The Emperor’s New Clothes Revisited


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


Editor’s Comment:

Back when I first started writing the blog I was looking for an easy parable that would simplify the exotic theft performed by Wall Street. It did not occur to me that I would need to write a second blog alerting the readers to government complicity in compounding both policy and fiscal errors committed by the Federal Government. In 2007 and 2008 the situation was dense and complex with varying layers of plausible deniability to cover up what turned out to be the largest economic crime in human history-a milepost that will standout even hundreds of years from now. Now the government is engaging in the same transactions lending an aura of legitimacy to transactions that were not only fraudulent but which also corrupted our property title system. The degree of corruption that has been revealed so far is barely the tip of a toxic iceberg. The premise here is simply that the investment banking entities sold worthless mortgage bonds to investors based on the promise that the bonds would have value because millions of mortgage loans were being assigned in exchange for the money held in REMIC pools as a result of the sale of the worthless mortgage bonds to investors.

It has never been true that the investment banking industry owned or undertook any risk associated with the underwriting of those mortgage loans. It has also never been true that the investment banking entities that sold the mortgage bonds to hapless pension funds and other institutional investors ever owned any of those mortgage bonds for their own account. Why would they? They knew very well that the loans and the pools had been created with poison pills to assure virtual destruction of the entire apparatus that was later described as securitized loan.

For reasons that are easily explained by reference to the political realm but which are completely unjustified by reference to any generally accepted principals of finance and accounting, the investment banks have falsely been allowed to claim the losses of their first victims-the pension funds and other investors who bought mortgage bonds. In so doing and without any questions the government set the stage for a bail out of the financial industry, the total size of which can be expressed in multiples of our Gross Domestic Product. As we have slowly and painfully learned government agencies and government sponsored entities were willing conspirators

So the first lie is that the banks never owned the loans, the second lie is that the banks never owned the mortgage bonds, and the third lie is that the government bought and sold the mortgage bonds from the investment bankers. With each announcement of the purchase or sale of mortgage bonds by the Federal Reserve or other U.S. agencies we slip a little deeper into the abyss from which we may never emerge. The transactions referred to in the article below are non-existent and consist of false declarations from both sides of the transaction-the government and the investment bankers. First the investment bankers pretended to sell mortgage bonds which they never owned to the government; and then the government pretended to sell the same mortgage bonds back to the investment bankers. Since neither one had an ownership interest in the mortgage bonds we are forced back to the parable of the Emperors New Clothes. We are to accept the information of this “transaction” as though it had any basis in reality or truth. In fact, it has none. And to add insult to injury, the mortgage bonds themselves are intended to “derive” their value (hence the word “derivative”) from underlying mortgage loans that were properly sold and underwritten by appropriate industry players. This is and remains a lie in that both the terms of the transactions with the homeowners and the documents containing declarations of fact relating to the transactions were patently false and fraudulent in that they were intended to deceive everyone outside of the financial services industry.

The government should have demanded its money back on the original sale by the investment banks. In that sale, the government acquired nothing. The return of the money to the government is being disguised as a sale, further corrupting title to both the mortgage bonds and the real property. If any actual sales had occurred, state and federal law would have required complete disclosure of those sales as a condition precedent to initiating or concluding any process in foreclosure. The current government policy of kicking the can down the road is at the expense of our prospects as a nation and at the expense of the citizens of the nation who subscribe to the belief that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Each of these foreclosures would fail if properly scrutinized. They would fail because the initial documentation was faked, and all documentation leading up to foreclosure compounded the fakery. Today we have our own government further compounding the fakery and lending credence to false transactions.

U.S. Completes Sale of Mortgage-BackedSecurities, Earning $25 Billion


WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department announced on Monday that it had finished selling the $225 billion in mortgage-backed securities it bought to help stabilize the markets during the worst of the financial crisis.

The government ended up making a $25 billion profit on the securities, which are guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned mortgage finance companies. The profit came from interest payments, principal and rising prices for the securities, the department said.

“The successful sale of these securities marks another important milestone in the wind-down of the government’s emergency financial crisis response efforts,” Mary Miller, assistant secretary for financial markets, said in a statement. “This program helped support the housing market during a critical moment for our nation’s economy and delivered a substantial profit for taxpayers.”

Treasury bought $225 billion in mortgage-backed securities in 2008 and 2009 as part of a wide-ranging effort to stabilize the housing and financial markets, an effort started by the Bush administration and continued and amplified under President Obama.

In March 2011, the Treasury Department announced that it would start to sell off what remained of its portfolio. To avoid disturbing the still-fragile housing finance market, it limited sales to $10 billion a month, and said it would discontinue the sell-off if any market disturbances occurred.

Thus far, Treasury’s sale of its mortgage-backed securities portfolio has provided a lucrative return to the taxpayer. But it is only one piece of a broad and expensive effort to prevent the collapse of the financial system and housing market.

The government also put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under federal conservatorship in 2008, and the taxpayer has spent about $150 billion bailing out the two government-sponsored enterprises.

Estimates vary, but the Federal Housing Finance Agency projects the ultimate cost to the taxpayer for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be $121 billion to $193 billion, depending on the strength of the housing market and other variables.

Treasury also spent about $414 billion to buy bad assets and restore confidence in American financial institutions via the Troubled Asset Relief Program, also known as TARP. That program, though much hated by the public, has received significant revenue from its sale of stakes in participating institutions and from interest payments. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects it to ultimately cost taxpayers about $34 billion.

The Federal Reserve also initiated significant purchases to prop up the financial markets in the wake of the crisis. According to its most recent release, the Federal Reserve still has about $850 billion in mortgage debt on its books, along with about $1.7 trillion in Treasury debt. The Federal Reserve delivered $78.4 billion of earnings on its portfolio to the Treasury in 2010, and $76.9 billion in 2011.

In recent months, investors have tentatively returned to buying mortgage-backed debt. The housing market seems to be strengthening as well. In a monthly report released on Monday, Fannie Mae economists cited a stronger labor market and other improving indicators as hopeful signs that 2012 might be the start of a housing turnaround.

But, it noted, “while mortgage rates have hovered near their record lows, purchase mortgage applications have remained at depressed levels,” indicating that there remained significant weakness.

53 Responses

  1. for Chris; Thanks for your response. I just NOW opened this “Post”. I wanted to try and let you know I appreciate your time to “write”. B…..

  2. @ Bill

    We are all in the same boat. I have far more invested in my property than any lender does. The courts are allowing the rules to be modified for Felonies to be sanctioned, for the servicers, originators and banks (if that’s what you call them these days).

    To me, a yard sale is in order…the house should go back to them, they way I bought it: dated, out of code, no landscaping, termites, etc…the improvements are mine + the down payment + principle + upkeep + insurance and taxes + damages of loss of value and equity (due to their behavior), they owe me money. If they want the house…I figure realistically $ 186,000…now if they pay me what I have invested, they can have the place and resell it…if they have a loss, OH WELL they manipulated the market, I didn’t…sucks to be them!

  3. After 4 years of reading and responding on these blogs. After almost losing ALL of my sanity,and yes, much is still missing, it simply seems to me that a Mortgage should stay with the party who initially took it on. I never even knew that mortgages were sold until over 10 years ago when I did a refi with a gal who was an expert at this sort of thing. The “Mortgagee” ought to AT LEAST be notified of such a “Sale”. In my situation, where my Condo was sold for only $6000 more than my original DOWN PAYMENT at a Trustee Sale, I think I am entitled to at least a refund of my downpayment. Hell, they made $40,000 from 4 years of payments! Not to mention the Insurer’s (presumed) payments, and God knows what others. I totally agree with the article I read recently that the 5 big Banks, (Too big to fail) should be taken down, and/or overseen by several Agencies so that illegal monies aren’t involved in ANYTHING! I, like the majority of the Nation have not only lost jobs, livelhoods, and theirs Hearts, minds, and Souls, but any Faith in Our Country and it’s Government. What kind of price can you attach to this? And this is FAR from over. The next decade, or perhaps much longer will provide a living condition for the U.S. that has NEVER been experienced. Who is going to “handle” this? Our Government? I could go on and on. But to what avail? And to top it off, my Accountant says I may be looking at Taxes “on” about $70,000 to who? Yes, Our Government. If there are many who don’t have a God yet, you can bet they sure will as this transforms Our Collective Conciousness. Thanks for the vent. I feel a little better. (For about 5 minutes) It’s interesting how you have to provide your e-mail to post. I just don’t care anymore.

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

  5. @all: Gosh–what a mess…

  6. @all: WHAT A MESS…

  7. @all: Gosh, what a mess….

  8. @concerned


  9. Sorry guys,

    I posted something without telling you that it is an interview of Matt Taibi about… B of A and it spells out a lot of the fraud and the reasons why B of A MUST be shot down. I believe it start at the 8th minute or so, after the regular news.

  10. Wow! People are getting sooooo pissed!!!

  11. A@Pam,

    Not only the CWALT, but also the CWABS, the CWMBS and all the rest of the Countrywide loans that were supposedly transferred to the trusts SHOULD not be possible to foreclose, but also the loans that were written with the lender named as “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation” should not be loans that can be foreclosed upon by BoNY as the trustee for the many different CWXXX trusts. The assignments do not exist. They will create a single-step assignment as part of the attempt to foreclose.

    But regardless of whether it is LEGAL to do so, BoNY or the attorneys for the SERVICER will still claim that they DO have the right to foreclose.

    ANYTHING that involves CW or BofA should be challenged at EVERY STEP.

    Look to see when “AWL Corp” was formed in New York. Look at the date of the loan. CW tries to use a not-on-the-document D/B/A relationship. That would be a relationship with an entity that should not be calling itself a CORPORATION as is done on the “America’s WHolesale Lender Corporation” loans.

  12. @E Tolle

    I just read your comments on the cases brought by CW/BOA/BONY and read the info on StopForeclosureFraud. Does this mean that all those mortgages assigned to BONY by CWALT are un-forecloseable ?

  13. Neil,

    my prayers for a speedy recovery and comfort and peace in the process. We missed you… hope to hear from you soon.


    Finally, someone with the balls to call this what it really is and provide links to the suit. Gutsy, Kareem.

    Even the phoney, baloney money being printed is a ruse, when this hits streets all hell is going to break lose. Every economist, legislator and even our President is lying about the situation and covering it up, helping fuel the problem.

    This mess is just the beginning, in my opinion. This one time, I hope I am misguided.

  15. Well said Neil. As you are aware, I exposed these colossal crimes in my 2004 lawsuit 04CC11080, in Orange County, Ca. and am exposing them now in my U.S. Supreme Court Case #11-1013. I am an actual witness to these crimes, as I have been continuously documenting them in courts for 8 years. Here are two links:
    By filing an AMICUS BRIEF to the above writ, lawyers like Neil can undo, and prevent, much damage to the U.S. & world populations, caused by America’s Counterfeiting Industry (ACI), detailed here.


    Former state senator Robert J. Mellow resigns from the board of Penseco Financial Services (Penn Security Bank and Trust) after being charged by the SEC on various conspirations to commit fraud.

    Clean up time. Low hanging fruit but a good start.

  17. This is worth hanging onto, also, in regard to a court’s inherent power under section 105:
    “The complaint alleges that the Defendants filed false pleadings concealing the true mortgage creditor’s identity, thereby violating the bankruptcy rules and perpetrating a fraud on the court. Inappropriate behavior, including litigation abuse and fraud, can be dealt with by a bankruptcy court pursuant to § 105 of the Code as an “abuse of the bankruptcy process.” Under § 105, sanctions may be warranted against parties who willfully abuse the judicial process. In re Gorshtein, 285 B.R. 118 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002). This power is broad enough to empower a court to impose sanctions for “filings [in a case] as well as commencement or continuation of an action in bad faith.” Id. (citing In re Spectee Group, Inc., 185 B.R. 146, 155 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995). Taking the Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, Aurora claimed in the motion for relief from stay to be a creditor and the holder of the mortgage.” Apparently, the real holder (as we know, MAYBE) was U.S. Bank as Trustee for blah blah Trust. At any rate, it wasn’t Aurora. These cases were determined in NY jurisdiction, but bk is federal jurisdiction and 105 applies in fed jurisdiction. These quotes are from a case in Ohio.
    Cases of sanctions which come to mind are Walker (CA), Nosek (MA), and Vargas (CA), and in re Lee (CA). All are readily available with a yahoo search and or at scribd. In the case above, the borrowers were able to state beyond speculation that Aurora was not the creditor and imo that’s why the court would not grant Aurora’s request to dismiss the fraud on the court claim.

  18. B of A’s McNiff Said to Resign from Mortgage-Trading Unit
    Print Reprints Email . 0 0
    They can put whatever spin on it they want to, the fact of the matter is: bankers are resigning left and right. This is right out of American Banker. Count the number of guys resigning in this article… Business is down.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Bank of America Corp., the two biggest U.S. banks, are cutting senior mortgage traders and salesmen amid a decline in the asset-backed securities market, people with knowledge of the moves said.

    Raphael Gonzalez, JPMorgan’s co-head of trading in subprime mortgages, and John Angelica, a securitized-products salesman, resigned from the New York-based bank within the past four weeks in exchange for severance packages that included all of their deferred stock awards, said the people, who declined to be identified because the terms are private. Roy Kim, who traded adjustable-rate mortgages, left on his own accord with a similar exit deal, the people said.

    JPMorgan and Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, are re-evaluating staffing on mortgage-trading desks amid pressure to cut expenses and stricter capital requirements tied to the assets. Some employees were offered severance packages allowing them to keep millions of dollars of deferred stock that otherwise may have been forfeited, the people said.

    “When you start doing something like this, you’re making a forward statement about the mortgage-backed security market — they are saying it isn’t going to be as active,” said Brad Hintz, an analyst covering banks at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York. “Firms are right-sizing for the fixed-income market of the future. We’ll probably be seeing this in a lot of other Wall Street businesses as the regulations become clear.”

    Trading in securitized products at the 10 biggest global investment banks dropped to roughly $10 billion last year from about $17.5 billion in 2010, according to data from consultant Coalition Ltd.

    Mortgage Bonds

    The three JPMorgan executives left amid involuntary reductions in the past four weeks in the bank’s securitized- products division, which trades and sells mortgage bonds, derivatives and other asset-backed securities, according to two of the people with knowledge of the matter. Jennifer Zuccarelli, a JPMorgan spokeswoman, said she couldn’t comment on the departures, as did Gonzalez and Angelica. Contact information for Kim couldn’t immediately be located.

    The bank also dismissed about 5 percent of its equities traders and salesmen in New York yesterday and cut about 100 employees in its treasury and securities services division in January, according to three different people with knowledge of those moves.

    Bank of America eliminated at least half a dozen traders and salesmen in its mortgage unit this week. John McNiff, a managing director who served as co-head of commercial mortgage securities trading, resigned, said people with knowledge of the moves.

    Jackier, Eck

    Managing directors Seth Jackier in mortgage sales and John Eck in asset-backed trading also opted to leave Bank of America, said the people. Michael Case, a director in commercial mortgage security banking, and salesmen John Livingstone and Michael L. Miller also departed, one of the people said.

    “Areas like this that didn’t come back as expected are the ones that companies are now evaluating,” said Jeanne Branthover, managing director at Boyden Global Executive Search Ltd. in New York. “This isn’t necessarily bad news” for people who may have been considering moving to other firms, she said.

    Some Bank of America employees volunteered to resign in exchange for a so-called garden leave, a period of about 90 days in which they receive full salary and benefits while staying at home, as well as severance packages, the people said.

    The bank also is cutting outside the U.S., dismissing almost a dozen workers at its Canadian capital-markets business as part of a global staff reduction, one person said. The move leaves the bank with almost 500 people at offices in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary, the person said.

    Moynihan’s Plan

    Wall Street firms are firing staff and reducing pay as revenue wanes from trading and underwriting. More cuts are coming at Bank of America as part of Chief Executive Officer Brian T. Moynihan’s efficiency plan, which may target as much as $8 billion in total annual savings. Moynihan, 52, already announced as many as 30,000 job cuts in retail banking and technology.

    Bank of America lost market share last year to rivals including New York-based Morgan Stanley (MS) in the trading of equities, bonds, currencies and commodities, Matthew O’Connor, an analyst at Deutsche Bank AG, said in a Jan. 19 research note.

  19. This might be good cites for some:

    “{¶9} A judgment entered by a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void ab initio – Patton v. Diemer (1988), 35 O.St.3d 68, 518 N.E.2d 941.

    The authority to vacate a void judgment does not arise from Civ.R. 60 (B), but is an inherent common law power. Patton syllabus paragraph 4 by the court, citing Lincoln Tavern v. Snader (1956), and Westmoreland v. Valley Homes Corp. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 291, 294, 71 O.O.2d 262, 264.”

    An action against a bankster who already got a judgment, say, doesn’t have to be brought within rule 60’s ‘preference’ time, (under rule 60, if more than a year ago, one has the add’l battle of arguing against it’s preferred time frame of one year, which is taken by most courts as cast in stone). If your bankster lacked standing, you can raise subject matter jurisdiction at any time. If no smj because, say, the bankster had no standing to invoke the court’s jurisdiction, order is void. While maybe not news, here’s a case for reliance.

  20. @Johngault,

    Thanks. The thing is: I am not in BK. I have a straight on-the-attack lawsuit against my servicer on Tila, Respa, Fdcpa and what not. I’m probably going to have to go on the attack against one player at a time until it is completely cleared up.

    Did anyone of you guys go through 1968? I was in Europe at the time. It was pretty violent. We had a few deaths, general strikes for over 2 months (kids missed 3 months of school). Molotov ocktails blowing off every night in the capital. Hottest spring ever, in every sense of the term. Today was unusually hot here and it had that exact same feel of impending turmoil.

    It’s gona blow.

  21. Here’s a good ruling in Georgia a non-judicial state:

    “Georgia Rules Secured Creditor Must Be In Chain of Title Prior To Foreclosure Sale”

  22. ‘Whistleblower’ Says Mortgage Securitization Still an Issue for U.S. Homeowners

    Lan Pham said she was fired as a senior staffer financial economist at the Congressional Budget Office in December 2010 and that there is “room for doubt” about the agency’s perception as objective and non-partisan. (Courtesy Minh L. Pham)

    By SUSANNA KIM (@skimm)
    March 21, 2012
    Lan Pham, an economist fired by the Congressional Budget Office two years ago, is still asking whether the watchdog agency appeared to “diminish or deny” the problem of foreclosure fraud while providing analysis to Congress.

    As lawmakers enter budget season in Washington D.C. and wrangle over House Republicans’ new budget blueprint, Pham is hoping to draw more attention to the housing market’s woes.

    “Why is one of the most powerful government agencies, one that can determine the direction of the nation’s policies, diminishing or denying that the issue of mortgage securitization is a problem?” she said. “Recognizing it as a problem, we have $7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities that have brought chaos to homeowners, whether or not they are in foreclosure, and investors.”

    Pham said her questions like those have led attorneys general to reach the $25 billion foreclosure abuse deal announced last month, but whether the agreement solves other issues, like chain of title problems, is still uncertain.

    With a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota, Pham worked for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for only two and a half months before she was fired in December 2010. In Pham’s termination letter, which she provided to ABC News, her supervisor, Deborah Lucas, CBO’s assistant director, said “a number of performance issues are the basis for the decision.”

    But Pham said she was fired for providing an analysis about the banking sector and foreclosure fraud issues involving mortgage-backed securities and robosigning that she said displeased her bosses in the CBO director’s office. Pham said the main issues of foreclosure problems relate to securitization, the pooling of mortgages that collateralize mortgage-backed securities, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, which has electronic records of ownership on about 65 million mortgages, about half in the country.

    In her first interview since releasing a letter addressed to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, through the website Zero Hedge on Thursday, Pham said she is less concerned with losing her job but rather with bringing more transparency to her former employer.

    “Because you see the losses around the country from those who purchased homes with banks foreclosing on homeowners that don’t have the title to the mortgage, this is an issue where financially we’re talking about a $7 trillion mortgage backed securities problem,” Pham, who is looking for employment, said. “To me, talking about my career is just beside the point.”

    Pham said she was assigned to write a brief, or short paper, about foreclosures and that her supervisor rejected her discussions on the decline in property taxes, home prices, and the impact of foreclosures on homeowner assets or wealth.

    Pham said her supervisor handed her policy thoughts from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs which “appeared to minimize the exposure of banks to securitized mortgage problems.”

    She said her supervisor said foreclosure problems were just media “sensationalism,” and asked, “Don’t you want house prices to go up?”

    The CBO has produced analysis that shows the effects of foreclosures in the housing market, but has not detailed problems with foreclosure fraud. Those reports include one from August 2010 that states that “low levels of construction over the past two years have failed to diminish [excess vacant housing units] because the recession and a sharp rise in mortgage foreclosures have reduced the number of individuals and families able to maintain independent households.”

    Another report from December 2010 describes decreased property tax revenue and lower property values. The CBO discussed this relationship in its publications, but used this in Pham’s termination letter as an example of her incompetence in her foreclosure paper to Congress.

    Pham wrote a letter to Sen. Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dated Feb. 23, 2011, asking for help and explaining her story and writing that “there is room for doubt” about the perception of the CBO as objective and non-partisan.

    Read Pham’s letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley here.

    After the Wall Street Journal published a story about the CBO, raising questions about how its assessments are compiled and including Pham’s story, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf published a blog post defending the agency.

    “We have the utmost confidence in the objectivity of our work and devote considerable time and energy to explaining the basis of our findings as clearly as we can to help Members of Congress understand the work that we do,” Elmendorf wrote. “In fulfilling its responsibility to the Congress, CBO works hard to ensure that its cost estimates and other analyses are impartial and well-researched.”

    Asked to comment about Pham’s letter to Sen. Grassley, a spokeswoman for the CBO said the agency could not discuss individual personnel matters or on CBO’s specific interactions with members of Congress, as a matter of policy.

    Grassley wrote a letter to Elmendorf on March 24, 2011, requesting personnel files about Pham and wrote that some factors in Lucas’ background “could raise concerns about the appearance of CBO’s objectivity,” including her participation in “Obama for America” and her donation to President Obama’s campaign.

    Pham did not allege that Lucas’ political views played a role in her firing, but Grassley wrote, “when a person with such strong views is hired for an ‘objective’ and ‘non-partisan’ position, it naturally raises red flags.”

    A spokeswoman for Grassley said the senator “continues to look into Dr. Pham’s account of the issues surrounding her firing,” but the “CBO refused to cooperate with Sen. Grassley and has made it very difficult to learn more about Dr. Pham’s serious contentions.”

    Sen. Grassley raised the issue with the House of Representatives’ inspector general, and it is not certain whether the inspector general will or can take any action.

    “[Grassley] continues to explore options for injecting more transparency into this situation,” she said.

    The office of the inspector general did not immediately return a request for comment.

    For now, Pham continues to ask whether mortgage securitization and the $25 billion settlement with attorneys general and foreclosed homeowners will lead to further accountability.

    “You can see all of the issues that are coming out of this mortgage fraud settlement,” she said. “The problems of mortgage securitization bring up a whole host of issues. Most homeowners are probably not aware who owns their mortgage. If no one knows who owns the mortgage, who are the homeowners making the payments to? You can imagine the chaos that is emerging with more information, and this issue continues to grow.”

  23. there can be no accountability when the results contain the phrase
    “yes i’m guilty of ??” add nauseam the gov is the 99% problem.
    no wonder they are wildly banning gun!

  24. It seems to me the Government has aided and abetted the “Financial Institutions” responsible for all of this mess. If there were not enough rabbit holes for these “Guys” to hide in, there certainly are now. And Paulson, Geithner, et. al. ? They’ll all just disappear in the breeze, and their multi-million dollar mansions. Any confidence in Our Government, at least in my case, has been lost. Much emotional and mental anguish has resulted from this mass travesty. God help us, because no Human Power is.

  25. What I don’t comprehend (because I never understand – ie. stand under anyone), is why is the media, controlled by the P(owers)T(hat-use-to)B, reporting a settlement when the internet document is a filed complaint and won’t be a settlement until signed by a judge. Does it mean the judge is already going to ‘play God’ and agree to this atrocity?

    I’m glad I’m not any one of those who placed their energy (I mean signature) on that document. Not a single bank signed that document. They only thing they had a signature on was the OCC document that has been revealed to be full of holes by Neil’s blog pointing to an article by a well informed reporter.

    Interesting type Enraged. I had to work for it.


    So this is the third annual event. I guess some things get better over time, and some things remain the same.

    Interesting how that works out for everything.

    I hope this posts, because I sure typed a lot.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, allodial, People, state, in jure proprio, jure divino

  26. @enraged – are you interested in getting that old deal off your land records, may I ask?

  27. When anyone was induced to execute the dot which stated that MERS was (the nominee as well as) the beneficiary, no one could reasonably have known the truth about MERS: that MERS has no employees, MERS receives and retains zero documents, MERS does no diligence, MERS executes no-thing, MERS is a sham entity. Even MERSCorp owns the computer system – MERS doesn’t. For a more complete recitation of MERS-has-and-does-nots, see this:
    or maybe this one:

    side note: FHA and VA borrowers may NOT be charged on HUD 1 (or anywhere) for assignment of dot. Check your HUD 1 for violation.

    There is no “MERS” beyond its use of MERSCorp’s computer system with the strictly voluntary entries made by members – with no form of diligence available at all – and a playbook for members wherein it was designed that the members would act in the name of MERS, i.e., MERS would NEVER act in its own name. It was a cover for members and ultimately non-members (foreclosure mills, law firms, etc.) So then how does the “MERS” dot look when seen thru this lens (thanks to a new friend for that description):

    “Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith
    and fair dealing in its performance and enforcement.” Allworth v.
    Howard Univ., 890 A.2d 194, 201 (D.C. 2006) (quoting Restatement
    (Second) of Contracts § 205 (1981). “If the party to a contract
    evades the spirit of the contract,

    willfully renders imperfect performance, or

    interferes with performance by the other party,

    he or she may be liable” for breach of the implied duty of good
    faith and fair dealing. Allworth, 890 A.2d at 201 (citations
    omitted). “Good faith performance . . . of a contract emphasizes

    faithfulness to an agreed common purpose and consistency with the
    justified expectations of the other party;

    it excludes a variety of types of conduct characterized as involving `bad faith’
    because they violate standards of decency, fairness or
    reasonableness.” Id. at 201-202
    (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 cmt. a) (emphasis added). “Bad faith means more than mere negligence.” Id. at 202 (citation omitted).

    “Bad faith involves evasion of the spirit of the bargain,
    lack of diligence
    and slacking off,
    willful rendering of imperfect performance,
    abuse of a power to specify terms,
    and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party’s performance.” Id.
    at 202 …..
    Fair dealing requires “reasonable rather than arbitrary or
    capricious action.” Allworth, 890 A.2d at 202 (citing Adler v.
    Page 17 Abramson, 728 A.2d 86 (D.C. 1999)).
    At the moment a borrower was induced to sign a MERS’ deed of trust, it was known that all this bad faith and unfair dealings were to be visitied upon a borrower. Everyone knew, except the borrower.
    It’s an unconscionable document, if nothing else plain rotten.

  28. Thanks E. Good stuff…

  29. There is an old 2002 unsatisfied mortgage on my house. Not mine but definitely unsatisfied, according to my county’s assessors records. And it still exists in MERS database as well, quite alive and kicking. That’s why I will NOT pay my mortgage, will NOT refinance, will NOT modify, regardless of the outcome of my lawsuit against my current servicer (unrecorded as well but that’s another story).

    And since I expect that the new servicer will NOT sign a hold harmless/indemnification agreement if we ever settle my case (which I don’t want: I want my day in court), new servicer is not about to get any money from me.

    Here is why…

    US: Old Mortgages Rise From the Dead, Haunt Homeowners

    Michelle Conlin
    Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:31 CST
    © Reuters/Tim Shaffer

    Jennifer Wilson, a former nursery school teacher from Philadelphia, poses with bank papers in front of her residence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania January 20, 2012.
    In July 2009, Roy and Sheila Bowers refinanced the mortgage on their suburban ranch home in Topeka, Kansas. The couple wanted to take advantage of the low interest rates that were all the rage at the time.

    Roy, a truck driver, and Sheila, a former hotel housekeeping supervisor, knew their new loan from Wells Fargo would enable them to save $198.86 a month – a nice chunk to help with gas and groceries.

    But what the Bowers never imagined was that their old loan, the one Wells Fargo told them was paid off, would resurrect itself, trashing their credit report, scotching their son’s student loans and throwing the whole family into foreclosure. All, they say, even though they didn’t miss a single mortgage payment.

    The Bowers are not alone.

    More and more, homeowners say that mortgages they thought were dead and buried are springing back to life, sometimes haunting them all the way into foreclosure.

    “It’s the most egregious manifestation of an industry that’s seriously broken,” said Ira Rheingold, a lawyer who is the executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocate.

    Diane Thompson, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, says she has defended hundreds of foreclosure cases, and in nearly all of them, the homeowner was not in default. “The record-keeping on the part of the mortgage servicers is not to be trusted.”

    The problems grew from a lot of sloppy recordkeeping that began during the housing boom, when Wall Street built a quick-and-dirty back-office operation to process mortgages quickly so lenders could sell as many loans as possible. As the loans were later sold to investors, and then resold around the world, the back office system sidestepped crucial legal procedures.

    Now it’s becoming clear just how dysfunctional and, according to several state attorneys general, how fraudulent the whole system was.

    Depositions from “affidavit slaves” depict a surreal, assembly-line world in which the banks and their partner firms hired hair stylists, fast-food kids and Wal-Mart floor workers, paying them $10 an hour, to pose as bank vice presidents, assistant secretaries and corporate attorneys.

    These “robosigners” became a national sensation in the fall of 2010 when it was revealed that they faked titles, forged documents and backdated affidavits so they could make up for the bypassed procedures and foreclose on properties.

    They passed around notary stamps as if they were salt. They did all of this, they testified, without verifying a single word in any of the documents – as is required by law.

    And it was all done, they say, to foreclose on as many homeowners as fast as possible.

    No one collects statistics on wrongful foreclosures, or how many people are facing the phantom mortgage debts. But as the industry enters its fifth year of unwinding its mortgage morass, consumer groups, homeowner attorneys and foreclosure-fraud investigators say they are seeing more cases where people who don’t owe the banks a dime are getting ensnared in the same hell as those who have missed payments.

    They add that such problems are likely to intensify. Former industry employees have testified that they knowingly pushed through foreclosures on the wrong people.

    It all casts a pall over a housing market in worse condition than it was during the Great Depression. By some estimates, 12.5 percent of U.S. homes with mortgages are either in foreclosure or the loans are at least 30 days past due, representing about $1 trillion in value.

    “This is an epic problem that the economy hasn’t even begun to digest,” said Florida foreclosure analyst Lisa Epstein.

    In some cases, mortgages that were supposed to die off in a refinancing are popping back up, while in others, the loans were paid in full. Homeowners who pay off their houses through bankruptcy programs are also falling prey.

    So are homeowners who never even had a mortgage to begin with.

    Homeowners say the banks’ repo men sometimes even show up at work. Banks also hector them with threatening letters and phone calls. “It scared the hell out of him,” said a Houston lawyer whose client was the target of such efforts. “He was absolutely spooked,” lawyer Barry Brown said.

    So was Shantell Curtis of Utah. She showed up at her accountant’s office last year only to learn that she had been sued for foreclosure on a house she had sold years before. Bank of America reported the delinquency to credit bureaus, tarring Curtis’s credit. It turned out the entire saga stemmed from a bank coding error. The amount the bank falsely alleged Curtis still owed on her mortgage? One dollar.

    Vietnam vet Dwight Gaines fell behind on his payments on his Birmingham, Alabama, home. Gaines paid off his entire mortgage, plus all the fees and expenses he owed the bank in March 2010, as a part of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. But Bank of America kept sending Gaines notices that he still owed $6,842.37. Nearly two years later, Gaines is still fighting the bank in court.

    “In my experience, if I had not sued Bank of America, they would have eventually placed Mr. Gaines in foreclosure although he had completely paid his mortgage,” said Gaines’ lawyer, Wesley Phillips.

    Bank of America spokewoman Jumana Bauwens said the bank is working to resolve the Gaines situation. She also said that “these situations pre-date a review of our foreclosure procedures which took place in the fall of 2010. At the time, we identified areas of our process that needed to be improved, and we have been making those improvements.”

    The reincarnating mortgage is only the latest development in the megabanks’ mortgage debacle, a scandal that has made them the target of a mounting pile of investigations and lawsuits. Though a settlement with most of the U.S. attorneys general may be imminent, a rogue group of AGs has peeled off to launch their own investigations.

    One of those AGs, New York’s Eric Schneiderman, is a part of the U.S. Justice Department task force announced by President Obama in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

    Up until Obama’s announcement, the federal government’s response to the alleged financial misconduct was in the form of an independent review of the banks overseen by the federal Office of the Comptroller of Currency. But critics have labeled the OCC review as a farce rife with conflicts of interest.

    The OCC spokesman, Bryan Hubbard, disputed that claim, saying the OCC has gone to great lengths to ensure that the independent consultants hired by the banks to review their procedures would report to regulators, not the banks. “During the selection process of the independent consultants and law firms, regulators rejected some proposed consultants and law firms to prevent conflicts of interest,” said Hubbard.

    Such reviews are supposed to gather information from homeowners like Jennifer Wilson, a former nursery school teacher from Philadelphia. Wilson settled a wrongful foreclosure case with Wells Fargo in June 2010. That month, court records show, Wells Fargo filed a satisfaction of mortgage document noting that the $8,000 loan on Wilson’s home had been paid in full.

    But more than a year later, on December 8, 2011, Wilson, who is disabled and lives below the federal poverty line, answered her door to see a process servicer brandishing foreclosure warning papers from Wells Fargo. The bank’s letter warned Wilson that she owed 57 months of late payments, plus expenses, totaling $18,407.55. If she did not pay within 30 days, the bank said, it would sue for foreclosure.

    “I thought I’d been punked,” said Wilson. Even more bizarrely, one day later, a different process server from a different company showed up on Wilson’s door and handed over the exact same papers Wilson had received the day before.

    “We see a lot of cases like this, where they are trying to collect even though there is no mortgage,” said Wilson’s lawyer, Jennifer Schultz. “Once the system has marked you as delinquent, there’s just this massive machinery that takes over. There are people whose lives are destroyed by the system, and there’s no way to fix it.”

    “We are working with her to resolve this matter as quickly as we can,” Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Hines said.

    Some critics say the stories indicate a pattern of systemic wrongdoing. That is one allegation lobbed in a December lawsuit against the banks brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is among the handful of attorneys general that split off from the broader AG settlement group.

    For the Bowers of Topeka, it all started in July 2009, when they refinanced their home with Wells Fargo. As is standard in a refinance, the couple used the proceeds from their new loan to pay off their old loan, with Security National Mortgage Company.

    On July 6, 2009, Wells Fargo sent the Bowers a letter with a header in all caps at the top that stated: “CONFIRMATION OF LOAN PAYOFF.” The letter opened by saying: “Congratulations! We are pleased to inform you that we have processed the funds necessary to pay your loan in full.”

    At the same time, Wells Fargo also sent a certificate of satisfaction to the Bowers local recorder of deeds in Shawnee County, Kansas. That notice certified that the Bowers’ old loan of $184,222.00 had been paid off.

    As the Bowers had hoped, their interest rate dropped from 7 percent on the old loan to 4.875 percent on the new one. The couple say they paid their new mortgage early each month.

    But what the Bowers didn’t know is that, five months later, the banks’ private mortgage recording service filed an “Erroneous Release of Mortgage” document on the Bowers’ loan with the Shawnee County Recorder’s Office. The filing stated that the Bowers’ first mortgage “has not been fully paid, nor satisfied, nor discharged, but, instead, continues to exist.”

    The document was signed by a robosigner, the Bowers’ attorney alleges.

    One month later, the Bowers noticed that the loan number and interest rate on their mortgage statement had mysteriously changed. Wells Fargo was now charging them the old 7 percent rate – and it hit them with more than $3,000 in late fees.

    Thus began the family’s descent into their mortgage ordeal. Sheila Bowers says she called Wells Fargo over and over and finally learned that the bank was now alleging that the couple’s refinance never went through, and so the bank was reverting to the terms of the original mortgage.

    To Wells Fargo, it was as if the refinance had never occurred. Yet Wells Fargo then reported two mortgages to the credit bureaus. That lowered the couple’s credit score to the point where they couldn’t obtain their son’s new student loans.

    “We only ever got one bill,” said Sheila Bowers. “But they kept telling us we had two mortgages.”

    The Bowers couldn’t find a lawyer who would take their case, especially since they could pay so little. But through friends, they knew an owner of a Topeka mortgage brokerage company who was also an attorney: Donna Huffman. It turned out Huffman was defending just such cases. “I’m a lender suing lenders,” said Huffman. “I fought to put people in homes, and now I’m fighting to keep them.”

    Huffman sued, alleging that the bank was making the Bowers pay for its mistake. Wells Fargo response, in court papers, was that the Bowers failed to sign all the paperwork necessary for the refinance to go through. But the Bowers say they signed every document that the bank gave them. The bank also says in court papers that the Bowers never attended a closing. But the Bowers say the bank never told them they needed to do so.

    What made the story even more strange to the Bowers is that when Sheila Bowers called the Federal Housing Administration to get help, the FHA, in a letter filed in court papers and dated October 19, 2010, told her that the loan Wells Fargo was trying to collect on did not exist. Instead, the FHA said it had documentation showing that the Bowers’ original loan “was terminated on July 1, 2009, by prepayment,” suggesting that Wells Fargo did pay it off. As far as the FHA was concerned, the loan that Wells Fargo was enforcing didn’t exist.

    Despite the misunderstanding, the Bowers continued to send in their mortgage payment to Wells Fargo, with the amount for the new, refinanced loan, every month. They hoped the entire ordeal would one day get cleared up. But in November 2010, Wells Fargo rejected the Bowers payment and sent it back. The next month, five days before Christmas, the bank foreclosed. The family then stopped sending in payments. They continue to live in limbo in their house as they fight for resolution.

    Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Hines said: “The allegations, we feel, are baseless. We feel we are entitled to protect our lien interest because the promissory note has never been paid and the note and the (original) mortgage are in default.”

    To this day, the Bowers say they have no idea where all the mortgage payments they sent in after they got their new loan went.

    “Nobody seems to know,” said Sheila Bowers. “It’s a mystery.”

    (Reporting by Michelle Conlin; Editing by Gary Hill)

  30. @enraged – thanks for the link. We need all the info we can get.
    IF there’s something hinky in the notary of your deed of trust or anything else, you might be interested in this case from Edstom at DTC Systems. The court threw out the loan against the home and the debtor cut a deal with the bk trustee for 150k for the house. The case discusses the avoidance power of the bk trustee as a bonafide purchaser without notice (which a bk trustee has even with actual notice(!). Now I swear the AZ case of In re Zitta says a loan where the assignment has not been recorded may be avoided, also, but I’m still looking for more support. Here’s Edstrom’s case: content/uploads/2012/02/in_RE_Androes_07-5088.pdf

    IF this might help you, you should read the case, but here’s the upshot, or cliff notes as e. tolle calls them:

    In RE Androes – World Savings Bank lien avoided in Kansas Bankruptcy in February 2008

    By Daniel Edstrom
    DTC Systems, Inc.

    In this Chapter 7 bankruptcy the trustee was able to avoid the lien from a World Savings Bank loan because the mortgage acknowledgement was missing a date. As such the lien was never perfected.

    Excerpt 1

    Trustee Carl B. Davis seeks summary judgment on his complaint against debtor Mark Androes and World Savings Bank (“World Bank”).1 Trustee’s complaint seeks (1) to avoid World Bank’s mortgage on Androes’ homestead as unperfected because the acknowledgment of the debtor’s signature is undated and (2) to avoid as preferential World Bank’s lis pendens to the extent it attached to the home. World Bank filed a response to the Trustee’s motion and a counter motion for summary judgment.2 The Trustee filed a reply to World Bank’s response, which also served as his response to World Bank’s motion for summary judgment.3 World Bank filed a reply to the Trustee’s response to its motion for summary judgment.4 Debtor filed no response.

    Excerpt 2

    The Court finds that the failure of the certificate of notarial act to recite the date of the notarial act as required by KAN. STAT. ANN. § 53-508 renders it defective. The filed mortgage therefore does not impart constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser. The Addendum does not correct this defect. The Trustee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law avoiding World Bank’s mortgage under § 544 and preserving it for the benefit of the estate under § 550. The Court need not reach the Trustee’s preference claim.

    The Clerk will schedule a one-hour evidentiary hearing in the bankruptcy case on the Trustee’s motion to show cause why World Bank should not be held in contempt for its alleged violation of the automatic stay by filing the Addendum.31 Should the Court determine that a stay violation occurred, appropriate sanctions, if any, will also be considered at that time.

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Trustee’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. World Bank’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. JUDGMENT shall be entered accordingly.

  31. If you’re employed and paid taxes all year, file your return and get your money back. If you’re self-employed, don’t. The best way to kill something is to starve it off. I don’t want my taxes to fatten banks and aid and abet fraud and criminal behavior.

    AGs weeks from filing foreclosure settlement documents

    By Jon Prior

    The state attorneys general and federal prosecutors will likely file the actual $25 billion foreclosure settlement documents in court by the end of the month, according to a source familiar with the deal.

    The top five servicers agreed to general terms in the settlement last week, which would include billions in principal reduction, refinances, and even pay outs to homeowners affected by missteps in the process.

    Questions arose recently over whether the finalization of the deal would its change the scope.

    Rich Andreano, who co-leads the mortgage banking group at law firm Ballard Spahr, said while it will be difficult for analysts and officials to anticipate precisely how much aid each state will get from the deal until the documents are filed, results should not vary too significantly from the announcement made last week.

    “I got the sense last week that they weren’t really ready. They weren’t done. It was one of those things where they were moving so fast that they had to announce it because it was getting leaked out,” Andreano said in an interview.

    But the wait is centering around the complexity of the deal.

    “We just reached a very large and complicated joint state-federal settlement,” said a spokesman for Iowa AG Tom Miller, who led the investigation and talks. “We are now preparing the materials we must file in court to formalize this agreement.”

    For every dollar a servicer writes off, it will get around 50 cents of the $17 billion in settlement “credits.”

    So, officials were quick to point out last week that the settlement would result in roughly $34 billion in total principal forgiveness, maybe as high as $40 billion in eventual assistance. When the documents are finalized, Andreano expects the impact to be between $30 billion and $35 billion.

    “I don’t think there would be any dramatic changes in the numbers,” Andreano said.

    Servicers and AGs are working out exactly how much credit will be distributed and for what loans. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said last week under the loose agreement struck, servicers would get fewer credits for write downs performed on mortgages backing private-label bonds, sparing investors from the brunt of the settlement.

    Also part of the deal includes payouts to borrowers who were either foreclosed on during a modification or were wrongfully foreclosed upon all together. Under the agreement, an estimated 750,000 of these borrowers could get up to $2,000 in reimbursements.

    New York and California were a part of a group last to sign onto the deal. California AG Kamala Harris said she expects roughly 250,000 homeowners in the state to get a write down over the next three years because of the deal. Another 140,000 could get the $2,000 restitution.

    “This outcome is the result of an insistence that California receive a fair deal commensurate with the harm done here,” Harris said at the time.

    With so many borrowers there and in other states applying for the long awaited write downs, servicers will be spending the better part of the year increasing employees and training staff.

    “They’re going to need more people to handle this,” Andreano said. “And they are going to need a certain level of expertise and competency. This could take years.”

  32. @johngault,
    You would possibly also want to google “If anyone is fighting a B of A-from-CW mess, if nothing else try googling “v. America’s Wholesale Lender scribd” or “America’s Wholesale Lender v. scribd” and see what pops up.

    Many loans that are supposedly CW loans were actually put out on paper that identified the LENDER as “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation”.

    At least half the loan docs in the Kemp case actually showed AWL without any Countrywide D/B/A America’s Wholesale Lender.

    My own loan is totally in the name of America’s Wholesale Lender without any Countrywide entity to be seen.

  33. Every so often, Livinglies REFUSES to post something crucial. Today, it is 4closurefraud interview by Dylan Ratigan of Bill Black and Lisa Epstein.

    Mainstream media is starting to talk.

    Check that video of 3/20/12 interview.

  34. e tolle – thanks for the case. It reminds me of all the bs affidavits and declarations being used in litigation (and I’d bet the farm B of A’s next approach in a case relied “heavily” on them, drafted now to try another route to cure their glaring standing issues) and our unavoidable need to learn the stinking laws of evidence that we can decimate those affs and declarations. They’re just not evidence of jack.
    What’s noteworthy here if nothing else is that the higher court was not going to take jn of b of a’s purchase of CW or merger or however they structured it as evidence of b of a’s standing, altho that might have been in regard to the particular B of A entity in the act. Don’t know if this is the final word on this case. Did B of A spin a new yarn and come back? (Wiggle room) Or were they too locked in to try to change their story?
    If you find any more b of a / cw specific cases, please post, also. How did you post all that from a pdf doc? Or is it from a research portal where you can save as txt? My own inability to convert a pdf to a format where I can cut and paste has precluded me from posting a lot of good recitations.
    If anyone is fighting a B of A-from-CW mess, if nothing else try googling “v. B of A scribd” or “B of A v. scribd” and see what pops up.

  35. All kinds of “how to”, including selling a house with a dark cloud, quiet title in different states, sticking it to the bank (last one just my delusion…)

    Still. Not a bad site for people who have questions requiring direct and simple answers. K.I.S.S.

  36. New and improved, MERS revamped. Damn thing ain’t gona go away… Ed Cox was right (Poscast with Mandelman Matters). He said something about the implemenation of MERS III being in the works.

    If that was already posted, my apologies.

    Friday, March 9th, 2012

    By Dave Krieger, Investigative Journalist and Author of “Clouded Titles” (03/07/2012)

    (AUSTIN) – It may be reflective of the current state of litigation for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) and its parent “companies”, but don’t let the merger fool tactics you!

    On September 22, 2011, the Board of Directors for MERSCORP, Inc. (MERS’s parent corporation … the entity with all the money) formed MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. and said corporation was registered with the Delaware Secretary of State as File #5034916. At the time of filing, its Registered Agent was listed as RL&F Service Corporation, with an address for service of process listed at 920 N. King Street, 2nd Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801.

    The process then ended up in a merger with MERSCORP, Inc., which is listed with the Delaware Secretary of State’s office as having been filed on February 27, 2012 and the File #2915165 was listed with a Registered Agent address as The Corporation Trust Company (CTC) at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

    According to a clerk at the Delaware Secretary of State’s office, the MERSCORP, Inc. named disappeared and the new name of MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. was retained, showing an incorporation date of June 30, 1998, which should somewhat clarify items gleaned during the depositions of then-former CEO R. K. Arnold and then-Secretary William Hultman. The current file number of #2915165 and CTC remain as what is shown in the Secretary of State’s records as the correct listing for MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. and its registered agent, CTC.

    Coincidentally, the merger occurred while the Dallas County v. MERS suit was hung up in “MDL HELL” … being reviewed for incorporation into the multi-district litigation action in Phoenix, Arizona. Such was not to be the case, as the MDL panel rejected MERSCORP’s (and MERS’s) removal and sent it back to Dallas.

    Upon receipt of the case, Harris (Houston) and Brazoria Counties (Texas) filed motions for leave to intervene and became part of the class action. Bexar County (San Antonio) filed its own action against MERS and MERSCORP, and tagged JPC Financial Resources, Inc. as its in-state defendant to keep its case from being removed to federal court based on diversity, something which MERS and its parents are famous for. That suit seeks unspecified damages, while Harris County seeks $10-Billion … with a “B” from MERS et al. The case is Dallas County, Texas v. Merscorp, Inc.; 3:11-cv-02733; U.S. District Court (1100L), Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

    It’s now anyone’s guess as to how the new entity will affect the litigation. The author surmises it’ll get dragged in by its chameleon’s tail at some point via service of process; which brings to mind the old saying, “You can run but you can’t hide!”

    The new entity is listed at the bottom of the MERS website under Copyright 2012, MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. It will be interesting as the investigation ramps up in the copyright office to see who re-registered the MERS name and proprietary gobbledygook on its website.

  37. Yesterday my property was stolen from my husband and I. I didn’t even have to go to court in was done on the telephone in the state of Wisconsin. I have been fighting since 2009 and showed the judge the fored documents done by Stacey Spoken, Whitney Cook, notary signatures done by Melissa Hammock and Ashley Bond, He didn’t even look at them. I had a expert witness with a affidavit and the judge din’t read it. He gave our property by way of summary judgement to Deutsche bank when the only endorsement on the note was done by Nova Star. Chain of title means nothing, pooling and service agreement mean nothing, forgded affidavits, false affidavits MEANS NOTHING! Someone please tell me how anyone is going to win when the courts don’t give a shit! about wrongful doings. I’ve read and study this site and many others in the last 4 years and while it may have opened my eyes, in the long run I still LOST! Without a lawyer and knowing your way around the courts someone elses turn is around the corner. People start posting your pleadings, findings, motions and anything else you uncover, it is the only way to help others. Also please post who is foreclosing, the state and the plainiff lawyers. People need as much information as possiable. It is us against them. HELP

  38. Neil-

    I hope you are feeling much better. Good luck and speedy recovery!!!


  39. @ Neil… all the best and a speedy recovery! Hope everything’s OK! I wondered why it was quiet around here. Hope you’re feeling well.

    @ chris, because of UCC provisions, BONY, while the owner, couldn’t foreclose because they weren’t in possession of the note, and the fact that the note wasn’t properly endosed disallowed CW from foreclosing. See below.

    Schneiderman later sued on this issue, claiming that BONY misled investors knowing that the MBS weren’t “created properly” due to the lack of proper transfer.

    It’s system wide, at least for CW. Yves Smith says that regardless of the year, if it’s CW, it’s a Non-MBS.

    If you go to

    and type in Kemp in their search box, you’ll get a ton of stuff, including testimony.

  40. No monies were returned to the government, it just changed hands.
    It doesn’t belong nor earned by any of the entities involved in this
    theft. In the meantime millions more properties are smeared or have
    permanently damaged titles. As long as the taxpayers keep letting
    them poke with sharp sticks the robbery will not stop. We need to
    serious investigation, righteous anger, and prosecutions.

  41. Seems like there is information out there that states the assignments to the trust was never made, nor were the notes signed when put in the PSA agreement, as they needed to be, for them to have authority?

  42. @ chris, I’ve just been studying them for a while, nothing more. What do you mean by “the information about the actual assignments or lack thereof”? Specificity?

  43. Hey E. Tolle

    Where are you getting this info on Countrywide? I have looked and am short on finding the information about the actual assignments or lack thereof…need info desperately. My deceased dad and I owned a property…getting ready to file the foreclosure, from 2005. Can you put me where I need to be?

  44. Why is anyone surprised at this Phenomenon. Most religions are based on the agreement of their adherents in the truth of a fairy tale. The gullibility of the masses permits these historic deceptions. That is. John Q doesn’t want to believe his government is corrupt at every level and in every conceivable way

  45. The Government is Goldman Sachs, BOA, Citi, GM, etc…certainly not us. We just give them money to give to the Corporate governors.

  46. 122,000 and there are 4.3 million, so that’s approximately .02837% of the folks entitled…another efficient program, I see.

  47. @Trespass,

    Isn’t that the same audit performed by bank contractors and which found something like, maybe… 3 mistakes out of 20,000 files reviewed…?

    Isn’t that the audit some anonymous guy (working for one of those contractors) told Mandelman was the joke of the century? Theyre NOT supposed (read: allowed) to find mistakes. Company policy.

    I’m sure you can find that enlightening podcast on Mandelman matters.

  48. @Mary, you are so funny. The government is ‘who’?
    I remember explaining the government as not anything ‘real’ you could show but that it was a concept where a bunch of people go to a particular place to make rules and decisions supposedly on and for our behalf.

    I’ve learned to let the government govern those that want to be governed and I use my right of self determination and govern myself, and I have gotten as far away from that system of people, “I do not know; who do not work for me”, as I could get.

    Last April OCC got them to sign agreements, and this March was supposed to be the deadline. Oops it’s extended to July? Either way, after reading the agreement, it’s their job to uncover whether they had an injured party and their job to fix it.
    Put this way, “You are not going to wreck my car and send me an application for a review of the damages for you to decide whether I’m entitled to restitution. You know what you’ve done. Fix it!”

    4.3 million letters, 122,000 responses. That’s funny!

    Separately, government regulators last April ordered 14 mortgage lenders and servicers to reimburse homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon. Since then, letters have been sent to 4.3 million borrowers who were at risk of foreclosure during 2009 and 2010.

    The deadline for borrowers to seek money under the orders is July 31. So far, nearly 122,000 homeowners have asked for an auditor to review their foreclosures.

  49. Hey folks,

    Fannie and Freddie, taxpayer owned, is going to sell its “leftover portfolio” “delinquent homeowner’s houses” @ 10 billion per month…so, in essence the taxpayers portfolio, their homes are going to be sold at discounted rates to other taxpayers/investors to replenish the taxpayers money. Hmmmmmm! Have I got this right?

    No one has a problem with this? I do !!!! If my taxes bailed out Fannie and Freddie, why can’t I be sold my own house with that discount, as you and I gave them the money?

    This shit is so F***ed…sorry for the expletives…but I cannot wrap my head around people who are so diluted, they really believe these government policies are helping anyone, except the top 1% again. Geez

  50. This ruling is a couple of years old but may prove valuable to those who have been asking about B of A’s claim on assets it likes to claim thru M & As such as CW.

    Filed – March 29, 2010
    Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
    for the Central District of California


    ~ BAC files a stay relief motion in BK court. From the file (the Cliff notes version …this is greatly reduced….read the original):

    BAC identified itself as “BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., fka Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.” Included in the Stay Relief Motion was a form declaration7 by a bankruptcy specialist at BAC stating that she was a custodian of BAC’s records and files. A box on the declaration form used in the Central District of California for stay relief motions was marked indicating that BAC “holds a deed of trust.” The exhibits attached to the declaration to evidence this contention were only the Note and Deed of Trust in the name of Countrywide (the note for the equity loan and second deed of trust were not included). No documentation regarding an indorsement, assignment, transfer, sale of the Note and Deed of Trust, or servicing agreement, was included with the Stay Relief Motion. In its Stay Relief Motion, BAC listed the Deed of Trust as securing a claim in the amount of $1,846,749.

    ~ snip ~

    On November 4, 2009, the Debtor filed a Supplemental
    Opposition to the Stay Relief Motion. The Supplemental
    Opposition challenged BAC’s right to seek stay relief because
    (1) BAC had failed to join the owner of the Note; and (2) BAC had
    “failed to demonstrate that it [was] the holder of the Note,
    the owner of the Note, or any party with standing to enforce
    the Note.”

    ~ snip ~ (BAC denied mod offer from debtor)

    BAC responded on November 12, 2009, requesting that the
    bankruptcy court take judicial notice that “Bank of America
    Corporation purchased Countrywide Financial Corporation” in order
    to find that BAC had standing to bring the Stay Relief Motion.
    BAC also relied on correspondence by the Darlings to Bank of
    America on October 30, 2009, as evidence of its standing,
    contending that the correspondence constituted an admission by
    the Debtor that BAC was entitled to enforce the Note.

    (Gotta’ love BAC’s attempt at evidencing correspondence as proof of claim)

    On November 18, 2009, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on
    the Stay Relief Motion. At the hearing, the bankruptcy court
    addressed the Debtor’s objection to BAC’s standing by taking
    judicial notice that:

    Bank of America owns Countrywide and that all the
    activity that I have seen with respect to Countrywide
    since that time . . . has been absorbed by Bank of
    America. Bank of America has chosen to operate under a
    number of subsidiaries in a variety of ways but it’s
    one company . . . it’s all Bank of America.

    (BK court loves BAC! No further proof necessary!)

    Did the bankruptcy court err in determining that BAC had
    standing to seek relief from the automatic stay?

    ~ snip ~

    BAC contends it has standing because it submitted a
    declaration with its Stay Relief Motion indicating that BAC
    “holds a deed of trust” securing the Rainfield Property.

    However, BAC is not the payee on the Note securing the Deed of
    Trust nor a beneficiary under the Deed of Trust.

    Mere possession of the Note does not make BAC a “holder” of
    the Note. Under California law,12 to qualify as a holder, one
    must be in possession of the instrument, and the instrument must
    be properly endorsed. Cal. Comm. Code (“CComC”) § 1201(21);
    In re Hwang, 396 B.R. at 762. Although the payee of an
    instrument may negotiate it, the payee must indorse it as well as deliver it to another person, who then can become its holder.

    CComC § 3201, 1201(21)(A). There is no evidence in the record
    that Countrywide indorsed the Note and transferred it to BAC (or
    to Bank of America). Thus, mere possession of the Note and Deed
    of Trust does not provide BAC with standing.

    Furthermore, while BAC’s title indicates it is a loan
    servicer, this by itself is insufficient to establish BAC’s
    standing. A loan servicer may have constitutional standing
    because it has a right to payment pursuant to its duties as a
    servicer on a loan. See, e.g., In re Conde-Dedonato,
    391 B.R. 247, 250 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2008) (collecting cases). The
    loan servicer’s interest in the note is “by virtue of its
    servicing activities for which it receives compensation.”

    In re Viencek, 273 B.R. 354, 357-58 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2002).
    Thus, a loan servicer may be injured by a debtor when it loses
    its servicing fees as a result of the debtor’s nonpayment on the
    loan. But, in this case, BAC did not provide evidence, such as
    an affidavit or other documentation, establishing the terms of
    its agreement to service the loan for Countrywide or Bank of

    Thus, BAC failed to present the evidence necessary to
    demonstrate that it was either the holder of the Note, the
    transferee or assignee of the Note, or the servicer of the Note.
    The bankruptcy court’s taking of judicial notice that Bank of
    America Corporation purchased Countrywide Financial Corporation
    does not cure BAC’s standing issues because BAC offered no
    evidence to establish the nature of its relationship to Bank of
    America or Countrywide. Therefore, BAC did not demonstrate that
    it had been injured by the Debtor’s default on the loan. As a
    result, it did not have constitutional standing to file the Stay
    Relief Motion.

    ~ snip ~

    The bankruptcy court determined that the Debtor’s challenge
    to BAC as the real party in interest was waived. However, we
    need not reach the prudential standing issues raised by the
    Debtor in this appeal since BAC failed to demonstrate it had
    constitutional standing to seek relief from the automatic stay.

    For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the bankruptcy court’s
    order granting stay relief to BAC. BAC is free to file a new
    motion for relief from stay if it can properly demonstrate its

  51. Well put Neil. The only issue I have with your comment is that the government isn’t kicking a can down the road, it’s kicking the American citizenry down the road. One day there will be a few kicks too many, at which point they place tanks on the streets aimed not at GS and BAC and WF and the other perps, but at the same butt-worn citizens. This can’t end well.

  52. When are we going to see even ONE news article that skewers the government for putting out FALSE PROPAGANDA?

    We are being fed LIES and PURE PROPAGANDA by the entire government.

    When are our allies around the globe going to turn on us? With the propaganda machine, our government is doing harm to not only the US citizens, but also around the entire GLOBE.

  53. The government should have demanded its money back on the original sale by the investment banks. In that sale, the government acquired nothing. The return of the money to the government is being disguised as a sale, further corrupting title to both the mortgage bonds and the real property.

    So Why the need for the Lawsuits filed such as FHFA vs. Goldman Sachs (regarding 40 trust)….?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: