Like I said, the loans never made into the “pools”

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

When I first suggested that securitization itself was a lie, my comments were greeted with disbelief and derision. No matter. When I see something I call it the way it is. The loans never left the launch pad, much less flew into a waiting pool of investor money. The whole thing was a scam and AG Biden of Đelaware and Schniedermann of New York are on to it.

The tip of the iceberg is that the note was not delivered to the investors. The gravitas of the situation is that the investors were never intended to get the note, the mortgage or any documentation except a check and a distribution report. The game was on.

First they (the investment banks) took money from the investors on the false pretenses that the bonds were real when anyone with 6 months experience on Wall street could tell you this was not a bond for lots of reasons, the most basic of which was that there was no borrower. The prospectus had no loans because there were no loans made yet. The banks certainly wouldn’ t take the risks posed by this toxic heap of loans, so they were waiting for the investors to get conned. Once they had the money then they figured out how to keep as much of it as possible before even looking for residential home borrowers. 

None of the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code on REMICS were followed, nor were the requirements of the pooling and servicing agreement. The facts are simple: the document trail as written never followed the actual trail of actual transactions in which money exchanged hands. And this was simply because the loan money came from the investors apart from the document trail. The actual transaction between homeowner borrower and investor lender was UNDOCUMENTED. And the actual trail of documents used in foreclosures all contain declarations of fact concerning transactions that never happened. 

The note is “evidence” of the debt, not the debt itself. If the investor lender loaned money to the homeowner borrower and neither one of them signed a single document acknowledging that transaction, there is still an obligation. The money from the investor lender is still a loan and even without documentation it is a loan that must be repaid. That bit of legal conclusion comes from common law. 

So if the note itself refers to a transaction in which ABC Lending loaned the money to the homeowner borrower it is referring to a transaction that does not now nor did it ever exist. That note is evidence of an obligation that does not exist. That note refers to a transaction that never happened. ABC Lending never loaned the homeowner borrower any money. And the terms of repayment intended by the securitization documents were never revealed to the homeowner buyer. Therefore the note with ABC Lending is evidence of a non-existent transaction that mistates the terms of repayment by leaving out the terms by which the investor lender would be repaid.

Thus the note is evidence of nothing and the mortgage securing the terms of the note is equally invalid. So the investors are suing the banks for leaving the lenders in the position of having an unsecured debt wherein even if they had collateral it would be declining in value like a stone dropping to the earth.

And as for why banks who knew better did it this way — follow the money. First they took an undisclosed yield spread premium out of the investor lender money. They squirreled most of that money through Bermuda which ” asserted” jurisdiction of the transaction for tax purposes and then waived the taxes. Then the bankers created false entities and “pools” that had nothing in them. Then the bankers took what was left of the investor lender money and funded loans upon request without any underwriting.

Then the bankers claimed they were losing money on defaults when the loss was that of the investor lenders. To add insult to injury the bankers had used some of the investor lender money to buy insurance, credit default swaps and create other credit enhancements where they — not the investor lender —- were the beneficiary of a payoff based on the default of mortgages or an “event” in which the nonexistent pool had to be marked down in value. When did that markdown occur? Only when the wholly owned wholly controlled subsidiary of the investment banker said so, speaking as the ” master servicer.”

So the truth is that the insurers and counterparties on CDS paid the bankers instead of the investor lenders. The same thing happened with the taxpayer bailout. The claims of bank losses were fake. Everyone lost money except, of course, the bankers.

So who owns the loan? The investor lenders. Who owns the note? Who cares, it was worth less when they started; but if anyone owns it it is most probably the originating “lender” ABC Lending. Who owns the mortgage? There is no mortgage. The mortgage agreement was written and executed by the borrower securing terms of payment that were neither disclosed nor real.

Bank Loan Bundling Investigated by Biden-Schneiderman: Mortgages

By David McLaughlin

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Delaware’s Beau Biden are investigating banks for failing to package mortgages into bonds as advertised to investors, three months after a group of lenders struck a nationwide $25 billion settlement over foreclosure practices.

The states are pursuing allegations that some home loans weren’t correctly transferred into securitizations, undermining investors’ stakes in the mortgages, according to two people with knowledge of the probes. They’re also concerned about improper foreclosures on homeowners as result, said the people, who declined to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. The probes prolong the fallout from the six-year housing bust that’s cost Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and other lenders more than $72 billion because of poor underwriting and shoddy foreclosures. It may also give ammunition to bondholders suing banks, said Isaac Gradman, an attorney and managing member of IMG Enterprises LLC, a mortgage-backed securities consulting firm.

“The attorneys general could create a lot of problems for the banks and for the trustees and for bondholders,” Gradman said. “I can’t imagine a better securities law claim than to say that you represented that these were mortgage-backed securities when in fact they were backed by nothing.”

Countrywide Faulted

Schneiderman said Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s Countrywide Financial unit last year made errors in the way it packaged home loans into bonds, while investors have sued trustee banks, saying documentation lapses during mortgage securitizations can impair their ability to recover losses when homeowners default. Schneiderman didn’t sue Bank of America in connection with that criticism.

The Justice Department in January said it formed a group of federal officials and state attorneys general to investigate misconduct in the bundling of mortgage loans into securities. Schneiderman is co-chairman with officials from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The next month, five mortgage servicers — Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Citigroup Inc. (C), JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Ally Financial Inc. (ALLY) — reached a $25 billion settlement with federal officials and 49 states. The deal pays for mortgage relief for homeowners while settling claims against the servicers over foreclosure abuses. It didn’t resolve all claims, leaving the lenders exposed to further investigations into their mortgage operations by state and federal officials.

Top Issuers

The New York and Delaware probes involve banks that assembled the securities and firms that act as trustees on behalf of investors in the debt, said one of the people and a third person familiar with the matter.

The top issuers of mortgage securities without government backing in 2005 included Bank of America’s Countrywide Financial unit, GMAC, Bear Stearns Cos. and Washington Mutual, according to trade publication Inside MBS & ABS. Total volume for the top 10 issuers was $672 billion. JPMorgan acquired Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual in 2008.

The sale of mortgages into the trusts that pool loans may be void if banks didn’t follow strict requirements for such transfers, Biden said in a lawsuit filed last year over a national mortgage database used by banks. The requirements for transferring documents were “frequently not complied with” and likely led to the failure to properly transfer loans “on a large scale,” Biden said in the complaint.

“Most of this was done under the cover of darkness and anything that shines a light on these practices is going to be good for investors,” Talcott Franklin, an attorney whose firm represents mortgage-bond investors, said about the state probes.

Critical to Investors

Proper document transfers are critical to investors because if there are defects, the trusts, which act on behalf of investors, can’t foreclose on borrowers when they default, leading to losses, said Beth Kaswan, an attorney whose firm, Scott + Scott LLP, represents pension funds that have sued Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) and US Bancorp as bond trustees. The banks are accused of failing in their job to review loan files for missing and incomplete documents and ensure any problems were corrected, according to court filings.

“You have very significant losses in the trusts and very high delinquencies and foreclosures, and when you attempt to foreclose you can’t collect,” Kaswan said.

Laurence Platt, an attorney at K&L Gates LLP in Washington, disagreed that widespread problems exist with document transfers in securitization transactions that have impaired investors’ interests in mortgages.

“There may be loan-level issues but there aren’t massive pattern and practice problems,” he said. “And even when there are potential loan-level issues, you have to look at state law because not all states require the same documents.”

Fixing Defects

Missing documents don’t have to prevent trusts from foreclosing on homes because the paperwork may not be necessary, according to Platt. Defects in the required documents can be fixed in some circumstances, he said. For example, a missing promissory note, in which a borrower commits to repay a loan, may not derail the process because there are laws governing lost notes that allow a lender to proceed with a foreclosure, he said.

A review by federal bank regulators last year found that mortgage servicers “generally had sufficient documentation” to demonstrate authority to foreclose on homes.

Schneiderman said in court papers last year that Countrywide failed to transfer complete loan documentation to trusts. BNY Mellon, the trustee for bondholders, misled investors to believe Countrywide had delivered complete files, the attorney general said.

Hindered Foreclosures

Errors in the transfer of documents “hampered” the ability of the trusts to foreclose and impaired the value of the securities backed by the loans, Schneiderman said.

“The failure to properly transfer possession of complete mortgage files has hindered numerous foreclosure proceedings and resulted in fraudulent activities,” the attorney general said in court documents.

Bank of America faced similar claims from Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who accused the Charlotte, North Carolina-based lender of conducting foreclosures without authority in its role as mortgage servicer due improper document transfers. In an amended complaint last year, Masto said Countrywide failed to deliver original mortgage notes to the trusts or provided notes with defects.

The lawsuit was settled as part of the national foreclosure settlement, Masto spokeswoman Jennifer Lopez said.

Bank of America spokesman Rick Simon declined to comment about the claims made by states and investors. BNY Mellon performed its duties as defined in the agreements governing the securitizations, spokesman Kevin Heine said.

“We believe that claims against the trustee are based on a misunderstanding of the limited role of the trustee in mortgage securitizations,” he said.

Biden, in his complaint over mortgage database MERS, cites a foreclosure by Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) as trustee in which the promissory note wasn’t delivered to the bank as required under an agreement governing the securitization. The office is concerned that such errors led to foreclosures by banks that lacked authority to seize homes, one of the people said.

Renee Calabro, spokeswoman for Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank, declined to comment.

Investors have raised similar claims against banks. The Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System last year sued U.S. Bancorp as trustee for mortgage bonds sold by Bear Stearns. The bank “regularly disregarded” its duty as trustee to review loan files to ensure there were no missing or defective documents transferred to the trusts. The bank’s actions caused millions of dollars in losses on securities “that were not, in fact, legally collateralized by mortgage loans,” according to an amended complaint.

“Bondholders could have serious claims on their hands,” said Gradman. “You’re going to suffer a loss as bondholder if you can’t foreclose, if you can’t liquidate that property and recoup.”

Teri Charest, a spokeswoman for Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp (USB), said the bank isn’t liable and doesn’t know if any party is at fault in the structuring or administration of the transactions.

“If there was fault, this unhappy investor is seeking recompense from the wrong party,” she said. “We were not the sponsor, underwriter, custodian, servicer or administrator of this transaction.”

95 Responses

  1. Go to the home page of the LivingLies blog and look on the left side. There should be a place that says “Follow LivingLies Blog. Click on it and there should be a place for you to sign up to receive the blogs daily.
    Thank you,

  2. I will right away take hold of your rss feed as I can not in finding your e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter
    service. Do you’ve any? Kindly permit me know so that I may just subscribe. Thanks.

  3. Ok, here’s a blockbuster case that is truly a showstopper…at least in NY. See 80 A.D.3d. 1061, 914 N.Y.S.2d 790 (3d. Dep’t 2011), citing Whitestone Sav. & Loan Assn. v Allstate Ins. Co., 28 NY2d 332, 336 [1971]. The only two cases and never cited before or since. In essence, NY says that if the lender has been paid from whatever source, game over. Needs to be applied within the context of securitization.

  4. Menandmarriage, Let’s cover the originator owns the note in full details. What happens next? Any cases we can follow? Any sealed?

  5. One usually has time to file a proof of claim in chapter 11. If you are a scheduled (listed) creditor, you will receive the claim and notice of time to file from the court. Many chapter 11 BK’s are converted to chapter 7 no asset BK’s if the debtor cannot establish a reorganization plan and, then, there will probably not be any assets to distribute. If your claim is based on pending litigation and the case stays an 11 I think you’ll have to bring an adversary proceeding to establish the value of the claim. It is not liquidated in its current state as a lawsuit. Anyone else have more or better info on this please feel free to correct me. It’s been very long since I practiced.

  6. needs some suggestion. i need to file a Proof of Claim in the BK in regards to the filing of Residential Capital, LLC chapter 11 bankruptcy petition filed today in NY Southern District whose entities GMAC Mortgage, LLC and Executive Trust Services, LLC are affiliated entities to join the case to be consolidated for procedural purposes only and jointly administer.

    I have a pending case against these entities in Ca. any lawyer to represent me in filing this claim?














    Disputing incorrect personal information with MERS is easy; however, only the affected individual may submit a dispute. To do so, please follow the steps below:

    Click here to access the MERS Fair Credit Reporting Act secure portal.
    For first time users, create a new account.
    Activate your account by clicking the link in the confirmation email that was sent to the email address you entered to register your account.
    Re-enter the portal by typing your username and password.
    Click the “COMPOSE” tab and select “FCRA” from the drop-down list.
    Begin composing your secure message. In your message, please include the following information:
    The reason for your dispute
    The 18-digit Mortgage Identification Number of your loan OR your social security number and property address so that MERS can identify the registered loan related to the disputed information
    Your full name and contact telephone number
    Any supporting documentation relevant to your dispute

    anybody have anything to tell mers about their account?

  9. David, on May 11, 2012 at 12:20 pm said:

    “Here’s how to drop-kick the foreclosure-punk attorneys…

    Subpoena the ORIGINATOR and simply ask – were they PAID IN FULL for the alleged loan – they must answer YES by the SPV when they sold (thus separated) the NOTE
    Subpoena the SPV and simply ask – were they PAID IN FULL – they must answer, YES from the Trustee who received money from the sale of BONDS/SECURITIES…
    Subpoena the SERVICER and simply ask – were they PAID on SCHEDULE – they must answer, yes by the Trustee from fees……………………………….”

    Thanks you say it in few words – your whole post below….

    Practical question – how do you subpoena a bankrupt defunct institution? Only successor servicer survives and says he is the guy for any and all. Also I never use the term SPV because I have never fully understood it. Is SPV (I know special purpose vehicle) the parties to the trust ie sponsor seller to depositor (depositor sells assigns, endorses to the certificate investors – trustee issues the certificates and inspects, accepts and maintains documents “in recordable form for the state in which the property is located” along with custodian who is appointed).

    So what happens when originator, sponsor seller, depositor and custodian are all affiliates of the same bankrupt defunct institution? How do you serve or subpoena any of them? Servicer pretends to be all of them in one entity “because I say so – it’s in my computer… or says say what? “You owe the originator – that is who is on the DOT. That is who is on the NOD. That is who is on the NOTS. Defunct – no worry. And servicer says he is also successor and can assign to anyone he wants. End of story. Assignment to trust in-between is irrelevant (so why do it at all at this late date?). And to top it off, the trustee on the DOT is also affiliate of originator and successor “servicer”.

    No wonder one guy appears in court wearing many hats plays God and the indentured trustee hides…from the ariticle I posted previously:

    “Teri Charest, a spokeswoman for Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp (USB), said the bank isn’t liable and doesn’t know if any party is at fault in the structuring or administration of the transactions.

    “If there was fault, this unhappy investor is seeking recompense from the wrong party,” she said. “We were not the sponsor, underwriter, custodian, servicer or administrator of this transaction.”

    US Bank NA now administers the most trusts followed by the other trustee banks. All BofA trusts got “successored ect” to US Bank NA. Try to find the doing business in your state.

  10. @David:

    “If the (Note) securization failed, how can a Trust or it’s Servicer make a claim?”

    Thinking there is no trust if it failed and there is no servicer (servicer exists by way of psa) and originator was paid in full by someone……so is there a mortgage or not and who has the purported servicer been paying? Who is in contract with the homeowner? There is only the homeowners signature on the deed and note. Who has the power to enforce the sale and who is entitled to be paid now or in the past???
    The AG’s should be investigating this and perhaps they are at least Beau Biden seems to say so recently.

    “The states are pursuing allegations that some home loans weren’t correctly transferred into securitizations, undermining investors’ stakes in the mortgages, according to two people with knowledge of the probes. They’re also concerned about improper foreclosures on homeowners as result, said the people, who declined to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. “

  11. David:

    “if a Servicer successfully forecloses using an assignment made several years later, then why can’t that borrower sue for payments prior to the assignment? Think about that puppy for moment…? ”

    Been thinking about that too. Or at least ask a court to track it down when and why to who for what and what does the deed and note and ucc and state law have to do with it…. What happens if you paid the wrong party? Discovery?

  12. Matt Weidner posted about 938 some time ago:

    He says a few things and provides links…..

    “The trusts were all named and reporting until the end of 07 then 08 is missing??????.They restart the reporting in 09 but it is down to only Ginnie/Freddie/Fannie/JPM/Citi and random trusts that have been created.”

    One paragraph says:

    “Look at the WAMU BK. They were found to have a 10.3 Billion dollar tax claim filed against them that was reduced to 33M yet Chase got to walk away with a 300 Billion dollar bank 200M in mortgages for 1.9Billion. The loans were shown to have been written down to $0 yet they still want to collect?”

    I know of a wamu trust all set to foreclose with a nice new assignment to them and their successor trustee bank from the servicer “For Value Received”. It isn’t listed in any year. Maybe I am missing something – will keep checking. Went to the IRS site a while back too all possible years since inception. Maybe it never existed. How do they get an assignment and get to foreclose now? Who has been receiving payments from homeowners?



  15. I sent the sec an email and asked if a certain trust still listed on their site was still open because it stopped reporting early on. A vip sounding title responded they have no way of knowing with a link to a bankruptcy filing I wasn’t able to open….yet. May reply and ask for the link again.

  16. menandmarriage, on May 12, 2012 at 2:01 pm said:

    “There is also IRS Form 1066 for REMICs. On page 4 of the tax form, mortgages should appear as segregated assets. It also asks for who owns the assets. IF you want to know who truly owns your note, pull the 1066. The IRS will send a copy of the tax return for the REMIC, when you make a written request. It is public information!!”

    Wow! So simple. How long does it take? Too bad we can’t just log in somewhere and see it. Just wondering if the trust is closed out of business ect will you get that back in a response with the closed up shop date?

  17. There is also IRS Form 1066 for REMICs. On page 4 of the tax form, mortgages should appear as segregated assets. It also asks for who owns the assets. IF you want to know who truly owns your note, pull the 1066. The IRS will send a copy of the tax return for the REMIC, when you make a written request. It is public information!!

  18. Thanks for the info.@shelly i googled irs form 938 and year and the list popped up

    I will pass thid on.

  19. @shelly

    i googled irs form 938 and year and the list popped up

  20. Ian, do you have a http link to the IRS list for all of us?

  21. I know of several folks who cannot locate their loan-trust. I’m wondering if that’s because they sold them over-seas – Europe or wherever…

    I actually came across our loan advertised within a PIMCO document. It was a strange feeling looking at our full mortgage loan account number, city, state, loan amount, appraised value, type of loan, etc – ALL was on that document. I downloaded that puppy onto an Excel spreadsheet.

    IMHO – I cannot figure out why it is so hard to get a simple straight answer about some of this stuff. If the securitization failed, is the Trust and/or Trustee remain as “holder in due course” or “bona-fide purchaser”…? It seems a matter of law that they cannot. If the Notes were never deposited and/or properly transferred, then the Trust has no authority whatsoever. If the Trust has no authority over the Notes, then obviously the Servicer servicing the Notes have no authority.

    How can a Servicer demand payment for a Note the Trust does not have and cannot own?

    Consider this whopper – if a Servicer successfully forecloses using an assignment made several years later, then why can’t that borrower sue for payments prior to the assignment? Think about that puppy for moment…? They are violating the RICO act and both the State & Federal – Fair Debt Collection practices because they “legally” have no authority to demand payments – EVEN IF a debt is owed..!

    Even if foreclosure was successful the borrowers should be able to recoup ill-gotten-gains deceptively paid via the fraudulent statements sent with payment coupon from the Servicer.

    IMHO – this whole ordeal the courts are hung-up on regarding the NOTES are the borrowers promise to repay is arrogant deception by our legal system. That NOTE becomes a CANCELED CHECK when they traded it for securities. It is no-different than if we simply re-sent the same (cancelled) check every month to pay our mortgage. The Note was spent – THEY spent it when they wanted to buy bonds/securities. That was their doing – not ours..

  22. Above “Hindered Foreclosures” proves AG’s are still working for banks, not 4-U. alos, Tracy Lawrence correct link:, also,

  23. David- re: ownership of the notes- If you check the IRS form 938, I think it is, every ‘trust’ was supposed to be registered, by law, and this section lists thousands of them, both GSE and private label. Neither of the 2 ‘trusts’ which purportedly “own” my loans, at least from a viewpoint of what was supposed to be done, appears in these IRS listings. I went through the proper year, then the following year, and then the previous year. So in the eyes of the IRS, my ‘trusts’ do not exist. They don’t exist in my estimation, and am not sure they ever existed. Phone calls to various departments within the IRS haven’t gotten me much, if any, info. The ‘trusts’ are not in alphabetical order, so it takes awhile to look through thousands and thousands of ‘trusts’.
    Moody’s rated over 45,000 of these, but there aren’t 45,000 listed. Why? I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count.

  24. Here’s how to drop-kick the foreclosure-punk attorneys…

    Subpoena the ORIGINATOR and simply ask – were they PAID IN FULL for the alleged loan – they must answer YES by the SPV when they sold (thus separated) the NOTE

    Subpoena the SPV and simply ask – were they PAID IN FULL – they must answer, YES from the Trustee who received money from the sale of BONDS/SECURITIES…

    Subpoena the SERVICER and simply ask – were they PAID on SCHEDULE – they must answer, yes by the Trustee from fees…

    So, where is this so-called default? AND WHO is alleging OWNERSHIP or the NOTE..?

    Because of the tax exemption of the REMIC it is PROHIBITED from retaining any OWNERSHIP of the underlying assets it no longer holds any OWNERSHIP to the note ON THE DAY IT WAS FORMED.

    NOR CAN the INVESTORS in the TRUST hold any interest in the NOTE because they only hold the SECURITY which was sold to them.

    So what happened to ownership of the note? It was EXTINGUISHED.


  25. Guest, YES! I agree, I have sent demand notices to the county recorders office demanding all the fraud assignments to be removed and notified them they are on notice of enabling and aiding unlawful seizure of mortgages and embezzlement.

  26. @ALL: Corrupt lawyers & judges (X-lawyers) have since long sold out this nation under “one god” (Bribes). See how they are fighting LPS indictments and how they are trying to release Fidelity Robo-signer Trafford from jail in order to silence him like they did with whistle-blower Tracy Lawrence:

  27. The PSA transfer date is not the cut off date trust being sold I dont believe. Correct me if I am wrong. The notes can be transfered and sold only transferred and assigned one note not duplicates of photi copies. However per loan, if the note is not originally transferred into the pool within the 90 day PSA pooling servicing agreement it is void, and not repariable. If it is transferred into the PSA timely, then there are cut off dates to sell trust to someoneelse, I am understanding?! Correct me if I am wrong. However just like a broken chain of title, if the note is void at inception, a void nullified note can not be sold, transferred or anything, it is Void. The pools are showing they are empty and never had a note transferred into them at all.
    Here is an artilcle I believe in: We are the gate keepers to sound the alarm and try to help each other.

  28. @Shelley: U’r rite; But, the subliminal message is that they are endorsing the crimes. I suggest you go to nearest courthouse where your county’s “RECORDED FORECLOSURE NOTICES” are publicly displayed, and read a few pages. You will see overtly fraudulent recorded declarations like these: “the property being foreclosed MAY have this address…..”, or “the purported (ie: possible) loan # is….., and its amount in default may be $ ….”. What prevents Mr. Tings, and his county-parts enjoin such serially criminal recordings??? My answer is: COMPLICITY… & NOTHING LESS. None of these people, or AG’s have actually done anything against these crimes. Reporting them as they have amounts to endorsing the crimes and is similar to the reporting of the national bank scams by the U.S. Treachery, then looting the public to prevent bank scams and plunders to go public, by the criminal bailouts which were facilitated by the Treachery Dept itself. In effect they endorse the crimes and the criminals by condemnations, then by not enjoining them, and letting them continue their crimes. This is a routine tactic of public officials to absolve themselves of responsibility and liability… Do you get my point???

  29. Nomatter if they were unscrupulous, or reckless, he has publically taken a stand to help homeowners to fignt this crime and help them and their lawyers and has caused a report that helps us all.

  30. Superb analysis, Patrick. I believe you are atop this and ALL readers should be focusing on these facets of the “transaction” being duped against their interests & lack of full-disclosed knowledge. I’d like you to represent me … how would I contact you, Sir?!


    Note transferred (assigned) 4-yrs AFTER closing date… FDCPA – they were illegally sending statements & demanding payments for a debt they did not own. If they lose the case and are foreclosed – they should sue to be reimbursed for all payments made prior to the transfer…? They also violated the RICO act…

    Read below – “…with execution AND DELIVERY hereof,…” – delivery transfers the rights and benefits therefore “causes the conveyance – delivery of the NOTES – below notice the word “shall” – shall does not mean maybe or can if it wants to – SHALL means MUST

    SECTION 2.01. Conveyance of Mortgage Loans.
    (a) Each Seller concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Depositor, without recourse, all its respective right, title and interest in and to the related Mortgage Loans, including all interest and principal received or receivable by such Seller, on or with respect to the Mortgage Loans after the Cut-off Date and all interest and principal payments on the related Mortgage Loans received prior to the Cut-off Date in respect of installments of interest and principal due thereafter, but not including payments of principal and interest due and payable on such Mortgage Loans, on or before the Cut-off Date. On or prior to the Closing Date, Countrywide shall deliver to the Depositor or, at the Depositor’s direction, to the Trustee or other designee of the Depositor, the Mortgage File for each Mortgage Loan listed in the Mortgage Loan Schedule (except that, in the case of the Delay Delivery Mortgage Loans (which may include Countrywide Mortgage Loans, Park Granada Mortgage Loans, Park Monaco Mortgage Loans and Park Sienna Mortgage Loans), such delivery may take place within thirty (30) days following the Closing Date). Such delivery of the Mortgage Files shall be made against payment by the Depositor of the purchase price, previously agreed to by the Sellers and Depositor, for the Mortgage Loans. With respect to any Mortgage Loan that does not have a first payment date on or before the Due Date in the month of the first Distribution Date, Countrywide shall deposit into the Distribution Account on or before the Distribution Account Deposit Date relating to the first Distribution Date, an amount equal to one month’s interest at the related Adjusted Mortgage Rate on the Cut-off Date Principal Balance of such Mortgage Loan.

    (b) Immediately upon the conveyance of the Mortgage Loans referred to in clause (a), the Depositor sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Trust Fund together with the Depositor’s right to require each Seller to cure any breach of a representation or warranty made herein by such Seller, or to repurchase or substitute for any affected Mortgage Loan in accordance herewith.

    (c) In connection with the transfer and assignment set forth in clause (b) above, the Depositor has delivered or caused to be delivered to the Trustee (or, in the case of the Delay Delivery Mortgage Loans, will deliver or cause to be delivered to the Trustee within thirty (30) days following the Closing Date) for the benefit of the Certificateholders the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned:

    Just some thoughts

  32. Saw this last night – from Google scholar – it makes me sick.

    It appears to me the lawyers for the “trust” bank are twisting facts to show it is ok that the assignment is made and filed years after the trust closed – please see and be prepared for them to try to use this argument. HOW WOULD YOU FIGHT THIS ARGUMENT???

    Smith v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2012

    CHARLIE SMITH, JR., Plaintiff,
    LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, a foreign corporation, and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated April 1, 2006, Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-2, Defendants.
    Case No. 10-14700.

    United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
    April 26, 2012.

    Plaintiff argues that Deutsche Trust was not entitled to foreclose on his mortgage because the assignment of the mortgage to Deutsche Trust was void. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the pooling and servicing agreement which created the Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-2 imposed a “cut-off date” of April 1, 2006.[1] Plaintiff argues that this provision invalidates the March 13, 2010 assignment of the mortgage to Deutsche Trust, as the assignment occurred nearly four years after the cut-off date.

    Plaintiff misunderstands the function of the cut-off date provision, which relates to the selection of mortgage loans for inclusion in the trust. See Pl.’s Br. Ex. 1 at 201. It does not restrict the availability of remedies in the event that the borrower defaults on the loan. In seeking to apply the cut-off date provision to prevent assignment of the mortgage, Plaintiff essentially fails to recognize that the mortgage and the mortgage loan are not interchangeable. Plaintiff cites provisions of the pooling and servicing agreement which require the transfer of “mortgage loans” to the trust within a certain time frame. Pl.’s Br. 4. Plaintiff concludes that the assignment of his mortgage to the trust outside of this time frame was untimely, but the cited provision only restricts the transfer of mortgage loans. The mortgage is a security interest in real property which secures the repayment of the mortgage loan. While the pooling and servicing agreement established a schedule for the assignment of mortgage loans to the trust, it did not similarly restrict the assignment of mortgages. The assignment of the mortgage is one step in the process of foreclosure by advertisement, a remedy that is expressly provided for in the agreement. See Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.3204(3); Pl.’s Br. Ex. 1 at 219. Deutsche Trust established a record chain of title through the assignment of the mortgage from MERS, and was thus entitled to foreclose by advertisement. Plaintiff has failed to identify any fraud or irregularity in the foreclosure sale. His interest in the property was therefore extinguished by the expiration of the six-month redemption period on November 12, 2010.

    Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have violated several statutes prohibiting fraud on the courts and fraudulent conveyances of real estate. These allegations are premised upon a finding that the foreclosure sale was improper. The Court has rejected this argument, and concludes that Plaintiff’s new allegations of fraud lack merit.

    The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments, but concludes that it did not err in granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.


  33. @ Todd

    A real life example. In your mind, substitute note contract for a lease space .

    A lease assignment can occur in two forms: a strict assignment or an assignment pro tanto (only to the extent). A strict assignment constitutes a complete disposition of all your rights and interests to the entire premises for the remaining duration of the lease. By the terms of a strict assignment, a tenant has no latent interest or remaining claim in the property. In contrast, an assignment pro tanto results in the disposition of the primary tenant’s entire right to only a portion of the premises.

    Ok. A seller of payment rights to a note has dispossed itself of only a portion of the rights derived from debt ownership. Whereby, the seller and purchaser both have less than full rights and interest derived from the note. Therefore they both fall short of full note ownership. The lien only binds a full owner of the note.

    As for securitization, either the note owner retained its payment rights or the bond investors took the payment rights. It can’t be both. If its the former, the bond investors were defrauded because the bonds have no value. If its the latter, the guy with possesion of the note holds a worthless piece of paper. Two competing assets cannot both claim to vest payment rights to one debt obligation. That would be an impossible accounting feat.

    An intangible right thats been stripped from an asset and assigned without recourse for capitalization of a new replacement asset cannot be negotiated with a transfer of the old asset. An asset holder whose payment rights have expired either by debt payoff, strict assignment of the asset, or by a pro tanto assignment must derecognize the asset from its balance sheet. If a note is no longer recognized as an asset, it can’t be transfered as an asset unto another’s balance sheet.

    In this case, a departure from the original terms has overturned the payment beneficiary that was agreed upon in the note. So even if you perform everything that you agreed, you’ll be unable to discharge the obligation to the agreed upon payee. That portion of the note has been discharged unilaterally by the note holder. So you’ve received a pro tanto discharge of your obligation (a discharge only to the extent of the departure from the original terms) It is impossible to default on the payment rights of the named payee and the current payment beneficiary does not enjoy contract privity with you as they only have rights in that portion which was assigned. There is no lien beneficiary under the terms of the lien instrument because the lien only binds and benefits the lender or its successor and assigns. Lender = full rights of debt ownership.

  34. @Shelley: Mr. Ting confessed to Kings County’s complicity in the crimes because they have always known about these recording crimes and refused to act against them, even after this confession!!! because all the recorder needs to do is to reject documents from serial criminals, like banks and title companies, and put them on a black list, even if recorders don’t file charges against them. This is why county recorders are prime hubs of criminal foreclosure activities, leading to eventual theft of real estate by simple recordings., most of which are done by emails which get automatically recorded and are never seen by county recorders!!!

  35. Neal. If you have a trustee sueing you and the master servicer sent me a email saying that a different trustee has my loan.

  36. Appeals court case law from 1987 Just like the case law from Carpenter V Longan, old but good and standing. This case law is for all states, it does not just stand in one state.

    There is case law and standing rule of law to protect us. The judges have to be eithical also and judge by the rule of law.

  37. look at the kind of lawyers/ company the banks are associated with. Tells all! The firm for the banks in the Florida Pino case.
    Bank of New York Mellon was represented by Bruce Rogow, an attorney who has argued civil rights cases and defended American Nazi Party members and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David O. Duke. He has also represented consumers in the class action against banks for overdraft fees. Now why would he represent any consumer unless it was to assure a lesser penalty to the bank, by settling for less for his consumer clients, actually helping the banks get off. Guessing , I have no evidence of such. Seems conflict of interest to have filed a class action for consumers. Like filing a class action for African Americans after representing the Ku Klux Klan. Dirt bags in my opinion. Certainly nothing prestigous.

  38. livinglies looked up my PSA info which I am trying to recover the report again from Neils group, due to my computer tech deleted my emails which I thought was safe to leave it on. NO! WOW WI is one of the longest statutes time there is sorry, it is 10 years. For written contract, promissory and or mortgage. 893.43
    Six years for open end accounts. Which being that the PSA were never entered and became void, the PSA contracts state the loans have to be charged off. Once charged of it is an uncollectabel unsecured loan. So the six years can apply. Also due to the PSA’s being faulty the note is void. ANY HOW! RIGHT THEN AND THERE. No statutes of limitations necessary. VOID no debt. /see Phil Tings report, Kings County records: 85% of the assignments are invalid, and 100% of the securities pools are invalid. For the docs reviewed in Kings county. This has to be pretty much the same in every county in the U.S.

  39. Shelley A Erickson – can you please tell me the WI number of years on limitation (on transfers) as void if not done in 90-days? “They” refuse to provide PSA for >3-yrs now despite 4-QWRs, Atty Discovery & Interrogatories, etc etc etc. Thank You!

  40. This must be another reason Freddie did not give assumptions of loans, they only gave assumption of servicing rights. The servicers were sent out like hound dogs to attempt to collect an alleged debt not due them but to con us, the courts, and the county files, to collect a debt not due them. If they had the notes and all the rights they would not need fraud assignments. The foreclosers are attempting to collect by fraud assignments and claim they dont need to prove the notes they dont have.

  41. In the state of Washington if someone can prove they have paid property taxes on your property for three years that person can claim they now own your property. I made sure I have paid my property taxes. Check this out in your state. Dont let them make property taxes if it by law gives them the right to claim your property. A friend and customer of mine, who had his foreclosure recinded and sale at auction, and now months later has the house back in his name, has also had the property taxes put back into his name, without his request. He had been walked out by the Sheriff and had an attorney file unlawful foreclosure, unlawful sale at auction and loss of equity letter to the foreclosures. In six weeks he had it all recinded. The forecloser tried to get him to sign a letter stating he acknowledged the forecloser as owning his mortgage. The attorney told him to sign it, he said F U to both and walked out. A year later the property was put back in his name anyhow on county records. His payments were $22,000.00 a month not a year on an over three million dollar home. He has been back in his house without even going to court for about two years now. No one has heard of this ever before. He told me after he was walked out so I begged him to find an attorney and give the attorney the info I had and to file a FDCPA letter, the attorney filed that as well and the notice of unlawful sale and foreclosure and that was the end of that. He is afraid to file for quiet title or anything to stir up the pot. He has not been harrassed at all. As of yet.

  42. Freddie and Fannie have a notice to all servicers, that Freddie and Fannie do not want the notes. I believe this was to evade securities fraud and tax evasion. Freddie and Fannie were the securititzers. That is why they dont want the notes. Hide the dead body theory, no note no proof, no dead body hard to prove. Even a note that was not destroyed or shredded if not transferred into the PSA in time was void. Void is void. Each state has a statutes of limitations for written contracts, including mortgages and promissory notes and deeds of trust. When breached at inception and all securitized loans were, the statutes start at breach, of the banksters non disclosure of their attempt to con us with predatory loans, intended for default and sold before we signed, identity theft, selling our information on the stock market before we even signed, then the predatory loan they intended to default and steal the house back, among many more reasons the predator financial institutions have breached the contract and many statutes with us. CPA law, RICO, fraud, FDCPA laws, Fraud upon the county records and courts, you name it, they have done it.

  43. The note has to be transferred into the pool within 90 days or it is void, by PSA contract. They were not. Empty pools! A void note, nomatter who is holding it is void. A promissory note, written contract, deed of trust, are all uncollectable after the statutes of limitations runs (different ) in each state. Weither they hold the priomissory note or note, when the contract is breaced by either party. The loans were breached at inception, each and everyone.
    Washington State is six years, Calif is four years , I believe Florida is four years. In ANSWER TO BSE, look up Freddie, & Fannie shell game by Shawn Newman, a local Tacoma Washington attorney that is available on the web. Freddie and Fannie, did not want the notes. No notes! They wanted to hide the notes (shred them) due to evading securities fraud, and tax evasion.

  44. @BSE

    Sale of cash flow rights has caused a departure to occur whereby a material portion of the conjunctive contract provisions has been replaced and overturned. (pro tanto discharge/ impaired note). An investor in cash flow rights has received an unrecorded pro tanto assignment without recourse and has only assumed that part of the space (or contract) assigned. If an unrecorded third party investor (freddie/fannie) becomes the payment beneficiary without bilateral agreement and consent of the note maker, the prima fascia obligation to the named payee, as agreed, cannot be discharged because the note maker can only perform to the extent the conjunctive obligation to the named payee remains intact. The lien granted, therefore, cannot be enforced by the unrecorded investor because it’s not the successor to the other fully equal rights and provisions of the agreement. .

    Likewise, a seller of cash flow rights has assigned only that part of its agreement without recourse. The seller has retained other rights and interests derived from the contract provisions. Typically this includes the right to collect and service the loan obligation. However, the seller derives no benefidial interest from its collection rights because its obligated to pass thru payments to the unrecorded investor. By agreement, the servicer, who was the seller of the cash flow, remits payment it collects to the investor in a symbiotic relationship where each entity needs the other to co-exist in order to survive. Its not economically harmed by an obligor’s failure to pay because its rights to payment under the note have expired, and so the servicer does not benefit from the lien instrument because it can’t experience a default to its payment rights and interests.

    Read section 20 of a typical mortgage instrument. It provides that the right to collect and service the loan and also the beneficial interest in the loan can be taken separate and independent from each other. This implies that fully equal rights derived from ownership of the contract provisions are stripped separate from the contract itself. An endorsement and transfer of a note after such stripping is bogus because fully equal rights of debt ownership cannot be transferred to a successor if a pro tanto assignment of cash flow rights has occurred. You cannot transfer that which you don’t possess and you can’t sell that which you don’t own. The note is impaired.

    Section 13 provides that the lien binds( except as provided in section 20) and benefits the successor and assigns of the lender. Ask yourself why the exception language? When a servicing entity arises as a result of section 20, that entity is not bound by the lien instrument because it retained only limited rights derived from the contract provisions. It has not taken full and equal rights of debt ownership. Likewise, freddie/fannie have not taken full and equal rights of debt ownership because the right to collect and service the loan have been retained by the seller. Freddie/fannie consider servicers to be independent contractors that have been given the means to produce results. The means given to them are the retained collection rights that would normally belong to a debt owner. Both the servicer and freddie/fannie are partial assignees of a debt owners rights and interests under the note and have no rights under UCC article 3-203 (a). Whereby, the lien instrument doesn’t bind or benefit them because they are not a successor to the full and equal rights of debt ownership (the lender) via transfer of the note. Don’t let the blank endorsement fool you.

    The note’s contract language stipulates that an entity is entitled to enforce the note if it passes a two part test: it must have taken the note by transfer (i.e. transfer of full and equal rights and interests under the asset via a single purchase transaction) and be entitled to receive payments made under the note (i.e. cannot have factored the accounts receivable or sold its cash flow rights). Niether the servicer or freddie/fannie meet this criteria. Look up derecognition at

    MERS can’t enforce the lien for the benefit of the lender or assign the lien to a successor to the lender because a full 100 % successor to equal rights and interests via one single transaction does not exist. Period. The end. The debtor will never receive satisfaction of mortgage at the end from a valid lien holder because the note is impaired via a pro tanto discharge or departure of the payment oblligation to the named payee.

  45. FANTASTIC!!! . Not only did these Securities never make it into the Pool, but Brit will step out on a ledge and say…. find a Robo signed Assignment and you have found a Robo Bobo Security.!!! Follow the Bobo… A Robo Bobo Security is worth nothing signed by no one, enforceable no where, yet has managed to put this Country into deeper debt than any third World Country except for the Bobos on Wall Street who can still buy a third World country, including this one.

    A Robo Bobo Security belongs to a Bobo InvestorBank who has hired his friend and mentor Master Bobo Servicer Bank to Service these Bobo robosigned noteless Securities into numerous Bobo tax deferred Remics still being purchased by Bobo investors as tax write offs and these same investors will be bailing out these Bobo Banks again. Go Figure. And they say it’s all Legit.
    It’s Bankrupted the Country, Forced 65 year old women out of their homes at 3am at gunpoint, left children and families homeless across America and make no doubt about it, made 1.1% wealthier than ever. Until in Court someone, some Judge, some Legislation arrives that is stronger than all these Bobos decimating America, destroying lives, generations and dreams we will just have to remember what was.

    But doesn’t any one else ask “why these forceful evictions? Why did the documents have to be robosigned in the first place? Why wasn’t the Security entered into the Trust? If the Security never entered the Trust how much Federal Tax has the Bank Investor gotten away without paying as each unregistered security was sold into Remics and subsequently purchased by Investors? Who was the real Investor and how could a Bobo security be Serviced anyway? was the robo-signing fiasco a smoke screen to throw us off course? Was there an Agreement between Master Servicer and Investor? Did the Master Servicer agree to Service Robo Bobo Securities? how can you service a Security without a binding Assignment?
    How many Remics is the Security In? How many Investors have bought that Remic? Why is the Master Servicer still paying the taxes on that house and kicking out the family who has lived there for twenty five years rather than renegotiate with that Family?

  46. Neil right, but as courts have always worked for banks read how they twist facts & laws & say securitization, REMIC, Pools, etc. don’t even matter… from

  47. @Zoe,

    I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking.

    What happens usually is that you have a lender (supposedly the guy lending you money. We seem to know better by now.) He is the guy who got you to sign the loan documents. On those documents, you have a MERS MIN number, oftentimes.

    Shortly afterwards, your “loan” is sold/transferred/assigned to a mortgage servicer. You get some letter telling you to pay the new guy. That letter contains the servicer’s loan number.

    A few years down the road, your “loan” gets transferred again, to a different servicer. You get a few letters informing you of it. One of them comes from the new servicer and contains a new “loan” number. All those numbers are different from the MERS one which, typically, remains constant. Typically doesn’t mean all the time. People on this site have reported ovr and over seeing their MIN change over time.

    Up until recently, when you went in MERS records, you could pull the history of the “loan” by simply entering your MERS MIN number. A few months ago, I tried it and the entire history was gone except for the “loan(s)” showing still active. MERS did not automatically record satisfaction or releases of mortgage from one servicer to the other. People can find themselves with several “active loans” at once… and several potential foreclosers. Yeppee Yoo!

  48. Zoe

    You’ve got me thinking about this now and again more questions than answers but you have to ask the questions first…

    Anyone could send a letter to anyone and say “I’m the new guy on the block” Here is a new account number. The recorded secured encumbrance on the real property with the old account number now means nothing. Pay me and pay my account number and if you don’t pay me I get to foreclose because I say so.???? No value received? Theft? How much is owed the recorded account? Pennies on the dollar? Nothing? The entire original amount minus payments only now the payments go to the theif?

    I just have to beleive there are laws on the books that prevent theives and that they are not being followed or enforced (or dug out by attorneys or proffered in court) because no one perceives banks to be theives – not the judges and maybe not even the banks themselves (a big stretch and not what I think but for this purpose…). Mindless engine in motion by millions ignoring why we have laws in the first place. Homeowner owes someone – might as well be anyone. Way past time to get over this. Anyone could be anyone. Judges that rule this way have emperor’s robes.

  49. @david,

    it doesn’t mean when someone told you that they are collecting a debt in behalf of a TRUST, you would have to believed them . remember this entities who are claiming to be substituted trustees, agent of the beneficiary, agent of both trustee and beneficiary have the same common characteristic THEY ARE ALL DEBT COLLECTORS TRYING TO COLLECT A DEBT FROM US. if they would say that they are collecting a debt under a TRUST i.e. deutsche bank as Trustee for ABC Loan Trust 2010-02, then you have to get a copy of that prospectus on line and read it. believe me you would find it out if your loan is under the trust. but sometimes, they would attached a form entitled List of Mortgage Loan Schedules but there were no list of loans, its all blank. so, you would do more research on why the list of mortgage schedules were blank.

    in my case, i can’t find my loan in a trust based on the notice of default, but i accidentally read a case against Royal bank scotland, who was the depositor, the sponsor and seller who is also issuing entity under the trust, according to debt collector where my loan belongs. and it was this credit union who bought this trust i will not disclosed the names of the trust, because i am on the stage of discovery. this credit union bought the trust for 1 trillion and was issued a Cusip No. under the securitized mortgages. like what neil said, it was the real investors and homeowners who are the real victims here, the investors who bought the securitized mortgage certificates were the real investors who put up the real money.
    our signatures were solicited on the notes and the deed, then the loan originators act as a conduit to wall st. and wall st. would make that pool of loans into securitize mortgage certificates then sold it to investors who have no knowledge that they are buying a loans that did not comply with state and federal law and wave the loan underwriting guidelines. the prospectus was also created as a bible for would be investors thats all. every words written on those prospectus were not being followed for those who sold the mortgage certificates. i think the SEC never read those prospectus being filed. as long as all the documents were filed and completed and they paid for filing fees, then the real investors assumed that those prospectus are legal and binding. the same case in recorder’s office, as long as you followed the procedure in recording the documents and paid for it, they recorder’s office don’t care if those assignment of deed were fabricated or forged because according to their reasons they are not an investigative agency.

    @ carrie,
    i really don’t understand what you mean, but if you said that there were no actual money involved in all refinancing i don’t believed that. the title company whom the loan originator open escrow will not allow that to happens because how would they made to pay off the existing loans if there was no actual money involved. there must money involve wether refi or purchased. probably, your understanding of ANON is that there is no actual money involved when the foreclosing trustee accept a bid from outsider who is not the lender of the deed. the trustee deed upon sale is also another fraudulent auction in where an unknown entity bought the deed in auction and claiming to be the lender of the deed to avoid paying county/ city transfer tax. too much fraud already that each one of us sometimes are confused. well, as long as we share our knowledge on this website we can overcome this .

  50. Joanne, right again. The same number is suppose to follow it like a pin number I beleive they call it. I have been making note of the tow different numbers also. Watch the MERS attorney Pratt in this video. He claims MERS can not go wrong, cause the same pin number follows the mortgage so their can not be mistakes. HAH!

    Also notice Pratt boast about MERS being invented to cause [UNMOVABLE MORTGAGES TO BE MOVED]; now why would they be unmovable? Cause the titles had been corrupted by the S& L lending days? YUP! The titles were clouded then and void. They would not have needed MERS to dance around the deeds of registers if the mortgages were movable. Tells all! And he boasting MERS causes over a million unmovable mortgages to be movable. They should have handcuffed them all right then and there. My mouth dropped to the floor. Pratt was a poor lawyer.

  51. @ Joann, @ zoe you got me thinking tonight too – just when I think I got it – I find there is just so much more to consider…thanks!

  52. Zoe

    Another thought (more questions). I am quoting my own post:

    “A new account number means a new loan in mortgage land (never recorded?). Not the same as credit cards where this happens all the time (or is it – maybe it is the same shenanigans).’

    Just thinking, credit card accounts are unsecured and the collection rights get bought and sold all the time and the account numbers change……Mortgages are supposed to be secured… a change in the account number where the original mortgage was not reconveyed as in a refinance ect.and recorded as such…and no new document with the new account number is recorded -.could be an indication it was sold as unsecured debt collection rights completely separate from the encumbered property sitting on the public record with the original loan account number. Did one mortgage just became two if it wasn’t already which it was (an impossible act by the definition of “mortgage”)? How does the lien get satisfied for two accounts, one recorded and one not recorded? Where have the payments gone – door one or door two?

  53. @ chas404
    your last post really got me thinking – you showed me something new to consider – I have spent a year in this – and it is very enlighting what you just laid out!

  54. Zoe:

    “Why was the loan number changed?”

    Anonymous had a few things to say about that. Maybe he will post.

    Not speaking for him but my own conjecture inpired by things he has said…old book entry collection rights only “loan” put in false default?

    I also wonder in general when the originator is bankrupt and the mortgage asset is part of bankruptcy doesn’t it mean it can’t be transferred to anyone? Or? Would love to hear the possibilites – why account numbers were changed….

    What I also want to know is if a new document was never recorded with the new account number – is that legal – can it be brought up in court as an issue?

    Account numbers relate to the lender and beneficiary not the servicer. No reason to change an account number just because there is a new servicer. A new account number means a new loan in mortgage land (never recorded?). Not the same as credit cards where this happens all the time (or is it – maybe it is the same shenanigans).

  55. Did everyone get a new mortgage loan number after the original “lender” assigned the note?

    Can anyone answer the question Boots asked: Why was the loan number changed?

  56. Lets understand what Neil is saying…The investors (bond holders) are the lenders. They are the institutions and individuals who bought the bonds, in turn their money for the purchases went back to the trust to pay off the notes. In order to get their money back, the investors are the direct recepients of the principal and interest payments by the borrowers.

    As Neil was saying, the notes never made it to the Trusts. They were never assigned..The notes need a special indorsement to protect the issuer from claims from another potential lender. In the case of Fannie and Freddie, when you look at their Trust agreements, all they state is Fannie and Freddie are the Trustee and the Insurer to the REMIC Trust, not the owner of the notes. Instead REMIC Trusts are set up so GSEs do not pay Federal Income Taxes once the notes are indorsed to the REMIC. In order to insure that the GSEs do not pay taxes once the IRS finds out the notes were not in the trust, the servicers set up over-seas accounts where they can hide the money away from taxes. In essence, the servicers along with the GSEs created two debt instruments the notes and the securities certificates.

    If you want to dig deeper, the notes once passed to another investor are stamped :Without Recourse” absolving the previous investor from liability. It also protects the previous investors from having to repurchase the loans. Though there was no indorsement that existed whether it was in either bearer or special form. Thus, the original lender is the true holder of the note!!

  57. Someone with a pretty good solution. Won’t clear the existing mess but it’s a good start to clear up confusion…

  58. Problem I see is if even you come to court with all kinds of discovery the judge doesn’t let you show it. How do you fight that?

  59. JeninGA and Patrick and others,

    I believe that this is indeed the situation (ie notes/mortgages never made it into the trusts and/or were fraudulently funded etc). How does one claim this in a local court?

    My burning question for those of us with Fannie Mae loans is what Jen says. How can Fannie Mae (hidden via servicer) come to a local court and sue me for my piddly mortgage amount when the FHFA/Fannie has sued Deutsche Bank et al for umpteen billion dollars in Federal court?

    Has to be a way to get a REAL local result by advising our local attorneys. HOW do we do it? Let’s get a REAL answer!

    Seems to me that local lawyer should file motion to dismiss case or atleast demand discovery prior to continuing local case:

    1. demand discovery to verify if local loan is held within a trust within the FHFA lawsuits

    and/or 2. dismiss case until FHFA lawsuits are resolved and figure out what the setoff or settlement amount was

    or 3. simply file motion to dismiss case because FHFA/Fannie Mae is seeking to recover damages from DB/UBS etc.

    Have to break this down for a local judge. A plaintiff can not sue different entities to be compensated on the same harm/damage.

    Seems like a lawyer could say to a judge if you award the servicer/Fannie Mae damages from my local CHAS404 client and then UBS pays out settlement to Fannie Mae, my client may later be sued by UBS to recover losses which they had paid Fannie Mae.

    PLEASE I do believe this is key.

  60. To Brian Davies: Read through as many of your documents and filings as I could without Valium and tequila. You man deserve a medal. Keep fighting the good fight. You’re not alone out there by any stretch and we’re all behind you here on this blog, on other blogs, in courts and still clinging to the walls of our homes.

  61. @boots

    But what about this from ANON:

    First, “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.
    Second, 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.

  62. carrie,
    what i am talking about is the behind the scene investor lender who funded the loan or wire the money to closed the loan. i found out that on my documents that the loan originators who actually process my refinancing and who is my deed of trust was not actually providing the money to closed my loan, it was behind the scene lenders who provided the money whom neil refers to a party who is not a party of our contract in getting the loans. this behind the scene investors/ lenders already bought the particular loans and their own money was used to fund the loan. the loan originators who usually on the deed of trust are also has ties with the BTS lenders/investors were not using any money at all but earned their profits through premium yields. my conclusion is these loan originators were being use as a conduit to get loans from borrowers and induced borrowers to exotic product and predatory rates that homeowners cannot afford when interest rates increases. the BTS investors/lenders are called depositor in a prospectus of a pool of trust, the depositor who provided the money, will assign it to their affiliated company as a Sponsor and Seller of the securitized loans, then assign it to POOL of Trust called Entity Trust i.e. ALT Trust 2007-1, then the TRust would create a servicer ,master servicer and custodian and the TRUSTEE of the Trust of the Pools of Loans. however, i notice that the prospectus were created and filed before even our loans existed, in other word this BTS investors/lender already has the pool created to sell it to the investors who are going to buy a securitized mortgages, just like a guidance for investor to be to read those prospectus even the Pools is still empty. once the pool has been full with fake loan numbers, in my case, the prospectus was created in 2004 but my loan has been funded in 2007, although i did not find out if my loan is actually on that pool of trust as what these debt collectors were claiming. i am in discovery at this stage, and it is so important to know why my note loan number has been change and was given a loan number created by loan servicer. i want to find out what happen to my original note which has an original loan number and why they are collecting on a loan account number that i have no knowledge about. i think the robo-signing fraudulent and fabricated documentations has been settled by the big banks that yes they created a robo documents to speed up the foreclosure process and paid the the fine. however, that is only part of their frauds, the creation of fake account by loan servicer must also scrutinize. no wonder they cannot produce the original note.

  63. Dear Niel:

    Great documentation of the facts. Lock them up and throw away the key. They make Bernie Madoff look like a saint in comparison (60 billion compared to 700 trillion) poor Europe and any other sucker who based their hopes on American Realestate, funny money. We all got suckered.

  64. I think the MIN numbers are blacked out for privacy reasons. These numbers are readily available on other non publicly filed documents. You can use them to search the MERS database (at least you could…. Don’t know anymore if you can). The info on the MERS database is frequently incomplete and inaccurate though. However, in MN no one cares.

  65. @ Boots – I checked what I have and I found the copy of my security deed submitted to BK court, used as Proof of Claim has the min number blacked out – all except for the last four numbers -on a claim filed 6/10. Then, in another proof of claim submitted to bk court on 3/11 the entire min number is blacked out on the copy of the security deed! Your theory sounds interesting…would like to learn more…

    to ALL – any idea WHY they would do that – it does make me wonder –

  66. @boots—nobody “wired” any money…you can’t “wire” collection rights.

  67. Hi Neil & Boots,

    If the Trusts are empty, can they still make a claim against a Note they apparently do not own or never owned?

    How can a Servicer claim they are foreclosing on a Note not owned by the Trust? The foreclosure mill attorneys are claiming to represent the Trust through the Servicer. If the Trust does not own the Note or if the Securitization Failed – how can we prove it? This is Deceptive Collection Practices and both the Servicer AND foreclosure mills are in collusion of the fraud…

    If securitization failed, are the Notes enforceable? If not, how do we prove it?

  68. we all know now that the Prospectus describing the securitized trust are empty pools. i believed that all the loan servicer who services all the home mortgage are also into it in the beginning of this scam. i notice that a copy of note and the deed provided by the loan servicer when they filed their proof of claim and relief from stay in bankruptcy court, the original loan numbers on the note and the deed of trust were blackened out or erase only the MIN is visible.

    i figure out, that the loan servicer i made my mortgage payment, the original loan number has been changed to different loan number or account number. in other word, the loan servicer created a false account number to collect a mortgage that never exist because the originating lender whom we think is our lender in our deed of trust and note were in fact have been paid or some behind the scene investment lenders during the closing was the one who wired the money to title company to fund the loan.

    if behind the scene investors paid that note and keep the original note together with original deed, then the loan servicer would create a fake account to collect a mortgage payment based on those note and deed not disclosing to borrowers that they changed the original loan numbers. why would loan servicer changed the original loan numbers on a note? it is a negotiable instrument like money, you cannot altered the serial number of a u.s. dollar or else you could go to jail.

    i think the original note and the deed has been sold to different investors or private investors. and the fake account numbers created by loan servicer were put into the pool of trust to be sold to institutional investors such as pension plans, credit union, and insurance fund. i have read a case against royal bank of scotland, and the plaintiff who are a credit union accused the royal bank of fraud in buying a one trillion of securitized mortgages and were issued a certificate of such amount with different pools. in buying those securitized certificates their only given an excel spread sheet of account numbers and property address worth 1 trillion and the credit union investors will received a stream of payment form those pools. according to allegation by the plaintiffs, and the value of those pools were in defaults and they lost so much money. that is the reasons why the loan servicer cannot provide an original copies of notes and deed, instead they would give only a certified copy of the original on which they would put their fake loan numbers. compare your original loan numbers to your loan servicer loan numbers it is totally different.

    i think neil, you are correct that those pools are empty because those account numbers on the pools bought by the investors are fake account numbers and we are paying a mortgages that does not belongs to us. another frauds needs to be discuss on this site.

  69. Patrick – you are onto something VERY big here, but its complicated to read & understand for the layman. Can you elaborate with any real life examples (if that’s the right question to ask)? Thanks

  70. So … only the local courts can decide, based on our ability to more fully argue & object while they are too busy to learn the magnitude & depth of this StrawMan Shell Game of fraud. That much is quite clear.

  71. “Bond investors were not sold dividends based upon payments to a note holder, they were sold the direct cash flow of the obligation.”


  72. This is why they DON’T CARE that we have been victimized:

  73. Pro Tanto Discharge

    Only one action was agreed to be maintained for benefit of the whole. But if that one delivery cannot discharge the prima fascia obligation to the whole, a departure has occurred whereby the agreement has been replaced and overturned.

    Said another way, delivery of an action at an agreed upon time, in an agreed upon manner, in an agreed upon amount for the benefit of a stranger to the agreement is called a pro tanto payment because only a partial fulfillment of the contract has occurred.

    It is axiomatic that a material change or departure from contractual provisions relating the payment beneficiary under the terms of the note without bilateral agreement and consent of the note maker discharges and voids the obligation to the extent of that departure. If the named payee unilaterally sells or pledges its payment rights under the promissory note asset in order to capitalize a new replacement asset, the note maker is not obligated to pay for the benefit of the replacement assets owner under the contractual terms of its note. The debt to a note holder will never be discharged because of a material departure of the payment beneficiary. This is unconscionable. The note then is unenforceable by its holder because it doesn’t evidence payment rights, the replacement asset does. So the lien is also unenforceable because it follows the note, so long as the note evidences a debt to its payee. (which it no longer does)

    Two competing assets cannot both claim to vest control of payment rights to its holder. Bond investors were not sold dividends based upon payments to a note holder, they were sold the direct cash flow of the obligation.

    There is no party that can declare a default to its payment rights and interests in the note, likewise, we have been precluded from performing under the strict terms of the note via a pro tanto discharge.

  74. The DOJ doesn’t CARE about us—don’t you get it? The Federal Reserve is calling ALL THE SHOTS…and they don’t CARE that the whole subprime is a massive ponzi and we are the victims…they WANTED it that way.

  75. What about SunTrust (servicer)? They deny the loan was securitized, then what, Neil? How does one pursue it beyond their denial and flat refusal to provide full rounds of money trail Investor–>borrower vs servicer–>borrower, transfers, PSA, attorney QWRs, etc. then abuse you further with $B in assets and more attorneys to wear you down after having caused you to lose your business & license to earn?! DOJ, are you out there on our behalf? This is criminal thievery …

  76. If the Notes were not transfered legally, thus were never deposited into the Trusts, THEN does that mean the “securitizations” failed?

    If the (Note) securitization failed, is the Note enforceable?

    If the (Note) securization failed, how can a Trust or it’s Servicer make a claim?

    Several reports state the securitization failed in 100s (more) of Trusts. If so, doesn’t that mean those Notes associated with those Trusts are at best, insecured..? OR are they actually VOID & NULLITY?

    How can we PROVE the securitization failed for our Notes? Will a securitization research pkg sold here expose those facts? If so, how can we plead those facts and force the courts to obey the LAW?

    We are about to launch our lawsuit. I would really like to know if those are the proper questions and if not, what else should I be asking..?

    If the lender used fraudulent/False Certificates of Completion, i.e. fraudulent Use & Occupancy Permit, etc, when closing the loan, knowing the house was not completed – does that constitute a fraud and void the DOT and NOTE?



    Included is the full blown Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. Proper format and issues discussions.

  78. Hi all,

    Here is the file copy for Davies v. Deutsche Bank 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Good discussions of 15 U.S.C. 1641(g) with current case law. This is the notification of the borrower to any purchase or acquiring of notes with assignments recorded or unrecorded. It should help with late assignments done in cases. This case challenge those cases if the suit is brought within 1 year and 30 days of the assignment.

    Second full discussions in regards to Declaratory Relief. How, when and the supporting case laws. Ideal in BK where you want to invalidate a bogus assignment lien.

    Third there is full discussions on tender in the 9th circuit. Tender is needed to set aside a foreclosure if the process is questioned. Cal. Civil C. Section 2924. The exceptions with case law are presented. These are current cases. Should help others.

    Fourth, there is discussions dealing with standards of appeal, case law, motion for judgment on the pleadings. Etc.

    Fifth included is a MERS Audit Trail obtained by subpoena. Deutsche Bank Subpoena, and endorsements in blank with full discussion and case laws regarding the ability for a homeowner to use the PSA not as an inter meddler, but to show that the assignments are invalid.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Excerpt of record #1

    Excerpts of record # 2

  79. If a servicer says to me in writing “Your loan is in (such and such) trust—and we service it…” but a “loan” NEVER went “into a trust”…doesn’t that mean all the money they took from me I should get back? How does one frame a lawsuit for that? How to prove? Anybody know?
    Seems to me we should all be doing that…

    And Neil—“…So who owns the loan? The investor lenders…”





  80. Good job Neil, you said this 4 years ago when I attended your seminar, you’ve said it all along, okay what do homeowners do now?

    How do we get relief? The banks routinely ignore QWR, they ignore rescission. We’ve been down the road to hamp, which goes nowhere, we’ve screamed about robosigning, we’ve been forced into bankruptcy, we go into court and say, the pool is empty and the court says so what. We could go to the occ, or wait for our ag to start some new program, or wait for the new task force to find out about the empty pools. Or do we send our documents to the task force?

    And while we wait, we’ve lost our equity, we’ve in some cases lost our homes. People kill themselves over this, couples divorce, children go to school and return home to the car they are living in. We wait for the next new fraud to be perpetuated. Or they next new “relief” that does not in any way relieve us from this torture.

    If we find ALL the frauds: origination, appraisal, securitization, notary, assignment, foreclosure, etc who will care? Will we get our homes back, can we get our equity back? Can we get our sanity back? Can we get anything? Can we get past all these abuses? Do we dare think about monetary damages?

    At what point do we get relief?

  81. How can investor/lenders own the loan when the homeowner/borrower has no knowledge of their identity and never signed an agreement with them?
    Because homeowners/borrowers THOUGHT the lender lent them money? Because they THINK they OWE money? Because they THINK they can’t get something for NOTHING?
    THAT IS ALL IN OUR MINDS and has no basis in reality.

    Banks are stealing homes every day, but if we want to stay in our homes, we are freeloaders. Yet, banks get to keep their buildings and their offshore stashes, rob our taxpayer earnings, charge interest and fees, launder money through the government, collect on insurance, and re-sell our clouded titles for a profit… And, I’ll bet they try to send the people a bill for the mess they created, too.

    The transactions are fictitious. Find the perpetrators and hold them accountable, but don’t expect borrowers/homeowners and investors/lenders to be accountable for that which they had no knowledge. Don’t expect people to evacuate their homes like rats at the flash of phony paperwork.

    Whomever lives in the home owns the home because they have possession of the home. There should be a period of time after which the homes are owned free and clear by the parties that live in the home. Like a common law marriage, I guess.

    Investors were duped by banks into thinking they had made a secured investment. No better than a default on a credit card.
    Everyone loses in the long run.

    Let’s wipe the slate clean with the fiat currency, throw it in the trash, and jump on the debt-forgiveness bandwagon. Because the people did not create the schemes in the first place, so how can they be held accountable to PAY FOR THEM???

    The PEOPLE are TOO BIG to fail.

  82. “…Then the bankers took what was left of the investor lender money and funded loans…”



    sorry…had a lot of coffee.

  83. More questions – If Freddie bought GSE certificate which included the trust which mortgage servicer claims includes my loan…and Freddie still owns these certificates because Freddie filed a complaint vs. Credit Suisse in which Freddie “prays for relief and asks for rescissions and recovery of the consideration paid for the GSE Certificates (with interest of course)”. If Freddie says and FHFA Inspector General confirms “Freddie Mac reports it does not own or guaranty a mortgage on my property” – yet Freddie still owns the GSE certificate wouldn’t that confirm my loan is not included in the trust????

    In court can I use this to support my claim that my loan is not included in the trust therefore the beneficiary of my loan is not who the mortgage servicer claims it to be -in fact the trustee for the trust they claim my loan to be collateral for, is actually a 3rd party stranger to my loan?

    Can mortgage servicers do loan mods in which they change the “lender” to a 3rd party stranger to the loan? If so would that be considered intentionally misleading?

    Oh and based on all the documents I have, the “original lender” never quite understood if they put my loan in a trust in 2005 and per the PSA had to transfer both the note (with the allonge left blank and undated -of course) and security deed physically to the trustee – and then after the “original lender” sold the trust to Freddie in 2005 – then how, I ask – could the “original lender” still think it could legally identify themself to still be the “Lender” and “beneficiary” of the loan in documents???
    Would’nt they remember the loan had been put into a pool of loans that make up a trust that they sold???

    Last bit for now – newest loan servicer, when asked for a complete transaction history for the loan (I dispute both the amount they claim and who is the beneficiary for this loan) says “we are unable to provide the copy of the transaction history prior to 3/08” but the loan started in 2005 – how can they prove the amount they claim for the loan is correct when they can not provide a complete transaction history for the loan??

  84. TRUTH IN LENDING !!!!!!!!


  86. “Can’t foreclose” except in Minnesota where, apparently, you can foreclose on a ham sandwich.

  87. Yeah but Neil PBS just made a movie about this. They said nobody knew anything until everyone’s money was gone. It was just a big mistake and the banks were doing the best they could.

    A carpenter from MA managed to figure it out though…


  88. WHERE IS THE INVESTOR LOSS? how are they harmed? They took the home, from JOE JONES, so how dis they get harmed? Can anyone tell me in one simple sentence what harm the investors actually suffered if the trust took the home?

  89. “So what about all the loans that Freddie and Fannie now hold ?”
    I second the question. I suspect that the products sold here are worthless in these common instances.

  90. “The bank’s actions caused millions of dollars in losses on securities “that were not, in fact, legally collateralized by mortgage loans,” according to an amended complaint.”

    I have a real issue with this type of statement that seems to be in ALL the complaints by the investors suing the banks.
    If they admit to not having “legal collateral’ then why is there al
    almost no instances of homeowners keeping their homes,

  91. So what about all the loans that Freddie and Fannie now hold ?
    These were securitized ? Who is the real lender ? who is the bond holder ? Is the loan real ? Is the tranaction real ? Did the transaction exisit ? Does the home owner owe the obligation ?
    Is it secure or unsecured ?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: