Garfield Interviewed by CNN, Fox News, Canadian and US radio and TV

Securitized debt in residential housing was and remains a myth. It never happened.

And now the media are is starting to understand that the actual financial transaction is far simpler than the one the banks are reporting: the investors (pension funds etc.) loaned money to the homeowners.

Instead of writing the check directly to the borrower, the investor wrote the check to the investment banker. That money was supposed to go to a REMIC or SPV but never did, and the loans were supposed to be with authorized entities acting on behalf of the investors and they never were.

The  paperwork was smokescreen for the banks to use when they claimed to own an obligation they never funded nor purchased. The rest is history — everyone lost money except the banks. So don’t get lost in the weeds — follow the money trail and you’ll see the whole deal is really quite simple.

In the past week, articles have started running about me and this blog, and requests for interviews are flooding in as to my opinions and projections by many media outlets. Apparently people have been watching and my projections about the housing market, contrary to the “experts” has proven true: that while some markets may show temporary improvement the overall trend is still down and we will still lose another 10%-15% in home values over the next year.

It has been a virtual flood, including U.S. and Canada. Articles from this Blog have been picked up with permission and are running in major newspapers and other periodicals in both countries.

Of course the people in Canada want to know how to proceed safely in buying distressed properties where the title has been corrupted. There are many Americans looking for those bargains too but don’t want to buy into a lawsuit 2-5  years down the road.

Most people of course are starting to understand how the Banks have been manipulating the main markets in credit, housing and financial transactions generally. Since the Libor scandal broke, the opinions, strategies and legal conclusions expressed on this blog are now going mainstream. It has been a long wait — 6 years. And more people are feeling empowered to confront the banks and other pretender lenders and they are asking the right questions, like where is the evidence, who has the information on what was paid for that assignment, allonge, etc.?

In the meanwhile, the interesting aspect and something good for the blog staff and infrastructure is that after a double dip in request for paid services, the demand seems to be coming back — especially for the title search and commentary. As I stated in October, 2007, when all is said and done, it all comes down to title, who has it and whether they can maintain it.

Consultations with me are at premium because of my hectic schedule. I suggest you book as early as possible. Expert declarations and editing pleadings are also being performed by me and our experts, but this also is subject to time constraints. There are simply not a lot of people who understand enough about this mortgage mess that they can draft anything of value. Remember the simple message: DENY EVERYTHING AND WIN THOSE HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY. This takes, work and understanding of the so-called securitization illusion, and the rules of civil procedure and evidence. You need help even if you are an attorney doing this work.

Most of the complaints or other pleadings are defective in one main way: they admit all the necessary elements of foreclosure and then try to wiggle out of it. That is an insane strategy. You don’t have to be right to deny something, you need only to believe that that the alleged signature, note or mortgage is not the deal you signed for. Just because it LOOKS like your signature doesn’t mean it is. We already know the banks having playing with their computers and computer programs and color printers to make it look like they have your original note and signature.

You can deny that the signature is yours, that the note is evidence of any loan transaction in which you were a party etc. because you know that there is a high probability that the payee on the note, mortgagee on the mortgage or the beneficiary on the deed of trust had nothing to do with funding your loan. You already know that there were no financial transactions transferring your loan because investors owned your obligation even before you took the money. Why admit anything to the contrary?

Any order approving settlement should have as boiler plate a declaration of the rights of the stakeholders who are specifically named and specifically identified as to the description of their interest in the property. If you are in bankruptcy for example, the BKR Judge who signed an order saying Chevy Chase Bank’s motion to lift stay was granted and that Chevy Chase was the owner of the loan, then now matter how wrong we all know that was, the same Judge needs to say in an order approving settlement that the actual foreclosing party or whoever is doing the deal with you is now and forever more the only party with a claim, and that the claim is covered by the settlement agreement.

By the way, I know of one particular case that I have been following closely where the foreclosing bank, having done so without leave of court and without obtaining a lift of the stay, but was the one who ordered the foreclosure and submitted the credit bid, is settling with the homeowner with a 90% reduction in principal. It is all confidential or the deal doesn’t go through. The deal hasn’t been signed yet, but the offer is on the table, and it looks like the borrower is going to accept the offer. Once it is signed neither I nor anyone else can describe the deal at all.
AZTV7/Cable 13, Me-TV 7.2, RTV 7.3, Phoenix-Prescott, AZ

129 Responses

  1. WA Supreme Court Decision on MERS Standing!

    Court states MERS cannot be benificiary,

    MERS cannot transfer or appoint a trustee

    entered AUG 16, 2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/103052429

  2. So far no one in America goes to jail.
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/big-banks-worse-than-you-think.html We should all look into organized crime it pays well. And no accountablity and great benefits, yachts, very nice homes, and lots of parties.

  3. @CARIE

    If i as a trust or JV own a promissory note it would appear on my balance sheet as a “note receivable”—im t a loss what the distinction is that you are drawing????

    if it was on originator book it could be held as “inventory note receivable or ai my intent is to hold for at least a year it would be “investment note receibvable”

    this is nomenclature

  4. I would think the shell game of freddie and fannie would effect all securitized loans including MERS handled loans. and this assignment is after the fact after the lawsuit. WOW! http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/07/31/judge-schack-watch-out-deutsche-bank-is-coming-back-they-have-now-caused-an-assignment-of-mortgage-to-be-recorded-dbnt-vs-francis/

  5. “…iv personally had a trustee bank employee in the trust division tell me that two different servicers are responsible for the same loan–in two different trusts—-my surmise is that the same note was listed in two different trusts–neither of which had filed lan schedules…”

    Yes, because they never went “into” any trusts…only receivables were securitized…no regulation and no ethics means do whatever you want with everybody’s money…just make it up and do it!!

  6. the court set forth the following principles: Waiver is defined as an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, or conduct that warrants an inference of the intentional relinquishment of a known right

    I dont think that investors are intentionally waiving–its more akin to losing something inadvertantly—or allowing somebody to grab something out of your garage –something that you attach little value to–because there is no practical way for you to collect on it—–the trustees are not meeting their fidyciary duties—so the servicer takes advantage of the lack of interest by the trustee—its indifference not intentional waiver—or perhaps because the loan lists werent filed–trustees are unsure what loans are supposed to be under their control?

    they may as entities have contributed to the vacuum 6-7 years ago—-but today they arent sure–iv personally had a trustee bank employee in the trust division tell me that two different serviers are responsible for the same loan–in two different trusts—-my surmise is that the same note was listed in two different trusts–neither of which had filed lan schedules—I speculate that they are doing some arbitrary allocations–which trust–which servicer gets to try to collect 1st—-i have not found any law on point——more like 1st come 1st served—-until the original note turns up—–as a homeowner you just hope that the 1st one that siezes your home is the one with possession of that note—–and you get it back—

    this is why my view is that id much rather have the right to collect interest and principal on the note [as contrasted with collection rights] be the state after escheat—please let us just have to face this once and be done with it–let it be settled–not hang out for a decade

  7. @PATRICK
    “If this distinct property right and privilege was retained or sold separate and apart from the note,”

    You should look at the way that servicers shed duties in bankruptcy——it is clear that the ancillary servicing rights are completely separate from the notes——successor companies buy the collection rights out of bankruptcy estates–independently of the notes——the collection agency right to retain fees out of streams he passes over to a trustee bank–in no way that i can see alters the negotiability of the note—–or the status of the trust as a true trust or as an unincorporated joint venture pool. I am not a UCC expert however—my opinions are basically academic ——like an article in oped—–each set of facts —altered by everchanging federal and state law is unque although there are common threads. Each case really requires carfelu scrutiny by a well-trained attorney with full access to facts—decent reliable opinions cant flow from hypotheticals–one little fact difference can uppend the entire outcome. the problem is that the sort of review needed to really get a grasp on ALL of the relevant facts is substantial–very difficult to cost justify on an individual case basis. The fed reserve espouses a theory of two-pronged legal enforcement–AGs and govt enfforcement—and civil lawyers suing for damages. but the latter is difficult at best —investors groups have an uphill sled—homeowners attorneys are severely challenged—-but your outcome is better than being beat into the ground as a self-represented person—but are you going to be able to pay a local attorney to win a full-fledged RICO action? Im at a loss on that—-the govt has a tough time on those—–its a lot of time to unscramble this stuff which contributes to the reason why the predatory servicer/collectors are so audacious. It makes me sad to think about how off level the playing field is–but individuals need attys desperately–they just cant afford them to do as much as they need to get to the end of the trail and unearth the truth —-but no free houses–that is not the way the law works—so the homeowner does not even have the upside to make the bet sensible. the abandondned notes etc–unfiled trusts –the state should be the party to whom the note goes –not the homeowner—

  8. @PATRICK
    “Where does the right to collect from the borrower derive? Is this a property right and privilege that belongs to the original lender under the note?”

    The note terms state the various “collection rights” that derive from the “maker” of the note–you the homeowner promissor–originally promissed to the named payee on the note. Plain vanilla UCC stuff. I dont think that the actual remittances of interest and principal are technically included in the defintion of the term servicing rights. The opportunities that arise ancillary to those remittances are the servicing rights.

    Thus the servicing/ collection rights that are ancillary to the note –examples include the right of the servicer to retain the escrow balances —-free money that he can use for other purposes–called “float”. This is related to the note—a condition of the note but not UCC—it is assigned to the servicer as compensation by the PSA part of the securitization documentation. That escrow is something banks have held onto lovingly for many decades.

    The right to force place insurance is in same vein. Whatever benefit there is to getting a split from the insurer or putting it to an affiliate. A large servicer whose owner also controls a Bermuda insurance co could stand to benefit under either roof.

    Then there are the more obvious fees. A small fee for collecting mailed in remitannces–or electronically transmitted remitances. now this is an interesting one. The ongoing current payer has the lowest amount of effort required and lowest fee. The 4 option ARMS were used to force homeowners to remit by snailmail–rather than auto-deduct. My guess is that the more administration of 4 option ARMs was used to justify higher service fees on that particular type of loan. At closing they may not disclose to you that the 4 option ARM feature will disqualify you from making an auto-payment. This has the twin benefits to the servicer of justifying the higher fee he charges the investor-trust. But more importantly, the requirement of snailmail enables the servicer to delay handling payments and crediting them to your account. Thus the potential for you to incur late fees, accidentally default, and become downgraded on your credit-rating is much higher. any of these features has a direct economic benefit to the servicer. The late fees are obviously part of the valuable collection rights derived from the note itself and allocated to the servicer by the PSA. The servicer justifies retention of these late fees to the investors by promising to make up the late payment deficiency in the periodic distributions to the trustee–thence to investors. This make up payment is a burden associated with servicing which is stripped away in the bankruptcy which in effect converts the “bundle of benefits and burdens of ownership” of the servicing contract into a bundle of benefits without burdens–or with less burdens–ie as modified by bankruptcy, the new contract is actually a residual set of “collection rights.”

    Accidental or contrived default leads to the reclassification of the loan from performing clealy to troubled–the servicer may indefinitely get substantialy higher fees on this reclassified loan —even if the default is cured —looking at the PSA or ancillary fee schedules. If the default is barred from being curred by the typical complexity of trying to catch up with payments via a mail in payment where the interest changes daily–you would basically have to overpay the amount due and then have eexcess payment credited against principal. The servicer may require exact payment—making it nearly impossible to square the loan unless you walk in their office with cash and get a receipt before 11:00 AM —and obtain a statement all balances due are paid and there is no default. Something like that—obviously the homeowner is facing difficulty if the servicer wants the homeowner to remain in default status to justify higher fees and eventually lead to the ultimate fee bonanza—foreclosure.

    the contrived default also benefits the servicer when it adversely affects the credit rating of the homeowner. This is subtle. The homeowner may have entered into this loan with stellar credit—then is pushed into paying less that the interest due using one of the options. This would arise if the teaser rate of 1% or 1.25% was applied by the servicer for only one month–instead of the 3,6, or 12 month period that the homeowner was lead to believe by the loan broker. On the 4 option ARMs it was possible that the closing agent may have handed a coupon book with a single paymet selected that related to payment of the teaser rate–and when the teaser unexpectedly evaporates —even though the homeowner is remitting the coupon amount timely–doesnt even have the option to pay a higher amount, then he slides into negative amortization–ie the loan principal is building rather than falling or staying same,
    The homeowner suddenly and unknowingly slides into subprime credit status. Similarly if the servicer misplaces—eg puts the homeowners check payment is a “suspense” account because the servicer wants the homeowner to be lower quality–perhaps benefitting the servicers fees —but certainly making the homeowner a captive. a subprime homeowner will face substantial difficulty escaping from that loan by refinanmcing the loan. The fee bonanza occurs upon foreclosure—that is the most desirable outcome for the servicer–or the acquirer of collection rights out of a bankrupt servicers estate. so the collection agency wants to cut off routes of escape for the homeowner–so that the collection agency can divert substantial fees if not the entire property away from the investors. This is really an investor fraud and the homeowner is just a disposable tool to accomlish that. The servicer may be able to enhance his gains by contriving the homeowner into surrendering the property without the servicer giving up the original note. In that case, the servicer can sell the note to a 3rd party who will at leat pretend to be a holder in due course [bona fide purchaser] —then the servicer may get a cut or it may be an affiliate who attempts to collect on the same debt twice–using the technical UCC rules in respect of holder of ORIGINAL NOTE . the opportunity is greatest if the servicer os part of an offshore controlled syndicate—so the fact that the 2nd BFF/holder in due course really is an affilaite will be virtually impossible to prove.

    The forced place insurance provides opportunities for self-dealing that are obvious and may violate basic contract concepts of an implied covenant of fair dealing/dealing in good faith etc.

    This is all part of the game plan–it can be further enhanced by insiders strategically purchasing the seniormost tranches of MBS —etc etc—-by having an undisclosed offshore affiliate buy the distressed properties—again based on cherry picking utilizing inside info. Frauds on Investors—frauds on pension trusts–on municipal workers–on teachers–on firemen and policemen–on taxpayers that must make up the pension losses of the public employees. there are many victims –who have suffered by the use of a variety of schemes by unscruplous servicers. The dimensions of the coordinated RICO operations–the proof issues–the cost and complexity of litigating—-these things drive a solution whereby the govt enforcement agencies must step in—or the legal services organizations need to receive settlement money to defend homeowners and bargain on equal footing with servicers to protect the interests of taxpayers, investors and homeowners. The settlement monies have been ill-used if not put to this purposes. Permanent reductions in principal for homeowners in possession are economically justified —the alternative is not justified by economics, by proper application of the laws –or by moral virtue. Children of victims of these sorts of crimes–be they homeowners —-pensioners—or unhappy taxpayers stressed by rising taxes and their own financial distress—the children will remember these years and grow up lacking respect for the legal and moral underpinnings of society.

  9. @DC

    “but evaporated when the planned collapse occurred and the servicing rights jumped in value–freed of offsetting duties”

    Yes, this has been bothering me for some time. Where does the right to collect from the borrower derive? Is this a property right and privilege that belongs to the original lender under the note?

    Was this right and privilege stripped from the note and retained or transferred in its own secondary market. I understand FASB requires servicing rights to be reported as a distinct asset only when contractually separated from the instrument upon a sale. Is the note treated similar to a stripped coupon bond whereby the assignee is issued a 1099 OID? Has the taker of collection rights and privileges(the coupon) been given the independant means to to perform its contractual duties?

    If this distinct property right and privilege was retained or sold separate and apart from the note, doesn’t the note become non negotiable because all the equal rights and interests of the original lender can’t be negotiated and transferred with a delivery of the instrument?

    And if the lender’s right and privilege to collect was contractually separated from the instrument upon a sale, what exactly was sold? What exactly was leftover? Did the note purchaser receive a pro tanto assignment of limited rights and interests of the lender? UCC 2-403(1) purchaser takes all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased.

    If all the equal rights and interest of the original lender can’t be transferred with the instrument, the taker of the note hasn’t taken a complete instrument and has no rights under UCC 3-203(d) If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur, the transferee of that instrument obtains no rights under this chapter, and the transferee of that instrument has only the rights of a partial assignee.

    Partial assignments made for consideration are irrevocable, meaning that the assignor permanently gives up the legal right take back the assignment once it has been made

    A parallel concept to assignment is delegation, which occurs when one party transfers his duties or liabilities under a contract to another. A delegation and an assignment can be accomplished at the same time, although a non-assignment clause also bars delegation.

    Assignment of a contract is the complete transfer of the equal rights and interests accruing to one of the parties to that contract.

    Assigning the benefits (the leftovers) of the contract – the right to ultimately be paid- is a limited right. The right and privilege to go out and collect payments is also a limited right. The duty to remit the collected payments is a delegation or liability that corresponds to the servicing asset.

    Without the liability on the rights side, the asset can’t be reported on the left side because assets correspond to liablities. So does the right and privilage to collect reside on the books as required by FASB if the duty to remit, or liability, become extinguished?

    Or has a new duty, or liability, been delegated under a new agreement after the collapse whereby the servicing asset has been reconstituted.

    Without taking the lender’s collection rights and privileges under a note via negotiation and delivery, does the trustee have the right and privilege to collect from the borrower and be a plaintiff in a foreclosure, which is a collection action. Another way of saying it doesn’t control the means to collect, it only can delegate duties to remit. A capacity/standing issue.

    In Destin Savings Bank v. Summerhouse of FWB, Inc., 579 So. 2d 232(Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court set forth the following principles: Waiver is defined as an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, or conduct that warrants an inference of the intentional relinquishment of a known right. In order to establish a valid waiver, the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the existence at the time of the waiver of a right, privilege, advantage, or benefit that may be waived; (2) the actual or constructive knowledge thereof; and (3) an intention to relinquish that right, privilege, advantage or benefit.

  10. @ Shelley A. Erickson, on July 27, 2012 at 7:44 pm said:
    “We did nothing to deserve this anymore than a rape victim. We are victims of phscopathic, narsistic, fianancial cabal mafia criminals. Greed money and POWER.”

    I wonder how Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Chief Crazy Horse, Chief Red Cloud, and all the other hundreds of thousands of native Americans would respond your disclaimer.

    Abenaki Indians, Algonquian Indians, Apache Indians, Arapaho Indians, Blackfeet Indians, Caddo Indians, Cherokee Indians, Cheyenne Indians, Chickasaw Indians, Chinook Indians, Chippewa Indians, Choctaw Indians, Comanche Indians, Cree Indians, Creek Indians, Crow Indians, Dakota Indians, Delaware Indians, Fox Indians, Hopi Indians, Huron Indians, Illinois Indians, Iowa Indians, Iroquois, Indians, Kansa Indians, Kickapoo Indians, Kiowa Indians, Menominee Indians, Miami Indians, Missouri Indians, Modoc Indians, Mohawk Indians, Mohegan Indians, Munsee Indians, Natchez Indians, Navajo Indians, Nex Percé Indians, Omaha Indians, Onondaga Indians, Osage Indians, Oto Indians, Ottawa Indians, Paiute Indians, Pawnee Indians, Pottawatomie Indians, Sauk Indians, Seminole Indians, Seneca Indians, Shawnee Indians, Siouan Indians, Sioux Indians, Stockbridge Indians, Tuscarora Indians, Winnebago Indians, Zuni Indians.

    I wonder how the natives of Africa, Vietnam, South America, etc., would respond to your disclaimer.

    Do you know where your American soldiers are today.

  11. The State AG should always be made a party defendant and elements of escheat pleaded–or else if you win your csase that the note is lost /abaandoned etc—you are effectively leaving it up to the servicer to report it himself—ha

  12. the trust was never perfected

    ie the entity that is claiming your note is not real? a standing capacity issue –maybe more–

    Assuming the trust was perfected, the capital asset was disposed of or abandoned.

    the note is that which may have been lost/abandoned–and stolen–right—-or the note used to steal—in either case the remedy since 1066 if not earlier was the reversion of the stolen property to the state —under madern law the possessor of such property is supposed to report the fact of possession of stolen lost or abanbandoned intangibles to the state –and the state is supposed to take it by escheat——-it happens all the time—i do not understand why its such a stretch for the states to apply it in this context–geez–the eminent domaun is a great idea —but why should a local municipality pay an unlawful possessor for something that rightfully belongs to the state?????? the municipality should cut a deal with the state: delegate the right to collect escheat-eligible homeowner property under a memo of understanding

    but the servicers dont want that—the investors dont know what they want—–and homeowners and the free legal aid dont push it because the homeowners foolishly hold out a forlorn hope for a free house—and the servicers use that to threaten collapse of the system if any homeowner gets any brea of any type—fear that masses will cease paying mortgages if one gets by—and then the whole system collapses–thats the argument–the people who think they should get a free house are the absolute best allies unwitingly that the servicers could ever want

  13. its the servicer that has to cough up cash flow shortfall to the trustee

    i know the PSA says that—-but there are exclusions if the servicer declares it uncollectible also as i recall —-also it is routine for the private lable servicers that went bankrupt [usually same time as the affiliate originatror] that the bankruptcy court relieves the servicer of burdens like that–and only the right to collect amts remains–no duties–so the servier becomes a self serving debt collector of collection rights—only–no advances–it was part of the scheme—looked good to the investors–but evaporated when the planned collapse occurred and the servicing rights jumped in value–freed of offsetting duties

    im not sure how this would be used by a homeowner—–basically the homeowner was used as a tool to defraud investors—–its RICO—but its hard to show damages from that art of the scheme—-its a gap i think—this is why you pay for criminal enforcement at state and fed level every time that you pay taxes—your complaint is actually you arent getting your moneys worth????

  14. @PATRICK

    de minimus holding of non-performing cash flow assets

    yes there is a limit on cash assets–but i think that they are refferring to cash investment type–ie the trust is not supposed to accumulate investment portfolio assets such as CDs and so forth that can allow it to slide into an investment company —with substantial income producing assets other than the targeted stuff that policymakers ecxpect—eg reo etc —there is no cash flow coming off reo–therefore no income that is being tax avoided through the trust structure—and it tends to deter a bank trustee or servicer from holding cash—lending it to itself at a bargain and cheating investors—–just as the servicer is not supposed to enable others to have the inside track on comprtitive bidding—and a host of other things—-a lot which have been left in dust—self dealing—servicer company CEO etc that might be buying certain classes of MBS at a big discount based on inside info–things like that

  15. @DC

    Isn’t the REMIC limited by percentage (say 1%) called de minimus holding of non-performing cash flow assets or foreclosed properties? While they may be able to hold foreclosed properties, it isn’t a foreclosed property until the judge enters a final order. What happens in the mean time? These assets are non performing and aren’t spitting out cash for one maybe two or more years.

    Most times, its the servicer that has to cough up cash flow shortfall to the trustee but thats also limited. Gosh it seems it could go one of two ways.

    a) the trust was never perfected

    b) Assuming the trust was perfected, the capital asset was disposed of or abandoned.

    Disposal and abandonment does not equate to a transfer or negotiation.of the instrument

    Would a good affirmative defense or issue of material fact incorporate both of these elements?

  16. @Shelley

    SICKENING. WHEN ARE THE JUDGES GOING TO EFFING WAKE UP???

  17. I would think this very request for quiet title would be a confession they are lacking in standing and committing fraud up the court and are not the owners of the title. Blantant Fraud upon the court.

  18. A family in Buckley Washington had unknowingly made a mod agreement with BOA/RECONTRUST fraudster. She thought she and her husband had made a mod with the owners/serviciers representing the loan. The debt collector then sent a complaint and summons to her , filed with the court in Kent, WA, asking for Quiet title, due to the V family had agreed to a modification and recinding RECONTRUST foreclosure and discontinued sale. This can not be the only one. The debt collectors are manipulating the people to agree to giving them quiet title. The V family had no clue what they were up to. Thought it all sounded good because they were getting a mod and the foreclosure was being recinded. They know now! Goodluck BOA! I flipped when the family shared the complaint with me. OMG! Somehow the banksters are using trickery AGAIN! NO END IN SIGHT TO THEIR DECEPTION. Just like the criminals used the HAMP to steal and the mods to steal, they are using any method to steal even complaints in non judicial states telling the judge all parties are in agreement to the (fraud) so can we have quiet title? You would think the judge would get a clue and ask if you own the loan/title why do you need quiet title? How much do ya bet the judge would have given it to them? I bet YES! Without question.

  19. @ PATRICK

    after a quick and dirty re-review of the REMIC rules—it appears my gut responses were generally correct–although high level

    The REMIC that has been properly constituted and met the closing requirements–ie received homeowner notes as scheduled in the requisite time frame spelled out in the securitization docs—–can hold defaulted notes and foreclose etc—–things that are reasonably expected to occur. They cant engage in active businesses without triggering a variety of penal tax impositions–eg 100% tax on inapprpriate income. They cant be landlords–cant construct property- etc—-they are supposed to be passive and stick to their activities laid out in the PSA and other securitization docs. They can foreclose and sell property.

    Having said that–there are other IRS imlications as well that may be driving re-REMIC ing——a straight up US-trust that makes payments of interest to foreign investors subject to a 30% US withholding tax. That rate is often reduced to lesser amounts by tax treaties with developed countries that also impose income taxes. However, few offshore tax havens have such treaties–if any. They simply impose little or no income tax. Its a good reason why a presidential aspirant might previously have sheltered a chunk of money offshre. In 2004 the Jobs Bill provided a big loophole for cetain types of offshore securitization platforms— eg MBS or derivatives held by these offshore hedge funds –equity funds etc—were able to dodge US taxes on US source income –eg your mortgage payments by recharactrizing the payments. The offshore vulture funds that moved in and bought up MBS for 15 cents on the dollar circa 2007-8 as the market collapsed were able to avoid income taxes on interest received through these complex devices throught the loopholes enacred just prior to the collapse [similar to the bankruptcy law changes that made it hard for people to escape debt ] Overall the lobbyists seemed to possess a good measure of precognition—–alnmost a mystical ability to foretell the future in 2004-5. As a result the devices they rigged up to buy up the dirt cheap MBS etc were very effective to avoid US tax.

    However in 2010, there was a crackdown and the laws were changed to put new rules in place to try to tax some of this income again–ie close the loopholes=–at least attempt to do so. Now this left the offshore vultures in a bad spot—but not impossible—-there were more loopholes etc but as best I can tell from this quick and dirty review —it appears as if it might be necessary or at lest useful to repackage a lot of the MBS in a device referred to as a re-REIT—-I cant follow the details and cant defend the review at any depth but it looks like there may be a connection between some of the behavior you are talking about and the avoidance of the US 30% withholding tax

    best guess–

    I do not think that the basic REIT rules drove the re-assembly of REITS —they were able to deal with non-performing loans–with foreclosures and REO and REO sales–interestingly I noticed in passing that a REIT cant sit on REO more than 3 years without triggereing penal taxes—so that may be another reason to be “churning” the assets. The huge amounts of profits at stake and the invlvement of all these offshore hedge funds etc–see Blackrock and those for whom it fronts for example—-these tax amts will create some pretty powerful incentives to do some creative restructuring.

    Imagine if you will that you were able to purchase MBS at 15cents/dollar. Imagine that the homeowner is struggling to pay his mortgage to preserve her moral integrity–even though the interest rate may have reset to LIBOR plus 6% –eg say 7% all in —so each year the vulture investor is getting pmts of interest alone of roughly half of his original investment——and that interest is taxable at 30%. Well the tax rate would really knock down the vultures return on investment so there would be a deep moral imperative to cut that tax bill back to the zero rate that he was at when he bought it as a distressd asset/debt. So therefore you are likely to see some heavy reshuffling of the deck since 2010 to get back to that 50% rate of return. and with trillions of dollars in this money game thats some hefty tax bills —budget might not be as distressed if these schemes were cutoff—but this is what you should come to see more and more now that the offshore pool of money has increased so dramatically since 2007. As Mitt Romney put it so well “anytime someone has a loss, someone else has a gain”, So just in simplistic terms —the lossess of teachers and other state and municipal pension funds–including police–the average workers 401K and IRA –etc etc—those moneys did not just evaporate–they just winged their way offshore. That way the owners have to pay no taxes except on conspicuous consumption–eg Cayman Islands survives almost entirely on sales taxes.

    If the trend is not averted and reversed eventually every loose nickel will be out there.

  20. @ Enraged, what exactly about my post[s] suggests tongue in cheek? We were talking about real issues concerning entering notary fraud as evidence, and of course I’m aware of Szymoniak, but what does this have to do with the current topic? Or, as you bring up, that Gardner, Stopa, and others are considered fringe? I don’t get your point. You lost me, as most posts on this site do these days.

    I have issues with notary fraud, as well as document fabrication/fraud….not with UFO’s, FEMA, the blood of Jesus, or even Maher’s Asperger’s Syndrome. I’d like to discuss some legal issues, if that’s not too much to ask, in between the topic of keeping the devil locked in the basement for safe keeping. Gheez.

  21. @PATRICK
    “afterward the wannabe creditor will probably ask you to “reaffirm” it. If you agree, you’ll enter into a new contract with the wannabe, agreeing to continue paying the debt associated with the abandoned asset so it can be securitized.”

    I think this is possible–but not necesary to look to REMIC rules to justify it–the PSA and/or mods to it could allow uncollctible loans to be purchased by servicer–or the servicer may take fees in kind or de facto recognition the nonperforming loan is a loss and instead of following the process of deducting from cash flows –just take the loan and REO—-and keep it–indeed iv seen the title of REO put in name of the trust–but the tax payer is the servicer–so unless im mistaken the county will allow a foreclosure sale buyers check to go directly to the servicer—which would be theft from the trust absent a deal as you have described—but then why is the foreclosure in name of trust–except judges seem to think the bank is more credible than a collection agency—at least in past–maybe changing—one would think–judges see so much–they are not foolish but are like dutch boy with finger in the dike–local banks usually were straight–so a judge may have spent decades dealing with honest foreclosures and then these syndicates slip in–wolves in sheeps closing—-and pretend they are acting for banks—but not really—–this is more than a judge should have to deal with–its a failure of the enforecement agencies—at leadt they should be prosecuting these servicers and making them air the practices to tell where they cheat–we know they cheat–just not every detail of it

  22. ” I understand that a REMIC can only keep performing assets in its capital pool and as a consequence”

    i dont know that answer–there are rules prohibiting active businness conduct in a trust –would be in regs and treasury decisions gudances

    “the servicer can only service current performing loans on behalf of the REMIC trustee”?

    There must be some latitude–now its clear the trustee cant be a landlord etc–but disposal of REO and litigation to foreclose seem to me to be contemplated by te PSA and indenture and altogether those things passed muster—whether they followed them or not is another matter—it may have been possible to make a good REMIC trust —but they didnt fulfill the conditions and it failed ab initio–or subsequently

    in practice by conversation with big banks reps and examination of the trust records–it appears that the trustee –or at least the money-distributor doesnt pay much attention to what happens to a house in default–even exam of records suggests they are passive and dont even verify what the collector reports and sticks in the trustee records—multiple liqiuidations of govt insured loans etc—it appears to me that the trustee attitude is less in know the better i am—-they abandon the the reos to the servicer ——they do not really expect anything —but acctg wise i believe that the servicer deducts all costs of litigation from current payments turned over to the trustee for distribution to remaining investors in most senior surviving tranches—-thus servicers love to litigate at cost plus—and i believe have fee splitting deals with big network operators—-the investors are getting mauled in the process

    as well as homeowners—–a lot of this is from examination of their records and other reported accounts–i do not have deep personal knowledge of the inside cash divisions—–the PSA seems explicit though about the retention of costs from the current payments–so im about 80 % confident on the above

  23. @PATRICK
    “Does the counterparty have contract privity with the borrower to make such an offer in the first place?”

    The purported trustee is the party who purportedly releases you—but if you have real reservations about their standing as noteholder or capacity as a real trustee, then obviously you are negotiating with a stranger to the deal–and what the settlement devolves to is that you are conveying your house to a good liar for key-money. years hence a knock on your door will come—the new collection agency will be standing there with your original note and demand payment. You will say–see this agreement–except you are barred by the secrecy from that——so you look around the recors and what is there but a release of mortgage or the dot stuff–and a Bona fide purchaser of your former home and his collateral that you negligently surrendered to a frauder. Too bad so sad says new collector—that was not very smart of you–you should not have paid the wrong person–can of worms—next go around.

  24. @PATRICK
    ” Isn’t it true that any reduction in principal is considered income to the borrower in the year realized. ”

    This is supercritical. starting a couple years ago a temporary exemption was put in law for forgiveness of debt related to principle residence—couple other conditions need to look closely.

    the exclusion lasts through the end of this year. There is a HUGE issue as to when the foriveness is realized. The collection agencies appear to be taking the position that it is not realized until they have resold the property and calculated every last penny of loss –then they in effect bill you the deficiency and forgive it if you have settled on their terms. In reality if you have a hotly contested case –full of predattory lending defenses anpredatory collection counter-claims then —in my view anyway—-the debt is not “forgiven” its “offset by nontaxable damages to your emotional well being–I think this is the reality. These collection agencies dont FORGIVE anything out of the goodness of their hearts [dont have hearts] . Its offsets. But the settlement should lay that out black and white–the settlenent agreement is where you need the lawyer the most–unfortunately the collection agencies have boilerplate that twists the whole deal around–its secret–and you have to have a kindly judge to literally mediate and interced on your behalf to force changes. The basic rule that runs throughout is that the nasty collection agencies DO NOT NEGOTIATE—they DICTATE TERMS. They will fill a room with attorneys subborn yours if they have to—–and also bring in a street thug or two to the settlement to intimidate you–lay a complex toturtured document on the table and say sign—reminded me of the closing.

  25. @ DC

    90% reduction in principle

    Can the borrower afford to pay taxes on the reduction?

    Isn’t it true that any reduction in principal is considered income to the borrower in the year realized.

    And good point raised earlier in the thread. Does the counterparty have contract privity with the borrower to make such an offer in the first place?

    I understand that a REMIC can only keep performing assets in its capital pool and as a consequence, the servicer can only service current performing loans on behalf of the REMIC trustee. I’m hoping DC can elaborate on this if true.

    If true, it is likely that the loan was kicked out of a capital pool via disposal or abandonment when it stopped performing and afterward the wannabe creditor will probably ask you to “reaffirm” it. If you agree, you’ll enter into a new contract with the wannabe, agreeing to continue paying the debt associated with the abandoned asset so it can be securitized.

  26. @dcb
    Not worth expending energy over…just ignore.

  27. Furthermore—-again this contradicts the assertion about the RICO pleading—-RICO is FBI jurisdiction —–if you have a RICO claim and its taken seriously the Court likely referred it. If it was taken seriously FBI would be calling you in —-you ought not be afraid of FBI unless you are on the other side of this???? See 18 USC 4 –you have a duty to report it yourself

    And a RICO pleading is the most complex pleading that you can make—very nearly impossible without an insider or wiretaps–particularity of fraud squared–i would be truly impressed if you survived a RICO MTD-challenge

    So and so said such and such at this time to this person—with three victims –to establish a pattern—is this BS or are you a shill–i know what it takes for rico– years of investigation–are you just trying to impress the other ladies here that buy your bs

  28. FBI spies ?

    i wish fbi was reading this stuff–im not the slightest bit concerned about FBI—I used to help them among others including secret service—what would be wrong with FBI or DOJ etc seeing this stuff—What I dont like is having syndicate types retaliate against me for reporting to and helping FBI and other enforcement types—-and the term would be “resource” or less kindly “informant”-unless the person is an employee–or i suppose a contractor—–supposedly a protected class under 18 USC 1513(e)

  29. DCB,

    I don’t have anything to hide but I’ll be damned if I shoot myself in the foot. When my case is resolved, I’ll give specifics. Until then, I can’t say much. Don’t want to jinx it…

    And no, I have to admit, I don’t know what it is like to be in pain all the time. I don’t wish it on anyone either. And because I know that you suffer all the time, I don’t hold any grudge when you snap. You’ve noticed, right? Whatever happened, everyone here has gone through a lot and is still here. That means that we all have strength, resilience and endurance. We all have something to contribute. It doesn’t mean that whatever we contribute is for everybody. What’s not for you, just ignore it. A little tolerance goes a long way. Where i draw the line is when people start calling names. That, I don’t like. Accusing people to be shills and FBI spies is not productive.

    And yes, I do have opinions. I paid a damn high price for the right to have them and express them.

  30. @GUEST

    Further; LPS refiled the defective assignment a year later aong with i believe several tens of thousands others after they related their “regulatory issue” in their 10K for 2009. They did the right thing in my view after it was brought to their attention at the Board level.

    My next question relates back –if you were in a Summary Judgment hearing would you have to use an expert witness to opine that the certified signature differed from the the argued forgery? I think that was really where we were at–at that question? Ie not whether the certified doc was admissable but how to attack the forgery in an evidentiary hearing–are you an atty? or a parallegal?

  31. “you get from your California County Recorder would be usable evidence”

    You are stating flatly that a certified copy of your county recorder is evidence for all purposes without any further authentication–irrsepective what that documents is. i will admit it is late and I am tired, it is a bit hard to follow the snippets and a string. Is the answer to my question yes?

    In my case vis the particular stage you are referring to its academic to that narow point–because the docs are prepared out of state. And the local jurisdictions wherein the robosigners operate are far more protective of their local robosigner business than about the effect on a foreignor [out of state].

    For example when I filed the notary forgery complaint vis DOCX Alpharetta division of LPS [signatures of Tywanna Thomas and Korell Harp on an assignment supposedly notarized by Kelli Woolever] that you refer to in September 2009 with Fulton County Georgia clerk of Courts, after a few weeks I received a response that there were no problems. I forwarded a copy to KPMG and LPS board of directors audit committee along with a warning of SARBOX violations and LPS itself shut down the division as a result of or coincidental to my letter which was copied to SEC and Banking Subcommittee Chair Brown.

    I do confess the rules of procedure and evidence are confounding–but after more than $50k on attys –iv learned that I need to understand it because attys are always in a very great hurry and are imperfect–although none of us cares to admit it.

    Im old enough–it doesnt bother me to admit it—-please be patient–patience is a virtue–especially if you have a time. Im running short on my time in many ways

  32. @ dcb: first of all with the crap you’r writing you’d better not file case without lawyer. Then show the text I wrote to him/her who would know what I’m saying. If you want to file case yourself don’t waste your time and others on non-explainable matters…at least pay an hour’s worth to a paralegal if she understand this & could explain it to you…

  33. @GUEST
    ok in cal you need to file complaint –in a foreclosure state you would attach to the answer as an exhibit—–now then its the term “evidence” that gets to the issue—–the exhibit will in effect be deemed to be true for purposes of MTD–right? thus these mill attys attach copies labeled as copies of this and that —but i think if i got to actual evidentiary hearing–id have to offer something that meets rules of evidence—-so i see what your use is but then in motion for summary judgment there is a higher hurdle? im not sure–im asking?

  34. @ dcb: One step at a time: whatever you get from your California County Recorder would be usable evidence as exhibit to complaint (it becomes part of complaint). That’s the cheapest way to get verification of robo-notary signatures. If they recognize signatures as identical they certify identical. its their job. I don’t know if other states’ county recorders have same procedures. If they don’t give you anything they imply it is forged, and probably refuse give you anything to that effect for fear of calling it forgery. Then you give them the official written NOTICE OF FORGERY (OR NOTICE OF FORGED RECORDED DOCUMENT) and have them sign copy of it that they received the original from you. all of these are useful evidence as complaint exhibits.
    Your next text should be after you have done that.

  35. Speaking of all of us. On the Jones show on planet prison that Dave Kriegar from clouded titles was on (I posted) talked about the horrible happenings we beleive Cube2 was involved with. Sounds like he did not set the house on fire. The swat team set it on fire with their gases and exploded the house into fire. Something they pre plan to do. WOW! So if anyone intends on resisting with firearms, they explode gas into the house and set you on fire. Dont recommend shooting anyone anyways. That is not the solution to anything but a disaster.

  36. I am always doing things to fast and forget to re read. “Threw the book at them.” Twelve hour days at the spa and couple hours taking care of things at home and sleepless nights worriing about all of us and our battle with evil. Can’t hardly see past my nose. Very tired today.

  37. Enraged good for you I filed RICO, FDCPA violations, unregistered to be doing business violating WA Deed of Trust Act, WA CPA laws, TILA violations RESPA violations, Esttoppel laws, HAMP violations modification fraud, and more. I through the book at them. I screwed up on proceedure and objections but I can come back under a motion for new trial due to fruad upon the court which is also a claim I filed. I have finally found an attorney that has been to Neils classes and is on the bar in Florida and Washington State. She gets it and is very smart. If my case does not fly she is filing a new case immediately for me and I am going to let her take charge of my case for me. The stress is overwhelming and I applaud everyone for standing their grounds with these phscopathic financial criminals. And for standing your ground for free speech and your contribution to this site.

  38. @ENRAGED
    If you are such a bold and outspoken person and bigger than life paerty raising RICO in fed ct ——obviously not low key—why do you hide—what do you have to hide? You seem to knoew so much—do you have any idea what its like to be in constant pain? What a fistful of drugs each and every day does to you. You are an ignorant over-opinionated woman and you simply do not know when to shut up.

  39. @DCB,

    I know you don’t believe me. And that’s perfectly alright with me. I know I have a case filed in federal court and i know what is happening with it . That’s all that matters.

    You have to understand that what doesn’t interest you may interest someone else and help someone else get some perspective and shake that abject fear most people feel, yourself included (where do you think that illness comes from? Serenity? Peacefulness? Detachment? I think not…) Snapping because you don’t get your way doesn’t take away anyone’s right to speak and write. In fact, all it does is confirm that you have a bad temper, you are a grumpy old man and you switch from decent to nasty at the drop of a hat. it’s called unstable.

    I, for one, will keep on doing what i want and post what i want. Go ahead and have your temper tantrums. Oh! And when Neil decide to block me, he’s a big boy. He’ll do it without your help.

    Sheeeesh!

  40. anyone talking about signature forgeries was considered a lunatic conspiracy theorist…

    ill attest to that

  41. @ENRAGED

    “as soon as I dont agree” with what little green men –or the approach of planet nutso or what —i dont read that stuff–i dont elevate these way off topic things to the staus of even reading it–s soon as i see its crazy stuff i shake my head and move on asap—-its cluttering up the site and my screen–and i have to wade through it to delte it—its irresponsible for you or others to clutter up serious material with your personal eccentricities. I respect the on topic stuff you do—but you, I and everybody else must have respect for other readers —i dont come on this site to read about biblical progphesy, aliens, movie scripts, sexual positions, surgical techniqes or a host of other things that might be of interest to any individual at any point in time—-i limit my attn to the topics covered as closely as i can–i might add something about european finances that i think is relevant even if it wasnt on the authors site for the day–but no green cheese, green men gun manufacturers or other topics whether they be of interest to me or not–its not fair to other readers—and im not silly enough to think that the financial folks would not use the opportunity to screw with your legal position or mental well being by using the site

    im not going to “lighten up” enraged—–im facing a terminal illness and a hostile monstrous international syndicate that has made a three year effort to make my life living hell—and if you want to take this stuff lightly then i think they havent turned up the heat on you—-id love to see the cite on your rici complaint–because frankly i dont bleive it one second

  42. @ToLLe,

    I hope your post is tongue and cheek. Because, as you may recall, a few years ago, (and until Lynn Szymoniak came on 60 minutes) anyone talking about signature forgeries was considered a lunatic conspiracy theorist… The poor schlemiel who tried to argue that he never signed such and such document and that his signature had been forged was thoroughly ridiculed and accused of wanting the proverbial “free house”. Well, nowadays, it’s the great majority of us whose signature was forged over and over. It used to get a reaction such as “I don’t believe it! Scream foul!” Nowadays, it’s more like: “Well, everybody else’s signature was forge. Join the club.”

    You do realize that Naked Capitalism, Abigail Field, Mandelman, Mark Stopa to a large extent, Nye Lavalle and Max Gardner are still considered “fringe”, right?

    I’ll double-check anything MSM says until the cows come home. Until something makes sense, for the frame of mind that complete banking insanity has thrown me in. Even if I have to admit to going to weird sources in order to get some truth I can sink my teeth in.

  43. oh…sorry.

  44. MSM. Main Street Media, like… ABC news.

  45. MSN…N…not M.

  46. tywanna was no lady—male and female alises

  47. @DCB,

    Something biting you? I always find it interesting that things happen and take center stage (such as that Colorado bit) and when you start scratching, it isn’t not what it appears to be and once again, we don’t get the real story.

    Come to think of it, you and I were only known as deadbeats a few months ago: you know, the kind of people who end up in foreclosure not knowing what hit them. Between Chase’s Whale scandal and Barklay’s Libor, some truth has come out. But it took a while for MSM to approach it. I don’t want to have to wait for MSM to give me my information and i took like the spin they put on it. So, I try to find it wherever I can because, in case you didn’t realize it, time is of the essence for many of us. Even Neil had to wait and wait and wait to get a chance to speak up and be heard.

    You can be quite grumpy at times, my friend. And you know what? None of that banking crap happened in a vacuum. You find the same players all the time. Pharma, chemical industries, oil, banks. Aren’t they all the people who are working damn hard at killing all of us? Time IS of the essence for all of us.

    And why is it that, as soon as you don’t agree, you have to conclude that people are all shills working for banks and the FBI and trying to get you? It’s getting old, isn’t it?

    Lighten up, DCB.

  48. @CARIE

    I do not mean to be critical —and i cant say thats exactly what he said in context—-sometimes he shortcuts–or simplifies–but as read literally it makes no sense to me——-without some interpretation

    Eg possibly; the investors agreed with an investment banker to purchase X securities of a generally described character backed by generally described mortgage notes —-eg all those securities issued based upon al mortgages originated by fly by nite in the period beginning and ending–so no cherry picking would occur —the originator then had to hustle to meet the pre-agreed quoro and if they really turned up the heat—-maybe more

    i saw an early dec 2004 “supplemental” prospctus that was offering MBS backed by 11,000 mortgages with mortgages face $2 billion—i never saw the pre-supplemental prospectus oddly—well not so oddly considering the issuer American Home Mortgage [bankrupt in 2008]—for $2.7 bn is MBS—by late Jan 2005 the same SEC filing American Home Mortgage Trust Mortgage-Backed Notes Series 2004-4 had jumped to 17,000 mortgages @$3billion and the MBS issue face amount [form 8K] at about 5 $billion——–numbers are approximations based on memory ——point is that the earliest stuff was obviously estimated—-although it never madesense to me how the MBS face had jumped so dramatically–in fact the 8K filed by the trustee bank columnar total didnt even add—off by 50-75% —-which surprised me —but with this trust which had no loan schedule filed anywhere—odd was the norm——-the following batch of AHM issued securities also lacked a loan schedule and the 2004 Annual Report indicated there was apparently some duplication of loans—same loans apparently “sold” to a trust and used as security for bank lending —–in a non-acceptable manner—so one might conjecture the same mortgage loans may well have been sold twice—but its water under the bridge now—unless you happen to be unlucky enough to be one of those homeowners who now have two different trusts claiming the same notes—-but as to bankrupt AHM, investment bankers Lehman and Bear sterns –hey it was all in a days work—-and in the world of investment banks one shoulnt expect columns to add –especially not bakrupt ones

    and for most homeowners that got caught up with good old AHM –most likely the trustees will not chase after them simultaneously–bad form that would be—–but one will get its bite and when it is done then the 2nd will come in–after all they have 10 years to do so—-after the default—-

    hopefully for the homeowners they filed bankruptcy so they will have a good reason not to pay when trustee #2 comes knockin—at the former homeowners new apt

    but we all know today that those were all people in a hurry–mistakes were made and since the whole thing ended in collapse–get of jail free cards were liberally ssued and they all moved to offshore hedge funds by now and are busy shorting Spanish bonds—alls well that ends well

  49. Speaking of fraud, check this out. I have all of my original closing docs. I’m guessing the pretender wasn’t counting on that. When they answered a QWR, they sent me the origination docs with their pretend successor in interest now in the letterhead, replacing the long defunct originating pretend lender that was at closing.

    So on my docs it says ABC Lender in the letterhead….on theirs it says XYZ Lender in the letterhead. What does that amount to besides fraud? Counterfeiting? Theft by deception? Can I ask the judge for the death penalty? Should I start building the guillotine?

    Has anyone ever seen such blatant cries for help?

  50. Yes DCB, I didn’t put those things together….. discredit Neil Garfield through trashing his website….hmm….would our overlords of the financial industry actually stoop that low? I mean sure, they want all the land and money, but…would they really stoop so low as to desecrate someone’s websi….

    Sure you’re right. That explains all of the recent UFO sightings, 9/11 conspiracies, and religious fanatics coming out of the woodwork. I just thought it was happy hour or medication dispension time.

  51. Speaking of notaries, I have an “expert” opinion stating that the notary on “my” assignment forged the signatures of those famous ladies, Linda green and ms Tywanna Thomas.

  52. @CHERYL

    The state law generally provides that a deed must be notarized. And that means by a notary recognized to notarize in that state—so its as useless as toilet paper if no notary—-well maybe not toilet paper–maybe some sort of constructive notice that something is going on that would put a bona fide purchaser on notice to inquire–but not good for the purpose of perfecting a security interest —or conveying title—-

    a nice law school question would be if one notary forged another notary’s signature such as in somebody’s stamp and sign dept

  53. Neil said:

    “You already know that there were no financial transactions transferring your loan because investors owned your obligation even before you took the money.”

    Is he talking about the junk debt buyer investors (banks, etc.) or the securities investors?

  54. @ET
    At this point I think its fairly obvious that there are several persons who are intentionally trying to create the imptression that the site is littered with nutcases in case the author was accurate re press and of course if so then there would be at least due diligence scanning–which of course would have been a sad affair last nite and today—any rational press reviwere would have concluded by now that it is totally useless to even try to scan the material–other than author—perhaps

    there seem to be a few who are not intentionally eliciting breaches of confidentiality and/or non-disparagement–or just soaking up time or tracking activity—–would you care to state which ones look like plants to you? ie those getting paid to post

  55. Kathy –

    What if the notary is not a notary and does not have a license? Does that invalidate the mortgage/DOT? This was verified by State Dept. Investigation.

  56. @ DCB, I so hear you. It’s like a virus struck this site of late.

    Don’t split. I very much enjoy your rational view. And I have loads more questions….

  57. @ GUEST

    Please be patient and overlook my ignorance–walk me through–what am i to do with it?

  58. Thanks for the answers, but the answers seem to be reinforcing my conundrum here. I DO have a certified copy from the SOS that has signature for Mr. Black. Then I have a certified copy from the county recorder’s office on an assignment with Mr. Black’s signature looking completely different.

    As to guest, I can’t imagine getting my recorder’s office to do anything of the sort. They keep their heads so low you can’t even see them over the countertop. They are afraid of taking any stance whatsoever on any of this fraud. I can’t see them agreeing to certify anything at all. But thanks for the response all the same.

    As to DCB’s response….how to get that entered into evidence? I see what you’re saying, and that’s my question in a nutshell. I take it I’d have to hire a QDE to simply make a statement as the veracity of the signature. $500 minimum for one signature examination? Ouch! Or the alternative, as was mentioned previously, attempting to get the notary to vouch for the authenticity….at this stage of the game they might just roll over on the machine rather than implicate themselves. That may be worth the try. Thanks.

  59. @ALL Ok —im looking at this unusually extensive list of posts attached to this piece re publication which has apparently brought some strange comments out of the woodwork—-lets see weve got the shooter dragged in–weve got some religious debate—–weve got siloimon back but hes normal–always obtuse—lets see green men—and the comment by GUEST that the site is mostly populated by robosigners——trying to mislead———-and im mystified—–is this disinformation to undermine garfield and site contribotors credibility?? would those of you that piled on with the wierd stuff care to explain why? what was your motivation?

    lastly i ask myself–why did i spend time wading through–in search of a few crumbs of meaning? i guess im in need of a change—really people i try to provide clarity for new readers and try to answer questions to the best of my ability and try to help people –maybe hopeless –but although in the end they need go to attys —some better sense of what has happened will help people simply be more informed citizens—and even those robosigners–and i cant disagree that there are worms —–even they –maybe most especially they know that there are very real problems—even if they are getting paid what $5-10per postlike TH—–even TH needs to wonder if hell be able to draw on his IRA–if his savings are safe

    so im done today–if id have known that long list was to be so fruitless id have hit the delete key —is that the purpose for you–to prevent any press from looking here???

    say it aint so enraged

  60. re my below: “for attestation of county recorder as to the similarity of signatures”. There is such an actual form in county recorders offices which is a request to compare any notary’s siganture with her signature on her BOND at the county-recorder (Each notary must have a bond filed with county recorder with his/her original signature), capicci??? without that bond they can’t notarize anything…

  61. Come on dcb….. I meant with the word “DENIED” undersigned by the county moron’s signature…

  62. Try to get your original filled out request form back from clerk and have them sign it with the word “DENIED”.

    Is this a certified document then that is admissable without the govt signer or supr? what keeps yu from forging it?

  63. @ET [not any gree ones either]
    The issue re the diversity of signatures—–assume for a second that you can get a certified copy of the state signature—then offer it to compare to the one offered by opposition—-im focused on procedure here——then in an evidentiary hearing how are you going to make a record for appeal—somebody has to sit there and say —this signature is clearly not made by the same personas that signature?

    Would it go like this:

    your non-expert sits there and you hand him the documents after handing copies to judge and opposing counsel

    and as you do that the opposing counsel is objecting–“-this person has not been established as an wexpert on signature identfication”????

    you say–he doesnt need to be your honor–its obvious to anybody? is that judicial notice of some sort??

    –right? Or then the opposing counsel asks your witness are you qualified etc? witness relies no–its obvious

    opposing counsel asks your non-expert—-are you certain that this is not the left hand signature?

    im really curious—i understand what you are saying—some of them seem so blatant–but procedure being what it is??????

  64. Since you went there, usheeple:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/b7.html

    The official story blames fires for the total collapse of Building 7, but fires have never before or since leveled steel buildings.

  65. @D.W.: there were no 911 pilots or planes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBIEMHWe7dE

  66. heres a notary story, it came from the notary that had me sign papers for some CA schiaster company (hi Angelo Rodreigues) to “modify” my loan- apparently one terrorist of 9/11 that flew the jet got his license notorized and was never present, that notary- a women went directly to jail.

  67. Kona and Enraged, for centuries people have killed each other in the name of god. And misused the higher power to control the herd, This is not Gods fault but human kind. The more confusion caused and the misuse of a higher power, is the devils work, not the higher powers work. Yes I agree there are a lot of people that make me like my dogs company better, however their are a lot of people that are very wonderful and good. There is good and evil. The evil can be overwhelming. I find people better than I am, that are very forgiving . I have a hard time forgiving.

  68. Homeowners have been successful obtaining notary signatures on file at the secretary of states office in the state the notary is licensed. Some have been sent by email and some have been sent by mail only. Call or email the secretary of state in their state.

  69. @E. ToLLe: Cheapest way: from SOS you must already know which county your robo-notary is. Go to that county’s county recorder with a certified copy of the robo-signed doc. Ask clerk to pull his NOTARY BOND, and buy a certified copy of that bond which bears his real signature. Whether or not signatures match, fill out a request form and pay fee ($5-10) for attestation of county recorder as to the similarity of signatures. If they find them similar they will take your money and give it to you. If they don’t match, they would not give you anything and will not charge you anything, but tell you orally that they can’t certify signatures are same. Try to get your original filled out request form back from clerk and have them sign it with the word “DENIED”. If they give you this, which they wont because they are in on the robo-crimes, that is your cheapest circumstantial evidence you can obtain. If they don’t sign DENIED but give you form back just take it & leave. But before leaving raise hell with section boss why don’t certify the forgery? Also, try to immediate give them a written NOTICE of FORGERY, with all necessary details, copy of documents, and give it to them and have them verify receipt of it from you. Post the outcome on this page only, so I could figure whats your next best. Good luck. & don’t forget this website is mostly watched by robo-signers who do their best to throw off victims in bogus directions.

  70. @ Kathy Charlotte, I believe the well-founded concern here is that the notary in question is in on the scam, as his signature is totally different from the SOS file to my document, and yet he works for the pretend foreclosing entity. I’m sure I won’t get anywhere barking up that tree, without an expense I’m not willing to go into lightly.

    My question has to do with the veracity of the signature that is kept on file at the SOS. You folks, by law and certification, I assume, have to sign exactly the same way each and every time you apply your signature, right? Why else have a sample on file, right?

    And if so, and I know you’re not a lawyer and I’m not asking for a legal opinion here, and please anyone chime in….if signature A doesn’t match signature B at all, not even close, isn’t that enough based on easy to see 100% false A to B comparisons to bring into play in court?

    I just can’t imagine needing an expert witness when it looks like a child signed one and a calligrapher signed the other. But, I’ll admit to having been birthed in the shallow end of the cerebral pool.

  71. @Kona tina,

    Nope. I don’t buy that. I do buy that we keep being visited by ETs and that they are benevolent. ‘Cuz i don’t know what kinda God you believe in but the one from the Bible is pretty dysfunctional. I ain’t gona have anything to do with It. Some of the meanest people i know talk about that God all the time and keep spreading fear and hysteria and they’re control freaks. Those Santorum, Bachman, Gingrich and the likes. Visibly, it doesn’t work for them. Doesn’t make them any more palatable as human beings.

    As I mom used to say, “The more people I meet and learn to know and the more I love my cat.”

  72. Enraged. You need to watch this. Demons, Aliens, they are all deceipt by the devil to Gods people astray. I was watching a Twilight Zone episode the other day about a guy who had the devil locked up in a room – told his house keeper, do not open the door. Yet, we keep opening the door and giving the devil power. Shut your door and plead the blood of Jesus. You will be safe and not enraged.

  73. correction …. you can find the notary on your docs on the states website in the state the docs were notarized.

  74. @ E Tolle, You are correct, our signatures are kept on file. You can go to your Sec of State website or contact them directly for written copies of your state laws. You can also contact the NNA (National Notary Association). If the signature and seal are not Origional, the doc is null and void (has no legal value). You can find your Notary listed on your states Sec of State website or office. All public notaries have their info on file .. Contact Notary personally and get their opinion of the doc and have them confirm with their journal. I would think the Notaries assertatiion that the signature is not his/hers would be testamony enough without expert witness. If notary is unwilling to get involved you can sopena them or hire expert. Hope this Helps.

  75. This “10% secret deal” sounds like what M aher S oliman has been saying for the last 4 years……….where he said the lenders will “deep in the money put” or take a counterproductive position against their own stock held in the home. The lender is shorting his own stock, albiet a reverse action, which restores the equity so he can foreclose. Obviously these people intercepted this lenders activities.

  76. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ4Fu1Xgyjc

    MSM has told us and the entire world that… well… we, defaulted homeowners, are irresponsible, greedy bastards out to screw everyone else. And it worked! Still many people out there believing it, despite what we have recently learned of banks behavior in the past 20 years. What am i saying saying: in the past 200 years! Anyway, when MSM decides to brainwash people into reacting a certain way to certain situations, usually it works. Then again, they have the means to get the work done.

    Well, MSM has been announcing over and over that an ET invasion would take place during the game. See link above: official piece from ABC news dating back from last year (they’ve been at it for a while…!) on what FEMA’s guidelines are in that case for firefighters.

    I don’t know about you but… my Bible tells me that the sky belong to God and that “evil” roams only on earth. I buy that: I’ve seen if first hand. Hunger, famines, mass genocides, destruction of thousands of species, pollution, war. Yeah, I see that. So… if MSM is right (and boy oh boy I hope they are), we should only expect all kinds of good things from the little green guys… I hope they come. I’m getting tired of hearing how much worse banks have committed.

  77. Irritating! We can’t get any true information from MSM about pretty much anything. On the other hand, fringe websites are… well… fringe.
    Some of them are way up there. “Strange” doesn’t even start to describe them.

    Yet… a rumors keep circulating about Robert Holmes, James Holmes’ father, about to testify before the senate against the banks when Aurora happened. Here is a list of questions people who don’t trust government, banks and the American nomenclatura are asking. I find them to be valid questions, such as “how can an unemployed kid purchase over $10,000 worth of weapons and booby trap an apartment in such a sophisticated fashion that it takes the FBI and different swat teams days to detonate?”

    Key in “Robert Holmes to testify before the Senate” and you’ll get plenty of info, none of it from MSM of course. Timing also troubles me. We are in the midst of a serious push from our government to seize weapons held by individuals in the US and that MSM quantifies as 300 millions (I was off by over 10 millions…) and Kaboom! Aurora takes place, out of nowhere! Coincidence? Part of me thinks not.

    http://www.disclose.tv/news/11_key_facts_that_point_to_a_conspiracy_in_the_Batman_shooting/85668

    @Tnharry: don’t jump on me about my sources, shall you? A couple of years ago, LL was one such site. And you’ve been posting on it for quite some time… So you must have found value in it. I’ll keep an open mind ’til I know what has been done to us. Somehow, I think we haven’t even scratched the top layer yet. You should do likewise.

  78. @ Kathy Charlotte, a question….one of my notary attested docs has an exaggerated signature, meaning….it’s very easily distinguishable due to flair.

    I sent off for a sample of that notary’s signature from the state’s SOS to compare what’s on my documentation to what’s in his official file….they aren’t even close….no similarities whatsoever. That’s the case on several assignments I have.

    What is the rule of thumb on that, short of a questioned document examination? I imagine it’s accepted practice in Notaryland that the signature on file must match your notarized signature every time one signs, right? Is that chiseled in stone anywhere? Surely one doesn’t have to drag in a QDE expert witness every time there’s such a flagrant violation, right?

    E. T., lost in downtown Fraudville Notaryfornia.

  79. @ guest, you should know when I did this .. I was acting on a report on this business. I was/am a comissioned Notary. I simply added my M.I. and gave exp date that was off a couple of days from my own. I found it hard to believe they would make it …. sure enough they did. It amazes me what people will do for a buck or two. Prosecute…

  80. hahaha Guest. The Notary Stamps the Document with a Seal. Do you mean where do you get a Notary Seal to stamp the docs? Well if you call around to business who make Notary Seals (stampers) like rubber stamping co’s you could do what I did (as a test of course) and call them…give Name, comission # and exp date. Go in the next day and pick it up, pay cash and walk out without I.D. or proof of comission. Greedy Peeps want the business and dont have time to mess with pesky details like verification thru the Sec of State Office. Or if you want to apply to be a Notary (legally of course), you should contact your Sec of States Office. Most info can be obtained on line on how to recieve your comission.

  81. @ Kathy: & where can you buy notary stamps??

  82. Keep up the Good Work Neil! We apperciate your success and your failures. It is thru trial and error that will lead us to success. And a Special Thanks to your Staff! It takes a Big Team Effort and Many Years of Self Sacrafice to bring down a Bully! Just don’t let all that Negitive (I mean Positive) attention ….. never mind, you know what I mean. Best Wishes to You and Your Staff and Thank You for your Public Service! May God Bless You All!

  83. @Enraged … its unfortunate I know of dozens of cases like yours. Its rather a simple thing to check …. like you said. Request loan files from the title company and request loan files from the lender and compare them to your origionals. It would Shock alot of people. “Whink” “Whink” …. I’m gonna have to help dcb out here before long, he seems to be pounding his head into a brick wall like we did … I better save him before he falls victim to disagreement ….

  84. @dcb… you have that right! …hahaha 🙂 Hang in there … Justice is slow, but the Wheels are Turning and I see you in the light. Hang Tight! Fight Clean!

  85. @KC,

    I know, it is a real laugh, isn’t it? And don’t forget that, when my lender sent me my file (the one that was sent to the servicer), it was different from the one I had signed. My signature had been “lifted” and placed on different documents, such as income verification and others.

    And… when i asked the title company for a copy of my file, including the underwriting docs, they told me that they didn’t keep those file for longer than 5 years, in a state with a 15 year SOL on contract. It will have to come back and bite them. I shall see to it in due time.

  86. @guest, Most Judges, Attorneys,Legal Asst’s,Para-Legals,secretaries,
    Real Estate agents on and on had their own Notary Seals. It is Illegeal to notarize an agreement or contract to witch you or a family member has an intrest/gain. They used these seals for doing friends favors. The deal between the friends was not disclosed to the public.

  87. lps needs to go make a mktg call on that collector–of course the woman will die of old age before the appeals are over—but all in all id rather be in her shoes than mine for sure–i wonder how she got an atty to take the case?

  88. @ John: looks like many successful RICO & Robo-signing complaints like Coursen v. JPMorgan are adaptations of this one which also lists many of the robo-signed legal steps: http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/kareemsalessi-federal-complaint-1.pdf One of the defendants is a state judge

  89. @ guest, the robo-signing was a lil different. Lenders hired companies like DocS/LPS or Forclosure Mill Law Firms, who themselves hired their own employees. The firms got their employees a Notary Seal (or gave them someone elses seal) and paid them by the hour to stamp and sign as many as they could as quicky as they could. (even other peoples names). Their Employees were never given any training on what the requirments and job responsibility of a Notary were. Or they just didnt care …. either way the robo-signers NEVER met with the consumers/signers/affiants face to face. After determining capacity the notary must establish i.d. of the signer and witness the signing. A document that contains the oath of a notary who did not witness the signatures ( witch requires a face to face meeting) is worthless, fake and fraudulent. The robo-signers commited a criminal act … Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Its always good advice to trust your employer … after all, are they really looking after you ? @ Enraged … hahaha, you have that right! … and they dont want everybody else to know …. shhhhhhh. *Smirks*

  90. See WA V RECONTRUST filed by Rob McKenna also. BOA unlawfully owned the debt collector RECONTRUST AS WELL WHO WAS NOT LICENSED TO FORECLOSE OR LICENSED TO DEBT COLLECT.

  91. Realtors have E&O insurance which pays for their defenses. Realtors get legal advice from attorneys who advise them as to what to robo-sign. This comes included in their membership dues in the state branches of their Mafia entity called NAR (National Association of Realtors).

  92. @ carie —

    Im not sure I would say you are incorrect—but your explanation is difficult to follow

    Author very much simplified bu also is not incorrect–just simplified–and i believe literally he was referring to who wrote and received checks and was pretty close to the mark on that score. who wrote out checks–who were the intemediaries that skimmed those checks.

    Let me try another angle to reconcile the concepts; going back to well before the Investment bankers put the spin on–the grandaddy of the securitization process:

    In the beginning there was an oilfield. There were many farmers that owned parcels atop the field–without knowing what lay beneath. Each owned a deed real estate interest analogous to a group of MORTGAGES. Together the group of real estate parcels were leased and combined into a POOL by a landman–litrally a pool of underground oil. Some of the leased parcels were 5 acres, some 10 some 50–just as mortgages are in different amounts. The landman leased all of these parcels and assembled them into a single pool–analogous to the trust. Then the landman sought out passive investors —-each investor bought an undivided interest in the entire pool. Now typically the landman paid the farmers an up front “bonus or delay rental” a single payment to lease that farmers interset for 10 years plus. The landman in the aggregate paid the farmers say $1 million. Then he turned around and sold undivided interests in the pool for say $1.5 million to the group of passive investors.

    As oil was produced the investors were paid in proportion to their % interests in the total pool. The loan payments are analogous to the cash flows received from oil production. The analogy is imperfect but it is the true foundation of the securitization process. Mortgages were pooled by the investment banker who sold completely different % interests in the whole pool—not the homeowner notes themselves–but undivided intersts in the total. Along the way the investment banker added priority rights to some of those undivided interests and built in the opportunity to defraud the investors. In future securitization regulations would do well to prohibit these prioritizations which are more appropriate to the capital structure of a corporation than a pool of like mortgages. the priortixation added nothing economically–it was a scheme. Often times when people start with an elegantly simple idea like pooling–and then hybridize it –they create a nonviable unduly complex construct. That is what happened to mortgage securitization.

    a similar problem resulted from efforts to hybridize banks and investment brokerage houses. The result was a non-viable TBTF that nobody understands how to rein in.

  93. The banks count on the realtors to sell the clouded titled homes.If they dont they are stuck with them. The realtors can loose everything to a law suit if they knowingly sell one and even if they unknowingly sell one. They can not afford the litigation either.

  94. @KC,

    “There is Never supposed to be an Agency Relationship between title co and lender. haha …” I guess someone forgot to tell my lender. He is also the title company…

  95. i HIGHLY RECOMMEND A LAWYER YOU CAN TRUST TO LOOK OVER EVERY MORTGAGE BEFORE YOU EVER SIGN ONE AGAIN. FAR CHEAPER THAN AFTER THE CRIME IS DONE. I ask everyone I know to see a lawyer they can trust before they purchase and send them to the clouded titles web sight. Many have opted not to purchase the home due to clouded title issues. Good realtors I know refuse to lislt or sell clouded titles.

  96. @ Kathy: not to forget that Robo-signings are performed at every stage…

  97. We did nothing to deserve this anymore than a rape victim. We are victims of phscopathic, narsistic, fianancial cabal mafia criminals. Greed money and POWER.

  98. @John, The docs were always sent overnight back to the title company. The title co must have them in order to fund the loan. There is what is called a Title Escrow Agent at the Title Co (not title insurer). The Escrow Agent is the party who dispersses the funds of the loans to the proper parties as per the Settlement Statement (HUD). After funding the docs are sent back to the lender. Title Co keeps copies of certain key docs on file at their office.

  99. @John, the borrower/buyer/refinancer has the legal right to choose thier own title co & title ins co. They also have to legal right to be represented by an attorney at signing or a notary of their choice. Most are unaware of these rights and have the lender choose the title co and the title insurer for them. There is Never supposed to be an Agency Relationship between title co and lender. haha … The title co either sets the signing at a local office (if they have one, and in most cases.. they did not) or they hired the Notary Directly off their call list or they hired outside Signing Agency who hired 3rd party notary. Remember …. the 3rd party Notary Signing Agent is self employed and takes the assignments from the title co. or Signing Service Co. The Notary does not represent any party in the transaction .. not the lender, not the title co, not the title insurer and not the consumer. The Notary is an Agent of the State they are commisioned in. At no time is the Notary aware of the details of the transaction between lender and borrower. Signing Agents(Notaries) usually recieved your docs an hour before signing and arrived with warm papers fresh off their printers. There is No Agency between Notary Signing Agent and Title Co or Title Insurer or Lender. There should not be Agency between lender, title co or title insurer.

  100. I just cannot fathom the fraud. What did I, or you, do to deserve this?.I may have not been a saint in my past, but I changed, and I have tried to be a better person, and I just cannot understand a person, a title company, a nation, doing this.

    There are two other “secret” loans ahead of the one I thought was to be the “first,” (of that was mine,in ’99) on the OLD HOUSE ,and they had this info, yet they did not disclose it to me? Nothing in the title report about “everything”,. but just a cursory mention of the past few years.

    The other loans of 1978, and 1983…and maybe also 1993, were outstanding, when I “attempted’ to buy that house, yet of course I never did get any LEGAL INTEREST, due to forgeries and a secret forclosure before me…so I never bought it!

    As soon as I had paid off the “loans, and re-fi’s” they would have hit me with the others!, and the forgeries.

    Just no idea what to do at this point.

    They can do anything they want. Frame you, fabricate documents, forge your name, alter applications. Alter court records. Nothing can protect you.

    They told me the house was worth $$$ Yes, its worth this! They said, and then I find documents that state the house was practically CONDEMMED!, and I had no idea what this meant in the vague words and disclosures.

    I don’t want to sue, I just want to move away from it all! But where can you go?

  101. “…the investors (pension funds etc.) loaned money to the homeowners…
    Instead of writing the check directly to the borrower, the investor wrote the check to the investment banker…”

    Neil—please—we need the truth out there, not a “spin”…the security investors did NOT “loan money to homeowners”:

    Most, if not all of subprime refinances and subprime new purchases, are bogus mortgage loans that were falsely presented as a mortgage to homeowners. These were charged-off loans, with only collection rights surviving. How does this affect homeowners???

    One—not a mortgage — unsecured debt.

    Two—valid records as to payoffs, and payoff to prior trust and/or GSE (Fannie/Freddie) is unavailable by public documentation.

    Three—the purchase price for collection right to unsecured debt is undisclosed to borrower.

    Thus, borrower is unable to ascertain how much a debt buyer paid for collection rights to charged-off debt — and, how that “purchase” price can be “modified” for principal reduction by the distressed debt buyer.

    Finally, security investors are NOT investors in default debt.

    Subprime was default debt. Security investors, and I will state this over and over, can only invest in CURRENT cash flow pass-through. Security investors CANNOT invest in collection rights — or, for that matter, ANY mortgage loan itself. They can only invest in pass-through of cash flows. The loan, NOTE, collection rights, remain with the “INVESTOR” — who is NOT the security investor. Under federal law, the “INVESTOR/Creditor” must be disclosed to the homeowner. This information CANNOT be found in SEC documents, and will NOT be produced in courts of law– unless the judge is astute enough to understand the process.

  102. If a title company rep or a notary presented your docs, and if the title co. or notary is not the agent of the lender, than there was no
    delivery, constructive or otherwise, to the payee of the note and possibly not to anyone else who might otherwise claim an interest in the note. I think the law has a position on whether or not the title co. is the agent of the lender, tho it may vary by juris. (Course, I can’t remember what that is.) But, even if so and it finds agency as to the title commitment, does the law have a position on that agency, if any, as to the presentation and receipt of docs? After the notary (or title co. closer or escrow person or billy bob) got your autograph, where did the docs go? Things may have changed, but the original note used to go right to the warehouse lender with only cert’d copies from the closer going to the ‘lender’. Is the warehouse lender anyone’s agent for possession?

  103. @Guest,

    I rest my case! Since 1944, the FDA has known (I was off by a few decades, wasn’t I?) In any event, banks are unraveling, pharma is unraveling, Monsanto is unraveling, everything is unraveling. i hope we get to the bottom of it all fast now! We have a life to live!

    July 27, 2012

    Capital One Bank Is Having A Bad Week…

    After it was the first bank to be hit by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for defrauding consumers and ordered to pay $165 million to customers in refunds, Capital One was just hit with another fine. This time – the Department of Justice has ordered the bank to pay out $12 million to members of the military for denying them their legal right under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to avoid foreclosures and high interest rates.

    According to the DOJ – as many as 4,000 troops were illegally foreclosed on by the bank. Back in the old day, when corporations operated against the best interests of the nation – and preyed on our military members – there was a simple solution: the death penalty. The corporate death penalty – essentially revoking the corporation’s charter – has a long history in America. It’s time to bring it back.

    Background/Original Story

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Puts $140M Back in Consumers Pockets

    The newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) bagged its first major win against Capital One Bank. Here’s the release from the CFPB site:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced its first public enforcement action with an order requiring Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A. to refund approximately $140 million to two million customers and pay an additional $25 million penalty. This action results from a CFPB examination that identified deceptive marketing tactics used by Capital One’s vendors to pressure or mislead consumers into paying for “add-on products” such as payment protection and credit monitoring when they activated their credit cards.

    “Today’s action puts $140 million back in the pockets of two million Capital One customers who were pressured or misled into buying credit card products they didn’t understand, didn’t want, or in some cases, couldn’t even use,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We are putting companies on notice that these deceptive practices are against the law and will not be tolerated.”

    Elizabeth Warren is credited for developing the proposal for the CFPB.

  104. @ Enraged: what relates FLUORIDE to this? http://www.naturalnews.com/fluoride.html

  105. @shelly at 12:48 – they can blame each other til the cows come home for the lack of note transfer, and sue each other for it even and yeah, a lot of us would like to watch, front row center. But, note not transferred, note not transferred. Who owns them? Who has right to enforce? Under what theory? If it weren’t for cut-off dates / trust law demanding strict compliance, ( if not the UCC), it would equitably be the investors. But as it is????

  106. Well Done NG……Keep working for the people, even if they are too dumb to understand ……Bravo !

  107. @Mr. G – glad you are getting the attention you deserve for your efforts over these years. Wish I had found you long before I did.

    A court may not generally decree the rights of a non-party. The only way a court may do so, well not do this, but act in this manner, that I can think of is if the court is tacitly holding a true owner for the act of others, the banksters, ala Nosek, liable for those acts, that is, to find the bankster to be the bonafide agent, poa, what not of the party owed the debt. If so, the rpii is present and bound. (this in regard to the ‘finality’ of settlement).
    If the secn trustee, or anyone, is not exceeding his authority, the owners are probably bound (but they are exceeding their auth if loan is not in the trust, right?) But isn’t that the 64 trillion dollar question? is the loan in the trust? Is there auth to bind the principal in such a manner? First of all, to even try to answer these questions requires the submission of the alleged governing docs between the principal and the alleged agent, poa, whatnot.

    If there is no true relationship between a pretender and the rpii (succinctly) blessing the act, a hidc or maybe even a holder, is likely not bound. imo. (find more case law on exceeding authority) The actors should have to indemnify the homeowner against a righteous claim. They will not do it. What a mess. As I’ve said, one group of investors is sueing for Right to Notice of default.
    The possibililty of one acting for another and binding the other is no small matter. If a secn trustee, or anyone else (servicer?), had such authority, where would that authority be found? What are the governing docs for any alleged relationship? How can a relationship be found in the absence of evidence of the relationship, rights, and duties? While it seems logical that someone must have authority for a trust, logic isn’t evidence of the authority to do what. What is the standard of proof?
    And once again, I point to MERS’ purposefully avoiding the word “agent”, that is, until its members thought the coast was clear and it was useful. Act of agent = liability to principal / those harmed. Principal liable for at least authorized act of agent. Pretending agency = bad kids, liable to everyone and his brother, and prob RICO act in these circumstances, imo.
    Primer (only) on agency and exceeding agency:

    http://agency.uslegal.com/authority-of-agents/

    I don’t think this article addresses agency much when it comes to real property. As I’m always opining, that agency must be expressed and may not be found impliedly. What I mean by that is that one’s authority to act for another in regard to real property can’t be implied by anyone’s act. It has to be expressed in writing and be specific. Otherwise, I’m gonna sell you tn harry’s house and claim he said I could! Tnharry could authorize me in writing to rent his house, which is often done (not by tnharry), but I can’t sell it. The right to sell it was not expressed.

  108. NOW, is the time for proceeding in Wisdom. They want the story….which gives CNN and such an in. But lets be mindful to not blow the anmity of the ones that have sought out wisdom all along and place those of us, right in the hands of a corrupt servicer, who already in corruption and money laundering, want to get the MOSTEST $’s as they can before scandels expose what they have been doing all along, like YEARS.

  109. DCB,

    What i find remarkable is that Europe stopped many of the practices still in effect in this country years ago. Why? because when those practices caused damages and people became injured or ill, tax payers had to support those individuals. it has nothing to do with right or left wing. it has to do with: “Does it make sense to make people sick if we end up having to take care of them for years afterwards?”

    Ask yourself this: who made a huge profit from forcing fluoride into water supplies? You? Me? Nah. Big Pharma and Monsanto-like businesses did. UK researches proved 30 or 40 years ago that fluoride rendered little boys sterile. They stopped right away using fluoride even in tooth paste. And there never was any proof that fluoride helped in preventing tooth decay. What helps is brushing and flossing.

  110. The anti-flouride thing was always portayed as a rightwing nutcase –anti-govt rabble-rousing thing—are you saying it was true?

  111. Don’t think that the following is unrelat5ed to our problems: American children do0n’t measure up to other countries’ academic records. It should be no wonder. Alan Bloom wrote about the systematic dumbing of our kids way back in the early 80s. And here we are, still using fluoride which was banned in Europe 50 years ago!!!

    Nothing happens in a vacuum.

    http://thetruthisnow.com/headlines/harvard-study-finds-fluoride-lowers-iq-published-in-federal-government-journal/

    Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ – Published in Federal Government Journal

    PR Newswire:

    Harvard University researchers’ review of fluoride/brain studies concludes “our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment.” It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

    “The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas,” write Choi et al. Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical “with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

  112. DCB,

    TV as a whole has become afflicting, stupid, crass, biased, you name it. Never heard of him either. When I saw that Walton name, I wondered…

  113. Shelley E

    You expressed my thoughts quite well. Why settle with fraudsters. It makes no sense. Either they own the docs or they don’t.

    Isn’t that what the mafia did. Shake people down so they paid to be left alone. This country is GONE

  114. I used to watch HLN and CNN religiously. Gradually deteriorated to the point it does not deserve to be called a news channel—-top story of the hour is either spiderman bouncing on a ballon mat—or some folks laughing about opening ceremony of olympics

    It looked to me as if there was a standing rule on HLN to never report anything that a 12 yr old would not find entertaining—–or just nothing controversial –not sure

    CNN just quit doing news altogether—-long drawn out series of talk shows. Seems like rather than New thinking–they might talk about back to basics–this guty should write a book —how i took top nes channel and completely destroyed it by making sure i did it my way–instead of how ted told me to do it.

    Maybe there is a reason Ted Turner is a househild name=–abd this guy is somebody i never heard of before he quit

  115. @ Neil: re: “…Once it is signed neither I nor anyone else can describe the deal at all.” Yes you can Neil, but without disclosing identities.

  116. Waow, Neil! You work fast!!! One down… How many more to go?

    CNN President Jim Walton Resigns

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-27/cnn-president-jim-walton-stepping-down-from-cable-news-channel
    Bloomberg News
    CNN President Jim Walton Resigns
    By Edmund Lee on July 27, 2012

    CNN President Jim Walton, who presided over the once-dominant cable-news business as it lost viewers to Fox News, will resign after almost a decade in the job, saying the network needs “new thinking.”

    Phil Kent, chief executive officer of CNN parent Turner Broadcasting, will lead the search for a replacement, according to a statement from the company, which is owned by Time Warner Inc. (TWX) (TWX) Walton, who has spent his entire 30-year career at CNN, plans to step down at the end of the year.

    “CNN needs new thinking,” Walton said in a memo to staff. “That starts with a new leader who brings a different perspective, different experiences and a new plan, one who will build on our great foundation and will commit to seeing it through.”

    CNN is suffering through a ratings slump, with prime-time viewership dropping 8 percent to 627,000 on average this season through mid-May, compared with a year earlier, according to Nielsen. CNN now ranks far behind News Corp. (NWSA) (NWSA)’s Fox News, which drew an average prime-time viewership of 1.85 million in the same period.

    Walton, 54, started at CNN in December 1981, one year after it was founded by billionaire Ted Turner. Walton helped build the nascent network into a dominant news organization, and CNN soon became a staple in many households. It was the only news company that broadcast live video feeds of the first Gulf War from inside Iraq.

    Supreme Court
    In recent years, the network struggled to find a formula that connected with viewers. It also made a major gaffe last month, reporting incorrectly that the U.S. Supreme Court found a central piece of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act to be unconstitutional.

    Walton, a native of Bowie, Maryland, graduated from the University of Maryland and started his first job at CNN as a video producer.

    “It’s the only place I’ve ever worked,” Walton said in a December interview. “I feel really lucky to have started my career with CNN.”

    Shares of New York-based Time Warner, which acquired Turner Broadcasting in 1996, rose 1.5 percent to $38.92 at 1:15 p.m. in New York. The stock had climbed 6.1 percent this year through yesterday.

  117. YOUR NOT A KIDDING! MAIN STREAM MEDIA CAN TAKE THE BLAME FOR ENABLING THIS CRIME TO HAPPEN. EXSPOSURE IS CRUCIAL.

  118. Yes, it is about time!!! Good for you. Good for us!

  119. ” You better stop..hey..what’s that sound..everyone look what’s goin’ round…” I’d love to see you on Cavuto, or take on Hannity. Congrats!! And it’s about freakin’ time!!!

  120. I re read this article and I read it wrong. It is not Chase pushing a case against WAMU. it is a matter if Chase allows it to go to court and does not settle out of oourt. Hope it goes to court. They will conceal a lot of facts but it mostl likey will be settled out of court. Darn,.

  121. Chase has claimed they assumeded the servicing rights only, whistle blowers claim 118 pages of the aggreement were never agreed upon, Deutsche Bank has claimed Chase and the FDIC are responsible for not transferring the notes on time,causing the notes to be faulty(invald) The court agreed the notes were not transferred in time. So we will see what kind of evidence comes from this Washington Class action case with Chase going after WAMU. In my eyes the previous cases poves my case and all WAMU/Chase/Duetsche bank cases, that the notes are void. Due to their own hands.
    We will have to see what dirt comes up here.
    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/07/26/alison-frankel-is-jpmorgan-going-to-push-the-wamu-mbs-class-action-to-trial/

  122. you go neil!

  123. Is there a video of the interviews available?

  124. So the homeowner is signing a deal with a fraud. Does that make sense. there is no principle reductin necessay. The contracts are void and the fraud has no authority to sign or settle or mod or principle reduce anything as I see it. a fraud is a fraud. No authority but to pay their dues for RICO and organized crime and fraud. I dont understand this at all. Unless they have found the real lender. How can this be a good thing. This just allows and accepts fraud.

  125. the same Judge needs to say in an order approving settlement that the actual foreclosing party or whoever is doing the deal with you is now and forever more the only party with a claim, and that the claim is covered by the settlement agreement.

    Please explain how a judge can elevate a settlement with an imposter waiving a copy of note to cut off the claim of the holder of the original note ? Seriously—now certainly its going to be harder for a bank claimant on the 2nd go round to pursue action on the note—if for no other reson than the house is gone—but what if the homeowner moves to another state and three years later the holder of the original note pops up and seeks to collect on the note by garnishing wages –siezing bank accounts, automobiles, furnture—or a deceased note-maker’s life insurance proceeds. I believe that the more aggressive collection agencies deliberately tender a copy of note–fail to record satisfaction and release of note and mortgage—–in order to clear the way for them to resell the original to a bona fide purchaser who has no notice of the settlement which is confidential or under seal even where a breach is complained subsequently—there is nothing in the public record to put the new BFP on notice–thus he can claim BFP status and collect on that original note. Please tell me how Im wrong here???????

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: