments. Please defend your home Carie, they are the bad guys not you. And talk to an attorney ASAP! Or go Propria persona Look this up. And look up Pro Se web sites. Bring copies of the reports from Essex County , John O’Briens and California’s Phil Ting and copies of all the fraud assignments on your docs. and call the secretary of state for the county for the notary and get a copy of the notary signature. Most likely it will not match the one on file. Go in armed! There are Pro bono attorneys too. Call around and see if any of them will defend you on a motion for new trial due to fraud upon the court. It is scarey for all of us! Court is no fun, but you dont owe these frauds. It is unethical for the court to give a fraud your house, and it is unethical for you to pay a debt to a fraud and give a free house to a fraud. I would ask the attorney to use that as part of your defense. And ask the court for time to prepare since you are trying to get help and seek counsel..

  74. We Fought The Law…AND WE WON! Foreclosure Bills DEAD! (for now)
    March 10th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/03/we-fought-the-law-and-we-won-foreclosure-bills-dead-for-now/
    When the 2012 Florida Legislative Session ended last night around midnight, the two remaining foreclosure bills were not read and were not passed by the Senate.

    This was the third year that attorneys, consumer groups and activists worked together to stand up against the most powerful groups in the state, and it was certainly the most exciting. The effort was was especially inspired by the very active support and participation by several of this state’s faith-based groups, including PICO Florida , FOCUS, The Florida Consumer Action Network, Sarasota’s Mortgage Justice Group and members of Florida’s Tea Party!

    The greatest thanks goes out to all of you that took the time to make calls, and especially those who drove to Tallahassee to put a personal face to all of this effort!

    WE CANNOT REST! We now enter the next, and what will be a most critical phase…moving forward with all the great momentum this remarkable coalition has built.

    We will identify additional issues and groups to support and become even more engaged in lawmaking and policymaking going forward!

    Make sure you send special Thank You emails to the good senators who did stand with us, and all the Representatives…and be prepared to get involved in all their campaigns.

    My heroes in this effort were Senator Mike Fasano, Senator Steve Oelrich and Representative Darren Soto….and all of you!

  75. JOIN ME AND APRIL CHARNEY FOR A LIVE IN PERSON AND LIVESTREAM WORKSHOP TODAY, 10:30!
    March 10th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    10:30am to 11:30am student loan debt workshop
    11:30am to 11:45am break (get lunch and bring to working lunch)
    noon to 1:15pm working lunch
    1:15pm to 1:30 pm break
    1:30pm to 4:30 pm “Earn the Learn” Teach In on Foreclosure in Florida
    Our livestream address is:
    Livestream – http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupy-tampa-live-feed

  76. carie,
    your story takes me back, i feel your anger and frustration. i have watched this website since its creation.my experience, every step they took was fraud- and the court curtsied to them, im almost 3 years fighting now, and ended up pro se, it takes years and years and years, know this, i spent close to 100K to date fighting this terrible crime against humanity, im in a position to, i have no pets, my job is secure my health is good, and im a hard head, when i make a decision to fight they need to know i will win , eventually, some way with god by my side. its not about my house anymore. hold tightly on to yourself and your loved ones and keep it in perspective…its not who you are, its just something you have to do. one west sold my home to a couple, its recoded with its lil “min” number, MERS lives…some company insured it, now we have a suit ongoing, when fraud is revealed what say the new owners when the insurance is denied, will not cover fraud,what say the new owners when title is clouded and we have the trustor knocking on their door…its possible, litigation will be going for decades to try to clean up this mess.

  77. @carie ,

    It would be a crying shame if you eventually moved out , went on a cruise and while you were on a cruise the house was trashed by some local meth head…

  78. Corelogic is part of American Financial, which includes First American Title out of Orange County, California. They have a vested interest in promoting false news, avoiding responsibility, lying in press releases, manipulating data to their advantage, and in general, being a disgusting, reprehensible business.

  79. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 60 minutes, affidavits • attesting • Daniel Edstrom • DTC-Systems • fabricating • false information • false sworn documents • foreclose • illicit business practices • improper statements • imp, AHMSI, appraisal fraud, attorney general, auction fraud, Chris Koster, credit bids, DocX Indictment, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, forgery, housing market, housing prices, investors, linda green, LPS, Missouri, mortgage fruad, mortgages, Robo-Signing, settlement, strategic default, Wells Fargo Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  80. I just read again ,the Court set up Settlement WELLS FARGO HELOC consumer:
    http://www.helocsettlement.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=pSsSlbBGB6s%3d&tabid=62&mid=420

    If you read page 14 : FOR 12 months no AVG can be used , so you need a real Appraiser.
    I think it is now the time , that the Banks and Real estate agent take distance from CORELOGIC and ZILLOW . I personal can proof , that this both companies tear the home prices apart . The put all your Equity in the garbage . I spend $ 30000.00 renovation HELOC money from CHASE,when the close my HELOC ,and the AVM told me : YOU UNDER WATER.I was not even done . How that work ?
    I am glad the court recognice this problem , and I am almost sure , that other HELOC will copy this set up settlement.

  81. It’s to bad you did not show up carie, but still fight for your home,you own it even if it sits there empty you own it if they come to kick you out move right back in.

  82. Thanks, everyone…they had served me with the Unlawful Detainer and I contested it and they scheduled a trial…I’m not sure what happened at the trial because I didn’t show up…I’m assuming they got a default judgement and there will be a writ for possession and the sheriff…It’s not the “bank” doing it, it’s the real estate investor and his lawyer…

  83. Occupy the Crime Scene: County Recorder’s Office

    ACTION PLAN
    FOR STATEWIDE EVENT
    IN CALIFORNIA
    AT COUNTY RECORDER OFFICES

    Monday, March 12
    9:30 am

    I. PURPOSE OF EVENT

    A recent audit by the San Francisco County Recorder found 99% of the foreclosures audited had questionable activity, 84% had at least one clear violation of law on foreclosures and over 66% with 4 or more violations.*

    New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has found a similar level of foreclosure fraud related to the MERS system, which is depriving counties and municipalities of mortgage deed filing fees in the millions of dollars.**

    Yet, on a statewide basis, very little is being done by elected and appointed government officials either to expose or prosecute foreclosure fraud.

    It’s outrageous that the nation’s largest banks and Wall Street are allowed to dictate the terms and conditions of their punishment for foreclosure fraud while thousands of people in California are losing their beloved homes as the result of fraudulent foreclosure practices.

    On Monday, March 12th, Occupy groups from across California will hold multiple simultaneous events at county recorder offices in as many of the 58 California county seats as possible to call attention to massive and ongoing foreclosure fraud.

    The goals of these events are twofold.

    First, we are seeking to expose the full extent of foreclosure fraud by banks and Wall Street in California. Therefore, we demand that every county recorder conduct similar audits both to measure the level of foreclosure fraud and to determine the amount of tax dollars that have been lost due to fraudulent filings.

    Second, we are seeking an end to illegal foreclosures. Therefore, we demand that California Attorney General Kamala Harris (and/or the State Legislature? and/or the Governor?) immediately suspend all foreclosures in the state until both these county audits and her criminal investigation of foreclosure fraud are complete.

    *http://aequitasaudit.com/images/aequitas_sf_report.pdf
    ** http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2012/feb/feb03a_12.html

    II. TYPE OF EVENT

    1. Peaceful Rally and Press Conference attended by homeowners facing foreclosure, Occupy representatives, activists, community leaders, interfaith groups, foreclosure/housing advocates, government officials and others.

    2. Visual displays may include crime scene images, legal document boxes that represent the evidence: number of fraudulent foreclosed homes in a particular county. These could be affixed with “Evidence” stickers. “Crime scene” tape could be draped around the boxes or on the county recorder building. Occupy groups are encouraged to get creative.

    3. Date and time: Monday, March 12, 2012 at 9:30 am PST.

    4. Marches/vehicle convoys from the county recorder’s offices to regional offices of AG Harris could be held in certain locations (San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.).

    III. METHOD OF ORGANIZING

    1. Strategy & Planning: Conference calls will be held on Wednesday, February 22 & 29 and Wednesday, March 7 at 11:00 am PST. To participate in the conference call, go to this link to register: http://interoccupy.org/frzcall/

    2. Division of Responsibilities:

    a. Media – Occupy LA & OccupySacramento will draft multiple press releases at key times and serve as statewide media contact. Occupy Petaluma and other groups will share media contacts and work with local media. Occupy Sacramento is going to take the lead on this, since they have a media pro up there. Occupy LA will help when asked.
    b. Website – Occupy LA will create a special Facebook page for the M12 action. Occupy Petaluma will prioritize the M12 action at http://www.foreclosurepreventionzones.com.
    c. Outreach – Occupy LA and Occupy Petaluma will reach out to other Occupy groups and organizations that are active in preventing foreclosures and protesting the banks. Key individuals will be invited to evaluate the Action Plan and join the Wednesday conference calls.
    d. Government Liaison –All participating groups will coordinate on contacts and dialogue with the California Congressional delegation, Sacramento legislature and AG Harris. An effort will be made to persuade sympathetic legislators to hold hearings and introduce bills on our two demands. Individuals Occupy groups will work independently with their local and county officials.
    e. Legal Strategy Team – This group will evaluate key issues related to (i) conducting audits and (ii) implementing a moratorium on foreclosures, develop a strategy for court actions and make recommendations to the entire planning group.
    f. Legislative Strategy Team – This group will contact key legislators working on banking and housing issues, develop a strategy for legislation and make recommendations to the entire planning group.
    g. Audit Strategy Team – This group will facilitate audits by contacting Aequitas (www.aequitasaudit.com) and other auditing firms, develop a strategy for statewide audits in counties and make recommendations to the entire planning group.

    3. Name of event: “Occupy the Crime Scene: County Recorder’s Office”

    4. Geographic Areas of Responsibility:

    a. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA – OccupyLA will contact Occupy groups in the following 11 counties; Los Angeles, Fresno, Kern, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Merced.
    b. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA – Occupy Petaluma will contact Occupy groups in the following 17 counties: Sonoma, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Mendocino, Humboldt, Napa, San Mateo, Marin, Alameda, Monterey, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus.

    (The other 30 counties will be encouraged to join the action through media coverage, Facebook and other online communications.) [NOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_California%5D

    IV. FRAMING THE ISSUE

    1. The foreclosure crisis is the result of massive and ongoing fraud by the nation’s largest banks and investment firms. This fraud is evident in the public records of every County Recorder’s office in California.

    2. County and municipal governments are losing millions of dollars in lost tax revenues due to this fraud. These lost revenues necessitate massive cuts in badly needed services and personnel.

    3. Government officials charged with upholding the rule of law in an equitable manner are not holding the banks and investment firms accountable for foreclosure fraud. They are either ignoring this ongoing fraud or allowing the perpetrators to dictate the terms and conditions of their accountability.

    4. The California state legislature is not addressing this ongoing fraud at the county recorder’s offices. They must pass legislation that ensures the traditional and legal process of recording deeds of trust be protected from fraudulent practices such as MERS.

    5. The voices of homeowners who have been foreclosed or are facing foreclosure should not be peripheral to discussions and negotiations on addressing the foreclosure crisis. They have borne the brunt of suffering due to illegal foreclosures. They deserve a seat at the table in negotiations with the banks and government. If they continue to be excluded, justice will never be achieved in the foreclosure crisis.

    BTW I am part of the Legal Strategy Team.
    Margaret Carswell,
    President
    EARTH FIRST CONSTRUCTION
    http://www.earthfirstconstruction.org/
    “Together we can build a better world”
    and
    Contributing Editor
    http://www.chasechase.org/

  84. I agree with everyone DONT LEAVE YOUR HOUSE! The least homeowners with the least resistance will have their houses sold first. And the ones that give the most resistance the bank will do last or give up all together. Dont make it easy on them.

  85. Carie have they given you notice to move ? If not I would stay and pay the rental for a place to go when they do. And not abandon the house yet. That is just what I would do. If they send someone be ready to move. Did you email the secretary of state for a copy of the signature on file for the notary? Most of the notaries on the fraud assignments are forged. If you can send them a copy of this forgery and a notice of unlawful foreclosure and sale at auction, you might get a recinded foreclosure. Are you in a non judicial forclosure state? I have a freind and his wife that were walked out of their house by a Sheriff and they had an attorney send a letter of unlawful foreclosure and sale and equity loss. It cost him about 500.00 and they were shocked. The forecloser rescinded the foreclosure and sale at auction and they have been back in their house fo a year and a half now and the house is in their name again and now BAC is sending notices to them they are objecting to and holding their own right now. No one has heard of this happening before. They fired the attorney cause the banksters told them they would put the house back in their name if they agreed and signed the bank owned their house and the attorney told them to sign it. You can send a certified letter to them with proof of the forged notary and what ever you have proof of and see if it works. Or have an attorney write it up. I am not an attorney I just know this worked for my friends. Their house payment was over $22,000.00 a month not a year but a month. A three million dollar ranch and home, on a hundred acres. I am hearing the banks are not moving the people out to keep the neighborhoods nice and to keep from having to spend money on the maintainance. What a nightmare hell for so many of us. Unthinkable hell! I am so sorry for so many being put through this unacceptable hell. I have not heard of anyone else getting the foreclosure rescinded, but they did, in only six weeks time. The bank took months before they finally put th ir name back on the title. Dont know why they did, but they did, without him signing his house away. Can not believe the lawyer told them to sign the agreement. He looked at him and told him to go to H!!!! and walked out. I am in a non judicial state so I have filed a CEASE and DESIST on my county records, with proof of the fraud as exhibits. My case is in the Appeals court. I am not an attorney therefore I do not have legal advice to give you, just what I have done and would do. I sure would not give up the keys without a fight and being walked out by a sheriff. Then I would send the purchasers and realtors a notice they are engaged in theft and liable for law suit for a stolen house, they are attempting to knowingly sale a house with clouded title, and have committed unlawful foreclosure and unlawful sale at auction and I intend to defend my interest in my home and file lawsuit against all parties involved in the theft of my home, including all money and rent due me, and three plus times the value of my stolen house, as long as I have any breath left in me. And I would send a copy certified to everyone. You are on notice of all the above. California people should send a letter to Phil Ting and ask his help to recieve help in their counties. Or go to the county register and see if the rest of the deeds of registers are following suit with Phil Ting. Squeeky wheels see results. Also keep on your represenatives. Squeeky wheels again! I would file all this on the county register to document the notice. Anyone out there think this is a bad idea? Let me know and why..

  86. do not leave your house Carie !

  87. @Carie,

    Why are you leaving? Did you contact everybody you possibly could have? Possession is 9/10 of the law. Stay put, call OWS in LA and wait for the sheriff to kick you out.

    Have you even considered sending the kids to grandpa and grandma until that is resolved?

  88. To Carie:
    You dismantle “everything” down to the last bolt and you take it with you. If you recover the house then you put it back and sue the “bank” for the costs, since they put you “”under duress” and you have to take it with you under duress.

    If, while you are gone and the windows are out, some unidentified miscreants come by and pour liquid cement down the toilet waste pipes, remove the furnace, and pollute the place, well, then all those restoration costs have to be borne by the people that put you under duress, and that includes the phony buyer. When the scavengers get sued and have a big bill to pay, the fun goes out of the theft.

  89. I am Filming a Documentaty on this Subject. my email is Michaelavmen@yahoo.com, anyone i mean anyone can contact me with their story, i want to hear you. I want the BANKS to hear you I want the GOVT to hears you and Most of all I want AMERICA TO HEARS US so they can wake up……. I need your help in doing this.

  90. Well, I’m almost completely out of my stolen home and into my rental. What do I say or do to the real estate investor that “bought” my house?

    Somebody told me I should take all the windows, and dismantle the beautiful glass sunporch and take them with me…but…what if the foreclosure is overturned? My husband and I are on the Grant Deed…no one else…I have sent emails to the the real estate investor/agent (and his lawyer) who trying to kick me out—detailing all the fraud involved and how they are part of the nightmare, too…that the title is not clear, etc…I get no response, except maybe “good luck with that..” They are waiting to see if we will leave when I said we would—then I guess they will flip the property to some gullible family…
    What can I do? Confront them in their office? No money for a lawyer…The banks KNEW we would all be pitted against each other—while the CEO’s got richer…

  91. Shirley, we agree about town influence that should have no bearing , it’s the small villes of America that seem to think a credit bid with out cash on a title rightful of the owners and held by the owners that they do not understand or do not want to understand.we have title, we always did, so tucker up, and no title company should be involved, that is title fraud real.

  92. The banks are embedded with the devil and ran by the competitor Vatican Church, whoms money is behind Golden Sachs and the evil doers. Besides that churches pay no taxes. I have a deposition of a city planner employee, that testified on my case against the mayor, of my town, that the mayor told the city planners to make sure I did not stay on my property, they dont like small business and small taxes and modular buildings,( I wound up in a modular building of eightthousand square feet, due to the city planning department hid my building permit for a 21,700 square foot tllt up concrete building trying to keep me off my commercial land, after the building permit was deemed a complete submittal by my archectects and me, it never surfaced again to this date!) not enough tax base for the mayor, and then he the mayor lied to my husband and myself telling us the emergency modular was unlawful in the city of Auburn, Wa and redtagged my building due to the law does not allow modulars, citing stick building law to us, ran off over $13,500.00 a month in hair stylist and massage and nail girl, and much more losses in thousands upon thousands, in customers, thinking we only had six months to be in the modular, and would be put out of business, then caused my bank to have to cancel the preapproved loan for the construction due to no permit and a temp permit for a building that was going to be thrown off the property in six months due to fraud policymaking and a breach of Oath of Office by the mayor. I found out seven months later that my modualr was legal and controlled specifically by L&I modular laws and the city had no say in it, finding the mayor had flat out lied to my face three times. He also called me on his cell phone and threatened me. In the deposition stating the employee states to the best of his knowledge told second hand to him by the head of planning, the mayor lied and perjured himself in the mayors deposition, and instructed the planners to make sure the modular did not stay. In doing so the planners told us policy lies also. The mayor instructed the planners to make sure no Churches are allowed in the city due to they pay no taxes. To find all reasons to make sure churches do not build in Auburn. I am thinking since all churches are in competition and conflict with the vatican and pay no taxes this is a great enviornment for the theft of the churches as well as the houses. I understand all commercial buildings are in jepardy now though. Not just churches. We have to put an end to these parasite demons. I am still fighting for justice against a corrupt main street and the banksters. What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to decieve!

  93. It looks like WallStreet and the Banksters aimed their financial weapons at the Church !

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112670/Banks-foreclosing-churches-record-numbers-sign-slowing-down.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    FIRE DeMARCO !

  94. Why is it so difficult to find a good trial lawyer with litigation experience?

  95. Already left a comment! I like the letter to the realtors.

  96. Please forward similar letters to all realtors! We need to put gravel in the vaseline! Your are hereby given notice of possible future law suit for selling stolen homes and clouded tilte homes. and may be subject to law suits in the future and for the past sale of clouded titled homes and stolen houses. We need to have a lawyer write up a good letter to send to all realtors. It is for their own good! They can lose everything in a messy lawsuit. Realtors have been crushed by this fraud as well. They are victims of this mess and many good people I know are in the realty world, have lost their incomes and jobs and they dont need this tragedy either. It is not meant to be mean. It is meant to inform. When they are informed they will prevent the banks from selling stolen houses or make it right. They will stop the victims including themselves from being victims. The lawsuits will go up the chain of parties involved including the realtors. The banks have caused a mess of the housing industry. From realtors to contractors in construction to every man woman and child on the globe. Very few are not effected by this and may be soon if this tragedy is not stopped. The housing market and investors will begin to heal when the crooks are stopped and not before. It just gets messier. If Rob McKenna’s lawsuit is won against RECONTRUST, then a chain of other lawsuits will follow. Many people whom bought homes will be in the streets and paying back rent to the real homeowner and not own the house they think they own. In a law suit to get back their equity, they are loosing everyday due to the crime. The harm is endless., and for decades. Investors wont invest in banks they cannot trust. Many people I know have gone to Credit unions. The banks have lost total credibiltiy and can not fool anyone anymore. The game is up.

  97. @Shelley A. Erickson ,

    I just sent the following to the listing agent with a return read receipt.. As I have said previously we need to make stealing houses unprofitable… WE ALL NEED TO BE “THE SAND IN THE VASELINE”

    **************************************************

    Ms. B**** ,

    I live in the ***** ** ****** subdivision and am familiar with the circumstances surrounding the foreclosure of 1173 ****** that you have recently listed. I am writing to inform you that Option One Mortgage and Wells Fargo submitted fraudulent documents created by the “DocX” (i.e.. forgery) division of LPS (Lender Processing Services) … It is for that reason that the foreclosure was delayed , the documents created for plaintiffs counsel were later disavowed by plaintiffs counsel and better quality forgeries were produced. By listing this property for sale , without explicitly warning each and every interested buyer that the title is and will be clouded and that they may NEVER have clear title to this property you are setting yourself up for being a participant in the true owners future lawsuit to reclaim the property. I would suggest visiting the Orange County Courthouse to review the documents regarding this property before you make the mistake of allowing a contract to be drawn up. I would further suggest that you familiarize yourself with the term “wild deed” and visit Dave Kreger’s website Cloudedtitles.com , he has educational material that will be of value to you in avoiding traps and pitfalls.

    B**** *****

  98. Dave Krieger is giving training classe to realtors and parties that want to keep from being in the chain of lawsuits. Look on CloudedTitles.com. If the houses quit selling and people quit buying and people quit paying imposters. The banks would cave to their knees. Question isnt it the law that when fraud and intent to cause defaults and foreclosures (felonies ) is involve, Tila statutes extende due to the fraud?

  99. Sorry about the misspellings I went to fast.

  100. As for Bank of Americas kind notice! Would you give a $100,000.00 off principle, if any ammount was a gain? Bank of America has loads of clouded titles toxic waste, on their books. They by law do not own the mortgages nor the notes! Any house to them is a free house, any ammount they can get you to reup a contract is money in the bank! And you are defrauded of equity you never owed them. Is your title still clouded? Will you still owe the rightful party of interest some day. Can you trust the bankster? Or are they getting you to unknowingly give approval to quiet title and give them permission to secure a debt not owed them, by against your house again? Not owed to a note no longer good but “VOID” AND NULLIFIED? Prove me wrong on this! BANK OF AMERICA POST THE NOTES IN PUBLIC ON ALL THESE HOUSES! PROVE YOU OWN THE NOTE! POST THE TITLE REPORTS PUBLIC! CHASE/ WAMU & DEUTSCH BANK pretenders do the same! I dare you. You will not because you have no proof. You are willingly stealing homes you are not the partie of interest to.

  101. @ neidermeyer

    I believe you are correct. The currency is, right now, on the verge of collapse and the Federal Government is hiding it.

  102. For homeowners fighting Chase/ Deutsche Bank Nat”l Trust, offenders; Look up the case with Deutsche Nat’l Trust V FDIC,Chase/WAMU, states the FDIC and CHASE did not transfer the PSA’s on time and they are faulty “VOID”. SINCE THEY ARE VOID TO DEUTHSCHE TRUST they are void period and the debt is void and the contracts are void. The mortgages and deeds of trust are all void. Get the clue? Look all this up and take it to your lawyer.

  103. Bank of America does not own those Countrywide loans either and in most cases have unlawfully foreclosed using RECONTRUST in all the cases in Washington State anyhow. RECONTRUST just left the state of Washington due to Rob McKennas case filed Washington State V. RECONTRUST. Rob McKenna is asking for all homes unlawfully foreclosed by RECONTRUST in the state of Washington for as far back at least to be returned to the homeowner foreclosed on. Including all homes sold to new owners. None of the foreclosures in this state are in compliance with Washington state CPA or Deed of Trust law. Not just RECONTRUST. Most likely not in any state. The National banks claim they are not subject to state laws, but read the OCC letter January 14, 2005, national bank law does not preempt state law, found easy on the web. All of them are not in compliance with state laws. Cases have been thrown out in other states due to this non compliance issue also. I am Propria Persona and it is very scarry! I tried to find an attorney over and over to help me, but could not get help, and I will defend my home with every breath I take. I am not an attorney so pull up these and read and take them to your attorneys. If you are a Chase/WAMU homeowner, pull up this order.
    http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/MERS%20is%20a%20SHAM.pdf. See the OCC letter on the web: Occ letter January 14, 2005, national bank law does not preempt state law. Deutsche Bank is not in compliance with Washington Deed of Trust Act law nor in compliance with Washington State CPA law for the same reasons RECONTRUST is not in compliance in “ Washington State V. RECONTRUST, filed by AG Rob McKenna. See Deutsche Bank V FDIC.Chase.WAMU. See……
    SEE on the web: FDIC & JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA’S P&A AGREEMENT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE NOTES.
    The Purchase &Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note.
    U. S. DISTRICT COURT CASE # CV10-0815 0D2 (FFMx)
    JAVAHIERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA et al:
    Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011
    Decision can be found at http://www.chasechase.org/doxcc/Javaheri35Order.pdf
    US Code: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1641
    § 1641. Liability of assignees can be found at
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1641&url=/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001641—-000-.html
    From the decision”:

    C. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. (See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.

    From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:

    WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE – SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff’s residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB’s history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.

    Wall Street and the Financial Crisis – Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,
    was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial
    crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily
    available for download at the Senate Subcommittee’s website. 2
    Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that “JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC” (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.

    Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those
    matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California
    Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
    See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);
    Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff’s property when it acquired

    Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
    – 17 –
    WMB’s assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff’ mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.
    Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff’s residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff’s residence. This is not a liability issue.
    Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.

    Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff’s single family
    residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff’s default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB’s assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.

    If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it
    proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss
    this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase
    could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court
    __._,_.___
    Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have
    capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.

    The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff’s pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.

    Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.

    Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been
    appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender.

    The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located.” (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).

    Defendant asks the Court’s approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff’s
    property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary
    of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though
    Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.

    (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…
    Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.

    Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.

    The mortgage is not secured by the note and the contract is breached at inception due to failure to disclose the true lender and fraud assignment to Duetsche Bank National Trust whom is unlawfully doing business in the State of Washington, not incompliance with WA Deed of Trust Act and not in compliance with the Washington CPA laws and Washington Corporation laws. See on the web OCC letter dated January 14, 2005 stating National Bank law does not preempt state law. Duetsche bank has never been authorized to be doing business of any kind including banking , foreclosing, and being a beneficiary in the State of Washington and has been foreclosing unlawfully in the State of Washington.

  104. James since the house contract is null and void and the debt against the house is null and void. It is a matter of finding justice, the house is not under water or in a negative equity. Read the John O’Brien deeds of register report stating 75% of the assignments are invalid. I believe with digging they will find a higher percentage. And the Phil Ting report that 84% of the assignments are invalid. And 100% of the notes (PSA’s) are invalid. And most likely this is consistant with every county in every state. This means by the crooks own hands the mortgages are invalid void and no debt is provable or secured by the house/mortgage. So only in the pretend world is the house under water. In the real world it is paid in full. And the banksters now this and are stealing your houses debt free ontop of stealing the the real lenders wealth. This is my view on this prove me wrong! The fight is finding a judge and attorney that gets it and upholds the law that gets it or is not corrupt or fight pro se(propria persona) Scarey to do this, but pro se’s are winning. better to find an attorney, but hard to find a good attorney that is not afraid of being disbarred for helping the nnocent and gets it. Dont hand in the keys! The banksters win! You loose!

  105. I would think in the fraud/fake world the houses are in an negative equity value, but in the real world the houses are not under water or in a negative equity value, cause they have not attached debt to them, the contracts are null and void, and the note is no good and void, so there is no debt at all. All due to the crimes of the banksters themselves. So hanging onto your house and not walking out and keeping the keys to defend your home is worth while. This is a fraud false pretend world taking the keys. Perhaps more people see they are making payments to a fraud and will owe someone else whom shows up with the real note, and knows it is unethical to make payments to a fraud. In Washington state it is the duty of the borrower to pay the correct party. If you dont find out who you owe and you pay the wrong person, it is your duty to then pay the right person. So are we suppose to continue to pay a fraud that does not give us proof of whom owns the mortgage to attempt to save our house or are we suppose to put the breaks on and say prove whom has the real note! And stop paying? People whom are not behind and have lucked out not to be harmed by this economy are asking me this. Seems pretty dangerous to stop making your payment because the crooks have bought the judges and you will loose a house over the fight for proof, However the homeowner is in a debicle of hell being scared into paying a fraud in hopes they dont loose their house to the fraud. Due to the corrruption. Nothing is judged by the law in Washington state. You quit making payments for any good reason, we are dead beats and the bank gets the house, by fraud documents and or stating they do not have to produce the proof. Or a promise we will show up in court with it when it goes to court, knowing fullwell the case is SMJ’d against our constitutional rights before discovery is allowed or finished. SMJ out of court should be an unlawful policy in conflict with the U.S. constitution. How come that question is not asked of the U.S. Supreme Court? The first case won in the U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit has at last given us case law for HAMP violations. That is what happened to me and many people I know including my son. I made five mod payments, a friend made nine and her mod payments were only a six dollar reduction. My sons mod payments were double payments for elven months. He was in construdtion and got behind. They refused his eleventh payment and went for the house. I and my friend were not behind and listened to to all the request of the bank, were approved told to start making mod payments immediately and we would recieve the final paperwork to finalize it. Never were told it was a trial plan. Then told five and nine months later they have now unapproved us and our mod payments are now considered partial payments and we are in foreclosure. Chase bank used the mod payments to drag us into foreclosure. My friend told the bank no we dont want to pay just six dollars less, we want a better program or we will struggle for every dime to pay the reg payment. The bank told them they had to pay the six dollar reduced payment now, that the banksters would only accept that ammount. And now are attempting to steal the house for over a year, putting them through hell! They hired an attorney that did nothing for them and are about to walk from their home due to the stress is unbarable. I am begging them not to. They can not find an attorney that will help them. I have another freind in the hospital, caused by stress from this crime. These banksters need to be brought to justice. They are not banks! They are criminal entities, parasites, that pretend to lend pretend to own and steal the wealth from America. They have no good purpose in our economy, nor our financial system, they are dead beats, parasites, and crooks.

  106. AMICUS BRIEF FROM NCLC IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT MCOMIE-GRAY IN NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL CASE RE: TILA AND 3 YEAR

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84723587/NCLC-Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-McOmie-Gray-TILA

  107. No equity now, and not enough life expectancy for most of us to ever hope of having any.

    But…

    Bank of America to provide MORE THAN $100K principal reduction to 200,000 Countrywide-originated mortgages. (Does not include Fannie, Freddie, VA, etc. loans.)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/business/bank-of-america-makes-deal-on-housing.html?_r=2&ref=business

  108. THANK GOODNESS THE ATTORNEYS FILED A PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING IN THE MCOMIE-GRAY TILA APPEAL DECISION IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84712205/McOmie-Gray-Opinion-2-8-2012-TILA-and-Petition-for-Rehearing-Ninth-Circuit

  109. Realtors and brokers, feigning ignorance yet again, and are selling properties that they know are highly suspect. It’s the same lapse of conscience that they had when they continually asked their favorite appraiser for better numbers in order to seal the deal.

    But they know that what they’re selling is nothing more than cats stuffed in pokes disguised as piggies. “Acheter chat en poche”, as the French say, a reference to a parlor trick whereby the seller stuffs a cat into a sack and sells it as a pig, the swine deemed to be of more value.

    “A pig in a poke” was the common slang for the event. But, once the trick is known for what it is, the “cat is out of the bag” and the fraud is revealed. That fable equates to the marketability of almost every single realty transaction in the United States these days, but the cat is clearly out of the bag.

    What most closely resembles what the realtors are doing today is “screwing the pooch”, with the American citizenry getting the screwing. Their actions need to be brought out into the light of day. Like Neidermeyer alluded to recently, these people need to be made aware that what they’re doing is in fact aiding and abetting fraud, and when they sell a property without making full representation that there may be title issues, they in fact are dodging their “oath of office” where it says, “….[they] shall recommend that legal counsel be obtained when the interest of any party to the transaction requires it.” Otherwise, they should be held to account.

    A Trumpeter during a battle ventured too near the enemy and was captured. They were about to put him to death when he begged them for mercy. “I do not fight,” said he, “and indeed carry no weapon; I only blow this trumpet, and surely that cannot harm you; then why should you kill me?”

    “You may not fight yourself,” said the others, “but you encourage and guide your men to the fight.”

    Caveat emptor shouldn’t be a legal or moral defense against omissions such as the high probability,even the certainty of clouded title, when the facts of the matter are so obvious. Call them on it. The cats are running loose.

  110. TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!!

    Banks cornered by a journalist and refusing to answer fair and square.
    Notice, though, that the journalist never got an answer…

    Except that… it isn’t here. See, here we can’t even ask bankers anything: we’re way too insignificant to deserve anything remotely associated with an explanation.

    Boy Oh boy, is it ever gona blow!!! People are getting frickin’ fed up the world around.

    A must watch.

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012/03/watch-this-ireland-wants-the-same-answers-we-do/

  111. keep defending your homes, with everything you can !….

  112. @Niedermeyer,

    The wheels on the bus go round and round… Right on!

    Banks will keep on trying to scam in order to make a few bucks… with FDIC’s encouragments.

    Fed’s Stackhouse: Bankers beware
    St. Louis Business Journal by Greg Edwards, Reporter
    Date: Friday, March 2, 2012, 2:25pm CST
    Enlarge Image Julie Stackhouse

    Greg Edwards
    Reporter – St. Louis Business Journal
    Email | Facebook As she looks over the 2011 financial results at St. Louis banks, Julie Stackhouse, senior vice president and managing officer of the Division of Banking Supervision at the St. Louis Fed, has a sober warning for bankers struggling to make profits: Beware in what, and with whom, you invest.

    “There are two things that have not been on the radar screen,” she said. “One is the challenge in generating profits in a very low interest rate environment — it’s very difficult for banks.”

    The second, she said, is that as banks look for ways to make profits other than the interest rates they can charge, they will consider other options, she said. “Some will be good choices, and some will add risk.”

    For example, she said, the Fed is seeing banks being approached by third-party vendors who want them to partner in the purchase of troubled bank assets from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Latest from The Business Journals Gallery: TN Commerce auction includes jewelry, watches, Bridgestone suiteTampa is front-and-center in community bank controversyRepublic looks to snag more banks in Nashville area Follow this company , which is holding them as receiver. Though they may be tempting, not all of those will be wise investments, she said.

    “In other cases, vendors are offering to sell participations — parts of loans — that were originally made by someone other than the banking organization,” she said. Again, that can be risky.

    “All of these are done with the intent to increase the earnings of the bank today,” as opposed to the long term, she said. “Because of their unusual nature, they require a very careful assessment of the risk.”

  113. A vicious circle… it WILL continue… The only things that will reverse it are :

    1.) Jobs at good wages..
    2.) Real Accounting at the banks
    3.) an end to lawlessness in the courts (uncertainty about previously foreclosed properties)

    We are headed to a total collapse of the currency… it can’t be stopped at this point.

  114. Yup, no equity…the banks have done their jobs well. Seeing they have no investment in real property every foreclosure is a gain.

  115. The point is no equity,not negative equity.It doesnt matter how you pretty it up,or what flowery phrases you akin to it.It still means you have no equity.Enough said moving on.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: