QUIET TITLE: How, When, Where and Why


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

Darrell Blomberg’s meeting tonight is well-timed. He chose the topic because he is seeing first hand how both lawyers and pro se litigants are confusing the debt with the documents.

First let me say simply that the word is “quiet” not “quite.” It is a lawsuit that was never intended to be used as an offensive weapon to escape a debt that would otherwise be due. So if you win your lawsuit for quiet title, you don’t come out of it with the obligation, or even the note discharged. The only way an obligation is discharged or satisfied is through either payment or waiver. The only benefit you get from quieting title is that you remove any claims arising out of a document that appears to put title in doubt. In the case of a mortgage, the law requires the holder of a mortgage that is satisfied to provide the original note back to the borrower showing that it has been paid in full and recording a satisfaction of mortgage (or release and reconveyance). If they fail to do that, the owner files a lawsuit saying that the chain of title in the county registry is showing a claim from XYZ Company but that they have no claim. If the court agrees, then it enters a declaratory statement declaring the rights of the parties with respect to title to the property.

If you want the court to decide on whether the debt is still due or if payments are delinquent or in default, that is another lawsuit or at least another court (section) of your lawsuit.

Theoretically you could knock off the encumbrance and the creditor, having had its “lien” voided by the court, could sue the debtor, get a judgment against the debtor, and even record the judgment as a judgment lien, leaving the creditor not too far from the their original position that they were allowed to foreclose as the mortgagee. Of course the foreclosure of a judgment lien is NOT susceptible to non-judicial foreclosure and the creditor would be required to prove their entire case, which we all know now is impossible.

So by filing a lawsuit to quiet title against a party whose name appears in the chain of title but who you are sure has no claim of any encumbrance, there are things you can accomplish that will greatly benefit you. In the absence of a recorded assignment, no party would have standing to come into court as a third party to say that  they needed that mortgage to stay on record because they have an assignment. The recorded assignment, by the way, is a trap door through which many homeowners have fallen.

An assignment says that there was a financial transaction in which consideration or money exchanged hands, in exchange for which the ownership of the loan was given to the buyer. But we now know that no such transaction even occurred. So peel away the first layer of any assignment and you have fraud — false statements concerning a non-existent transaction. That they merely did the assignment for the purpose of setting up the foreclosure is not consideration. The sale must have occurred or the assignment is void.

And assuming that the mortgage was originated by funding from an undisclosed third party, the assignor of the loan clearly had no right to assign the loan because they never owned the loan receivable. So a double pronged attack is required and that is why we are going to Darrell’s meeting (see “Events” tab above). It is true that if you get rid of the debt, the note and mortgage should disappear. But this is not always happening because Judges are not looking behind the curtain and the homeowners are too unsophisticated to present the concept. It is also true, however, that getting rid of the mortgage or even the note will NOT necessarily discharge the obligation. When you took the loan you owed a duty to repay it.


164 Responses

  1. Thanks for your personal marvelous posting! I truly
    enjoyed reading it, you may be a great author.

    I will make certain to bookmark your blog and will eventually
    come back down the road. I want to encourage yourself to
    continue your great posts, have a nice day!

  2. MUST READ for California:

    Quiet Title Ruling Filed 2/14/13 Maconick v. Chase Home Finance


  3. Neil your firm sent two jpg of the title report but not the securitization report. See if they can send the second to me Thanks so much.

  4. @SAE
    or an indemnity from a deep pocket that is iron clad–think about surety bond

  5. where are the laws or rules that if they take the house they can not keep the note too. It is the house or the note. You can not cash the check for cash or a house and keept the check to negotiate for more money later. A cashed check has to be releases back to the homeowner that gave up the house to pay the debt. How do we find this law or rule? Everyone must demand the note after they steal the house. Am I wrong?

  6. @SAE
    This material is objective—thank you it is interesting—although i would caution people to be very hestitant to accuse people of such things—and be very certain you have substantial certain facts before even thinking about it

  7. Changed my mind. Here ya go!
    If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.


    The entire article.

  8. Debreidenbach, I disagree with you. This crime stealth of property in the millions against Americans is treason, by false affidavits for the purpose of stealing property, and the judges know it and blantantly judge by unconstitutional law. I have a lot to do on my cases so I wont spend anymore time here trying to pull up the law that spells this out for you. When I come across it in my information, I will post it. Judges are not immune to treason either.

  9. @ SAE

    A judge is entitled to immunity under 42-1983—however if she is not entitled to that immunity then she is individually liable for damages for a siezure assuming all the other stuff is proven—you keep saying the following “automatically disqualified by law” please provide the basis for that statement–if she is automatically disqualified then there would be no immunity—but would have to KNOW that a siezure is unlawful etc—i cannot see where the automaric suspension comes from or proof needed to get there—–im not interested in hearing about the treason stuff frankly–it detracts from rational discussion and sounds lunatic fringe–you do yorself a disservice with that stuff as well as others

  10. Donna, these crooks dont ask permisson without a plan to decieve.
    Number 6 ASAP and a letter of objection to any alleged debt you do not owe them.
    3.Three different rescission Letters: 3 Day, 3 Year and General rescission Letters
    7.Qualified Written Request
    9.Letter of Tacit Procuration

  11. Donna, I am not an attorney so check this out with counsel, however I dont believe you wanted to give HSBC permission to be striken from the QT. You need to object to all claims by HSBC to have any authority to represent what so ever. Deny you owe them any alleged debt.ASAP! SEND THE FDCPA LETTER [letter of dept dispute ASAP.]

  12. Donna, I agree and it has been quoted in some of the cases on the web, that this is money laundering and RICO crime. which I have included on my case. Any fraud affidavits threw the mail or wire(phones) faxes and computers, LOOK UP RICO and wire fraud and mail fraud statutes. This is the hugest organized crime in history. Propria persona not an attorney so check with your counse.

  13. Dcbrecenbauch, The 18USC2,3,&4 statutes also state all officers of that court include judges and the bankster lawyers are to be first loyal to the courts and second to their clients, when fraud is recognized. “MADATED BY THIS LAW” to report fraud to an authority not engaged in fraud. I applied this law to my Appeal. And all the laws I have given this post.

  14. HERE WE GO!

    “Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”
    And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”
    1. Who is an “officer of the court”?
    2. What is “fraud on the court”?
    3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
    4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”


    1. Who is an “officer of the court”?

    A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

    2. What is “fraud on the court”?

    Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
    “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

    3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

    “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
    It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
    Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

    4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

    Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
    In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
    Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
    That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
    The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
    “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
    Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
    Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
    Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
    Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
    If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
    However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
    The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
    Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

  15. 1821)The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge actsafter he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction,and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engagedin extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts.Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

    Persuant 13.ELC 7.1; The petition for suspension may be filed before the formal complaint. If the crime is a felony, the Court must enter an order immediately suspending the respondent from the practice of law. When a Lawyer is convicted of a felony, disciplinary counsel must file a formal complaint regarding the conviction. Disciplinary counsel must also petition the Supreme Court for an order suspending the respondent lawyer during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. In re of case no. 06-2-40691-5KNT:

  16. While trying to look up the judges and lawyers being officers of th court I came by these for all of you.

    Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986
    It is a felony for anyone who knows of a violation of another person’s civil rights that fails to prevent the violations. This would include federal judges, California judges, Department of Justice employees, members of Congress, and others. Making those violations even more serious, the civil rights violations were involved in obstructing justice. And worse, the obstructing justice tactics enabled to continue the aviation disasters and the harm from other criminal activities that affected the American people and the United States’ security.
    Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy
    Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case;
    And any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
    Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:18pm
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation.
    (a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
    This criminal statute occurred as federal judges refused to receive the evidence that Stich and his group of government insiders sought to report. Federal judges refused to receive the evidence, retaliated against Stich for seeking to make the reports, and then rendered orders barrin________________________________________g Stich for the remainder of his life from court access. In this way, Stich was unable to report the federal crimes (and also unable to use federal defenses against the judicial violations of federally protected rights that were inflicting great harm upon Stich.

    Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
    (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to–
    (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

    (2) cause or induce any person to–
    (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
    (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
    (c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from–
    (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

    (2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense … (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or

    (4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation preceding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;

    or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
    (e) For the purposes of this section–
    (1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

    (2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
    Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:18pm
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
    Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.

    The million dollar question does the rule of law stand in Washington Courts?Fraud Upon the Court and 18USC 2,3, &4
    The Seventh Amendment, provides in pertinent part that “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved…” This language does not include a single reference to “manipulation” of a jury by the Court in a conspiracy
    with lawyers to design a verdict suitable to the Court through the use of lawyer rules, judicial rules, court rules, or otherwise trumped-up legal technicalities and instructions which effectively “handcuffs” the jury. All of these activities are no more or less than a denial of the right to a jury
    of peers with the constitutional authority to judge both the facts and law in a case
    Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:38pm
    In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.” SEE AT BOTTOM
    1. @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

  17. dcbreichenbach. All judges and lawyers are officers of the court. Look under fruad upon the court statutes. I beleive you will find this definition under those statutes or case law for those statutes. I have use both the 42USC1983 statutes Bill of Rights and several Amendments and the case law for all judges and lawyers are officers of the court. They are all mandated by 18UCC2,3, &4. Look up all the 18USC2 on laws. These statutes are suppose to protect us like the 42USC 1983, which includes policy making fruad by government officials. Seems like the Constitution is road kill in the lower courts and means nothing to judges wearing blinders and juging by bank law and not the rule of law. That is why I believe going on the the higher courts is usually our best hope. To many cases thrown under the table in less than fifteen minutes, without our constitutional rights to discovery or the rule of law followed.

  18. @ you enforcement minded folks–wake up and smell the rotten eggs

  19. @DONNNA S
    you filed a complaint naming this party and asked for relief of quiet title?

    what exactly was your procedure followed?

    did they file an answer?

    did you notice the public by general publication service?

  20. What if an atty claims a special power under Civli Rule 11 to represent a client without proof of authority?–thereby denying the homeowner of knowledge of the identity of his accuser in a complaint????

    “The traditional definition of acting under the color of state law requires that the defendant have exercised power “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law,”[18] and such actions may result in liability even if the defendant abuses the position given to him by the state

    A private actor may also act under color of state law under certain circumstances.[20] For example, it has been held that a physician who contracts with the state to provide medical care to inmates acts under the color of state law.[21] For all practical purposes, the “color of state law” requirement is identical to the “state action” prerequisite to constitutional liability.[22]


  21. The traditional definition of acting under the color of state law requires that the defendant have exercised power “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law,”[18] and such actions may result in liability even if the defendant abuses the position given to him by the state

    clearly a notary–but what about an atty? someone who claims special powers and inso doing denies rights?

  22. @ANYBODY

    42 USC 1983–not based on discrimination–thats only one portion–violation of 5th amendment–theresalso 4th and lets not forget 1st
    “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

    Now question: would this apply to a rogue defense attorney that results in a client being subjected to a siezure or gag order?

    is a bank atty and/or a defense atty as “officer of court” also a “judicial officer”

  23. Another way to cause the banks to end their reign of terror!


    Educate your churches of this horror, if they are not already aware of it.

  24. Thankyou for the cases and info. My adult children are outside the day spa giving horse back rides for three bucks to earn money. They do everything they can to help and to keep thirteen horses feed. To nice to sell for what horses are going for. They are their breeding stock if the country ever improves. They find pasture for them also. And do the farmer things, buy and sell livestock. I am no farmer, all the livestock would be my best pets.

  25. I am here and I took down your case suggestion to read. I run my business also and it has been very busy. I am worn out and out of breath. I have a day spa to run and 21 Orbit, Deva and Omega tanning beds & booths to keep clean and input customers. Showing newbees how to run the beds. A take care of the phones for appt. for our services. With the economy I dont hire help. I work thirteen to fourteen hours a day seven days a week but Easter and Christmaa and New Year day. My husband use to help but came down with cancer, however has had it all removed, then my oldest son hired him to work his NC programming machine at his shop. So I run this day and night now. Supporting fifteen people adult children whos businesses have been harmed by these crooks, and their children my grandchildren, whom had very nice homes up until a year and a half ago, at my house due to the crooks running our government enabling the crooked banks. My grandchildren have asked me, “are you visiting us Grandma” when they are living at my house. Not sure they know I live there. I told one of them their folks were hoping to get into their own house someday again and they told me we have a house! YUP ! THEY DO UNTIL THINGS EVER IMPROVE. I will defend my home with every breath I take.

  26. @SAE
    im surprised at your silence sae?—maybe just too busy–

    http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/052344.P.pdf PRESLEY v. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
    Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
    Argued: May 25, 2006
    [this case arguably allows you to join the servicer with the county under 42-1983—]
    “1”[M]unicipal liability may be imposed for a single decision by municipal
    policymakers under appropriate circumstances.” Pembaur v. City of
    Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480 (1986). Although not entirely clear, Presley’s
    complaint seems to allege that she suffered constitutional deprivations
    at the hands of City officials with final policy-making authority. If
    proved, this would render the City liable under § 1983. Id. Moreover,
    because Presley has alleged that the RTF engaged in “joint activity with”
    City officials, conspiring to commit the various constitutional violations,
    the RTF is also potentially liable under § 1983. Adickes v. S. H. Kress
    & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970); see, e.g., Soldal v. Cook County, 506
    U.S. 56, 60 n.6 (1992) (holding that private party who seized plaintiff’s
    property could be sued along with the county under § 1983 and the
    Fourth Amendment when county police refused to stop “private action
    that the officers knew was illegal”).

  27. @SAE

    I think the Soldad case which was brought under 42 USC 1983 and not race-based as far as I can tell—–could provide a claim against the notary that falsely signs an assignment because it should be a logical inference that the notary is acting under color of state law —and the logical result of the bad notarization is that a house is siezed in a way which fits Soldad–and the notary and her employer whi relies on use of the notary should both know it–both be liable.

    arguably, if the judge let it go thru -or if the atty that used the fake assignment MIGHT have known it—–he the judge knew it–then he should be personally liable–its an important case if you want to file complaints for damages—against govt people and counties—that would in turn force the county ag’s to cross-claim against the companies that created the false docs—up till now the counties just like to sit on the sidelines–this is a game changer if you really want to pursue govt people who implement bad actions knowingly

    there are some significant evidence issues–etc–but one thing is that the state immunities grated to state officials under state causes of action are not defenses under 42 –1983

    but im totally ignorant and this is complex stuff so i may be completely wrong–read this stuff yorself and talk to your attys and bear in mind an atty that raises this will be really unpopular at the county courthouse
    but this is not legal advice —i dont know crap–but its more constructive that pushing that criminal chg stuff

  28. @ SAE

    SOLDAL v. COOK COUNTY, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) U.S. Supreme Court

    THIS IS A CRITICAL CASE FOR USE IN THE CONTEXT OF MATTERS FREQUENTLY COMPLAINED OF: THE US SUPREME COURT RULED THAT EVICTION ETC WAS SIEZURE PROTECTED BY 42 USC 1983 [can be raised in either fed or state courts] IF THE GOVT OFFICIALS KNEW [OR HAD REASON TO KNOW?] THAT THE SIEZURE WAS ILLEGAL [think judge / opposing atty as an officer of court, sheriff etc] —think very carefully about this as a counterclaim if the atty or court etc KNEW the docs were robosigned but allowed foreclosure etc to proceed anyhow

    im not an expert but I believe it may be that both the individual govt officials as well as the govt subdivision is liable—this is a 14th amendment siezure case—not a procedural due process case–but both might be involved if the court was involved–if your atty was interfered with–ie crooked —-if there was a fraud upon the court possibly—-i do not know why this case is not raised more often if people are so certain the cts know that the docs are bad

    Keep focused—–read this case very carefully–excerpts below

    COURT SUMMARY “While eviction proceedings were pending, Terrace Properties and Margaret Hale forcibly evicted petitioners, the Soldal family, and their mobile home from a Terrace Properties’ mobile home park. At Hale’s request, Cook County, Illinois, Sheriff’s Department deputies were present at the eviction. Although they knew that there was no eviction order and that Terrace Properties’ actions were illegal, the deputies refused to take Mr. Soldal’s complaint for criminal trespass or otherwise interfere with the eviction. Subsequently, the state judge assigned to the pending eviction proceedings ruled that the eviction had been unauthorized, and the trailer, badly damaged during the eviction, was returned to the lot. Petitioners brought an action in the Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that Terrace Properties and Hale had conspired with the deputy sheriffs to unreasonably seize and remove their home in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Acknowledging that what had occurred was a “seizure” in the literal sense of the word, the court reasoned that it was not a seizure as contemplated by the Fourth Amendment because, inter alia, it did not invade petitioners’ privacy.

    “Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that:

    “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State … subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
    Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Soldals were required to establish that the respondents, acting under color of state law, deprived them of a constitutional right, in this instance, their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment freedom from unreasonable seizures by the State. See Monroe v. Pape, [506 U.S. 56, 61] 365 U.S. 167, 184 (1961). Respondents request that we affirm on the ground that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was sufficient state action to support a 1983 action. The alleged injury to the Soldals, it is urged, was inflicted by private parties for whom the county is not responsible. Although respondents did not cross-petition, they are entitled to ask us to affirm on that ground if such action would not enlarge the judgment of the Court of Appeals in their favor. The Court of Appeals found that, because the police prevented Soldal from using reasonable force to protect his home from private action that the officers knew was illegal, there was sufficient evidence of conspiracy between the private parties and the officers to foreclose summary judgment for respondents. We are not inclined to review that holding. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 -161 (1970).

  29. Yes I am outraged by the corruption of our judges and courts and public officials, from one coast to the other whom feel intimidation and fear of their corruption, is their immunity, by the fear of intimidation of retaliation and not the rule of law, which they are not immune from, that keeps their victims slient and allow them to continue their reign of terror. I am not the only one whom has personally experienced this corruption and terrorism from our own public officials and banksters and their bought judges. It is about time the people stand up for the good attorneys being intimidated by the corrupt attorneys and even rumored intimidated by the bar in Washington state. To stand up for good judges and the consumers, tax payers, the little guys. I know of police officers ran out of our small town if they wont become corrupt. State patrol that hate our mayor and police force here in my town. I have absolute proof of our Mayor policy lying to myself and my husband and committing perjury in oath during deposition, bulling planners and city employees beyond bully and keeping two sets of records one true for him and one false for the counsel. Purchasing properties secretly in his name. I am totally frustrated with our officials and the bank crimes against people I care about and people I dont even know, I care about. Hard to accept the corruption and not try to do anything about it. Someone needs to stand up against them. We need more blogs posting government corruption. The mayor of my town called me on the phone and threaten me and he called one of my customers and friends and threaten him over tlhe phone. City officials in cities around us tell their employeed you dont want to work for this city I am in due to the stress, pressure and corruption. Stay away from my town. My small business has been harmed by both the Mayors corruption and the banks corruption. It is not going to stop until people take a stand and dont dance around this corruption.

  30. @SAE

    Ok you are apparently aggrieved by some action taken by either a lower ct judge and/or an officer of the court –being some bankers pitbull atty/

    My criticism is attempting to step into the shoes of the state as a prosecuter–lots of reasons why that is ineffective—not to mention risky: govt hates private citizens that harass govt officials–whether you think its righteous or not.

    However there are alternative civil claims that are not inherently wrongheaded. For example lets say that you were a black person and you were called in for a foreclosure hearing and the counsel for the bank stated in the hearing to the judge;

    ” my client wants to get this N… out of our house and resell the house to a white family so we can get that neighborhood segregated again as god intended it” —and the judge replies –“sure thats exactly what yor wife was telling me we should do at church yesterday and im anxious to help your client achieve this desirable objective—and im just going to dispense with this hearing without listening to the deadbeat whine and order the house siezed and order the sheriff to beat the crap out out of em if they get in the way”–the sheriff who is holding your arm to restrain you chimes in “yeah hell ill be happy to kick their butts out even without an order from the court–in fact im inclined to kick this guys ass right here now to show him he shouldnt be wasting our time coming into this courtroom–and i will if he so much as opens his mouth;” the judge replies ” yeah–i agree and i order you to go sieze that house and toss these SOBs in the street this afternoon–before they have time to talk to some bleeding heart atty—do it quickly sheriff–so they dont know what hit em–possession is 9/10s of the law anyway” On his way out of the courtroom the bank atty tells the sherriff—-“hey thanks a lot –when you get their stuff in the street–call me iv got a sweet off-duty security mgmt job i want to set you up with next month after you leave office at the end of this term” —–oh and theres going to be a couple nice properties coming up at sale we can throw towards your brother too–well make a special walk-thru for him to check it out and my client will set up some really good financing too”

    Now i have obviously stated this hypothetical in the most offensive terms, for which i apologize if anyone is offended— simply so that its obvious that there are several clear abuses happening here that are subject to civil causes of action. In the aggregate there is criminal stuff–but lets just focus on civil–what you as the defendant could raise as claims;

    you could raise a claim against against the judge and the sheriff for the racial discrimination –taking their property –interfering with civil rights at hearing under Section 1983 civil rights act. That is clear

    but what if you were not black?—–cant you see several abuses there that also amount to taking of property without due process of law? several ways in which your constitutional rights were violated by people acting outside the scope of their authority–and therefore unable to claim immunity?

    when you get down to —except for the verbal stuff on the record–ie evidence issues—–this sort of happens a lot–or at least people say so–and i wont argue that

    so why not focus on the civil abuses to your constitutional rights posed by this example–and forget about the criminal stuff

    what are your causes of action–how many ways have you been injured by these people wielding govt authority albeit wrongfully–remember it has to be so bad its outside scope–they made it easy here on the evidence–how else would you prove it if they did not put it on the record–look up deeds? look up conflicts of interest? is there a pattern? etc etc——-

  31. Persuant 13.ELC 7.1; The petition for suspension may be filed before the formal complaint. If the crime is a felony, the Court must enter an order immediately suspending the respondent from the practice of law. When a Lawyer is convicted of a felony, disciplinary counsel must file a formal complaint regarding the conviction. Disciplinary counsel must also petition the Supreme Court for an order suspending the respondent lawyer during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. In re of case no. 06-2-40691-5KNT:

  32. 1821)The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge actsafter he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction,and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engagedin extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts.Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

    All officers of the court including lawyers and judges are not immune to 18USC2,3,&4.

  33. Tax Fraud (evasion, failure to file, filing a false return), 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201, 7203, and 7206 (1)). Notify IRS early so they can join the investigation.

    doj has exclusive authority as atty for feds —wow complaint in fulton cnty–you can and i did file complaints against notaries there —-it is tough enough getting the other guys to meet standing much less this noise–beyond reasonable doubt standard—–this is nuts—survive an mtd before talking about charging somebody criminallynot just nuts but stubbornly nutty—casts a shadow on all pro se this stuff

  34. whats your caselaw on unseating an impartial judge–what is your civil rule? sure they are there go post em and do something usefu;—-if you are doing this then you should be able to quote chapter and verse instead of this rambling

  35. a dog can bay at the moon too——–filling out a complaint form and charging a person on a criminal matter are two different things–or every doctor in an abortion clinic would be prosecuted–the citizen has no standing to bring charges in the name of the state—-cant even sue a govt servant –kent state—

    what are you taking up space and time with this –here–its irrelevant to any legal issue–you are just making email lines filling up inboxes with noise—why not stay on point–iv seen you do it–its a hassle sorting thru the box to find things that are useful be respectful of the serious users

  36. I have a complaint on their partiality in the Appeals court and a request not to remand due to her unconstitutional law and partiality to the bankers. I have told the Appeals court to remand this case would be throwing me back to the wolves. I am planning on filing more in the near future as a separate case against judge Pechman. And I am looking into filing a case against the AG. May not get anywhere with it but I am going to try to do this and wish others would too. This is just wrong of the judges to be getting away with this.

  37. Payment by a guarantor is also called “extinguishment by guarantor”.

  38. @carie – here is a link to some cases which discuss failure of consideration, which is what you have when a loan is not really funded.


    It discusses lack of consideration v failure of consideration. Lack of consideration is an affirmative defense, as btw, is payment by a guarantor. And, for that matter, so is ‘assumed risk’, which is what I’d call it when a third party makes a guaranty and then has to pay up, for anyone’s inf, because that party knew it would have to pay up if the notemaker didn’t (‘risk’).
    Gotta find those affirmative defenses. Once all of us get into this concept – affirmative defenses framed as such (partly because those are words courts understand, but mostly because affirmative defenses exist – , imho we’ll see evolution of arguments that will survive dismissal / sj. Because I’m not an attorney, I dont’ know how to posit
    aff defenses if one is the plaintiff. Maybe someone will tell, tell. But then, that reminds me, some courts have held that a f/c action is the complaint, essentially, and a homeowner’s protest is a response, in which cases, affirmative defenses could be easily raised.

  39. Shelley- by all means, sue the judges. If they are admitting as evidence fraudulent affadavits, bogus attestations, forged signatures, defunct trusts represented by “trustees”, and out of business entities passing photoshopped notes from MERS to who knows who, and kicking people to the street as a result? Sue them- you have my blessing!


    The judges throw the homeowner out whom has standing and give standing to the frauds with no proof but fraud docs and hearsay. In the thousands.
    From: Shelleystotalbodyworks@comcast.net
    To: “Shelleystotalbodyworks Ann Erickson”
    Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 3:16:12 PM

    “Standing is a requirement grounded in Article III of the United States Constitution, and a defect in standing cannot be waived by the parties. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (US.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,954 (9th Cir. 2011). A litigant must have both constitutional standing and prudential standing for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over the case. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004). Constitutional standing requires the plaintiff to “show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an ‘injury in fact’ that a favorable judgment will redress.” Id. at 12. In comparison, “prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights.” Id. (citation and quotation signals omitted); see also Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2009).”

  41. BAD NEWS! There is nothing in this settlement that can be used as evidence against the defendants. BOY OH BOY! Our AG’s need to be brought to court due to breach to us to protect the consumers. There job! I am sick of this system protecting the banks and right in our faces. The judges and represenatives need to be held accountable for not causing the banks to be held accountable.

  42. In Washington state , (states vary)
    Private citizens (those who are not employed by the state) play a role in the filing of criminal charges whenever they give testimony or provide evidence to investigators. Filing a complaint with the police is one of the more common ways they provide this evidence.

    Read more: When Can Criminal Charges Be Filed? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5871839_can-criminal-charges-filed_.html#ixzz1rD4pPkT1


  43. You dont think a private person has the right to file charges against a judge or bank due to criminal activity? The judges are ruling by bank rules and not by the rule of law and are breaching their oath of office and their fudiciary duty, and mandated 18USC2,3,&4. The lawyers are not immune to any of the above either.

  44. that is strident—“criminal charges” by a person not in office—-this sort of thing is really undermining the credibility of your comments–what are you doing–why?

  45. I believe we have the right to file criminal charges as a private person.


    We should file them against our AG’s for breach of oath of office and breach of fudiciary duty.


  47. newbees need to watch this video!

  48. Do something carie…stop them! Somebody stop them!

  49. Sorry—spell check—meant should KNOW…

    BTW, does anyone know about doing a quiet title AFTER Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale has been recorded? I re-recorded my Grant Deed with our names in all caps, before I knew their new deed had been recorded—but mine is recorded after theirs…

  50. @E.Tolle

    You of all people should now that EVERYTHING they are doing is illegal…but they are getting away with it so they are not stopping.

  51. Deborah Wynn, I agree, the house is a house and I love mine like everyone else. I built it brick by brick with my own hands. But it is not the house, it is the future generations. My grandchildren and all our grandchildren and the forlorn people being harmed so badly by the abuse of the judicial system enabling these crooks to steal America and take away our future generations rights to the rule of law and a decent life, that makes me fight with every breath I take. It is beyond evil and no one should just walk away from this. sounds like a bankers friend, “It is just a house walk away. It is just life here on earth it will be better in heaven, we cant take it with us. I believe in God and Heaven and I do not believe God wants us to live in slavery and be paupers endebted to the devil here on earth. I am terrified for my grandchildren and heart sick for all Americans being betrayed by our government, our judges and the banks. The judges are betraying us. The judges know they give an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law and choose to make law, not uphold law, to go by bank rule. Thankgoodness the Appeals courts are standing up for Americans in most cases. We have hope and the banks are coming to the end of their rope and the end of their reign of terror.

  52. @ E. Tolle

    I started with quiet title…it got kicked before we could even argue it.

  53. @ Patrick

    Like the explanation…going to use it with my other dialogue.

  54. @ E. Tolle

    Nope we’re here and I question the “quiet title” ?

  55. Creepy quiet….I’ll just play solitaire over here by Neil’s fake potted plants while I wait. Pandemic? Iran bomb us? QE8 failed? Should I turn on the radio…is it doing that grating alert code dealy?

  56. @ dcbreidenbach


    Definition: Derecognition is the removal of a previously recognized financial asset or liability from an entity’s balance sheet. You should derecognize a financial asset if either the entity’s contractual rights to the asset’s cash flows have expired or the asset has been transferred to a third party (along with the risks and rewards of ownership). If the risks and rewards of ownership have not passed to the buyer, then the selling entity must still recognize the entire financial asset and treat any consideration received as a liability.
    Source: Accountingtools.com/dictionary

    If I own a note and I sell you the payment rights, I cannot report the note in my possession as a loan asset on my balance sheet because I must derecognize the loan liability.

    A seller of a note’s receivable stream does not enjoy the benefit of a lien instrument because its contractual rights to the asset’s cash flow are controlled by another. The seller has received consideration in exchange for giving up claims to any contractual payment rights. It has tendered the intrinsic value of the note in its possession and so it possesses no reward of ownership.. The seller would not be the aggreived party if payments ceased and so it has no risk of ownership. A lender, or payee under the note, retains its rights to receive payments and has retained risk and reward of ownership. The lien instrument grants it bind and benefits the lender or its successor.

  57. Wow is it quiet in here today…hello? Is there a half off sale on investigations at the OCC? Did the AGs change their minds? Where is everybody? Were you all foreclosed and evicted while I was away? Am I the only one left standing?

  58. If a retroactive assignment has no validity, how can a corrected mortgage hold up?

    “a retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione)

  59. And there’s this….I could also show multiple examples of something that I don’t see how it could stand up under a single light bulb of a court room glare….help me here. How does one simply do a corrective mortgage? WITHOUT RE-DOING THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT, BORROWER INCLUDED? Isn’t this a crime? Example:

    ~ The Mortgage has been corrected by Corrective Mortgage dated November 30, 2006, filed of record


    ~ as Corrected by Corrective Mortgage, Recorded: July 16, 2008, Document No. XXXX

  60. Can any of you bright folks explain this for me? Patrick, if you’re here, you were discussing this on another thread that slipped away. I could show you hundreds of instances of Bank of America N.A. as the assignee, while at the same time being the servicer. How does this happen? What does their servicer agreement look like? Who’s the principal, and who’s the agent? Anyone? Example:

    MORTGAGEE: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Cornerstone Mortgage Company

    SERVICER: Bank of America, N.A.

    Assigned to: Bank of America, National Association as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP

  61. The only comment I have today is: If the “default insurance” was paid to the originator (who purchased the policy), where the default was created either before or after closing, which really doesn’t matter in terms of compensation, and the money was given to the purchaser of the insurance, who may or may not have paid the note…we have the issue of “insurable interest” which makes me ask the question: in order to get around that requirement, did we pay for the policy? If so, our note should have been satisfied.

    See, I did not do a refinance…different rules. The securitization does matter, but the beginning stages of the fraud need to be addressed too. I was never in default until very recently, so how and why would my note be defaulted in 2007, when I first took the loan (I have receipts for the payments) ? These questions need to be answered. To date, I haven’t heard to much about this insurance and it is a very important piece of the default. We are talking about repurchases which matter, servicing what; the transfer of a debt and from whom to whom? and where did the proceeds from the insurance go?

    Can’t get past this, every where I look it leads me right back to this.
    This issue stands way before securitization, trusts and servicing rights.

    Thoughts anyone?

  62. to all,
    read appellate rulings get inside these judges heads, there are clues in those rulings im sure, im there trying to figure my best course though due to prior wrong turns there are now road blocks, and whats done is done…but that goes for the opposition too…they are cock sure they arent gpoing to hell and make fatal moves too in their haste to take the property and profiteer,
    the next generation- they are going to have to be strong and smart and we must hold on to the rule of law and the concept of justice
    THE MOST GOOD FOR THE MOST PROPLE AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I care more about this than my stolen property.

  63. iv spent 40 years in acctg and finance and cant say iv ever seen such strings of words placed in juxtaposition to each other–what exactly do you think de-recognition means–where does that term come from please

  64. @Nora C.

    balance sheet 101 = Asset reported on the left side must equal and counterbalance the liability reported on the right side

    Nora says “A derecognized asset cannot be serviced, and under the rules of generally applied accounting, the lien is forfeited. That is that. The lien is no more, the Deed is a hollow document that attaches nothing, and the Note has been burned, shredded or marked so that it cannot be introduced in a Court of Law as representative of a debt that arises out of operation of a contract for an asset that has been replaced by an alternative asset.”

    That is a brilliant explanation as to why the note waved in front of the judge’s face is worthless as evidence of a debt.. Derecognition is the key. If the loan’s liability (cash flow) is directly controlled by another entity via its purchase of a marketable security, the loan asset (note) cannot be counterbalanced by said liability on a balance sheet ledger. If the note is not counterbalanced by the loan liability, it is not evidence of the loan liability and is worthless. Zero loan liability recognized on the balance sheet= Zero loan asset recognized on the balance sheet.

    The lien is valid so long as a liability amount is evidenced or counterbalanced by the promissory note asset. As soon as the liability is derecognized from the lender’s balance sheet, the lien goes poof.

    Creditor = full ownership of the note = recognizing the note as a loan asset on its balance sheet. Derecognition of the loan liability via the sale of loan payment rights to a third party stranger destroys the loan asset of the seller. A destroyed loan asset cannot be serviced- correct.

    It is so true that two distinct instruments cannot both claim to provide control over the right receive the same cash flow. That is fraud. Certificate purchasers don’t receive dividends from the borrower’s payments, they CONTROL the right to receive the borrower’s payments directly as a pass thru. To admit otherwise is to admit securities fraud. Likewise to admit certificate purchasers directly control payment rights is to admit the note then is worthless and that the borrower can’t pay for the benefit of the note holder, even if it wanted to.

    It is impossible to default if the note maker is precluded from performing under the terms of its loan contract because its promise to pay the named payee has been exchanged for a promise to pay strangers to its loan contract. Good job Nora C.

  65. For finding out who wired the $ to escrow to fund the loan, just ask the escrow company to give you the funding wire receipt. I did on 2 loans I did from 2 different escrow companies and both had no problem retrieving them and giving me. One gave to me for free and the other charged $50 because the documents had been archived.

  66. Federal district courts statistics: qathttp://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics.aspx

  67. Very insightful–in pleadings after delivery of the purported original note –aopposing counsel demanded right to deliver a copy of the note–asserting waiver of right to receive original—shameless but absolutely comports with your analysis—but QDEs not alawys so sure fire

  68. Have you looked at the BNY action yesterday re fraud on investors by failing to control the servicer/

  69. Johngault, we can always report it incase. I need to find where else whistleblowing can be reported and report them per the Frank Dodd Act also. We need to throw every stone we can. I heard constantly the robo signing was not going to be a big deal and it was and the securities fraud should be a bigger deal. I will throw every stone I can to bring these banks down. There is always more than one way to skin a cat and I will leave no stone unturned. It takes no effort to turn it in and we are digging up the securities fraud anyway.

  70. they typically put prefixes and suffixes so they could have lists that overlapped on about 3 digits in the center that otherwise you could not match–by normal string matching–

  71. a failed trust becomes a partnership–the MBS holders are limited partners and the purported trustee is the general partner——the difference is that lps may have phantom income from actual modified mortgage loans——thus its very confused and the software required to track the diferences in basis and the recordkeeping is way beyond the ability of these people to track this stuff—-current MLPs are perfect examplesit is very complex to actually account for this and beyond IRS capability——–further it would deter mods–not good policy—–unless targeted at the bottom feeders that bought the mbs at cents on the dollar and the payouts are stable—-it would be intersesting to audit a purported trust—but there are so many and the churning and double counting totally confuses it–basically securitization is unsustainable–uncontrollable–its a ponsi scheme –or worse-securitization must be regulated somehow ASAP or the whole systewm will melt again

  72. i have had experts state that the chemistry of the ink batches over time changed so current ink differs from 5 yr old nk–is that what you are referring to? or degradation of the chemicals–evaporation and oxidation–always use your own ink–or felt tip —–an autopen does a pretty good job

  73. if you could “prove” that where would it get you–what would you have proved except some that electronic debits and credits have relacedpaper?

  74. true–but seriously all they need to do is go see if the loan schedule was filed with SEC and the NY or Delaware Sec state UCC —-this is actually easy for them because they should have interagency agreements in place–and i know for a fact that SEC is fully aware of the existence of unfiled schedules–they yanked the manually filed ones that were there off the database a couple years ago–this made it much harder to prove what a real schedule was supposed to look like via judicial notice of a URL

  75. It has been many years since I did zero balance bookkeeping, but what essentially happens is that the Note is converted to a stock. Under the GAAP the Note and Stock cannot exist at the same time.

    lotta words there nc—-if i follow you are describing the purported creation of off balance sheet entities “investment pools” or maybe even real trusts–the trust anyway is supposed to be able to issue securities–themselves debt instruments[electronic only] while on the asset side of the entity bs–its the homeowner promissory notes? is this what you are referring to in part?

  76. Still, nobody believes me that there was no “money”. The “money” is created from thin air. It’s just keystrokes on a computer, and it’s sent from one terminal to another among the Federal Reserve member banks, and it never leaves the system. It is a series of debits and credits; no real CASH is involved.
    If you study the “new currency” the oligarchs are planning to implement once they finish destroying the dollar, you’ll find it is nothing more than electronic drawing rights. This gives them complete control of all things financial, and they can take everything that’s yours at will…much like they are already doing with the fraudulent foreclosures, and MF Global did with Gerald Celente’s deposits.

    Notes are bought at the Federal Reserve window and converted into the deposit that “funds” the loan or pays the previous owner for your property. Your Note and credit file are worth a lot to the bankers.
    You pay your loan in real money of exchange. So the bank gets the equity in your home for…wait for it….FREE! They they have the audacity to tell a judge that YOU want a free house! Nervy, huh. By creating money through fractional reserve lending, they can create $90,000 in new money from your $100,000.00 “loan.”

  77. @carie – I think we are operating on different premises about who, when and where, so I will try to get a handle on yours. fwiw.

  78. @shelley – I don’t think the IRS is gonna do anything. Did you see that article a few months ago wherein it appeared the IRS already knows these loans didn’t make it into trusts and wasn’t taxing and was still on the fence about whether or not it ever would? If the IRS has decided it will tax, I haven’t heard about it. And admittedly I haven’t read many investor law suits, but from what I can tell, the investors sure aren’t sqwauking about loans not making into trusts – which they could, I would think – because of the tax consequence on the dough they have received from non-sheltered deals. Isn’t it true that their suits center on the false ratings, quality, etc and steer clear of ‘the trusts are empty’ arguments?

  79. “…With any debt collection — if the creditor is not identified (original to current) — you do not owe the debt to anyone. . Cannot pay anyone you do not owe. Cannot not emphasize enough — if wrong party is identified– you are never credited for paying — money just goes into a “Rabbit Hole.” And, with subprime refinance — these were just mods of already classified (default) debt — thus, not Notes at all— unsecured. In fact, with any charge-off — unsecured debt.
    …As soon as “loan” goes into default — the servicer outsources to a default servicer. Thus, no servicer can even testify to information — hearsay — and, default servicer testimony is also hearsay — because where did they get info from? Do you really think default servicer advanced any payments?? NO.
    The most you get from any debt collection is who THEY think is the original creditor — (not necessarily the original creditor – as you state) — but, you will get no where near as to identify of the current creditor. Fannie does not operate as a trustee — Fannie may have been an “investor” — but questionable — as to current creditor. Although Fannie/Freddie may currently be having trouble disposing of charge-off collection rights — due to volume and market crisis — F/F easily did so in past…”

    They are stealing and re-selling our homes based on unsecured fraudulent false default debt—and our original contract is a pack of lies.

  80. jg @ 202 – I said some of that wrong (as usual!)
    Participation does not include any kind of bullsh$t, so there would be no false default. Participation, I think, which was a legitimate endeavor used in the day (and probably today in unrelated deals), is not possible with securitization. How was it legitimate? (pre sec’n)
    Lender A had a note for 100k from Sam at 5%. Sam goes to lender B for a refi. Lender B offers him a note at 7%. Sam says okay. Lender B calls up Lender A and says ‘hey, how about if I don’t pay you off and you can have a cut of the 7% on the new note?’ Lender A says yeah, okay, and he gets his 5% from B (as paid by Sam to Lender B) plus a cut of the 2% difference on the new note. Win-win. Lender A has increased its return and B only had to fund the difference, if any, in the old note amt and the new note amt.
    That’s the end of my info on that deal, and – caveat – this is more or less how it was taught to me. But logically, It seems to me that in this scenario, the old collateral instrument must be released / reconveyed (the new one gets recorded) and Lender B has contractually done a deal with Lender A which bottom line is Lender A’s old note is (still) secured by the new dot.

  81. @carie, well actually the new money could have come from the old loan, sort of. If they falsely defaulted a loan and got an ins check for themselves, well, there’s some new money. Holy moly macroni.
    Because such a deal seems possible, I certainly wouldn’t discount it
    as something that gang wouldn’t do. And I guess even if they had to put a new loan in trust 1, a replacement, big whoop. Give them one at 6% again. That would explain why this was done on subprimes with the higher rates. You have no idea how I wish you could prove this
    because honestly, it makes me want to throw up.

  82. @carie – I don’t know how you know that, but that would be consistant with what I said, the possible mechanics I described. They would have needed to make it appear as if new funds were being advanced.
    You may think I and others here don’t agree. Where you lose us is on the cash-out, for sure, when the new loan exceeds the old loan and people walked away from closing with a check for say 200k (dang – gimme some of that), and by the way, it’s no secret this ‘irritates’ judges against some homeowners. The cash out has no bearing, really, but that doesn’t change those judges attitude.
    That cash out did NOT come from your old defaulted loan. It was new money. The borrower got it. But this is not inconsistant with them falsely defaulting the original loan and using that old note ( at least its current balance) in lieu of new money in that amt. So, on a cash-out, it would appear to me to be a mixture. And really, the biggest crime here is falsely defaulting the note (and the fact that if this were known, the homeowner might have an affirmative defense that some insurance payout retired the debt, at least the amt of the old note) Which reminds me, side note, I still don’t understand how a note can be written off and yet the collection rights sold under “election of remedies”. Anyone only gets ONE remedy and to me, each of those acts is a separate remedy: 1) take a write off 2) dump it for dollars by way of a debt collector.

    If the note, the old one hadn’t been 1) falsely defaulted and 2) that false default hadn’t resulted in a bogus insurance payout and or 3) rip to investors in pool 1, it may have been possible that the the ‘new’ lender would accept the old note as part of the consideration for payoff of the existing note – OR – do a *’participation’ deal, which would be attractive because, oh yeah this is why, because of the rate on the subprime mess which vastly exceeds the rate on the original note.
    *Participation: The original note is like 6% and the new subprime piece of dog doobage is going to 12 + in very short order (on the entire amt – both old and new). Bad new guy doesn’t have to fund the amt of the old note, just any amt over that, and he and the old guy who falsely defaulted the loan split the take on the 12 % +. Really handy if the old guy is the same as or related to the new guy, but it could still be done easily enough even if not.
    I tell you, the a.p.r. on this would be stinking sky high and if it’s right on the reg z, I’d croak. The reason it would be sky high (for sure if not a participation deal) is because it would have been calculated on all new money and that’s a crock. All the borrower’s costs (HUD 1 SS) would have to be measured against only the new money, which would make that a.p.r. monstrous. But we know the a.p.r. was not calculated properly because it was done by the originator (unless the originator were one of the biggies), who tho likely a joker in his own right, was not in on the scam – no reason to be. The biggie wouldn’t do it right because it wouldn’t read with what he was pulling (and it would be so high as to cause pause by a borrower who looked at it.)

  83. @jg

    “…This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.”

  84. @hman – any money actually advanced for any loan likely came from someone’s warehouse line, as we all agree, I think (about the warehouse line source, anyway). I know of no way to find that out unless the party to whom the money was wired, like the title co., will tell you. The warehouse line was owned by the initial company to whom the loan was sold by the originator. The originator, if a broker, actually bought the funds from the party to whom it was selling the loan, as I described earlier and that party got those funds from its warehouse line.
    ABC broker/originator purchased money (under existing contract) from XYZ at “strike price”. The XYZ would be a larger entity, like a CW, B of A, Aurora Loan Services, Wells Fargo, etc., and XYZ by contract was going to purchase the loan from ABC, also. The funds that XYZ sold to ABC came from XYZ’s warehouse line. XYZ got the money by purchasing those funds from its warehouse line (at short-term rates), another ‘strike price’. If a loan were made directly by
    one of the larger entities, the “biggies”, it simply drew on its warehouse line for funding, but again, at a strike-price-purchase of those funds.
    I don’t know if in either scenario the funds came directly from the warehouse line to the title co., or if the funds went thru XYZ’s
    bank first. I don’t think it matters. The funds were purchased and belonged to the purchaser.
    Now, some larger originators that weren’t ‘biggies’ who were going to sell their loans to the biggies had their own warehouse lines, because they could. They closed and funded their own loans from those lines.
    They got their own better ‘strike price’ from their own warehouse line and like the biggie, may have gotten short-term rates (knowing they would be paying off the warehouse line when the loan was sold).
    Then they got a better ‘strike price’ for selling ‘whole loans’ (closed and funded) to the biggies than if the strike price were mol second hand. Also, in this scenario, certain loans required two months seasoning before the biggies would purchase them. It may be that all loans closed and funded by the larger originators required that two month seasoning (two months’ payments by the borrower) before the biggies would purchase them. I don’t know for sure.
    The biggies sold the loans which qualified (met guidelines) to FNMA and FHLMC and ones that didn’t to privates, like RFC. Well, that’s what they used to do before securitization. I don’t think the larger originators (non-biggies) could sell directly to FNMA / FHLMC or even RFC. Not sure, tho. Did the biggies by-pass FNMA and FHLMC on the way to securitization once securitization became rampant? I don’t know, but it does seem a whole lot of loans went thru them, so maybe not.
    Both the biggies and the larger originators had the ability to hold onto loans and not sell them right away. (would have to pay more $$ to the warehouse line, of course, since not paying off on the originally agreed short term funds – offset by note rate from borrower). They did sometimes hold on to them, waiting and looking for yet another strike price which would be more favorable than current market conditions. This was a risky but rote affair and caused more than one larger originator and maybe even biggies (I forget) to go down when their marketing guys guessed wrong.

    Fwiw, when the broker/originator closed a loan, the b/o had to assemble the “warehouse package” for the biggie when shipping docs after the closing. (Or later in time, this duty may have been delegated to the title co. and probably because the brokers weren’t exactly trained by that time – “just get a body for a signature and hurry it up”) This package went to the biggie within a time most certain. It contained the original note, certified copy of the dot, (title co. kept or got the orig dot to record) a copy of the title commitment, and probably a certified copy of the HUD 1 Settlement Statement and I forget what if anything else. The biggie also got copies of the note and dot. The note at that time had the original endorsement without recourse, and it used to be made payable to the biggie, but then with sec’n, who the h knows – maybe in blank for its all-purpose feature / use (grrrrrr). The biggie already had the loan package, the underwriting stuff (loan app, appraisal, verifications of employment and financial stuff, preliminary title report / title commitment, Reg Z TILA, disclosures, etc.) because it underwrote the loan, that is, the biggie approved the loan. This second package, not the warehouse package, is why a servicer should be able to produce a copy of the note (and they do), but that second package to them does NOT contain the original note, or at least, it didn’t in the 80’s to mid 90’s. IMO, this is the note being produced in litigation, most likely now with some non-authorized signature / endorsement or rubber stamp endorsement.

  85. @ albert ,

    Unfortunately ink age testing is only an estimation and the time periods we’re talking about are too short for accuracy. Don’t waste your money.

    What is useful however is we can easily determine if a signature is photoshopped (it’ll be “carbon black” toner rather than ink) the same as the rest of the document (assuming that it is printed on a laser printer) and under a microscope you will clearly see the makeup of the letters in dots. A robosigned doc has a real signature ,,, a stamped signature can be easily identified by the absorption of the stamp pad ink into the fiber of the paper and the lack of damage to fibers as you would have with a ball point pen.

  86. @ gwen caranchini ,

    Could you please send a copy of your pleadings to “Edwards and Clarkson” ,, they are representing a large handful of people in Florida and I am sure they would like to see what’s working for you.



  87. So—I guess THIS is what we need to show/prove…:

    “…Since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.”

  88. jan van eck,

    thanks for comments. I personally am open minded to all theories due to the fact I have now become ‘aware’ of what has gone on.

    At the same time i think it is instructive for us to be rational and look for a ‘least worst’ outcome.

    I do think however we can have both objectives at the same time.

    I still hold out the hope that we will stumble upon some smoking gun albeit a small chance at that.

    Most issues are really state specific anyhow.

    good luck everyone.


    IRS pays up to 30% to anyone who blows the whistle on people who fail to pay taxes…If your mortgage was illegally put into a REMIC trust or you feel there was deception in the your assigment into a trust, this may be worth checking out. Be warned they are going to want proof.
    Whistleblower – Informant Award

    The IRS Whistleblower Office pays money to people who blow the whistle on persons who fail to pay th

  90. I do not agree that the original wet-ink Notes are in a custodial vault somwhere. If they were, the criminal banks would produce them. The documents have been destroyed according to the laws regarding the deregulation of assets. It has been many years since I did zero balance bookkeeping, but what essentially happens is that the Note is converted to a stock. Under the GAAP the Note and Stock cannot exist at the same time. That’s a HUGE fraud, an easy one to spot. No bank was stupid enough to expose themselves like that. There is nothing left of the original obligation but the loan number and your promise to pay which creates an additional profit stream (from which insurance payments are diverted) when you do. The mortgages in a pool transform now, into equitable shares and each original asset is derecognized. This makes the documents (Deed and Note) an unenforceable account which is producing an income a problem, so they invented MERS. MERS has the Deed, but never the Promissory Note, or benenficial interest in it. A derecognized asset cannot be serviced, and under the rules of generally applied accounting, the lien is forfeited. That is that. The lien is no more, the Deed is a hollow document that attaches nothing, and the Note has been burned, shredded or marked so that it cannot be introduced in a Court of Law as representative of a debt that arises out of operation of a contract for an asset that has been replaced by an alternative asset.

    For multiple collections of the non-existent debt, they made copies and microfilm images of the Notes, knowing Courts and “borrowers” would probably never catch on. Legitimate Security Deeds recorded at the land office pose no obstacle to this fraud, but since MERS was used in place of those to hide the matrix, another aspect of it becomes a factor; No assignment is required among equity partners to a transfer of consideration. There weren’t any assignments, because they didn’t need them. MERS was designed to hold all the unenforceable accounts of payments and interest on a promise to pay. Looks like a mortgage, acts like a mortgage, must be a mortgage. Only it’s not. It’s a straw man used to make the books look legit, and facilitate illegal foreclosure of a false default. A false claim is made against the real property described in the contract, when it has been replaced with another asset off the balance sheet, and the world is non the wiser.



  92. @tony – re dbtnc v fdic documents. Since you ref these docs, I’m taking it that you have them. I would really like to have them, I suppose others would, too, but it’s a must these days to keep the pacer bill down. I can’t believe how fast it adds up! If you have these docs, could you kindly post them at scribd and link? thanks

  93. chase 404, dont blame you for not wantiing to be flamed torched and discouraged and quartered. This blog had a lot of torching done yesterday. Seemed like the enemy was blogging to discourage people trying to find help. Dont be intimidated by negative bloggers. Seek help! and destroy the enemy. This is a better time than any to win over these crooks than ever before. Hang in there and seek all the blogs on help you can. You will find great case law on stopfofeclosurefraud.com and mortgage servicing fraud web sites and there are many. Neil has great help here and look at the column to the left and go to letters and notices. The number six FDCPA letter of debt dispute is as far as I am concerned one of the best letters you can send to the frauds. Below is a site to go to- to turn in securities fraud. Neil has a program to find follow the money trail on your loan and I am doing this through a private person with the tools. The cost will not only help your case but could get you whistleblowing money and tear this corrupt empire down.

    Joanne Gendron Boulanger posted in Homeowners Against Mortgage Servicing Fraud
    Joanne Gendron Boulanger 10:36am Apr 4
    IRS pays up to 30% to anyone who blows the whistle on people who fail to pay taxes…If your mortgage was illegally put into a REMIC trust or you feel there was deception in the your assigment into a trust, this may be worth checking out. Be warned they are going to want proof.
    Whistleblower – Informant Award

    The IRS Whistleblower Office pays money to people who blow the whistle on persons who fail to pay th…

  94. To “chas 404” : You are not going to be “flamed” for raising new points on aspects of litigation that have not been developed in analysis. That is not what this Column is all about. We are not here to “flame” people, leave that to the political ideologues at other sites.

    You raise a number of issues. You describe a Florida case where it appears the “Lender” could not prove their case. However, apparently there was a re-finance of a previous $200k Note (and obligation) and the Court took the view that there was an Equitable Obligation at least to the extent of the $200k. You ask how this can be.

    Remember that all case Decisions are “case-specific.” In short, a courtroom is the last vestige of the 12th Century, and that Judge is a displaced Feudal Lord. He can do whatever he wants to do, and you are no more than a feudal serf, or supplicant. If you don’t much like the result, you have the option of (1) filing an “appeal” to the next court up, and (2) filing a “judicial grievance” against the Judge, but only if his actions were of a nature that would bring discredit to the Court. That last is typically viewed as not including adverse Rulings, but conduct and judicial abuse. Doesn’t stop you from complaining, though.

    Because the case you refer is so fact-specific, nobody can dissect the Ruling for you; would have to look at the entire case and the Decision. Anything else becomes speculation, and you do not want to start speculating on what “might” have happened or “might” have been the facts of the case, that usually leads you wrong. Abandoning my own advice, I would suggest that perhaps the Court found that there would be an “unjust enrichment” of the $200,000 by the homeowner if it was to become a free gift.

    Unjust enrichment is both a claim and a defense that is not brought forward enough in these foreclosure cases. I like advancing unjust enrichment as anybody here knows perfectly well that all manner of New Yorkers are unjustly enriching themselves on your pocketbook all day long. that is why they are instant millionaires and billionaires and you are flat broke [You don’t seriously maintain that the New Yorkers “justly” enriched themselves by decent hard work, now do you? Of course not.] To explain the doctrine, take the case of your neighbor who hires a painting company to repaint his house. The paint crew arrives when both you and your neighbor are off at work, nobody home, and by innocent mistake they paint your house instead. You would think you have no obligation; after all, you did not sign any contract, or even have anything to do with that painting company. Wrong. You are “enriched” by the innocent mistake of another, and so you can be found liable for the reasonable value of the paint job. The “legal reasoning” for this result is that it would be unjust for the painter to take a loss and you have a benefit fortuitously from an innocent mistake. This type of result is an “equitable result” as in contrast to what flows from a Contract.

    In your Florida case, it looks like the Court found that the homeowner, when things started, had a $200,000 debt that he was not disputing (note: much different result if that debt was disputed!). The “new guys” came along and paid off the old debt – plus apparently handing him some more cash that they could not prove by contract documents. Well, since the homeowner was advantaged by the relief of the $200K, similar to the painting described above, he should have the obligation to repay that so as not to be “unjustly enriched.” It has a certain Solomonic flair, and a long history in law – especially in the 12th Century, when Lords did whatever they want. Look up “droit du prima nocha” if you want to see how appallingly far this could go. Judges [addressed as “My Lord” in English and Canadian Courts] do that all day long, today.

  95. Carrie,

    That’s my point. We need to know how to prove that it is a lie, otherwise there is no use alleging it. This is a huge accusation that will require proof.

    I think so many people are loosing because they can’t wrap their head around it or they can’t prove it. It is much easier to follow a quiet title and allege breaks in the chain of title and say show me the note. It’s much easier to grasp that the certificate holders funded the loan. Please don’t misinterprtu what I’m saying. I’m not endorsing these but I believe they are much easier for the layman to understand.

    In QT you don’t dispute the debt only the partys right to enforce it under the chain of title. Like the article says it doesn’t dismiss the debt.
    I read David Krigers book and this is how I started researching all of this mortgage info and stumbled upon this site. I was ground breaking at the time for me.

    When alleging fraud upfront opens a big mess if you have proof. Did the loans make it to the trust? (Can you prove they didn’t?) There’s been a lot more evidence lately that this is true of some trusts. Can you prove your originator didn’t fund the loan? Can you prove you have undisclosed creditors? Can you prove that CDS were purchased/paid out on your loan. Can you prove insurance payment was collected to another party on your loan? Can you prove you were intentially put into default to collect on insurance. Can you prove that a new title/loan wasn’t issued? Can you prove your trust is still active?

    I think all these things are more helpful when you can prove them. I think saying show me the note, Although, valid once upon a time is a little obsolete (on it’s own anyways). Notes are easily being manufactured.

    Yes what we need now is someone willing to share their expertise on how to research and PROVE these facts.

  96. Carie and DCB,

    i I understand what you are saying and all I was doing is give you an idea of how the judge sees the situation.

    The complaint filed by the AG on which the not-yet-signed-settlement is based clearly spells out a large portion of the fraud(s). It isn’t as though we don’t know what happened: we do. The thing is that we almost expect judges to tackle the investigation into the mess on a case-by-case basis. All they have to go by is existing laws and, even then, those laws are inadequate to address every aspect of that mess. Those little boys and girls with a big ego and a black robe don’t want to fix that mess: it isn’t their prerogative and they are as scared as anyone to make waves (keep in mind that we represent less than 5% of people aware of it and willing to fight for what’s right). I suspect that we have the same proportion of judges (5%) who get it or get some of it and are willing to make waves as we have homeowners willing to take on the fight head on.

    SEC isn’t investigating. Government isn’t calling regulators. OCC is… well… pretty useless. AGs have proved who they are and what they believe in. And here we are, on this site, almost demanding from judges that they take the kind of actions those agencies ought to have.

    I think that’s where the mistake lies. We can’t rely on them to cut through the chase.

    It has become a fight that must be fought publicly, on the air, until government/Congress decides to take action.

    That was my point. But in the meantime, whatever case we present in court has to be rational, reasonable and make sense. “There is no funding” isn’t an argument. Not yet. Not until every cent of every mortgage loan and alleged debt has been accounted for. That will take years. And a moratorium.

  97. Rumors are MERS may be considering bankruptcy.http://www.sourceoftitle.com/article.aspx?uniq=7173

  98. @ Carie Re Enraged’ comments and your disagreement–i havent followed the string but im trying to make sense of the views.

    Please review this thought and let me know if I am off-track

    In the original exchange of note for funds –you as maker of the note received funds thru a conduit of entities that either before or after the fact started with eg. a teachers pension fund buying MBS–

    Now in fact the teachers pension fund probably laid out 100 million–which was used to ‘fund” directly or indirectly 75 million in actual mortgages–balance being skimmed by the intermediaries.

    now the supposed last intermediary “lender” that actually wired the money to pay off the refi bank or buy the house ——usually had a related entity that was granted for free the servicing rights AND DUTIES——-the duties part may be a bit tenuous but they included duty to advance pmts to the teachers if there was a late pmt or two –etc

    then the deal changed——-when the servicers and their parents and “lender” affiiates went bankrupt—-the duties were dropped and the servicing rights and duties became stripped out COLLECTION RIGHTS. Now as I understand only one duty remained–if homeowners paid on time the collector has to pay over the collected amount to the teachers, after reduction for fees. Correct? ——-so now we have some really predatory operators enter the scene with very limited duty–least of all the homeowner

    now again as i inderstand the reason that that the predators paid for those rights in bulk—-was to get the real valuable collection right—-the right to collect in event of a declared default. Now the teachers’ trustee bank is actually writing off the default loan—–abandoning it –because it is industry practice and understanding that the collection rights predator will eat up any proceeds of disposition [“liquidation”] of the loan so once a home becomes a collection account # rather than a loan # [see your credit bureau reports here] —then the teachers get nothing……..

    now this gives the collection account guy who actually paid nothing for the NOTE per se a large incentive to persuade the homeowner that default is a wonderful thing–1st step toward modification etc—to lose checks–anything to sieze the collection right on that note/ and mortgage FROM THE TEACHERS———-

    so the collection rights predator is defrauding homeowners with FDCPA violations and worse in order to sort of permissably steal/convert the teachers’ right to residual monies.

    now bear in mind that the distribution is a pool–so the default fees are being paid out of the incoming normal collections from non-default parties—–but nevertheless the trustee is writing off the collection on the default note/mortgage —so in effect the collection rights predator is collecting twice—–once when assessing fees and reducing payouts to teachers–then again when he pockets the proceeds of sale of the house he siezed——–

    i think –im pretty sure that a solid forensic audit of a trust pool managed by one of these predator collectors would show this—-and of course part of the collection rights is the right to claim insurance from FDIC–FHA etc—-thats the quick money—this is why the banks as trustees want to distance themselves—-and why HUD is refusing to pay some of the nastiests predators

    the trick here is that the real heavy fraud is against the teachers—the homeowners are collateral damage—-the right is the teachers’ but maybe they dont care if they already got insurance payouts–but i think that is overstated–the teachers and firefighters and police etc are all suffering hits to their investments–so it is not they being benefitted by these CDS

  99. Seems to me we need to be able to show/prove to the court that the original documents we signed were a complete LIE, as to what actually happened with our money…we need to get on with that aspect…

  100. STOP the Press !_ “When you took the loan you owed a duty to repay it” Not is a case of fraud. The home owners owes nothing and the courts should return the home owner to his original position, including any down payment, any property improvements and any mortgage payments that were falsely stolen to have been said to have been applied to the loan that was falsely originated . Fire DeMarco ! and Jail the Bankers ! Do not vote for Obama !

  101. @jan van eck

    Thank you for taking the time needed (and appreciated) for writing today’s comments.

    If you have time, please help me to understand this comment:

    “…and if there was a subrogation right, that would cause fraud problems with the SEC and the cops.”

    In my case, the PSA clearly states a subrogation right. A section of the PSA elaborates that upon payment of insurance to cover the alleged default, the right to enforce the debt is transferred to the insurance company. (Yet the trustee for the certificate holders has sued.) The SEC filings show that my loan and several others (at least the loan numbers were listed) were liquidated and the filings show an insurance payment received to cover the total of the loans listed as liquidated.

    My questions are what is the fraud issue caused by this right of subrogation and how should it be reported since there IS a subrogation right stated clearly in the SEC filings?

  102. http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/the-securitization-curtain-is-lifting-in-hawaii/


    look up the Oppenheim Report on the failure of the REMICS and PSA’s being invalid.

    Also the Phil Ting Audit for Kings County San Franciso stating 100% of the PSA’s are invalid in the group off records they investigated.

  103. “…Means the loan was a default debt, before you refinanced. Thus, refinance only a modification of a (false) default debt.
    Security investors funded??? NO. Nothing was funded for this false subprime refinance/purchase. Insurance collected — thank you.
    In a trust? No. Only the receivables to default collection rights in those subprime trusts…”

  104. “…Certificate purchasers are the banks themselves (security underwriters), and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor—the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived—it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary), that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans), and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights….”

  105. At the risk of getting flamed here, I did read a Florida case where the plaintiff bank could basically not prove its case on say $300K loan plus late interest etc.

    However, the judge noted that the old loan was paid off at say $200K. The judge essentially was going to rule ‘equitably’ that the plaintiff and defense accept a judgment of $200K.

    While I understand that if you don’t owe the right party $300k how can you owe them $200k but this is what happens in real court I am afraid.

    My guess is the defense lawyer at $200k judgment can get his clients out of any deficiency at least at this point and negociate.

    I can’t remember the case but the judge went quickly to the question of how much was the old payment satifaction for.

    Somehow we would need hard proof that the old $200k lien was not satisfied and somehow transferred.

  106. @Enraged

    “…Since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.”

  107. “Albert” has raised the issue of “how to tell if the Note is the real one you signed.”

    The problem of re-manufactured “Notes,” which is a polite way of saying forged, flows from the peculiar bank-industry practice of the deliberate destruction of Notes, sometimes very shortly after you signed. Why this? Well, “copies” of the Note have to be flogged out to various parties, including whoever is supposed to be the “Servicer” to start collecting your imminent payments flows. [Many loan transactions provided that the first independent payment form the homeowner would not start until the second month after signing, specifically to allow for the flips and flops the industry was doing in the days after signing]. So the “Note” was electronically scanned and converted to a digital form. The industry found it much easier to work with electronic images, and vast numbers of “original notes” were simply shredded – to avoid the problem of duplicate claims against not just the homeowner, but also against players in the daisy-chain.

    Well, a shredded Note cannot be enforced, at least not traditionally, in the Courts. To deal with this new problem, the industry hired some very bright guys to develop an infernal machine that “re-creates” the “Note” from the digital scan. To make the “signature” pass inspection, the signature image had to be both “wet ink” and “analog,” actually inscribed by a flowing pen, so the Machine had a signing pen that was servo-driven and would duplicate the signature. The machine operator installed an actual pen and the machine traced out the signature! Bravo! A “new and improved” Note, and nobody would be the wiser.

    This started to come to light down in Florida (no surprise), when multiple “bank” entities would attempt to “foreclose” on the exact same house with the exact same “loan” (never mind that it was paid off by the credit-default swap) and would BOTH show up with so-called “original wet-ink Notes.” The final straw was when a purported “creditor” attempted to enforce a “Note” which was signed in blue ink – except the homeowner recalled that the Notary demanded that the Note be signed in black ink, as it would image-reproduce more clearly, and showed up in Court to testify to that. Oops.

    Not all Notes were shredded. Some were imaged, the electronic scan sent on electronically to Wall Street to be manipulated by the Players, scamming the “investors,” while the “real Note” went off directly into the “custodial vaults” of some early entity, such as the Depositor into the Trust. So you sometimes see these bizarre Pleadings in more contested case dockets where there is a reference to the “Custodian of the Note.” Because the actual “Note” never even made it to the Trust (physically), it is not really an asset of the Trust, now fertile grounds for those billion-dollar lawsuits starting up in NYC. Meanwhile, that custodial “Note” is sitting there in the vault, and that is very tempting to some Player that wants to pick up some quick bucks. Take the Note out of the vault and go collect on it.

    Finally, there is the variation where the “custodial Note” never even made it to the vault, but an electronic image was sent to the Custodian. In this play, the Custodian simply re-manufactures the “Note” on that infernal machine the industry developed, and sends that new version out to the collections lawyers to go flag in front of the Judge with: “See, here’s the Note, he didn’t pay his note, we want his house.” Only a skeptical Judge is going to look twice. And since the homeowner (or more accurately, his lawyer) has no clue of this gigantic fraud, he does not know to challenge the re-manufactured Note either. It slips by. Just as the New Yorkers had figured out.

    How do you tell the difference? The obvious one is the “watermark” in the paper. All paper mills install a Watermark, an image in the paper that tells the mill it came from and the date of manufacture of the paper. Where the watermark shows the paper was made about four years after the sign date on the Note, you can assume the “Note” document is re-manufactured!

    There are other tell-tales that I would not post here, as bank hacks troll these posts to pick up tips. Not to worry: the usual banker hacks and their “lawyers” are so smug and arrogant, so filled with hubris, and so conscienceless, that they do not even bother to remove the most obvious signs of re-manufacture. File a Motion for a forensic examination of the Note and have an expert do the exam and he will find them all.

    For you, look at the placement of the “Indorsement stamp,” usually done “in blank” in the pathetic attempt to convert the Note into an instrument assigned by negotiation to any Holder. These guys will flog a “true copy of the Note” into Court to attempt to push it past the Judge, as a photocopy attached to a Pleading or Proof of Claim. If the Stamp is in some illogical place, such as on a separate page or on the “back page” with lots of blank paper around it, you can assume it is not a “true copy,” it is a copy of a re-manufactured Note.

  108. john gault,

    old loan 2003 it was 200k with small home equity paid at refi. I believe national city bank was on the note nonMERS and stayed with them as servicer (terrible servicer).

    2005 refi was infamous MortgageIT, Inc. now defunct swallowed up Duetsche Bank. MortgageIT, Inc. not properly registered as a business in FL during the transaction. First 3 payments went to MortgageIT at an address that was GMAC (maybe subservicer).

    Wells Fargo took over servicing for Fannie Mae and is now filing suit in their name after doing bogus MERS/originator assignment to themselves. Assignment was recorded without notifying me (i dont think they need to) only 40 days after last payment was due. Just seems odd because loan was only 30 days late within the 15 day grace period and servicer does the assignment.

    Stewart Title claiming that they have 2003 lender title insurance ‘indorsed’ from old lender to new lender (they do not provide details as whether it is from Nat City to MortIT to Wells Fargo). amount would only be $250k anyhow and I was charged on HUD for $312k policy.

    FL Dept of Insurance has been reviewing this for over 6 months.

    Seems like i was steered back to my 2003 settlement title agency and also Stewart Title Ins without me selecting them. Title Agency is defunct (without telling the FL Ins Dept and holding onto files per statute).

    Main issue is I have never heard in FL of lender policy being ‘reused’ and ‘indorsed’ over to a new lender. To me HUD shows $312k policy stewart for X premium where is the policy??? There is none. Policy was lender not for me.

    I had QWR’ed WF over this title insurance issue and they blew me off should be RESPA fine for that.

  109. @Enraged

    Sorry, I will NOT “get off of it”…


  110. I believe that only collection rights were sold in subprime refis.Thanks everyone for your insight and sharing. Many of us who read have no relevant experience in the mortgage industry and are really in the dark. It has taken me multiple times to read this before I grasped the concept so please be patient and bear with us.

    However, I have a question about this scenario. Where did the funds come from in Cash out Refis? How do you explain to the judge where the money came from in a cash out refi. I’ll be laughed out of court if I go this route without evidence to support this. I can’t allege no money was leant but I got a lump sum deposit in my bank account when I refied. (Even though the $ was not advanced from the party in court)

    My other main question is, How would you prove that the loan wasn’t funded by the originator? I’ve looked at the HUD 1 and it lists my originator as the “lender” which matches my DOT. I’ve gotten the wire from closing and my title policy.

    I can’t figure out where to go from here and am at a dead end. How do you figure out what warehouse line the $ came from? Where do you look to research this info.

    Also, my title policy looks like it is a new policy as and not a transferred policy. It appears as if it is legit. Thanks again and please share your info. Together we can make a difference. What is in the fringe now can become mainstream if enough people start to hear this. Think about all the media the mortgage mess has gotten recently compared to the past.

  111. @ Enraged

    I do agree with you…for what it’s worth.

    However, even if you did not have funding, which I can state with certainty I did not, the way you plead and present this case is tantamount to moving forward. Judges do not want to hear some of this stuff, whether true or not. Just because something is true, even evidenced, does not mean the judge is going rule in your favor.

    People need to always be thoughtful here, there is no slam dunk!

  112. I haven’t post on here for a long time but, people need to understand jurisdiction, qfc vs non qfc, and what the law must follow in using “deed of trust” defense side vs “note” side.


    1. qfc= something that has to do with a security ex. home loan
    2. non qfc= something that has nothing to do with a security ex. servicing rights, 3rd party billing

    PLEASE READ DBNTC VS FDIC the judge spells this out deeply. If you have pacer there are even transcripts of the motion hearing. You will understand the difference between “seller” and “servicer”.

    DEED of TRUST SIDE (trust law) vs NOTE SIDE (mortgage)

    3. deed of trust is NOT a security for your home. deed of trust must follow trust law. The trustee can only enforce this side of the document ONLY if you have no rights to redemption. An example would be if you died the trustee will step in and sell the property for the benefits of paying off your creditors. Or let the “bank” be able to sell the home to recoup any money the house can bring. If there is any surplus it will be given to your heirs or wife. This is trust law.

    Other wise if you have redemption rights, in the eyes of the law this is not treated as a trust, but a mere mortgage. This is the reason why if you can not enforce the note, the deed of trust means nothing.

    There is a lot of states that say you do not need the note to foreclose. This is incorrect in one way but correct in the other. They can try to sue you for the amount they are trying to get (like a debt collector). If they win then they can find an asset to levy against to collect the amount the judge awarded to them. This is NOT a foreclosure though.
    Without the note they can not saying they are foreclosing on the document. They only have a NON QFC.

    This is why if you try to sue the substitute trustee they always say there is no privy between them and you. The sub trustee is nothing more than a mere agent working on behalf of the person telling them to enforce the purported “note” side of the document. The sub trustee does not have any right under trust law. This is why sub trustee always sends you out a letter stating that you owe such and such money and you must pay them or your house will be sold off. There is redemption rights in there for you. Again if there is redemption rights then this is a mortgage and NOT a trust.


    We will stick to only 3 of them in this one.

    1st in rem jurisdiction/
    this can only be used in very extreme conditions the supreme court (Fuentes vs Shevin, 407 US 67 1972) stated the 3 and they are

    A. The seizure is necessary for government or public interest
    B. The special need for prompt action
    C. The State had a strict control over the monopoly of its force and it’s initiated by government official.

    examples are to collect taxes, for war requirements, to protect against bank failure, misbranded drugs, or contaminated foods.

    This is the ONLY time in rem can be used.

    2nd in personam jurisdiction/

    This is everything that can be against the person. This is one of the easiest ones to understand.

    3rd one and a tricky one quasi in rem/
    This is one against the person to reach the property in question. If they do not have in personam they will try to hypothecary action (read Dupasseur vs Rochereau, 88 U.S. 21 Wall 130 1874) to try to make it look like this is an “in rem action” when it is clearly a in personam action. Quasi in rem actions are barely used anymore unless they already have personam jurisdiction a mortgage foreclosure is a quasi in rem action.

    This is a quick nut shell to get people to understand a little bit more about why certain rulings do not go the way you want it. The lawyers muddle the waters to make thing seem right, when in truth they are not.

    May YAHWEH bless you and don’t forget it is the start of the Passover this evening.

  113. jan van eck – finished 2 and 3. Thanks for all the good, clear info. I still have a couple questions, but they’ll wait. I think everyone should cut and paste his info and send it to the judiciary and anyone else who should or might give a rat’s. It can’t hurt and it just might be helpful.

  114. re: carrie’s thinking, if I may. I do believe it’s entirely poss that when a person applied for a subprime loan or were thrown into one,
    the old loan was put into false default to remove it from its (alleged) pool – rip to investors and insurance probably. If the balance on the old loan were 100k and the new loan were 150k, only the diff, the 50k, required ‘new’ funds. The note (although this does get dicey because the old note has been reduced by some payments by now) on the old loan was used in lieu of cash for the 100k. But, the new note showed an amt of 150k and was repackaged and resold to another trust as if it were all new funds.
    If this is true, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised, I couldn’t explain why it was done just on subprime refinances, other than to take a stab at the heinous rate on the note and or the re-set rate on those suckers, making their yield so much more attractive.

  115. @jan van eck – Read part 1 – great info – thanks. Now I’ve read 1st para of part 2 and had to stop for a minute. Yes, loans are funded by money from a warehouse line, but not before a broker (originator) has itself purchased those funds by contract. An originator buys the money at one “strike price” and sells it to the borrower at another price and makes money on the spread. (plus some originators got the hotly contested yield spread premium for the service-release premium). It’s no diff imo than how anything is sold. Walmart does not sell its products at cost. No one does – can’t. When an originator locks money in at the ‘strike price’, he generally has a mandatory delivery and will be charged moolah for non-delivery of the loan, that is, not fulfilling the agreement to purchase the money at the strike price. Those contractual purchases of money by the originator are – at least used to be – taken very seriously. If an originator wanted to end its relationship(s), a good way to do that was a pattern of non-delivery, that is, not fulfilling the contractual agreement of the purchase of the money at the strike price and by a time certain.
    Maybe it was in fact the investors dough that found its way to the warehouse line institution. I don’t know. I do know those funds are purchased by (at least) one party and re-sold to the borrower and it has been this way since the days of portfolio lending / retention of servicing
    ended, which has been quite some time and pre-securitization. IF the warehouse funds came from the investors somehow, I just don’t know how it’s fair to say the investors themselves funded the loans since the funds were legitimately purchased by at least the originator. If you buy a car from a dealer, did you really buy it from Toyota, who made it and sold it at least contractually to the dealer? The difference, here of course is that everyone besides the borrower knew where his loan was headed to fulfill
    a third (fourth, fifth, sixth) party’s contractual obligation. What legal argument can be made against this? What is the so what? The so what to me is the unconscionable circumstances the borrower would find himself in to ever, ever defend his rights, the ability to invoke affirmative defenses, the loss of due process, the ultimate monstrous disparity in bargaining power, and so on, not to mention the similar if not more unconscionableness of the MERS’ deed of trust. It’s like being in a boxing match with an opponent who is invisible.

  116. chas404 – who was the orig lender on the 2003 loan and who ended up servicng it? who was the orig lender on the 2005 refi and who ended up servicing it? (actually, who was any servicer ever, in order) was your name even on the 2005 title commitment, the one with the other wrong info on it?
    (One thing, tho, since the old loan was 250k and the new one was 312k, there was at least funding of the difference.)

  117. @carie at 2:51 p.m. – good idea

  118. Did anybody have the prefix “133” added to their loan number by the time the payment coupon book arrived? That should disclose something that smells like SH*T.

  119. It seems to me, in every foreclosure case I read, the Rules of Evidence are completely thrown out the window. The pretender lenders aren’t required to prove standining, affidavits aren’t executed by officers of the pretender lender, affidavits don’t lay proper foundations, the court relies on affiant’s legal conclusions, servicers’ authority isn’t evidenced in the record (more so when the loan was “assigned” from the originator to the alleged trustee), the evidence the pretender lender presents doesn’t even represent a securitized transaction at all because there is no depositor, the note, deed of trust and assignment of deed of trust haven’t been authenticated, the trustee doesn’t have to prove up its authority, especially when the transaction doesn’t represent a securitized transaction as stated above because a PSA can’t be used, the pretenders “evidence” is clearly rife with fraud…. I can go on and on.

    I’m not condoning murder in any shape, form or fashion, but it seems as though its easier to get away with murder in the American court system than it is to stop an illegal foreclosure. If the prosecution lacks, falsifies or conceals evidence in a murder case, the killer is off the hook, even when they’ve admitted to committing the crime. I know, it just happened in my own city… If the Rules of Evidence apply in murder cases, WHY don’t they apply in foreclosure cases? Foreclosing on “securitized” mortgages would be completely eraticated in both judicial and non judicial states if the Constitution, Rules of Evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure were properly adhered to. but lawlessness is all there is in the foreclosure arena…. until WE THE PEOPLE decide things will be different.

  120. @Shelley,

    Reread what I wrote. I didn’t say that we must pay to the entity not having standing. What I said was that denying the obvious is what kills anyone’s legal defense and precipitates into doom an otherwise perfectly defensible case.

    Carie has been harping forever that a loan never existed by stating over and over that there was no funding. I have remarked time and time again that funding, did indeed, exist at some point in time. otherwise, my seller would not have received a check for the equity he had in the house that i bought. i sure a hell didn’t pay a cent. That money didn’t come from me.. Denying the obvious is the most counterproductive defense and it doesn’t serve anyone in a court of law.

    In fact, I challenge anyone having used that argument to come to this site and tell us how it worked out for him/her.

    There are other, much more effective defenses to introduce. Judges go for a good defense based on exsting laws and logic. Not some irrational allegation that defies all common sense. Common sense says: if homeowner had to borrow money, homeowner owes someone. If a bank steps in and claim it lent the money homeowner borrowed and no one else claims it, judge has no obligation to question the legitimacy of the claim, especially if the only thing homeowner has to offer is “There was no funding”.

    Good defenses are: “The lender was ABC. The plaintiff is DEF. My contract was with ABC. I have absolutely nothing connecting ABC to DEF and DEF has been unable (has refused) to prove that it had any relationship with ABC. I, personally, don’t know DEF from a hole in the wall. I’m concerned that paying DEF leaves me wide open to a lawsuit initiated by ABC and DEF will not sign a hold harmless/indemnification agreement with me if I pay off. Something is not right and DEF wants my money without giving me any garrantees of immunity if i give to him. i can’t do that.” Something like that makes perfect sense to a judge. “There never was any funding. Anonymous said so” never will. And who is Anonymous anyway?

  121. Ms. Gwen Caranchini, I would love to read the pleadings as well. Will you email me a copy: globetrotterz1 at yahoo dot com.

    I haven’t read all of the comments so someone may have already addressed this but can the declatory judgment and quiet title action be commenced post foreclosure?

  122. And sense when was it up to a judge to make us pay a fraud or anyone when they are misusing the rule of law to force us to pay the crooks. It is not their decision to make but to follow the rule of law nomatter what they are biased to. They do not have the power to make law they are not the law makers, they are the law keepers. A judge being biased is illegal.

  123. Enraged and Carie, the issue is -is it ethical to pay a fraud the money just because you owe someone. It is our fault the whole mortgage mess got screwed up. It is our obligation to pay a crook a fraud and a theif. In the state of Washington it is the law that if we pay the wrong person we still owe it to the right person. The judge taking our house cause we refuse to pay a fraud, a crook, just because we owe someone is a crime. I never exspected a free house but be damned if I want to pay these theives for a house and then possibly owe someone else on top of it. I want revenge on these theives of the American dream. They are guilty of stolen property, stolen money, deaths and ruined incomes. I owe them nothing but jail and a rope to hang themselves with. I believe in paying my debts and being treated fair and just. Not screwed and screwed again. I have lost enough income, the loss caused by these crooks to have paid my house in full again by now. I used to purchase a 150,000.00 in business equipment a year. I dont even make close to that now due to the bank crimes. I owe these crooks nothing.

  124. @Carie,

    You need to get off of it.

    SOMEBODY advanced the money. It didn’t appear out of nowhere. That money was advanced. You got it as a loan. You owe it to SOMEBODY. Technically, there is a loan.

    Where the problem lies is that no one seems to know where it came from but it did come from somewhere. The accounting is lacking to the point where the connection between homeowner and true lender has been forever lost and no one has standing but the homeowner got a LOAN. That’s where judges get hung up. In their mind, the homeowner owes to someone. Ergo no free house for him. Let the money lenders fight it amongst themselves. That’s the judges viewpoint and it has merit.

    However way you look at it, the homeowner owes it. It is a LOAN to him… The claimant is wrong. He has no skin in the game. Not the judge’s problem.

  125. Enraged! I agree, all laws should be banned that are in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and there are to many. All judges found committing unconstitutional law should be punished for treason and we definatley need our corrupt government to implode. As attorney Melissa Huelsman asked the Washington U.S. Supreme Court does the rule of law still stand in the state of Washington. The rule of law is there. The judges are making unconstittutional law. That is warring against the U.S. Constitution and is it treason. i dont think we are to far from imploding. The corruption is out of control and it is a matter of time before their rope comes to an end. They are hanging themselves. All lawyers that breach their oath of office should be tried and in prison for treason against the U.S. Constitution and in jail. We need to vote out the worst of them. It is good to see Lisa Epstein running or office. Ida Ballisoittes ran for office to stop corruption after her only daughter was murdered by a serial killer predator after being released from jail by one month. She one person has made a huge difference and is why the three strikes and you are out law was passed by petititon in the State of Washington. The government represenatives mocked her and fought her. Helen Harlow deserves credit for working together with Ida. Helens son had his penas severed by another predator years ago in Washingtont state and left to die under a pile of leaves in a park. But survived. They never gave up and they have made a difference for many in this state. Never give up. This battle is to important. It is not just a house it is America we are fighting for. I should change my answer to Anonymous, Yes this is a personal issue. America is at stake for all Americans and our future, my future, my grandchildrens future and yes this is a personal issue, but “NO” not anything about money.

  126. that is kind of you. I know and cor regularly with Van Eck and of course Dave and I talk daily and sometimes 4 and 5 times a day. I’m very busy right now as I am waiting for Bar results and have to prepare my reinstatement paperwork. I have family for easter too and my grandchildren which are the light of my life. But I will make a note to get back to you. take care and god speed.

  127. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/morgan-stanley-says-reimburse-customers-victims-improper-foreclosure_n_1400408.html

    The Federal Reserve says Morgan Stanley will review foreclosures carried out by its old mortgage subsidiary and reimburse any homeowners who were improperly forced out of their homes.

    If something was a solution, you’d think it would be available to everyone and not like a beating the odds in a casino.

    Quiet Title, No!
    Bankruptcy, No!
    Show me the note, No!
    Modification, No!
    Paying on time, No!
    Paying early, No!
    Paying it off, No!

    This has been set up to make sure everyone’s property was owned by a bank because they controlled the money, they controlled the politicians they endorsed with the money, they controlled the lobbiest they paid with the money, they could make sure endorsement commercials were covered with money,

    “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.”
    Mayer Amschel Rothschild

    Running from one candidate’s promises to another’s is not going to change a thing. When the nation can control it’s own purse, the people of that nation will have their rights. But the People of the nation don’t control their own purse if the nation that is representative of their rights has no control over the purse.

    So few know they are leaders their selves.
    Change is coming. Someone let go of the regularly scheduled programming and dropped the distractions of politic and religions and fear and figured out the deception.

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

  128. BSE, I was afraid some of the post here would discourage homeowners from fighting. A lot of negative comments here. I dont beleive it is time to quit. We are steps ahead of the past years. There is a lot of good case law coming out on the web. Look at all the FDCPA cases all of a sudden. And CPA non compliance win in Hawaii. The MERS question is in a lot of Supreme courts. The judges have been comfortable judging against us and are now either waking up to the crime or concerned they will be wearing egg on their face after seeing the USA complaint by the 50 AG’s, that I feel we have a better chance of justice now than in the past. An attorney that I hired over a year ago, whom decided there was no hope then, and changed her mind she could help me on my case, told me the same a few months ago. She feels now there is a great chance for the rulings to change on the side of the homeowners. There are no statutes of limitations to fraud upon the court. You can file over and over until justice is done and you know yourself justice is done. Keep up this fight. We are not just fighting for our homes we are fighting to get America back. The banksters want you to quit. Then they win. Please do not let some of the post here discourage you. I began to feel perhaps some of these post are by the bad guys trying to discourage the homeowners from fighting. I agree they are discouraging instead of encouraging. Dont let negativity discourage you. Hang in there!

  129. I love when I see posts from Jan Van Eck, Gwen and of course Anonymous!! Gwen I would love to read pleadings pmbva at yahoo.com.
    I have had the opportunity to listen and also speak to Dave Kreiger he seems to be on the right track imo

  130. I now address “Part III” of the matter of the credit insurance.

    When you signed the “loan”documents, money was charged to you as set forth in the HUD-1 agreement, as well as other charges that do not even appear on the document. The “gross amount” being charged against you includes the closing costs, which had buried in there the funds being paid to the lender-broker, as well as the insurance charges. Further charges are placed against you from your payments to the “servicer.” The buyers of the CDS contracts for the Certificates are simply using your money.

    Now, here is where it gets tricky: a “CDS” can be used in a casino wager, where the buyer of the contract has no stake in, or claim to, the actual insured contract. Such a CDS product is termed a “synthetic” CDS contract. “Synthetics” are nothing more than casino bets, giant wagers being made (with leverage) on huge pools of invested cash. A typical synthetic CDS bet was that placed by Goldman Sachs against the success of the underlying Trusts or Pools it sold to the “investors,” the pension fund administrators. If the pools failed, the Pool CDS would be used (at least in some small part) to settle up with the investors, but yet another and alien CDS would be used to enrich Goldman. Those bets were outside the paper trail and would not show up anywhere. Since Goldman knew which Trusts would fail and which would be less likely to fail (since they engineered the trust offerings in the first place, and in some quite deliberately put in the “garbage” loans with giant interest-rate resets that nobody could hope to ever pay – remember, those were sold on the promise that the borrower could re-finance to a lower rate after five years), they cynically bet against heir own offerings. As long as the insurers were solvent and could pay – or the Government would pay on their behalf, thanks to Bush and later Obama – Goldman Sachs would collect, big time. And they did. Now you know why Goldman can pay out $34 Billion in bonus cash to the employees when the entire country is flat broke.

    With the synthetic CDS, none of the payments can be credited to the homeowner’s account, as it is an outside bet. Therein lies some confusion. The homeowner should get credit for the insurance payout on the Pool. He gets nothing from a synthetic CDS payout. To no surprise, the sleepy courts don not know the difference – even if they figure it out that far.

    The payments to the homeowner flow from the fundamentals of Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Therein, all payments made on the account of a negotiable instrument are to be credited to that instrument.

    Your “Note” is actually not even an article 3 instrument, as it imposes other duties beyond those of a negotiable instrument: a promise to pay a definite sum at a date certain to a named payee with a known interest rate. However, the bank guys love to posture themselves as a “holder” of a promissory Note as a negotiable instrument, so they create their own quandary. Your Note is more likely an Article 8 Instrument [“security”], and if that is too arcane for your Judge, then an Article 9 Instrument [Note not transferable only be negotiation]. either way, payments made on behalf of the Note have to be credited to the obligation – and never mind that the Note does not even describe the Obligation, or the transaction, which was with other parties! Amazing.

    It only fell apart when the insurers started refusing to pay the claims, on the synthetic credit-default swaps, and later on the “real” CDS contracts with the pools. Now the insurers and the Trustees of the trusts, and the banks, and the New Yorkers, are starting to file suit against each other. As the cops get interested, and as people get laid off, fired, or quit, you will see the cops “turn” some of the employees, and then they will start throwing each other under the bus. At that point, the Court will finally get on board with the recognition that this has been one gigantic fraud.

  131. A constant problem that runs throughout all the discussions is inexact terminology. This may indicate the conflict between lay terminolgy and terms of art used by lawyers, accountants and finance types. A note evidences the existence of a debt. A mortgage or deed of trust evidences [ie documents] the device used to secure payment of the note/debt. if one looks at a balance sheet it will say notes payable–notes receivable as subcategories of debts payable or receivable. vs say accounts payable or receivable that are not notes per se. the debts may also include contingent obligations, etc –more arguable terminology —-but honestly im not sure what we are talking about when we refere to the term “loan” –in fact i cant tell whether its a subject or a verb–which i think is the root of the problem. I think that loan is a verb–I loan Joe money in exchange for his execution and delivery of a promissory note secured by a mortgage. somewhere somehow people need to have a common understanding of the meaning of terms or we see arguments ensue where no difference of opinion is expressed. Think of things always from an evidenciary perspective and we are more apt to understand each other—we all know what that note looks like right–or a mortgage or DOT–but what does a loan look like?

  132. Here is “Part II” of my Answer to the matter of credit insurance payouts:

    We have seen how the salesmen go generate a flow of “Notes” to put into the pools that the European pension funds have funded. Now we go look in the “closing paper file,” and find out (from the escrow or title company) that the funds secretly flowed from some unknown warehouse lender to the seller of the house, through the title company (or escrow agent). The warehouse outfit is NOT being described anywhere on the documents, especially not on the “Note.” It is hidden in the shadows. Meanwhile you sign a “Note” (and mortgage) thinking [and believing] that the “Lender” described on the Note is the actual Lender. Silly you.

    The “paper” (or, perhaps, electronic images of the paper) shows up in NYC. Here is the snag: the Europeans need to have that qualified as AA or AAA paper. Yet 100%-financing paper is not AAA. What to do? No problem: the New Yorkers go to a bond insurer, such as AIG or AMBAC or Radian Group, and importune them to go write a policy of insurance on the credit. This gets the arcane title of “credit default swap,” or CDS, but is is simply an insurance policy: if the borrowers do not pay [the servicers], then the insurer pays off the “Note.” Now, instead of the aggregate credits of several hundred dubious home buyers with uncertain employment prospects and little capital being the heft behind the Pool, it is the credit of a giant insurance company. So now the Credit Ratings Agencies, such as Moody’s, Standard and Poor, and Fitch, [remember these guys?] are delighted, don’t have to bother with examining the credit of the borrowers, focus instead on the insurer, and issue the pool of Certificates [the “Trust”] that coveted AAA Rating. And the Certificates are happily snapped up by the naive.

    The New Yorkers meanwhile did a con job on the insurers, themselves greedy bastards, and convinced them that there was never going to be a “call” on the policy of insurance, because if the “borrower” on the “Note” ever defaulted, then the “servicer” through the “Trustee of the Trust” would go grab the property and liquidate it, so there would never be a claim on the insurance! And the guys working at those insurers, needing to “produce” and competing for “production” bonuses, wrote those policies as dictated by the New Yorkers. And: the New Yorkers craftily wrote the policies “without subrogation;” if the policy had to be called, then the insurer would NOT receive any subrogation rights on the underlying collateral: the “Notes” themselves, or the properties that supposedly secured the “Notes.”

    The cynic could think that the real reason the Street insisted the policies had no subrogation was that the Notes were never even in the Pools, and if there was a subrogation right, that would cause fraud problems with the SEC and the cops. The Free-Market crowd would argue that it was the relative market power of the players that determined the policies were without subrogation. Personally, I think it was stupidity and greed; nobody ever thought or could imagine that thousands of Trusts would go blooey on the colossal scale they did, so the dummies at places like AIG just recklessly wrote the policies without the subrogation – and if they did not, then the Street would buy the CDS policies from their competitors, and hey, these guys had “production bonuses” to think about.

    So, what you end up with are CDS insurance policies on the Pools of securitized “Notes” to cover for defective loan paper that did not even describe the actual lender in the first place. No surprise: the insurers went bust, and when there was no more cash left (including the hundreds of billions the feds tossed in there), the Certificate Buyers started filing big million-dollar lawsuits against the bankers, the Trustees, the consolidators, anybody they could find. And the cops started looking around – but were stymied by the arcane and bizarre layers that was quite beyond their comprehension. In that, the Street did a fine job of obfuscation.

    If the CDS policy “paid off,” did the buyers of the Certificates get paid? Not necessarily. Typically, the “trustee” would in effect look the Europeans in the eye, shrug, say “Well, we tried, sorry, there’s no bucks left, so here’s [pick a number] 13 cents on the dollar.” If the Holders took the cash, then the Trustee could scam off the balance of the insurance payout. However, the owner of the claim on your Note (the European) is now “satisfied,” and your Note is “paid,” not really paid, but legally paid. It is a form of “satisfaction of the debt.”

    But here is the kicker: nobody stamps the “Note” as “paid.” The Europeans don’t, but that is because they have “Certificates” of a Trust, not the actual physical Notes. The Trustee does not, mostly because he only has a holographic image of the Note. The real “Note” is sitting in some custodial vault, and nobody can remember where that is (or much cares).

    Sol what happens? Well, the “servicer” knows about that “Note” document, never mind that it does not even represent the loan transaction (remember, the Judge in your sleepy courtroom doesn’t know about all the above either). So that is just too tempting: they go grab that Note out of the vault, send it to some mouse-house foreclosure outfit, or to some “Bank” pretending to be the “holder” even if they are complete strangers to the note, and go file some big lawsuit to take your house and go sell it for that executive bonus pool. And the dummy “paper” that you signed, thinking you were taking out a loan instead of signing on to the creation of a bizarre securities trail, is still out there, to support this cute little fraud. And the Courts, shame on them, are dumb enough – and lazy enough – to let them do it. After all, you borrowed the money, didn’t you? So why should you get to live for free? Go live under a bridge, chum, and let the New Yorkers take your house, sell it to a hedge fund that funds a realty company, and turn it into a rental. More money for New Yorkers.

  133. “…the outfit that ultimately funds the retail loan…”

    NO, NO, NO. No FUNDING in the subprime—re-read ANONYMOUS. PLEASE.

  134. I shall try to respond to “Albert” and “John Gault”; pleae bear with me as this may take several posts.

    There is confusion about how default insurance [generally: “credit-default swaps” or CDS] comes into being, why it is there, and who it benefits. To get a glimmer into this arcane world, you have to “follow the money.” So: let’s just step back and review how a “Note” gets “securitized.”

    It starts with an understanding of world interest rates, which determine the Rate of Return on large pools of capital such as pension funds. The slick New Yorkers (due to cultural reasons in NYC these are all Jews, but that is another story) saw an anomalous situation: European interest rates were hovering at below 1/2%. Yet the pension funds for groups such as transit employees and teachers required much higher returns to stay “funded.” So they were “chasing returns.” The New Yorkers hired salesmen to go out across Europe and “sell” what were described as “certificates,” or shares of a trust, to the pension managers, with a promise of (for illustration) a 3% rate of return. the Europeans (and fund managers in the USA also) were naive as to the duplicity and thievery of the New Yorkers and “bit,” tossing in say $100 million, cash in advance for AAA-rated trust certificate shares paying 3%.. Now the New Yorkers have a pool of cash and need come up with $3 million a year as the interest payment.

    The money gets funneled through intermediaries and ends up in the coffers of a collateral-source “warehouse lender,” the outfit that ultimately funds the retail loan. Meanwhile, the other channel, the one that (supposedly) is buying and selling the “Paper,” needs to have customers on the hook to create the “Notes” that the various entities, including the “lender” (really, a paid loan broker), the “Aggregator” (really, a bank playing the role of accumulating Notes for bundling, for a fee), the “Securitizer,” the “Depositor,” and finally the “Trust” with its (theoretical) “Trustee,” need to create the Pool for the Certificates. that the “Notes” themselves never make it into the Pool, but get shunted off to some custodial vault somewhere back in the beginning, and only an electronic image of the “Note” ever makes it to NYC, is another story.

    So what happens? The salesman hooks the home buyer with the irresistible no-money-down, cheaper-than-rent loan “product,” and it gets signed (note: NOT “executed.”). Peper is created, the beginning of a security product that gets sold to the foreign borrowers. except your “Note” is at say 6%, not the 3% that is being promised to the Europeans. To get 6% “on paper,” the New Yorkers only need to come up with $50 million in 6% Notes (yielding the $3 million in interest on that $100 million in capital that was advanced).

    Now: what happens to the OTHER $50 million, the unused capital? Well, it gets diverted into the “bonus pool” of the New Yorkers. And that is why they went crazy at places like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros. to peddle these pools of dubious no-money-down loans: all that huge pile of capital being siphoned off at the inception – which was a giant theft, of course, since the Europeans naively thought ALL their capital was being invested.

    So: in sum: your signature on that paper was being used to create a “security,” and that is something altogether different than a promissory Note. More in a second.

  135. So, we are all exactly where the banks and our government wanted us: completely out of our frickin’ mind trying to figure out something that can’t be. It runs so deep, it is so devious so… evil, yeah, that’s the word! (and I hate that religious jargon but I can’t find a more appropriate one) that the only way out is by getting the whole thing to implode. literally! Implode. Blow up from within, collapse on itself and bury itself once and for all.

    And I’ve been thinking that making new laws won’t help. It will simply make things even more complicated. What we need is to go back to what worked and simplify it to its extreme.

    To think that humanity started with only 10 commandements (for those who believe in the Judeo-Christian views but those 10 original laws were based on common sense anyway and they are pretty universal and cross-cultural) and now, we have hundreds of thousands of laws nobody follows because there is always one that looks much, much better on paper. We’ve legislated to death everything and its opposite. As a result, we’ve allowed “everything goes”.

    Unbelievable human stupidity!!!

  136. It’s not just a “theory”—it’s the TRUTH…of which Neil seems to be avoiding, for some unknown reason…to the detriment of all of us…

  137. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: appraisal fraud, attorney general, auction fraud, DocX Indictment, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, forgery, housing market, housing prices, investors, mortgage fruad, mortgages, Robo-Signing, settlement, strategic default Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  138. Please comment on my title insurance issue below but i would like to elaborate also on what ANONYMOUS says.

    In 12 yrs of buying and selling real estate I never heard of a bank that would accept a $250k 2003 title policy on a 2005 $312k refinance.

    Also. I looked at my mortgage lien satisfaction in 2003. It looks OK. but ofcourse I was never given the cancelled note.

    My title insurance issue lines up with Anonymous. Old bank servicer is ‘paid off’ and records release. Old loan and old title policy endorsed to new bank…. mmmm. I am LOSING my mind. Why would old bank bother to endorse old title policy over to new bank?? why not just take the $200k payment and pay off the loan? so fishy.

    Anyhow I just don’t know how we prove this anyhow without forensic accounting or something to show they never got the $200k and recorded the lien release anyhow.

    If this is a good theory then let’s drill down.

    I am hoping my title insurance theft issue can open the door for me to ask for the cancelled note on the 2005 ‘pay off’.


    Filed complaint with FL board of insurance review for theft of title insurance premium.

    I had 2003 lender policy for $250K Stewart Title

    Refi 2005 HUD shows $1200 premium for $312K lender policy Stewart Title but commitment letter shows another property and another amount. Stewart employee now via email admits no new 2005 $312k policy.

    FL review Dept now accepting that somehow 2003 $250k ‘endorsed’ to ‘assuming new refi bank??’ is acceptable to them!!!!! This is now Stewart’s answer.

    Seems to me if it was acceptable to use the old $250k policy I would not have been charged $1200 premium for $312k.

    Seems to me mortgage broker or title agent steered me back to Stewart so that someone could pocket the $1200 premium.

    I guess main question is… if HUD shows $1200 premium for $312k policy then there has to be new 2005 policy??? duh.

    Also it looks like I was given proper reissue rate credit for 2003 $250k policy.

    I think they steered it and pocketed the premium.

    I also think that his lines up with ANONYMOUS theory that the other loan was never paid off. they just handed over the underlying debt and handed over the old title policy.

    No new loan. No new title policy.

  140. and what happens if there is no proof in public records filed ? there should be at least the first transaction right? . or something telling you there was a transfer

    the only transaction showed is the satisfaction of mortgage when loan was refinanced, after that nothing…. just the pretender assignment, that by the way, used a notary forged signature…i have the real commission of this notary…but doesn’t seems to matter

    judges granted final judgment…..

    so , there is no chain of title,it’s irrelevant there is no problem…we can enforce the note since we have possession, no need any assignment also..plaintiff attorney responded to affirmative defenses ]

    can’t find any assignment or satisfaction of mortgage for any of the “indorsements” on the fake note presented by the pretenders,

    they claimed was lost or destroyed.. 2 years after the claim ,surprise…the ” original” note showed up… and there is no original claim on court file stating that part…was removed….

    does any body now how to test aged ink, i mean a company or something?….this should be done before they remove the “note” from file… i read they do that frequently to avoid more test or problems….

  141. I talked to a very nice detective yesterday who works in the “Real Estate Fraud Task Force” in my city—he seemed to be up to date on almost everything, and agreed the situation is horrific…but when I started telling him about “only collection rights in the subprime”—he seemed pretty amazed—so I emailed him some information…I think the more we start talking to people and sharing information that shows how we are not “deadbeats”—but that the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS that we signed were a TOTAL LIE—well, maybe we can make some headway…

  142. Yes. No Quiet Title at issue. Not a mortgage.

    Default debt falsely presented as a mortgage.

    Time for many to regroup here.

  143. “…The subprime is DEFAULT DEBT — before borrowers signed on the bottom line. GET IT??? It is why the interest rate was so much higher, and why foreign countries wanted a piece of the “action.” And, US pension funds, and US governments. HIGHER FRAUDULENT INTEREST RATES ON ALREADY CLASSIFIED DEFAULT DEBT. That, my friend, is WHY they got the higher interest rates. Higher interest rate come with increased risk. Granted, rating agencies blew over, but, nevertheless, the risk remained. THIS WAS DEFAULT DEBT — collection rights —- to which the cash flows were fraudulently being securitized.
    THESE WERE NOT VALID MORTGAGES — and, were not mortgages supported by “investor” funding. Collection rights DO NOT require funding…”

  144. Obama may not have started this mess, but he sure in hell hasn’t done one thing to stop it. Where is Holder, the FBI, SEC, OCC….the list goes on and on and He, Obama gave them Multi-Billions of dollars with no strings attached, NADA, ZIP…

    The citizens are raped, pillaged, terrorized, robbed, vilified, broken and left homeless. What the hell kind of government do we have here?

  145. This post is discouraging. I have been in court for 4 years and filed a Quiet Title action. The judge bounce me out on my ear. Now in BK court. Nothing seems to work using the best attorneys and the best references. I am still upside down $ 200,000 plus $ 200,000 out of pocket and now in BK court. This government and there gang of crooks had this figure out so the home owner would never win. Best to give up and walk away…Fire DeMarco ! Jail the Banksters and
    Do not vote for Obama ! …it may not be his mess, but he has done a good job providing cover for the real criminals. This includes those in who think they know how to run this government, not to mention Freddie and Fannie.
    Our next election should be nothing but a lottery. Any one can for office. All you need to do is drop your name in a hat. Next this person should pass a law which states if any member of congress , senator vice president or president or officer who holds a position in congress or the US Government and passes legislation in which harms the a homeowner or taxpayer will be immediately removed from office and striped of any right set forth including retirement, body guards, benefits , health care or what so ever to support their current living standards.

  146. I disagree with the post too. My loan was defaulted long before I closed. The note was paid for by “default insurance”. I contend my loan is paid in full. And if the insurance premiums were paid for by me, I am “entitled” to the pay-off not the originator. The players have no “insurable interest”, which is required to own the policy (insurance fraud), without my assignment or knowledge.

  147. Sorry, my message got sent by mistabke. You need to have a chain of title analyst such as dave krieger who I have the highest regard for hired by an attorney. Then the attorney can draft a QT/DC action under state law with state causes of action against a lot of different entities including the trustee. QWR’s are a waste of time–never answered. In my opin Security reports are a waste of time. Don’t go to fed court, the judges are much more pro bank and RESPA, TILA, HAMP and other such claims are not worth the paper they are written on–lots of work, little return. GET A GOOD LAWYER preferably in your state. You need someone who understands statute of limitations, bankrtupcy laws, judicial v. non judicial state laws, contract, tort and not some two year lwyer who is clueless or a paralegal who things they know the law. Sorry, I see too many pro se’s making bad law after following paralegal advice on this website and other website. This is not for the feint of heart. You take it on, you make bad case law, it affects everyone.

  148. @jan Van Eck – I appreciate your reasoned comments. What I can’t find in there, however, is something which one could use to support the prop that the party or parties who are owed any part of the debt obligation, and most specifically the right to payment, have been the beneficiary of the (non-subordination) insurance payout. So I have a couple questions, if I may: who would you describe as the ‘real’ lender (you said has actually been paid) and how beyond speculation would one present this to a court – that the debt has been retired by insurance? And WHO was insured?
    Seems to me it wasn’t the party who owned the right to payment. Or was it? If I have sold and guaranteed payment, but the insurance I take against Mr. Johnson’s default pays me as the insurance beneficiary and not the party to whom I have guaranteed payment,
    that might equitably retire the debt, but not factually? Wouldn’t it only be factually if the party who has the right to payment receives the
    There must be a reason that default insurance didn’t call for subrogation. The amt of insurance, taken alone, would logically preclude oversight or some such. It may have something to do with
    creating a relationship between the investors and the insurance company (like AIG) – not wanting to or not being able to. I’m thinking the insurance did not insure the party with the right to payment, and if that party didn’t receive the ben of the insurance, what kind of mess would it be if an AIG were subrogated? One can’t subrogate a right or interest one doesn’t have. Or maybe if the party with the right to payment were the ben of the insurance, subrogation would have created a relationship between an AIG and the investors which wouldn’t survive trust law. Does this fact support a reasonable conclusion, then, that the trust itself was in fact the ben and that’s why no subrogation? (Plus the party with the right to payment would have had to agree to subrogation) Could the trust have been the named beneficiary? I don’t know, that’s for sure, but I’m pretty certain not so with subrogation, which succinctly stated is likely not contemplated statutorily (trust law) or contractually (psa), and so is likewise outside anyone’s authority to bind the investors to subrogation .
    To me, this – who was the named beneficiary on an AIG insurance – is very significant. (My info on say, swaps, is negligible) If someone other than the party with the right to payment received the insurance proceeds and those proceeds were not advanced to the party with the right to payment, where does that leave the borrower? You said the borrower’s own money was used to pay for the insurance, which it probably was, so the borrower should benefit from that insurance, with which no one here would likely disagree. But what have we got here if the party with the right to payment were not the recipient of the insurance? (As in, jets, diamonds, gazillion dollar bonuses, and a whole lot of mojitos for someone ELSE?)
    I’m trying to get a look at this picture if the party with the right to payment has not benefitted from the default insurance (or actually, if it did). Should it have? MUST it have? Got me, altho I think so, of course, which reminds me: if a party has made a guarantee, then I would think that party has a hands-down insurable interest, at least to the extent of its guarantee. But if I understand your argument correctly, regardless of the beneficiary, since the borrower paid the premium for the insurance the borrower should benefit. Again, no argument here. But I can’t wait to try to get a court’s head around that argument or to let one try to establish such as fact! Who knew when he signed a note and dot that he would need a law degree, an accounting degree, and also a degree in forensics? That is the downright unconscionable position anyone who signed a note in the last 12 years finds himself, and a court’s position out of the gate that the borrower owes someone, so it’s gonna let it be whomever shows up with his hand out is just plain wrong. *The only way I know of, short of a consortium of qualified attorneys working together (as the banksters have), is for we the citizens to bombard the judiciary with FACTs in whatever form we find them, like articles, lawsuits, and amicus briefs, even if those briefs have been written in another venue. Railing against a generic higher pay scale for white collar workers, for instance, (as opposed to the billions made by the masterminds of this whole fraudulent scheme) isn’t going to be met with anything but scorn and will only serve imo to undermine the credibility of legitimate arguments. One real protest should be against the continued existance of MERS, the supreme enabler of this whole rotten deal. *Another avenue might be to concentrate on affirmative defenses to survive mtns to dismiss and summary judgment.

  149. From Neil’s post:

    “…It is also true, however, that getting rid of the mortgage or even the note will NOT necessarily discharge the obligation. When you took the loan you owed a duty to repay it…”

    Just because he wrote that—AGAIN—, I am re-posting ANONYMOUS’s words of TRUTH in the comment sections from the last few days…(since Neil still doesn’t “get it”—or refuses to acknowledge the whole truth)…:

    “…If you have a trust and trustee named in foreclosure, you are not included in the Attorney General settlement. AG settlement is only for bank owned loans that also service the loan.
    What you have is a “private investor” loan. That private investor securitized the receivables to already classified non-compliant/default loan. Those securitized receivables “securities” are largely with the U.S. Government as toxic assets – with collection rights being disposed of to non-identified distressed debt buyers. The collection rights are disposed of via default swaps to the trusts that are no longer performing.
    Biggest obstacle is the statute of limitations. Governments has failed to investigate and negotiate a deal with the “investors” that purchased collection rights to the non-compliant/default loans, whereby receivables were falsely securitized into toxic (false) mortgage backed securities. These so called “investors” to so called trusts, collected insurance on default debt — whether or not there was an actual default. They falsely present to borrower as a refinance, and then they later collect the proceeds to the home via false foreclosure.
    When you got your subprime “private investor” refinance/jumbo purchase, no investors financed your loan. This is contrary to the myth that is often perpetrated here. Your loan was “paid out” by default/non-compliant insurance, with collection rights assigned to your new private “investor.” Only the servicer, hired by the private investor, is visible to the borrower. The private investor acquired collection rights to your refinance/purchase without ever putting up a dime. These private investors (debt buyers) were largely the banks, but these bogus “deals” are not part of the AG settlement.
    Then the ‘private investor’ securitized the receivables to your false mortgage loan. Security investors to the fake MBS, only purchased the right to pass-through of your payments to a false mortgage — which is nothing more than collection rights. with those collection rights paid out by insurance. Your refinance was a “modification” of the collection rights.
    When you signed for the refinance, you thought your prior loan was paid off by you. Nope. Nothing paid off by you— did not not need to be, insurance already paid out.
    So, let’s get off the kick of “investors” funding the loans. Nothing was funded by subprime “lending”, there was no reason for funding.
    Will victims ever get an investigation?? Do not think so. SOL is gone. But, of course, equitable tolling applies.
    And, as to the judges, all they care about is you owe the money. Do not care to who, and do not care if the debt is unsecured (which it is).
    What you need is proof — prior mortgage not paid off — by you. Start at the beginning.

    Well — new Minnesota case just came down. Sanctions against foreclosure defense attorney — for “frivolous litigation” —- “SHOW ME THE NOTE.” See below.
    No one knows where any money is going. Government does not care. All anyone cares about is —- I WANT YOUR MONEY/HOME. Where is this money going??? What can we do actually get a government investigation??? Each and every piece of the American homeowner is being torn away, by concealment and fraud.
    What do we have left? To claim investors put up the money?? — and investors should be compensated.? WHAT investors??? WHO AND WHAT, AND WHERE, AND HOW. NO Investors put up a dime for your subprime loan. NO INVESTORS. But, suddenly, there are “investors” that claim a right to your home.
    Frightening — each and every piece of you — silenced away.
    Bank of New York,
    Case No. 11-CV-2676 (PJS/JJK)

    And, I will go further, here, as I am furious as to the wasted time that has elapsed regarding challenge of bogus foreclosures.
    Federal law preempts state law. Federal law has stated that the creditor is NOT the trust, not security investors, and not the servicer. Nevertheless, we have seen continued effort, here, to promote “security investors” as the creditor. Thus, we are left with courts that are in the dark, have no idea as to federal law itself, and continue to abuse foreclosure defense attorneys who focus on one avenue.
    The creditor IS NOT the trust — or security investors. Producing the NOTE is meaningless — even if the NOTE was validly conveyed to the trust, which it was not.
    I have walked away from this site because the bogus theories that have gotten victims nowhere — continue here. But, when I see a case like this, and, the inability of attorneys to rightfully — and correctly — challenge — I am infuriated.
    NO SECURITY INVESTORS OWN YOUR LOAN. PRODUCTION OF THE NOTE is irrelevant. The only relevance is identification of the actual creditor by FEDERAL LAW.
    So frustrating to see this site go on and on — with nothing as to the real truth divulged.
    Need some major changes here. It is not for me — I have no personal interest. It is for you.
    Number One — get rid of the false notion that “security investors” funded your loan. Until you get rid of that notion — -you will continue to lose and lose and lose.
    IT is OVER — by that theory. .

    Until there is a grip on fraudulent transfer and securitization of loans, we will not get anywhere.
    And, as long as the premise that “investors” put up the money is continued, we will lose, lose, lose.
    The subprime is DEFAULT DEBT — before borrowers signed on the bottom line. GET IT??? It is why the interest rate was so much higher, and why foreign countries wanted a piece of the “action.” And, US pension funds, and US governments. HIGHER FRAUDULENT INTEREST RATES ON ALREADY CLASSIFIED DEFAULT DEBT. That, my friend, is WHY they got the higher interest rates. Higher interest rate come with increased risk. Granted, rating agencies blew over, but, nevertheless, the risk remained. THIS WAS DEFAULT DEBT — collection rights —- to which the cash flows were fraudulently being securitized.
    THESE WERE NOT VALID MORTGAGES — and, were not mortgages supported by “investor” funding. Collection rights DO NOT require funding.
    Need for Neil to get over this. GET OVER IT. Perhaps, then, Neil and his groups can proceed with federal law that demands identification of the creditor to the collection rights. We have lost it here. Lost it.
    Time to regroup. STOP being proud. It is over without a “regrouping.”
    Thanks. I have lived it.
    And, let me tell you, as soon as you walked in to refinance — wind spread like a wild fire. They knew — and they knew what they had to do.
    And, fraud continues to date.
    As I have said, insurance fraud to the hilt. But, what insurance fraud is part of the AG settlement??? If any at all???
    Whistle blower? For FHA insurance fraud? FHA insurance fraud not part of the settlement. So……??? What gives???
    WHAT IN THE HECK GIVES???????????????
    My point here — get your head out of the investor funding — BOGUS — BOGUS — BOGUS.

    Means the loan was a default debt, before you refinanced. Thus, refinance only a modification of a (false) default debt.
    Security investors funded??? NO. Nothing was funded for this false subprime refinance/purchase. Insurance collected — thank you.
    In a trust? No. Only the receivables to default collection rights in those subprime trusts.
    Are these subprime trusts part of the settlement??? NO.

    Not getting discovery in courts as we should. Courts are reluctant to hear anything. It was up to the US Government to investigate. Instead, they gave us a pansy AG settlement, which did nothing to investigate. NOTHING. Nevertheless, we must continue.
    You have good proof to start. What you need to do, is convince those at this site — to hear you. They have been denying the truth for quite some time — and that has affected the direction that foreclosure defense attorneys have taken. .
    Not sure if the reason for denial of the truth is pride, or just because they still do not get it here.
    Need to follow up with as much proof as you can — that court cannot deny. Need to file with every government agency you can think of, every document, everything you have. And, when they deny, need to refile again and again and again – over and over again.
    It take endless dedication to expose. ENDLESS dedication. And, I do not appreciate bogus “ideas” — from some here — that negate the real fraud that is going on. Such theories have made it all the more difficult to present the real fraud in courts of law.
    Time to end it.”

    Problem is—when you confront as to “real creditor”—you are told, “We don’t have to tell you that becuase of privacy laws…” And then they steal your house and sell it to a vulture…

  150. gwen caranchini, seeing the cases on FDCPA come out recently, is there a chance filing a Declatory judgment claim per non compliance to the FDCPA letter and none compliance with Washington CPA and Washington Deed of Trust Act, would cause for Queit title? Both my son and I have served the letter afforded by the FDCPA over two years ago and the QWR and have not been answered to date. A lot of friends and relatives of mine have sent this letter with no answer what so ever and kept the proof of it. Filed in the county records in a non judicial state also.

  151. gwen caranchini, may I have a copy of your pleading? Shelleystotalbodyworks@comcast.net. I was at a meeting Dave Kreiger talked at and I trust his genius. He is good. Thanks. Shelley!

  152. what if the purported assignment was done 5 years after the refinance? and done twice from originator to trust by two separate assignments, one by core logic and the other by lps. after the nod was rescinded?

    what is the average person to do? what if one spouse was borrower and not the other?

    as time goes by only more questions surface….

  153. I “strenuously” disagree with this post. About two plus years ago I met up with Dave Krieger thru a mutual friend. Although not then practicing I had 30 years of trial experience (and hope to be practicing again soon as I recently took the bar exam and am waiting for results). However, this post is wrong. Dave and i came up with a new concept. We had a QT as a lead claim coupled with a declaratory judgment claim. The QT is an equitable claim but not necessarily the DC claim which can requier a jury trial on facts. In a QT action you have the burden of proof; not so in the DC action–the defendant bank has to prove they own the note and therefore have the burden. It is nigh impossible to loose the title and win the DC action. In fact I have not heard of any instances of that. We also thru in that we got preliinary title reports from title companies (for me Chicago). The judge took one look at the title report and made it very clear–no SJ on the QT or the DC. Its two years because of a lot of removals, remands and removals and other procedural issues but finally just got an order from the court ordering mediation and scheduling conf as well as disclosures and discovery. Dave and I were convinced this accompished both ends of the process and we will prove that. Numerous people have requested my pleadings and although I will not modify or give legal advice on what I have done because I am not licensed, i send it and refeer them to their state statutes on qt and dc and requests for jury trial. This is the way to go to get the title clear and the note tossed. I therefore strenuously disagree with whoever is saying otherwise. They have not done the over 4000 hours of research that Dave and I have done on these issues especially with regard to MERS and other claims. Sorry Neil you are wrong–again. And by the way the only thing that a securitization gets you is further proof that the note does not exist–it does not get you a lawsuit showing you don’t owe on the note. That is what the DC does in every case. Try proving someone owes on an unsecured note if they lack standing to foreclose. The whole idea of foreclosure is after all to collect on the note–selling the house only pays off the note. If the note cannot be proved for foreclosure purposes it most certainly cannot be proved to show an unsecured debty.30 years of practice on various high end legal issues tells me that.

  154. Neil writes: “When you took the loan you owed a duty to repay it.” The problem with this statement is that it is unsophisticated. It represents only the duty at an instantaneous snapshot of time: the moment you received the funds, or the benefit of the funds. Yet that moment is eclipsed by the passage of time. It is what happens afterwards that is important.

    Inevitably, the “loan” had “documents” concurrently made that were supposed to reflect the transaction; they actually did not, as the “lender” on the “Note” was typically a stand-in, a nominee lender or “straw-man.” The paper trail did not and does not reflect the money transaction trail. That money trail went off to New York where the New Yorkers proceeded to go play with it in their sandbox. When the sand settled, the outside purchasers [the “investors”] got fleeced and the New Yorkers ran off with the cash. Also, the New Yorkers knew perfectly well that the re-sets on the loan would make it impossible to pay or re-finance, so they bought “credit default insurance” on your loan. When things went south, the default insurance (and/or the servicers or others) made the payments, so you were never in “default.”

    And this last part is critical: the real “lender,” whoever that is (and assuredly not the person described on the “Note,” who is a dummy stand-in) absolutely does not care where the money comes from: as far as he is concerned, the cash can come from You, or your Rich Uncle, or the generous lottery winner down the block, or the insurer, or the Servicer as a surety – makes no difference. Money is money, and paid is paid.

    If somebody else has paid, YOU no longer have any duty to pay. Your duty is extinguished. THE DEBT IS PAID – JUST NOT BY YOU.

    What people seem to stumble over is this “payment” from third parties. Do you not then have some vague obligation to pay the third-party? Are you getting “Something for nothing?” These vague ideas cause discomfort. Answer: Nope, usually no duty. The reason is that the third-party insurers made contracts that contained a non-subrogation clause, which means that, if called on to make the insurance payment, they receive NO claim onto the underlying debt (or house). If there is no non-subrogation clause, then you might argue that there is some “equitable right” on the part of the third party to be re-paid (by you). But that is typically not the case. For example, all AIG insurance contracts were without subrogation.

    The further argument is sometimes advanced that under the “collateral source rule” you cannot benefit from the default-insurance payout. Yes, you can: and here is why. That insurance was purchased with cash from your premium dollars or taken out of the loan, hence on your tab, and NOT from “retained earnings” of the undescribed and hidden lender. It is your money being used. So you get the benefit of the insurance credit, not the third party.

    Why, then, is anybody in foreclosure court? Makes no sense; the real lender is paid off. Reason: nobody is stamping the paper “Notes,” the documents made out to that straw-man nominee, as “PAID.” So you end up with these “Notes” and “Mortgages” floating around in some custodial vault of the New Yorkers, with no claims against them,nobody to challenge rights to the Note; and homeowners and Judges that do not know what is going on. For a New Yorker, that is just too tempting. So they take the Note, have their trustee service do a Substitution of Trustee, and go foreclose it. Hey, found money – the investors are settled with, so why shouldn’t Citibank or USBank or Chase go run off with the house that nobody has a claim on – and resell it? More cash for the banker bonus pool.

    And that, folks, is precisely why those “bankers” and their foreclosure mill lawyers need to be put into jail. They steal.

  155. In its complaint Monday, HSH Nordbank also alleged that all of the mortgages weren’t assigned to trusts backing the securities (as issued by Barclays) as promised. By not doing so, it hinders the ability of the trusts to foreclose on the mortgaged properties, according to the lawsuit.

    “Indeed, without such assignment of the mortgages into the trusts, these so-called ‘mortgage-backed securities’ were not actually backed by mortgages,” HSH Nordbank said. “Plaintiffs would not have purchased these certificates had they known they were not backed by collateral or the notes.”

  156. Well, with the kind of docs uncovered and posted by Mandelman Matters, I’d suspect it’s in everyone’s interest to file right away. The insanity goes so deep, it’s the only way to regain some kind of a life…

    And incidentally, if anyone can explain what we’re looking at, please do not hesitate to share with us! I for one looked at it and went “Hugh?” And don’t get me wrong. I’m reasonably intelligent, I speak a few languages, I am self-employed, I’ve traveled a lot but still. “Hugh?” is all I could muster…


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: