Economy Cannot Grow Fast Enough


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


Editor’s Comment: 

Bernanke’s comments corroborate years of projections on this blog and by others including Johnson and Roubini.  We are kidding ourselves if we think that the economy is going to improve without addressing the housing problem.  In order to bring unemployment down to a level where the threat of financial chaos is truly diminished aggregate demand must increase significantly.  In our country aggregate demand is largely determined by consumer demand.  Consumer demand exists only where consumers have sufficient resources available to them to buy things.  

 At one time credit was relatively unimportant since median income for the middle class was sufficient to run a household on one income and still purchase the goods and services that the economy had to offer.  For the last 35 years median income has either been stagnant or decreased in real dollar terms depending upon which analysis is used as an index.  Unemployment is high and as Bernanke admits, any indication that unemployment is improving is coming largely from a decrease in layoffs rather than an increase in hiring.  Savings are virtually non-existent.  Therefore we can safely assume that consumer demand, representing 70% of aggregate demand will not improve as a result of money held by consumers or earned by consumers.  

In the wake of the neo conservative flood where it was stupidly assumed that reducing wages would not have a long term negative effect on consumer demand, the replacement for wages was debt.  We have run the gamut of credit card debt and other consumer finance to the extreme of payday loans which collectively siphon a substantial amount of what would be aggregate demand.  The recipients of this largesse are the banks and the losers are the eager institutional investors seeking higher returns.  Consumers are mostly maxed out on every form of credit that could be available to them.  Therefore any hope of an increase in aggregate demand from consumers based upon their willingness to spend even if they lack the financial resources is a fairy tale.  Simply stated, consumers lack money and credit and therefore lack the ability to make significant purchases in the marketplace.  Those who point to minor upticks in the purchases of ipads or iphones are ignoring the greater reality.  

The financial industry chased most of America and corralled them into a scenario in which “pretend” money was used instead of real money.  They did it using housing as the bait.  Again the investors are the losers but so are the homeowners and the tax payers who are now paying the fictitious bill with freshly minted dollars that are constantly diminishing in value.  The use of the home as a piggy bank from which one could make an ATM like withdrawal for the purchase of goods and services is also gone.

That leaves us with aggregate demand being 70% dependent upon a class of people who have been cut out from participation at the table where commerce is intended to flow.  The only remedy is to create incentives for those consumers who are or were homeowners to return to that table.  In order for this to happen the pornographic amounts of money blowing through the few major banks who remain in charge of our financial system must be stopped and the flow must be reversed.  There is ample reason to reverse that flow besides the fact that the banks have grown too fat.  Most of the money controlled by those banks consists of ill gotten gains produced by fraud at the closing table with investors and the same fraud at the closing table with borrowers.  The obvious solution is to restore the victims of the fraud through restitution which would also have the even greater benefit of restoring confidence in the american financial system.

Those who are pursuing policy that depends on the status quo being maintained are ignoring a basic legal fact.  Chain of title in real property is determined by reference to hundreds of years of common law, statutory law and constitutional law.  Eventually this game must end.  Ultimately if we are to see the kind of improvement that Bernanke and others feel is necessary for the economy to actually recover they are going to be required to give up on the myth of too big to fail and to embrace the possibilities of bringing 7,000 community banks and credit unions to the table where a handful of mega banks once reigned supreme.

Perhaps if they give fairness and equity a chance they will come to realize that getting the cooperation of banks to purchase US Treasury Debt does not have to be a deal with the devil.  Right now only a handful of banks are in on that deal where they borrow money at the Fed Window at an effective rate of zero and purchase US Treasury debt to keep the government running.  The spread between the overnight Fed Window rate and the rate paid by the US Treasury is a gift to the banks that caused us this misery.   If we are going to pursue that kind of policy to kick the can down the road is to give the gift to the innocent banks rather than to the merchants of doom. 

Bernanke says U.S. needs faster growth

By Pedro da Costa and Jason Lange

(Reuters) – The U.S. economy needs to grow more quickly to bring the unemployment rate down further, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Monday, defending the central bank’s policy of very low interest rates.

While he offered no indication the Fed is keen to embark on a third round of bond purchases, Bernanke also made clear the central bank is in no rush to reverse course after responding aggressively to a deep recession.

The jobless rate has dropped to 8.3 percent from 9.1 percent last summer, a move Bernanke said was “somewhat out of sync” with the rather modest pace of economic growth.

He said the decline could reflect an effort by businesses to recalibrate their payrolls after unusually heavy job cuts during the recession. If this is the case, he said, progress may stall.

“To the extent that this reversal has been complete, further significant improvements in the unemployment rate will likely require a more rapid expansion of production and demand from consumers and businesses, a process that can be supported by continued accommodative policies,” Bernanke told the National Association for Business Economics.

U.S. stocks climbed on hopes that Bernanke’s speech could be a precursor to more Fed bond purchases, with each of the major indexes up at least 1 percent. The dollar fell against the euro, but prices for U.S. government debt also slipped as worries about Europe’s debt crisis eased, sapping a safe-haven bid.

The U.S. central bank lowered overnight interest rates to near zero in December 2008 and has bought $2.3 trillion in debt securities to drive other borrowing costs lower in an effort to spur faster growth and cut unemployment.

“Reading between the lines, it sounds like he’s pushing the ball forward toward having a discussion about doing more,” said Chris Rupkey, economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, on the sidelines of the NABE conference.

After its last two meetings, the Fed said it would likely keep rates near zero at least through late 2014, but upbeat economic signs, including solid employment growth, have led investors to bet on a move as early as the middle of next year.

Bernanke’s speech appeared aimed at pushing back against those expectations.


U.S. gross domestic product grew 3 percent in the fourth quarter, but is expected to have slowed to just below 2 percent in the first three months of this year. For all of last year, it grew only 1.7 percent, which would normally be too slow to move the unemployment rate lower.

Sluggish economic demand has kept alive the potential for more Fed bond purchases, despite the signs of improvement in the labor market.

The policy does have detractors, including some inside the central bank. Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Plosser on Monday said central banks should not have unfettered ability to purchase assets because that violates the traditional separation of monetary and fiscal policymaking and can allow governments to inflate away debts.

“Granting vast amounts of discretion to our central banks in the expectation that they can cure our economic ills or substitute for our lack of fiscal discipline is a dangerous road to follow,” Plosser told a conference in Paris.

That discomfort and differences over the outlook for the economy have led to an unusually wide range of views among policymakers over the proper course.

While a few officials are pushing for a further easing of monetary policy and some think rates might not need to rise until 2016, a hawkish minority believe the Fed would do well to reverse course this year. Bernanke is likely in the middle, biding his time to determine whether more bond purchases are needed but resolute in his thinking that any rate hikes can wait until 2014, analysts say.

The Fed chief reiterated his concern about long-term unemployment, which he said could cause workers’ skills to atrophy, but he argued against the notion that much of the problem was due to shifts in the economy that had made workers’ skills obsolete. If that were the case, the Fed might need to tighten policy sooner rather than later.

“The continued weakness in aggregate demand is likely the predominant factor. Consequently, the Federal Reserve’s accommodative monetary policies, by providing support for demand and for the recovery, should help, over time, to reduce long-term unemployment as well,” he said.

164 Responses

  1. Its such as you read my mind! You appear to grasp so much about this, such as you wrote the e-book in it or something. I think that you simply can do with some p.c. to pressure the message home a bit, however other than that, that is magnificent blog. A great read. I will definitely be back.

  2. I have seen hudreds and hundreds of evidence that the Fed.courts favor the banksters and lawyers. How can they allow the banks to rip people off and go freely. America is so corrupted. Why pointing fingers at other countries America? Our government needs to look at the corruptions at the court level. Check them out at Lexis and Westlaw database, if you don’t believe me. Search for lawyers’ name and 12(b)(6) rule, there where the banks through victims out the door and go freely. I am very sicked of this country.

  3. I have absolute proof of the entire crime. It is sickening. The local superior court judges and the federal judges are all under the same insurance pool as the city and mayor. I believe the city or insurance lawyers paid good money to my lawyer to throw me under the table. My case had been forenzic audited by a forenzic accountant to be worth over twenty five million plus, and he throws a contingency case under the table. Makes no sense. That is why the judge flipped out. This was no small case.

  4. @ Shelly

    No surprise…sorry. This whole thing is shit…I’ll bet you have a detailed statement from the cell phone carrier, at least for those numbers?

    Keep at it…the ending is very close. Good Luck

  5. Chris, I am in the middle of the lawsuit against the ex lawyer. And the city lawyers and the mayor. I have depositions by ex city employees stating the mayor lied in his deposition and gave orders to the city planners to make sure they lied to me and prevented me from staying on my commercial property. I also have a deposition from an ex city employee in the finance department that was told by the mayor and city finance director to keep two sets of records, one true for the mayor and one false for the council. And a declaration by another ex city employee that brought up the financial discripencies in teh fiance department and mis appropriated funds and she was told by the head of financing if this ever gets out to the publci she the mayor and the city were screwed to keep it hush, so she quit and walked out and came to me to give me a declaration. Everyone in city hall knows what the mayor did to me. The head of planning walked out and I had a call from a city hall employee to contact him before he got in his car to testify for me. I talked to him on his cell before his left the parking lot at city hall and he told me he needed to get ahold of my lawyer and to testify under deposition. My lawyer said he would not take his testimony cause the city would never let him testify. I went then and there to fire my ex lawyer. The mayor called me on his private cell( he told me this) to threaten me over the phone.

  6. @ Shelly

    My $.02, file a complaint against the judge and have him/her recused for any variety of reasons…I would file a lawsuit against the attorney, no question and make a ABA complaint (not much hope there, but worth a try). The attorney has errors and omissions insurance and you might get a chunk of change there…Just saying

  7. My case is not in the district court where small claims are the only issue. It was removed to federal court and is now in the U.S. Appeals court for the ninth circuit. My ex attorney for the U.S. Supreme court is possibly filed in the wrong Appeals court according to your info. I am checking into it today. My mortgage case is in the correct court. I filed it as a state case and the judge allowed it to be removed to federal court. Which I feel was unlawful. However perhaps is a good thing cause I am able ot put it into the U.S. Appeals court due to the removal to federal court. This exact same federal judge pulled one on me in the city case. My ex attorney filed an amended complaint to my pro se complaint once I hired him and used federal law instead of the state RCW and WAC law I used and unbeknown to me at the time this supposedly allowed the case to go federal. He allowed removal of my entire prose case and all the exhibits of proof and proof of served on October 9, 2006. And sat back silent while all the removal by a defense timebarred from defense unlawfully removed my case to federal court and lifted all my case and evidence out of court with his helpful amended complaint and silence not arguing the timebarred defense and the served papers on October 9, 2006, allowing the opposition to claim they had not been served untill the filed paper in court on December 29, 2006, that allowed them to make claim they were not time barred i was. It gets worse than that. There is not one paper the ex attorney did that did not set me up to loose. I have proven it in court in color, according to the judge. I have a audio being transcribed into hard copy where he the judge states that. From everything I read this should have caused the ex attorney to pay for the loss of my case that as he had told me all along was an unbeatable case and all he had to do was wrap up the paper work and get the funds for me. He was on a contingency. The judge flipped when he was told Justin was on a contingency to boot. He took the case on a contingency for a lesser percentage cause he told me he would be embarrassed to ask me for more cause i had done all the hard work and it was an unbeatable case. Then he throws it under the table on me. The defense had defaulted on the answer and appearance by a month. They had sixty days to answer and they did not answer or appear until January 6, 2007. The attorney in charge of it had walked out of city hall with his paralegal when I sent the summons and complaint by personal carrier and by certified signature required mail and my attorney allowed all this lifted and the federal judge had seen all this evidence and had denied the first unlawful removal request, so my ex attorney filed the amended complainta and the judge and the opposing attorneys said due to our(the exattorneys amended complaint by his authored hands not ours and we had refused to sign it) the court was allowing all of my case including the served evidence lifted. However my attorney kept this from me. I did not discover it until 2009. The opposing attorneys willfull filed false affidavit in the court claiming they had not been served until December 29, 2006 and I have all the original proof of served documents. Judge Pechman in federal court is the same judge on my mortgage and she is a ______________.

  8. @ Shelly

    Just because you have different courts in the same state does not mean they all work under the same parameters.

    My understanding is: District Courts have “jurisdiction” (to mean authority) over small claims, civil disputes, tort, state criminal charges, breach of contract, retraining orders, family court matters, etc…lots of things…one thing is the parties and dollar amounts (parties, meaning citizens of the state)…

    now you can, if your case is dismissed file it in Federal Court, Federal Law and Statutes trump State…Period!

    District Courts do not have the “authority” to hear cases regarding Federal Statutes, citizens from different states…certain kinds of cases relating to: interstate commerce, RICO, TILA, RESPA, UCC, etc…if you get my drift.

    That is why I have my cases in Federal Court…Cloud on Title and Fraudulent Conveyance. Those cases, in my non-legal opinion, are served under Federal Statutes and will be kicked out of the District Court. Also, many of the parties you are trying to get into court are “citizens” of different states. The first thing the Plaintiffs/Defense attorneys are going to do is ask for a dismissal, based on the filing and lack of court jurisdiction and be careful about whom you serve, always try to serve the principle…that’s another way they can kick you out, by lack of proper service.

    Anyone can jump in here…’cause, as I said, I am the laymen.

  9. Another FDCPA letter win in appeals court.

    I dont know why a party can not send the FDCPA reqest through the court as a notice or motion for the FDCPA dispute letter and give them twenty days to answer, along with an affirmation of authority to represent.

    The bankster lawyers may claim they dont have to prove the note but they can not deny they have to answer this FDCPA letter.

  10. I will try to remember where I read a private party can bring a motion to prosecute straight to the Supreme court. I may have misinterpeted it also. I have some info I will dig into to find the info again and make sure what it is telling me. It wont be today. I have a lot on my agenda right now. I wont forget! I am determined to make all three the city mayor, my ex attorney agaisnt the city and the banksters pay for their crimes.

  11. Thanks for the link.

  12. Abby and Chris Isn’t the state court Superior court and the Federal court is federal and not state but located in each state. I am going to definately look this up in detail. I am running my day spa thirteen to fourteen hours a day and do this in between my business duties.
    This is what caused me to believe it is a district court.
    U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington …
    Welcome to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. … Conference of the United States … courtroom for civil cases in federal courts …
    This is very confusing to me.


    This case should help everyone whom sent a FDCPA letter, cause I know of no one whom was answered by the banks, nor any foreclosure that complied and satisfied the letter afforded by the FDCPA. It was the first letter I had sent by the first attorney I hired for just this letter and it has never been answered. Nor was my sons. Nor any of the friends I know that sent it.

  14. Http for this ! 1872 case law. and yes it is old but good great case law line the U.S. Constitution is not new!

    This case law from the U.S. Supreme court and the Article III of the U.S. Constittution and the article nine UCC law should do MERS in. I is as though this land is lawless.

  15. The http to the whole U.S. Supreme Court case.


  16. The Carpenter V Longan 1873 U.S. Supreme court case is good standing and distinguished case law stating the deed of trust can not be separated from the note or the contract is void and nullified.

    This FDCPA case is the U.S. Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    No. 08–1200. Argued January 13, 2010—Decided April 21, 2010
    The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq., imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibiteddebt collection practices. A debt collector who “fails to comply withany [FDCPA] provision . . . with respect to any person is liable tosuch person” for “actual damage[s],” costs, “a reasonable attorney’sfee as determined by the court,” and statutory “additional damages.” §1692k(a). In addition, violations of the FDCPA are deemed unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act(FTC Act), §41 et seq., which is enforced by the Federal Trade Com-mission (FTC). See §1692l. A debt collector who acts with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective cir-cumstances that such act is [prohibited under the FDCPA]” is subjectto civil penalties enforced by the FTC. §§45(m)(1)(A), (C). A debt col-lector is not liable in any action brought under the FDCPA, however, if it “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such er-ror.” §1692k(c). Respondents, a law firm and one of its attorneys (collectively Car-lisle), filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court on behalf of a mortgage com-pany to foreclose a mortgage on real property owned by petitionerJerman. The complaint included a notice that the mortgage debt would be assumed valid unless Jerman disputed it in writing. Jer-man’s lawyer sent a letter disputing the debt, and, when the mort-gage company acknowledged that the debt had in fact been paid, Car-lisle withdrew the suit. Jerman then filed this action, contending that by sending the notice requiring her to dispute the debt in writ-

  17. Abby and Chris, now I am back to confused. I am in Washington State, and believed the district court is Federal court. I will do some research here. The court system is very confusing to me. I just recently realized there are state supreme courts as well as the U.S. Supreme court, and State Appeals courts as well as the U.S Appeals courts. I realize there are district courts that only for small claims courts. I am sorry to be so confused on this issue and will definately investigate this and get my self straight on the court system. I am sure it is the same in every state. I definately have one of my cases in the wrong court myself over my confusion. My ex attorneys case is filed in the wrong court right now due to my mistake. My Appeal for the mortgage is ok. Thanks for getting me straightened out. My case is fraud upon the court so I should be able to send the notice to the ninth circuit of my mistake. Then refile it. UMFFF!

  18. @ Abby

    The only parties I know that can bring criminal charges are the prosecutor, the AG and the justice system. If there are others, I have not read up on that and am short.

    However, there very well should be criminal charges against some lawyers, the AG’s, the servicers and bankers…in my opinion, there is ample evidence for a prosecution. We can also add trespass, breaking and entering, harassment, threats, etc…Just saying!

  19. Abby in Cal. I was truly mixed up on the courts system. And do realize Judge Schack is a State Supreme court justice now. I certainly do not want to mix anyone up on anything and do let everyone know I am not an attorney. I am in the courts against my attorney whom threw my city case under the bus and paying two attorneys a total if ten thousand, the second one never filing one paper for me to date, just taking $8,000.00 from me for nothing yet. I have not lead anyone to believe I am an attorney I am pro se trying my best to dig out the infor mation to help everyone I can and to win my case. As for my ex attorneys case, I wrote three letters to the court clerk in the State Appeals case asking why my case was sent their when I sent it to the U.S. Appeal court for the nineth circuit and have had no reply. i went to the clerks office in Superior court was handed a phone to call in and asked the same question and was told they would get back to me and never did. So I have another detailed letter to both court clerks in both Appeals courts asking what has happened. now I know. I have never lead anyone to believe I am an attorney. We are all on this site to try to share info and help each other. My case is fraud upon the court with the ex attorney as well.

  20. @ Shelley
    statement should read

    t is my opinion, and again check with your attorney, that we (non-governmental) can NOT bring criminal charges on the banks etc.

  21. @ Shelley
    go here to read who can bring criminal charges

    you may want to check with your attorney. in my county it is our District Attorney who can bring criminal charges, but there are other governmental agencies, such as the Department of Justice, which can also bring criminal charges.

    it is my opinion, and again check with your attorney, that we (non-governmental) can bring criminal charges on the banks etc.

  22. @ Chris
    nope here in CA the Federal court system is very seperate and distinct from the state court system

    isn’t it your opinion too that only the District Attorney can bring criminal charges?

  23. The servicer debt collector pretending to be the bank inmmediately removed it to the federal court. So I am good on the nineth Circuit court with that case, however this is an issue with my ex attorneys case. I have to remove it to Federal court before I go to the nineth circuit then or do I have to send it to the State US Supreme court due to it being a criminal felony? I have mailed the ex attorney case to the ninth circuit court . Yes I did not know that? When it is a criminal case can I move it straight to the State Supreme court? This is a criminal case as is the fraud closures case. I have documented fax dated proof of organized crime against me, a fraud amended complaint he slipped out the pages from one fax dated brief and slipped in the pages from the previous week, I did not approve and fought him for a week I would not sign. Then he sat sliently by allowing false statements by the opposing councel claiming my case was served until December 29, 2006, when it was served October 9,2006 and allowed the opposition to lift all my exhibits of proof of a policy making fraud case and the served papers on file in the court when the city defendants had defaulted on their sixty day answer and appearance and were timebarred from defense and time barred my case instead. Timebarred from motion to remove also. The city attorney and his paralegal and seven planners walked out of city hall and quit when I served the summons and complaint and they lost track of it. My ex attorney helped them do a cover up and threw my case under the tabe. I proved it in court. And the judge still dismissed my case. But only after the ex attorney did a non suit withdrawl of their cross motion claims. From every thing I read that was not allowed without my permission but happened to me anyway.
    Here is help for the FDCPA issues. For the mortgage cases.

    I have asked everyone I know to send the FDCPA letters of debt dispute first thiing to their foreclosures. And most have. I did and so did my son in November 2009, never to be answered to date. and filed them in county records as well as certified signature required mail.. Ths issue is on our cases in the Appeals court.

  24. I have to write this in pieces cause their are NAZI Hackers from the bank on my comp0uter.

  25. the banks run the courts.

    In 1997 I filed a Petition in
    Federal District Court in the southern district of NY.

    The Hon Louis L Stanton read my petition, accepted it for filing , sent me to the Federal Clerk to pay the fee and I also paid for a jury trial and
    received a docket number. The act of filing a c opy o the petition in the state court the next day effects the removal and I did just that.

  26. My case Marilyn Lane vs. Astoria Federal S & L was docketed in the US Supreme Court in 1997. I would have to go to the vault to pull out the papers to remember the exat wording.
    Off the top of my head I remember the United States Supreme Court stated that the bank could get the help of the Solister General of the United States.

    In the end the bank got to the US Supreme Court.

  27. @ Abby

    Do we have foreclosure fraud cases at the US Supreme Court? Never heard that…one can wish!

  28. Actually correction: dismissed with prejudice means you can only appeal, which is costly, time consuming and difficult. Very hard to get past the District Court judges, just saying…

  29. @ Abby

    How right you are…There is much misinformation here.

    I have myself, tried to address this with Shelly and she told me the District and Federal are under the same umbrella. Maybe in CA they are, but not in NC. They are separate entities. The right venue MUST be sought and plead appropriately.

    Here in NC the District court only has jurisdiction for Quiet Title and no damages are allowed. There is also the issue of “who the parties are citizens of” and I know you know what I mean. From there you have only the appeals court or the Superior Court, which is based on the dollar amount of the claim.

    Federal Court is an entirely different cat. This is for “citizens” of different states, money amounts over $75,000. and jurisdiction…which one must understand. District Court, as far as I know, does NOT have jurisdiction over Federal Statutes, Codes, UCC violations, TILA, RESPA, etc…these all fall into Federal jurisdiction, not States.

    One must be careful, with the limited amount of financial assets they still have, wasting them in venues and risk the possibility of dismissal, with prejudice, ’cause you have to start all over again.

    Just my $.02 out of concern for any information leading to a bad result. Not one of us can afford that.

  30. @ Shelley

    I think you still do not understand. There are two different types of courts. 1. federal court system 2. state court system.

    You best read up on the two types.

    If you file or your bank files in state court…you can move on up thru
    the state appeal court to possibly the state supreme court—but no further!

    You cannot go from the state supreme court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. You can only go to that court if you or the bank has filed complaints in the federal court.

    From say, for sake of discussion, you want to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then you must do a Writ of Certiorari (basically applying for them to hear your case in the U.S. Supreme Court)…..the U.S. Supreme Court takes very few cases each year to hear. Most are denied.

    As to your lawyer where you say this “Obviously was confusing to my attorneys attorney, whom is not a very good attorney. “….and earlier in your post you said “One of my cases against my ex attorney wound up in the State Appeals court when I filed it in the U.S.Appeals Court for the nineth Circuit. Addressed it to the proper court.”

    How can this be? You clam you filed in in the U.S. Appeals Court for the ninth Circuit….and then you go on to say…obviously was confusing to my attorneys attorney, whom is not a very good attorney…..

    Did you or your attorney mis-file in the US Appeal Court for the Ninth Circuit.

    If it was your attorney, the attorney could be disbarred for making that error. No wonder the judge made the comment.

    Also—-just because you file in a state court action and you appeal it all the way up to the state supreme court does not mean that then you can immediately jump over to file that in a Federal Court of Appeal.

    I think you better brush up on your civics lesson and get clear on how the courts work else you may lose your case(s). If you have attorney(s), then you are best to let them do their jobs.

    You still are identifying Judge Schack with the wrong court system

    “The realized he is a U.S. Supreme court judge for New York”

    Judge Schack is NOT a U.S. Supreme court judge. He is a New York state Supreme court judge.

    I think unless you understand this all, you should not be posting advice on this blog. This is basic and fundamental. One needs to know what court venue one is in and be using the correct set of laws an local rules of court etc.

    Think Shelley—what if somebody reads your information and it causes them to go down a rabbit hole or causes them to lose their case, because you don’t really know what you are talking about??? Can they sue you?

  31. Abby in Cal, I dont remember when I discovered Neils blog. However I have been fighting for my house since the modification fraud letter dated October 13, 2009, telling me I was now unapproved (disqualified ) after being told I was approved immediately begin to pay the mod payments, which I made five of them. I began digging out the dirt in January, after going to two attorneys and talking to many. Still digging and learning every day.

  32. Abby , I just realized that the other day. Each state has an state Appeals court and each state has a State Supreme court. Then their is a higher Appeal court like the 9 & 11th Circuit Appeals courts and THE US SUPEME COURT in Washington DC. This is very confusing but I have just figured this out before ya posted it here. I though Judge Schack was a district court judge. The realized he is a U.S. Supreme court judge for New York. Thanks for clearifing this, I have not understood this until very recentlly and I am sure others are completely confused as I was. One of my cases against my ex attorney wound up in the State Appeals court when I filed it in the U.S.Appeals Court for the nineth Circuit. Addressed it to the proper court. Then the attorneys attorney filed a reply for a hearing in the Seattle Appeals court and I wound up there, telling the judge I was not sure why i was appearing infront of her when my case was filed in hte U.S. Appeals court for the ninth circuit.. She said Your not the only one, a lot of us wonder why we are here. Thought that was an odd statement. Unless she is aware of the lack ofrule of law. And knows the court system is a joke. We were dismissed and sent on our way. Gets very confusing to the pro se. Obviously was confusing to my attorneys attorney, whom is not a very good attorney. The judge kept questioning her in the superior court, and telling her he disagreed with her. I got the feeling the firm she came from sent a newbee to fight a pro se for the experience, because they were not worried about loosing to a pro se. She the attorneys attorney had the nerve to write (on her reply motion) that I should not be considered a pro se but a sophisticated attorney, with experience , due to I had had so much experience in my case fighting her and the city of Auburn, that I was to sophisticated to be given Pro Se consideration. Hark! I am sophisticated because I have had to battle my own attorney for defauding me breaching his oath of office and breach of contract, so I should be treated unfairly as a pro se. Whoa! Then the judge told the attorneys attorney I had prove breach in color so he was reinstating my case unless they withdrew their cross motion for attonreys fees. I objected, however the judge allowed them to file a nonsuit withdrawl, then he dismissed my case, so I am in the Appeals court with my ex attorney, whom threw my city law suit for policy making fraud and the mayor breach of oath of office, under the table..

  33. Abby , thanks I could not remember a Galli. That is definately my post. I have posted so many and could not remember a Galli. Been trying to figure out which case. I zoom through them trying to find the answers.

  34. @ Shelley
    Schack is not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. He is only a Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge. Big difference. He is a state supreme court judge not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

    go here to read the current list of U.S. Supreme Court Justices now serving:

  35. @ Shelley
    better look back. I’ve been a long time poster here on LL…since way back in late 2008.

    how long have you been here?

  36. @Shelley
    did you or did you not post this about the galli case?
    and again…there is only one U.S. Supreme Court and that is in Washington D.C.

    There are some individual state Supreme Courts, as in New York state.

    You keep trying to say U.S. Supreme Court when it really is a single state Supreme Court. Big Difference.

    Shelley A. Erickson, on March 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm said:


  37. Abby in California, did I miss something What Galli Case? THe Bains case is in U.S.Supreme court in Olympia Washington. I dont recall a Galli case. Read a lot of cases. I cant see a Galli case I posted anywhere. I have more faith in justice in the higher court, from the pattern I am seeing from the past two and a half years I have been monitoring what is going on. I have little hope in most district courts. I thought Judge Schack was a district court judge at first, but he is a U.S. Supreme justice I have gathered now.

    Back to facts please pull up the Bains V MERS and the Amicus Curiea by Shawn Newman and the Amicaus Curiea by A G Rob McKenna and you will have more language to fight your MERS cases and some whom are not MERS. They are loaded with list of all the most important case law to win your cases. If you are just coming into this, you have missed a lot of great case law to prove your case. The list of case law in this is a perfect list of case law for you to catch up on and use as case law. Case law is like law. You have to use it to win your cases. You find the http and list only the http and or the case law. You dont have to send in a hard copy of the case law. Also a letter from the OCC on the web. under OCC letter January 14, 2005; national bank law does not preempt state law” , a letter to Wells Fargo from the OCC. The national banks were claiming they are not registered to do business unders state laws cause they were under national bank law. NOT! Of course the banks are trying to change that now.

  38. @Shelley and Ian
    Phil Ting is the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder and San Francisco is in San Francisco County, not King County.

    here is his press conference

    here is the report:

  39. @Shelley
    the Galli case is not at the US Supreme Court.

  40. the french- funny

  41. Well this attorney did nothing for a freind. She wasted her money on Mike Wasylik out of Florida.

  42. Here is a district court judge that can be added to the honor list.

    Things are changing. This is good case law.

  43. Possible help for Oregon homeowners. Washington state is waiting on the Bains V MERS case, heard March 15, 2012..

  44. Slow week, nothing spectacular. Only 20 resignations. Might it be tapering off or is it the calm before the storm?!/MassResignations/app_2374336051

  45. Sshafer, just because one court does not go by the rule of law, if you tell people not to do it right or take the course to protect themselves, they wont have a chance in any court that may reverse and help them due to them preparing and doing it right. Causing people to give up hope is not what these blogs are about. The Appeals court as you can see the one two I posted yesterday turned this around for the homeowner, due to the FDCPA letter and CPA violations. If you dont file and protect yourself from the start, then yes you might as well give up now. You are not helping anyone by discouraging them from taking all steps to protect themselves.

  46. TnHarry, I have seen customers and friends that had both first and second with the same strawman bank, then had the second satisfied by an entity, usually MERS and the foreclosurer. I wondered if that was to set them up for the loan in first place to foreclose on. I am pretty sure it is. The homeowner thought the foreclosure was giving up but I feared they were being set up. These banks dont do nothing to be nice or fair. It is not in their agenda.

  47. @carie – it doesn’t matter who it was with. for the 2nd to foreclose, they’d have to pay off the first anyway. that alone is enough to keep 2nd mortgagees from foreclosing most of the time.

  48. The French… I like their style. Even if it doesn’t resolve everything for eveyone, at least they DO something.

    Friday, March 30, 2012
    Wolf Richter: Taking Bosses Hostage – A Labor Negotiating Tactic In France

    By Wolf Richter, San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Cross posted from Testosterone Pit.

    At 2 p.m on Thursday, the final day of the annually required wage negotiations that were going nowhere, Bruno Ferrec, the man in charge of the nine Fnac stores in Paris, and his HR Director were “retained” by 120 of his employees at a conference room at the Hotel Ibis in the rue des Plantes in Paris.

    “Mr. Ferrec is in the middle of the room,” said Christian Lecanu, representative of the CGT, one of the unions involved in the negotiations. “He listens and keeps repeating, ‘the negotiations are over.’ For now, we do not know when we will let him go.” And the police did nothing.

    Fnac is France’s largest retail chain in the cultural and entertainment sector (books, DVDs, video games, software, consumer electronics, tickets, etc.). It even has its own literary award for fiction. It operates stores in other European countries, Brazil, Morocco, and Taiwan. But times are tough: e-commerce competition, pirated products, falling flat-screen-TV prices…. Sales for 2011 were down 3.2%.

    To reinvent itself, it is launching an expansion program. Certain stores would offer higher-end consumer products, such as designer vacuum cleaners and coffee makers. Decoration and life style, as it’s called in modern French, would be added soon. The idea: position the company above discount retailers. Good luck.

    Somehow in parallel to, or despite, these expansion plans, PPR, the publicly traded company that owns Fnac, is trying to implement a belt-tightening program that would save Fnac €80 million. It would include 500 job cuts (310 in France) and “salary moderation,” that is, a wage freeze for the lucky ones.

    Oh-là-là! Layoffs aren’t easy in France and become highly politicized. Wage freezes don’t sit well either, with gas prices shooting through the headliner. Read…. $10-Per-Gallon Gas Has Arrived In Paris.

    “Isn’t it risky to announce job cuts 100 days before the presidential election?” the daily paper, le Figaro, asked Fnac CEO Alexandre Bompard during an interview.

    The answer was a non-answer. “My responsibility is to ensure the survival of the Fnac,” he said. “Faced with a very poor economic situation, nothing would be more dangerous for the future than not implementing measures when they should be implemented.” And they would try to accomplish much of it through voluntary departures and internal reclassification.

    Then there are legal issues. The Labor Inspectorate rejected the job preservation measures that the company had presented as part of the job-cuts plan and demanded more support for employees that would be transferred internally or externally. Today, two labor councils initiated court proceedings to suspend the layoffs, citing a lack of information on the economic and strategic underpinnings of the plan.

    So, to apply additional leverage, 120 unionized employees have “retained” Bruno Ferrec, the hapless guy that has to implement the cost cutting measures imposed by PPR.

    “We will hold the siege of the conference room for as long as management remains prostrate in silence,” said Philippe Graulière, from the Union Sud, the other union participating in the negotiations. What really galled him: “They imposed a wage freeze on us while PPR announced the distribution of dividends.”

    Ferrec had made a counter offer, but employees weren’t enamored with his proposal and put the negotiations into overdrive. “The only thing they offered is a 15 euro increase for those that earn less than 1,500 euros,” lamented Sud member Catherine Gaigne.

    Ferrec “accuses us of not working enough and putting the company into the red,” said Lecanu. He blamed top management for their disastrous strategy. “They all come from the world of supermarkets. They don’t know our business.”

    “A difficult dialogue,” is what a Fnac spokesperson called it politely when le Figaro contacted the company, but wouldn’t comment otherwise.

    Alas, at 9 p.m., police intervened politely, possibly at the request of the hotel which needed the conference room for other groups—this being central Paris after all. Ferrec and his HR Director were released. No arrests were made. Nothing was resolved.

    In France, the labor negotiation tactic of locking up bosses is not unusual after a company threatens with layoffs or plant closings. Law enforcement rarely intervenes. What appears to be hostage taking and extortion in much of the world is viewed with a mix of amusement and support by the French media and the public, so long as it remains non-violent. Property damage, especially when plants are occupied, occurs on occasion. But only when it gets seriously out of hand does law enforcement try to calm things down. Labor groups have achieved some short-term compromises, but the long-term benefits remain dubious.

    Certain other French companies, particularly the automakers, are also in deep trouble and want to restructure—more plant closings and layoffs. But when PSA Peugeot Citroën, whose sales are plunging, announced layoffs, it attracted the ire of President Nicolas Sarkozy himself. Layoffs will be even tougher to implement if socialist François Hollande wins the election. But something has to give. And even GM, whose European operations have been bleeding red ink for years, won’t save PSA. For that whole debacle, read…. The Nightmare of the European Auto Industry.

  49. My assumption is the debt collectors do not answer the FDCPA letters because they dont know whom the real lender is and they think it is insignifcant and the judges will ignore it. If they lie to you it will look even worse. No one I know that has sent that letter has been answered. Here in this case the issue is a slight bit different. and used differently from the defendants to get a point across they lost on. However the same results. The fraudsters violated the FDCPA letter and it is suppose to be answered in twenty days. Not ignored.

  50. Opps! QWR not WQR.

  51. Speaking of the FDCPA letter and CPA laws!
    Here ya go! Again the district court judge dismissed it and the Appeals court dismisses the dismissal and remands it back to district court. The judges should should be wearing dunce caps or prison stripes for total disregard for a citizen and the rule of law and their property rights..

    In my case and my sons, we sent the letter afforded by the FDCPA and were ignored and never answered. The WQR letter was answered partialy and they kept asking for more time to come up with the proof for over three months so I said you have been allowed three months which is over the time allowed enough is enough, I object to your claims blah blah blah. I have listed the violations of default in answering the letter of debt dispute afforded by the FDCPA and multiple violations of CPA law. The judge treated this as insignificant and dismissed my case. Wel will see what the Appeals court says. I through the book at them. I have also claimed RICO by sending false fraud forged documents by mail and wire to steal property and misrepresent blah blah blah. The FDCPA letters of debt dispute are important. Always send certified mail signature required. I am not an attorney so consult with an attorney on this.

  52. Too funny!!!

    Whatever the treasury didn’t give to the banks, it damn straight lost in bad investments.

    Some real brains we have in government!

    Treasury unloads shares in small banks
    Posted by cnnmoney on March 29, 2012 in G7Finance News, Global News, Investing, Market Update | 0 Comment

    US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testifies at a Congressional hearing earlier this month. The Treasury Department says investments it made in banks during the financial crisis have been profitable.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The Treasury Department priced preferred shares in an auction of six smaller banks this week as it unwinds positions it acquired during the height of the financial crisis.

    Net proceeds from the sale of shares that Treasury purchased under the Troubled Asset Relief Program are expected to top $362 million, according to a statement released Thursday. The Treasury initially invested $410.8 million, which means the auction would translate to a $49 million loss.

    However, including proceeds from dividends and interest payments, the total return to taxpayers is $426.4 million, which turns that loss into a profit of about $16 million, according to Treasury.

    The results reflect the department’s efforts to “balance the important goals of winding down the program and maximizing value for taxpayers,” said Treasury spokesman Matthew Anderson. “We view the auction as a success,” he added.

    Peyton Green, a community and regional bank analyst at Sterne Agee, said the Treasury may have been able to secure a higher price if it had waited another year for the market to fully recover, but the pricing suggests that the Treasury is mainly focused on exiting its TARP positions.

    “The message is that they would rather get out and wind the program down more than anything else,” he said.

    In addition, he said the six banks involved in the auction were among the most likely to continue making dividend and interest payments. They included Banner Corp. (BANR),First Financial Holdings (FFCH), MainSource Financial Group (MSFG), Seacoast Banking Corp. of Florida (SBCF), Wilshire Bancorp (WIBC) and WSFS Financial Corp. (WSFS)

    Still, the pricing was widely varied, said Greene. “There’s clearly a discerning market for these things,” he added.

    The Treasury still has to sell preferred shares in another 350 banks in the Capital Purchase Program, which was launched in 2008 to help shore up banks struggling to raise capital.

    Under the program, the Treasury provided $205 billion to 707 financial institutions primarily through the purchase of preferred shares. In exchange, participating banks agreed to pay the government a 5% dividend and interest payments of up to 9% after five years.

    As the banking sector recovers, the Treasury has been gradually scaling back its various support programs set up during the crisis.

    “Today’s auction is part of our ongoing efforts to wind down TARP,” said Assistant Treasury secretary Tim Massad. “TARP’s bank programs succeeded in stabilizing our financial sector and have already earned a significant profit for the taxpayer.”

    Overall, the Treasury has recovered about $260 billion of the $245 billion invested under various TARP banking programs.

    The government has also made money on other TARP investments.

    Earlier this month, the Treasury said it made a $25 billion profit on its portfolios of mortgage-backed securities, which it acquired between October 2008 and December 2009.

    Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday lowered its estimate for the total cost of TARP to $32 billion from $34 billion.

    The CBO said the change mainly reflects an increase in the market value of the government’s investments in AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) and General Motors (GM, Fortune 500). Those gains offset increased costs stemming from new initiatives in the Treasury’s mortgage program, according to the CBO analysis.

    Congress authorized $700 billion for TARP, but Treasury only paid out $414 billion. Of that amount, $331 billion has been paid back, including profits, interest and dividends made from investments. ?

    First Published: March 29, 2012: 5:00 PM ET

  53. Think I would rather fight the big one and keep the small one in good standing. To put a block on any foreclosure and to make it not worth their fight. I can always pay off the small one soon and have the house in my name. My husband has a retirement pension income and social security income and I have my income, unless things get worse. I am in trouble due to the modification fraud, after paying five mod payments the fraudsters sent a letter I was unapproved and in foreclosure statis, and unless I paid the house in full they were going to foreclose. T he economy, has been dwindling down my tanning and permanent makeup business but has increased the lease people whom could not afford to keep their doors open in their own salons and this place is a haven for them, only paying five hundred a month instead of three thousand a month. We are not as bad off as some, thank goodness. Things could get worse the way the economy is going and the lack of leadership and corruption on all levels of government. I can afford the three hundred a month for the smaller payment. And am growing my business back slowly but surely. I have always kept my eggs in several baskets. I have multiple businesses within my business. I have added at least six lease people to my salon since my modification loan, and my husband is now working on the side besides the pension and social security. I am also supporting fifteen people, my children and grandchildren and one of my girls husbands that bring in what they can and try very hard to help, due to their businesses are ruined by the corruption of the banks. My largest money making businesses is way down. I hear rumors from the businesses like mine tanning mostly, that they are all slow. My hair stylist vary some, for the most part they are slower but doing well an a couple are barely paying their bills only due to their spouses have lost work and they were in a home used to the spouses income helping them pay the bills. I have a big day spa with 21 tanning units, for over thirty years now. My heart aches for Americans whom have lost their incomes, jobs, businesses, and their lives some of them. This is so unthinkable! It is hard to see the unconscionable crimes these people are committing on us. None of us would have ever thought this possible just a few years ago. It is a shocking awakening. I am a driven person and I will do everything in my bones and spirit to stop this crime and help everyone I can to win this battle.

  54. There have been lack of standing wins for Pro Se’s in the Appeals courts and some cases never get to court, due to having their mouths zip tied by the settlement they made with the bank. Quite frankly I am so stubborn, that a bank that tried to make a settlement with me would not get that chance. I figure if they are scared enough to settle they will even if I dont allow them to silence me and it would be far better to go onto public court for everyones sake. People give up to easy and allow this silencing when they could have helped others and I am not one to fall for that scheme. Maybe to stubborn for my own good. But I feel like this is America we are trying to save not just our house, which I value quite highly. So you wont ever know whom won what, for why or when, due to a lot of secret settlements. As far as the web, there are several to possilby four times I know of the non compliance to CPA and Deed of trust law that have been won. Just posted two, here and for treble damages for the one. I have this argument on my case and so does my son. He and I prepare our briefs together. He is for good reason feeling pretty good about his case. Never count your eggs before they hatch. But his looks good and I feel mine does to, but could be in for a big surprize. Praying a lot!!! For everyone! I just got an ok from a man that has the tools to find the security fraud and has won a big case against a notary already. He is suppose to give me a figure under five hundred to do the securities fraud checks for us and then send in all the names of the people that get the proof to the whistle blowers divison of the government. He said it takes several hours on some he has checked. I will get back to you and anyone wanting to do a drive to whistle blow on these creeps. Even if the whistle blowing does not pay off I will be happy to try to put a stop to these crooks crimes. If a thousand people whistle blow their proof and it does pay off as a whistleblowing win, we will have helped many people and we will be able to help more like lynn Szymoniak. I feel it is worth the try. A tenth of a fifty trillion dollar heist goes a long ways. The judges and the banks claimed the robo fraud was humbug! Where there is a will there is a way. I trully believe people need to look at the non compliance with FDCPA and CPA laws and check to see if the foreclosures are registered to be doing business in your state and have complied to all the state laws. CPA law allows treble damages and the FDCPA law is a part of the CPA laws. There is more than one way to skin a RAT!

  55. It is my opinion only, that securitization reports are only for the established litigator, not the Pro Se. I personally do not see the merit in that argument for the foreclosure, as authority is really the basis for all of our cases. Each one is different in how we got from A to Z, but inherently the same problem presents itself, over and over again.

    What is the point in paying large sums of money for something that is really useless to the average laymen. Spend it on legal advice.

    Just my $.02

  56. Shelley,

    In my humble opinion, you’re making a mistake. If you intend to keep the house and to be in a strong position vis-vis your first, I think it is better to get rid of the small one and then concentrate on fighting the big one.

    Then again, i am in a very good position: my small one was in the vicinity of $20,000 and was sold/transferred/assigned (whichever applies depending on their mood…) to a straight collection agency. Not a bank, a collection agency. I’m looking at resolving it for $2,000 max, with the most solid hold harmless/indemnification agreement ever written. That will accomplish 2 things: I will have (some) equity in the house and it will pretty easy getting quiet title when my lawsuit in fed court is resolved. And quite frankly, the servicer doesn’t appear too thrilled by the prospect of trying the case. Amazing how it is coming up with conciliatory offers (that i want no part of. Dead set on a trial!)

    There is a lot to be said for true and tried methods… I’m not looking to break new grounds. So I focus on what’s proven to be working.

    Question of style, i suppose.

  57. @tnharry

    My 1rst was not with them…

  58. @Shelley,

    Slight misunderstanding… I didn’t say homeowners have “no right to prove security fraud”. Homeowners have the right to do anything they want, short of burning down the house once they’ve lost it for want of a good offense or good defense. What I said is that many people have been suckered into buying a very expensive product no one can adequately defend in a court of law for want of appropriate expertise, recognized as such. Many people have been suckered into theories that have harmed them more than they actually helped. i could name a few, even on this site.

    I have asked over and over for anyone who saved his house through that argument to let us know. So far, complete silence. Even from Nancy Drewe… I have yet to read from her that one of the lawfirms she does research for was successful in defending a client with the securitization theories. Actually, she has been remarkably calm since i took her up on the issue. I wonder why… Again, nothing personal but preying on people’s weaknesses is far from honorable in my book. And i thought her reactions to a simple, direct and down-to-earth question was strange at best.

    What i have read here and in other blogs is the testimonies of homeowners who tried it, got a judge pissed off and were summarily thrown out of court. I don’t know about anyone but, if i had $5,000, i’d have much better plan for it than throw it away into something that will bring me a-bso-lu-te-ly no victory whatesoever.

    Knowing about those theories can’t hurt. What can and will hurt is for anyone without a solid background in economics and the recognized expertise to broach theories he can’t adequately articulate, let alone present to a judge. That much, i can promise.

  59. oops forgot the article! The complaint just won by the plaintiffs!

    I had this in my first complaint and the judge ignored all!!! I mean all of my complaint and proof of all this. I recommend you check you state CPA laws and State Deed of Trust laws and compare them to the State of Washington V RECONTRUST case and this case and the State of Nebraska V. MERS. The only reason MERS was let off the hook is for their convenience they claimed they were not the forecloser nor lender nor holder. When they foreclose in their name in states across the U.S. What ever works and theyi can get away with.

  60. I have this same complaint in my case and so does my son in his case. RECONTRUST, MERS, DEUTSCHE BANK ALL OF THEM ARE NOT INCOMPLIANCE WITH WASHINGTON STATE CPA LAW NOR WA STATE DEED OF TRUST LAW! The exact same non compliance violations as Rob McKenna stated in Washington state V. RECONTRUSTwith only one exception, RECONTRUST is the only entity owned by the bank that was foreclosing ( BOA). Nebraska, Arkansa, Washington state and one other state I can not remember have strict state laws of compliance none of these banks heed to. they believe they are above the law.

  61. Tnharry, and Carie, I keep up my second mortgage on purpose to cause troubles for the fraudsters. I beleive they dont want to hassel with the other bank either. Or pay the loan off. I read somewhere, when I first started investigating this crime against us, that the banks were looking at problems if the homeower kept up the second mortgage. And BECU credit union has always been good to me so I have no reason not to pay them. When I saw this caused problems for the fraudclosures to steal the house I realized there were two reasons to keep paying it. So I have.The fraudclosures are only debt collectors and the second really has first place, due to the fraud by the originators and the crimes of these banksters. However BECU did electronically file the mortgage with MERS so there is clouded title twice in the last two BECU equity consolidation loans. .I am throwing every stone I can to block these criminals. I believe in paying my bills also, but not to criminals whom are terrorist. BECU has always been a good bank, and this Long Beach/WAMU was a real mistake to go to. I should never have strayed away from BECU. Turned out to be the loan from hell.

  62. I stated to look into the state your in cause I know laws vary from state to state.

  63. Ian, I am an internal optimist also and a fighter to the end. Thanks for the input and I will check into all this. I have been obsessed with stopping this crime and helping others fight this as well. We all need to be aware of the battle we are in to not give up and to be prepared to fight and not believe a corrupt judge to go onto the Appeals courts and file fraud upon the court as many times as we have to until justice is done. We are way farther ahead these days than even a year ago. We are winning the battle. I would like to see massive complaints filed in the state bars and in court against any and all judges warring against the U.S.Constitution and not allowing the judges to get away with this crime either. Perhaps if there is a huge wave of complaints on judges something good will come of it and an appeals court or U.S. Supreme court judge will do something about this crime against us. Where there is a will there is a way! Good luck and God Bless everyone fighting this. Dont give up! Found out you can file for a new trial right away in the state or federal court, due to fraud upon the court and ask for a jury trial due to the judge is impartial and mostlikely will not reconsider their judgment so a jury trial is demanded. I am not an attorney so check this out. Then if you or an attorney you hired did not get all the evidence necessary in the first case it can be filed then in the new trial.

  64. Carie I did the same in King county records and they have removed all my posting and evidence I filed in county records as I said. They have not foreclosed on me and I am still in the Appeals court with them. iI did not wait for foreclosure. I ran to two attorneys and more for help then filed Propria persona after no answer from the servicer or lender to the FDCPA letter I also filed in King County register. I will let you know if I hear back from the county records department. In non judiicial states we have the right to post on publlic record and I have paid them for the post and they were posted.

  65. @enraged re: securitization reports – i’ve been saying that for a long time. many of the products sold here and elsewhere are well and good for background information, but simply aren’t admissible in court. and if it’s not admissible in court, how’s it any different from the people scamming homeowners out of money for “rescue” schemes?

  66. @carie re: the HELOC and your letter saying they were unsecured. it’s just as likely that they looked at the economics of the situation and didn’t want to pay off the 1st mortgage and THAT’S why they didn’t foreclose, not your letter to them. sorry to be a pessimist, but that’s reality

  67. Enraged, dont you think proving the securities fraud and whistleblowing on these guys would help put the bankes in jail and help the homeowners in the end. I dont agree the borrower has no right to prove securities fraud. If the loan was paid of multiple times and is paid off in an insurance default swap, then the homeowner has no debt. NO? Even if it is not allowed in court. Then you have the recent case I just posted below that said the securities pool PSA is allowed in court. Also if the PSA is void the whole contract is void. i dont argee with any bank argument otherwise. But I do not like a five thousand dollar fee for homeownes already hurting. Something reasonable like five hundred not five thousand. I paid two thousand for my FDCPA letter to one attorney whom recommended me to Melissa Huelsman after. Now find it free on Neil Garfields web site. I was thinking of doing a drive like a new paper drive but a securitization fraud drive and sending all the proof to whistile blowers in all the borrowers names to see if they all get share whistleblowing money. attorneys must get paid, but five thousand dollars seems overboard. If you win your case it is cheap. Still to much for hurting people. I would like to just take the banks down even if it is not accepted as whistleblowing evidence. I dont see why not when robo signing proof is. A fifty trillion dollar heist in credit default swaps using fraud PSA loans would be enough for all names entered into the whistle blowing exibits. Robo signing was treated as if it were nothing but it is or Lynn would not have been paid 18 million. I would like to see everyone that puts there loan into a pool of whistleblowing on securities fraud get a tenth of fifty trillion and help others like the militiary Lynn has plead to help. I would like to see a big drive to send proof of our loans in multiple trust and sold in default credit swaps. Satisfiing all the notes. Meaning the homeowner owes nothing. The banks are to used to making money out of thin air and making the people suffer. It is time to put these banks in there place. there has got to be a reasonable way at a reasonalbe cost to do this.

  68. @Shelley regarding property taxes – it is different from state to state. Misinformation is more dangerous than lack of information…

  69. JennInGa!- if your original lender just filed Ch11, then they were merely an originator, or broker. Lenders (Banks) don’t go Ch11, they go into FDIC receivership. So you got a table funded loan. When your original lender’s Ch11 gets underway, study the filings to see if the trustee approved of the sale/transfer of mortgages/notes/servicing rights to HSBC. If not, then this is a fraudulent conveyance. Write a detailed letter to the bankruptcy trustee explaining your concerns. If this was done the day before bankruptcy was declared, it doesn’t pass the smell test.

  70. To Ian,
    Thanks for reading my post – I may have mixed you up by what I typed- so sorry! My “Original Lender” notified me that the servicing of my loan was being changed as of 6/08. The next month, (7/08) I got a loan mod offer from the “new mortgage servicer” and on the loan mod they listed “HSBC Bank as trustee for a trust ” as the lender on the loan mod – which is not the name of the original lender.
    The original lender then filed Ch 11 ~ 8/08.
    On 12/09 an assignment was filed for my property that stated “on this day -which was 12/17/09 by the way – MERS was assigning both note and deed to HSBC Bank as trustee for a trust.
    I am wondering how could a loan mod contract be valid when it is dated 16 months prior to the assignment of the loan and note to HSBC Bank. Wouldn’t the assignment that was filed prove that HSBC Bank as trustee was a “3rd party stranger” to my mortgage when the servicer offered me the loan mod???
    I ask because the loan mod changed/increased my interest rate from 5% to 6% and therefore I am thinking all of the calculations and amounts due reported by the servicer since the loan mod would possibly be incorrect and the amount they claim due for my loan wrong??? I questioned the servicing of this loan in a QWR to the latest servicer my loan transferred to on 11/11. I did not get a reply – I was told instead in their response letter I would get the loans detailed transaction history mailed to me under separate cover but that letter was dated 1/12 and nothing has ever arrived with the information. Still waiting and it is almost April!

  71. Speaking of taxes, It is coming on three years for property taxes and I am in fear the servicers are paying everyones property taxes and after proof of paying someones property taxes for three years they can claim they own the property. I have paid mine to be sure this does not happen. Dont let three years go by. There may be a dark secret that will harm you, by the servicers claiming I now legally own your property by paying three years taxes on it. That is a rule in Washington state. Dont know if it applies to other states, but is something to look at.

  72. I have sent a letter to the king county assessors office department of property records, to explain why my public records I have publically posted are now missing and why all the records recorded by BECU and WAMU/Long Beach are not available on the web to me alnd the public. I just sent it two days ago. I have copies with me with the certification seal or stamp at the top. I have proof they were there. Our deeds of register clerk told me she would not investigate any wrongdoing without Rob McKenna leading it. And our AG Rob McKenna was just exposed by David Krieger from Clouded Titles and then I plastered it all over the internet and face book, of having thousands in donations from foreclosure mills for his champaign for Governor. The crooked mayor of this town I am still trying to put in jail is rumored to be running also. Three days after I exposed him on face book and to everyone I could, Rob McKenna refunds the foreclosure mills donations claiming he had planned to and there was no coincidence and to give him credit for the refund. He has filed one case against RECONTRUST, WHEN at least seventeen banks should have been filed the same claims against and he has not be very public about the RECONTRUST case. I believe he knew BAC was replacing RECONTRUST anyway and he was only making the public think he was a good doer. BAC came in for the kill as RECONTRUST exited Washington State. A good act! But a dupe I believe. Rob McKenna however has filed an Amicas Curiea in support of The Bains case. Dont know if it is because he knew the settlement would undo anything on MERS or what, so he would look good doing a supporting brief. I have no trust in my Washington State nor my Washington DC represenatives. The Washington Senate has let us down so far also. One of the bills still hanging by a thread. I have hopes the Washington U.S. Supreme court case on MERS helps us and I am not disappointed by it also. From what I saw the judges should by all means judge MERS to be illegal in Washington state. However I have seen no justice in this state. So I am not holding my breath. I hate all the politics and the treason going on in our courts and government It is treason and terrorism at its height.

  73. JennInGa!- I just read your post again: “your new servicer changed the name of your original lender to the trustee for a Trust”.
    Just look at this sentence- Your original lender is still your original lender, and always will be. The holder of the mortgage/note may change, but this has to be documented and/or recorded. And if the holder has changed, you will find a trail of fraudulent documents.
    You took out your original loan with your original lender. That can never change.

  74. Shelley A. Erickson- I am an eternal optimist, and I would or will produce all the fraudulent documents in the chain of title, and chain of mortgage/note ownership (purported) going back to purchase in 98. One of my “Satisfaction of Mortgage” was attested to, and signed by, Scott Anderson. I could never find out if he exists as a human being, he never showed up in Judge Schack’s courtroom with proof of employment via W2s or 1099s, so I can only guess that previous “mortgages” weren’t really satisfied, or weren’t really mortgages, which is why I latched onto ANONYMOUS’ explanation that subprime refinances were not mortgages, just flipping of illegal false default debt, unsecured. Between that, mysterious allonges, from one defunct entity to another defunct entity, suspicious powers of attorney, I will be damned if a judge isn’t going to listen to me. That is all I can think.
    Shelley, you can sue the county recorder for aiding and abetting false recordings, or, get your ducks in a row, find just 10 cases whereby the credit bid at f/c auction was made by a non-creditor, and they owe the transfer tax to your financially strapped county, plus they committed fraud and are subject to fines, penalties, and imprisonment for defrauding the public. Go after them. It seems like you are really on top of things, these are just suggestions. When it comes my turn, I may sing a different tune, but going forward I can just be extremely positive, have my evidence in perfect order, along with numerous case cites with pertinent excerpts, and forge ahead. Don’t know if this helps, but perhaps find something in it.



    MBS Discovery Battles Heating Up, Impacting Litigation Timelines and Leverage

    Posted: 28 Mar 2012 12:22 AM PDT

    If litigation is war, then discovery is the hand-to-hand combat that takes place in the trenches, costing plenty and potentially having a major impact on the outcome of the war in the aggregate. With most of the major MBS litigation … Continue reading →

  76. Re. Chase/WAMU—I had a HELOC of $74,000 with them…couldn’t pay it….they threatened foreclosure…I said (in writing); “You don’t own the loan—you are a debt collector of unsecured debt and you are in violation of FDCPA by threatening foreclosure—so BACK OFF!” …and they did.
    We should be able to do the same thing with the FAKE mortgages that the servicers are threatening foreclosure with…but we can’t…

  77. Yes—PSA’s are invalid—along with everything else—yet no let up in sight of foreclosures…

  78. Ian, what is the excuse for the judges that dont read the fraud docs and ignore the proof and do SMJ without discovery. Just one FDCPA doc that was not answered ever should have been enough to win myt case and it was disregarded. The judges dont even read or care what proof the homeowner gives them. The statistice prove this and the reversals in the Appeals court prove it. The evidence was there and ignored. I asked the judge in a city case I have against the city of Auburn mayor and city employees if she read my case in full. She told me she only read it partially and gave it to her ballif to finish reading for her and she was not going to bother looking through my exhibits. Then she tampered with and changed the audio to state ” I have read your brief in full and even measured it with a tape measure”. I have a witness that was in the room testifing for me and the judge told me she would not consider her testimony. The witness had served the summons and complaint on October 9, 2006 but the defendants had made false claims they were not served before December 29, m2006 timebarring me, when they were timebarred and had not answered within their sixty days and were timebarred from their defense. Committing fraud upon the court. Long story wont go into all of it. Documented with facts and faxed paperwork and filed served summons and complaints the judge allowed lifted from court. Total disgrace to the judicial system.

  79. If anyone here has a WAMU loan, and Deutsche bank and Chase going after them, the case law from Deutsche Bank Nati’l Trust V FDIC/Chase/WAMU states Chase did not assume the loan, but only the servicing rights. The order to this case came in and is on the web, that Chase and Deutsche Bank have no claim of ownership to the mortgage from WAMU. The PSA’s were not transferred in time and are faulty is what Deutsche Bank claimed. the assumption did not take place until sometime in October due to an extension. My PSA is in blank and proven to be invalid, by an audit I had on it. Right from the start on an March 03, 2006 loa, that was not transferred supposedl to Deutsche Bank until October 2008. Deutsche Bank claims in their own words by their lawyers hands the PSA’s from WAMU were not transfered in time and are in default and void. And are asking for funds from the FDIC and Chase. Chase is claiming we did not assume the loan only the servicing rights so we (chase ) are not the party to be suiing. The judge agreed the PSA’s are invalid. Voids the mortgage note and the contract. You can find all this case law on the web. Deutsche bank and Chase claim to be debt collectors right on the docs. When the Phil Ting report claims 100% of the PSA’s(securities agreements) are invalid, you know they are the same in every county, in every state. 84% of the Assignments are invalid in his group of docs used to decide how many assignments were invalid and Essex county found 74 % of the assignments invalid. I dont know or remember if essex looked at the PSA’s. Phil Tings in SanFrancisco are telling. The fraud reports for HUD and OIG are telling also and so is the USA Complaint by 50 AG’s v seventeen banks, telling. The deadly clear article “The Remics have failed The remicks have failed-deadly clear and the Oppenheim report within the remicks have failed all support the PSA’s are invalid and securities fraud. Read the “Wall street and the Financial Crisis; anatomy of a financial Collasp” report. Documents evidence of securities fraud and intended ponzie schemes, intended defaults for credit swaps and insider trading for profit and greed. The only reason these creeps are not in jail is we have a bank controlled government and are not a government controlled by the people for the people, under the rule of law, but bank law. We are victims of treason and terrorism, including by the judges allowing and enabling this in our judicial system. .

  80. JennInGa!- your loan mod is, unfortunately,whatever they say it is. If you have letters, forms, dated and signed, you may have a case.
    The overriding concern here is that, if your loan is in default, it cannot be “transferred” into ANY trust, as that voids the PSA and REMIC provisions. The loan had to be in the trust by the cutoff date, or in some instances, no more than 30-90 days after the cutoff date.
    Since this transfer into a new trust is bogus, you will have fake attestations, invalid notary, and an out-of-business entity either being the assignee or the assignor. Check out what’s filed in your county courthouse for a start. Good luck-

  81. Question (off topic).
    The servicing of my loan was transferred to a new mortgage servicer in 2008. The loan was in default at this time(so they would be considered a creditor)?
    Immediately, (2008) the new servicer offered a loan mod in which they changed the name of my original lender – to a trustee for a trust.
    An assignment which is filed for my property shows MERS transferred my note and deed to the very same trust (listed on the 2008 LOAN MOD) on 12/09.

    So my question: Can the loan mod from 2008 be valid (having a different lender listed on it instead of my original lender) if my loan was not “assigned” into the trustee/ trust until 12/2009?

    This would really make a mess of the accounting of my payments since 2008 and the amount due.

  82. @enraged
    here in New York it doesn’t matter what you bring to court if you have a corrupt Judge like Alice Schlesinger of NYSC that doesn’t uphold her oath to protect the Constitution and doesn’t care what the facts, the dates or the law says.

    Even after Astoria Federal S & L admitted they never owned by two nyc condos when their previous debt collector attorneys auctioned them off and the Title companies are stepping in to Indemnify Indemnify Indemnify, I find myself still fighting against corrupt Fidelity Title and a scam title company called Coronet because their attorneys Frank Malone and David K Fiveson paid a bribe to Judge Schlesinger and she claimed it wouldn’t be right to oust their clients with forged deeds.

    The 1st department NYC appellate judges I had David Saxe, David Friedman, Karla Moskowitz, Helen Freedman, and Rosalyn Richter rather protect Judge Schlesinger and wrote a scathing opinion accusing
    me a pro se , of abusing the court system when in reality it was the Court that abused me.

    These two NYC condos are mine and eventually the whole country will wake up that not all judges have the smarts and the ethics of a Judge Schack.

    God Bless Judge Schack. There is hope.

  83. @Ian,

    And a MUST hear. I would advise you to listen to Ed Pinto today as well. Terrifying!!!!!!!!!!!!

  84. Here is an article written by Matt Weidner on the uselessness of costly securitization reports. I have nothing personally against people like Nancy Drewe (who seem to be making a ton of money on the back of homeowners about to be or already in foreclosure.) However, those blood suckers do nothing more than add serious insult to grave injury. The charge an average of $5,000 for a report THAT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN COURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I don’t begrudge anyone wanting to understand the many problems with his mortgage loan: knowledge is power after all. Where I have serious difficulty is when they are conned into believing that the report will help them save their house. I have no problem with Anonymous and his theories. it gives us something to think about. At least, Anon does not make a KILLING sucking up all life out of homeowners. he GIVES whatever info and it’s up to us to take it or leave it. Nancy Drewe SELLS it! That’s bad.

    Securitization Audits, REST Reports, Loan Audits, MERS Reports, Consultants…COME PROVE YOURSELVES.
    March 28th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    I have been very critical of any party or company who offers advice to consumers about how their loan was or was not securitized and who provides any suggestion that such information can be used in a court case.

    I have stated that if the person or company cannot be qualified as an expert in a court of law, then the information has little or no value, no matter how pretty or official looking the report is, no matter how long it is, no matter what the website or consultant or “expert” says.

    I see and hear examples every single day of consumers being charged thousands of dollars for such things and being promised all manner of results.

    In many states, selling such information is a violation of consumer protection laws. Selling any such information or making any such representations to consumers in Florida is absolutely a violation of state law. Here are relevant portions of Florida law:

    “Foreclosure-rescue consultant” means a person who directly or indirectly makes a solicitation, representation, or offer to a homeowner to provide or perform, in return for payment of money or other valuable consideration, foreclosure-related rescue services.

    (c) “Foreclosure-related rescue services” means any good or service related to, or promising assistance in connection with:

    1. Stopping, avoiding, or delaying foreclosure proceedings concerning residential real property; or
    2. Curing or otherwise addressing a default or failure to timely pay with respect to a residential mortgage loan obligation.

    (d) “Foreclosure-rescue transaction” means a transaction:

    1. By which residential real property in foreclosure is conveyed to an equity purchaser and the homeowner maintains a legal or equitable interest in the residential real property conveyed, including, without limitation, a lease option interest, an option to acquire the property, an interest as beneficiary or trustee to a land trust, or other interest in the property conveyed; and
    2. That is designed or intended by the parties to stop, avoid, or delay foreclosure proceedings against a homeowner’s residential real property.
    VIOLATIONS.—A person who violates any provision of this section commits an unfair and deceptive trade practice as defined in part II of this chapter. Violators are subject to the penalties and remedies provided in part II of this chapter, including a monetary penalty not to exceed $15,000 per violation.
    Now, I want three things.
    1) A lively and frank debate on this issue;
    2) Someone argue that loan audits are not violating this law; and
    3) Proof from any company or person that has been qualified as an expert in any court, including a deposition transcript.
    Don’t get me wrong, I think there are many, many problems with these loans and I might even agree with some of the facts and “expert” opinions in the material, but I want to see someone using it in court…..

  85. Enraged- it was Atty Cox who unearthed the Jeffrey Stephan (GMAC) robosigning (perjury) information. He (Cox) is an atty in Maine. He was on the other side of the table for his career, as a bank attorney. Mandelman’s podcast with him is nuts-and-bolts commonsense info.


    If you thought our economy isn’t doing well, listen to Ed Pinto in his Mandelman interview. Next bailout: FHA. Leverage at 840 to 1. FHA has continued for the past 3 years making extremely risky loans.

    We have only seen a speck of that monumental insanity. Wait until it hits us all.

  87. @Chris,

    If you have a chance, listen to Attorney Ed Cox (ME) interview by Mandelmn (Mandelman Matters). Ed is an older attorney who came out of retirement a couple of years ago to help homeowners in his neck of the woods. he explains that MERS as we currently know it is, in fact, a 2nd generation. It is MERS II.

    Per Cox, there was a 3rd MERS in the works (MERS III) with the feds’ blessing and he was adamant that MERS is there to stay under one form or another: it has to do with the “no paper” civilization Obama has been pushing all along. Now, if you liten to even the recorders who have fild or are contemplating filing (Ting, Thigpen, O’Brien, etc.), there is a recurrent theme in what they all say: “The country’s recording system is “antiquated” and “obsolete”.

    What that tells me is that we’re in the e-recording all the way to our elbows and that the exiting records will not be corrected unless we really, really violently push for it. And even then, if it is left to the banks, like everything else, it will be half-assed and this is one more area of our economy that will be left to their control. We are headed for absolute disaster in my views, with banks gaining absolute control over our entire economy and the feds officially working for them.

    CoreLogic is only the accounting aspect of that e-mortgage recording system. I still don’t have a good handle on it but I sure as hell am not happy about it.

  88. @ Enraged

    I’ll just bet the MERS replacement will be Core Logic? Do you know they have given the names and addresses of people, only in default to some site attached to Yahoo and have the peoples homes listed online for public viewing? I am very offended and pissed over this…It just ain’t right, to have people driving by your place when there has been no foreclosure. Just my opinion, as always.

  89. @ Shelly

    I would be filing against the clerk of courts. These files are public, period! Now they are missing?

    On the face it looks like the deed office is in bed with the perpetrators. Just so you know, this is going on everywhere. Not just the deed offices, the tax offices are playing too. I threatened one the other day with litigation, pumping up the values and actually lying about what’s due. Keep one eye opened always!

  90. hman, I have viewed a lot of friends and family and my own docs and they have all been transferred once the servicer claimed alleged default. My sons was transferred FROM MERS by robo signer G. Hernadez to RECONTRUST, then he made ten modification payments before RECONTRUST refused the eleveeh payment then fore some odd reason RECONTRUST MADE A SECOND ASSIGNMENT TO ITSELF PER MERS TO RECONTRUST, looks like they forgot they had already done the first transfer. All after the default had happened. My son did get behind and his mod was to make double payments for elveen months. He found extra work and made ten of them before they refused the eleventh payment and foreclosed on him. They have put off the sale over and over and have know withdrawn the foreclosure and the threat of sale at auction and have taken alll the MERS affidavits and RECONTRUST affidavits off the county recors. Then filed an assignment to BAC, which he objected too. They the lawyers asked for his approval to allow the lawyers to claim Countrywide is the entity they represent during the end of the Appeal. WOW! He objected to it. He did the FDCPA letter also. And was never answered. My mortgage was transferred once the servicer claimed default by mod fraud. My loan is not a MERS loan, unless they hid the assignments by MERS before I checked out the county files. However MERS was used twice by BECU years before on equity loans I took out for moving and enlarging my business. I am pretty sure MERS had something to do with my loan, but the docs were hidden before I was wise to the robo signing. My loan was a WAMU/Long Beach Loan and securitized immediately. What chance would there be it was not done through MERS? My son has the copies of the MERS docs and RECONTRUST assignments that have been removed and withdrawn already as evidence in the courts. Now my docs are sealed from the public and the ones I filed to record on public record like the FDCPA letter have been removed. I have a letter to the deed of records asking to inform me why my records ahve been removed and why my records are not public now.

  91. Amazing. Bankers’ wages are inversely proportional to the bank earnings. Only in America… and just for the time being. Hopefully, all the stocks will be wiped out when the bank collapses. Then, Moynihan et al. will find themselves pretty destitute…

    If you don’t fight to keep your house with that kind of news, you don’t deserve to have one.

    March 28, 2012, 3:28 pm Investment Banking | Financial Services
    Bank of America Chief’s Pay Jumps to $8.1 Million

    Simon Dawson/Bloomberg News
    Brian T. Moynihan, chief executive of Bank of America.Brian T. Moynihan, chief executive of Bank of America, earned $8.1 million in 2011, a sharp increase from the $1.9 million payout he received in 2010.

    Last year was a turbulent transition for the bank, the second-largest in the United States after JPMorgan Chase, with Bank of America shares dropping below the psychologically important $5 level at one point. During his second year leading the bank, Mr. Moynihan aggressively sold off noncore assets and built up capital levels. Investors have rewarded the strategy more recently, with the stock up sharply in 2012, currently trading at just under $10 a share.

    Mr. Moynihan was not the highest paid executive cited in a proxy filing from the bank on Wednesday. Tom Montag, co-chief operating officer of the company and the head of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, earned more than $14 million. Bruce Thompson, the chief financial officer and a close ally of Mr. Moynihan’s, made more than $11 million.

    Most of Mr. Moynihan’s pay — $6.1 million — was in the form of stock grants that vest only if the company meets performance yardsticks over the next three years. Another $950,000 comes in the form of cash compensation, in addition to $420,524 in other pay, including for flights on company aircraft. In addition, $604,698 in pay stemmed from an increase in the value of pension assets.

    According to Bank of America’s board, which calculates pay in terms of the year the incentive stock is earned rather than when the award itself is made, like the Securities and Exchange Commission does, Mr. Moynihan’s pay actually dropped 30 percent in 2011, to $7 million.

    Bank of America shares have rallied partly on optimism about the outlook for the United States economy, as well as in the wake of the bank’s passing the recently completed stress tests ordered by the Federal Reserve. Unlike other competitors, like Citigroup, Bank of America did not try to raise its dividend or buyback stock, preferring to retain capital as part of Mr. Moynihan’s call to build a “fortress balance sheet.”

  92. Yves Smith post Lynn Szymoniak’s pleadings in her article. Here are her comments.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2012
    Foreclosure Fraud 101: A Step-By-Step Look at One of the Most Common Fixes for Securitization Fail

    We’ve written from time to time that the train wreck in foreclosure-related procedures is the direct result of widespread, possibly pervasive failure to convey borrower IOUs (notes) to securitization trusts as stipulated in the governing documents (the pooling & servicing agreement). Because key actions had to be taken by dates long past, and the contracts that governed these deals are rigid, there isn’t a permissible way to get notes that weren’t conveyed properly to trusts on time there now. So the fix has been document fabrication and forgeries. We thought we’d provide a specific example for reader edification.

    One thing that foreclosure defense attorneys have seen as a huge red flag of servicer chicanery is the use of allonges. An allonge is a separate piece of paper used for endorsements that is required by the Uniform Commercial Code to be “affixed” to the note and used for endorsements when there is no more space left on the note for signatures. Allonges were pretty much never seen until the robosigning scandal, since all the space on a note (meaning the back and the margins) can be used for endorsements. But they have a funny way of showing up out of nowhere and solving all the problems with a particular foreclosure. Of course, if an allonge really was “affixed,” it shouldn’t be possible for it to materialize out of nowhere.

    So readers can see how this looks up close, I’m attaching this pleading from Lynn Szymoniak (the foreclosure fraud investigator who appeared on 60 Minutes and later received $18 million in settling a qui tam case as part of the national foreclosure settlement). Lynn in still embroiled in an an ongoing foreclosure fight and a major bone of contention is whether the party trying to foreclose has standing.

    I suggest you read this filing in full; it’s pretty comprehensible on its own. For newbies to this sort of thing, one thing that is it important to understand is that all the documents pertaining to a specific mortgage (the note, the mortgage, which is the lien on the property, title insurance, etc) go in a single file called a collateral file. It is supposed to be with the trustee or a custodian hired by the trustee, unless it has been sent out for a specific purpose. The documents in a collateral file are put in in a particular order (generally chronological) and are supposed to remain in that order.

    Notice also that Szymoniak’s argument about mishandling or worse of her files rests on extensive photographic evidence. Borrowers fighting banks take note.

    Szymoniak Objection to Continued Use of Original Clerk Documents 3.27.12

    The efforts to tidy up the files are so amateurish that it seems clear that the law firm never expected to be challenged. Crudely renumbering pages? New holes appearing in the magically appearing allonge (after the note miraculously ceased being lost and materialized) when it was in the custody of the law firm to make it look as if it had been stapled to the note. And Lynn adds this by e-mail:

    It is even worse in my case because the allonge served on me in December 2009 is different from the allonge in the court file.

    The Allonge served in Dec. 2009 had a book and page number as if it had been filed in the county records – but it turned out that had been cut from the top of my mortgage and pasted on the allonge.

    That occurred when the first firm – Marshall Watson – was representing Deutsche Bank.

    I think this document altering is much more frequent that homeowners and their lawyers realize.

    This is the sort of thing the mortgage settlement is trying to cover up. But nothing in the settlement addressed the underlying failure to convey the notes properly to securitization trusts (and a special servicer last week told me she sees serious title problems in whole loans too). So the servicers are guaranteed to continue to engage in fraud in order to foreclose. There assumption now seems to be that with the authorities having cast their lots with the banks, no one will call these abuses out.

  93. Chase 404, the FDCPA is in regard to debt collectors and the CPA is is important also. The first letter I sent was through attorney Sarah Small point Dejorn out of Tacoma, WA, was this letter. It is important. Yes the judge in district court here in Washington ignored all my evidence and claims. Does not mean the evidence is not important. We need to keep the pressure on and have these docs ready for the right judge in the right courts. And keep demanding justice. Fraud upon the court is timeless due to how bad the crime is and it can be filed over and over with no statutes of limitations until we feel justice is done.

  94. Carie, try callilng Phil Ting at the Kings County Register of Deeds. He is fighting this injustice and may have someone whom will help you. He has stated he will help anyone in his county that comes in to prove the invalid assignment. Officials in California are calling for a moritorium on foreclosures. Due to the California Compliance Crisis Report and the Phil Ting report, stating that 84% of the assignments tested in Kings County are invalid and 100% of the securities pools (PSA’s ) are invalid. Sounds to me like the state of California is turning to help the homeowners. Phil Ting states he fears thousands of Californians have been unlawfully foreclosed on. Look up Video of Phil Ting report Kings County San Francisco : look on the web for

    Contra Costa TimesVideo Press Release | Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting Uncovers …
    San Francisco, CA– Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting in partnership … Guilford County Register of Deeds Jeff … Responses to “Video Press Release | Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting …

    California officials are calling for a moritorium on foreclosures. I wish Washington state deeds of registers would help and our officials call for a moritorium.

  95. Ian sums it up perfectly, they are none of the above, only unlawful debt collectors attempting to collect an uncollectable alleged cover up their crimes These creeps are trying to regain the housing market by fraud. You can not produce lawful assignments out of fraud assignments and you can not produce the real notes that have been destroyed. They have already taken and transferred the wealth at all cost and benefit to themselves. Now the want the most valuable of all values, the property. The government is giving them a second chance to defraud and come back fighting under a different fraud party with reproduced fraud paperwork. Hoping the front line will give up in despair and wont have enough money to continue the fight or enough strength to go on. We must continue to fight this battle with every tool we have and not give up. This is a battle of more than property ownership which is a pretty important itself. Our roots and our wealth not trivial at all, but it is America and the future of our next generations to come. I will use every last breath I take to fight these devils advocates.

  96. Carie is on right on —keep going!

    The FDCPA doesn’t matter in California…Correct , Judge knows this . Why?

    None of the laws do…Excellent repsponse, correct …why ?

    the servicers and foreclosure mill debt collectors just make up lies to push the house stealing through—Correct again , because the y can …Why?

    I cited FDCPA and they said (in writing) that MERS was my original lender/creditor… and they ARE, DON’T FIGHT IT….HINT LOSE THE WORD “MY”

    and an MBS Trustee was my current lender/creditor—YES TRUE – WHY ANSWER THE QUESTION WHY ?

    THAT is the TOTAL BULLSH** they get away with using to foreclose.
    They can say and do WHATEVER THEY WANT.

    Look, they can say whatever they want and its not illegal if you beleive it. There is a doctrine of law that addresses confusion and ambiguous language in material documents.

    What your seeing is not what your getting and we are our own worse enemies. Slow down and think. No QWR, No Modifications and No Mers Attacks. (Clue —lost note, divestiture of assets and liabilities….Mortgage Electronic Registrations…)

  97. The FDCPA doesn’t matter in California…none of the laws do…the servicers and foreclosure mill debt collectors just make up lies to push the house stealing through—I cited FDCPA and they said (in writing) that MERS was my original lender/creditor and an MBS Trustee was my current lender/creditor—THAT is the TOTAL BULLSH** they get away with using to foreclose.
    They can say and do WHATEVER THEY WANT.

  98. Shelley, I like the way you are thinking on this FDCPA. I had looked into but then set it aside.

    I stopped paying I think Oct 1 and they recorded MERS/Originator to WFargo Nov 11th pretty quickly.

    Need to check into it.

  99. On 4closure fraud, there is an extremely important article about MERS on the brinks of brankruptcy and how MERS replacement already exists to take over management of the 30 millions mortages in its names.

    Livinglies will not allow me to post the link but it is on today’s page.

  100. Shelley A. Erikson

    Here’s a good link that clearly explains when a loan servicer is considered a “debt collector” under the FDCPA.

    Anyway, the main thing I got from it was that a loan servicer is considered a debt collector IF THE LOAN WAS ASSIGNED WHEN IT WAS IN DEFAULT. I think that the majority of people’s loans aren’t transfered out of MERs name until you are in default. That is what happened to me. It goes strait from the originator to the servicer so it can give the appearance of ownership.

    So why not sue them for destroying your credit in small claims? I think we have a decent shot at winning. I know the violations are small but the cost to sue in small claims is very small.

    Would a win a small claims prove useful in state,federal or bankruptcy court? Idk but I believe that a win from Small claims would be a self authenticating document and be admissible in court. I don’t think they could object to a document with a state seal on it. So I think it would be a blemish at least to the loan servicers creditability when you go to a higher court?

    Just me thoughts not giving any legal advice.

  101. From Naked Capitalism today. Folks, between what Sheila Blair said and what the Texas Feds are claiming, there is progress. I firmly believe that Obama, in his naiveness and incompetent goodwill, was completely misguided and is dangerous. Not because he is “evil” or any such thing but because where inaction might have sped up the American revolution against banks, his half-assed actions served only to further comfort banks in their knowledge that nothing bad would happen to them and delay what has become inevitable. The ways to hell are paved with good intentions. Obama has been paving away since January 2009. He has to be stopped.

    I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I believe, however, that we would be better off electing a Romney or a Gingrich, both the embodiment of hard and pure greed. Withing a few weeks, anger in this country will reach such a level that we will, indeed, have our fireworks. We can’t sit and wait to see what Obama will do next and how much more detrimental it will be for homeowners. We have no illusions about Romney and Gingrich (or Santorum, for that matter): we know where we stand. We bear absolutely no relevance for either one and they couldn’t care less about us. Under such circumstances, there is no reason not to revolt.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2012
    Sheila Bair Told Administration Its Housing Programs Would Bomb, Was Rebuffed on Better Solutions

    No wonder Geithner and the other financial regulators complained about Sheila Bair not being a team player. If you want to do what is expedient and you are confronted with someone who cares about fixing the problem, then yes, they aren’t on your side. And bully for them.

    Bair, in an interview in the National Journal (hat tip Amanda F), describes how it was clear even before it was launched that the embarrassingly bad HAMP program wouldn’t work (HAMP not only fell well short of its goals but was a cesspool of consumer abuses, with many participants losing their homes after being incorrectly told they had to be delinquent to be considered and to ignore the notices they received as their foreclosures moved ahead). This is a big deal. It’s one thing for outsiders to have said the incentives for servicers were too small to get them to play ball; quite another for a senior banking regulator with experience on that beat to see that as a big problem in advance. From the interview:

    NJ: You have been critical of the administration’s efforts to address the housing crisis. What’s wrong with its approach?

    Bair: They had academics and theoretical economists designing it who may have been well-intentioned, but didn’t have any practical understanding of the market or servicers or operationally what would make sense. Everything the administration has done has only helped at the margin. The timidity and incrementalism have been real problems. They just don’t want to spend money on it. They are conflicted.

    NJ: You warned against the incentives for industry that the administration created around the Home Affordable Modification Program, which provides payments to lenders and investors over time for successfully modified loans. Why?

    Bair: You get what you pay for. Trying to do this on the cheap just didn’t work and the complexity of the program, if anything just compounded the problem. The bottom line is the financial incentives were not enough. The program was too complicated and the sense of urgency we saw, and I think that frankly the president saw, I don’t think translated into a program that could be operationalized. They were relying on a voluntary program with weak economic incentives and the big servicers were not putting the resources that were needed into these big servicing operations…

    It was just frustrating to us because the FDIC had all these people from the savings and loan [crisis] days. We had a lot of people who understand securitization. We had a lot of people who understand loan restructuring. We deal with troubled assets day in and day out. What we saw from IndyMac mainly really gave us the frontline view. We knew the problems with these servicers and what they were capable of and what they weren’t capable of. We talked to our economists and we had a good analysis and I think we had a program that promised to work. We could never get our hands on it and it was very frustrating to me. We were one voice of many and frequently not the voice they listened to.

    The Administration refused to consider bolder ideas because they believed you couldn’t design mods that would get low redefault rates (this after Wilbur Ross was getting good results on a pretty drecky portfolio he bought, and Judge Annette Rizzo in Philadelphia has redefault rates of only 15% after 18 months for borrowers in the program she runs in her courtroom, which is in a lower income area). But the Administration is apparently so convinced that borrowers are deadbeats that it refused to believe that a mortgage mod program could be designed so as to be pretty effective. Again from the interview:

    NJ: Tell us about the insurance-redefault subsidy proposal that the FDIC developed which you suggested to Obama’s advisers in late 2008 and early 2009. You said the idea was to encourage servicers to modify delinquent loans by providing insurance against some of the losses if the mortgage later went into foreclosure. Why this approach?

    Bair: Economic incentives were skewed because of securitization. The incentives worked in favor of foreclosures, even when loan mods would have preserved greater economic value. Normal market incentives were not working to mitigate losses because those servicing the loans did not own the loans and the investors themselves were conflicted. The rush to foreclosure, which we saw in 2008 and on, was against the public interest — that is what we were trying to fix with our insurance-redefault program. We were trying to counter that by putting some real money on the table.

    NJ: You said the FDIC predicted from the beginning of 2009 through mid-2010 that 3.2 million borrowers would qualify for modifications and about one-third would redefault, leaving about 2.1 million permanent modifications over that time period at a cost of about $38 billion. What was the administration’s reaction?

    Bair: It was going to cost real money to counter these incentives and they just didn’t want to spend it. At the end of the day that is what the problem has been and to a large extent what the problem still is. They thought it was too expensive. They said we were paying for failure instead of paying for success. They insisted that the redefault rates were going to be high, even though we had data showing them that redefault rates were going to be about a third.

    This is the Obama approach to middle class interests in a nutshell. Opt for initiatives that are clearly going to fail over ones that have good odds of success but cost real money. Obama seems to be getting his wish of being a transformative president. Everything he touches turns to dross.

  102. The KEY ! DEBT COLLECTORS! SERVICING RIGHTS! The servicers, debt collector do not claim to be the owners of the debt. On any document they send to the homeowner to foreclose on, Only we are a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. They tell the truth untill they go to court. Then they file false claims by fraud affidavits. They are debt collectors attempting to collect an uncollectable charged off item. They are to con you to steal your house for free to bring to their master. Freddie and Fannie! Read Shawn Newmans article “Freddie and Fannie the shell game WebImagesVideosMore201,000 resultsGUEST POST: Welcome to Freddie and Fannie’s Mortgage Shell Game …
    That’s Shawn appearing before the Washington State Supreme Court. Welcome to Freddie and Fannie’s Mortgage Shell Game. By Shawn Timothy Newman, J.D.…

    Freddie and Fannie know the notes are destroyed and dont want notes and tell the servicers not to claim they own the mortgage. This policy keeps Freddie and Fannie from securities fraud and tax evasion, and any claims of liability when the servicers use their cn games to claim they own the note, when the servicers do their con games as debt collectors to get free houses for freddie and fannie. The FDIC played it safe and issued assumption rights for servicing only, cause their were no notes to sell. Read the book Kevin Trudeau Debt cures and you will know how the debt collection business is a scam also and why when the debt is discharged off, the debt collectors come in and con the borrower into believeing the borrower still owes the debt that is no longer collectable unless you believe their scam and pay it or admit to a debt you do not owe.

    The judges that are enabling this crime should be held responsible just like the banksters for suicides deaths and health related deaths as well as the bankster crooks. The judges enabling this and committing treason on our country and our judicial system need to be stopped and held accountable. Corrupt judges are a hugh part of this. Thank God above we have some good judges and attorneys fighting for American or we would be desperately hoplessly loosing this battle without a blood bath civil war. The panel on the http I just posted and occupy groups and bloggers and face book. The web media and web usuers., are all winning this battle.

  103. @Steve
    let me add the foreclosure judgments were void ab initio.

    Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574:
    Void judgment. One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a “void judgment” if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.

  104. Carie,

    Basically. They act like they’re doing one thing but really they’re doing nothing.

  105. @ Steve

    A void judgment as mine was, never acquires validity thru latches.

    Kalb v.Feversstein 1940 308 US 433 60 S .Ct (among others)

  106. Ian, I am with you, murder by fraudclosure should be prosecuted. The suicides and the heart failure, ill health, caused by these crooks calling this a victimless crime, should all be held accountable for their crimes. This is a video worht watching and shows the movement from many toward righting this wrong.

  107. To the rest of you wonderful people who post and teach me so much – thank you to all of you and Neil of course too!

  108. @Joann
    WOW – the case you mentioned on the 27th is awesome! I found and printed what you mentioned and also found online the original claim filed and the original reply too.
    I don’t have a scrib account and could not copy or print the original claim – if you have a link could you let me know? I really want to compare the elements in it with the elements in my case item by item since many are similar but I am in GA not CA!
    So glad you mentioned it – it gives me hope! THANKS!

  109. carie- in Clark County, Nevada in 2011 alone, there were 28 reported suicides, according to I-8 News. Now if we could get the court docs and the notice, we could see that the scumbuckets who causes the suicides had no right to foreclose, and therefore that would be 2nd degree murder, in my book. The same goes for all other suicides. I was going to write Nev AG Mastro about this, but after she signed the fraudclosure settlement, if she in fact has signed it, I lost interest.
    Murder by fraudclosure. Mandatory life sentence at hard labor with no chance for parole.

  110. Right on Steve! Pretty much sums it up to a T.

  111. @Steve

    Predictable, typical, and sad. Like I keep saying—we are in hell.

    Now they are criminalizing homelessness—they steal our homes, kick us out—so those with no income and no where to go have two choices—sleep in jail or commit suicide:

  112. marilyn,

    I also read saw that article. Here’s how it goes.

    “The key to stopping these kinds of scams is to immediately act on any suspicious activity. Initial steps a homeowner should take immediately include:”

    Oh, the key. Right.

    – Contact the County Recorder’s Office and let them know of the fraud.

    Response: Thanks, for bringing it to our attention.

    – Report the activity to local law enforcement. Many counties now have real estate fraud divisions within the office of the District Attorney.

    Response: Can’t help. I think your statutes have expired. This is a civil matter. Go find a lawyer.

    – Most recorded documents require a notarized signature and as such, a complaint should be filed with the California Secretary of State, Notary Public Section, if you suspect a forged signature on a notarized document.

    Response: Why? The notary didn’t forge the document. For myself, someone forged the notary signature.

    – Contact your title insurance company to determine if forged deeds are covered under your title insurance policy.

    Answer : They are covered but they wont return calls or reply after you show it to them.

    – File a complaint with the DRE if you suspect that a real estate broker or salesperson, or unlicensed person purporting to be a real estate licensee, is involved in the forging of any deed or fraudulent recording of a false, fictitious, or forged deed.

    Answer : We have a 3 year reporting fraud rule after the contracts origination. And a 1 year rule upon the fraud discovery. Somehow we are going to make sure one of those rules, for you, have expired.

    – Consult with a licensed and knowledgeable California attorney. Bogus deeds may be void or annulled.

    Answer : Can’t afford or still can’t find one.

    That was my experience.

  113. yes shelly, during the reign of stalin, they sent innocent people to the goulags- my mom used tell me she would send me there if i was bad (not that i was) but an “officer “would show up in the middle of the night take the man away under arrest and withouit due process he was accused of some trumped up charge and sent to a labor jail , reason was to develop rural areas cheaply, forced labor without due process,
    means justifed the ends by stalins rule.
    so here we are debt slavery to debt thats are paid in full, our names -our identity- value projected on what each of us is worth in dollar amount to these monsters who created this.


    Robert T. Nusser, 68-Year-Old Ohio Man Facing Eviction, Fatally Shoots Wife And Himself

    The Huffington Post | By Harry Bradford
    Posted: 03/28/2012

    Millions of Americans are at risk of losing their homes to the foreclosure crisis, and sadly some would rather face death than eviction.

    Robert T. Nusser, 68, of Athens, Ohio reportedly shot his wife Paulette, 64, then turned the gun on himself the day after authorities ordered that he vacate his home, The Columbus Dispatch reports. Nusser made a 911 call early Monday morning to report a murder-suicide at his home, adding “I’m the one that caused it” before hanging up. Police arrived at the scene to find a fatal gunshot wound in each of the Nussers and a suicide note by Robert explaining that he didn’t want to burden his family.

    Tragically, as the foreclosure crisis has hit millions of Americans, eviction-related suicides have become more common. Just this week, Andrew Wordes of Georgia reportedly lit his house on fire while still inside when police arrived to evict him. Nicknamed the “Chicken Man,” Wordes fell behind on his mortgage payments when he was jailed for property code violations related to the number of chickens he owned, the International Business Times reports.

    Also this week, Kelli Sly, a 23-year-old Iowa mother, killed her toddler son before crashing her car headlong into a bridge support, The Daily Mail reports. Sly reportedly faced imminent eviction from her apartment, but had also struggled with a history of depression and domestic abuse, according to friends and relatives.

    Others faced with the prospect of losing their homes have taken less self-destructive measures to avoid eviction. Civil rights activist Helen Bailey, 78, is now allowed to keep her home indefinitely thanks to a campaign led by Occupy Nashville and the Black Leadership Forum that brought national attention to her situation. Likewise, a terminally ill woman in Sacramento was granted permission by Bank of America to stay in her home last year when the bank’s attempts to evict her were picked up by a local newspaper, The Sacramento Bee.

    In one strange case, a suicide attempt in 2008 was actually responsible for saving one 90-year-old woman’s Akron, Ohio home from foreclosure. After surviving two self-inflicted gunshot wounds, her lender Fannie Mae decided to sign the property “outright” to her, CNN reports.

  115. E.Tolle- of course you are right, I apologize for making light of an illegal fraud foisted upon the American populace. I really feel that the judges deciding these cases simply don’t know this material. I personally don’t know any people who have spent thousands of hours and read 1000 cases to try to get a handle on what’s going on with this disaster. I am the only one among thousands here in my neck of the woods. Sort of bogged down with it all.

  116. @ ian, that’s not just “so much for corrective assignments”, it’s so much for any semblance of law. But that goes to the heart of the matter….why in the hell does anyone have to take time out of their lives to defend against such nonsense?

    Life’s way too short to have to spend countless months/years boarding up the windows against marauders and living like Alamo defenders, when TPTB laugh in their ivory towers as they count the loot. All with the good old USA’s government in 100% approval of the process.

    They should have the book thrown at them for pulling this crap! AGs settlement sure did help. It ORDAINED the criminality! REV 2.0.

    and btw, I too have assignments from the dead, to the dead.

  117. E.Tolle- re: ‘corrective assignments’- my last request on LL for additonal info produced nothing. While undergoing a manufactured default in 2007 via XXXX Servicer, my note was assigned to said servicer. We ‘cured’ the default and continued on our merry way.
    Fast forward to 2011, YYYY Servicer, to whom the mortgage was sold/assigned after we cured the default, has issued a foreclosure notice (currently stayed), and have transferred/assigned the mortgage to themselves via MERS, from XXXX Servicer. Only problem is, who at XXXX Servicer signed it over? They went out of business in ’08. We have an allonge, undated, no notary, attempting to transfer ownership from one out of business entity to another out of business entity. The allonge is, of course, not a part of the mortgage/note filed in the courthouse. XXXX servicer, or the law firm, just created it by themselves.
    So much for corrective assignments of mortgage. Anyone with a similar story?

  118. Enraged, this is credible progress! I know the each of our mortgages are in violation to the state CPA laws. In Washington state the State of Washington V. RECONTRUST filed by Rob McKenna states the exact WA CPA laws and the WA Deed of Trust Laws the banksters have violated. Eveyone needs to look at it and compare it to their state laws and use this. The banksters have been so irrigant, they still have not complied to any of these laws here in Washington state. RECONTRUST just pulled out of Washington state altogether to do crimes in the states that have not picked up on this yet. My sons foes attorneys sent him a letter asking for approval from him to represent Countrywide instead of BOA and BAC and RECONTRUST, in his Appeals case. After lack of standing from the start and his case like mine being due to fraud upon the court, they ask him to approve a different party for them to represent. WOW what nerve to ask him to sign for approval to change representation. He sent their letter to the Appeals court, with a letter of objection. As I mentioned to Dying Truth, two years ago, this was a completelyl different ball game two years ago. One needs to file again and not give up and file fraud upon the court and fill all the proof of new case law and reports and point out the fraud docs.When someone like attorney Meliissa Huelsman, whom knows her stuff tells me nomatter what the judges are ruling for the bankers, in December of 2009, and just this month goes to the Washington U.S. Supreme Court asking if the rule of law still stands in Washington State, you know there is a huge Unconstitutional problem and breaches of oath of office by massive judges. Even she told me about three to six months ago, my chances back then were grim and now she knows I will have a good chance to wiin in court. The rules are changing everyday and the case law is supporting the homeowners. All good attorneys have had a real fighting battle to help us. Good attorneys have been warred against, by the judges and the bar and the bankers. We are winning this battle pebble stone at a time. Fraud Upon the Court has no statutes of limitations and Breach of Oath of Office, by judges and lawyers, is a ten year statute. Judges warring against the constitution and not doing their mandated report of fraud by statute 18USC2,3,&4 (a misdemenor and prison time) which no judge or lawyer is immune to , are battles we need to fight to stop the corrupt judges and lawyers and help the good judges and lawyers put the rule of law back in place.

  119. From Neil’s other article:

    “…It was in 2005 when 8,000 appraisers warned Congress that their industry had been poached by the banks — unless they came back with an “appraisal” that was $20,000 higher than the contract amount, they would never see another dime of business. This one fact was the keystone for the largest economic crime in human history…”

    Okay—the ONLY THING that makes sense—(and WHEN are they going to really start harping on this?)—-is that there was NO FUNDING with this giant ponzi scheme…no funding, no real “lending”…collection rights only…why isn’t that being scrutinized? I’m so sick of them saying the word “mortgage”—as if there was real funding…a giant ponzi numbers game…that’s all…

  120. And sorry about the format. Damn cut-and-past takes everything, even what I didn’t want to copy…

  121. We’ll get there.

    Banking Regulator Calls for End of ‘Too Big to Fail’
    By JESSE EISINGER, ProPublica

    Peter Foley/Bloomberg News
    Richard W. Fisher, of the Dallas Fed, has warned about the continuing problem of “too big to fail.”An annual report from a regional Federal Reserve bank is typically a collection of banalities and clichés with some pictures of local worthies who serve on the board.

    And so it is with this year’s annual report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, whose pages are graced by the smiling, stolid portraits of board members who run local companies like Whataburger Restaurants.

    The Trade
    View all posts
    .Article Tools E-mailPrintRecommendShare

    .Twitter ..But the text is something else entirely. It’s a radical indictment of the nation’s financial system. The lead essay, which is endorsed by the president of the Dallas Fed, contends that despite the great crisis of 2008, a cartel of megabanks is still hindering the economic recovery and the institutions remain too big to fail.

    The country’s biggest banks look much as they did before the 2008 financial crisis — only bigger. They have “increased oligopoly power” and “remain difficult to control because they have the lawyers and the money to resist the pressures of federal regulation,” Harvey Rosenblum, the head of the Dallas Fed’s research department, wrote in the essay.

    Having seen the biggest banks make risky bets, crush the economy and get rewarded leaves “a residue of distrust for the government, the banking system, the Fed and capitalism itself,” Mr. Rosenblum wrote.

    The Trade
    View all posts
    .Article Tools E-mailPrintRecommendShare

    …It’s one thing for the Occupy movement to point out how bailing out the biggest banks — with little cost to their executives or shareholders and creditors — has demolished credibility. It’s quite another for top officials in the Federal Reserve system to put it in an annual report.

    As for Dodd-Frank’s “resolution authority” — the power to dissolve big financial institutions that Barney Frank famously hailed as a death panel for banks — well, not so much. “For all its bluster, Dodd-Frank leaves TBTF entrenched,” Mr. Rosenblum wrote, using the acronym for “too big to fail.”

    Yes, Dodd Frank has mechanisms in place to prevent taxpayer bailouts of the largest banks, he concedes. Banks are supposed to have “living wills” that explain how they could be seized and wound down while minimizing the use of taxpayer money.

    But the Dallas Fed is deeply skeptical that this would work in real life.

    “We know under the current structure that the government would be called on once again,” the president of the Dallas Fed, Richard W. Fisher, told me. He has been giving a series of speeches about the continuing problem of “too big to fail.”

    The biggest banks are like Aspen trees (to borrow a famous, but incorrect, metaphor made by Scooter Libby in a different context): their roots are intertwined and they turn color at the same time. “If you believe the next time the problem will center on one institution and one only, I cross my fingers and am reasonably confident” that regulators will be able to liquidate it in an orderly fashion, Mr. Rosenblum told me. But that one institution would have to be largely in one market, with few lines of business and few connections to other institutions.

    Obviously, there’s almost no giant financial institution that fits that description. It’s more likely that the next crisis will be similar to this one, one with “too many to fail,” Mr. Rosenblum contends.

    Another problem, the report points out, is that the decision now doesn’t rest with the Fed or some institution that has some slight hope of being neutral, but with the Treasury secretary and the president. In other words, saving a big bank now will be even more political than before. Sure, some future president could act courageously, but the Federal Reserve bankers in Texas aren’t so naïve as to see that as likely.

    Crucially, the Dallas Fed argues that these problems are making the system vulnerable to a future crisis and that the financial oligopoly is undermining the economic recovery and the Fed’s efforts to revive growth.

    “Monetary policy cannot be effective when a major portion of the banking system is undercapitalized,” Mr. Rosenblum wrote in the report. “Many of the biggest banks have sputtered, their balance sheets still clogged with toxic assets accumulated in the boom years.”

    Unfortunately for our banking regulation system, critics in the regional Federal Reserve banks haven’t had much influence on regulatory policy.

    One reason is that the regional Fed officials seem to be talking their own book, or can be dismissed as doing so. Outside of New York, Richmond, Va., and San Francisco, the regional Feds oversee only the small and midsize banks that compete with the “too big to fail” banks. The small guys suffer when the big banks are unfairly subsidized by the government, so the regional Feds can be brushed off as merely cheerleading for their team.

    Mr. Fisher explained to me that, on the contrary, the Dallas Fed should be heeded because it has experience with “too big to fail”: During the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s and early ’90s, some of the biggest banks to fail were from Texas.

    But another major reason that they are disregarded may be that the rebel regional Fed presidents have been skeptical about the Fed’s aggressive and successful monetary policy and overly worried about inflation and the vulnerability of the dollar. That may have undermined their solid case on bank regulation.

    Mr. Fisher, the Dallas Fed president, has been one of the fiercest inflation hawks. He has dissented against the Fed’s efforts to buy longer-term assets, known as quantitative easing, which was an effort to stimulate the economy. (He has been less worried about inflation more recently, arguing that unemployment is the top problem for the economy.)

    “Sound money and sound structure go hand in glove,” Mr. Fisher said.

    Thomas M. Hoenig, the former president of the Kansas City Fed, also articulated strong, compelling views on bank regulation coupled with a hard-money fever that is discredited in most economic circles. (Mr. Hoenig has been nominated to be vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which — an economist might say — is his highest and best use.)

    The top bank regulators at the Fed, meanwhile, have embraced unorthodox monetary policies, but have also had scant courage and originality in challenging the current structure of the country’s financial system.

    Not so with the Dallas Fed. Its report champions “the ultimate solution for TBTF — breaking up the nation’s biggest banks into smaller units.”

    Hear, hear.


  122. @Shelley,

    One by one, we’ll prevail.

    Question of time and persistence. In 2007, Boyko and the other guy gave “free houses” to about 32 homeowners in BK. Just the house. We’re talking treble damages here! Qualifies as enormous progress in my book!

  123. That was going to be my question… How many times can they try to “fix” the problem they created, on a case by case basis and with what can ONLY amount to fraudulent means? You can’t legally correct something illegally initiated. It has to be torn down and restarted from scratch.

    Until banks are forced to rewrite absolutely every single loan written since 2000 (and possibly before), the problem will linger. We know they simply can’t: in order for them to rewrite anything, they would have to go through the monumental task opf tracking down the money since inception. That’s the last thing they actually want: start showing the true accounting because that’s where the fraud lies.

    The thing banks and the feds don’t get is that it will be done eventually. With or without their blessing. And the reason it will is that i don’t give much more time for people to stop collectively paying and start squatting. As I keep saying, there aren’t enough cops, sheriffs and military spared by these atrocities to kick out millions and millions of homeowners. Something will have to give and since we’ve already given it all, it ain’t gona be us.

  124. This Temple paper brings up a concept that I wish someone would address, that of “corrective assignments”. That must be what they are suggesting the banks be allowed to do here, otherwise, if not allowed to foreclose but given leave to “correct” their assignments, what else can it mean? Doesn’t this fly in the face of age old black letter law? I know in my area, the classifieds are filled with foreclosure notices showing corrective assignments. Can this possibly be legal? I know anything is legal until it’s in the courtroom.

    How many bites of the apple do they get, at huge expense to struggling borrowers?

  125. Sorry for some reason the http did not post so you could click onto it so here it is again.

  126. I am so sick of this! Look at this news. We are submerged into criminal activity from main street to the White House. Feels more and more like we live in what I would have imagined Russia to be like. Only it is AMERICA

  127. @iwantmympv

    sounds about right in my humble opinion- not that i truely get it,
    my lateral thinking asks- if i can somehow show my “mortgage” took the same path then fair enough but there was no rule book on how a mortgage is originated, sold, collateralized and re-sold as securities
    and more importantly- wheres the precedent case/case law to take this into court and win, will that wash in court. Any attorney out there to take my case on contingency, in AZ, 9th circuit court of appeals here i come with my army of 2, maybe 3. I just keep the mental image of Irma Trueman in kill Bill with her face all bloody she crosses swords with Darryl Hannah and the look on her face says it all, then at the speed of light she swipes the oponents remaining eye out. (gruesome but its the moment of defeat)

  128. E.Tolle- good link from Temple Law. It serves to underscore the author’s lack of knowledge regarding this fraud in that he/she continues to refer to the “banks” as being able to recoup their capital.(sic) This just goes to further ingrain in the public perception that somehow, the banks have taken and are still taking huge losses on mortgages taken out by irresponsible borrowers.
    And the insanity of trying to explain in 3 minutes or less, that their are no banks, no lender, no creditor, no beneficiary, no mortgagee, no holder in due course due to corrupted chain of title, not even holder status due to even greater fraudulent forgeries and backdating, that it is all a huge holocaust on the American homeowner, even those who have never missed a payment, or retired their mortgage years ago, or whatever. How to explain without hyperventilating and sounding like an idiot. I think about it nonstop.
    But as Yogi Berra said, “it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future”.

  129. Just my opinion…..we’re all being played. The feds have decided amongst themselves that in order to correct the economic crisis brought upon us all by the TBTF financial institutions in their rush to make money hand over fist, laws be damned, the only acceptable conclusion is to allow these same institutions to foreclose on the mortgagors pretty much unbridled by the normal checks and balances such as age old legal theories.

    FORECLOSURES, by Temple University, discusses an approach to solving the foreclosure crisis, based upon the following policy models:

    “These two constant and countervailing policies are (1) the interest in protecting families and communities by not allowing financial institutions to foreclose on homes without the legal authority to do so, and (2) preventing further harm to an economy dependent on the mortgage industry’s ability to recoup debt.”

    My reading of this publication showed little concern over the first policy objective i.e. the interest in protecting families and communities.

    What they suggest here IMO is that only when assignments are so egregiously faulty as to make it unknowable what entity has the right to foreclose, the foreclosure shouldn’t be allowed. But in all other cases, even of faulty assignments that have been shown to be tossed by many a judge across the country, these should be dismissed without prejudice, allowing the banks to re-prosecute when they pull it together, or in the case of BK, claims should always be given leave to amend. Otherwise, in the best interests of all involved i.e. the larger economy, allow foreclosures to proceed.

    “….strictly hold banks accountable to the standing requirements, while giving banks an opportunity to correct mistakes in foreclosure filings through dismissals without prejudice or through opportunities to amend proofs of claim in bankruptcy. This proposal will ensure that banks adequately prove all elements of a foreclosure, but will give banks a second chance to prove those elements if a bank’s first filing was inadequate.”

    Their conclusion states:

    While most of the cases discussed in this Comment did not expressly
    consider the two relevant public policies, the cases siding with the homeowners
    generally held the financial institutions to the relevant foreclosure requirements
    through either dismissal without prejudice or relief to amend the proof of
    claim. These decisions walk the line between the two public policies and give
    banks some necessary flexibility to fix their filings. Holding the financial
    institutions to the relevant foreclosure requirements but allowing them a second
    chance to adequately prove an assignment and the standing requirements will
    discourage the future practice of improper assignments and the use of inadequate
    evidence, while still allowing the rightful assignees to obtain foreclosure on
    houses in delinquency. As courts deciding these cases should always be
    considering the two competing public policies and since dismissals without
    prejudice adequately promote both policies, courts should always be dismissing
    inadequate foreclosure filings, and proofs of claims, without prejudice and with
    leave to amend.

    I would say the vast majority of cases that we hear about falling on the side of the mortgagor are simply first pass decisions that allow the banks a Mulligan as soon as they fix the issues. These can even be foreclosures filed before assignment i.e. standing, according to this comment, at least by my reading. This explains the total lack of legal constraints doled out by some courts, and the prevailing attitude that since there’s undoubtedly a default, a foreclosure is in order by some entity. Allowing the mortgage industry to “recoup debt” is simply another bailout, IMO. Further, allowing the banks repeated attempts costs borrowers an untold amount of resources to teach the banks the valuable lesson to “….discourage the future practice of improper assignments and the use of inadequate evidence…”. At what cost? Shouldn’t the penalty for these practices be shouldered by those who so eagerly practiced them?

    It’s my belief that just as the OWS movement’s hard handling by local police forces across the nation were shown to be orchestrated centrally by the feds, similarly, we’re being allowed to waste valuable resources fighting a battle whose outcome has already been decided. The war is over but the battles wage on. The owners of the Federal Reserve have seen to it.

  130. @IWANTMYNPV ,

    Of course the debt will be inflated away Weimar style , that’s what every central bank eventually does when they hit the end of the road … If I could I would purchase a nice farm on 30 year terms right now..

  131. So, American Kabuki is now compiling the list of bankers arrests and it doesn’t even take into consideration what’s been taking place at the Bank of Scotland for the past 2 months, which anyone can check by searching “bank arrests worldwide”. I know yesterday there were a few articles in UK mainstream media. Apparently, many people have been arrested there for money laundering and the banks have been heavily fined. So have bankers at HSBC, also in the UK and on the same allegations.

    Boy oh boy, when it gets here, it will be truly interesting!

  132. Downright creepy—have you seen this?:

    Las Vegas Homeowner Association Corruption Probe: Second Defendant Found Dead
    The Huffington Post | By Bonnie Kavoussi
    Posted: 03/27/2012

    For many, homeowners associations likely conjure up images of boring meetings and lawn requirements, but some Las Vegas homeowners associations have been plagued by scandal.

    An attorney named in a federal corruption investigation was found dead by hanging on Sunday night, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, less than a week after another attorney in the same investigation was found dead in her bathtub. The police are treating the deaths as suicides. (h/t Business Insider.)

    David Amesbury, the 57-year-old defense lawyer that was found dead on Sunday, had agreed in October to plead guilty to charges that he had been involved in a homeowner association corruption scheme, according to the Associated Press. Amberson had been among ten defendants who took plea deals and were awaiting sentencing. Nancy Quon, a 51-year-old construction defect lawyer, was found dead in her bathtub last week before prosecutors could indict her, according to the AP and Las Vegas Review-Journal.

    Defendants in the probe have admitted to taking over homeowner association boards through rigged elections and using “straw buyers” to buy homes in the Las Vegas area, according to the AP. Prosecutors claim that the co-conspirators on the homeowner association boards awarded contracts to preferred firms, the AP reports.

    The body count in the scheme has now reached three. Christopher Van Cleef, a retired police officer, shot himself to death with a gun in September 2008 when his name surfaced in the investigation, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

    The homeowner association scheme comes in a region that has been hit particularly hard by the housing crisis. Nevada has an extremely high foreclosure rate with one out of every 278 houses receiving a foreclosure filing in February 2012, according to RealtyTrac. And all those foreclosures are likely weighing on home values. Las Vegas home prices, which were already suffering, hit new lows in January 2012, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Index of home prices.

  133. @Rabi,

    What’s fascinating, though, is that everything is based on ASSUMPTIONS. How do you destroy the world’s economies? By shooting ASSUMPTIONS right from the hip and using hard sell tactics on everything that moves… and everything that doesn’t even move.

    The housing bubble was based on assumptions and the foreclosures are based on assumptions. When judges start personally facing those assumptions and losing their house after having lost their retirement and being paid by states with IOUs, they’ll find religion in no time!

    As I am fond of saying: just a question of time.

  134. Deutsche bank is harrassing Lynn Szymoniak again. They just subpeonied her pool boy and a group of people that work on her house or know of her home to see if she used the money for the loan for what she claimed. The article is on Next they will be putting dead fish in her pool. This has to be seen as harrassment.

  135. @Rabi,

    Thanks but I actually only cut-and-pasted that hilarious and enlightening column from Mandelman. The guy is a born teacher!

    If you haven’t read his blog, just check him out on Mandelman Mattrs. He also has podcasts of interviews he’s done of numrous defense attorneys, economists and other very important figures in the homeowners’ fight. He’s one of those people I can’t wait to read every day!

  136. @ Enraged
    I enjoyed your explanations of mortgage pooling in the last post.Humorously factual in concept. Yet easy for the layperson to comprehend. Super job . Thanks from one of the little people that have been brutalized by the banks.

  137. Marty has come a long way since the late days of 2008, early 2009. If 10% of the folks had his learning capacity, or 50% of his willingness to learn,we would all be further along.

    The lies was at inception, and it would be wise to stay focused on the topic of agent-lender and actual originator. For example, I am Oceanside,and our CEO, Gigolo (tropicana tan guy) Bronzillo cut a mean deal with the Federal Home Loan Bank, a GSE owned by the members (private banks) whom conveniently write short term paper and lend to who else.. the members. These members own stock and hold a senior lien over every financial institution that utilize their warehouse / advances / lending facilities. (See IndyMac / One West). They are paid in full for the loans if the banks sours with mortgages still on the balance sheet. These guys are the true lenders!

    When Bronzillo made (not originate) he either used a warehouse facilty from BAC / FHLB or repos to the FRC and a smattering of other reserve member banks and investment houses down on the street. When the borrower executed the loan documents he authorized the money into creation, and subsequently allowed Bronzillo to draw down off the advance facility from the provider.

    They would also pledge MBS / MSR’s as reserve collateral and when the proverbial brown stuff hits the fan they have the former OTSsweep in and seize the assets from the bank holding company, freeze the members shares they hold and make their fellow cronies (The FDIC) strip all the shareholder equity and pay them back in full before the FDIC can become the reciever for the assets. Remember, each insolvency that they cannot work a WAMU /DIMON gift on, the FDIC (private insurance company for banks) steps in the shoes of the bank holding company and becomes the conservator of the assets, wipes out shareholders and bond-holders of the public entity, uses manages custimer deposits and when they become the receiver uses those same deposits to buy the loans from the FHLB or other secured facility. The new investors recapitalize the loans and a participation agreement is reached to pay back the FDIC for the monies they advanced to pay back the depositors, and there you have it, the money is washed, the losses eventually absorbed by the taxpayers (think treasuries and fed fund rates and spread interest used to edpand the money supply.

  138. @enraged – I have been busy devloping a platform that forces transparency into the entire modification scam. I liked your first post and feel Neil is really pushing this group in the right direction. Unfortunately, some get is and some, well.. er.. do not.

    Everyone always lays into a personal tangent and poverlooked the entire article because they do not wish to take the time to go look up what a federal home loan bank (FHLB) is and the fraud they help to create in the mortgage securitization process. If not for the fhlb’s there would be no private label secutitization, or at least not to the extent currently seen.

    You need to cut the head, to kill the beast. When I see the premier in China openly talking about the Yuan as the higher percentage currency of the coming world basket, and talking about the leverage they will require over their draw rights, it makes me wonder how long before the dollar is removed as the reserve currency. If folks in this Country think we are suffering now, wait until the rest of the globe decides we are no longer worthy of this unique status.

    I think Neil is on the right track about inflating away the debt. We are passed typical Keynesian policy standards though. The Bric nations have been circumventing dollar conversion amongst one another for several years now, and the blakc market dollar trades suggest they have already priced in dollar sales at a 35% discount. What gets me the most, the counter parties on the greek debt refused to honor the trigger events and now the IMF is forcing America to absorb 40%. it will be interesting to see if we will retain the money seat at the world bank soon. Foreign countries and foreign banks (FRC) continue to conquer thie great nation without firing a single shot. We need to take a stand now. i will be the Andrew to your Jackson. Hell, every great idea starts with one smart person, and one wth the skills to market the smart persons idea. You get to be the smart person if you are interested.

  139. As usual, Mandelman makes it palatable. Benny, my boy, you need to go back to school. Or return that diploma you have in economic science. Maybe… just maybe… you picked the wrong line of work altogether…

    If WE owned a pool of loans… would WE allow principal reductions?

    It seems that there’s quite a bit of discussion lately about principal reductions. Are they the best possible medicine for homeowners, investors, the housing market and our economy as a whole? Or are they going to cause the global financial system to come crashing down around us, trigger quadrillions in counterparty payments, the reversal of the north and south poles, and possibly start World War III?

    The debate should center on whether reducing principal will do two things… significantly reduce or even largely eliminate the potential for future default, and lead to increased consumer spending as homeowners feel something akin to the wealth effect and decide it’s safe to spend at least a little bit once again. Hey, look… I know it’s news to many, but when your government abandons you completely and publicly… it does tend to make you more thrifty.

    There are a lot of people that seem to want to base the decision on the financial impact that principal reductions would likely have on those that own the loans being reduced. It’s not the right argument to have but I’m not naive enough to think I can stop those framing the debate in this way from doing so.

    Well, the truth is… there’s simply too much involved to make a ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ answer on principal reductions meaningful.

    So… first, let me use an oversimplified example in order to suggest what the answer isn’t:

    The ABC Trust owns a 30- year fixed rate mortgage with a face value (“FV”) of $100,000. Whoever is servicing the loan grants a principal reduction of $40,000.

    Question: How much will the investor lose as a result of the $40,000 principal reduction?

    A. $40,000 B. Less then $40k C. More then $40k D. No way to know.

    The correct answer is ‘D,’ there’s no way to know the answer with the information provided.

    To begin with, individual loans are never valued, only the pool can be valued. There’s no way to calculate the value of a pool of loans after principal has been reduced without knowing the assumptions used to determine its value going forward.

    So, there’s no point in getting in a discussion about principal reductions with someone who wants to use a single loan as an example… as in the following sentence: “Let’s say the loan amount is $400,000 and the principal gets reduced by $100k… that’s a lot better than the home going into foreclosure and selling for $200,000 or even less.”

    If that’s how the discussion on principal reductions starts off, reach for your cell phone, explain that you downloaded the Dog Whistle ringtone… answer it, hang up… start apologizing for having to pick-up your incontinent Labrador who has run out of Depends while at your mother’s. Either that, or as sincerely as possible just reply with… “Yep, that’s true,” and then order another drink.

    To really understand what happens when trying to determine the present and future value of a pool of loans within a mortgage-backed security, let’s put ourselves in the place of the investors… we’ll be investors together… and we’ll want to start when the pool was born… a primordial pool, if you will. Come with me… in the way-back machine…


    We’re sitting around in my back yard one day having a cold beverage… I tell you my wife wants to see Brokeback Mountain, but I’d rather break my back climbing a mountain. No one can believe how Dubya handled Katrina, and Jack Johnson’s “In Between Dreams,” is awesome.

    Interest rates are still low, credit is flowing and homes are the place to invest. My Uncle Fester passed away recently and left me some dough. You just purchased, listed and sold a home in a brand new gated community still under construction, all in under four hours, and have a decent size pile of cash as a result.

    So, I bring up an idea I’ve been tossing around lately… why don’t we invest in a pool of mortgages, set them up in a trust with a servicer, and create ourselves a decent little income stream. You don’t know too much about it, but you say…

    “I might be interested… how would that work exactly?”

    Funny you should ask… and here we go!

    1. There’s a pool of loans that we’re looking to buy for our new trust… the DOER Trust 2012, which will end up being an RMBS, or Residential Mortgage-backed Security. Ultimately, to keep things simple, our pool will have 100 loans in it, and each will be paying a fixed rate of interest for 30 years.

    But, in order to buy our 100 loans, we’ll need to determine how much we’re willing to pay for them… that is to say, how much they’re worth… to us. Then we’ll know how much to offer the CEO of Oceanwide Home Loans, Tangelo Godzilla, for the pool. He’ll want to negotiate, but we need to know how high we’re willing to go before we start haggling.

    So, how do we determine how much we are willing to pay for the pool of 100 mortgages? It’s not hard… in fact, we’re going to take it step-by-step and keep it extra simple on purpose so we can see how the process works, before making it more complicated.

    2. First we’ll take the loans all the way out to 30 years and see what the total amount of money we’d would be if every loan paid as agreed for the entire 360 months. Since they’re all 30 year fixed rate loans at 5%, it’s easy to do the math.

    Each loan principal is right around $100,000… and at 5%… we’ll receive $93,256 in interest payments, according to my mortgage calculator. We’ll have 100 loans, so that’s $10 million, and interest payments will come in at $9,325,600.

    3. Now, obviously we can’t really expect all of our 100 loans to pay as agreed for 360 months, and there are four major factors, and a slew of miscellaneous other factors or costs that will impact how much money we actually collect on our loans:

    ◦Early payoffs from refinancing – Not many people that take out a 30-year mortgage keep it for the whole 30 years. Some people sell their home and move into another, others stay put, but take advantage of fluctuating interest rates and refinance when rates are lower than 5%, or for whatever reason at whatever the rate.◦ Accelerated payments – Some people pay off the loan early by making 13 payments each year, or when they received an inheritance from their Aunt Betsy when she passed on… or whatever.◦Loan defaults – Some people, over a 30-year period, will run into serious financial difficulties for one reason or another… maybe due to a divorce, an injury or illness, perhaps because the plant closed unexpectedly… or it could be a gambling problem… anything could happen over a thirty year time frame. When life happens, some will be forced to default on their loans and we’ll have to foreclose and resell the house, which brings us to the fourth factor that can hurt our returns…◦Loss severity ratios – Loss severity is another way of saying how much will we lose one each home when a borrower defaults and we have to take back the home and resell it. How severe do we think that loss will be… or, if there will be a loss at all.◦Servicing costs, trustee fees, legal fees, insurance, taxes, etc. We’ll want to hire a servicer to handle the payments and loan defaults, we’ll need to pay a trustee and lawyer or two, plus whatever other miscellaneous costs are involved.

    4. So, absent a working crystal ball, how will we know what amounts to factor in for each of these areas, I hear you ask.

    No problem, I reply… I’ll call a ratings agency, they’ll have lots of data on stuff like this for loans all over the country, and to reduce our risk, we will want our 100 loans to be geographically spread out around the country. That way, if the Florida housing market goes into a slump, we’ll be okay because loans in New England and Texas will be okay.

    The ratings agency will have a plethora of data on home loans all over the country, and how they perform over various periods of time, and based on borrower demographics, down payments and FICO score, and degree of underwriting scrutiny.

    But, it’s important to realize that the data will only be… well… data.

    There will be ranges and other uncertainties and to some degree, we’ll have to decide what assumptions about the future we’re comfortable using in our valuation. We can get “expert” help from our guy at Morgan Stanley, to be sure… but no one is truly “expert” at knowing what the future holds, so at the end of the day, we’ll have to make the call.

    5. So, starting from our calculations of how much our loans would produce if all paid as agreed over 30 years, we make assumptions as to how much the different factors will impact that amount, and start deducting.

    6. The first thing we see from the historical data on home loan performance is that very few people end up keeping their loan for the entire 30-year term. In fact we see that in some parts of the country, the average 30-year fixed rate loan performs for just five years before being paid off either by refinance or prepayment, while in other areas of the country, the average lifespan of such a loan is seven years.

    7. We make a decision to figure on a 10-year lifespan for our 100 loans, knowing that some will only make it for three years, while others might still be performing for 15 years or even longer. Ten years feels about right to both of us, so we start using 120 months, instead of 360 in our cash flow calculations.

    And because we’re now only expecting 10 years of payments, we won’t have to forecast as many defaults going forward, because over 30 years the chances of a life event causing serious financial difficulties is much greater than over a 10-year period. (This is why long term rates are always higher than short-term rates… the idea is to be repaid before a life event strikes the borrower, and the longer the term, the higher the risk.)

    8. Now, as to the issue of forecasting prepayment speeds, we recognize that as interest rates go down… prepayments go up as borrowers take advantage of the lower rates and refinance their loans. And conversely, as rates rise, the expected speed of prepayments goes down. So, we make some assumptions as to whether we believe interest rates are going in the near term and plug those assumptions into our valuation model.

    9. As to loan defaults, we see that the historical average over the last 20 years is one number, while the average over the last 10 years is another… and over the last five the number changes again.

    Factoring in the stringent underwriting standards that CEO Tangelo Godzilla promised that Oceanwide has in place, and the fact that our loans are all full-doc, fixed rate, to borrowers with over a 700 FICOs, and with Loan-to-Value ratios of 80%… we base our projected defaults on historical averages, plus or minus a factor that reflects our views of what’s ahead, and we enter our assumptions about defaults by year over the ten year period.

    10. Next up will be our forecasts of loss severity ratios, or in other words how much do we expect to lose when a borrower defaults and we have to foreclose and resell the home. In that event, we’ll have foreclosure costs, legal fees, property preservation costs, filing fees, real estate commissions, sales price depreciation/appreciation, et al.

    We’ll want to forecast the percentage of defaults by year. And whether we forecast a loss severity ratio of 100%, more than 100%, or less than 100%, and this is the sort of data that will be attached to the rating for our RMBS… AAA, AA, A, A- et al.

    Perhaps we think some homes will experience a 50% loss severity… others might be less… and if residential real estate gets hot in a given area… in some instances we could conceivably end up selling the homes for more than the amount we originally paid.

    The determining factor for forecasting loss severity involves what the banks refer to as REO Hold Time, which is the number of weeks or even months it takes to foreclose, once the borrower stops making payments, and when the home has been re-sold to a new borrower, in which case we’ll receive our principal back, but no more interest payments.

    The reason for this is that, when you’re talking about vacant homes… time is not on the investor’s side. Houses don’t produce money while they sit empty. In fact, they can end up costing a lot of money depending on how long they remain on the market unoccupied… which is why it’s entirely possible that after a certain point… our loss severity could exceed 100%… meaning a given home could end up costing us quite a bit more than we paid for it.

    11. It’s important to note that loss severity is the BIG Kahuna, when it comes to destroying the accuracy of our forecasts used in calculating the valuation of our pool of loans, meaning that it has the largest impact of any of the factors.

    The reason is simple… all of the other factors involve fewer zeros… they’re forecasts are in terms of months, or lost interest payments… but, if we have a $100,000 loan that defaults… and it then takes us two years to evict the borrower, during which time he or she made no payments… and then we have to put $30,000 to bring it back to code… only to find that the housing market has softened and as a result, even though we lower the price every few months… it doesn’t sell for over two years.

    And when it does, it goes for $50,000… but after commissions, legal, repairs, taxes, et al… and it shouldn’t be hard to see that we might end up having a loss severity ration of 200%… losing $100,000 over the amount paid for the loan.

    Just consider… how many monthly mortgage payments of roughly $500 get drained from our forecasts of future cash flows by a $100,000 in loss severity from even one property.

    12. So… these pools are initially valued based on fully amortizing all 100 loans and then subtracting in line with the assumptions discussed above, along with the various fees.

    Once we’ve done that, using our assumptions and fully amortized 10-year period, we’ll need to conduct what is referred to as a Net Present Value (“NPV”) analysis, the outcome of which will be the Present Value (“PV”) of the future cash flows going out 120 months. The PV is the amount we’d pay today in exchange for the 10-years of mortgage payments from the loans.

    ome people find it easy to understand NPV by thinking of it as “the time value of money.”

    ere’s the question one would answer using an NPV formula: Would you rather have $1,000 today, or $2,000 in ten years? To know which would be a greater amount, you need to know the Net Present Value today… of $2,000 in ten years. And to do that calculation, you need to determine a “discount rate,” which can be thought of by answering the question…

    Where could I invest the $1,000 today… and what interest rate (“discount rate”) could I expect to earn were I to invest for 10 years? By determining all that… how much would I have in 10 years at that rate of interest?

    When I was in grad school, the professors used to tell us to use the rate of interest available on the 10-years U.S. Treasury bond, because it’s an investment that is considered as safe as cash. However, as investors we might choose to use our Internal Rate of Return (“IRR”), or some other metric that we’re comfortable using.

    13. Okay, so once we’ve done our NPV calculation, we’ve got a figure that represents the PV… Present Value… or, again the amount we’d pay today for the future cash flow of the pool of loans… BASED ON OUR ASSUMPTIONS for defaults, prepayments, and loss severity… minus the other associated costs for servicing, legal, taxes, insurance et al.

    Our PV number, by the way, will be greater than the FV, or Face Value, of the loans, which is simply an acknowledgement that interest is being paid on the loan amounts.

    Still with me? If not… go over it again slowly… you can do this.

    14. Now, we’re ready to get in the car and head on up to Calabasas to Oceanwide Home Loans to meet with Tangelo Godzilla, and make an offer on the pool of 100 loans.

    Oceanwide’s sales people are going to meet with us in the conference room and tell us that the RMBS market is extremely competitive… and how all of Oceanwide’s offerings are over-subscribed. Tangelo himself may even come in for a few minutes and act like we’re old friends, offer us something expensive to drink… you know the drill.

    He’ll tell us all about how he built the company from the ground up… and there’ll probably be one of those photos of the CEO with the President of the United States… the kind you get by paying $5ka plate at a political fundraiser.

    We don’t get sucked in by any of this… we’ve already done our own detailed analysis, made our assumptions… and we tell them we’re prepared, based on that analysis, to offer 105% of Face Value for the pool of 100 loans. But, Tangelo says he can’t make that deal… he’s got too many investors clamoring for his pools of loans with his Best in Class underwriting system… if we want the pool we’ll need to pay 106% of the FV.

    We consider our calculations that determined the PV and decide we have a little wiggle room, so we agree. We sign the paperwork, write the check… and we’re the proud new owners of a pool of 100 residential mortgages from all over the country… underwritten by Oceanwide, who even offers to service our loans at a lower cost that we were quoted by Aurora… so we make the deal.

    We’ve bought our pool of loans for 106% of Face Value, which we refer to as having paid a six percent premium.

    As we’re leaving, we happen to notice a sign in Tangelo’s expansive offices. It says…

    Underwater All Over the World… Oceanwide Home Loans.

    But, neither one of us gives it a second thought.

    “He must have a boat,” you theorize.

    “Yeah,” I reply. “Or maybe he’s a big time scuba diver.”

    “True,” you say, turning on the radio.

    We drive home happy as clams because we’ve just invested in the next ten years of income, and are pretty pleased with ourselves at how we handled things.

    “We’re just getting started on our way to being real estate tycoons,” I say while driving.


    At the end of each quarter we reevaluate the pool of loans. We receive the asset list from our servicer representative, Linda D. Manhattan, and that’s how we find out which of our loans are performing as agreed, and whether any have prepaid or defaulted.

    And using the up-to-date data on the report, each quarter we go through the same valuation exercise we did to arrive at the PV of the future cash flows, over and over… each time to determine value of the pool of loans.

    But now, since we have real investment experience data, when we catch something being out of sync with the assumptions from the forecasts we plugged into our original valuation model… we decide whether it’s only one quarter or whether we should change our assumptions to reflect the actual data in the forecasts.

    In fact, there are a variety of reasons having nothing to do with Oceanwide’s quarterly report that we might decide to change our original or even our updated forecasts and assumptions, including…

    ◦If the availability of credit were to tighten significantly – The credit markets tightening significantly is going to reduce prepayments to lower levels than previously thought, which on one side of the coin would increase our future cash flows because we’ll be getting payments for a longer period of time. And, on the flip side of that scenario is that the longer the loans are performing, the greater the chance that a life event is going to impair a borrower’s ability to repay… which could dictate increasing our forecasts of default percentage assumptions.
    ◦If credit loosens, and interest rates rise, that will impact your prepayment assumptions too.
    ◦As the quarters pass, if we start to see that the actual number of defaults has started trending higher than originally assumed, or if loss severity is coming in higher than forecasts, we’d change the assumptions used in the value calculation used, which would impact the pool’s value.
    ◦If we’re in an environment of rising home values, then we might reduce default assumptions, and conversely if home prices start to fall, we may assume that the number of defaults will increase, as compared with past assumptions.
    ◦If in stable housing market, REOs sell in certain time frames… but in a distressed market REO hold time increases along with loss severities.

    FAST FORWARD – 2012

    Our current housing market is distressed because of:

    ◦Extreme credit tightening, government is only lender
    ◦High and persistent unemployment
    Increasing negative equity

    And all of this will cause us to change our default assumptions used in valuation, and we will see our loss severities rise. We could sell the homes we’ve had to repossess… and recognize the loss… or we could just keep the houses and assume real estate prices will return by the time we sell and therefore not recognize the entire loss.

    15. Meanwhile all the rest of our loans are still paying as agreed, but you should start to see that in a market such as today’s perfect storm, eventually the defaults and severity of losses are going to eat away at the performing loans and hence your future cash flow. At some point, in reality, you could end up with a trust of all houses and no cash flows, but houses aren’t income generating so you’d either have to liquidate them… or find an alternative use for your portfolio of houses, such as renting them out.

    Obviously, however… most bond investors are not looking to be property managers, in fact they wanted loans to be geographically spread out to reduce market risk, which means managing rental properties all over the country isn’t something desirable to a bond investor. To do that… you need “boots on the ground.”


    16. Here’s the really interesting thing… if we were bankers, then we probably borrowed money to buy this pool of loans in the first place, and now as defaults rise and as cash flows are falling our creditors may want more collateral for the now much riskier loan… or they may force us into bankruptcy and liquidate our position that way.

    In real life, all sorts of pension plans, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth plans lent the money to hedge funds to buy the pools of loans, and now want their money back… with interest.

    17. But, they may not want to force us into bankruptcy because they view the market as being so bad that they won’t recover much by going that route, therefore they decide to wait it out and leave us alone. Or, they could sue us to repurchase the loans because they claim we didn’t “rep and warranty” properly, and lied about underwriting. In other words, sue because it wasn’t what they thought they were buying.

    18. But, we also could still be paying the weighted average payments to the investor who loaned us the money to buy the pool, using some combination of what’s referred to as “over-collateralization” (i.e. Oceanwide gave us 104 loans instead of 100), private mortgage insurance from PMI/AMBAC/MBIA, or credit enhancement in form of extra cash in the pool, or in some instances, maybe some very limited ability to swap out good loans for bad.


    Of course, we could never even hope to do that because we’d have to be a Bank Holding Company, and there’s no way the Fed would ever make every company in the country a BHC… that wouldn’t be safe… it could put our banking system at risk if the money couldn’t be repaid and the collateral was worthless… oh wait… hang on… now that I think about it… that’s exactly what the Fed did, didn’t it?

    20. Now do you see where the $16 trillion went?

    But… if we’re not getting the money from the payments on the mortgages we originally bought, because most or all have defaulted… but we’re still paying the investors who loaned us the money by using borrowed money from the Fed… what’s going to happen when… I mean… aren’t we blowing a giant bubble and one day it has to pop?

    What are we hoping for… that someday demand for our assets… the ones for which there is no market today… will one day return and they’ll be worth billions once again? Could that happen?

    Assets that re-inflate themselves? Re-inflating assets?

    Sure, okay… why not?


    Okay, so do you see how accounting for the value in a pool of loans works, at least fundamentally?

    If so, then you should see why it is that we really can’t know whether granting a principal reduction on some number of loans in a given pool will result in a loss… or not. We won’t know what the current set of assumptions are that are being employed in the calculations that are done to value the pools assets now, so we won’t know whether writing down principal creates a loss, because depending on those assumptions… it could create a gain.

    The reason to write down principal on a mortgage is to change the future outcome of the entire pool of loans and even other pools of loans, by stabilizing the housing markets… by stopping the free fall in prices… by stopping foreclosures, which at this point won’t stop on their own until they’ve destroyed our nations citizenry essentially in its entirety. They’ve already been allowed to go too far, and like a forest fire that burned too long before the fire trucks arrived… left alone there’s nothing to stop it… it’ll burn until it runs out of forest.

    If you and I actually were investors in our own pool of loans… and here we are in 2012… if we’re honest, ethical, responsible people… we’ve long since changed the assumptions being used to value the pool’s future cash flows such that our expectations are very low. Our assumptions should be assuming ongoing unprecedented percentages of defaults and long-since unrecoverable loss severities.

    By writing down principal, the default assumptions could be reduced along with the loss severities and therefore the value of the un-named pool of loans should increase… there should be no loss in many pools. And if there is a loss reported, it’s cause isn’t the reduction in principal, it’s the pool’s trustee who’s allowing assumptions to be used that are nothing more than pipe dreams.

    In Gretchen Morgansen’s article about Ed Dimarco of the FHFA yesterday, she points out that writing down principal makes it more likely that a borrower would be able to pay the second, and she characterizes that as a bailout for those banks. Others discuss the situation in similar terms.

    It’s classic Fannie Mae… it’s classic banker-think… It’s exactly what’s been done to Greece. It’s what they tried to do to Iceland. And it’s not the case.

    For that to be the case, one would have to assume that sans principal reduction, me the borrower would have paid the first mortgage… and that’s the point… I would not have paid the first or the second. By writing down my loan, while it may make it possible for me to pay the second, it’s not the point. What’s it’s going to do, most importantly, is stop me from walking away and paying no one, not the first or the second.

    It’s really amazing to me, but obviously there are a lot of people out there who are not only financially successful today but they’ve always been so… many are writers of blogs, others are journalists at traditional media outlets… and some run the FHFA and the Treasury… and they claim not to know the impact of principal reductions. They can’t study it, as it has no precedent… so they don’t know how to think about it.

    And that’s precisely why where here today economically speaking. They couldn’t imagine foreclosures could get this far out of hand, because they can’t imagine themselves in foreclosure under any circumstances. And if they can’t establish it historically or through a study, since they can’t envision it happening to them, they are driving us directly off the edge of the Grand Canyon.

    For anyone who is unsure about what will happen if you don’t take action to stop what’s in free fall… stop the foreclosures… it will tip… no one will have control… people will lose all hope… and a hundred thousand will walk away from their home in Phoenix over a matter of weeks… and there’ll be no talking to them… no asking them to return… it’ll happen so fast I won’t be surprised if Bernanke doesn’t even know its happened for weeks afterward when it shows up on some chart as an blip in the Southwest Sector… or whatever.

    It reminds me of an article posted by Yves Smith on Naked Capitalism maybe six months ago. She was responding to a study that showed how short a period of time many Americans were reporting they could live were they tom lose their jobs. She admitted that it had taken her by surprise, she just couldn’t believe that many people were living lives that tenuous.

    I wrote about the same study that day, only I was surprised that the numbers were as high as they were, not as low. I couldn’t believe how many reported that they could make it five months after losing a job. I thought about Yves being shocked by it… considered that my parents would undoubtedly be shocked as she was too.

    It must be awesome to have lived a life that far removed from the world that worries about money every hour of every day. We have 50 million on food stamps, and half of them are working poor. Money is all they think about.

    But you don’t have to go that far… I promise you, and I know this to be a fact… there are a million fathers in America… if not more… that in the last year have wondered whether their life insurance policy would pay off for their families after their suicide… or something very close. And lest you think I exaggerate… I chose the number because it’s the smallest possible one… no way it’s less than a million… it’s likely many more.

    Not sure you can survey to verify it empirically however. So, I guess most won’t ever know how that thought feels inside, which means they’ll never know how the people who they see each day actually think and feel.

    When times are okay, these people in policy positions aren’t making many happy, but in today’s crisis environment, they are about to allow the nation to burn to the ground from within… without even knowing that they are the ones placing us on a perpetual precipice. It’s been burning for several years now… they can’t see the flames… they can’t smell the charred flesh… but I can.

    It’s the people, they are burning from within, and by the time Dimarco and others like him see what’s happening millions will fall into heaps of ashes. And then what? Will he say he didn’t know… that he’s sorry… he thought his degrees made him smart enough to see anything, and yet he couldn’t even smell the nation as it burned.

    Do what you will… I can barely care anymore without crying or screaming… and in the end, I’ll fight to protect my own, I suppose… but to those who don’t know and who are allowing this crisis to continue even one more day… may your God forgive you, and take mercy on your soul.

  140. @Iwantmynpv,

    Hello back. ‘T’s’up?

  141. Another 8 more yesterday, including an entire board of directors in Switzerland.

    Amazing how they “step down” to “pursue personnal interests”… I wonder what kind. Hmmm. If I were paid millions, what would qualify as “personal interests” worth giving it up for?!/MassResignations/app_2374336051

  142. hello

  143. Thanks, nabdulla and marilyn.

    I am getting back to my painting—not going to let this consume me…but I do want my kids to know I fought for justice in my own little way…for their futures and others…so I will do what I can, when I can!

  144. Neil ,

    Great to have you back .. you couldn’t be more right in your commentary….

  145. @nabdulla , ALL

    I need ideas… I like you nabdulla ,, you like the fight and color outside the lines ..

    In about 1 week I will be foreclosing on a delinquent tax certificate, unlike “our” foreclosure defense there is no real defense and it is all finalized , soup to nuts in the clerks office in about 15 minutes , this is on the common area and retention pond of an upscale subdivision , about 10 acres… I need the best way to halt issuance of new building permits and occupancy permits for homes under construction and force the builder/HOA to come to the conclusion that he/they need to buy the land back from me without getting caught up in legal trouble myself,, I want to avoid attorneys as I have been sold out by them in the past (my current foreclosure defense team however is outstanding)… I’m looking to ask for a substantial amount $15-$25k per acre (1/3rd acre lots sell for $35-40 in this sub with houses starting at 300k).

  146. @carie
    maybe some of the following can help you:

    SACRAMENTO, Calif., Mar 26, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — The California Department of Real Estate (DRE) issued a Consumer Alert last week about the growing number of scams that involve forged or fraudulent property deeds and what consumers can do to protect themselves against such fraud. The DRE is a state department whose mission is to protect the public interests in real estate matters.

    “In the current economic climate, criminal fraud related to real property deeds is on the rise and homeowners should be on the lookout for red flags to ensure the title to their property is protected,” stated Barbara Bigby, Acting Real Estate Commissioner.

    The department issued the alert to educate the public about the document recordation process, highlight some of the different types of deed scams which are being perpetrated against property owners, and to provide a checklist of warning signs that suggest or signify fraud. The Alert also informs victims of actions they can take, including what steps are necessary to rectify “clouded” ownership records.

    The warning signs of deed fraud include:

    — You stop receiving your property tax bill or notices.

    — You receive a Notice of Default or Notice of Trustee’s Sale when you own your home outright, or when you have a mortgage and you are not delinquent on your loan payments.

    — You receive loan documents in the mail for a loan or transaction that you have no knowledge of.

    — You learn of a recorded document on your property where ownership in your property, or a portion thereof, was transferred or sold to another party without your knowledge.

    — You learn of a recorded document on your property where the signer of the document was deceased at the time of execution of the document.

    — Changes or alterations were made to a recorded document after you signed it.

    The key to stopping these kinds of scams is to immediately act on any suspicious activity. Initial steps a homeowner should take immediately include:

    — Contact the County Recorder’s Office and let them know of the fraud.

    — Report the activity to local law enforcement. Many counties now have real estate fraud divisions within the office of the District Attorney.

    — Most recorded documents require a notarized signature and as such, a complaint should be filed with the California Secretary of State, Notary Public Section, if you suspect a forged signature on a notarized document.

    — Contact your title insurance company to determine if forged deeds are covered under your title insurance policy.

    — File a complaint with the DRE if you suspect that a real estate broker or salesperson, or unlicensed person purporting to be a real estate licensee, is involved in the forging of any deed or fraudulent recording of a false, fictitious, or forged deed.

    — Consult with a licensed and knowledgeable California attorney. Bogus deeds may be void or annulled.

    To obtain a copy of the Alert and to learn more about the DRE and its program areas, visit .

    SOURCE: California Department of Real Estate

  147. @ nabdulla
    I too am in New York.
    Are you going to be going to any of the groups assembling that are giving support to the OCCUPY Movement?


    In just a few weeks, from April 9-15, 100,000 people in small towns and big cities across America will come together for an unprecedented national nonviolent direct action training.

    Find a training event near you and sign up today. Space is limited.

    Dear Marilyn,

    Our nation’s greatest steps forward have come when everyday people stood up and took courageous, visionary, and morally compelling direct action—from the struggle to secure the vote for women, to the strikes that built power for workers and unions, to the civil rights movement.

    Now we need to create that kind of change again in America.

    Groups from every corner of our movement—inspired by the everyday heroes of Occupy Wall Street and Madison—are planning a massive campaign of bold nonviolent direct actions to make the voices of the 99% impossible to ignore.

    During the week of April 9-15, in small towns and big cities all across America, 100,000 people will come together for an unprecedented national nonviolent direct action training. We’ll learn to tell the story of our economy and what went wrong; we’ll learn the history of nonviolent direct action; and, we’ll learn how we can take action and create great change in this country.)

  148. @ Carie….

    Again I’m in New York – Instead of an e-mail – I would notarize my “Notice Of Stolen Property”, make copies of it, and have a friend sent one to the “investor” and one to the Detective. I would then have my friend execute an affidavit of service on each. I would then write an “Request to Take Judicial Notice”, attach my original notice of stolen property, the affidavit of service, put on the case index number and take it to the Court Clerk for filing. I would have an extra copy for the Court Clerk to date stamp.

    Now, remember about a week ago you asked what would happen if you filed a correction deed AFTER the Referee’s Deed? I think in CA that would be a Trustee’s Deed (same crap). I would go ahead and record the correction deed with my notice of stolen property referenced in and attached to it.

    When the coin hits the ground, it’s going to land on all of this – and anything else I might think of while it’s still in the air. Sit back and wait for the “investor” to call YOU. He will. As Enraged would say, “It’s just a matter of time”. Just always remember – we are not going to take ANY of this stuff with us when comes our time to get dropped in the ground. It’s for our kids, grandkids and those that follow. What I’m saying is that YOU have a life to and it’s a one-shot deal. Don’t let this stuff totally consume YOUR LIFE. Relax and enjoy YOURSELF sometime.

    My disclaimer: I’m not an attorney (All Praise Is Due To Allah) so I’m not giving any legal advice (whatever the hell that is).

    As Salaam Alaikum

  149. We are talking here, about a cartel of private banks that make up the Federal Reserve, whose interests are clearly not aligned with the American citizens. In fact their interests run more toward anything that pads those pockets that are already stuffed with the cash that’s been siphoned off from investors, borrowers and tax payers.
    I question why we would be interested to hear anything Bernanke or any of the other members have to say, since clearly their plain incompetence is by design and there is a hidden agenda under all the technical speak. They are bailing out their friends in Europe with our tax dollars, when families are going to bed hungry and homeless here at home.
    The immense wealth accumulated by these families who believe they have the right to rule us all, came from Opium, gun running, money laundering, murder and alchemy. Their hubris stems from hatred and greed while contributing absolutely nothing of value to society, and in fact they’re attempting to enslave us all via debt, to annihilate those of us with brown skin, slanted eyes or inferior genetics by their standards as if they had that right.
    Until we end their reign of financial terror and enslavement by just revoking their charter like Andrew Jackson did, we will continue to hear nothing but propaganda, and get nothing but more of the same. If we want prosperity, peace and productive livelihoods again, we must eliminate those from society who want the opposite for us, who profit from our deaths in never ending wars declared on illusive and ephemeral enemies. They promote panic, as a means of control, misinform and keep so many secrets we have to wonder what they are hiding and why. We don’t need central banks; we don’t need criminal enterprises controlling the congress by threats. They have so completely corrupted our balance of power system that we no longer have three branches of government, we just have minions who do their bidding to our own great disadvantage.
    There is ample evidence to put these people in prison for multiple life terms, and until we actually act to put them there we’re falling further and further into their evil matrix. This is the ideal time to end their tyrannical extraction of this country’s lifeblood. Toss every bad senator and representative, fire every corrupt state Attorney General, remove their cronies from the CFTC, the FTC, the SEC and every other regulatory agency that failed us, and replace them. After the purge, amend the constitution to reflect that no central bank shall ever exist on domestic soil again. Their plans have failed. It’s time to put them out of power and disgorge them.

  150. hman,
    Look to the common law of your state (state court decisions).

  151. Abolish the FED, indict AIPAC and break off all ties with Israel. Those should be the conditions we have for all candidates.

  152. @ Carie

    “….I sent the article in an email to the real estate investor who bought my (stolen) property at the trustee’s sale—and TOLD him he bought stolen property…he sent a return email saying “stop emailing me” and that he was forwarding all my emails to “Detective Sanchez” of the Long Beach police department. I said—no problem, give me his phone number—I would LOVE to show him all my paperwork proving that my property was sold illegally…these real estate people need to know they are buying STOLEN PROPERTY”

    🙂 🙂

    You, me and All here know that they ALREADY “KNOW they are buying STOLEN PROPERTY”. What they are doing is gambling. The very word “investor” itself tells you that. They are flipping a coin and playing the odds that the side (what Neil refers to as) “plausable denialbility” will land heads up. Considering the ROI, (return on investment), I can dig it.

    O-K, lets play. The “investor” threw the coin up, it’s in the air – coming down. Let’s see if WE can do something with the GROUND we want it to land on, (i.e., your future ass-kicking no defense Quiet Title suit). We want to lower the odds to zero that “plausable denialbility” will heads-up.

    I’m in The Apple (New York City) so bear with me on the laws of The State of New York. You mention two VERY IMPORTANT things – “STOLEN PROPERTY” and “need to know”. Being placed “on NOTICE” (in New York) does TWO THINGS: 1) it totally destroys “plausable denialbility”, and 2) it makes the person in possession of the stolen property a party, partner and accessory to the crime if he/she FAILS TO RETURN IT to the rightful owner WHEN DEMANDED.

    NY Penal Law §155.05 Larceny; defined.
    1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or WITHHOLDS such property from an owner thereof.
    2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or WITHHOLDING of another’s property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of
    this section, committed in any of the following ways:
    (a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as common law larceny by trespassory taking, common law larceny by trick, embezzlement, or
    obtaining property by false pretenses;
    (b) By acquiring lost property. A person acquires lost property when he exercises control over property of another which HE KNOWS to have been lost or mislaid, or to have been delivered under a mistake as to the identity of the recipient or the nature or amount of the property, without taking reasonable measures to RETURN SUCH PROPERTY TO THE OWNER;

    NY Penal §155.45 Larceny; pleading and proof.
    ….2. Proof that the defendant engaged in ANY conduct constituting larceny as defined in section 155.05 is sufficient to support ANY indictment, information or COMPLAINT for larceny other than one charging larceny by extortion. An indictment charging larceny by extortion must be supported by proof establishing larceny by extortion.

    NY Penal Law §187.01 Limitation on prosecution.
    No individual who applies for a residential mortgage loan and intends to occupy such residential property which such mortgage secures shall be held liable under this article provided, however, any such individual who acts as an accessory to an individual or entity in committing any crime defined in this article may be charged as an accessory to such crime.

  153. Every Empire throughout history has eventually failed. And greed has been the driving force behind those failures. The U.S.A. is 20-30 years overdue!

  154. Have a question about trustee. Initially, I thought trustees were supposed to be neutral parties. However, I’ve come to believe that they are to represent the “lenders” interest in a DOT.

    Do I’m curios. The latest case that fined Deutsche states ” In 2006, the plaintiffs bought from Deutsche Bank so-called pass-through certificates that gave them the right to the payments on the underlying home loans. The offering documents contained misstatements about loan underwriting standards, property appraisals, loan-to-value ratios and credit ratings on the certificates, according to the complaint.
    At the same time Deutsche Bank was selling the securities, it was profiting from credit-default swaps by wagering that loans like those underlying the certificates would decline in value, the investors said.”

    We all know that the banks have bet against these crap loans for awhile now. My question is, Can the Trustee represent the beneficiary and buy credit default Swaps? Ethically, it’s a no brainer but I mean legally. It seems like there should be some law against playing both sides of the fence but I can’t find anything? I’m trying to get Deutsche removed and I’d like to let them know they’re in violation of something but I can’t find a law,statute, etc…that says what they did is wrong. Maybe one doesn’t exist?

  155. The money quote (pun definitely intended) in Neil’s comments above:
    “…the replacement for wages was debt.”
    That says it all. That has been the plan since the Fed was born in 1913.

    The Fed has created the extremely inflationary conditions under which we now labor by creating money out of NOTHING. As the money supply increases, each dollar is worth that much less. So we have a situation where a house bought in 1950 for $10K is now “worth” $500K (for example), but only because the dollar is worth so much less now than it was in 1950. That house has actually decreased in VALUE, i.e., roof needs replacing, foundation cracked, bricks/siding worn, etc. but costs MORE in today’s dollars.

    Same with everything else–inflation created by too much money (most of it digital/fake, not actual analog/printed notes) in the system makes everything cost more at the same time that wages are stagnant or nonexistent. So you need a car and can’t pay for it outright b/c it costs half or more of your annual wages? Don’t worry, the bank will sell you some debt to pay for it. Need to go to college or send your kids to college but find that yearly tuition is an enormous fraction of your annual income? Don’t worry, the bank or the federal government will sell you some debt to pay for it. And student loans can’t be wiped out in bankruptcy–so hope you get an education that will allow you to make a shit-ton of money to be able to defeat inflation. Whoops, forgot–that’s all but impossible for all but a lucky few.

    In short, the inflation that the Fed causes–by design and by the very nature of the way the Fed works–is literally, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “eating out our substance.” And the courts are almost no help, if not because they hate “debtors” and just naturally side with “creditors,” then because the statutes and case law are so stacked in the favor of the “creditors” that they have no choice but to side with the creditors–In Re: Agard being a perfect example of this. The Agard judge laid MERS low with his reasoning and critique, but MERS still won the case because of a technicality.

  156. Anyone fighting foreclosure in CA and elsewhere – study this case and bring it to your attorney’s attention (if you have one):

    Johnson vs. HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustee for the Ellington Trust Series 2007-1, Bank of America, NA and does 1 – 10 inclusive

    Ruling can be downloaded here:
    “All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America”

    (banker defendant and prior court rulings that homeowner not party to psa does not apply in this case)

    The judge frequently cites another CA District (Federal) court ruling – study this one too:

    Vogan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 5826016 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

    – much insight re securitization, psa and beneficiary status – identity of beneficiary – real party of interest -indentured trustee for the trust – no tender required – jurisdiction in the District Court (Federal) for all claims pendant on statutory penalty for no TILA 30 day notice of change in beneficiary and more.

  157. Bernanke is an idiot. The Feds are idiots. As long as Wall Street controls all the money in this country, nothing will improve. We’ve gone through that over and over and over. We even had a war of independance and a revolution over it. What more will it take for us to get it?

    Is it surpriing that the countries which fare the best are those… where banks are not in charge of anything and money is controlled by government? It is our country and it is our money. We need to take it back. it works in Dakota. Why can’t it work elsewhere?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: