What To Do When Confronted With Foreclosure?



If you are not interested in keeping the house the options are
(a) simply walking away from it after you have spent a few months (or years) rent free,
(b) a short-sale in which banks are sometimes paying some serious money to avoid litigation,
(c) modification but there are two kinds. The first is the one the bank steers people into which merely puts off the inevitable foreclosure and where you waive all your defenses, of which there are many more than you might think. The second is a HAMP or similar modification which can be forced in litigation because the truth is they are not considering the modification offer and certainly not transmitting it to the investor lender who bought a bogus mortgage bond. So a well reasoned well documented modification proposal should be followed by a motion or lawsuit stating that they violated the HAMP statute by not considering it and that you can prove it — by showing that your proposal produces a far better result for the investor than the impending foreclosure. Our experience shows that when you demand to see what the “servicer” used as a standards or what the investor used as standards to consider the modification proposal the case settles on the terms or close to the terms proposed by the borrower, because they have no formula or even a record of who considered the proposal, much less any analysis showing a reasonable basis for rejecting the borrower’s offer.
(d) Wrongful foreclosure lawsuit for damages: This is favored by many lawyers especially for those who no longer want to live in the home. It is a lawsuit for money damages only and includes the possibility of punitive damages. Some awards have been in the millions of dollars.

If you DO want to keep the house you must follow the rules as to when to object, when to seek a Temporary restraining Order etc. As I explain thoroughly, it is far better to DENY AND DISCOVER that to make allegations where the burden is on you to prove facts that are exclusively known by the other side.

This is particularly effective after a bankruptcy where one party gets the automatic stay lifted and another party forecloses. That is as close to open and shut as we get. The Judges\’s order usually includes a finding that the party who moves for relief from stay is the owner of the loan. So the second party to actually foreclose, without getting a court order lifting stay for them to foreclose is in deep doo-doo. They can’t say it doesn’t matter because there has already been a finding of fact that the the first one to come to court alleged that they were the owner of the loan and the court entered the order on that basis. The second one is a stranger to the transaction, against which compensatory, punitive, exemplary damages are awardable and there is one developing case law showing that it is possible to get an award for emotional distress. The action is a  cause of action called wrongful foreclosure and it is recognized in all states in common law and in many states as statutory law.

Be patient and make them commit to what their proffer is tot he court so they can’t turn it around alter saying they made a mistake. Wells Fargo, US Bank and BOA are among the banks fined millions for misrepresenting their true status in the loan chain and thus misrepresenting the status of the loan.

Whether you are seeking damages for a home lost or trying to prevent the home from being lost, do not fall into the trap of following the documents. All evidence points to the fact that the documents from beginning to end were fabricated and were not the result of ANY financial transaction, even with you when the loan was funded.

There were two loan closings when you closed — one which you knew about where a “naked nominee”with no money, no authority and nothing to do with the transaction rented their name to Wall Street to play the part of the lender and named on a note as the lender and named on the mortgage as the lender protected by the collateral of the house. But you never had a financial transaction with THAT lender. And the closing agent should have informed you of the fact that there were two closings occurring. But they didn’t.

You thought there was due diligence and confirmation of the appraisal when it was just the reverse. The appraiser was told if they didn’t come back with an appraisal at least $20k higher than the contract price or refi price then they would never work again.

So the first closing had documents but no transaction. The second closing was a transaction but was not documented where the investor lender and borrower agreed to terms. There was no note, so that is why the battle cry of those defending these bogus foreclosures is DENY and DISCOVER.

Most lawyers and realtors don’t understand or even want to understand the securitization scheme of Wall Street. They just want to use tired old procedures and defenses to justify their fee rather than win their case. The fact is that in many if not most cases, the servicer was paying the creditor your monthly payment whether you paid it or not, thus reducing the creditor’s claim against you making the notice of default and notice of sale invalid.

The second major issue is that, as the San Francisco study and many others like it across the country discovered, was that the creditor who submitted a “credit bid” at auction had no right to order the auction much less submit a credit bid lieu of cash.

While the attempts to “get a free house” are ascribed to homeowners, the real culprits are the banks and servicers who are seeking a free house by making it appear as though they are legitimate “lenders” or that they purchased the loan, and then they show the assignment. But if in discovery you ask to see the transaction where they paid for that assignment and if you ask to see the trail of money where your loan was funded, you will find that nothing in the documents that were fabricated, forged, robo-signed etc. is true. There was o transaction and the actual creditor has received payments that were not recorded and may well have settled and moved on to another investment vehicle.

If you are getting the feeling that the banks claimed losses to get bailout and insurance money when they had actually used money of investors (often without the investors knowing there were ANY investments in mortgages) then you are right. The banks lost nothing on loan defaults and the bailout was a sham. And the odds are overwhelming in your favor that the part of the obligation that was intended to be secured with the collateral of the home was in fact never secured and therefore not subject to foreclosure.

Before taking any action on anyone’s opinion in this column make absolutely certain you consult with an attorney who is fully conversant with the current mortgage and foreclosure climate. It is far different than it was ten years ago.


107 Responses

  1. Finding legL represntatiib and fairness is impossible. Why is this even happening and why can’t so many of us do anything about it?

  2. I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right
    here. The sketch is tasteful, your authored material stylish.
    nonetheless, you command get bought an edginess over that you wish be delivering the following.
    unwell unquestionably come more formerly again as exactly the same nearly a lot often inside case you shield this increase.

  3. Mike, on July 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm said:
    I dont see lawyers getting any results that help the homeowner. For two years all I see is alot of talk talk talk on the blogs, but where are the real results. Its annoying to see blog postings everyday but no one being helped.

    Mike, right on – I’m for anything that works. Thats all. Write me for some other info not yet making it into court. registerclaims@live.com

  4. I dont see lawyers getting any results that help the homeowner. For two years all I see is alot of talk talk talk on the blogs, but where are the real results. Its annoying to see blog postings everyday but no one being helped.
    You should focus and highlight groups like Occupy Bernal in San Francisco, at least they are keeping families in their homes.
    Why dont you google some of the work they are doing and encourage others to use this as a model to start other groups in their communities, people coming together, in their communities, protesting local bank branches, raising their voices, getting results, then at least you will be giving some people hope. There are probably over a hundred pending foreclosures in every neighborhood in this country right now, these people coule come together right now, and start getting results.
    Tired of seeing blog posts but no news of anyone being helped.
    Occupy Bernal started, people came together, and people remained in their homes, avoided foreclosure by protesting the auctions sites, protesting the banks business’s, raising their voices, sending hundreds of emails and phone calls the bank executives and when they did they got results, “squeaky wheel gets the grease”, and the amazing thing is, out of Occupy Bernal, Occupy Noe was formed, copied the same actions and Occupy Bernal, and what do you know, just last week, the Musni family is still in their home, another foreclosure was postponed, a loan modification given and this elderly couple are still in their home.
    We are working on a cast now, the Lee family’s case, was transferred to PNC bank in the process, payments were sent back to Mrs. Lee, PNC then started foreclosure and want to evict her next week, think they are going to get Mrs Lee’s home! Think again! We will stop that one too. Look what happened when Wells Fargo tried to take back Ross Rhodes home recently, again google it. San Francisco neighborhoods are coming together, started with Occupy Bernal, then Occupy Noe was born, and last week Occupy Noe saved the Musni home, and with new groups forming, we are getting results
    Thats Action! Those are results!
    Google it!
    Any reporters out there want a good story on foreclosure and what neighborhoods are doing about it, take a look at what we are doing in San Francisco.


    “A key proposal in the overhaul of money market regulation suggests that money market fund managers will have the option to “suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of fund assets.”

    Yes I read that proposal —as part of the effort to batton down the hatches in the face of ever increasing risk to the financial syestem globally. As I see it the problem stems from the magnification of risk of sovereign failures in Eurpe at least for now caused by the explosion in derivative betting. Casino gambling. I do not think Sandy Weill and two of his fellow original Citi directors who engineered the aggregation of investment house betting with straight up boring low margin betting would have come forward with acknowledgments of the error in their ways absent a very real threat.

    Nor would the FDIC be proposing that there be advance notice and waiting periods and other restrictions on the fund withdrawals /redemtions absent real risk. That scares me. It should scare anybody with a retirement account.

    As I read that propsal—or saw excerpts on CNBC etc, I ruminated on the implications as you are doing. One really does not appreciate the enormity of the impact unless, you are not yet eligible for social security and are unemployed–thus you are living via distributions from your IRA or other brokerage accounts.

    I thought to myself–does this mean I am unable to withdraw from money market funds invested to obtain some return beyond the paltry amount placed with an FDIC insured bank–is this to insure that I and others place our “cash” in deposits rather than money market accounts invested in corporations’ commercial paper? Am I safer in a money market account which is diversified in corporate paper of many companies–or piled into one or more FDIC insured deposits in big banks–the main alternative in a an active IRA or brokerage account. Would not this rule dry up funds available to private companies through direct issuance of commercial paper? Would this not force me to make deposits with TBTF banks and similarly force the US companies to go borrow from the banks the same money that they used to get by going to the commercial paper market?

    The European financial system is already set up this way. European companies as I understand it–lacking personal knowledge—-do not issue paper but must go to their banks. My conclusion is that the rule would compel TBTFs to become intermediaries in financing activities that currently involve retail investors and private companies. Does this not increase systemic risk—-? Then I look at Royal Bank of Scotland ! Even without liquidity or balance sheet problems RBS is simply unable to function in its basic role as a plain vanilla bank. It has been unable to process companies’ payrolls, lend money–or allow cash withdrawals but for EMERENCY amounts for a month. ETC-.Think of the impact on corporate cash flows—of international trade–of issuance and settlement of letters of credit, etc. My guess is that the only aspect of RBS operations functioning seemlessly is the foreclosure division–but thats just cynical speculation.

    Is it better for us to put even more reliance on the functionality of US bank-speculators that are twins to RBS?

    Purportedly RBS CEO was an investment babker enamored of the high returns that the casino operators obtained and lost interest in the boring old bank–It was seen in the most literal sense as a mere cash cow to obtain deposits and central bank low interest funds–and take those sources of funds and use them to place potential high return bets via derivatives. The IT function of simple day-to day boring bank operations was allowed to slide into obsolesence.
    it was aggravated by aggregation of deposit taking failed banks–with cobbled together IT systems.

    This also describes the TBTF banks. JPM has book capital of $222 billion–making it a comparative giant in the financial sector. But at the time of disclosure of the problems with the London “Whale” [a casino term] this entity had $62 TRILLION in gross derivative [gamblig ]exposure. It would seem apparent to me if not to Jamie Dimon that it is highly unlikely that the European Union currenct union might break up and trigger large amounts of those derivatives–in unforseeable ways–from unfioreseeable sources. $222 BILLION pales in comparison to the implications of widespread substantial activity in a portfolio of $62 TRILLION. Its hard for me to imagina any reasonable person arguing this seriously. Especially inthe wake of the Whale.

    Should the US govt force every saver and every company to make this bank a defacto partner.?

    Thie foregoing speaks to systemic risk—and the apparent inability of US officials to break from the lemming-like rush to transfer power to the TBTFs—–

    But back to a micro-view, the question also popped into my mind –What does this mean about day-to-day decisions that a small investor makes to buy and sell stocks through a brokerage/IRA account? As most captive small investors realize there is a “core” account in their investment portfolio. For many years that was a selected commercial paper money market fund. $1.00/share. Its not supposed to lose money–just make small interest income while it sat there waiting for Dr Schmedlock to decide whether to but bigpharma stock or Exxon—or the hot pick of the day—FACEBOOK. When the good doctor sells the stock –after several days in limbo–the proceeds reappear in the money market core account. Ready to reinvest.

    So what happens to the moneynmarket core account if one must give advance notice or otherwise face limitations on access? If it is restricted will this not make it tough to buy stocks? will that not push down the stockmarket? So for example leats say the stock market takes an 800 point dive like it did when nancy Pelosi screwed up the bailout deal by being a complete amateur politician in 2008? Giving her the benefit of the doubt that it was not intended. ????

    Dr Scmedlock likely would find that a good entry point—–and start selling out of the money-market core account and buy stocks–thereby arresting the fall. Is the good doctor now to be locked into his core account and unable to buy–are buy opportunities thus restricted to unregulated offshore hedge funds???

    Is this good policy? Would this not contribute to the wealth of those offshore untaxed pirates? Is this a level playing field–or is an effort to “fix” the field.

    However, the investment brokers such as Fidelity have provided a new alternative in the recent year–as of a year ago not all had–eg Schwab. Today atr Fidelity at least your core can be selected to be one or more TBTF banks as a deposit. This was attractive because the money market core account was only subject to SIPC insurance–now depleted by Madoff and MF Global—-wheras the bank core is subject to FDIC insurance. Thus if there is a meltdown and Fidelity pulls a MF Global-like transfer of customer funds to countless
    offshore hedge funds to cover bets—you still someday have a chance to get the bank deposited amount back—also even if the bank goes down at the same time or prior to Fidelity, you get a check from FDIC [subject to the limits]. Now to be sure–this is not going to be fast enough for you to go by groceries–or make the next few years’ house payments–but at least your estate can get something back someday. Notably it has taken 4 years for Madoffs victims to get the most recent check—-and if somebody like JPM or Fidelity goes down–it will take a lot longer–if it does not break the govt entirely.

    So iv come full circle and get back to your point—how do I make sure I can buy groceries and make house payments when the TBTFs fail? And/or the “emergency” is declared? One real world example is Greece. You dont need to worry about not being able to pay for prescriptions at your drugstore–because the shelves are bare. The Pharmas quit shipping when they dont get paid–I suspect bananas from the Caribean and other fruits and vegtables will be in short supply too. Oil–fuel—all commodities.

    I dont want to touch the issue about money at home and guns—somebody always has a bigger gun–and less to risk. The uncertainties that I have touched upon should give pause–and im no expert–im sure iv just scratched the surface. A fellow said to me recently in respect of the question of how to deal with the TBTFs —“we need to put regulations in place about risky trading and jail some of the guys that do the trading and teach them a lesson”

    My retort was: “You cannot scare a twenty-something into following complex rules that are murky at best—that is equivalent to handling out assault rifles to 5 year olds and telling them you will spank them if they do something wrong”

    My thought is that the answer is that made by a real expert sandy Weill —take the guns away.

  6. @DC

    As long as were off topic

    “Two years ago, in January 2010, Zero Hedge wrote “This Is The Government: Your Legal Right To Redeem Your Money Market Account Has Been Denied” which became one of our most read stories of the year. The reason? Perhaps something to do with an implicit attempt at capital controls by the government on one of the primary forms of cash aggregation available: $2.7 trillion in US money market funds.

    Yet new regulations proposed by the administration, and specifically by the ever-incompetent Securities and Exchange Commission, seek to pull one of these three core pillars from the foundation of the entire money market industry, by changing the primary assumptions of the key Money Market Rule 2a-7. A key proposal in the overhaul of money market regulation suggests that money market fund managers will have the option to “suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of fund assets.” You read that right: this does not refer to the charter of procyclical, leveraged, risk-ridden, transsexual (allegedly) portfolio manager-infested hedge funds like SAC, Citadel, Glenview or even Bridgewater (which in light of ADIA’s latest batch of problems, may well be wishing this was in fact the case), but the heart of heretofore assumed safest and most liquid of investment options: Money Market funds, which account for nearly 40% of all investment company assets. The next time there is a market crash, and you try to withdraw what you thought was “absolutely” safe money, a back office person will get back to you saying, “Sorry – your money is now frozen. Bank runs have become illegal.” This is precisely the regulation now proposed by the administration. In essence, the entire US capital market is now a hedge fund, where even presumably the safest investment tranche can be locked out from within your control when the ubiquitous “extraordinary circumstances” arise. The second the game of constant offer-lifting ends, and money markets are exposed for the ponzi investment proxies they are, courtesy of their massive holdings of Treasury Bills, Reverse Repos, Commercial Paper, Agency Paper, CD, finance company MTNs and, of course, other money markets, and you decide to take your money out, well – sorry, you are out of luck. It’s the law.”

    It seems to me that if you can’t hold it in your hands and defend it with a gun, its not really yours.

  7. @ALL
    Geithner moves to eliminate community bank insurance program

    “”Obviously ICBA was less than pleased with the secretary’s response to the question. What really infuriates me is that Treasury doesn’t bat an eye to dole out billions of taxpayer dollars to too-big-to-fail firms,” Fine said. “But when it comes to thousands of Main Street community banks who would pay for the program themselves, not one dime of taxpayer dollars, Treasury gives them the back of the hand.”

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which guarantees checking deposits over $250,000 in noninterest bearing transaction accounts, and assesses banks to pay for the program, has not expressed a view on whether an extension is appropriate.

  8. @usedkarguy

    No, i haven’t but i will, thank you, it has to wait till the morning, my spouse has threaten divorce if I don’t stop obsessing…

  9. vegas, did you look in Maiden Lane 1? then off to the RESCAP filing.

  10. @dcb

    Since all of these scandals have been making headlines, I haven’t seen the term “deadbeat homeowner” once, hopefully this term finally gets put to rest….but it is nice to see handcuffs coming up more regularly.

  11. i figured it would be—–bny apparentl wants distance from all this stuff–its coe business is as trstee for muni offerings and its bad to be screwing govt pensioers ergo increasing muni liabilities for underfunded pensions and also acting as trustee for investors in muni bonds that will not get paid because of pensioner liabilities—seems kind of circular doesnt it—–im wondering how as trustee for muni investors bny gets a big payoff out of muni defaults—probably next scandal on the horizon

  12. @dcb

    i don’t know why they prosecute or don’t prosecute, unfortunately the ag doesn’t ask my opinion, but will talk to my lawyer, he talks to her office. thanks for the bony info, can’t get a loan schedule, cwalt 2005-66 pops up under freddie t-066, also no loan schedule, supposedly 4080 loans in the trust. i’m looking at bony site and “my trust” is part of the cwrmbssettlement. it was assigned after the proposed settlement. so much fun just trying to find out who is owed and how much, can’t get a straight answer or accounting. thanks for info.

  13. I think they will drop the cases–they got the money and will make noise until election then drop it

    As i keep saying the govts dont care about actually prosecting either fraud on investors or borrowers—–they realy dont—–as long as Obama thinks hes the banking industry fairy god mother and gheithner is sel appointed guardian of banks globally —-and bernanke thinks hes the tooth fairy—-holder and geithner looking at the help wanted pages—no action—-banks are just immune—and there may be some rationale there but why the non-bank collection agencies and their street thugs??????

  14. your info should be under that trust on bny global trust records–at least were XMAS 2011–but tey were pretty pissed when i downloaded the files—–posted disclaimers etc—probably cant get there anymore

    try though—BOA may help they are turning on each other—–one banks employees will tell you things about the others–ask boa about bny—u may be surpised–boa should answer your questions–bny should answer your questions as to ho the servicer is—i had a strange experience—bny told me it was boa —then i called boa and they disagreed –so back to bny and then they said another—–leads me to believe there were two line items for my acct–one in trust a one in trust b–good stuff to know unless you are afraid og multiple claims where they cant turn up the original note thru one trust–maybe the other has it?

  15. witness dead—why nevada not prosecuting lorainne brown?

  16. @dcb

    yes boa servicer, yes bony, i’ll look at papers to answer those questions. And will definitely look at bony stuff. thanks so much

  17. Did you look up that trust to see if the loan schedule was filed? BNY is not too thrilled about fiduciary responsibility—–BNY Global Trust has records of BNY trust assets——-there are loans there that were liquidated 2-3 years ago–sometime multiple times—but its the trustee for most muni issues–and has only been sued by a few AGs for FOREX cheating of govt teachers and police and firemen pensions—so im sure everythinhg is on the up and up there–im sure those notes werent sold twice or anything

    just be sure you get the verfied original back eventually and a surety if you settle—no promises from the trust or trustees—like grabbing smoke

  18. Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2005-66 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-66

    who was note payee –_______who is servicer——BOA?

  19. @dcb

    it’s a first, no 2nd.

    And the NV case is still going as far as I know, most recent press:


  20. @dcb

    yes, sorry, the trust is called cwalt inc, alternative loan trust pass through mortgages certificates series 2005-66

  21. i thought they were dropping that case after the star witness died suddenly–was there ever any exolanation?

  22. the 1st or 2nd

  23. trust is a cwalt

  24. @dcb

    notary on nod is one of lps criminally charged by nv ag

  25. @dcb

    thank you, originator not in bk, trust is a cwalt

  26. @LV
    I had same sequence except they just barreled thru with the foreclosure complaint with the original assignment sined by a convicted transvestite forger on behalf of mers—-july 2009—–when i made a fuss about the transvestite forger DOCX employee to their board etc—and they put it in their annual report at LPS—soon after the filed a motion to enforece settlement . “what settlement ” i said when i looked at the doc caption—in reading the motion which was under seal——it was a purported verbal agreement reached by my lawyer and opposing counsel whereby my atty allegedly agreed that i would convey a deed to the trust in exchange for…..well thats where the verbal agreement got fuzzy—–apparently as far as the servicer was concernd it didnt matter much what if anything i got—what was important is they got the deed and possession asap—oh and all in secret…..that was pretty important…..of course i never agreed to any of that BS and a verbal agreement is not enforeceable –statute of frauds—subornation of perjury–they subponoed my atty to testify on their behalf—these guys will give you a really wild ride if you are dealing with a private label type—–looked the world to me like syndicate attorney in chg—new jersey license –operating out of florida

    FBI wont do anything until my body turns up riddled with holes

    at any rate—-you need to challenge the fact of the trust—–a non-existent entity the assignee? a nonexistent entity presumably the noteholder——sure your facts same–was the original payee on the note bankrupt at time of assignment? you need to challenge all those things—–who knows whether they can release the note? if cant release note then cant release mortgage—gotta have note to have the nmortgage—-the mortgage has no separate existence from the note—authority of attys to reptesent the non-existent thing is 1st point to raise

    not legal advice just–wild speculation???? get an atty and point em at the defiunct trust and tell em to pretend oits a fake corp–that will help them fit it in the right niches—its tough for defense attys—dice loaded against them

  27. @dcb

    In our case the trustee for trust filed nod prior to recorded assignment to trust. Then the first recorded assignment to trust (6yrs after loan and trust cutoff date) then nod was rescinded and then another assignment was recorded to same trust.

    i’m not quite certain what stage i am in at this point, but today i do not have nod filed against house.

    thank you, i hope that is clearer.

  28. @LAS VEGAS
    “How could a homeowner use this to their advantage? not in foreclosure,”

    Would you restate the question—im not sure i understand? How to use this feature otherwise than in foreclosure? Meaning before foreclosure occurs? At what stage?

  29. @dcd, patrick

    “setup of the purported trust was substantially defective—eg no mortgage loan schedule filed as required —no mortgages conveyed to it -in thegiven time-frames—then the creature is not a legal trust with special privileges and immunities but is instead a default business association.”

    How could a homeowner use this to their advantage? not in foreclosure, thank you in advance.

  30. @DC

    Excellent. Generousity appreciated.

  31. the other side of the coin would be that the actual counter party to the borrower’s debt can’t sue the borrower or have the trustee sue on its behalf if it also lacks capacity to be sued in the borrower’s jurisdiction

    You would think—–however a national bank is not required–nor does state have poer to force them to register etc——so you may have a bank asserting a claim without the same sort of rules aplied as you might expect—but beyond that the states grant immunity to trustees acting in that capacity–so the trustee can sue in foreclosure but not be sued–the trust is not registered to do business—-

    the weakness to the assymetry is if the foreclosure plaintiff is actually not a trustee nor trust——-thus if the setup of the purported trust was substantially defective—eg no mortgage loan schedule filed as required —no mortgages conveyed to it -in thegiven time-frames—then the creature is not a legal trust with special privileges and immunities but is instead a default business association. Under state law an unicorporated business association is a common law joint venture with an operator similar to a general partner –that would be the trustee bank and/or the collection agency—–the investors are de facto passive joint venture participants but cant be reached because they are either passive and/or have no nexus——its a tangle –the object is to get at the active operator

    Under IRS reg 301, 7701 the joint venture is a business associatoion taxed as a corporation—thats why the banks wanted the REMIC rules to apply–there is little doublt about the status of the failed trust under federal IRS law—-if they did not meet SEC representations –did not file the loan schedule as reqired to give a trust a corpus—and existence–then no REMIC REIT or any special status—-default is corporation taxation absent partnership or LLC check the box

    But the average business atty and litigator does not comprehend large joint ventures–cant imagine them to exist. In fact every oil/gas”unitized pool” is a large joint venture that has to very carefully set up the articles to avoid double taxation as a taxable association.

    If you want to see the law on these look at joint ventures in texas law

    A trust is a special creature which gets special treatment and when people ignore the formailities of creaton and peration they cant claim the immunities. People just are not attacking the factual question of the trust—just because the network atty uses the word defense attys just buy in and say oh sure im going to give you the benefit of the doubt–because i dont know what you are if you are not a trust—this is a combined standing/capacity issue.

    Never waive facts bsed on what the opposition pleadings say–this one is particularly tricky because the allegation is encapsulated in the caption—-have you ever seen the trust issue pleaded as a fact? —or the capacity of the trustee pleaded as a fact?

    im an old oil/gas tax atty—these things were supercritical to us. they affected liability for fedand state taxes–txs gross receitps taxes etc—–as well as liability issues

    sure the investor attys have not flogged this because they aren sure where it leaves their clients—unfortunately most of the foreclosure law is eminating from investor lawsuits and being picjed up by forecosure attys——–and at this point what foreclosure atty wants to admit he waived the most simple claim snuck by him on boatloads of cases–that the entity suing had neither standing nor capacity–he just gave them a pass because trustthere was an SEC filing made thatr called the thing a trust–never getting onto the question–did the purported trust do what it was supposed to do to be a trust–and you wont see it come up until they start demanding immunity if you come up with a claim that exceeds the value of the house–or is after the house is gone

    in effect even if by some strange quirk you have some control over the house after the trust takes title, hen you have an issue about who is passing title–imagine if 20% of the trusts were not trusts but something else—what happens to the title out? is it valid —if i run around saying im dave company and the title is in the name of dave co. and i never filed any corporate papers–can dave co make deeds out in its name—is that a hole or at least a weakspot in the chan

    if not why do they always have representations that you are duly authorized to do business in that name and do the act you are doing?

    If they made an allegation that XYZ is a delaware truste duly organized an acting in that capacity–the wasy lawyers plead –they would deny it–and then it would become a factual question and the claomant would have to show some proof sooner or later

    by doing it as they are it is accidentally waived

    i recently had opposing counsel attempt to do a name change in a re-trial conference–from a corporation to an LLC—seemingly a simple thing–except

  32. @DC

    “The bank that is the trustee was not part of the agreement–just the trust–and the trust is not registered to do business nor have assets or employees in your jurisdiction.”

    So any secondary agreement with the trustee on behalf of the trust entered into after the debt is securitized may not be enforceable in the borrower’s jurisdiction because the actual counter party lacks the capacity to be sued in that jurisdiction and the hapless borrower, operating in an asymmetric information environment, is duped into giving up rights under UCC.

    I can see that point however the other side of the coin would be that the actual counter party to the borrower’s debt can’t sue the borrower or have the trustee sue on its behalf if it also lacks capacity to be sued in the borrower’s jurisdiction.

    So a trust’s lack of capacity to sue or be sued in the borrower’s jurisdiction, different from lack of standing, could be used as an affirmative defense to foreclosure of a securitized debt, no?

  33. @PATRICK

    That constitutes a long list of very complex questions to state the obvious. I believe it goes beyond UCC and basically gets into the realm of what can imaginations dream up. With respect to the back door stuff—I would hazard to guess that if we sat down with specific facts and spcific objectives, we could design a set of contractual terms that would accomplish the stated objectives. This is made a whole lot easier if we can go do this on the beach in the Cayman Islands etc—-ie forum shop to avoid legal limitations that might be imposed by state or federal law–or any developed country law.

    i practiced a fair amt of offshore finance stuff——i spent months and over years availed my client of the opportunities afforded by treaties between developed countries and loophols left in LDCs. Shopping for tax havens —etcetc

    Taking a deduction for insurance payments in the UK to a bermuda affiliate, then loan the money to a caymani finance co—which then lends it back to the UK sub—and that allows more deductions in future for interest pmts —–eg—-its not always an exercise in futility to take money from one pocket and place it in another.

    Now what I just described should be taken to heart for two concepts: the risks of territorial income taxation [as was UK] and espoused by Romney etc

    The 2nd is the extraordinary riskiness of having large capital pools controlled out of offshore locations but doing business in the US.

    I think it is safe to say we could do pretty much whatever you wanted in your examples if we can operate in that pirate-like environment. The main thing we need is the lets say “host” country [im thinking in terms of parasites and hosts upon which they feed] to actually enforce the terms of our offshore contracts—–that they will enforce deals that are intrinsically illegal if made in the host jurisdiction —but not illegal if made outside—but it does me no good to make a deal with you —legally enforceable in panama but which is not enforced in iowa–if that is where the subject matter of the deeal is.–eg a house to be siezed.

    So sure we can make bets based on what is going on with a plain vanilla securitized UCC conformed promissory note. Under insurance law you have to possess some economic interest in something—performance of contract or life policy—–but that does not apply when you are talking about swaps CDS——-or other derivatives—any more than we have an interest in a racehorse —no its just plain slot machine gambling–using real world events as triggering mechansims.
    The trick is to find a host to our parasitic activities that can be confused into thinking we are legitimate—that a bet is insurance for example.

    So if i follow your train—-what you want is a system whereby we contract that the mbs holder waives his right to collect of a mortgage note —and turns over that right to collect to somebody who say possesses a contract with me ——such that if some other event happens the contract right transfer is triggered. I do not see any reason why i could not create such a contract—excet for the ability to enforce. The UCC and foreclosure rules—-etc have a design that is supposed to strike a fair balancebetween the public interests including the basically helpless consumer—vs the ability of unscrupuous players to set up contracts to do virtually anything. So the issue is whether the unseen contract is enforceable as a legal contract in the jurisdiction where its execution is sought to be enforced and whether its in the public interest–actually two sides of the same coin. If a couple crooks sit down to cut a deal involving an obligation you owe and they of course only address their own concerns–and deviate substantially from the well worn path of the UCC—their interests to be sure will be covered but you may end up owing both of them if they do not provide for the UCC sanctioned releases etc. Thus it is very dangerous to enter into a settlement contract that may waive your rights to the basic UCC rights and leave you at the tender mercies of the crooks
    and that is where we are today. In order to get relief from a deficiency–you enter into a settlement agreement to give a DIL and promise silence etc—but you may be committing suicidein so doing–because neither the contract itself nor the execution can be expected to incorporate any sense of good faith bargaining nor fair dealing. the settlement may on its face be a deception in that te other party may never have intended to carry out any of the promises—but if they get the DIL and can pass it off to a bona fide purchaser then they are free ti breach the terms and you have little recourse but to sue for breach at which poit they will argue that the “trustee” is immune from liability under your state law—the bank that is the trusteewas not part of the agreement–just the trust–and the trust is not registered to do business nor have assets or employees in your jurisdiction –so even if they admot the deal was breached, you may habve no real remedy

    This is what the Consumer Protection group should be focusing on today—people are being defrauded of the value of notes every day by hundreds if not thousands—the houses are gone but the debts remain

  34. Offtopic–but a little something nagging at UK——RBS Royal Bank of Scotland went hog wild building up its investment banking ops aka casino in mid 2000s—–bailed but so bad that govt still has 85% prefered—–so the bank spent no money in like 10 yrs on the old fashioned bank part other than taking deposits and borrowing from Central Banks to go to the track with—-result is that banking functions largely collapsed a month ago and continue to malfunction—–company payrolls lost between company and workers–checks dont clear—and here is the thing to focus on—you cannot go and withdraw cash beyond emergency small amts—so i dont know how people buy food even if tey go to work every day—which reminds me a bit of soviet union in 1989. My guess is the foreclosure process has speeded up.Would be interesting factoid to know?


    This is what joinder of bookie operations and banking-loanshark accomplishes—this is the end result–no hypotheticals–no guesses–this is it.

  35. @DC

    So rights are fixed in any tangible medium of expression (the financial instrument) and a rival instrument cannot duplicate or supersede those rights. Has revised article 9 allowed for exclusive rights to be split apart from the tangible instrument and assigned separate and apart from eachother? In other words, has revised article 9 allowed for the creation of intangible derivatives that can be sold in secondary markets?

    If yes, can derivative rights of a tangible financial instrument be assigned to a trust and become a fixed trust asset? And in that way, can the trustee take limited rights derived from a financial instrument for the benefit of investors? Lastly, is this a back door way for a note owner to tender the intrinsic value of the note without actually transferring the tangible instrument to a successor?

  36. @MASTER>>>>
    Just out of curiousity what time zone are you in?

  37. […] Read more… Posted in AZ, Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « Predictions of bank failures from 2008 “A day of reckoning may soon be coming.” Yves Smith » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  38. @CARIE

    The trust stuff was a charade at best even in the beginning–to get debt off big bank balance sheets then the idea was hijacked by private labels–iv looked at real bank originations and they followed the rules cause they did not want the debt and mortgages put on their sheets—but the fly by nites did not bother because they knew they were going to engahge in predatory everything and so only would last 3-4 years–before the irs auditors got to them–those are most likely to have unfiled trusts and basically the trusts are just names used to intimidate you and to try to procure state law immunity typically afforded trustees ——if you set up a counterclaim–they will come back at you with thetrustee immunity statutes—but in many cases its bogus—but dependends if they tried to comply

  39. “see what’s happening to homeowners”

    thats an interesting concept—-i think i have a fair idea about what is happening to homeowners, and pensioners as well—-im really much more interested in what happens to the collection agency and servicers at this point— rather prosecute —thats the one aspect of law in my 35 yrs i havent quite gotten to

    but the spanish 10 yr hit 7.7 % today—and italy 6.7 —-rising geometrically—-which means tomorrow absent massive intervention they will break 8 and 7——–5 trillion to deal with—–and i cant see how us fed reserve can do much about it—sure it can hold the marjket up arbitrarily but the blue chip oils have disconnected from the spot price 1st time iv ever seen –in just the last few days—looks to me like everybody is battening down the hatches

    yeah maybe there iis a site that is talking about what the rates will be tomorrow—i see no drop in futures tonite and i cannot understand it–i do not know of a day that even looks near this bleak since last november before ecb dumped 2 trillion onto the water–and is bought 6 months—the hedge funds made the call this weekend past—-and they have been dumping since sunday nite in asia—are you from china or korea?

  40. @dcb

    “…the basic trust law requires the filing of a Schedule of trusts assets—if they are not listed–there is no trust—-this has huge implications–who sues you in foreclosure–who takes title to the houses —nonexistent trusts”

    Exactly. In my case—which I’m sure is also for millions of others—my docs say:

    United General Title Insurance was original Trustee.

    MERS was original beneficiary (as nominee for now defunct IndyMac…OneWest was the entity taking my payments).

    Deutsche (as Trustee of the MBS) is present beneficiary.

    new Trustee under Deed Of Trust is Aztec Foreclosure Corp.

    On the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale it says that Aztec Grants and Conveys title and interest (to the real estate investor who bought it).

    The Trustee’s deed Upon Sale says “Lawyer’s Title” on the top…(written in scrawled handwriting.) I guess that’s the title co?

    I think tnharry said—basic trust law says you can’t be the Trustee of the MBS AND the beneficiary…but—like you say, if the trust is non-existent—which it is—then the debt collector/servicer is the entity taking title…at least they are the ones keeping the money from the “sale”.


  41. You have an acute understanding of things and sometimes convolute subject matter … that’s all. You say waterfall …that economic goodwill that all. Of course they tranche but the waterfall at 10 times the earnings is a separate high risk and uncalled for abusiveness subject practices .

    It’s all about what Barclays was busted doing. Cornering the cost of LIBOR ahhh I don’t think so.

    This was all about cornering the short term commercial paper market and rolling 30 year mortgages written at 10 yr IO into good will and taking the basis or financing used to wire each loan and converting it into 30, 60 and 90 day commercial paper.

    You’re woefully wrong to surrender here. Get off this site and get on to some more esoteric counting sites and see what’s happening to homeowners. By the IASB’s own admission – this is capitation by a government that is punishing the title holder for Borrowering its tile and squandering the mortgage away to a bad market timing event.
    If they took mortgages and treated it like a sausage factory, nothing went to waste.

    There are no mods …not without refunding the loan first
    That finds title sequentially convoluted and exceptionally complex under the existing accounting framework and regulatory banking scheme.


  42. the moodys reports on the nasty private labels showed a fast decline—-the rest of what you have written i understand and toalay agree for what thats worth—frankly though—like schneidermans crew—-we are talking about how the titanic got holed and academically discussing the legth of the gash—when in fact the ship is about ready to break in half

  43. but the 3-5 yr cliffs forced prepmt–the investment bankers knew that there was a lot of front end loading going to occur–the arm loans as well as the trst structures were obviously designed to fail on the private lables and they sure look cookie cutter boiler pate to me

  44. The REIT structure is the trust you talking about. This massive tax shelter occurred for reporting purposes.

    Banking and non banking affiliates conveyances and transfers into investors paid in capital held in the indentures corpus.

    Then the depositors pledge of what I consider a wire alternative for far greater consideration – AAa Aa rated trust certificates and the pledge of securities to accrete bond construction

    These reverse purchase and sale methods for mortgages calculate the normal performance of a mortgage in reverse. So it primarily is was and is again a forward looking investment that ripened with age.

    Theses deals could not sustain any significant prepayment speed. Arguments are the deal model was based on a FV that relied on a robust condition . . .

    and Mers Corp to delete and substitute in the new for old . . . as if this scheme could survive scrutiny as a never ending warehouse line. (which it was of course) .

    For , “…there are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

    ― Søren Kierkegaard

  45. @NOMODS

    I looked at the string and reached two conclusions
    1) I posted too damn much on notes and securitizations when we are on precipice of global financial collapse looking at spanish and italian 10 yr bonds and
    2) I have no idea what you are talking about at any point—my ignorance–im sorry

  46. The cash flows paid by the homeowner pursuant to the terms of the promissory note supposedly go to the servicer thence to the indenture trustee in the aggregate.

    ** not true; no servicing in a de recognition deal structure

    hence to the indenture trustee in the aggregate.

    ** You mean recognition triggered by prepayment trigger – right , of course

    The MBS electronic “notes” constitute a completely separate set of obligations with varying priorities and maturities —created pursuant to and described by the indenture —––but the indenture creates priorities for the senior classes that pull cash flow away from the initially dedicated groups——a waterfall effect.

    ** A senior sub structure is kind of “moot” relative to a conversation for economic goodwill

    that allowed the securitizers /investment bankers to confuse mbs buyers—the crappy arms etc were stuffed in the group 1 mortgage loans and failed aap—and class III etc MBS [typically domestic pension trusts] ceased receiving cash pmts—their receipts were reallocated to the class I seniors –typically far eastern investors.

    ** you talking about the obligors ability to make debt service against assets held as escrow accounts. There is no servicing in a divestiture of assets deal structure.

    $100,000 mortgage
    10% Coupon
    $10,000 annual
    10 Yrs Interest Only (ARM is Moot)

    Payoff demand -Yr 5 150,000

    Mers Corp to Substitute and delete
    Yr 6 – Yr 10 Term to roll over the 5 Yr bond

    This is why dependency on robust condition is synonymous to a Ponzi


    If you get this right, I swear, there are no counter-argument to overcome the false claims brought in a forelosure

    Only an attorney can provide you legal advice . Consult an attorney before making any decisions concerning our property rights. This is for informational purposes only.

  47. It is more than SEC rule——the SEC rules require that a mortgage loan schedule be filed ——-yes—and the indenture and PSA will also represent that the schedules are in fact filed as eg EXHIBIT A OR B—-but when you look for that exhibit there is nothing there byt the header
    “EXHIBIT A : Mortgage Loan Schedule” then blank where there should be 17,000 lines of print—-see American Home Mortgage 2004-4 for example—-

    the docs also represent the same filing in the Delaware Sec State UCC financing statements—-you get the filing and it also refers to EXHIBIT A OR B “Available on Request” [of whom?]

    The IRC REMIC requirements manadate the lists also

    the basic trust law requires the filing of a Schedule of trusts assets—if they are not listed–there is no trust—-this has huge implications–who sues you in foreclosure–who takes title to the houses —nonexistent trusts

  48. DC

    You have your hash and mash mixed up here . We are talking ABS and the second note ….not mortgage backed securities investors .

  49. typically the transactions are spelled out in the securitization docs in order to APPEAR to conform to the offbaance sheet rules in the FASB and IRC REMIC –ie trusts that are not treated as taxable business associations under IRC reg 301-7701

    But it was simialr to witches waiving magic wands—–actually the lemnder swept up the closing docs and dumped em in a warehouse—-the various trustees in mame only and do not even accept responsibility as fiduciaries now

    see:,a BNY global trust site disclaimer on thei site in Feb 2012:

  50. @PAT
    ” It is my understanding security investors don’t receive distributions based upon payments made to the ultimate note payee but rather directly own and control the lender’s contractual right to the cash flow derived from the loan obligor’s periodic payments”

    I dont think so. The cash flows paid by the homeowner pursuant to the terms of the promissory note supposedly go to the servicer thence to the indenture trustee in the aggregate. The MBS electonic “notes” constitute a completely separate set of obligations with varying priorities and maturities —created pursuant to and described by the indenture —–eg there are Group 1 mortgage notes which generate cah flows dedicated to Class I MBS “notes” —the groups of mortgage notes and classes of MBS notes can be analaogized to a ladder. On day one–Group 1 pays Class I———–but the indenture creates priorities for the senior classes that pull cash flow away from the initially dedicated groups——a waterfall effect. that allowed the securitizers /investment bankers to confuse mbs buyers—the crappy arms etc were stuffed in the group 1 mortgage loans and failed aap—and class III etc MBS [typically domestic pension trusts] ceased receiving cash pmts—their receipts were reallocated to the class I seniors –typically far eastern investors

  51. in the context of debt securitization, have mortgage backed securities investors purchased contractual control of the lender’s cash flow rights or does the payee of the note retain contractual control of that right?”

    Assume that the MBS investors are beneficiaries of a trust. The loan originator-ie nominal lender/payee on the homeowner promissory note supposedly transfers its interest in the note to the trustee for the benefit of the MBS investors. Typically the payee tranfers the interest in the note to a trust grantor aka depositor. The depoistor transfers the note to the indenture trustee. As a negotiable instrument the note is supposed to be indorsed at each of these steps however it can be indorsed in blank by the payee and later the trustee is inserted in an indrsement —seemingly even after the payee is bankrupt. this does not seem appropriate –the authority to make the indorsement seems questionable—-but iv seen this practice and the attys for the collector ignore the rules with impunity

    “what financial instrument represents, evidences, and confers the lender’s contractual cash flow rights and privilages to the loan obligor’s periodic payments when the mortgage debt becomes securitized?” The homeowner promissory note.

  52. Patrick – you familiar with copyright laws…..

  53. Part “A” a tax payer coporation formed as a REIT and funds loans through party “B” an FDIC Member Bank. Party “B transfers to Party “C” under article 9 as possession is perfection. Party “C” is a LLC and TRS who Sells to “D” the securities registrant as outlined in the Mortgage Loan Assumption Agreement.

    If anything to hold as a claim…and if Soliman were wrong, which he is not…how did “C” SELL the loans that are held in ownership Party A” . and possession by “B” under the law fo bailment?

    NG Said . The first offer to modify is the one the bank steers people into which merely puts off the inevitable foreclosure and where you waive all your defenses, of which there are many more than you might think.

    According to M. Soliman , its according to GAAP ASC 320 and old FAS 140 for divestiture of assets . This is to trigger the right of redemption for a negative pledge of an asset as collateral for a 5 yr bond that is offered in pledged to a foreign national bank (Duetsche Bank HSBC etc) and yes, is of no real value as a modicifation.

    NG never says Why, why are they doing what they do!


  54. I was asking if two competing financial assets (lets call them financial instruments) can confer contractual cash flow rights to a receivable of the same debt obligation.at the same time

    Maybe I missed the “same time” condition in the earlier answer: So how about if A sells b the basic receibale balance–and sells to D any interest that accrues?

  55. @PATRICK
    ” I was asking if two competing financial assets (lets call them financial instruments) can confer contractual cash flow rights to a receivable of the same debt obligation.at the same time”

    This is sort of a law school type question. or one of those brain teaser questions—-Through the use of the term “competing” and “same debt obigation” but two instruments— i guess you are trying to get an unreserved “no”——but im struggling trying to make sense

    is it possible to have exactly the same rights to a note—–yes–if they are issued at different times with result being a struggle for priority. Eg Company A has a receivable for 100 from B for sale of widget x—-A sells the receivable to C by a transfer of ownership of all benefits and burdens of ownership evidendenced by a written description of sale which is made on a Saturday of a 3 day weekend when A knows B is out of town—–A is not subject to any duty to repurchase the receivable under any circumstances—this is a sale to C but C does not make a filing under UCC with Sec State and nobody communicates anything to B.

    A on Sunday executes an assignment of the same receivable to D as security for a loan

    Or if you like A uses exacltly the same form to sell the receibale to D except that this contract has an addendum that requires A to repurchase the receibable if it is uncollectible by D. [D had an atty and B did not]

    does this fit?


  56. @ DC

    “a debt obligation is a financial asset—–to the owner—it is an obligation to the maker of the note–the obligor.”

    A debt obligation is a financial asset to the owner under what financial instrument?

    I was asking if two competing financial assets (lets call them financial instruments) can confer contractual cash flow rights to a receivable of the same debt obligation.at the same time.

    If the answer is no then in the context of debt securitization, have mortgage backed securities investors purchased contractual control of the lender’s cash flow rights or does the payee of the note retain contractual control of that right?

    It is my understanding security investors don’t receive distributions based upon payments made to the ultimate note payee but rather directly own and control the lender’s contractual right to the cash flow derived from the loan obligor’s periodic payments.

    Asked another way, what financial instrument represents, evidences, and confers the lender’s contractual cash flow rights and privilages to the loan obligor’s periodic payments when the mortgage debt becomes securitized?

  57. Yes carrie, even Mark Terbeek only wanted to get us a modification and looked at us like dead beats and all we want is our property rights and make the banksters accountable for the fraud upon us and the investors

  58. could you amplify on this–i can understand what you are getting to–i dont know soliman

  59. The note is accrued in a forward manner over 10 years as to prepayment speed. The deed is converted to a zero coupon bond. The bond is a negative pledge. Here are the two notes. The Neg Pledge is made to a foreign national bank. If you discount a bond at 10% for 10 years that yields a 10 % coupon. MSoliman told you people this for four years and you kick his testimony to the curb. So go on ..NG …keep on guessing.


  61. @bijaya

    What happened to you is what I saw coming—and that’s why I didn’t do it.
    California is hell for homeowners.
    If it all comes down to the judges “whims”—and they DON’T CARE about us.

  62. to all:

    lots of good information here but a little confusing.

    Carrie BK 7 discharges all debt 13 is the reorganization and actionable.

    in CA i am trying one more time to file to protect my property right stolen by a false credit purchase and now sale by them to another after declaring them unsecured in BK7 and filing homestead papers in the BK7, they still won a UD action and evicted us with false documents (judge said he will use presumptive evidence and their sworn testimony and was not going to rule as required by 764.010) for non rental payment or lessor payment, ha

    any ideas

    any lawyers ready to help, can not find a one willing to fight

  63. pledged to a trust is one thing, kicked out and sold to junk debt buyer is another…

  64. thanks for that concise description, David.
    send me your e-mail I’ll send you my case info.
    cutting through the fog on August 7th, Eastern District WI

  65. I plan on having that alleged Note tested very soon. Trying to cover all the bases. Thank you for that.

  66. DCB…. Very well explained! What would be the potential threat for a homeowner whose note was not registered electronically or manually with the SEC but whose mortgage was assigned to MERS? Isn’t it a requirement that the note be registered with the SEC before it can be securitized?

  67. @MARY
    Re Note

    I wouldnt get too hung up on negotiability issue–its hard enuff getting courts to understand securitization and UCC.

    Thequestion is whether it is possible for a bankrupt entity’s agent to indorse a negotiable note after the bankruptcy filing. Seems that at least the agent lost authority under any POA at time of bankruptcy filing and the BK trustee would have to adopt that agency as a continuing power so that would be on a the BK record somewhere—needle in haystack for you to prove its not there–always hard to prove the negative—in bk its terrible—-who can testify its not there?

    but as bad—do not assume that any paper the present is in fact the “original” and it absolutely must be–and at the end of the day you must have it in your hands—you cant rely on the trustee promise—they start backpeddling on promises as soon as they get the house

    you have to assume they are absolutely willing to commit perjury =—–they will have excuses–the atty will say “i dint know” and the person who made the representation will be long gone–and in a foreign jurisdiction–triustees are usually immune from suit -its important whether it is a trust or not because of the immunity

  68. When I was first served with the complaint, I did in fact pull the sec filings for the trust, prior to discovery and have loan schedule. I won’t post the outcome, but three years later, Plaintiff is not relying on assignment of mortgage any longer to the trust (fabricated) but is now claiming to hold a negotiable note. (of which there are issues regarding the alleged negotiable note/of a bankrupt originator).

    How can the court continue to let these fraudsters get away with making claims and causes in pleading and then switch their plan of attack at summary judgment where they were denied and trial is scheduled???

  69. @ALL

    Postscript to my preceeding post

    The failure to file mortgage loan schedules as part of the required public-view SEC securities filings for the securitized trusts constitutes the basic systemic failure by govt that allowed the investor fraud to occur in two ways: the investor could not excercise due diligence to see if te loans on the properties at the listed address were realistc—–and the investors could not double check to determine if the same loan was sold to multiple trusts by a single servicer-originator [private label] —-down the road this enables multiple debt collectors to pursue homeowners on the sama note by relying on loopholes in the UCC —–

    The SEC had a rule in place that REQUIRED securitizers to make electronic filings of these lists—and made express waivers for the benefit of the fly-by-nites–so they could separately file “manually” paper lists—huge files that were to be scanned by SEC —–easily observable by their size on edgar—

    But SEC after giving the waivers–either intentionally or negligently did not follow up to see if the manual filings were actually made as represented in the SEC filings multiple times

    as late as 2009 SEC was attempting to conceal/cover up this issue by removing all manually filed lists from its edgar database——-thus you now cant go determine if a manual list is filed or not without a FOIA—-by my surveys–before SEC actively covered up its role in this insidious activity, about 60% of the worst private lable securities had unfiled loan schedules

    the intitial mistake –or corrupt activity was bad enough —but the cover-up is inexcusable——-along with some of those private lable frauders—there should be some SEC staff questioned—and assets reviewd for bribes

    “Patrick: Are you trying to ask : If the note was claimed to be securitized, how can they be claimed to be a negotiable instrument/bearer paper (since Plaintiff fails to prove it is in a securitized trust).”

    If that is the question–and its easy to understand the confusion-[-it was intended to confuse and has worked well for several years that way]—-assume you get a batch of notes naming the originatr as the payee [pretend they are checks] —and the payee is the sponsor of the securitization process [simple case] —-the payee employee stamps “pay to bearer” and/or simply stamps the payees name on the note by X VP of payee—[seems like usually this is done by illegible named persons acting in uncertain authority] —-keep thinking how you would indorse a check—

    then you the originators indorsing VP hands the stack of indorsed in blank notes along with the rst of the original loan file closing docs to the supposed trustee/custodian to for the trust documents for that party to verify that the note is actually there—actally signed by the homeowner maker etc—–then that custodial trustee certifies to the indenture trustee that all is good——-the trust has received the loan file and note and it matches the mortgage loan schedule

    if you spend a few weeks poring through the securitization docs you will see that is what was supposed to happen

    however in fact—-seemingly that did not hapen for the private labels like American Home mortgage group–option one etc etc

    instead apparently the files were shipped to the originators warehouse—and nothing but lists of data were communicated to the trustees from the originators–and the trustees allowed the originators to self-certify that they had done everything per the securitization documents—maybe with an actual letter delegating authority to do this on behalf of the bank trustees

    when the loan files were received at the warehouse–they were bar coded–ie the docs were stamped–the note was stamped with a barcode that was used to keep track of what trust the note was allocated to—-a note that has no barcode probably was sold a couple times and the warehouse-operator originator did not want to assign it to one or another of the double dipped trusts—

    this was the heart of the fraud on the investor pension funds—if the note was bar coded —-if the note was listed on a mortgage schedule filed with SEC and Delaware UCC—then it would be a lot more likely that somebody might discover the loan was on 2 or 3 or more lists—the bar code would have limited flexibility to commit fraud on investors

    a collateral effect is that the homeowner in such instances cannot go pull up the SEC online and check to see if the trust that is suing for foreclosure actually had the loan on its mortgage loan schedule—-the investor fraud has the side benefit for servicers/debt collectors to sieze a house for one trust based an the naked claim “I ABC trust am holder of this note” —and then later come along 3-6 yrs later and tell the hapless homeowner ” I XYZ trust am the holder of the note” —and demand payment—

    the only defense on the 2nd go-around here is if the hapless homeowner can pull out the verified ORIGINAL NOTE marked paid in full by trust ABC properly appointed agent—–and waive it
    at the 2nd claimant—

    if the 1st claimant trust is really reluctant to be involved in the foreclosure–and all you ever see is servicer signed docs–there is probably a good reason–not administrative–but probably the trus did not have exclusive claim to that note which was probably sold 2-3 times

    i do not know of case law that attempts to unscramble a fraud such as this–i suspect these cases will arise in a couple years as soon as the original siezed property action has had a resale to a sucker that thinks shes getting the property clean—-the 2nd claim on the maker years later can then proceed and the 2nd trust/servicer can press siezure of the original homeowners IRA—–insurance policy–whatever is left—maybe even slap the buyer of the home with a claim to squeeze some loot——these 2nd line collectors will be worse than the 1st ones—-

    they will even try to reinstate debts discharged in bankruptcy—this all seems grossly unfair and it is –but this is what frauders do for a living—and what govt regulators were supposed to stop—-when they allowed securities offerings to proceeds without mortgage loan schedules filed with SEC —they allowed this to happen–they allowed this future mess to occur–and the regulators dont see it as a problem because —well—if you cant pay your debt you are a deadbeat and should file bankruptcy and then you dont have to worry about multiple old claims—

  71. Patrick: Are you trying to ask : If the note was claimed to be securitized, how can they be claimed to be a negotiable instrument/bearer paper (since Plaintiff fails to prove it is in a securitized trust).

  72. @LV—I cant say i recall what you are thanking me for—-and i cant guess what you are fighting for—-if you are in possession of a house–a few months more possession unless you are trying to modify—–but from what iv seen the mod stuff is touted far and wide for a few months bed=fore election—then disappears asap after—and this time worse—Romney would reinstitute debtors prison even if he has to ask fed to print the money to pay mits contributors to build and operate it–and obama wont much care at all if he wins re-election—hell immediately begin work on his post retirement speaking engagement materials—while he still has govt paid speach writers—-that will be supplemented by several books–with ghost writers—-

    Romney will probably do a sale/leaseback of the Whitehouse—and just sell the capitol bldg to a chinese tourist attraction operating company— $20 bucks per head for a tour—with genuine imitation made in china lifelike action figures —filling the chambers and actually sitting in the nice offices

    Either obama or romney can just send congress home permanently and tell em from now on they can just go to fundraisers and county fairs —run for reelction full time without the need of those unpleasant trips to DC —there are only 12 that even pretend to vote now anyway—–they can do hearings by 3D projection images—just so we can keep a couple TV channels with Washington Today stuff for the old folks like me that like to pretend occasionally that Congress is still there

    they really need to quit shooting those images of the guy up front and the one at the podium—–and panning the empty chambers—it ruins the illusion

  73. An owner of a note is entitled to payments of “interest” –not dividends

    dividends are paid on common and preferred stock–equity

    a debt obligation is a financial asset—–to the owner—it is an obligation to the maker of the note–the obligor

  74. @ PATRICK
    I honestly have no idea what your question is. Please restate with a hypothetical or some manner to claify?

  75. @ DC

    So two competing financial assets can confer cash flow rights to the same debt obligation? Which one is it? The note or the securities issued to investors? I was under the impression that the investors directly controlled the rights to the loan’s cash flow, not dividends paid out by a note owner.

  76. @enraged

    our first payment went into suspense account.

  77. @ dcb

    thanks for the explanation, my spouse asked me a question:

    what are the offset damages to homeowner? we are trying to figure out what the heck we are fighting for.

  78. @PATRICK

    Are you intentionally trying to confuse people or are you simply that confused yourself. you mention 101 acctg—what exactly is your background: foundation to make these comments. Or rather are they a series of questions?

    There is a financing device used by a great many real businesses. it is called selling receivables. If company A makes a hundred widgets and sells them to company B for a payment of $100 payable in 60 days—and this is a recurring orde ie 100 widgets/month ———–then company A has about $200 tied up indefinitely —and must figure out how to get the “negative float ” back to pay for the materials and labor to make the widgets

    Thus in addition to inventory financing, which is a bit less secure to banks than an actual earned IOU——comany A sells the receivable to BANK X [assuming the CEO of Bank X can be pulled away from the casino long enough to do normal bank business—-thats really what banks are supposed to be doing] —-Company B may not be aware that the receivable was sold by A——B really doesnt care—he makes the payments as required to A which immediately pays it over to X

    there is nothing odd about this–it has been going on since at least 1980——it is shown on a UCC filing—–the receivables certainly have value—-and if B does not pay–then A sues in his name for the joint acct of A and X —because usually A guarantees the collection one way or another

  79. But meanwhile in a courtroom near you ….

    The production of the note by the plaintiff gives rise to the presumption that it has not been paid and that it has economic value on the books of the note holder.

    Discounted note = selling note receivables prior to maturity. Each month a receivable matures and payment is due and owing.

    A discounted note is non negotiable. Don’t let the blank endorsement fool you.

    The receivables were sold without recourse prior to maturity whereby the seller derecognized (removed) the receivables (the liability) from its balance sheet ledger when its payments rights expired.

    The purchaser recognized the receivables as a distinct asset and measured them at fair value. (later assigned into a pool of like kind assets for securitization)

    Balance sheet 101 Assets = liabilities

    And so the discounted note equals zero on the balance sheet when the corresponding liability was removed (receivables sold) and has no economic value on the books. You can’t own zero and zero can’t be transferred to a successor.

    A lien attaches to the note only so long as it retains economic value on the books of account. A paid off note is not subject to the lien and a satisfaction of mortgage should be recorded. Likewise, a discounted note, where the receivables were sold, is treated the same way on the books as if it were paid in full by the note maker. In both instances, it is worth zero.

    A seller of note receivables can’t own the note. It is an impossible bookkeeping feat. But, the seller can agree to collect the receivables on behalf of the ultimate purchaser for a nominal fee and retain possession of the worthless note for convenience.

    Lender = note owner

    Isn’t it the lender whose required to give notice of acceleration? How on earth can a worthless note be accelerated?


    Kenneth S. Taylor, Alycia Taylor Driggins

    Defendants. )

    CASE NUMBER NO . 5:10CV 2766


    INTERLOCUTORY 28 U.S.C. 1292 (b) Judge John Adams Denies Mandate, By Anewing Orders Vacated By Mandate Denying Plaintiffs Rights To Access Courts


    Now comes Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Driggins Taylor (“the Taylor’s”) who now herby appeal to United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit From Judge John Adams Order entered in this action on the 13th day of July 2012. The Honorable Judge John R. Adams has acted in a incorrigible manner the damage he has cause is irreparable by regular appeal ,he has displayed the Rulership of a King The Honorable Judge has issued a order, that has stop Taylors dead in their tracks again and has estoppel them from filing motion in opposition to dismissal ,has stop them from filing relief from judgment, and has stop all pre-and-post-judgment motions available to them under Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure instituting a permanent impassible illegal wall, by placing a barricade at the entrance gate of court and clerks office blocking doorway to the administration to justice short circuiting plaintiffs claims pruning complaint protecting defendants (who have admitted wrong doing) by delivering plaintiffs a lethal dose of civil rights violations to only one side of the table ,placing a hedge of protection around defendants , using the appleate courts case Mananares V. City of Albuquerque , trying to poke holes in it, defying the mandate , when his job was to explain several claims that Taylors have brought, and the appeleate court belives could survive Rooker-Feldman defense administered by The Honorable Judge Sua Sponte, and may likely survive Judges denial denying the Taylor’s relief under Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) 5. that have merit and why he denied them , rejecting every aspect of the Superiroir Courts Mandate. Interlocutory orders can be obtained by a writ under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which authorizes appellate courts to review trial court orders that are not final judgments. A writ of mandamus in a civil case may be issued if there is no adequate remedy by regular appeal or otherwise; the petitioner will be harmed in a way not correctable on direct appeal; the trial court’s challenged order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; the issue is likely to recur; has recurred and will recur again and the order raises issues that are new and important or of first impression,a lower courts denial of higher courts mandate. Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977). Writs have been issued to review an order compelling disclosure of privileged information or a trial court’s refusal to rule on pending motions. We ask for the purpose of this appeal that this harsh order by Judge be construed as Final and Appealable because of its extreme and drastic effects on plaintiff’s complaint bringing it to a dead stop in trial co The judge belives he owns the court and he is the keeper of the keys owns the Taylors personal jurisdiction and has a title and deed to Taylors constitutional rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances.(First Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]) Honorable Jugde John Adams terminated all justice and all Taylors rights to access the district court and offers no alternate forum this action is egregious abuse of discretion equivalent to Jim Crows Laws. Apple v. Glenn , 183 F.3d 477, 478 (6th Cir. 1999) (per … (6th Cir. 1999), the Sixth Circuit.

    The district court was bound by the mandate of United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit. The order contains the wrong date (May 1, 2011) Court of appeals vacated order. The judge should fix typo as the date is related to jurisdiction; the correct date is March 1, 2011. However the judge stating once again, all over again, all Taylor’s claims counterclaims are barred under Rooker –Feldman we disagree and appeal this decision. See 255 f3d 261 deborah m. horaist v. doctor’s hospital of opelousas…255 F3d 261 Deborah M. Horaist v. Doctor’s Hospital of Opelousas .255 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2001), The new order is a waste of the courts precious resources , serves no other the purpose but to increase the cost of litigaton , humiliate plaintiffs cause uneccessary delay the judge knows the appeal will cost the Taylor,s another filling fee of 355.00 dollars and 1000.00’s of dollars to re-litigate this case and at least another year for case to matriculated through the courts already overburden and the Jugdes actions defeats the notions of judicial economy and finality. The collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, doctrine precludes relitigation of the same issue in a subsequent action between the same parties. Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299, 306, 96 P.3d 957 (2004). The purpose of collateral estoppel is to promote judicial economy by avoiding relitigation of the same issue, afford the parties the assurance of finality of judicial determinations, and to prevent harassment of and inconvenience to litigants. Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 306–07. “[T]he party against whom the doctrine is asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier proceeding.” Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 307. These are the same old claims ,here we go again over and over again and is a detour from the spirit of the mandate .The ultimate determination, however, belongs to the appellate court—the court that issued the mandate. See Engel Indus., 166 F.3d at 1382. Thus, an appellate court reviews de novo any district-court ruling on the scope of the mandate. No federal judge has the authority to terminate the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens, as Judge Adams ,has did in this case ,destroying in the process, the Taylors rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness , guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV[1868] Section 1, violating Due Process rights, in this case:
    Case No.: CASE NO.5: 10 CV 2766 this case has no final judgment, therefore there is no adequate remedy by regular appeal or otherwise, the petitioner will be harmed in a way not correctable by direct appeal if his home is sold unlawfully he may never get his home back, monetary reward will not replace uniqueness and lifetime memories of 23years in home, if petitioner re-files the case, the case will return back to original Judge Adams for the same wasted repeated results. the trial court’s challenged order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; the issue is likely to recur; We Now Ask this High Honorable Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to review all issues, make and consider same set of facts, assignment of errors listed below as standard of review De novo, The appellate court owes no deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions. Instead, the appellate court has the power to determine for itself the application, interpretation, and construction of a question of law. An appellate court, however, may not retry the evidence or make new determinations of fact in deciding the applicable law. Judge John Adams Violated major substantive due process protections, including the rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, RICO, Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine.

    The Taylor’s now appeal the district court’s order denying Mandate and Scheduling Order, and Motions for Severe Sanctions, Clerks Removal. There was never any language set out in mandate from appeals court that bared the door shut to clerk’s office cutting off access to the district court to file new evidence or motions related to this case.The court placed no directions or restrictions on the Taylors , the Taylors file a notice of appearance and scheduling order to get the case back on track. The rules seem to require actions of prevailing party (Taylor’s) part, howevr that right and option was taken away by the Judges Order(Filed July 13,2012)and Clerk’s office who intentionally disregarded mandate and rejected the filing and voided it out based on a vacated order from March 1,2011. Subquently the Taylor’s file Motion for Severe Sanctions for offending clerks that was denied. To make clear that the re-issued documents are the mandate, the court may stamp them as “mandate” or “issued as a mandate.” See, e.g., United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916, 920 (2d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (explaining that “the clerk of the court signs her name on a copy of the judgment or order that is stamped ‘MANDATE’ at the top of the first page and ‘true copy’ at the bottom of the last page”). Unless extraordinary circumstances warrant judicial involvement, the clerk’s office, rather than a judge, prepares and issues the mandate.The Court clerk’s duties are clerical in nature. The clerk is therefore not immune from liability. The duties are strictly ministerial in nature, and the clerk is not the Court, nor a judicial officer. [Swanson v. Olympic Peninsula Motor Coach,] 190[ ] Wash. 35, 38, 66 P.2d 842 (1937). The clerk is strictly a county employee, and therefore the requested servere sanctions is proper in this action. Then judge reissued anew the year old order that the appleate court vacated. The Mandate gave directions to trial court judge, the trial court is not free to ignore the mandate and must proceed in conformity with views expressed by the United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Case No.11-3277 Case U.S. Supreme Court Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945) Catlin v. United States. No. 419. Argued February 1, 2, 1945. Decided February 26. This is an egregious deviation from mandate as the United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Case No.11-3277 set forth specific instructions as such: “Accordingly, we conclude that a remand is necessary for the district court to explain its reason for denying the Taylor’s relief under Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) 5.”
    Rule 60(b) reads in its entirety: Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding . On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);(1) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;(4) the judgment is void;(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

    Nothing the judge has written in his order explains the reason he denied Taylor’s motion there is no such explanation provided; this order does not clarify or resolve any of the Six Circuits concerns and is a u-turn in the wrong direction.
    Judge John Adams states in his order the appellate court found procedural error in the dismissal of Taylor’s counterclaim so those claims can be reviewed following proper procedure, but offers no reason for such statement, Both the C.A. at state or United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Case No.11-3277 never mentioned procedure errors. The Taylor’s are not state court losers Moreover the appeals court found error concerning trial court conspiracy the Taylors contended the trial court conspired with Deuthcshe Bank‘s counsel to inappropriately enter summary judgment on Taylors counterclaim the appellate court agreed with Taylor‘s ,this was no procedural error, the trial court clearly said it properly considered Taylor’s counterclaim and found without merit. An issue is precluded by the law-of-the-case doctrine when a higher court has affirmatively decided the issue, be it explicitly or by necessary implication. Questions that merely could have been decided do not become law of the case. The law-of-the-case doctrine turns on whether a court previously decided upon a rule of law not on whether, or how well, it explained the decision. Lets not conflate the state court void summary judgment, with Taylor’s counterclaim which is a federal claim brought under federal law in state court concerning a lawsuit filed in this same district court by plaintiff who lost the lawsuit and harmed the Taylors years before this void summary judgment was an issue that predates state claim and adds different parties and different claims than state claim.
    The appellate court never mentioned procedural error and in fact it said a judgment was entered “in artfully”( Awkwardly expressed but not necessarily untrue; impolitic; ill-phrased; inexpedient; clumsy) which was the lie told by judge and plaintiffs counsel See C.A. 25281 Assignment Of Error III “Summary Judgment Void” The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit Case No.11-3277 also reasoned that several of the Taylors claims were valid , and warned judge it would be an arduous undertaking , instead of following mandate he issues a dismissal of all claims again that dismissal is a complete variance from the mandate and not in the spirit of the mandate .can a lower court judge us a unlawful order issued to plaintiffs as a conduit to appeal to a higher courts mandate and get them to alter their inital decision .The law below does not support the arrogant disobience , the dishonor and inability to conform with mandate.

    This present trial court’s order denying plaintiffs motions are in direct contravention of Mandate order. See Stamper v. Baskerville, 724 F.2d 1106, 1107 (4th Cir. 1984). This “mandate rule” is a more powerful version of the law of the case doctrine and is based on “the principle that an inferior tribunal is bound to honor the mandate of a superior court within a
    Single judicial system.” 18B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur B. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478.3 (2d. ed. 2002). As we observed in United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 168 (1939)), “[f]ew legal precepts are as firmly established as the doctrine that the mandate of a higher court is ‘controlling as to matters within its compass.’” Under the mandate rule, therefore, a lower court generally may not consider questions that the mandate has laid to rest. Sprague, 307 U.S. at 168. Taylor’s strenuously oppose this attempt and any others attempt by the lower tribunal to obviate the need for the proceeding that was ordered , the Court of Appeals remanded this case back with specific instructions for judge to fully explain its reasons for denying the Taylor’s relief under Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) 5. It is an error for lower court to fail to do so. Especially because the Taylor’s have raise all these issues in the first lower tribunal proceedings The Court of Appeals also thought it was noteworthy to mention (“its is ordinarily error to raise an affirmative defense sua sponte unless the defense is obvious from face of complaint) See Exhibit ( **** Also the Court of Appeals found it Noteworthy to mention plaintiffs opposition to the district court’s requested default judgment made in good faith denied by judge, and not filed by clerk and judges present order on July 13, 2012 is not consistent with the appellate Mandate and the Taylor’s moves this Honorable Court for a Final Appealable Order as to all parties and as to all claims , we further oppose judges orders filed on July 13, 2012 which he gave a directive visa via the court and said per verbatim “Furthermore ,the Court Herby orders anew that Clerks office no longer accept further filings in this matter other than those filed to facilitate a second appeal , should the Taylor’s so desire. Conner v. Lavaca Hosp. Dist., 267 F.3d 426, 432 (5th Cir. 2001). Taylor’s desire to do so ,We also desire to oppose judges order denying Taylor’s Motion For Severe Sanctions ,Clerks Removal as judges orders places a barricade at clerks office and bars the door shut blocks the admistration of justice places a judicial noose around plaintiffs necks chocking off justices for the Taylor’s violating their First Amendment rights.
    Thelower court “must comply strictly with the mandate rendered by the reviewing court” and “may not deviate” from the mandate. Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd P’ship, 262 F.3d 1128, 1132 (10th Cir. 2001); see also, e.g., United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 150 (1st Cir. 1991) (“When a case is appealed and remanded, the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand.” (emphasis in original)). Relatedly, the parties generally cannot raise issues on remand that were not raised in the initial appeal. See, e.g., Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“An issue that falls within the scope of the judgment appealed from but is not raised by the appellant in its opening brief on appeal is necessarily waived.”).
    The mandate rule is a form of law of the case.

    The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) created laws which protect consumers in credit transactions. These laws require lenders to disclose (reveal) clearly to the consumer the terms and costs of the lending agreement. Furthermore, TILA requires lenders to provide in writing, an accurate cost of credit. This includes the finance charges added to the loan, along with the annual percentage rate charge.
    The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts other than the Supreme Court should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief. Defendants claims fail under this doctrine as relief plaintiffs seek is authorized by Congress.The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (P.L. 90-321, 82 Stat.146) is a federal statute which Congress enacted in 1969 and amended and expanded on numerous occasions after that date. In adopting TILA, the legislature declared: Once the court finds a violation such as not responding to the TILA rescission letter, no matter how technical, it has no discretion with respect to liability (in re Wright, supra. At 708; In re Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F,2d 1066, 1078 (3d. Cir. 1992); Smith v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., Supra. At 898. Any misgivings creditors may have about the technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the courts.
    The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure used primarily for Bankruptcy cases does not and cannot apply hear, 15 different causes of actions are present in this instant case. Plaintiff brings RICO claims, TILA claims, Fraud claims, all of which bars the door shut of Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a defense. Plaintiffs are not State Court losers . The ” Rooker-Feldman ” doctrine does not apply to an action collaterally attacking a final state court judgment on grounds that it is void. As the present action did not ripen as a separate and independent claim until the Ohio court entered a foreclosure decree. It is clearly established law that a judgment is void if the court that rendered it either lacked subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Margoles v. Johns, 660 F.2d 291, 295 (7th Cir. 1981). The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenths Circuits have all held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar an original, separate independent action that could be brought as a remedy under the law of the rendering state and federal law in the nature of a common law bill in equity collaterally attacking a final state court judgment as void if the court that rendered it either lacked subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process . And this is where application of Rooker –Feldman Doctrine fails , plaintiffs have filed suit on different parties , third parties, and causes of actions not addressed in state court plaintiffs counterclaim is based on harm caused plaintiffs before the state action was filed , new causes of actions have risen , the only concern from state court is a void summary judgment based on fraudulent assignment , the new claims causes of actions and parties that were never a part of state actions are as follows See at Original Complaint filed Civil Docket # 1 COMPLAINT FOR: PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling, FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUIET TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON. AND THE FOLLOWING NEW PARTIES ; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006- OPT2 THOMPSON HINE LLP, MANLEY DEAS KOCHALOSKI LLC. KEVIN L. WILLIAMS, ROBIN M.WILSON, ALLONDIAN TITLE, Inc. EDWARD M. KOCHALSKI, CHICAGO TITLE, CYNTHIA STEVENS, AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING INC. Scott WALKER, REBECCA SHRADER.SANDS CAYNON MORTGAGE CORPORATION JEANELLE GRAY (Assistant Secretary), Docx, LLCLender Processing Services Defendants IN NEW FEDERAL ACTION. Lewis v. East Feliciana Parish Board , 820 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1987); Catz v. Chalker , 142 F.3d 279, 294 (6th Cir. 1998); Nesses v. Shepard , 68 F.3d 1003, 1005 (7th Cir. 1995); McKay v. Pfeil , 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1987); Johnson v. Rodriques , 226 F.3d 1103, 1107 10th Cir. 2004) (federal courts “may entertain a collateral attack on a state court judgment that is void whenever the Court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction over the subject, the person or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law). Under Griffith v. Bank of New York , 147 F.2d 899, 901-03 (2d Cir. 1945) it is well settled that the federal courts may exercise equity powers available to set aside, deny enforcement or ignore a state court judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud and a bill of equity enjoins void judgment uncontaminated” by a “litany” of pervasive ex parte judicial cronyism, “home cooking,” case assignment manipulation, falsehood to acquire standing to sue, fraud upon the rendering court and the like without being denied access to the federal courts under Rooker-Feldman . In In re Murchison , 349 U.S. 133 (1955) the Court made clear: A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. . . . Circumstances and relationships must be considered. This Court has said, however, that ‘Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.’ Tumey v. Ohio , 273 U.S. 510, 532. To perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’ Offut v. U.S. , 348 U.S. 41. Id. at 136. In sum, any state court judgment collaterally attacked in federal court as void under where a party was denied a “full and fair opportunity” to assert claims and defenses violates due process and is not entitled to full faith and credit under the Federal Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738. And if the state court judgment is void then Rooker-Feldman cannot bar a collateral attack in federal court under Rooker-Feldman . Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp ., 456 U.S. 461, 481-82 (1982) (court may not grant preclusive effect to constitutionally infirm state court judgment – federal courts not (28 U.S.C. § 1738 requires United States courts to give same preclusive effect subject to due process); Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 311 (1983); Migra v. Warren City Board of Education , 465 U.S. 75, 83 n.5 (1985); Allen v. McCurry , 449 U.S. 90, 95 (1980) (same). IX. CONCLUSION This petition raises an important question of first impression since D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman was decided by the Court in 1983: Whether ” Rooker- Feldman ” abrogates the filing in federal court of a common law bill in equity under Barrow v. Hunton , seeking to void a state foreclosure decree when Petitioners did not ask the federal courts to review the merits of the foreclosure decree only those departures from established modes of procedure effecting the full and fair opportunity to be heard under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment such as manipulation and re-assignment of elected partisan judges off the record, willfully evading the random reassignment procedures established by the clerk of courts as well as for fraud upon the rendering Ohio court by Banks that did not even have standing to bring a foreclosure action as they possessed no cognizable legal or equitable interest in Petitioners’ house or the mortgage instruments. For the foregoing reasons the Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT S. CATZ Counsel of Record 1600 28th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 (202) 277-6585 Counsel for Petitioners June 11, 2008. United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2000). To obtain a reversal under this standard, Pacheco-Zepeda must prove that there was “error,” the error was “plain,” and the error affected ’substantial rights.’ United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732(1993). If such conditions are satisfied, this court may exercise its discretion to notice the forfeited error only if such error ’seriously affect[s]the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’” [ United States v. Gabriel Pacheco-Zepeda, Case No. 99-50720, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] . [N]eutrality and passivity are essential not only to ensure an evenhanded consideration of each case, but also to convince society at large that the judicial system is trustworthy. When a decision maker becomes an active questioner or otherwise participates in a case, he is likely to be perceived as partisan rather than neutral. Judicial passivity helps to ensure the appearance of fairness, Pro se litigants must be afforded special solicitude. .(there now is absolute concrete proof and evidence that the assignment before this court is false , phony , fake, and deceptive, misleading, defective, and produced by this crime lab, rendering state court summary judgement in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company forever Null, Void, and without Force.) The precise relief sought; For this reason alone the Plaintiffs Claims and all causes of actions as well as entire complaint should be restored , this case should be reversed remanded back to District Court, at the least , or in the alternative this court has the power to grant plaintiffs declaratory relief and damages from what has been four (4) years of complete absolute fraudulent lawsuits 3 in total have been filed against the Taylor’s by these parties pretending to be the lenders who have cause Taylor,s to suffer continue to suffer from lethal doses of Civil Right Violations, Amendment V, double jeopardy, who are hard working citizens and have paid taxes for all these years and live in their home with ownership rights for 23 years . We ask this court to grant plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners Kenneth S.Taylor ,Alycia Taylor Driggins 300, 000.00 dollars in damages, and hear Quiet Title Claims and award 100 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs a amount so high it would economically force Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and all other parties named to follow the law. 3.) Third Assignment of Error: JUDGE Violated Substantial Due Process Rights Dismissing Arising From Any One of the Multiple Federal Causes of Actions Stated in the Complaint Sua Sponte. The judge has taken an unlawful pretext, bias position against plaintiffs in this case and blocks the gate of this court to an Africa American Black plaintiff who is a law-abiding citizen of the U.S. who has paid the Courts filing fee. Right of Access To Courts is Constitutionally Protected. “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary. The right of access to the Courts is clear according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977);M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). The Supreme court has stated the right of access to the courts also protected by the First Amendment. BE&K Construction CO. v. National Labor Relations Board et al. 536 U.S. 516 (2001)(“the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government,” and that “[t]he right of access to the courts is … but one aspect of the right of petition.“). California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508, 510 (1972)(“The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.“). See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)(recognizing “the fundamental right of access to the courts”); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)(“The constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a corollary the requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights.“).Statements of facts ; Mr. Taylor who is in a protected class under the law, who has been denied Equal Protection, and Due Process, Whereas plaintiff have proof of blacks being main targets of predatory lending claims included in his complaint, the judge has administered a unlawful lethal blow of civil rights violation, by teaming up and jumping in a fight that was fair until he started helping his friends out by arbitrarily and capricious Sua Sponte dismissal of plaintiffs entire complaint before even requiring any defendants to answer complaint , even prisoners, who habeas corpus forma paupers complaints filed are given 3 chances to get it right the Judge has became so embroiled with protecting the worst criminal behavior by defendants in the history of the United States of America, Plaintiffs attempts to report these federal crimes to people in the executive and legislative branches of government resulted in occasional admission of the gravity of the charges, but none would receive the evidence or take required action. Seeking to circumvent the coverups and obstruction of justice, Plaintiffs filed papers in federal courts to report the federal crime to a federal judge under the mandatory responsibility of the federal crime reporting statute, 18 U.S.C. and the right of citizens to seek a court order for federal officials, judges, and lawyers to perform a mandatory duty and halt unlawful conduct that is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The clear language of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 requires that anyone who knows of a federal crime must promptly report it to a federal judge (or other federal officer), or that person is guilty of a crime: Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Blocking the reports of major criminal activities against the United States by government insiders violates other criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, among others Instead of performing his duty, federal judge Adams dismissed the lawsuit as soon as the action was filed, Sua Sponte The judge however has lost all sight of justice for plaintiffs, a position so destructive to humanity it defies human decency it makes Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor feel sick to the stomach as though a judicial noose has been placed around his neck and choke off justice and equal access to this High Honorable District Court, he now wishes he was born a “White” man so he would be accepted by this court as a human being and be treated fair and equal, now I beg the court to stop treating me as a sub-human, there is something illegal and morally wrong when a judge sentences black defendants to maximum sanction .But opens a escape hatch for Whites. He Violated the responsibilities of federal judges to receive reports and evidence of federal crimes as part of their administrative duties under 18 U.S.C. 4. He Violated major substantive due process protections, including the rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, RICO, Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine. The law provides that a jury decides whether a conspiracy existed to block the reporting of the criminal activities and whether a conspiracy existed to violate Plaintiffs civil rights, and whether a conspiracy existed to block every federal defense related to these matters. Certainly not a judge who may be protecting the series of judges implicated in these offenses. He Violated multiple procedural due process rights, including the (a) right against Sua Sponte dismissal; (b) right against dismissal when facts showing federal causes of actions are stated for which federal relief exists; (c) right to discovery; (d) right to a jury trial; and (e) right to a honest adjudication of major federal causes of actions. The Dismissal Order Violated Multiple Procedural Due Process Rights The dismissal order violated every relevant procedural due process protection guaranteed to all citizens by the laws and Constitution of the United States for the record-setting violations stated in Appellant’s complaint .Violated Due Process Rights Barring Sua Sponte Dismissals The dismissal order violated the clear and settled law that requires a hearing, discovery, opportunity to defend, and a meaningful and honest opportunity to be heard. In Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539, the Court stated: The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required before a person is finally deprived of his property interests; In Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 246, the court held: “It is error to dismiss a claim on the merits without notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to respond.” FRcivP Rule 12(b)(6). “[T]the court must give notice of its Sua Sponte intention to invoke Rule 12(b)(6), and afford Appellants ‘an opportunity to at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion,” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979), quoting Potter v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir. 1970); Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796, 796 (9th Cir. 1962) “the right to a hearing on the merits of a claim over which the court has jurisdiction is of the essence of our judicial system, and the judge’s feeling that the case is probably frivolous does not justify by-passing that right. Appellant is entitled to have process issued and served, and to be heard. ”Violated Bar to Dismissing Arising From Any One of the
    Multiple Federal Causes of Actions Stated in the Complaint A Rule 12 based dismissal on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted requires that the factual allegations of the complaint must be taken as true, and any ambiguities or doubts concerning the sufficiency of the claim must be resolved in favor of the pleader. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 (1979); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78. Dennis v. Sparks 449 U.S. 24 (1980)(“a section 1983 complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears that the PLAINTIFFS can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief … For the purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. … If PLAINTIFFS allegations state a claim for which federal courts can grant relief, the court must accept jurisdiction.”); Gardener v. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U.S. 167, 172 (1967). (An action, “especially under the Civil Rights Act, should not be dismissed at the pleadings stage unless it appears to a certainty that Appellants are entitled to no relief under any state of the facts, which could be proved in support of their claims.” Escalera v. N.Y. Housing Auth., 425 F.2d 853, 857 (2nd Cir. 1970). See also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-7) 1957). The complaint stated facts constituting multiple federal causes of actions for which federal judges had a duty to provide a court forum, some semblance of due process, and relief. Dismissals under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6). “are permitted on a motion if the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” “The court cannot subject ever undisputed evidence to interpretation, unless it is only subject to one possible interpretation; it cannot weight conflicting inferences or interpretations that can be put on the evidence. U.S. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654; “The district court may dismiss the complaint “only if it is certain that no relief can be granted under any set of facts which could be proved.” General Refractories Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 297, 303 n.1 (3d Cir. 2003), quoting Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 171 F.3d 912, 919 (3d Cir. 1999). “An appeal [or complaint ] is not frivolous if any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.” Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; The requirement for “no genuine issue of material fact” standard provides that the court cannot try the case on a summary judgment motion. National Assn. of Gov’t Employees v. Campbell, 593 F.2d 1023, 1027-29 (D.C. Cir. 1978). also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[1.–0], [3]. A judgment is void if the rendering court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2862. “A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. V. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). “[T]he constitution, by prohibiting an act, renders it void, if done; otherwise, the prohibition were nugatory. Thus, the warrant is a nullity.” Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 217 (1821). “’No judgment of a court is due process of law, if rendered without jurisdiction in the court, or without notice to the party.” Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass’n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 15 (1907). Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60 (b) (4) if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. E.g., s Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 662 (1st Cir. 1990);Beller & Keller v. Tyler, 120 F.3d 21, 23 (2nd Cir. 1997); Union Switch & Signal v. Local 610, 900 F.2d 608, 612 n.1 (3rd Cir. 1990); Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Const., Inc. 167 F.3d 861, 867 (4th Cir. 1999); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown 84 F.3d 137, 143 (5th Cir. 1996) The U.S. Supreme Court,”SCOTUS”, On the Importance of Due Process Courts as well as citizens are not free ‘to ignore all the procedures of the law….’. The ‘constitutional freedom’ of which the Court speaks can be won only if judges honor the Constitution.” Walker v. City Of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 338 (1967)(Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting). “Due process is perhaps the most majestic concept in our whole, constitutional system.” Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 174 (1951) (Justice Frankfurter, concurring). It is ingrained in our national traditions, and is designed to maintain them. In a variety of situations, the Court has enforced this requirement by checking attempts of executives, legislatures, and lower courts to disregard the deep-rooted demands of fair play enshrined in the Constitution.” id. 161. “Fairness of procedure is “due process in the primary sense.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681. In a long line of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that impingements of constitutional rights are, without variation, subject to the strictures of “due process” or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to their enactments. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950); Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Owen v. City Of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980); Carey v.Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). “The principle stated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well-ordered systems of jurisprudence. Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.” Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274;23 L.Ed. 914 (1876). US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ROUTINELY REJECTED “SUA SPONTE” PRE-FILING INJUNCTIONS. A long line of United States appellate courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have rejected sua sponte issuances of pre-filing injunctions because they are violations of due process. In Weaver v. Leon County Sch. Bd., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit held that a litigant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a restriction was imposed on his ability to challenge an injunction. U.S. v. Powerstein, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14928,*;185 Fed. Appx. 811 (11th Cir. 2006)(litigant entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court imposed the injunctive order ). See Sires v. Fair, 107 F.3d 1;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173 (1st Cir. 1997); Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island , 985 F.2d 32 (C.A.1 (R.I.), 1993) (vacating a pre-fling injunction issued without notice); MLE Realty Assocs. v. Handler, 192 F.3d 259, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23362 (2nd Cir. 1999) ; Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. 2000) ; Holton v. Oral Surg. Sing Sing Corr., 24 Fed. Appx. 37; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25151 (2nd Cir. 2001); Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1998) (district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.); Gonzales v. Feiner, 131 Fed. Appx. 373, * 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8370, ** (3rd Cir. 2005) ; Wiliams v. Cambridge Integrated Servs. Group , 148 Fed Appx. 87, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18624 (3rd Cir. 2005) ; Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027 (C.A.3 (Virgin Islands), 1992)(vacating a sua sponte issued injunction); It is imperative that the court afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to issuing such an injunction. In Re Head, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8265,*;174 Fed. Appx. 167 (4th Cir. 2006)(vacated a 10 yr. old sua sponte injunction); Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004)(vacating a pre-filing injunction issued without notice); Tucker v. Drew, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11784 (4 th Cir. 1994) ;DOUGLAS BAUM v. BLUE MOON VENTURES, LLC , 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 91,*;513 F.3d 181;49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 68 (5th Cir. 2008)(“Notice and a hearing are required if the district court sua sponte imposes a pre-filing injunction or sua sponte modifies an existing injunction to deter vexatious filings.”) ;De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir.) ; Roscoe v. Hansen, 107 F.3d 880;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996 (10th Cir. 1997); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20966,*;500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007)(litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard before the [injunctive] order is entered.); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351,354 (C.A.10 (Wyo.), 1989)(vacated and holding that the litigant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to oppose the court’s order before it is instituted.); Procup v. Strickland, 567 F.Supp. 146 (M.D. Fla., 1983)(court issued a show cause order) Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107, 1110 (C.A.11 (Fla.), 1985) (held that district court did give adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before issuance of the injunction); Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm., 936 F.2d 512, 514 (11th Cir.1991)(noting that court issued show cause order prior to rendering pre-fling injunction); In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C.Cir.1988)(reversing and holding If a pro se litigant is to be deprived of such a vital constitutional right as access to the courts, he should, at least, be provided with an opportunity to oppose the entry of an order restricting him before it is entered.); Martin v. Circuit Court, 627 So.2d 1298 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1993)(reversing a pre-filing order and holding that limiting the constitutional right of access to the courts, essential due process safeguards must first be provided); Lawsuits of Carter, In re, 510 S.E.2d 91, 95; 235 Ga.App. 551 (Ga. App., 1998)(reversing a pre-filing injunction because notice or an opportunity not given); Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that injunctions “may not be expanded beyond the meaning of its terms absent notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).Courts have felt that the notice and opportunity to respond was so important that they have reversed district courts even where they thought the pre-filing injunction was otherwise valid. See Oliver, In re, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 1982); Scott v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage , 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15709,*;143 Fed. Appx. 525(4th Cir. 2005);Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81,
    The opinion in Procup v. Strickland, 793 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986), includes a long list of citations for different kinds of measures courts have taken to stop abusive filings by federal prisoners, including orders that the prisoner obtain court approval for any new
    The mandate rule is a “specific application of the law of the case doctrine,” and requires that a lower court “carry the mandate of the upper court into execution and . . . not consider the questions which the mandate laid at rest.” United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.1993). This rule “compels compliance on remand with the dictates of a superior court.” Id. And “except in rare circumstances” the district court must “implement both the letter and spirit of the . . . mandate, taking into account our opinion and the circumstances it embraces.” See Exhibit (B). Judge John Adams in a stanched defiance of Mandate not ever heard of refuses to explain his rubber stamp as his entire opionion and rulings comes down to three words. “It Does Not” we need a substantive written order that substantiates this decision”. A Mandate came from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Case No. 11-3277, in this case the court Vacated the districts Courts orders of February 14, 2011, and March 1, 2011, and Remanded this case back to district court for further proceedings consistent with their opinion regarding 60(B) motion from relief of judgment. The rule of mandate requires a lower court to act on the mandate of an appellate court without any variance or examination. See Toska v Campbell, 155 Mich App 671, 674, (1987) . The Judge made a egregious deviations from mandate unheard of and re dismissed case, and regurgitated previous order that was vacated and remanded back causing a unnecessary cost in litigation, wasting precious resource of court relitigating the same issues nothing he once again refuses to offer any reasonable legal case law, common law , treaties, or ,statues to support his order ,and resorts to what we already know, this is redundant,, respective , impertinent , rhetoric, wasted mean less filler word that don’t impact the order but reveals a pattern of bias and prejudice , partiality, one-sidedness all directed toward the Taylor’s and judge has established he has no problem abusing his discretion almost provoking and taunting Taylor’s to file another appeal ballooning the docket while precious court resource are being wasted. calling Taylors’s motions almost “nonsensical” in this order and previously calling Taylor’s claims “wild allegations” “that make little sense”, however no imprpreity was found by Court of appeals . We need a substantive written order that substantiates this decision. Just what message is he sending his Superior Judges In one of the Highest Honorable Courts in the United States who agreed with Taylor,s on several claims pointed out in his third Motion for Relief from Judgment.

    It is impossible to maneuver around these facts and claims: “SPECIAL MANDATE” ORDER. WARNING: the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment orders in favor of plaintiff-appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTC) have been reversed two times previously, and dismissed by Judge Sara Lioi Case Name Deutsche Bank National Trust Company V. Taylor et al. Case Number 5:07 CV 01840 on November8, 2007 for lack of standing the Court recently Notice all parties of the new transaction enter and filed on April 17, 2012 that this judgment stands does not have to be reinstated or refreshed the previous court orders speaks for itself, See Exhibit (A) which has caused severe harm and damages to Taylor’s by these defendants : DEUTSCHE BANK NATONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT2
    Fact the party in this case that initiated this foreclosure proceeding without ever being the creditor , without spending a dime on this loan, or the purchase of this loan, and without any right to represent the multitude of people and entities that should be paid on this loan. DEUTSCHE BANK NATONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT2, is a stranger to this transaction, and stands in the way of a mediated settlement or HAMP modification which plaintiffs cite as the reason they cancel the Sheriffs sale. This all happen before the state court case was filed this is one of the Taylor,s core claims this occurred under federal law no one can deny the Taylor,s were harmed long before state claim was filed
    See Exhibit (O) federal filing by Kevin Williams certified true copy of affidavit of title in Fiscal Office of Summit County Regarding Federal Aid of Affidavit this is the lynchpin and grave men of in this counterclaim a trial is only necessary to decide the amount of damages we need a substantive written order that substantiates this decision”. See Exhibit (O). Judge Learned Hand explained the rule thus: “When a party is once found to be fabricating or suppressing documents, the natural, indeed, the inevitable conclusion is that he has something to conceal and is conscious of guilt.”
    Argument and law:
    Warner Barnes & Co. v. Kokosai Kisen Kabushiti Kaisha, 102 F.2d 450, modified, 103 F.2d 430 (2d Cir. 1939). See also Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 304 (9th Cir. 1996) (witness tampering by defense counsel prevented a “fair trial”; witness tampering and perjury “subvert the entire judicial process”). A federal court’s jurisdiction is Dependent upon the standing, of the litigant, which includes both constitutional standing and prudential standing. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982); 2Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 128- 29 (2004) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)). Plaintiff also lacks capacity. The state claim was born out of frustrated federal court losers, See Exhibit (O) Affidavit In Aid Of Title under O.R.C. 55301. 252 Regarding Federal Foreclosure Filing 55457606 on July 03, 2007 filed in Summit County Recorders of by attorney Kevin L. Williams which is false misleading, and both civil and criminal offense that corrupted title, clouded title, and slandered title and harm and damage occurred to Taylor’s before and after state claim in which the void summary judgment was obtained which is void forever ab nito there is no default because the creditor has been paid off. Taylor’s have never missed a payment due to Plaintiffs. . To foreclose on a mortgage, a party must have title to the mortgage. The instant assignment is a nullity.
    Argument and law:
    The Appellate Division, Second Department (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [2d Dept 1988]), held that a “foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity.” The Appellate Division, First Department, citing Kluge v Fugazy, (Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243 [1st Dept 1998]), instructed that “[p]plaintiff’s attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest was without foundation in law or fact.” SEE EXHIBIT (AA) CERTIFIED DEED OF TRUST IN DEFENDANTS AND HOMEONWERS NAME ONLY.
    U. S. Bank, N.A. v. Richards, C.A. No. 25052, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, 2010 Ohio 3981; 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 3376, August 25, 2010, Decided.
    “TERRIFFIC New Decision Out of Ohio in U.S. Bank v. Richards”

    Bank of America, NA v. Miller, Appellate Case No. 2010-CA-60, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, 2011 Ohio 1403; 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 1234, March 25, 2011, Rendered.
    “Another Terrific Ohio Appellate Decision on Evidentiary Issues: Bank of America, N.A. v. Miller” Harvey Covington & Thomas, LLC v. WMC Mortgage Corp., ___ So. 3d ___, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D897 (Fla. 1st DCA April 17, 2012)

    Who is judge protecting, and why ? The judge has failed to report crimes before his Honorable Court ,The Honorable Judge John Adams should remove himself if he cnt perform his duties under the law ,this appeals court has power to remove him and should act under usc 1655 .) The trial court violated defendants 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th Amendments, rights by denial of trial by jury, denial of any trial, denial of any hearing on the record, denial of constitutional rights to face and question accusers, denial of rights to use of court to have counterclaim heard by court, just as the court is hearing plaintiffs unverified complaint, denial of the right to a fair trial, denial of the right to conduct discovery “Due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution, requires that every party to an action be afforded ‘a reasonable opportunity to be heard after a reasonable notice of such hearing.'” Zashin, Rich, Sutula & Monastra Co., L.P.A. v. Offenberg (1993), 90 OhioApp.3d 436, 443, quoting Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 118, 125. The judge and plaintiff attorney committed conspiracy and acted in concert with each other both making material and false declarations to trial court which violated federal law under 18 USC 1623 this is a serious crime, [Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 102 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2004-Ohio-2895.] Making it impossible to get a fair trial or a final judgment. The judge is taking defendants real property rights and disposed of and ignored defendants counterclaim with false statement in court records to make court believe the counterclaim had been resolved and adjudicated, in furtherance of that conspiracy Robin Wilson contacted judge through a letter to him which she agreed to participate and did so become a willingly active party in collusion in a collaborated with judge and expressed that activity knowingly in the letter which confirmed the joint action to included language as a result of the judges directive in final decree that judge had reviewed and adjudicated counterclaim in summary judgment order , the judge never mention counterclaim in his summary judgment or at any other time during this case there is nothing in courts record that shows he has reviewed or even read counterclaim , [Cite as Englefield v. Corcoran, 2007-Ohio-1807.] The judge is bias, prejudice, one-sided, partial, and motivated by a pretext motive caused by prior inconsistent statements and lies in this case the judge is seeking revenge from two summary judgments that were reversed, and has became so deeply personally embroiled with destruction of defendants counterclaim he has lost all sight of fairness and block the administration of justice for the Taylor’s. The plaintiff are burdened here with a lofty goal of persuasion under rule 56 , their objective is impossible without a corrupt lying judge who has previously collaborated with plaintiffs attorney Robin Wilson fabricating, terminating, and pre-determine the result of defendants counterclaim without reviewing it, with a proven pre-disposition the Judge Thomas Parker coached his co-conspirator Robin Wilson guided her and motivated her into a criminal act directing her to invent a fictions legal argument in revised final decree to reflect the lie which was told by both of them concealed under a cloth of honor and under color of law as both are state actors under United States treaty 42 U.S.C. using the court as a investment conduit in which the criminal elements and components flow through (to make money, accepting fees and taxpayers money, using precious court resources even involving his clerk in the criminal act, its billable legal hours range in a conservative estimate of half million dollars of legal work the judge that he has wasted acting as a defense attorney and wasting all the courts money to illegally steal the Taylor’s home by delivering a windfall of unjust enrichment in the form of a void summary judgment the judge and the plaintiffs need to pay the court back, We all know the entire lawsuit is fraudulent).One objective one goal to take all of the Taylor’s property real property tangible and intangible by abuse of process and egregious abuse of discretion without a single hearing or a single witness or a single person to come to court there is no party in –interest because the plaintiffs don’t exist so hence forth there can be no discovery , the court will discovery the fraud if they allow discovery of any kind so their only option is to deny the mandate committing a crime, they will need a corrupt lawyer to advance and file the fake documents , they will have to get a corrupt judge to accept all the robo signed fake documents, there is only one way for them to win summary judgment the fix must be on , and in and it is on and has been on every plaintiff named is involved in this conspiracy the scheme was produce via the judges Thomas Parkers chambers .
    They also violate the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006- OPT2. § 1692e, by making false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of debts, and engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of the Ohio Corrupt Activities statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32 [hereinafter cited as “R.C.”] and violated Ohio Rico R. C. 2923.32 (A) (2), and Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.03 and Ohio Revised Code 2923.34 There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A “person damaged in his business or property” can sue one or more “racketeers.” The plaintiff must prove the existence of a “criminal enterprise.” The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court. The plaintiffs have RICO action in previous case CV 2007 –11-8364 In The Court Of Common Pleas Summit County that is both pending in State Court an in the AppealCourt Ninth Judicial District C. A. 25281. and now plaintiffs re-instates and re-alleges the Rico Claims as fully set forth herein above an below in which those claims are born out of plaintiffs counterclaim that has not been properly adjudicated, or heard or properly certified as a Class Action, with Jury Demand, Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).The force of United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit prior mandate is governed by well-established principles. In general, once a case has been decided on appeal and a mandate issued, the lower court may not deviate from that mandate but is required to give full effect to its execution. We ask this court to grant plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners Kenneth S. Taylor ,Alicia Taylor Diggings 300, 000.00 dollars in damages, and hear Quiet Title Claims and award 100 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs a amount so high it would economically force Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and all other parties named to follow the law This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings, Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 . The judge Tom Parker while case was in state court conspired with the plaintiff’s attorney Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendants counterclaim. The judge directed her to draft a false and misleading statement in a previous Final decree of foreclosure. Robin Wilson did so knowingly and willingly by inserting false claims of judge that he had considered defendants counterclaim is his motion granting plaintiff summary judgment which is void because of fraud of the courts and judge a lying officer of the court… Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated September 28, 2009 to Judge confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation as such. The letter states per verbatim “Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a revised Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants’ Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Counterclaim”. Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A). These representations were false and defendants knew the falsity of these statements at the time they were made. The judge never once mentioned defendants counterclaim, prior to this directive, nor is there any evidence the judge has reviewed the counterclaim. This was a wicked scheme perpetrated against defendants specifically, strategically and systematically, the judge lied in effort to deprive defendants of their rights to homeownership. Judge and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C.1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy against defendants. Moreover COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C. A. NO. 25281 agreed with the plaintiffs that judge erred essentially confirmed he lied and reversed and remanded case back to trial court, but somehow Judge John Adams believes these are wild allegations. Judge Tom Parker is an Officer of the court THIS VOIDS STATE COURT FINDING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ITS NULL AND VIOD FOREVER. AND PLAINTIFFS can never be state court losers, and judge John Adams has erred dismissing any of plaintiff

  81. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: foreclosure, wrongful foreclosure Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  82. There were two loan closings when you closed — one which you knew about where a “naked nominee”with no money, no authority and nothing to do with the transaction rented their name to Wall Street to play the part of the lender and named on a note as the lender and named on the mortgage as the lender protected by the collateral of the house.

  83. From Dr. David E. Martin, Founder and Chairman of M.CAM Financial. Criminal investigations and guilty pleas, in addition to fines and fees. It has been ongoing behind the scene. It will not stop there.


    This past week we have seen an expansion of unfathomable crimes being ‘uncovered’ long after their effects have wrought great damage on the General Public. While I have, for years been commenting on the massive abuses in the municipal bond market – abuses which undermine every pension investor in the United States and many around the world – the U.S. Department of Justice has succeeded in getting 13 guilty pleas from muni riggers at Bank of America, JPMorgan, UBS, Wells Fargo, and General Electric resulting in a reported $700 million in restitution and penalties. And now, this week the Justice Department announced an indictment for wire fraud and conspiring to defraud the United States against Bank of America’s municipal derivatives desk former executive Phillip D. Murphy who allegedly played a key role in rigging the price of funds for things like building schools and roads.

  84. It’s starting… Coming really, really soon, at a theater near you.

    Prosecutors, Regulators Close to Making Libor Arrests

    Exclusive: Prosecutors, regulators close to making Libor arrests
    REUTERS http://goo.gl/tgLs1

    By Matthew Goldstein and Jennifer Ablan and Philipp Halstrick
    Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:18pm EDT

    (Reuters) – U.S. prosecutors and European regulators are close to arresting individual traders and charging them with colluding to manipulate global benchmark interest rates, according to people familiar with a sweeping investigation into the rate-rigging scandal.

    Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., have recently contacted lawyers representing some of the individuals under suspicion to notify them that criminal charges and arrests could be imminent, said two of those sources who asked not to be identified because the investigation is ongoing.

    Defense lawyers, some of whom represent individuals under suspicion, said prosecutors have indicated they plan to begin making arrests and filing criminal charges in the next few weeks. In long-running financial investigations it is not uncommon for prosecutors to contact defense lawyers for individuals before filing charges to offer them a chance to cooperate or take a plea, these lawyer said.

    The prospect of charges and arrests of individuals means that prosecutors are getting a fuller picture of how traders at major banks allegedly sought to influence the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, and other global rates that underpin hundreds of trillions of dollars in assets. The criminal charges would come alongside efforts by regulators to punish major banks with fines, and could show that the alleged activity was not rampant in the banks.

    “The individual criminal charges have no impact on the regulatory moves against the banks,” said a European source familiar with the matter. “But banks are hoping that at least regulators will see that the scandal was mainly due to individual misbehavior of a gang of traders.”

    In Europe, financial regulators are focusing on a ring of traders from several European banks who allegedly sought to rig benchmark interest rates such as Libor, said the European source familiar with the investigation in Europe.

    The source, who did not want to be identified because the investigation is ongoing, said regulators are checking through emails among a group of traders and believe they are now close to piecing together a picture of how they allegedly conspired to make money by manipulating the rates. The rates are set daily based on an average of estimates supplied by a panel of banks.

    “More than a handful of traders at different banks are involved,” said the source familiar with the investigation by European regulators.

    There are also probes in Europe concerning Euribor, the Euro Interbank Offered Rate.

    It is not clear what individuals and banks federal prosecutors are most focused on. A top U.S. Department of Justice lawyer overseeing the investigation did not respond to a request for a comment.

    Reuters previously reported that more than a dozen current and former employees of several large banks are under investigation, including Barclays Plc, UBS and Citigroup, and have hired defense lawyers over the past year as a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., continues to gather evidence.

    The activity in the Libor investigation, which has been going on for three years, has quickened since Barclays agreed last month to pay $453 million in fines and penalties to settle allegations with regulators and prosecutors that some of its employees tried to manipulate key interest rates from 2005 through 2009.

    Barclays, which signed a non-prosecution agreement with U.S. prosecutors, is the first major bank to reach a settlement in the investigation, which also is looking at the activities of employees at HSBC, Deutsche Bank and other major banks.

    The Barclays settlement sparked outrage and a series of public hearings in Britain, after which Barclays Chief Executive Bob Diamond announced his resignation from the big British bank.

    The revelations have raised questions about the integrity of Libor, which is used as benchmark in setting prices for loans, mortgages and derivative contracts.

    Adding to concerns are documents released by the New York Federal Reserve Bank this month that show bank regulators in the United States and England had some knowledge that bankers were submitting misleading Libor bids during the 2008 financial crisis to make their financial institutions appear stronger than they really were.

    Among other details, the Fed documents included the transcript of an April 2008 phone call between a Barclays trader in New York and Fed official Fabiola Ravazzolo, in which the unidentified trader said: “So, we know that we’re not posting um, an honest LIBOR.”

    The source familiar with the regulatory investigation in Europe said two traders who have been suspended from Deutsche Bank were among those being investigated. A Deutsche Bank spokesman declined to comment.

    The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that regulators we’re looking at suspected communication among four traders who had worked at Barclays, Credit Agricole, HSBC and Deutsche Bank.

    Credit Agricole said it had not been accused of any wrongdoing related to the attempted manipulation of Libor by Barclays, but had responded to requests for information for various authorities related to the matter.

    Beyond regulatory penalties and criminal charges, banks face a growing number of civil lawsuits from cities, companies and financial institutions claiming they were harmed by rate manipulation. Morgan Stanley recently estimated that the 11 global banks linked to the Libor scandal may face $14 billion in regulatory and legal settlement costs through 2014.

    In the United States, the regulatory investigation is being led by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which has made the Libor probe one of its top priorities.

    (Reporting by Matthew Goldstein and Jennifer Ablan in New York and Philipp Halstrick in Frankfurt, with additional reporting by Emily Flitter in New York and Aruna Viswanatha in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Alwyn Scott and Maureen Bavdek)

  85. @ Carie the whenthe loan is refinanced out of a trust (let’ssay for convenience purposes) to another series. The loan is in fact paid off and there is insurance purchased to offset any lost cash flow by the swap provider. This can be done because the notes are never conveyedin the orignalform to the Trust.

    What do you guys think the pooling bank (SPE) does?

    You should take a closer look at the GSE’s – to get a better understanding of what they do and what they sell. First of all, subprime had less to do with the GSE’s then you allege. Subprime was a result of programs,underwriting guidlines and the fact that many potential borrowers could not obtain loans under GSE guidelines (ever), one of the primary reasons was the borrower did not, could not or would not provide income for tax reporting purposes and they could not obtain loans based on verified income documentation.

    Because the (Glass Steagal) banks had access to a (fixed LIBOR) cheap funding source that the GSE’s did not – the prviate pools were putting FNM and FRE out of the business. There were many points in time when you could obtain ARM financing on Alt A or Sub-prime loans cheaper than prime (agency qualified) loans.

    FNM and FRE would have been out of business by 2005,and that is why they lobbied congress to change their underwriting guidelines, so they could also buy the cash flow from porrly underwritten unqualified loans.

    Right now, there are many cases where FHFA is the Plaintiff and has sued the originator (actual originator), not fetch bank. The reason being, the GSE tranches were allegedto have a higher quality of loan, and in fact the triple AAA rating was not achieved by the actual loans, it was achieved through credit enhancement (swaps /mononline at pool level.

    Since you have invested quite a bit of time i am going to set you on the right path. Simply look at the collection account, and how the loans get to that tranche and the residual interest account.

    Or, avoid any additional work and go ask Jamie Dimon one question.

    If all the loans were conveyed to the trustee within 90 days of the pool closing, why does the seller bank get residuals and why would they have to raise loan loss reserves on the reporting balance sheet if they no longer held any interest?

    Taking the homes is not the tricky part for the N.A.s, it is getting them while still maintaining the REMIC exemption.

    Which will end with the homework phrase of the week, “Implicit recourse”. Good luck guys and remember: the real modifications to the terms of the note and / or mortgage are achieved through litigation.

    Finally, Neil has homed in on one thing every homeowner should assert as an affirmative defense. Violation of the Dodd /Frank and the use of meaningless discount rates used for no other purpose than to allow the GSE and HAMP participants to push a HAMP Backup on unknowing homeowners.

    Here is some food for thought, and i know this from an “insider perspective” – every homeowner is charged a higher rate at inception (not origination) to insure the loan for default, they just don’t tell you. You paid for the insurance through a higher rate and you are not seeing the benefit of the insurance.

    The Judges are now asking to see results for the NPV analyis.

    Push the Dodd / Frank, it is a great defense!

  86. @nancy drewe

    This one’s for you.

    Posted: Jul. 22, 2012 | 2:15 a.m.

    Fledgling investors fighting foreclosure in Las Vegas

    ‘If Randy Ghezzi had it to do all over again, he would have paid the capital gains tax on the sale of some inheritance property, instead of investing the money in a Las Vegas office building through a 1031 exchange. Ghezzi now has about $550,000 tied up in the medical office building at 2716 N. Tenaya Way, near Mountainview Medical Center, that’s facing foreclosure.”


  87. @enraged

    I asked because someone I know in NY state has an idea to sell their legal interest, they are talking about doing a contract of sale (current homeowner) with the new buyer. I don’t know if you can “sell” a legal interest. desperate times call for desperate measures

  88. Nora. all this cabal stuff will never be public.

  89. Thanks Martha—go girl.

  90. pfffft! They tried to collect on my note, AFTER bankruptcy discharge.
    First Appraisal Fraud, and Fraudulent Inducement. Then fifty grand in payments later, I tried to get a loan mod. Got unbelievable run around and conflicting statements, started investigating; discovered it all. Usury Interest. Bogus late fees that weren’t late. Demanded that the loan be rescinded for fraud under Equitable Tolling clause of TILA, they refused. Demanded validation of the debt, they refused. I informed them that they were in administrative default and that I demanded validation of debt or else quit their claim. They did neither. I stopped sending $ down the rabbit hole. Now I’m going to get it back.

  91. DCB.. Very Well said! Kudos.

    Carie.. Hey, just thanks for another sane head being on here, not calling others LIARS!, and for helping fight the complete fraud upon ALL OF US! and Not taking it lying down!

  92. “The goal of the collector/servicer is to drive you to file bankruptcy so they can chase all your assets to satisfy the note.”

    YES!! That’s why in BIG BOLD wording after every correspondence—no matter what it is—they shout about “automatic stay” and “bankruptcy”—they WANT you to file SO BAD. Glad I didn’t.

  93. @AUTHOR
    Above you stated the following as a optional response to a foreclosure action:
    “(a): simply walking away from it after you have spent a few months (or years) rent free”

    I offer a comment on the pluses and minuses:
    To the upside, you get a few months in which you avoid paying either rent or loan payments.

    The ORIGINAL NOTE will haunt you. The NOTE is the center of the controversy–the house is legally secondary o the note. The NOTE follows you to your next residence, bedroom and automoblie—your checking account, your job, your security clearances if military or other government worker. Unless you are headed directly to the bankruptcy court for a complete discharge of liability –not CHAPT 7–, the NOTE will haunt you for years to come. Issues will pop out–the numbers and names must be captured and documented. Collection practices, liens, the collection agency participation in your payroll takehome pay after deduction of the liability to the collector/servicer.

    The goal of the collector/servicer is to drive you to file bankruptcy so they can chase all your assets to satisfy the note–and if you are employed to force you to pay them a portion of your pay in a workout rather than actual bankruptcy discharge of indebtedness. If you have income the colector will have the near-absolute right to seize a large portion of your pay under a chapt 7 workout plan. If you have no assets, no income, no expectation of income, the collector siezes your income based on that note and that intial court filing unless a similar determination is made in a fed bankruptcy court that deals with the note in that context. Businesses are able to more easily discharge debt on notes.

    How does the NOTE affect you–what is the mehanical process?
    You continue to accrue interest liabilty on the original note, until it is absolutely discharged by order of the court. The other party may provide by settlement agreements the terms of satisfaction and surrender of the NOTE as to the party who makes the claim. If it is the wrong note-owner that makes the complaint-claim against you, if it is the wrong claimant –a mistake or intentional theft by deception, and the thief oacquires and resells your home–you are still liable for the ORIGINAL NOTE balance plus interest and late fees–including the time in possession of the interloper. The actual holder of the real ORIGINAL NOTE can himself come out of the financial chaos and demand that you pay him. That person may have little or no proper information because he lacked a legal assignment of the right to collect on that note. The note must be presented and marked satisfied paid in full with ORIGINAL or verifiable copies ontained by the homeowner.

    The homeowner must have an adequate accounting of the actual original note balances calculated and accrued for all periods. What amount are they going to report to the collection agency and/or the bankruptcy court, the IRS, the credit bureau?

    The calculations and numbers used are often wrong–exagerated. No government agency will help you to unscrambel it. If you are too poor, too old, too sick, too stressed by pysocholical manipulation to ask these questions–you default and everything the other party choses to say–you tacitly waive gross errors At a minimum. the claim is exagerated by the LIBOR rate theft recently discovered.The interest calcultated against the account itself for the lifetime of the loan may be higher than the homeowner who made the note is liable. Explanation can run the gamut as a result of errors, ommissions, or intentionally deceptive
    If the homeowner takes no action at all, he will be liable for the balance claimed in the complaint on the “ORGINAL” promsissory note. Any person that is not protected by complete discharge in bankrruptcy should not admit the amount claimed ansent long and careful consideration and a thorough review of the terms of the note and facts of the deal.

    There should be no assuption that any party that was involved in preparing, arranging or brokering the loan was acting in good faith or fair dealing. These are implicite elements of the lending transaction. The homeowner should assume that these covenants have been breached–and there are offsetting damages and an unenforceable NOTE.

  94. cash back=KICKBACK
    $1.00 $500.00 or $5,000

  95. And KC,

    Come to think… banks are crying to get more customers opening a bank account. I have a shoebox full of Chase offers. Last years, they were willing to give people $100 to open an account in their banks. Nowadays, it’s $250. Is it the same idea? I haven’t really looked into it since i closed everything but you make me wonder… I thought it was just a gimmick to hook people. Still, $250 is an expensive gimmick!

  96. @KC,

    I never did get any cash back. Somehow, I want to say “Thank God!” because something tells me it wasn’t a good thing but I have no idea why… What is your understanding?

  97. @Carie, refinance and cash outs …. 5% of borrowers brought cash to the table to fund the refi, 94% were cash-out and 1% were zero balance on the HUD. The Majority of all borrowers were refinancing for a lower intrest rate and not for cash out. As a matter of fact most borrowers never knew they were recieving cash back, they were quite surprised to find out they were getting an extra $100.00-$500.00 back on the HUD @ signing. Why do you suppose the broker/lender gave them cash back when they never requested any cash back?

  98. Subprime refinance was GSE’s (Fannie/Freddie) rejects. And, subprime was in great demand because of the higher interest rate it paid to security investors. Security investors, however, are not the creditor — they are not the creditor for prime debt, not the creditor for subprime, not the creditor for GSE loans. They are, in fact, never the creditor. And, they do not fund any loans. They fund the BANKs — who are the “investors” in the debt. If you were ever to name security investors for TILA violations, or request rescission, you would be immediately tossed out of court. This is NOT the way the market works — no matter how Neil tries to slice and dice it to “make-it” work. It does not work, will not work in court, and counterproductive to foreclosure defense. Neil has never quite understood the distinction between security investors and investors. Ask him to define this in terms of Freddie/Fannie. Freddie/Fannie is the INVESTOR, security investors invest in Freddie/Fannie pass-throughs. They are NOT the same. And, niether Freddie/Fannie, as investor, or security investors in Fannie/Freddie pass-throughs — are the lender/creditor under federal law.
    I also agree with Neil that the financial transaction occurred with a different party than stated at origination. But, Neil has the “trail of money” wrong. Subprime refinances were created by reporting default to the GSEs, prior to refinance, to make sure the GSE could not “invest” in the refinance. Banks wanted themselves to be the “investor.” . GSEs charge off the falsely reported debt, servicer or mortgagee collects insurance and pays GSE –and, simultaneously, purchases rights to the (false) default debt. And, the mortgagee “modifies” the default debt by calling it a refinance. Borrower remains in default with GSE.
    NO funding is necessary, unless borrower requests “cash-out.” These (false) default debts were, perhaps, modified several times. No problem for debt buyer “investor” — because, if borrowers did not pay the high rates — foreclosure was the option. Default is default to courts, they just do not know that the loan was a (false) default before actual default.
    Now, ask if prior loan was paid off — to a specified trust — at the time of the last so-called refinance. Do you think that the loan was not securitized prior to last refinance?? They were. What about the security investors to the prior trust — before refinance? Nothing prior is validly paid off. And, that is the money trail that you are missing. Why was prior loan not paid off?? It did not have to be — refinance was only modification of the false default debt.
    The wire transfer are meaningless, except that we can sometimes use them to help show that loans were table funded. Was money actually transferred by the stated wire transfer?? Maybe, but that money was paid right back to the party who is “modifying” the loan by the claimed refinance. In other words, payoff of prior loan is directed right back to the party that owns the collection rights. There is never a payoff of anything.
    There is no “trading” of ownership of the “loan” (although some debt buyers may “swap” collection rights). There is a “trading”/transfer of servicing rights.
    Also, I do not dispute that banks were beneficiaries of payouts. First, the banks were the investors to default debt/collection rights, they were the ones that purchased the collection rights from the GSEs. Prospectus may not outline that the “loans” were first sold to an affiliate of the security underwriter (some do), but is clear by the conversion of the so-called loans to certificates in a trust, that they are sold to the security underwriters. These security underwriters, actually their parent corp., were the “investors.” The subprime lending corporations (now all gone) worked for these “investment/commercial” banks. Banks could operate as both investor and lender by repeal of Glass Steagall (which, by the way, many are calling for return to). Second, once the certificates were allocated to tranches, and sold to the the “investment/commercial” banks, the banks kept the upper tranches for themselves, and pawned off subordinate tranches to other “investors” — most often, another bank. Lower tranches may have been sold to other entities. But, the bigger effect upon the public, was the Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) that were derived from organizing multiple trusts, multiple certificates, and multiple tranches — into a CDO. A SYNTHETIC derivatives that leveraged the fake loans — over and over.
    Credit default swaps are often executed with cash and without transfer of collection rights. The banks do this privately, to parties not divulged publicly or to the borrower. That is, if they can dispose of collection rights. For a long time, market was shut down. But, thanks to government assistance (ha-ha), it has been greatly been revived.

  99. @Mike,

    Have you contacted Mandelman Matters to get a referral? Have you contacted the law schools in your area? Nowadays, most of them have foreclosure defense departments.

  100. Blah blah blah
    What good is your advice when there are o attorneys that will represent the homeowner
    Im in san francisco any attorneys that will represent homeowners here. good Luck

  101. @KC,

    That’s awfully sweet of you. I agree that, for most people, it came as a horrible shock to see how far servicers were willing to go. I simply started documenting as things went on. i even wrote a few rants on some blog on internet when my payments were lost. I updated as the AG was getting involved, as BBB was intervening, as servicer wrote: “Oops! We made a mistake! Sooo sorry about that!”. I ranted about the letters I sent and the lack of response. in the end, it is all part of my evidence as to the duration of the ordeal. So, it’s all good!

    The way I see it now, they can have the house. I don’t care. What I want the money.

  102. @Enraged, I am truley sorry you and so many other families whose loans were wrongfully defaulted on have to endure this. Our best estimate is 4 out of 10 loans defaulted by the servicers, were indeed current. They did this All for the profit of fees and ins payoffs, and what they did to cover it up was just down right dispicable … its the worst kind of greed there is. I truley pray your family and all the other familes get the justice they deserve.

  103. Las vegas,

    What do you mean? The damages were suffered by the homeowner. The lost payments, unfair enrichment, statutory damages and emotional damages were suffered by the homeowner. The house is there. It doesn’t suffer anything. Even if the house is left vacant for months on end and ends up torn down by the bank, who suffered?

  104. “…do not fall into the trap of following the documents”. That’s why spending incredible amounts of time harping on securitization is such a waste of time. The only thing that matters is where the money came from. Follow the money and nothing else. Let them prove where they got the money from and that it was specifically connected to your house. It the loan was assigned and conveyed and what not, the servicer will have the hardest time. Especially when the assignment states “Assignment for the nominal amount of $10.00”.

    People who successfully fight lenders follow the money: theirs. They can show they made their payments, they can show those were deducted from their bank account. They can show that, regardless, they started getting fees after fees assessed to their account, they can show the existence of “suspense accounts” no one understands, they can show unjust enrichment, they can show the fees assessed are not even listed on the back of their statements (hence undisclosed). It is not up to the homeowner to investigate what the lender did with his money. It is up to the homeowner to investigate first that he made his payments, then ask questions and THEN stop paying when he doesn’t get the answers he needs.

    Anything short of that is a recipe for failure.

    “Before taking any action on anyone’s opinion in this column make absolutely certain you consult with an attorney who is fully conversant with the current mortgage and foreclosure climate. It is far different than it was ten years ago.” No brainer.

  105. Thank you Neil. Okay, the loan was just part of their scheme, cool. They over appraised properties to create the bubble and now they under appraise to deflate the bubble.

    Question: Do damages attach to the property or to the property owner?

  106. Thank You Neil! Good Advice! That “Due on Sale” clause is really taking a “Bite” out of Crime. Sorry banker, no sale .. no payday. Sincerley… Freddie, Fannie,Ginny & Taxpayer.

  107. […] OFFERS EXCELLENT ADVICE July 22, 2012   Foreclosures   No comments What To Do When Confronted With Foreclosure? Posted on July 22, 2012 by Neil […]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: