Still Pretending the Servicers Are Legitimate

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

I keep waiting for someone to notice. We all know that the foreclosures were defective. We all know that in many cases independent auditors found that strangers to the transaction submitted credit bids that were accepted by the auctioneer, and that in the non-judicial states where substitutions of trustees are always used to replace an independent trustee with one owned or controlled by the “new creditor” the “credit bid” is accepted by the creditor’s agent even if the trustee has notice from the borrower that neither the substitution of trustee nor the foreclosure are valid, that the borrower denies the debt, denies the default and denies the right of the “new creditor” to do anything.

In the old days when we followed the law, the trustee would have only one option: file an interpleader lawsuit in court claiming two stakeholders and that the trustee is not a stakeholder and should be reimbursed for fees and costs. Today instead of an interpleader, it is a foreclosure because the “creditor” is holding all the cards.

So why is anyone surprised that modifications are rejected when in the past the debtor and borrower always worked things out because foreclosure was not as good as a work-out?

Why do the deeds found to be lacking in consideration with false credit bids still remain on the books? Why hasn’t the homeowner been notified that he still owns the property and has the right to possession?

And why are we so sure that the original mortgage has any more validity than the false documents to support fraudulent foreclosures? Is it because the borrower’s signature is on it? OK. If we are going to look at the borrower’s signature then why do we not look at the rest of the document and the facts alleged to have occurred in those documents. The note says that the payee is the lender. We all know that isn’t true. The mortgage says the property is collateral for payment to the payee on the note. What first year law student would fail to spot that if the note recited a loan transaction that never occurred, then the mortgage securing the payments on the false transaction is no better than the note?

So if the original transaction was defective and the servicer derives its status or power from the origination documents, then who is the servicer and why is he standing in your living room demanding payment and declaring you in default?

If any reader of this blog somehow convinced another reader of the blog to sign a note and mortgage, would the note and mortgage be valid without any actual financial transaction. No. In fact, the attempt to collect on the note where I didn’t make the loan might be considered fraud or even grand theft. And rightfully so. I am told that in some states the Judges say it is the absence of anyone else making an effort to collect on the note that proves the standing of the party seeking to enforce it. Really?

This sounds like a business plan. A lends B money. B signs papers indicating the loan came from C and C gets the mortgage. B is delinquent by a month and having lost his job he abandons the property. D comes in and seeks to enforce the mortgage and note and nobody else is around. The title record is still clear of any foreclosure activity. D says he has an assignment and produces a false forged assignment. Nobody else shows up. THAT is because the parties in the securitization chain are using MERS instead of the public record title registry so they didn’t get any notice. D gets the foreclosure after substituting trustees in a non-judicial state or doing absolutely nothing in a judicial state. The property is auctioned and D submits a credit bid which is accepted by the auctioneer. The clerk or trustee issues D a deed upon foreclosure and D immediately transfers the property to XYZ corporation that he formed the day before. XYZ sells the property to E for $300,000. E pays D $60,000 down payment and gets a mortgage from ABC Lending Corp. for the other $240,000. ABC Lending Corp. sells the note and mortgage into the secondary market where it is sliced and diced into parcels that are allocated into one or more REMIC special purpose vehicles.

Now B comes back and finds out that he was never foreclosed on by his lender. C wakes up and says they never released the mortgage. D took the money and ran, never to be heard from again. The investors in the REMIC trusts are told they bought an invalid mortgage or one in which the mortgage has second priority instead of first priority. E, who bought the property with $60,000 of his own money is now at risk, and when he looks at his title policy and makes a claim he is directed to the schedules of exclusions and exceptions that specifically cover this event. So no title carrier is going to pay. In fact, the title company might concede that B still owns the property and that C has the first mortgage on it, but that leaves E with two mortgages instead of one. The two mortgages together total around $500,000, a price that E’s property will never reach in 20 years. Sound familiar?

Welcome to USA property law as it was summarily ignored, changed and enforced for the past 10 years? Why? Especially when it turns out that the investment broker that sold the mortgage bonds of the REMIC knew about the whole story all along. Why are we letting this happen?

42 Responses

  1. 1) What documentation would demonstrate (read prove) that even a trust had the right to make a credit bid at auction? I’m not saying or even suggesting that documentation doesn’t exist; the querry is what is it, what documentation would in effect demonstrate such a right? Why should this documentation be ‘overlooked’?
    We used to say ‘follow the money’; now it appears to be ‘follow the paper’ (read evidence) if not first and foremost, certainly i conjunction.

    2) Assuming the existence of no. 1, an agency agreement or poa between the trust and (theoretically) the servicer must be proffered (read proved) to demonstrate that the servicer has been awarded the right to make a credit bid on its behalf by the otherwise entitled party (either in its own name? or in the name of the trust). These
    necessary agreements just can’t be assumed by courts as a matter of law.

    Every trust head-honcho (not the sec’n trustee – he doesn’t appear to give a rat’s or is in cahoots with the bankster. I mean the guy who made the decision to put pension funds into these investments) either fighting against the rape of the trust (I just read investors are getting .45 on the dollar) or even if not can file a “Request for Notice” in the public record regarding the loans(s) at issue. If I’m a head-honcho, don’t I have a list of the loans allegedly in the trust(s)? That way, I should be notified, (and it’s my -limited- understanding I am NOT notified at the peril of the person declaring default) that the recorded at the recorder’s office has gotten a Notice of Default. I can then keep an eye on things and put pressure where warranted (with the sec’n trustee? or?) I would have a much better shot at managing the damage to my clients if I had notice of a nod. Or maybe I could demand that the lousy servicer use some of those HAMP etc gimme-funds and settle / work out the damn thing instead of running up thousands and thousands in fees I’m intended to eat. (I don’t believe in the legitimacy of svcr modifications for numerous reasons, but sometimes one can’t solve everything with one bullet). An obvious problem is that when the HAMP funds were accepted by the bankster, they had no authority to bind the investors to modifications, -or- maybe they did . Was it necessary to have the authority? That’s a large can of worms – starting with who really owns those loans (not just the right to payments made) or like must they and can the svcrs purchase the loans before modifying? and if that’s the case, then couldn’t I as head-honcho ‘encourage’ them to do so? If loans must be purchase out of the trust they’re allegedly in before modification, can the servicers use HAMP funds to do so? They would actually only be into the HAMP gimme-funds for the diff between the purchase of the loan from the trust and the modifed amt. Of course, they may have a new risk, one they most assuredly don’t want. They now would actually own the loans and some of them are not in a position structurally / legally to do so and THEY also know the purchases from the trust are not legit if the loan never made it to the trust in the first stinking place. Rather ‘short-sighted’ of the folks who forked over the HAMP etc. funds to servicers – with apparently no strings to boot.
    It may be that nothing in the agreements between the head-honcho and the investors compel him to take such a step. But, he should do it for the benefit of his investors, if nothing else. Someone has to absorb the cost of the requests for notice. I’ve already nominated the head-honcho who no doubt made a lot of dough on the deal. These people could hold the line on some form of morality or even just good business if they chose.
    People who know what trust their loan is in might broach the head-honcho(s) with this notion. There must be a way to learn the id of the head-honchos. The head- honchos could and should imo be demanding that the loss be taken by the appropriate people (and just what is that loss with HAMP gimme-funds?).
    I like the idea of attack from both sides, esp when one attack may be preemptive. Anyone have any thoughts on this, even if it’s to dispel the idea? If the idea has any merit, how could we take action and encourage the head-honchos to get onboard?

  2. […] posted here: Still Pretending the Servicers Are Legitimate « Livinglies's Weblog ← Free Information From the Federal […]

  3. @Nancy Drewe

    How is it “legitimate”when MBS not backed by any M?






    abstracting of real property records

    examination of all title evidence to determine ownership

    ensure that the foreclosure of the Deed of Trust vests the client with equitable title
    Virtual Transferrable Records
    Docketed with Court
    Title Settlement Agent CREDITOR purchaser of NOTE… and Title Settlement Agent file with Court …
    Under and by virtue of a Power Of Sale contained in a certain Indemnity Deed Of Trust
    holder of the indebtedness secured by the Indemnity Deed Of Trust having appointed
    as Substitute Trustees by instrument duly executed, acknowledged and recorded among the Land Records of the said County, default having occurred under the terms thereof and at the request of the holder of the Note

  6. Japan insider trading probe snares JP Morgan
    By Emi Emoto and Chikafumi Hodo

    May. 30, 2012 – 04:30PM JST

    TOKYO —
    Japan’s widening probe of insider trading has reached JP Morgan Chase & Co as the embattled U.S. bank was identified Tuesday as the source of leaked confidential information regarding a planned share offering by Nippon Sheet Glass Co Ltd in 2010.

    Three people with knowledge of the probe said officials had determined that a JP Morgan salesman had been the source of the leak about the offering to a Tokyo-based fund, Asuka Asset Management.

    The development marks the first time a foreign bank has been caught up in an investigation by Japanese officials that has put the spotlight on what insiders and regulators say had become a near-endemic practice in the Tokyo market.

    There is no indication JP Morgan will face any penalty in Japan. Insider trading fines, even when imposed by Japanese regulators, tend to be token. (Same here, except when your name is Martha Stewart or John Smith…)

    Even so, the revelation of JP Morgan’s involvement in the probe could raise new questions about the internal controls of a Wall Street bank already under scrutiny after reporting a trading loss of at least $2 billion in the “London Whale” case.

  7. E. Tolle, on May 31, 2012 at 8:17 am said:

    “…This entire scheme is being perped by nicely dressed criminals who talk as if they have the interests of the country as their own. Al Qaeda could never inflict such damage. We’ve been lied to by the very people we sent to represent us. And the jig is up. It’s time to call them back to face their constituents, to explain why they’ve all sold us out. Enough is enough.”

    AGREED. I’m FED UP. How ’bout you, me, ANONYMOUS, Dr Pham, Lynn S. (does she have a gag order?), Neil (has he admitted the MBS has no M?)—and maybe Susan Sarandon and Micheal Moore go on a press junket and lay it all out there…watch out for snipers, though…

    I received an email yesterday from someone on the US Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce asking for my story re. my brutal treatment and subsequent foreclosure at the hands of IndyMac/OneWest…he wants to know my story as he’s had many complaints about One West…I will see what he can do…although the minute I read that he was going to “write a letter to the President”—I thought—here we go—clueless…guess I’ll have to educate him.

    The point is WE have to start educating EVERYONE—like Dr Pham said in that video link—SHE IS PUTTING IT TO US—THE PUBLIC—TO GET THE TRUTH OUT—!!!

  8. I don’t know what is worse: having trusted someone and been betrayed to the point of losing everything, including hope, or looking at the future and seeing absolutely nothing. None. No long term, not even a short term. Not for my kid, not for me. No future whatsoever.

    That hurts. Enough to become violent. Enough to want to die standing up while fighting. I’m not the only one. We’ll get there.

    OBLABLA or MITTENS for President in 2012? Here’s how I’m going to choose…

    I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to how I’m going to decide whether to vote for OBLABLA or MITTENS this coming November and I believe I’ve finally come up with a plan that will work for me. It’s balanced and decisive… it’s informed, while not being oppressively analytical. It is, however, a two-person job, so I’m will need some help as Election Day 2012 approaches. If anyone can lend a hand, I sure would appreciate it.

    Here’s my plan…
    Okay… first, blindfold me and put a dart in my right hand… spin me around three times… jam the business end of the dart into my left ear… and then hit me in the back of the head with a shovel. Should I come to, just assure me that Lyndon Johnson is still in the Oval Office, and don’t let me watch anything but, “Car 54 Where Are You,” re-runs for at least a year.

    Look, I’m sorry to start like this, but see… NO… that’s not what I wanted to… you see, the real issue here is… wait… I’m getting off-track and… but what I want to start with is… and only if that’s where we, but… WHO THE… stop it… all I can do is consider the… but I’m not… I’m just not, because it wouldn’t… so I won’t… and most people can’t until… hang on… look… if I were to tell you that… no, that isn’t the proper framing of the… what about? Does anyone think that we… not just we, I mean it more in the sense that… unless things change… many wouldn’t tell you… so I won’t, but I will say this… unconvincingly perhaps, but…

    Oh Hell…

    But, that’s not what I’m writing about anyway, so just let it go.

    The reason I’m writing this at this decidedly inopportune moment… it’s 2:24 AM… is because of Matt Stoller.

    I met Matt last year while in New York City attending a Max Gardner symposium on the potential impact of the Uniform Commercial Code on foreclosure defense. It’s all sort of a blur to me now, but for some number of days I sat in a class room at New York University Law School with many of the top foreclosure defense lawyers in the country, alongside some of the rock star celebrity bloggers as we listened to and debated the nuances of UCC – 3 as contrasted with UCC – 9 when attempting to convince a judge in Tallahassee why the fact that someone who hadn’t made a mortgage payment in 47 months didn’t matter when held up next to the Uniform Commercial Codeeeeee, andddd nffffghhttt, dxxxcsssssssssss Htttrrrffdssw…

    Oh, my… I’m sorry about that. That subject continues to have that same effect on me, I just can’t help it. It was my third such symposium on the topic and I still can’t tell you which one is better, 3 or 9. I do love Max Gardner, but the UCC is like the melatonin of foreclosure defense strategies for me, what else can I say?

    Anyway, I met Matt Stoller there and I have to tell you… he’s a very impressive guy. Sharp as a whip, as they say, and when I first came upon him, he and Yves Smith were out in the hallway talking about something political with Abigail Field… so with the alternative being the UCC… I was glued.

    Matt’s the kind of guy who you quickly realize is so smart that that he’s capable jumping from the Florida politics of “The Waffle House,” to French poet Guillaume Apollinaire’s boldness as a trailblazer fighting the battle between tradition and invention while proclaiming the primacy of the spirit of adventure over the sterility of well-worn ways. In other words, you really have stay on the ball or you’ll find yourself making a comment that was so 22 seconds ago.

    The boy’s just wicked smart, that’s all there is to it. He’s even a “fellow at the Roosevelt Institute,” and although I’ve never really been sure how much that is when converted into American money, it still sounds grand to me.

    So, I was just about to head off to bed when an email from Matt sent earlier the previous day with the following headline caught my eye:

    Barney Frank: Obama Rejected Bush Administration Concession to Write Down Mortgages
    Shut the front door. Oh no he didn’t…

    I had to know more, and it was a short piece so I figured it couldn’t cause too much harm to have a gander. Here’s how Matt kicked off the news…

    “Here’s Barney Frank, in an exit interview recently in New York Magazine, revealing unwittingly that Obama during the transition rejected a Bush administration concession to write down mortgages. Here’s what Barney said.”

    The mortgage crisis was worsened this past time because critical decisions were made during the transition between Bush and Obama. We voted the TARP out. The TARP was basically being administered by Hank Paulson as the last man home in a lame duck, and I was disappointed. I tried to get them to use the TARP to put some leverage on the banks to do more about mortgages, and Paulson at first resisted that, he just wanted to get the money out. And after he got the first chunk of money out, he would have had to ask for a second chunk, he said, all right, I’ll tell you what, I’ll ask for that second chunk and I’ll use some of that as leverage on mortgages, but I’m not going to do that unless Obama asks for it. This is now December, so we tried to get the Obama people to ask him and they wouldn’t do it.

    Matt points out that Barney’s telling of the tale is consistent with other accounts, and he’s right about that. Most notably, you should read, “Confidence Men,” by Ron Suskind. You’ll likely ball like a newborn through the lighter parts, but real education is never easy.

    Matt then summed it up so succinctly that there’s no point in my attempting to do the same…

    “There were policy debates within Obama’s economic team about what to do about the mortgage crisis. The choices were to create some sort of legal entity to write down mortgage debt or to allow the write-down of mortgage debt through a massive wave of foreclosures over the next four to six years. His choice the latter. That choice was part of what led to roughly $7 trillion of middle class wealth gone, with financial assets for the elites re-inflated.”

    Matt went on to point out that ever since he had pointed out that the growth of income inequality under Oblabla was oh so much worse than under Dubya… a fact that I and many others have also pointed out of late…

    “… many people have responded by saying that somehow this is not Obama’s responsibility, that it was an inherited crisis and structural problems that caused a widening of inequality. They simply do not want to accept that policy matters, or, if it does, that Obama had any choice in the policy choices he made.”

    Yeah, and to that I can only say… Shut the front door!

    But Matt then makes clear the most salient point of the Oblabla presidency…

    “In fact, crisis response is the single most significant policy making time imaginable, because all structural barriers are swept away.

    Think about it – this was literally a deal offered by Hank Paulson – one guy – to Barack Obama, with a multi-trillion dollar impact. No 60 votes in the Senate. No hearings. No confirmations. Just a handshake, basically. In other words, policy does matter, and Obama had a variety of choices and leverage, and he did what he thought was best. He did not want to write down mortgages, even though he was offered that choice by the Bush administration and Barney Frank. So he didn’t.”

    And finally Matt concludes as follows…

    “So yes, Barack Obama is worse than George Bush on economic inequality.

    While Paulson didn’t want to write down mortgages, the single biggest factor in determining whether the American middle class has any stored wealth, Paulson was willing to do so in response to pressure. Barack Obama was not.”

    Shut the front door…
    Want to know something here? Matt Stoller is right, but so what? All that does is make me want to douse myself in gasoline and light up a Camel plain end with my Zippo while playing Rosemary Clooney records on my my new 600 gig iPodHATE.

    But that brings me back around to how I began this diarrheic diatribe…

    I mean, on one hand there’s OBLABLA who is running on the “Well, sure but look at the crazy f#@ks over there,” platform.
    And on the other side is MITTENS, and he’s running on the “Unabashedly Pro-banker & Long-term Austerity” ticket.
    Barack Obama… and I’m sorry to say this, really I am… will be going down in history as having made the single worst decision in the history of the modern age, if not all mankind. He makes the guys behind “NEW COKE” look like Steve Jobs.

    And Mittens is just doing everything possible to make sure he can’t possibly win in 2012. He went to Nevada and advocated “faster foreclosures.” In Detroit, Michigan, he said he wouldn’t have bailed out GM. Next I suppose he’ll head to Miami as part of his, “I hate old Jews Unplugged” campaign.

    And me? Where the hell does that leave me? I want Dubya back… or Cheney even. He could run using the slogan, “Back to Iraq,” and I’d be looking to re-enlist. I’d vote for Snoop Dog over either of these guys, and I’d wake up early to do it.

    I’ll take WATERBOARDING for $500, Alex. I have got to find a hobby for the next four years, and program my DVR to loop, “My Mother the Car,” re-runs for the next 48 months, as someone sprinkles Lithium on my Corn Flakes each morning.

    And you… YOU… yeah YOU… don’t try changing the channel… sing it along with me… in harmony…

    “While Paulson didn’t want to write down mortgages, the single biggest factor in determining whether the American middle class has any stored wealth, Paulson was willing to do so in response to pressure. Barack Obama was not.”

    Which, and correct me if I’m wrong, makes Paulson a spineless, flip-flopping, heartless moronic bankrupt capitalist… and Barack Oblabla someone with the capacity for economic judgement roughly equal to that of an asexual carnivorous sponge.

    # # #

    So, I don’t know why, but I just Google searched for “obama news,” and you want to know what came up top?

    “Obama gambling that Syria won’t be election liability.”

    Oh really?

    Mandelman out.

  9. All the masters need to do is to stop paying public officials’ salaries, then you will see cops & military picking up protesters & unhappy campers & dumping them up in jails or in concentration camps. they have owned you cold according to history:
    “By 1904, more than a thousand railroad lines had been consolidated into six great combinations, each allied with either Morgan or Rockefeller interests. As Cochran and Miller say:

    The imperial leader of the new oligarchy was the House of Morgan. In its operations it was ably assisted by the First National Bank of New York (directed by George F. Baker) and the National City Bank of New York (presided over by James Stillman, agent of the Rockefeller interests). Among them, these three men and their financial associates occupied 341 directorships in 112 great corporations. The total resources of these corporations in 1912 was $22,245,000,000, more than the assessed value of all property in the twenty-two states and territories west of the Mississippi River.. ..” from:

  10. how the hell does a gal “just stop” as tresspass unwanted says, just stop,
    while they f you some more…force you into Bk court another scam control mechanism, no way
    id rather go down fighting.

  11. Thursday, May 31, 2012
    Citigroup Still Committing Mortgage Fraud as Late as 2012

    Bloomberg’s Bob Ivry has a great piece out on mortgage whistleblower Sherry Hunt, who just won a false claims suit against Citigroup.

    By 2006, the bank was buying mortgages from outside lenders with doctored tax forms, phony appraisals and missing signatures, she says. It was Hunt’s job to identify these defects, and she did, in regular reports to her bosses.

    Executives buried her findings, Hunt says, before, during and after the financial crisis, and even into 2012.

    In March 2011, more than two years after Citigroup took $45 billion in bailouts from the U.S. government and billions more from the Federal Reserve — more in total than any other U.S. bank — Jeffery Polkinghorne, an O’Fallon executive in charge of loan quality, asked Hunt and a colleague to stay in a conference room after a meeting.

    The encounter with Polkinghorne was brief and tense, Hunt says. The number of loans classified as defective would have to fall, he told them, or it would be “your asses on the line.”

    Neil Barofsky noted that this behavior implies that the banks are still engaging in the same set of unchanged risky and damaging patterns of behavior that led to the initial crisis.
    Citigroup behaving badly as late as 2012 shows how a big bank hasn’t yet absorbed the lessons of the credit crisis despite billions of dollars in bailouts, says Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    “This case demonstrates that the notion that the bailed-out banks have somehow found God and have reformed their ways in the aftermath of the financial crisis is pure myth,” he says.

    The HUD Inspector General reports unsealed after the settlement show that robosigning was still going on as late as this year. It’s just not a surprise that Citigroup was covering up fraud in their mortgage unit as late as this year.

    After all, why shouldn’t Citigroup do so? It worked out for their executives last time, didn’t it?

    What a joke! They all do. Chase didn’t lose 2…, 3…, 5…, 31 billions (depending on who’s counting) just by playing by the rules.

  12. They’re only buying time before it blows. It’s a useless race against time and my feeling is that it will blow before people themselves unite and blow. Especially with the earthquakes reported daily. (Another 4.6 one 20 miles from Fukushima today). And when that happens, all that bank money will be confiscated and all governments will scramble to try and fix a problem we knew was highly likely. Japan just nationalized TEPCO because it no longer has the means to fight what it created. I still have to wrap my mind around it: knowing first hand the castathophe caused by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why on earth did Japan, of all countries, ever jump on the nuclear energy wagon (nukelar, as Palin would say…)?

  13. @ carie said, “Dr.Pham is basically saying that she was fired because of fear…fear of the systemic ramifications of everyone knowing that it’s all unsecured debt…no mortgages backing the MBS…and all the foreclosures are illegal…it’s that simple.”

    Exactly. It’s the securitization machine. It wasn’t devised, as they’d like for us to believe, so that we the poor underlings could afford a little place of our own. It was devised as a skimming machine from top to bottom, to leverage everything that you and I do, you know, real people who work for a living….so that they could leverage every skillset that we possess. Skim off our education, our auto loans, our illnesses, you name it. The entire deal, from the HMO’s to GSE’s to MERS is one huge siphoning mechanism put into place over the last 30 or so years in order to skim off of Main Street, to finance their wars, their country club dues and gated communities, their councils and think tanks, so that they could continue to place leaders into power the globe over that would continue to chant their mantra and further their agenda.

    They cannot, under any circumstances, allow this system to fail. That’s why Paulson ran into the once hallowed halls of congress, not asking, but demanding the nation’s checkbook. That’s why Bernanke’s been throwing zero interest money at them…all under the average citizen’s radar, with complicated sounding reasonings, when the facts are painfully clear that like all Ponzi schemes, this one too is failing. But they will do anything to continue to pilfer for as long as they can ride this thing down. And that’s exactly why they’re taking all of our homes. Because they can, and because they’re all complicit.

    State sponsored capitalism is fascism. We’re there. It doesn’t take an advanced degree in political studies to deduce that we’ve suddenly awakened to this gruesome fact, from the micro to the macro. Just look at your state statutes. For every one law that would put you into jail in a heartbeat, there are ten that have been repealed that once kept them in line.

    Now look at the 49 state mortgage settlement….I’ve spoken with my AG’s office several times recently….I have ironclad proof that B of A is continuing the exact same fraudulent practices that the complaint spelled out in detail. The reaction of my AG’s office was to correct me on the date that the banks were given immunity through, as if that was an important matter. In other words, my state’s highest law enforcement office is arguing over whether or not immunity to criminality is good through XXXX date, or YYYY date. I mean, I can’t believe this shit! What has this come down to? Instead of hearing me out on the details of how Bank of Fuck-America is still perpetrating crimes against the citizens of the state on a regular basis, they simply want to argue that the agreement allows fraud through the date that the order was signed off by the judge!

    This entire scheme is being perped by nicely dressed criminals who talk as if they have the interests of the country as their own. Al Qaeda could never inflict such damage. We’ve been lied to by the very people we sent to represent us. And the jig is up. It’s time to call them back to face their constituents, to explain why they’ve all sold us out. Enough is enough.

  14. from the CBO director (who fired Dr.Pham):

    In August 2011 the CBO noted a dismal outlook of the nation’s budget and economy…Director Elmendorf said at a Wednesday press conference after the report’s release. He said the debt-ceiling deal “makes a real difference, so I guess that’s good news.” He then added: “I think the challenges that remain are very large.”

  15. Donna Demello, part of the James McConnville gang, “The West Coast Donald Trump” the papers call him, she is to be sentenced in a few days. McConnville got 8 years,

    She is named in case after case, investors suing, but me? just a housewife, not allowed, or so it seems.

    for two years since I filed my suit, I have steadily claimed I signed only documents on July 12th, not the 16th of July 2007.

    of that forgeries were created and a notary stamp put on them the showing 16th of July 2007.

    In my third amended complaint, they have gone onto full scale attack of me, and could possibly kill my husband at any moment.

    He was not suing with me, as they framed him in this, as a straw man, and by this framing, I thought he did it, but found out October 2011 he was innocent.

    My computer has been hacked, and they have altered my complaint to say” I saw my husband sign a note on the 16th”

    THIS IS UNTRUE, and for two years I have stated the opposite, yet they words in the complaint suddenly say this, and that I signed “documents on the 16th”

    They no no limit to what they will do to stop me it seems, and I am about to sound like a nut job to even state this reality of it being altered, but it is the truth.

    My husband and I only signed documents on July12th, 2007, for LOT 256. NOT LOT 107, and the escrow agent was DONNA DEMELLO.

    We signed no other deeds of trust or notes on any other date, and this criminal conspiracy was done to defraud us.

    CHASE, if you take this LOT 107 you do so knowing the deeds of trust are forgeries, and knowing that I did not write the words in that third amended complaint, and knowing that Demello did this.


    I swear on the holy bible and under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
    /s/ Martha Nali,

  16. excerpt from zerohedge link on Dr Pham (scary):

    “…In early November 2010, a stunning example was CBO Director Elmendorf’s, a Harvard Ph.D. economist, view that employment growth in housing construction would spur economic growth, in his discussion of inputs into CBO’s macroeconomic forecast model. A question about the assumption was met with Director Elmendorf asking why they were “pessimistic” about such assumptions.

    After my termination, Director Elmendorf stated that I should have followed directions from the more knowledgeable and experienced Chief Economist Lucas, taken the opportunity to learn from her. Director Elmendorf saw no ethical issues in her direction, but shifted to perhaps we had a difference of professional opinion. As I understand, Director Elmendorf and MIT Professor Lucas first claimed to Senator Grassley’s office that they could not speak about my termination due to personnel privacy protections, when none exists for Congressional employees. When given full immunity to speak freely to Senator Grassley’s office regarding my termination, they refused to speak.

    It has been suggested to not mention these things in polite conversation, but I admit there were oddities following CBO’s termination. After CBO fired me at the end of the day saying “we do not know whether or what you know about economics, economic theory or finance,” I returned to my office to make a phone call. Everyone had left, but there was a silhouette of a man standing in the dark in an office across the courtyard watching me during the 15-20 minute phone call. Later, I came home to find some papers had been moved and could no longer find some important documents pertaining to this case. I attempted to retrieve these documents from my office at CBO, but the power to my office was shut down precisely as the documents from my computer were about to be e-mailed to me; the entire floor and building were unaffected. At about 3 a.m. during a week day, there was sudden a loud crash into my front door followed by complete silence. Perhaps it was just a complimentary early wake-up call.

    The truth is still what it is.

    As I have come to learn, the issue of foreclosure fraud ‘robo-signing’ seems to be spoken in hushed tones near the powers of Washington D.C. CBO has the ear of Congress and can make or break policies that affect the nation with its analyses.

    Who is the CBO serving?”

    (signed) Lan T. Pham, Ph.D.

  17. @Carie,

    And you know what I find so amazing? They all have been running in fear. All. including Obama, Geithner, DiMarco, that’s why nothing has been done… yet! The thing is: the facts are now so well known that they can’t ignore them. No matter what, action MUST be taken and the longer they wait, the tougher it will get on them. If they wait much longer, they will pay, probably with their own life. They don'[t realize that the people who killed themselves were their responsibility. That the increase in crime everywhere is their responsibility.

    A lot of people who tried to speak were victimized by those abject fears. It’s coming to a halt. Watch Dimon: the more fearful he is and the more arrogant and abject his behavior will be. And Warren Buffett won’t escape unscathed either. None of them, will. It is coming top an end.

  18. @ E. Tolle ,,

    Do you have a link to the ZeroHedge article on Pham?

  19. Fear of calling it criminal conspiracy at the top…

  20. So, E.Tolle—Dr.Pham is basically saying that she was fired because of fear…fear of the systemic ramifications of everyone knowing that it’s all unsecured debt…no mortgages backing the MBS…and all the foreclosures are illegal…it’s that simple.

  21. @E.Tolle

    enraged posted this a while ago:

    L. Randall Wray.Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri–Kansas City
    L. Randall Wray
    The $7 Trillion Question That Haunts Banks
    Posted: 03/16/2012 4:09 pm
    I’ve been writing about the MERS monster since 2010.
    I suppose it is now safe to reveal that a staffer of Representative Marcy Kaptur put me on the trail of this fraud — in dollar terms it has to be the single biggest fraud in human history. In sheer utter disregard for law, it is certainly the most audacious fraud in Western history. To tell the truth, I had never heard of MERS until she called. If you recall the Michael Moore movie, Rep. Kaptur stood on the steps and told homeowners facing foreclosure to stay in their homes. She was right: the banksters have no legal claim on the homes they are foreclosing. Foreclosure is theft. Any bank that used MERS has no legal claim on property — there are 65 million such mortgages to which no bank has a legal claim to foreclose.
    And, to be sure, even those mortgages that were not run through MERS are suspect if they are handled by any of the five biggest servicers. These servicers keep such shoddy records that they cannot be trusted to accurately credit payments. They’ve been adding on fees and penalties that were unwarranted since they cannot keep track of records.
    Folks, there are $7 trillion of securitized mortgages. It was (mostly) the securitization process that demanded fraud. Securitization could never have been profitable — it was a flawed way to go about financing homeownership. It was simply too expensive to compete with Jimmy Stewart thrifts. It required fraud to show profits. (As Bill Black always says: fraud is a sure thing. It is always the most profitable way to run a business — until you get caught.)
    In addition to the MERS monster, we also know the securities did not meet the “reps and warranties” claimed. The banks that did the securizations will continue to get sued to take back bad mortgages. They are trying to shovel as many of these back to Fannie and Freddie as they can so that Uncle Sam will take the losses — as discussed in my previous blog they are now doing it through sale of servicing rights.
    And of course Uncle Ben has helpfully put a lot of them on the Fed’s balance sheet. This is all part of the cover-up to avoid the obvious: all these big banks are massively insolvent as soon as the courts wake up to the fact that the whole damned real estate finance onion is layer upon layer of fraud.
    But let us stick to the MERS fraud.
    There should be an immediate and complete halt to all foreclosures in the US, and all foreclosures that have been completed over the past decade should be nullified. Yes that will get messy. But continuing with foreclosures will make the mess immeasurably worse. This foreclosure crisis is not going to stop.
    No one should buy any bank-owned real estate because it is probable that eventually the US will return to the rule of law. The property will be returned to the rightful owners — those who were illegally kicked out of their houses.
    Now that might be a pipe dream, but if the US is not going to be a nation ruled by law then it will not survive.
    The biggest banks — including the GSEs — created MERS and proceeded to destroy our nation’s real estate property law. That is not an overstatement. Robo-signing is just one small and inevitable consequence of the fraud. The truth is that foreclosure cannot go through without fraud because the banks do not have the documents to show clear title.
    Banks don’t have them because they do not exist.
    There are no records because that was MERS’s business model: destroy all records of ownership while speeding the securitization process.
    And since the mortgages themselves were often frauds (designing “affordability products” that homeowners could not afford), many would end in delinquency. So MERS was designed to speed the foreclosure process — it would be so much easier to foreclose if you didn’t bother with documents, records, and property law. Just kick the owners out, take the home, sell it, and reboot the whole scam again.
    Another whistleblower has come forward, this one from CBO. Lan Pham was fired because she refused to get with the program: the government is supposed to help the banksters cover up their frauds, NOT expose them! She refused. So she was fired. Now she tells her story.
    I won’t repeat her entire story — you can read it at Zerohedge. Here are a few quotes from Lan Pham, the CBO whistle-blower:
    I was repeatedly pressured by the CBO Assistant Director, Deborah Lucas… to not write nor discuss issues in the banking sector and mortgage markets that might suggest weakness in these sectors and their consequences on the economy and households…
    …Issues at the heart of the foreclosure problems pertain to securitization….and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), which purports to have legal standing on electronic records of ownership on about 65 million…mortgages… MERS…facilitated Wall Street’s ability to expedite the pooling of subprime mortgages into MBSs by bypassing standard ownership transfer procedures as the housing bubble escalated…
    The implications have profound financial and economic consequences that would be of compelling interest to Congress and the public, but the CBO sought to silence a discussion of such risks, that in reality have been materializing. These risks put into question the ability of investors or bondholders to make claims on the collateral (the homes) that underlies trillions of dollars in MBSs, the bulk of which are now guaranteed by …Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This affects $10 trillion in residential mortgage debt outstanding, of which $7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs)…
    The CBO dismissing such issues prevents an analysis of the risks, so that the public may be forced again to shoulder the consequences for which they have not been a given a voice or a choice.
    Essentially, the chain of title on securitized mortgages appears broken, whether or not there is a foreclosure. This would pertain to most homebuyers in the past 10 years as most mortgages were securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac providing the guarantees, and the largest banks (“The $7 Trillion MBS Problem – Foreclosure Problems and Buybacks”). Recall that these same entities founded MERS, which expedited securitization and purported to have foreclosure authority from its electronic records of ownership on about 65 million mortgages. “Robo-signing” emerged as fraudulent or defective documents were used or created to establish the legal authority to foreclose as MERS faced legal challenges; as of July 22, 2011, foreclosures could no longer be initiated in MERS’ name. At last year’s pace, some figures suggest it could take lenders in New York 62 years to clear their foreclosure inventory, 49 years in New Jersey and a decade in Florida, Massachusetts, and Illinois.
    It is unclear how the recent State attorney generals’ agreement to a proposed yet unpublished terms of the $25 billion robo-signing settlement would repair the chain of title issues that continue to mutate. In January 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed the foreclosure actions of two banks for lacking proof of clear title, followed by a decision in October 2011 that a buyer who purchased a house that was improperly foreclosed upon does not make the buyer the new owner of the house; the sale does not transfer the property.
    A striking little mention fact of the Massachusetts foreclosure case was that the lenders could not show that the two mortgages were part of the securitization pool. Let’s consider a thought exercise. Others have the raised the question: if the entity that has been taking the homeowners’ mortgage payments is not the real owner, what happens when the true owner(s) of the mortgage shows up? Are homeowners on the hook again for those ‘missed’ mortgage payments? It was not uncommon for mortgages to be sold multiple times, and it is my understanding that loans were intentionally not given unique identifiers as it moved from origination or purchase through to securitization.
    This is what I’ve been arguing since 2010. This will NOT go away — no matter how much the Administration, the Congress, and the banks try to cover it up.

  22. @usedkarguy
    Thanks so much, you got a deal. I expect help from no one EXCEPT people who get it. Who do not want a free house or anything for free. G-d knows the price that is being paid for all of this suffering.

  23. @vegas: keep the faith! And have YOUR wife call MY wife so the two of them can commiserate while we keep studying! And PLEASE don’t depend on any agency within the government (state or Fed) to help you.

  24. Anyone who’s been paying attention knows this stuff by now, but only by hard searches for people like Neil Garfield et al. If the following doesn’t have you looking through your closet for your slingshot, there’s something wrong with you.

    It’s time to throw some rocks at congress.

  25. Re: “Fannie and Freddie Dirt…” dear all: 8 years ago in my Ca. lawsuit #04CC11080, I exposed this dirt with very clear words. See paragraph 99. I didn’t PREDICT, but uncovered this colossal criminal conspiracy in 2003, that it had been masterfully engineered long before. In that case a judge told me in open court something like this “…so what bank forged loan documents and violated laws,… they can do whatever they want…, I violate 150 laws everyday when I drive from here to my home…”. When I told this to the appellate court in an oral argument in 2008, they pretended they didn’t hear it, so I published the appellate voice-recording on my blog in 2010. Because whatever facts I have posted have not been contested they have become proofs of fact. (i.e.: they are true) Feel free to comment on my blog, I keep comments private, and do not post them.


    FHFA More Concerned With Banks Than With Homeowners, California Lawmakers Say

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency is well on its way to a remarkable achievement: proving less popular, among housing groups, than even the banks whose actions have exacerbated the foreclosure crisis.

    For months, the regulator has drawn withering fire for its opposition to reducing loan values for some underwater borrowers. Now, some members of California’s congressional delegation are suggesting that the agency’s top lawyer, Alfred Pollard, is a stooge of the mortgage industry after he sent a letter expressing concern with pending state legislation meant to give homeowners facing foreclosure increased legal rights.

    On Wednesday, 14 California lawmakers sent a response asking the FHFA’s inspector general and the Department of Justice to investigate whether Pollard’s letter constituted inappropriate lobbying.

    “After a careful review, we have concluded that your letter is devoid of any meaningful substantive analysis, takes the path of least resistance, which is most beneficial to the financial industry but most harmful to at-risk homeowners, and directly contradicts the FHFA’s statutory mission of protecting the public interest,” the lawmakers’ letter said.

    The California legislation, promoted by state Attorney General Kamala Harris, is known as the “Homeowner Bill of Rights.” If enacted, all banks and servicers in the state would be required to adopt many of the reforms embedded in the recently signed $25 billion mortgage settlement, which expires in about three years. One measure, for example, would restrict “dual-tracking,” in which banks pursue foreclosure proceedings against homeowners who are pursuing a trial loan modification at the same time. Most of the national banks that signed the mortgage deal have lobbied against the bill.

    The California legislature is currently debating the measure. On May 11, apparently unprompted, Pollard wrote to legislators about the proposed law. Among other expressed concerns, Pollard said a provision that would allow the attorney general or a district attorney to punish any entity that files a “robosigned” document by imposing a $10,000 fee is too harsh, because no exception is made for any minor error in a foreclosure document.

    If he had stopped at suggesting changes to particular provisions, Pollard may not have provoked such a furious response. But in the second half of the letter, he appears to more broadly attack any state effort to give homeowners greater legal rights to sue over a foreclosure. Doing so would slow the housing recovery, he said.

    “Increasing legal risks for lenders and investors— where existing remedies exist and where new language creates incentives for litigation—ultimately creates harm for all homeowners,” Pollard wrote.

    Given the “coming together of actions” by federal regulators and law enforcement to address mortgage servicing problems, “it is unclear why legislation would be undertaken that could produce contrary results to these remedial steps,” Pollard said.

    “In the end, California’s non-judicial foreclosure process, that has served the state well and allowed a faster recovery of its housing market, will suffer,” he said.

    The congressional group, which includes Zoe Lofgren, the chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, fired back.

    “Frankly, your expressed concern for ‘increasing legal risks for lenders and investors’ is not one we would expect to hear from an independent regulator acting in the best interests of the taxpayers – though we certainly would expect to hear it from a regulated industry,” they said. “To suggest that a state government can rely on a federal law that has not yet passed and federal regulations that have not yet been enacted displays either ignorance on your part or an attempt to mislead.”

    In response to a request for comment, an FHFA spokeswoman responded that the agency hadn’t yet received the lawmakers’ letter.

    The FHFA letter also angered some consumer advocates. Kevin Stein, the associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, which supports the Homeowner Bill of Rights, wondered how Pollard could describe California’s foreclosure process, which has been plagued by the same types of accounting mistakes and botched foreclosures that have occurred elsewhere in the country, as “good.”

    Stein noted the result of a recent audit that found problems with as many as 84 percent of 400 loans reviewed in the San Francisco area. “How could anyone look at that and say that the foreclosure process in California is serving us well?”

    Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, said that Pollard — a former banking lobbyist — appears to be parrotting the position held by his former colleagues. “This is the classic example of the banking industry capturing the FHFA,” he said…

  27. @BSE

    How ’bout this:

    “Freddie does not have the notes and does not want to claim they have the notes because Freddie was the securitizer that shredded the notes to put into securities to sell on the stock market, so the notes were cashed into the stock market and it would be securities fraud if they come up with the notes…they have nothing but thin air to sell…they only allowed assumption agreements to assume servicer rights of nothing but what they claim: “.WE ARE DEBT COLLECTORS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT.”

    (…and if you don’t pay us this alleged debt we will take your house based on fraudulent documents…)

    DO NOT ADMIT YOU OWE THE DEBT. Ask for proof of representation and affirmation of proof of representation…it puts the lawyers firms in perjury position and they don’t want that.

  28. I tend to agree with Toile. Being nice doesn’t work. Playing by the rules doesn’t work. Fighting for what’s right in our courts of law doesn’t work. Asserting our rights doesn’t work. Speaking the truth doesn’t work. Violence and riots have their place in that insanity. We’re long past the stage of fighting in court and the longer this goes on and the worse it will be when it blows.

    I keep coming back to the same statistics: 320 millions people own collectively 290 millions firearms (and the NRA doesn’t include the weapons owned by the military, police, ATF, etc.) Someone is bound to start thinking: “Jeez, instead of turning that thing against myself, what would happen if I started turning it outwards? Like… toward bankers, maybe? Or lawyers? What abpout judges? They’re all expendable…and they seem to reproduce like rats! And there’s plenty more where those came from! ” And before you know it, there is a coup, government is ousted, a new constitution is written and people can finally start rebuilding on fresh and solid bases.

  29. this is the New Orleans scenario, but nationwide:

  30. Does any one have dirt on Fannie and Freddie ? Does the note travel to the GSE ? Are there assignments from MERS to the GSE ? DO GSE assign to servicers ? Do they carry the Default Swap or any other type of insurance payment within or outside the investment pool ? Are the notes endorsed in blank or to the GSE ?

    What is the scoop ?

  31. E. Tolle, your suggestion sounds very much like Nevada Assembly Bill 284, passed last October 1st. Foreclosures in Nevada immediately dropped by about 90% AB 284 made it a felony to initiate a foreclosure without having legal standing to do so. The banks simply stopped issuing Notices of default. That was 8 months ago and they haven’t started up again. Low cost/no cost foreclosure advocacy is what I do.

  32. @walter sure, I can be reached @

  33. On the subject of cases that are fighting invalid Deeds of Trust or Mortgages (depending on your state), the “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation” loans are showing just a bit of traction in a few states. Jeff Barnes is involved in a case in TN and there is now a class action case on these loans in KY. Those are ongoing cases the last I know of, but in both cases, the courts have refused the attempts of the servicers or MERS to have the cases dismissed or removed to more favorable courts. The TN case has been referred for negotiation after the judge sided with the homeowner that the lender named was neither Countrywide nor any part of BofA.

    Then there are the two rulings on the Alderazi case in NY where the foreclosure action was prevented on an AWL Corp loan based on the JUDGE taking the case SUA SPONTE since the borrower did not attempt to defend his title.The MERS resolution for AWL Corp and the MERS resolution for CHL did not exist. End of case, even on appeal.

    In case you are unaware, Neil has had articles focused on AWL Corp loans and categorized them as ‘wild deeds’ because that corporation did not exist at the time the loans were originated.

    The loans in question have only America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation identified as the lender in the BODY of the contract. A mailing address at the top of the first page (for mailing after recording) is that of Countrywide’s servicing, but that is at the top of the page, not in the body of the contract.

    Now SOME loans DO exist that show that the lender is “Countrywide Home Loans Corporation d/b/a America’s Wholesale Lender” Those are NOT the “AWL Corp” loans I’m referring to. The ones with the d/b/a do cite a valid ‘corporation’

    However, even or those, the MERS resolution was for Countrywide Financial Corporation. No CHL Corp resolution with MERS could be found for use in the Alderazi case and that could weaken even the authorization for the “CHL Corp d/b/a AWL” loans.

  34. So what’s a person to do? Here’s the most logical plan I’ve read to date, left by an unnamed commenter on another legal blog. Its beauty is in its simplicity, its brilliance in the cut to the chase format. I wish I had thought of it. And it’s something that each and every AG and county recorder’s office could promote with ease without losing any face whatsoever.

    The resulting legislation could be a page or two at most, as it’s already based in sound established law. Any legislator or regulator from county level to fed crying foul would be waving their bankster flags high if they chose to fight this simple democratic plan. It goes like this:

    Pass legislation in each and every state mandating that ANYONE seeking to foreclose on ANY property MUST record an unbroken, complete and verifiable chain of title with each and every assignment included.

    Entities without the proper chain of title would not be able to foreclose. After a prescribed amount of time (say two years), the homeowner would be allowed to formally quiet title. The mortgage is gone, and equity returns in its entirety to the homeowner.

    The land records get shiny clean, either by the banks filing and recording the complete chain of title, or through quiet title by the homeowners.

    Local counties get back all the money they have been cheated out of by MERS and others that have not properly recorded note assignments. Can you spell F.U.N.D.R.A.I.S.E.R? Again, more money comes back to the localities where it rightfully belongs, coming from the banks that destroyed our land records in the first place.

    Rather than calling and writing various agencies with complaints, I’d suggest calling and writing your state legislators and DEMANDING an answer as to why the implementation of this incredibly simple K.I.S.S. plan shouldn’t move forward yesterday. Furthermore, even your uncle who’s convinced you’re a deadbeat because you didn’t pay your mortgage would be able to understand that there’s absolutely no moral hazard in going back to basics here….either prove it or lose it.

    The only folks throwing a tantrum about this simple process would be those whose hands are stuck way inside the cookie jar, and who are refusing to play nice. Screw them. We, the seriously affected, could get this bill written up and ready for dissemination to all the states and their legislators. We just have to have the will and the requisite volition. If not for us, for those who come after us, as this is debt peonage and it’s a serious game for keeps. Do we simply sit on our hands and fret? Or do we demand justice?

  35. Las Vegas, I’m Walter from the post above. I live in Reno and have been involved with the mortgage/foreclosures debacle in Nevada for over four years. I’m hoping to assemble a Nevada-specific group on this subject. Let me know if you’re interested.

  36. My spouse is sick of me studying about all of this mortgage stuff. I say, but if I don’t fight and learn and post and research then this will go on unabated. I guess I never got over my shock of the pay option arm we got into. And the worse shock is even though it was predatory and even though it has led to other horrific events, I am still waiting for justice. Call me idealistic but I believe we will prevail, I just wish I knew when.

  37. E Tolke

    You have made the definitive statement. 5 years and nothing has changed except we now have as you put it “institutionalized fraud.”.

    Is there anything more to say on Livinglies. Nope. It’s all been said and ETolle puts it well that we’re just repeating this “meme ” over and over and over and over… Pretty sick of beating this dead horse myself.

    No justice, no justice, no justice….

  38. And herein lies a significant part of the problem, a view shared by those in finance as well as, it would seem, every single one of our politicians. As long as the borrower is in default, whether or not she actually is or was placed there against her will, none of the above which Neil so succinctly described matters in the least. A MERS statement on why the DE v. MERS lawsuit should be dismissed:

    “The lawsuit also claims MERS’ conduct led to unlawful foreclosure practices, but MERS says the suit doesn’t cite a single instance in which a Delaware consumer not in default on a mortgage lost a home in foreclosure because of its actions.”

    This is the “deadbeat meme” so often quoted by those who would rationalize any number of fraudulent practices due to the “they had it coming to them” line of reasoning. This is also how robo-signing is explained away…. a practice which everyone knows is simply institutionalized fraud, but one which has become an accepted practice and is routinely explained away as a result of the “they are in default” defense, as if alleging that rationalizes these criminal acts. And everyone is fully aware that these practices are still being carried out. It’s exactly the same type of criminality expressed above by Neil in the substitution of trustee and the fraudulent criminal auctions. These are felony acts, being committed by the millions across the land.

    You folks who believe that goodness will prevail by Providence or by legislature had best start awakening to the fact that Neil has been writing these same monologues for five years now, with the only concrete thing to show for it being a sellout by 49 state AGs, one that stripped away borrower rights and is uniformly set to squander any recovered monies on state budget deficits, owed BTW to the same criminal elements responsible for the aforementioned crimes. The perfect financial-criminal circle jerk, hop in line as there’s a place for each and every one of us in their system.

    Also be aware that in order to topple a system as corrupt and perfectly captured as the one in which we find ourselves, it may take throwing a few stones at venerable buildings, even if you are dead set against violence. Buildings can recover from tossed stones. Look to Iceland for the answer. TPTB must be toppled, there is simply no other way.

  39. People need to understand what happened to the little guy in medieval times without the rule of law and any notion of due process. No boundaries with no punishment for breaking the law of the land, what we have now is mayhem. So they keep pretending. So what happens next time , remember the monster has an insatiable appetite. Clearly a greed beyond comprehension.

  40. I keep hearing about how illegal it all is, the steps we can take to fight it, how we will eventually win and where to send the money to buy stuff, but I NEVER see any statement of who has won and on what grounds. I don’t need an audit if no one is winning with audits. I don’t need a report of no one is winning with reports. Who has won and on what grounds? That’s all I want to know.

  41. We are letting this happen because we the homeowners have learned that financial might “makes right” and our legal system is only good for ” kangaroo” justice (to use some old cliches)

    Doesn’t matter about the law. The legal system we studied in law school is irretrievably broken at this point

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: