The Murder of our Economy and Society by the Banks


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


When is Foreclosure Theft? When the Mortgage is Recorded at MERS

Author: L. Randall Wray

As I’ve said many times, whenever you criticize the banks you get pushback from their employees and lawyers handling their home thefts (whoops I meant “foreclosures”). About ten days ago I posted a brief update on the state of play, and received the usual comments. (Here:

Indeed, they went beyond “usual” as one bank lawyer tried to defend home theft as a “victimless crime”: “As a lawyer who did foreclosure work for many years for both borrowers and lenders, I assure you that robosigning is a victimless technicality. In only a handful of exceptions is there a wrongful foreclosure in which the outcome would have changed had the technicality been corrected. I am astonished to see foreclosure characterized as “theft” on an otherwise reputable site.”

Well, I guess it is nice that the lawyer thinks this site is “otherwise reputable”. But, in fact, robosigning is a go-to-jail crime. And illegally taking a home is certainly not victimless. Let us count the victims:

*The homeowner. Often the banks seize the wrong properties—because MERS (more below) recorded the wrong address. Often they steal homes that never had a mortgage. Or they lose the payments the homeowner tried to make, then claim default, then steal the home. Or they advise the homeowner to stop making payments in order to qualify for a “loan mod” (better terms on a new mortgage, often under one of the government programs)—then steal the home. But banks and their lawyers consider these “victimless crimes”.

*The neighborhood. All homeowners in the area suffer lost property values and higher crime rates. Local government lose revenues, so cut services. Workers are forced to turn down better job offers because they cannot afford to move—stuck with underwater mortgages and homes they cannot sell. Banksters see “no harm, no foul”.

*The national economy. Ten million jobs lost. Over ten trillion dollars of lost wealth. We know the banksters’ view of this: new opportunities for the top 1%! (As I’ve argued—back in 2005!—it is all part of Bush’s “ownership society” agenda: pump up home prices and when the bubble bursts, all property will get concentrated into the hands of the wealthiest, the true owners of our society.)

*The justice system. Looking the other way when lawyers and their banks openly lie to judges, falsify documents, and engage in property theft turns our justice system into just another branch of the kleptocracy that Wall Street is creating—what Wall Street calls the “new plutocracy”—government of, by, and for the top tenth of one percent.

*Property rights. Over the past half a millennium western property law was developed precisely to prevent some feudal lord or modern bankster from showing up and claiming title in order to steal property. This is why in the US every property sale had to be recorded—in pen and ink—at the county recorder’s office. The mortgage note and deed had to be retained by the creditor and presented to foreclose on a delinquent homeowner. It had to match the county records of ownership. That has now been destroyed in the US. Anyone with a good enough lawyer and a compliant judge can now claim your property. Who suffers? Everyone. Except the top 1% that can afford to buy lawyers and judges.

A lawyer wrote to me in response to this bankster lawyer’s comment to me:

Must have been a Lender/Servicer/Plaintiff attorney! “Victimless???” Let me tell you this short war story:

During an argument (small chamber hearing — wish it had been in a large courtroom with others present), the Judge asked both the Plaintiff Attorney and me (as defense attorney) if we paid our mortgages? Both of us answered,”Yes.”

The Judge then offered, of course, that he, too, paid his mortgage and then added: “So, you see we all must pay our mortgages.”

This was my response to the Judge: “Yes, Your Honor, I am able to pay my mortgage because I am paid by the homeowners to defend their cases. The Plaintiff-Bank attorney is able to pay his mortgage because the banks pay him to prosecute their cases. And you, Your Honor, are able to pay your mortgage because you are paid by the taxpayers to adjudicate these cases.

Essentially, all of us are ‘standing on the backs’ of the homeowners who (through no fault of their own) are out of jobs or underpaid, and who are ‘underwater with barely a straw to breath through’ — all as a direct result of this economic recession — An economic recession which was, quite literally, caused by THIS Plaintiff and others like it in the financial industry.

In fact, Your Honor, you, as a public servant, have already witnessed cuts in the court clerk’s office and other judicial resources. Even you, yourself, may have concerns of reduced income or ‘cutting-down of the courts’ as a result of this economic recession .”

The Judge reacted by visibly pulling back in his winged, cushioned chair, and with eyes-wide-open and responded: “My God, we’re here arguing ‘a car accident’ and you’re arguing ‘A MURDER! ‘ ”

Without, blinking an eye, I leaned forward and responded, ” ‘Exactly,’ Your Honor, this Plaintiff and others like it have, indeed, MURDERED our national economy, our state economies, as well as small businesses, communities, and our families (which include the elderly and children).

Yes, Your Honor, I am arguing a MURDER.” The Point (as to “Victimless”): There are so many VICTIMS that it is impossible to take a “body count!” PLUS, our Due Process Rights, Official Land Recording System, Judicial System (as a whole), and CENTURIES of property law have all been, at the least, CRITICALLY INJURED (if not worse).

When is a foreclosure a theft? When the mortgage was recorded at MERS. MERS has no standing to foreclose. The typical mortgage was bought and sold about ten times before it finally got securitized. And those sales and purchases were not recorded at the county recorder’s office. Several important court cases have ruled that servicers using MERS have no standing to foreclose because the chain of title was thereby broken. That is about two-thirds of all mortgages made since the megabanks created the MERS monster. Now, those who go up against banks trying to foreclose using the “MERS destroyed the chain of title” defense do not always win. Judges are having a hard time getting their minds around the fact that banks have destroyed property law in the US. Or, they make a calculation that recognizing this fact will throw the whole real estate sector into disarray, hence overlook the home thefts as the lesser of evils.

I am going to do a more detailed update on the more recent rulings. Meanwhile here is a link to a good site with a lot of information: It is instructive just to read down the list of the variety of frauds the banks are using to illegally take homes, things like:

o Falsely claiming to be the owner/holder of the mortgage;

o Falsely claiming standing by use of names such as Trustee, Assignee, Nominee, Beneficiary, etc.;

o Fraudulently invoking the jurisdiction of the court; o Preying on the ignorance of the court and homeowner;

o Falsely claiming Pooling & Servicing Agreements, industry standards, rules, guidelines or other industry-authored writings supersede the law;

o Failing to follow PSA guidelines;

o Robo-Signing legal documents without the legal authority to do so.

o Entering on-time payments as late, to exact illegal and unauthorized fees;

o Manipulating account records;

o Backdating legal documents;

o Filing forged documents in courts and public records;

o Charging force-placed insurance when the homeowner already has full coverage;

o Falsely reporting a default to the credit bureaus when it is the pretender lender who is manufacturing the default;

o Paying property taxes late, then charging the late penalties to the borrower;

o Paying taxes and insurance on the wrong property;

o Refusing payments to guarantee default;

o Adding thousands of dollars in unearned legal fees to create a default;

o Ignoring customer complaints and “qualified written requests”;

o Arrogantly violating numerous laws and regulations;

o Coercing the homeowner into signing a forbearance agreement to strip away their legal rights;

o Falsifying records and documents;

o Committing fraud upon the courts by stating they are the Holder and Owner of the Note – when in fact – they do not own or hold the “original” Note;

o Intentionally causing delays to run up your legal expenses;

o Creating fictitious documents (Lost Note Affidavits, Power of Attorney, etc.);

o Triggering the terms of the null and void Deed of Trust/Mortgage

o Apply to the trust for reimbursement after deducting the fees from the borrowers p&i payments, (Known as double-dipping)

o Rounding up ARM rates when on a downward trend; o Not adhering to the terms of the loan documents;

o Creating additional false deficiencies through a variety of questionable practices;

o Adding misc. fees to purposely create a deficiency with the borrower’s next payment;

o Not applying payments to principal and interest;

o Committing perjury through misrepresentations;

o Withholding or redacting discovery evidence;

o Tampering with court transcripts and removing evidence from the record;

o Conjuring up events that never happened while refusing to provide documentation to support their fallacies;

o Refusing to cooperate with attempts to refinance and stop the illegal foreclosure;

o Using abuse of litigation, appeals and malicious prosecution to litigate forever;

o Payoffs to the consumer’s attorney, law enforcement officials, judges, court personnel and government officials;

o Threats & intimidation; o Electronic surveillance;

o Wire Fraud / Mail Fraud;

o Conspiracy;

o Fraud in the inducement;

o Unjust Enrichment;

o Embezzlement;

o Racketeering – RICO;

o Extortion;

o Abuse of Process;

o Violation of ethics;

o Grand Theft;

o Extortion;

o Tax Fraud (REMIC);

o Public Corruption;

o Notary Fraud;

o Evidence Tampering;

o Theft of Government Services;

o Perjury;

o Felonious Influence of Public Officials;

o Money Laundering;

o Insurance Fraud;

o Securities Fraud;

o Constitutional and Civil Right violations.

Ah, yes, the banks are truly innovative. Keep this in mind the next time some bank lawyer tries to convince you that all this is “victimless crime”. Now many will say: “but the homeowner was delinquent, so the home theft by the banksters was justified!” Why was the homeowner delinquent? Because the banksters have tacked on fees, lost payments, doctored documents and so on. Nay, they need only be delinquent BECAUSE the bank that wants their home says they are!

And for those willing to wade through a ruling, there was an excellent recent decision in El Paso, Texas in the 171st district court. It found MERS to be “grossly negligent”, that it had “fraudulently misrepresented” standing as beneficial owner of notes and mortgages, that it had failed to properly record the property, and that it had engaged in a “conspiracy”. There have been several such cases that rule against the legal basis of MERS’s business model—which then invalidates the whole “theory” that electronic recording can replace pen and ink recording in the county recorder’s office. And that, dear Virginia, means there is no legal basis for foreclosure of property registered at MERS and all such foreclosures are property theft.

138 Responses

  1. I sure hope this is catchy and it stands until the crooks are investigated to the fullest and brought to justice. Well I can hope and dream a little can’t I?

  2. good news the investors are looking into legally blocking the settlement. YEAH! I wondered why they were siting by the side line on this. They have money to fight this crime.
    Legal Main Menu
    HomeNewsInsightLegal Materials

    Can MBS investors block national mortgage deal via litigation? read more »

    Citi/Rakoff case: How much deference do courts owe the SEC? read more »

    How the Mets (actually) won the Madoff settlement read more »

    Can MBS investors block national mortgage deal via litigation?
    3/20/2012 COMMENTS (1)

    Mortgage-backed securities investors who are convinced that banks intend to shift the cost of the $25 billion national mortgage settlement onto their shoulders are “evaluating their legal options,” according to Chris Katopis, executive director of the Association of Mortgage Investors (and a former clerk on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals). The private investors, as I’ve reported, are outraged at the terms of the settlement, which sets no limit on the percentage of securitized mortgages the settling banks — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial — are permitted to modify to reach their $17 billion target for reducing the principal balance owed by struggling borrowers. Mortgage-backed noteholders believe the deal terms encourage banks to write down investor-owned first liens, rather than second lien mortgages in bank-owned portfolios. That incentive, they say, shifts the cost of the deal from the banks to mortgage-backed bondholders.

    Their argument is gaining traction. The New York Times editorialized Sunday on the bank-friendly details of the national settlement, and both Zero Hedge and The American Banker have picked up on the MBS investors’ cost-shifting theme. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has denied assertions that Secretary Shaun Donovan promised MBS investors a cap on modification of securitized mortgages, has been put on the defensive, issuing a “Myth vs. Fact” blog post to present its case for the settlement. The bond investors are doing a great job of whipping up outrage about the deal, which must be approved by a U.S. District Judge in federal court in Washington.

    Unfortunately for the bond investors, outrage is not a cause of action.

    Katopis told me he doesn’t want to give away any clues about the strategy MBS investors may pursue. There are certainly some very smart, creative lawyers who’ve counseled mortgage-backed noteholders over the last three years, including David Frederick of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, who represents the National Credit Union Administration in MBS securities suits and also happens to be one of the most prominent U.S. Supreme Court litigators around. (I tried to reach Frederick but he was arguing a case in Chicago and unavailable.)

    As best I can determine, bondholders have two potential grounds on which to attempt to block the deal (aside from an amicus brief outlining their concerns with the terms of the settlement). They could argue that the settlement interferes with their contractual relationships with the banks that sponsored mortgage-backed securities, or they could make a way-out-of-the-box argument that the proposed settlement violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which prohibits the government from snatching private property without just compensation.

    Neither argument looks very promising to me. The settlement contains a specific (albeit incredibly convoluted) clause deferring to the pooling and servicing agreements that govern MBS trusts. The banks are not supposed to be permitted to take any action to satisfy their obligations under the national settlement in violatation of their underlying contracts with investors. So even though they weren’t included in the negotiation of the national settlement, noteholders shouldn’t be any worse off contractually than they were under the terms of contracts they agreed to. Any judge weighing an objection to the national settlement on contract grounds would probably tell MBS investors to wait and see if any bank actually breaches an underlying contract, and then sue the bank. (That’s not so easy, of course; most pooling and servicing agreements require that noteholders pass a 25 percent voting-rights threshold even to begin the process that leads to contract litigation.)

    The more exotic takings argument rests on the idea that because the United States has a financial interest in the solvency of the banks in the mortgage settlement, the government indirectly benefits from the banks’ alleged cost-shifting. It’s a pretty nifty idea, but bondholders in both the Chrysler and GM bailouts tried to float it and it sank like the proverbial lead balloon. The Chrysler bondholders represented by Thomas Lauria of White & Case didn’t even make a Fifth Amendment argument to the Supreme Court, and the government had a much more direct role in damaging debtholders in the auto bailout than it does in the mortgage settlement.

    The bondholders, however, may simply want the time and leverage litigation buys to force the banks and the state and federal officials who negotiated the settlement to give them the loan modification cap they believe they were promised. I can’t wait to see what their lawyers come up with.

    (Reporting by Alison Frankel)

    Follow Alison on Twitter: @AlisonFrankel

    Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal

  3. Johngualt that is exactly the point and I am sure was the point Judges Schack was getting at. It is telling that the foreclosures have become a log jam, by asking for proof and the truth, by the attorneys to put their licenses and hineys on the line. All those attorneys need to be brought up on felony charges. 18USC2,3,&4 makes it clear to all judges and attorneys in every court and every state, their first priority is to the courts and justice system and second to their clients, mandated to report fraud or they are committing fraud a felony disdemeanor. NONE of them are immune to this law! To war against the U.S. Constitution is treason. Unconstitutional law is treason. Fileing false affidavits in public records for the purpose to steal property is an act of terrorism and a felony and fraud. One should not have to remind them, nor ask for affirmation of authority to represent, and to affirm they are producing truthful affidavits. The rule of law is there. However our courts do not go by the rule of law. There is no respect for the U.S. Constitution. Greed is the rule of the greedy, at all cost of morals, ethics and risk of going to jail. Judge Schack was not complaining, he was making a statement of telling it like it is. The committees must recognize they have been committing fraud and violating the above statutes. Or the log jam would not be happening.

  4. shelley – I read schack’s comments – thanks. We all love him, right?
    He calls for all dots and assignments to be recorded in NY, but I was surprised that he spent some of his valuable time saying that NY’s recent req for an attorney’ affidavit has created a logjam in NY courts because attorneys don’t want to sign them. That does seem like a tough issue. We all know there are a gazillion liars-for-hire who work for the banksters, but to put one’s license on the line or even be up for sanctions by way of a bad affidavit might be a tad much. Such an affidavit calls for a legal conclusion about certain things and though yeah, they’re attorneys, so theoretically qualified to make those legal conclusions, it’s a pretty high bar. Maybe there’s a middle ground to be found, because on the flip side, this filing any old bs you get paid for is unconsionable. But also on the flip side, isn’t it the attorney’s duty – to know that he’s presenting FACTS when he’s alleging ‘stuff’ as fact? So, is that bar too high, or hell with them, they should be willing to sign the affidavits or don’t take the stinking case? I’d sure like to know what any attorney thinks about this NY court rule. If this NY rule reflects the way it actually is, like in the canon of ethics or professional code or whatnot, then how is the req to put it in writing, and which req serves as a warning, anything new for what might be then much ado about nothing?

    Any attorneys willing to share his or her perspective on this?

    (I find it particularly interesting and relevant because it’s coming from Judge Schack, who by alleging a logjam, to me, inplies the affidavit is the problem, and he is not bankster – driven as are some judges by all appearances imo) IF this affidavit is fair, then maybe other courts should be encouraged to adopt its use.


  6. DARN FORGOT THE ARTICLE.1-10 of 216,000 results· Advanced
    Testimony of Hon. Arthur M. Schack Before The …3 hours ago
    Mar 19, 2012 · Testimony of Hon. Arthur M. Schack Before The US House of Rep. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Posted on19 March ……Foreclosure Wire: 1/9/11 – 1/16/11
    Now, Judge Arthur M. Schack of Brooklyn has … New House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R … Congressional Testimony; US House … on Judiciary – Commercial Subcommittee Hearings
    … Assistance Program and Testimony … by and among the United States of America, the … Joint hearing with House Government Reform and Oversight …


  8. Well yahoo for residents of Washington! The state of Washington recognizes the fiduciary of the dot trustee to the borrower. According to a pleading in Bain, WA law also holds that “a non-judicial foreclosure cannot be commenced if an action on the obligation has been commenced.” RCW 61.24.020 If I got this right, this is a great adantage because you don’t then have to fight for some stinking
    injunction once you’ve filed suit (“on the obligation”).

  9. shelley, needcaselaw, and anyone interested: there are more pleadings from Bain available (free) at

  10. Pratt was bragging about the fraud MERS had committed in the 1990’s. I sure hope the judges pick up on this. And Melissa Huelsman and the other attorney. A lot of the homes in the 1980’s were stolen homes. Unfortunately I was a purchaser of one of those stolen homes, unbeknown to me it was stolen. Back then they went through a public process and the public did bids. Now they do an unlawful process and credit bid on a house they dont have authority to credit bid on and get it ‘FREE”. I purchased that house for $2,700.00 in the 1980’s. Yes two thousand seven hundred dollars. Now I feel so bad about whom lost that home. The internet was not available like it is now to the public and no one put two and two together. I sold that house a year and a half later for 35,000.00 and a few years ago it was worth over $300,000.00. Bubble price. I had no idea what had happened until this last couple of years and wondered if the houses were stolen then like they are now, which has come to light this has been happening for decades to homeowners. Our generation has to put a stop to this unconscionable crime.

  11. This is exactly what I gathered from the testimony! This is what I was trying to bring out by my post! Pratt meant to be bragging MERS had done something good, but he testified to doing something unlawful and fraud back then, then MERS continues to do this same fraud today. MERS was invented for the purpose to commit fraud. I thought WOW! When he said that, and I hope the attorneys and the judges saw this! [
    MERS attorneys admitted before the Supreme Court that they have committed over a million violations of that statute by issuing reconveyances where no assignment of legal Beneficiary was ever made or recorded.]

  12. Shelly and JohnGault: A quick follow-up on your observation regarding argument before the Washington Supreme Court. The MERS attorney claimed that “MERS was created to permit the release of reconveyances.” A question yet to be brought before the Court but which I’m sure will come (maybe even with this decision): As MERS quoted to the court to justify their special wording in a deed of trust (Mortgage statues permit addition of other agreements to a mortgage), RCW 61.24.020 states “Except as provided in this chapter, a deed of trust is subject to all laws relating to mortgages on real property.” Id.
    A most relevant mortgage statute to their argument is RCW 61.16.010: “Any person to whom any real estate mortgage is given, or the assignee of any such mortgage, may, by an instrument in writing, signed and acknowledged in the manner provided by law entitling mortgages to be recorded, assign the same to the person therein named as assignee, and ANY PERSON TO WHOM ANY SUCH MORTGAGE HAS BEEN SO ASSIGNED, MAY, AFTER THE ASSIGNMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR OF THE COUNTY WHEREIN SUCH MORTGAGE IS OF RECORD, acknowledge satisfaction of the mortgage, and discharge the same of record.” Yes, there is a statute in the Deed of Trust Act which speaks to reconveyances. It is “The trustee shall reconvey all or any part of the property encumbered by the deed of trust to the person entitled thereto on written request of the beneficiary, or upon satisfaction of the obligation secured and written request for reconveyance made by the beneficiary or the person entitled thereto.” RCW 61.24.110. As I read this, it in no way trumps the requirement of assignment AND RECORDING THEREOF; it simply supplements it by specifying how that is achieved under a deed of trust setting. Complimenting this interpretation (that the Legislature’s intent is not only for assignments as required under the Real Estate Statute of Frauds, but also recording thereof) is the provision of RCW 61.24.040(f), requiring that a Notice of Trustee’s Sale “must be in substantially the following form: * * * [Deed of trust description] from . . . . . . . . ., as Grantor, to . . . . . . . . ., as Trustee, to secure an obligation in favor of . . . . . . . . ., as Beneficiary, the beneficial interest in WHICH WAS ASSIGNED BY . . . . . . . . ., UNDER AN ASSIGNMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR’S FILE NO. . . . . [Include recording information for all counties if the Deed of Trust is recorded in more than one county.] * * *.” Id. [emphasis added].
    MERS attorneys admitted before the Supreme Court that they have committed over a million violations of that statute by issuing reconveyances where no assignment of legal Beneficiary was ever made or recorded.

  13. And yes it is bothersome, the judges seemed to have some good questions and good reasoning, however they seemed to be in the dark about what the laws are on this matter. Like they did not read the briefs and look up the facts themselves. Maybe it is there job to pull the argument out of the attorney for the record. They seemed to be on the side of killing MERS. I sure hope so.

  14. Yes I noticed he claimed you can find whom owns the note on the web through MERS, and that is a blatant lie. Pratt should go down for misrepresentation and fraud upon the court. Here is the U.S.Supreme Court case from 1987, that states the note can not be separated from the deed of trust or it is void, nullified. (not voidable, but VOID)

    US 271 – Supreme Court 1873 | The note and …
    Mar 04, 2012 · 83 U.S. 271 (____) 16 Wall. 271. CARPENTER v. LONGAN. Supreme Court of United States. … One Response to “Carpenter v. Longan, 83 US 271 – Sup. Court ……
    Carpenter v. Longan – 83 U.S. 271 (1872) :: Justia US Supreme …
    Syllabus; Case U.S. Supreme Court Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 271 271 (1872) Carpenter v. Longan. 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271. APPEAL FROM THE …
    83 U.S. 271 21 L.Ed. 313 16 Wall. 271 CARPENTER
    Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313, 83 U.S. 271 (1872) – 1 – 83 U.S. 271 21 L.Ed. 313 16 Wall. 271 CARPENTER v. LONGAN. December Term, 1872 … · PDF file

  15. shelley – Pratt imo was making up a reason for MERS’ existence in the first place, which is not even the one MERS tried to and did sell. I mean, he’s not gonna go into that court and tell the WA SC that MERS sold itself to lenders with its claim of saving recording fees, is he? He claimed MERS somehow helps getting releases of old loans when a property is either sold or refinanced. Poppycock. No, it was just a smoke screen because in the year 2012, no intelligent person respects the reason MERS actually claimed it would be of value. And he’s not gonna point out that all those yeah-hoo’s skipped the assignments along the way, is he? So he recited that dribble. He also told the court that a homeowner can look on MERS’ website and find the note owner. What he didnt’ tell the court is if that’s true, it’s entirely born of the Consent Order, because prior to that time, only the servicer was EVER listed at MERS. These guys just blow it out their you-know-whats. I’ve seen them tell a court MERS keeps track (a verb denoting action – grrr) of servicers so when servicing changes hands, there needn’t be recordation of that fact. I don’t know which is more sickening and disheartening – the fact that they say that crap when the matter of servicing has never in the history of this country been recorded or the fact that they can count on the judiciary not to know this.

  16. @needcaselaw – most of those cases and rules apply to liability as the result of the autograph of an agent on a note. First, apparently, the rule of law was no, if you personally didn’t sign a note as maker, you are not liable. Now the law appears to say if it can be shown that the person who signed the note in his own name but signed as your agent (with his intent and yours to bind you), you (as undisclosed principal) can be held liable under the UCC. And here I note a note does not involve real property, which has a different ‘threshold’, but at any rate, so far, apples and organges because as to the UCC and the note, we’re talking strictly about liability under the note as maker (and not who has the right to enforce). Deeds of trust are regulated not by the UCC, but by the statute of frauds. And no, parol evidence is not generally allowed by ANYone, including parties thereto, when there is a writing. We clearly agree that an assignment is an assignment of a DEED of trust.
    MERS just tried to handle too many issues with its deed of trust and its m.o. They tried to put a square peg in a round hole. MERS and its members (appropriately called the MERS’ Regime in Bain) know that enforcement (if nothing else) requires unity of the note and dot. That’s one of the reason they called MERS the beneficiary in the dot : so that when MERS alleged possession of the note to
    foreclose, they could claim unity of the note (at least possession of) and the deed of trust. (I think it’s VERY important to understand this). BUT their bs possession and right to enforce the note got tossed (hence the Consent Order), so they had to come up with something else, and that something is an agency which doesn’t exist. No where is MERS alleged right to assign a dot expressed, but since the MERS Regime couldn’t be bothered to do the
    required assignments (and MERS may no longer foreclose), what else are they going to claim? Imo, it’s just a matter of time before these bs assignments are called out for the illegitimate pieces of fluff they are (just like “MERS” – read member carte-blanche – foreclosures), so I think we we need to add their next move to our
    to-do list, also. As to the argument, or one of them, in Bain about an agent qualifying as a beneficiary under WA law, like I said, I don’t know that law well enough to comment about WA specifically. But I stand by what I’ve said – MERS is not an agent in the
    first place. If anything, MERS is a public record-placeholder to allow speed in selling notes and assigning dots without the immediate need for recordation of the assignments. That isn’t the recitation, of course, in the deed of trust, so imo that’s problematic for them since 1) there is no expressed agency and 2) MERS is
    not the beneficiary (unless they decided to bifurcate the note and dot). Like I have said over and over because I firmly so believe, MERS could have been the agent of the beneficiary, but they chose not to play it that way whether as a matter of ignorance or arrogance or both.

  17. Johngault, I agree, MERS was specifically not to be a beneficiary. The lenders would have to trust MERS with their checks(notes) that would be risky. Also I would like to find out more about Pratts claims the loans were to difficult to refie or impossible to refi. Is that because their were clouded title problems way back before MERS and they knew it so they did a cover up with MERS to get around the clouded titles from possible securities fraud already committed? Pratt specifically claims there was a problem getting loans on the mortgages. WHY? Lets go back and look at the Bain video again. MERS MAY HAVE BEEN A COVER UP FROM DAY ONE.

  18. johngault – thank you for your analysis. Laws of agency are definitely applicable. However, statutes of frauds (WA has at least two, one for notes, one for real property) are seldom called upon because as between parties to a contract, intent of the parties rules. But when, as one judge put it, “they were passing around the mortgage like a bottle at a frat party”, those are third parties – as are purchasers of foreclosed properties. And for such, statutes of frauds must be followed. They are the only protection from fraud in the bigger picture.


    In Washington all conveyances must be by “deed”, RCW 64.04.010; and all deeds must be “signed by the party bound thereby”, RCW 64.04.020. Prior to 1993 the laws of the Uniform Commercial Code were virtually identical to those of the Deed of Trust and Recording Acts with regard to who had the authority sign a “transfer” in the case of a negotiable instrument, and an “assignment” in the case of a deed of trust. Both contained the above noted exception to the general rule of contracts (enunciated in RCW 64.04.020): before 1993 both negotiable instruments and deeds of trust had to bear the signature of THE PARTY TO BE BOUND in the contract.
    Prior to 1993 – Quoting from current UCC Official Comment: “former Section 3-401(1) stated that ‘no person is liable on an instrument unless his signature appears thereon.’ This was interpreted as meaning that an undisclosed principal is not liable on an instrument. This interpretation provided an exception to ordinary agency law that binds an undisclosed principal on a simple contract.” UCC Official Comment Sect. 3-402(1). This “exception” was virtually identical to that which has always been in place for deeds: a deed must be “signed by the party bound thereby.” RCW 64.04.020 (Part of Washington’s Real Estate Statute of Frauds). To permit an anonymous principal to convey real property interest would eliminate chain of title as the system for establishing property rights, and legalize “wild deeds.” A deed of trust is more than an instrument securing a debt: it is a deed – and all assignments of it are deeds, which if they are to be capable of conveying property interest or power of sale must conform to deed requirements. Id. (and see RCW 65.08.060(3)). Aside from who owes whom what, the sanctity of chain of title for both notes and deeds of trust are defined by statutes.
    UCC revisions adopted in 1993 enabled notes to be held, manipulated AND INDORSED BY ENTITIES OTHER THAN “the party bound thereby”. Yuan v. Chow, 96 Wn. App. 909 (Aug. 13, 1999) stated, “The 1993 amendment to (RCW 62A.3)-401, under which an undisclosed principal is liable on a negotiable instrument signed by an agent, applies prospectively only.” And, ruled that under the previous “signed by the party bound thereby” an undisclosed principal was prohibited: “In 1990, Uniform Commercial Code Article 3, Negotiable Instruments, was significantly revised, and Washington adopted those revisions in 1993. See LAWS OF 1993, ch. 229 (eff. July 1, 1994). RCW 62A.3-401 was changed to the following: “(a) A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument, or (ii) the person is represented by an agent or representative who signed the instrument and the signature is binding on the represented person under RCW 62A.3-402.”(RCW 62A.3)-401 (amended by LAWS OF 1993, ch. 229, § 41). The revised version of section 3-402 further provided that:
    (a) If a person acting, or purporting to act, as a representative (b) signs an instrument by signing either the name of the represented person or the name of the signer, the represented person is bound by the signature to the same extent the represented person would be bound if the signature were on a simple contract. If the represented person is bound, the signature of the representative is the “authorized signature of the represented person” and the represented person is liable on the instrument, whether or not identified in the instrument. RCW 62A.3-402 (amended by LAWS OF 1993, ch. 229, § 42).
    Under former sections 3-401(1) and 3-403(2)(a), Tarn is not liable on the note because Chow signed the note personally without naming Tarn or otherwise indicating that he was signing in a representative capacity. Under revised sections 3-401(a)(ii) and 3-402(a), Tarn is liable on the note if Yuan can establish an agency relationship between Tarn and Chow.” Yuan, 96 Wn. App. at 911-912.
    Where a negotiable instrument may now go under the post-1993 UCC, a deed of trust may not necessarily be able to follow. Yes, a deed of trust beneficiary may appoint an agent to convey his interest on his behalf, but the authority must be identified. Washington Supreme Court: “The rule that recitals in a deed bind parties and privies, but not strangers, needs no citation of sustaining authority. That the rule against parol contradiction of a written contract cannot be invoked by or against strangers to that contract, is well settled.” State ex rel. Wirt v. Superior Court, 10 Wn.2d 362, 368, 116 P.2d 752 (1941), citing 2 Jones on Evidence, Civil Cases (4th ed.), p. 858, § 449; Ransom v. Wickstrom & Co., 84 Wash. 419, 146 Pac. 1041, L. R. A. 1916A, 588.

  19. Here’s why MERS isn’t an agent. If you dont’ want to read the whole thing, the long and short is that ‘real property’ agency must be expressed specifically and may not be found “impliedly”, which is really what, as to agency, that gang alleges: it alleges its agency is implied.
    With real property, can’t happen as a matter of law.

    1. The term “mortgagee” is inappropriate in a deed of trust. The term “mortgagee” is used to describe a party in a two-party instrument who owns a note and a lien on real property securing it, but has no application in a deed of trust.
    2.There are two forms of agency (period) – “expressed” and “implied”.

    The deed of trust was originally formulated and legislated to do away with the time and costs of judicial foreclosure required in the enforcement of mortgages, including the borrower’s lengthy right of redemption. (This was a privilege granted to lenders)
    Regardless of any recitations in a dot, there are only three parties, and none of them is appropriately called a mortgagee. The three parties are the trustor, the trustee, and the beneficiary and these are the only legitimate names for these parties.

    It is today’s deed of trust, specifically MERS’ deeds of trust, reference to “mortgagee” and “lender” which causes if not encourages confusion. While there has been no head-on adjudication on the confusion in the MERS’ deed of trust,
    courts have found similar confusion to render a contract unenforceable.
    MERS’ – crafted deeds of trust might legitimately have stated that MERS was to act as the agent of the beneficiary. The agency might have been unambiguously expressed and such expression would arguably have been ratified by the trustor, the borrower, except that, and this is a BIG ‘except that’ as discussed below,
    it was not the borrower who most urgently needed to expressly appoint Mers as agent – it was the beneficiary.

    Significantly, MERS chose NOT to call itself the agent of the beneficiary and the “why not” question is unavoidable. The reason appears three-fold. 1) MERS did not have a proper understanding itself of the parties to a deed of trust, 2) MERS made a conscious decision to avoid “agency” for the liability which comes with it (and there are other reasons, also) , and 3) the deed of trust would have required the signature of MERS as well as the beneficiary. It may also be that MERS had no intent to allege the useful ‘agency’ when its dot was formulated. At any rate, MERS chose the restrictive word ‘nominee’ instead, a mighty distinction recognized
    by a justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in recent oral arguments before the court. For its failure to correctly understand and identify the parties in a dot, MERS asserted inappropriately-named (extra) parties in the dot and then errantly gave itself more than one identity in the instrument.
    MERS’ dot says MERS is both a nominee and the beneficiary itself, further evidencing MERS’ misunderstanding (or willful manipulation) of the deed of trust’ parties.
    If MERS had named itself as the agent of the beneficiary in the deed of trust, there would be no potentially fatal confusion about
    the identity of the party with the beneficial interest in the deed of trust, for MERS does not hold a beneficial interest in any deeds of trust. At first blush, one might posit the deed of trust could recite “ABC is the beneficiary of this deed of trust and MERS is the agent of ABC its successors and or assigns.” ** (The successors and or assigns is another story) However, even had an agency relationship been otherwise appropriately stated, because
    of the statute of frauds, it still would not pass muster.

    ** This is in fact how agency could have been stated had agency been the intent, which it wasn’t.

    Only the trustor, the borrower, signs the deed of trust. The lack of the other signatures on the instrument would and does vitiate any finding of agency. And this, too, in my opinion is born of the unbelievably reckless crafting (or willful manipulation) of the MERS’ deed of trust.
    The Statute of Frauds of most if not all states requires that all contracts pertaining to the sale of or interests in land, which is a description of a deed of trust, must be in writing to be enforceable. Therefore a contract appointing an agent to make other contracts, having reference to the conveyance of interests in land such as an assignment, must be in writing under the statutes.
    Significantly, such agency MUST be clearly expressed and may NOT be found impliedly.
    The statute of frauds requires that certain contracts be in writing, and that they be signed by ALL parties to be bound by the contract. In the case of the deed of trust, this would mean the trustor, the trustee, the beneficiary, and MERS. The purpose of a “statute of frauds” is, as the name suggests, to prevent
    injury from fraudulent conduct. The abuses these statutes were designed to prevent are quite real.
    MERS is not the beneficiary of a deed of trust. (If it is, the note and deed of trust are indeed bifurcated – by design – remember: MERS was to claim possession of the note to foreclose = unity of note and dot, but that got outed). Having failed the litmus test for agency, MERS may not be found to be the agent of the beneficiary nor its successors and or assigns. What position, if any, this leaves MERS to occupy in the deed of trust remains to be seen as courts are called upon to squarely confront the matter and its attendant issues, including the illegitimate self-assignments done
    in its name by its members.

  20. MERS’ attorney in bain had the cheek to tell the court that MERS was created foremost because when there is a high demand for loans (which entails getting releases / reconveyances of existing interests), the demand couldn’t be met and held up the show and that somehow MERS solves this problem. Anyone who is familiar with MERS’ propaganda in selling itself at it formation knows this is a crock. Not to mention that in no way does “MERS” solve this alleged problem. The attorney was asked if MERS ever held the note. Attorney Pratt did not tell the court that in every single foreclosure done in MERS’ name, MERS specifically laid claim to possession of the note. The mechanics of this alleged possession surely were outed as illegitimate and formed the basis of MERS’ Consent Order, which resulted in no more foreclosures in MERS’ name. But let’s just pretend, Mr. Pratt, that none of that happened, that on the basis of that sham possession, thousands and thousands if not millions of homes were taken by MERS’ gang-members. (I can’t say it any stronger that when your home was snarfed by “MERS”, it was on the basis of alleged possession of the note by MERS and this can be found in their ‘rules’). I would say it was inherently dishonest to keep these facts from the Bain court.
    But we’re not done yet with MERS’ bull to the Bain court. Having been forced (by the Consent Order) to abandon that mullarkey (MERS possessed notes) and bs argument, Mr. Pratt stated that lenders have expressly appointed MERS as their agent. No, the lenders most certainly did NOTexpressly appoint MERS as their agent and his audacity in telling the court this makes my blood boil. It makes my blood boil because the lenders COULD have “expressly appointed MERS as their agent” and they EXPRESSLY chose NOT to. What MERS and its members did expressly is AVOID agency. Agency comes with liability, and that’s what they expressly chose to avoid at the time. I can’t speak to WA statutes and the potential for an agent to act as beneficiary because I’m not familiar enough with those statutes. But I see it as academic / irrelevant since MERS is not an agent in the first place.
    If there is even an original beneficiary show in the MERS’ deed of trust at all, and I’m of a mind this is debatable , the only thing which might be found is that MERS is a nominee placeholder in public record for that beneficiary and possibly, and only possibly, for that ben’s successors and assigns . MERS has no interest to assign to anyone; the only thing MERS’ may do is file a quit-claim deed of its nominee status, and all assignments between anyone had to have been executed and ultimately recorded.
    Finally, when asked who are the noteowners on the two cases before the court, attorney Pratt said he didn’t know, wasn’t part of the info he was given. To my knowledge, “MERS” generally avoids answering this question. Back in Ohio in around 2007, in the Foreclosure cases before Judge Boyko, the judge who most prominently brought the real party issue to our consciousness, (remember his scathing response to the banksters “You just don’t understand how this works, judge) and again in the Mitchell cases in NV bk court, “MERS” declined to name the note owners. Why? They either don’t in fact know ( a good possibility), or don’t want it known it isn’t really the party trying to take homes (in which case they’ve got some explaining to do they’d just as soon skip), or another real possiblity is that it’s not a MERS-member (investors are not MERS’ members).

  21. At a REIA meeting I went to just to observe what Rob McKenna had to say, McKenna told the crowd their were government officials with their hands out asking for funds from the settlement money to bridge the gap of their buget problems. Just disgusting. And I find the crooked mayor of this town I am trying to put in jail is running for governor. I have depositions of dirt on him I will send to the AG’s office. Here is a sight about multiple hands out for what little bread crumbs of money the settlement had intended to homeowners, be being begged for by government officials. How slimy can they get? No dont answer that I already “KNOW”!
    Ben Hallman
    Like 71Mortgage Settlement Money Is For Homeowners, Housing Secretary Cautions State Governments

  22. Melissa is right! This is the big question in all courts in all states! I am so glad she hammered that out!

  23. Shelly – appreciate the 3/15 9:12 posting. I believe you are right that being able to find where the notes/mortgages actually went is the key to uncovering the heart of the fraud.
    Regarding the Washington Supreme Court arguments yesterday, hopefully the Bain case will trigger Washington courts into taking note of the laws of the state with regard to who can enforce a mortgage. Of course this assumes cases can ever make it into Superior Court (banks will immediately remove to federal court if federal charges are included and will claim diversity, but read Chapter 23B.18 RCW, and especially RCW 23B.18.060). In the oral arguments before the Washington Supreme Court yesterday the attorney for MERS attempted to rely on procedures that, admittedly, bankers got away with for some time. Below is from a 1985 case:
    “Several courts have held that when an installment note secured by a mortgage is assigned and the assignor continues to collect the payments and remit them to the mortgage[e], this course of dealing constitutes the assignor the ‘secret agent’ of the assignee, and payment to the assignor is good though he subsequently defaults in passing it through to the assignee. This interpretation is apparently followed even if there was never any formal agency relationship created. There is no reason the concept should not be extended to single-payment notes as well. Moreover, an agency could well be inferred even if the mortgagee-assignor defaulted at the outset in remitting the payments to the assignee. This theory can be made equally applicable to negotiable and nonnegotiable notes. The agency relationship is too typical, too widely expected, and too consistent with business practices to be denied by the assignee who has not taken the trouble to send an appropriate notice to negate it. Absent such a notice, it should be presumed.” (Footnote omitted.) G. Osborne, G. Nelson & D. Whitman, at 350.
    Rogers v. Seattle-First, 40 Wn. App. 127, 697 P.2d 1009 (1985)
    However, the Washington legislature subsequently passed RCW 61.24.005(2) into law, defining who the Beneficiary of a deed of trust must be (the holder of the instrument secured by the DOT), together with the requirement that such a holder, in order to foreclose, also be the OWNER of the note. See RCW 61.24.030(7)(a); RCW 61.24.040(2); RCW 61 .24.163(8)(b)(iii). And, such an owner/holder/beneficiary may not be anonymous: “Notice of default shall include “the name and address of the owner of any promissory notes or other obligations secured by the deed of trust and the name, address, and telephone number of a party acting as a servicer of the obligations secured by the deed of trust.” RCW 61.24.030(8)(l).
    Thus the presumption of a “secret agent” cited above in Rogers – the status which MERS claims to have – is now prohibited by statute in Washington. Id.

  24. Shelly – I add my thanks too for sharing the address to watch the Washington SC Bain proceedings. The poignant moment for me was when the justice asked the MERS attorney who held the note and the attorney could not answer. For years they got away with it becuase no one could challenge them – no one had the finances, attorneys didn’t have the knowledge. Now it appears the cat is out of the bag. May we all pray for the justices to simply do their job, and it looked like intend to do just that.

  25. @shelley – thank you for posting that link to the Bain arguments. I am only three minutes into the hearing, and already I want to kiss her attorney. She says there were three certified questions etc., and then she says the statement (well, could be one of many) she should be remembered for:
    (But) What we’re really here to see is whether the rule of law matters in Washington”.
    It’s factually right on and a gutsy thing to say to a SC. Bravo! Really.

  26. We need a link to the trust so we can look for our loan numbers being repeated in all the trust. Here is why.
    Deadly Clear
    Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction… potentially lethal. -Warren Buffet

    Search Main menuSkip to primary contentSkip to secondary contentHomeAboutPost navigation← Previous SECURITIZED DISTRUST
    Posted on March 15, 2012 by Gary Victor Dubin, Esq. Honolulu, Hawaii
    Gary Victor Dubin is a dynamite Honolulu foreclosure defense attorney with over 40 wins by the DUBIN LAW FIRM in Hawaii foreclosure courts for his clients just in the last year. This is a stunning success given the current judicial climate in Hawaii, not to mention the complexity of securitization, the hidden frauds…and of course, card games and golfing with banksters doesn’t help either.

    Dubin’s essay “Securitized Distrust” is a culmination of insight with over 20+ years of first hand litigation and this leads right into our latest discovery of WaMu multiple trust loan assignments. Shuffling or fraud… or both?
    It’s no wonder that the Wall Street MBS scheme collapsed. Last night, together with Lisa Epstein, we ran a random audit on WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Mortgage Loan Trusts. One loan was found in 6 different trusts, another loan was found in FIVE trusts’ original SEC loan level data, 39 were listed in 3 trusts, and 503 were listed in two separate trusts.

    The winner so far is a NEW YORK condo, loan number WaMu loan # 714934858, appeared in 6 DIFFERENT trusts from May through November 2006…

    Check your winning WaMu lottery loan numbers folks and find a good foreclosure defense attorney that understands securitization – you may have a free house… or a severely clouded title. And if you are an investor – you may have hit pay dirt.
    (More WaMu at the bottom)

    By Gary Victor Dubin

    Securitized trusts — that is, the bundling and selling of shares therein to investors via a business merger between lenders and wall street (mortgage backed securities or MBS) — is relatively new, not even understood by many lawyers today and very few if fully any Hawaii judges, and certainly not by me until only a few years ago, and I am still learning day by day.

    In recent years, my law firm has handled dozens of securitized trust foreclosure defense cases and one defense of an SEC civil prosecution against broker-sellers of such MBS shares. The fraud throughout the secondary mortgage market has been pervasive:

    1. Promissory notes intended for securitized trusts based on my experience were either intentionally never deposited into the securitized trust in the first place on purpose with full knowledge by everyone involved or were deposited in the trusts only as copies.

    2. Based on the testimony of whistleblowers and forthright bank executives, lenders intentionally destroyed most of their original notes and instead before doing so digitized them, supposedly for convenience — which of course destroyed their status as negotiable instruments, leaving only copies somewhere, and often not with the Trustee.

    3. At first, it appeared that that was just sloppiness, but subsequently in our cases we have discovered that it appears to have been common practice intentionally not to deposit the notes (or the mortgages) in the securitized trusts, but to withhold them and unlawfully use them on the side as collateral to support loans or credit from Federal Home Loan Bank Boards, a practice that apparently mushroomed as lenders found themselves in financial trouble and in need of capital.

    4. Documented evidence has recently just been brought to my attention that many notes and mortgages were even put simultaneously into two or three or perhaps even more separate securitized trusts, unknown of course to individual investors who thought that they had sole security for their investments, unknown to insurance companies like AIG that insured the MBS based on certified loan underwriting guidelines that they were unaware were being ignored and intentionally compromised by false appraisals and false loan applications.

    5. All of this recently surfacing has of course started to generate a massive amount of litigation between lenders and investors and mortgagors and insurers and title companies, in which inevitably the question of fraudulent notes and fraudulent mortgages as well as fraudulent mortgage assignments has occasionally arisen. Just this week I had an incredible hearing before Judge Ayabe in one such case involving a claimed lost mortgage assignment and the submission in court of a false note to get around the absence of the mortgage assignment.

    6. All of this of course is pregnant with fraud and criminality, particularly against MBS investors. Securitized trusts also have special IRS preferential status, called REMIC, able to pass through income to investors and avoid taxation so long as the deposit of the note and mortgage occur at the time of the formation of the securitized trust. Having violated REMIC requirements which could cost securitized trusts each millions, the securitized trusts have been a ticking IRS time bomb.

    7. As a result, as all of this began to surface a year or so ago, as a corollary to the so-called “too big to fail” hobgoblin, the Obama Administration and regulatory agencies began to seek frankly to cover things up, recently convincing the AGs to settle with the big five banks which are either securitized trust loan servicers or Trustees themselves and to grant them immunity, especially I understand from IRS violations.

    8. The effect on borrowers has been dramatic. As foreclosures increased, the securitized trusts have had a huge problem, how to foreclose in court (or nonjudicial proceedings) without the notes or even the mortgages — so they began to falsify promissory notes when needed (we have even found evidence that some lenders have been photo-shopping notes), to create phony allonges and phony bearer notes, and to submit in court no less fraudulently notarized and fraudulently signed mortgage assignments to the securitized trusts — a practice now having become famously known as “robo-signing.”

    9. At first, the foreclosing mortgagees got away with it as judges and attorneys were virtually unanimously unaware of what was going on, until a few relentless attorneys and investigators on the Mainland exposed the fraud — one recently getting I understand $18,000,000 from the recent AG settlement for her False Claims Act whistle-blowing!
    10. For some time my law firm has been arguing such issues in defense of borrowers — particularly as standing issues — but with little success, until recently, as more and more Hawaii judges are finally beginning to understand.

    11. Very rarely in our cases is the issue one of lost notes or lost mortgages, but usually phony note endorsements or phony allonges or phony mortgage assignments — or all three.

    12. Mortgages of course in Hawaii are all recorded at the State Bureau of Conveyances, but as a result mainly due to the use by securitized trusts of the private Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), mortgage assignments have not been contemporaneously recorded — which has allowed the illicit trafficking in mortgage interests — which has generated still additional legal issues, such as whether the ownership of the promissory note can be separated from the ownership of the related mortgage, an issue now before several state high courts on the Mainland.

    The above flood of new legal issues is just starting to hit Hawaii appellate courts, as my law firm has several related cases presently working their way through our appellate system, as the largest financial scandal in American history plays out.

    Unlike the recent AG settlement, I prefer the approach that enforces traditional real property and UCC negotiable instruments laws, like the New York and New Jersey courts are now doing, and let the chips fall where they may — directly on top of the heads of those who violated the law — by refusing to reward fraud.

  27. I thought the MERS attorney tried, and danced around the issues but gave a poor agument. The judges seem to know their stuff and I believe this case has a great chance to be adjudicated toward the homeowners and against MERS. We’ll be sleepless in Seattle now for several months until the decision is made. Melissa did not bring up the MERS bilaws specifically state they are not a beneficiary. See Nebraska V. MERS. MERS is what ever it wants to be depending on the situation. Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. James M. Pfeffer …
    v. Nebraska State Bd. of Pub. Accountancy, antep.347, 701 N.W.2d 379 (2005). ANALYSIS MERS assigns that the district court erred in affirming the · PDF file

  28. Which video are you asking about? Here is the video of the U.S. Supreme Court today Bains V. MERS.
    Melissa Huelsman

  29. Johngault – you make a very good point with regard to using the “separated from the note” approach for BK. I can’t see any reason why the bifurcate principle wouldn’t be a valid one in Washington; when it comes to deeds of trust they have their own STRICT set of rules,including that they be firmly attached to the note (figuratively speaking). Only thing lacking for such an effort is Washington case law declaring a DOT to be void becuase it’s been bifurcated. That WILL come up in my case, as I’m a third party. Thus the Real Estate Statute of Frauds is most applicable, and hopefully will establish some case law on a state level (though they’d be fools to appeal it if it goes as I hope).

  30. @shelley – what video? got a link? thanks

  31. Silverberg was a case decided against MERS in NY last year. Here is a look at one “MERS-friendly” attorney’s advice on strategy to the gang we call banksters post-Silverberg:

    Btw, needcaselaw, I think I like bifurcation better (as argued in the ongoing case I ref’d), esp if one is in a position to file bk: Note is unsecured and that’s the end of it – bk’d, gone, whereas ‘assgt by MERS is void’ argument can just lead to they’ll-wiggle-around-a bit-and come back at you. If the amt of the unsecured debt exceeds the bk limit for same, should be able to bifurcate amts on paper since I have seen a judge do just that when it was in the bankster’s favor (got the debtor thrown out of bk, it did). This would mean the amt of the unsecured note which exceeds the bk limit for unsecured debt would survive the bk and that could be problematic.
    Now, the bifurcation vrs void argument may have a different complexion in the case of homes already taken on the basis of a “MERS” assignment. Assignment void = give me my house back, you rat-b’s. But, if you subscribe to the stmts made in the MDL (az) that once bifurcated, a note and dot may not be rejoined (think I got this right and the reliance was Restatement third), then bifurcation argument is useful, also.

  32. This is actually what I have done. [Shelly, remember that you can’t file a complaint on behalf of someone else who got screwed (the investors in the pool via PSA violations).] )” I have claimed since by your own hands you screwed the investors, by voiding the PSA and voided the debt, you have one separated the debt from the deed of trust, and two voided the debt. By law leaving me not to my fault having no debt against my mortgage but due to the fraud debt collectors own hands.” you have caused the note to be invalid.) [[ What you can do is contest the validity of whatever note evidence they present supporting the position that they are entitled to payment from you.[]] ” I am stating I owe John Doe real lender not this unlawful unscrupulous debt collector, attempting to collect an alleged debt I do not owe the debt collector. The John Doe has not been exposed to me regardless of my attempts by FDCPA and QWR to find the John Doe lender, for over two years now. And due to mod fraud of me being accepted and drug into foreclosure by the servicer telling me I am approved, to begin paying my mod payments immediately the final paperwork is in the mail, but never comes. Five months latter I am told I am now unapproved therefore my mod payments are considered to be partial payments, so now I am behind on my loan and am in foreclosure statis. I flew to an attorney whom per my request sent a FDCPA letter costing me two thousand dollars to the servicer. Never to be answered. Then she recommended me to Melissa Huelsman whom told me she could take my case as a mod fraud case, then after ward decided the judges would not adjudicate for the homeowner they are judging “for” the banks nomatter what the issues. She told me she could only help me in bankruptcy. So I went Pro se. She still has a retainer and is going to help me if I fail. Melissa is the attorney in the video whom represents the Bains case against MERS that is the Washington case. It is on video on the web site Mortgage servicing fraud.” The MERS attorney did a very poor job defending MERS. I missed the last half and am going to watch it again in fifteen minutes. I talked with Melissa a few months ago and she and I agree, the enviornment is better for my case than when I hired her. I have also claimed I have made request in court and done every attempt I know how to do to have the real John Doe lender known to me. Due to the representation estopple law statutes I no longer owe the lender John Doe, and due to the six year statutes of limitations for written contracts in the state of Washington that include mortgages and deed of trust,, a contract that was breached by the straw banksoriginator at inception my mortgage is uncollectable. I have thrown adverse possession at them as well and mod fraud and many other claims. The district court judges are as corrupt in my state as corrrupt can get. I have hope in the Appeals court. The debt collector is Chase/Deutsche Bank. I also have claimed they are not in complaince with WA CPA law and Wa Deed of Trust Act, for all the same reasons the Washington State V. RECONTRUST case is filed, with the only exceptio being Deutche Bank is not soley owned by Chase Bank. All other non compliacne is the exact same. Also Chase makes claim in Deutsche Bank V FDIC/Chase/WAMU that they are not the owner of the loan but the servicer, and Deutsche Bank states the PSA were not transfered in time and are void, therefore is suing FDIC and Chase and WAMU. The Chase/WAMU/FDIC assumption agreement was extended to October and it says Chase assumed servicing rights only. Not ownership rights. There is no chain of title from the strawman servicer to Chase nor the FDIC nor anyone. THe deed of trust is still todate listed in Long Beach name a branch of WAMU. Unfortunately a Long Beach repres talked me into going with them, cause I should not shop banks cause the credit score company would dock my credit score if I shopped banks and to get a better interest rate that was a no no. So i stupidly was afraid to shop banks. You use to be able to shop banks without being penalized for it. It only makes good sense to me, not something to be penalized for. I thought it was aweful but they scarred me from doing bank shopping and now I wonder if it was even true.

  33. JohnGault – That’s the way I read it. Washington’s statutes pound home that one must be the owner of the debt secured by the deed of trust. If they are not, there’s no further discussion, which is why I believe the Washington Supreme Court case (Bain) being argued today MUST declare MERS to be illegal. Ironically I have found no case law in Washington where the court comes right out and said that without a valid assignment one cannot foreclose a deed of trust. Recording statutes aside, the Real Estate Statute of Frauds (elements at RCW 64.04.010, 020, and conveyances defined at RCW 65.08.060(3) says that no interest of any kind can exist without a deed). What federal courts seem to miss is because all statutes of frauds are essentially to protect third parties (not parties in privity to the note or deed of trust), and the federal court sees the contest as a debt collection, the fact that a third party is going to end up with a property to which there is no legal chain of title escapes them (and they don’t bother to examine the point you’ve made well – that MERS did not own the note; without authority of agency (remember third party) they cannot “assign” it; and UCC and most all notes specify that notes can’t be “assigned” anyway – the must be “transferred.”
    The great tragedy in this whole thing has yet to fully be realized: In any state, without chain of title running to mortgage or deed of trust, the banksters are feeding wild deeds into the property registration system (of course MERS would have it abolished). People should pay their bills, yes; but legally no party can foreclose in Washington without a valid chain of deeds granted by legal deed of trust beneficiary(s). Even though theoretically title is not comprised in a Washington deed of trust, any encumbrance/conveyance is part of the chain of title to the property. Perhaps the most abused statute on the books is a requisite to any trustee’s sale: RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) “That, for residential real property, before the notice of trustee’s sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust.” That’s pretty black-letter law.
    GMAC has been running their private-label version of MERS for years. They did it by assigning everything to a bank “as trustee” (no beneficiary named). That one is about to hit the fan too.
    Shelly, remember that you can’t file a complaint on behalf of someone else who got screwed (the investors in the pool via PSA violations). What you can do is contest the validity of whatever note evidence they present supporting the position that they are entitled to payment from you.

  34. How would they deserve a payment stream, if they dont have possession of the note, the debt? You only make payments to the debt. You dont make payments to a non debt. A debt is secured by the note. Even if it is unsecured from the deed of trust, there is still a debt. You should not be able to stream payments into a PSA were a debt is not secured, that the payment is owed to. Big chance you are paying the wrong person. When by New York PSA law the transfer of the notes to the PSA’s are not within 90 days. The PSA’s are void. They sold the PSA anyways and the trust are trying to sue the party that sold them empty PSA’s. No body was tending the flock while the wolves stole the sheep. One the PSA’s were turned into stocks and REMIC and MBA’s It is my understanding if the notes showed up after supposedly being cashed into these listed above, it was sesecurities fraud and tax evasion. So the notes are believed to be destroyed. I believe for this very reason. To avoid securities fraud. A party sent a note that the BOA settlements has an admission the notes were destroyed. I have not seen it yet and am trying to get a copy.

  35. Are the consent docs at the end of this, the settlement, cause there is no page 103 unless this party counted to page 103 they are not paged-300 0n….

  36. @needcaselaw – would appreciate your feedback on my comment at 1:24 – thanks. I think you are saying at least WA law holds these assignments are void for want of an interest in the note (works for me), so no bifurcation; assgt is simply void. And I agree with you when you say that we haven’t bothered much with ascertainig HOW a bankster came to be in possession of a note. Is it a bailment, for instance?

  37. @shelly – no, I’m not saying any of that stuff. I have never made any representations that ANYthing voids a note.
    Something might or does (‘material’ fraud comes to mind,), but I’ve never delved into it. That’s a subject that would take a lot of research and would likely yield different answers in different venues.
    There are a couple schools of thoughts on notes which didn’t make it into trusts and I’m a master of neither. Someone owns them. Were the notes which didn’t make it into trusts retired by the payment to the depositor by the investors? Depends on what the investors bought – the note or the payment stream, I would think. (but still not ‘void’)

  38. I am just know printing out the over threehundred page consent order, is that the settlement and I am trying to find this that came to me so I can verify the notes are all destroyed. Anyone out there know how to get this info. I dont believe there is a legitimate note out there and they are all destroyed. Why all the forgeries. I beleive they were destroyed, before this below came to me.

    Alice, on March 13, 2012 at 9:59 am said:

    “The Settlement” has done a good job of exposing all the rot in the mortgage industry. I believe this is going to blow up in their faces. People that are fighting this fight are way ahead of the curve and are in the position to call the offenders out if they don’t follow the new rules. The agencies involved must continue to be overwhelmed with evidence that shows the new rules are not being followed because as we well know they won’t be. When “The Settlement” is signed it will be a very usefull document. We can’t quit now, this have opened a can of worms and will hurt them big time. And, my personal favorite in this case…admittance that the Notes were DESTROYED (page 103 of BofA). Every loan will have a lost Note affidavit and this is pretty much evidence to me that this is a land grab, plain and simple.

    I want this page 102 of Bof A.


  39. Johngault, then am I understanding that due to PSA law the note is void and the PSA is faulty, that if the banksters did not transfer the note and stole it, cause it was suppose to be in the PSA which not being voids the note, that a stolen void note that is proven to be the note that is suppose to be transferred into the PSA, winds up in the theives hands that it is 9/10 the law the theif can execute a note known to be void and suppose to be transferred, can enforce the debt on the note, cause he has possession of it. When a theif with a stolen car is caught he goes to jail. If he has the car title unsigned and endorsed from the glove box, and he fraud signs it, that means 9/10 th law says he owns the car and does not go to jail?

  40. The “being called upon to defend the one who has paid if a subsequent claimant shows up” was a unique feature of an opinion in the last couple of months. No, I’ve never seen anything like it either, however it does seem to cover the double jeopardy you refer to (having to go after the one wrongly paid – and what if they’re bankrupt or no longer exist?). Sorry, I didn’t copy the case and can’t recall where I saw it.

  41. @needcaselaw, I didn’t see the case you ref’d to Shelley, but in the absence of an indemnification, I don’t think a bankster wrongly paid on a note would have to defend the homeowner against a subsequent claim. The sad story I have always been taught is that if a true hidc shows up, the party who paid the wrong party has a cause of action against the party wrongly paid – with all its attendant up-front expenses and hassles. The bankster does NOT have to defend the party who paid the wrong party against the hidc that I’m aware of.

  42. @needcaselaw –
    There’s a case right now where it’s alleged by the homeowner that the assignment (by “MERS”, of course) of the dot to a party who is not the noteowner has bifurcated the note and dot. I don’t think the cases cited in the material decided that issue per se – bifurcation. But taking from the decisions what one may, I’m not sure what the argument today should be and I’m certainly interested in its potential defenses.
    The bankster conceded MERS may not assign the note, so that leaves us with the assgt of the dot. (and kudos to the attorney, because this is the only case – think it’s this case – get my cases confused these days – I’m aware of where that admission has been made on the record) Given the number (read all) of times “MERS” has alleged to assign the note in the dot assignment, which it can’t do by any stretch, this is a very important case.
    We care because MERS alleges to assign the note in all the assignments currently being done and which have been done in its name and which were used to snarf our homes. We all know MERS can’t assign a note (they can’t even really assign a dot – they can quit claim is what).

    “MERS” had no right to assign the dot to a ‘stranger’ to the note and the assignment is therefore void, or is the better argument that the note and dot are in fact now bifurcated?
    Now we’re seeing why MERS alleges to assign the note – to avoid bifurcation. They’re already bifurcated imo, but we’ll leave that alone for now.
    I don’t know how to reach any conclusion other than that “MERS” has historically sought to avoid bifurcation of notes and dots by purporting to assign the notes, as well. In the bifurcation going on just now, there’s no doubt that the bankster in this current case did not expect to be called out successfully on its (oh, excuse me, MERS’) inability to assign the note since it has gotten away with it for so long. No, I wouldn’t know how to reach any other conclusions about MERS’ behavior: Disregarding that notes aren’t assigned in this manner, the attempt to do so by “MERS” is either theft of the note from the investors or an acknowledgement that the note is available to ‘assign’ to the same party as the dot (by someone with authority) because the investors don’t own the notes.
    The assignment of the dot in that older case bifurcated the note and dot and those parties were negligent in not getting the other – one had a note, but no dot and one had a dot and not a note. The court weighed those facts with the bonafide purchaser without notice tenets, as I got it, because of the statutory notice of recordation in regard to the recordation of the assignment of the dot. (while recordation is statutory notice, it’s really just notice of an allegation mol since recordation itself does not make something a fact / attest to its validity and there is no disagreement generally about this except from that judge in a certain case I railed about a couple mos ago) But since the bad actor had no right to make the assignment of the dot, having alienated his interest in the note, the assgt of the dot is void and void is void, right?
    As to negligence, because negligence is far from insignificant and may be right up there with ‘assumed risk’, today’s acts differ from the older cases because of securitization, which means there’s a trustee, another party, who is either contractually or as a matter of fact or both supposed to be looking out for the interests of the investors. But I remember reading in one psa that the trustee did not even have to warrant that the notes and dots were all 1) listed and 2) received. Therefore, a sec’n trustee can’t attest to one damn thing and he can’t even know without getting off his butt and doing his own forensics that the trust has any interest in anything, including the note. A system has been created where no one has responsibility for anything. WHO can be held accountable for negligence? Whose job is it to make sure the note and dot are not separated as they are routinely done by a “MERS” assignment to a bankster when the note is allegedly owned by a trust (now that we are throwing out the assgts of the note to that bankster)?

    Such a system leads to the carte blanche bad acts we are witnessing. In the older cases, the parties were negligent in their duties (didn’t get note, didn’t get dot).
    Today, when it passes for fact that the note and dot are being assigned by “MERS” to others (or even ‘just’ the dot), WHO has the responsibility for the veracity of the act? WHO tells MERS to assign anything? Yes, we know the assignments are self-assignments, but why, if it were legitimate? WHO says execute an assignment? Wm Hultman told a court in think it was the Walker case that MERS follows the direction of the note owner.
    That’s crap since MERS does nothing and is told nothing by a note owner, but WHO is MERS claiming would be telling them to execute an assignment of anything, or do anything at all? From whom could MERS purport to take its marching orders?
    No, I wouldn’t know how to reach any other conclusions about MERS’ behavior (fraudulently trying not to bifurcate the note and dot by pretending to assign the note, as well), and that’s today’s issue as opposed to the older (Washington) cases: Disregarding that notes aren’t assigned in this manner, the attempt to do so by “MERS” is either theft of the note from the investors -or- an acknowledgement that the note is available to ‘assign’ / transfer (by someone with authority) to the same (new) party as the dot because the investors don’t own the notes. MERS certainly provides cover for any number of misdeeds and whether or not we agree that was the Plan from day One (think Patrick), it’s nonetheless the bottom line and has caused grievous loss to investors and homeowners alike. Imo, all these AG suits are just peachy (well, not really, as e. tolle might agree) , but we won’t know that anything has changed or that law is being restored to this country until MERS is taken out once and for all. In the meantime, since MERS can’t assign notes and it’s finally been admitted, are the assignments of the dot 1) void or 2) have they (fatally) bifurcated the note and deed of trust?

  43. Shelly – I’m not a lawyer, but I think you’re trying to make the law say something it doesn’t (“the note is void”). Yes, the UCC has rules for enforcement of notes. Key to who may enforce a note are the rules of negotiation and transfer, which is what you’re pointing at. However, if you signed a note, took the money, and someone who actually holds that note you signed can prove that they came by it legitimately, most courts are going to rule that you must pay it. The fact that they may have used that note to rip off someone else (the investors in the mortgage pool who never got the note under the terms of the PSA) is no direct skin off your nose. It could be if those investors wanted to argue that the note is theirs – and they should be able to collect from you! But unfortunately they’re not doing that. Thus, if they actually have the note (possession is 9/10ths in this stuff) you’re proabably left at best with the bank being forced to post a bond against your having to pay the note a second time to some other claimant(see the scribd posting Securitized Mortgages – A History of Fraud), or more likely, as one court recently ruled, should someone else come forward with a claim the bank would have to defend you against having to pay it.

  44. This is public testimony from a witness. That is all I have, however the Bank of American HUD OIG report supports the fraud going on and the FHFA or FHA I have to re look at that on the same sight you can pull the report for HUD OIG states the fraud committed by Bank of America and ALLY employees took the fifth is very damaging so go to and see all the info that is very damaging to the banks, and the separate reports very damaging to Chase, BOA, City financial, and Ally and Wells Fargo. If anyone comes up with more on BOA and Chase, I, my son and my sister needs AHMIS infor, supporting our cases. WAMU, LONGBEACH,Chase people need to pull up Deutsch Bank Nat’l V FDIC/Chase/WAMU and see NONE OF THE PSA’S were transferred in time and are void. claimed by Deutsches own hands in this case. You can find easily on the web. And Chase has an assumption agreement that states they only recieved servicing rights, and they assumption did not even happen in time to transfer the PSA if they could have. There is also an extention of the assumption agreement that prevented any transfers if they could have, however they did not asssume the loans only servicing rights.

  45. Yes I understand this. However when the note was suppose to be transferred with the PSA and it was not the note was signed to blank and was suppose to be transferred to the PSA and it was not that voids the note.

  46. chris- apart from the fact that the loans may not have been deposited into the trust, countrwide’s or anyone’s for that matter, you can see if the trust was even reported to the IRS. Look up IRS 938 2007, if that was the year of your loan. They are listed alphabetically, although I read every single entry in case mine was listed out-of-order. Mine is not listed anywhere, it was from 2005. I checked 2004, 2005,2006,2007. NOTE: 2008, IRS HAS NO DATA.

  47. @ Shelly

    Good info about Countrywide…any actual documents, you know of, that spell out the lack of transfers to the PSA? I did see the transcript, is that enough? MY Loan 02/27/2005?

  48. If you did not find the reports for HUD &OIG for Bank of America, Chase, City and Ally and Wells Fargo, they are all separately on right now, and they are not good for the banks.

  49. I getting caught up to run to a caucus meeting on the caucus this saturday, I will look up the pod cast when I get back. I recommend everyone else does too.

  50. This case is important to Countrywide origniator for the homeowner. It is testimony the notes are void. They were not transfered to the PSA and the note is the debt against the house. Or if the debt is now unsecured from the house, the note being void by not being transfered with the PSA which it has to be in securitized trust, The PSA is empty, invalid and the note is void and there is no debt either that can be attached to the house or sued for.

  51. boy it looks like i am drinking on my comment. It it the KEMP V. Countrywide. I am typinig inbetween running my business, I am not drunk. Sorry about all the typos.
    1-10 of 243,000 results· Advanced
    EXPLOSIVE |CASE FILE New Jersey Admissions In Testimony NOTES …
    Source: Stop Foreclosure Fraud EXPLOSIVE |CASE FILE New Jersey Admissions In Testimony NOTES NEVER SENT to Trusts KEMP v. Countrywide UNITED ……EXPLOSIVE |CASE FILE New Jersey Admissions In Testimony NOTES …
    11 Responses to “EXPLOSIVE |CASE FILE New Jersey Admissions In Testimony NOTES NEVER SENT to Trusts KEMP v. Countrywide”…CASE FILE New Jersey Admissions in Testimony Notes Never Sent to …
    CASE FILE New Jersey Admissions in Testimony Notes Never Sent to Trusts Kemp v … John T. Kemp Plaintiff Case No. 08-18700-JHW Adversary No. 08-2448 v. Countrywide …

  52. @Shelley,

    That’s the Bruce Levitt case. It won on appeal, I believe. Mandelman interviewed Bruce Levitt on one of his podcasts a couple of weeks ago. Listen to it. Enlightening.

  53. UST FOUND CASE LAW I knew I had but just found, that Kenp V. Countrywied snd the testimonies. Countrywide kept the notes, sent to their foreclosure department and not transfer to the PSA’s and left the PSA empty.http://www, and Stop Foreclosure Fraud under Explosive/ Case file New Jersey Admissions In testimony Notes Never Sent. the titled EXPLOSIVE /CASE FILE New Jersey Admission In Testimony NOTES NEVER SENT t Turst KEMP V. Countrywide.posted on November 2010.

    OHIO FRAUDclosure
    Stopping the FRAUD in OHIO foreclosures

    Home OHIO Trusted Attorneys US Bank v. Duvall OCCUPY OHIO

    This Blog Linked From Here
    This Blog

    Linked From Here

    Wednesday, March 14, 2012STOP THE EVICTION of the BRIAN BAYLESS FAMILY (OH)


    The shocking video was an EVICTION attempt and HAPPENED only 3 months ago
    It was excerpted from a few minutes of camera-phone footage taken by terrified homeowner, Brian Bayless, during a harrowing & surprise eviction attempt by Delaware County Sheriffs.
    Unfortunately, similar events play-out on a daily basis all across the country. 3,000 evictions & foreclosures EVERY SINGLE DAY. They come at the request of “Predator Drone” foreclosure firms representing phony alphabet-soup trusts. The local authorities and movers descend upon the unsuspecting families. It happens every day and is non-stop. NOW – see and experience the pure terror that occurs …when they come to evict.WARNING the video footage and accompanying dialogue (and children crying) are real. This is very disturbing video and may not be suitable to watch…unless your devoid of emotion – like LSR attorney Andrew Top
    Listen, Witness and Experience the inhumane side of a Predator Drone strike
    ordered by LERNER SAMPSON ROTHFUSS (LSR) a foreclosure Mill Piranha

    They are coming for this family – THURSDAY March 15 at 9am – unless we stop it!


    Predator Drone Foreclosure Mills (Hired by Wells Fargo Servicing/Eviction Depart.):

    Lerner Sampson & Rothfuss LPA (LSR)
    RE: Attorney – Andrew “Madman” Top
    RE: LSR Case Number: 200809509
    120 East Fourth Street, 8th Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202
    PHONE: (513) 241-3100 FAX: (513) 241-4094
    Reference LSR Case Number: 200809509 & Wells Fargo Loan: 7003344

    Thompson Hine, LLP
    Austin Landing I
    10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400, Dayton, Ohio 45342
    PHONE: 937-443-6600 FAX: 937-443- 6635
    Attorneys: (Scott King & Terry Posey)
    E Mail:,,
    Please phone, email and fax above entities. Stand up, Be Heard, Make a difference
    Be a DOER Urgent! – Urgent! – Urgent! – Urgent! – Urgent! – Urgent!

    Attorney Lynn Szymoniak CBS 60 minutes exposes FRAUD
    in Bayless Case

    WELLS FARGO: (as Servicer) purportedly acting on Behalf of US BANK (as Trustee)
    Robo-Signing continues at Wells Fargo (HERE)
    Send action emails that Reference Name: Bayless & Wells Fargo Loan: 7003344
    To CEO John Stumph:, & Wells Fargo employees,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Delaware County Ohio Common Pleas Court (Lower Court)
    ASK the court to QUASH the WRIT
    Delaware, Oh 43015
    (740) 833-2519 (Fax)
    Judge Whitney’s Office – 740-833-2530
    Judge Krueger’s Office – 740-833-2550
    Magistrate Laughlin’s Office – 740-833-2565
    Magistrate Weithman’s Office 740-833-2542

    US BANK Corporate Trust for SASCO (Structured Asset Securities Corp) 2005-RF4
    Contact: Kathleen Sullivan
    Email: Phone: 617-603-6467
    Other Corporate Trust Contacts:
    Contact: Beth Nally Phone: 617-603-6882 Email:
    Jennifer Moynihan Phone: 617-603-7629 Email:
    Piyusha Shirname Phone: 617-603-6550 Email:
    Paul Gobin Phone: 617-603-6630 Email:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Contact: US SENATOR:
    Sherrod Brown
    EMAIL the senator – fill our form (HERE)

    PHONE: Washington, DC: (202) 224-2315 In Ohio Toll Free: 1-888-896-OHIO (6446) Columbus: (614) 469-2083 or Cincinnati: (513) 684-1021 Cleveland: (216) 522-7272 or Lorain: (440) 242-4100
    Posted by OHIO FRAUDclosure at Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
    Labels: andew top, Bayless Family, drone foreclosure mill, Eviction, Lerner Sampson Rothfuss, LSR, Lynn Szymoniak, madman top, predator

  55. needscaselaw, yes sorry if I stated that wrong. It voids the contract. If the note is still good it is not secured by the house any more. There is no debt against the house. The house is free and clear, and if the note is still a good debt, the bank can take the debt to court and put a lein against your house, but cant take the house. The note becomes an unsecured debt, If the notes was in a PSA and the PSA’s were voided, which it looks like they all were, then the debt is void all together. Or in bankruptcy the unsecured debt can be discharged if the note is still good. like a second mortgage or any unsecured debt, The contract deed of trust is null and void by being separated from the note. The unsecured debt being a note in a PSA that is voided by the PSA contract law and not transferred on time or put into bland and never assigned then becomes void and all the debt disappears and is VOID. This is what I understand by my digging into the law as a propria persona.

  56. To Shelly – the separation (or bifurcation) of the mortgage from the note does not make the note void; it can make the mortgage unenforceable. If you signed a note and took the money, and someone can prove that they have the right to enforce the note (this part is under UCC), you still have to pay it. However if the mortgage went off somewhere else it’s possible they may not be able to foreclose on your property.

  57. It makes for a long complaint—–add siezure of insurance proceeds of every sort–FHA. casualty.——-servicer cutting out investor—or did I miss those on the sample short list. Add Statute of Frauds violations too. Knowingly providing false info to investors. Doubling up loans reported to Bureaus.presumably in connection with the overstatements to investors.

    How much of this is still open to be argued?

    Is it not common knowledge–eg Judicial Notice, that big financial institutions caused injury routinely? So then just a matter of amount of proven damages? Set-off. My sense is that any reasonable person should have a duty to make sure their house is siezed by the right person–not an outright thief—and any damages that result are attributable to the mistakres of the institutions.

    This is also the basis upon which the commercial law is founded. Civil enforcement.

    So make it simple–show how much time you spent checking the veracity of the claim–locate the mistakes or worse–move for summary judgment of judicial knowledge and as applied to you—-ask for jury trial on damages. It should boil down to that–this is supposed to be what OCC stuff does–not argue against infalliblity of banks.

    For too many years we checked our checkbooks–found discrepancies–and always found out its our own fault–we set ouselves up to believe banks dont make mistakes—today we know better–but we need to carry that judicial notice into the courtrooms.

  58. johngault – I agree entirely with your assessment – which is why I flagged the case. I sent a rough of the article to the Washington AG’s office in January. He used some of the cases in his amicus to the WA Supreme Court in the Bain matter. Link to initial materials were posted here. Some of the later briefs and amici are available at Scroll down to “Bain”. One of the property-owner attorneys, Melissa Heulsman is scheduled to argue on Thursday. The same principles are coming up there as in these ancient cases and I think the significant tie-in is that the old cases provide the REASON that the definition of a “Beneficiary” in Washington’s Deed of Trust Act contains an exclusion. The statute, RCW 61.24.005(2) reads:
    “”Beneficiary” means the holder of the instrument or document evidencing the obligations secured by the deed of trust, excluding persons holding the same as security for a different obligation.” Id. [emphasis added].
    You may have noted (underlined in the opinion) the phrase, “the bank’s rights were simply to hold for the purpose of securing the outstanding bonds.” Price v. Northern Bond & Mortgage Co., 161 Wash. 690, 694, 297 Pac. (Apr. 1931). [emphasis added].
    In other words, as between the parties in court, the bank was not the owner of the note either!
    In all these cases the principal question that seems to be arising is, Who has the right to enforce a deed of trust? In Washington especially one cannot simply read the UCC (which by the way does NOT contain a provision for the trading in lost notes, as some states do) as to who is entitled to enforce a note, and then carry that over to who can enforce a deed of trust. A foreclosing deed of trust Beneficiary must also be the OWNER of the note secured by the deed of trust (not just the holder). RCW 61.24.030(7)(a); RCW 61.24.040(2); RCW 61 .24.163 (8)(b )(iii). That principle is backed up by the terms of the notes themselves, most of which define the “holder” as one who has taken the note by TRANSFER (a legally defined term in UCC) AND are entitled to receive payments thereunder. Because the enforcer must also be the owner of the note, in effect only a holder in due course (for value) can enforce, and one of the joys of those old cases is the standard set down by the Washington Supreme Court for demanding not only the original note, but proof of how they own it. This precise question has not come before the Court, but may soon with my case.
    Because neither of the parties in court actually owned the debt, the Price Court seemed to deal with the holding of the mortgage as a contractual obligation rather than as a property interest, yet slamming down the hammer of the recently passed “unrecorded conveyance…” statute (current RCW 65.08.070). Another key here is Washington’s Real Estate Statute of Frauds, which appears often in these cases. Yes, since 1927 it is not required that the assignment of a deed of trust be recorded, however, that such an assignment exists (“all conveyances must be by deed” RCW 64.04.010) is mandatory; and if it’s not recorded – yes, even an assignment, and the Court specifies that in Northern Bond & Mortgage, 172 Wash. at 220 (Page 13) – the deed is void, and so no assignment (this point will be coming up in my case). The Court used the bona fide purchaser for value principle and applied it to that “contract” as between the parties privy. Yes, weird and probably wouldn’t come up today.
    I agree that most of the courts are trying to do their best to see that justice is done, however it’s a delicate dance between principle and statute, especially when principles clash. I believe a milestone in this regard – although Washington has a similar case, was Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez in Michigan. ( They too said that chain of title for real property via valid deeds is sacred: you can’t grant what you don’t own, and the only way you can have the authority to grant it is by deed (in the battle between the integrity of the deed and the innocence of a bona fide purchaser, the requirement of a valid deed wins). It should be recognized that the bona fide purchaser doctrine has been the “money laundering” tool of the banksters. One of the three stated goals of the Washington Deed of Trust Act is “the stability of land titles.”
    One of the difficulties in policing the integrity of titles is that the banks will immediately remove a case to federal court, where the focus is entirely on the two parties. Seldom is the bigger picture of how wild deeds destroy the fundamentals of the integrity of titles.

  59. According to this case law once separated the note is void. Which is what Neil has told us all along of course. This is case law that stands and says it also. MERS CAN NOT MAKE THE LAWS. JUST LIKE JUDGES ARE NOT POLICY MAKERS THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO BE POLICIE KEEPERS, AND HAVE FORGOTTEN THEIR ROLE AND OATH OF OFFICE TO UPHOLD THE US. CONSTITUTION..

  60. This case law is from 1872, however has been distinguished and updated and is good case law from the U.S. Supreme Court and stands. The note can not be separated from the Deed of Trust, which is what has happened to all the notes I have seen and deeds of trust,. And this was MERS’s function to do this..

    Carpenter v. Longan, 83 US 271 – Supreme Court 1873 | The note and …; Mar 04, 2012 · 83 U.S. 271 (____) 16 Wall. 271. CARPENTER v. LONGAN. Supreme Court of United States. … One Response to “Carpenter v. Longan, 83 US 271 – Sup. Court ……

    · Carpenter v. Longan – 83 U.S. 271 (1872) :: Justia US Supreme …

  61. Chris is it Countrywide foreclosing or MERS OR RECONTRUST originally on the paperwork. My son was Countrywide, turned BOA and RECONTRUST in the name of MERS. Then I asked for affirmantion of proof of authority to represent, and at the same time Rob McKenna filed Washington State V RECONTRUST. Check all your assignments on the county records if you have not and check for MERS, RECONTRUST AND WHOM EVER. We are in a non judicial state, but we both my son and I went to court over our houses, due to mod fruad, and found all the exhisiting fraud going on. The attorneys sent my son a letter asking him to approve a change of representation to representing Countrywide, on the face of the case. He has been fighting them for fraud upon the court and misrepresentation on top of many other claims. False affidavits to the court by both the pretender lender and the lawyers. I am thinking if BOA had any proof of being assigned the note from Countrywide they would not be trying to get my son to approve they change whom they are representing, I have found no proof of any assignment from Countrywide to MERS or BOA or anyone in the chain of title. MERS claimed to be the beneficiary, but has no assignment from Countrywide to them and diffenatly no assignment to BOA. I beileve both the lender and the attorneys are in a tight spot due to this. Look at the details. And call the state the notaries are registered in and call the secretary of state and ask for a copy of their signature on file. Most likely it wont be. and go to Stop and click onto the article HUD OIG for auditor reports on Bank of America and all the fraud assignments. Neil Garfield has a program you can have them check you title report and he can prove the clouded title for you. Look at all foreclosure notices. Always send a letter of objection to them before twenty days is up and state we do not owe you this alleged debt. Have you sent a letter FDCPA for a letter of dispute of the debt and demand proof of whom owns this alleged debt? I am not an attorney so please get help from an attorney and if you choose not to Neil has a pre prepared letter under letters and notices found in his left hand column. Send certified mail signature required. The FDCPA letter is for debt collectors which is what they are. Debt collectors attempting to collect an alleged debt you do not owe them and object to their State you owe someone but not them and you by law are suppose to pay whom you owe and it is unethical for you to pay a fraud. I am pro se so besure to check this out with someone whom has legal authority to give you legal advice. I am not an atorney and can not give legal advice. It is important you dont ignore these letters and object to their authority to represent. So please contact your attorney and make sure this is done. By ignoring the letter the debt collector can claim you did not disagree or object so you owe them.

  62. @needcaselaw: that was some interesting stuff at the link you posted.
    2/3’s thru reading. I’d like to discuss the info with anyone interested because I think it’s that important. In the old cases ref’d, the courts held in favor of the bona fide purchaser without notice basically (in regard to multiple sales of same asset). However, in the case where a
    note had been endorsed and delivered, it appears the court held the same, and that seems problematic. The court wants to balance the equities, I guess, but a party who clearly is owed the debt shouldn’t be subordinate to one whose interest in the collateral document is noticed; that guy still has no interest in the obligation. Recordation is statutory notice, but the guy with possession of an endorsed note has a right to sue for an assignment of the collateral instrument. In the case at bar, the bad guy assigned the coll instrument to someone else. That shouldnt’ have been worth anything. Did you get that the note had been endorsed and delivered but the assignment of the coll instrument to another party had been recorded, first of all, as I did?
    Obviously, if there were not two docs, the note and the dot, there would be nothing to discuss, but there are, and it is only the note which
    gives right to payment of the debt (albeit an unsecured one in the absence of assignment of the coll instrument).

  63. chris- the satisfaction of mortgage was filed by whomever, stamped 1 minute later than the assignment was stamped in the recorder of deeds. I will go look at it again, and see what I can tell you.

  64. @ Ian

    No, I have very little on them. I am fighting over my primary residence and one I bought with my dad, who was handicapped., through Countywide. They are now foreclosing, since sending them a QWR. Where did you get the satisfaction of mortgage?

    Anything else out there, anyone?

  65. GO TO and go to HUD OIG re: Alleged False Claims Act. and you will find reports by the Office of the Audit on the HUD OIG report for the Attorney Inspector General for City Bank, Ally Financial, Chase, Wells and Bank of America. It is not pretty. And it is good dirt for your case. They are all listed separately. Very damaging to the above.

  66. If anyone finds assumption agreements for BOA I have been diving for it also. The closet I have is the Freddie and Fannie Shell Game by Shawn Newman. Stating they did not want notes and all servicers were not to claim they were the parties of interest. Chase however has a copy of the assumption agreement on the web and a copy of the assumption agreement extention. It states Chase only aquired servicing rights and not the loan. In Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust V. FDIC/Chase/WAMU Deutsche bank claims Chase and the FDIC did not transfer the PSA’s in time and they were faulty. Then Chase has a repy they Chase is not the party of interest Chase only assumed servicing rights. It is my assumption and I am pretty sure my guess is correct, that since Freddie destroyed the notes, Freddie could not sell the notes and therefore only issued assumptions for servicing rights, to send their debt collectors after the void uncollectable debts as debt collectors, to con the homeowner and the courts into giving up the houses for free to them. Or in judicial states or non judicial court cases to save our homes, the fraudsters have claimed they will bring the doc to court when there is a trial, knowing the case is gooing to be SMJ by the judge before they have to prove it , and or they have produced all the fake fraud notes. If they had the real ones, why take this chance. When you put all the puzzel parts together, this makes sense. No body found no crime or hard to prove a crime. No note found no crime or hard to prove a crime. THE BIG QUESTION! WHY ALL THE FRAUD NOTES AND AFFIDAVITS? It is all a coverup. And that brings me to another thought. Perhaps this settlement is only part of a bigger plan. We are all filling out just what the bank did to us and sending them in before some time in April. Is this part of a plan to make Freddie and Fannie pay for the crimes caused by the securities pools. That is why I feel everyone should fill out this form sent them but be very careful how you respond. This “alleged debt” and objection to the servicer debt collectors unlawful attempt to collect an unlawful debt cause of………………..My business or job income has been effected by the economic crimes of the fraud the originatore, lenders and servicers, have committed. Blah Blah, Blah, I have lost this income and can supply TAX RETURNS, to show the loss, and or should we give them the tax returns with the social blocked off. And proof of all payments and everything you gave in the law suit or what you have if no law suit. See todays post by Neil Garfileld. Prove your loss, you payments you mod payments your letters and coupons, to show you were mod defrauded, therefore HAMP violations. Treat this as a law suit you are exhibiting. Enraged , am I correct about sending the info this way. or am I giving to much ammo? I am sending a declaration of what the bank did and the mod approval that turned into the mod from hell, after five mod payments. My firend is telling of how she was forced into bankruptcy, not knowing all the facts, due to her and her husbands businesses being slow due to the economic crime, and then they found they had inherieted thousands four years back, but were not found until a few months ago, by the trustees, and they had to give it all up and it put her in the hospital. Her brother is fighting cancer and foreclosure. The crime has caused so many so much grief. Now Pam is in the hospital due to the stress.

  67. I assum Freddie and Fannie dont want any notes, cause that would prove securities fraud and they know they shredded the notes. See the BOA admission listed in one of my recent post here. The notes were destroyed. If they had not been destroyed, when Freddie and Fannie turned them into stocks it would be proof of securities fraud, and also how many times can you slice and dice it to send a piece to everyone they scammed. Just like the dead body. If you cant find the body you have no proof of a crime. If you cant find the note you have no proof of a crime.

    1-10 of 215,000 results· Advanced
    GUEST POST: Welcome to Freddie and Fannie’s Mortgage Shell Game …
    Did you know that Fannie & Freddie had a policy stating that they didn’t want to receive “notes?” I didn’t. Meet a reader of mine, attorney Shawn T. Newman of ……

  68. The FDIC only gave assumption of servicing rights to servicers as debt collectors. Fannie and Freddie shredded the notes to steal and sell trust over and over for mass profit. Fannie and Freddid have a letter to the servicers “not to claim they own the mortgage”. Look up the letter through Fannie and Freddie shell game by Shawn Newman. I will look it up. All of them are debt collectors of the securities pool loans. It is my guess that Fannie and Freddie will be introuble for securities fraud, tax evasion and flat our fraud at all layers of the onion peel. And whom pays for Fannie and Freddie and their litigtion, the tax payers. They do not own the note or mortgage in any way if it is securitized. That is becoming apparent. I just posted an article that states there is now proof the trust were sold over and over for profit. Fraud upon fraud.

  69. RE: BofA ‘buying’ Countrywide- as I jog my memory, BofA wanted to be the nations’s largest mortgage servicer. So maybe all they bought was the collection rights to the false (default) debt as per ANONYMOUS’ numerous posts. Maybe they don’t own the debt, if only on paper- with Countrywide being the flaming crooks and thieves that they were, it wouldn’t surprise me if countrywide never owned the notes, and then further sold what they didn’t own to BofA, who now owns nothing either.

  70. Chris, Ian and anyone else who may know – I too would like to research the BofA takeover of Countrywide – how did notes/mortgages get transferred…or did they? There were numerous names under which Countrywide “held” mortgages. Anyone with resources on this?
    Many thanks

  71. chris- Although I am not sure exactly what BofA bought from Countrywide, they (BOA) did have my mortgage loan ‘file’, thin as it was. While there was an AOM and a Satisfaction of Mortgage filed by CW on the same day, there was no MERS baloney listing Countrywide as either an assignee or assignor. Also, CTC (countrywide title company) was on one assignment, but not another. Did you have any CTC docs in your mortgage? Thanks.

  72. Anyone else, that may have an idea of a group to contact please contact them. Thanks Shelley.

    Also anyone know how we can obtain a copy of the settlement now public.

  73. @ Abby

    Am looking to find out what BOA bought when buying Countrywide and the transfer/assignments of mortgages…any info there?

  74. Abby, I called and left a message on voice mail. I wonder if several people called, if this would prompt them to file an opposition.
    Headquarters for: Member Services, Health Research Group, Litigation Group and Communications Office
    1600 20th Street NW
    Washington, D.C. 20009
    (202) 588-1000

    This is there number

  75. @Shelley
    you can try to call Public Citizen and ask if they will be filing anything against the AG settlement or if they know of any other organization that might be doing.

    I am not a lawyer so cannot answer your question on whether or not individuals can file opposition pleadings.

    One would be going up against not only 50 state AGs, but the big banks!!

    It does not look very good.

  76. Bank Officials Cited in Churn of Foreclosures
    Mar 12, 2012 · An extensive federal examination of banks’ foreclosure practices found that managers ignored widespread errors ahead of the 2008 housing market …


  78. Does anyone know of someone whom will file a complaint opposing this on behalf of Americans? I sure hope so. Can any American file this complaint. Or can we get a petition against it? There has got to be some entity that will do this? Or a donation site for everyone to send money to donate to a trusted attorney to file an opposing complaint. I wish I had taken law school sooooo bad.

  79. YUP I have discovered I was the confused one. I can not believe this crime against Americans. It was very confusing, to have this complaint filed at the same time as the Settlement. They purposely hid this from the public. We are in such a pile of corruption. Perhaps the English government and the man in China our government has stolen fifteen trillion from will bring our government officials to justice. I just watched a video of a man in england testifing to the fraud affidavits signed by Geithner. I dont know how to get this to this site, but I will forward it to Neils email. I reread the article and Abagail Field didnt post it it was as Neil said kudos to her.

  80. @ chris, if you’re referring to the B of A/CW side of the “Legalization of the Pillage, fka “The Settlement”, it’s here:

    Those with other axes to grind can find the individual consent orders here:

  81. Neil, Chris is right on. Terrorism are defined in the patriot act, also is anyone filing false affidavits in public, for the taking of land, is a terrorist. I have a copy of this in my case, and claims of treason. It may sound far fetched, but it is not. The judges Breaching Oath of Office to uphold the U.S. Constitution is treason, and the violation of mandated 18USC 2,3, &4 is a felony and misdemeanor. This statute mandates all and I mean all attorneys and judges to report fraud. They are not immune to this statute nor its sanctions and imprisonment.

  82. @chris
    what specifically regarding Countrywide/BOA deal? are you seeking information as it relates to the 50 state AG settlement or other?

  83. Keeps growing. 50 more since yesterday. Nope, it’s not “just in my head”.

    Updated 3/13/12

    Special thanks to Gabriel at for tracking Insurance, Government and Healthcare Resignations. Also special thanks to Sophie who has kept me very busy with some very good URLs.


  84. Anyone on here have information about the Countrywide/BOA deal?

  85. @Shelley
    look more carefully. The Red Hot Smokin is the AG Complaint against the banks that is the mere formality to the AG settlement with the banks. The second part of the complaint filed in federal court are the PROPOSED consent judgement orders for each bank.
    The complaint had to be filed in federal court and a judge has to sign off on each of the PROPOSED consent judgment orders, which would then make the deal between the State AGs and the banks official!

    Thus, unless some entity starts filing pleadings in that same federal court to oppose the settlement, a judge more than likely will sign those PROPOSED consent judgement orders.

    I am not confused.

  86. @ Neil

    Murder of economy is correct, but treason and terrorism is more like what is going on here. If you look up the definition of terrorism, i.e. Homeland Security, this behavior matches all the defining characteristics of “terrorism and treason” against the citizens of the United States!

  87. This could not have happened to anyone more deserving than Lynn Szymonaik. I hope this is only the beginning of better things to come. God Bless Lynn and all the warriors out there. YEAH! God is on our side and the rath of God on the evil doers will be more than they bargained for. I will now sleep like a baby, knowing I had great news tonight! Thanks you made my day, that seemed so dismal just minutes ago.

  88. FABULOUS NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Lynn Syzmoniak- Whistleblower Slammed by Bondi and Atwater Will Collect $18 Million From Feds..
    March 12th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    Remember our friend Lynn Syzmoniak? She’s been one of the street fighters from the very beginning…a true warrior and hero to the American people.

    She has fought tirelessly and she has suffered the attacks just like everyone who dares to fight for the American people. The most despicable attack came when Florida’s Attorney General and then Florida’s Inspector General ripped her apart in the attorney firing whitewash report. The report, contained right here Atwater IG Report slams Lynn then Lisa Epstein then June Edwards and Theresa Clarkson.

    Significantly, the entire report…just like Bondi’s dismissive treatment of all those hereos who have stood up and pointed out all that was wrong…completely disregards all the serious claims and allegations made by The People’s Heroes.

    Well, the HUGE news today is that those same claims that have been completely dismissed by Florida’s elected leaders are apparently resulting in a massive $18 million payout for Lynn!

    According to the settlement documents, the banks are also paying tens of millions of dollars to resolve whistleblower lawsuits alleging lenders defrauded the government in seeking federal mortgage insurance for some risky loans. The banks are paying $95 million, for example, to settle a case brought by Lynn Szymoniak, a homeowner who was featured on CBS’ “60 Minutes” last year for uncovering details about banks’ so-called robo-signing of foreclosure documents. Szymoniak will get $18 million from the settlement.


    Now, exactly how does this go over with the political establishment here in Floriduh? I can tell you this….she will not be sailing off into the sunset….she will only fight that much harder and we are all that much stronger with such a powerhouse on our side!

  89. @Shelly,

    On that site, the only thing I saw was the kudo to Abigail Field for posting the actual complaint she had pulled from scrib (I believe). I don’t believe the settlement itself has been posted yet since it still isn’t approved by the court.

    No, my hunch was right: the complaint is part of the procedure which should normally be: first file a complaint, then settle and then have the court officially sign off on the dismissal of the complaint. But since the settlement was announced first, then negotiated, then written, then subnitted to the court, by looking at the complaint drafted afterwards, we can absolutely see everything the AGs have agreed to give away to the bank, which is a lot, and what we will find in that frickin’ settlement when it is finally published!

    The whole thing kinda reeks and I hope that somewhere, somehow, something very unconstitutional has been perpetrated which could be later argued to take the whole thing back once the banks have been torn down.

    Otherwise, E. Toile is right: what we keep prophesizing is bound to happen: a bloody and deadly civil war.

  90. @Enraged

    I’ve contacted everyone you mentioned our attorney does not have the Federal litigation experience we need. The judge has denied the defendants Second Motion to Dismiss.

  91. Abby in Cal, I think you are confused. There is a settlement that was filed today and this is posted by Abagail Field at Stopforeclosurefraud and is a different case altogether. Correct me if I am wrong, however I believe it to be as it was titled by stopforeclosurefraud, The Smoking hot! banks intentionally and thorough vilated the law complaint! The settlement filed is also listed on the same web beside or near this article posted today by Abagail Field.

  92. @Dee,

    I gave you a few pointers a while back.

    Have you contacted Mandelman (Mandelman matters) to obtain referals of good ones?

    Otherwise, other people to contact are:
    1) Max Gardner (Max Gardner blog)
    2) Matt Weidner
    3) Jeff Barnes (Foreclosuredefensenationwide)
    4) Marc Dann (Dannlaw)
    5) Lisa Epstein
    6) Abigail Field

    Try that and then, check those referals they gave you on internet for the success stories (cases they won), contact them and start interviewing them. Can’t do it any other way. Forclosure defense is a tight knit group. Those guys all know each others.

  93. Dee, sorry, I wish I knew someone that could help you. I’m on my own. The fact that no one can find representation, even if they have the resources, shows the absolute lunacy behind this scenario.

    Our treasury is funding the banks, our regulatory agencies are hiding the crimes, and the administration continues to pretend it’s all alright. Now the AGs throw in with the criminals, all for a few shiny coins. Our government is foreclosing on us, in partnership with the banks. Complete capture. They should all be arrested. The sooner we can start Rev 2.0 the better, IMO.

  94. Just because they dont answer does not mean a bad thing. It means they are not in compliance with the law and it is a good thing when they dont answer. It helps your case. So the FDCPA and QWR is a good thing to send, cause they dont answer it cause they cant or they will lose if you know the truth, and it shows you did everything in your power to contact the real lender. it is unethical for you to pay a fraud, and the law allows you to know whom you owe. Ask your attorney if this is so. I am a pro se and not an attorney. This is not legal advice.

  95. basically our Government has become a “Vigilante” “lynching” Government. The sad part about it is an Two African Americans Obama and Holder are doing the “lynching” of America.
    American Government is Morally Bankrupt.

  96. @ E Tolle

    I am still searching for an experience trial lawyer. Do you know if your attorney can recommend someone in Texas.

  97. Yes Abby, I know, and thanks. Just very difficult to believe that we can be sold out for chump change. I have to believe that eventually the masses will awaken and demand change. If they don’t, we all deserve to live in serfdom.

    Every single state AG deserves a letter expressing a disbelief in the total and obvious capture. How fucking dare they?

  98. @Shelley and E
    read my below post–not too far below regarding the ‘complaint’ filed and the proposed consent judgments

    the ‘complaint’ is mere formality

  99. I can’t for the life of me figure out how all of these crimes can be spelled out in such detail and then extinguished as if nothing ever happened. Are the laws of this nation now just quaint ideas, fit for certain circumstances but not others? How can any system function with an arbitrary legal system?

    Does anyone want to continue to live under such rules? As this Ponzi scheme continues to unravel, as they always do, more and more everyday people will lose their savings and homes, and start to revolt. It can’t end well. All because those in power believe that the banks are too important to fail. It’s truly them or us. Fuck them.

  100. hman, Within twenty days the true lender has to be exposed to you. they have to prove whom the true lender is by proof. The FDCPA letter is what you need to send. I believe the QWR is good to send. However an attorney on the web said not to send the QWR except by attorney due to they get to much info from you and you can loose your case. Or they can depo you after the letter. I am not an attorney and have no legal advice, only recommendations, to bring info to your attorney. Any one know if this is true or not. And if he should send the FDCPA letter and the QRW letter.

  101. E. Toile,

    That’s exactly how I feel. The settlement has not yet been published but this lawsuit is spelling out all the banks misdeeds. What I don’t know is this: is this lawsuit a necessary procedure for the judge to sign off on the settlement? Inother words, does it get extinguished when the settlement is court approved?

    All I’m getting here is the raucus of a chicken coop having spotted the fox but little rational reaction and much overreaction. I didn’t know the AGs were about to file suit. And it talks only about fraud, which is supposed to be the bulk of the settlement. That tells me it’s part of the procedural thing to get the settlement signed.

    Wht say you?

  102. Have you ever been to a State or Federal facility where it’s posted that if you need a translator, one will be provided ?

    Well, I do not understand ‘legalese’ and I need an interpreter. Since I am a Chicago-born US citizen, and cannot afford said translator, I will need one provided free of charge.

    What would happen to the Judicial ‘schedule’ if ‘all of us’ asked the Judge for all options available under the Summons ? That we do not understand the language of the banks, the lawyers, or him or her in the robes and elevated platform ?

  103. As far as the FBI one of their functions described on the web, is economic crime. Which is considered to be an act of terrorism.

  104. Letters and Notices
    look under this and you will find an FDCPA letter of dispute! Requesting proof of the real party and that can only be by proof of the original note not a photo copy.

  105. “Yes, you were defrauded, but Mrs. Nali, how has this harmed you?”
    These words were spoken to me by the FBI agent, as I sat on the chair, inside the office of the FBI in July 2010.
    On July 12 2007, My husband and I went to close on a new home from Hovnanian.
Donna K. McDaniels Demello was there, and said she was the escrow agent.
She told us that the “Builder had changed the lot number” and that the lot we had thought we were buying the past six months, LOT 107, was now actually LOT 256.
    She showed us a grant deed that conveyed LOT 256 to my husband for $10.000 months earlier right after he gave them a check, (we did not know they had placed the words “LOT 256” and cashed it in January)
    Donna told me as that “I was not named on the grant deed, that they had to have my husband sign two deeds of trust on lot 256 as sole and separate property, and then they would have me and him sign two deeds of trust as married.” and they had four loan numbers, one on each deed of trust, a first and second in his name, and then a first and second in both our names.
    FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY was setting us up in loan fraud, and stealing our identity to purchase lot 256 as a straw man.
    Then the next day, the 13th, they secretly created a grant deed that conveyed LOT 107 to us, and then on the 16th, they lured us back to the office, and a notary asked us to “Swear” and give an OATH” that we had signed the deeds on the 12th, and of course we did, so we swore, and she had us sign the same exact notary journal that Donna Demello used. We signed no Deeds of Trust that date.
    They then FORGED our names to a set of Deeds, for LOT 107, and then they placed the name of the notary from the 16th on them, and her name was INTENTIONALLY the same almost as Donna K. McDaniels Demello’s and this notary’s name was Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo!
    Reader, do you believe this was a coincedence?
    They also took the LOAN numbers off the first set he signed alone on lot 256 as Sole and separate property, and placed these on the forgeries they later recorded.
    Then when I later asked my senior husband (upon seeing lot 107 stuff sent to us) “Hey I thought the lot number had changed?” He in declining age, said, no, it was always lot 107.
    Now here two years into litigation, the Court still refuses to hear me, and allow a trial, because I am pro per.The ONLY deeds we signed were LOT 256, and meants that 1. Our rightful property of LOT 256 has been taken from us unconstitutionally, as I saw the Grant Deed, and I touched it!
    They framed my husband in the Straw Man Fraud, made me think he did this willingly for over two years, and they ARRESTED Donna K. Demello for over EIGHTY OTHER STRAW MAN LOANS. She is still FREE, her son goes to HARVARD. One of her close relatives is an UNDERWRITER at WELLS FARGO, and another is a financial advisor.
    FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY DID THIS, and this is outrageous that I cannot be heard in court, and that court will not allow me to amend my complaint to state the true name of the escrow agent on the 12th,
FATCO knew by placing the similar name of the other Donna on the forgeries, that I would name the wrong person, and I did, and then she has been pretending to be the escrow agent, bit she is an imposter.
    The FDIC, has conspired in this scheme with FATCO and this is wring that my government is allowing this to continue, and the court tells us we HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SUE!
    The had the victims sign the straw man loans with Donna K. McDaniels Demello, then they lured them back to the First American office days later, and had them give an “Oath” they had signed the Deeds days earlier, and they made them sign the same exact journal again, and the notary was Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo, and then they forged the Deeds on the original lot number.
    Then when the victims discovered the forgeries later… they would only remember “Donna”, locate Escamillo, who then would claim to be the escrow agent, knowing the victims would have forgotten the events of three years later.
    I forgot…for a while… but its now crystal clear, and I have the notary journal of over 50 victims of these two Donna’s. I am a victim of Donna K. Demello, admitted felon of over EIGHTY straw mand loan, and her partners, Donna K. Escamillo and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY!

    HOW AM I HARMED? Lets see, the forgeries have the WRONG LOAN NUMBERS, for starters!

    First American =Faulty loans=Faulty foreclosures!

  106. @Shelley et al
    the ‘lawsuit’ filed against all the banksters is really the AG foreclosure settlement announced last month and along with the complaint are the PROPOSED consent orders for a federal judge to sign which would ‘seal’ the deal between the banks and the AGs in the matter of the 50 state foreclosure settlement.

    This is not KABOOOOMMMM–this is not good news for homeowners.

    We all knew that they announced the settlement but did not have the final paperwork done yet back in Feb. We all knew the settlement had to go to a federal judge to sign…..look carefully at the consent judgement filing per bank…you will see there is a blank space for a judge to sign.

    we should not be sitting on this blog—-but out at whatever courthouse these are filed at, and I think it is in Washington DC, and we should all be protesting and getting Occupy to help us.

    we should be filing opposition and objections to the proposed settlement!!!

    here is the complaint and the BOA and Chase proposed consent judgments—–look for the blank signature line of the judge!!

  107. Please be careful when sending a QWR! Our servicer foreclosed in short form aftter 2+years w/o payment just AFTER sending a formal QWR for ready when you send it.

    Also there is the problem of the Judges that wont/ don’t read matter how well plead 🙁 You can’t control a corrupt court system..I know this from personal experience!

  108. YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR THE PROOF OF THE NOD. Did you send a FDCPA letter? That letter refers to Debt Collectors. Neil Garfield has a prepared letter of Dispute afforded by the FDCPA on the left hand side columns under letters.


  110. Another case in FL showing that NOD must be sent before lawsuit for foreclosure.

    So why in 2012 does WF sue me without sending NOD?


  112. Isnt there a law under article nine and I know for sure article 3 that when there is a possiblity of a third party coming in to make claims and the parties involved with your mortgage have not protected you from this they then have to produce the original note and prove they are the party. I have it in my case. look and read all of the article nine and artlice 3 law. It is just like fraud law and policy making law, there are exceptions to the rules. Also a friend of mine tells me she saw statutes that stated when a bank is being sued there is a moritorium on the foreclosures. Does any one have a statute like this? I have not seen it, but that does not mean it does not exhist. She is diving in to find what she saw. Any one know of a mandate to have a moritorium on this by some statute. Also all the lawyers and judges are mandated to report fraud. This puts all their lawyers on notice or in criminal law suits for violations of mandated 18USC 2, 3 74. Read all the 18USC 2 ON LAWS.

  113. Have tried to post the article here but not able to – For a look at the bigger picture and especially legal precidence in the State of Washington, read

  114. Good Lord, has anybody read that AG complaint? If that’s there answer to the settlement, maybe we’ve turned the corner afterall. That’s one kick-ass suit right there!

  115. chas404

    TILA is also governed by Regulation Z, which is self enforcing, where when the defect is noticed or becomes apparent, you can fight that in court. And use the QWR, send it multiple times and rearrange the questions…compare what they give you to what you have and know to be true. Some of that is very telling. Good Luck!

  116. Hman.

    they dont have to give u original note. they will send u a copy.

    also i personally think TILA is useless as it is time barred by 3 yrs.

    send QWR but don’t expect much.

    just my opinion.

    good luck.

  117. One FL case that was overturned in favor of borrower for not properly serving NOD. Mostly the bank seems to be putting its ducks in a row. I can’t imagine they would not provide proper NOD. I got some form letter a while that said it was not to be a NOD but was informing me of impending lawsuit and who opposing lawyer was. Contract clearly states no actions to be taken by either party before 30 day after NOD. Will talk with my lawyer.


    View Case

    Cited Cases

    Citing Cases

    Comment (0)

    | Follow Leagle on Twitter |


    515 So.2d 301 (1987)

    Carlos GOMEZ and Paulina Gomez, Appellants,
    No. 4-86-2695.

    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

    October 28, 1987.

    Rehearing Denied December 1, 1987.

    Alec Ross, North Miami Beach, for appellants.
    Ira R. Gordon of Broad and Cassel, Miami, for appellee.

    It was error to enter summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, American Savings and Loan Association, because there were disputed and unresolved questions of material fact which prevented entry of judgment as a matter of law. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). For instance, there was an issue as to whether American gave written notice of appellants’ breach of the mortgage agreement as provided in paragraph eighteen thereof, F.A. Chastain Construction, Inc. v. Pratt,146 So.2d 910, 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), and there were unresolved issues as concerns appellants’ affirmative defenses. Pandol Brothers, Inc. v. NCNB National
    [ 515 So.2d 302 ]

    Bank of Florida,450 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
    DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

  118. Am I wrong or rather incorrect, if I state that TILA and all statutes are extended statutes by fraud statutes and any policymaking fraud is extended by 42AUSC 1983?(.policy-making fraud statutes.) Which is they claim a law (statute) is what covers a claim, and it is a different law concealed and you find the correct law and they conclude it is covered by a different law you find and not the law you were told, at the conclusion of the law, is when the three year statutes begin. Am I correct on this? The mayor of my town caused me thousands of dollars by concealing modular laws from me. When I found the mod statutes governed modulars in May 14, 2004, I discovered fraud, then on June 23, 2004 the city came to the conclusion I was right the law allowed my modular and I recieved permanent occupancy for my eightthousand square foot modular my day spa is in. My three year statute did not begin until June 23, 2004. I filed my claim on Oct 9, 2006. Per statute 42USC1983.

  119. Maybe something is wrong with my computer. I can do what you said to do with every site but It wont let me highlight and click copy.

    Also on the same it also has an artilce that the settlement was filed today.

    I am thinking this lawsuit is the reason the bankster rats are jumping ship. They knew something big is up. And the settlement has to be approved and has not yet been approved by a judge. Can someone go in and intervene and stop the judge from approving it?.

  120. I’m writitng a letter to my servicer to request the original mortgage note on one of my foreclosures. I want to refrence what law it violates? Does it violate any law? UCC, Statute, Federal, Tila, Respa, etc…

    I can’t seem to find anything that says they have to send you back the original note? It is a violation I want to make sure to include it in my letter. Also, if it is a Repa or Tila violation will it be time barred? And when would the time frame start? As of the foreclosure?

    Any info would be appreciated.

    Thank you,

  121. I was served by Bank of America on saturday…No NOD!

  122. I am old school and still learning the computer. I used to hire all my computer work done when I hadddd money. Had to start learning the computer and reteach myself to type a couple of years ago. Where did you find the http at?

  123. @chas404,

    Read first the lawsuit filed by all 50 states against the servicers/banks.
    I just posted the link in its entirety. (Shelly, when you post a link, highlight it entirely, control C, control V where you want it to appear. That works really well and gives the whole link. Then, all you have to do is click on it to be on that page).

    What i don’t know is this: is this in lieu of the (still missing) settlement or in addition to it?

  124. Chas404-

    Keep us posted. You are not alone.

  125. Wow.Just wow.Seeing it in writing.Fear is a constant companion these days for many of us;still,when one pushes through it to truth…something that can not be held back nor down stirs in the belly,thunders off the tongue….HOW DARE THEY?!!!!!!!!

    Liberty&ignorance,ever incompatible.May Truth be known and understood and may this attack upon our country be defeated.From their graves,those who have in fact killed themselves due to the TRAUMA this”experience” cause;they are crying out…Don’t back down….marriages/relationships destroyed,self worth/self esteem annihilated,shame and blame for a cloak,hopelessness&despair,PTS(D)…a psychiatric injury,not a mental illness…since 1913 have we even had honest banking&money?Another tale for a long and rough ride,best told with either a stiff pour of brandy and or a sincere Prayer to be able to handle the truth,no matter how difficult it proves to witness.I don’t think this happened by chance.Nor just recently.History is repeating the lessons get harder until we finally learn them.

    We all share this planet.I remain the”nut job” who asks why we all have to pay&pay&pay&pay,with fiat no less,forever and ever to merely live upon the planet we were born upon….??If we insist that”money” is needed to avert savagery(!!!??!!) then can we have”honest” money?
    I am so ignorant that I can’t even figure out what has just now gone wrong with this keyboard!! but I can understand being rendered sub human by profiteers with a lot of fancy-schmancy verbiage to cover up lying,stealing,cheating&murdering… Something has to give,folks…there is no more wiggle room….I admit that I am indeed,traumatized and have to focus,breathe in and out slow and deep.

    Morally bankrupt systemic epic failure in America,it looks like we have almost hit bottom…May GOD help us all.

  126. Got served today by WFargo. I have lawyer. Wish me luck. Interestingly was never given NOD per mortgage contract. Let the games begin.

  127. Not seeing it!


  129. Shelleeeeeeeeeeey! What’s the link? I checked on “reality check”, Abigail Field’s blog, and it ain’t there!!!

  130. What CEO Musical Chairs Means to the Job Market

    This is NOT in my head. Something is definitely coming down. This article focuses on the US only. Multiply that by all the countries losing exec. left and right and, pretty soon, we’ll be talking about radical changes.

    By MICHELLE HIRSCH, The Fiscal Times
    February 23, 2012

    After three years of relative stability in the corner offices of corporate America, 2012 is shaping up as a year of CEO musical chairs. That’s because a wave of executives are looking to step down, cash in their stock options as stocks rise and avoid new government regulations that many see as too challenging and stressful.

    Yet, all of this managerial turbulence could shape up to be a blessing in disguise for job seekers and mid-and-lower level workers, corporate governance experts say. Executive changes often spur a domino effect of jobs opening up at multiple levels of the company after many CEO’s decide to bring in new players, said Mark Madden, Senior VP of Executive Search with B.E. Smith, one of the nation’s largest health care C-suite recruiters.

    In particular, the revolving door is spinning faster among health care and financial services executives, who are jumping ship, retiring, or being forced out at a quicker clip than their counterparts in other industries. Last month, 25 health care CEOs and 13 financial services CEOs departed, making those sectors the two biggest culprits of the rising turnover tide.

    A growing push from the federal government to police the financial services industry and clamp down on executive compensation is prompting the exodus of CEOs in the financial services industry, said Don Hambrick, a professor at Penn State’s Smeal School of Business who consults for financial services firms. This includes Dodd-Frank, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, many financial chief executives reasoned that lending and business volume would return to normal once the crisis abated. “But by this point, the guys I speak with are beaten down…so with compensation on a tight leash, instead of slogging along in an industry whose best days are behind them, many are just deciding to play golf now, and sit on a board or two,” he said.

    Hospital executives, too, are increasingly stepping down and moving into contract consulting work as President Obama’s signature health care law’s provisions start taking effect. “We’re seeing a growing number of executives kind of throw up their arms and say, ‘I’ve gone through major changes in health care, and I’m not really in a position where I want to go through this major change again,” Madden said.

    At the same time, corporate boards are looking increasingly for new blood to steer companies past crisis mode – and their current CEOs can take a hint. Until now, boards in virtually all industries have avoided shuffling their executives, while executives themselves who might have otherwise wanted to retire or switch jobs held off either out of allegiance to seeing the company through a rough patch or fear that life at another company could be worse, said Matt McGreal, a principal at Crist|Kolder Associates, a CEO search firm.

    “The devil you know is often better than the one you don’t. Your company may be in a bad situation, but the one you’re going to may be even worse, was how many executives were thinking,” McGreal said. “But those fears are starting to dissipate, and there’s definitely going to be greater volatility with top executives coming and going in the coming months.”

    The number of CEOS who left their posts in January spiked by 48 percent over December, rising to 123 – the highest level since May 2010 according to data from outplacement service firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Fifty-one percent resigned or stepped down, 26 percent retired, and only 9 percent left to take other jobs. Last month’s high-profile CEO resignations include Wayne Gattinella, WebMD, who stepped down after the healthcare information services provider slashed its revenue outlook twice during 2011, and Fannie Mae’s Michael Williams, who is stepping down amid increasing criticism for helping spur the housing market collapse and collecting billions in taxpayer bailout funds.

    While changes at the top may unnerve some employees, rarely do CEO switches bring about mass terminations of existing employees, he said. Instead, CEO churning often translates into strategy changes “which often creates some real opportunities for people lower down the food chain to be promoted in the new order of things,” McGreal said.

    After three years of relative stability in the corner offices of corporate America, 2012 is shaping up as a year of CEO musical chairs. That’s because a wave of executives are looking to step down, cash in their stock options as stocks rise and avoid new government regulations that many see as too challenging and stressful.

    Yet, all of this managerial turbulence could shape up to be a blessing in disguise for job seekers and mid-and-lower level workers, corporate governance experts say. Executive changes often spur a domino effect of jobs opening up at multiple levels of the company after many CEO’s decide to bring in new players, said Mark Madden, Senior VP of Executive Search with B.E. Smith, one of the nation’s largest health care C-suite recruiters.

    In particular, the revolving door is spinning faster among health care and financial services executives, who are jumping ship, retiring, or being forced out at a quicker clip than their counterparts in other industries. Last month, 25 health care CEOs and 13 financial services CEOs departed, making those sectors the two biggest culprits of the rising turnover tide.

    A growing push from the federal government to police the financial services industry and clamp down on executive compensation is prompting the exodus of CEOs in the financial services industry, said Don Hambrick, a professor at Penn State’s Smeal School of Business who consults for financial services firms. This includes Dodd-Frank, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, many financial chief executives reasoned that lending and business volume would return to normal once the crisis abated. “But by this point, the guys I speak with are beaten down…so with compensation on a tight leash, instead of slogging along in an industry whose best days are behind them, many are just deciding to play golf now, and sit on a board or two,” he said.

    Hospital executives, too, are increasingly stepping down and moving into contract consulting work as President Obama’s signature health care law’s provisions start taking effect. “We’re seeing a growing number of executives kind of throw up their arms and say, ‘I’ve gone through major changes in health care, and I’m not really in a position where I want to go through this major change again,” Madden said.

    At the same time, corporate boards are looking increasingly for new blood to steer companies past crisis mode – and their current CEOs can take a hint. Until now, boards in virtually all industries have avoided shuffling their executives, while executives themselves who might have otherwise wanted to retire or switch jobs held off either out of allegiance to seeing the company through a rough patch or fear that life at another company could be worse, said Matt McGreal, a principal at Crist|Kolder Associates, a CEO search firm.

    “The devil you know is often better than the one you don’t. Your company may be in a bad situation, but the one you’re going to may be even worse, was how many executives were thinking,” McGreal said. “But those fears are starting to dissipate, and there’s definitely going to be greater volatility with top executives coming and going in the coming months.”

    The number of CEOS who left their posts in January spiked by 48 percent over December, rising to 123 – the highest level since May 2010 according to data from outplacement service firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Fifty-one percent resigned or stepped down, 26 percent retired, and only 9 percent left to take other jobs. Last month’s high-profile CEO resignations include Wayne Gattinella, WebMD, who stepped down after the healthcare information services provider slashed its revenue outlook twice during 2011, and Fannie Mae’s Michael Williams, who is stepping down amid increasing criticism for helping spur the housing market collapse and collecting billions in taxpayer bailout funds.

    While changes at the top may unnerve some employees, rarely do CEO switches bring about mass terminations of existing employees, he said. Instead, CEO churning often translates into strategy changes “which often creates some real opportunities for people lower down the food chain to be promoted in the new order of things,” McGreal said.

  131. Sorry, Look on


    THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. ALL BANKS LISTED BY ALL FIFTY ATTORNEY GENERALS LIST AND ALL STATES LISTED filed a lawsuit against the all banksters for violating the law. In a civil action , for misconduct related to their origination and servicing of singel family residential mortagages. posted by Abagail Feild.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: